You just can't win with a liberal

This is a discussion on You just can't win with a liberal within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; You cant win with liberals? Sure you can... its not your problem if they are to dumb to realize you "won" though. Besides all that, ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 62

Thread: You just can't win with a liberal

  1. #16
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,659
    You cant win with liberals? Sure you can... its not your problem if they are to dumb to realize you "won" though.

    Besides all that, according to them, everyone should win anyway. There are no winners or losers in a liberal world.
    Last edited by SIXTO; May 10th, 2008 at 08:37 AM.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array Zach and Holly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    479
    P7fanatic, that's hilarious....and true!
    It is utterly illogical to believe that passing laws to reduce gun violence will be successful when those who are commiting the gun violence do not obey the law.

  4. #18
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    We had a similar thread recently, something about sceptics. The bottom line is that someone who is otherwise intellectually honest, but misinformed, can be talked out of their anti-gun postion by rational persuassive argument, including the use of statistics, as was attempted here, and it is worth the effort to attempt to do so. But, you are wasting your breath by arguing with those who are philosophically anti-gun or have a political agenda, such as the BradyBunch and their ilk.
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,801
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911packer View Post
    In a liberal's perfect world, there would be no firearms. Then the weak, old and small would be preyed upon by the strong and healthy.

    Natural selection would then apply to humans. Is that what they want?
    For some, the answer is yes and no. Not natural selection, but selection by those who are smart enough to make those decisions. Then those who are useless, weak, unable to think could be done away with.

    See below

    Entire article can be found at: Posts by Bloggers at News Bloggers

    Peter Singer is a calm, lucid and able debater, and our debate at Biola University in Los Angeles on April 25 was lively and hard-fought. Not for nothing is Singer considered a world-class philosopher and advocate. You can watch the debate here.

    So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate. But unbelievers may want to think twice before lining up behind Singer, who argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!

    Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject which I get from his books Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life.

    On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."

    On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."

    On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."

    On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

    In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer's Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn't come to debate his bioethical views! ...I view Singer's work as exploring the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality.

    So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old.

    Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.
    Last edited by miklcolt45; May 10th, 2008 at 08:51 AM. Reason: add clarification
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron View Post
    We had a similar thread recently, something about sceptics. The bottom line is that someone who is otherwise intellectually honest, but misinformed, can be talked out of their anti-gun postion by rational persuassive argument, including the use of statistics, as was attempted here, and it is worth the effort to attempt to do so. But, you are wasting your breath by arguing with those who are philosophically anti-gun or have a political agenda, such as the BradyBunch and their ilk.
    Couldn't agree more...and further believe it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative...I know a number that would identify with being either and carry.

    Rick

  7. #21
    Member Array nativenyerintexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Defensor View Post
    +1.
    They just don't understand events like this could have been prevented.

    YouTube - Penn and Teller - Suzanna's Gun Encounter Story

    And don't tell the gun grabbers that the laws don't work:

    YouTube - Penn and Teller - Gun Free Zones

    YouTube - Rosie on Gun Control

    In the infamous word of Charlton Heston:

    YouTube - From my cold dead hands!
    It is to be observed that Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . , and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not "expressly set forth.

    --- Hugo Grotius

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array DMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    MT
    Posts
    1,012
    Lets face it, Liberals just can't win against facts! Thats why they don't care about facts, and choose to look at the world through emotions and fiction.
    "Gun Free Zones" is where only criminals carry guns.

  9. #23
    Member
    Array Cakewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    292
    Emotion is much more powerful than logic. You can scare a person into doing something faster and easier than you can convince them with sound reasoning.
    Keep emotionally active. Cater to your favorite neurosis.

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,138
    How dare you try to cloud the issue with facts!!!!
    For the most part , if someone is of the mindset that guns are bad you are not going to change their opinion. I used to go through the arguments whenever I would go home to visit. My parants were both of the mindset that there was no reason for anyone to have a assualt weapon they believed what they saw on TV. AR's, SKS and AK's spewing hundreds of rounds with one pull of the trigger. The argument that these weapons are "semi automatics" and only 1 round is fired per trigger pull did not phase them. The fact that fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and required a special permit to own and that there have been no know attacked by a legally owned fully auto never phased them.
    My brother is even worse. He is now a retired Illinois LEO. As far as he was concerned there was no reason for anyone other than LEO to own a gun. He freaked out the first time he saw me carrying.
    I no longer even discuss anything that has to do with guns with them. I have learned over the years that discussing it with a brick wall is just as affective as trying to change their minds. The same holds true with 99% of all anti's.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    I will give my standard answer on these threads...

    What makes you think that you can change an opinion reached,
    not by logic, facts or statistics, but by emotion,
    with logic, facts or statistics?
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array JohnKelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    554
    Instead of focusing on how many deaths were caused by guns, focus on how many lives have been saved by guns.

    2.5 million instances per year of a gun being used (though rarely fired) in the defense of a crime. Of that number, how many lives would have been lost if there was no access to a personal defense firearm? Naturally, we can never know for sure, but if even 10% if the instances would have otherwise resulted in death of the victim that is 250,000 lives saved. Other statistics (drowning, falling, etc.) pale in comparison to that number.

    If they still want to focus on death instead of lives saved, fine..... gun control KILLS. The last estimate I saw of the number of lives lost worldwide to gun control - cases where a government enacts gun control and then some time later starts exterminating its own citizens -was around 100 million.

  13. #27
    Member Array swinkster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    33
    T shirt available from TangoDown.


  14. #28
    VIP Member Array JimmyC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    2,036
    I always try to "size up" folks in conversation. If I find them to possess some open-mindedness I'll engage in a discussion. If in conversation it looks like they base their opinions on emotion I avoid the subject, since it only serves to frustrate me and does nothing to enlighten them.

    It scares me that those educating our children are among the most liberal.
    "It's a big gun when I carry it, it is also a big gun when I take it out” – Clint Smith

  15. #29
    Member
    Array Cakewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    292
    Want to ruin a liberal's day? Cite historical fact.
    Keep emotionally active. Cater to your favorite neurosis.

  16. #30
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,371
    In the infamous word of Charlton Heston:
    "Infamous" only to the anti-gun crowd.

    To us, it's gospel.


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Richmond Liberal
    By Rock and Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 16th, 2010, 11:24 PM
  2. A liberal news guy gets it!
    By swiftyjuan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: December 15th, 2009, 12:59 PM
  3. Liberal or Conservative?
    By sisco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 02:02 PM
  4. Oh god a liberal
    By nitrogen in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 16th, 2006, 10:00 PM

Search tags for this page

my colleague helga kuhse and i suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant

Click on a term to search for related topics.