Gun ownership poll

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Some serious black or white, or maybe it's all or nothing, thinking there. Most issues in life are not all or nothing, they are nuanced and complicated. And btw what gives you the moral authority to decide who is "truly" pro-life and who is just lying to himself and others?

Gee Peter, I just answered your question that you asked me, and gave you my opinion. And now you're going to call me out for giving my opinion? Thanks! I wasn't personally going after you, or anyone else, just stating some simple truths.

You and your "friend" are now calling me an extremist and claim I'm acting like a "moral authority" for mentioning what the term Pro-life means to me, and how I feel people who claim to be Pro-life, but then have exceptions to that in regards to say the death penalty, or allowing abortions for rape or when the Mother's life is at stake, are rationalizing and are not truly Pro-life in all instances after all. And that was why I used the example of the vegetarian/vegan, to add context to what I was saying, and why and where my thinking was coming from. But that was totally ignored apparently, probably because it didn't prove your point and/or fit with the narrative of what you and your friend wanted it to be.

And talk about being an absolutist in regards to something, who gave you and G1911 the right to apparently decide for everyone on the planet that Pro-life always refers to just abortions and the abortion issue? It does not mean just that to me, and I wouldn't be too surprised if it means quite a bit more than what you two are making it out to be to quite a lot of other people as well. But you two obviously speak for everyone else on the planet, right? Or so you both seem to think.

My original post in this thread was about how all the statements about gun control, what to do, who's to blame, how to fix things, etc., in regards to these mass shootings and such, all seemed to be nothing more than band-aids to treat the symptoms, and were not focusing on the actual root problems and issues. And absolutely no one made a comment or gave an opinion on that, despite it likely being one of the most relevant, and honest posts, in this thread regarding guns and the gun issues, and what we should really be talking about and doing hopefully stop all the violence and shootings. Instead, you and your buddy decide to take issue with the final observation I made regarding abortions, since someone else had already brought it up, and how I found it somewhat hypocritical that a lot of the states with the death penalty were also arguing for more anti-abortion restrictions, yet considered themselves Pro-life proponents.

I don't give a rat's ass what you two think Pro-life means or stands for, but I'll damned if you two are going to shove your interpretation and thinking of that down my throat as the be-all, end-all understanding of what that phrase's meaning is to everyone else in the world. Especially since there is no final, exact, and agreed upon list of what exceptions are allowed for someone to feel it is okay to see/have someone killed/die, and yet still consider themselves a proponent of life. And as far as any of my comments possibly being ignorant G1911, the only ignorant thing I have done is waste my time responding to you two!

And as to my referring to people lying to themselves, you really want to argue with me and claim that most every human on this planet has not already at some point in time during their life, or at some point yet to come, rationalized something to themselves so they can feel good about whatever it was they did or decided? Like saying they're Pro-life, but agree with executing people in what they think are the right circumstances, or agreeing with abortions in certain situations. So you're basically just lying to yourself when you say you're Pro-life, but do so with rationalizing exceptions. And that is being hypocritical to yourself, claiming to be something you aren't completely. And if you two want to claim that you've never rationalized something for yourselves, and therefore never lied to yourselves, then I know you're both lying, so just go sit down somewhere and quit bothering me and turning this thread into something it wasn't originally intended to be!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

You and your "friend" are now calling me an extremist

You chose to take the most extreme possible position there is - that context is irrelevant and one must be always an absolutist to a literal reading of a phrase that means something else, or be a hypocrite. There's not really a more extreme take than that; that's an extreme end of the scale. Also, Peter didn't say it was extreme. I did. We are not the same thing. Or "friends". We have never once even spoken privately. We have conversed for more than a post or two in maybe 4-5 threads. I'm pretty sure we discussed this already when you got triggered and threw a tantrum longer than Moby-Dick because Peter and I both expressed negative opinions on PWCC's fraud ring. Peter probably does not deserve the black mark of being associated with such a despicable fiend as myself for this.

Originally Posted by BobC

And talk about being an absolutist in regards to something, who gave you and G1911 the right to apparently decide for everyone on the planet that Pro-life always refers to just abortions and the abortion issue?

You know exactly what pro-life vs. pro-choice is about. Stop pretending you don't. I did not define these terms in context. Nor did Peter. Decades of American culture and common language have.

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't give a rat's ass what you two think Pro-life means or stands for, but I'll damned if you two are going to shove your interpretation and thinking of that down my throat as the be-all, end-all understanding of what that phrase's meaning is to everyone else in the world.

Again, you know damn well what the phrase means and its context here in this thread. You know what pro-choice vs. pro-life is.

Originally Posted by BobC

And as far as any of my comments possibly being ignorant G1911, the only ignorant thing I have done is waste my time responding to you two!

Your post was definitely ignorant of what a logical argument is. Though what I actually said there was a false pretense of ignorance, I am positive you are well aware how pro-life vs. pro-choice has been discussed in this thread and what it means. Quite politely and reasonably too, before this nuttery.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

You chose to take the most extreme possible position there is - that context is irrelevant and one must be always an absolutist to a literal reading of a phrase that means something else, or be a hypocrite. There's not really a more extreme take than that; that's an extreme end of the scale. Also, Peter didn't say it was extreme. I did. We are not the same thing. Or "friends". We have never once even spoken privately. We have conversed for more than a post or two in maybe 4-5 threads. I'm pretty sure we discussed this already when you got triggered and threw a tantrum longer than Moby-Dick because Peter and I both expressed negative opinions on PWCC's fraud ring. Peter probably does not deserve the black mark of being associated with such a despicable fiend as myself for this.



You know exactly what pro-life vs. pro-choice is about. Stop pretending you don't. I did not define these terms in context. Nor did Peter. Decades of American culture and common language have.



Again, you know damn well what the phrase means and its context here in this thread. You know what pro-choice vs. pro-life is.



Your post was definitely ignorant of what a logical argument is. Though what I actually said there was a false pretense of ignorance, I am positive you are well aware how pro-life vs. pro-choice has been discussed in this thread and what it means. Quite politely and reasonably too, before this nuttery.

And there you are, telling me again what and how I think, and how I'm supposed to only believe what you say. The most childish and ignorant argument I can think of......I'm right and you're wrong. That is basically all you ever come back with. And what most extreme position did I supposedly take, saying that I thought states that were anti-abortion while also being for the death penalty were possibly somewhat hypocritical? How the f#$% is that an extreme statement? It is raising a hypothetical question based on some logical facts and circumstances, or is it that you have feelings and thinking that may coincide with such states, and don't like the idea being pointed out to you that you might be a hypocrite yourself then? It was certainly not directed at nor made to attack any individual, just provoke some thought any maybe further discussion. Instead, it elicited personal attacks from you and Peter.

i never made any argument by the way, I simply stated my opinion as to how I feel states that are for stricter abortion laws and anti-abortion, yet for the death penalty, seem to me to be somewhat hypocritical. You can have any damn opinion you want, I don't care, just don't try telling me that whatever opinion I may have is wrong because it isn't yours.

Again, you also ignored the obvious example I gave to show where I was coming from and my context, but because that doesn't agree with your narrative and thinking, I'm automatically wrong in your eyes. Another big surprise.

The term Pro-Life is specifically used by many advocates instead of the term Anti-Abortion, because they want to highlight their belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. And thus, they are advocating for human life, which isn't solely defined as fetuses. You, however, are apparently trying to state that it is only relevant for the taking of a human life in regards to abortion though, which I don't think is entirely true. Here's a current article discussing the much more evolved and complex meanings behind the terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, and specifically how the meaning of the term Pro-Life now encompasses a lot more than you're alluding to. If there is someone who may not fully understand and comprehend the currently accepted meaning of the Pro-Life term, and what it may truly stand for and how it encompasses ALL lives, I think it is you. You don't want to think there could be conflicting opinions to yours? Guess what, too bad for you, they're out there and help to prove my point!

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro...fe-pro-choice/

And by the way, the opposite of Pro-Life is not necessarily considered Pro-Choice by everyone, it is actually considered Pro-Death by many. Do yourself a favor and do a little reading up. Your myopic view of this is appalling.

And I do apologize for calling you and Peter friends, it was just the two of you coming back at me seemed to be getting along for a bit, so i mistakenly lumped you together. My bad, Peter is actually a very good guy, but he completely missed my point. I merely answered his questions and I don't think he understood where I was coming from. You, on the other hand.................................

So hopefully reading the article and the now recognized meaning of Pro-Life as being for ALL lives, not just fetuses, you'll understand the logic behind my suggesting how being against abortion, but for the death penalty. can be thought of as somewhat hypocritical for someone claiming to be Pro-Life. So as I said, a Pro-Life person who is for the death penalty, appears to be making exceptions to the common understanding of what Pro-Life means, at least what it may mean to a lot of other people that aren't you. But by rationalizing, a person is able to be for the execution of a convicted murderer in certain instances, yet still consider themselves to be a Pro-Life person as well. So here's the definition of "rationalize".

https://www.bing.com/search?q=ration...ANAB01&PC=HCTS

I especially like the last part of that main definition, "even if these are not true or appropriate". Hmmmmm, "even if these are not true", gee, isn't that a sort of nice way to say you are lying? So, as I suggested and opened up for discussion in that earlier post (not personal attacks), rationalizing how presenting yourself as a Pro-Lifer, while still being for the death penalty, can be logically construed in some instances as lying to yourself so you can still feel good about your personal choices. I am not attacking and condemning, nor condoning, anyone in particular or their opinions. I'm merely pointing out how by someone rationalizing a point of view by effectively lying to themselves, they are maybe committing the ultimate form of hypocrisy. (Do I need to link you to the definition of "hypocrisy" as well, or can you look that one up yourself to see I'm not wrong in my thinking, once again?)

[vintagetoppsguy]

You may want to call your pharmacy this morning and see if they can renew your prescription for your meds.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, is a pro-life individual being a hypocrite if he or she signs up for military or police service knowing that could involve the taking of a human life?

Personally I see no inconsistency between being pro-life and supporting the appropriate (and hopefully very limited) use of the death penalty.

You see no inconsistency? I'm pro-life except when I'm not? No inconsistency? I happen to consider myself pro-life. Like you, I support the use of the death penalty when appropriate and when there is 100% absolute proof of guilt (after all, once they're dead, there's no taking it back). I find being pro-life and supporting the death penalty as contradictory. I could be called a hypocrite for espousing both views and I would agree. To me, it's better to acknowledge the hypocrisy than to try to perform some mental gymnastics and twist my brain into a pretzel to convince myself otherwise. But, to each their own.

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

Wow, talk about thinking in absolutes. Do you automatically assume that self-defense has to include killing the perpetrator? This should not need to be said, but a pro-lifer can defend him(her)self and his(her) family without resorting to killing. To think otherwise is unreasonable.

Originally Posted by G1911

You know exactly what pro-life vs. pro-choice is about. Stop pretending you don't. I did not define these terms in context. Nor did Peter. Decades of American culture and common language have.

Again, you know damn well what the phrase means and its context here in this thread. You know what pro-choice vs. pro-life is.

I know what the terms mean to me. Pro-life is a term people who are opposed to abortion like to call themselves in an attempt to take the high moral ground in the abortion debate. They want to claim abortion is murder and therefore they are "pro-life" in opposing abortion. They also, like Peter has done repeatedly, call people who are pro-choice, "pro-abortion." That's a pejorative term they like to label the opposition, again in an attempt to frame their argument in a more favorable light. But, just because a person likes to use "pro-life" to describe himself in regards to abortion, it doesn't mean they are truly pro-life. A more accurate term for them is anti-abortion or even anti-choice.

The pro-choice vs. pro-life dichotomy doesn't exist. It's a made-up artifice perpetrated by people who are against abortion to persuade others that they are morally superior to people who don't have the same belief about abortion that they have. That is the plain, simple truth about pro-choice vs. pro-life.

I happen to be pro-life and pro-choice. Even though being pro-life and not opposed to the death penalty makes me a hypocrite, being pro-life and pro-choice does not.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Wow, talk about thinking in absolutes. Do you automatically assume that self-defense has to include killing the perpetrator? This should not need to be said, but a pro-lifer can defend him(her)self and his(her) family without resorting to killing. To think otherwise is unreasonable.

Re-read. I never said EVERY self-defense case requires lethal force. I have even said very much the opposite in this thread. Some cases do. I said that in such an eventuality, a pro-life person is not hypocritical.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I know what the terms mean to me. Pro-life is a term people who are opposed to abortion like to call themselves in an attempt to take the high moral ground in the abortion debate. They want to claim abortion is murder and therefore they are "pro-life" in opposing abortion. They also, like Peter has done repeatedly, call people who are pro-choice, "pro-abortion." That's a pejorative term they like to label the opposition, again in an attempt to frame their argument in a more favorable light. But, just because a person likes to use "pro-life" to describe himself in regards to abortion, it doesn't mean they are truly pro-life. A more accurate term for them is anti-abortion or even anti-choice.

The pro-choice vs. pro-life dichotomy doesn't exist. It's a made-up artifice perpetrated by people who are against abortion to persuade others that they are morally superior to people who don't have the same belief about abortion that they have. That is the plain, simple truth about pro-choice vs. pro-life.

I happen to be pro-life and pro-choice. Even though being pro-life and not opposed to the death penalty makes me a hypocrite, being pro-life and pro-choice does not.

What it means to you is utterly irrelevant. If we all just decided what phrases meant for ourselves, human communication would be impossible. I am well aware all of you know the purpose of language. I am well aware that all of you understand exactly what pro-life and pro-choice means in the context of an abortion debate. How I feel about these phrases is entirely irrelevant (personally, I'm not a fan of them either). We all know what is being talked about no matter how much some of you want to pretend that you do not. Pro-life and pro-choice are opposing platforms on abortion. Stop pretending otherwise.

It's wild that we (others really, I gave no opinion on abortion itself) were having a very polite and civil discussion on abortion, and it's now starting to derail over people pretending not to know what the terms even mean. Usually it's the opinion on abortion that causes the fire, not the dictionary.


For those who claim not to know:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

What it means to you is utterly irrelevant. If we all just decided what phrases meant for ourselves, human communication would be impossible. I am well aware all of you know the purpose of language. I am well aware that all of you understand exactly what pro-life and pro-choice means in the context of an abortion debate. How I feel about these phrases is entirely irrelevant (personally, I'm not a fan of them either). We all know what is being talked about no matter how much some of you want to pretend that you do not. Pro-life and pro-choice are opposing platforms on abortion. Stop pretending otherwise.


For those who claim not to know:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice

It's very relevant, and not just to me. One of the comments on the pro-life definition in response to a comment to an earlier comment: "I've been working in the pro-life cause for decades and in every definition we have ever given it has included all life from conception to natural death, but Webster's dictionary can redefine what actual pro-life people mean by the word. I am pro-life, this includes being against euthanasia, child abuse, elderly abuse, or anything else that attacks the dignity of the human life! No your the the one rewriting in order to fit a liberal agenda."

So what do you call the person who wrote the quote above? She's against euthanasia because she believes in the sanctity of life, but according to you, she can't call herself pro-life unless she is talking strictly about her stance against abortion.

I also find it very odd that a person could be "pro-life" because they're against abortion and then not give a damn about that life after it's born.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

And there you are, telling me again what and how I think, and how I'm supposed to only believe what you say.

Okay BobC. You win. I will agree with you. You are truly mentally incapable of understanding what pro-choice and pro-life mean in an abortion debate. Congratulations on this stunning victory.

Originally Posted by BobC

The most childish and ignorant argument I can think of......I'm right and you're wrong. That is basically all you ever come back with.

I am not right. I have given no opinion on abortion. I am saying that the dictionary is right and you are wrong.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life

Originally Posted by BobC

And what most extreme position did I supposedly take, saying that I thought states that were anti-abortion while also being for the death penalty were possibly somewhat hypocritical? How the f#$% is that an extreme statement?

No. This opinion here is commonly held, it is a fallacious argument as 2 of us pointed out, but a fallacy is not extreme. As was explained earlier, "It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter?" is an extreme position. The argument that a person must ignore context, and be an absolutist and hardliner is by its definition extreme - that is a polar end of the possible opinions one could have. Everything or nothing, no context, no gray, just the appeal to purity. It is extreme.

Originally Posted by BobC

It is raising a hypothetical question based on some logical facts and circumstances, or is it that you have feelings and thinking that may coincide with such states, and don't like the idea being pointed out to you that you might be a hypocrite yourself then? It was certainly not directed at nor made to attack any individual, just provoke some thought any maybe further discussion. Instead, it elicited personal attacks from you and Peter.

I have not attacked you personally, until this post above where I agreed you cannot comprehend what the words mean, after you were insulted that I believe you are indeed capable of understanding a few syllables and being a rational human. Pointing out the fallacies and extremes in your argument is not a personal attack. Surely you have debated in the past and are aware that the person and the idea are different things. Or maybe you can't figure that out either.

Originally Posted by BobC

I never made any argument by the way, I simply stated my opinion as to how I feel states that are for stricter abortion laws and anti-abortion, yet for the death penalty, seem to me to be somewhat hypocritical.

.... that is an argument.... words mean things...

Originally Posted by BobC

Again, you also ignored the obvious example I gave to show where I was coming from and my context, but because that doesn't agree with your narrative and thinking, I'm automatically wrong in your eyes. Another big surprise.

Again, you are wrong by the dictionary and fallacy not because we 'disagree' (I'm not even sure we do disagree on abortion). Take it up with Webster and Aristotle.

Originally Posted by BobC

The term Pro-Life is specifically used by many advocates instead of the term Anti-Abortion, because they want to highlight their belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. And thus, they are advocating for human life, which isn't solely defined as fetuses. You, however, are apparently trying to state that it is only relevant for the taking of a human life in regards to abortion though, which I don't think is entirely true.

Again, dictionary. It's a discussion of abortion. You know what the terms mean in context. Your personal redefinitions are utterly irrelevant to anyone else.

Originally Posted by BobC

Here's a current article discussing the much more evolved and complex meanings behind the terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, and specifically how the meaning of the term Pro-Life now encompasses a lot more than you're alluding to. If there is someone who may not fully understand and comprehend the currently accepted meaning of the Pro-Life term, and what it may truly stand for and how it encompasses ALL lives, I think it is you. You don't want to think there could be conflicting opinions to yours?

Again, I have given no opinion on abortion whatsoever. The only opinion I have given is that the Texas bounty law is meant to punish the other side from the people who passed it. I have not endorsed pro-life or pro-choice views. I am simply aware of what the words mean and the basic rules of logic. That you are flipping out and going nuts over this is pathetic. Anytime something you don't like is posted you respond with some absolute nutty crap the length of a 19th century Russian novel.

[egri]

Originally Posted by G1911

Anytime something you don't like is posted you respond with some absolute nutty crap the length of a 19th century Russian novel.

In fairness to 19th century Russian novelists, War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment were enjoyable reads. The same cannot be said for the ramblings of the internet's angriest CPA. My unsolicited advice is put him on your ignore list.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by egri

In fairness to 19th century Russian novelists, War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment were enjoyable reads.

Now this thread is getting truly controversial!

[egri]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Now this thread is getting truly controversial!

I didn't enjoy them when I had to read them for school, but years later, on my own, I did. Especially Anna Karenina; I picked it up again a couple days after Russia invaded Ukraine.

[jchcollins]

I own zero guns, unless you count the Daisy 880 air rifle I got for Christmas in 1989, which is still in my basement somewhere. I don't have BB's for it anymore.

As a parent, I have zero desire to have anything to do with guns right now - and wish more of the US felt the same way.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by egri

In fairness to 19th century Russian novelists, War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment were enjoyable reads. The same cannot be said for the ramblings of the internet's angriest CPA. My unsolicited advice is put him on your ignore list.

I’m a big fan of “War and Peace”, one of the odd things I collect is cards of Leo Tolstoy, including vintage Eastern European postcards of him. I enjoy Dostoevsky as well. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” is a favorite, though I’m probably missing the full experience by not understanding Russian and doing them in translation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I’m a big fan of “War and Peace”, one of the odd things I collect is cards of Leo Tolstoy, including vintage Eastern European postcards of him. I enjoy Dostoevsky as well. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” is a favorite, though I’m probably missing the full experience by not understanding Russian and doing them in translation.

Even this thread, improbably, gets a card.

[egri]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You may want to call your pharmacy this morning and see if they can renew your prescription for your meds.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The last word is yours Bob. You're too angry, defensive and reactive for me to engage in a reasonable discussion. It seems a person can't disagree with you without you taking personal offense and turning it into a fight/diatribe. No thanks. Peace.

I put Bob on my Ignore List a while ago. The forum has gotten a lot more enjoyable since then.