2000-12-4 01:16:00
Mark writes:
Actually, I would be interested to hear what JJ has to say about the Middle Path or Freedom Principle on the abortion issue since it seems like we are tackling all the hot ones now.
Actually, we did talk about this earlier. My conclusion was that abortion is an error, but not as bad a murder of one who has an investment in life; nevertheless, the freedom to commit this error should not be infringed when the pregnancy is young.
Glenys is very good at digging up my old posts. Could you find what I've written on this subject and post it for us?
Jennifer writes:
"But the nature of those states is so different, as you point out JJ. It's not comparing apples to apples at all. It's like comparing apples to oranges. "
JJ
Have you spent time in these areas I mentioned? The nature of these states is not that much different. I've done sales in New York, California and of course Idaho and met many people eye to eye and the culture is not that much different. The differences in the crime rate become much more similar when we move away from violent crime. This gives more evidence that the main difference in violent crime rate is related to gun control. In Idaho the law abiding people have guns and in these other areas the criminals have the guns on a larger scale.
Now, I have spent two years living in England and there indeed is a great difference in culture between here and there. If you compare Idaho with London, Leeds, or Manchester then you would have a point, but there are only minor differences in culture between the states as a whole.
Jennifer
"It also strikes me as fallacious to equate deaths due to Doctor negligence with deaths due to hunting. One is a deliberate killing but the other, well I doubt too many doctors intend to kill their patients. Both are unfortunate and add to the total death toll. They are not things to be compared but to be examined in their own right and hopefully reduced. Just because more people die from medical intervention than hunting does not make hunting just for kicks (not for food, note) right!"
JJ
I did not do anything fallacious here for I made no claim the two exactly correspond, but my point was valid.
And what was that?
That there are 666 times more deaths caused by medical mistakes as there are gun related deaths in the U.S. and that it is unreasonable to go to great lengths to correct the minor problem, yet make little or no effort to correct the major one. I cannot see how one can argue against that reasoning for a life is important whether it be taken by a gun or by a medical mistake.
As far as hunting for kicks I have not met one single adult in my life who does this and just leaves the meat to dry in the sun. In every case I know of, the meat is eaten by someone. I'm sure abuses occur but it has to be fairly rare as I know many hunters. The only ones I have seen hunting for kicks only, are teenagers who shoot birds and small animals for sport because no one has taught them better.
I did a lot of hunting between the ages of 12-18 and this provided our family with much needed meat. My mom was on her own with no child support and sometimes no job and there were many times we would have done without if I had not brought home the pheasant, the duck, or the fish for dinner.
Jennifer
"One can find statistics to support any point of view one chooses to adopt."
You hear this statement thrown around a lot, but I do not believe it. One can twist a statistic to the uniformed to sound like it supports something which it is not true, but one cannot use accurate statistics to support a falsehood.
Let us take the statistics I gave on the average murder rate in the four areas of this country between 1990 and 1998.
Washington DC
Murder - 71
New York State
Murder - 10.4
California
Murder - 10.8
Idaho
Murder - 3.1
These figures are pretty much black and white and it would be difficult to make them say much more than that which lies before us. A murder is a fairly black and white thing.
Now, there are other statistics, it is true, which are manipulated by the way the question is asked, but these are easy to see through by the mentally polarized person.
For instance, in this current crisis we are having in the States one could ask:
"Do you think every vote should count?"
To this the great majority would say yes.
But if we ask:
"Do you think we should quit counting votes and get on with things?" The majority would say yes to this also.
The reason for the conflict is that both questions leave a lot to interpretation.
On the other hand, there are many statistics that are pretty black and white and these are more difficult to twist. Good statistics can only defend a falsehood when some of the truth is left out or the margin of error is high.
When someone says to me something like, "You can prove anything from the Bible" I give them something to prove and they cannot do it.
When they say you can prove anything with statistics I can also give then numerous things to prove with statistics and they cannot do it.
Concerning this issue of gun control I will throw out this challenge:
"Prove through statistics that there is not a considerable downside to gun control and that there are enough benefits from restricting the freedom to own guns that this restriction of freedom is necessary."
I have never even seen an attempt to prove this through statistics let alone a successful one.
I realize that not all will reach agreement with this subject no matter how much we talk about it, but the main point I want to stress in all this, is that for the principle of freedom to flow freely through the planet we must permit maximum allowance possible. If any freedom is restricted it should only be out of absolute necessity and then that restriction of freedom should be seen as a benefit that is beyond dispute - such as the restriction of the freedom to steal, murder, rape etc.
"A society that will trade personal freedom for order deserves neither... and will lose both."
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved