Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Kernen]

What if you don't like your family?

Then your friends. Innocent strangers. Their blood are on your hands.

That's why, it's psychotic.

Not really. Its on the hands of...well, everybody since the industrial revolution. Pretty diluted, I could live with that for my own benefit.

[Tarsonis]

Wow I feel like Atlas with all of that weight you've heaped upon me. As I've said, gun control is more of a killer than it is a savior

It doesn't kill as much as Climate Change. One is clearly the lesser evil and you have a basic human obligation to vote for the party that tackles Climate Change.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Ben Franklin

[The Chuck]

Climate Change is THE reason I'll be a Democrat no matter what.

Or be an environmentally minded conservative...

[Grinning Dragon]

Wow I feel like Atlas with all of that weight you've heaped upon me. As I've said, gun control is more of a killer than it is a savior

It doesn't kill as much as Climate Change. One is clearly the lesser evil and you have a basic human obligation to vote for the party that tackles Climate Change.

No, I have an obligation in voting for the party that protects or increases liberty over something that doesn't have a definitive outcome and is at best guess work at this point.

[Tarsonis]

Climate Change is THE reason I'll be a Democrat no matter what.

And your willingness to strip other of their rights for your political goals, is why I maintain that the Democrats are the real fascists.

Find a way to save the planet without stripping our rights away.

[Kernen]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Ben Franklin

So kill all human life because of that.

I'm sorry but that view seriously does strike me as psychotic, there's no other way I can interpret it.

They are innocent.

Also quotes aren't facts, he is wrong in this instance.

We have no duty to act to protect others.

[Tarsonis]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Ben Franklin

So kill all human life because of that.

I'm sorry but that view seriously does strike me as psychotic, there's no other way I can interpret it.

They are innocent.

Also quotes aren't facts, he is wrong in this instance.

Innocence is irrelevant, my rights are not up for sale

[Tarsonis]

So kill all human life because of that.

I'm sorry but that view seriously does strike me as psychotic, there's no other way I can interpret it.

They are innocent.

Also quotes aren't facts, he is wrong in this instance.

We have no duty to act to protect others.

Sure you do, but there’s a limit

[Kernen]

We have no duty to act to protect others.

Sure you do, but there’s a limit

Nope. There is no duty to the reasonable ordinary person without a preexisting relationship of some kind.

[Tarsonis]

And you’re willingness to strip other of their rights for your political goals, is why I maintain that the Democrats are the real fascists.

Find a way to save the planet without stripping our rights away.

"REAL FASCISTS'

Wow, members of the GOP is shooting down my kind for a racial ethnostate and you have the nerve to say that without realizing the vast ideological differences?

Citation needed.

You're the racist with that statement.

Amazing, what I said had nothing to do with race, but you went full demsoc and called racism in lieu of an actual response.

I'm sorry but even if they are rights the right of humanity to live outstrips your right.

Wow, Advocating Lebensraum. at least you’ve dropped the pretext.

[Grinning Dragon]

And you’re willingness to strip other of their rights for your political goals, is why I maintain that the Democrats are the real fascists.

Find a way to save the planet without stripping our rights away.

"REAL FASCISTS'

Wow, members of the GOP is shooting down my kind for a racial ethnostate and you have the nerve to say that without realizing the vast ideological differences? You're the racist with that statement.



I'm sorry but even if they are rights the right of humanity to live outstrips your right.

Negative. The right to live also includes the right to arms. One doesn't supersede the other.

[Grinning Dragon]

Innocence is irrelevant, my rights are not up for sale

"I'll let all these people die instead of temporarily sacrifice something."

I'm sorry but the reason I oppose your view is because of Christian ethics I am sickened at your apathy, you aren't a servant of Jesus you're too selfish.

What does Christianity have anything to do with negative rights?

[Tarsonis]

Sure you do, but there’s a limit

Nope. There is no duty to the reasonable ordinary person without a preexisting relationship of some kind.

I disagree. Social empathy is common human trait. Relationships heighten that empathy sure, but even a reasonable ordinary person recognizes a moral duty to protect others on some level. Pulling someone out of the water if they’re drowning, calling emergency response, etc etc.

However that’s not to say that the duty is limitless. If protecting someone is unreasonably burdensome, then the moral
Obligation is relaxed. For instance a person who can’t swim isn’t obligated to try and save one one drowning in the ocean beyond more than calling for help.

I’m not obligated to sacrifice my rights, even for the sake of the human race.

[Tarsonis]

Negative. The right to live also includes the right to arms. One doesn't supersede the other.

One requires the other to exist. You're robbing others of people of their right to exist by not fighting climate change. You have more blood on your hands.

Not acting is not the same as acting.

[Kernen]

Nope. There is no duty to the reasonable ordinary person without a preexisting relationship of some kind.

I disagree. Social empathy is common human trait. Relationships heighten that empathy sure, but even a reasonable ordinary person recognizes a moral duty to protect others on some level. Pulling someone out of the water if they’re drowning, calling emergency response, etc etc.

However that’s not to say that the duty is limitless. If protecting someone is unreasonably burdensome, then the moral
Obligation is relaxed. For instance a person who can’t swim isn’t obligated to try and save one one drowning in the ocean beyond more than calling for help.

I’m not obligated to sacrifice my rights, even for the sake of the human race.

Society disagrees, which is why theirs no liability for failing to rescue or act. You can, actually, refuse to help a drowning person out of the water. At the common law in the US, you can even film it without getting in trouble. Even if you're an Olympic swimmer.

Empathy is useful only insofar as it lets you leverage aid.

[Grinning Dragon]

Negative. The right to live also includes the right to arms. One doesn't supersede the other.

One requires the other to exist. You're robbing others of people of their right to exist by not fighting climate change. You have more blood on your hands.

Again, I'm doing no such thing. You've decided that it's an either or in regards to one's right to life, I've chosen the path that is attainable over an unknown.

[Tarsonis]

Citation needed.




Amazing, what I said had nothing to do with race, but you went full demsoc and called racism in lieu of an actual response.





Wow, Advocating Lebensraum. at least you’ve dropped the pretext.

A: Maybe read about Fascism? Like at all?

I’m willing to bet I’m far more educated than you are. Oh right because I am.

[quotesB: The fact you said that statement when actual fascist are gunning down Mexicans like me and want a Fascist State is unintentionally racist at least.[/quote]
Repeating the statement is not a citation, but your pathetic attempt to insert race into a nonracial statement is duly noted


[qyote]C: See above but without racism bit, but also you're using a strawman and ironically criticizing Christianity which is the basis of this-Caring for your fellow man and self-sacrificing when necessary. [/quote]

And thousands of Christians went to their deaths rather than capitulate for the “good of the empire”

You're using the same logic pro abortion people use which is hypocritical and as to me a Pro-Lifer sickening to hear from you.

The nuances of that debate are entirely different. I think what’s making you sick is the mental gymnastics you’re trying to perform. And you of all people shouldn’t try to bring hypocrisy in regards to the bodily autonomy issue, lest we go round on Mandatory Vaccinations again.

[Kernen]

Again, I'm doing no such thing. You've decided that it's an either or in regards to one's right to life, I've chosen the path that is attainable over an unknown.

People won't exist to have freedom and guns if Climate Change isn't fought.


That's endorsing Tyranny by other means.

Nonexistence isn't tyranny. Nonexistence is nonexistence.

[The Two Jerseys]

Climate Change is THE reason I'll be a Democrat no matter what.

And your holier-than-thou attitude is why I'd rather spoil my ballot than vote for a Democrat.

Now if you'll kindly set the switch to the other track and put this train back onto the mainline...

[Grinning Dragon]

Again, I'm doing no such thing. You've decided that it's an either or in regards to one's right to life, I've chosen the path that is attainable over an unknown.

People won't exist to have freedom and guns if Climate Change isn't fought.


That's endorsing Tyranny by other means.

How do you know people will cease to exist? You're throwing out an hypothesis, and hardly endorsing tyranny.

[Kowani]

One requires the other to exist. You're robbing others of people of their right to exist by not fighting climate change. You have more blood on your hands.

Not acting is not the same as acting.

This is a pile of semantics and bullshit.

[Grinning Dragon]

How do you know people will cease to exist? You're throwing out an hypothesis, and hardly endorsing tyranny.

.....
Scientists have pointed it out.

Seriously....

It's been discussed at length by scientists.

I'm sure it has, just as it has been discussed by scientists that say the opposite. Again, it's an unknown, whereas fighting for negative rights is attainable.

[Tarsonis]

Not acting is not the same as acting.

Inaction is. Even God says that. Like it's well known he treats non-choices of this magnitude as the evil choice.

First of all a “non-choice” is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A “non choice” is a failure to pick between two options. Like Pilate who failed to condemn or pardon Christ. He “washed his hands of it.”

Secondly, whether or not inaction is tantamount to sin, such an issue would depend on the situation at hand, with regards to obligation. I.e failing to care for widows and orphans. However, not saving the orphans from being swept away by the tsunami, because doing so would require you to get out of the tree your clutching on to for dear life, would not be sinful, just tragic.

In this case, Id love to save the world, but I’ve been pushed into a scenario where I must chose between saving the world, or standing up for human rights. I choose human rights.

[Tarsonis]

>I've never argued for bodily autonomy saying the right to life outstrips the right to not be vaccinated

Unwanted medical treatment is by definition a battery.

And I don't care about the good of any political system I just care about lives.

I refer you to my earlier quote from our philandering founding father

Freedom is a means to an end, that end being people's lives and their happiness.
To sacrifice the ends for the me

“Freedom is only means to an end,” meaning expendable if it suits you. So you’re the Mussolini brand of fascist,...that’s better I guess

[Tarsonis]

Not acting is not the same as acting.

This is a pile of semantics and bullshit.

And it’s not one of your posts, I see why you must have been confused at first