Religious Typology Quiz

[Dutch Uncle]

Slavery is a violation of natural and civil rights.

Driving a car is not.

There is right to own a pistol or rifle.

There is no constitutional right to conceal and carry.

We all have unalienable rights. One of which is the right of self-defense.

There's no constitutional right to gay marriage or abortion, but you and I can agree that they are unalienable rights. The only limits should be age of consent and recognition that, at some point, a fetus becomes a viable human being instead of a parasitic organism.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Of course it is an emotional issue. You're* terrified of everything so you must bring your gun with you everywhere, even to church. The presence of your gun creates uneasiness and fear in your fellow parishioners, who just wanted to worship in peace**. Why should your fear be more important than theirs?

* Generic you, not you in particular

** Their First Amendment right

It's nasty world. FWIW, I usually don't carry except for in the car. OTOH, I am against any efforts to deny me this right just as I'm against the efforts of other authoritarians to deny people the equal rights of marriage and control of their own body.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It's nasty world. FWIW, I usually don't carry except for in the car. OTOH, I am against any efforts to deny me this right just as I'm against the efforts of other authoritarians to deny people the equal rights of marriage and control of their own body.

As both Cypress and I have pointed out, there is no Constitutional right to carry a firearm around.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

That's what he was trying to say but he failed to prove it much less show his work.

Just because you disagree with what I said does note mean I failed. In order for me to fail it would require that you or Cypress actually engage any of the points I raise instead of just ignoring them and saying I have failed.

 

[BidenPresident]

As both Cypress and I have pointed out, there is no Constitutional right to carry a firearm around.

Nor is there a constitutional right to buy all the weapons you want. But Supreme Court does not care what the second amendment says.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

As both Cypress and I have pointed out, there is no Constitutional right to carry a firearm around.

The Second Amendment is so poorly written that divergent interpretations are inevitable.

I've come across a compromise.

I always carry my Massachusetts concealed carry permit, but never the firearm itself.
The former fits in my wallet.
The latter doesn't.
If it did, I'd keep it where the condom went in 1963.

 

[Cypress]

We all have unalienable rights. One of which is the right of self-defense.

There's no constitutional right to gay marriage or abortion, but you and I can agree that they are unalienable rights. The only limits should be age of consent and recognition that, at some point, a fetus becomes a viable human being instead of a parasitic organism.

I don't think the courts have ever maintained that concealing and carrying a firearm is a constitutional right.

Keeping rifles at home or in your car is obviously perfectly legal.

There needs to be a way to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of rage-a-holics.

Gay marriage is constitutional under the equal protection clause. If straights are allowed to enter into civil marriage contracts, so are non-straights

 

[BidenPresident]

You know you're on a right wing site when every discussion deteriorates into a discussion about guns.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

As both Cypress and I have pointed out, there is no Constitutional right to carry a firearm around.

Agreed. Just like there’s no Constitutional right to have an abortion or gay marriage.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Just because you disagree with what I said does note mean I failed. In order for me to fail it would require that you or Cypress actually engage any of the points I raise instead of just ignoring them and saying I have failed.

You’re not required to prove Cypress wrong. You’re entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think the courts have ever maintained that concealing and carrying a firearm is a constitutional right.

Keeping rifles at home or in your car is obviously perfectly legal.

There needs to be a way to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of rage-a-holics.

Gay marriage is constitutional under the equal protection clause. If straights are allowed to enter into civil marriage contracts, so are non-straights

Do people have a right of self-defense? Is there a presumption of innocence in our courts?

Can we agree that criminals, the dangerously mentally ill and kids shouldn’t have guns? How We, the People, do that without treading upon the rights of innocent Americans?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You’re not required to prove Cypress wrong.

Nor did I think I had to. I just never got any engagement on my points, just more lists of philosophers who think differently.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nor did I think I had to. I just never got any engagement on my points, just more lists of philosophers who think differently.

^^^
Dislikes facts of past philosophers negating his “points”.

Dude, the fact you think concepts like freedom and equality can be put into a test tube is interesting, but remains to be proved. You certainly haven’t done it.

 

[Cypress]

Do people have a right of self-defense? Is there a presumption of innocence in our courts?

Can we agree that criminals, the dangerously mentally ill and kids shouldn’t have guns? How We, the People, do that without treading upon the rights of innocent Americans?

Self defense is a natural right, but if there was a constitutional right to conceal and carry, one could walk into a courthouse, or onto a commerical plane packing a 9mm inside their jacket.

Yes, anyone convicted of a felony should permanently lose the right to purchase firearms, and I personally like the French law that anyone who wants to purchase a gun has to pass a mental health examination, and then be periodically reevaluated in the future

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

^^^
Dislikes facts of past philosophers negating his “points”.

No, but just listing them and saying "they think differently" is not a valid riposte.

Dude, the fact you think concepts like freedom and equality can be put into a test tube is interesting, but remains to be proved. You certainly haven’t done it.

Instead of just listing philosophers I have actually attempted to support my position.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

You know you're on a right wing site when every discussion deteriorates into a discussion about guns.

Which in this case is entirely my fault since I brought it up.

 

[Cypress]

No, but just listing them and saying "they think differently" is not a valid riposte.



Instead of just listing philosophers I have actually attempted to support my position.

Every single scientific paper in the history of humanity provides a list of references to work by other researchers, because pointing to past authority adds weight to the argument.

I cited 3000 years of western intellectual history to show that freedom, equality, and justice are philosophical concepts which are not amenable to test tubes, particle accelerators, or mathmatical equations.

You keep claiming that freedom can be studied scientifically in the same way that quarks, DNA, and electrons can.

Yet you've cited no examples of legitimate scientists studying freedom in the laboratory.

There no such thing as freedom that exists out there in the world to be studied, in the way a quark can. Freedom is an innate and intuitive idea existing in the human mind.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Every single scientific paper in the history of humanity provides a list of references to work by other researchers, because pointing to past authority adds weight to the argument.

But those papers are not just lists of the references. They contain descriptions of the argument being made. To be quite honest I don't really know what your position is. Other than it clearly comports with the idea that many philosophers have discussed it.

I cited 3000 years of western intellectual history to show that freedom, equality, and justice are philosophical concepts which are not amenable to test tubes, particle accelerators, or mathmatical equations.

You listed names and said that they all believe these are open questions. That isn't an argument per se. I agree 100% they are open questions. What I was trying to do here was to propose a point of discussion. Apparently that was the wrong thing to do.

You keep claiming that freedom can be studied scientifically in the same way that quarks, DNA, and electrons can.

And what, exactly, are you saying?

Yet you've cited no examples of legitimate scientists studying freedom in the laboratory.

That is obviously wrong. I have cited MANY things related to science and these topics. I have explained my position at grotesque length. All I ever get from your side is "Well, these philosophers think differently!"

That isn't a philosophical discussion per se.

There no such thing as freedom that exists out there in the world to be studied. It is an innate and intuitive idea existing in the human mind.

Now you are getting into some weird space. Like saying one must find "adjectives" in the physical world. Ideas are not in any way beyond the physical realm. I have told you what the physical analogue of "freedom" is.

Maybe YOU need to tell me what YOU think these things are and why they are beyond the physical? Other than just to unilaterally decree I'm wrong because all these great philosophers think differently.

 

[Cypress]

But those papers are not just lists of the references. They contain descriptions of the argument being made. To be quite honest I don't really know what your position is. Other than it clearly comports with the idea that many philosophers have discussed it.



You listed names and said that they all believe these are open questions. That isn't an argument per se. I agree 100% they are open questions. What I was trying to do here was to propose a point of discussion. Apparently that was the wrong thing to do.



And what, exactly, are you saying?



That is obviously wrong. I have cited MANY things related to science and these topics. I have explained my position at grotesque length. All I ever get from your side is "Well, these philosophers think differently!"

That isn't a philosophical discussion per se.



Now you are getting into some weird space. Like saying one must find "adjectives" in the physical world. Ideas are not in any way beyond the physical realm. I have told you what the physical analogue of "freedom" is.

Maybe YOU need to tell me what YOU think these things are and why they are beyond the physical? Other than just to unilaterally decree I'm wrong because all these great philosophers think differently.

Remove humans from the universe and there is no such thing as freedom.

Like your invisible unicorn, freedom is just an innate idea in the human mind. A product of human intuition. It does not exist independently out there in the world like a proton does.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Remove humans from the universe and there is no such thing as freedom.

I disagree. Freedom has plenty of physical analogues.

Like your invisible unicorn, freedom is just an innate idea in the human mind. A product of human intuition. It does not exist independently out there in the world like a proton does.

Let's take a "proton" as an example. Most protons don't exist nakedly out in the world. They are usually combined with something else: whether it's in a nucleus or as an H3O+ ion in acidic solutions. But in the large hadron collider they may strip protons from nuclei and accelerate them to immense speeds.

The protons can have a state of FREEDOM (ie not part of an assemblage of some sort) or NOT.

That FREEDOM is exactly the same as any other conception of freedom. Even HUMAN FREEDOM. Or "SPiritual Freedom" (still not sure what that is), but all of these things come down to one basic concept: "lack of constraint".

Artistic freedom? Same thing. Lack of requirements or rules to the art. Freedom of speech? Same thing. Lack of constraint on what can be said.

These concepts are intimately familiar even to wild animals who know the difference between their 'freedom' and a lack thereof. Hopefully raccoons and opossums didn't require the work of raccoon and opossum philosophers to explain it to them. (That was a joke, not intended to be an insult or mockery, just a bit of levity).