Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Tayner]

And yet of all the Arable land in the world, less than 40% of it is currently being used for any type of farming or ranching. Why don't you start a farm using a chunk of the land that is not being used and assist in stopping world hunger.

Source?

If we were to plant crops on grazing ground this year, it wouldn't be so fertile next year.

[Ardoki]

In 1990, however, the World Hunger Program at Brown University calculated that recent world harvests, if equitably distributed with no diversion of grain to feeding livestock, could provide a vegetarian diet to 6 billion people, whereas a meat-rich diet like that of people in the wealthier nations could support only 2.6 billion. In other words, with a present population over 6 billion, that would mean we are already into deficit consumption of land, with the deficit being made up by hauling more fish from the oceans, which are in turn being rapidly fished out. In the near term, the only way to feed all the world’s people, if we continue to eat meat at the same rate or if the population continues to grow as projected, is to clear more forest. From now on, the question of whether we get our protein from animals or plants has direct implications for how much more of the world’s remaining forest we have to raze.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

[Scomagia]

Killing an animal brings meat. Meat brings chemical energy. Chemical energy brings a net benefit and happiness to the individual.

Checkmate.

The killing involves the death of the animal, that vastly outweighs the happiness a human may get from the taste.

Besides, a vegetarian lifestyle is far superior to a meat eating one. It takes so much more land to produce as much meat as a vegetable patch will produce vegetable. Meat eating causes world hunger, it kills people!

According to whom?

It's also a lot harder to get iron from a vegetarian diet. You're also ignoring, by the way, how much more vegetables a person has to eat to receive the amount of calories they need.

[Ardoki]

The killing involves the death of the animal, that vastly outweighs the happiness a human may get from the taste.

Besides, a vegetarian lifestyle is far superior to a meat eating one. It takes so much more land to produce as much meat as a vegetable patch will produce vegetable. Meat eating causes world hunger, it kills people!

According to whom?

It's also a lot harder to get iron from a vegetarian diet. You're also ignoring, by the way, how much more vegetables a person has to eat to receive the amount of calories they need.

Supplements!

My nutritionist has had me on a whole cocktail of them from a very early age.

[Scomagia]

What do you view as "suffering"?

Any negative emotion/feeling. Though obviously some would be weighted more than others. E.g. death is worse than being a quadriplegic, etc.

So sociopaths can't suffer? If that's how you define suffering, it must be okay to torture sociopaths, right?

[Ardoki]

Any negative emotion/feeling. Though obviously some would be weighted more than others. E.g. death is worse than being a quadriplegic, etc.

So sociopaths can't suffer? If that's how you define suffering, it must be okay to torture sociopaths, right?

Pain is a negative feeling. I'm pretty sure they can feel pain?

[Scomagia]

According to whom?

It's also a lot harder to get iron from a vegetarian diet. You're also ignoring, by the way, how much more vegetables a person has to eat to receive the amount of calories they need.

Supplements!

My nutritionist has had me on a whole cocktail of them from a very early age.

And certainly everyone can afford those, right? I mean, it's not like some countries can't even get vaccines or anything. Surely all those malaria stricken African nations will be plenty able to afford supplements.

[Ardoki]

Supplements!

My nutritionist has had me on a whole cocktail of them from a very early age.

And certainly everyone can afford those, right? I mean, it's not like some countries can't even get vaccines or anything. Surely all those malaria stricken African nations will be plenty able to afford supplements.

They probably wouldn't die.

[Scomagia]

So sociopaths can't suffer? If that's how you define suffering, it must be okay to torture sociopaths, right?

Pain is a negative feeling. I'm pretty sure they can feel pain?

A sociopath that has certain congenital defects or illnesses caused by head trauma wouldn't be able to. By your definition of suffering, nothing you could do to them would be causing them to suffer.

Seems like a flawed definition, to me. You might want to go back to the drawing board.

[Scomagia]

And certainly everyone can afford those, right? I mean, it's not like some countries can't even get vaccines or anything. Surely all those malaria stricken African nations will be plenty able to afford supplements.

They probably wouldn't die.

Iron deficiency is not good. You should look it up.

I'm off for the night.

[Ardoki]

Pain is a negative feeling. I'm pretty sure they can feel pain?

A sociopath that has certain congenital defects or illnesses caused by head trauma wouldn't be able to. By your definition of suffering, nothing you could do to them would be causing them to suffer.

Seems like a flawed definition, to me. You might want to go back to the drawing board.

If they cannot suffer, it wouldn't matter what you did to them. A brain dead person is an obvious example.

[Lordareon]

you cant change the second amendment its illegal.

[Ardoki]

you cant change the second amendment its illegal.

No it isn't, that's why it is an amendment.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, because who needs tradition and respect for the past. Lets throw history out the window because reasons

Not all traditions are good. Would you call the Aztec tradition of human sacrifice good? How about the American lynching of Africans?

Both those traditions have thankfully ended, mostly. That is a good thing.

I wouldn't exactly call the lynching of blacks "tradition".

Killing an animal brings meat. Meat brings chemical energy. Chemical energy brings a net benefit and happiness to the individual.

Checkmate.

The killing involves the death of the animal, that vastly outweighs the happiness a human may get from the taste.

Besides, a vegetarian lifestyle is far superior to a meat eating one. It takes so much more land to produce as much meat as a vegetable patch will produce vegetable. Meat eating causes world hunger, it kills people!

If our ancestors hadn't learned to cook meat, we wouldn't be intelligent enough today to worry about whether or not it's ethical to eat meat.

I can't help but find vegetarianism to be either ironic or idiotic.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Look at what has happened in America. There are people who own have firearms, and they threaten to overthrow the US government if it veers towards the centre. They have no right to threaten the government like that; it's barbaric.

You're talking out of your ass. I live in the US, I own firearms, and I have NEVER threatened to overthrow the US Government. Several of my friends are firearms owners, and in all my conversations with them, they have never threatened to overthrow the US Government.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Who says that hunting is unethical? Sorry but your ethics are not the universal standard with "ethics".

And hunting is legal in many nations.

Taking a life is never justified, except if it brings a net benefit or net happiness.

Hunting for food DOES have a net benefit. It gives the hunter and family meat for the table, and helps keep the wild animal population in check (which helps the with the health of the rest of the herd, helps prevent auto accidents, helps prevent the spread of diseases like Lyme disease, and helps prevent property damage) .

[The Archregimancy]

you cant change the second amendment its illegal.

Well, no.

The Constitution of the United States
* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

And the 21st Amendment amply demonstrates the process by which an existing amendment can be repealed by a subsequent amendment.

So you may not think repeal of the Second Amendment is desirable, but so long as the process outlined in Article V is followed, it most certainly isn't illegal.

[Tule]

How does eating meat cause world hunger?

Failed logic is fail.

It uses a lot more land than growing the equivalent amount of vegetables would. Some of the most fertile land in the world, is mostly used for grazing animals which will be killed for their meat. If that land was used to grow crops, there would be a lot more food for the world's hungry.

The largest breeding grounds for the Pink-footed goose in the world is located here Iceland.

For this reason, one of the biggest impediments to growing crops here are geese.

If it wasn't for hunters, it would be impossible to grow any crops here at all because of the damn birds.

Even with their help, most farmers don't even bother because of the losses and the inherently poor productivity at this latitude. So they grow grass to feed sheep instead.

Growing crops is not universally more efficient than grazing. Especially in very rocky places of the world where plowing is impossible.

[Big Jim P]

The biggest threat to your argument are criminals. Unless you have a means of disarming them that actually works, disarming lawful gunowners is a retarded notion. Absolutely retarded.

There would be a complete ban on the import and trade of firearms, along with ownership. Crimes committed with guns or replica guns, would get a mandatory sentence of at least 100 years. Ownership or trade would also receive a minimum 100 year sentence.

However some criminals may still have guns. However less criminals would have guns overall. While non criminals would have absolutely no guns.

Which is nothing more than making the innocent helpless.

[Big Jim P]

Who says that hunting is unethical? Sorry but your ethics are not the universal standard with "ethics".

And hunting is legal in many nations.

Taking a life is never justified, except if it brings a net benefit or net happiness.

Taking a life is justified under three conditions: in defense of self or the innocent, for food, and out of mercy.

[Big Jim P]

Who says that hunting is unethical? Sorry but your ethics are not the universal standard with "ethics".

And hunting is legal in many nations.

Taking a life is never justified, except if it brings a net benefit or net happiness.

Gun ownership provides a vastly overwhelming net benefit (in the form of security and recreation) to the individual and society.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Instead of actually banning guns.

You could make it so every private individual or organisation, must pay a 1 billion dollar registration fee every year per gun. They would still technically be illegal, though very expensive to own.

With all do respect,

That is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in a wile.

You should read the rest of his supposed "viewpoint" on this topic, if you think that's the worst of it.

Look at what has happened in America. There are people who own have firearms, and they threaten to overthrow the US government if it veers towards the centre. They have no right to threaten the government like that; it's barbaric.

You're talking out of your ass. I live in the US, I own firearms, and I have NEVER threatened to overthrow the US Government. Several of my friends are firearms owners, and in all my conversations with them, they have never threatened to overthrow the US Government.

^ Same.

Though we have made threats to overthrow Canada and liberate all the delicious syrup for the greater good of our breakfasts.

*Nods*

[Sevvania]

i.e. "Even if my proposition caused more harm than good, I wouldn't care."
i.e. "I'm not here to debate, I'm here to express a radical opinion and disregard facts."

I think that's all that needs to be said.

It's the principle that matters.

The fact that you're not here to debate or listen to reason is what I was getting at. That there's no point in people trying to argue with someone who's intent on having a one-sided conversation.

[Ardoki]

Taking a life is never justified, except if it brings a net benefit or net happiness.

Hunting for food DOES have a net benefit. It gives the hunter and family meat for the table, and helps keep the wild animal population in check (which helps the with the health of the rest of the herd, helps prevent auto accidents, helps prevent the spread of diseases like Lyme disease, and helps prevent property damage) .

It does not give a net benefit.

The killing of the animal vastly outweighs the eating of the meat (which isn't even necessary in this day and age).

[Imperializt Russia]

Hunting for food DOES have a net benefit. It gives the hunter and family meat for the table, and helps keep the wild animal population in check (which helps the with the health of the rest of the herd, helps prevent auto accidents, helps prevent the spread of diseases like Lyme disease, and helps prevent property damage) .

It does not give a net benefit.

The killing of the animal vastly outweighs the eating of the meat (which isn't even necessary in this day and age).

He's just pointed out to you how this is incorrect.
You even quoted these factors.