The Second Amendment

[Static_Martyr]

1- think it would have any effect going forward

What are we talking about, exactly? Who thinks what would have any effect going forward? A weapons ban? Responsible regulation of firearms?

2- give a shit that you are advocating taking away the rights of the many, because of the actions of the very, very, few.

Taking what rights away? Seriously. What right do you believe is being "taken away" based on the actions of anyone?

Regardless of what you or I think, the 2008 case established an individual right to own. That said, are you making the case that any attempt to regulate this right is "taking your rights away?" Do you feel that a law against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would be "taking away" your right to free speech?

Or are you part of the crowd that thinks the government is somehow banning all guns? If so, I'm curious why you think that.

[Baldwin]

I just think it's funny how emotionally attached to guns some people get. So much that they completely lose their shit if you even talk about it; it's just something snarky to say to piss off overzealous defenders of guns when they've already demonstrated that they don't give a shit about what laws are actually being proposed, and instead want to just run around screaming, "DERNT TERK MER GUNS!!"

Is this honestly how you see yourself? A detached, rational guy who's trollin' the republicans into shitfits? Your endless, pointless diatribes have overwhelmed this forum to the point that 9/10ths of all it's recent activity is you, giving politics lectures and reusing political soundbytes and jumping on every single comment posted to launch a page-long thesis on why it's incorrect. You are the overzealous defender of your beliefs, you are the one running around screaming "TERK ALL THE GUNS", and just because you can spell correctly and punctuate doesn't change that.

And neither does claiming that you're only trollin', and you don't really care. Everyone can see that you care. We see it in the sheer volume of effort you're putting in.

Also, lol@ "self-righteous;" the criticism of people who can't think of anything better to say.

I thought of something better. You're a smug, self-righteous cunt.

[Static_Martyr]

Is this honestly how you see yourself? A detached, rational guy who's trollin' the republicans into shitfits? Your endless, pointless diatribes have overwhelmed this forum to the point that 9/10ths of all it's recent activity is you, giving politics lectures and reusing political soundbytes and jumping on every single comment posted to launch a page-long thesis on why it's incorrect. You are the overzealous defender of your beliefs, you are the one running around screaming "TERK ALL THE GUNS", and just because you can spell correctly and punctuate doesn't change that.

Calm down and pull your panties out of your ass. I never said that's how I see myself. We were posting facetious things about gun control (unless there's another reason you're so overjoyed by the fact that some people accidentally shot themselves at a gun show that you felt the need to post it in multiple topics?); I merely chipped in that, when I'm being facetious, I like to say that (i.e. if someone's being an idiot and I am in a situation where I'm trolling, then yes, I say random stupid things without concern for whether or not they're true). That's not to say I behave that way as a matter of principle.

And neither does claiming that you're only trollin', and you don't really care. Everyone can see that you care. We see it in the sheer volume of effort you're putting in.

When did I ever say anything to the effect that, "I'm only trollin'?" The fact that my rants come out of frustration rather than genuine interest doesn't mean that I'm "trolling," because I'm still making a genuine effort. Trolls do not make genuine efforts, as sort of a rule. And I noticed you don't seem to have the same problem with obvious trolls saying the stupid things to which I'm responding in the first place; you call me smug and condescending for trying to outline my beliefs in a calm and respectful manner while you call me condescending names? I find it hard to believe you don't see the irony there. You're no different.

I thought of something better. You're a smug, self-righteous cunt.

Yeah, I find people like to use words like "smug" and "condescending" when they disagree with what someone says, but don't want to take the time to explain why in reasonable and respectful terms. People who act like that are actually the main reason talking about things like this is not fun.

Also, lol@ "most of the activity is mine." Yeah, because the politics section was so very busy before.

[Godxilla]

So I'm not the only one.
Well, in a more respectful way than Baldwin: You really ought to start using real methods of debate here. Rather than summarizing every issue in it's entirety in every post, try to tackle an issue at a time. Rather than attacking us for word choice, give some leniency. Rather than explaining why you're right, debate the issue. Concede some points. Use some speech-giving techniques. People don't care about some obscure CBS poll; they want generalized ideas. Just because the LA Times says something doesn't mean it's right. Generally, what goes around comes around.

Now, because of the Golden Rule, I encourage you to critique me.

[Baldwin]

I'm not disagreeing with your views, Static. I'm calling you a cunt. You, personally. I'm not calling you a cunt as a roundabout way of discrediting your views or opinions or arguments, because I either agree with them, don't care about them, or have no interest in arguing with you about them. I'm calling you a cunt because you're acting like a cunt.

And now that it's been said and more respectful people feel like they can broach that subject and point out your specific cunt qualities and the ways in which you could act like less of a cunt, I'm going to ignore you and your cuntery.

[Static_Martyr]

I'm not disagreeing with your views, Static. I'm calling you a cunt.

Oh. If I'd known you were just nitpicking my delivery, I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, there's really no argument there worth having --- I tend to really quickly get tired of dodgy "be nice, everyone!" people who are more concerned with maintaining appearances than with saying anything of substance. If my manner of speaking offends you, then perhaps it's in your best interest to ignore me as you've promised.

You really ought to start using real methods of debate here. Rather than summarizing every issue in it's entirety in every post, try to tackle an issue at a time.

I'm not comfortable speaking in soundbytes. My general method of summary is this: I type what I think, and if I read it back and it doesn't sound like something I can stand behind/agree with, I add to it/substract from it/reword it/add sources/etc. until I'm happy with it. Sometimes that means it's a huge paragraph. Sometimes that means it's a short and snippy sound byte. But what happens, happens. If something I say is wrong, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to point that out, regardless of the manner in which I've presented it, how many words I've used to convey it, or which sources I've cited to (IMO) support it, instead of throwing a hissy fit about how I was mean when I said it.

Rather than explaining why you're right, debate the issue.

Explaining why I think I'm right is one method of "debating the issue." Debates commonly consist of two people defending their positions against each others' criticisms.

Concede some points.

If you make a point that I can concede, I will concede it. But I'm not going to concede points to you that I do not believe in, just to assuage your ego or to avoid "looking like a cunt." I'm not really a fan of mincing words.

People don't care about some obscure CBS poll;

If you don't care about data, then that's fine. But I like to think my views are at least somewhat informed by real events and real facts; I provide sources to avoid the impression that I'm simply making up statistics on the spot.

they want generalized ideas

Generalized ideas are useless if they aren't grounded in reality. Ideals are nice, but I'm more concerned with the practical implementation thereof.

Just because the LA Times says something doesn't mean it's right.

I would agree with that.

Now, because of the Golden Rule, I encourage you to critique me.

I do that anyway, no worries.

[Godxilla]

Well, I guess I shouldn't rag on you for your writing style. I guess I'll give this up; we both speak in different ways. C'est la vie.
In my mind, debating an issue is bringing up both sides fully, and debating the merit of each side. Perhaps this is more of moderating, but I would prefer to understand each side before defending one. For example, abortion. Both of us probably have different opinions, but I for one can understand each side. Can you imagine being a mother who's going to die if she doesm't abort. I'd be all for it. But ask the baby, and it would give a much different response. You know? In this case, I support the child because I am willing to sacrifice myself for a child; why shouldn't others?
By conceding points, you can also adress them. For example, I can say "I get the mother's POV, but think of the child." That is addressing the point. Conceding is more like saying "The Democrats are right in saying that mothers deserve to live, but Republicans are more right in encouraging selflessness for a child."
I can find a poll for anything that backs up my views. And polls change. All I have to do is find a poll that say 50% of people are pro-life. Then, a week later, you can find a poll that says only 49% do. Now I'm the minority, all because of the passing of time.
And finally, I don't like ideals. I like ideas. Ideals are ways that things should be. For example, it would be ideal if abortion wasn't an issue. Now, here's an idea: "Abortion should be limited by a government act." I don't like that idea much, but it is an idea nonetheless.

[Static_Martyr]

In my mind, debating an issue is bringing up both sides fully, and debating the merit of each side. Perhaps this is more of moderating, but I would prefer to understand each side before defending one.

A debate generally occurs between two or more sides. I've reviewed the available information about both sides and have made my decision prior to our argument. I don't have the time to recap my entire internal debate about it, so instead I offer the most concise arguments I've heard/created that most recently brought me to where I stand.

For example, abortion. Both of us probably have different opinions, but I for one can understand each side.

Abortion is a bad example. I don't waste time discussing abortion at length; I simply lay out my beliefs, the other person lays out theirs, and we leave it alone. That's one of those subjects on which I find that people are too reluctant to separate their personal feelings from the reasoning of the situation to have a real discussion about.

I am willing to sacrifice myself for a child; why shouldn't others?

Because you don't get to decide who should sacrifice their lives for whose children.

By conceding points, you can also adress them. For example, I can say "I get the mother's POV, but think of the child." That is addressing the point. Conceding is more like saying "The Democrats are right in saying that mothers deserve to live, but Republicans are more right in encouraging selflessness for a child."

I know what "concede" means. I'll repeat what I said before: if you make a point worth conceding, I will gladly concede it. But I'm not going to concede a point that I would otherwise reject, just for the sake of looking nice.

I can find a poll for anything that backs up my views. And polls change.

Polls are just a measure of popular opinion at a given point. If your point is based on how people feel about an issue, then polls can be very useful. If you say "the people are against x," but I can show that the majority of people are in support of it, then a reliable poll can help demonstrate that.

And finally, I don't like ideals. I like ideas. Ideals are ways that things should be.

You mean, like when you say:

"Abortion should be limited by a government act."

[Godxilla]

Remember that song "Hurting as One"? I do. I recall it said something about lining up in black and white. Sadly, politics isn't supposed to be like that. Is it true that whatever side I pick is always right in all aspects? Or do both sides make legitimate points? If your answer to this is "no, if I'm right, then my side is all right", then I'm sorry. We cannot continue debating politics. But if you are open to certain aspects of other schools of thought, then debate is possible. Debate is, after all, a way to show both sides, and arrive at a conclusion. It is not for one person to be right or wrong. For example, 2+2=4, but there is no clear solution to wars and whether or not to fight them. If I were to say that 2 and 2 make 5, then by all means, correct me. But in politics, many things are right, and many things are wrong; it depends on variables.

Now, when I talked about ideas and ideals, you took my quote out of context. That final quote you did of me was an EXAMPLE Of an idea. I was demonstrating the difference between ideas and ideals. Again: an ideal is a way things should b (like a "if only" situation). But an idea is a possible solution. Perhaps I clarified this well?

[Static_Martyr]

Is it true that whatever side I pick is always right in all aspects? Or do both sides make legitimate points

You're oversimplifying my position. I have different positions on different issues; I don't have one single "side" that encompasses all of my beliefs. Whichever "side" makes a more legitimate argument is generally the one I take, and that side tends to vary from issue to issue.

But if you are open to certain aspects of other schools of thought, then debate is possible. Debate is, after all, a way to show both sides, and arrive at a conclusion. It is not for one person to be right or wrong.

I am open to reasonable argument. If you can give me a reason why some specific idea is better or more rational (that doesn't mean the alternative isn't necessarily rational or justifiable, just that I prefer to take whichever option seems more rational or justifiable to me), then I will gladly adopt that position. But you're going to have to appeal to my sense of reason, not to feel-good philosophy and claims that I'm "closed-minded" if I don't concede points to you just to make you feel better.

For example, 2+2=4, but there is no clear solution to wars and whether or not to fight them.

If you were arguing that 2+2=4, I would have no problem conceding that point. However, if you were arguing that there is a clear solution to all war if we would only just do x, I would not concede that point because the issue is more complicated than that. Likewise; the points you've made so far are not ones that I would concede.

an ideal is a way things should b (like a "if only" situation). But an idea is a possible solution. Perhaps I clarified this well?

I'd have to disagree. An ideal is a principle which is upheld regardless of its consequence (an end in itself); an idea is more of a means to an end.