ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Why do you have to assume that any time homosexuality is brought up it is to degrade? If I brought up heterosexuality, would you still be proclaiming how degrading that is? Or do you make some distinction here? The only reason I chose homo over hetero, is that there are still people around who fear it. Is it degrading that I point out that hate still exists in the world? Hatred toward anyone is just as bad. Hatred toward someone for a sexual act is dumb, as is hatred toward someone for their choice of what to carry with them. A situation in which something potentially bad could take place is not a situation to forcibly undo, is the point. Maybe you should drop the homosexuality analogy all together...I think it is a distraction. Again, nothing "potentially bad" could happen to an outsider because 2 people are engaging in homosexual acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Why do you have to assume that any time homosexuality is brought up it is to degrade? If I brought up heterosexuality, would you still be proclaiming how degrading that is? Or do you make some distinction here? The only reason I chose homo over hetero, is that there are still people around who fear it. Is it degrading that I point out that hate still exists in the world? Hatred toward anyone is just as bad. Hatred toward someone for a sexual act is dumb, as is hatred toward someone for their choice of what to carry with them. Honestly I am ignoring any attempt to talk about how guns are "violent" because it is irrelevent and has no purpose (was that redundant?) What matters is what people actually do with the guns, just like what matters is what I do with my fists. It doesn't matter if I drive, but only when I threaten others with my vehicle. It doesn't matter that I walk into a store, unless I try to walk out without paying. It doesn't matter if someone is in a dark alley, unless they try to assault someone back there. A situation in which something potentially bad could take place is not a situation to forcibly undo, is the point. Sure, I am uncofortable if I walk down a dark alley and a creeper is lurking in the corner. But I can't just spray him with mace if he doesn't threaten me!! I said I was going to quit posting, and here I go again. Anyways, whether you brought up homosexuality or heterosexuality, I still would be alarmed by your questionable analogies (like the fists one, which for some reason you're still bringing up, as well as the jewelry comparison). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Obviously YOU would be alarmed, because it is obvious you already have a prejudice against guns. Just like the person who has hatred toward people who are sexually different would be alarmed that I liken something as innocent as guns to this action they are irrationally afraid of. The fact that you have some uncanny hatred for protecting oneself does not automattically prove some objective fault in an analogy. I didn't want to elucidate my background, but I will--briefly--to quell some misconceptions here. Firstly, I am not prejudiced against guns, and I do not possess an "uncanny hatred for protecting oneself." I live in a rural area with a strong gun culture. My father owned two handguns when I lived with him; my former boyfriend's family owned multiple guns; my former roommates were very interested in guns and owned a shotgun (which was kept in their room, out in the open, propped up against the wall). Hell, I OWN a gun. Granted, it's only a starter pistol and only fires blanks. I mainly have it for its aesthetic value, and for possibly scaring off intruders if necessary. I plan on purchasing a real handgun within the next year. Strong arguments can indeed be made for concealed carry on campuses, but I feel like yours have been relatively weak. What's more, my issue with your analogies is that they are not logically sound: some of my previous posts address why. Edited July 1, 2011 by Two Espressos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) I am personally very sick of all the calls for violence against people with guns here, disguised as "rules" or "disallowing" guns. Can anyone tell me how a government official would remove a gun from a gun-friendly campus without first trespassing on campus, and then physically removing the gun carryer? Are you ignorant? Again, no has has called for violence against gun holders. Quit being foolish.Walking around with a gun is not a peaceful action...you intend on using it as a means of harming someone you think is attacking you. Edited July 1, 2011 by ZeeMore21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) I really don't care whether your parents were guns themselves, you still seem to have a prejudice against guns, or else you wouldn't call for violence against gun carryers. Your mistake is you seem to think anyone needs to provide a reason FOR carrying on campus. No one needs to do so. The violent offender who tries to force a gun carryer off campus must justify their actions or face being shot in self defence. I don't argue for carrying guns any certain place. I argue AGAINST violence. If that violence is against a peaceful carryer, I will argue against that violence as I would any other violence. You have not yet provided ONE reason why my analogies are not logically sound. How does my analogy of banning a peaceful action not compare to banning another peaceful action? And don't try to change the subject to gun violence. Gun violence is a completely different subject than a human doing anything they peacefully please. Here's a copy-and-pasted (from my post far earlier in this forum) rebuttal of your fists and guns analogy: Positions for or against gun control on college campuses aside, this is a faulty analogy. One is born with their fists; they are parts of the body. Guns are not. You cannot elect to not carry your fists without causing severe physical pain. Our hands also have hundreds of uses beyond causing violence. Guns do not have these multitudinous uses. Guns shoot (whether they are used properly or improperly, they have no other function). As for jewelry--are you really saying that carrying a gun around is equivalent to wearing earrings? Government officials don't seem to agree, as concealed weapons are not allowed on aircraft or in governmental buildings. Your position seems to be that guns are "tools" and are thus equivalent to any other "tools": jewelry, fists, etc. I think this analogy is extremely suspect. For instance: an earring's primary purpose is to hang in the ear and be aesthetically pleasing. A gun's primary purpose is to shoot, is it not? Why else were guns created? They certainly weren't created simply to be aesthetically pleasing. Also, what exactly is a "tool," by your definition? Frankly, one could argue that ANYTHING is a tool. Edited July 1, 2011 by Two Espressos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I am personally very sick of all the calls for violence against people with guns here, disguised as "rules" or "disallowing" guns. Can anyone tell me how a government official would remove a gun from a gun-friendly campus without first trespassing on campus, and then physically removing the gun carryer? Again, to second what ZeeMore21 has said--no one has advocated violence against people with guns. You previously accused ZeeMore21 of wanting to hire thugs to stop gun holders; you later apologized and rescinded your position. Now you seem to be picking up your previous accusation----why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Again, to second what ZeeMore21 has said--no one has advocated violence against people with guns. You previously accused ZeeMore21 of wanting to hire thugs to stop gun holders; you later apologized and rescinded your position. Now you seem to be picking up your previous accusation----why? I would also like Aaron to explain why he felt it necessary to use the term thugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 ZeeMore21 has not. But many people actually have said that guns "should not be allowed" on campus. If you know of some other way to "not allow" something - other than actually making someone stop by force, please let me know. Until then, I will assume you have no substance to your feelings of hatred. Wait a second, here---did you not earlier concede that institutions have a right to allow or disallow guns (as well as alcohol, etc) on campuses?! If so, why are you arguing against yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Funny how Aaron doesn't want anyone to generalize gun owners...but he goes around generalizing people who oppose guns...we all are violent people who want to act through thugs to have guns removed. How silly and immature. Laws and bans are enforced all of the time without the use of thugs to carry them out. I also never said that gun-friendly campuses should be attacked...it's their prerogative to have guns on campus. I thought that the point of this thread was to discuss the reasons why guns would be permitted on campus, and what consequences may derive from this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Funny how Aaron doesn't want anyone to generalize gun owners...but he goes around generalizing people who oppose guns...we all are violent people who want to act through thugs to have guns removed. How silly and immature. Laws and bans are enforced all of the time without the use of thugs to carry them out. I also never said that gun-friendly campuses should be attacked...it's their prerogative to have guns on campus. I thought that the point of this thread was to discuss the reasons why guns would be permitted on campus, and what consequences may derive from this decision. That's exactly what I thought the point of this thread was also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) I don't think there is anything violent about people who desire stricter laws on guns which would limit their accessibility. Whether people want to face it or not, the US is high on the list when it comes to crime...obviously our current gun laws has something to do with it. I feel that those in opposition to current gun laws are not out to physically harm gun holders, we would like to voice our opposition through policy.I have trouble believing that an overwhelming access to guns is going to make this country safer, and although campuses may have the right to endorse gun ownership on campus, I have the right as a citizen to voice my concerns against it, that is my prerogative. Edited July 1, 2011 by ZeeMore21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Yes, I did, and still do concede that. But "campuses" as a generality, should not be mandated to disallow guns. If the individual property owner (or representative) chooses to disallow people with guns, they can certainly remove the person for trespassing (after letting them know, of course). But if a campus property owner chooses to allow this, no one may come by and force them to disallow it. Well then, you've been arguing against no one in particular. Please, find a post where I mandated that concealed carry should be disallowed on all college campuses that heretofore allow it. I personally don't see the need for concealed carry, and neither does ZeeMore21. Neither s/he nor I ever stated that the government should send armed "thugs" or what not to remove all guns off college campuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Whether or not you personally THINK it is violent, most people consider beating someone down and shooting them violent. If there is some "law" against some peaceful action I choose to do anyway (because it is not morally wrong to be peaceful), "they" will tell me to stop. Of course "they" are just other people who have no inherent "right" to tell me what to do, so I naturally ignore them. Then they come and try to kidnap (or fine) me. I obviously don't pay people who I disobey, so they come to kidnap me. I obviously don't like being kidnapped, so I justly defend myself. Then more people come and shoot me. This is violence by any definition, and I did not start violence if it was a petty non-violent law that I "broke". Okay, so by your logic, one should be allowed to concealed carry firearms on aircraft also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 ZeeMore21, I already apologized for grouping you in with the general group "gun haters" who want to hire people to stop gun carryers. You already expressed that individual campuses can decide, and I already mentioned that I agree there. I haven't even been arguing you for a page or two now :-/ On the other topic you just brought up, laws and bans are in fact enforced by the threat of violent action, in the end. Some laws, of course, are against actual violent crimes. Good!! Some laws are kinda dumb, like "don't ingest some substance or else!" - but it is still enforced by cops with guns. Actually, I don't think one single poster ever brought up the idea of violence toward gun holders.I think it is your obligation as a grad forum poster to look at people's comments carefully before your bring up an accusation as serious as the one you are bringing forth now. We are all educated people here...even those who oppose guns. I don't think anyone would be that outlandish to suggest that thugs be sent to colleges that legalize gun carrying. That's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Whether or not you personally THINK it is violent, most people consider beating someone down and shooting them violent. If there is some "law" against some peaceful action I choose to do anyway (because it is not morally wrong to be peaceful), "they" will tell me to stop. Of course "they" are just other people who have no inherent "right" to tell me what to do, so I naturally ignore them. Then they come and try to kidnap (or fine) me. I obviously don't pay people who I disobey, so they come to kidnap me. I obviously don't like being kidnapped, so I justly defend myself. Then more people come and shoot me. This is violence by any definition, and I did not start violence if it was a petty non-violent law that I "broke". You can go on believing that you have the "right" to carry your gun anywhere you please. Truth is, you don't. Given that there are other lives around you, that are just as important as yours, police officers have every right to take away your weapon if you refuse to do so peacefully. And by the way...thanks for supporting my belief that not all gun owners have enough common sense to be owning one. Police officers come to take your gun away if you have one someplace that would make it illegal, and your response--being the law-abiding gun-carrying citizen you are-- is to shoot them? Although there would be innocent bystanders around? Yeah, that makes sense. Edited July 1, 2011 by ZeeMore21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Well she has not explicitly said so. But you have actually said guns should not be allowed on campuses. If I said "guns should not be allowed in houses", would you take this to mean the homeowner decides, or that we should all disallow this by some kind of law? To me, that does NOT sound like "owners should decide for themselves" or else that's what I would have said. Likewise, the phrase "guns should not be allowed on campuses" (or the like) is normally construed to mean people should not allow guns on any campus, not "campuses should decide for themselves". These are very different viewpoints, and ZeeMore21 has stated that campuses should decide, but you have said that guns should not be allowed. It might be a miscommunication, but to me that sounds like you would like it illegal. Just because I've said that colleges have the choice to permit guns on campus doesn't mean I support guns being on campus...honestly I find it foolish and dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Well she has not explicitly said so. But you have actually said guns should not be allowed on campuses. If I said "guns should not be allowed in houses", would you take this to mean the homeowner decides, or that we should all disallow this by some kind of law? To me, that does NOT sound like "owners should decide for themselves" or else that's what I would have said. Likewise, the phrase "guns should not be allowed on campuses" (or the like) is normally construed to mean people should not allow guns on any campus, not "campuses should decide for themselves". These are very different viewpoints, and ZeeMore21 has stated that campuses should decide, but you have said that guns should not be allowed. It might be a miscommunication, but to me that sounds like you would like it illegal. I stated earlier that I was unsure whether or not guns should be allowed on campuses. At the very least, I *never* said that violence should be taken against gun owners on campuses that allow concealed carry. And where did I actually say that guns should not be allowed on campuses? I remember saying something to the effect of, "I don't see why guns should be allowed on campuses," which expresses questioning into the logic behind allowing concealed carry----something that was readily discussed earlier in the forum. I'd like to see the post where you aver that my statement came from. I'd like to see it in context, or at the very least, be able to explain it more readily to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Also Aaron...you can go around thinking that police are all just hired thugs, sent my gun-opposing citizens, that you don't have to answer to. Hope this works out for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Again, both Two Espressos and I would like you to show us the specific posts you are referring to that propose violence against gun owners. I don't accept your "many americans feel that way" distraction when you have decided to paint specific posters in this thread as thugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 If a "police officer" can take my gun, then of course I can take the officer's gun, right? Unless of course, the uniform and badge somehow gives him special super citizen privileges... Truth is, I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses right to do the same. Obviously the other lives are just as important; that is why I can't go shooting people unless they attack me. A police would have the right to take your gun away if you are carrying it into an area where it may be banned. Don't really thing the argument I am making is that hard to understand. You rather choose to be hard-headed and not fully digest what people are saying to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 It is quite absurd, but the vast majority of Americans promote hiring thugs to go after lots of peaceful people. Look at drug laws, taxes, welfare, business laws, the very existence of corporations even is a government protected idea. Anything backed up by government force (or any other force) is backed up by violence. Of course dealing with theft, murder rape etc (crimes with victims) calls for necessary force so that people are not harmed individually. So there are a great many people that promote violence agaist people who want to smoke their own shit, keep their own money, and yes, even carry their own protection. Holy shit, you're really generalizing every viewpoint against your own. So every person that opposes drug use and supports taxes/welfare is promoting "hiring thugs" to go after lots of peaceful people? It's a shame that there isn't a formally-trained philosopher on these threads, because s/he would have probably provided a succinct and powerful response that would have ended this lunacy by now. ZeeMore21 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) No of course! I would never assume you support it! I don't go around support minorities (or majorities) but I do of course think they have all the same rights! You find is foolish and dangerous, while I find it safer and quite smart. Different opinions is why it is good for people to decide what to allow on their campus themselves! Some will allow guns and some won't. People that feel safer around guns will be more likely to go to those campuses, and people that don't like guns will go to the other campus. The issue of students now having to take the presence of guns as another factor contributing to their college decisions is one of the reasons I find this whole guns on campus thing ridiculous. People, for the most part from privilege, want to argue that all people have the choice to pick whatever college they want. This is not correct...things such as location and finances could severely limit someone's choices...and I find it appalling that some might argue that a person in this predicament can choose not to go to college at all if they don't want to be around guns while on campus. Don't really know when gun owners' rights become more important than equal access to education for all. Edited July 1, 2011 by ZeeMore21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I might find a post where you say "should not" or I might not, but what really matters is what people mean. Language is funny in the way that it can be so easily muddled up! Language is powerful and incredibly nuanced. You cannot simply omit words to try to find "what people mean." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeeMore21 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I have every right to wonder if a school should permit guns on campus Aaron, thank you very much. That is my freedom and right as a citizen living in this country who wants to be safe from lax gun laws. Gun owners aren't the only ones who need to be protected, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Wow. Who does that?? You do, as is evidenced by this forum. You've also ignored attacks on your logic, falsely attributed radical positions to those who disagree with you, and then vehemently disparaged your dissenters for holding these non-existent views. Honestly, this discussion is getting way out of hand, and way off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now