Piers Morgan's Gun Control Position Gets Pwned

page: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

So you think the ability to kill millions of people is better than the ability not to? I would ask you to explain yourself if I wasn't so sure that you're a mass murderer in the making.


Well, an ability to do something is always better than not having the ability to do something.

A skill or ability is always greater than the absence of a skill or ability.

Having 1 egg is greater than having 0 eggs.

Likewise having 1 cancer is greater than having 0 cancer.
edit on 7-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
I don't really considered that being PWND but yeah...

He is European so his cultural view on guns is going to differ. America has a gun culture that glamorizes guns as sexy and cool. Europe doesn't.



No.

It's not that Europe won't. It's that Europe can't.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by davjan4
 


America definitely has a more glorified gun culture than Europe...

There was no won't/can't about that.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


Well, an ability to do something is always better than not having the ability to do something.

Likewise having 1 cancer is greater than having 0 cancer.



Completely false, the ability to do something positive or neutral is better than the ability to do nothing. The ability to do something negative is worse than the ability to do nothing.
Explain to me how having cancer is better than not having cancer. And taking your analogy further, the ability to exterminate the human race is better than the ability not to. You are completely messed up if this is the logic you go by.
edit on 12/7/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by davjan4

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
I don't really considered that being PWND but yeah...

He is European so his cultural view on guns is going to differ. America has a gun culture that glamorizes guns as sexy and cool. Europe doesn't.



No.

It's not that Europe won't. It's that Europe can't.


Not enough hands for all the facepalms...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360


Completely false, the ability to do something positive or neutral is better than the ability to do nothing. The ability to do something negative is worse than the ability to do nothing.
Taking your analogy further, the ability to exterminate the human race is better than the ability not to. You are completely messed up if this is the logic you go by.


For starters potential is not kinetic. Everyone has the ability to hurt another living being. We all have teeth or arms or hands and legs and can manipulate sharp or heavy objects. Most people leave it as potential and never act on it. Without action the ability is greater than the absence of ability regardless of what that ability is.

Onto the kinetics (which has nothing to do with the topic as it stands since we are concerned with accidents not intentional malicious destruction but I'll entertain the discussion nonetheless) your use of positive, neutral or negative seems to have emotional qualifiers.

A reduction of population is a negative gain for population but I dont think that is how you meant it. I think you meant it as a "bad" thing. That's subjective. As a human being I would view the loss of my family and friends as a bad thing as well as a negative thing. As a wild animal I might see it as a good thing or a positive thing.

Yes, the ability to exterminate the human race is greater than the absence of such an ability.

You're phrasing: "the ability to exterminate the human race is better than the ability not to" means something completely different. Something I never brought up or even alluded to.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by bl4ke360


Completely false, the ability to do something positive or neutral is better than the ability to do nothing. The ability to do something negative is worse than the ability to do nothing.
Taking your analogy further, the ability to exterminate the human race is better than the ability not to. You are completely messed up if this is the logic you go by.


For starters potential is not kinetic. Everyone has the ability to hurt another living being. We all have teeth or arms or hands and legs and can manipulate sharp or heavy objects. Most people leave it as potential and never act on it. Without action the ability is greater than the absence of ability regardless of what that ability is.


Except all of that logic is lost when you scale it up to nuclear weapons, where someone's incompetence could mean the death of millions of people that had no say in the matter. Life on this planet would be gone very soon if we all lived by your logic. The difference is I see this as a bad thing, whereas you clearly don't.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360
Except all of that logic is lost when you scale it up to nuclear weapons, where someone's incompetence could mean the death of millions of people that had no say in the matter. Life on this planet would be gone very soon if we all lived by your logic. The difference is I see this as a bad thing, whereas you clearly don't.


No, that's not the difference. I clearly stated a few posts ago I dont like them and would rather they not exist.

Again you're posturing your position as if I am saying something that I am not. Namely that I am somehow okay with destruction.

Maybe you just dont understand or I am not being clear enough?
edit on 7-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


Well, then by that logic, I guess we should make it legal for everyone to own nukes.

We need "arms" control, everyone agrees on this because there is no sane person who thinks we should allow citizens to own nukes.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Again you're posturing your position as if I am saying something that I am not. Namely that I am somehow okay with destruction.


You said people should have the right to own nukes, and that the ability for them to kill millions of people is better than not. You also said having cancer is better than not having cancer. So this does in fact mean you're saying destruction is better than no destruction. I'm not rephrasing what you said, this came from you directly.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

You said people should have the right to own nukes, and that the ability for them to kill millions of people is better than not. You also said having cancer is better than not having cancer. So this does in fact mean you're saying destruction is better than no destruction. I'm not rephrasing what you said, this came from you directly.


Yes they should.

It is better in that having a thing, ability or skill is greater than not having it.

Having cancer is greater than not having cancer.

The ability to destroy is greater, in that sense better, than not having that ability.

Nukes are like cancer. Having them is greater than not.

If you have a car you have the ability to plow over hundreds of people. That is greater than not having that ability.

Is it "better"? Well, that depends on what you mean by better? If better than zero = more than zero than yes it is.

If "better" than zero means it's "good" for the people you could potentially run over than it's probably not "better."

See?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
where's a good, unbiased source for researching statistics on murders, violent crime, incarceration rates by country? Recent data only please



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Piers Moron is an odious little creep - please America, keep him for as long as possible. You can have Jeremy Clarkson and Max Clifford while you're at it.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The same Piers Morgan suspected of hacking people's mobile phones?
Well there you go. What can you expect of a person like that. He's a puppet.
CBS


Earlier this week, the BBC's Newsnight present, Jeremy Paxman told the Leveson Inquiry that Morgan showed his guests at a Daily Mirror lunch how to hack into mobile phones. At the same lunch, Morgan also teased TV presenter Ulrika Jonsson about the details of private conversations she had had with Sven-Göran Eriksson, at the time the England football manager. (Earlier that year, the Mirror had revealed that Jonsson had an affair with the then England football coach.)

Source

This is the same guy that was telling Jesse you're putting words into my mouth Jesse, when it was clearly the other way around, it was him who was putting words (or at least trying to) into Jesse Venturas mouth.
He's a classic and very easy to spot. People like Morgan shouldn't be on TV speaking at all, this is why the world is so messed up, people believe plants like him.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Hey Morgan why don't you mind your own.no one cares what you think.your a trouble maker and I think you should leave are country now.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Owning a nuclear device is cost prohibitive to the point that banning citizens from owning one is pointless, e.g. countries spend a significant portion of their GDP to produce one. To lay claim that one could just go out and get one ignores that countries like North Korea and Iran can't, never mind you.

There becomes a point where the cost associated with the weapon becomes self-regulating.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
In case you missed it: CNN host Piers Morgan [PM] and finance commentator Carol Roth [CR] got into a little twitter incursion concerning gun control.

PM:

The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.


CR:

It was devised 4 people 2b able 2 protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection


PM:

Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution - must have missed it?


CR:

right next to the word "muskets"




Twitter Conversation
edit on 6-12-2012 by GreenGlassDoor because: (no reason given)

Don't agree wiyh P.M. but I am sick and tired of the grammar police thinking they win a argument.By pointing out a misspelled word.People can have a valid idea without spelling it correctly.
Enstein and Churchill are a couple of examples.
edit on 7-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: re
edit on 7-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: added
edit on 7-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: Misspelled word LOL



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



At no point did I claim that my view is not based on fear..... I concur, it is.... just a different sort of fear.... fear of an accident... rather then the fear that all criminals are trying/going to want to shoot me...

A rational fear versus an irrational fear.. see the difference now??

PA

edit on 7-12-2012 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Lol... really?? I don't know how to respond to that comment... so many innaccurasies and crass statements in two lines!

PA



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rugger
Hey Morgan why don't you mind your own.no one cares what you think.your a trouble maker and I think you should leave are country now.




You're hittin' the moonshine again?





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join