Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences

[pvn]

[ 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.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[bkholdem]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ 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.

[latefordinner]

http://www.discovery.com/area/skinny...2/skinny1.html

[andyfox]

It's the smooth variety that does it?