Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,108
    vCash
    1500
    I just find it very sad and terrible that politicians are trying to politicize a horrible event. It's just immoral and wrong to do that. Democrats, if you want to get republicans off the radio and get rid of the 1st amendment then do it without using a tragedy. It's just pathetic.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    chicago, illinois
    Posts
    12,042
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by avrpatsfan View Post
    I just find it very sad and terrible that politicians are trying to politicize a horrible event. It's just immoral and wrong to do that. Democrats, if you want to get republicans off the radio and get rid of the 1st amendment then do it without using a tragedy. It's just pathetic.
    yeah I don't like how they are using this event to push a political agenda and im not republican or democrat.

    Don't ask don't tell is back, not for gays in the military, Obama's policy for questions about Libya - Jay Leno

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    chicago, illinois
    Posts
    12,042
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    Right. And that's contrary to reason. And actively clouding reason is a mistake.



    Tilting at windmills ...



    The man's opinion might very well be rational. Referring to his relationship to this tragedy, however, is funneling in passions and thus not rational. In other words, I'm talking about YOU, not him.

    Regarding him, what you don't seem to understand is that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Given his proximity to the situation and the likelihood that passions would cloud his reason, I ordinarily would discredit his opinion altogether. Here, however, I'm willing to assume that he's being rational. Problem is, he's still just a random rational guy in Tucson. I've been alerted to no special expertise or knowledge that he has regarding restrictions on freedom. As such, I've been alerted to no reason why his opinion matters more than that of anyone else.



    And thus you were an accomplice to the attempt to cloud reason.
    cloud reason? by using a title? I just dont want to give anyone an excuse to give me an infraction. thats all. I think what he said and what I believe are reasonable. again though he isn't some guy just coming off the streets and giving his view. he is a victim in all of this and so like it or not, his opinion does matter.

    Don't ask don't tell is back, not for gays in the military, Obama's policy for questions about Libya - Jay Leno

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by D Roses Bulls View Post
    cloud reason? by using a title? I just dont want to give anyone an excuse to give me an infraction. thats all. I think what he said and what I believe are reasonable. again though he isn't some guy just coming off the streets and giving his view. he is a victim in all of this and so like it or not, his opinion does matter.
    You really don't see the hypocrisy in all this, do you?

    Ordinarily in the wake of a tragedy like this, liberties are at risk because passions overtake reason. Victims of the tragedy are trotted out to testify about the horror, and we're all exasperated. In the midst of that exasperation, we do stupid things like restrict freedoms.

    Now you're trying to trot out a victim of the tragedy who just so happens to DECRY further restrictions on freedom. And okay. What you seem to be missing, however, is that this is the exact same modus operandi. It's using passions to justify something. That that something might be a greater good, whether subjectively or even objectively, is IRRELEVANT.



    We need to employ reason in making decisions. Passion, by definition, counteracts reason. Trotting out this victim serves only to elicit passions, to counteract reason. If he were otherwise qualified as an expert or someone with specialized knowledge on restrictions of freedom, his opinion might be worth hearing. Absent such a showing, this guy's opinion serves as nothing but an unjustifiable danger to the rational thought process.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •