SaMx
Member
exactly. if this wasn't true then the analogy would not be valid. But it is true.
Ban rocks to stop vandalism?
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
awalkalongmingocreek:
Flawed a bit though it may be, but the meaning is pretty clear...to all except you, apparently.
Flawed a bit though it may be, but the meaning is pretty clear...to all except you, apparently.
SaMx
Member
actually, I like the analogy more and more.
There are a nearly infinite number of things that can be used to break a window.
Rocks are not the only things.
There are a nearly infinite number of things that can be used to kill a person.
Guns are not the only things.
Furthermore, can you keep rocks out of the hands of vandals?
Can you keep weapons out of the hands of murderers?
There are a nearly infinite number of things that can be used to break a window.
Rocks are not the only things.
There are a nearly infinite number of things that can be used to kill a person.
Guns are not the only things.
Furthermore, can you keep rocks out of the hands of vandals?
Can you keep weapons out of the hands of murderers?
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Mssr. Mingocreek's account has been suspended.
He made this statement:
To which I asked responded by asking this:
He failed to answer my query, despite the fact that I repeatedly asked him to address the question.
Nor did he offer up any justification for why firearms should be singled out amongst all of the potential weapons that surround us each and every day.
Seems to me that a troll engages in the following behavior:
1) Failing to address critiques or questions about his/her position.
2) Accuses his opponents of projecting their shortcomings on him. (Which is quite the opposite, in light of point 1.)
3) Coming to a forum with his mind already made up, and then accusing us of being close-minded for not immediately changing our positions.
4) Jumping up on the cross about his imminent banishment, and claiming that it would somehow prove his point.
5) Continually re-framing terms of the debate in order to cast his opponents as the worst sort of people.
In closing, allow me to offer up a quote to illustrate the extent of his "open-mindedness":
I'll just let that quote speak for itself.
He made this statement:
To which I asked responded by asking this:
He failed to answer my query, despite the fact that I repeatedly asked him to address the question.
Nor did he offer up any justification for why firearms should be singled out amongst all of the potential weapons that surround us each and every day.
Seems to me that a troll engages in the following behavior:
1) Failing to address critiques or questions about his/her position.
2) Accuses his opponents of projecting their shortcomings on him. (Which is quite the opposite, in light of point 1.)
3) Coming to a forum with his mind already made up, and then accusing us of being close-minded for not immediately changing our positions.
4) Jumping up on the cross about his imminent banishment, and claiming that it would somehow prove his point.
5) Continually re-framing terms of the debate in order to cast his opponents as the worst sort of people.
In closing, allow me to offer up a quote to illustrate the extent of his "open-mindedness":
I'll just let that quote speak for itself.
Monty Python springs to mind in reading this one:
Other Man:
Look, if I "argue" with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Man:
Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
Other Man:
Yes it is!
Man:
No it isn't!
Other Man:
Yes it is!
Man:
No it isn't!
Other Man:
Yes it is!
Man:
No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Other Man:
It is NOT!
At any rate, there are lots of things going on here:
1. Call him what you will - "troll" or whatever - this guy is not answering direct questions, and not debating with clear language. Personally, I won't waste time even trying to argue his points without reciprocity.
2. His stated experiment is not in keeping with the goals of the board - I don't think Oleg ever intended for THR to be a social experiment, open to any experimenter to do with it he pleases. The goals are to promote RKBA and keep things on a moral high ground. Statements made implying that another poster is attacking the flawed logic due to "personal shortcomings," in my mind, are clearly NOT "High Road."
3. To the point at hand, murder is mala per se, and vandalism is mala prohibita, so I guess, literally speaking, Oleg's poster is not apples to apples, but that's a quibble. The analogy is a good one even if it is not 100% accurate.
4. A weapon is a type of tool (see above post on definitions), and contrary to what some "believe," definitions matter when you're attempting to debate. We can stipulate any definitions we choose for the matter about which we're debating, but we don't generally do that, since there are perfectly good dictionaries out there that shortcut the tedium of endless stipulations.
I would say that banning him proves only that he's not abiding by the rules and spirit of Oleg's implementation TheHighRoad.org, and is not any kind of proof that pro-gun people can't argue. Indeed, I would suggest that four-plus pages of attempts to draw out the argument directly show the amount of patience that the moderators have when dealing with someone who clearly states their opposition to the majority view.
Thanks for playing the game. It was entertaining for moment, but ultimately it's tiresome.
Other Man:
Look, if I "argue" with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Man:
Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
Other Man:
Yes it is!
Man:
No it isn't!
Other Man:
Yes it is!
Man:
No it isn't!
Other Man:
Yes it is!
Man:
No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Other Man:
It is NOT!
At any rate, there are lots of things going on here:
1. Call him what you will - "troll" or whatever - this guy is not answering direct questions, and not debating with clear language. Personally, I won't waste time even trying to argue his points without reciprocity.
2. His stated experiment is not in keeping with the goals of the board - I don't think Oleg ever intended for THR to be a social experiment, open to any experimenter to do with it he pleases. The goals are to promote RKBA and keep things on a moral high ground. Statements made implying that another poster is attacking the flawed logic due to "personal shortcomings," in my mind, are clearly NOT "High Road."
3. To the point at hand, murder is mala per se, and vandalism is mala prohibita, so I guess, literally speaking, Oleg's poster is not apples to apples, but that's a quibble. The analogy is a good one even if it is not 100% accurate.
4. A weapon is a type of tool (see above post on definitions), and contrary to what some "believe," definitions matter when you're attempting to debate. We can stipulate any definitions we choose for the matter about which we're debating, but we don't generally do that, since there are perfectly good dictionaries out there that shortcut the tedium of endless stipulations.
I would say that banning him proves only that he's not abiding by the rules and spirit of Oleg's implementation TheHighRoad.org, and is not any kind of proof that pro-gun people can't argue. Indeed, I would suggest that four-plus pages of attempts to draw out the argument directly show the amount of patience that the moderators have when dealing with someone who clearly states their opposition to the majority view.
Thanks for playing the game. It was entertaining for moment, but ultimately it's tiresome.
armoredman
Member
Oleg, let me apologize if any of my commentary was less than High Road. I felt as if I was talking to an inmate.
Red Dragon
Member
Here is an example of thought alone moving an object.
Thought alone moves limbs. Limbs are objects and nothing more. One thinks, and that thought moves the hand which does the task that the thought wishes to be carried out. Without thought limbs are inanimate. To further prove that point, look at a person who is in a persistant vegatative state. Their brain is dead so their body doesn't move. This proves that the brain and thought itself is a weapon. It is the same for a weapon of any sort. No object is inherently good or evil. It is the brain and thought that determines whether it can be used for good or evil. So just as the gun fires the bullet, the finger fires the gun, and the thought controls the finger.
CNYCacher
Member
awalkalongmingocreek said:
Around here, we are all about reducing the number of victims. I am no longer a victim. . . how about you?
Mantua
Member
Awalk, i don't think i follow your thinking. You say there are no weaponless murders. Then why is there a problem with one particular weapon above all others?
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I'm afraid he won't be able to respond to you.
That is, assuming he would have in the first place.
That is, assuming he would have in the first place.
armoredman
Member
You know, you are right.
I refuse to honor the honorless who cannot respect the original hypothesis and instead manufacture arguement out of thin air. With regard to the original "poster"
, "bullets" are a way of committing murder. Rocks are a way of committing vandalism. It is a perfect analogy in that banning either is nigh impossible and once you have nothing will change because there are countless other ways to murder or break windows. Or feed trolls...Edit. I see there is no more Mr. troll. Sad, this was one of the more surreally entertaining threads in a while.
Last edited:
Charles W Webb
Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 72
The brain is what tells the finger to pull the trigger, not the weapon. Prove me wrong. Yes you can murder with more then your hands, vandalize with more then rocks but only if you decide to.
The rock doesn't take over your mind and make you throw it, nor does the firearm make you want to kill. Your mind is what makes you do it.
Had to get that in there before it got locked ^^
P.S. Great poster Oleg.
The rock doesn't take over your mind and make you throw it, nor does the firearm make you want to kill. Your mind is what makes you do it.
Had to get that in there before it got locked ^^
P.S. Great poster Oleg.
Nomad101bc
Member
Why make it a philosophical arguement when statisticaly you're wrong as well. Concealed carry has reduced crime in every single state it has been implemented in and no state has made any attempts to repeal it. Yes concealed carry and castle doctrine are actaul detterants to criminals. F.Y.I. you are no martyr simply a severly misguided soul who has ignored everyones rebuttles. You're lucky we still pay you the respect of a response since you have not returned the favor!
tkendrick
Member
Doesn't this thread belong under political....oh, yeah, you banned that, right?
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
No, it is a property crime and thus damaging to real people.
BHPshooter
Member
My, my... how quickly the lust for nonviolence at any cost turns violent.
This guy doesn't hate evil, he hates the tools that evil people use. This indicates a serious inability to take responsibility for one's own actions, and a projection of this issue onto others.
Other quotes from Creek:
Simply saying something does not make it so. He argues a position based on emotion and calls the pro-gun position illogical, all without any attempt to cite sources. The fact that guns are valuable defensive tools -- that's what it is, a fact -- which many of the members of THR can prove through firsthand experience is called an illusion. What is illusory about it, then? Is the fact that many of us here are alive and well because of these tools an illusion?
Complete non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with the argument that guns are not useful defensive tools.
Further, so what???
Water, the most effective weapon against thirst, is also the most effective substance for drowning.
Food, the most effective weapon against hunger, is also the most common cause of choking deaths.
Everything can be used for good or evil. That has exactly squat to do with the tool used and everything to do with the user.
- And that is exactly why they are useful defensive tools -- they are the most effective way to get a determined foe to stop what s/he is doing. This also erroneously assumes that harming a violent attacker is in any way immoral or wrong.
- How so? None of my guns have ever been used in an act of murder. This is like saying, "It is wrong to claim that people are decent, when people are present for 100% of murders." I'm gonna get a pet parakeet, and I'm going to teach it to say, "Guns are inanimate, people are the moral agents." That way, maybe I won't be the one sounding like a parrot.
- This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. I can't even comment on an argument when the sentence hardly qualifies as English.
- Non-sequitur, though it is a fact -- and one which further exonerates the hardware, again bringing responsibility firmly down on the shoulders of the user.
The poster is lost in a maze of bad logic, and furthermore, is a hypocrite. Anyone who preaches nonviolence while hoping for the violent demise of his enemies suffers from a forked tongue.
Wes
XD Fan
Member
What a thread!
Stevie-Ray
Member
Nonsense. Weaponless murders have been mentioned several times in this thread. In my job as an industrial electrician, I used to have to plan pipe runs by scouring the building to see if the run could be supported by beams, needed a trapeze, etc. At times this took half the day. Bosses were always ecstatic when we had a solid plan. It didn't need tools, measurement devices, or even pencils. The planning was always in the mind. We get paid to WORK. Coming up with a good plan was WORK to our bosses. The plan was completed, therefore WORK was completed without tools.
Rudy Kohn
Member
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a thread build up this quickly.
I had a couple of ideas for responses, but I didn't think they were quite High Road enough, so I tried to put something together that was.
I kind of feel bad that we had to play into his hands. I suppose if we had simply ignored him, he could have made moderating this forum a living hell. (I choose my words carefully--not necessarily would, but could)
Still, I hope anyone looking over this thread in the future notes a few things:
1. He argues guns should be banned, though he admits everything can be (is?) a weapon.
--So, apparently, guns are innately weapons, but other potential weapons are not. What determines when hands are a weapon? When they are used as such? Why doesn't this apply to guns?
2. He argues that a mind has never caused harm.
--This doesn't jibe well with 1. Guns, as well as other potential weapons have many nonweapon uses. Yet, it appears from his definitions that what makes an object into a weapon is the intent of its user. He seems to deliberately single out guns as bad, most probably to get a rise out of us, as part of his "experiment." (Note that social experimentation is not what THR is for, as was previously stated.) Also note that depraved indifference is a means by which someone can be killed--not willful deprivation of life's necessities, only depraved indifference. I also am reminded of the character Bishop from Aliens, who is unable to "by omission of action allow to be harmed [a human being]." (emphasis mine, and I think I got that quote right) Or, put another way, if one could save someone else's life without endangering his own, willful inaction would be a weapon, by his definition.
3. He provides no reasonable options. By his own admission, bare hands are (can be? His definitions make it difficult.) weapons, yet he must not support their ban. Does he support the banning of hands used as weapons? Is that not already the case? (The same for guns...)
--This seems to be a common fault these days. It has become common to speak out "against" all kinds of things, but rarely is a constructive solution to a problem promoted. Nihilism is rarely a good solution.
4. He threadjacked a discussion about a photograph to further his own philosophical agenda.
--Starting with what, as far as I can see, was an unsubstantiated criticism of the photograph, he took our defensive responses and rode us for four pages. He claimed the analogy was invalid, and basically took control of the thread.
(Oleg, good photo, by the way.)
Perhaps his discussion would have been more welcome in a thread without an already well-determined topic, but in this thread it was essentially off-topic.
-----------
He will probably be bragging to friends how he got himself thrown out of what he will probably call a "gun nut forum," and how we attacked him "ad hominem" and then banned him. For anyone reading this thread on his suggestion, I advise you to consider a little the nature of his actions, as well as of our responses. I think we gave him a fair shake.
Sorry for the long post everybody.
Rudy
I had a couple of ideas for responses, but I didn't think they were quite High Road enough, so I tried to put something together that was.
I kind of feel bad that we had to play into his hands. I suppose if we had simply ignored him, he could have made moderating this forum a living hell. (I choose my words carefully--not necessarily would, but could)
Still, I hope anyone looking over this thread in the future notes a few things:
1. He argues guns should be banned, though he admits everything can be (is?) a weapon.
--So, apparently, guns are innately weapons, but other potential weapons are not. What determines when hands are a weapon? When they are used as such? Why doesn't this apply to guns?
2. He argues that a mind has never caused harm.
--This doesn't jibe well with 1. Guns, as well as other potential weapons have many nonweapon uses. Yet, it appears from his definitions that what makes an object into a weapon is the intent of its user. He seems to deliberately single out guns as bad, most probably to get a rise out of us, as part of his "experiment." (Note that social experimentation is not what THR is for, as was previously stated.) Also note that depraved indifference is a means by which someone can be killed--not willful deprivation of life's necessities, only depraved indifference. I also am reminded of the character Bishop from Aliens, who is unable to "by omission of action allow to be harmed [a human being]." (emphasis mine, and I think I got that quote right) Or, put another way, if one could save someone else's life without endangering his own, willful inaction would be a weapon, by his definition.
3. He provides no reasonable options. By his own admission, bare hands are (can be? His definitions make it difficult.) weapons, yet he must not support their ban. Does he support the banning of hands used as weapons? Is that not already the case? (The same for guns...)
--This seems to be a common fault these days. It has become common to speak out "against" all kinds of things, but rarely is a constructive solution to a problem promoted. Nihilism is rarely a good solution.
4. He threadjacked a discussion about a photograph to further his own philosophical agenda.
--Starting with what, as far as I can see, was an unsubstantiated criticism of the photograph, he took our defensive responses and rode us for four pages. He claimed the analogy was invalid, and basically took control of the thread.
(Oleg, good photo, by the way.)
Perhaps his discussion would have been more welcome in a thread without an already well-determined topic, but in this thread it was essentially off-topic.
-----------
He will probably be bragging to friends how he got himself thrown out of what he will probably call a "gun nut forum," and how we attacked him "ad hominem" and then banned him. For anyone reading this thread on his suggestion, I advise you to consider a little the nature of his actions, as well as of our responses. I think we gave him a fair shake.
Sorry for the long post everybody.
Rudy
Elm Creek Smith
Member
About awalkalongmingocreek
Sorry, guys. This person infests the Yahoo! Gun Control Board and posted there that he was going to register here for the express purpose of getting banned without calling anyone names to prove that no moderated gun board is open to debate. He has now claimed the "experiment" was successful. Of course, you have seen his debating skills in action. He is now denigrating this board and misstating the reasons for his banishment. This is nothing new to those of us who visit the other board, but I'm sorry you had to be subjected to it.
By the bye, I liked the poster.
I remain,
Your humble servant,
Elm Creek Smith AKA wardog_6
Sorry, guys. This person infests the Yahoo! Gun Control Board and posted there that he was going to register here for the express purpose of getting banned without calling anyone names to prove that no moderated gun board is open to debate. He has now claimed the "experiment" was successful. Of course, you have seen his debating skills in action. He is now denigrating this board and misstating the reasons for his banishment. This is nothing new to those of us who visit the other board, but I'm sorry you had to be subjected to it.
By the bye, I liked the poster.
I remain,
Your humble servant,
Elm Creek Smith AKA wardog_6
Steeragemate
Member
Met mingo!
Howdy folks! I see you met 'mingo' (awalkalongmingocreek)! He's a real piece of work from the gun control board on Yahoo. He ignores any and all reputably sourced facts while constantly repeating his 'script' endlessly. He admittedly drives a “junker truck” while admonishing everyone else for not reducing their ‘carbon footprint’! He’s a cookie-cutter character of what you no doubt call ‘trolls’.
He posted about this ‘experiment’ here over on Yahoo and I told him he wouldn’t last an hour! He came here looking to be banned (not the first debate board he’s been banned from) and that’s exactly what he accomplished. He posted your link so I came to see and I told him I saw that he was welcomed with respect and was treated respectfully until he began his normal abrasive and disrespectful posting. He tried to deny it.
Anyway, Yahoo is a zoo with the “Swedish Princess” a dozen or so multi ID’s for a clown we call “richie(s)” and some real, as you say, trolls. Used to be some really decent folks there, pro and anti gunners and real debate was fun. Now mingo, the princess and all the richie(s) are basically comic relief.
So now you know a little more about mingo!!!
Matey
Howdy folks! I see you met 'mingo' (awalkalongmingocreek)! He's a real piece of work from the gun control board on Yahoo. He ignores any and all reputably sourced facts while constantly repeating his 'script' endlessly. He admittedly drives a “junker truck” while admonishing everyone else for not reducing their ‘carbon footprint’! He’s a cookie-cutter character of what you no doubt call ‘trolls’.
He posted about this ‘experiment’ here over on Yahoo and I told him he wouldn’t last an hour! He came here looking to be banned (not the first debate board he’s been banned from) and that’s exactly what he accomplished. He posted your link so I came to see and I told him I saw that he was welcomed with respect and was treated respectfully until he began his normal abrasive and disrespectful posting. He tried to deny it.
Anyway, Yahoo is a zoo with the “Swedish Princess” a dozen or so multi ID’s for a clown we call “richie(s)” and some real, as you say, trolls. Used to be some really decent folks there, pro and anti gunners and real debate was fun. Now mingo, the princess and all the richie(s) are basically comic relief.
So now you know a little more about mingo!!!
Matey
joe4702
Member
This mingo dude thinks he's a lot smarter and more clever than he really is. Typical for a rabid anti. His "argument" made no sense. The folks on this board were far more patient and engaging than he deserved. Kudos to THR.
- Status
