Michael

Same with the UK. The Dunblane massacre is what prompted stronger gun control.

Yes, certain drugs to certain people, with strict regulations because many drugs are dangerous. And so too should the same be done with guns. The poin...

This isn't a good defence. Should we not bother making it illegal to buy, sell, and possess drugs? After all, people do so regardless.

So was the pope.

So you're just asking about motivation? You want to know what motivation one has to not murder?

Again, this talk about being obliged to follow an obligation is confused. It's just the case that there's an obligation to not murder (for example), w...

I'm pointing out that this kind of talk is confused. Given the premise that obligations are man-made, it doesn't make sense to then include this extra...

The premise is "If truth and morality are man made, and not objective". Given this premise, what does "one ought not X" mean? That man has imposed a p...

What is?

That response has no bearing on my comment.

Not at all. If moral obligations are man-made then that you should behave a certain way just is that such obligations have been imposed by man. So, "I...

Your question seems confused. Asking why you should behave a certain way if moral obligations are man-made is like asking why something is illegal if ...

Consider this argument: Premise 1: A being that is rich and exists is richer than a being that does not exist Inference 1: If X does not exist, he is ...

Actually, that's the number of criminal aliens, which the document defines as "noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illega...

Or maybe I'm a devout Republican and just a firm believer in State rights. ;)

Like here?

Repealing the second amendment wouldn't make it illegal to buy guns. All the current laws and regulations would stay in place.

I have. What's confusing about it?

What's confusing?

Repealing the second amendment wouldn't change current gun law(s). Taking away the constitutional right isn't the same as making it illegal.

Yes, I'm sure. I don't subscribe to the theory of retrocausality. It wasn't random. It was inspired by the events in Las Vegas. I'm lamenting the fact...

No it doesn't. Are you suggesting that you could stand up to a tyrannical government that uses the military against the population?

I disagree.

When will the US come to its senses and repeal the second amendment?

Also: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/ Factual Reporting: MIXED Notes: Judicial Watch is a conservative educational foundation that prom...

Yeah, trying to look for the 2014 report that says that 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S are by illegal immigrants. Would have been nice ...

I didn't say that none were coming over through illegal entry points. I said that most came over through legal entry points. Besides, how good is a wa...

They're actually less likely to commit crimes. As for being abused, I don't know, but presumably they're still better off in American than they would ...

Wouldn't work. Most drugs come in from legal ports of entry. I believe a lot come through on boats as well.

Torture isn't very effective. People will say anything to stop the pain. The US Army Field Manual on Interrogation says torture "is a poor technique t...

What?

What?

The fundamental problem with your position is that Darwinian evolution is correct and intelligent design isn't.

But according to this Wikipedia article, "Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields ... were compared to professional and peer reviewed sour...

By the way, what name did you go by on the old site @"TimeLine"?

No, this is me and Hanover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDmcHpv4X0I Or maybe it's Wosret and his work colleague?

I'm not fucking sensitive.

Hey, apparently I'm not as awesome as I once was, so give me a break.

I hear he's still around, just under a different name. Edit: Wait, hang on...

That guy was awesome.

So the distinction between objective and subjective is grammatical. Although if we're being proper, in the first statement the subject is "this food",...

It's hardly pontificating. It's stating a simple fact that to have evidence that p ? q is true is to have evidence that p is true, to have evidence th...

In fact, I don't even need this argument at all. I will simply assert that evidence that I have hazel eyes is evidence that "I have hazel eyes or unen...

Adding to my argument changes my argument. I don't accept that second premise. I don't need that second premise.

Then let's make it clearer for you by making the principle of closure explicit. Evidence is closed under disjunction introduction. "I have hazel eyes"...

That's not my argument. And I don't understand what that second premise is doing.

I've already stated my argument, and given an example. If I have evidence that I have hazel eyes then I have evidence that "I have hazel eyes or unenl...

It's valid if the principle of closure under entailment is correct.

It is if you accept the principle that evidence is closed under entailment (or, more specifically, under disjunction introduction), which I do. Althou...

If p is true then p ? q is true. Therefore, if there is strong evidence that p is true then there is strong evidence that p ? q is true. If one has st...