Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Opinions on Billy Graham

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

    And I think we have gone around on this enough. I will read further posts - but I'm trying to get my disconnect success rate up to 64%, so time to practice again!
    upkkzmnrcy_1406578241358.jpg

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      As I have said several times: adopting the phislophy universally on the basis of gender only is the problem.
      I did that when I was dating - perhaps that makes me a homophobe.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        In our recently redefined #metoo environment, a lot of men are going to feel we have to take extra precautions around women. For the next year or so, I guess, I'm not even going to discuss my extra precautions with women, because on this topic they're just as clueless as most men on their topic.

        Every gal has endured harassment, and can't figure out why those of us who don't harass can't see it. Most guys don't, and because we don't , we're blissfully unaware of how often the women around us are harassed.

        Every guy has had a false accusation (once, I can remember, because she was looking to split me off from my girlfriend!), and can't figure why we'd like to avoid seeing that happen again. Most gals don't do this, and because they don't, are blissfully unaware of how often women make false accusations.

        And carpe ... it's not the ones we can see coming a mile away that we worry about.
        Something's terribly wrong - I think I'm agreeing with all of this.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I did that when I was dating - perhaps that makes me a homophobe.
          Naturally.

          Speaking of, when was the last time you denounced Nazis?
          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            OK then, why are you for gun control and/or gun banning?
            What I am for is:

            1) Making the existing policies consistent. It makes no sense to have background checks on 78% of the gun acquisitions. It provides a sanctioned means for people to acquire guns without the check. If we are going to do background checks, which seems reasonable, they should be universal, and punishable if not properly executed.

            2) Funding research into gun violence so that we can get actual data on what is happening, why, and what strategies may (or may not) help. Right now the data is funded by the opposing camps and (surprise surprise), the pro-gun advocates have a ton of data showing how guns are not a problem, and the gon-control advocates have (a ton?) of data showing how the guns are part of the problem. we need publicly funded research that is peer reviewed to determine what will and will not work.

            3) A funded national registry for firearms. This is another step that just seems to make sense. If every gun and it's owner are centrally identified, then patterns (like the Vegas shooter owning 50+ firearms) can be detected. Cross references can be made between firearms and people with criminal records, mental problems, etc. It serves as a second line of defense behind background checks.

            That's as much as I am for right now. Further positions need research and data to support. It seems to me reasonable to restrict access to assault-type firearms, and to restrict the amount of ammunition that a clip can hold, but lacking any valid data about the impact of such efforts, I cannot take a position about it. It's possible that would have no impact. It seems reasonable to require gun lockers for those who own guns, but lacking any valid data about the impact of such efforts, I cannot take a position about it. We need well conducted, peer-reviewed, impartial research as a clear starting point.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              What I am for is:

              1) Making the existing policies consistent. It makes no sense to have background checks on 78% of the gun acquisitions. It provides a sanctioned means for people to acquire guns without the check. If we are going to do background checks, which seems reasonable, they should be universal, and punishable if not properly executed.

              2) Funding research into gun violence so that we can get actual data on what is happening, why, and what strategies may (or may not) help. Right now the data is funded by the opposing camps and (surprise surprise), the pro-gun advocates have a ton of data showing how guns are not a problem, and the gon-control advocates have (a ton?) of data showing how the guns are part of the problem. we need publicly funded research that is peer reviewed to determine what will and will not work.

              3) A funded national registry for firearms. This is another step that just seems to make sense. If every gun and it's owner are centrally identified, then patterns (like the Vegas shooter owning 50+ firearms) can be detected. Cross references can be made between firearms and people with criminal records, mental problems, etc. It serves as a second line of defense behind background checks.

              That's as much as I am for right now. Further positions need research and data to support. It seems to me reasonable to restrict access to assault-type firearms, and to restrict the amount of ammunition that a clip can hold, but lacking any valid data about the impact of such efforts, I cannot take a position about it. It's possible that would have no impact. It seems reasonable to require gun lockers for those who own guns, but lacking any valid data about the impact of such efforts, I cannot take a position about it. We need well conducted, peer-reviewed, impartial research as a clear starting point.
              And in the other thread you said:
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              I think it is sad that we have a need for such things.

              And I have to admit that I find the tedious, mantra of "don't take our guns!" ridiculous. If you say "we need to tighten up background checks" the response is "don't take our guns!" If we say, "maybe we should look at restricting access to assault rifles, it's "don't take our guns." If we say "we could use a national database of firearms to help track who owns what and how many," the response is "don't take our guns!" If we say, "maybe we should have a law that makes the gun owner responsible for what happens with their gun on an equal footing with the gun user," the response is "don't take our guns!" If we suggest, "perhaps we should dedicate some funding to researching gun violence so we can put together data that might actually point to possible solutions that would reduce the carnage," the response is "don't take our guns!"

              Most of the time, the response doesn't even make sense, because what is being proposed has nothing to do with taking anyone's gun. But it's an effective mantra. The right and the "gun lovers" of our fair country have a simple message: "don't take our guns!" Backed by the money of the NRA/industry/lobby, it has been an effective tool to keep politicians in their place and preserve the status quo. Those of us who advocate for finding solutions and simple common sense practices (like, "if you're going to do background checks, perhaps it should be done across the board, and not just for 78% of the gun acquisitions?") have a tougher story, which makes it more complex, which historically has caved in front of "don't take our guns!"

              But the tide is slowly turning. Each massacre moves the ship a bit. Each community impacted by the violence is shifting the tide. We're up to 64% of Americans. Before too long (I hope) the minority will lose power over this issue and something(s) will finally be done. As I see it, it's largely inevitable. The argument, "to stop gun violence, we need more guns" is so patently ridiculous, sooner or later, people will see it for what it is. It is unfortunate that it requires the death of so many to shift the tide


              In other words you are all for "treating ALL people as untrustworthy because a FEW people are."

              Just own it Carpe. Stop trying to always wiggle out from your stated position. You are worse than a politician.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                And in the other thread you said:

                In other words you are all for "treating ALL people as untrustworkthy because a FEW people are."

                Just own it Carpe. Stop trying to always wiggle out from your stated position. You are worse than a politician.
                I own both statements - no problem.

                And it is not about "treating all people as untrustworthy just because a few people are." It is about placing reasonable controls in place for a dangerous object. We require licenses for cars, not because we think everyone is untrustworthy, but because we want the roads to be safe. We put controls in place for drugs, for the same reasons. But guns are the holy grail - let's not even TALK about those. 17 children die at the business end of an assault rifle and the response is, "my god - how could you talk about the guns?"

                We need to talk about the guns, and the policies surrounding them, because every month we have the equivalent of a 9/11 in our country, and it's not even being looked at. Twelve 9/11's a year. We had ONE 9/11 17 years ago, and we are still chasing terrorists, hating Muslims, and trying to control/stop immigration - but we've had the equivalent of over two hundred 9/11's since then related to gun violencce, and the only response is "don't talk about the guns!" and "don't take my gun."

                It's absurd, IMO. And, fortunately, it's changing. 64% and climbing. Perhaps this next election round will tip the tide. I hope...
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  I own both statements - no problem.

                  And it is not about "treating all people as untrustworthy just because a few people are." It is about placing reasonable controls in place for a dangerous object. We require licenses for cars, not because we think everyone is untrustworthy, but because we want the roads to be safe. We put controls in place for drugs, for the same reasons. But guns are the holy grail - let's not even TALK about those. 17 children die at the business end of an assault rifle and the response is, "my god - how could you talk about the guns?"
                  Thank you for making the argument for the Billy Graham rule for me. It is a reasonable control for a potentially dangerous situation, not because we think everyone is untrustworthy.

                  I now pat myself on the back and walk away smugly.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    I own both statements - no problem.

                    And it is not about "treating all people as untrustworthy just because a few people are." It is about placing reasonable controls in place for a dangerous object. We require licenses for cars, not because we think everyone is untrustworthy, but because we want the roads to be safe.
                    No, no, no.... that's NOT why we require licenses for cars. It's a means of collecting fees for roads and bridges, proving ownership, and tracking down offenders after the fact. If you do not operate your vehicle on public roads, you are not required to license it at all.

                    I think, sometimes, you just "word vomit" stuff because you think somehow it supports your opinion.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Alright, I'll be the one to say it.

                      When did 17 children die at the business end of an assault rifle?
                      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        No, no, no.... that's NOT why we require licenses for cars. It's a means of collecting fees for roads and bridges, proving ownership, and tracking down offenders after the fact. If you do not operate your vehicle on public roads, you are not required to license it at all.
                        Ummm... if you don't drive your car on a public road, then the government can't say squat about what you do. And I misspoke - we don't require the licenses for the cars - we require the licenses for the drivers. We require registrations for cars for the reasons you cite, and also to track the vehicle and (in most states) ensure they are properly inspected and conform to safety requirements. For the same reasons, I suspect it would be a good idea to require safety training and passing a test to buy and have a firearm, and a registration process to track them, and ensure background checks are being done. I say "suspect" because we can't know for sure - research to determine what would and would not work has not been funded. Hopefully, that will change.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        I think, sometimes, you just "word vomit" stuff because you think somehow it supports your opinion.
                        Wordy? Guilty. The rest... meh...
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                          Alright, I'll be the one to say it.

                          When did 17 children die at the business end of an assault rifle?
                          never?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Ummm... if you don't drive your car on a public road, then the government can't say squat about what you do.
                            Well, yeah, that's what I said.

                            And I misspoke - we don't require the licenses for the cars - we require the licenses for the drivers.
                            Maybe if you didn't act so know-it-ally...

                            We require registrations for cars for the reasons you cite, and also to track the vehicle and (in most states) ensure they are properly inspected and conform to safety requirements.
                            Ah, so NOW you're thinking it through!

                            For the same reasons, I suspect it would be a good idea to require safety training and passing a test to buy and have a firearm, and a registration process to track them, and ensure background checks are being done. I say "suspect" because we can't know for sure - research to determine what would and would not work has not been funded. Hopefully, that will change.
                            OK, so slow down.... You're really not very good at analogies.... you admit that, if you don't drive your car on the road, "then the government can't say squat about what you do".

                            That's WAY different than all kinds of requirements for a firearm that I may never take off my property. You're comparing apples and hubcaps.

                            Wordy? Guilty. The rest... meh...
                            Why don't you try typing fewer words better thought out?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Well, yeah, that's what I said.

                              Maybe if you didn't act so know-it-ally...

                              Ah, so NOW you're thinking it through!

                              OK, so slow down.... You're really not very good at analogies.... you admit that, if you don't drive your car on the road, "then the government can't say squat about what you do".

                              That's WAY different than all kinds of requirements for a firearm that I may never take off my property. You're comparing apples and hubcaps.
                              No analogy is perfect - that's why it's an analogy. At some point it breaks down. It breaks down here in that a car is a massive device fairly easily detected when it leaves the property. So enforcement of license/registration rules is fairly straightforward (though not perfect). A firearm can be small enough to secret on pretty much any part of the body, so is fairly easy to take off the property without detection. A car is also not a device designed to kill (though it clearly can be used that way). A gun is designed for one purpose: to emit a projectile with killing force. They can be used for target practice, that is true - but a car can also be used to have sex where your parents can't see you. That doesn't make that the purpose of the car.

                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Why don't you try typing fewer words better thought out?
                              Nah. It's more fun tugging your chain..
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                No analogy is perfect - that's why it's an analogy.
                                The "registering cars" and "registering guns" just outright sucks as an analogy - it doesn't work at all.

                                At some point it breaks down. It breaks down here in that a car is a massive device fairly easily detected when it leaves the property. So enforcement of license/registration rules is fairly straightforward (though not perfect).
                                It is ONLY required to be licensed/registered if used on public roads - if I keep it on my ranch, as you admitted, it's not the government's business at all.

                                A firearm can be small enough to secret on pretty much any part of the body, so is fairly easy to take off the property without detection.
                                Ah, so TOTALLY different than a vehicle!

                                A car is also not a device designed to kill (though it clearly can be used that way). A gun is designed for one purpose: to emit a projectile with killing force. They can be used for target practice, that is true - but a car can also be used to have sex where your parents can't see you. That doesn't make that the purpose of the car.
                                You're just trying to wiggle out of your really bad 'analogy'.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X