Barack Obama on Gun Control.

[Arya]

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_LifeAsMoralStandard.html

From your own link:

Your life as your standard does not mean trampling on other people to get what you want. This is not in your rational self-interest. It is in your interest to be benevolent.

Nor does your life as your standard mean cheating people to get ahead, even if they don't realize it and you never get caught. Fraud is not in your rational self-interest because you lose your independence and you sacrifice honesty to an unreality that you have to maintain to perpetrate your fraud. This is self-destructive in the long run.

Such things as robbery are, as your link stated, self-destructive. You're destroying your own life, your own rationality and honesty. Where is this does it include the "right" to destroy someone else's life, because they destroyed their rationality or honesty?

This is the opposite of benevolent, and it makes the defender as irrational as the marauder.

 

[LegitNamesCo]

Just because Obama went to Africa doesn't mean he wasn't born in Hawaii, he is still a citizen, he just lived in another country, it doesn't permit him to lose his citizenship.

Did you read what I said?

He moved to Kenya, in Africa or whatever.

He HAD to give up his citizenship, because it was war-time, and no dual citizenships were allowed, this, coming back to America, he had to get a new citizenship, and then he became a naturalized citizen.

PLEASE, read the earlier posts.

 

[Shroomsday]

Did you read what I said?

He moved to Kenya, in Africa or whatever.

He HAD to give up his citizenship, because it was war-time, and no dual citizenships were allowed, this, coming back to America, he had to get a new citizenship, and then he became a naturalized citizen.

PLEASE, read the earlier posts.

He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

[LegitNamesCo]

He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Interesting.

 

[Loren]

Interesting.

He is still technically an American, just because war-time in Africa doesn't mean he is officially no longer an American. He is still no matter what an American, if born on American soil.

 

[LegitNamesCo]

He is still technically an American, just because war-time in Africa doesn't mean he is officially no longer an American. He is still no matter what an American, if born on American soil.

So, hypothetically.

Somebody born on US soil, goes to Iran,gets an Iranian citizenship. Then gets employed as a terrorist, and suicide bombs a US convoy.

Is he an American?

 

[Shredderbeam]

From your own link:

Your life as your standard does not mean trampling on other people to get what you want. This is not in your rational self-interest. It is in your interest to be benevolent.

Nor does your life as your standard mean cheating people to get ahead, even if they don't realize it and you never get caught. Fraud is not in your rational self-interest because you lose your independence and you sacrifice honesty to an unreality that you have to maintain to perpetrate your fraud. This is self-destructive in the long run.

Such things as robbery are, as your link stated, self-destructive. You're destroying your own life, your own rationality and honesty. Where is this does it include the "right" to destroy someone else's life, because they destroyed their rationality or honesty?

This is the opposite of benevolent, and it makes the defender as irrational as the marauder.

Yes, robbery is irrational. Correct.

There is a difference between violating the rights of others, and defending your own rights.

 

[Straggler]

You make it sound like losing our right to hunt is a bad thing. Hunting is unnecessary slaughter of animals and is a display of blatantly malicious character, finding pleasure in the intense pain and death of other creatures. I dare you to justify it. Guns are dangerous and if civilians are more open to them, more people will be killed. Guns are foolish to spread around in a society. I support Obama 100%.

 

[LegitNamesCo]

You make it sound like losing our right to hunt is a bad thing. Hunting is unnecessary slaughter of animals and is a display of blatantly malicious character, finding pleasure in the intense pain and death of other creatures. I dare you to justify it. Guns are dangerous and if civilians are more open to them, more people will be killed. Guns are foolish to spread around in a society. I support Obama 100%.

I see.
Losing my right to get my food for a highly reduced price, kinda does hurt. :laugh:

I've been to 100's of shoots, where no one was hurt. Not even by shrapnel from an explosive, or burns from a bonfire.

Here's a great example of one.
NOTE: over 1 bottle of alcohol, and you're not allowed to shoot, etc. Night shoots are only allowed for people with tracers, otherwise you can't see, blah blah.
[youtube]RNCCaXSWZUs[/youtube]

Hunting is not unnecessary slaughter, it is taking the life of an animal to consume.

There IS a difference, I'm sorry.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You make it sound like losing our right to hunt is a bad thing. Hunting is unnecessary slaughter of animals and is a display of blatantly malicious character, finding pleasure in the intense pain and death of other creatures. I dare you to justify it. Guns are dangerous and if civilians are more open to them, more people will be killed. Guns are foolish to spread around in a society. I support Obama 100%.

Animals are not rational beings. I don't see how they are deserving of any rights.

 

[Arya]

Yes, robbery is irrational. Correct.

There is a difference between violating the rights of others, and defending your own rights.

Even if that means lowering down to the level of the offender? If that's the case, then there really isn't a point of rights, and this world should simply be made of killers, and those who kill killers.

Hypocrites, if you will.

Animals are not rational beings. I don't see how they are deserving of any rights.

They aren't, but you are. They don't have the right to vote, and they don't have the right to bear arms, but that does not mean they do not have the right to live.

Like you said before, animals are walking steaks. You're a walking spleen, no matter how rational you are. It is right, to you, to kill an animal, yet it is wrong for an animal to kill you? Does the level of hypocrisy truly depend on the rationality of a being? Aside from the opposing, "Well, if they killed me, it wouldn't matter."..

 

[LegitNamesCo]

Even if that means lowering down to the level of the offender? If that's the case, then there really isn't a point of rights, and this world should simply be made of killers, and those who kill killers.

Hypocrites, if you will.

Murder, which you can go to jail for, is a human killing a human.

Animal cruelty, does not constitute as 1 bullet into the heart, of a game animal.

That is not hypocrisy.

 

[Straggler]

Animals are not rational beings. I don't see how they are deserving of any rights.

I didn't mention a thing about rights. I think it's wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to something undeserving just for the pleasure of it, and no matter how rational that thing may be, you are still inflicting pain on it yourself and it is suffering.

 

[Arya]

Murder, which you can go to jail for, is a human killing a human.

Animal cruelty, does not constitute as 1 bullet into the heart, of a game animal.

That is not hypocrisy.

We're not on the subject of direct murder.

It is wrong for an animal to attack you. Yet, it isn't wrong for you to attack an animal.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

I didn't mention a thing about rights. I think it's wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to something undeserving just for the pleasure of it, and no matter how rational that thing may be, you are still inflicting pain on it yourself and it is suffering.

You know, this "somewhat" redirects my arguments, but only for this post, and possibly others.

If you saw a dieing eagle with one wing loss, and you knew quite well that it would not live to see the bright of day, would you take it and care for it and try to make it as comfortable as possible before it enters the void?

 

[Merchant_in_the_dark]

Just to clear this argument up once and for all, the National Hunters and Shooters Association endorsed Obama because, in addition to protecting Second Amendment rights, their members are going to benefit from his economic plan just like everyone else.

McCain CANNOT stand up to Obama on the issues that voters care about, and he knows it.

So, he brings up things like his middle name and the projector he bought a planetarium in his home town.

Prove the quote.

Do you bother to follow the news at all? Actually, that's a bad question, seeing as which side of the argument you're on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-strategist-if-we-k_n_132179.html

McCain's course correction reflects a growing case of nerves within his high command as the electoral map has shifted significantly in Obama's favor in the past two weeks.

"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist told the Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

Dispute that.

 

[LegitNamesCo]

We're not on the subject of direct murder.

It is wrong for an animal to attack you. Yet, it isn't wrong for you to attack an animal.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

If I go next door and shoot the neighbors dog, I'd be arrested.

And possibly sued.

If I go out in the wilderness, and get trampled by a moose, then oh my God, I got trampled by a moose.

 

[Straggler]

If I go next door and shoot the neighbors dog, I'd be arrested.

And possibly sued.

If I go out in the wilderness, and get trampled by a moose, then oh my God, I got trampled by a moose.

You're changing up the scenario. If the dog attacked you, It'd be put to death. If you killed the moose, nobody would care.

How's that for a contrapositive?

 

[The_Phoenix_HalfBreed]

Believe me if Obama was illegible he wouldn't be in the race right now. He is a natural born citizen of America, that cannot be taken away. You have to live in America for at least 14 years prior to the year you run for presidential office. What faith do you prefer him to be? If he were a radical Muslim then we'd have a problem.... His beliefs are in the favor of America.

JUST TO CLEAR THINGS UP!!! The president doesn't have that many responsibilities. He doesn't make laws. Congress really has all the power. The president just takes the blame for everything.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Even if that means lowering down to the level of the offender? If that's the case, then there really isn't a point of rights, and this world should simply be made of killers, and those who kill killers.

Hypocrites, if you will.

Bit of a difference between somebody who murders and somebody who kills in self-defense.

They aren't, but you are. They don't have the right to vote, and they don't have the right to bear arms, but that does not mean they do not have the right to live.

Why do they have the right to live?

Like you said before, animals are walking steaks. You're a walking spleen, no matter how rational you are. It is right, to you, to kill an animal, yet it is wrong for an animal to kill you? Does the level of hypocrisy truly depend on the rationality of a being? Aside from the opposing, "Well, if they killed me, it wouldn't matter."..

Morality applies to rational beings. It has no bearing upon walking steaks. If a lion kills me, it is neither immoral nor moral.

I didn't mention a thing about rights. I think it's wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to something undeserving just for the pleasure of it, and no matter how rational that thing may be, you are still inflicting pain on it yourself and it is suffering.

If it's morally wrong to hurt animals, then they must have the right not to be hurt. Why do they have this right?

Just to clear this argument up once and for all, the National Hunters and Shooters Association endorsed Obama because, in addition to protecting Second Amendment rights, their members are going to benefit from his economic plan just like everyone else.

It's amazing who will vote for you when you're giving out handouts directly from the pockets of the rich.

 

[Arya]

If I go next door and shoot the neighbors dog, I'd be arrested.

And possibly sued.

If I go out in the wilderness, and get trampled by a moose, then oh my God, I got trampled by a moose.

The sarcasm isn't needed to where in the answer.

You believe that it would be wrong for that moose to trample on you, am I correct? You would not like it one bit that that moose trampled on you.

Either way, it's a given.

If you can tell me that you would like it, then you're simply ridiculous.

If you can tell me that you would not like it, then my point stands. It's hypocrisy.
Bad example.