EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Umpqua Shooting

< Return to subforum
Page: 123456Most Recent
admin
By admin | Oct 6 2015 4:12 PM
ColeTrain: I think it is reasonable that if guns are banned for all civilians, they should also be banned (in general) for the police.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
ColeTrain
By ColeTrain | Oct 7 2015 12:44 AM
admin: This is SUCH a bad proposition. What happens, then, if someone does, in some way, obtain a gun? Let's say they are a criminal, and decide to go on a shootout. Who would be there to stop them, and how? We have already established that incapacitating weapons are ineffective, so there is literally no way to defend our citizens. The black market would sell guns, you can be sure of that.

Regardless, banning guns is TOTALLY illogical and unreasonable. Beyond that, it's not an achievable method.
Thumbs up from:
"Man is not free unless government is limited" -- Ronald Reagan
Topics: http://tinyurl.com/oh9tm6u
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 7 2015 6:02 AM
ColeTrain: Agreed
ColeTrain
By ColeTrain | Oct 7 2015 7:00 AM
Blackflag: Thanks.. :)
"Man is not free unless government is limited" -- Ronald Reagan
Topics: http://tinyurl.com/oh9tm6u
admin
By admin | Oct 7 2015 8:07 AM
ColeTrain: Well if you agree that "incapacitating weapons are ineffective," then surely a gun isn't a solution to your issue. For the record, the reason I said "in general" was exactly this case - I could see an argument for highly trained armed defenders using guns, for instance. But it is ultimately no solution to the problem of violence.

I think it is achievable in most countries, but I don't advocate this. I'm simply saying that police should not hold a position where they are able to abuse the population. So yeah, I agree with gun control. Not banning guns, but heavily restricting who can own or operate one.

Try come by Auckland International Airport. See if you can spot a gun. It's basically impossible. That's not because New Zealand is great at concealment, but because we just don't use so many guns. That's a cultural thing, you guys live in a culture of fear where you expect things to go bad, we're happy go lucky. Compare LAX. Guns everywhere, right? Guess which place has had more shootings.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 7 2015 9:58 AM
you guys live in a culture of fear where you expect things to go bad

While we are spinning rhetoric, I would call it a culture of practicality.
admin
By admin | Oct 7 2015 10:13 AM
Blackflag: I call that rhetoric a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 7 2015 10:17 AM
admin: Pretty much fullfilled itself already. That is why we Americans are so great to begin with.
admin
By admin | Oct 7 2015 10:18 AM
Blackflag: Cowboys aren't heroes.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 7 2015 10:23 AM
admin: They are too me. I also respect people who do not get scared of others having guns.

That is why I reject your premise that America has a culture of fear. The real culture of fear IMO is the kind of culture you keep actively promoting, like you are to much of a wuss or weakling to survive by yourself, so you attempt to control others.
True Capitalist Acolyte
By True Capitalist Acolyte | Oct 11 2015 6:00 AM
admin: Admin that is just rhetoric and spin. So I find you and Nzlockie's comments about paranoia and fear to be inconsequential.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Oct 11 2015 5:25 PM
True Capitalist Acolyte: Meh. I call it like I see it.
admin
By admin | Oct 11 2015 8:01 PM
True Capitalist Acolyte: I'm rather like nzlockie on this too. There's a nation out there that collectively fears so much for its own security, that insecurity has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 11 2015 9:40 PM
admin: Okay, maybe you do not get how pointless rhetoric and spin is when called out.

On the contrary, I could call New Zealand a culture of insecurity, which protects itself from judgement by shoving "self imposed" moral fiber down other peoples throats

I prefer to think of New Zealand as a culture of ignorance AND fear though.

You guys would be ignorant for not making security an important issue
You guys have a culture of fear by attempting to control people because you are either too scared or too weak to take control of your own fate

The way I see it, the only one in this thread who has fearmongered is you, with your arguments that guns are dangerous to society. You are not even American.

...Calling it like I see it
admin
By admin | Oct 11 2015 10:26 PM
Blackflag: So, a few points here.

First. The notion that not being American in any way reduces my opinion on the matter is, at best, cultural arrogance. At worst, it's outright degradation in the name of nationalism. The USA is not special.

Second, belittling a foreign nation as scared or weak because they work together for what they believe to be the common good is probably the outright worst example of that. I'm reminded of a certain comedy sketch - and yes, I need to read this post in a comedic fashion, because it's essentially impossible for me to take this seriously - in which a particularly proud thug is too arrogant to sit down at a meeting, making him look rather foolish. You have to realize, relatively speaking, New Zealand is no outlier when it comes to gun control. Except for permits, which are fairly easy to obtain for just about any purpose in New Zealand, we have a de facto right to bear arms. This is more than can be said for much of the world. The difference is more cultural, and not so much legal, as your premise implies.

Nor is that culture born out of weakness - it is born out of a lack of recognition of a threat. When you say "oh but there is a threat", that's you fearmongering. When you say we have a culture of fear, and then claim never to have fearmongered, I have to wonder if you read your own posts.

Third, let's talk about rhetoric and spin. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the stories we tell ourselves regarding our utopia are crucial determinants of our society, especially culturally and politically. If you want to live in a gunslinging world, you'll probably vote in a way that best enables that kind of thing to happen, and your narratives in turn convince other people of your culture. With the advent of the internet, we're moving towards a global narrative and a shared "human history", a notion once believed to be permanently divinely negated at Babylon's tower. This is relevant. If you begin with the presumption that you want everyone to be cowboys, then that's your "spin", which feeds into your rhetoric. It's far from being "pointless", because it's all you're ever going to advocate for. Somebody like me who wants to live in a world with sunshine, rainbows and lollipops is probably going to advocate for that kind of thing. Because I think that would be totally awesome. So that's going to be my spin. I think living in a constant state of fear would suck, and you obviously think my utopia would rob people of what they "truly desire", which in your view is challenge. Fine. But that spin we each communicate is not useless. It is part of this global narrative. Dismissing the value of alternative dialogue undercuts the entire purpose, and indeed the very premise, of debate, and so I feel it is particularly relevant to our peculiar context.

Fourth, on the subject of insecurity. Time and time again in this thread, you and others have argued that without guns, you are relatively speaking unsafe. For you, therefore, your notion of security is tied inherently to your ownership of a gun. The inversion of that, which logically must be true, is that you are relatively insecure about not owning a gun. That's why you see my non-ownership of a gun as insecurity, because if you were in my shoes, you probably would feel insecure, that's just your personal perception. As I've said to you before, culture is hard to understand until you experience it. One can try to describe Japanese culture, for instance, but until one visits Japan, one doesn't really get the full cultural experience. And that's difficult for marketers, particularly on the marketplace of ideas. The world operates as such that security and insecurity are two faces of the same coin - I get my security from a lack of guns, you get yours from an abundance of guns. In this thread, I have attempted to explain my rationale for my beliefs. That doesn't mean I'm insecure, any more than it means (and in fact requires) that you are insecure.

Fifth, on the subject of moral fibre. If I went to your community, your community would shove its moral fibre down my throat. You yourself have said that if I went about unarmed, I'd probably be targeted and killed. That's just about as forced as moral fibre gets. By comparison, New Zealand is a fairly mild case, since carrying a gun is not a crime (assuming you have a permit) and won't get you anything more than a few uncomfortable glances and occasional looks of disdain from nuts like me. So to suggest that foreign nations are relatively moralizing is flatly incorrect.

Sixth, on the ignorance of not making security an important issue. I wouldn't advocate for stronger gun control if it wasn't. And I might add, I think New Zealand has some way to go on this matter. It sometimes seems we have learnt nothing much from Aramoana. I advocate for one form of security, and others in this thread believe security might better be achieved another way. That's all fine. It doesn't mean security is not important. Nor does my unwillingness to engage too deeply on the forums imply anything, since I do that on essentially every thread.

It's worth noting, however, that you of all people have made security as less important issue, since your narrative is one of bringing back the wild west, a time when people had essentially no security.

Seventh, about control over one's own fate. This is a relevant point that goes beyond gun control. The notion that I want guns out of my life is me taking control of my own fate, in that I don't want to be shot. However, it is as much an exercise in self control as it is in social control. Likewise I need to recognize that other people may wish to carry guns around me. Society is built around the collective bargaining of acceptable compromises like that. It's called the social contract, and it's how we make a collective fate, thereby controlling our own fate. I understand you don't particularly like that idea, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't mean that it does not occur.

I hope that clarifies things for you, because so far as I can tell, literally everything in your post was laughably wrong.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Oct 12 2015 4:07 AM
You are not even American.

This was my favourite bit. On a couple of different levels.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 12 2015 5:59 AM
Second, belittling a foreign nation as scared or weak because they work together for what they believe to be the common good is probably the outright worst example of that.

Wow you can be pretty slow.

I was just showing you that I can spin your words the other way around to insult New Zealand. That is what Tophatdoc was trying to explain, on how rhetoric and spin are bad arguing techniques when called out.

Third, let's talk about rhetoric and spin. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the stories we tell ourselves regarding our utopia are crucial determinants of our society, especially culturally and politically.

Maybe so, but there is a difference between arguing the fine details and offering "slogans" that come straight from the politicians handbook

The culture of fear thing was just sloganeering, and it is the same slump our own parties commit too here. My examples should of pointed that out.
-----------------------
Everything else you said was in regards to my specific examples, which were not really meant to be arguments, but a play on your own rhetoric. If you want to debate, keep the sloganeering clear.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Oct 12 2015 6:16 AM
Blackflag: Because it may be a slogan, does that automatically stop it from being true?

What it make any difference to say the same thing but phrased in a different way?

Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 12 2015 10:24 AM
nzlockie: Because it may be a slogan, does that automatically stop it from being true?

Well according to most schools of philosophy, there is not a straight up truth and false in regards to morality.
Anyways, I would say no, but that doesn't make it anymore of a logical and thought provoking statement.

What it make any difference to say the same thing but phrased in a different way?

Not really, but I do see where you are coming from.

In this case admin was just restating a tired argument used by politicians here, which makes it quite vein. It isn't actually arguing gun control, but an appeal to strength, by claiming that the possession of guns is a weakness.
admin
By admin | Oct 12 2015 12:30 PM
Blackflag: Naturally, I don't want to debate this here. I want to do it in an actual debate.

I don't speak in slogans. I speak my mind. Much like you and everyone else does. I communicate my ideas in whatever form and fashion I choose, and doing so does not invalidate my arguments in any way.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Page: 123456Most Recent