Gun ownership poll

G1911 · #1 06-02-2022, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

That's what I said in Post 130. Aren't you following along? But anyway, if abortion is a disagreement on when life begins, why do they claim they are "pro-life" when they actually aren't?

For something like the twelfth time, because it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Who said they did? But tell you what, when a group gets together that wants to

1) redefine death so that a person incapable of breathing and eating on their own is declared legally dead;

2) make it illegal to use life support systems despite a loved one's objection;

3) is against the death penalty; and

4) call their group Pro-Death to gain support

get back to me.

Again, for something like the thirteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate. You know this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I'm not sure whether I agree with "most." The jury is still out on that one.

This is where many extremes and many of our current problems come from - people who disagree are no longer seen as people with a different idea but almost cartoonish caricatures of an actual human being. I miss when people didn't live life convinced the other 50% are cartoon villains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It's not that I "pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases," it's more that I don't agree with using the term pro-life in that manner. So far, nobody has even attempted to answer the question, how can they be "pro-life" when they're not? Just like I don't agree with Russia using the term "special military operation" for their invasion of Ukraine. Should we all just acquiesce and call it a "special military operation" because it's their invasion and that's what they want to call it?

Again, for something like the fourteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate of a specific issue. It is a silly hyper partisan argument (you don't seem to keep complaining about the equally incorrect term 'pro-choice' if your pre-suppositions that these are absolutist philosophies of the universe and not what they are defined as in the dictionary and by 99%+ of America).

In other shocking news, you don't really drive in a driveway, you park in it. You know what these two terms actually mean, you know they are not absolutist philosophies of other separate issues. You are just complaining about the one that the other side uses. That's not a reasonable and consistent thought, it's just a hyperpartisan talking point that doesn't say much of anything.

"Special military operation" is not a common-use term whose meaning is known to all and commonly used above any other expression for what it is in reference too, steeped in decades of the common vernacular. I have not heard a single American use this to refer to the war, besides mocking it. This is a bad false equivalence.

Abortion is an issue for which there are rational arguments supporting both sides. I cannot fathom why this is the abortion-related argument that seems the best one to make to you. Virtue-signaling to absolutists has never convinced a person you are right; rational arguments sometimes do.

AustinMike · #2 06-03-2022, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Abortion is an issue for which there are rational arguments supporting both sides. I cannot fathom why this is the abortion-related argument that seems the best one to make to you. Virtue-signaling to absolutists has never convinced a person you are right; rational arguments sometimes do.

So, you don't like that I think people labeling themselves "pro-life" is absurd when they're not. Good. I get it. That doesn't change my mind, I still think calling themselves "pro-life" is a misnomer. And, I'm not, nor have I ever, claimed it is an abortion-related argument. That is a false claim on your part.

And I've noticed that in all these threads, all you do is nit-pick and castigate people that don't adhere to your claim that there's nothing odd about people who want to execute/kill people while calling themselves "pro-life." You have never stated your thoughts about abortion itself, at least not that I recall. If you have, I apologize in advance. But if you haven't, why not? What is your stance on abortion? What are your rational arguments in support of that view?

G1911 · #3 06-03-2022, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

So, you don't like that I think people labeling themselves "pro-life" is absurd when they're not. Good. I get it. That doesn't change my mind, I still think calling themselves "pro-life" is a misnomer. And, I'm not, nor have I ever, claimed it is an abortion-related argument. That is a false claim on your part.

And I've noticed that in all these threads, all you do is nit-pick and castigate people that don't adhere to your claim that there's nothing odd about people who want to execute/kill people while calling themselves "pro-life." You have never stated your thoughts about abortion itself, at least not that I recall. If you have, I apologize in advance. But if you haven't, why not? What is your stance on abortion? What are your rational arguments in support of that view?

I understand you are not going to change your mind and be a reasonable person. You are going to, no matter how fallacious it is, insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance, while not holding pro-choice to the same standards because that doesn�t fit your hyper partisan agenda. You will continue to pretend to be too stupid to know what the words actually mean in context. For an ideologue is never wrong, everyone else, common sense and the dictionary is.

I would love a link to � all these threads� where I castigate people who pretend pro-life has a different meaning than it actually has. You know there is no other thread where this has happened. I hold numerous objectionable views, I�m sure you can find something vaguely true to smear me with.

The only statement I have made on abortion itself on Net54 is that the Texas bounty law is meant to punish the other side, just like gun control, and not actually solve a real problem. Not exactly a pro-life hardline view there. If pro-life is not about abortion, why must I give a take on abortion? You�ve been arguing vociferously that the phrase does not mean what me, the dictionary, and everyone else knows it means. I haven�t because the thread is about guns. You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn�t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance.

I naturally lean toward favoring the right of the individual over a right of the state. I used to be very pro-choice as a result. Safe, legal and rare. After deeper research, I have moderated my views but still fall closer to the pro-choice camp. A late second trimester fetus like the one David showed is a human. A sperm cell, I think is not. The exact line is difficult to draw. The first trimester seems a reasonable practical boundary to me. I very much favor a life of the mother exemption in any trimester; if it is late enough the baby may be delivered safely than I think this difficult choice of which life to take and which to save belongs with the mother. This is pro-choice, or was considered such not that long ago. I am disgusted by some of the extremist left positions of today, and these are partly what has slowly receded my support lately. I think it is extremely sad that �women�s rights� has largely become a phrase to mean access to any abortion at any time for any reason, among the hardliners even after birth. Post birth abortion is beyond vile and disgusting.

I have always, while I generally support the Roe decision on policy grounds, known it to be unconstitutional under the 10th. It is not left to the federal State under the constitution.

I am against the death penalty on unrelated grounds. Killing should be lawful if a guilty person is posing a real and present danger to an innocent person. By the time they are at trial, they are no longer a real and present danger, there is no defense. The death penalty is constitutional, but I think we should elect not to exercise it.

AustinMike · #4 06-03-2022, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I understand you are not going to change your mind and be a reasonable person.

Oh, here we go. If I don't agree with you, I'm not a reasonable person. I get you now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You are going to, no matter how fallacious it is, insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance, while not holding pro-choice to the same standards because that doesn�t fit your hyper partisan agenda.

Please provide a link to the post where I "insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance." I have said repeatedly that it makes no sense to me how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be for the death penalty. And also, what is my "hyper partisan agenda?" I've said I would like to keep abortion legal. Is that my "hyper partisan agenda? If it is, do you use the same terminology for "pro-lifers?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You will continue to pretend to be too stupid to know what the words actually mean in context. For an ideologue is never wrong, everyone else, common sense and the dictionary is.

Oh, now I'm an ideologue. That's very Aristocratic of you. Out of curiosity, how did you survive the early 2010s? The movie "Catfish" came out in 2010. People starting using the term "catfish" as something other than the dictionary definition: "any of an order (Siluriformes) of chiefly freshwater stout-bodied scaleless bony fishes having long tactile barbels." It wasn't until 2014 that the new definition was added to the dictionary. In the meantime, how did you react to anyone who used the term as "a person who sets up a false personal profile on a social networking site for fraudulent or deceptive purposes." Did you point out they weren't using the term as defined in the dictionary? Did you accuse them of being unreasonable if they didn't agree with you to stop using it in the fallacious manner? Did you call them an ideologue? Just curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I would love a link to � all these threads� where I castigate people who pretend pro-life has a different meaning than it actually has. You know there is no other thread where this has happened. I hold numerous objectionable views, I�m sure you can find something vaguely true to smear me with.

My bad. I meant posts. My apologies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

The only statement I have made on abortion itself on Net54 is that the Texas bounty law is meant to punish the other side, just like gun control, and not actually solve a real problem. Not exactly a pro-life hardline view there. If pro-life is not about abortion, why must I give a take on abortion? You�ve been arguing vociferously that the phrase does not mean what me, the dictionary, and everyone else knows it means. I haven�t because the thread is about guns. You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn�t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance.

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn�t post until my �nutball extremist takes.� Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I naturally lean toward favoring the right of the individual over a right of the state. I used to be very pro-choice as a result. Safe, legal and rare. After deeper research, I have moderated my views but still fall closer to the pro-choice camp. A late second trimester fetus like the one David showed is a human. A sperm cell, I think is not. The exact line is difficult to draw. The first trimester seems a reasonable practical boundary to me. I very much favor a life of the mother exemption in any trimester; if it is late enough the baby may be delivered safely than I think this difficult choice of which life to take and which to save belongs with the mother. This is pro-choice, or was considered such not that long ago. I am disgusted by some of the extremist left positions of today, and these are partly what has slowly receded my support lately. I think it is extremely sad that �women�s rights� has largely become a phrase to mean access to any abortion at any time for any reason, among the hardliners even after birth. Post birth abortion is beyond vile and disgusting.

I have always, while I generally support the Roe decision on policy grounds, known it to be unconstitutional under the 10th. It is not left to the federal State under the constitution.

I am against the death penalty on unrelated grounds. Killing should be lawful if a guilty person is posing a real and present danger to an innocent person. By the time they are at trial, they are no longer a real and present danger, there is no defense. The death penalty is constitutional, but I think we should elect not to exercise it.

Thanks for this response. We agree for the most part on the abortion issue. We disagree on the death penalty issue. I think, had he survived, the Uvalde killer would be a prime candidate for the death penalty.

G1911 · #5 06-03-2022, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Oh, here we go. If I don't agree with you, I'm not a reasonable person. I get you now.

You are not reasonable because you refuse to accept that language is not up to your sole arbitration and refuse to apply common sense, context or the dictionary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Please provide a link to the post where I "insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance." I have said repeatedly that it makes no sense to me how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be for the death penalty. And also, what is my "hyper partisan agenda?" I've said I would like to keep abortion legal. Is that my "hyper partisan agenda? If it is, do you use the same terminology for "pro-lifers?"

Every one of your posts, this has been your thesis. That pro-life must be pro-life in any and all circumstances, with no exception, no context, nothing but an absolute hardline, an appeal to purity definition. You are not treating pro-choice and pro-life to the same standards. If pro-life is to be treated in this way, then logically so too must pro-choice. What other reason is there for it besides you like one and not the other? Even if we ignore the rest of the world, common English usage and the dictionary, you keep insisting pro-life is a misleading and false branding while refusing to treat pro-choice in the same way. This is political, not logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Oh, now I'm an ideologue. That's very Aristocratic of you. Out of curiosity, how did you survive the early 2010s? The movie "Catfish" came out in 2010. People starting using the term "catfish" as something other than the dictionary definition: "any of an order (Siluriformes) of chiefly freshwater stout-bodied scaleless bony fishes having long tactile barbels." It wasn't until 2014 that the new definition was added to the dictionary. In the meantime, how did you react to anyone who used the term as "a person who sets up a false personal profile on a social networking site for fraudulent or deceptive purposes." Did you point out they weren't using the term as defined in the dictionary? Did you accuse them of being unreasonable if they didn't agree with you to stop using it in the fallacious manner? Did you call them an ideologue? Just curious.

See above. Words change in usage as time goes and new slang comes. 'Catfish' is not the result of one individual just pretending a phrase they don't like means something else and screeching that the entire rest of the country is using it wrong. You must know this is an absurd argument. I've said a lot, I'm sure you can find something to actually get me on. I've got a ton of posts to find an avenue of attack. It's not that difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn�t post until my �nutball extremist takes.� Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Read. The transcript is public and visible to all. What I said and you even quoted was "You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn�t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance." Post 97 is me replying to BobC. So... exactly in line with what I said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Thanks for this response. We agree for the most part on the abortion issue. We disagree on the death penalty issue. I think, had he survived, the Uvalde killer would be a prime candidate for the death penalty.

Perhaps we can agree that it is amusing we don't disagree very much on the actual issue.

AustinMike · #6 06-04-2022, 12:19 PM

I had intended to make my last post the last one I made on abortion in this thread. However, I realized something about you and I decided to make one more last post to point that out.

You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of �pro-life.� Yet, there are countless examples of you not applying �common sense, context or the dictionary� to the meaning of words.

(A) You displayed your lack of understanding regarding the definitions of �choice,� �law,� and �right.� You seem to apply your own definitions.

(1) For example, you think that if a �law� is passed, it automatically removes a person�s right to a �choice.� That is absurd. For example, there are speed limits set by law. Let�s say the speed limit on the road I�m driving on is 60 mph. Do you really think that takes away my choice of going 75? No, it doesn�t. I also think it is humorous that you think I could tell the officer giving me a ticket, �But officer. I had no choice. A law was passed regarding the speed limit and that took away my choice. The fact that I was going 75 isn�t because that was my choice, because I had no choice. It was probably an act of nature or divine intervention, but it wasn�t my choice. So, since it wasn�t my choice, I don�t think I should get a ticket.�

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You cannot believe in an absolutist, hardline with no exceptions �right to choose� and any meaningful rule of law. Law is intended to constrict and punish certain choices people make, that is the purpose of every law. You clearly know this, as you even specify prison as a result of unlimited free choice.

(2) You conflate �choice� with �right.� Look up the definitions and you�ll see you�re not using the words properly.

Example 1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. So everywhere in the world there is the right to have an abortion and always will be. It's just the law punishing people for their free 'choice'. What's the point of discussing abortion at all if you think there is a universalist right to it is already present?

Example 2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

What choices do I think people should not have? - Already answered. I think you are picking your words wrong again. I am not in favor of rolling back rights.

(B) You change the definition of �and� to �or.� Here�s a little logic for you. If you say �A� and �B�, that is only true if �A� if true plus it is only true if �B� is true. If you say �A� or �B�, then that is true if either �A� is true or �B� is true or �A� and �B� are true. You claimed you only posted after I and BobC posted. I pointed out that wasn�t true because I didn�t post until after you did. You said that since you posted after BobC posted, that makes it true. Hence, you want to redefine �and� to be �or.�

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn�t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn�t post until my �nutball extremist takes.� Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Read. The transcript is public and visible to all. What I said and you even quoted was "You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn�t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance." Post 97 is me replying to BobC. So... exactly in line with what I said...

(C) You ironically want to change the definition of abortion. Look up the definition of abortion and tell us all how you can have an abortion after birth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it is extremely sad that �women�s rights� has largely become a phrase to mean access to any abortion at any time for any reason, among the hardliners even after birth. Post birth abortion is beyond vile and disgusting.

All these posts because:

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You and BobC are the only ones evidently incapable of understanding that words have meanings, that are not picked on the whims of any single individual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You are not reasonable because you refuse to accept that language is not up to your sole arbitration and refuse to apply common sense, context or the dictionary.

And yet, you constantly applied you own definition to commonly used words.

So, I have choices. I can decide that you�re a hypocrite. I can decide that you�re a �performance artist.� Or, I can decide that you�re not nearly as smart as you think you are. I lawfully have those choices because it�s my right. Can you guess which one I'm going to choose?

clydepepper · #7 06-04-2022, 02:12 PM

158334081_4054641537901246_8461246587244529788_n.jpg 258244971_2658033547676122_8610287704204713611_n.jpg

G1911 · #8 06-04-2022, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I had intended to make my last post the last one I made on abortion in this thread. However, I realized something about you and I decided to make one more last post to point that out.

You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of �pro-life.� Yet, there are countless examples of you not applying �common sense, context or the dictionary� to the meaning of words.

(A) You displayed your lack of understanding regarding the definitions of �choice,� �law,� and �right.� You seem to apply your own definitions.

(1) For example, you think that if a �law� is passed, it automatically removes a person�s right to a �choice.� That is absurd. For example, there are speed limits set by law. Let�s say the speed limit on the road I�m driving on is 60 mph. Do you really think that takes away my choice of going 75? No, it doesn�t. I also think it is humorous that you think I could tell the officer giving me a ticket, �But officer. I had no choice. A law was passed regarding the speed limit and that took away my choice. The fact that I was going 75 isn�t because that was my choice, because I had no choice. It was probably an act of nature or divine intervention, but it wasn�t my choice. So, since it wasn�t my choice, I don�t think I should get a ticket.�

(2) You conflate �choice� with �right.� Look up the definitions and you�ll see you�re not using the words properly.

If there is no correlation between law and choice and rights, then law serves no purpose at all. If law is not intended and created to restrict choice by punishing those who do that which the law criminalizes, it has no purpose. The state does not have complete physical control of every humans every action. One can choose to break a law, but that is why we have laws. Laws restrict choice by punishing those who violate it, to make most people conform and to lock up, kill, shame, or harm those who make the choice not allowed by the state.

A right is something specifically protected by the law.

A person who supports a right to choose something is against criminalizing one of the two choices. Pro-choice abortion activists do not think that choice is protected regardless of the law; they are pro-choice because they want that choice to be allowed without getting a murder charge. We all know this. Pro-choice people are not pro-choice because they think the law does not matter and they may make a choice to violate the law and take the punishment. Supporting choice means that one does not support criminalizing one of the sides. You know this, this is extremely disingenuous. You surely possess an ounce of common sense and can apply context. You cannot possibly be this dumb and be a functioning adult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

(B) You change the definition of �and� to �or.� Here�s a little logic for you. If you say �A� and �B�, that is only true if �A� if true plus it is only true if �B� is true. If you say �A� or �B�, then that is true if either �A� is true or �B� is true or �A� and �B� are true. You claimed you only posted after I and BobC posted. I pointed out that wasn�t true because I didn�t post until after you did. You said that since you posted after BobC posted, that makes it true. Hence, you want to redefine �and� to be �or.�

Yes. Good job, you finally made a correct point. It's utterly irrelevant, but you are correct.

We can do this forever in perpetuity. You just said "You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of �pro-life.�" In actuality, only you and Bob C pretended to be too stupid to know what they mean. That means it should be "you repeatedly railed about me and one other..." instead of "others". Ha! I got you! I win now! See how silly this is? You probably don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

(C) You ironically want to change the definition of abortion. Look up the definition of abortion and tell us all how you can have an abortion after birth.

You appear to be referring to 'post birth abortion'. Post birth abortion, or after-birth abortion, is not my term whatsoever. I did not make this up, popularize it, write a single one of the many news articles about it, or author any of the passed or pending legislation related to it. I am not selecting the terms used by political factions in American culture. For the thousandth time, you already know this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

So, I have choices. I can decide that you�re a hypocrite. I can decide that you�re a �performance artist.� Or, I can decide that you�re not nearly as smart as you think you are. I lawfully have those choices because it�s my right. Can you guess which one I'm going to choose?

We agree I am not smart, I don't know much. I am simply aware of what some common terms mean as is everyone here except for you and BobC. You can choose to believe whatever you want about anything, nobody has said you cannot think whatever you think. If you want to pretend pro-life is a hardline absolutist universal philosophy but pro-choice is not held to the same rule, you may. It's absurd and stupid, and some will tell you that, but people believe many absurd things.

No matter how stupid I am, a point which I will happily concede, and how satisfied you are with your virtue signaling redefinition, everyone here still knows exactly what pro-life and pro-choice actually mean.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set.	Misunderestimated	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	1	01-02-2020 08:50 PM
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership	Throttlesteer	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	49	08-14-2019 02:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items	Sean1125	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-29-2015 10:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs	theantiquetiger	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	08-17-2011 02:43 PM
Scan Ownership	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	12-14-2005 01:10 PM