You just can't win with a liberal - Page 2

Defensor · May 10th, 2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JusticeDun

Liberals don't like to argue facts, just feelings.

+1.

retsupt99 · May 10th, 2008, 01:09 AM

I kind of 'feel' people out...I refuse to discuss 'issues' with

P7fanatic · May 10th, 2008, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1911packer

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.

+1

Or you might tell him we need to ban doctors also....

Doctors and Guns

Here's some statistics that you may find of interest... (No offense intended to any doctors on this forum.)

Doctors:
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. Is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S. Dept. Of Health & Human Services

Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. Is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!

PocketRocket · May 10th, 2008, 01:36 AM

+1.........

JadeRaven · May 10th, 2008, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P7fanatic

+1

Doctors:
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. Is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S. Dept. Of Health & Human Services

Just wondering. . .

Does it really say "accidental deaths?" Does that mean folks who die from complications or actual mistakes made by doctors (i.e., malpractice)? Seems like a big difference.

But it's a very great post nevertheless :)

SIXTO · May 10th, 2008, 04:20 AM

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.

Zach and Holly · May 10th, 2008, 07:02 AM

P7fanatic, that's hilarious....and true!

Ron · May 10th, 2008, 07:56 AM

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.

miklcolt45 · May 10th, 2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1911packer

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

Quote:

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.

bandit383 · May 10th, 2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

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

May 10th, 2008, 01:09 AM	#12
retsupt99 VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Central Florida Posts: 13,166	I kind of 'feel' people out...I refuse to discuss 'issues' with __________________ "That I cannot do." "Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks." *********************************** McCain/Palin 2008 NRA Life Member

May 10th, 2008, 01:36 AM	#14
PocketRocket Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Atlanta Posts: 75	+1......... __________________ "An armed society is a polite society"

May 10th, 2008, 04:20 AM	#16
SIXTO VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Here and There Posts: 9,206	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. __________________ Only in America .....do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'. Last edited by SIXTO; May 10th, 2008 at 08:37 AM.

May 10th, 2008, 07:02 AM	#17
Zach and Holly Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 223	P7fanatic, that's hilarious....and true! __________________ Isn't carrying a gun a little overkill? Paranoid? When you need it, and don't have it, you sing a different tune.

May 10th, 2008, 07:56 AM	#18
Ron Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 1,143	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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode