- 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.
If that's true though, then that means that most gun enthusiasts just want guns for the "fun of it" instead of protection from gun wielding criminals. And if that's true it's hard to argue that having mass shootings is worth it so some people can peruse their "hobby" of arsenal building.
If we could snap our fingers and either have all guns disappear or have every citizen have gun, I think most people would choose "disappear". So while it may be hard and take 100 years, the end result of "no one needs a gun" vs "everyone needs a gun" seems much better and more sane.
People have always been able to build their own "weapons" and consumer grade 3d printers have not changed that. Consumer printers print plastic so you can only make a crappy plastic gun which self destructs at high caliber or after a few shots. It will be a long time before the average consumer can "print a gun" that would be better than a cheap handgun (which most people don't want to ban). What would be the point?
Just because something is "alive" does not mean it should be preserved at "all costs" or maybe any cost... For example, lets take a "fetus" immediately after conception. It's a one cell "organism". Unless you believe in a soul, that one cell is not a "person" in any way shape or form. There is no brain, no consciousness, no self awareness, no anything. There is no "reason" to preserve that one cell any more than any other one cell organism in our world. It's hard to argue that that one cell should be preserved over the wishes of the mother who thinks potential harm will come to herself of the "cell" were it allowed to mature and be birthed.
You may say "we should preserve it even if it is one cell". OK, but what about every step you take outdoors. How many microscopic multicellular organisms are you "killing" with every step you take on raw earth? To what effort should you go to not to kill those organisms? The point is the "value" of a "blob of cells" is not very high to humans in our day to day life.
Is getting an abortion selfish? Probably. But almost everything we do in life is selfish (on some level) so that is not a good measure of right or wrong. Here is a list of selfish things that people are doing every day:
- Taking a hot shower. I could have taken a cold shower, saved some money and sent it to a child in Africa.
- Having a cup of coffee. I could have had water, saved some money and sent it to a child in Africa.
- Bought a computer with a 17" monitor instead of 15". I could have saved some money and sent it to a child in Africa.
- Went to the beach without asking my neighbor if he wanted to go. I'm so selfish!
- Ate dinner and did not bring the leftovers to the homeless shelter.
- Etc, etc.....
Until your willing to not be selfish at all (impossible I think) it's hard to argue that it's "selfish" (to any high degree) to terminate multicellular blobs.
Probably true. As long as a person tends to make illogical, immoral or dangerous decisions (shows poor judgement), they should be discriminated against in cases where good judgement is required (child or not). So the question is at what age does a child tend to show "good judgement" and thus should no longer be discriminated against? Not sure. It's different for every child and depends on the subject at hand.
Most people want a government (and it's rules) because of the protections it provides. Along with those rules comes things like "don't shoot your neighbor just because you want his car", or "don't steal music just because it's easy and you can", etc. So the "good" people (live by the golden rule, etc) will respect the laws of the country they live in (or work peacefully to change them) and the "bad" people won't. 3D printers or pirate bay won't change this.
We already have anti defamation and privacy laws that protect people from this type of activity (using Photoshop to defame someone or "expose their privacy"). Also, there are thousands (maybe millions?) of other "tools" that allow you to defame and or expose the privacy of people that would also need to be controlled. This seems too impracticable. Therefor the government should not try ans control Photoshop.