zapatos

I did no such thing. I asked you a question. I was presenting no attitude and had no ulterior motives. You seem to be making assumptions or reading things into what I said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I did not disregard any key points you made. I did not present a superficially similar position. I did not misrepresent your position. I did not quote your words out of context. And most importantly, I did not attack a variation of your position, concluding that your position was false/incorrect/flawed. I asked you a question. (edit for clarity)

Did I mention that I was trying to get others to justify their positions? You gave a general situation or rule ("The distinction is critical because one can actively kill and the other does can actively do nothing.") and I asked how a specific situation ("Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction?") would be viewed using your general rule. You'll have to explain how asking you a question to better understand your position is a straw man. If there are exceptions to your rule, then perhaps you should mention them up front instead of criticizing me when I try to find out what they are. I'm starting to get the impression that you are just trying to be contrary.

Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction? One can actively kill and the other can actively do nothing. The directions to its location would have to be followed. I get the impression you think I've been disingenuous this entire thread. I'm sorry you feel that way. That is a good point. Although I wonder if since regulating information is so much more complex, that going after low hanging fruit, such as obvious references to 'pipe bombs' or 'maximizing carnage' might be the way to start. But don't we often regulate things that are one step removed? For example, it is a illegal to conspire to commit a crime, even if I have not taken any steps to execute the plan. I wasn't suggesting that gun control is advocating restricting knowledge about their manufacture. I am suggesting that selling guns is potentially dangerous, and information on how to build a bomb is potentially dangerous. In that sense they are similar. Why should we accept one potentially dangerous situation and not another?

Is that the only way to do it, do you think? I imagine that since we are talking about information on the internet that software could be used to flag questionable material. Heck, even just passing a law making it illegal to teach kids how to make pipe bombs might be enough to deter some content from showing up. I imagine if you got some smart people together, they could come up with a reasonable approach to limiting some type of information without it being too restrictive. McAfee knows lots of things about sites that come up during my Google searches. Perhaps something like that will be able to flag sites for 'nail filled pressure cookers' instead of just porn or viruses.

I sometimes forget to reiterate my point, and it tends to get lost in all the back and forth. In this thread a number of people who seem to me to be strong advocates of gun regulation, objected strongly to the idea of regulating bomb making information on the internet. I was curious how they justified their stance, considering that both can be used for fun or sport and both can be used for death and destruction. I wanted to know what the fundamental difference was between the two different positions. If the answer is that one is information and one is hardware, then I would like to know why that distinction is critical. If the answer is that 'lots of people already know how to make bombs', then I would like to know how that is different from 'lots of people already have guns'. If the answer is 'it is hard to draw the line on what bomb making information is', then I would like to know how that is different from drawing the line on what a safe magazine size is. Up to this point I had not taken a position. I was simply trying to get others to explain their positions. But for the record, my position is that a reasonable level of regulation on guns, and information on how to build a bomb, would probably be prudent. Nothing will stop a determined criminal, but I don't see any reason to make it easy for them.

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but most of us have the same eye. Do we really need a poll to determine which of these women are beautiful and which are not?

Like most of us. You'll probably get as many up/down votes because people agree/disagree with you, as you will because your post is really all that great/bad.

Okay, just a misunderstanding. I thought we were talking about all guns. The reason I asked it because I was trying to make the point that things can have more than one purpose. Something may be manufactured for one purpose (killing) and used for another (shooting targets).

The 'like' button on your post is so that any other user who is signed in can give you an up or down vote ON THAT POST. It counts toward your reputation points (you can see them in your profile). Any one person can only vote one time on any given post. You cannot vote on your own post. You cannot disable it. Some love it. Some hate it. Some don't care one way or the other.

Of course not. That is why I don't understand why we should apply good judgement to guns but not bomb making instructions. If information is dangerous and guns are dangerous, why regulate one and not the other? That is essentially the question I am asking. You said "The purpose of a gun is to shoot living things." Just so I'm clear, you feel that the purpose of a target rifle is to "to shoot living things"? Or perhaps you are saying that a target rifle is not a gun? So then you feel the purpose of a nuclear bomb is to blow up, and not to deter the bad guys? It does seem fairly minor when compared to nuclear Armageddon. Then again, so does every single thing we discuss on this site. On the other hand, when you compare it to the normal injuries one encounters at a foot race (pulled muscles, blisters, etc.) it seems fairly significant.

I didn't know I was. Not in my opinion. I never said it should be. Yes, I know.

It is completely arbitrary in terms of gun control with the objective of making people safer. There are judgement calls and subjectivity in deciding that nine round magazines are acceptable and 10 round magazines are not. I am talking about being consistent. Being in support of gun regulations while opposing 'bomb making instruction' regulations strikes me as being inconsistent.

I don't know what you mean when you say I 'state it as if it were not'. I was hoping it would sound reasonable. My point was that if you don't mind regulating guns even if there are many already out there, then you shouldn't mind regulating bomb making instructions even if many are already out there. Or did I miss the point you were making... I don't doubt it would be difficult to regulate bomb making information. However, how is saying you can have nine rounds in a magazine and not 10, anything but completely arbitrary? I think it would be very difficult to provide evidence that supports the proposition that a nine round magazine is demonstrably safer than a 10 round magazine. And if you are going to be arbitrary with firearms, you can be just as arbitrary with bomb making information.

What about my dad's starter pistol? Or a flare gun. Or a target rifle? My shotgun I use on clay birds? Did the manufacturer intend those guns to shoot living things? Even if that was the manufacturers intent, I don't see how his intent can be transferred to me. The purpose of my guns is to shoot targets. Does this 'purpose' also apply to bombs? Is the purpose of a nuclear bomb to blow up, or to deter the bad guys? Your assertion seems subjective to me.

I was responding to your comment that "One has a sole purpose of killing". Neither one has a 'sole purpose of killing'. Yes. My point was that you can find some way to reasonably regulate bomb making instructions just as a way was found to regulate guns.

I'll concede the point, but why does information get a free ride? Certainly information can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands. Which one is which? I agree with not being able to fully answer the question until details of the statute are answered. But again, how is that any different than what you do when regulating guns? Do you limit the discussion of guns to firepower? Or single shot versus semi- or automatic? Then what about all the legitimate uses of guns? I still don't see a big difference between regulating guns versus regulating bomb making information.

Not obvious to me. Maybe we are looking at different aspects of the discussion. I find a discussion of whether or not a type of potentially dangerous information should be regulated on the internet, to be interesting. It also seems to be reasonable to compare it to regulation of hardware that could be potentially dangerous, such as guns, or bomb making materials. Can you elaborate on why you think it is silly?

Neither one I would say.

Good point.

I don't see how that means terrorists win, but to my point... I would suggest that the effect of requiring a nine round magazine instead of a 10 round magazine is a thousand time greater than the effect it would have on actual shooters.

Well, if we are part of a simulation, didn't the simulator program what we see, hear, and feel?

I think it is interesting that so many of the posters here that object to 'regulating' bomb making information, are very much interested in regulating guns. What is the fundamental difference? Both can be used for fun or sport. Both can be used for death and destruction. Saying you shouldn't regulate bomb making information because so many know how to do it anyway is not really different than saying we shouldn't regulate guns because so many have them anyway. Objecting to regulating bomb making information because it is hard to draw the line, is not really different than trying to draw the line on magazine capacities or what constitutes an assault style weapon.

If my simulator is reading this, I'd like him to do something about my back. Which brings me to my real question; why make a simulation that is so awful for so many? Sounds a lot like the Abrahamic god.

I think that intellectually they believe the person is in a better place. Emotionally it is a different story. You miss the person. If they were looking at eternity in heaven, why not stay here on earth with me for a few mores years? What difference would it have made in scope of things? My son moved out of town to go to school. I know he is in a better place, and am overall happy for him, but emotionally I still miss him. When he left I was still sad, and in that case I knew he would be back for Thanksgiving!

It is possible for any theory to be proven wrong, but as more observations are found to support the theory, and the theory is further refined, the probability that a theory will be found wrong decreases. Some theories have a relatively small amount of support and other theories have a great deal of support. Theories that have a great deal of support, such as the theory of evolution, are so unlikely to eventually be found wrong, that they are the equivalent of what lay people would call 'facts'. It is quite probable that the theory of evolution will be further refined, and that some aspects of it may be found to be wrong, but the overall concept is as close to a 'fact' as you are likely to find anywhere. I agree. But I'll also say that any theories that have been simply thrown out eventually, did not have the support found for them as you find for the theory of evolution. A change is random, which means many different things could happen. It is possible for an animal to develop a new trait unaffected by the environment, but is it uncommon. The reason it is uncommon is because if it confers no benefit to the animal, yet costs the animal in some way, the animal is unlikely to out compete its rivals. Using the triceratops example, a lot of energy would have to go into the growth and maintenance of those horns. And if it attracted no more females, did not provide defense or the easier gathering of food, then what you have is a net loss for the animal. Greater energy requirement and no added benefit. Therefore its rivals would likely out compete it and the trait would disappear. One way a trait might remain in the species even with no added benefit, is if it happens to occur in tandem with another trait that did provide a benefit. For example, if an animal gains a trait that allows it to better mate, at the same time it develops a trait that is useless, it may keep the useless trait because it shows up with the useful trait.