This chatter misses the main point.

Civil rights. The right to go about your own /consensual/ business with any number of other /consenting/ persons.

Rights to live your own life in peace, without bothering anyone else, and without being bothered.

Owning a gun harms no one. It's a personal matter. It has zero affect on anyone else.

Suicide is personal and consensual. It's nobody else's domain to judge. It's a simple property issue, about the most personal property that exists. Other people don't own your body. The clean-up crew was already paid for by the dead person's taxes (they aren't paid to sit around). Your family/friends, if they respected your wishes, they wouldn't criticize. God does not own you, and you don't have to worry about what he thinks.

Shooting NON CONSENTING individuals is a trespass onto those people, and it is wrong. These people should be punished accordingly, individually, for /their/ individual trespasses.

People at large should not be punished or have their rights taken away because of what someone else did. It's not their business.
That goes for guns, drugs, whatever else is strictly personal/consensual.



On a more specific note :
Having a gun does not necessitate killing.
Killing does not necessitate having a gun.
There is not a deterministic connection between killing and having guns.
For every example where 'gun control' and 'lower gun deaths' statistically aligned, there is another to show them not statistically aligned - precisely because one does not necessitate the other - and correlation is not causation.

I'm all for extremely hard punishment for killers - if it can be proven undeniably that they did it (high rez video / multiple close witnesses personally familiar with the killer / the like).
But I'm not interested in punishing anyone else for what they did.
(Just like I don't want to send drug users to jail because /someone else/ had a drug problem)

As far as I'm concerned, we have far too many laws that do not require any harm to be done to get your into trouble.

~5000 federal laws, thousands more per state, hundreds per county, hundreds per city, many with implementation guidelines defined by bureaucrats that outline multiple ways to violate each one.

It's a minefield. Everyone commits on average (according to some lawyer that wrote a book about it) around 3 felonies a day - when you do a complete review of their activities.
With 1 in 18 men in jail/on parole/in the system - do you really think we need to be sending more people to jail for having something and doing no harm with it?

How about focusing on the people doing harm - punishing in proportion to the harm done - but ignorant of what they used to do the harm.
What matters most is the suffering of the victims, not society's grimaces/preferances.

-scheherazade

If it were a sane implementation of a self defense law. Martin would have had an obligation to continue to back away from the fight until given no other choice. He would have to have legal provocation, meaning that he must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. So pushing or grabbing might not be enough unless he was going for for something vital like your neck instead of your arm or hand or back of your shirt.

In a lot of cases this means someone pretty much has to have a weapon ready to use or make moves to take physical action against you.

Until scene photos come out showing he was in trapped in a corner, he had possible escape routes or he could have knocked on doors or whatever to get attention draw to what was happening if he didn't have time to call police. Some witness woman said it happened in her backyard, and if what they showed on video was it there was no fence but I can't be sure. The houses they showed were really close together, if it was the neighborhood shouting would have been heard by at least 6 houses given how close they were barring planes flying overhead or other noise.

Based on their laws, if SYG applied to Martin (and it should barring they come up with some reason why) he would have had immunity under the law, and Zimmerman wouldn't have been covered if he was found to meet criteria under "Aggressor". However SYG is a rather crazy law, I'll post a blurb at the bottom of this to show there's indication that people abuse it and it's very hard to apply in any sane matter due to nearly all encounters resulting in the other person ending up dead.

But in a less "kill the other guy" type self-defense law you have emphasis placed on avoiding the fight and have to have a damn good reason for lethal force and not just "reasonable belief". If you get provoked your "culpability" is assessed to see if you tried to avoid the fight at all costs.

In this case, blame would have probably been split something like 10-20% Martin 80-90% Zimmerman. A court in a sane area would say that Martin had ample opportunity to call police, ask for help as a door, or yelled for help before Zimmerman caught up. Or perhaps that he could have kept running. Hard to say for sure. But for him to be totally blameless Zimmerman would have had to have shown physical action toward him or some such...the following wouldn't have been enough.

But under SYG, the following could have been enough to give Trayvon reasonable belief that Zimmerman meant imminent use of unlawful force against him. And if you look up unlawful force it's defined as "force to escape arrest, forced use by non-law enforcement, or and non-consenting touch"...it's extremely vague I couldn't find a good definition of it anywhere. I found about 6-8 of them and just took the things in common and different variations and tried to compact it down to that....seriously try googling it and finding a good clear, applicable definition and one that is from Florida...I couldn't.

So Trayvon basically has to reasonable believe that Zimmerman was going to grab him, push him, or otherwise place his hands on him. And I think someone being chased could reasonable expect that.

Here's the blurb from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[32][33] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[33] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[34][35]

The Trayvon Martin case brought a large degree of criticism to the law. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, claimed self-defense, evidence indicates that he first pursued Trayvon Martin, prior to the altercation that resulted in the shooting. Legal experts are split as to whether charges will be dropped under Florida's stand-your-ground law before the case even goes to trial, as the extant Florida law allows Zimmerman to argue that the charges should be dropped before trial even begins. Legal experts are also split as to whether Zimmerman's actions will be viewed as self-defense should the case go to trial.

Basically in Florida you can go crazed gunman on a place if you say they were threatening and leave no one alive. If they do the kind of investigation they did with Trayvon, they might not even check all the witnesses or for security footage of the area, and then you'll have immunity....and none of the victims families can sue you for wrongful death, etc. If Im reading the immunity clause of it correctly.



>> ^longde:

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>>

@messenger

"You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking."

This cracked me up, well said dude, well said!

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.

Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.

I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.

Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.

You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.


>> ^messenger:
"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.
You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.
Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.

You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.

Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

@SDGundamX : I am aware of phimosis (I suggest reading the whole article), and do not oppose circumcision as a last resort in a severe case thereof, should all else fail. Justifying circumcision as a preventive measure, however, is absurd and unethical (cf. this video's comments).

The argument from aesthetics is vile and contemptible. Feet-binding and neckrings where/are performed for the same reason, should they be tolerated too? Circumcision and ear-piercing are not alike (although I disprove of doing the latter to children as well). A pierced ear will heal, a foreskin will not grow back; the functions of the foreskin (and there are several) are lost forever, whereas nothing is lost from a pierced ear (but susceptibility to infection is gained).

As for FGM, just because one act is worse than the other (and FGM certainly is worse than male circumcision, as I've stated many times before: see this video), does not mean that the lesser of the two evils is therefore justifiable. Every time someone argues in favour of male circumcision on non-consenting people, they are undermining the fight against FGM and other religion/culture-based barbarisms that use the same defensive arguments.

(Hear me out before you give me the QM treatment.)

Sex is personal, and none of government's business. But this amendment wouldn't make any kind of sex illegal, so that point is moot.

Marriage is a public, socially and legally recognized contract, and inasmuch as the government has the right to determine that marriage is not a union between a man and four women, nor between a man and a dog, nor between a man and a child, nor between a man and a non-consenting woman (which I think we mostly agree the government can do), it also has the right to determine that it's only between one man and one woman.

That said, I think the only reason to do so would be religious and to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

The only thing I didn't like about this guy was that he suggested it just might be possible that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, that people don't just take up gayness like they take up skateboarding.

Illogical and prejudiced, yes. And also arbitrary and rather dumb in how you desperately try to rationalize your discrimination.

You imply that gay people have the right to marry since they can still marry a person of the opposite sex. But having the right to marry means exactly having the right to marry who you want. This is where you should have used your brain, applied your reasoning to other situations, and pondered if it actually made sense. For example, suppose black people were not allowed to marry each other, and the powers that be tried to pull the same trick you just pulled by saying black people can still marry any morbidly obese white person they want. Would black people have the right to marry? Absolutely not. Suppose a government claims its people have freedom of speech since it does not preempt any attempts at speaking; instead it just goes around, after the fact, and punishes anybody who said something it dislikes. Do the people have freedom of speech? No.

The issue of definition is a non-issue. Any language that has a population of native speakers is undergoing constant evolution. You must be religious, since you think words are sacred, and apparently magical. (They must be magical, if words defined in one age have the ability to correctly dictate morality into the unknown future.) Again, we can imagine this applied to race, i.e. marriage defined to be between "a white man and a white woman".

You seem to imply you'd be okay with it if there was a different word and corresponding laws. I doubt that, it sounds like a grasp for a rationalization. But lets suppose that actually happened. The end result would be exactly the same. The vast majority of the population would continue to use the word "marriage" when talking about same sex unions. The people against gay marriage would be the most likely to use the word "marriage" because their real concern is the act, not the word; the issue of sacred word definition was only ever an excuse, one which they would not want to give up. They would claim that legalizing gay marriage under the phrase "civil unions" was merely a bureaucratic trick, and rightfully so since the body laws concerning straight marriage and gay civil unions would be identical except for the phrase used to name the act. And after a few decades, the dictionary publishers would update their definitions to match the language people actually use: mar riage (mar-ij) n. the state in which two people are formally united for the purpose of living together(often in order to raise children) and with certain legal rights and obligations toward each other. (straight forward adaptation from the Oxford American Dictionary)

And finally, whether it is a choice or not has absolutely no bearing on the morality of it. All that matters, in general, is whether an act causes harm to non-consenting parties. Gay marriage does not. That means, as far as morality is concerned, being gay or straight is merely an issue of aesthetics. Therefore, you getting irked over gay marriage is quite similar to a teenage girl, who upon seeing another teen girl whose shirt and pants do not match, becomes irate that another person would dare wear something that she personally dislikes. Please grow the fuck up.



>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Aniatario:
"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"
^Right..

Who's stopping gays from getting married?
Truth is, nobody is stopping them from getting married. There is no test or query when getting married. Nowhere in Canada or the US are you asked if you are gay or not when getting married.
Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?
Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.
If the problem is wanting similar legal privileges for a union between two men or two women as there exists for marriages, then pursue changes to the law, not the definition.
I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.

Ugh, this is disgusting. The so-called "scientific studies" that "prove" that circumcision diminishes AIDS infection were done in three African countries (Uganda, Kenya and S. Africa), where basic hygiene is still a major problem (amongst many others).

Besides, why do it to non-consenting infants? Does one expect them to have sex in their childhood??

The theory has been known to be wrong for awhile especially when dealing with gravity and non-consents. It's still right for a lot of stuff. But this is pretty interesting.

>> ^NaMeCaF:
Some people are fucking animals.


Yes they are, and there's a special hell for them if it's non-consenting.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Depends on who you ask I guess. For me, the issue is a matter of 'innocence' versus 'guilt'. An unborn child is completely innocent. It has done nothing bad or good. It is a life in potential. An INNOCENT life deserves the opportunity to live, grow, and have the chance to contribute to society.
The opposite is true of the guy on Death Row. They had a chance to show what they could do, and they squandered it. They chose to perform actions so heinous, so awful, and so damaging that they have forfieted thier right to continue to participate in civilization.


So your personal objection has nothing to do with "life is sacred", but based on the perceived innocence of the child.

I suppose this perceived innocence could be extended to other innocent life, but can I assume that your defense of life only extends to humans? When do you personally draw a line in the sand regarding time? Out of womb, 1 year old, 3 years old, 7 years old, etc?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
My question to the "Pro-choice" or "Anti-Life" crowd is similar... What is the reason to HAVE an abortion when there are many other options available? I see abortion as the most extreme choice to be applied only in the most exigent of circumstances.


I'm actually trying to have a rational discussion with you. Please stop trying to make points like an emotional child: i.e. "Anti-life." Pro-choice and pro-life have been the accepted labels for a while. Likewise, pro-choice could label pro-life as "anti-choice", "anti-free will", "anti-american", "anti-liberties", "anti-women", etc, etc. Subversive and childlike "under the radar" name calling quickly drops a conversation into a emotional gutter. So. just. stop.

As for your question:

I can't speak for pro-choice people, only myself. As normal, I don't find myself in either camp. My view on abortion is the result of the following personal beliefs:

1) Personal liberties. I am a huge supporter that, among adults, a person should be able to do anything they want as long as doesn't harm another, non-consenting adult or their property. A great book on this subject is "Ain't Nobody's Business of You Do" by Peter McWilliams. Of course with freedom comes responsibility and accountability. The three are completely intertwined and can't exist without the others.

2) I don't know when life begins. Many have beliefs of when life begins, but those are just beliefs, not knowledge, no matter what they say. In my mind, when life begins will be a question that will never be answered satisfactory. Some people like to think about this question in potential instead. I personally don't agree with that since the baby is completely dependent on the mother. You don't even see brain activity until 12 weeks. Either way, I've resolved that I will never truly know to my satisfaction.

3) I've seen the results of a society where abortion is completely outlawed. Even if you do everything positive to decrease abortion, there will always be some. It's the equivalent of trying to stop teens from having sex. It isn't realistic. As a society, we can shoot for the ideal, but ultimately have to deal with what is realistic.


So concrete answers... I'll have to give snippets. I think that abortion should be legal so that the ones that do it can be done safely. I strongly disagree with 3rd trimester abortions - I think they should be illegal with the exception for the physical health of the mother. I think there need to be an honest campaign spreading sex education material (including abortion and its alternatives.)