Would you do it or would you rather take a chance with 20 million lives so that you can preserve your morality?
Are you willing to role the dice and maybe cause more deaths or the virtual destruction of the world as we know it? Get off your high horse. You have no idea what other potential harms could have happened. Present a realistic situation. Oh wait when presented with a realistic situation, like if the persons life or families lives are threatened, they are willing to use deadly force.
Again, asking if we would kill one of the worst people of the 20th century brings NOTHING to the debate and does NOTHING to strengthen your point.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Paramount - chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent:
If you call something paramount you cannot then put a qualifier on it. So is the following paramount or not?
Legend writes:
The right to defend my family and property -and by extension my liberty- from harm, without endangering it, should be paramount.
Is that it..? Is that the best you could come up with? Surely, out of all the ways to counter my argument there had to be a better one than latching on to the usage of the word 'paramount'!
so when Barrack Obama tells Israel that its security should be 'paramount' he means that it should be above the security of the USA, in fact above anything else in the world, right? Because 'paramount' is always used in the absolute sense, in your mind.
Maybe you should be looking up the meaning of the word context instead.
That's the second silly and ignorant post you made in a row. Any chance of a hat-trick?
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
You truly refuse to at all consider what Huntard was saying.
Using the argument that Barack Obama used a word incorrectly and therefore it is ok for you to use it does not cut it. You are missing the point Huntard and I are trying to make. Words mean things. You should make clear you mean what you say. Hopefully, you and Obama misused the word. For Obama it was a rhetorical device. Maybe you were using it as a rhetorical device also. The context did not make that clear. Huntard and I both did not take it as that. Use correct words and terminology and people will understand what you are trying to say.
This may be an informal debate, but no one is allowed to make up their own definitions for words.
That's the second silly and ignorant post you made in a row. Any chance of a hat-trick?
Personal attacks mean nothing to me. All they show is an inability to discuss the subject rationally. Besides I think your criticism of my previous post was quite off the mark.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Did you read the part that says relevant and non-distracting. First how is Hitler at all relevant to a conversation about gun control?
Hitler isn't. Huntard's readiness to hold his own moral values higher than other people's lives is.
Theodoric writes:
Second, how more distracting can you get than Hitler. See Godwin's Law.
Hitler is as distracting as someone's inability to counter the argument which mentions him. In your case, quite a lot.
Theodoric writes:
Hypothetical - Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence. b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.
Something that is hypothetical is something that is highly conjectural or conditional. It is not something that is completely beyond reality.
The reality is no one from here can go back in time and kill Hitler if they wanted to. No one that lived when Hitler was young could have known what was going to happen. This is not possible.
Now lets define hypothesis since part of the definition of hypothetical uses the word hypothesis.
Hypothesis -a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
Now Premise -a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.
Asking if someone would go back in time and kill Hitler is not a hypothetical. It is a lameass attempt to make a lameass point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wow, you made up your own definition! Let's see what the rest of the world says:
quote:Imaginary situation based on certain proven or assumed facts, and formulated to arrive at a generalized answer applicable in most such situations.
Legend writes:
That's the second silly and ignorant post you made in a row. Any chance of a hat-trick?
(Applause)You did it! The crowd goes wild!! (/Applause)
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
That's the second silly and ignorant post you made in a row. Any chance of a hat-trick?
(Applause)You did it! The crowd goes wild!! (/Applause)
OK you have proved you cannot not debate civilly. So everyone that disagrees with you is the one with the problem? Personal attacks do not improve your argument.
Damn. So many places to go I don't know where to start.
Hitler isn't. Huntard's readiness to hold his own moral values higher than other people's lives is.
You are changing arguments in midstream. This is not about the relevance of Huntards moral values, it is the relevance of Hitler.
Hitler is as distracting as someone's inability to counter the argument which mentions him. In your case, quite a lot.
Ok you keep changing arguments. Do you think Hitler is relevant and non-distracting to this argument or not? Oh and nice personal attack again. Aren't you witty.
Wow, you made up your own definition! Let's see what the rest of the world says:
If you followed my link you would have read this.
quote:Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2009.
Oh you posted something untrue? I am so surprised. Not only is my definition not made up, it is the only one so far presented that is within the context(like that word?) of this debate. You see the definitions I used(there were more) were within the context(there's that word again)of the debate.
Again your own arguments are destroying your position.
The legal definition you gave does not support you.
quote:Imaginary situation based on certain proven or assumed facts, and formulated to arrive at a generalized answer applicable in most such situations.
Again this is not business and what you are asking for is not a generalized answer. This definition is applicable only in a business situation. I have used rhetorical questions many times in business in order to make general determinations on general situations. Again, didn't you mention context earlier.
quote:A hypothetical question is one asked out of interest, as the answer will have no effect on the situation.
A good definition, but then again this does not support you. My point is your question is not a correct hypothetical question in a debate using logic. Your own previous definition stated that the question must be relevant and non-distracting. When you could not support that you then found other definitions that are out of context.
As of yet nothing you have stated in rebuttal can be construed as showing any silliness or ignorance on my part.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
But the only surefire, definite, 100% way of stopping him would be to kill him. Would you do it or would you rather take a chance with 20 million lives so that you can preserve your morality?
That just reminded me of a great bit from, Louis CK.
I think raping Hitler would have been better, too. Please continue with your regularly scheduled debate.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
I shouldn't even respond, but the difference here is poor editing and misspelling. I would like to keep this debate on a higher level but since this is all you got, I guess I have to live with it.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Now lets define hypothesis since part of the definition of hypothetical uses the word hypothesis.
Hypothesis -a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
Now Premise -a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.
Asking if someone would go back in time and kill Hitler is not a hypothetical.
Preacher,preacher...
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?
Misrepresenting other peoples posts is not only frowned upon, it is clear out and out lying. You obviously have manipulated what I wrote in order to meet the needs of your argument. Lets look at what I really posted.
Theodoric writes:
Now lets define hypothesis since part of the definition of hypothetical uses the word hypothesis.
Hypothesis -a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
Now
Premise -a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.
As you can see I provided a a link to the definitions I used. Hmm, you seemed to think you could eliminate them and promote the lie that I made up the definitions all by my own little ole self. Isn't that sweet of you.
Now if you were an honest person you would not post a lie like this and maybe you might even look at what the source is. You know if you see something that is a different color it means it is a link. Do you require that I spell out "SOURCE"? Do you not understand how this forum and its software works?
By the way those definitions.
Source Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2009.
Not made up. Your dishonesty continues to destroy any credibility you would like to have.
A formal apology would be appreciated.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
You can stop digging now...that hole's big enough.
I'm re-quoting your syllogism Message 90word for word:
Theodoric writes:
Also this is not a hypothetical.
Again definition time.
Hypothetical - Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence. b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.
Something that is hypothetical is something that is highly conjectural or conditional. It is not something that is completely beyond reality.
The reality is no one from here can go back in time and kill Hitler if they wanted to. No one that lived when Hitler was young could have known what was going to happen. This is not possible.
Now lets define hypothesis since part of the definition of hypothetical uses the word hypothesis.
Hypothesis -a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
Now Premise -a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.
Asking if someone would go back in time and kill Hitler is not a hypothetical. It is a lameass attempt to make a lameass point. Nothing more, nothing less.
see, what you've done there: you quoted a logical definition of the word 'hypothesis' and then stated that conjecture or condition imply something within reality. In other words, you just made it up!
Then you quote another out-of-context definitions of another couple of words, as if to add more weight to your ramblings, and then out of the blue you claim that "Asking if someone would go back in time and kill Hitler is not a hypothetical". In short,you just made it up
Now if you had some integrity you'd try to look up and quote the definition of 'hypothetical question', like I did. Instead, you preferred to apply some retroactive continuity under the guise of examining the etymology of the phrase. To add insult to injury you then step on your shoe-box and start preaching self-righteously about how we shouldn't change the definition of words!
So don't act all shocked when I call you up on your hypocrisy.
Theodoric writes:
As you can see I provided a a link to the definitions I used. Hmm, you seemed to think you could eliminate them and promote the lie that I made up the definitions all by my own little ole self. Isn't that sweet of you.
Excuse me? In my reply to you in Message 98 I quoted the very definitions you supplied. Go and look it up right now! You're not blind as well as disingenuous are you?
Theodoric writes:
Now if you were an honest person you would not post a lie like this and maybe you might even look at what the source is. You know if you see something that is a different color it means it is a link. Do you require that I spell out "SOURCE"? Do you not understand how this forum and its software works?
You're adding duplicity to your hypocrisy by pretending that me ignoring your links was the problem.The problem was that your links didn't explain why you decided that the phrase 'hypothetical question' wasn't applicable to my question.
The decent thing at this stage would be to admit your mistake and move on. Lying low would also be a dignified approach. Instead you have the stupidity of heaping further ridicule on yourself by pretending that you did the right thing by supplying some links. Plleeeeasse....
Theodoric writes:
A formal apology would be appreciated.
Go on then...I'm waiting!
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people, rather than solve problems.
Hi Legend, had to haul out the tired old mantra eh?
..ugh? I'm only stating the facts not trying to change them. Fact: Gun-control legislation only manages to disarm the law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. Fact: Despite the UK having arguably the strictest gun control laws in the world, gun crime has been steadily rising on a yearly basis.
And is still so low that it is insignificant.
I'm glad we both agree that gun controls don't work.
quote:(1) Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people # 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people # 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
(2) Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people # 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people # 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
(3) Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people # 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people # 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
From these results we can compare assaults, murders and murders with guns in these countries:
Number of assaults about the same in each country.
Number of murders about 3 times higher in the US than in Canada and the UK.
Number of murders by firearms about 5.5 times higher in the US than in Canada, and about 28 times higher in the US than in the UK.
Proportion of murders committed with guns is 65% in the US, 34% in Canada and 7.3% in the UK.
Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.
Let's subtract (3) from (2) just for curiousity: (4) Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country - without firearms
# United States: 0.0148749 per 1,000 people # Canada: 0.00987658 per 1,000 people # United Kingdom: 0.01303751 per 1,000 people
Almost the same numbers for the US and the UK and a little less for Canada.
The extra murders in the US seem to all be due to the availability and lax controls on guns, when the data is filtered to remove other trends. This is also why the number of assaults being virtually the same for the three cultures is important: without the guns the numbers are the same.
Nonsense. Carrying a gun is no more playing "cowboy vigilante" than wearing you car seatbelt is playing "Formula 1 racing pilot". They're both means of protecting yourself should something dreadful happen.
But you have talked about shooting an intruder in your house - that is playing judge, prosecutor and jury in the best cowboy vigilante mode.
That's a nice mantra but what have you actually shown other than the US is a much more violent society? Which we knew already.
Why, simple: guns make it easier to be violent and to cause violent situations to escalate into more violence.
You *just don't know that!* You don't know if the burglar would still have proceeded if there was a high probability of you being in the house and armed.
Curiously, one of the times involved burglaries in the neighborhood where several houses were entered, several of which were owned by gun people. One of the things stolen was guns.
What it does is give gun owners the safety and peace of mind that they're doing all they can to protect themselves, their family and their property.
Which brings us back to Toronto and Ontario:
quote:• In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm injuries - in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone - than with intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the firearm itself.10 • The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will result in serious injury or death.
That's some enduring peace of mind when a gun goes off and accidentally kills or maims a kid. The evidence shows that innocent people are more likely to be hurt or killed than the few armed intruders who happen to intersect with owners.
Regardless, it appears you have made up your mind, your arguments are mostly emotional appeals, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
The world would be a wonderful place if guns have never been invented, but the reality is that there are two to three times as many weapons in circulation around the world than the entire human population. So we then have to deal with the reality of the situation and stop succumbing to useless platitudes like, "give peace a chance," as if no one's thought about that before. Gee, now why didn't I think of that, John?!?!
Then again murder has always existed long before sophisticated weaponry had ever been conceptualized. The problem then is with people and not weapons themselves. The greatest weapon and ironically its worst weapon in any army is not the weaponry, but rather its the soldiers themselves.
So to tie both of the OP's premises, society is the foundation of it all. What we allow in to the society can either poison it or make it good and strong. Therein lies the crux of the situation. Every one has opposing views on how to make it better, but it never really does get better in any kind of definitive sense.
Is retribution a virtue or is it looked down upon? The reality is it is both. It is frowned upon when calloused retribution is taken outside the confines of the law, but is not the law itself a form of retribution? Are you not personally satisfied when a cold-hearted killer is sentenced to life in prison? We all feel that emotion even if we ultimately wished that the person would have never opted to kill to begin with.
To make my position on guns very clear, guns don't kill people... People kill people. Guns are the tools people use to kill people. We look at the VA massacre and people blame the gun, an inanimate object incapable of malice, more quickly than they blame the psychologists who allowed Cho to roam free knowing full well he was a danger to himself and others. Ironically, the tool that gave him the capacity to enact his hatred on his fellow students was also the same tool that stopped it from continuing.
"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. "Thomas Paine
™ Version 4.2
