Questions for liberals...
 

A convicted murderer is serving a life sentence. During his first day in prison, he kills a correctional officer. The next week he kills a counselor, 3 days later he kills 2 other inmates then kills a prison nurse. Considering you oppose the death penalty, how do you propose stopping this murderer from killing again?

It's the middle of the night, an intruder kicks down the door of your house. You call 911, the police will be at your home in 5 minutes, the intruder will be in your bedroom in 10 seconds. Considering you oppose gun ownership, how are you going to stop this intruder from killing your family?

What if your mother exercised her choice to have an abortion?

Since you believe that people who oppose a powerful federal government and seek more independence from government are dangerous extremists, can I assume you would have been a "Loyalist" during the Revolutionary War? (For those of you who attended public school, a "Loyalist" supported the King of England and opposed the creation of an independent nation by colonists)

There are 700,000 doctors in the U.S. and 120,000 fatal medical mistakes each year, compared to 80,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. and 1500 fatal gun accidents per year. Since doctors are 9000 times more likely to accidently kill you than a firearm in your home, should doctors be outlawed?


Just some simple questions, I've got an OPEN mind, I'd like to know what you all think.

"What if your mother exercised her choice to have an abortion?"

it would be impossible to have an opinion on the above if that was the case.

might as well ask "would you be angry right now if you were hit and killed by a bus yesterday"

lol

not if the kid was your brother or sister. someone could want one kid and not two. then they may choose to have the abortion.

...

Guns are good.
Liberals are bad.

personally, what really pisses me off is all you murdering masturbaters. do you know how many potential babies you are killing each day as you unload into that kleenex?

I like the way you cleverly use contrived examples. In my field, we call that "lack of charity" towards the opposing view. We also call it sophistry.

The Principle of Charity is basically that the best argument is the one that defeats the strongest version of the opponent's view. If you have to come up with an idiotic version, you haven't successfully argued against anything but that version. So it is in your best interests to concern yourself with a a position that assumes the opponent is not an idiot.

Further, I should point out that counterexamples don't prove much in the case of general principles. The idea of principles is that they are held in part because of the overall effect they have. Of course there will be cases where principles will be tough, but that is true as much for conservative views as liberal ones.

Now, some specific rebuttals...

1. How many criminals can get away with this? If it did happen, one solution to this is tigher security in the prison. Killing the guy isn't the only answer. Sure he's scum, but to kill is wrong-- even when killing a killer.

2. The intruder... I have only twice had someone break into a home I lived in, in 24 years. In neither case was my life in danger. I feel that had there been a gun in our home, I would have been in more danger. Further, I refer you once again to my statement on principles. I don't dislike people having guns because of *my life*, I dislike them because it gives people the power to *kill*.

3. You should note, first, that many liberals are anti-abortion. You can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. If my cousin (I don't have a sister), or girlfriend, or someone close to me wanted to have an abortion, I would advise her strongly not to. I don't think it is right. However, whether a fetus is alive is a slippery slope, and I don't think the government or right-wing Christains should have the power to decide when its murder and when it's birth control. Freedom of choice, because we can't be sure it's alive, and it sure as hell seems like it isn't. Plus, had my mother had an abortion, I would never have been born. Would not bother me any more than if she had used a better brand of condom. :winkwink:

4. I believe in a less powerful federal government. Liberal does not equal Democrat. Do not assume that because in the US, the major liberal party wants large government and the major conservative party wants small government, that left-right equates with libertarian-federalist. It does not, it is just a coincidence.

5. Doctors are there to save lives. All a gun is designed for is ending one. How many lives to guns save, versus doctors? I am guessing your numbers don't stand up so well if you use both positive and negative results of each. That is, assuming they are accurate numbers... statistics can be misleading.

How's that?

A. The reason this is hypothetical is because this would not happen in real life - do you really think a prsioner could start killing the employees of a prison and then be left kill another and then another and then another.

B. Not all Liberals oppose gun ownership, but lets assume that is the case - are you saying that no gun toting conservative has ever been killed in an armed holdup when he has a gun in his drawer right next to his bed? I guess you must because you cannot argue one way and then assume the opposite not to be true.

C. Once again abortion is not only a Liberal issue - and this is just too silly to even argue.

D. Its difficult to judge the actions of thers when you were not there - but it's an issue that is American - you can decide that one for yourself.

E. Doctors are put into a position of making life and death decisions on a day to day basis. You are comparing two different things - apples and oranges. Cops and the military also kill more than the average gun owner - should they also be banned?

Ganja, I have a question for you. I just want to get some perspective...


Are you a conservative, involved in the adult web, and a pot smoker?

Ganja,

Man, I don't know where you got your statistics but you're a lune. If I were to classify myself, the closest classification would be a "libertarian." And libertarians are pretty much anti liberals.

1. 120,000 fatal accidents by doctors a year. Nope. Not even close. You're an idiot if you believe that.
2. 1500 fatal gun accidents a year? Could be, if you include hunting..but to my knowledge there are <20 accidental deaths/year involving children.
3. An inmate who kills people will be killed - no need to have to spend US $2million to have him fried.
4. Attempting to call a liberal a sympathizer with the king of england 225 years ago is making you look like an idiot.

You really should shut your mouth as you're making all of us non-liberals look like retards.

Actually - go fuck yourself. :321GFY

HQ

Im totally corrupt and Just trying to stir up shit.

You don't have to be liberal to be in the adult web business. I'm sure as hell not, and I know many others who aren't as well. The conservatives viewpoint on porn is skewed... they aren't arguing for true conservative ideals, they're arguing for their conservative constituents (most of which are religious). That's how I see it anyway...

Obviously, not all conservatives are against porn... but placed along the continuum, censorship is definitely a more conservative position, especially concerning sexual material. It seems if you are pro-porn but not a liberal, the word is probably "moderate".

You're right. Again, their judgment is being clouded by religion and they aren't fighting for their true ideals. Liberals do the same thing sometimes... they'll feel very strongly, almost in a conservative fashion, about certain topics.

Convicted Murderer - Drug him. Isolate him.
Intruder - Tazer.
Mom - I wouldn't be answering this post so it wouldn't matter.
Loyalist - No. Assumptions are as bad as simplifying much more complicated issues.
Doctors - Apples to Oranges.

and let me add...
Legalize Marijuana.

Its also similar to the logical error of "The Straw Man." You take the most extreme misapplication of your opponent's view and attack it successfully [because it's so extreme as to be perposterous] then claim that the reasonable/mild applications of his logic, by extension, are also invalidated.

:eek7

Why are you posting all of this crap on the board in new topics

GW,
I usually agree with you , but here I must disagree.I am conservative in as much as I preffer ,in general , not having government agencies trying to run my life . A true conservative doesn't want some committee dictating what they can or cant look at . I dont think then that censorship would be more of a conservative position at all.
In real life however , many people seem to be letting other principals override their conservative beliefs.

There is a difference between doctors fatal mistakes and gun accidents. Please consider the fact that doctors are in an occupation that deal with the sick people. It's a difficult job, treating people for illnesses is no easy task. In which case you may find more mistakes being made. To try and draw an analogy between the two is inappropriate at best.

To answer your quesion about Loyalists, Liberals would probably be least likely to be Loyalists. Why? Because unlike you, they didn't want to be part of a government that had absolute control over their lives (like the one in England), which is why the newcomers settled here and set up a new restricted government.

Somebody else already pointed out the shortcomings of your abortion question.

Well...in California...after having killed the CO he would have been placed in Pelican Bay. No more soup for him. Next!

Ever heard of a Louisville Slugger? No more soup for him. Next!

I wouldn't have a sister. No more soup for her. Next!

No, you may not assume anything. No more soup for you. Next!

Yes we should outlaw the 120,000 doctors that are Phillipino's, Indians, and Chinese. No more soup for them. Next!

That is what I think. Pass the soup please? Next!

Ah...but having a liberal amount of guns is not bad.

fuckin liberals, one day you will realize how wrong you are, hopefully BEFORE you completely fuck up the world

Exactly. I wish I remembered the political continuum better, but I THINK regimes like totalitarianism and such are on the left because of their total power and censorship. Fuck, I've probably got this backwards. But anyway, if you think about the basic ideology of conservatives, censorship should be on their list of things to rid of. And right now they actually are somewhat fighting it by allowing children to pray in schools. But at the EXACT same time, they're fighting porn. Total hypocrisy, only being fueled by religious constituents.

I am of the opinion that all politcal parties selectively pick and choose their causes, even when doing so exposes their hypocrisy, which is alive and well.

a liberal amount of guns hehehe nice.

I think you will find that more "guns in the home to protect the owners" are used against them in a break in than in protection.

Think about it;

This guy has broken in and you are facing him with a gun, will you shoot and risk going to jail?

Or will he take your gun and shoot you, cos he knows this is how he escapes going to jail?

I think you would hesitate for all your big words and then he has you. Get a good securiity systema and a dog, if you really want to be safe. When I lived in my London studio, I had a door entry system that "beeped" when anyone walked through the door, sensor alarms, a big dog lead and choker and a dogs food bowl in the corner. He was "out back cos he don't like strangers"

NEVER had a break in.

If necessary, I would have no problem shooting him. "Risking a jail sentence" or protecting my family thoroughly... I don't have to think too hard about that one.

First of all, he wouldn't get a chance to murder again after the prison guard, he'd be thrown into solitary confinement for life...

Get the right information before you start making stupid statements like that.

People who claim to use guns for self protection are pathetic. I think guns are fine for target practice and hunting but the argument that it will protect you is completely bogus.

Do you think the criminal with a gun is going to wait for you to get your gun in self defense before he pops a cap into the back of your head? No, he won't.

Do you think that people commonly find themselves protecting their house from break-ins using guns? No, they don't.

Is their something inherently wrong with societies that do not allow citizens to use guns? (Germany, Canada etc.)? They have lower crime rates in those countries.

Exactly. What world does he live in? It would serve him better to use a slightly plausable scenario.

Americans laugh at Canada because of the Liberals...
Its just as fucked up as the three strikes law in California. If you're convicted on three seperate occasions of stealing bikes, you get 25 to life in prison. Now that is fucked up.

When the voters, voted on the three strikes law, the majority of voters thought that the three strikes pertained to crimes of violence, or percieved crimes of violence (such as using a gun in a holdup even though actual violence did not occur). It was portrayed that way in the political ads on TV and even though I read the referendum I also thought that it pertained to crimes of violence.

The law is screwed up and the legislature either has or is supposed to make some adjustments. It will still be that committing three felonies you are still out.

When analyzed that is not so outrageous. It sounds somewhat outrageous if a person had stolen a bike on three separate occasions and gets twenty-five to life, for stealing three bikes.

The fact is, depending upon the value of the bike (some bikes are very expensive) stealing a bike can be a felony. Another fact is that most thieves (with half a brain) commit multiple crimes before being caught, so the bike thief may have stolen thirty bikes or three hundred bikes before being caught. The fact is the bike thief is a predator, and for his next act; who knows what he may do.

So the three strikes law may not be as outrageous as you imply.

Lock em up!

Actually I totally oppose jails. If you are going to put someone in jail why wouldn't you put him to work or drop him off in Afganistan or something? Why am I spending my money on someone that is gonna be useless to society for those years. Lif in prison? Do something with those people or kill 'em. What's the point of holding a healthy man in a cell? There's homes to build. Optical fiber to lay. Oranges to pick. HP tech support to give. (instead of sending it overseas.)

I agree that the Judicial system has got to get a little more accurate when it comes to making sure the person actually did the crime but paying up to $60,000 per prisoner is not something I'm willing to do anymore. Make 'em work or if the crime was bad enough and it can be proven get rid of em!

I guess you can see I'm not a liberal.

I agree, make them work instead of providing them with all the services and amenities many people outside of prison struggle to obtain. However, I don't even think their is room for 'liberals' or 'conservatives' in the discussion. I don't see why these overused terms have to be used. They're used primarily to pigeon-hole people.

I would consider myself more of a liberal than a conservative, but that really doesn't mean much on its own.

is this real? i don't believe this actually happened. it sounds like utter frogshit. anyhow are you suggesting that a government should create legislation based on a single scenario? it's one thing to say "this guy is a bastard and deserves to die", it is another to actually legislate such punishment.

here's another scenario:
A man is convicted of a crime. He is executed. It is later found that he did not commit the crime and was completely innocent.

one of the big problems with the death penalty is that courts (and the Einsteins in the jury) get it wrong...

The majority of Americans are moderates (middle of the road) and I consider myself to be a moderate, but you seldom hear the term applied, it is usually liberal or conservative terms that are applied.

Liberals or conservatives are not usually that far apart on the spectrum anyhow, it is the ultra liberals and ultra conservatives that are really at odds.

I don't think that has much to do with liberal/conservative.. im guessing in america I would be a liberal.. (though australian liberals are the conservatives) and i'd agree with that statement... same with work for the dole.

if it's proved conclusively though...