PPD Strikes Again - Confiscates weapon because I "refused to conceal"

[ThomasJ]

Of course it's "all or nothing" -- that's the explicit argument you're making. You said:

Evil is evil. There are no "shades of imperfect".

This is my final word on the matter.

It was the fallacy part to which I was responding. It's not a fallacy. There are no shades of illegal just as there are no shades of imperfect just as there are no shades of evil. There is no such thing as just a little illegal. This is indisputable. Armed robbery is just as illegal as pickpocketing. This in no way means they are equal in severity, which is how you are dishonestly trying to frame my argument.

False analogies lead to sloppy thinking, and you have chosen exactly the wrong analogy. "Harm" is not like "pregnancy." Pregnant is or isn't, but there are degrees and gradations of harm. There are degrees and gradations in HOW illegal something is (which is why petty theft and murder are not punished the same), and in how evil something is, and in how imperfect something is.

Additionally, your harm/pregnancy response is a strawman. I am not equating harm with pregnancy; I am stating that there is no such thing as being a little illegal or kind of illegal or totally illegal. Like pregnancy, it's an either/or. You are pregnant, or you're not pregnant. An act is illegal, or it isn't. From the start, I have said that replacing one illegal policy with another is not a step in the right direction. This alleged new policy is not less illegal than its predecessor. Again, this is a fact and indisputable. To deny this is irrational. The statement that there are degrees and gradations in "HOW" illegal is also irrational and patently ridiculous.

I would say your statement is clinically insane, if it weren't for the fact that it's hypocritical. Every day and in every way, you choose things and options and paths which are less imperfect, because that's the better choice.

Like relativism, I don't think you know what the word "hypocritical" means. Of course I choose some things that aren't perfect or ideal. This does not negate the fact that I recognize that it isn't perfect. Whether one is "less" perfect than the other is beside the point because both are imperfect. Your argument assumes, of course, that I frame my decisions based on perfection. I don't.

[dgg9]

This in no way means they are equal in severity, which is how you are dishonestly trying to frame my argument.

Sorry, but this is a reverse bait and switch -- disallowed. The whole issue, as this thread has been discussing it, is precisely that the new regime, while still illegal and imperfect, is an improvement because the "severity" is much reduced.

YOU introduced the non sequitur nonsense of "any drop of illegality and it's all the same" being the criterion for judgment, when no one else is using that criterion. YOU, and you alone, are saying that if there's any illegality, it's not an improvement.

Your exact words:

I don't see how anyone can characterize something that's clearly illegal as "a step in the right direction."

But, as has been painfully explained to you over and over, it's an improvement because the severity is less....unless you think having your gun NOT stolen is just as severe as having it stolen.

You invented that whole irrelevant metric, and now you're complaining that your argument is being dishonestly framed??

Additionally, your harm/pregnancy response is a strawman. I am not equating harm with pregnancy; I am stating that there is no such thing as being a little illegal or kind of illegal or totally illegal. Like pregnancy, it's an either/or. You are pregnant, or you're not pregnant. An act is illegal, or it isn't.

Sorry, this is evasive gibberish. There is more and less illegal, and there is more and less harm and more and less evil, your insanity in this regard notwithstanding.

And, again, it's YOUR choice to look at only illegality, and see no other areas where improvement can happen. If severity is reduced, it's a step in the right direction. If you can't see that, you have cognitive problems.

From the start, I have said that replacing one illegal policy with another is not a step in the right direction.

And from the start, we observe that is specious claptrap. "Legality" is only one issue. Harm to the victim is another issue. Harm is reduced, so it is indeed a step in the right direction. You seem to confuse legality with objective harm. I suspect this is the metaphysical root cause of your errors.

The statement that there are degrees and gradations in "HOW" illegal is also irrational and patently ridiculous.

That remark puts you on one side, and the entire edifice of sane western civilization on the other. I suspect both sides are relieved.

[GunLawyer001]

For those who seem to have only recently become familiar with the English language and how things actually work in American politics, it would be fruitful for them to write a brief essay on the substantive differences between the concepts of "improvement" and "perfection".

Here's a start: Improvement is worth the effort. Perfection is seldom obtained. If your school suffers from 50 knocked up teenagers every year, and you as an outside advocate institute measures that reduce the preggo count to 25 per year, that's "improvement", and should be applauded, not whined about from the sidelines.

I can't think of anything that's "perfect", except in the Aristotelian sense of a "perfect circle" or the philosophical constructs of Thomas Aquinas. In real life, not much is so perfect that it can't be improved; a really fast car will get bad fuel economy. An accurate gun won't be concealable. The perfect woman is out of your league.
In police work that's universally true. When the beat cops ignore armed men, most of the citizens will complain, and when the cops approach and confront, other citizens will complain. They should obey the law, but only a moron would argue that it's a wasted effort to make their policies less infringing.

I'd like to see the High School transcripts of anyone who demands "perfection or nothing". I think that would be fun.

[ThomasJ]

Cool. So replacing 4th amendment violations with 4th amendment violations is an improvement.

[chivvalry]

Oh my goodness...

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!

[dgg9]

Cool. So replacing 4th amendment violations with 4th amendment violations is an improvement.

Yes, of course it is, when you replace "4th amendment violation plus theft of gun" with "4th amendment violation without theft of gun."

Is it humanly possible not to see this?

You need to answer this: given the same scenario, all else equal, would you rather, or rather not, have your gun stolen?

It's yes or no. Answer the question please. Give a straightforward answer, and maybe we'll let the lie about "This is my final word on the matter" slide.

[dgg9]

Oh my goodness...

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!

That's probably wise, but something about this sort of brazen dishonesty gets my goat.

[OvadekP]

Oh my goodness...

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!

I like your post but, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[ThomasJ]

Yes, of course it is, when you replace "4th amendment violation plus theft of gun" with "4th amendment violation without theft of gun."

Is it humanly possible not to see this?

You need to answer this: given the same scenario, all else equal, would you rather, or rather not, have your gun stolen?

It's yes or no. Answer the question please. Give a straightforward answer, and maybe we'll let the lie about "This is my final word on the matter" slide.

Once again you purposefully try to distort to what I am referring. The final word comment was about our little side argument.

"theft of gun" is a 4th amendment violation. It's that "seizure" part of the amendment. There is no 4th amendment violation PLUS "theft of gun".

I'd rather not have my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights violated at all. The end result is the same, even if you believe it's just a little bit violated or a whole lot violated.

[dgg9]

Once again you purposefully try to distort to what I am referring. The final word comment was about our little side argument.

"theft of gun" is a 4th amendment violation. It's that "seizure" part of the amendment. There is no 4th amendment violation PLUS "theft of gun".

I'd rather not have my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights violated at all. The end result is the same, even if you believe it's just a little bit violated or a whole lot violated.

Now you're just being dishonest. Sorry, there's no other word for this.

"The end result is the same" is a lie. The end result can include "theft of gun" or "no theft of gun."

You need to answer this: given the same scenario, all else equal, would you rather, or rather not, have your gun stolen?

It's yes or no. Answer the question please.