Guns. Yee haw!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2014, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 09:50 AM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(24-05-2014 02:34 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.
Yeah that's not likely to happen...
Perhaps because guns aren't weapons of mass destruction.

You missed the point. Pointing out that guns and weapons of mass destruction are different cases is only a valid defense if Vosur was arguing that one couldn't own guns because one couldn't own nukes. As I indicated in my previous post, this was not Vosur's argument.

You said that you think you should own a gun because you "like it, want it, and don't think nobody should tell you otherwise." Granted these might be separate clauses, and your liking and wanting guns is separate from your justification of why you think "nobody should tell you otherwise," but if such is the case, then you did not actually share why you think you are entitled to own a firearm. Rather, you would have simply stated that you think nobody had a right to prevent you from possessing one, and on an unrelated note, you also happen to like and want them.

However, Vosur inferred that the above was not the case and that your fondness and yearning for firearms was your justification for being allowed to own them. As I already mentioned previously, nobody has a right to anything if the only defense they can come up with is "I want it," because then the government would have to inevitably allow access to any possession and permit any action, hence why Vosur used the WMD as an example. If desire was the only needed defense for a legal right, I could get away with murder as long as I stated that I "wanted" to do it.

You have so far given no justification for being allowed to own a gun other than your desire to have it.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 09:56 AM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 10:23 AM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
Okay so I actually think I see where the conflict might be, and it's something I overlooked.

(23-05-2014 10:18 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I have a gun because I like guns and I want to own them...

This is perfectly legitimate. Liking something and wanting something is all you need to go out and get it. However, the statement

Quote:...and I don't think anyone has the right to tell me I can't.

is about entitlement, which is a different territory. Wanting and liking something is more than enough to justify the act of possessing it, but is is not sufficient to entitle you to own it.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 09:56 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Okay so I actually think I see where the conflict might be, and its something I overlooked.

(23-05-2014 10:18 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I have a gun because I like guns and I want to own them...

This is perfectly legitimate. Liking something and wanting something is all you need to go out and get it. However, the statement

Quote:...and I don't think anyone has the right to tell me I can't.

is about entitlement, which is a different territory. Wanting and liking something is more than enough to justify the act of possessing it, but is is not sufficient to entitle you to own it.
Ok. I can see that.
I mean I still don't think any has the right to tell me I can't but I see your point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(23-05-2014 10:18 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I have a gun because I like guns and I want to own them and I don't think anyone has the right to tell me I can't. It's that simple.
Your opinion?
The concept of "Rights" has no objective meaning, you cannot discover what is a right and what is not a right.

(23-05-2014 12:02 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Guns dont kill people
People with guns are sometimes very effective at killing people, that's why most armies these days are issued with guns.

(25-05-2014 09:01 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  False comparison, I suppose? One wouldn't have any reasonable purpose to hold a nuke, but one could have justifications for owning a gun.
If Iraq or Afghanistan had Nukes then they wouldn't have been invaded by USA. So I assume nukes can be effectively used for protection from attackers. Just look at North Korea, USA ain't invading even though they took to Iraq under the guise of having possession of WMDs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 09:01 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.

"I like it and want it and nobody should tell me otherwise" is what he is attacking. He isn't saying that one couldn't justify owning a gun simply because one couldn't justify owning a nuke, he's saying that "I like it and I want it" isn't a justification in itself and used the WMD as an example of why. A case can be made for why the government cannot withhold something from you, but simply demanding to have legally sanctioned access to something for no other reason than "I want it" is never sufficient on its own.

Hence, Vosur's point still stands.

Nope. Fallacious arguments are ineffective.
They don't achieve whatever desired effect was intended, unless the intent is to piss off the other person and make him think you're a jackass. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
The whole argument about having a gun because you want one is very close to a rich person's mentality of deserving something by dint of being able to afford it.

For example, saying that you want a gas guzzling car that pollutes the environment for everyone else and because you can afford it then you should be able to have one.

The problem with this mentality is twofold.

First it only focuses on the individual's desires and does not take into account the needs of society. It does not recognise that society is made up of whole range of different people, some who are responsible and some who are totally selfish and irresponsible. If exceptions to a law can be made for individuals then the law becomes less enforceable.

So you may want a plentiful choice of cheap guns but do you want to live in a society where the local nut-job has that choice as well? If that's the kind of society that you want to live in then sure, knock yourself out but make that decision knowing that it's not just you who has access to those guns.

Secondly it fails to take into account the cost to other people. The cost of a gas guzzling car is transferred onto other people in terms of pollution, poor health and higher energy prices in the future. The cost of unregulated gun ownership is carried by other people in terms of higher insurance costs and personal grief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
25-05-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
The ridiculous sparring contests over guns annoy me. The issue is that gun politics are not a black and white thing. Chas and I are both pro-gun, but I disagree significantly with this stance on them. Vosur and, say, TBD are both anti-gun, but I suspect would also have different stances on the matter.

These insipid threads full of pedantic debates about what constitutes an argument and over who made what fallacy, don't do anything but get people pissed off at each other.

I'm starting a Boxing Read thread.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
25-05-2014, 07:19 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 04:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 09:01 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  False comparison, I suppose? One wouldn't have any reasonable purpose to hold a nuke, but one could have justifications for owning a gun.
If Iraq or Afghanistan had Nukes then they wouldn't have been invaded by USA. So I assume nukes can be effectively used for protection from attackers. Just look at North Korea, USA ain't invading even though they took to Iraq under the guise of having possession of WMDs.

I was referring to individuals, not nations.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 07:36 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 04:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. Fallacious arguments are ineffective.
They don't achieve whatever desired effect was intended, unless the intent is to piss off the other person and make him think you're a jackass. Drinking Beverage

Except his argument wasn't fallacious and I believe you mistook his argument as being an anti-gun argument when all he was doing was attacking the logic of "I want it=I'm entitled to it," which is fallacious.

If he was stating that one couldn't own guns because one had no entitlement to nukes, that would be a fallacious argument, but it's not the one he made.

(25-05-2014 05:01 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  The whole argument about having a gun because you want one is very close to a rich person's mentality of deserving something by dint of being able to afford it.

For example, saying that you want a gas guzzling car that pollutes the environment for everyone else and because you can afford it then you should be able to have one.

The problem with this mentality is twofold.

First it only focuses on the individual's desires and does not take into account the needs of society. It does not recognise that society is made up of whole range of different people, some who are responsible and some who are totally selfish and irresponsible. If exceptions to a law can be made for individuals then the law becomes less enforceable.

So you may want a plentiful choice of cheap guns but do you want to live in a society where the local nut-job has that choice as well? If that's the kind of society that you want to live in then sure, knock yourself out but make that decision knowing that it's not just you who has access to those guns.

Secondly it fails to take into account the cost to other people. The cost of a gas guzzling car is transferred onto other people in terms of pollution, poor health and higher energy prices in the future. The cost of unregulated gun ownership is carried by other people in terms of higher insurance costs and personal grief.

This was the point I saw condensed in Vosur's example. Hence why I said murder would also be legally excusable under such a system as a further example of the argument that has now been laid out in full by Mathilda.

The focus of the argument is not whether its justifiable to own guns, its that desire for ownership is never justification on its own for entitlement to ownership, and that fact stands for ALL matters, not just guns. There are justifications for being legally entitled to own a gun, but "because I want it," is not one of them.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
25-05-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 07:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The ridiculous sparring contests over guns annoy me. The issue is that gun politics are not a black and white thing. Chas and I are both pro-gun, but I disagree significantly with this stance on them. Vosur and, say, TBD are both anti-gun, but I suspect would also have different stances on the matter.

These insipid threads full of pedantic debates about what constitutes an argument and over who made what fallacy, don't do anything but get people pissed off at each other.

I'm starting a Boxing Read thread.

We disagree significantly? Pray tell. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: