It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Admin comes out against breed bans using the same arguments pro-gun people use against gun ban

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.



Yah...Amazing...it's like some folks don't know the difference between a gun and a dog.


BEHOLD!
The Double Bind Theory of Schizophrenia
is alive and well.



A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will be automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation.

wikipedia.org / Double Bind


Perhaps we should recommend that the current administration
seek therapy!


Mike

edit on 15-8-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)




I spilled coffee on my Keyboard......



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.


We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.


Yeah, you really aren't getting it. Please try thinking harder.

Bans are bans.

When discussing the drug war, people reference alcohol prohibition. ALL the arguments AGAINST prohibition ALSO apply to drug prohibition.

But someone like you that cannot think logically or make connections past simple visual cues (a tail? duh) would come along and say "What's the difference between alcohol and weed? Well you smoke one and drink the other, obviously"

Duh, man, I mean seriously. If you think you are being clever pointing out guns and dogs aren't the same things your wrong. You look foolish because you are either willfully ignoring the perfect point made by the OP, or you really can't understand, which is even more sad.

The REASONS banning dogs doesn't accomplish anything, is the SAME reason banning guns doesn't accomplish anything THAT'S the comparison. THAT'S the connection you were too blind to see, or refuse to admit to seeing.

To round out my comparison, back to the prohibition/drug war reference, if Obama said "alcohol prohibition is wrong because it makes criminal groups powerful and doesn't stop people from drinking" but then didn't apply that same logic to other drugs, he would be doing exactly what he is doing here.

He understands bans don't accomplish anything. He admits to this with his opinion against breed bans. Yet he goes against his own opinion when it comes to guns, that bans don't help.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.


We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.


Yeah, you really aren't getting it. Please try thinking harder.

Bans are bans.

When discussing the drug war, people reference alcohol prohibition. ALL the arguments AGAINST prohibition ALSO apply to drug prohibition.



Wow and it continues?

Alcohal is to THC...as a pet Dog is to a Semi-Automatic Rifle?

Still not seeing the cognitive disconnect?



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Actually, you are the one with the cognitive issues. The principles that are applied to ban one object that some foolish and frightened people want to ban can, and are applied to other objects that foolish and frightened people want to ban.


And so on...

Psst...Animals aren't guns...they aren't even "objects" as you claim.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.


We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.


Yeah, you really aren't getting it. Please try thinking harder.

Bans are bans.

When discussing the drug war, people reference alcohol prohibition. ALL the arguments AGAINST prohibition ALSO apply to drug prohibition.



Wow and it continues?

Alcohal is to THC...as a pet Dog is to a Semi-Automatic Rifle?

Still not seeing the cognitive disconnect?


No I'm seeing it plain as day, it's been evident in every one of your posts in this thread.

You have to be trolling, because nobody is possibly as dense as you are acting.

But I'll throw it out there one more time for good measure:

It's NOT ABOUT DOGS OR GUNS. PERIOD.

It's about BANS. BANS DO NOT WORK.

How is this not getting through your skull? IT IS NOT ABOUT DOGS AND GUNS, get that out of your head. It's about BANS.

How many times do I have to say it?

BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!

Do you now understand it is about BANS!

Jesus Christ.....some people's kids.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Actually, you are the one with the cognitive issues. The principles that are applied to ban one object that some foolish and frightened people want to ban can, and are applied to other objects that foolish and frightened people want to ban.


And so on...

Psst...Animals aren't guns...they aren't even "objects" as you claim.


Pssst...guns don't do anything. They are inanimate objects. Why so afraid of an inanimate object?



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Wow ...Excitable?

Listen....It's not my fault. In order for this Obama-Hate-Train to leave the station, the premise must work and the premise that Dogs and Guns are interchangable or even similair miserably, horribly fails.

Hey...your example of Prohibition and the Drug War is decent...Acohal and THC, Metha-Amphetamines etc. works....

But AK-47 equals pet poodle?....Does not work.

Don't blame me, blame logic.

Now...if you are so frustrated that you want to abandon the OP's premise and retreat to "BANS...BANS DON'T WORK!!"

Sure, but that's a whole different "animal" than what the OP tried to pass off.

I would contest we Ban murder and child pornography...You can claim if it doesn't work 100%...then we shouldn't Ban it at all?

Never a 100% all the time...but "BANS" do work.

Have a nice day..
edit on 15-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Pssst...guns don't do anything.


?? Mine do? Don't know what kind of guns you own?


Originally posted by NavyDoc

They are inanimate objects.


Yes...unlike Dogs...glad you are starting to understand.


Originally posted by NavyDoc
Why so afraid of an inanimate object?


I missed that? Where did I post that I am afraid of guns?



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Pssst...guns don't do anything.


?? Mine do? Don't know what kind of guns you own?
No they don't...not on their own.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

They are inanimate objects.


Yes...unlike Dogs...glad you are starting to understand.


Originally posted by NavyDoc
Why so afraid of an inanimate object?


I missed that? Where did I post that I am afraid of guns?


Youcertainly are acting that way.

Let's take another tack. The excuses people use when they want to ban certain breeds of dogs, guns, and various intoxicants are essentially the same. The reasonable response in rejecting the idea of banning certain breeds of dogs is exactly the same, reason for reason, as a reasonable response to rejecting calls for bans of certain types of firearms. The hypocrisy, which is fairly obvious, is that the administration does not deign to apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners. Obviously it is because he has an ideological position on guns that does not need logic nor reason.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The hypocrisy, which is fairly obvious, is that the administration does not deign to apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners.


The administration does not "apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners"...because...wait for it...a gun is not a dog.

Nor is a pencil an elephant, an orange a knife or a hammer a cat...

In order for the same logic to be equally applied we must first reduce everything down to "same"



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

In order for the same logic to be equally applied we must first reduce everything down to "same"



A ban, whatever being banned, is still a ban and the reality applies.

- Bans do not prevent the act/thing
- The thing being banned is generally a statistically insignificant issue to begin with
- People who would engage in the banned act/product will engage regardless, people who would not wouldnt suddenly begin to faced with legalization of the act/product
- It isnt even the item that causes the problems in the first place its the human behind the item

These are the points made by the admin against a breed ban. These points hold true for all bans.

Same.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The hypocrisy, which is fairly obvious, is that the administration does not deign to apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners.


The administration does not "apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners"...because...wait for it...a gun is not a dog.

Nor is a pencil an elephant, an orange a knife or a hammer a cat...

In order for the same logic to be equally applied we must first reduce everything down to "same"





You are having some sort of logic breakdown here. Either that or you failed your college logic course. In order for a logical argument to hold up, you have to be able to insert ANYTHING in place of what the argument is talking about and the argument's premise still concludes to the same conclusion. So no you are completely incorrect on how logic works. I can just as easily take "dogs" or "guns" out of the above argument and say "houses" or "tubas" or "turtles." None of the above things I mentioned are even remotely similar but the logic argument still holds true, therefore the logical argument is logically sound.

Meanwhile, your argument isn't even valid because your premises aren't true. You CAN interchange the object of the argument with anything no matter how dissimilar and the argument will still be valid and sound.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
"They'll need to pry my dog from my cold, dead hands!"

Sounds a little creepy when it's put like that, donchathink?



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
"They'll need to pry my dog from my cold, dead hands!"

Sounds a little creepy when it's put like that, donchathink?


Well, they will.

These arent even "unregistered" "illegal" "criminal" dogs. These are family pets that were rounded up and executed: Denver's pet massacre

The parallels between breed bans and gun bans are astounding.

They always start with the "criminal" and "unregistered" objects before moving on to directly confiscating yours. You did nothing wrong with your gun/dog/whatever and your gun/dog/whatever did nothing wrong on its own but people want to take it from you and destroy it just because they dont like it.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The hypocrisy, which is fairly obvious, is that the administration does not deign to apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners.


The administration does not "apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners"...because...wait for it...a gun is not a dog.

Nor is a pencil an elephant, an orange a knife or a hammer a cat...

In order for the same logic to be equally applied we must first reduce everything down to "same"





You are either being intentionally obtuse or you have failed logic and critical thinking.


A dog of a certain breed kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that breed. Rightfully, the administration says this is stupid because for every single dog of that breed that kills someone there are tens of thousands of dogs of that breed that do not hurt anyone.

A guy with a gun of a certain type kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that type of gun and the president agrees, ignoring the fact that for every death caused by that type of gun, there are about a million guns of that type that are not used to kill anyone.

Thus one sees the obvious failure in logic and hypocrisy of the stance.
edit on 16-8-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So, lets also introduce this then.

Don't ban abortion, after all it is murder.
But, ban guns, which have yet to murder anyone.


Yeah, I love it when Progressives hold tight to their beliefs. It really is funny to watch.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t

You are having some sort of logic breakdown here. Either that or you failed your college logic course. In order for a logical argument to hold up, you have to be able to insert ANYTHING in place of what the argument is talking about and the argument's premise still concludes to the same conclusion.


If P then Q..yada..yada..Right? Where P is an indiscriminate variable.

The first equation is the premise. It must hold true for the rest or the argument to be sound.

D = Dog
G = Gun

And what folks are saying is that D = G….Or let’s say that D & G both equal I, I = Banned item

Then you have I = Banned item….and all of Pres. Obama’s justification and logic surrounding Dogs is equal to Guns..cuz they are both banned items.

I (banned item) …followed by justification on NOT banning dogs
=
I (banned item) …Followed by justification for WANTING to ban certain guns

Ahem..Hypocrisy…logical contradiction…etc?

BUT…Back to the premise that Dogs=Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles…for all RELEVANT purposes of a “ban”



False equivalence (Fallacy)

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. It is achieved by "shifting, imprecise, or tactical (re)definition of a linking term.

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.

The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal.

It should be noted though that d existing in both sets is not required, only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.



en.wikipedia.org...

In this scenario...

Dogs (D) = An item that some folks want to ban (B)

Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifles (G) = An item that some folks want to ban (B)

Since both D and G are subsets of B....then D=G....FALLACY

The fallacy is actually made most apparent in those arguing the fallacy on this thread..

Macman has repeatedly and loudly explained such distinctions as guns are "Inanimate objects"...clearly this distinction is critical? Since he has repeated it often?

Is a Dog "inanimate" or an "object"?

Again...you can only arrive at "A Ban is a Ban" once you skip past the fallacy that a Dog is a Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifle.

They are dramtically different things.

A Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifle has more in common objectively with a Thermo-Nuclear Weapon or a Kitchen Knife...than it does with a Poodle or German Sheppard.

Again...Hate on me for critical thinking, but the premise of this OP failed from the get-go.
edit on 16-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So, lets also introduce this then.

Don't ban abortion, after all it is murder.
But, ban guns, which have yet to murder anyone.



Again...It begins with the premise that Abortion is murder...and that is a scientific/religious/moral debate that has not been settled.

And the OP is based squarely on equating Dogs to Guns...Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifles...to be specific to the Presidents proposal.

If this is simply a thread arguing about gun bans vs. the Presidents purported hypocrasy...the the OP needs editing.
edit on 16-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

A dog of a certain breed kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that breed. Rightfully, the administration says this is stupid because for every single dog of that breed that kills someone there are tens of thousands of dogs of that breed that do not hurt anyone.

A guy with a gun of a certain type kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that type of gun and the president agrees, ignoring the fact that for every death caused by that type of gun, there are about a million guns of that type that are not used to kill anyone.


Okay...so your are saying that for the purposes of a "Ban" that these items make Dogs and Semi-automatic "assault" rifles equivelant.

(A) Each is able to kill
(B) Of those that kill...the vast majority do not.

I would argue they are different in that...
Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifles are
inanimate objects/tools,
engineered and manufactured by people
specifically designed tools/inanimate objects to maximize it's precision and capacity for killing. Guns are both designed and marketed for how accurately they fire, how many shots can be fired without re-loading, how quickly it fires, ease of use etc. etc. No one ...well maybe some...pets thier gun, bonds with it as a living creature etc.

Gun's don't slobber or play fetch.

While dogs are living, breathing creatures...pets. Not an "inanimate object" as you have touted...nor an object manufactured for a singular use....launching lethal projectiles with rapidity and accuracy.

Otherwise...When was the last time some unstable, skinny, young man walked into a grade school and killed 22 Kids and teachers with thier dog?



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

A dog of a certain breed kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that breed. Rightfully, the administration says this is stupid because for every single dog of that breed that kills someone there are tens of thousands of dogs of that breed that do not hurt anyone.

A guy with a gun of a certain type kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that type of gun and the president agrees, ignoring the fact that for every death caused by that type of gun, there are about a million guns of that type that are not used to kill anyone.


Okay...so your are saying that for the purposes of a "Ban" that these items make Dogs and Semi-automatic "assault" rifles equivelant.

(A) Each is able to kill
(B) Of those that kill...the vast majority do not.

I would argue they are different in that...
Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifles are
inanimate objects/tools,
engineered and manufactured by people
specifically designed tools/inanimate objects to maximize it's precision and capacity for killing. Guns are both designed and marketed for how accurately they fire, how many shots can be fired without re-loading, how quickly it fires, ease of use etc. etc. No one ...well maybe some...pets thier gun, bonds with it as a living creature etc.

Gun's don't slobber or play fetch.

While dogs are living, breathing creatures...pets. Not an "inanimate object" as you have touted...nor an object manufactured for a singular use....launching lethal projectiles with rapidity and accuracy.

Otherwise...When was the last time some unstable, skinny, young man walked into a grade school and killed 22 Kids and teachers with thier dog?


A gun does nothing without a person using it. So I don't see your point that they are more dangerous, being inanimate.

Regardless, you still don't grasp the underlying concept. It does not matter what is being banned but rather that,

A), bans don't help upon closer examination

B). Excuses for bans are illogical across the board.

It does not matter how much you love your dog or how cute and slobbery he is. If it is of the wrong breed, someone wants to ban it and take it away from you using the same illogical reasoning that those who want to ban a certain type of gun use.
edit on 16-8-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)







 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join