Plax in prison

[Ed Vette]

https://independentcitizen.com/run-hide-and-fight-makes-as-much-sense-as-duct-tape-to-stop-terrorism/

[MightyGiants]

I am willing to listen to both sides presented.   I will qualify that as I follow these principles

Critical Consumers of the News
Manipulating critical consumers of the news is difficult because:

■ They study alternative perspectives and world views, learning how
to interpret events from multiple viewpoints.
■ They seek understanding and insight through multiple sources of
thought and information, not simply those of the mass media.
■ They learn how to identify the viewpoints embedded in
news stories.
■ They mentally rewrite (reconstruct) news stories through awareness of how stories would be told from multiple perspectives.
■ They analyze news constructs in the same way they analyze
other representations of reality (as some blend of fact and
interpretation).
■ They assess news stories for their clarity, accuracy, relevance,
depth, breadth, and significance.
■ They notice contradictions and inconsistencies in the news
(often in the same story).
■ They notice the agenda and interests served by a story.
■ They notice the facts covered and the facts ignored.
■ They notice what is represented as fact (that is in dispute).
■ They notice questionable assumptions implicit in stories.
■ They notice what is implied (but not openly stated).
■ They notice what implications are ignored and what are
emphasized.
■ They notice which points of view are systematically put into a
favorable light and which in an unfavorable light.
■ They mentally correct stories reflecting bias toward the unusual,
the dramatic, and the sensational by putting them into perspective or discounting them.
■ They question the social conventions and taboos being used to
define issues and problems


I will add to that,

I note factual claims lack citations.

I note the use of anecdotal evidence (which is a poor practice).

I will note if the sources misrepresent opposing points of view or paint people holding those views in a poor light.

I will click on citation links (and go further until I know the whole truth)

I will note if there is an effort to be truthful (making sure all relevant facts are presented) or just honest (meaning what was said could be very misleading but isn't technically a lie)

[Slugsy-Narrows]

I am willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt, Paul.  Please explain how these two statements furthered our conversation about guns in America.

I mean, most people are coming to the table with their thoughts on the issue, or facts and figures, was respectful discourse with others on the thread, or a link to something that adds perspective to the discussion.  What was the purpose of those two posts, if not to demonize?

I too came with information most of which you refuse to answer and comment on.

And it's not to demonize but point of the differences hypocrisy and inconsistencies in logic at times.

Again for example and PLEASE ANSWER!

You state that even if it saves one life it matters

Well if even one life matters and we should do anything no matter what to save that one life.

How can you justifry abortion yet still state we must ban guns.

If both are taking lives, why does one get a pass and the other not?

Because you don't like one but believe in another?

It's a legit question!  Far more babies are killed each year then people killed by a gun. 

So if guns are so evil and bad and to save just 1 life and prevent even 1 mass shooting we are to do SOMETHING, why then still support the right to kill a child? (Again I'm pro choice I'm just looking for how you justify one v the other)

You talk about being consistent and honest and factual yet you can't answer that simple question.

I'll continue to await your response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed Vette]

I too came with information most of which you refuse to answer and comment on.

And it's not to demonize but point of the differences and inconsistencies in logic at times.

Again for example and PLEASE ANSWER!

You state that even if it saves one life it matters

Well if even one life matters and we should do anything no matter what to save that one life.

How can you just fry abortion yet still state we must ban guns.

If both are taking lives, why does one get a pass and the other not?

Because you don't like one but believe in another?

It's a legit question!  Far more babies are killed each year then people killed by a gun. 

So if guns are so evil and bad and to save just 1 life and prevent even 2 mass shooting we are to do SOMETHING, why then still support the right to kill a child?

You talk about being consistent and honest and factual yet you can't answer that simple question.

I'll continue to await your response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In all fairness many don't believe in consciousness and life at either certain stages of pregnancy or pre birth.

I don't know why you argue when someone claims to be more enlightened than you, adhering to high principles and navigating bias and cherry picked anecdotes. Let me tell you how this ends. Nothing either one says changes minds. Your coworker was respectful to your beliefs yet she didn't change her attitude. Do you know what changes a person's mind? When they are out in that situation of fight or flight and live or die.

Read the article I posted from a Libertarian site who goes after both parties to expose them. Some compelling reasons to carry yet I don't at this point and a President whom I voted for who is looking to take away the liberty of citizens to defend themselves just to appeal to voters and doesn't understand that he's going to kill his party in swing states. I'm not stating that to introduce politics in the discussion but to demonstrate ignorance among our leaders at the state and federal level and the consequences of denying liberty and how it can lead to other abuses of government.

Elections have consequences and although I won't make claims that the members of the Supreme Court are "corrupt", they will have a bias of their own. A revision of history and other actions could have resulted in a different majority of this highest court and the issue of guns in America and the right to carry would have gone very differently. Unfortunately for the antigun community that's not the case. As you can see, I agree with gun control measures within reason as you and Rich do too. Don't really know what the debate is about.

Taking away a woman's choice and denying free speech even if you don't like what they say, mask and vaccine mandates of children and blurring the division of church and state are all about Liberty. Live your life as you choose but don't impose your fears and ideology on me.

[MightyGiants]

I too came with information most of which you refuse to answer and comment on.

And it's not to demonize but point of the differences hypocrisy and inconsistencies in logic at times.

Again for example and PLEASE ANSWER!

You state that even if it saves one life it matters

Well if even one life matters and we should do anything no matter what to save that one life.

How can you justifry abortion yet still state we must ban guns.

If both are taking lives, why does one get a pass and the other not?

Because you don't like one but believe in another?

It's a legit question!  Far more babies are killed each year then people killed by a gun. 

So if guns are so evil and bad and to save just 1 life and prevent even 1 mass shooting we are to do SOMETHING, why then still support the right to kill a child? (Again I'm pro choice I'm just looking for how you justify one v the other)

You talk about being consistent and honest and factual yet you can't answer that simple question.

I'll continue to await your response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Abortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

[DaveBrown74]

Abortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

Abortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

Just to briefly comment on the above;

I am pro choice, and I am not particularly religious.

However, I do feel abortion is killing. I don't particularly like it, but I am supportive of it simply because I think the alternative is much worse. The idea of living in a society that forces pregnant women not wanting to go through with childbirth to have their child strikes me as primitive bordering on downright barbaric.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend abortion isn't killing.

That is just my personal feeling on it. I am not saying anyone here including myself is right or wrong. I fully appreciate the subject is up for debate. I'm only describing the way I personally see it.

[Ed Vette]

The gun violence on the streets is much more prevalent in a country with 332 million people and goes under the radar in most cases. How do these kids who are not of age to get a permit or register a firearm have them in their possession? This underground of weapons smuggling is one of the problems that needs to be addressed.
https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/southpassaic/news/teen-trio-from-rockland-all-caught-packin-pistols-on-paterson-streetcorner-police/850847/

[MightyGiants]

New York's Likely-Trafficked Guns Predominately Come from Iron Pipeline States
The NYAG's Organized Crime Task Force and other law enforcement agencies have frequently disrupted gun trafficking schemes that purchase firearms, predominately handguns, in states south of New York along the I-95 corridor and that transport the weapons to New York markets. These states — Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida — have been identified as net "exporter" or "supplier" states[30] and the steady stream of firearms along the interstate has earned it the nickname "the Iron Pipeline."[31] Our analysis of the data shows these states deserve their anecdotal nickname. In addition to the Iron Pipeline states, Ohio, which has easy access to western New York via I-90, stands out as an important but often overlooked source of crime guns, particularly to the Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse markets.

New York's Gun Traffickers Choose States with Weak Gun Laws to Get their Guns
There were certain commonalities among the states that supply New York with its trafficked guns. First, all are "net exporters" of crime guns according to ATF national statistics.[32] Each also generally scores poorly on objective measures of the strength of gun safety laws.[33] In particular, these states lack gun laws fundamental to preventing illegal diversion. For instance, all but one of these states have no requirements for background checks for private sales or at gun shows (Pennsylvania, and only for handguns). And all but one do not require a permit prior to a handgun purchase (North Carolina). This is a stark contrast to the other states along I-95 south, which were responsible for just over 2% of New York's trafficked guns combined. New Jersey, for instance, requires a permit for handguns and long guns, each requiring a background check. Even though New Jersey shares a border with and has several major arteries into New York, it contributed less than one percent of New York's trafficked guns.

Much more at the link

https://targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/#:~:text=70%25%20of%20likely%2Dtrafficked%20guns,%2Dstate%20likely%2Dtrafficked%20guns.

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Abortion = Killing

That is very often a religious belief or a personal belief, but it's not a fact nor an opinion strongly supported by fact.

As such, I feel strongly that government power should not be abused to force one person's or group of person's religious beliefs on other Americans.   To me that is fundamentally un-American as part of the founding principle of America was to be free both to practice one's religion as well as freedom from the religious beliefs of others.

This has zero to do with religious beliefs Rich so let's not even get on religion. As I never brought it up and don't intend to go there.

You state you are a man of medicine and science.

If something has a heart beat.  It is alive, correct?  Please yes or no.

Science and Medicine has found that to be factually accurate.  As far as I can quickly research.

You can't have a heartbeat and be dead or not living correct?

And you directly do something to stop that heart from beating and it then dies.  That is killing.

So again since you still haven't directly answered the question I will ask it again and word it differently to help.

If everything has a heartbeat is alive.

If every life matters.

If even saving 1 life means doing whatever it takes.

If this is your foundation.

How then do you justify taking away someone's constitutional right to bare arms in the hope to save even 1 life, yet you are ok with the killing of countless babies a year.

Again do not add any religious beliefs in their.

We are talking scientific life heart beating vs not!

If every heartbeat/life matters then shouldn't that be across the board?

Secondly you state you don't want the Government to force one groups beliefs onto another.

Then the 2nd question is this:

Why is it then ok to force anti gun beliefs of one group onto another?

Again why is ok for one thing but yet not another?

Is that NOT hypocrisy at its highest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Just to briefly comment on the above;

I am pro choice, and I am not particularly religious.

However, I do feel abortion is killing. I don't particularly like it, but I am supportive of it simply because I think the alternative is much worse. The idea of living in a society that forces pregnant women not wanting to go through with childbirth to have their child strikes me as primitive bordering on downright barbaric.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend abortion isn't killing.

That is just my personal feeling on it. I am not saying anyone here including myself is right or wrong. I fully appreciate the subject is up for debate. I'm only describing the way I personally see it.

Dave

I think many people feel as you do.  I for one.  Those that refuse to admit it as bravely as you do are either not being honest or refuse to answer because I'm doing so it then shows the hypocrisy they have due to their other statements and/or beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed Vette]

This has zero to do with religious beliefs Rich so let's not even get on religion. As I never brought it up and don't intend to go there.

You state you are a man of medicine and science.

If something has a heart beat.  It is alive, correct?  Please yes or no.

Science and Medicine has found that to be factually accurate.  As far as I can quickly research.

You can't have a heartbeat and be dead or not living correct?

And you directly do something to stop that heart from beating and it then dies.  That is killing.

So again since you still haven't directly answered the question I will ask it again and word it differently to help.

If everything has a heartbeat is alive.

If every life matters.

If even saving 1 life means doing whatever it takes.

If this is your foundation.

How then do you justify taking away someone's constitutional right to bare arms in the hope to save even 1 life, yet you are ok with the killing of countless babies a year.

Again do not add any religious beliefs in their.

We are talking scientific life heart beating vs not!

If every heartbeat/life matters then shouldn't that be across the board?

Secondly you state you don't want the Government to force one groups beliefs onto another.

Then the 2nd question is this:

Why is it then ok to force anti gun beliefs of one group onto another?

Again why is ok for one thing but yet not another?

Is that NOT hypocrisy at its highest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/health/brain-dead-basics

The question should be if that is a sentient being with consciousness and aware. Without brain activity there is no life. Nobody knows when that occurs.

[DaveBrown74]

Dave

I think many people feel as you do.  I for one.  Those that refuse to admit it as bravely as you do are either not being honest or refuse to answer because I'm doing so it then shows the hypocrisy they have due to their other statements and/or beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed Slugs -- I do tend to think many pro choicers try to convince themselves that abortion is not killing because that makes the whole subject feel morally tidier for them. However, I do appreciate that there is a legitimate debate out there about when life begins, and I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong. I do think however that some do try to rationalize abortion as somehow not killing as a means of dealing internally with what they are in fact standing for.

I also think it's totally possible, and in fact not uncommon, to believe abortion is killing and not to have religion somehow be part of the equation with that belief. I myself am a good example of that. As I said in the previous post, I feel abortion is killing, but I'm not particularly religious.

[Ed Vette]

Agreed Slugs -- I do tend to think many pro choicers try to convince themselves that abortion is not killing because that makes the whole subject feel morally tidier for them. However, I do appreciate that there is a legitimate debate out there about when life begins, and I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong. I do think however that some do try to rationalize abortion as somehow not killing as a means of dealing internally with what they are in fact standing for.

I also think it's totally possible, and in fact not uncommon, to believe abortion is killing and not to have religion somehow be part of the equation with that belief. I myself am a good example of that. As I said in the previous post, I feel abortion is killing, but I'm not particularly religious.

At what point do you believe it's killing? At conception? After 22 days when the heart starts beating?

[DaveBrown74]

At what point do you believe it's killing? At conception? After 22 days when the heart starts beating?

I personally think it's technically killing after conception. Obviously it becomes grizzlier and a lot more off-putting the more the fetus develops, but if we're talking about "killing" in the technical sense of the word I personally believe it is killing anytime after conception.

[MightyGiants]

@Slugsy-Narrows

By your definition, you are a mass murderer many times over since you have killed many animals with heartbeats (your definition of life.

You are correct; I am a man and science and medicine.  I think this man, who is both a man of science and a philosopher does the best job laying out the real issue, which is when does an embryo become a human being (and an entity, if terminated, would be considered murdering a human being)

So here is perhaps the best explanation I have seen in quite some time:

Scott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology. He has identified as many as five developmental stages that, from a biological perspective, are all plausible beginning points for human life. Biology, as science knows it now, can tell these stages apart, but cannot determine at which one of these stages life begins.

The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is formed with the full human genetic material. But almost every cell in everyone's body contains that person's complete DNA sequence. If genetic material alone makes a potential human being, then when we shed skin cells – as we do all the time – we are severing potential human beings.

The second plausible stage is called gastrulation, which happens about two weeks after fertilization. At that point, the embryo loses the ability to form identical twins – or triplets or more. The embryo therefore becomes a biological individual but not necessarily a human individual.

The third possible stage is at 24 to 27 weeks of pregnancy, when the characteristic human-specific brain-wave pattern emerges in the fetus's brain. Disappearance of this pattern is part of the legal standard for human death; by symmetry, perhaps its appearance could be taken to mark the beginning of human life.

The fourth possible stage, which is the one endorsed in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, is viability, when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus with the help of available medical technology. With the technology that we have today, that stage is reached at about 24 weeks.

The final possibility is birth itself.

The overall point is that biology does not determine when human life begins. It is a question that can only be answered by appealing to our values, examining what we take to be human.

Perhaps biologists of the future will learn more. Until then, when human life begins during fetal developments is a question for philosophers and theologians. And policies based on an answer to that question will remain up to politicians – and judges.

https://theconversation.com/defining-when-human-life-begins-is-not-a-question-science-can-answer-its-a-question-of-politics-and-ethical-values-165514


2.  Paul, you claim that "abortion has nothing to do with religion."  If that were actually true, we wouldn't get these sorts of figures that clearly show religious beliefs impact one's beliefs about abortion:




Paul, I also notice you have repeatedly called out those that don't agree with you as hypocrites.  From my perspective, that is pretty much to be expected.  By your own admission, you consumed a great deal of propaganda (the false claims that Japan didn't invade the US because of private gun ownership).  One of the things about propaganda is it tends to be used when a position is questionable or weak (otherwise, one could simply give a sound case for a position).  Since one has a weak case, one of the best things is to find a target for the intended audience of the propaganda, someone they dislike or hate.  So they sell you their ideas by pointing out that those with other viewpoints are bad flawed people who are just hypocrites.  Nothing is better at manipulating people than playing on human weaknesses like fear, hate, vanity, and anger.  I have little doubt you have been told repeatedly that people who don't agree with your views on guns are nothing but hypocrites. 

Agreed Slugs -- I do tend to think many pro choicers try to convince themselves that abortion is not killing because that makes the whole subject feel morally tidier for them. However, I do appreciate that there is a legitimate debate out there about when life begins, and I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong. I do think however that some do try to rationalize abortion as somehow not killing as a means of dealing internally with what they are in fact standing for.

I also think it's totally possible, and in fact not uncommon, to believe abortion is killing and not to have religion somehow be part of the equation with that belief. I myself am a good example of that. As I said in the previous post, I feel abortion is killing, but I'm not particularly religious.

DB,

I think when you pretend to know what motivates others and what other people are thinking, you can go down a very dark path.