Castle Doctrine vs. Brandishing Laws

Should you be able to answer the door with a shotgun?

only if it's religious (mormons/Jehovahs witnesses/etc)	6.1%	[ 2 ]
only if its a young man trying to screw your daughter	3.0%	[ 1 ]
only if it's an insurrance/vacuum cleaner/etc salesman	0.0%	[ 0 ]
some of the above	24.2%	[ 8 ]
all of the above	51.5%	[ 17 ]
No firearms are scary!	15.2%	[ 5 ]
Total Votes:			[ 33 ]

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Biological imperative is useless without hope. Hope kills the 'why bother' mindset.
You're attempting to claim that we have drive to build/create/cure without hope. It's the cornerstone, the fuel for all that happens.

Not necessarily. I've got very little hope, but I'm far more afraid of oblivion than I am in a life that's hopeless. Probably not is still preferable to no, you know? And ******** knows I'd be very content if things actually work out.

Waaaaaaaaaait, that's hope, isn't it? Can't tell.

[AsuraSyn]

Major Lima Charlie

AsuraSyn

The majority of humanity is about equal to any other form of animal life, except more aggressive in it's consumption of resources. They don't strive for anything more noble than a full belly and something shiny to paw at.
It's easy to see if you simply stop looking at them as people.

Assumes I don't. Doesn't change the fact that life isn't statistics. Reducing people to numbers to be tweaked is mad.

Everything is a statistic. I know most people use Stalin at this point but instead I'll use Santa Anna :
"What are the lives of soldiers than so many chickens?"
Objectively a rat is a cat is a dog is a boy is a man. If we treat one life form as just things to be used or disposed of it's not a giant leap to do it with one another. We cull animals that breed too excessively in an area, we selectively mate domestic ones for the best traits or even appearance, why not do the same with out fellow human beings for the benefit of all?
If we used selective breeding measures or even just limited the amount of breeding people in certain areas or social standings could do we could easily eliminate much of disease, hunger even war and maximize the potential of those bred later in life by affording them the necessary opportunities and resources.

[Major Lima Charlie]

AsuraSyn

Major Lima Charlie

AsuraSyn

The majority of humanity is about equal to any other form of animal life, except more aggressive in it's consumption of resources. They don't strive for anything more noble than a full belly and something shiny to paw at.
It's easy to see if you simply stop looking at them as people.

Assumes I don't. Doesn't change the fact that life isn't statistics. Reducing people to numbers to be tweaked is mad.

Everything is a statistic. I know most people use Stalin at this point but instead I'll use Santa Anna :
"What are the lives of soldiers than so many chickens?"
Objectively a rat is a cat is a dog is a boy is a man. If we treat one life form as just things to be used or disposed of it's not a giant leap to do it with one another. We cull animals that breed too excessively in an area, we selectively mate domestic ones for the best traits or even appearance, why not do the same with out fellow human beings for the benefit of all?
If we used selective breeding measures or even just limited the amount of breeding people in certain areas or social standings could do we could easily eliminate much of disease, hunger even war and maximize the potential of those bred later in life by affording them the necessary opportunities and resources.

And who goes? You? Me? Fact of the matter is that humans have the capacity to actually discuss these things. Individuals don't get to play god.

[AsuraSyn]

Major Lima Charlie

AsuraSyn

Major Lima Charlie

AsuraSyn

The majority of humanity is about equal to any other form of animal life, except more aggressive in it's consumption of resources. They don't strive for anything more noble than a full belly and something shiny to paw at.
It's easy to see if you simply stop looking at them as people.

Assumes I don't. Doesn't change the fact that life isn't statistics. Reducing people to numbers to be tweaked is mad.

Everything is a statistic. I know most people use Stalin at this point but instead I'll use Santa Anna :
"What are the lives of soldiers than so many chickens?"
Objectively a rat is a cat is a dog is a boy is a man. If we treat one life form as just things to be used or disposed of it's not a giant leap to do it with one another. We cull animals that breed too excessively in an area, we selectively mate domestic ones for the best traits or even appearance, why not do the same with out fellow human beings for the benefit of all?
If we used selective breeding measures or even just limited the amount of breeding people in certain areas or social standings could do we could easily eliminate much of disease, hunger even war and maximize the potential of those bred later in life by affording them the necessary opportunities and resources.

And who goes? You? Me? Fact of the matter is that humans have the capacity to actually discuss these things. Individuals don't get to play god.

Ironic, that last statement since the individuals who invented the concept of a god did just that.
rofl
No one person could have that kind of power and still maintain the purity of it. As I've often said, I don't have the final solution (ha) to the problem of corruption and greed in humanity at large. The only way to properly move forward would be to structure a new society in which the idea of objectivity was supplanted in place of the current individualist mindset. It'll never happen, of course, I know that. To build my ideal society would require a massive restart of humanity by first reducing the current global population to a tenth of it's current figure. Now, before anyone points out the obvious, I do realize what I'm saying:
6.3 billion people need to die.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Major Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Biological imperative is useless without hope. Hope kills the 'why bother' mindset.
You're attempting to claim that we have drive to build/create/cure without hope. It's the cornerstone, the fuel for all that happens.

Not necessarily. I've got very little hope, but I'm far more afraid of oblivion than I am in a life that's hopeless. Probably not is still preferable to no, you know? And ******** knows I'd be very content if things actually work out.

Waaaaaaaaaait, that's hope, isn't it? Can't tell.

Bingo. That is hope. Never said it was a massive flood of it that was required, but it is, nonetheless, hope.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Major Lima Charlie

AsuraSyn

A great deal of human beings are useless or outright detrimental to society and the progression of social evolution. Removing their negative influence would be like yanking out wisdom teeth. Why exactly is that so bad?

Who are you to say? You don't have the capacity to judge.

Because unlike everyone else I strive for objectivity even knowing it's impossible.

If I could give an award for pretentiousness, this would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

[AsuraSyn]

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Major Lima Charlie

AsuraSyn

A great deal of human beings are useless or outright detrimental to society and the progression of social evolution. Removing their negative influence would be like yanking out wisdom teeth. Why exactly is that so bad?

Who are you to say? You don't have the capacity to judge.

Because unlike everyone else I strive for objectivity even knowing it's impossible.

If I could give an award for pretentiousness, this would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Because unlike everyone else I strive for objectivity even knowing it's impossible.

If I could give an award for pretentiousness, this would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

[AsuraSyn]

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Because unlike everyone else I strive for objectivity even knowing it's impossible.

If I could give an award for pretentiousness, this would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

I reject the concept of morality and absolute truth, you know that.
As for my convictions, you're right, they're not absolute. If I believed what I believe with no room for new information, I would be a lunatic.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Jacque De Martyr

Lets ban guns, free love man!

Let's ban love, free guns man!

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Because unlike everyone else I strive for objectivity even knowing it's impossible.

If I could give an award for pretentiousness, this would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

You appear to be confusing truth and belief, to a degree. One may believe things would work better in X fashion, but that isn't truth, as it is not taking into account individuality, which is why we cannot achieve a perfect political system.
Water is wet is an objective truth. 'This system will work for everyone and they'll all be happy' is a belief, not truth.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

I reject the concept of morality and absolute truth, you know that.
As for my convictions, you're right, they're not absolute. If I believed what I believe with no room for new information, I would be a lunatic.

I know you think and claim you so, but that is not true. You are lying. To both yourself and anyone reading this thread. You are running from the responsibility for what you are claiming. In this very thread you have outline particular actions which you hold should be done for the benefit of humanity.

I wouldn't say so: one is not necessary lunatic for holding something is true. Indeed, the very definition of lunatic, requires a definite notion, about what behaviour is "crazy," to exist. Finally, you say you are open to new information, but what did you do when challenged by Major Lima Charlie and Old Blue Collar Joe? You rejected anything they said as inaccurate.

You do believe what you believe with on room for new information. You are just, for some reason, are intensely afraid of realising this.

[AsuraSyn]

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

I reject the concept of morality and absolute truth, you know that.
As for my convictions, you're right, they're not absolute. If I believed what I believe with no room for new information, I would be a lunatic.

I know you think and claim you so, but that is not true. You are lying. To both yourself and anyone reading this thread. You are running from the responsibility for what you are claiming. In this very thread you have outline particular actions which you hold should be done for the benefit of humanity.

I wouldn't say so: one is not necessary lunatic for holding something is true. Indeed, the very definition of lunatic, requires a definite notion, about what behaviour is "crazy," to exist. Finally, you say you are open to new information, but what did you do when challenged by Major Lima Charlie and Old Blue Collar Joe? You rejected anything they said as inaccurate.

You do believe what you believe with on room for new information. You are just, for some reason, are intensely afraid of realising this.

Accepting any new information that happens to wander by as truth is lunacy. I gave ear to their viewpoints, debated and ultimately was not swayed. They can say the same of me and my information. Doesn't mean any of us rejected it out of hand, though on that I can speak only for meself, it just means we did not find cause to incorporate it into our personal belief systems.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

No- its pretentious because you think you are the only one trying to be objective.

And don't kid yourself- if there was an award for Jackassery, it would obviously be mine.

Very well, bowing to statistics I change my earlier statement to "unlike most everyone else".
Fair enough?

Not even most everyone. Most people like objectivity and often know its not possible.

You are not special in simply seeking this.

Ha!
Most people wouldn't know objectivity if it shat upon them. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, myself included, can only look at things from their own perspective, a subjective one, and thus objectivity is an almost alien concept. Everyone, by and large, views the world contextually, how one thing affects another within themselves.
"If I do x, y will happen."
They rarely, if ever, look at things systematically.
"Is it beneficial to the whole to do x?"
Objectivity, in this vernacular, would simply be putting aside any form of preconception and starting from a blank state to decide what would be beneficial and what would not.

Oh, so its apparently that 'most people' wouldn't know objectivity, but you clearly are not in this group and belong with the anointed ones who presumably do? Interesting- didn't you just say that you can't know what objective is because people are all limited to their subjective view? Seems like you then fall into those who wouldn't know objectivity if it 'shat on them'.

Ha indeed.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Old Blue Collar Joe

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

This is denying your responsibility. Truth is always prejudicial. When X is true, not-X cannot be so. You are not removing prejudice. You are celebrating a particular form of prejudice.

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

You appear to be confusing truth and belief, to a degree. One may believe things would work better in X fashion, but that isn't truth, as it is not taking into account individuality, which is why we cannot achieve a perfect political system.
Water is wet is an objective truth. 'This system will work for everyone and they'll all be happy' is a belief, not truth.

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about truth itself(which may be accurate or inaccurate to belief). I'm talking about the nature of belief. That when holds a belief, whatever that belief happens to be, they hold it to be true.