Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-31-2014, 06:09 PM #1
Boom Master
Scenario Player
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Louis MO, USA, EARTH
Pro Gun and Pro Life on GOP Platform?

Does anybody feel any kind of moral question mark of a party that supports the right to life and the right to kill on the same platform?

They are taking the high road and the low road at the same time.

Now are these just two seperate groups they a whooing for their votes? or is there an consensus in the GOP membership (not leadership)that both points of view are not in conflict?

Yes, it is a question of morality... Why I put it here.
__________________
Carefully planned irresponsibility is the KEY to mental health.

If you haven't grown up by age 50........

You don't have to......

Last edited by Boom Master : 01-31-2014 at 06:11 PM.
Boom Master is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-07-2014, 10:35 PM #2
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
You seem to be confusing marketing speak for actual intent.

The terms "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" are meaningless. You're either against "the termination of an undeveloped fetus before birth", or you're not against it.

And Pro Gun does not equate to Pro Kill. For many it's Pro Defense, as in the right to defend oneself against a hostile party (which you don't actually need a gun to do, but it sure makes it easier).

This is where the overlap occurs. Someone with their trusty shotgun can defend themselves when an evil person shows up to do them harm. Remove the shotgun and they become defenseless (or so goes the logic, whether it's correct or not is a discussion for another thread). What is also defenseless? At the most extreme, an unborn child, which is absolutely incapable of mounting any defense whatsoever.

So an individual who can defend themselves should be granted the right to the tools to do so, and those who can't defend themselves require society to step in and do it on their behalf. No moral conflict there.

For fun, flip the discussion around and try to explain the moral conflict between Pro-abortion and anti-capitol punishment. Person conceived at an inconvenient time? Pull the plug. Person is a child raping serial killer? Better keep them alive as long as possible (what, are we storing them incase we need them later?)
__________________
David Johnson, AKA Fubarius.

000110 200 11202 10 000020
012211 021 22110 22 121101
222001 222 10220 00 022212
Fubarius is offline  
Old 02-07-2014, 11:00 PM #3
Frizzle Fry
AO Micromag Guy
 
Frizzle Fry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Beantown, Kid!
Frizzle Fry is playing at Living Legends III
Frizzle Fry owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubarius View Post
For fun, flip the discussion around and try to explain the moral conflict between Pro-abortion and anti-capitol punishment. Person conceived at an inconvenient time? Pull the plug. Person is a child raping serial killer? Better keep them alive as long as possible (what, are we storing them in case we need them later?)
That's a fantastic paragraph - I'm in MA and I hear the OPs somewhat confused sentiment expressed here quite often, and that is a great question to offer in return regardless of your personal stance. Usually the conversation doesn't even get as far as the difference between the "right to bear arms" and the so-called "right to kill", but next time it does I will be sure to toss that in. Should make for an interesting conversation.

I've got an atypical pairing of beliefs when it comes to those subjects, so I won't inject my opinions here, but I did want to comment and thank you for that bit.
__________________
AIRGUNDESIGNS - PRO-TEAM PRODUCTS - AKALMP - BENCHMARK - ARMSON USA - WDP ANGEL - CCM
Frizzle Fry is offline  
Old 02-08-2014, 01:35 AM #4
Drex17
Valar Morghulis
 
Drex17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ilium, NY
 has been a member for 10 years
Drex17 is one of the top 25 posters on PbNation
ANOTHER ****ing gun related thread boom? Weren't your threads already all rolled into one before by a mod because you make way too many?
__________________
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
Drex17 is offline  
Old 02-08-2014, 09:42 AM #5
Umami
"That guy"
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Get this **** out of R/P
__________________
SOG
I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline  
Old 02-08-2014, 04:30 PM #6
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
I find the difference between perception and reality, specifically the marketing speak subterfuge induced confusion, to be the more interesting aspects of the original topic. The actual topics being discussed are irrelevant.
__________________
David Johnson, AKA Fubarius.

000110 200 11202 10 000020
012211 021 22110 22 121101
222001 222 10220 00 022212
Fubarius is offline  
Old 02-09-2014, 11:09 AM #7
Boom Master
Scenario Player
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Louis MO, USA, EARTH
Quote:
The terms "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" are meaningless. You're either against "the termination of an undeveloped fetus before birth", or you're not against it.
Yes, it is a MORAL question. Are YOU willing to participate in that? Impose your beliefs on others? Frequently a legal question in this country.

Is it fundamentally OK to terminate a fetus? When, How, What criteria? When does it become 'alive', have a soul, experiences pain?

Agree or disagree it is the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court and regulated by the States. Given that as a immovable fact in our lifetimes, what can be done to reduce the number of abortions in this country? How would you go about it legislatively?

Feel free to start a thread and a discussion.

Quote:
And Pro Gun does not equate to Pro Kill. For many it's Pro Defense,
Pro Defense requires a moral belief that it is OK to KILL someone under certain circumstances. If they buy a gun for self defense, they have already made a decision that they would use it to potentially kill someone.
It is STILL killing. Just legal killing. like abortion is.

Both are killing. That is the outcome... The result..

The same questions applies to other issues as well,
Quote:
For fun, flip the discussion around and try to explain the moral conflict between Pro-abortion and anti-capitol punishment. Person conceived at an inconvenient time? Pull the plug. Person is a child raping serial killer? Better keep them alive as long as possible
but they are NOT an essential part of the GOP platform. Lets limited this thread to that. Start one on the other topics if you want.

The original question is: The GOP platform supports stopping the killing of fetuses and also supports the killing of people. From a MORAL perspective. From a Thou Shall Not Kill perspective, I simply see a conflict in values.

Both are LEGAL. The question is the GOP position on the morality of their position.

Can anybody clarify or reconcile how the two positions of the GOP is NOT in conflict with each other from a moral perspective?
__________________
Carefully planned irresponsibility is the KEY to mental health.

If you haven't grown up by age 50........

You don't have to......

Last edited by Boom Master : 02-09-2014 at 11:20 AM.
Boom Master is offline  
Old 02-09-2014, 11:16 AM #8
Drex17
Valar Morghulis
 
Drex17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ilium, NY
 has been a member for 10 years
Drex17 is one of the top 25 posters on PbNation
Are you seriously going to sit there and imply that just because "killing is killing" the death of an innocent unborn child is even remotely equivalent to killing someone who for example, is about to stab you?

There is no moral conflict unless you take things to absurd black and white extremes.
__________________
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
Drex17 is offline  
Old 02-09-2014, 11:25 AM #9
Boom Master
Scenario Player
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Louis MO, USA, EARTH
Quote:
Are you seriously going to sit there and imply that just because "killing is killing" the death of an innocent unborn child is even remotely equivalent to killing someone who for example, is about to stab you?
I personally believe there IS a difference but that is not the question to answer.

It would require TWO DIFFERENT moral standards..... Wouldn't it.

My statement was the GOP seems to have two different moral positions as well.

They are morally and fundamentally in conflict.
__________________
Carefully planned irresponsibility is the KEY to mental health.

If you haven't grown up by age 50........

You don't have to......

Last edited by Boom Master : 02-09-2014 at 11:27 AM.
Boom Master is offline  
Old 02-09-2014, 10:37 PM #10
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Master View Post
Yes, it is a MORAL question. Are YOU willing to participate in that? Impose your beliefs on others? Frequently a legal question in this country.
Uh, what?

You seemed to miss my point, so I'll spell it out a bit more. "Pro-life" has nothing to do about Life, in the grand "all life is precious" moral objectivity scheme of things. Zero. Not even in the slightest. Never has. It's only, and very specifically, about abortion. That's it. They only use the terminology to trick the simple minded to their cause.

Same as "Pro-choice". Nothing to do with any actual choices, just buzz words to trick the simple minded. People like choices. People like to be alive. If they use the actual terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion", people would have to think about the actual topic, and neither side wants that.

Quote:
Is it fundamentally OK to terminate a fetus? When, How, What criteria? When does it become 'alive', have a soul, experiences pain?

Agree or disagree it is the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court and regulated by the States. Given that as a immovable fact in our lifetimes, what can be done to reduce the number of abortions in this country? How would you go about it legislatively?

Feel free to start a thread and a discussion.
You're assuming I wish to discuss my personal opinion of the subject (I don't) or wish to try and convince other people to change their opinion of the subject (I most certainly don't). This is about a falsely perceived moral conflict. I take it from a strictly abstract view, my personal opinion (as well as YOUR personal opinion) is irrelevant.

Quote:
Pro Defense requires a moral belief that it is OK to KILL someone under certain circumstances.
See this thread... http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=4068281
...for a number of examples of where killing someone is moral, and a few where not killing someone would be considered immoral. "Killing is bad" has never been a moral absolute. Never has been, never will be.

For some people it would be immoral to not try and stop a criminal from killing one of their loved ones. Some would be perfectly willing to kill the criminal to stop it. Some would give up their own life to prevent the killing of their loved ones but not be willing to kill the criminal. Some would find it morally correct to do nothing.

And a reminder, the "pro-life" political stand is NOT anti-killing, it's anti-abortion.

Quote:
If they buy a gun for self defense, they have already made a decision that they would use it to potentially kill someone.
It is STILL killing. Just legal killing. like abortion is.
Legality is irrelevant. Political parties are there to change laws, not conform to existing ones.

Quote:
Both are killing. That is the outcome... The result..
So? If I work for minimum wage for a week, or a mug a guy in the street, the result is I have more money. Outcome is incidental to morality.

Quote:
The same questions applies to other issues as well, but they are NOT an essential part of the GOP platform.
Why do you care about the specific political platform for this discussion? You shouldn't.

Quote:
Lets limited this thread to that. Start one on the other topics if you want.
No, that would be stupid.

Quote:
The original question is: The GOP platform supports stopping the killing of fetuses and also supports the killing of people. From a MORAL perspective. From a Thou Shall Not Kill perspective, I simply see a conflict in values.
You may see a conflict, but obviously your personal subjective morals are a bit different. They quite obviously do not. Probably because you're fixated on the outcome in an overly simplified way. To go back to my money example; if making money is good, then working a week and mugging a guy are both morally good since both have the outcome of making me money. This is of course an illogical statement.

Quote:
Both are LEGAL.
Legality has nothing to do with morality. What on earth makes you think they have anything to do with each other?

Quote:
The question is the GOP position on the morality of their position.

Can anybody clarify or reconcile how the two positions of the GOP is NOT in conflict with each other from a moral perspective?
Ok, lets try a slightly different approach, since "an individual who can defend themselves should be granted the right to the tools to do so, and those who can't defend themselves require society to step in and do it on their behalf" didn't satisfy you.

Lets switch from the killer, to the killed. Did that individual deserve to die? A criminal about to kill an innocent person, and the only way to guarantee that it is prevented is to kill the criminal. To many (and not all are Republicans) that criminal deserves to die. Some would find it morally reprehensible to NOT kill that criminal and prevent the greater loss of an innocent.

Now an unborn child, but conceived under inconvenient circumstances (already have two kids, pregnancy would overlap with bikini season, whatever). Many (again, not all are Republicans) would find that the child does not deserve to "die" as it were. Some would find it morally reprehensible to not try and prevent that child from "dying" as it were.
__________________
David Johnson, AKA Fubarius.

000110 200 11202 10 000020
012211 021 22110 22 121101
222001 222 10220 00 022212
Fubarius is offline  
Old 02-09-2014, 10:57 PM #11
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Jesus Christ, this place has gone downhill.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline  
Old 02-09-2014, 11:00 PM #12
Umami
"That guy"
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
This isn't a standard thread around here, ST: Pol spilled over.
__________________
SOG
I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline  
Old 02-10-2014, 10:45 AM #13
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
It appears that the GOPs position on taking a life is ssituational. If that is true, then there is no contradiction.

Like the rest of your threads boomaster, this one means nothing because you can't have a pproductive argument about values without those values being shared.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 02-10-2014 at 12:19 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is online now  
Old 02-13-2014, 12:27 PM #14
Boom Master
Scenario Player
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Louis MO, USA, EARTH
Quote:
They only use the terminology to trick the simple minded to their cause.
Quote:
If they use the actual terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion", people would have to think about the actual topic, and neither side wants that.
I think even the simple minded understand what those terms are about.

"People" want to talk about it all the time. They feel strongly about it. It is the politicians that doesn't want to talk specifics. Just generalities and "feel good" legislation to get votes pretending they are doing something to earn votes.

Quote:
Outcome is incidental to morality.
I thought morality is suppose to influence the outcome of our choices and actions. I think you have it backwards.


Quote:
For some people it would be immoral to not try and stop a criminal from killing one of their loved ones. Some would be perfectly willing to kill the criminal to stop it. Some would give up their own life to prevent the killing of their loved ones but not be willing to kill the criminal. Some would find it morally correct to do nothing.
I don't disagree with that reality...

BUT morality, right and wrong, depends on which day of the week it is and how you feel about it in the moment? If it is so flexible, maybe this or that, depends on the circumstances and how I feel at the moment, then what is the point of calling it "morality" in the first place? If the term "Morality" actually means NOTHING... Cannot be defined. Is it just a JUSTIFICATION for ones actions.? Like pro life advocates killing abortion clinic workers? They felt justified. Morally correct.

Quote:
Why do you care about the specific political platform for this discussion? You shouldn't.
The Democrats, GOP, Tea Party, Communist Party is supposed to STAND FOR SOMETHING. To represent the social will of this country. To guide it laws, to define justice, equality, and yes Morals. Remember "Family Values"?

The platforms are ultimately about morals... Right and wrong... Sure people have different ideas about what is right and wrong.

This thread is about whether killing whether it be a home invader, capital punishment, or an abortion is morally right or wrong. It ends a life whatever the justification. It is a fundamental question of morality. Thou Shall Not Kill kind of thing. Was that Commandment Gospel or did Moses just run out of clay tablets to list all the exceptions... ? Couldn't carry them down the mountain. Maybe he left those exceptions up there....

Is ANY of the Commandments absolute? No gray. Just black and white? Or do we just quote them when it is convenient? How many people have died 'in the name of GOD".

Is there a fundamental conflict with those two plank on the GOP platform? If not, WHY? is the discussion.
__________________
Carefully planned irresponsibility is the KEY to mental health.

If you haven't grown up by age 50........

You don't have to......

Last edited by Boom Master : 02-13-2014 at 12:30 PM.
Boom Master is offline  
Old 02-17-2014, 02:16 PM #15
PBOldTimer
Yeah, I'm that Ref
 
PBOldTimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jim Thorpe, PA
 has been a member for 10 years
PBOldTimer owns a Planet Eclipse Etek
PBOldTimer has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Master View Post
If they buy a gun for self defense, they have already made a decision that they would use it to potentially kill someone...

The original question is: The GOP platform supports stopping the killing of fetuses and also supports the killing of people.
1) Some people collect guns (as antiques) without the intent of using them. So your assertion that gun owners have already made the decision to potentially kill someone is invalid.

2) The GOP certainly does not support the killing of people. Just because the GOP supports gun ownership, doesn't mean that they're a group of trigger-happy psychopaths.

Now... will a mod move this thread to ST: P where it belongs please... or just delete it.
__________________
I'm here to kick butt and chew bubble gum... and I'm all out of bubble gum!
PBOldTimer is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 12:15 PM #16
Boom Master
Scenario Player
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Louis MO, USA, EARTH
It isn't about abortion. It isn't about gun control.

It is about morals and ethics. It belongs here.

If somebody ELSE gets off topic, remind them we are discussing THIS subject.

If you want to post on those topics, there are places to comment or start new topics.

To continue the discussion:
Quote:
1) Some people collect guns (as antiques) without the intent of using them. So your assertion that gun owners have already made the decision to potentially kill someone is invalid.
OK, I concede the possibility and your point. Just never met one.



Quote:
Just because the GOP supports gun ownership, doesn't mean that they're a group of trigger-happy psychopaths.
I agree. But the trigger-happy psychopaths support the GOP don't they?

But you listen to the Congressmen, the NRA, the gun lobby, they support much more than gun ownership. They fund the GOP for exactly that point of view. The Democrats have no issue or platform about Gun Ownership. It IS the law of the land. 2nd Amendment is right there. The Law.

So the GOP platform clearly stands for much more than gun ownership alone. The Democrats can say the SAME THING. No issue at all. Makes the GOP and Democrats the SAME on gun ownership.

If the GOP supports gun ownership for self defense? Isn't the result that people die? Lots of innocent people die from legally owned guns. Death by firearm-a finger pulls the trigger. It condones killing indirectly if not directly.

It HAS to be part of the moral and ethical platform defined by the GOP?

And my original post what how can you condone or support the killing of people and at the same time declare that unborn fetuses cannot be killed on moral and ethical grounds. They conflict to me. I want to hear how they do not conflict on moral and ethical grounds.

Lets talk about the merits of both sides of the moral coin. The Pro Life side too.
__________________
Carefully planned irresponsibility is the KEY to mental health.

If you haven't grown up by age 50........

You don't have to......

Last edited by Boom Master : 02-20-2014 at 12:33 PM.
Boom Master is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 02:16 PM #17
USAFWD
Privates Investigator
 
USAFWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: FL
Annual Supporting Member
USAFWD is a Mega Moderator
USAFWD plays in the PSP
USAFWD donated to help Peyton Trent
USAFWD supports our troops
USAFWD supports DLX Technology
USAFWD is All In
USAFWD is All In
This is not the appropriate section for a gun and politics discussion. Please keep your discussion to the appropriate section and thread. Thank You.
USAFWD is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump