^gwiz665 Troublesome topic to get into on a forum. But I will make a meager attempt to express myself on this matter.

Firstly, I greatly respect you as a person, and value your opinion. Please excuse any phrasing that seems belittling or disrespectful of your own personal experiences with Christianity; my purpose isn't to discredit your personal experience, but relay mine.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a practicing Christian, I am an agnostic atheist. My pursuit of truth and knowledge lead me away from my faith some time ago. However, it is the very pursuits Christianity grew up in me that lead to this second awakening in myself. Christianity saved me, twice. Let me explain.

Low self esteem has been the story of my whole life. I was bullied a lot as a child, and my week personality was unable to cope. I always was pretty good in school in terms of grades. But the scars of my low self esteem means I never tried to live up to my full potential. I sold myself short in everything, I gave up, gave in, quit trying. Always managing slightly above average marks, several shallow friendships, and anything else that wasn't to risky.

That all changed in high school. I met one of the most influential friends I had in my life. He radiated self confidence. He also happened to be a Christian. I formerly mocked Christians via the evangelists I saw on TV, it was my only real experience with Christians till that point. I eventually "converted" to Christianity and my life was forever changed. I felt good about myself. Felt I could actually be something, do something, affect something. I was encouraged not only in personality, but in mind. I read countless books on theology, philosophy, and science. I grew in ways that I couldn't fully appreciate until my second great awakening. I was forever a different person. Gone where the rational bounds I placed on myself. I was no longer constrained by the ordinary. It was light in my darkness. A cure to the miasma of my existence. It instilled in my the responcibility to myself for goodness, purity, kindness, and truth.

The pursuit of truth eventually lead me to realize that if there is a God, it can't be the God of the bible (I won't go into that here), and so ended that phase of my life. But I am forever indebted to Christianity. And while someone might rightly point out it was me saving me, it still wouldn't of happened (I believe) without those people in the place they were doing the things they were with the believe that they were, I wouldn't be where I am now (most likely would of killed myself). All things have their share of evils and goods. For my part, even though I am no longer a Christian, I can't ever call for its eradication, or even that it is a moral bad.

To me, the great evil that works in us is a 2 billion year old tail; that this world is a world of violence. 2 billion years of animals eating other animals can't be laid at the feet of Christianity, or Islam, or any other scapegoat. We are humans, a tragic creature able to understand its own tragic nature. We seek to pass the blame to something we created, but it is what 2 billion years of life has created working in us, through us. We are the result of that, not the result of ourselves...yet. Perhaps in time we will come to terms with ourselves, and deal with ourselves. To this day, we only at best manage ourselves. I can't stop feeling anger at someone for cutting me off in traffic, I can only manage it the best I can. And I guess that is my closing thought. Right now, the best person is just a manager of their human condition, our fate was determined long ago through the course of billions of years of ooze... perhaps; or maybe God did it all, I don't know.

(edit: grammar and spelling, ugh)

>> ^residue:

You're just upset because no one has applauded your impressive typing skills despite having no fingers. Don't be jealous and keep practicing, your comments are nearly legible!
promote
>> ^westy:
why r the people in audeance getting so worked up ( i guess they vet things and only employ tards and dull people to present these typs of programs)
its gr8 that she has lent how to do this but what do u expect her to do u dont just go and kill yourself when u lose a arm legg hand , or have terminal illness u make the most of it and try and do what u want to do.
allot of piano music is Filler and for this reason you can reduce allot of songs to something that is playable with a stub.
It might evan be the case that playing the peano comes more eseaily to this girl than it would sumone with 2 hands but who finds it hard to do the specifc action of playing the peano , but bucuse this girl has an obvouse disablity and apears to have overcome it to some exstent that makes this emotional .
its like when tllent shows boo people off for been shit , but then an ugly person is slighty above average and thats amazing , or sumone who is clearly disabled is trying and thats amazing , if you happen to just be an average person thats trying hard and pushing u own boundries but comes across as a normal person then fuck you.

bahhhhhh back to my granddad seat Im happy for this girl as i would be for anyone but wish everyone else in that studio would die in a tsunami or something. ( i bet all the people that died die in the tusnimi were nice people as well and it avoided all the cunts , Sods law )



I actually type using this http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/41/typing.jpg

You're just upset because no one has applauded your impressive typing skills despite having no fingers. Don't be jealous and keep practicing, your comments are nearly legible!

*promote

>> ^westy:

why r the people in audeance getting so worked up ( i guess they vet things and only employ tards and dull people to present these typs of programs)
its gr8 that she has lent how to do this but what do u expect her to do u dont just go and kill yourself when u lose a arm legg hand , or have terminal illness u make the most of it and try and do what u want to do.
allot of piano music is Filler and for this reason you can reduce allot of songs to something that is playable with a stub.
It might evan be the case that playing the peano comes more eseaily to this girl than it would sumone with 2 hands but who finds it hard to do the specifc action of playing the peano , but bucuse this girl has an obvouse disablity and apears to have overcome it to some exstent that makes this emotional .
its like when tllent shows boo people off for been shit , but then an ugly person is slighty above average and thats amazing , or sumone who is clearly disabled is trying and thats amazing , if you happen to just be an average person thats trying hard and pushing u own boundries but comes across as a normal person then fuck you.

bahhhhhh back to my granddad seat Im happy for this girl as i would be for anyone but wish everyone else in that studio would die in a tsunami or something. ( i bet all the people that died die in the tusnimi were nice people as well and it avoided all the cunts , Sods law )

why r the people in audeance getting so worked up ( i guess they vet things and only employ tards and dull people to present these typs of programs)

its gr8 that she has lent how to do this but what do u expect her to do u dont just go and kill yourself when u lose a arm legg hand , or have terminal illness u make the most of it and try and do what u want to do.

allot of piano music is Filler and for this reason you can reduce allot of songs to something that is playable with a stub.

It might evan be the case that playing the peano comes more eseaily to this girl than it would sumone with 2 hands but who finds it hard to do the specifc action of playing the peano , but bucuse this girl has an obvouse disablity and apears to have overcome it to some exstent that makes this emotional .

its like when tllent shows boo people off for been shit , but then an ugly person is slighty above average and thats amazing , or sumone who is clearly disabled is trying and thats amazing , if you happen to just be an average person thats trying hard and pushing u own boundries but comes across as a normal person then fuck you.


bahhhhhh back to my granddad seat Im happy for this girl as i would be for anyone but wish everyone else in that studio would die in a tsunami or something. ( i bet all the people that died die in the tusnimi were nice people as well and it avoided all the cunts , Sods law )

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:
>> ^Tokoki:
So, you want to call african-americans "nigger" straight to their face?
>> ^Mcboinkens:
And I'm fine with not using the word faggot as an insult as long as homosexuals are fine with me calling them faggots straight to their face. If you don't want a word to evolve and lose its original meaning that's fine, but then you better be ready to start facing the word in its original meaning.


You're comparing apples and oranges. One word meant a bunch of sticks, the other was originally a racist term. One was converted into a hateful term, one has always been. If you take out the evolved context of the word faggot it no longer holds any harm, hence why you should be able to say it to anyone. The word you listed however, has always had racist roots and therefore is an entirely different kind of word. I see what you're trying to say, though. I'm just pointing out that people are becoming way to sensitive to WORDS. Pretty soon we arn't going to be able to call anyone fat, obese, stupid, short, or tall. Instead it will just be "above average body mass" or some other sensitive term. When does it stop? If someone calls me white trash I really couldn't care less about it. It means the other person is either insensitive, jealous, or I've done something to anger them. In any case, I realize it's just a word and move on.
Basically here is my point: What should we call gay people? Homosexuals, gays, faggots? What makes the word faggot worse than homosexual? Connotation. What happens when we stop using the word gay and faggot? Those connotations get shifted onto the word homosexual. Then what? We will need to come up with another word. There will always be jerks and insensitive fools that will use words to hurt people, it's human nature.
I stand by my point earlier in my last post. If we stop using faggot as an insult, then is goes back to simply meaning homosexual, in which case there should be no problem describing someone who is ACTUALLY a homosexual as a faggot. It seems like you misinterpreted what I said as I would call them faggots to their face to mock them, that wouldn't be the case. It would just be another word to describe their lifestyle.


It's not apples to oranges. The bundle of sticks definition is correct, however, the way homosexuals got the name is because they used to use gays as kindling for fire. That's right...they used to burn gay people and treat them as nothing other than fire wood

[redacted]

The main problem all these blindly repeated "arguments" have is the fact that the answers to them require a literally mind boggling amount of time to occur. You see the explanation that a star came from a compaction of gases etc but to wrap your head around the idea that it took an unfathomably long amount of time and not *poof* is just to hard for the average (or even above average) mind to conceive of except in the vaguest of terms. The brain can't really grasp the sheer size of it, so they prefer the simpler explanation of a wish granting genie man taking 6 days (omnipotence only goes so far apparently) to put it all in order.

@GeeSussFreeK

I didn't say GDP, I said GDP per capita. Both Finland and the US have roughly the same GDP per capita.

My assertion is that crimes are more likely to be committed by criminals who are empowered by guns. Suicide has nothing to do with this and that's why I didn't address it.

Murder rates are the only universally comparable measure when you consider various violent offenses are classified differently and with varying degrees of tolerance in difference countries.

I think it would hardly be a stretch to assert that guns allow criminals and delinquents to dish out far more death per violent incident - being a reason why crime is average/above average, but murder (especially by firearms) is astronomical.

Either way, I want to address murder singlehandedly as I think it's certainly still an important (and far less finnicky) topic to argue in and of itself, not crime generally.

Crimes again are classified and reported to varying degrees in different countries.

Again, I want to point out that my argument isn't about gun legislation but about gun ownership rates. I have no doubt that if you were to ban guns immediately in one state, there'll not be a chasm of a decline in gun murder rates. Arguments that look at gun laws ignore the blatant fact that US borders are very porous as far as I understand, and that even then, gun laws take years, decades perhaps to have meaningful effects on ownership rates and as a result, general availability at above minimal cost to criminals. Looking at the wikipedia page for California's gun laws, the only meaningful law I see is a 2005 ban in San Fransisco on all firearms and ammunition. Something like this would take at least a decade to have any meaningful effect though, I'm sure I would agree with you here when I say that smuggling guns into simply a city of all places (not a country with customs, or even a state) and selling them on the black market would hardly be difficult - where surrounding areas have no such ban.

I agree that no legislation will prevent a determined terrorist or capable individual from inflicting massive damage if nuclear weapons were readily available and manufactured in large amounts in one area of the world. A concerted and enforced gun ban on the other hand (with restrictions for hunting in some areas, target shooting, and potentially eased laws for protection in remote areas with low police presence) would do a great deal to reduce availability and reduce the incidence of gun murder by petty criminals which makes up the majority of gun deaths in the US.

Take for example our legislation in Australia. There's nothing exceptional about it, I'm just most familiar with it:

"State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There is a very good reason why this has led to a 5.2% ownership rate among citizens and a murder rate by guns of between 29% and 19% that of the US per capita depending on which numbers you use from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If you want to come back to saying that people simply murder in different ways, then look at purely the murder rate - the number goes up just slightly to 35% (the rate of murder per capita in Australia of that in the US).

Gun laws aren't punishment. Just like nuclear weapon bans aren't punishment. Or Sarin Gas bans. They're good policy.

Just like making everyone buy basic health insurance to reduce risk among consumers and lower prices, where the poorest are subsidised. If you insist on using analogies, I think this compares incredibly well to a gun ban which makes allowance for recreation and hunting (and at least in my view, allowances of 'for protection' licenses in remote areas with limited quantity and strict restriction to avoid smuggling).

Just like the compulsory third party car insurance we have here, that ensures that if you are at fault and damage another car, the innocent party is guaranteed to have their car repaired.

What I hope you understand coming from a libertarian position (and this is repeating the first thing I said in this whole discussion to blankfist) is that libertarianism is not a flat and universal position on individual rights. You, just like anyone I would imagine, have limits to how far you go with individual rights. You recognize the validity of a system of laws to limit the impact of one's individual's actions on another, and the retribution they should receive for violating it. You simply draw the metaphorical line on rights further right on the ideological spectrum than I do.

Therefore you can't simply justify gun ownership by claiming individual rights and the notion that everyone's entitled to them as they are not presumed guilty. You have to consider whether it does harm in society or not, just like the rest of us.

I hope I've laid out a pretty convincing arguments based on the statistics (speculative of course, I have neither the time nor resources to do a rigorous analysis controlling for a multitude of variables) that gun ownership does lead to more (gun) murders. If we were taking about a 10-20% difference, sure it would be debatable, but we're talking about a 2 to 3 fold increase. Let's not kid around about what causes this.

If you think that individual rights are so incredibly important that they trump this palpably gargantuan increase in death (and suffering) then that is certainly a position you can take, but let's be honest about this if that's the position you want to take.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they are. I think the opportunities for self defense, the willingness to use a gun of most people, the willingness of normal and ration people to risk death for losing their property are small. The sheer empowerment and impetus a gun (easily available from a nearby store at a price anyone can pay) can give a criminal on the other hand is huge.

---

Just a quick recap on things I didn't cover.

If you want to demonstrate guns are less devastating than drugs then kindly provide data to support this. If you are referencing the drug war or even if you are not, this is totally irrelevant to the question I posed to you.

Comparing guns to drugs and referencing the opium war is just not a good analogy. Colonialism. Colonialism. Colonialism.

Yes cars kill people, so do airplanes. So do pretzels. In fact, just about everything kills people (although yes car accidents are far more significant than pretzels). We do have a plethora of legislation that increases car safety. Guns are of course unique in that supposedly (if you would believe people in the US), more guns and LESS gun legislation protects you from the more guns you now have and so on. Let's look at this objectionably just as I compared the benefits to defenders versus aggressors for gun ownership. Cars provide an obvious benefit and are fundamental to commerce and modern life (unlike guns 99.9% of the time for private defenders of civil liberty). More legislation and safety requirements can obviously reduce death rates. To me it seems pretty obvious how to proceed here.

It's also 39'th for suicide, below Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada; and France by nearly x2. Your fabled Finland is over twice as high. And WTH does GDP have to do with anything? And frankly, no single nation comes even remotely close to our GDP, like by a factor of 3x, not that it is even relevant. Plus, murder rates doesn't even tell the whole story, we haven't even included violent crimes, or the distinction in the ways different countries report crimes. Looking at may different statistics, it is easy to show that America is the first in gun crimes, but average/above average in violent crime in general. We sure like to lock people up though, as we do have a majority of prisoner per capital vrs the world.

Crime was around LONG before guns, like from the start. America stands on about the high/average mark for total crime per capital which is actually pretty impressively low considering how much moral legislation we have (it's illegal to buy beer on a Sunday in most places).

Here in Texas, we have the highest rate of accidence related gun deaths in the union. We also have considerably lower murder rates than other states, currently 12th. California is 8th, they have much tighter bans on guns, it has not had a positive affect vs Texas as to murder rates.

Fact of the matter is, the nuclear option is an inevitable. There will be a time when going down the local hardware store will net you with world smashing possibilities. No matter of laws will protect you. Most assuredly, the Oklahoma city bombers bomb was illegal...and to little effect. The nature of technology is to become more lethal, and more pervasive. Controls will only subdue those who do not have criminal intent.

You may be fine with punishing non-criminals. I, for one, think this is the highest offence. The foundation of the most immoral of acts. Analogies are proper, and all cases of punishing people whom have done no wrong to their fellow man are applicable.

Guns are less devastating than drugs can be on a country. Drugs can cause countries to use guns in self defense, ask the Chinese about the opium wars.

Cars also fail the fake test you propose, cars kill magnitudes more people than guns, every year without fail. Guns aren't even fractionally comparative. Really, cars should be outlawed by all the logic you have laid out.

And in spite of all that, it still begs the question...who has the right to punish those guilty of no crimes other than possessing something. Next up, thought police, you possessed the idea of crime, guilty as charged.

EDIT: After all, death isn't the highest order of what the government is in charge of protecting, it's liberty. North Korea and Saudi Arabia might have low murder rates...but are hardly models of government to follow. If you want perfect safety, go the the moon...not many people there. If you are around other humans, you are inherently not safe...thems the rules.

Double edit: Also, I have not know anyone directly to ever of been killed by a gun...in my whole life. That is completely anecdotal...but you talk about it likes it rampant. Out of the 4 people on vent now, only 1 has known people to have been killed by a gun.

[redacted]

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sarzy:
I think both Mcboinkens and Yogi are being harsh on House and Lost, respectively.
Lost was a sprawling, unique and fairly awesome show that also had some serious flaws.
House is rigidly formulaic, but transcends that with its well above average performances and writing, and because it allows for more character development than your standard procedural. Both are great shows.

I think your FACE is Harsh. And I think you're Rigidly formulaic and shit like that...whatever shut up!


Touche.

>> ^Sarzy:

I think both Mcboinkens and Yogi are being harsh on House and Lost, respectively.
Lost was a sprawling, unique and fairly awesome show that also had some serious flaws.
House is rigidly formulaic, but transcends that with its well above average performances and writing, and because it allows for more character development than your standard procedural. Both are great shows.


I think your FACE is Harsh. And I think you're Rigidly formulaic and shit like that...whatever shut up!

I think both Mcboinkens and Yogi are being harsh on House and Lost, respectively.

Lost was a sprawling, unique and fairly awesome show that also had some serious flaws.

House is rigidly formulaic, but transcends that with its well above average performances and writing, and because it allows for more character development than your standard procedural. Both are great shows.

That is why I flagged it dead for the original submitter to fix it which didn't happen.

>> ^geo321:

Man you missed my point. Even if a video is dead and you present a live version of that video the original takes precedent.
In reply to this comment by ant:
I know that, but it wasn't fixed earlier.
In reply to this comment by geo321:
We can fix the videos. We can bring the first posted video alive and well.
In reply to this comment by ant:
Yes. But why have the first one alive if it is dead?
In reply to this comment by geo321:
But even if the original video is dead, the later is still a dupe right?
In reply to this comment by ant:
Only if the original video is fixed/working. It seems like it is now is!
In reply to this comment by geo321:
I thought the consensus was that if you posted a video first, even if it's dead, it takes precedent...and the secondary vid is a dupe.. Sometimes it will take a bit of time if it's dead. Those have been the rules I've been going by,.. You've been here longer than I have are those rules official. Or just trend. Anyway cheers Ant.
In reply to this comment by ant:
>> ^nach0s:
pretty much a dupeof http://videosift.com/video/Above-Average-Skateboard-Video

But dead.