Gun ownership poll

[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.

[G1911]

A person who is against abortion has determined that a fetus is a life, that that life is human, and that it is thus wrong to murder this innocent life.

A person who is for the death penalty thinks that some particularly vile crimes should include death as a possible punishment, after trial and conviction for said crime.

I don't see any contradiction between these viewpoints. The argument that it is a contradiction ignores the factor of guilt entirely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

A person who is against abortion has determined that a fetus is a life, that that life is human, and that it is thus wrong to murder this innocent life.

A person who is for the death penalty thinks that some particularly vile crimes should include death as a possible punishment, after trial and conviction for said crime.

I don't see any contradiction between these viewpoints. The argument that it is a contradiction ignores the factor of guilt entirely.

That life is sacred and should be preserved does not mean there are not instances when taking it is justifiable. Agree, it's a false inconsistency.

[KMayUSA6060]

The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this during. The police response is the most atrocious. Threads like this are the most disrespectful.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this during. The police response is the most atrocious. Threads like this are the most disrespectful.

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

[egri]

Originally Posted by G1911

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

I was going to say, for a quasi-political thread, this one has been pretty mild. It's even going better than the Nolan Ryan thread in the sports talk section.

[Casey2296]

"The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this"

I think you may have found the reason the kid was so screwed up, and the reason that more gun legislation would not solve this problem alone. Unless of course we can legislate getting rid of POS parents that raise POS kids that shoot other people, I'd be a yes vote on that.

[egri]

Originally Posted by egri

I was going to say, for a quasi-political thread, this one has been pretty mild. It's even going better than the Nolan Ryan thread in the sports talk section.

I guess I spoke too soon.

[BobC]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;2229946]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.[/QUOT

Go ask a true Amish person, or maybe you could have asked Muhammad Ali when he was still with us, if they are/were hypocrites. Or how about having asked someone like Desmond Doss what his thoughts would have been as well, when he was still with us, as far as someone being a hypocrite for being a pro-life, anti-war person.

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? For example, if I tell you I'm a dyed-in-the-wool vegetarian/vegan, but on my birthdays and maybe a special holiday or two every year I cheat and have a burger, then I'm really not a true vegetarian/vegan after all, am I? And please don't give me some crap answer that I'm allowed to veer every once and a while and still maintain I'm a vegetarian/vegan. I either am or I am not. Trying to make minor exceptions to make myself happy or feel good about myself is simply lying to myself then, period!

And one would think the same could be said for something like being pro-life. Saying to oneself that they are pro-life, but then rationalizing and making exceptions for the death penalty in certain instances, or allowing for abortions if the Mother's life is at stake, and so on, are simply drawing different lines in the sand as to where a certain individual is comfortable with how they may feel. That is just rationalizing their position, but at the same time trying to make it look and sound like they are something they really may not be. In this case, truly pro-life. In other words they are lying to others, and especially themselves. The sad truth is that probably a vast majority of the people in this world say and live this this kind of crap day in and day out, just to make themselves feel good and tell themselves what a truly good person they are, and rationalize their feelings to better fit in with whatever group they want to position themselves with. And I'm not just talking about pro-life or pro-abortion, or pro-gun or anti-gun, questions and issues.

In the end, many people are mostly lying to themselves about a myriad of things, but then complicating life even further by politicizing such thoughts and feelings and trying to project (force) them onto others. They are basically telling others they have to think like they do, or they are wrong and possibly should be arrested and punished as such for not believing exactly as they believe in many cases.

I don't know about you, but lying to oneself to rationalize one's feelings and thoughts seems like the ultimate form of hypocrisy to me.

[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?

[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.

[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 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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

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? .

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

Note the logical flaw in his reasoning -- only people who make no exceptions whatsoever can be "true" believers. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or a variant, I think. But then he adds to the proposition that anyone who is not a "true" believer is a hypocrite. Geez.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Note the logical flaw in his reasoning -- only people who make no exceptions whatsoever can be "true" believers. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or a variant, I think. But then he adds to the proposition that anyone who is not a "true" believer is a hypocrite. Geez.

This kind of thinking is where true extremism comes from. We were doing so well at having a reasonable debate.

I can’t think of the fallacy name, but a false pretense of ignorance is here too - everyone here is well aware what pro-life and pro-choice are actually in reference too - the issue of abortion, not all-encompassing totalist philosophies of the universe.

[irv]

Politicization and the media.
https://youtu.be/q3Qd7lRToLw

[irv]

Media Didn't Expect Buffalo Shooter Witness To be So Honest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOOsNYryHAg

[BobbyStrawberry]

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.

What pro-choice does mean is that a human being should be able to make their own decisions regarding their body. I'm sure we all noticed over the past several years that the staunchest opponents of vaccine mandates skewed toward those with a "pro-life" position. Such individuals, in this case, valued their ability to make for themselves a decision regarding their own body. They valued this ability so highly that it was more important to them than potentially saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact.

Replace "vaccine mandates" with "eliminating access to abortion" and "saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact" with "the life of an embryo/fetus" and you've just described a pro-choice position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

What pro-choice does mean is that a human being should be able to make their own decisions regarding their body. I'm sure we all noticed over the past several years that the staunchest opponents of vaccine mandates skewed toward those with a "pro-life" position. Such individuals, in this case, valued their ability to make for themselves a decision regarding their own body. They valued this ability so highly that it was more important to them than potentially saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact.

Replace "vaccine mandates" with "eliminating access to abortion" and "saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact" with "the life of an embryo/fetus" and you've just described a pro-choice position.

And at the same time, many of the same people who are pro-abortion and justify it with supposed "rights" jargon are staunch advocates of vaccine mandates.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And at the same time, many of the same people who are pro-abortion and justify it with supposed "rights" jargon are staunch advocates of vaccine mandates.

Exactly, Peter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As my torts professor used to say, most arguments are "flappable."

[todeen]

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?

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Originally Posted by BobC

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?

Agree, one cannot live black and white. I'm not Buddhist, but I've appreciated their teachings about understanding gray choices. The Buddha taught not to drink alcohol; it is bad juju to drink and get drunk. But if he was told to get drunk or someone would be killed, it was a worse sin on him to refuse to drink. There are many other teachings like this. Such as suicide is bad. But suicide/sacrifice to save the life of another is okay.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by todeen

Agree, one cannot live black and white. I'm not Buddhist, but I've appreciated their teachings about understanding gray choices. The Buddha taught not to drink alcohol; it is bad juju to drink and get drunk. But if he was told to get drunk or someone would be killed, it was a worse sin on him to refuse to drink. There are many other teachings like this. Such as suicide is bad. But suicide/sacrifice to save the life of another is okay.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

You too?

I am not living in a black and white world, There are so many different opinions and ideas as to what may or may not be acceptable in regards to accepting that people may be killed or die in certain circumstances, and yet that person can still be viewed by themselves, or others, as being Pro-Life. And since there is no one definitive, agreed upon by all people's meaning for that term, and list of allowable exceptions to still be considered a Pro-Life person, I have chosen to think in terms of the actual meaning of that phrase. Absent the inclusion of any context or background for a specific situation or set of circumstances, taking the literal meaning of the term "Pro-Life" seemed to me to be the most educated and logical place to start then. The term, "proponent of life", doesn't state there are exceptions for murderers, or for fetus' of raped women, or whatever other exceptions someone may have. And since I have absolutely no way of knowing each and every other person's exact definition of what Pro-Life means to them, I figure it best to start with exactly what someone with a reasonable intelligence would look to, the definition of the specific term - proponent of life. The one concrete meaning behind that term is that the person it applies to would be for life, in all possible situations where there is a choice to be made. If you want to have an exception for yourself, or in a specific situation like this thread, then state, I'm Pro-Life, but believe in the death penalty for convicted murderers, or something along those lines for whatever exception(s) you may have. You can't just assume everyone else is going to agree with your exact definition and understanding of what that term means.

And again, that is also why I specifically gave the vegetarian/vegan example in my earlier post, to show the context of my meaning and where I was coming from. So Tim, if someone tells you they are a vegan or vegetarian, do you automatically assume that means they eat absolutely no meat whatsoever, or that they cheat a couple times a year, or maybe they only mean red meat and poultry is okay, or possibly they don't have an issue if their food is cooked in animal fat as long as it contains no actual meat, and so on? See my point? You don't know exactly what they mean, or the complete background and context behind the statement of their being a vegan/vegetarian. Yet, I get called out by a couple people accusing me of not paying attention to the situation and not supposedly understanding the context behind the term "Pro-Life", despite the fact I am given no specific background or context for how someone was using or referring to that term in this thread. And don't go trying to tell me it was implied, unless you can point me to the specific statement in this thread, before I posted, where it says the term Pro-Life is only to be used in reference to abortions and the abortion issue. If it was and I missed it, I'll gladly apologize for my mistake in having missed that post then. But still, I found it almost laughable that I get accused of being ignorant due to my statements and not magically guessing and understanding the context of the term "Pro-Life" as used in this thread, that others have now declared what it is after the fact, even though there was no previous context offered or given to my knowledge. Meanwhile, I went out of my way to provide a specific example to show the context of my understanding and treatment of the term "Pro-Life", using a vegetarian/vegan example, yet the accusing parties seem to have totally ignored that very relevant fact, or didn't comprehend it, and yet I'm supposed to be the ignorant one. Yeah, right!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BobC

You too?

Forgive me Bob, I wasn't trying to pile on. I understand your position. I don't have a problem with your hope that someone who describes themselves as XYZ toes the line. I find that admirable. I try to profess that myself as a sign of respect for my faith. But what I've found with nearly everyone I've met is that we fail often at being constant. I know many vegans and vegetarians who cheat. I know many not-so-Christian Christians. I know.... Sometimes hypocrisy doesn't bother us. Sometimes it does.

Every thread needs a card. Anyone own this one? I'd like to find it.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

Well, even though I've already stated my specific situation, I'll drop back in to mention a few steps that may help:


First, stop calling all these mass shootings tragedies. We know that, but we send flowers and wreaths for tragedies. These are CRIMES and should be treated and approached that way. I think there's more of an appetite to stop CRIMES than to console more and more and more victims.

Second, I would move the legal age to purchase a firearm up to 21. There are no guarantees that any steps will work, but NOT DOING ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK.


I read an article today on how the AR-15 became so widespread in this country. It described, in part, a marketing scheme by weapons manufacturers to target specific audiences and 'expand' those audiences via, among other things, video games such as 'Call of Duty'; producing tan-colored rifles to resemble those used by the military in recent wars and assisting film companies to recreate, as accurately as possible, what occurs overseas.

'Putting military-grade weapons in the hands of the general public.' has been their goal.

As astonished as I am by all the blood-thirstiness of the country in which I live, I just cannot understand why there is ANY opposition to universal background checks, for gun shows; pawn shops; or retailers like Academy Sports where the AR-15 type assault-rifles are called sports rifles.

Again DEAD is FINAL.



.