• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 49
    Like Tree18Likes

    Thread: We need hammer control NOW!!!

    1. #1
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031

      We need hammer control NOW!!!

      People don't kill people. Hammers kill people!!!!

      Marissa Devault: The Hammer Killing Case | HLNtv.com

      FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

      "For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs."
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    2. #2
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      <s><span class='glow_9ACD32'>DeletePlease</span></s>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2010
      Posts
      2,685
      Likes
      2883
      DJ Entries
      12
      I think we can all agree that hammers aren't a problem...

      ... it's those semi-automatic hammers that should be banned.

    3. #3
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Well, I think all hammers are bad because some hammers have decided to kill people, but the semi-automatic ones are especially immoral creatures. Requiring a background check and a three day waiting period are what we need because they are the next steps toward all out banning of hammers. Banning hammers will get them off the streets just like banning heroin and cocaine got those off the streets. Then criminals won't be able to kill anybody any more.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    4. #4
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3041
      DJ Entries
      6
      This doesn't make you come across as intelligible, you know that right?
      Drawing comparisons between a gun and a hammer (let along drugs) is absolutely absurd. Any heavy moderately sized object can be used a a blunt force weapon.

      Guns aren't the cause of the problem, but they are part of it. There are too many guns in circulation in the USA, it's too easy to get hold of them. And the only argument you can come up with is that government might turn totalitarian one day.
      juroara and StephL like this.

    5. #5
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      You're right, all weapon controls are inherently absurd.

      Legislation against carrying fertiliser bombs or dirty nukes around in public is also completely unnecessary.
      StephL likes this.

    6. #6
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by dutchraptor View Post
      This doesn't make you come across as intelligible, you know that right?
      Drawing comparisons between a gun and a hammer (let along drugs) is absolutely absurd. Any heavy moderately sized object can be used a a blunt force weapon.

      Guns aren't the cause of the problem, but they are part of it. There are too many guns in circulation in the USA, it's too easy to get hold of them. And the only argument you can come up with is that government might turn totalitarian one day.
      Ha ha, what the Hell? My arguments against gun control go way beyond the need to be prepared for possible future of tyranny, but that too is an issue. Do you assume that the United States has magical automatic protection against going totalitarian like so many other countries have? The parallel between drugs and weapons here is that banning them only affects people who give a shit about the law. Can you explain how banning guns or hammers would stop the underground market? It wouldn't. Hammers and guns are small, simple weapons that cannot be taken off the underground market without having a police state. Banning them would just give the bad guys an advantage. I know lots of stories of good people defending themselves with guns. My father stopped two burglars with a gun when my mother and sister were in the house. Under your ideal system, my dad wouldn't have had a gun but the burglars would have. What a great idea!

      So, should we ban hammers? Why or why not?

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      You're right, all weapon controls are inherently absurd.

      Legislation against carrying fertiliser bombs or dirty nukes around in public is also completely unnecessary.
      Bombs are much easier to catch people with, and there is not a major market for them. The underground bomb market can actually be controlled to a significant extent, but even that isn't majorly controllable. The bigger issue is the assholes who want to bomb stuff. We concentrate much more on them than their weapons. That is a rational approach.

      Explain how criminals give a shit about gun laws. Also, should we ban hammers? Why or why not? Hammers kill!!!

      gun laws.jpg
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    7. #7
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      <s><span class='glow_9ACD32'>DeletePlease</span></s>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2010
      Posts
      2,685
      Likes
      2883
      DJ Entries
      12
      Quote Originally Posted by dutchraptor View Post
      Guns aren't the cause of the problem, but they are part of it.
      1. Media sensationalism that leads to the glorification and near-celebrity status of crazed gunmen
      2. Lack of support for the mentally ill
      3. A culture of confrontation
      4. Mistrust of local (and federal) authorities
      5. A "gun culture" born out of points 3 and 4.

      These are the issues that need to be addressed if gun violence is to be reduced. There aren't nearly as many guns in circulation here in Canada, but it's still incredibly easy to get your hands on one. But we don't have nearly as many mass shootings (can't think of any in the last couple years), because we're not faced with problems 1-5 (at least not much).
      Last edited by GavinGill; 03-17-2014 at 07:05 PM.
      StephL likes this.

    8. #8
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Our gun violence would drastically shrink if we would end the war on drugs. Gang fighting for turf is a big time reason for gun violence. When alcohol prohibition ended, gun violence went way down, but it went way back up again when weed was banned. It went really bad when Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971. Also, the gang problem we have now, which is a much bigger version of the gang problem we had during alcohol prohibition, rubs off on the rest of society. Drug dealers have money and power, and that makes other people think it's cool to be "gangsta." With that image comes acting like a hard ass all the time, and violence is part of that. Violence is very glamorized by the gangster culture that is so out of hand because of the prohibition of tons of drugs.
      StephL likes this.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    9. #9
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3041
      DJ Entries
      6
      Quote Originally Posted by GavinGill View Post
      1. Media sensationalism that leads to the glorification and near-celebrity status of crazed gunmen
      2. Lack of support for the mentally ill
      3. A culture of confrontation
      4. Mistrust of local (and federal) authorities
      5. A "gun culture" born out of points 3 and 4.

      These are the issues that need to be addressed if gun violence is to be reduced. There aren't nearly as many guns in circulation here in Canada, but it's still incredibly easy to get your hands on one. But we don't have nearly as many mass shootings (can't think of any in the last couple years), because we're not faced with problems 1-5 (at least not much).
      Completely right, but none of that validates gun ownership. Guns should be regulated (not banned, nothing good comes from things that are banned), laws should be established that prohibits anything but the most basic gun possible.

      Education and medical care for all is definitely the long term solution, as it always is. For now a temporary solution involving stricter surveillance might actually work. The middle step of a reform is always the toughest, for things to change, the people must adapt.

    10. #10
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Dutchraptor, do you think you can answer my questions?
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    11. #11
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Bombs are much easier to catch people with, and there is not a major market for them. The underground bomb market can actually be controlled to a significant extent, but even that isn't majorly controllable. The bigger issue is the assholes who want to bomb stuff. We concentrate much more on them than their weapons. That is a rational approach.
      I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?

    12. #12
      Banned
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      Gender
      Posts
      1,590
      Likes
      521
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?
      I'll answer this.

      First let's assume that there's no radiation leaking out of the briefcase. So no one is being injured by radiation. The only injuries would occur in the event of an explosion. We need to make this assumption because otherwise I would agree with you, as the briefcase is harming people just by existing (radiation).

      But assuming you're not dropping a trail of fallout behind you, I would say no. It should not be illegal. Setting off a bomb should be illegal, but carrying one doesn't hurt anyone. By your reasoning, driving a car should be illegal too, because it could potentially run people over. Or imagine an 18 wheeler. That thing could kill lots of people. How about an airplane? Some jihadists have already shown us how dangerous they can be.

      And consider someone who works in a quarry. They use explosives every day. Presumably those explosives need to be transported from somewhere to the detonation site. Therefore, someone, at some point, has to be carrying a bomb, or something that could easily become a bomb. Yes, they have a license from some government somewhere, but how does a license alter the physical reality that a person is carrying a bomb?
      Last edited by cmind; 03-18-2014 at 02:45 AM.

    13. #13
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by cmind View Post
      I'll answer this.

      First let's assume that there's no radiation leaking out of the briefcase. So no one is being injured by radiation. The only injuries would occur in the event of an explosion. We need to make this assumption because otherwise I would agree with you, as the briefcase is harming people just by existing (radiation).

      But assuming you're not dropping a trail of fallout behind you, I would say no. It should not be illegal. Setting off a bomb should be illegal, but carrying one doesn't hurt anyone. By your reasoning, driving a car should be illegal too, because it could potentially run people over. Or imagine an 18 wheeler. That thing could kill lots of people. How about an airplane? Some jihadists have already shown us how dangerous they can be.
      I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."

      Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.

      Quote Originally Posted by cmind
      And consider someone who works in a quarry. They use explosives every day. Presumably those explosives need to be transported from somewhere to the detonation site. Therefore, someone, at some point, has to be carrying a bomb, or something that could easily become a bomb. Yes, they have a license from some government somewhere, but how does a license alter the physical reality that a person is carrying a bomb?
      Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    14. #14
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by cmind View Post
      I'll answer this.

      First let's assume that there's no radiation leaking out of the briefcase. So no one is being injured by radiation. The only injuries would occur in the event of an explosion. We need to make this assumption because otherwise I would agree with you, as the briefcase is harming people just by existing (radiation).

      But assuming you're not dropping a trail of fallout behind you, I would say no. It should not be illegal. Setting off a bomb should be illegal, but carrying one doesn't hurt anyone. By your reasoning, driving a car should be illegal too, because it could potentially run people over. Or imagine an 18 wheeler. That thing could kill lots of people. How about an airplane? Some jihadists have already shown us how dangerous they can be.
      I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."

      Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.

      Quote Originally Posted by cmind
      And consider someone who works in a quarry. They use explosives every day. Presumably those explosives need to be transported from somewhere to the detonation site. Therefore, someone, at some point, has to be carrying a bomb, or something that could easily become a bomb. Yes, they have a license from some government somewhere, but how does a license alter the physical reality that a person is carrying a bomb?
      Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes. Explosives used in quarries are shipped in separate parts as well. TNT on one train, detonator(s) on another, for instance.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    15. #15
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?
      It should. Those are actually controllable, for the reasons I stated. They also do not serve self-defense purposes, and they don't qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment. Do you think we should ban hammers?

      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."

      Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.



      Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes. Explosives used in quarries are shipped in separate parts as well. TNT on one train, detonator(s) on another, for instance.
      When did you stop being an anarchist? You are arguing for laws now. I believe in laws too, but you used to say we shouldn't even have a government.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    16. #16
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      When did you stop being an anarchist? You are arguing for laws now. I believe in laws too, but you used to say we shouldn't even have a government.
      There's nothing about anarchism that says briefcase nukes should be permissible. Not the kind of anarchism that I'd advocate, anyway. Anarchy does not equal anomie, and if I did, I wouldn't be an anarchist.

      To answer your question, I came to the conclusion that getting rid of the state wholesale does not always yield immediate benefits with regard to increasing or maintaining liberties. I said in the other thread that I am pro-liberty before I am anti-state. I will support the argument that the government should legalize gay marriage before supporting the argument that the state should not even be involved in marriage, for example.

      If a maximally free society is one where the state doesn't exist, I will advocate for that system. If a maximally free society is one where the state still exists, but is minimal, I will advocate for that system. I don't know which one is true.

      Whether all of that still makes me a non-anarchist is unclear. I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society, so I believe I still am an anarchist. If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.

      Besides, from a purely stylistic standpoint, purist anarchists never get anywhere in the debates I've seen (and been part of). If we argue about gun control or gay marriage, all they ever say is "get rid of the state, presto, problem solved." That's not feasible right now, so they achieve no benefits by arguing in that manner.
      Last edited by BLUELINE976; 03-18-2014 at 05:00 AM.
      StephL likes this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    17. #17
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Then, who should the body of authority with a rule against briefcase nukes be? What type of rule would you like, if not a government rule? Wouldn't the body with a rule against briefcase nukes qualify as a government?

      What do you think of gun control and hammer control?
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    18. #18
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Then, who should the body of authority with a rule against briefcase nukes be? What type of rule would you like, if not a government rule? Wouldn't the body with a rule against briefcase nukes qualify as a government?
      It doesn't matter to me what kind of system it is, as long as it does it effectively. If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.

      What do you think of gun control and hammer control?
      Hammer control is absurd, gun control is often ineffective and unethical.

      I dig this guy's videos on gun control:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJf3aoR7MTo

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh90sEYltV8
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    19. #19
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      It doesn't matter to me what kind of system it is, as long as it does it effectively. If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.
      You just straight up admitted that you are not really an anarchist. I think we can move on now.


      "Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World" Liberty Crier

      http://libertycrier.com/why-switzerl...-in-the-world/

      "The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols."
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-18-2014 at 09:05 AM.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    20. #20
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      It should. Those are actually controllable, for the reasons I stated. They also do not serve self-defense purposes, and they don't qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment. Do you think we should ban hammers?
      If you actually look at your original argument, you're now just engaging in special pleading. No, I don't think hammers should be banned. Carpenters need to use them. Or maybe somebody just has a DIY hobby or hammer-collecting hobby. Presumably you concur that these are good reasons for allowing the transportation of hammers in public. And yet these reasons have nothing to do with self-defence. So when you object to transporting bombs on the grounds that they can't be used for self-defence, that's an incoherent argument. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to carry hammers or anything else around other than self-defence. Maybe somebody has a bomb hobby. Maybe someone likes to build nuclear reactors. The fact is that your objection to people carrying bombs is currently inconsistent. Whether or not it's easy to hide something is also just special pleading again. This was never important for your analogy. People should be allowed to carry hammers because they are free to do so, not because hammers are easy to hide - that's a nonsensical reason. And what if the hammer wasn't easy to hide? What if it was big and shiny? Obviously this should make no difference. So again it is inconsistent to reject the carrying of bombs on the grounds that bombs are "hard to hide". And anyway, what about bombs which aren't? Hiding a fertiliser bomb in the boot of your car is easy. Based on your current justifications, fertiliser bombs in the boots of cars shouldn't be illegal. And yet presumably you don't actually think that.

      Try to come up with some consistent reasons why carrying hammers or guns should be legal, but not bombs.

    21. #21
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Hammers can't be used for self-defense? Do you want to make a bet on that?

      My point was that bombs can be successfully controlled for multiple reasons (and are) and that none of the arguments for gun legality apply to them. Size is just one factor in the bigger picture of that. You fallaciously assumed I was saying that any one part of that picture can work as a full justification for bomb illegality. The general arguments for gun legality do apply to hammers but do not apply to bombs.

      Guns can be used for more than self-defense also. They can be used for hunting, for shooting targets, as props in movies and plays, as hammers, and for other things.

      With that in mind, try to consistently justify why hammers should be legal and guns should not.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-18-2014 at 08:36 PM.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    22. #22
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      You just straight up admitted that you are not really an anarchist. I think we can move on now.
      Please read my posts in the context of the point I was trying to get across. I very clearly previously said:

      I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society[.]

      But I am not certain in that. I very clearly express my uncertainty, as one should, and reiterate my position of being pro-liberty before anti-state.

      If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.

      I think my posts are being written clearly so if you could spend a little more time trying to understand what I'm saying, this discussion will go more smoothly. I'd rather not have to repeat myself because you took a single snippet of my post and took it for the whole thing.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    23. #23
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society.

      But I am not certain in that.
      Then you are not an anarchist.

      https://www.google.com/#q=anarchist+definition&safe=off

      an·ar·chist
      ˈanərkist/
      noun
      noun: anarchist; plural noun: anarchists

      1.
      a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.

      Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

      an·ar·chy

      1
      a : absence of government
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    24. #24
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      If I understand you correctly, in order to align oneself with a particular point of view, we have to have absolute certainty that it is true? Is that what you're saying?
      dutchraptor likes this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    25. #25
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      If I understand you correctly, in order to align oneself with a particular point of view, we have to have absolute certainty that it is true? Is that what you're saying?
      No, but you have to believe it. You are on the fence, and you said you don't care if the state exists and don't care if it tells people what to do. Anarchists care if the state exists and want it not to.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 86
      Last Post: 01-29-2013, 02:20 AM
    2. Replies: 3
      Last Post: 03-12-2011, 05:34 AM
    3. Tell me about the Valve Hammer Editor
      By The Tao in forum Tech Talk
      Replies: 9
      Last Post: 04-16-2008, 03:05 AM
    4. Don't tap on your mouth with a hammer.
      By Lseadragon in forum Senseless Banter
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: 01-08-2008, 07:23 AM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •