|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,171 Likes: 5
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,171 Likes: 5 |
Yes,I know.
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,662 Likes: 14
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,662 Likes: 14 |
You own Tasco's? Yeah - I've never been a "brand" worshipper and they made some good ones along the way. If it is clear, shoots tight and is dependable it's usually good enough for my tired old eyes. The dead game seems not to care - neither do the targets.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,662 Likes: 14
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,662 Likes: 14 |
Snyper - clearly 4ager has completely dismantled your position.
You say the fetus is human. If, as you also say, no one other than the mother has any right to decide the fate of this human being through possible abortion, why then is it not the sole "right" of any mother to kill a child once it is outside the womb?
P.S. - it already has been established that legality alone is not a substitute for morality or ethical behavior. I'm not going to bother arguing with irrational crap such as that since it's been used repeatedly It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others. That job has been taken by ISIS Irrational? The argument presented to you is entirely logical and rational. There is no hyperbole, no ad hominem, and only a very logical, legal, and rational progression from accepted fact (state of baby being human through a discussion of humans as property to law, etc). I've very much be interested in your refutation of the argument presented. Please do continue. It's not rational to ask why someone can't murder a child after it's born. Abortions are done before the child is viable. The "argument presented" is the argument parroted since the first post, and the repetition is pointless. It's none of your business what others do as long as it's legal and it doesn't affect you directly The morals and ethics of others aren't your concern either Maybe you are different in real life, but you come across as one sick, screwed-up person. So - to you some determination of "viable" is the pivotal criterion for moral/legal killing of a child. And whom do you identify as the all-knowing power that decides such viability in life?? That inability on your part makes the posed question regarding murder after birth even more cogent. How and why would/could you hold reponsible a parent who murdered a post-partum child whom the parent had decided was not sufficiently viable? If you would hold it legal/moral/ethical murder such a questionable child before birth, why would you not murder one after birth? See - there it is again - your dilemma - and it has nothing to do with another person attempting to force morals or ethics upon you.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,171 Likes: 5
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,171 Likes: 5 |
You own Tasco's? Yeah - I've never been a "brand" worshipper and they made some good ones along the way. If it is clear, shoots tight and is dependable it's usually good enough for my tired old eyes. The dead game seems not to care - neither do the targets. Tried a Tasco way back in the late 1980s on a .338 win mag,first time I ever got "bit" by a scope. Never bought another one again.
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Maybe you are different in real life, but you come across as one sick, screwed-up person. So - to you some determination of "viable" is the pivotal criterion for moral/legal killing of a child. And whom do you identify as the all-knowing power that decides such viability in life??
That inability on your part makes the posed question regarding murder after birth even more cogent. How and why would/could you hold reponsible a parent who murdered a post-partum child whom the parent had decided was not sufficiently viable?
If you would hold it legal/moral/ethical murder such a questionable child before birth, why would you not murder one after birth? See - there it is again - your dilemma - and it has nothing to do with another person attempting to force morals or ethics upon you.
You obviously have me confused with someone who cares what you think. I already answered you, so any "inability" is yours, in not understanding it's really none of your business You come across as an arrogant, holier-than-thou legend in your own mind. But that's another topic altoghether You just keep spouting the same tired rhetoric
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461 |
Snyper - clearly 4ager has completely dismantled your position.
You say the fetus is human. If, as you also say, no one other than the mother has any right to decide the fate of this human being through possible abortion, why then is it not the sole "right" of any mother to kill a child once it is outside the womb?
P.S. - it already has been established that legality alone is not a substitute for morality or ethical behavior. I'm not going to bother arguing with irrational crap such as that since it's been used repeatedly It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others. That job has been taken by ISIS Snyper read the highlighted part and please tell the audience how laws against theft, murder, rape, etc are not dictating ethics and morality for others. I'm just a dumb hillbilly, but it sure seems like those laws are dictating morality and ethics to others.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Maybe you are different in real life, but you come across as one sick, screwed-up person. So - to you some determination of "viable" is the pivotal criterion for moral/legal killing of a child. And whom do you identify as the all-knowing power that decides such viability in life??
That inability on your part makes the posed question regarding murder after birth even more cogent. How and why would/could you hold reponsible a parent who murdered a post-partum child whom the parent had decided was not sufficiently viable?
If you would hold it legal/moral/ethical murder such a questionable child before birth, why would you not murder one after birth? See - there it is again - your dilemma - and it has nothing to do with another person attempting to force morals or ethics upon you.
You obviously have me confused with someone who cares what you think. I already answered you, so any "inability" is yours, in not understanding it's really none of your business You come across as an arrogant, holier-than-thou legend in your own mind. But that's another topic altoghether You just keep spouting the same tired rhetoric So, you don't care what others think, and you cannot - or are, in fact, unable to - logically, rationally, morally, or philosophically support or defend your own arguments. You continue to spout unsupported and unsupportable - and quite tired - rhetoric, in fact the same rhetoric. The arrogant, holier-than-thou position at this point is yours, and it is unsupported and indefensible in logic, morality, or philosophy. One has to wonder why you think, given all that, that anyone would or should care what you think. BTW - the "none of your business" argument has already been destroyed and holds no water. You can keep trying that same tired line, but it fails miserably.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
Yes you're on ignore. I'm asking you questions,otherwise I wouldn't bother with your dribble. Oh,you want classic and nice wood. Dakota M 76 7mm Dakota. Here's Winchester M 70 Featherweight .270 Win. I've always liked Dakotas. I think they're better than the Kimbers, at least as far as I know. A real classic would have been the original 7mm, the 7X57. I wouldn't mind trading my Caprivi in on a 375 H&H in a Classic Deluxe, Safari, etc. I don't hunt big game with a rifle anymore, so it doesn't make much sense to sink a lot of money into them. Like I said about my Caprivi, it's not really worth worrying about it. Nothing really special. The higher grade Winchesters are a solid value, too. I have a standard grade Featherweight in 257 Roberts I could turn into something else. I have a riddle for you. What is the difference in extraction between the Mauser 98 and the Model 70? Why is the 98 better?
Last edited by Paddler; 01/31/16.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Considering that every post of yours on this subject is essentially a regurgitation of one prior, can you honestly complain about anyone else restating their position with a straight face?
And, you continue to avoid the logical progression of your own arguments, and their basis. That is an exceedingly poor foundation for a moral or philosophical position on any subject.
Amazing that you are whining about others being forced under the control of another, yet you espouse a position that can only be supported if you also support slavery and the subjugation of women.
Paddler can't even begin to refute the argument, so he complains about an argument being laid out in full. One wonders how much attention the already known pervert pays to medical literature and analysis.
There's no reason to think my reply would change when yours remains identical. I told you this is how it would be from the beginning. You're not going to change my mind, and I don't care if you change yours. You still don't get to decide what is right for anyone else, and no one has to justify anything to you. You just continue to imply your views are somehow superior when really they are not. They are simply dfferent
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Snyper - clearly 4ager has completely dismantled your position.
You say the fetus is human. If, as you also say, no one other than the mother has any right to decide the fate of this human being through possible abortion, why then is it not the sole "right" of any mother to kill a child once it is outside the womb?
P.S. - it already has been established that legality alone is not a substitute for morality or ethical behavior. I'm not going to bother arguing with irrational crap such as that since it's been used repeatedly It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others. That job has been taken by ISIS Snyper read the highlighted part and please tell the audience how laws against theft, murder, rape, etc are not dictating ethics and morality for others. I'm just a dumb hillbilly, but it sure seems like those laws are dictating morality and ethics to others. You're comparing illegal acts to something which is legal. That was addressed several pages back. If you don't agree with abortions, don't get one. Just don't tell anyone else what to do as long as it's legal
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
Considering that every post of yours on this subject is essentially a regurgitation of one prior, can you honestly complain about anyone else restating their position with a straight face?
And, you continue to avoid the logical progression of your own arguments, and their basis. That is an exceedingly poor foundation for a moral or philosophical position on any subject.
Amazing that you are whining about others being forced under the control of another, yet you espouse a position that can only be supported if you also support slavery and the subjugation of women.
Paddler can't even begin to refute the argument, so he complains about an argument being laid out in full. One wonders how much attention the already known pervert pays to medical literature and analysis.
There's no reason to think my reply would change when yours remains identical. I told you this is how it would be from the beginning. You're not going to change my mind, and I don't care if you change yours. You still don't get to decide what is right for anyone else, and no one has to justify anything to you. You just continue to imply your views are somehow superior when really they are not. They are simply dfferent Not simply different. Asinine is closer to the mark. Easy call. Called Roe v Wade, look it up.
Last edited by Paddler; 01/31/16.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Considering that every post of yours on this subject is essentially a regurgitation of one prior, can you honestly complain about anyone else restating their position with a straight face?
And, you continue to avoid the logical progression of your own arguments, and their basis. That is an exceedingly poor foundation for a moral or philosophical position on any subject.
Amazing that you are whining about others being forced under the control of another, yet you espouse a position that can only be supported if you also support slavery and the subjugation of women.
Paddler can't even begin to refute the argument, so he complains about an argument being laid out in full. One wonders how much attention the already known pervert pays to medical literature and analysis.
There's no reason to think my reply would change when yours remains identical. I told you this is how it would be from the beginning. You're not going to change my mind, and I don't care if you change yours. You still don't get to decide what is right for anyone else, and no one has to justify anything to you. You just continue to imply your views are somehow superior when really they are not. They are simply dfferent Not simply different. Asinine is closer to the mark. Easy call. Called Roe v Wade, look it up. Please, feel free to continue. Roe v Wade is a legal argument, and frankly a decision made of whole cloth. If you wish to go down that road, you'll need to go back to the arguments laid out before and the Constitution (which you are known to hate) and start your positions there. You won't, because you can't.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Considering that every post of yours on this subject is essentially a regurgitation of one prior, can you honestly complain about anyone else restating their position with a straight face?
And, you continue to avoid the logical progression of your own arguments, and their basis. That is an exceedingly poor foundation for a moral or philosophical position on any subject.
Amazing that you are whining about others being forced under the control of another, yet you espouse a position that can only be supported if you also support slavery and the subjugation of women.
Paddler can't even begin to refute the argument, so he complains about an argument being laid out in full. One wonders how much attention the already known pervert pays to medical literature and analysis.
There's no reason to think my reply would change when yours remains identical. I told you this is how it would be from the beginning. You're not going to change my mind, and I don't care if you change yours. You still don't get to decide what is right for anyone else, and no one has to justify anything to you. You just continue to imply your views are somehow superior when really they are not. They are simply dfferent I cannot change your mind because your refuse to think and to even begin to logically, morally, or philosophically defend your indefensible position. I can, and have, defended my opinions on all those fronts. You, have not, cannot, and will not. Therein lies the difference. You've been granted ample opportunity to do so, and have failed or refused ( or been incapable) of doing so. I offered you a debate on the merits of the differing positions. Regrettably, you were incapable of rising to the task. You may try again, but this time please do try. The arguments and positions remain the same.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461 |
The question was do laws dictate ethics and morality? If so, whose? Taken to a logical extreme you are saying that if shooting people for giggles was legal it would be perfectly fine and we would be wrong for saying it wasn't and trying to pass laws against it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
The question was do laws dictate ethics and morality? If so, whose? Taken to a logical extreme you are saying that if shooting people for giggles was legal it would be perfectly fine and we would be wrong for saying it wasn't and trying to pass laws against it. Or, owning them. That was legal once as well. Was it then also moral? How about genital mutilation? That's legal in some places; is it therefore moral? Legality does not mean morality, any more so than the reverse is true.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
The question was do laws dictate ethics and morality? If so, whose? Taken to a logical extreme you are saying that if shooting people for giggles was legal it would be perfectly fine and we would be wrong for saying it wasn't and trying to pass laws against it. Or, owning them. That was legal once as well. Was it then also moral? How about genital mutilation? That's legal in some places; is it therefore moral? Legality does not mean morality, any more so than the reverse is true. You never seem to tire of pounding sand. Continue, Governor.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
You're comparing illegal acts to something which is legal. That was addressed several pages back. If you don't agree with abortions, don't get one. Just don't tell anyone else what to do as long as it's legal
And if we get enough real Conservative Justices on the USSC, abortion will be ILLEGAL. That will be the will of the people enforced via the courts. You're cherry picking everything you choose to defend, which in this case has been nothing but abortion. You are tricked into admitting it's legal when the offenses of burglary, theft, murder, etc., are ILLEGAL. How were they determined to be ILLEGAL. Many times just as laws passed by the legislative body and other times case law handed down by the courts. You are wrong. We can, and DO, enforce our own morals and ethical codes on other people. Prove that to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
Nope. You're the one talking about property rights I'm talking about freedom of choice as to how to live ones life without someone else choosing for them. Then if someone CHOOSES to live their life by stealing your property, or breaking every bone in your face, you have no right to tell them they can not do that. That's how they choose to live their lives. I've been waiting for you to tell us when a child in the womb is or is not viable. I can tell you this; unless you say at the point of inception, or age 21, every other age in between is subjective and will NEVER be agreed upon. So, we have to default to the objective answer. A child is viable at the point of inception.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 735
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 735 |
Abortions are done before the child is viable.
Bud you can take that statement to Hell with you and you will. Hope you find comfort in it. I don't care what your response might be from that statement I know all I need to.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
The question was do laws dictate ethics and morality? If so, whose? Taken to a logical extreme you are saying that if shooting people for giggles was legal it would be perfectly fine and we would be wrong for saying it wasn't and trying to pass laws against it. Or, owning them. That was legal once as well. Was it then also moral? How about genital mutilation? That's legal in some places; is it therefore moral? Legality does not mean morality, any more so than the reverse is true. You never seem to tire of pounding sand. Continue, Governor. Believe You started this lil diatribe about "azz getting handed to them". You seem to have both your hands full of yours. Go figure you're not only a puzzy physically, but mentally as well. No surprises there Typical liberal
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
470 members (1lessdog, 160user, 1936M71, 17CalFan, 163bc, 10ring1, 46 invisible),
11,362
guests, and
1,275
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,345
Posts18,546,536
Members74,060
|
Most Online21,066 May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|