The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..19..25..31..37..43..44~45~46 [Next]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5154 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 29, 2014, rockwall wrote:
And finally, in the spirit of simplistic questions that have been asked in this thread:

Is there anyone here who thinks that what is happening in Chicago with the number of weekly shootings and deaths is LESS tragic than what happened with the 9 year old girl?


And are you prepared to support policies that address the conditions that cause those tragedies or is this just a talking point?


Free will gets such a bad rap anymore.

As does context, available choices, and cause and effect. Look ma, I'm flying! Free will!
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:
I think I already answered that--that which a reasonable person--say yourself-- would consider dangerous.

I think this definition almost has to be circular, because of its entire reliance on reasonability, which surely would be judged by the types of activities one considers inherently dangerous. If I say that giving a child gasoline and razor blades isn't Inherently dangerous, you're going to say that I'm not a reasonable person. So therefore, I'm not qualified to judge inherent danger. So there's something beyond he "reasonable person" standard that lies behind "inherently dangerous."

Quote:
And yes there are grey areas. But that doesn't mean there are not black and white areas as well. A nine year old with an Uzi is inherently dangerous. You can break down the component parts if you like: Nine year old + Uzi= Inherent Danger.

It certainly seems so, but I would submit that's because we're judging by the fact that we know that at least two people have died at the hands of a nine year old with an Uzi and/or our presumption that if a bunch of nine year olds had Uzis, a number of people would die. In other words, we judge by known or presumed results. And I would submit further that if we had a great wealth of hard evidence to show that those deaths/injuries don't occur (at least under certain conditions), then, counterintuitive as it may seem, we should perhaps revise our position.
Quote:
The analogy to drugs fails. Drugs are a danger only to the taker,

You dismiss this analogy too readily, IMO. That's like saying that a gun is only a danger to the target it's aimed at. Yet there's something about a gun that makes some shooters lose control and create danger to others, in the same way that some drugs cause unplanned danger. The "kick" that pulls an Uzi out of a nine year old's hands can be reasonably compared to the mental transformation that causes meth or bath salts users to violently attack people they would never harm were it not for the drugs.

Quote:
and taken with consent.

It would surprise me if you found this dispositive. Are legislators off the hook for boxing deaths then?
Quote:
A nine year old cannot give informed consent.

In this latest case, though, the only harmed party could and did give informed consent.

Quote:
With regard to boxing, do you think cockfighting should be legal?

No...the issue of consent with animals is interesting. They *are* choosing to fight, but I don't think that human beings should contrive the situations.
Quote:
How about boxing with nine year olds?

Interesting question. It *is* legal, in most jurisdictions, afaik. I wonder how long that will be the case.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 29, 2014, rockwall wrote:
And finally, in the spirit of simplistic questions that have been asked in this thread:

Is there anyone here who thinks that what is happening in Chicago with the number of weekly shootings and deaths is LESS tragic than what happened with the 9 year old girl?


And are you prepared to support policies that address the conditions that cause those tragedies or is this just a talking point?


Free will gets such a bad rap anymore.

As does context, available choices, and cause and effect. Look ma, I'm flying! Free will!


If 10% of a population engages in violent crime, IMO it's hard to argue against free will when 90% found other "available choices." My arbitrary numbers.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Kabbalah
View Profile
Inner circle
1621 Posts

Profile of Kabbalah
I hope that when some event causes the feces to hit the rotating blades of a cooling appliance, you anti-gun, never let a firearm tragedy go to waste nuts have a trained firearms owner neighbor like me that might forgive your ignorance.
"Long may magicians fascinate and continue to be fascinated by the mystery potential in a pack of cards."
~Cliff Green

"The greatest tricks ever performed are not done at all. The audience simply think they see them."
~ John Northern Hilliard
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Nothing like a little gratuitous name-calling to advance an intelligent conversation. (Especially from a someone who posts anonymously.)
TonyB2009
View Profile
Inner circle
5006 Posts

Profile of TonyB2009
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Drugs are inherently dangerous.

No, they are not. Some cultures use drugs as part of their religious rites, and they are not associated with anti-social behaviour. Alcohol in moderation can be good for you, it is only when it is overused or abused that it slips into danger territory. It is not inherently dangerous. Same with marijuana, caffine, or any of a number of other commonly used drugs.

If you had said crack cocaine was inherently dangerous, I would not dispute that. But not all drugs are.

And like other assertions on this thread, from myself and from others, I am not going to back it up with extraneous studies. Dig them out yourself.
Kabbalah
View Profile
Inner circle
1621 Posts

Profile of Kabbalah
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Nothing like a little gratuitous name-calling to advance an intelligent conversation. (Especially from a someone who posts anonymously.)


I predicted that you would say that!
"Long may magicians fascinate and continue to be fascinated by the mystery potential in a pack of cards."
~Cliff Green

"The greatest tricks ever performed are not done at all. The audience simply think they see them."
~ John Northern Hilliard
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16362 Posts

Profile of tommy
Everything is dangerous. Act accordingly. Such is life.

Nobody expects a nine year girl with an Uzi, any more than they expect the Spanish Inquisition. With the ever present exception of the Americans of course.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5154 Posts

Profile of landmark
@Lobo

Decent replies, thanks, but I still disagree:
1) I'm no lawyer, but the "reasonable man" standard is not a new idea and certainly a bunch of US law invokes it, yes? The disputed stuff is what judges are for.
2) I knew way before I heard any results that nine year old + Uzi = moronic idea. I really don't need to wait for the results of the factfinding commission on this one.
3) Re drugs: the drugs I would seek to legalize are not a danger to others in many contexts; those contexts where they are--say pot and driving--I think they should be legally restricted.
4) If nine year olds are allowed to box in the same manner pros do, then I think that's crazy and legally negligent.

Part two, re free will.
In an earlier post you implied that if some urban cities allowed concealed weapon carry, the crime rate would go down. This is acknowledgment that outside forces influence behavior in the aggregate. As in elementary physics, though we can't predict what any particular molecule of oxygen is doing in a closed system, we can make very good predictions on the aggregate based on pressure, volume, and temperature.

We can predict--without totally denying free will of any one person--that in the aggregate, the elimination of poverty, racism, overcrowding, poor health care, poor education will decrease the murder rate. If decreasing the murder rate is really the goal of those who like to bring up the "Black on Black murders" (has anyone who has used that phrase ever talked about "white on white murders"?), then I await their support of the achievement of the social goals I mentioned above.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:


We can predict--without totally denying free will of any one person--that in the aggregate, the elimination of poverty, racism, overcrowding, poor health care, poor education will decrease the murder rate. If decreasing the murder rate is really the goal of those who like to bring up the "Black on Black murders" (has anyone who has used that phrase ever talked about "white on white murders"?), then I await their support of the achievement of the social goals I mentioned above.


Thanks for pointing out that great hypocrisy that we see in action every day. ("inaction" would be a better word.)
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
That's not hypocrisy at all. One can believe that a certain outcome would be desirable without supporting every single action that would lead to that outcome.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
When you close inner city schools and cut necessary social programs, yes, it IS hypocrisy.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I guess maybe in the sense that it's hypocrisy for people who profess to be concerned about homelessness and don't invite homeless people to live with them.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Of course you don't have to support EVERY SINGLE thing landmark listed, but when you oppose ALL of them there is no other word for it if you then complain about the inevitable result.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
That sounds like more of that gratuitous name-calling.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
OTOH, I doubt many people, if any, would oppose all of the things that Landmark listed.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Not at all. And am surprised you'd say that. If you close schools, suppress representation, and trample over civil rights, is it not hypocrisy to then condemn the inevitable results or your own actions? (Or inaction.)
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Firstly, I'd dispute the characterization of the "inevitable results of one own actions." There may be "cause" (an effect on the murder rate on a macro level), but not "proximate cause" (an effect so direct to any particular murder so as to create responsibility). Moreover, under adverse conditions, the vast majority of people don't become murderers, so the responsibility for the actions of those who do rests with them.

Secondly, I'd still say that it's not hypocrisy, because, again, believing a result to be desirable doesn't in any way imply supporting any particular factor that might bring about that result. If teaching Christianity on public schools would reduce the murder rate by 1%, would you support it? Would Landmark?

Thirdly, even those under suspicion of opposing all of those things don't oppose them. The elimination of poor education? Tax credits for private schools. The elimination of racism? Ban affirmative action for college admissions.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I think we've got a whole new topic here.

I don't know that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence. (A lot of "smiting" goes on in the Book.)

Nor do I agree that affirmative action was racist (when it was in effect to redress a very real problem that has since been somewhat alleviated) or that private schools are preferable to public education. But I do believe that taking away resources for public schools and diverting them to private schools is a very good idea. What good are tax credits if you're living below the poverty line and can afford a private school? Some have proposed vouchers, but since public education has been shown, overall, to be superior that that offered by charter schools, why would you want to privatize it?
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2014, landmark wrote:
@Lobo

Decent replies, thanks, but I still disagree:
1) I'm no lawyer, but the "reasonable man" standard is not a new idea and certainly a bunch of US law invokes it, yes? The disputed stuff is what judges are for.
2) I knew way before I heard any results that nine year old + Uzi = moronic idea. I really don't need to wait for the results of the factfinding commission on this one.
3) Re drugs: the drugs I would seek to legalize are not a danger to others in many contexts; those contexts where they are--say pot and driving--I think they should be legally restricted.
4) If nine year olds are allowed to box in the same manner pros do, then I think that's crazy and legally negligent.

Part two, re free will.
In an earlier post you implied that if some urban cities allowed concealed weapon carry, the crime rate would go down. This is acknowledgment that outside forces influence behavior in the aggregate. As in elementary physics, though we can't predict what any particular molecule of oxygen is doing in a closed system, we can make very good predictions on the aggregate based on pressure, volume, and temperature.

We can predict--without totally denying free will of any one person--that in the aggregate, the elimination of poverty, racism, overcrowding, poor health care, poor education will decrease the murder rate. If decreasing the murder rate is really the goal of those who like to bring up the "Black on Black murders" (has anyone who has used that phrase ever talked about "white on white murders"?), then I await their support of the achievement of the social goals I mentioned above.



1) "Reasonable man" is an important legal standard. But when jurors try to apply it, they're resorting to something external to determine reasonability. For instance, a jury might find someone liable for something because it's unreasonable to give a child an Uzi; but that's because they're recognizing that there's a foreseeable possibility that someone could get hurt. What you're suggesting sounds circular: it's inherently dangerous because reasonable people believe it to be, and we know they're reasonable, because they can recognize inherent danger when they see it.

2) What does it mean to say you "knew" it? Probably you "knew" that there's a non-negligible chance that someone could get killed or seriously injured. But if not?

3) So the drug analogy is a good one, provided we're talking about certain drugs.

4) Not in the manner of pros, but amateurs. Junior golden gloves - headgear, 2-minute rounds, standing 8-counts.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..19..25..31..37..43..44~45~46 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL