spenac Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Oh isn't the fall wonderful. It gets us all out there expressing opinions and bashing those that have differing views. Awe the good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 I understand that "air rifles" have enough oomph to shoot and kill small varmints up to the size of a rabbit, so, per a previously mentioned term, could that be considered a low powered rifle? No, Ralphie, you can't have an air rifle, you'll shoot someone's eye out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 I am posting this hours after I began to think and write it. It's ealy morning, I've got about 6 minutes left on my internet connection, so have not time to proof it as I'd like as I may not be able to get back to this for a few days. No disrespect meant to those here for the errors. Dwayne Michael, I don’t pretend to completely understand you stance, but it sounds as if you’re saying that because everyone has preconceived emotional reactions to certain issues that that then justifies a refusal to accept greater evidence to contrary opinions that might possibly cause one to over rule their emotions with logical thought? That the individual is at least partially resolved of the responsibility or rational though through the gift of being ‘one of the many’? Yeah, I know I’m asking for a response that will give me a mental brain cramp of biblical proportions. I disagree with your stance, as I understand it, that prejudice are acceptable as long as identified as such, so then not to be acted on to anyone’s detriment. I do in fact believe us to be victims of prejudice, though I believe that once you have identified them, that you are then obligated, (though who holds the title on that obligation I’m unclear) to attempt to resolve them when information becomes available. I don’t believe you’re obligated to actively see out information of every subject that you may have an ignorant opinion on, but simply obligated to assess it when it falls into your lap, so to speak. Isn’t the only option voluntary ignorance? If you choose to actively ignore such evidence, aren’t you then actively pursuing ignorance? And should the pursuit of ignorance be supported in any way in a loving, intelligent society? You claim an uneducated prejudice that dreadlocks are unhygienic. Perhaps you’re right, or not, I have not idea. But having stated such thoughts, when someone now comes to you with evidence that you’ve been previously ignorant of, showing that perhaps your loosely held opinion is incorrect, is it not your obligation to apply those facts and then adjust your opinion if necessary? Or is there a standard or weight of personal importance that the issue must hold before that obligation become self enforceable? I’m not sure. Dreadlocks are not a part of my personal life, so their hygienic merits are of no concern to me, so perhaps it fails the “affects me’ test, releasing me from the obligation to adjust my opinion. Again, not sure. But if Barbara or Dylan decide to become part of the dreadlock movement I believe my opinion, and my logical obligation perhaps change. Hmmm…I think this is what my brother in law would call a rabbit trail. I do know that my scientific sensibilities are daily offended by my belief in a higher power, an entity that I believe to exist in some form despite my inability to weigh or measure it an any way. It would seem that before I can comment on ak’s comment that I must resolve this paradox for myself, though I don’t believe that I do. See, I’ve written a clause into my personal logic contract that states, and I paraphrase, that “some issues are simply to big and complex to digest and resolve in one sitting.” I’ve given me a free pass, having decided that this will likely be a lifetime argument that I’ll only likely resolve when I go to nothingness, or hear Satan saying, “Man, you’ve made some pretty crappy life choices.” So is there a burden of merit that must be met before we’re mentally obligated to apply new facts to an old problem? This I know. The comment “This is my opinion and I will not change it regardless of the volume or merit of information provided me” offends me. The reason it offends me interests me. Yeah, not much I know, but it’s what I’ve got. This I know. You’re off in the ditch on pit bulls. Just sayin’….(And yes, I very much felt baited by that part of your dialog. :wink: ) This I think. That the merits or evils of limiting the possession of firearms can be a life altering, sometimes world altering step to take so, in my little world it meets the criterium for “this thought must be adjusted, given new, logical accurate information.” This I believe. That the chance to flex both brain cells in the company of those that reside on the City is a gift, and I thank you all for your time and opinions. Even if you’re wrong, like ak obviously is. Have a great day all. Dwayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 though who holds the title on that obligation I’m unclear That was my entire point. Thank you for making it prominent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsadin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Wow, didn't realize I'd draw the response I did with my post! All of you deserve responses, but it is late and I'm a bit tired so I promise to sit down and pen something worthwhile tomorrow..ok? I need time to digest everything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I'll be watching your avatar eagerly for signs of your sitting down. Until then I can't sit down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsadin Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Ahhh...a few minutes of quiet to post here in the city. I'm going to make an attempt to address the posts made by both Michael and AK. Let's see how I do. But as I said, I made my opinions clear early on, you evidently only focused on the end. Reading comprehension is so very important, I only wish more practiced it. Hey now! No need to get snippy. I have, in fact, read the entire thread and had done so before penning my entry. I'm an engineer in real life, so reading for comprehension is a prerequisite. Here's where my issue comes in with what you've written AK: No matter what studies are quoted, laws explained, positions defended, I will NOT change my views on high powered assault weapons. I just have personal issues with high powered assault weapons, my views will not change Therefore, some weapons, such as these need to be banned (yes I said it) or very, heavily regulated. You are entitled to your opinions/views, but once you start demanding legislation based on personal bias, that's where I have a problem. Now it's no longer just your opinion...you're forcing others to conform to what you consider right. You can think what you want, be as prejudiced as you want, whatever, just don't push your views on me. jsadin wrote: To refuse to accept any input that does not agree with our emotional state is just disgraceful and myopic. And this last statement of yours, definitely quote of the year. I agree 100% as it can be stated unequivocally in relation to Christianity as well; bravo my fellow EMT City'er. Glad you liked my statement (and it sounds like our views on organized religion are pretty close), but it just bewilders me all the more at your position that it's ok to ban/regulate "assault weapons" because you "feel" they are bad. Interesting enough however, is that despite everyone putting the onus on me to prove why we should NOT have the "high powered"(for Dust) assault rifles, not one of you have stated reasons why we should. Other than blowing out some doors for fun and because the current Supreme Court (totally uninfluenced by any politicians or lobby groups) determined it ok, why do we NEED these weapons? Legitimate question here and remember, I am NOT against gun ownership, I have them in my home, always have, always will, but WHY do we need these assault rifles? This is America, land of want, not need. Why do we need "assault weapons"? We probably don't. I guaranty that I can dispatch anyone out to 4-500 yards with my scoped hunting rifle with one shot, no problem (try that with your average AK-47). The problem lies in the "give 'em an inch and they'll take a yard" mentality. When a type of firearm is banned, it opens the door for the radical antigun groups. Most antigun groups out there have stated openly that their ultimate goal is to ban private ownership of ALL firearms. BTW, how much stuff do we really "need"? Do we need 4wd V8 gas guzzlers to drive around the city? Do we need fur coats, Oakley sunglasses, North Face jackets, mocha lattes, 50" HDTVs, surround sound or the latest cell phone? 99% of the "stuff" we have is based on want, not need. Michael CITY SPONSOR js, kudos to you for acknowledging that you too have held preconceived notions and emotional responses. Now, how did you treat your preconceived notions and emotional responses before you got old enough to put them aside? And, assuming and hoping you will grow still older and continue to look for facts and concrete arguments to back your stances, how do you currently treat your surviving preconceived notions and emotional responses in a non-myopic, non-disgraceful way? Before I reached the point of recognizing my emotional responses for what they were, I was like AK; calling for legislation, telling others I'd never change, etc. I was SO convinced that I was right and everyone should feel as I do! Feeling I was right wasn't the issue....trying to force others to my side of the fence was. What I do now is present well thought out and verifiable arguments and let others use my information to formulate their opinions. If all I have to support my position is my "gut", then I don't discuss it. There are two subjects that I never discuss at family functions; politics and religion. I've found both are chuck full of emotional tripe and can ruin a good time in short order. Seemingly intelligent people turn into raving lunatics whenever either of these subjects are broached. But whatever is disgraceful about someone's having sufficient self-awareness and the attendant courage to characterize his prejudices as prejudices, as you in fact have -- nobly to my mind -- just done? The only difference is that AK specified one of his, and you stopped short of specifying any of yours (which you're of course perfectly entitled to do, though I admit you've piqued my interest). As I stated, there is nothing disgraceful about having prejudices. Stating that you will make every effort to force others to your side based on nothing but those prejudices is, however, disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 demanding legislation forcing others push your views on me Please indicate AK's demanding and forcing. As for his pushing his views on you, are you not at liberty to refrain from reading his opinions? Before I reached the point of recognizing my emotional responses for what they were, I was like AK; calling for legislation, telling others I'd never change, etc. I was SO convinced that I was right and everyone should feel as I do! So now you are no longer convinced that you are right and that everyone should feel as you do? In that case... Feeling I was right wasn't the issue....trying to force others to my side of the fence was. By what means has AK tried to force you to his side of the fence? Stating that you will make every effort to force others to your side based on nothing but those prejudices is, however, disgraceful. Again, by what means has AK indicated he will make every effort to force others to his side? The only effort I've seen him exert is to type a few words about it in a forum that will be read by a handful of ems providers. Perhaps I'm deluded, but I, who don't even agree with him on the topic of gun control, don't feel in the least forced, nor have I seen anyone else being forced. I have read some forceful language here, however, and it hasn't been from him... :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsadin Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Dude, did you miss this statement? Therefore, some weapons, such as these need to be banned (yes I said it) or very, heavily regulated. Sounds to me like he's going to vote to ban firearms that he finds offensive, if afforded the opportunity. Perhaps I'm being a bit assumptive, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsadin Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Please indicate AK's demanding and forcing. As for his pushing his views on you, are you not at liberty to refrain from reading his opinions? Are you kidding me? Did you read my post? I'm talking about AK supporting the banning of certain types of weapons because he "feels" they are bad. Whether I read his posts or not, it does not change the fact that he would most likely support legislation to ban "assault weapons". I would never support legislation to force people to own firearms, why should I not be disturbed when someone claims to support stopping me from owning them? So now you are no longer convinced that you are right and that everyone should feel as you do? I realize that things are not as black/white as I once thought. Again, by what means has AK indicated he will make every effort to force others to his side? The only effort I've seen him exert is to type a few words about it in a forum that will be read by a handful of ems providers. Perhaps I'm deluded, but I, who don't even agree with him on the topic of gun control, don't feel in the least forced, nor have I seen anyone else being forced. I have read some forceful language here, however, and it hasn't been from him... Nice try. AK has stated unequivocally that certain types of firearms should be banned. That's not simply stating that you think certain things are "bad"....it's stating you support pushing your ideals on others who don't agree with you. I may not agree with abortion, but I don't make statements that it should be outlawed. I may not agree with organized religion, but I don't call for the banning of churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts