Page: 1 2 Next »

TBR

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:47 PM
Number of posts: 1,004

Journal Archives

Pejoratives in posts Left vs. Right

I dislike them all. RepubliCON LIEberal, just one small step above a sixth grader. But who uses more? I am a liberal. I see many more instances from the right, and the use more derogatory. The thing is, I am liberal, right? When I see some post from 'my side' using such silliness truth is, I tend to ignore the entire post. I move on, or give it very little thought. I am embarrassed for the poster, and any association I might have with them. When I see it from the right, I tend to read the post.

From just my biased reading, it seems about 4 or 5 to 1, right over left. What does everyone else see? Does it embarrass, are you one who does this, why?

Star Wars IV with my 4yo son.

Sitting with my 4 year old son watching "A New Hope". I have waited to show him this movie. He is nuts for robots, and space. I knew he would love it.

Its not like I am some huge Star Wars guy. Love Sci-Fy, but its not like I made special costumes for the event. Just saying, its a very special daddy son night.

(In the compactor right now. Boy stuffing chips in his mouth (another treat for him))

The first recorded war occurred in ~3000 B.C.

Guess where it was? It was between Sumer (Iraq) and Elam (Iran).

For what its worth, I have no interest in fighting for 5000 years.

Mandating holsters, locks, safes and other safety devices for guns

On the heels of the story today regarding a teacher with a carry permits involvement in an negligent discharge, I said that among other taboo subjects for gun-supporters is mandating gun safety. I was challenged on this, and suggested I would create a post to ask the question.

The question then is, as best as I can frame it, is there a place for conversation with regards to mandating safety requirements for carry permitted people? A holsters, the type of holster? Locking when not on the person with the permit? I will leave the question list short to keep the conversation tight, and allow for it to meander where it should naturally.

EDIT: It was pointed out to me that in the earlier conversation I did not say "locks, safes and other safety devices for guns" only mentioning holsters. That is true, and if the member thinks I unnecessary piled on more questions, I can only say that I have been convinced that the holster is a critical safety device and now occupies the same part in my brain as other safety devices. It seems natural to offer the conversation as "safety devices"

Are you concerned about terrorism

Where on a small spectrum does your concern lie for terrorism?

Alerting - What environment are we building

In the short time I have been on this forum I have served as juror quite a few times. I like systems like these, allowing the community to in effect democratically (small d) set the standard within looser bounders set by the forum owners. In each of the cases I have served on I have voted with an impartial mind, and when I simply cannot, have opted out. The issue at hand has less to do with impartiality and more to do with what limits we set - what is the ecosystem we want?

I am not overly delicate, if you call me a name I will not break. I have been talking contentious subjects since I was very young. Here’s what I have learned – people say vile things, shout and scream. I include myself in that. I say snarky and cruel things all the time. But, when people with the most diametrically opposing views stop with the most blatant of name calling and broad generalizations, conversations happen.

There are very vertical forums. We all know of several, they are their own thing. This doesn't have to look like those. I enjoy talking with people different than myself more that talking to a doppelganger of myself. I WANT the conversation to be contentious. I even want to feel free to poke a little at my debate-mirror, but here is where the problem lies. It starts to spiral in on itself. A gentile chide elicits a stronger refute, until the entire conversation is nothing more than two or three sub threads that look like sick on a monitor.

People are smarter than their emotions allow them to be. When even slightly hurt, the immediate reaction is to strike back. On a forum, that costs nothing. It’s even cathartic. Where is the harm to others? One way to think about it is to simply ignore what you don’t like. While that’s a great suggestion, allowing your garden to fill with trash while only concentrating on the rose bush leaves you with a crappy garden. The level of discourse is set by the content of low-bound of the discourse.

So the open-ended question is, what does the community want?


Fear of guns vs. fear of society.

The last discussion http://www.discussionist.com/101638214 was so rational, I would like to press my luck, and keep it going. I offer this in the same spirit as the last. A chance to understand each other more than score a quick point. ---

There are no shortage of gun debates that include some form of “you are just afraid of guns”, and while I think it’s much more complex than that, yea, I have a certain level of fear of guns. The hydrogen peroxide you keep in your bathroom is not much to worry about, but I don’t keep 50% mix of the chemical just lying around, it’s damn dangerous. Not all instances of guns in the home (or on the belt) are equal.

On the flip side, I often say to gun-supporters that I don’t fear society as much as they do. I simply don’t see danger around every turn. I have lived in large city’s (Chicago, Denver) and a beach community (Santa Barbara) and now back to the burbs of Chicago. I have lived for some time now, my father before me, and my grandfather before him, all without a gun in the house to protect us.

In another thread a gun-supporter commended me on a commitment for my willingness to die for an ideal. I am. I am making a calculated choice, and see the gun as a higher risk than the danger in the society. If I should die at some point because of that choice, that is ok. There is a chance that the road not taken could have caused other deaths.

My question is. Do you, gun-supporters, see a society that is this dangerous? Is it possible that the gun you own is contributing to the problem, even if it is necessary defense?

For reciprocity ask me about fear of guns. I will tell no lies.

Killing over property.

Often in discussions with gun-supporters, the conversation comes to a point where it is clear they are willing to kill over property. Televisions, Computers, other bits of personal property kept In a home, or looting in other cases.

It is a very fundamental difference to me and many of my ilk, and gun-supporters. I am attempting to start the discussion without a hint of moral superiority, but I know it is inevitable from both sides. Can the argument be made for or against in a calm thoughtful manor?

Presuppositional apologetics


I have run into a rash of Christians making some bastardize version of a presuppositional argument against atheism. It is important to note that this is only an argument useful refuting atheism, not for any proof of god. Endless reduction to absurdity based on the idea that without god, no rational thought is possible, or proof of existence.

My question is, I have seen a variant used by Ken Ham, and think many Christians are cribbing the argument from him. Is this some new training tactic intended to frustrate atheist? Are they publishing a handbook somewhere, like “how to endlessly and irrationally pester an atheists?”.

Anyone else running into this?

Charges of racism

Let me start by saying, I have been racist. I have made judgement of others based on race. I have grouped and stereotyped people by race.

There isn't one person who has ever called me a raciest, or anyone that thinks I am a raciest. That is how insidious racism can be. It can, and will be experienced by almost every person that exists. The nicest, bleeding heart liberal like myself, or the black republican. We all harbor transitional thoughts, unexplored thoughts, or outright prejudices. To deny them is to deny basic tribalism.

When someone questions if a statement or action is racist - just consider the question. Not all the extenuating detail (blacks account for a disproportionate amount of criminals), just the statement or action. In THIS case, are you drawing any conclusion based on race? Should you adjust any part of your thinking based on the answer to this question?

Many think of this word like a insult. It sure can be a insult, no denying. But, when my wife says I'm being a asshole, I don't jump up-and-down denying my assholeness. I ask myself, am I being an asshole?
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »