5 ms·

Since we are going to do arguments by quotes.. “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtur

by keepper 10y ago

Since we are going to do arguments by quotes.. “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov So, no, sorry, a registration by ownership ( gun/car/fuzzy pink socks ) isn't the same as a registration by Religion. This really should be obvious, but for some reason, it isn't. I really wish I had the answer to that...

rublev 10y ago
What about Registration by Fairytale?
- keepper 10y ago
  hence my point... I'm tempted to reply harshly but... The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ). So, examples. Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes ) Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc ) Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous... I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )
  - nercht12 10y ago
    >> Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people Yes, it was. These things do affect other people. Negatively? That's a subjective opinion, but all of these things are unique by case anyways. What do I mean? The fairytales of one person may result in some delusion that affects their family and relatives, and they abandon their social responsibilities to chase the white prince/queen/whatever. Also, one's religion has an affect on one's actions. If your religion says "kill the infidel", then complete adherence to such religion endangers others. I'm not arguing that people should be registered, but the idea that ideology != affecting people is incorrect. >> I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy. At least you can admit that. That's more than some people can say. +1
brightball 10y ago
You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination. If that is the case, how is the reason for being on that registry given of a difference of weight? There are also historical patterns for what happens following a weapons registry...and none of them are good. Also, regarding the Asimov quote...I'd challenge you to think nothing is so black and white. If you believe one person is merely ignorant, that the summation of what they've experienced in their own life that created the way they see things is dismissable is worth less than your own...you may want to look a little deeper. Even somebody cooking meth has a story and a reason that drove them to it. You might not like it. You might not find it justifiable...but it's that person's reality and if you're not willing to understand the perspective of a person you view as ignorant then you are feeding your own.
- ashark 10y ago
  > Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. > You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination. Where did your interlocutor claim that being on any registry is historically followed by extermination? You're broadening their position to introduce contradictions that don't exist in the original. It's like claiming that someone who doesn't support one kind of tax because that kind of tax has a history of causing very serious problems and very little benefit must necessarily oppose all taxes. If you want to prove that they should, based on their stated position, oppose all taxes, you'll need to demonstrate that all taxes cause very similar balance of benefits and problems to the one they oppose.
  - brightball 10y ago
    Edited to clarify. Good catch.
zepto 10y ago
Actually I don't see how you can say that registration of gun ownership isn't the same as registration by religion. For many second amendment supporters it seems to equate to the same thing. The idea I have seen is that self-defense is a god given right, and fundamental to being a free persion. This seems to be held as much as a philosophical, religious position as anything. Telling a person who has that belief and thinks of themselves as a good person who doesn't mean harm to others that they can't be trusted not to kill other people, is no different from saying the same thing about a Muslim.

by keepper 10y ago

rublev 10y ago

What about Registration by Fairytale?

keepper 10y ago
hence my point... I'm tempted to reply harshly but... The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ). So, examples. Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes ) Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc ) Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous... I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )
- nercht12 10y ago
  >> Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people Yes, it was. These things do affect other people. Negatively? That's a subjective opinion, but all of these things are unique by case anyways. What do I mean? The fairytales of one person may result in some delusion that affects their family and relatives, and they abandon their social responsibilities to chase the white prince/queen/whatever. Also, one's religion has an affect on one's actions. If your religion says "kill the infidel", then complete adherence to such religion endangers others. I'm not arguing that people should be registered, but the idea that ideology != affecting people is incorrect. >> I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy. At least you can admit that. That's more than some people can say. +1

brightball 10y ago

You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination. If that is the case, how is the reason for being on that registry given of a difference of weight? There are also historical patterns for what happens following a weapons registry...and none of them are good. Also, regarding the Asimov quote...I'd challenge you to think nothing is so black and white. If you believe one person is merely ignorant, that the summation of what they've experienced in their own life that created the way they see things is dismissable is worth less than your own...you may want to look a little deeper. Even somebody cooking meth has a story and a reason that drove them to it. You might not like it. You might not find it justifiable...but it's that person's reality and if you're not willing to understand the perspective of a person you view as ignorant then you are feeding your own.

ashark 10y ago
> Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. > You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination. Where did your interlocutor claim that being on any registry is historically followed by extermination? You're broadening their position to introduce contradictions that don't exist in the original. It's like claiming that someone who doesn't support one kind of tax because that kind of tax has a history of causing very serious problems and very little benefit must necessarily oppose all taxes. If you want to prove that they should, based on their stated position, oppose all taxes, you'll need to demonstrate that all taxes cause very similar balance of benefits and problems to the one they oppose.
- brightball 10y ago
  Edited to clarify. Good catch.

zepto 10y ago

Actually I don't see how you can say that registration of gun ownership isn't the same as registration by religion. For many second amendment supporters it seems to equate to the same thing. The idea I have seen is that self-defense is a god given right, and fundamental to being a free persion. This seems to be held as much as a philosophical, religious position as anything. Telling a person who has that belief and thinks of themselves as a good person who doesn't mean harm to others that they can't be trusted not to kill other people, is no different from saying the same thing about a Muslim.