OO and 69/70/75 - you are both reminding me why I have been avoiding the kind of discussions for more than a decade! I don't mean that as a slap in the face. I really enjoy discussing policy issues. I feel like I can have reasonable disagreements without being disagreeable. But for the most part, I don't enjoy discussing politics. That leads me to presupposing someone as a Fox News / Breitbart purveyor, and other perceiving me to be some Pelosi-following sheep. I much prefer to keep discussing policy issues, upon which I believe some agreement can be found, as opposed to politics, upon which you both believe me a crazy, brain-washed, sheeple of the left!

(02-23-2018 04:23 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 12:32 PM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - You sound like a conspiracy theorist and it is hard to engage with you.

But this is getting personal now, since you have labeled me a conspiracy theorist. I guess i could even it up by labeling you a ... but wait, i don't want to go there. So I will stop trying to talk sense to you, and let you continue to slide down the hill, all unaware of your destination or even your motion.

I assure you, I was not trying to label you a conspiracy theorist. I was trying to label the argument you were pushing as sounding like something a conspiracy theorist would push. There is big difference between the two. I don't know enough about you and I haven't engaged with you enough to be throwing labels around! But after reviewing my comment, I can see that it could have been reasonable taken either way. Rather than trying to be more clear next time, I'll just try to avoid throwing around labels. I am genuinely glad to hear that you listen to a variety of news sources. Not many have the time, inclination, or stomach for it!

Bigs - I like your contributions on the sports section. I don't want our differences in the political section to spoil that. So I will avoid engaging with you directly here, at least until we get a new topic.

Yes, i do try to get a variety of viewpoints, whether or not I agree with them. It's like eating my vegetables. Try it. The only program I watch on Fox on a regular basis is the last 25 minutes of Bret Baier(5:35 - 6:00) - a panel discussion. If you are wanting to hear some reasonable discussion between conservatives and nonconservatives, it would be the place for you to start. It won't happen on Maddow.

In general, I prefer to watch panel discussions on ABC and CNN also rather than listen to individuals talk, so no Hannity as well as no Maddow or Morning Joe. I prefer panels with at least one person from each camp. George and Jake, while there is no doubt of their personal beliefs, generally try to give both sides an airing.
I can respect them.

So you think saying that top liberals want to eventually ban guns sounds like a conspiracy theory. What do you think of the idea that Donald Trump called Putin a year before the election to ask him to steal emails and publish them with zero editing in order to steal enough votes to win. he must be very prescient and smart to do that. To me, that is the real conspiracy theory.

(02-23-2018 04:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  OO and 69/70/75 - you are both reminding me why I have been avoiding the kind of discussions for more than a decade! I don't mean that as a slap in the face. I really enjoy discussing policy issues. I feel like I can have reasonable disagreements without being disagreeable. But for the most part, I don't enjoy discussing politics. That leads me to presupposing someone as a Fox News / Breitbart purveyor, and other perceiving me to be some Pelosi-following sheep. I much prefer to keep discussing policy issues, upon which I believe some agreement can be found, as opposed to politics, upon which you both believe me a crazy, brain-washed, sheeple of the left!

I prefer policy discussions for the same reasons. And I have pretty much put my policy ideas out for everyone to see. And they fit neither republican nor democrat talking points.

And no, I don’t think you are a crazy, brain-washed sheeple if the left. I actually think you and the likes of Lad and d1 and others are intelligent and sincere. But I think your allegiance to the left allows the leaders of the left to exploit you for their own personal gain. I disagree with probably 70-80% of what Trump stands for. I disagree even more with Hillary and other leading democrats. I’m simply not able to view anything they do as motivated by anything other than personal lust for power.

I find that dichotomy very troubling, but very real.

(02-23-2018 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I actually think you and the likes of Lad and d1 and others are intelligent and sincere.

Concur.

(02-23-2018 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bigs - I like your contributions on the sports section. I don't want our differences in the political section to spoil that. So I will avoid engaging with you directly here, at least until we get a new topic.

No need to stop engaging, but I will try to just respond to substantive policy comments rather than some of the other comments.

(02-23-2018 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, i do try to get a variety of viewpoints, whether or not I agree with them. It's like eating my vegetables. Try it. The only program I watch on Fox on a regular basis is the last 25 minutes of Bret Baier(5:35 - 6:00) - a panel discussion. If you are wanting to hear some reasonable discussion between conservatives and nonconservatives, it would be the place for you to start. It won't happen on Maddow.

In general, I prefer to watch panel discussions on ABC and CNN also rather than listen to individuals talk, so no Hannity as well as no Maddow or Morning Joe. I prefer panels with at least one person from each camp. George and Jake, while there is no doubt of their personal beliefs, generally try to give both sides an airing.
I can respect them.

I have 3 young kids, so I don't watch anything you list on TV, including Maddow (I just used her as an example). I agree with your assessment of Tapper, from the clips I have seen. I don't like the CNN panels much because they often just yell at each other about politics instead of discussing policy.

Jon Stewart's appearance on cross-fire many years ago basically summed up my general attitude toward cable "news".

I listen to NPR, read news articles from reputable publications, and try to fact-check the source material if I find a topic particularly interesting or controversial, rather than believing what I read/heard.

(02-23-2018 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What do you think of the idea that Donald Trump called Putin a year before the election to ask him to steal emails and publish them with zero editing in order to steal enough votes to win. he must be very prescient and smart to do that. To me, that is the real conspiracy theory.

I had never heard this, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

(02-23-2018 04:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I actually think you and the likes of Lad and d1 and others are intelligent and sincere.

Concur.

As well.

edited to add: I dont think I have seen hardly any on this particular board who are not intelligent and sincere. I see far less 'toe the line' and 'sound bite de jour' on this board than just about anywhere else. The lack (relative to other boards) of 'sound bite de jours' and the more than willingness to back up issues with citations is a good indication of that as well. There are some I might disagree with more than others, but even those with whom I share the most differences (JustAnotherAustin, JSA, for example) I believe to be intelligent and sincere in what they believe.

The whole reason this forum was created was to avoid the sort of lunacy that gets thrown around on most political forums. Sure we are all tainted by our sources, but most of us on here are smart enough to not take lots of things at face value... so we come here for perspectives on things that might SOUND good, but also in the back of our minds, we have an uneasy feeling about. That's why I like it

I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Morally moderate. I feel like I become more socially liberal as more 'differences' get talked about... not because I change, but because the definitions change.... so I come back with what is technically a conservative response... because politics is a circle, not a line.

Government shouldn't pick winners and losers and it's not for me to decide how others live their lives, so long as they let me live mine. Unfortunately compromises must be made in order to form a more perfect union... I merely seek to limit compromises (by all) as much as possible

I think abortion eventually becomes 'illegal' as science makes a fetus viable at conception... If not, then we're HAVING to overturn RvW.
I'd rather see the government get out of the marriage business than see an ever-expanding approved list. Same with discrimination. MUCH broader definitions, not lists.

(02-23-2018 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 04:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I actually think you and the likes of Lad and d1 and others are intelligent and sincere.

Concur.

As well.

edited to add: I dont think I have seen hardly any on this particular board who are not intelligent and sincere. I see far less 'toe the line' and 'sound bite de jour' on this board than just about anywhere else. The lack (relative to other boards) of 'sound bite de jours' and the more than willingness to back up issues with citations is a good indication of that as well. There are some I might disagree with more than others, but even those with whom I share the most differences (JustAnotherAustin, JSA, for example) I believe to be intelligent and sincere in what they believe.

It's a Rice board. We are all intelligent. I will assume the honor of being the least intelligent. But compared to most other groups, we are intelligent.

All of us are sincere. Nobody here is advocating for something he does not believe in. The acrimony, such as it is, comes when we try to convince the other of his wrongness. But he is sincerely wrong.

I sincerely hope that clears it up.

Agree. I don't think there's anyone here who isn't sincere and intelligent. Also, looking at the stats for other schools, it looks like we are more active.

(02-23-2018 02:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 06:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And since we have already decided we can regulate arms, I see no reason why we can’t look at the utility of them when deciding on how they should be regulated.

Exactly what I was thinking of when in an earlier post, I referred to the fact that we have already slid halfway down the hill being used as justification to continue the slide. It is way too late to stop the slide, IMO, but that does not justify helping push it to bottom, again IMO.
I do not think you personally are wanting a gun ban, but in the parlance of Olympic bobsleding, you are a pusher, and somebody else is driving the sled. I am standing on the side, refusing to push and urging others not to push.

Why not look at whether they are actually being used to kill significant numbers of people? And why not focus on whatever the common denominators are for those situations that kill most people. I'll tell you what those common denominators are. 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides, 2/3 of the remainder are gang related, 2/3 of all gun deaths are with pistols, and the number with "assault weapons" is some fraction of 1%. And not even all mass shootings have been with "assault weapons." If we got rid of all "assault weapons," but crazy people and criminals could still get guns (and as long as the latter is true, the former will be), we would very likely not see a decrease in total killings or even gun killings. Why not actually focus on reducing materially the number of people killed?

I more than support that idea - I’ve mentioned how removing restrictions on the CDC and fully funding gun violence research there would be a good move. It would look at these issues and provide more research that could be used to drive policy.

I just find the slippery slope argument sooooo uncompelling.

Why? Where do you see the slippery slope ending? Why?

I find it wholly uncompelling because we've all been standing firmly on the slippery slope for at least my lifetime. Unless you think I should be allowed to amass my own, personal, nuclear arsenal then you support the infringement of my right to keep and bear arms -- just like everyone else in America.

The slope's really not that slippery. Or that sloped.

(02-26-2018 04:29 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 02:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 06:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Exactly what I was thinking of when in an earlier post, I referred to the fact that we have already slid halfway down the hill being used as justification to continue the slide. It is way too late to stop the slide, IMO, but that does not justify helping push it to bottom, again IMO.
I do not think you personally are wanting a gun ban, but in the parlance of Olympic bobsleding, you are a pusher, and somebody else is driving the sled. I am standing on the side, refusing to push and urging others not to push.

Why not look at whether they are actually being used to kill significant numbers of people? And why not focus on whatever the common denominators are for those situations that kill most people. I'll tell you what those common denominators are. 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides, 2/3 of the remainder are gang related, 2/3 of all gun deaths are with pistols, and the number with "assault weapons" is some fraction of 1%. And not even all mass shootings have been with "assault weapons." If we got rid of all "assault weapons," but crazy people and criminals could still get guns (and as long as the latter is true, the former will be), we would very likely not see a decrease in total killings or even gun killings. Why not actually focus on reducing materially the number of people killed?

I more than support that idea - I’ve mentioned how removing restrictions on the CDC and fully funding gun violence research there would be a good move. It would look at these issues and provide more research that could be used to drive policy.

I just find the slippery slope argument sooooo uncompelling.

Why? Where do you see the slippery slope ending? Why?

I find it wholly uncompelling because we've all been standing firmly on the slippery slope for at least my lifetime. Unless you think I should be allowed to amass my own, personal, nuclear arsenal then you support the infringement of my right to keep and bear arms -- just like everyone else in America.

The slope's really not that slippery. Or that sloped.

So let’s say we banned AR-15s and the number of gun deaths go down from 35,000 to 34,900, which is about the maximum impact it can have. What then?

I find your anti slippery slope argument uncompelling. The reason we haven’t slid down the slope is because we haven’t taken the first move. I think it is very important that the first move both 1) reduces gun violence with 2) minimum intrusion on 2nd Amendment rights. Things like an “assault weapons” ban and gun registration fail both prongs of that test.

(02-26-2018 04:29 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I find it wholly uncompelling because we've all been standing firmly on the slippery slope for at least my lifetime. Unless you think I should be allowed to amass my own, personal, nuclear arsenal then you support the infringement of my right to keep and bear arms -- just like everyone else in America.

The slope's really not that slippery. Or that sloped.

I guess the 'it looks evil' ban in Brady wasnt an infringement of any sort. Got it.

I guess the prohibition of private ownership of handguns pre-Heller wasnt an infringement, and instead of a slope was on solid level ground. Got it.

I guess the prohibition of private ownership of handguns in Illinois pre-MacDonald wasnt an infringement on a slope again. Again, understand completely.

I guess the prohibition of hunting knives in many states isnt any sort of slope. Being repetitive, 'got it'.

I guess the attempted ban on gun ranges and gun stores isnt a slope. Got it.

I guess a ban on interstate handgun sales isnt a slope. Got it.

I guess a bill banning weapons with no “sporting purpose" isnt a slope. Got it.

I guess the new proposed bill that would would prohibit the sale of any semi-autmatic weapon isnt pointing down a slope. Got it
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-...le/2650087

I guess that a waiting period and license on ammo is also not a slope. Got it.

And interesting that you use a weird comment that if one isnt a 'purist' and allows nuclear weapon ownership, then they should be viewed as a slope-ist. I dont think *any* right in the Bill of Rights is exception-free -- and for good reason. But nice try with a really hollow logical tour-de-force there.

And stupidly, I guess, I also dont believe the First Amendment allows fraud, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or an obviation of libel and slander laws. But I guess that in your mind since I do, I should accept any governmental restriction that comes down the pike, like, say, let's put people into jail for making a political movie at a certain time of the year. Congress actually tried that --- but that is an entirely different discussion when you know the actual event that made it famous.

(02-26-2018 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess the 'it looks evil' ban in Brady wasnt an infringement of any sort. Got it.

I guess the prohibition of private ownership of handguns pre-Heller wasnt an infringement, and instead of a slope was on solid level ground. Got it.

I guess the prohibition of private ownership of handguns in Illinois pre-MacDonald wasnt an infringement on a slope again. Again, understand completely.

I guess the attempted ban on gun ranges and gun stores isnt a slope. Got it.

I guess a ban on interstate handgun sales isnt a slope. Got it.

I guess a bill banning weapons with no “sporting purpose" isnt a slope. Got it.

I guess that a waiting period and license on ammo is also not a slope. Got it.

An honest question from me (because despite my engagement in this thread, this isn't a topic that I consider myself passionate about) - how many of these are current federal gun laws? Because if the answer is "none of them", then my point was that the "slippery slope" argument is uncompelling because (1) the country hasn't really taken any steps down the slope to even find out if it might be slippery and (2) to the extent we might have taken steps down the slope in the past, we are now back up to the top of the slope, so obviously it wasn't all that slippery.

For a moment, I want to return to the "sincere" of our little "intelligent and sincere" backslapping.

For some reason , I awoke this morning thinking of something my former wife said to me during an argument forty years ago.

She said, "You just want to fight because you think you're right".

Well, duh.

We all think we are right. Therefore we are all sincere.

Slippery slopes are always clearer from the bottom.

Like an Olympic ski course, there may be some parts that are actually uphill. But when you reach the bottom, and look back at where you started, you see the general slope.

Where did we start? What were the gun laws in 1789? 1859? 1901?

What is the direction of travel? are we climbing the slope or sliding down it?

And what is the end point, the destination?

Maybe the end point is not defined as "total confiscation of private guns". Maybe it is defined as "zero gun deaths other than criminals". A rose by any other other name...still smells.

Like Big says, this isn't one of the issues I am passionate about. But it is one I have an opinion on. IMO, at some future point, in the US of A, guns will be banned. Not a total ban, like say North Korea, but an effective ban, where few are allowed guns, and they must jump through a lot of hoops to get them. Much fewer people than now, and much more hoops. And at that time, there will be some people peering back at our starting point, and saying, "What slope?"

(02-27-2018 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Slippery slopes are always clearer from the bottom.

Like an Olympic ski course, there may be some parts that are actually uphill. But when you reach the bottom, and look back at where you started, you see the general slope.

Where did we start? What were the gun laws in 1789? 1859? 1901?

What is the direction of travel? are we climbing the slope or sliding down it?

And what is the end point, the destination?

Maybe the end point is not defined as "total confiscation of private guns". Maybe it is defined as "zero gun deaths other than criminals". A rose by any other other name...still smells.

Like Big says, this isn't one of the issues I am passionate about. But it is one I have an opinion on. IMO, at some future point, in the US of A, guns will be banned. Not a total ban, like say North Korea, but an effective ban, where few are allowed guns, and they must jump through a lot of hoops to get them. Much fewer people than now, and much more hoops. And at that time, there will be some people peering back at our starting point, and saying, "What slope?"

O Owl, I'll give you the same response someone else gave me in another thread. Since you're so good at predicting the future, what are the winning lottery numbers going to be?

Given some recent proposals, the slippery slope could just as well be reaching the point where everyone's armed.

(02-27-2018 09:45 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Slippery slopes are always clearer from the bottom.

Like an Olympic ski course, there may be some parts that are actually uphill. But when you reach the bottom, and look back at where you started, you see the general slope.

Where did we start? What were the gun laws in 1789? 1859? 1901?

What is the direction of travel? are we climbing the slope or sliding down it?

And what is the end point, the destination?

Maybe the end point is not defined as "total confiscation of private guns". Maybe it is defined as "zero gun deaths other than criminals". A rose by any other other name...still smells.

Like Big says, this isn't one of the issues I am passionate about. But it is one I have an opinion on. IMO, at some future point, in the US of A, guns will be banned. Not a total ban, like say North Korea, but an effective ban, where few are allowed guns, and they must jump through a lot of hoops to get them. Much fewer people than now, and much more hoops. And at that time, there will be some people peering back at our starting point, and saying, "What slope?"

O Owl, I'll give you the same response someone else gave me in another thread. Since you're so good at predicting the future, what are the winning lottery numbers going to be?

Given some recent proposals, the slippery slope could just as well be reaching the point where everyone's armed.

Is that the trend you see? is there a proposal in Congress to make more people buy and carry guns? I guess we could follow Switzerland's example. How are gun deaths there, anyway?

what is the liberal problem with making reasonable and intelligent inferences about the future based on the past? It's apparently OK, when they say "Do this or that and gun deaths will go down". You need to explain the difference in liberal projections and my projections. why are they OK and mine not?

As for the lottery, I advise you to not choose any triple digit numbers. No need to wait and see is 697 is one of the numbers. I foresee it will not be. But you don't have to believe in my projection. Go ahead and choose 697.

Gun control in Switzerland is interesting.

Switzerland has a tradition of gun ownership and a gun culture. Guns are everywhere - millions of them in private hands. Gun control focuses on tracking ammunition purchases. Permits are required for purchasing guns, but legacy ownership is grandfathered and permits are automatically approved unless there's a red flag.

"What is the liberal problem with making reasonable and intelligent inferences about the future based on the past?"

None, I thought. But when I tried it with how DB's tenure at Rice would be remembered, I got slapped down.

"What were the gun laws in 1789? 1859? 1901?"

Late 19th Century:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-wink...56035.html

(02-27-2018 10:21 AM)JSA Wrote:  "What is the liberal problem with making reasonable and intelligent inferences about the future based on the past?"

None, I thought. But when I tried it with how DB's tenure at Rice would be remembered, I got slapped down.

"What were the gun laws in 1789? 1859? 1901?"

Late 19th Century:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-wink...56035.html

In that case, why do you have a problem with inferring a trend from less control to more? Why make a silly reference to lottery numbers?

I foresee a lot of trends in the country and the world. I foresee more robotization, for example. why must I wait and see?