I'm still waiting to hear why political views must be consistent. You've heard that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Other than satisfying linear / symmetrical thinking, what is the virtue? Why can't I be pro-life and pro-death penalty, or for no regulation of assault rifles, but pro-regulation of nukes or .50 cal machine guns? Or pro-voter registration but anti-gun registration? Where does this "consistency" virtue come from?
Limited government and capital punishment
- Thread starter SMemmett
- Start date
I'm still waiting to hear why political views must be consistent. You've heard that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Other than satisfying linear / symmetrical thinking, what is the virtue? Why can't I be pro-life and pro-death penalty, or for no regulation of assault rifles, but pro-regulation of nukes or .50 cal machine guns? Or pro-voter registration but anti-gun registration? Where does this "consistency" virtue come from?
Once you give authority to the state to act in one instance what leg do you have to deny a similar authority in a similar circumstance? It is the plight of the minarchist. Do you not use it all the time when debating? Why is it okay to use against someone you debate but not okay to point out the hypocrisy of the conflicting position in your situation?
Last edited:
You answered my question with a question. You simply deny the authority. Just like we do with guns. You can have a 30 round .223. You may not have a fully automatic .223, .50, RPG, mustard gas or dirty bomb.
You still haven't answered my question. Why is consistency such a virtue? Where does this come from?
Actually you can have a full auto .223, full auto .50, and an RPG. A friend of mine owns a full auto MP5 and a MAC 10 machine pistol. He's probably almost the most dangerous guy on his block.
Head in the sand. Just simply deny it huh? Deny it just like the majority of Americans that opposed the Patriot Act? Or how about the ACA? Oh, and just like the majority of Americans oppose stricter gun control? Yeah, that has shown some great success.
If you can't see the benefit of logically consistent positions I'm sorry. I'm not going to sit here and break it down in a paint by numbers fashion so you can just disagree and continue on in your little bubble of ignorance anyway. Not worth my time.
I knew this doctrine of consistency would end up with you folding the tent. Now you simply adopt circular reasoning. Demanding consistency among differing policy arguments all the time in politics is silly. There's nothing logically inconsistent with wanting biological weapons or RPG's to be illegal, and a bolt action .30-'06 to be legal, but your demand for linear symmetry falls apart with that analysis. It may be inconsistent or consistent -- the "logic" is in making the correct choice without being bound by some linear consistency requirement.
No, you are comparing apples and oranges. You do this all the time in gun debates. You've made it painfully obvious you do not understand the difference between arms and artillery or conventional bombs, etc. You throw them into one large category because they can be used to kill. In fact, your comparison is not any less ludicrous than comparing a bicycle to a greyhound bus. "Well, they both have wheels and they are both used to get people to places." Despite this being pointed out on numerous occasions by numerous posters you continue on with what you evidently perceive as a trump card.
By the way, what party is mostly responsible for creating these highly destructive weapons that are used to kill as many people as possible in the quickest way possible? Individuals or governments? Well wouldn't you know it. It's well-conscienced governments or is it sociopathic (lacking of any conscience) governments? At least a capital punishment advocate can argue that the individual was convicted by his peers in a court of law. Your argument for the monopolization of arms into the hands of what you have stated is a sociopathic entity has no leg to stand on.
By the way, what party is mostly responsible for creating these highly destructive weapons that are used to kill as many people as possible in the quickest way possible? Individuals or governments? Well wouldn't you know it. It's well-conscienced governments or is it sociopathic (lacking of any conscience) governments? At least a capital punishment advocate can argue that the individual was convicted by his peers in a court of law. Your argument for the monopolization of arms into the hands of what you have stated is a sociopathic entity has no leg to stand on.
Show me a definition somewhere that defines guns and arms and these distinctions as you do.
Geez. For somebody that owns 30 guns, you sure don't know shit. Here's a nice little definition per the UN regarding "small arms" and "light weapons" (hint, 2 different things). I'll wait for you to counter with something that includes bombs and tanks or to completely humiliate yourself trying yo say small arms and light weapons are the same thing.
(a) “Small arms” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns;
(b) “Light weapons” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person. They include, inter alia, general purpose or universal machine guns, medium machine guns, heavy machine guns, rifle grenades, under-barrel grenade launchers and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, man portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, man portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a calibre of less than 100 millimetres.
Excellent! Did you look up any dictionary definitions? What did they say?
May I have a link to this definition?
It's a given that once bitch-slapped with facts, the tamponese darlin's will always do their best imitation of "no show George Jones".
@syskatine is redefining stupid with every post. I'd expect more from a dude that owns "30 guns." Unless you're a liar or whatnot...
Wait! Don't Hillary that answer. Amuse us.
Nuclear weapons and handguns have what in common?
Tanks and semiauto guns have what in common?
Grenade launchers and semiauto guns have what in common?
Automatic and semiautomatic guns have what in common?
Rocket launchers and handguns have what in common?
Mortars and rifles have what in common?
Bunker buster bombs and small arms have what in common?
@syskatine In your case crickets, or to drill down deeper, you're a complete dumbass.
Tanks and semiauto guns have what in common?
Grenade launchers and semiauto guns have what in common?
Automatic and semiautomatic guns have what in common?
Rocket launchers and handguns have what in common?
Mortars and rifles have what in common?
Bunker buster bombs and small arms have what in common?
@syskatine In your case crickets, or to drill down deeper, you're a complete dumbass.
Some crimes are so heinous and the guilt so provable that the DP is the right punishment. Example: Batman movie shooter.
Holy crap, I actually agree with Sys. I used to be hardcore pro-death sentence; but not anymore.
Maybe I've gotten soft in my old age.
Or maybe I've applied logic to the death penalty argument. Yes I agree that there are degenerate pervert psycho scumbags that I wouldn't have a problem with putting to death. But they get off free because they were able to game the judicial system. ANd that's bound to cause emotional distress for the victim's families.
By the same logic, you have to admit that the judicial system fails innocent men and can (and has) sent them to their death (which also causes emotional distress for the decedent families). For that reason - and since death is irrevocable - the broad application of the death sentence should be forbidden.
Go ahead and use the "but what if someone raped and murdered your daughter" argument. I could counter with the "what if your son was falsely convicted of rape and murder" argument. It's what we get for having the judicial system that we do. I guess I'd just have to be content with the ways the legal and sentencing processes were applied.
Again, maybe I've gotten soft.
OK, I agreed with the stance on the death penalty but this one - not so much. Try again.
Very much agreed. I don't think the death penalty should ever be applied to cases that only have circumstantial evidence. But if it's a disgusting heinous crime, like rape and murder of a child, and there is ample physical evidence to prove guilt, kill the degenerate.
