Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,201-10,250 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Going to go ask our science teachers if anti-science anti-vaccine parents might cause a worldwide pandemic that could kill 20 million people in a year ....

From measles ....

Will share the stats of 1 in every 1,000 people who contract measles dying and 200+ in every 300+ people dying of the avian flu.

I'll let everyone know when I get those answers.

[Michael]

Gary wrote: "Which is one reason that I hope I never "progress" in the manner you inferred. I don't care about your opinion of me because I have yet to view from your communiques anything to make me respect your opinions."

Jeez you reeled me in, fancy! Where I come from, amidst a group of quite intelligent people,we approach these matters in a rather more informal way. If you think, as I imagine you do, that I lowered the tone, you'd last precisely 5 minutes in a debate with the people I know before it got too much. Surely you can't be that sensitive. Anyway that's how we do it. You're unlikely to face that beast though, so how relevant is that really?

You don't have to respect my views, by the way. Like you, I reckon I can sleep without that certainty. And as for the question "Is your basic view anything more than you don't like me/my views?" I disagree with your views (go find my past posts on here, I'm not recapping), and find your methodology wanting (old news, we've been there already today) ,but YOU personally? I don't even know you, not really, so a firm view on that would be meaningless and unreliable.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Surely you can't be that sensitive. "

Think you might be confused, Michael.

In addition to saying I don't make sense and should post elsewhere, several people here often accuse me of being too emotional and sensitive. I'm sure I'm the sensitive one ... not Gary.

[Tim]

Shannon wrote: "Tim wrote: "I'm curious, as an outsider: what do you think would happen if your government made access to guns more difficult? What would the disadvantage be to you?"

Not sure if you had someone i..."

Thanks. I was just curious. I live in the 6th most violent country in the world, and have never been certain if owning a gun would help. One of my friends was a cop for many years, and the most common thing he heard from the victims of attacks in their home, when asked "Why didn't you use your gun?" Was "There just wasn't time. I turned around and there they were."
The solution then is to constantly carry your gun on your person. But only one person I know does this. Research conducted amongst thousands of convicted armed robbers here has shown that the houses they target the most are the ones they know to contain guns. So almost everyone I know feels that to own guns is to attract attention, so very few of us own them.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Studies have been done that claim 100,000 people use guns to save themselves each year. That has come under criticism. Why? The numbers used were from the '90's and are likely off, given the fact that the crime rate, including violent crime rate, was much higher then. Maybe as much as 30%."

I was talking about the emotive anecdotes you had referenced in the post I was answering.

As for the statistics here, I haven't gone through them all yet which is a reason why I haven't claimed that its proved the USA should get rid of guns. However do these statistics give a definite indication of what would happen if guns were suddenly rare instead of prevalent? Just because guns were used in self-defence does that automatically mean a lack of gun would have meant no recourse to safety, even if that safety is calling the police and hiding? Does it take into account the likelihood of the assailant being armed being similarly reduced?

I don't know and to be honest I wouldn't like to decide without completing said research. However, a lot of the counterarguments and emotive anecdotes that I've heard (not being in the US) seem nonsensical.

Personally I'd like a gun (hey I'm a boy :-D) but to be honest not being allowed to own a gun in the UK I will accept as I would be far more worried about those who wanted to abuse guns than wanting to have a shoot out with them personally.

So I did not ignore. I saw those points and didn't feel that they gave a clear answer. However the emotive anecdotes given later seemed like they were offered as evidence.

Shannon wrote: "There you go. Statistics. Immediately."

Thank you. However, I don't feel those statistics can be compared like for like as easily as you imply. It seems to draw a false dichotomy that if you don't use a gun in self defence, then you have no defence.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that you are definitely wrong, but I don't feel that the comparison is relevant.

Shannon wrote: "You might, though, keep in mind that I was answering a question posed by a man who wanted to know what would be different, in our lives, if the government made acquiring guns more difficult."

Indeed. I feel though that there is a big difference between saying "there would be less people defending themselves with guns" and "there would be defenceless people". All things being equal, without background checks, licensing and some form of regulation all it seems to do is not lead to less conflict, but instead to guarantee that existing conflict is more often lethal.

Yet I could be wrong. It is not a simple issue.

However, what do you feel is the fundamental difference between the USA and Europe or Australia that would mean that the USA restricting guns would not simply lead to less deaths by guns?

(Not meant to be a oversimplification trap btw, just a question to a resident. I do know there was one program recently that compared Canada to the US and concluded that in Canada the fear of crime was much lower and therefore there was less problems)

Shannon wrote: "You might keep that in mind."

I will.

Shannon wrote: "Further, for the crime victims in the articles I noted, limiting the number of bullets that might be used in a gun might have had an impact in their survival. Might."

Indeed, but again are those situations anomalous or prevalent? That's why anecdotal evidence is problematic.

From my - admittedly imperfect - knowledge of gun battles, I have been told that in general as the number of rounds used in a battle goes up, the likelihood of either party being hit tends to even up. Furthermore an attacker with an intent to use a firearm is likely to be calmer and therefore more accurate than a victim defending themselves in a gun battle.

Does this mean that restricted clips are a good idea? I don't know. I feel that if a defender shoots then the effectiveness (whether harming or scaring the assailant) comes down to the first few shots. While its usually an attacker who is more likely to shoot more than one person in an incident. So that would seem "yes". But then again an assailant would be more likely to be calm enough to reload effectively. So I don't know.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Would it be different if it was a man? Should he use violent force in order to save himself? Would his life be worth it? Or, should he also lie back and let four teenage boys bent on murder to chop him up and chop up his 11-year old daughter?

What do you think?

Why don't you share.... "

I think you've misunderstood me for a start. Personally I would want and hope the victim the best chance of saving themselves and there loved ones.

I didn't mean that the victim should let them do it. What I meant was that most normal people actually find it difficult to purposely inflict lethal harm on another person. This has been well known through history which is why the military trains their soldiers so carefully, training in the response as a reflex to eliminate a target, not to slay another living being.

So I am not saying that a woman or man should defend themselves, I am asking if they could? Sure some will, and some may do so after hesitation. The question isn't whether in this one particular situation a gun would have made this woman safer but whether the widespread ownership of guns actually makes violent death less or more likely for everyone.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Because you weren't actually reading my words, it would seem. Because, if you were actually reading my words ... and my constant posts assuring you that I was not saying that and reiterating what I was saying, you would never have gone where you did because you'd not have misunderstood."

Actually I was, however they were also littered with leading statements, assumptions and implications that made it hard for me to distinguish what you were trying to say. It seemed to me you were trying to give the impression that Chinese scientists potentially causing harm, or the CDC "covering up" stuff about mercury compounds in vaccines were reasons to worry about the authority of "science". Which is why I questioned that point.

Shannon wrote: "Bully for you for making another quasi-personal attack, though."

Excuse me. I was admitting that I may have misunderstood you (mea culpa) due to a difference in writing styles. That was a personal attack on me if anyone, not you.

Shannon wrote: "Silly, Shannon. Longwinded posts that I just can't possibly be expected to understand...."

No. Verbose posts I can understand, however I find it hard to keep track of some of your longer ones as you seem to go from point to point without making definitive statements to address but often seeming to imply things. This is why I was apologising if I had misunderstood you.

As it is I still do not get the relevance of what you were saying in context of this thread. If you were just in conversation remarking that "hey perhaps those Chinese were reckless and foolish" or "hey perhaps that single CDC scientist should have had a press release sorted" then fine. But what relevance?

Meanwhile you say to me...

Shannon wrote: "Would you like to tell me and the readers why you ignored that? Would you like to explain why you ignored that? Why don't you share...."

So you hold me to much higher standards than yourself.

Lets see if we can civilly resolve this like adults.

What was your point meant to address regarding the vaccination comments and Chinese scientists?

Shannon wrote: "Maybe she should go elsewhere and post elsewhere ....

Yup. Gary, I got it.

Loud and clear and repeatedly.
"

Playing the victim for effect doesn't become you. As I said, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say regarding science and religion then please feel free to correct me.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "However do these statistics give a definite indication of what would happen if guns were suddenly rare instead of prevalent? Just because guns were used in self-defence does that automatically mean a lack of gun would have meant no recourse to safety, even if that safety is calling the police and hiding? Does it take into account the likelihood of the assailant being armed being similarly reduced? "

I've read all of this information; however, I think it would be best for you, if you're interested, to read the information.

I think the information should stand for what it stands for.

I don't think it would be helpful for the conversation to turn into a critique of my understandings or writing style.

The information and debate is too important, in my opinion.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "If you think, as I imagine you do, that I lowered the tone, you'd last precisely 5 minutes in a debate with the people I know before it got too much."

Wow scary. I would last 5 minutes before personal attacks and ad hominem insults would convince me of your peer groups intellectual superiority?

Or perhaps I would just get bored and wander off to discuss the issues with people who can debate intellectually?

Michael wrote: "Surely you can't be that sensitive. Anyway that's how we do it. You're unlikely to face that beast though, so how relevant is that really?"

Sensitivity has nothing to do with it. I respect opinions of people who can explain their opinions and debate them rationally. I have no respect for people who cannot articulate their own thoughts and therefore must tear down others.

Michael wrote: "I disagree with your views (go find my past posts on here, I'm not recapping), and find your methodology wanting"

As I have found your methodology little more than insults and hubris.

Michael wrote: "but YOU personally? I don't even know you, not really, so a firm view on that would be meaningless and unreliable. "

True. It just makes me wonder why you persist in these pointless personal attacks that do not address the subjects raised. You can't even debate why my methodology is bad without resorting to personal opinion presented as fact.

Especially going as far as the first line in 10379 which seems rather creepily like you have been stalking me for information to ridicule me.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I don't think it would be helpful for the conversation to turn into a critique of my understandings or writing style."

Agreed.

My point about writing style was not about you but about my ability to comprehend what you intended to mean. Which I think is the most important part of communication, not me assuming what you meant and replying but understanding what you meant and responding what I mean.

If our styles are different enough to make this problematic then that is not a fault of either of us, but instead is a challenge that we can choose to attempt to overcome.

[[deleted user]]

Tim wrote: "I live in the 6th most violent country in the world, and have never been certain if owning a gun would help. One of my friends was a cop for many years, and the most common thing he heard from the victims of attacks in their home, when asked "Why didn't you use your gun?" Was "There just wasn't time. I turned around and there they were."
The solution then is to constantly carry your gun on your person. But only one person I know does this. Research conducted amongst thousands of convicted armed robbers here has shown that the houses they target the most are the ones they know to contain guns. So almost everyone I know feels that to own guns is to attract attention, so very few of us own them. "

Interesting.... I don't know if it's the same here. If criminals target homes with guns....

I've heard the opposite but it might not be accurate. After Sandy Hook, a newspaper put on the names and addresses of gun owners in a county, if memory serves. People flipped out. Some due to the fact that they were women with orders of protection against men who'd been stalking them. They were in hiding, for real and of sorts. All of a sudden, their addresses were public, online with interactive maps to give directions to their homes. Some judges and police officers were also listed; they were concerned for obvious reasons. As that was swirling in the news, a former criminal (breaking and entering/robbery) said they tried to target homes without guns and if he was still robbing people, he'd use that information to find the homes in the area didn't have guns. But, of course, that's just one man. I've not read anything more definitive.

[Michael]

Gary wrote: "Wow scary. I would last 5 minutes before personal attacks and ad hominem insults would convince me of your peer groups intellectual superiority?"

You cheeky boy!. We're fluffy bloody bunnies. Intellectual superiority? Cheeky again and wildly presumptive. Never a chance we'd assume that, intra-group or inter-group, because only a drooling imbecile would. Intellectual equality more like. I will admit we do thrive on insult humour in camera, as it were, but that's the subculture innit? Everyone knows what's what - it's actually all rather good-natured. Comes down to two atheists and two non-atheists too in the core group, so how about that for balance? Of course, maybe that WOULD bore you, I don't know. (Don't answer that, it's not important and I'm not that bothered about that aspect of things.)

And as for the stalking you. Please, get over yourself and ponder the obvious! Like your profile picture doesn't reveal enough. But remember, above it all, my opinion is of no concern to you anyway. You said so yourself.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "Cheeky again and wildly presumptive."

Interesting that you find that cheeky and wildly presumptive and yet your statement that I wouldn't be able to face 5 minutes with "your group" isn't?

Michael wrote: "Everyone knows what's what - it's actually all rather good-natured."

Good for them, I enjoy spirited debates with good natured insults with my friends too, many of whom do not share my views on belief. However, here I respect people who show respect first. If I get to know them well enough for some banter then great. However, people who come along and start with insults and personal attacks in a debate I have little interest in.

As soon as you're ready to discuss civilly I would be happy to do so.

Michael wrote: "And as for the stalking you. Please, get over yourself and ponder the obvious! Like your profile picture doesn't reveal enough."

So it was just an attempt at a personal attack based on my profile? Another reason I find your "methodology" poor.

Michael wrote: "But remember, above it all, my opinion is of no concern to you anyway. You said so yourself. "

That's true. That doesn't mean I am not going to point out ad hominem attacks when they happen and treat them with the scorn they deserve.

Any time you want to actually discuss points though...

[Sarah]

I am not sure if it is truly possible to have one without the other? However, I think I would really choose Faith. I would rather have Faith than science or religion. I believe both science and religion are deeply rooted in the Faith that there is more to learn, see, do, experience out there. Without Faith neither would exist...

[Gary]

Sarah wrote: "Without Faith neither would exist..."

May I ask why?

[Michael]

Gary wrote "Interesting that you find that cheeky and wildly presumptive and yet your statement that I wouldn't be able to face 5 minutes with "your group" isn't?"

The difference, while slight, is this. You were commenting on people whom you knew nothing about. Until I blathered the details out obviously and there went the beans.

Also: "So it was just an attempt at a personal attack based on my profile?"

More an attempt to be mildly jocular, jaunty even - obviously wasted in retrospect. If it was a personal attack you wouldn't need to ask, you'd know. But since it wasn't... etcetera, blah de blah, und so weiter.

"That doesn't mean I am not going to point out ad hominem attacks when they happen and treat them with the scorn they deserve."

You either care or you don't. You can't be selectively scornful. Pick one and stick to it. If it helps, I'm happy with either.

[Sarah]

Gary wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Without Faith neither would exist..."

May I ask why?"

Well, I guess I think of Faith, in a way, as a way of seaching or believing in the possibility of more. And in thinking that way, why would we look for something or continue to learn if we didn't feel there was more out there? I think we would just stop and be content with what we knew. There's more to it than just Faith I know, but I think Faith is at the base of a lot of our searching and curiosity. We want to confirm what we believe. :)

[David]

For me personally here is the thing...

I don't care about the statistics of people who kill themselves with guns. They would probably find some other way to kill themselves in the absence of a gun.

It is tragic that innocent people are killed by guns. Statistically, they are often killed by people they know or live close to. There are high crime areas in the US and they will continue to be high crime areas in the absence of guns.

The fact that other people are harmed by the criminal or negligent use of guns has no bearing on my opinion, which is, I have a right to defend my life and the lives of my family. I think that a gun is the best way for me to be prepared to to that. It is my right and I won't give it up easily.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "You either care or you don't. You can't be selectively scornful. Pick one and stick to it. If it helps, I'm happy with either. "

And why not? I will treat personal attacks with scorn when I wish. I do not have to continue to treat the person with scorn if they are willing to actually behave in a manner that doesn't invite scorn.

[Gary]

Sarah wrote: "Well, I guess I think of Faith, in a way, as a way of seaching or believing in the possibility of more. And in thinking that way, why would we look for something or continue to learn if we didn't feel there was more out there?"

Doesn't belief actually do the opposite though? If you believe that there is a particular something "out there" doesn't that then stop you searching for something further?

When you search for something do you believe you know where it is, and continue to search in the same spot for the same thing if you don't find it?


Sarah wrote: "I think we would just stop and be content with what we knew."

What you seem to be talking about is not faith, it's curiosity. In my opinion, faith attempts to project your preconceptions onto existence, while curiosity looks out into existence to find what is actually there.

Sarah wrote: "There's more to it than just Faith I know, but I think Faith is at the base of a lot of our searching and curiosity. We want to confirm what we believe. :) "

It's true that many people want to confirm what they believe, and unfortunately many people believe different and mutually exclusive things about existing. Can they all be correct? Confirming what we believe and then using faith to deny what we see if our beliefs are not confirmed is surely an exercise in hubris? Is it not better to open our minds to what we find rather than close it to all except what we want to find?

[Gary]

David wrote: "The fact that other people are harmed by the criminal or negligent use of guns has no bearing on my opinion, which is, I have a right to defend my life and the lives of my family. I think that a gun is the best way for me to be prepared to to that. It is my right and I won't give it up easily. "

Does everyone have that right? To defend their lives and the lives of their family? If that is so, then if it is proved that ownership of guns directly undermines that right to the majority, is it then right to place your desire to assert your rights over the rights of others?

[David]

"Does everyone have that right? To defend their lives and the lives of their family?"

If they are a US citizen then they definitely do. If not a US citizen, they may not but I think they should.

"If that is so, then if it is proved that ownership of guns directly undermines that right to the majority, is it then right to place your desire to assert your rights over the rights of others?"

It is part of my inherent right to live. The majority should not be able to deny me that right. To do so would be tyrannical - what believers in the constitutional republican form of government call "they tyranny of the majority".

[Gary]

David wrote: "It is part of my inherent right to live. The majority should not be able to deny me that right. To do so would be tyrannical - what believers in the constitutional republican form of government call "they tyranny of the majority". "

So instead if a minority wishes to put their right to own guns above the right for the majority not to be shot by said guns it's not a tyranny because it's a minority enforcing it's will on the majority???

[Dolf]

Science has explained a lot about the world we live in and it renews itself with every new insight and proven theory.
Religion is a way for people to deal with things that haven't been explained yet and is often dogmatic and against change.
A world without religion doesn't mean that it has to be a cold world. Spirituality without believing in a supernatural being is very well possible. Pantheism, believing in the powers of nature and believing that this earth is sacred is very spiritual. I'm an atheist with a rich spiritual life. I just don't believe in a supernatural being who watches over us. I find that notion quite naive. I don't need a god to give me strenght. I get my strength from the people who support me and from my own power of mind. When you feel good about yourself and love yourself, you can also deal with the world and love and help others.
So yes, I would rather live in a world without religion. Couldn't do without science.

[David]

It is not just "a right to own guns". It is a right have the means of defending one's life and property. Guns are merely the best way of doing so because they take away the physical advantages of those who would do harm.

If I don't have the right to life and the ability to defend it then what rights do I really have at all? There are many millions of guns owned in the US. Only a tiny fraction are used irresponsibly.

Just because a majority want something does not mean it is a good idea.

[Michael]

Gary wrote "And why not? I will treat personal attacks with scorn when I wish. I do not have to continue to treat the person with scorn if they are willing to actually behave in a manner that doesn't invite scorn."

Mmm...up and down like Vanessa Mae's elbow, but I'll live with it. Really. I will.

[[deleted user]]

David wrote: "I have a right to defend my life and the lives of my family. I think that a gun is the best way for me to be prepared to to that. It is my right and I won't give it up easily. "

I agree, David. We do have that right. Even the most liberal politicians who want to enact more gun control legislation say we have the right to own guns. If they're being honest, our gun rights are a done deal. Of course, some don't believe they're being honest. Who knows.

People have a fundamental human right to defend themselves and their family members if they're endangered. Call 911? Some people, especially from other countries, might not understand how long response times could be. In my current school district, which encompasses five different towns, the people in two of the towns have a 20 to 25 minute wait time. The young mother from Oklahoma who saved herself and her baby was looking at a 45 minute or longer wait time. A lot can happen in that time period.

Some of us have no intention to be willing victims. We might take self-defense classes, gun safety courses, look to home security, own guns, etc.... That's our right.

Regardless of our Bill of Rights, I'd say the right to protect ourselves and our loved ones is a right that goes beyond paper and governments. But, that's just my opinion. What right could be more important than the right to protect oneself against a rapist or a murderer? Lest anyone think I'm being emotive, I have a cousin who was abducted by two men, taken to a mountain and beaten and raped for hours. Emotive? True. And, part of my experience. I have a cousin who was beaten to within an inch of her life. I have more than a few friends who were raped. What's the statistic? One in five American women are raped. What am I going to say? Those women should have the right to an abortion, given that it's their body and .... Those women should have the right to universal health care .... Those women should have the right to a gay marriage .... But, what? When faced with a rapist or murderer, should I say they don't have a right to defend themselves, including with a gun?

I, for one, will never advocate that right be taken from people nor stand for that.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "So instead if a minority wishes to put their right to own guns above the right for the majority not to be shot by said guns it's not a tyranny because it's a minority enforcing it's will on the majority??? "

Gary....

If you're going to talk about evidence, proof and logic, you need to follow suit.

Do some reading, of non-bias sources.

The majority of Americans are not in favor of doing away with the 2nd Amendment and gun rights. Far from it.

The majority of Americans favor things like stricter laws concerning background checks. That's completely different.

The majority of Americans are not shot with guns.

If you're going to talk of evidence and logical arguments, please stop playing fast and loose with the facts. Whether you're intentionally being dishonest and giving false information or whether you've read something by someone and believe that person rather than doing your own research to discover the truth, I don't know.

[[deleted user]]

David wrote: "If I don't have the right to life and the ability to defend it then what rights do I really have at all? "

Oh, so true.

[[deleted user]]

I was wrong.

The majority of Americans no longer support gun control either ....

http://washingtonexaminer.com/usa-tod...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/po...

Funny thing about facts ...

[Sarah]

Gary wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Well, I guess I think of Faith, in a way, as a way of seaching or believing in the possibility of more. And in thinking that way, why would we look for something or continue to learn ..."

Thank you for your thoughts. :)

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: So we should release all murderers from jail because most of them used technology (gun, knife, poison) invented by "science" and "science" and scientists are therefore to blame?

Laughable.
"

It is laughable, it is a laughable analogy, as are these.......

Gary wrote: No. It's called comprehension of what science is. If someone calls for "non-whites to be exterminated" in the language of English, do you blame linguists for inventing or studying English.

Is someone puts a tool in your hand and you choose to use it to harm, then you are responsible for that harm.
................. etc.

As you said…..technology, the gun, invented by "science".

Science has a responsibility for that. Of course that might not be the science as you know it or want it to be, but none the less it is science. And just as we praise science for saving lives, it must also recognise the repercussions of thing it has done that are less favourable.


Gary wrote: Yet I can understand that you have issues comprehending relative scales rather than absolutes..

Is this Gary yet again doing a u turn by trying to undermine the person he is responding to? In this case by suggesting I do not comprehend relative scales...which has nothing to do with what we are discussing, other than to act as your diversionary tactic, which you are good at.

I would answer yes..

.... but back on topic,

You suggested Goldacre. So I looked him up and quoted him, but he seems to contradict your thinking.

Gary wrote:This is why there are scientists out there who are determined to fight the corruption of the scientific process by big companies with a vested interest (For example Dr. Ben Goldacre)
..."

Quote Goldacre "And finally, let us not forget the strays, the good scientists who have passed to the dark side. Was it those shares in that drug company, or the lust for fame and glory? Bad scientists, your days are numbered".



...........Bad scientists = bad science.

[Travis]

David wrote: "For me personally here is the thing...

I don't care about the statistics of people who kill themselves with guns. They would probably find some other way to kill themselves in the absence of a g..."

But, who is asking you to give it up?
What proposed control measure involves that idea?

[Wil]

religion

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "But, who is asking you to give it up?
What proposed control measure involves that idea? "

The states that have bans on the number of bullets you can have in a gun/in a clip might be. While that wasn't in the most recent proposed legislation, it was one of the original proposals. There were a lot of questions about that and other things. President Clinton had meetings on the Hill and encouraged Democrats not to push gun control to the extent proposed. That's why things changed and the bill voted upon just dealt only with background checks, in hopes of passage.

If you're facing four armed killers, you might need more than eight to ten bullets or hope you're a crack shot.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But, who is asking you to give it up?
What proposed control measure involves that idea? "

The states that have bans on the number of bullets you can have in a gun/in a clip might be..."

But limiting bullets is not taking away your right to defend yourself.

People keep throwing that phrase around and while it is slightly less hysterical sounding then 'Obama wants to take our guns away!' it really has nothing to do with what is being proposed.

[David]

Travis said, "But, who is asking you to give it up?"

Here is only one of many: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" - Diane Feinstein

Travis also said, "What proposed control measure involves that idea?"

There has been legislation proposed that would ban "assault weapons", which are essentially bans on cosmetic features of a gun.

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But, who is asking you to give it up?
What proposed control measure involves that idea? "

The states that have bans on the number of bullets you can have in a gun/in a clip might be..."


Why is any legislation too much? Why is the pro-gun cry "any loss/death is acceptable as long as I can have whatever gun, in whatever quantity I want"? Why is there no room for compromise?

Let's say I want to buy a car. Can I buy any car I want? Can I get a nitro funny car and drive it down the street? Can I drive as fast as I want. Why do I have have to stop at stop signs? Why do I need a license? Why does the government want to keep track of my car if I sell it? What if we are attacked by an army with tanks? Why can't I have a tank? It's what the military has.

Why is there no room for compromise? Shouldn't we know who is buying the guns? Shouldn't we know what happens to the guns when they are sold at a gun show or online, and then resold to others?
Why the intense paranoia? One gun that shoots less than 10 bullets isn't enough? Because in most of our actual lives we have had so many situations arise where we said, "Damn, if only I had my AK-47?"

I do not think we need to take away everyones guns. But Ialso do not feel that a gun is a magic thing that will protect me from all harm. If that was true no one would die in a war, where everyone is armed.

There is room for sensible regulation, but first we need sensible debate. Not "Doomsday Prepper/Zombie Apocolypse" what if scenerios used as fact.

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis said, "But, who is asking you to give it up?"

Here is only one of many: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" - Diane Feinstein

Travi..."

But that does not take away your right to defend yourself.

Even in this fantasy of the government taking away all the guns, you still have the right to defend yourself.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Would you like to tell me and the readers why you ignored that? Would you like to explain why you ignored that? Why don't you share...."

So you hold me to much higher standards than yourself.

Lets see if we can civilly resolve this like adults.

What was your point meant to address regarding the vaccination comments and Chinese scientists? "

Post 10242

"Travis wrote: "If religious folk stayed in thier virtual world, I'd have no problem, but they keep insisting on coming out and interacting with the rest of us and wanting us to follow their rules.
That's when we have a problem. "

Read an article a week or two ago regarding Chinese scientists who joined an avian flu strain with a human flu strain, intentionally. Another scientist (whether reputable or not, I don't know) was screaming from the rooftops. He contended doing so would not help us in formulating vaccines and, even if it did, the risk was too great, given the lower standards and security (his judgment) at Chinese labs.

It would be horrific if that got out. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, would likely die.

I'd like it, personally, if scientists wouldn't experiment in ways that would put humanity at risk. All things involve risk, but .... If the level of risk exceeds the possible benefits, I'd just soon it didn't happen, especially since it could move from scientists' virtual world, come out, interact with the rest of us and, in this instance, wipe out a huge percentage of the human race.

Yes. Religion and science are different. (Though, I can see why some believe some treat science and/or atheism as a religion.) They are different, though. Agreed.

Having said that, .... Not so much interested in seeing just one point of view expressed. The idea that it's just the jerk religious folks who ruin it for everyone by insisting on coming out and playing with the big kids.

We, all of us, would do well to play nice and consider the bigger picture."

My point was that both religion and science can leave their virtual worlds and intrude on our lives. Religion has and likely will continue to do so. Acknowledged. But, I wasn't interested in looking at just one point of view. Science can also intrude on our lives; if the risk outweighs the benefit in the experimentation being done by the Chinese scientists, I'd, personally, rather the Chinese scientists didn't do such research.

[[deleted user]]

Part II of Post 10445

Post 10278

"Gary wrote: "Non-scientists often think that scientists choose the things they discover, but in a way it's the other way around. That's because science is discovery of what's there, not the imposition of ones own concepts onto reality."

A good point and likely often true.

Regarding what I was originally discussing, .... Chinese scientists who are combining a strain of avian flu and human flu ....

I don't see that as clearly.

I'm guess that has to do with my personality. Not my religious beliefs and not how I feel about science. I'm not one to take risks when it comes to the lives of others. Let's face it. I'm the woman who decided not to have children, even though I always wanted children, do to the possible risks to them given the fact that my ovaries got zapped in an X-ray. Which, of course, had certain implications regarding marriage. Both things, children and marriage, were things I always wanted and, I think, would fill me with joy. But, .... Even though there's a chance that, .... Even though there was only a chance that there'd be issues ....

I made a very deliberate decision not to roll the dice and play with the lives of my unborn children. Period. Regardless of the price I've paid.

That's how I am with most things, when dealing with life and death.

I'm not the woman who would make the crazy flu strain, even if it might save millions in the end, if I was in a lab or facility that lacked proper security or if there was a risk that it might be stollen. I just wouldn't. Someone else can say they would. Okay. Someone could say I'm not thinking enough of all the things that could be discovered as a result. Okay. But, ultimately, I disagree. My opinion. If this was a threat, I'd rather it not be done. Not going to change my mind. I don't play fast and loose with lives. I just don't. That's a big deal for me and always has been, due to who I am, my experiences, etc....

Not a statement about science .... Yes, I know why scientists would want to do this thing.

It's a statement about security, benefits versus risk, etc...."

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But, who is asking you to give it up?
What proposed control measure involves that idea? "

The states that have bans on the number of bullets you can have in a gun/in..."

It is strange that having gun is supposed to make you feel safer etc, yet gun owners tend to always sound a little paranoid.
Doesn't sound like the gun is working.

There is obviously a gun problem in this country, so I don't get this idea that any attempt to fix things is always seen as bad.

[David]

Mary,

None of the proposed legislation would have stopped the crimes that have grabbed people's attention.

"Assault weapon" bans are just bans based on cosmetic features of certain guns. There is no logical basis for banning guns because of the way they look.

There are no documented crimes that were committed with weapons purchase via the "gun show loophole". Licensed sellers at gun shows perform background checks. Private owners can sell their guns at gun shows without checks but they can do that anyway. The gun show loophole is a bogus issue.

The fact that these nonsensical measures are being proposed are a clue that they are incremental measures. They are not meant to solve a problem, only to move a little closer to a total ban.

"Why the intense paranoia?"

I would ask you the same question. It is a simple fact that there are many millions of guns that are privately owned in the USA (about 300 million). Only a small fraction of those are used in crimes. So, given that the vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime and that the vast majority of guns are never used for violence, why are you so paranoid?

[Danielle]

I would rather live in a world without religion, because basically both World Wars started because of feuds between religions, as well as the Holocaust against Jewish people. If their were no religions, there would have been no reason to fight to begin with.

[David]

Travis wrote, "But that does not take away your right to defend yourself."

It takes away my right if it takes away my ability to effectively defend myself. It's like saying I have the right to drive but can't get a car.

"Even in this fantasy of the government taking away all the guns, you still have the right to defend yourself."

Fantasy? There are numerous historical precedents of gun confiscation. Each of them began with registration.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Playing the victim for effect doesn't become you. As I said, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say regarding science and religion then please feel free to correct me. "

I corrected you. Several times.

Here's one. Please be sure to let me know which parts of this post were verbose and unclear.

Post 10367

"Gary wrote: "So yes, two isolated anecdotes are your "evidence" for some kind of systemic problem with science, all expressed on a medium that demonstrates the massive advantages of the scientific process."

On this point, you are not right. Not even remotely. To make that statement, you're clearly not reading my posts or making any effort to understand what I'm saying.

Once again, ...

Science = Good

Scientists = Good

Vaccines = Good

Scientists at an unsecured lab making an avian/human flu strain is likely too risky, in my opinion. Which, is very different from saying science is bad or misrepresenting science.

Statements pulled out of thin air that can't be backed by any evidence at all aren't good. Asking one to pony up and giving additional information isn't bad ... and isn't sullying the reputation of all scientists and science in general."

[Travis]

David wrote: "Mary,

None of the proposed legislation would have stopped the crimes that have grabbed people's attention.

"Assault weapon" bans are just bans based on cosmetic features of certain guns. There i..."

You're not paranoid, but a nonsensicical measure has you convinced they are heading for a total ban.
Well, that's sold me. Doesn't sound the least bit paranoid.

The reason I'm paranoid is that no matter what happens the people who have guns don't want any laws that would inconvience them at all.
So, a large group of heavily armed people, with no restrictions.

[[deleted user]]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Playing the victim for effect doesn't become you. As I said, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say regarding science and religion then please feel free to correct me. "

I cor..."

Part II to Post 10451

From Post 10341

"Again, my point was not and is not to say science is wrong or bad."

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis wrote, "But that does not take away your right to defend yourself."

It takes away my right if it takes away my ability to effectively defend myself. It's like saying I have the right to dr..."

But, you still have the right.
Losing the guns, may effect your ability or effectiveness, but you do not lose the right.
I own no guns, never have never will, I still have the right to defend myself.

[David]

Dani said, "I would rather live in a world without religion, because basically both World Wars started because of feuds between religions..."

Huh? Maybe in Canadian alternative history. In the history I learned the wars were started primarily over territorial disputes and economics.