Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mass stabbing on Texas college campus

254 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#181

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:15 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 22:12)
Morals are the objective code ensuring the safeguard of freedom and justice, and they are indeed God given/natural/universal.

If morals are objective, why do they differ so dramatically from society to society? The only near-universal rights that exist are those based on preservation and furthering of the species. Everything else is based on societal environments. "Freedom" itself is a subjective concept, so how on earth can fundamental freedoms exist if freedom means something different to each society?

Totally illogical.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#182

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:26 PM

Keeping weapons for self-defense is almost universally accepted as moral because it pertains to the long-term survival of the species and the preservation of social cohesion.

Only present-day western societies go to unjust and costly lengths to protect criminals and other degenerates because they suffer from a combination of amorality and a lack of survival instincts; they suffer from the mental illness commonly referred to as pacifism.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#183

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:37 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 22:26)
Keeping weapons for self-defense is almost universally accepted as moral because it pertains to the long-term survival of the species and the preservation of social cohesion.

You are aware that morality is a product of society, no? And that nations tend to legalize violent defensive action in response to endemic societal violence? The reason trends exist amongst Western societies discouraging defensive violence are because they already have incredibly low levels of violence in their societies. By your logic, nations which forbid pre-emptive arming for self-defence should be mote violent than those which don't. Generally, they aren't.

Also, your statement is rather contradictory. First of all you claim that the right to armed self-defence is objective, and then go on to say that many Western societies don't see this as a fundamental right. Last time I checked, some societies disagreeing with an ethical statement prevents that statement from being objective and all-encompassing. So the sum of your comment was to contradict yourself and effectively say that pre-emptivrly armed self-defence isn't an objective, inalienable right.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#184

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:42 PM

You are aware that oppression consists in the suppression of natural rights?

Western society oppresses in the name of non-violence, which constitutes borderline tyranny, and does not in any way detract from the validity of my stance.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#185

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:33 AM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 22:42)
You are aware that oppression consists in the suppression of natural rights?

...Which is why it's such a difficult thing to discuss objectively. It generally just boils down to enforcing one society's moral code onto another- see pretty much all of history for evidence of this. Interpretations of what societies deem "natural rights" vary dramatically; what more proof do you need that the entire concept is subjective? The entire crux of your argument is based on the premise that Western moral and ethical ideology is somehow wrong. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that's an opinionated statement that isn't widely supported. Effectively, the last four pages have comprised you dressing up your opinions as if they were facts.

Which explains a lot.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#186

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:01 PM

They are not opinions, they are facts.

Weapons are neutral tools who become instruments of positive action in the hands of law-abiding citizens, refusing to acknowledge this is either pure ignorance or an expression of ideological extremism.
Ergo, societies who deny the existence of the beneficial effects of private weapon ownership are either suffering from a mass-delusion stemming from ignorance or from an irrational superiority complex.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#187

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:20 PM Edited by sivispacem, 23 May 2013 - 04:24 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 17:01)
They are not opinions, they are facts.

If they were facts, you could demonstrate them empirically. You cannot. Ergo, they are not facts. Do you even know what a fact is? Again, whilst your opinions on how the West must be either ignorant or or irrational in its superiority are most enlightening, all they are is personal beliefs. You can claim they're true all you want but beliefs they are and beliefs they remain until you can do the impossible and find some way of empirically demonstrating right and wrong as concrete, factual and inarguable concepts.

Good luck.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#188

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 02:01)
Weapons are neutral tools who become instruments of positive action in the hands of law-abiding citizens, refusing to acknowledge this is either pure ignorance or an expression of ideological extremism.

Weapons might be neutral tools, but unrestricted access to and the presence of weapons are not neutral.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#189

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:49 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 17:24)
Weapons might be neutral tools, but unrestricted access to and the presence of weapons are not neutral.

This comment proves the fact that you are a pacifist extremist who will not accept any evidence, no matter how compelling, in favour of the right to own weapons for self-defense.

You're a hypocrite, as you refuse to allow law-abiding individuals who wish to own as little as a less-lethal weapon for self-defense to live in peace, in the name of peace.
This hypocritically irrational extremism is not only pathetic and puerile, but also extremely authoritarian, and by extension, highly unethical.

I have provided vast amounts of valid evidence from varied sources, your refusal to accept it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with your emotion-driven delusions.
These delusions, when combined with you pseudo-intellectual facade, make you look like a young earth creationist who dropped out of high-school trying to debate the validity of the theory of evolution with a science textbook.

You're [melchior and sivispacem] the embarrassments here, both to yourselves and to the human species.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#190

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:17 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
This comment proves the fact that you are a pacifist extremist who will not accept any evidence, no matter how compelling, in favour of the right to own weapons for self-defense.

That's because you've not presented any evidence that demonstrates societal safety is directly relative to whether or not nations permit civilian ownership of self-defence weapons. Probably because such evidence doesn't actually exist.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
You're a hypocrite

Hugely ironic, coming from someone whose accused me of making ad-hominem arguments and then proceeds to claim I am an "...embarrassment...to the human species" for doing nothing more than disputing the evidential basis of their sh*t argument.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
as you refuse to allow law-abiding individuals who wish to own as little as a less-lethal weapon for self-defense to live in peace, in the name of peace.

Wait, I don't think anyone here has made the claim that law-abiding citizens should be entirely denied access to weaponry. What we've disputed is:

1) Your assertion that societies that permit access to defensive weapons are safer than those that don't- the evidence does not support this conclusion.
2) That laws permitting ownership of weaponry amongst the populace are direct contributors to the safety of a society- not only does the evidence not support it, it is a logical fallacy as it assumes causality where none is evident.
3) That societal morals are subjective rather than objective. I see you gave up debating this once I demonstrated it was technically infeasible.
4) That "natural", "human" and "god-given" rights are "factual". You've not been able to quantify this in any way, and there is a wealth of evidence against it.

Now, I don't really think either of us has a case to answer until you can properly counter the arguments I've summarised above, and a number of others that I've made over the course of the last few posts. If your only response to that is creating straw men and claiming moral superiority, then the irony of your accusations of us being akin to young-earth creationists, and being authoritarian is absolutely wonderful. Combined with the fact that from the get-go you've entirely failed- not just to support your argument with evidence but to even explain the basis of the primary tenet of it, other than to claim that your personal moral beliefs are objective and present across society as a whole, and that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant/a fascist/authoritarian/communist/pacifist [delete as appropriate]- it makes your heightened aggression, unwillingness to be addressed rationally, and hard-nosed stonewalling and borderline-fanatical vitriolage truly hilarious to behold.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
This hypocritically irrational extremism is not only pathetic and puerile, but also extremely authoritarian, and by extension, highly unethical.

I count six individual unsupported tenets in this one sentence. I would like you to demonstrate, with referenced sources and quotations, the following assertions
1) Hypocrisy on the part of Melchoir and myself
2) Any lack of rationality or logical reasoning on the part of Melchoir and myself
3) What you believe in the statements we have made to be categorically extremist, given that extremism is relative and our views are shared by a large proportion of society.
4) What about our rebuttals of your arguments is trivial
5) Where any of our statements have amounted to support of authoritarianism
6) Where anything we have said can be deemed as unethical in our own societies, or by any objective moral standard you are capable of empirically quantifying and therefore showing to be unequivocally objective.

I'm eagerly awaiting your responses.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
I have provided vast amounts of valid evidence

Much of which contradicts the basic premise of your argument.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
from varied sources

None of them which support your assertion that weapon ownership has a direct reductive impact on violence rates in societies

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
your refusal to accept it has nothing to do with logic

Coming from the person who doesn't know the definition of the word "factual", and can't even demonstrate causality in his argument...

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
and everything to do with your emotion-driven delusions.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
These delusions, when combined...

...and the rest of your post trails off into ad-hominem attacks and claims of ethical and educational superiority. When in reality, your high horse couldn't be any shorter if it was a multiple amputee.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#191

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:55 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 24 May 2013 - 02:57 PM.

1) My reaction to your ad hominems may be childish, but it's not hypocritical.

2) You are the one who does not know the definition of the words "logical" and "factual". You make completely illogical claims, with absurd implications, and fail to understand any reasoning based on factual evidence which contradicts the dogma of pacifist/socialist/communist extremists.

3) You constantly backpedal on your claims in an attempt to preserve the little credibility you possess.

4) "societal morals" are worthless in the face of natural human rights.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#192

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:58 PM

No matter how insistently you claim to have presented evidence, it doesn't change the fact that you haven't.

Also, when words are separated by slashes, it usually denotes that they are synonyms, normally done for the benefit of those who don't know the words are synonyms. There's nothing remotely synonymous about the three concepts of pacifism, socialism and communism.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#193

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:18 PM Edited by sivispacem, 24 May 2013 - 03:23 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 15:55)
1) My reaction to your ad hominems may be childish, but it's not hypocritical.

2) You are the one who does not know the definition of the words "logical" and "factual". You make completely illogical claims, with absurd implications, and fail to understand any reasoning based on factual evidence which contradicts the dogma of pacifist/socialist/communist extremists.

3) You constantly backpedal on your claims in an attempt to preserve the little credibility you possess.

4) "societal morals" are worthless in the face of natural human rights.

1) No, your accusation against me of using ad hominem attacks, then your refusal to explain where I had used them followed by petty insults levelled at me are the very definition of hypocrisy.

2) If I'm the one struggling to understand factual claims, is it you who has failed to find a single empirical measure which demonstrates his thesis? Why has it been you who has been unable to respond to quite straightforward critiques? Why is it you who ignores all requests for demonstrations of logical reasoning? Look, if you want to believe that armed self-defence is an inalienable right then fine, but don't make up statistics to support it, don't claim moral superiority over anyone who disagrees, and certainly don't ignore every question anyone asks about your theory. It's utterly moronic and akin to debating with a stubborn toddler. Your etiquette and reasoning are truly atrocious.

3) No credibility? Don't make me laugh. You've come striding into this topic with a sh*t thesis supported by nothing more than fanatical belief and fabricated evidence. You've proceeded to go out of your way to offend everyone who has responded to you, provided no logical reasoning or evidence of critical thinking, no evidence of prior qualification, no evidence of academic support for your theories, no evidence of reasonable causality and no evidence that your claims about inalienable rights have any basis in empiricism. You've got no reputation as an intellectual or intelligent thinker- you certainly haven't demonstrated yourself as one- and yet I'm the one lacking credibility? If your thesis has such a credible basis, how come you haven't found a single academically merit-worthy source in support of it?

4) Natural human rights are fiction. Rights are just constructs of societal agreement. If you have any evidence to rebut this, given that it is accepted sociological thinking and has been for decades, please present it.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#194

Posted 24 May 2013 - 05:22 PM

How amusing, you of all people call my etiquette appalling.
Your whole post was just an arrogant and hypocritical pseudo-intellectual rant.

You refuse to accept the validity of my sources even though they are verified and openly criticise almost universally accepted morals derived from human survival instincts.
You are undoubtably delusional and incapable of maintaining a consistent stance on any derivative issue, ergo, you're a single issue extremist with authoritarian tendencies.

I honestly do not understand how people like you can be so detached from reality, and so arrogant as to defend an absurd and immoral infringement upon the rights of others with childish insults, manipulation and outright lies.



The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#195

Posted 24 May 2013 - 05:32 PM

Rest assured, sivi isn't fooling anyone with his hypocritical rants and twisted brainwashing tactics (that he so often employs in this forum) as far as I'm concerned.

I only feel for the younger, more naive guys who may be following this exchange. He certainly reminds me of those advocates for so called human rights laws you may possibly have the misfortunate to unwittingly engage with.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#196

Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:21 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
How amusing, you of all people call my etiquette appalling.

Well, you did claim I was an embarrassment to the human race. That's not how to win a debate, is it?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
Your whole post was just an arrogant and hypocritical pseudo-intellectual rant.

So you chose not to actually rebut any of my arguments? There's a surprise

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
You refuse to accept the validity of my sources even though they are verified

I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain that your sources don't support your argument. If you can quote and reference any of your sources, complete with statistical evidence and a logical chain of causality, making the categorical and indisputable claim that permitting civilian ownership of defensive weaponry reduces violence in societies, then I'm happy to listen. But until you do that, your argument has no validity.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
openly criticise almost universally accepted morals derived from human survival instincts.

"Almost" universally accepted morals. So, you willingly admit that they aren't universal? That somewhat proves my point.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
You are undoubtably delusional

Says the person whose accused me of being, in no particular order, a Communist, Pacifist, Socialist and Fascist, despite me clearly not sharing any political, social or economic views with any of the above.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
incapable of maintaining a consistent stance

Says the person whose interchangeably claimed that fundamental rights exist, and then don't exist, and then exist, and then might exist but some societies don't have them so they aren't really fundamental even though you want to call them so. And the person whose claimed that nations with armed populaces tend to be safer, all of the exceptions to which are either a) too small for you to want to count, even though their population might be higher than examples you've used to justify your argument, b) are "lying" about their violent crime figures, even though you can't substantiate this, or c) you willingly choose to ignore because they don't agree with your thesis? Yes, and I'm the one whose inconsistent. I'm also Margaret Thatcher, Terry Wogan and an incarnation of the Hindu demon Kali.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
ergo, you're a single issue extremist with authoritarian tendencies.

1) In what way can I be described as "single issue"? You clearly no nothing of my posting history on this forum.
2) Please quantify how I am an extremest, given that the majority of my society share my view. Doesn't that make me anything but an extremist?
3) Authoritarian? Please quantify.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
I honestly do not understand how people like you can be so detached from reality

I struggle to understand how people like you can believe you reside in it.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
and so arrogant

Arrogant meaning correct?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
as to defend an absurd and immoral

In your opinion, not by any objective measure.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
childish insults

Irony.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
manipulation

Double irony.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 18:22)
outright lies.

I think I ruptured my irony spleen.


@ Scottish Guy- your opinion will matter once you bring something worth discussing to the table. There's only so long you can flit around the peripheries of General Chat, chiming in with the odd pseudo-offensive comment aimed at people who disagree with you before you get banned, but before then I would absolutely love to know- what is it about me that you find so alluring; so inescapable? I mean, you come across as hateful and embittered, slinging mud at someone you claim to be an extension of some nefarious plot, but I secretly think you've fallen in love with me. That's right, you're madly, truly, deeply in love. You are a man obsessed with my views; my opinions and my position in the world. Why is that? Why do you not lavish the same attention on the various other posters who share similar views and engage with your rhetoric similarly harshly? Do you stay awake in the early hours, masturbating and crying to the mental image of my sleeping form, naked other than for a Tony Blair t-shirt, on a water bed covered with blood-stained fifties and filled with the tears of one million Iraqi orphans? I mean, there must be something which has prompted you to follow me around the forum, whimpering like a forlorn puppy.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#197

Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:39 PM Edited by GTAvanja, 24 May 2013 - 07:43 PM.

Natural god-given human rights, huh? George Carlin explains it better that I could so let's listen to him:

Rights part starts at 4:25


ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#198

Posted 24 May 2013 - 08:20 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 24 May 2013 - 08:47 PM.

Sivispacem,

Saying that natural rights "aren't real" is tantamount to condoning slavery and barbarism.

The mainstream pacifist's claim that "humans have no birth rights", and the horrific implications of such a claim, prove that they are sadistic borderline psychopaths.

You [pacifists] are the vilest "persons" I can imagine, you condone slavery, oppression and other forms of barbarism whilst hypocritically condemning "violent people" and engage in some of the most manipulative mind games imaginable in order to slander those who do not share your amorality.
Your obsession with controlling the lives of other human beings and forbidding them from practicing their natural instincts is sadistic and borderline criminal.

You are pathetic bullies who refuse to accept the viewpoints of others, and as such we have nothing further to discuss.

You may now go and troll another forum with your psychotic delusions, or better, go and crawl back into the pus-filled wound on satan's ass from which you emerged.

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#199

Posted 24 May 2013 - 08:39 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday @ May 24 2013, 19:21)
@ Scottish Guy- your opinion will matter once you bring something worth discussing to the table.


Experience obtained from tuning into your tirades has taught me any form of discussion with somebody of your progressively ballooning ego is nothing short of futile. But my concerns on whether my opinions matter to somebody of your nature is akin to me caring about the the good health of a jihadist lying on a hospital bed recovering from bullet wounds.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday @ May 24 2013, 19:21)
There's only so long you can flit around the peripheries of General Chat, chiming in with the odd pseudo-offensive comment aimed at people who disagree with you


So apparently only you have the right to throw around insults without the wrath of being penalised for it. Which brings me to this:

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday @ May 24 2013, 19:21)
but I secretly think you've fallen in love with me. That's right, you're madly, truly, deeply in love. You are a man obsessed with my views; my opinions and my position in the world. Why is that?


How mature for somebody who ironically proclaims himself as being too above entering any GTA sub forum to, god forbid, discuss something of which he joined this forum in the first place for. Or apparently did.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday @ May 24 2013, 19:21)
I mean, there must be something which has prompted you to follow me around the forum


Another fine demonstration of that titanic ego of yours. One minute, it's me apparently just entering the General Chat forum to provide some ban-worthy provocation. The next, it's me having some kind of stalking obsession to following most of your tedious opinions and policy support/beliefs (I'd probably be outside my house trying to use the rubber end of a pencil to re-design my street while asking my neighbour if she has a cooling fan and 3000mg of Sunny Delight with an expression of the Christmas Grinch etched over my coupon were I to read all of your contributions). So which is it my lad?


QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday @ May 24 2013, 19:21)
I mean, there must be something which has prompted you to follow me around the forum


Only, I don't.

Anyway, I'm going to quit while I'm ahead, and cease to derail this thread any further. You want to respond to me sivi, then do it via pm. I only wanted to express my acknowledgement of how hypocritical you can obliviously become.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#200

Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:11 PM

Can we ban these two idiots? They bring down the collective IQ of the entire forum drastically.

stu
  • stu

    I drink it up

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#201

Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:29 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 20:20)
You [pacifists] are the vilest "persons" I can imagine, you condone slavery, oppression and other forms of barbarism whilst hypocritically condemning "violent people" and engage in some of the most manipulative mind games imaginable in order to slander those who do not share your amorality.
Your obsession with controlling the lives of other human beings and forbidding them from practicing their natural instincts is sadistic and borderline criminal.


What in the f*ck is wrong with you.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#202

Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:22 AM Edited by sivispacem, 25 May 2013 - 07:24 AM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
Saying that natural rights "aren't real" is tantamount to condoning slavery and barbarism.

Yes yes, we all know your personal feelings on the issue. However, natural rights are philosophical theory and like all theories there are numerous rebuttals of them. For instance, there is G.E. Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy which suggests that is it fallaciously reductive to automatically associate that which is natural with positive ethical choices, and that which is unnatural with negative. There are innumerate other critiques based on societal activity- the facts, for instance, like various "natural rights" in the US constitution quite clearly being social rights- such as the right to a trial by jury. But all of this is largely insignificant because I don't think any nation- much less any international document- contains reference to a right that "entitles all citizens to possess weaponry in the defence of themselves and their property". It doesn't, for instance, lie on the list of fundamental agreed international rights in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So without quantifying it, I really do struggle to see how you can claim that this is a fundamental right when it doesn't appear on any list of fundamental human rights that, as far as I can tell, has ever been codified. Explain.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
The mainstream

Hang on a minute, I thought I was an extremist? How can I be both an extremist and mainstream? They're contradictory terms.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
claim that "humans have no birth rights"

I never claimed that humans had no birth rights. I just claimed that the rights to which they are entitled are a product of the society in which they live. Which is true, because this huge pool of rights is entitled by the international community Economic, Social and Cultural rights which rather suggest that they're, well, social, doesn't it? Besides, you were the person who claimed that your own theory wasn't universal, and therefore wouldn't constitute a universal birth right even if they did exist.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
and the horrific implications of such a claim

Which claim? The logical one I supported with evidence, or the illogical extension of that you fallaciously applied to my views?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
prove that they are sadistic borderline psychopaths.

Now that's a big claim. "You don't agree with my personal interpretation of rights, therefore you are a sadistic borderline psychopath". What did I say about poor debate etiquette earlier?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
You (pacifists) are the vilest "persons" I can imagine

Your imagination doesn't stretch very far, then.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
condone slavery
oppression
other forms of barbarism

Where?
Where?
What, and where?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
hypocritically condemning "violent people" and engage in some of the most manipulative mind games imaginable in order to slander those who do not share your amorality.
Your obsession with controlling the lives of other human beings and forbidding them from practicing their natural instincts is sadistic and borderline criminal.
You are pathetic bullies who refuse to accept the viewpoints of others, and as such we have nothing further to discuss.

I've nether condoned nor commended violence. In case you hadn't noticed, I haven't disclosed any of my personal views at all across the last five pages, aside from my comments on societally-based rights. I feel you are probably blissfully unaware of this, but my only responses have been to pick apart the basis for your claims. That doesn't actually tell you anything about my personal perspective. Which leaves me puzzled as to how you've managed to discern my actual views. It appears that you are of the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees with you must automatically hold these beliefs that you so despise. Isn't that a bit of a flawed assumption? As such, whilst your vitriolic diatribes are entertaining, they don't actually have any bearing on the argument, and the don't really bring anything to the table other than the huge dunce's hat you might as well be wearing when you shout these petty obscenities.

I see you've used the usual "nothing more to discuss" dismissal. Oh, the humanity! I've been so audacious as to call you out on your utter bullsh*t, bring your logical reasoning into question and publicly embarrass you on a forum. I doubt you'll stick to this claim when I hit the "add reply" button.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:20)
You may now go and troll another forum with your psychotic delusions, or better, go and crawl back into the pus-filled wound on satan's ass from which you emerged.

Irony alert! The troll accusing the long-established member of trolling? Please. Nice use of imagery in your ad-hominem attacks too.

Also, Satan prefers his name capitalised.

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:39)
Another fine demonstration of that titanic ego of yours.

You are aware that a good ten to fifteen percent of all of your responses in the General Chat forum are aimed directly or indirectly at a single member? My actual post might have been meant ironically, playing on your perceptions of me as a monolithic egomaniac, but a quite absurdly high ratio of your posts are specifically meant for yours truly. Your welcome to enlighten me to other possible theses, but I'm sticking with my "amorous and in complete denial" line of thinking.

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Friday, May 24 2013, 21:39)
Anyway, I'm going to quit while I'm ahead

That ship sailed a long time ago.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#203

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:03 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 25 May 2013 - 01:11 PM.

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 00:29)
What in the f*ck is wrong with you.

I have had enough of total bans on self-defense weapons.

I'm sick of innocent people being denied the right to defend their lives and those of their loved ones on the whim of arrogant, limp-wristed cloudcoockoolanders.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#204

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:40 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:03)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 00:29)
What in the f*ck is wrong with you.

I have had enough of total bans on self-defense weapons.

I'm sick of innocent people being denied the right to defend their lives and those of their loved ones on the whim of arrogant, limp-wristed cloudcoockoolanders.

I didn't know one needs an automatic ASSAULT rifle to defend one's family.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#205

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:03)
I have had enough of total bans on self-defense weapons.

Good for you. Your opinions are noted. In future, don't try and justify them by making up statistics, claiming things are factual when they're really your beliefs, and perpetuating absurd, fallacious theories that have no bearing on reality. Also, as I've said before, none of the nations you've highlighted throughout your tirades have banned the use of weapons in self-defence.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#206

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:30 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 05 June 2013 - 09:42 AM.

QUOTE (Raavi @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:40)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:03)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 00:29)
What in the f*ck is wrong with you.

I have had enough of total bans on self-defense weapons.

I'm sick of innocent people being denied the right to defend their lives and those of their loved ones on the whim of arrogant, limp-wristed cloudcoockoolanders.

I didn't know one needs an automatic ASSAULT rifle to defend one's family.

In my country all self-defense weapons are completely illegal (even pepper spray) and this is what needs to change.
I'm not saying people should be able to own/carry whatever they want, I'm simply saying that at least one kind of effective self-defense weapon should be easily and legally available to all law-abiding citizens, and that weapon ownership should not be stigmatised.

Btw, "assault rifle" is not the correct term if you're referring to semi-automatic rifles such as the ar-15.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#207

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:39 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 15:30)
QUOTE (Raavi @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:40)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:03)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 00:29)
What in the f*ck is wrong with you.

I have had enough of total bans on self-defense weapons.

I'm sick of innocent people being denied the right to defend their lives and those of their loved ones on the whim of arrogant, limp-wristed cloudcoockoolanders.

I didn't know one needs an automatic ASSAULT rifle to defend one's family.

In my country all self-defense weapons are completely illegal (even pepper spray) and this is what needs to change.
I'm not saying people should be able to own/carry whatever they want, I'm simply saying that at least one kind of effective self-defense weapon should be easily and legally available to all law-abiding citizens.

Btw, "assault rifle" is not the correct term if you're referring to semi-automatic rifles such as the ar-15.

That's the exact reason the Firearm-related death rate in countries like Belgium is so low. I agree that people should be able to carry mace, purely for selfdefense. But I don't see the need to carry a firearm of any sort. It would inevitably only lead to higher firearm-related death rates. Something no one needs.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#208

Posted 25 May 2013 - 03:25 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 05 June 2013 - 09:55 AM.

QUOTE (Raavi @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 15:39)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 15:30)
QUOTE (Raavi @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:40)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 14:03)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 00:29)
What in the f*ck is wrong with you.

I have had enough of total bans on self-defense weapons.

I'm sick of innocent people being denied the right to defend their lives and those of their loved ones on the whim of arrogant, limp-wristed cloudcoockoolanders.

I didn't know one needs an automatic ASSAULT rifle to defend one's family.

In my country all self-defense weapons are completely illegal (even pepper spray) and this is what needs to change.
I'm not saying people should be able to own/carry whatever they want, I'm simply saying that at least one kind of effective self-defense weapon should be easily and legally available to all law-abiding citizens.

Btw, "assault rifle" is not the correct term if you're referring to semi-automatic rifles such as the ar-15.

That's the exact reason the Firearm-related death rate in countries like Belgium is so low. I agree that people should be able to carry mace, purely for selfdefense. But I don't see the need to carry a firearm of any sort. It would inevitably only lead to higher firearm-related death rates. Something no one needs.

I would say that every law-abiding citizen should be allowed to freely own and carry irritant sprays.
Other less-lethal weapons such as batons, stun-guns, tazers and gas/rubber ball guns should be freely available for home defense, but illegal to carry unless one is at a higher than average risk of violence (I.e one is a delivery worker, security guard, street vendor, etc...).

I also believe that firearm laws should be liberalised slightly, by consolidating all the different types of firearm license (hunting, target shooting, professional, etc...) into a single "firearms license" which would allow the ownership of certain firearms (such as non-repeating shotguns, non repeating rimfire rifles and single-shot rim fire handguns) without need for a "legitimate motive".
The licensing procedures would be still be strict, but would no longer be prohibitive (one should simply need to possess a criminal record free of serious crimes, pass a written test on the safe handling of firearms and pass a psychological evaluation to obtain the license, with re-passing the psychological evaluation every three years being required in order to keep the license.).
One would still need to prove that one has a "legitimate motive" (i.e with a hunting license or shooting club membership) in order to obtain other types of firearms (repeating rifles, repeating shotguns, handguns, etc...).

Currently, only those who have been members of a shooting club for at least one year and/or possess an extremely hard to obtain hunting license can own firearms, which is unjust as it deprives farmers of a vital tool and recreational shooters of their passion.


Also, firearms developing less than 7,5 joules of muzzle energy (floberts) should be treated like airguns; free to own for all individuals aged 18 and over.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#209

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:11 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 16:25)
Also, firearms developing less than 7,5 joules of muzzle energy (floberts) should be treated like airguns; free to own for all individuals aged 18 and over.

This has me puzzled. Is it even possible for a conventional firearm to generate such a low energy output? Even subsonic low-powder loadings of the .22 Short produce ten times that. And the .32 Rimfire, in which many Floberts are chambered, produces more than twice that under normal loadings.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#210

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:18 PM Edited by lil weasel, 25 May 2013 - 05:24 PM.

QUOTE (Raavi @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 13:40)

I didn't know one needs an automatic ASSAULT rifle to defend one's family.

Good for a laugh. 'Automatic' weapons have been effectively outlawed since the middle thirties. You needed a Treasury TAX stamp ($200US), which was a lot of money then. To purchase the TAX stamp a Citizen had to supply two Fingerprint cards, and three letters attesting to good citizen conduct, a letter from the local police authority testifying to no criminal activities to get the stamp.
Why a TAX stamp? Because it was considered at the time unconstitutional to outright deny the right to own the weapon(s).
So much for 'reasonable' gun control.

The need is to protect the family from an overreaching Government.

For Our Sheldon: That was when the frog was put in the pot.
1968 was when they put the pot on the stove.
Now, they have turned up the fire.

Almost forgot: Connecticut is considering legislation to deny the press/public any information regarding the Newtown shooting investigation, which some feel to really conceal the misinformation regarding the alleged use of the rifle in the incident.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users