Originally posted by Quad
Hm, I don't think you've ever taken a debate class. You've certainly yet to start kicking my ass since:
A. almost all of your initial points were in response to some made up or assumed agenda on my part. That makes them fallacies (know what that means?), in a "debate" (which is governed by a scientific system of logical reasoning) a basic misunderstanding of the opposition makes what you say wrong.
B. It seems like your new posts are also based on you projecting things onto me which I have not said. Whatever good points you may have are obscured by your inability to wage a debate and make a clear and valid response.
You need to make real responses and real points before you can declare victory. A debate is not some emotional triumph that comes out of defending your own beliefs. A debate is a conversation of differing opinions where hopefully a mutual understanding is achieved at the end and whatever relevant points and concerns of all parties are addressed.
Now to respond to you.
you said
My concern is protecting victims. I think we should all carry arms. And in any case, poverty, your extenuating social factor, does not justify violence in any case. Anyone attempting some kind of violent crime against anyone should be shot on site, regardless of any extenuating circumstance.
There is certainly an argument to be made that total saturation of arms in a social enviroment does not prevent crime - base that on history. Now, if everyone carried a gun today would that result in people taking law into their own hands, you'd probably say no. You'd probably say it'd give people more reason to settle things reasonably - but that's a theory. All I am saying is there is an argument to be made that it wouldn't. The founding fathers did not create the second amendment because they felt people had the right to own whatever they wanted. The original analysis was very true - it was made in defense of militias. I have made my position on personal protection and militias clear. My points had to do with limiting who gets gun and creating accountability for crime. You dismissed that though and wrote me off as a communist, I don't know exactly WHAT you think I was trying to say but my points were about increasing ACCOUNTABILITY and therefor encouraging RESPONSIBILITY - very much "conservative" ideals. Your statement is also a fallacy, since, robbery is not a "violent" crime. I did not address defense from violence in my post, do not twist my argument into something it wasn't. Your point is a fallacy because property violations are not "violent." The point you made above was about "violent crime" - making your statement a fallacy.
you said It's the wrong direction. Law abiding members of society should be armed to enforce peace and tranquility and to shoot criminals dead in their tracks if they start "wilding".
Citizens of the united states should not take the law into their own hands. The code of law should be formal and official and should be governed by public institutions (this is democratic not socialist by the way) and not by individuals and their own subjective personal judgements. It's a lot easier for me to claim you are an anarchist based on this statement then you calling me a socialist based on anything I've said. I think you need to take a civics or government class? Maybe you don't understand the notion of a democracy and self governance.
you said No. It's the founding principle of our country. You know what doesn't square with reality, all liberal notions of governance, justice, fairness, history, economics.... on and on.
Self governance and achieving a true democracy where power (not wealth, not WEALTH, got it?) is distributed equally. Self governance both through social institutions and autonomous living are the founding ideas. Every system of government has ideas about how to hold people responsibile, personal responsibility ideals are not the guiding ideals - how we self govern detirmines how we view responsibility. Now, what liberal and conservative have to do with that I don't know. Your statements about history are both wrong and irrelevant to the discussion, a baseless attack which is a demonstration of your inability to operate even somewhat objectively - meaning you are not debating. Now, regardless of all that, my point was that ideals and solutions are two different things. What you said above was not a dismissal of my statement - merely a baseless attack that did not really respond. My point was that you did not offer a solution - that is just true, you merely offered ideals.
you said You don't want the economy to expand unless you can be assured the cash will go to your socialis agenda. You're killing humanity.
I don't know how you read a socialist agenda into anything I've said. I think you are paranoid, the motives of my statements are clearly those of personal responsibility and accountability. You just made a really stupid, broad statement that didn't respond to my point which was that we do not yet have a system to insure a free market is safe for us. If you want to get in a market discussion we have, I've kissed the ass of capitalism enough in the last few posts to show that I am a true blue american capitalist. Market regulation doesn't mean socialism, it is very stupid of you to think it does - very very very few people advocate zero market regulation. Your statement was baseless and you are again projecting your frustrations with the world at large unto my argument.
you said Completely ridding society of guns would require near martial law. THat's just a truism. Don't blame me that it sounds bad for your case.
I said that, I said that in my intial post. It was a main point of mine in respose to the first post of this thread. Another illustration that you didn't really read or understand my points. I didn't advocate completely ridding guns in our society either. I advocated keeping it. I insinuated a middle ground between the strict control in other western countries and our cultural norms surrounding firearms. But, in response to what I cited above - I very clearly stated the same point you think you just made to counter me, and I used it as an argument against the first person, idiot. Why don't you go back and read my post lil rabid one?
you said I'd like you to quit being a fool. But we don't always get what we want.
This is not a debatable point.
you said
You just think people protecting themselves is an "escalation of aggression" or some such liberal shit. The criminals are the problem you twit. Not the guns. Oh yes but crimes is just a result of social inequality. ----BULLSHIT.
I didn't address social inequalities. You are projecting again. Therefor this is a fallacy, again. Another point that is not a response to me and therefor not debatable. But I will respond to it. All I said was that the more people have guns the more people need guns. You haven't argued that - infact your points insinuate that fact. You said "or some such liberal shit." You know why you said that? Because you have no idea what my point really was and you were projecting your ignorant frustrations onto me. Is it easier for you to think about everything in such simple black and white terms? I think your emotional investment in this "debate" is preventing you from thinking. You will find very few conservatives that will say "crime isn't a result of social inequality." The reality is most crimes are economic in nature, the debate between liberals and conservatives are "how to solve all the crimes that are economic in nature, and shoult the nature of the crime enter into punishment?" My point was solutions would be more effective if they focused on the social fabric of our country and social institutions and not on the expectation that parents will wake up and teach kids better cus "the country was founded on personal responsibility." But you can pretend I said whatever you want.
you said But before you said arguments about individual rights are not realistic or something. Why the flip flop john kerry?
:
