Whitetail trading Ad

The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    BugI02

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,570
    149
    Columbus, OH
    jamil said:
    I think you could say it like this and then I'd accept that. I am not *surprised* that she would change her opinions about guns after having been shot. That's a very human-natural thing to do. But does that make her opinion any more credible, and especially more important, than someone on the other side of the debate? Rationally, no.

    If you're making the case that behaving closer to human nature is better than the coldness of unemotional reason, then we need to decide what are the cases when that's not true. Because if it's true in all cases, then we may as well go back to being murderous, self-interested thugs robbing rival tribes. The ideal is to apply reason to the parts of human nature that have utility. Sympathy has utility but not universally. Sympathy is biased, and while being a universally understandable motivator for having a particular position, it's not a universally better motivator for establishing public policy. Banning things because we're irrationally afraid of them is not good policy.

    Is sympathy for Gifford's circumstances more important than sympathy for Steve Scalice's? What about the people who can't afford to have armed people protect them? I say Gabby Gifford gets my sympathy for the rational utility of sympathy. But that sympathy does not make me regard her position derived from her interpretation of her circumstances as being more credible than anyone else's.

    What should my sympathy for Gifford drive me to do? I'll tell you this much. I'm not gonna be making a video chop-sawing my 6920 and post it on YouTube.
    Click to expand...

    Catching up. Absolutely dead on, in this. Reason and emotion often are fundamentally at odds. If an airplane crashed into your house, it might change your opinion of the nearby airport, or flight training or night air freight in such a way that you would want to ban some or all of them. Your suffering might make your position understandable, but it would not make it rational or viable or more worthy of consideration

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.
     
    K

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Lt. Col Ralph Peters leaves Fox:

    [FONT=&amp]A Fox News contributor has quit the network, blasting the channel as a “propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration” in an email announcing his departure.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&amp]Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters announced that he was quitting Fox News as a strategic analyst on Tuesday in a fiery email to colleagues, BuzzFeed News reported.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&amp]"Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed," Peters wrote.[/FONT]
    Click to expand...
    [FONT=&amp]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&amp]“Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to 'support and defend the Constitution,' and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers,” he said.
    “In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration,”    [/FONT]
    Click to expand...
    Fox News contributor quits, slams network as 'propaganda machine' for Trump | TheHill
     
    jamil

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,411
    113
    Gtown-ish
    jbombelli said:
    Same. I seem to get either 1) Trump is the devil, or 2) Trump is the second coming.

    They're all ridiculous.
    Click to expand...

    Network/broadcast news is so 1990s. Corporations have owned the narrative for a very long time. I'm not sure the corporate news networks understand how much they're outdated. When the rural broadband problem is solved, there will be zero reasons for network/broadcast news channels to exist. Of course that brings in new opportunities for oligarchical control of news as Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, look for ways to stifle news it doesn't want people to see. But that's a harder thing to control than having just a few pipes all information must flow through.
     
    jamil

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,411
    113
    Gtown-ish
    KLB said:
    Plus all of the SJW :poop:, the anti-gun :poop:, and the holier than though :poop: :puke:
    Click to expand...

    Used to be that all one could do is throw stuff at their TVs. Now we can comment. It's encouraging when you see dissenting comment likes/retweets outnumber supportive comments to SJW narratives by a large margin.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Staff online

    Members online

    ... and 193 more.
    Total: 9,067 (members: 243, guests: 8,824)

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    531,152
    Messages
    9,968,974
    Members
    54,999
    Latest member
    bearsleuth
    Top Bottom