Evolution vs Creationism video

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

Ah well, never knew how lucky I was. It may be boring as fuck around here, but I literally leave my door open at night. I never bother locking it. There are no burglaries around here, never mind murders.

It really irritated me that I was mugged in the morning, and had two racing bikes stolen right in the university. I really take it for granted to leave the door open, and will preferrably move to North Bay or Thunderbay or James Bay to Moosonee if opportunity arises.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

You are stuck living with killers and gangbangers all around you, I don't know how people do it.

But isn't the united states all about allowing every citizen to have a plot of land (and a gun to defend it with) unlike in the Old World? So they should be able to move to the country and start farming if they want to.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

What I meant was that a bomb would be easier to obtain than a gun had a gun ban been in place.

Umm, no. for the same (Killing capacity)/(effort) it's better to get a gun here in Toronto. My classmates were deeply involved with gangs, convicts, and who knows what, and they had easy access to guns. Scarborough, the part of town full of brown immigrants, even has woman-stealing as the norm, not just guns.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

When I still lived in Vienna, I also knew where I would have to go if I wanted one. I guess if you live in a town, you probably know such things.

I don't know any such place in Toronto, only people who know some people... Excellent brothels with young chinese people, though, that's plenty (and high quality).

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

More to the point, population density.

In a sense though, it's a self-regulating system, with population density, so as long as people from "rarified" neighbourhoods don't go and endanger themselves in "dense" neighbourhoods, it's all ok. Just like with butterflies, worms, trees, whatever, in nature.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

Greed is what has driven people and societies since the beginning, the first instinct being to take want you want by force.

Diplomacy has been slowly developing for various reasons, but that is not instinctual, it is not our natural state.

I can feel two primal instincts in me, to kill and pillage like the Mongols and to increase power through trade and diplomacy like the Nederlanders. And I follow neither, thus keeping my balance. In our society, though, the latter is encouraged.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

You might as well be claiming your god-given right to own a nuclear bomb too. I mean, hey - you're not using it, right?

Bingo. Something sensible finally comes out.

And I am claiming! We have an old nuclear reactor in the lab sitting in the junk pile, and the only nuclear material still FedEx'd to Uni is medical for all the Frankenstein CCBR biomed stuff we're doing. Propane, coal, nuclear, chemical engineers should have the right to play with either!

[oDDity]

And actually if you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, you can see that we are "naturally good". Nature favours species that look after themselves as a collective group, think about it. The ones that don't look out for each other, die out first.

I've read it long before you.

You obviously didn't understand it though.

We are neither good nor bad. Those are arbitrary terms that we invented to describe certain behaviours.

We do what is best for our own family/tribe/social group first and foremost, not what is best for our species, and if that involves fucking over another tribe, then so be it.

If it's you against someone else, then you do what is best for you, not what his best for him.

Essentially, we have naturally taken the easy route towards what we want, and that usually involves being 'bad'.

Has there been any point in the past where slavery, war, empires, and the strong fucking the weak has not been rife?

Due to our intelligence we also realised that trade and diplomacy can also be profitable, in the same way that we learned metal makes good weapons.

[sparhawk]

It really irritated me that I was mugged in the morning, and had two racing bikes stolen right in the university.

 

Hah! When I left my company in 1996, I got some nice money (you always get it when you leave). I bought a new bicycle and then I went to the police with it, because I had to deregister my old car as I got a new one. I locked the bike in front of the police station, RIGHT BEFORE THEIR NOSE! And guess what. I came back five minutes later, and notioced that somebody had tried to steal my bike. The lock was a bit cut, but apparently he didn't get through fast enough. I was only five minutes away and in front of the police, but still somebody tried it. I guess I was lucky, because I forgot some papers, so I was back so fast. If I had had everything with me, it would have taken me at least half an hour or more, and maybe the bike would have been gone by then.

 

Maybe not. My kids destroyed the key for a similar lock, and I had to cut it off my bike. It took me about 15 minutes until I finally got through the wires. I know for sure that I wouldn't by any other lock. The ones with a iron chain are crap. If I had had one of those, I'm sure the guy would have cut through it. With the proper tool it takes you a second. The locks that hive wire ropes are much better, because you can't cut throiugh all the wires in one go, no matter how good your tool is. So it takes you siginificantly longer to cut it apart.

[OrbWeaver]

Nature doesn't favour species that look out for themselves, it favours groups who look out for themselves. There is a difference: groups may exist within species, and the groups which look out for themselves and dominate other groups will survive, even if the overall species suffers as a result.

[sparhawk]

I don't know any such place in Toronto, only people who know some people... Excellent brothels with young chinese people, though, that's plenty (and high quality).

 

I'm sure that, if you really wanted to find a gun, you would easily find the place to go. I'm not sure if the places, that I know of, are really THE places. Never tried it, but I guess even if those were not, I could find a place in relatively short time.

[Domarius]

Okay so we've scientifically proven people as a species can't be trusted with guns. Or nuclear weapons for that matter. End of discussion

[Springheel]

Just out of curiosity, what is the American definition of "arms"? And how long after the original document was the term defined? Does it include chemical or biological weapons?

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I think it's just any weapons so the noble farmers can defend their homesteads against any oppressors: neighbours, government, or foreign.

[rich_is_bored]

Okay so we've scientifically proven people as a species can't be trusted with guns. Or nuclear weapons for that matter. End of discussion

 

It's great to know there are sound minds among us who are of such rational moral conviction that they can be entrusted with the authority to grant or deny us access to any and everything based on the capacity of the said object to cause harm.

 

We need laws like that in place to protect us from ourselves. After all, we're just too stupid to be trusted around certain things. I'm glad all those smart rational thinkers are in government.

 

*Looks towards Bush*

 

Great. Now that this gun issue is out of the way let's rally around getting rid of sharp corners, uncovered electrical outlets, stairs, long cords, plastic bags, and all things small enough to swallow.

 

What? I assure you this is no laughing matter gentlemen. I've got the statistics to prove that these things can be fatal.

 

You laugh now but just wait. In 30 years when your wife dies courtesy of a stray lego brick that somehow found it's way into her soup you'll take this issue seriously.

[Domarius]

You're just polarising the argument again.

[OrbWeaver]

It's great to know there are sound minds among us who are of such rational moral conviction that they can be entrusted with the authority to grant or deny us access to any and everything based on the capacity of the said object to cause harm.

 

Don't forget their additional authority to deny us access to anything which might cause moral outrage or encourage non-conformist thinking.

[oDDity]

It's great to know there are sound minds among us who are of such rational moral conviction that they can be entrusted with the authority to grant or deny us access to any and everything based on the capacity of the said object to cause harm.

You've failed miserably in your argument , so don't make it any worse for yourself with such crap.

 

Guns are specifically designed to kill people with, which puts them in a category beyond anything else, so don't equivocate them things like knives.

[Springheel]

We need laws like that in place to protect us from ourselves. After all, we're just too stupid to be trusted around certain things. I'm glad all those smart rational thinkers are in government.

 

The laws aren't primarily designed to protect us from ourselves, they're designed to protect us from the idiots that surround us. If owners of guns could only shoot themselves, you'd never hear the words "gun control" again.

 

I can't see a decent argument that would allow someone to own an automatic assault rifle, for instance, but would deny him the right to own samples of smallpox. I'm a responsible, law-abiding citizen. I'm not going to do anything with it, so what's the problem with me owning some?

[rich_is_bored]

You're just polarising the argument again.

 

Polarization is exactly what this discussion needs. If we all seen things from similar perspectives there would be no argument.

 

Guns are specifically designed to kill people with, which puts them in a category beyond anything else, so don't equivocate them things like knives.

 

Why not? Are there not knives specifically designed for the purpose of killing people?

 

I can't see a decent argument that would allow someone to own an automatic assault rifle, for instance, but would deny him the right to own samples of smallpox.

 

I can. You won't find vials of smallpox, nuclear arms, tanks, or anything of that sort sold in public. But that doesn't mean you can't obtain them through legal channels. You just need the proper credentials and you may need to disclose your intent.

 

What if gun manufacturers had to follow the same criteria? What if they were held responsible for ensuring their clients weren't a liability? What if guns weren't sold at Wal-Mart?

 

All of a sudden, it's not illegal to own an assault rifle. It's just illegal to own one without meeting specific criteria. In much the same way that it's illegal to drive a car without a license.

[sparhawk]

All of a sudden, it's not illegal to own an assault rifle. It's just illegal to own one without meeting specific criteria. In much the same way that it's illegal to drive a car without a license.

 

Which is precisely what gun control is about. In erupoes countries, at least in Germany and Austria, it's also not illegal to own a gun. It just is illegal under certain circumstances, Just like it is not illegal to drive a car, it's only illegal under certain different circumstances.

[oDDity]

Polarization is exactly what this discussion needs. If we all seen things from similar perspectives there would be no argument.

Why not? Are there not knives specifically designed for the purpose of killing people?

Yes, and those are also illegal in the UK.

Anything that's specifically designed for killing people with is illegal.

Good, sensible legislation. Not fascism.

[Springheel]

I can't see a decent argument that would allow someone to own an automatic assault rifle, for instance, but would deny him the right to own samples of smallpox.

 

I can. You won't find vials of smallpox, nuclear arms, tanks, or anything of that sort sold in public. But that doesn't mean you can't obtain them through legal channels. You just need the proper credentials and you may need to disclose your intent.

 

Huh?

 

Are you saying that argument for why assault rifles are ok to own but smallpox isn't is because assault rifles are sold and smallpox isn't?

 

Isn't that the definition of begging the question?

[rich_is_bored]

No that's not what I meant. I was referring to how both can be purchased but the screening process for assault rifles isn't as stringent.

 

At any rate, it's not important. I've struggled with communicating my thoughts clearly during this entire debate and the notion of spending any more time on it seems like a waste of both my time and yours. I'm just not interested anymore.