testiclees
Well-Known Member
I hope this means you're done for the day. Please GTFOH lout
100+ dead in France
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The bitch is running. His main premise is now propped up by the rejection of an established branch of science.
I think the bitch owes all of us sandwiches.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I believe that it can be studied. You distorted what I said. I don't think we have the tools yet. Feel free to disabuse me but i would really appreciate a link to a universally-respected source ... ideally peer-reviewed.
I am remembering why I gave up on you. You use intellectual dishonesty routinely.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
xenophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry: all learned. nothing innate about them, bear.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Abandon hung the tag xenophobia on my observation that humans schematize us/them. The term is not apt, since nowadays "xenophobia" is used for general bigotry. I hope you see the difference.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You said social anthropology is pseudoscience. You asked for citation to scientific research into human behavior but stipulated that research into human behavior is not allowed.
I want some of your weed bro.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Show me where I stipulated that.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Well, yeah ok. You're right.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
testiclees
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
I'd love to discuss this further. But I ask a few simple rules first. First, can we not use the word "freedoms", it hurts my ears/eyes. Second, let's stay on point and address each issue as best we can without using strawman, mud slinging or using other points/topics as points of deflection or misdirection. ( I'm not accusing you of said point, just want to create a good base, and obviously point it out if I am guilty of breaking said rule )
Now, to that end, I would say that both liberals and conservatives alike are appalled at the steady erosion of civil rights we've been accustomed to over the past century. I've never been a fan of imposing laws or regulations that restrict people's civil rights. I've also never been a fan of citizens abusing those rights to impose restrictions of their fellow citizens based on race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. And to stay on point with gun regulation, I believe the 2nd Amendment was created to provide to citizens, when the US population was about the size of Florida, the rights to bear arms, when machine guns and large caliber ammunition were not part of the equation. I do believe the 2nd Amendment would be worded VERY differently if it were written today (with the same people as originally drafted).
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
Most every gun besides a single barrel or pump shotgun and muzzloaders are semi auto.
There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
What I actually said was
That does not equate to my "stipulating that research into human behavior is not allowed". You lied again. You are abandoning honesty and embracing conflict for its own sake. Ironic from my perspective.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I understand that some of the loaded rhetoric is loaded. It makes the topic hard to discuss. I do like that of all my dissenting fellow posters, you bring it back to the topic and don't descend into dissecting the messenger.
I am using "liberal" in an archaic sense: someone into civil liberties. That basic premise has ben distorted into what we now call libertarian. Modern liberals/conservatives are a less ideologically transparent lot.
So the question becomes, what constitutes sound and durable weapons legislation? I tend to be of the "remove the warning labels and let Darwin sort'em out" school , but I have a family and recognize the hypocrisy were I serious about that. So I gravitate to the two extremes: outright ban or outright "weapons free". Advocating an intermediate stance requires much higher levels of moral math ... and a careful definition of terms, the sort of things we pay attorneys much money to do for us. The subjective nature of the terms colors our discourse.
I am inclined toward zero gun prohibition combined with frequent and mandatory range performance reviews IF you wish to carry, open or concealed. That however puts me at the permissive end of the opinion spectrum. What would you propose as a starting point or platform?
I think that one thing we need to square (or decide we cannot) is about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I read it as meaning parity with any forces the Government can mount ... keeps the folks in the capitals notionally honest. Stated another way: I believe that the fulcrum of the Second is to give the average citizen the power to say No to a government that the citizen opposes. If enough citizens form a similar resolve, it is a most democratic way to "water the roots of the tree" of revolution that Jefferson described. ... From your conclusion, I conclude you see a different basic intent. I ask you: what do you see that intent as being, and how does it shape what you see as a balanced implementation of permission v. regulation?
(Now we get into moral terrain. Not as convenient as the extreme arguments, but perhaps more useful in the complex reality we inhabit.)
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nobody in this thread except you uses the word xenophobia in the same manner as bigotry. You said here:
Xenophobia is the fear of that which is different. I'm struggling to not laugh at your breathtaking assumption that EVERYBODY fears that which is different. It is baseless. People love and seek out differences or most do. Music, art, travel, wilderness hiking, SCUBA diving, culinary exploration are all in part seeking out different sights, sounds, feelings, terrain, environment and people. So, no. There is no evidence that humans are essentially xenophobes. Maybe some are, but not everybody, not even close to very many. I know of no evidence that there is a genetic component in this either.
The bit about how everybody must resist the impulse to bash the weirdo -- this does seem to me as more of bigotry, which is all about hate and intolerance, rather than fearing the unusual person. Do you actually feel that impulse when walking past a clearly affected homeless person? I don't and I don't know anybody who does.
You obviously have trouble sorting out your opinions from facts. Here is a little exercise to help you understand the difference:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobiaNobody in this thread except you uses the word xenophobia in the same manner as bigotry. You said here:
Xenophobia is the fear of that which is different. I'm struggling to not laugh at your breathtaking assumption that EVERYBODY fears that which is different. It is baseless. People love and seek out differences or most do. Music, art, travel, wilderness hiking, SCUBA diving, culinary exploration are all in part seeking out different sights, sounds, feelings, terrain, environment and people. So, no. There is no evidence that humans are essentially xenophobes. Maybe some are, but not everybody, not even close to very many. I know of no evidence that there is a genetic component in this either.
The bit about how everybody must resist the impulse to bash the weirdo -- this does seem to me as more of bigotry, which is all about hate and intolerance, rather than fearing the unusual person. Do you actually feel that impulse when walking past a clearly affected homeless person? I don't and I don't know anybody who does.
You obviously have trouble sorting out your opinions from facts. Here is a little exercise to help you understand the difference:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
OK, so hatred is a part of xenophobia, not in all definitions but you've got me with this one. I can't mock you about that one. Still, dude, do you really fight the urge to bash the weirdo? And the core part of my argument still stands. Your assertion of a genetic component that EVERYBODY is xenophobic is your opinion and not a fact. It isn't even partly true.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The core part of your argument is calling me bitch and saying something about sandwiches. Do not suddenly pretend to be debating honestly.
Even so, I will speak to the bolded. Everyone I know does. Look at you: bashing the dissenter. The weirdo. Calling me juvenile names despite the clear forum header. Your hands are sooo not clean.
As for xenophobia, No. That was one of abandon's sneakier lies. My assertion is that we have a strong and genetically-backed tendency to schematize. Food/danger. Fight/fuck/flee. Good guy/bad guy. That is not xenophobia, and I note that you uncritically accepted your "argument buddy's" assertion that what I said can be captured in a hate term. You are as dishonest as he, with the benefit of being more up front about it.