Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Sandstone

Member
  • Content Count

    6981
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Sandstone last won the day on July 31

Sandstone had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1494 Excellent

4 Followers

About Sandstone

  • Rank
    SandkingBestHero

Recent Profile Visitors

864 profile views
  1. None of this matters to the legitimacy of the argument that abortion is murder. In the strictest sense people are declared legally dead when they lose a heart beat, but you need to first prove that fetuses are human. To do that you have to establish a standard for what constitutes a human life. I don't think you'll get everyone to agree that human life begins at conception because there is no obvious consciousness or sentience from a fetus that is readily observable.
  2. Abortions aren't murder, at least not in the traditional sense, they stop a life from a non-sentient undeveloped being. They are closer to taking someone off life support than they are homicide. Though the crucial difference here is that those taken off life support typically have had some kind of self awareness (sentience) before being removed from said life support.
  3. Yes, there are numerous examples of this occurring that are relevant to this topic that is just one of them. Look this is something that is of concern nearly every time congress decides to get off their ass after a tragedy. We get questionable proposals to some degree and even people trying to attach amendments to bills that would otherwise be reasonable in order to undermine it or sneak in crap they personally want into the bill. There is nothing wrong with saying that people need to calm down a bit and make rational decisions.
  4. This is the way it is with practically any kind of needed reform in the US. Obama did the same thing with Gay Marriage and a variety of other things. And Bush arguably did more of this kind of thing than any president in recent memory. It's whatever I guess, I'll be happy if they get off their asses this time and make a compromise that actually puts some measures in place to help prevent these. We'll never be able to get rid of every tragedy that can happen, but these are happening way to frequently and they have some common indicators that can be directly targeted. Republican resistance up til this point is to be expected even if it is loathsome. This is typical political operations unfortunately.
  5. The caution is defined. The caution is against making decisions based on emotions that will have an impact on civil liberties for decades. I never want to see another Patriot Act during my lifetime.
  6. I think you an I are speaking to entirely different points. I have no problems with red flag laws. Implementation and potential for abuse I'd civil liberties is what I am cautioning about.
  7. I really don't know what you mean. Perfectly real, and I don't read minds so if you have some issue with something I said let's talk about it.
  8. Hold on now. I never said anything about waiting to address this issue. If that is the impression you were getting, I'm sorry for not being more clear. I very much want to see something finally put into place to try to stem these mass shooter incidents. My worry is that this is an opportunity for us to put into place bad legislation because of the level of emotional fervor going on right now. This is the same thing that happened post 911 and I don't want to see such a thing happen again. We can and should do something but we need to be careful whenever we start talks about legislation that will directly affect civil liberties. That isn't saying we don't need something just that we need to be as calm and rational when talking about what needs to be done as possible. Design something that is targeted at the problem and not descend into madness or just givin blanket power's to the government, which is what happened with the Patriot Act. Please don't think I'm somehow advocating that no action be taken because that is not what I said and it certainly isn't what I meant.
  9. I would definitely agree that being luled back to sleep repeatedly on this issue is not a good idea either. It's very hard to hit the sweet spot for issues like this which are a real problem but have the potential to be dealt with in an overly authoritarian manner if we rush it.
  10. You don't think that terrorist acts happen as frequently if not more than mass shootings? Perhaps they aren't as peripherally obvious as mass shootings because they by-and-large do not occur in the mainland but they are at least as frequent if not more so. I think you're missing the main point here, it is not that we need to do nothing about this it is that we need to approach it from a logical point of view rather than an emotional one. Emotional emphasis on legislation is how you get the Patriot Act. History shows numerous examples of this for us.
  11. It's not. These are the outlier events. That was part of his point as well. I'm not sure why urging that people take time and address a problem rationally instead of emotionally is a bad thing.
  12. Yeah that is the opposite of what I said there... you're not actually reading what I write or something. I clearly said invading Iraq was a mistake. It seems like you agree with me that the US government has a very bad track record when it comes to taking action immediately after national tragedies. Acting in a calm and collected manner is needed if we are to be sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of our past.
  13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLC43smuLVA Senator Feingold talks about how other agendas were pushed because public sentiment allowed for it. When you talk about radical change to laws you need to make sure that an equivalent level of scrutiny is given to what is being proposed, and act only in a measured and rational manner. Acting based on emotion to public tragedy is dangerous.
  14. I think you're not following what I'm saying. I suppose you could actually say that the response to 9/11 (the very first response) was warranted as well, specifically going after Al-Qaeda. The problem is that the rightful pain being felt by the nation was used to push through bad legislation and go to war with Iraq under false pretenses. When people start universally nodding their heads in agreement with ideas just being randomly thrown out without debate, that is when things get dangerous. I would urge anyone who finds themselves nodding in agreement to listen to Senator Feingold talking about the dangers of the Patriot Act in 2001 and urging caution, calm and collected thinking rather than reactionary measures. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4640421/statement-anti-terrorism-bill-clip "We must not let these pieces of our past to become Prologue" He was called Anti-American, heartless, and every name in the book at the time for this. He was right, people need to take a step back and think a bit harder before we start taking an axe to the Bill of Rights.
  15. Nuclear Weapons came way after the declaration of war. Was not referring to the way the war ended. The fact is most reactionary decisions to tragedies the US government have made are historically closer to the entrance into Vietnam and the Patriot Act than they are to defending against attacks from the Japanese. Even during WWII there were serious mistakes made due to reactionary sentiments. Lest we forget the public fear mongering that led to the Japanese internment camps. Urging caution and calm in addition to thorough debate before an issue is addressed is a good thing not a bad thing. It seems like too many in my generation have very short attention spans, and just want to clamor for more government power without thinking things through in detail. Show me a movement with good intentions and I'll show you how it can be abused, if it hasn't been already.
×
×
  • Create New...