Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

Mr. X wants gun control.

Mr. Y does not.

Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved". They see it as an all-or-nothing issue. One must dominate the other.

This is all incorrect.

Here:

Mr. X wants crunchy peanut butter.

Mr. Y does not.

If you suggested that Mr. Y must be forced to consume crunchy peanut butter in order for Mr. X to be satisfied, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

If you suggested that Mr. X *should* be able to tell Mr. Y that he must eat crunchy peanut butter, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved". They see it as an all-or-nothing issue. One must dominate the other.

This is all incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have said it better myself. As I've said in other threads, it's not about some of us "pro-gun" people wanting to "arm everyone ZOMG!" It's about being given the option to defend yourself with a handgun. We could throw statistics back and forth at each other all day long, but the burden of proof is on those people who wish to impose their preferences about guns on other people.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved".

[/ QUOTE ]

I might take issue with this. The "pro-gun" people only see it as a "problem" because it's being made into a "problem" by the anti-gun folks. They are the ones leading the charge and pro-gun people usually have to go on the defensive.

If all of a sudden crunchy peanut butter was the forced norm, the people who support the option of someone to eat creamy peanut butter would only be addressing the "problem" because it was brought about by the forced preference in the first place.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved".

[/ QUOTE ]

I might take issue with this. The "pro-gun" people only see it as a "problem" because it's being made into a "problem" by the anti-gun folks. They are the ones leading the charge and pro-gun people usually have to go on the defensive.

If all of a sudden crunchy peanut butter was the forced norm, the people who support the option of someone to eat creamy peanut butter would only be addressing the "problem" because it was brought about by the forced preference in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fundamentally true, but the people arguing it don't necessarily realize it! Many "pro-gun" types are thinking "they'll just have to live with me and my guns!" But this isn't any truer than "they'll just have to live with me and my crunchy peanut butter!"

There's no reason these people with different worldviews need to be compelled to associate with each other at all!

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you suggested that Mr. Y must be forced to consume crunchy peanut butter in order for Mr. X to be satisfied, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

If you suggested that Mr. X *should* be able to tell Mr. Y that he must eat crunchy peanut butter, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a political problem. It can go either way. Heck, the german people got rid of their "jewish problem" via a political solution. Tyranny is the norm in human culture. Maybe america was just a blip of freedom that will never happen again.

If you replace crunchy peanut butter with mandatory auto insurance, you can see that people will not say you're crazy.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

Guns will exist in all societies. The question is, what do you require from an individual to sell him a weapon? Should you have strict laws making it difficult owning a weapon or laws that benefits gun producers but "sadly" increases the death rates?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about candy, it's used to put diabetes in childrens blood.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved". They see it as an all-or-nothing issue. One must dominate the other.

This is all incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have said it better myself. As I've said in other threads, it's not about some of us "pro-gun" people wanting to "arm everyone ZOMG!" It's about being given the option to defend yourself with a handgun. We could throw statistics back and forth at each other all day long, but the burden of proof is on those people who wish to impose their preferences about guns on other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it is a good point. Whose pockets get lined with the green for society seeing it as a 'problem'?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a joke in here somewhere but I can't think of one.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about candy, it's used to put diabetes in childrens blood.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and some people are averse to sunlight. If you choose to ridicule my valid point, instead of pointing out the gaping flaws in the analogies of one your own, then your bias becomes exceedingly obvious.

Guns are a public safety issue, regardless of whether you think they help or hurt it. You guys agree with that every time you argue that armed citizens would help stop crime. So pvn is either being silly or dishonest comparing the issue to peanut butter preferences.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guns will exist in all societies. The question is, what do you require from an individual to sell him a weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no right to require anything of anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Should you have strict laws making it difficult owning a weapon or laws that benefits gun producers but "sadly" increases the death rates?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about neither?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can choke on peanut butter. And some people are fatally allergic to it.

I have several guns, and none of them have ever put bullets into other people's flesh.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about candy, it's used to put diabetes in childrens blood.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and some people are averse to sunlight. If you choose to ridicule my valid point, instead of pointing out the gaping flaws in the analogies of one your own, then your bias becomes exceedingly obvious.

Guns are a public safety issue, regardless of whether you think they help or hurt it. You guys agree with that every time you argue that armed citizens would help stop crime. So pvn is either being silly or dishonest comparing the issue to peanut butter preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peanut butter is a public safety issue. There's even peanut butter control in Canada. You think I'm kidding?

http://www.calgaryallergy.ca/Article...feliberty.html

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]


Guns are a public safety issue, regardless of whether you think they help or hurt it. You guys agree with that every time you argue that armed citizens would help stop crime. So pvn is either being silly or dishonest comparing the issue to peanut butter preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worry about handgun accidents hardly any more than I worry about peanut butter accidents.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
I worry about handgun accidents hardly any more than I worry about peanut butter accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about accidents. I'm talking about suicides, homicides, armed robberies. I don't remember the last time someone was threatened with a jar of peanut butter. And yes, peanut butter can be dangerous, which is why there are mandated warning labels, and the requirement to notify (or avoid) peanut products in some catered foods.

Also, pvn's original analogy is about forcing consumption of something, which is the opposite of taking it away. Notice how he shifts the goalposts later on, saying it is indeed a public safety issue, when he was originally talking about forcing someone to eat it.

Bottom line: to say that gun control is similar to forcing someone to eat peanut butter against his will is either silly or dishonest. At least own up to that.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Guns are a public safety issue, regardless of whether you think they help or hurt it. You guys agree with that every time you argue that armed citizens would help stop crime. So pvn is either being silly or dishonest comparing the issue to peanut butter preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worry about handgun accidents hardly any more than I worry about peanut butter accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worry about peanut butter a lot more. I have kids, they have friends, I eat a lot of peanut butter (crunchy, of course). All sorts of crazy [censored] can happen.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line: to say that gun control is similar to forcing someone to eat peanut butter against his will is either silly or dishonest. At least own up to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same thing. It's a preference one person imposes on another.

Forcing you to do X, preventing you from doing Y, it makes no difference.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Forcing you to do X, preventing you from doing Y, it makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is forcing X to murder Y the same morally/ethically/otherwise as restraining X from murdering Y, while maintaining X's life?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line: to say that gun control is similar to forcing someone to eat peanut butter against his will is either silly or dishonest. At least own up to that.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's the same thing. It's a preference one person imposes on another.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are road rules a preference one person imposes on another? Should they exist?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forcing you to do X, preventing you from doing Y, it makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is forcing X to murder Y the same morally/ethically/otherwise as restraining X from murdering Y, while maintaining X's life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. Nice try. You're conflating the issue by adding an unwilling party.

Now if Y consents to being murdered by X, then we've got something to talk about.

If X doesn't consent to murder Y, then forcing him to do so is immoral.

If both consent, preventing them from conducting the transaction is immoral.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about accidents. I'm talking about suicides, homicides, armed robberies. I don't remember the last time someone was threatened with a jar of peanut butter.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I don't remember the last time someone threatened me with a handgun.

Given the incredibly low probability of me encountering handgun violence (I don't dwell in ghettos and I'm not involved in drug dealing), it is completely irrational for me to worry about handguns. I've never been afraid to go out at night here.

The overwhelming majority of people in this society have had violent revenge fantasies, and have access to guns. The fact that so many of us are civilized enough to realize the reprocussions of such violent behavior, though, prevents them from going around killing people.

I'm not afraid of guns, and you shouldn't be either.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line: to say that gun control is similar to forcing someone to eat peanut butter against his will is either silly or dishonest. At least own up to that.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's the same thing. It's a preference one person imposes on another.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are road rules a preference one person imposes on another? Should they exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideally, the owner of the road sets the rules, and does not compel anyone to drive on them. Of course, the state intervenes, distorts the road market, etc. Setting the rules of the road you own is not objectionable. Funding your road through coercion is, however.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I worry about handgun accidents hardly any more than I worry about peanut butter accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about accidents. I'm talking about suicides, homicides, armed robberies. I don't remember the last time someone was threatened with a jar of peanut butter. And yes, peanut butter can be dangerous, which is why there are mandated warning labels, and the requirement to notify (or avoid) peanut products in some catered foods.

Also, pvn's original analogy is about forcing consumption of something, which is the opposite of taking it away. Notice how he shifts the goalposts later on, saying it is indeed a public safety issue, when he was originally talking about forcing someone to eat it.

Bottom line: to say that gun control is similar to forcing someone to eat peanut butter against his will is either silly or dishonest. At least own up to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belive it or not I was recently duped and mislead by a peanut butter safety person. They told me that 'teddies' peanut butter, made locally, was safer becuase it had lower levels of fat or something. So I'm like, "hey safety is cool" and bought some.

Well that stuff is dangerous. I was anxious to try some of my safe peanut butter and open up the bottle and low and behold there is an accumulation of oil at the top and it spills out on the floor. That stuff is not safe! It is slippery has hell. I nearly split my head open. There should be a law at least making teddies inform us of this risk. They always want to mislead you and tell you their product is safter but they don't tell you the whole story. Typical.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I worry about handgun accidents hardly any more than I worry about peanut butter accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about accidents. I'm talking about suicides, homicides, armed robberies. I don't remember the last time someone was threatened with a jar of peanut butter. And yes, peanut butter can be dangerous, which is why there are mandated warning labels, and the requirement to notify (or avoid) peanut products in some catered foods.

Also, pvn's original analogy is about forcing consumption of something, which is the opposite of taking it away. Notice how he shifts the goalposts later on, saying it is indeed a public safety issue, when he was originally talking about forcing someone to eat it.

Bottom line: to say that gun control is similar to forcing someone to eat peanut butter against his will is either silly or dishonest. At least own up to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belive it or not I was recently duped and mislead by a peanut butter safety person. They told me that 'teddies' peanut butter, made locally, was safer becuase it had lower levels of fat or something. So I'm like, "hey safety is cool" and bought some.

Well that stuff is dangerous. I was anxious to try some of my safe peanut butter and open up the bottle and low and behold there is an accumulation of oil at the top and it spills out on the floor. That stuff is not safe! It is slippery has hell. I nearly split my head open. There should be a law at least making teddies inform us of this risk. They always want to mislead you and tell you their product is safter but they don't tell you the whole story. Typical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shudda gotten the crunchy. The chunks give you more traction.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. X wants gun control.

Mr. Y does not.

Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved". They see it as an all-or-nothing issue. One must dominate the other.

This is all incorrect.

Here:

Mr. X wants crunchy peanut butter.

Mr. Y does not.

If you suggested that Mr. Y must be forced to consume crunchy peanut butter in order for Mr. X to be satisfied, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

If you suggested that Mr. X *should* be able to tell Mr. Y that he must eat crunchy peanut butter, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you so succinctly demonstrated that pro-AC arguments are dependent upon equating preferences for peanut butter with preferences for firearms.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you so succinctly demonstrated that pro-AC arguments are dependent upon equating preferences for peanut butter with preferences for firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to three and a half hours ago. Things move fast, try to keep up. This aint no rest home.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you so succinctly demonstrated that pro-AC arguments are dependent upon equating preferences for peanut butter with preferences for firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to three and a half hours ago. Things move fast, try to keep up. This aint no rest home.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reach for the low hanging fruit, which there is much of around here.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

It's the smooth variety that does it?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

Not accidents, but shooting deaths, are what are worrisome.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

"I've never been afraid to go out at night here."

Where?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

Just for all you haters out there who think this post is flawed because of a difference between "allowing someone to have X" and "preventing someone from having X", here you go:

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. X wants a gun.

Mr. Y does not.

...

Mr. X wants crunchy peanut butter.

Mr. Y does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy now?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can choke on peanut butter. And some people are fatally allergic to it.

I have several guns, and none of them have ever put bullets into other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is ridiculous and desperate argumentation