- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
You'll have to excuse my assumption on the abortion issue because A: without it there's not much point to the conversation, (at best it's uninteresting) and B: The hypothetical you provided has never (in all the times I've seen it) been provided outside the context of the abortion debate.
I don't see how you could end up in a situation where these two choices are given
?????????? You do realize your entire question is based on an unrealistic, binary hypothetical, right? The point of which is to demonstrate a larger moral point?
ethically speaking one should choose the 100 adults; as I likely would
And that's a perfectly valid feeling to have, my point however was that most people (parents especially) would tend to answer they'd save their own child--which is also a perfectly justifiable moral answer. The fact that the moral answer and the ethical answer are not necessarily the same, however, demonstrates that a decision to save the child doesn't make the decision to save the embryos worthless.
The Spider-Man example
An unrealistic hypothetical scenario constructed simply to prove a moral point? Sound familiar?
You really do love assumption.
I was applying a context of abortion for this question, for reasons explained above. Without it, I do agree that "it just shows which is valued over another". Same goes for my "A and B" line of reasoning.
Maybe because my hypothetical has nothing to do with abortion, you assumptive twit.
My application of the hypothetical to abortion wasn't a personal attack on you. Your hypothetical has, however, been used in every single case I've seen it in before to support a pro-choice argument. So I was simply getting ahead of that argument.
Obviously he shouldn't have had access to guns, but don't you think that's more of a failure on the police's part than gun accessibility? They had at least 1 perfect opportunity to Baker Act him besides all the other calls (a few from his own mother) that they ignored. (The man had a horrible record of attitude and emotional problems)
A deputy that knew he was hopelessly outgunned would likely have entered the building had he thought he had a CHANCE
A armed deputy (and more importantly, the armed school resource officer who was already inside) has an extremely good chance to stop any shooter given their training and experience. A police service weapon is only "outgunned" in the terms of caliber by a 10-round capacity, semi-automatic AR-15. I would say it's extremely unlikely a deputy would have been harmed in the confrontation, and the fact that there were 3 armed and trained deputies present made the hesitation even more inexcusable.
A rape, as tragic and evil as it may be, doesn't justify a death (except perhaps that of the rapist). Certainly the unborn child shouldn't be punished for the rapist's crime.
You wouldn't say that a rape victim is allowed to go and kill an innocent adult simply as a result of their being raped.
Of course moral intuition says to save the child (if nothing else for the prevention of suffering) but it doesn't prove the case for pro-choice by any stretch.
Firstly, a moral intuition doesn't necessarily comply with moral logic. In a counter scenario, say you had to choose between saving your own child or 100 screaming adults. Obviously the moral, knee-jerk response is to save your own child but that doesn't make it necessarily right. As another example, Spider-Man's typical choice is to save Mary Jane over the bus full of children--but that doesn't make it morally correct.
Secondly, picking the child doesn't actually reveal the true value of embryonic life. It doesn't make it meaningless. The scenario described is a false dilemma--just because A is chosen over B, B is somehow made completely worthless.
Thirdly, most pro-life advocates already acknowledge that an already-born life is worth more than a potential one. If it comes down to saving the life of an unborn child or its mother, for instance, the mother is nearly always the one saved.
Lastly, this hypothetical scenario is a false comparison when it comes to abortions. In a real-life situation, there's no life being saved by an abortion, no already-born child that the fetus is being sacrificed for.
While everyone who answers would save the child, for every reason listed above the choice to save the child doesn't prove the case for abortion. (And that's why I'm putting my answer on this side, since I think that's what the question is getting at)
Do you really follow the speed limits only because your instincts just tell you that's the safe speed to drive, or because you don't want to be punished for going too far above those limits?
You're comparing a completely different type of law. And even if you weren't, it doesn't hold any water--a "criminal" in the sense of a speed limit wouldn't care for either of those reasons. They would drive as fast as would benefit them--much as a gang member would obtain a gun however he sees fit, because it would benefit his goals of violence and intimidation. The only person punished by gun control, then, is the person he seeks to intimidate who now CAN'T protect themselves.
So you're outright putting your selfish desires above the lives of the people in your country?
I should have said that "a 0.000006875% chance of anyone getting shot is a small price to pay for their freedoms." It's also ridiculous to think that gun control could ever eliminate this chance. Harm to innocents is a fact of life, I simply don't think that gun control is practically or morally the best way to reduce this chance.
So you're implying it's a disadvantage?
No, I meant that I don't believe gun control is the primary reason they experience such a low level of gun crime. As to the reason I don't think that criminals all over the place there [are] taking over the entire country because nobody owns guns is primarily due to cultural factors. They have a history of much lower crime and a lot less guns. This is further proven by the fact that gun control didn't decrease their suicide rate (as proponents of gun control argue that it would here). Not to mention which they don't enjoy nearly the same level of political freedom from a lack of a 2nd amendment.
does it not make sense to look at the way they handle certain aspects of crime and follow their steps?
Correct, it does not make sense to do so. Chicago has taken the same approach as Japan towards gun violence and only made their problem worse. It is incredibly reductionist to say that "because another country has vaguely the same philosophy, we should also adopt it", and ignores the obvious influence of a number of other cultural and socioeconomic factors at play.
This argument is pretty much "America is better because America allows guns, even with a gun-related death rate 100s of times higher than Japan."
The rate is only about 10 times more, which is still inflated due to Japan being such an outlier (with typically only 1-2 gun deaths per capita). It is further inflated by the ~66% makeup of American gun deaths by suicide. So with a correct statistic, yes, I am making that argument.
You enjoy that it's been shown in studies that the presence of a gun in a household makes those in that household likelier to commit suicide?
Why, then, did gun control in Japan do nothing for their astronomical suicide problem?
You enjoy that we have a gang problem that's completely out of control thanks to the enormous circulation of firearms in America?
How would gun control laws prevent existing criminals from having guns? 80% of offenders obtain their weapons illegally. All that laws would do is increase that percentage.
You enjoy reading stories of children accidentally shooting themselves, siblings or friends when playing with firearms?
Of course not. Nobody sane does. I do, however, blame the parents of those children--not the gun. I grew up with 15 or more guns in my house, and was taught from a young age how to treat them with safety and respect. Before that age, my parents responsibly stored them (and the ammunition) so that would never occur.
You enjoy the fact that more Americans have died by guns on American soil than Americans lost cumulatively in every war we've ever participated?
This is laughably false when suicides are excluded, and only about 9% more when they aren't.
You enjoy the fact that the US has a murder rate 10s of times higher than that of most other developed nations on Earth?
It's only 10 times higher at best (US is about 4 per capita, "most other developed countries" fall in the ~.7ish range). Our homicide rate is also massively inflated by our urban areas, whereas most of our guns actually exist in rural areas (Illinois is about 5% and Wyoming is around 60% ownership rate across the population.) Guns don't even have a correlation (much less a causation) to higher homicide rates.
Pretty sick things to enjoy. But hey; "a small price to pay", right?
As has been proven above, I either don't "enjoy" any of those things or they simply don't exist. A small chance of getting shot IS, however, a small price to pay for the incredible freedoms that every American enjoys and the right included therein to defend myself should the day come I do get shot at.
Progress can't be achieved when you can't come together and cooperate
No one disagrees with this. Obviously the first response to any conflict with the government is political action and voting, expression, etc. Hence why the Bill of Rights includes the rights to speech and assembly in ADDITION to that of bearing arms.
But what if that fails? If the government insists on transgressing over fundamental liberties? How would we resist without the 2nd amendment?
The "us against them" mentality, by the way, is the checks and balance system that the entire American government is based on. It is necessary for the operation of a free republic of any real scale.
There is no objective line for what is and isn't a weapon made "for the military". If you want to say it's only the few specific models they actively use, then why not ban the other 2,000 or so models that are exactly equivalent in function and power?
The parkland resource officer failed to take down Cruz not because of his weapon, but because he ran outside and hid.
Not to mention which banning """military-style""" weapons is just as bad as banning anything else. The entire point of the 2nd amendment is military equivalency in the case of a tyrannical state.