Piers Morgan Gets Utterly Smashed by Ben Shapiro; Called out for Bullying Guests, Replys: "YOU'RE BU - Polidicks

In my opinion, anyone who justifies owning weapons due to their fear of their government turning tyrannical is a complete loony.

The problem with opposition to people like Ben Shapiro is that they don't attempt to dispute their main premise (a safeguard against tyrannical government), but rather, they just try to make people feel stupid for even considering it. You see it all the time when people aren't able to construct a clever, rational argument against something, which makes no sense because there is a genuine argument from effect to be made against gun ownership, but it can't be employed effectively unless you address their argument as well. Even as an anarchist I fail to see any sort of tyrannical government rising up that would require the use of assault rifles (or even firearms in general, to be honest), but even still, they're symbolic of something we ought to genuinely value: governments should be afraid of their people. You can't just laugh at the premise; you have to present your argument as a cost-benefit analysis of competing values. Fuck people like Piers Morgan.

[QUOTE=Scot;39193666]In my opinion, anyone who justifies owning weapons due to their fear of their government turning tyrannical is a complete loony.[/QUOTE] Its honestly not that unreasonable. Anything is fully possible within the next fifty to a hundred years, and it's no secret the government slowly takes away our rights each year (TSA, Patriot Act, anti-net neutrality, etc.) The man isn't saying "THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA ENSLAVE US FUCK" he's just saying that we may be fucked if our democratic government turns into a tyranny and we don't have guns to fight for ourselves. As Shapiro said, there is definitely a history of democratic governments turning tyrannous.

[QUOTE=Scot;39193666]In my opinion, anyone who justifies owning weapons due to their fear of their government turning tyrannical is a complete loony.[/QUOTE] Then you're a peon of the state waiting to happen. Enjoy being defenseless and passive. And it's not a fear, it's a precaution along with the dual purpose of being a very enjoyable empowering hobby. Here's who you reminded me of after I read your post [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/8d5ZH.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;39193727]Its honestly not that unreasonable. Anything is fully possible within the next fifty to a hundred years, and it's no secret the government slowly takes away our rights each year (TSA, Patriot Act, anti-net neutrality, etc.) The man isn't saying "THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA ENSLAVE US FUCK" he's just saying that we may be fucked if our democratic government turns into a tyranny and we don't have guns to fight for ourselves. As Shapiro said, there is definitely a history of democratic governments turning tyrannous.[/QUOTE] Thank you for giving an example of what a loony would say.

[QUOTE=Scot;39193666]In my opinion, anyone who justifies owning weapons due to their fear of their government turning tyrannical is a complete loony.[/QUOTE] I really don't think this is the case. They don't think it's a foreseeable possibility; most of them probably don't think it's remotely likely to happen in their lifetime, if at all for many generations. It's mostly symbolic of the belief that governments should genuinely fear their people, as I see it. I don't think that makes you irrational; it just makes you ideological.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39193743]Then you're a peon of the state waiting to happen. Enjoy being defenseless and passive.[/QUOTE] Geez Aman I'm surprised you haven't moved to the States if you find the Constitution so great.

[QUOTE=Scot;39193746]Thank you for giving an example of what a loony would say.[/QUOTE] deriding your opponents arguments is pretty much the weakest form of argumentation. At least pretend to address the premise that there is a history of democratic governments turning tyrannous.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39193776]Geez Aman I'm surprised you haven't moved to the States if you find the Constitution so great.[/QUOTE] I do envy/admire the States; at least their ideological basis but in it's current form of course the country has some issues. If I could magically make Canada more like the States in certain ways I would and get the best of both worlds but of course magic aint real.

[QUOTE=Scot;39193746]Thank you for giving an example of what a loony would say.[/QUOTE] get off the fucking high horse

[QUOTE=Scot;39193746]Thank you for giving an example of what a loony would say.[/QUOTE] "Thats exactly what _____ would say" is a hilarious attempt to belittle your opponents views.

[QUOTE=Scot;39193746]Thank you for giving an example of what a loony would say.[/QUOTE] That sounds like something Hitler would say.

I'm finding it pretty disturbing that when FOX is on the same side as facepunch, they're willing to ignore a lot of the massive bias in their writing and it seems the few people who've said this have gotten a "well fuck you". I definitely dislike piers morgan but I dislike biased journalism as well

[QUOTE=Scot;39193666]In my opinion, anyone who justifies owning weapons due to their fear of their government turning tyrannical is a complete loony.[/QUOTE] Because that has never happened before right? You seem so sure that it will never happen again, please let us see into your crystal ball that can look into the future.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39193534]They've been fighting for 12 years and haven't taken their country back yet.[/QUOTE] Come next year, they will have.

The entire notion of thinking "what's the reason X and Y should be legal, why would you need one?" is retarded at best. You don't look for reasons to make things legal. You don't need a reason for something to be legal. Bans are justified only when there is an actual reason FOR banning something. Not the other way around. Asking "what's the reason for you to have a gun?" it's just a desperate attempt to win the debate by discrediting one's reasons to have a gun, because the person who asks that question doesn't have any ACTUAL reasons supporting ban on guns.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39194078]The entire notion of thinking "what's the reason X and Y should be legal, why would you need one?" is retarded at best. You don't look for reasons to make things legal. You don't need a reason for something to be legal. Bans are justified only when there is an actual reason FOR banning something. Not the other way around. Asking "what's the reason for you to have a gun?" it's just a desperate attempt to win the debate by discrediting one's reasons to have a gun, because the person who asks that question doesn't have any ACTUAL reasons supporting ban on guns.[/QUOTE] Exactly. It's assuming people are guilty until proven innocent. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman VII;39193743]Then you're a peon of the state waiting to happen. Enjoy being defenseless and passive. And it's not a fear, it's a precaution along with the dual purpose of being a very enjoyable empowering hobby. Here's who you reminded me of after I read your post [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/8d5ZH.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] I love this example because the congressman is effectively saying that he intends to infringe on our liberties, and that our wanting to stop that is reason enough to disarm us.

[QUOTE=Elspin;39194043]I'm finding it pretty disturbing that when FOX is on the same side as facepunch, they're willing to ignore a lot of the massive bias in their writing and it seems the few people who've said this have gotten a "well fuck you". I definitely dislike piers morgan but I dislike biased journalism as well[/QUOTE] The primary article is Washington Post, FOX was linked to in order to provide the transcript of Shapiro vs Morgan. If you are trying to tie FOX News to one opinion in order to discredit it, its not working. "Well FOX News agrees with you!" "So?"

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39194137]The primary article is Washington Post, FOX was linked to in order to provide the transcript of Shapiro vs Morgan. If you are trying to tie FOX News to one opinion in order to discredit it, its not working. "Well FOX News agrees with you!" "So?"[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you getting at? I already said I don't like piers morgan for fucks sakes. But yes, I think anything posted by fox news should be under scrutiny because they regularly lie or misrepresent events. This is pretty much what I'm talking about, even though I agree with you you're angry because I distrust a news source who is trashing him :v:

[QUOTE=Elspin;39194363]What the fuck are you getting at? I already said I don't like piers morgan for fucks sakes. But yes, I think anything posted by fox news should be under scrutiny because they regularly lie or misrepresent events. This is pretty much what I'm talking about, even though I agree with you you're angry because I distrust a news source who is trashing him :v:[/QUOTE] It would be under scrutiny if they weren't reporting on a video, publicly available courtesy of CNN and its commercial sponsors, aired on television courtesy of CNN and its commercial sponsors, that was well documented that the interview took place. There is nothing to be biased about. It's not like they had a fake Piers Morgan speaking with a fake Ben Shapiro about fake firearm policies.

[QUOTE=Elspin;39194363]What the fuck are you getting at? I already said I don't like piers morgan for fucks sakes. But yes, I think anything posted by fox news should be under scrutiny because they regularly lie or misrepresent events. This is pretty much what I'm talking about, even though I agree with you you're angry because I distrust a news source who is trashing him :v:[/QUOTE] The link goes to a TRANSCRIPT. The only way it can be biased is if FOX alters the transcript, which they didn't. In this case your concerns are unwarranted, and your post came off as you trying to tie FOX News to one side of the debate. No one here wants to associate with FOX News.

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;39193863]get off the fucking high horse[/QUOTE] You're right. I should have known better than to argue with americans about gun laws.

[QUOTE=Scot;39194523]You're right. I should have known better than to argue with americans about gun laws.[/QUOTE] Or maybe you could actually argue rather than posting your opinion then backing out. I dunno.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39194543]Or maybe you could actually argue rather than posting your opinion then backing out. I dunno.[/QUOTE] From my experience it is totally impossible. As Piers demonstrated.

[QUOTE=Scot;39194570]From my experience it is totally impossible. As Piers demonstrated.[/QUOTE] Well whatever then. A forum is for public discussion. If you refuse to discuss something then leave the thread.

[QUOTE=Scot;39194570]From my experience it is totally impossible. As Piers demonstrated.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's because you're wrong. I'd find it hard to argue as well if my side made zero sense

[QUOTE=Scot;39194570]From my experience it is totally impossible. As Piers demonstrated.[/QUOTE] Piers didn't demonstrate anything, as soon as the argument came to a head he pretty much avoided the topic and said something along the lines of stupid people will believe what they want to believe. Why does it make me a looney to justify owning weapons to defend myself from the government? Do you not understand history? My government may not turn on us in our life time, or my grandsons lifetime for that matter, but history has proven that governments become corrupt and the rights of the people will be diminished. Besides, it doesn't need to be a doomsday scenario for the gun to do something. Read up on the Battle of Athens, the people did not like what was going on in the local government and the normal system wasn't working so they took it upon themselves to fix it. The biggest thing overall is that the Firearm provides a sort of check and balance between the people and the federal government. It is much easier to impose whatever when the populace doesn't have comparable weapons to the government.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39194655]Maybe it's because you're wrong.[/QUOTE] Thanks for proving my point.

[QUOTE=Scot;39194570]From my experience it is totally impossible. As Piers demonstrated.[/QUOTE]You and laser would do well together. He refuses to provide proof for any of his arguments because people always tear his crap sources apart. You refuse to even make an argument because it'll get torn apart. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Scot;39194750]Thanks for proving my point.[/QUOTE]Are you enjoying stroking your own ego and trying to climb up in to an ivory tower?

[QUOTE=Melonious Monk;39194485]It would be under scrutiny if they weren't reporting on a video, publicly available courtesy of CNN and its commercial sponsors, aired on television courtesy of CNN and its commercial sponsors, that was well documented that the interview took place. There is nothing to be biased about. It's not like they had a fake Piers Morgan speaking with a fake Ben Shapiro about fake firearm policies.[/QUOTE] Ah, alright, I saw the video now. It didn't load when I first opened the transcript and messing with a transcript is not something I'd put past fox news after things like this [img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/12/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/foxunemployment.jpg?uuid=okHqbCUNEeG6UZmisn9jBQ[/img]