Exactly.And I have had many an argument over this with American people on various forums.Especially the gun one!
Well, that may be in those other countries, BUT...
We all want to stop gun violence, including law abiding citizens who who own guns legally. Those who support voter fraud, are the ones who are against democracy. It should be, and was meant to be, one vote for each citizen. Stacking the deck by fraud, and stuffing the ballot boxes is not democracy.
Agreed. And shooting guns at fellow human beings deprives them of their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.
Sadly, shooting at fellow human beings is sometimes necessary in order to protect your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves. We don't live in a perfect world.
Maybe. Perhaps I am lucky, but I never had to shoot anyone - and I have life, liberty and I am happy as can be.
Most people have never had to shoot anyone to protect their life and liberty. Then there is that small percentage of people who have had to shoot someone to protect themselves. Would you be happy as can be if you found yourself in that situation and was not allowed to to protect your life or your families lives?
This is a hypothetical. How the hell would I know.
Am I glad I have the right to own a gun? Yes.
Do I think killing humans is always wrong (for every and any reason)? Yes.
Do I think war is wrong? yes
Do I think capital punishment is wrong? yes
Do I think that if I was under attack I would fight back? 'you betcha!'
I don't know how you define "Liberalism"
I am just being honest. I think it is wrong, and I think I would fight back. But I don't know, because I've never had to.
I also think it is wrong to get so drunk I puke. I did that once, I am human, I learned not to do that.
"Do I think killing humans is always wrong (for every and any reason)? Yes."
But was it correct to wage war against Nazi Germany, even though it involved killing many humans?
"Do I think that if I was under attack I would fight back? 'you betcha!' "
Was it "correct"? In what sense? Morally? Pragmatically? Economically? I sure as hell don't know that answer to any of those. And since war was raged we will never know that alternative outcome.
I am just being honest. I think it is wrong to use guns against humans, and I think I would fight back. But I don't know, because I've never had to. I might be overcome with the moral dilemma, freeze, and get shot.
I'm using 'correct' in the same context(s) as you are using 'wrong'.
Put your moral dilemmas aside for a moment, if you can. Would it be 'wrong' for a policeman to kill a terrorist who was about to kill 10 innocent people, if there were no other way to prevent it?
Sorry, doesn't work that way. It would be morally wrong. It would be expedient. It might be wise. And you can't know if 'there were no other way' once you pull the trigger Schrodinger's cat is dead. Precisely mathematically dead. You will never experienced the alternatives.
There you go with your 'mathematical precision' again.
If I can't know 'there were no other way,' then how can I know Schroedinger's cat is 'precisely mathematically dead'? Maybe we are all characters in some hyperdimensional video game.
Besides, there are many cases when our actions cannot be strictly moral; i.e., having no downside. In this example, I would say the moral choice is one death rather than 10 (or 11, if it's a suicide bomber), and the policeman doing nothing would be immoral, if it was within his power to prevent the worst outcomes.
That's the beauty of morals. You have yours and I have mine.
Either way. Until you pull the trigger you don't know how many will be dead.
After they are dead, they are dead - mathematically precisely - dead. AFTER they are dead.
Before you pull the trigger, anything is possible even the possibility that everyone will survive.
You never got that in our last discussion so I doubt you will get it now. History doesn't change, the future is uncertain.
"Before you pull the trigger, anything is possible even the possibility that everyone will survive."
Sure, and it's possible that a meteorite will hit the terrorist and save the 10 potential victims, in which case the cop wouldn't have to do anything to save them.
Or let's say Schroedinger's cat is hooked up to a lethal poison that is released with the decay of a nucleus that has a half-life of one hour. If I pull the cat out of the box 5 seconds after start of the experiment, the chances are 99.9% the cat will be alive; if I wait 10 hours, the chances are 99.9% the cat will be dead. If the moral choice is to save the cat's life, which of these alternatives should I choose? I hope you get the point, but I'm not optimistic.
"You never got that in our last discussion so I doubt you will get it now. History doesn't change, the future is uncertain."
It is YOU who are trying to change history. What you claimed in our last discussion is that if it were somehow possible to go back in time, an experiment would turn out exactly the same as it did the first time. What YOU did not understand is that this would require a local determinism that is excluded by Bell's theorem. It would be just as possible (indeed, perhaps more probable) to obtain a different result, branching into a parallel universe, the road not taken the first time.
But you can't. And that's the point.
No, that point was covered in our previous discussion, when we considered your time travel thought experiment.
True to form, you have missed (or dodged) the current point I raised above with Schroedinger's cat.
True to form you have no desire to understand my point as long as you can continue to assert a non-sequitur.
Since you didn't bother to explain what the alleged non-sequitur is, it is obvious that you are still dodging, Vic.
And your point, namely, that it is impossible to know for certain what will happen until it has in fact happened is trivial. Furthermore, if one wanted to quibble to the extent you do, one could just as correctly point out that you don't know for certain even after the fact. After all, maybe the vet will misdiagnose the condition of Schroedinger's cat. Can't rule that out, you know.
Well I won't rule out the possibility that you really don't get how this current discussion does not follow the OP "Wanting to stop voter-fraud is not anti-democracy, and wanting to stop gun-violence is not anti second-amendment" or my assertion that "once you pull the trigger" the deed is done and there is no going back.
The road not taken, and time travel, and previous discussions are all moot points - they do not follow - they are non-sequitur.
You evidently need to go back to the beginning of our current discussion. I answered your points as you YOURSELF brought them up, including past discussions.
You, on the other hand, have in almost every case dodged and weaved, a paragon of avoidance.
and here we are, no closer to the truth.
How does that make you feel?
We are no closer to the truth because you have studiously avoided it, even though I've graciously laid it out before your eyes.
I feel like I'm talking to a typical lib.
I feel like I am taking to someone who honestly believes that there is a 'truth'.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Vic. We've had this conversation before. There are no truths, only strong beliefs.
That's why you wouldn't jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute. You have a strong belief you wouldn't survive the fall.
Which means it's true that you think the odds against your survival in that case would be very large.
Vic, Have you ever watched the movie Sergeant York? It's a true story about such a dilemma.
Just food for thought. Few people know how they will react until they are in that position.
Almost everything is hypothetical until we find ourselves in that particular situation that challenges what we believe we would do.
I hope never find out.
Wait a minute, Vic!
Voter fraud doesn't exist!
I heard it on MSNBC.
That explains a lot. You get your 'knowledge' exclusively from MSNBC. So anyways...
In 2006 alone, significant allegations of election fraud surrounded presidential elections in Italy, Mexico, and several former Soviet republics, according to Brookings Institute.