Alien Loves Predator Forum Index
         
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch    RegisterRegister    ProfileProfile    Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages    Log inLog in 
gats
    page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Alien Loves Predator Forum Index -> Utter B.S.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2899
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"You do know the difference between a weapon and a toxic don't you? You cannot equalize them in the way you could compare, say, a sword and a gun or alcohol and marihuana. Alcohol may cause violence, it can not be used to commit violence. You're confusing the two and it's not helping your argument."

Why yes, I do know the difference, but thanks for asking. Alcohol, contained in a glass vesicle, could be broken and used as a weapon... but let me guess, semantically I'm talking about glass and not alcohol. Very Happy Incidently, there was a case where a man burst into a home in Wisconsin (I think) with a sword and made the owner open up all doors of his home in search of a woman whom was said to be screaming. Turns out the guy was just watching porn. But, let us get back to the matter at hand, shall we?

You state: "Alcohol may cause violence... but can not be used to commit violence."

You may want to write a rebuttal to this paper:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/7/924

Here is the part in the abstract that you are looking for:

"Men with alcohol problems were more likely than other men to commit violence toward strangers or to partners and strangers."

Or this one:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/r216.pdf



Are you going to argue philosophy or, as you seem to indicate, would you rather we just argue about semantics?

This, however, is my favorite:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1109127234.html

I like this paragraph best:



"First, alcohol use does not cause sexual violence. Putting alcohol into your system does not cause you to commit a sexual assault anymore than putting gasoline into your car causes you to drive to the airport. Gasoline makes it easier to do what you want to do (e.g., drive a car) while alcohol also makes it easier to do what you want to do (e.g., grope women). If you do not at least think about doing something when sober, you are not likely to do it when drunk. For example, no one worries about becoming so intoxicated that he will lose control and stab himself in the eye with a fork. Why? Because he would never consider doing that when sober."

Are you going to suggest that merely owning a gun causes one to commit violence? Are you also suggesting that carring a gun causes one to commit violence?

If you are still with me, now re-read what I wrote and your response that encouraged me to write this response:

"cfos wrote:

Not true, in some cases it is a means to commit violence. How many criminals often say they committed such-n-such act because they were under the influence of some drug (alcohol, included)? How many people have used alcohol as some means to either get courage in order to commit such-n-such act? Example: There are many cases where kids drink alcohol and then commit vandalism (often to schools, or bums/vagrents).


Oh, come on! You do know the difference between a weapon and a toxic don't you? You cannot equalize them in the way you could compare, say, a sword and a gun or alcohol and marihuana. Alcohol may cause violence, it can not be used to commit violence. You're confusing the two and it's not helping your argument. "

To clarify, I said it is a "means" which is what these other articles say. What I gather you are saying is that either owning or carrying a gun causes one to commit violence, and to quote you, "You're confusing the two and it's not helping your argument."

If you want to keep using your scissors to cut pieces out of my post to respond to, you may want to find something more definative, like Auerlyn *L*

"Which is why that is illegal in most countries, innit? You're confusing human behaviour with legislation. " Yes, and since legistation is "so effective" more legislation will surely make the difference, right? I mean most "modern" countries regulate use of drugs, which is pretty effective, right? I mean, no one on this forum has ever used a drug illegally...

"Strange argument you're having here." Only according to your reasoning. I am using examples of something, perhaps, that you approve of (alcohol) and wondering whether the parallel between access to alcohol and resulting violence (regardless of the sematics over the word "commit") warrents stricter or similar regulations/bans as do guns.

"Well, I said that, didn't I? They're banned unless you are a member of a registered gun club or have a job that requires you to carry a gun."

Well, you did now, thanks for the update. I guess now I have to go find out what it takes to be a member of a registered gun club, though, don't I? If there were no regulations that anyone can do it, right?

"It is called a government. Most modern countries have one." Yes, in fact, in my country even citizens can propose laws. The government just needs to "approve". But thanks, for the clarification. The local government in Utah is proposing that citizens with or without permits can own/carry guns should a "Katrina-like" situation ever arise. Being landlocked, I'm not too worried about hurricanes, but let us listen to our government, since we are "modern".

@ Auerlyn: "Touche, but marksmanship as a sport cannot be equated with gun-violence in the same way that boxing as a sport cannot be equated with thuggish violence in the street etc."

*L* You do have a point there. I was merely going for the philosophy behind backing a sport that perpetuates violence. Take Muhammed Ali (sp?). The man is forever damaged due to participating in socially acceptable violence. Marksmanship, generally involves targets, not living. Would you want to deprive people that enjoy marksmenship because a gun "may" be used by "a person" to commit violence?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurelyn
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 3578
Location: Aw Hell No!

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
Would you want to deprive people that enjoy marksmenship because a gun "may" be used by "a person" to commit violence?


Presumably one could get oneself a licence to indulge in your sport. For a given value of 'target' that is.. Laughing

On a similar note, I remember reading somewhere (this may be bollocks) that in some US states, if you're a practicioner of a martial art above a certain standard you have to register your presence with the authorities? That would equate to having to get a gun-license to practice your shooting...
_________________
Da Fro-mastah of da aLp Forums!

Master Chainsaw wrote:
Aurelyn becomes enraged by imbecilic displays of illiteracy, as is his wont.


Simon_Says wrote:
Sal would know. He stole many jobs from guys named Shaun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2899
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, which is the point. I think there are regulations, restrictions, whatever... in place (not sure if they are for boxing), but the real point of this thread was peoples' opinions. Obviously, many are against but there really isn't much comment other than leaving the decision up to others, possibly the government.

Not sure regarding the karate laws, but I did find this:

http://www.dumblaws.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Munan
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 3232
Location: Living on my own

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
"Are you going to suggest that merely owning a gun causes one to commit violence? Are you also suggesting that carring a gun causes one to commit violence?



I never said such a thing. I never even said anything that could be interpreted as suggesting this. So where does this come from?

I just said that anywhere people may want to commit violence for any kind of reason - their willingness to commit violence may be enhanced by use of alcohol or drugs or jealousy or whatever. Making it more difficult for these people to have access to guns (which can cause much more damage than most kitchen utensils and unlike those are designed to kill other people as effectively as possible) sounds like a very good idea to me.

If it doesn't to you, then we disagree. 's okay.

I also stick to my opinion that you cannot compare guns to drugs, including alcohol. That is more than semantics. I believe it is possible to classify things according to their nature (i.e. guns are designed to commit violence in an as effective as possible way and therefore belong to the class of things we call weapons - saying the same about alcohol is stretching the term a bit too much if you ask me). Blame reading too much Aristotle for that if you want, but it sounds a lot like common sense to me.
_________________
The Justified Ancient of Mu Mu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2899
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I never said such a thing. I never even said anything that could be interpreted as suggesting this. So where does this come from?"

It was my interpretation of:

"Personally, I very strongly believe that in a modern democratic country, the government should have the exclusive right to commit violence. Since no one else has this right, no one needs the means to commit violence, like guns. Hence the posession of guns should be severely restricted in a modern democratic country.
In return for implementing the government's exclusive right to commit violence by denying its citizens the right to posess guns, part of the social contract between the government and its citizens should be that the government offers its citizens protection and makes sure that those who commit violence get punished. "

By denying citizens the right to posses guns... thus allowing for the exclusivity of the government in committing violence... yup, that's where I got it. Granted, it may be overinterpretation of what you are going for, but I had to start somewhere in order to bring the issue I had out for discussion.

"...their willingness to commit violence may be enhanced by use of alcohol or drugs or jealousy or whatever. Making it more difficult for these people to have access to guns..."

This was essentially the point I was arguing. Like you say, willingness to commit violence may be enhanced by ________. Personally, I think it is in the better interest to restrict access to the "willingness enhancers" rather than an object that is used to commit violence. Now, that's not saying restricting access to these objects is not a good idea. Rather, the object in-and-of-itself doesn't commit the act.

As you said, this is likely a point we may disagree upon, but such is life. I think I also see where you are going with your stand about comparisons and Aristotle aside, I still hold that the willingness enhancers pose greater risk than objects. For if there were no willingness enhancers, the number of people that may commit violent acts would likely decrease. However, if a specific object were not available a person that is willing to commit violent acts would likely find a different object with which to commit violent acts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Alien Loves Predator Forum Index -> Utter B.S. All times are GMT - 5 Hours
    page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group