Pages:
Author

Topic: The "Will kill" society! (Read 1890 times)

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 10:35:06 PM
#25
You don't think that the next time someone tries to rape a woman, or rob a convenience store, that the newly-armed populace will defend themselves?

There will be an increase crime in one area and decrease the crime in the other ones. We already went through the statistics, guns reducing crime is a myth. Educating people does reduce crime.

But is the increase in one area the same as the decrease in others?

May be? Possible? Statistics says so. Since you contradict yourself with every new post, it's pretty silly to answer these questions.
Which statistics would those be? John Lott did a great deal of research for his book, and came up with the opposite conclusion, that the substitution was much less.

And I didn't see any questions you asked worth answering. Unless you were referring to this:
Do you agree that "will kill" is an idiotic idea.

It's not phrased as a question, but it's the closest thing to a question you've posted lately.

I do not agree that it is an idiotic idea. It is hyperbole, to prove a point. Hyperbole is often absurd. That's the point.

I am done talking. There is absurd and there is idiotism.
Oh, let's be honest. You were never "talking," this has all been logorrhea.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 10:28:13 PM
#24
You don't think that the next time someone tries to rape a woman, or rob a convenience store, that the newly-armed populace will defend themselves?

There will be an increase crime in one area and decrease the crime in the other ones. We already went through the statistics, guns reducing crime is a myth. Educating people does reduce crime.

But is the increase in one area the same as the decrease in others?

May be? Possible? Statistics says so. Since you contradict yourself with every new post, it's pretty silly to answer these questions.


And I didn't see any questions you asked worth answering. Unless you were referring to this:
Do you agree that "will kill" is an idiotic idea.

It's not phrased as a question, but it's the closest thing to a question you've posted lately.

I do not agree that it is an idiotic idea. It is hyperbole, to prove a point. Hyperbole is often absurd. That's the point.

I am done talking. There is absurd and there is idiotism.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 10:05:51 PM
#23
You don't think that the next time someone tries to rape a woman, or rob a convenience store, that the newly-armed populace will defend themselves?

There will be an increase crime in one area and decrease the crime in the other ones. We already went through the statistics, guns reducing crime is a myth. Educating people does reduce crime.

But is the increase in one area the same as the decrease in others?



And I didn't see any questions you asked worth answering. Unless you were referring to this:
Do you agree that "will kill" is an idiotic idea.

It's not phrased as a question, but it's the closest thing to a question you've posted lately.

I do not agree that it is an idiotic idea. It is hyperbole, to prove a point. Hyperbole is often absurd. That's the point.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 09:58:11 PM
#22
You don't think that the next time someone tries to rape a woman, or rob a convenience store, that the newly-armed populace will defend themselves?

There will be an increase crime in one area and decrease the crime in the other ones. We already went through the statistics, guns reducing crime is a myth. Educating people does reduce crime.

Just quote old posts if you want to argue the statistics.

So now answer my question or you LOST your argument. Game over.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 09:54:50 PM
#21
Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?
I don't believe it will reduce crime...

Thank you for answering. I suppose we can continue.

You don't think that the next time someone tries to rape a woman, or rob a convenience store, that the newly-armed populace will defend themselves?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 09:45:57 PM
#20
So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.
I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

20 rounds after the training? That's not a lot of live fire...

Yes, after the training, including probably some practice shots. The 20 rounds are just to carry around. Besides, these things are being given. You want more rounds for more training, buy 'em yourself. These things aren't free. Wink

Even so, I bet it would be more cost-effective than hiring more cops.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 09:40:56 PM
#19
So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.
I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

And to answer this one. That's where I stand more or less. I don't believe it will reduce crime, but I dont think it would increase with mandatory training from age of 13.

My very old answer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1069177

legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
December 30, 2012, 09:38:34 PM
#18
So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.
I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

20 rounds after the training? That's not a lot of live fire...
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
#17
And you're refusing to answer, because you know you've already lost. This discussion is over.

So am I supposed to answer this question:

Quote from: myrkul
So, are you denying that a gun is an effective tool to kill someone?

Yes, it can be used to kill someone. Effective its up to interpretation, didn't you just claim yourself that the guns were very ineffective in WW2?

Now since I answered your question, answer mine.

Do you agree that "will kill" is an idiotic idea.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
#16
So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.
I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

You're misdirecting away from an idiotic idea. Because you would need to acknowledge that you believe an idiotic idea.

I dont want to talk about guns, since I already went through this exercise. Now you're also forcing people to train? A great change since the last time I saw your posts, mr. liberty.

Let me find old posts of mine, where you were against training.

And you're refusing to answer, because you know you've already lost. This discussion is over.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 09:18:18 PM
#15
So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.
I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

You're misdirecting away from an idiotic idea. Because you would need to acknowledge that you believe an idiotic idea.

I dont want to talk about guns, since I already went through this exercise. Now you're also forcing people to train? A great change since the last time I saw your posts, mr. liberty.

Let me find old posts of mine, where you were against training.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 09:14:41 PM
#14
So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.
I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 09:08:39 PM
#13
So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

Personally I dont even care about the guns, but when I see this idiotism around. I see what's wrong in USA. How can you even listen to this crap.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 09:04:20 PM
#12
No, you stated that it was silly. A statement is far from proving anything. So, are you denying that a gun is an effective tool to kill someone? Or are you basing your argument solely on the fact that I cannot kill someone with my mind?

Are you sure he's lost? A lot of people would have HOPE. There are also other ways of controlling people. With a perfect anonymous weapon, you can control the world.

Also a perfect mass murderer, just keep piling bodies of dead people. I mean we would see what happened in CT a lot more.

Just go to a school and keep killing random people and act terrified yourself.

The gun requires you to actually shoot a person, with will kill you can just do from behind. Noone would ever know.

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 08:59:34 PM
#11
And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

How would he know that?
How did you know that would be a good solution? Do you think he would be incapable of making the same deductions you did?

"If my son sees his captors, he can Will Kill them later. They probably know that. So, they will most likely keep him locked away. They may even just kill him, to save the trouble of keeping him in a cell. Therefore, my son is already lost forever, even if he is still alive."

Are you sure he's lost? A lot of people would have HOPE. There are also other ways of controlling people. With a perfect anonymous weapon, you can control the world.

Also a perfect mass murderer, just keep piling bodies of dead people. I mean we would see what happened in CT a lot more.

Just go to a school and keep killing random people and act terrified yourself.

The gun requires you to actually shoot a person, with will kill you can just do from behind. Noone would ever know.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 08:54:32 PM
#10
And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

How would he know that?
How did you know that would be a good solution? Do you think he would be incapable of making the same deductions you did?

"If my son sees his captors, he can Will Kill them later. They probably know that. So, they will most likely keep him locked away. They may even just kill him, to save the trouble of keeping him in a cell. Therefore, my son is already lost forever, even if he is still alive."

But all that is moot. This isn't about the Will Kill, because as you point out, it doesn't exist. But guns do, and they do have the power to kill. So the question is, do you want only a small, powerful elite to have the power to kill, or do you want everyone to have the power to kill? Stefan makes a powerful argument that everyone having the power to kill will result in a more peaceful society.

I already proved that the silly will kill argument is a fail on many levels. Therefor your guns argument is a fail also. Thanks for simplifying the task for me.

No, you stated that it was silly. A statement is far from proving anything. So, are you denying that a gun is an effective tool to kill someone? Or are you basing your argument solely on the fact that I cannot kill someone with my mind?
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
#9
And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

How would he know that? Wait he would never know. Knowledge is power, not weapons. If the person doesn't know what controls him, he can't do anything against it. Then build a society on top of it, do you know all the people who control the world right now? Most likely not, you only see the PR heads at the rule. The real rulers are in the shadow.


But all that is moot. This isn't about the Will Kill, because as you point out, it doesn't exist. But guns do, and they do have the power to kill. So the question is, do you want only a small, powerful elite to have the power to kill, or do you want everyone to have the power to kill? Stefan makes a powerful argument that everyone having the power to kill will result in a more peaceful society.

I already proved that the silly will kill argument is a fail on many levels. Therefor your guns argument is a fail also. Thanks for simplifying the task for me.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 08:40:39 PM
#8
Somebody got upset.  Cheesy

Ignore the fact that it doesn't exist. That doesn't matter.
What happens when that "killswitch" kid grows up? betcha he willkills the guy who was keeping him.
Moving from the willkill to a gun is perfectly logical. Unless you contend that a gun is not an effective tool at killing someone?

Keep him in a dark cell with no way to see the captor forever. Who cares if he dies.

And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

But all that is moot. This isn't about the Will Kill, because as you point out, it doesn't exist. But guns do, and they do have the power to kill. So the question is, do you want only a small, powerful elite to have the power to kill, or do you want everyone to have the power to kill? Stefan makes a powerful argument that everyone having the power to kill will result in a more peaceful society.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
December 30, 2012, 08:29:06 PM
#7
and after 20 minutes it only got better.

btw  .
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
December 30, 2012, 08:27:02 PM
#6
Somebody got upset.  Cheesy

Ignore the fact that it doesn't exist. That doesn't matter.
What happens when that "killswitch" kid grows up? betcha he willkills the guy who was keeping him.
Moving from the willkill to a gun is perfectly logical. Unless you contend that a gun is not an effective tool at killing someone?

Keep him in a dark cell with no way to see the captor forever. Who cares if he dies.


Anything else you can come up with? Let's wait for it.
Pages:
Jump to: