They even restricted Airsoft. Apparently you aren't allowed to think about a will to live independent of the government. I can hardly believe a sitting president referenced Australian policy.
I never considered in terms of job applications. I know that the Silver Award is indicative of similar qualities of an Eagle Scout. At some point I heard that an Eagle Scout award could start you one pay grade higher if you joined the military. They both present opportunities for kids who would otherwise grow up more boxed in, and are both good for college and scholarship applications. One of the reasons the BSA has made the recent switch I think is so that its more convenient for some parents to bring their kids into the cub scout program, though I have not thought too much as to the possibility of better implementations.
I didn't think you'd focus on what you perceive as good or lacking in the program since you are already interested in changes to the BSA. So yes, there aren't "ranks", like tenderfoot, life, and eagle, but you still earned your way up and are presented the highest award at a court of honor in recognition of your achievement. I have spoken to people who proudly earned their silver and loved it. They had meetings, and went on what many would consider to be some hardcore trips. I'm not sure what kind of camp programs were available specifically for venturing. The BSA caters other organizations that make use of its land and staffing too, and you used to be able to go along to boy scout events upon request on an individual basis. The relatively low numbers are an issue I've heard of as well, not sure how to start one if you don't have it in your area. It could have been promoted better I suppose.
I have a suggestion for you. Before the BSA allowed girls into the regular program, they still had a program called Venturing that girls and boys could join, go on adventures, and earn rank in a similar fashion. While girls were excluded from earning the traditional boy scout ranks like the famous Eagle Scout, they could still go to events with the regular boy lead troops. In this way, the traditional experience was preserved, girls could still attend boy lead programs, and girls and boys could still opt for a unique experience in the Venturing program. Now, if I understand correctly, according to recent changes girls can join the regular program and I suppose technically that means boy lead troops are no longer an official part of the Boy Scouts of America.
**"What do you mean by "aren't necessarily less effective"?
**What metric are you using to get this conclusion?"
I don't necessarily use a metric in the sense that you do, but if a someone dies from an incident involving a collision with a car or bullet than I would consider both examples to be equally effective, and therefore the car is not necessarily less effective than a bullet in the context of homicide, assuming that both may convey lethal force. Both actually do, hence the initial statement.
**"Why are you not bringing in your own definition of effective instead of the one you use? "
Because you said it was false, and I'm NOT ARGUING. I am curious about how you approach the problem in respect to cars and guns. I'm not using a made up definition. I just don't have a good way of communicating that effective does not mean personal preference with you. If you are actually referring to personal preference, than I might have questions about that, but right now I'm asking about effectiveness.
I said "aren't necessarily less effective". I'm not arguing with you... I'm not "dropping" arguments. You are not getting your point across because I am asking about effectiveness, while you continue to answer about personal preference in contrast with "to successfully produce the desired result". Are you pretending not to understand this?
>>No, it does not mean the "best" way to murder someone.
Say what you said in the simplest way you can.
Effective, the actual effect, ex breaking every bone and dying, not how you prefer to do so
>>This may be impossible
So you are making this up?
No, I am out of ways to communicate with you, and perceive no expression of having any idea what I have been asking, nor any semblance of contextual awareness
Typically, I would consider Dead to be maximally effective in the context of homicide. I am really curious about how you are considering a metric though.
I'm not sure how to simplify this. Are you really unable to understand that you think a bullet suits your subjective values/tastes in murdering people better than an automobile? That is personal preference
I'm not asking about your personal convenience, though might have more questions on that if that is how you actually approach the problem. For now I'm asking about effectiveness.
"Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
^^As I recall in addition to writing about your examples, you said something to the effect that the statement above is false. I'm asking why
"">>I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is.
I never said that. What are you quoting?
Guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
You made the claim which started this with this comment "Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
>>"I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
Who said I was?
My claim has been guns are more effective at murder compared to cars. ""
Okay, say someone dies from a driving incident. What are you actually saying is effected more greatly than that?
"I made the case guns are more effective at murder. Murder as in killing someone alive not already dead. This has got to be arguing in bad faith. You clearly understand no-one in their right mind talks about how to kill dead people because they are already dead but for you to say that gives me the impression you are arguing in bad faith."
I don't really want to argue at all. Its just that an implement would only have to be used by someone to be effective up to a certain threshold in my view. I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is. That's why I said "I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
"Did I say I "think of some murder victims being more dead than others."? This has got to be a straw-man. Why not ask for my position instead of lying about it? "
In the context of homicide, there is a maximal effectiveness to my way of thinking, known as dead. I figured more effective murder would mean something like being more dead.
"I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm."
You said this, without giving a direct answer to someone else (as far as I noticed) and I was curious about why cars shouldn't be treated as such in your view, being notably "effective at bringing human harm"
"Next time do tell me how I am wrong about guns being more effective than cars when in respect to murder."
I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though
>>Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm. If you take the position not blaming the tool. Are you for legalising tanks, rocket launchers and mortars and going with doing something about mental illness since you are not for banning guns?
Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm. They can impart massive amounts of energy, and they're generally more difficult to operate.
Do you happen to have any other approaches to this problem?
"If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving, pencils are responsible for misspelled words, and spooks and forks make people fat."
This isn't just a talking point. It actually dehumanizes us to inappropriately blame the instrument
"Okay, what if it is culture based, that's just another face of bigotry."
Now, I'm clearly NOT saying Trump is going about things right, wrong, better, or worse. I'm just being reasonable. Politically, (what we care about as voters) it could weigh in on Trump in a variety of areas. It could effect skepticism about sustained welfare. It could mean how he considers assimilation. It could mean he wants merit based immigration. It could mean he's awkward outside of his social circle. Maybe he gives zero shits about race. It could mean he miscalculates his adversaries or maybe he has a way of going about things that works. Really, I don't know. It would be something to consider in context and seems more precise than "bigotry". Its one aspect out of many.
"He's literally accused people of being illegals simply because they're brown."
"The point is that his argument specifically targets Hispanics. That's why he says Hombres. That's a form of racial slur. It's lock calling a French person jock."
While I'm open to the possibility upon further examination, the quote above may be a casualty of confirmation bias.
"Absolutely, it is my best topic. Were you looking to debate me on it?"
That's nice to know. Yeah, I would like to present an argument on this sometime and see how it stands. It will probably take me at least a week before I have time to commit though.
They even restricted Airsoft. Apparently you aren't allowed to think about a will to live independent of the government. I can hardly believe a sitting president referenced Australian policy.
Is owning a light saber a right? Why yes, yes it is.
Guns? Eh, I'll allow it
I never considered in terms of job applications. I know that the Silver Award is indicative of similar qualities of an Eagle Scout. At some point I heard that an Eagle Scout award could start you one pay grade higher if you joined the military. They both present opportunities for kids who would otherwise grow up more boxed in, and are both good for college and scholarship applications. One of the reasons the BSA has made the recent switch I think is so that its more convenient for some parents to bring their kids into the cub scout program, though I have not thought too much as to the possibility of better implementations.
I didn't think you'd focus on what you perceive as good or lacking in the program since you are already interested in changes to the BSA. So yes, there aren't "ranks", like tenderfoot, life, and eagle, but you still earned your way up and are presented the highest award at a court of honor in recognition of your achievement. I have spoken to people who proudly earned their silver and loved it. They had meetings, and went on what many would consider to be some hardcore trips. I'm not sure what kind of camp programs were available specifically for venturing. The BSA caters other organizations that make use of its land and staffing too, and you used to be able to go along to boy scout events upon request on an individual basis. The relatively low numbers are an issue I've heard of as well, not sure how to start one if you don't have it in your area. It could have been promoted better I suppose.
I have a suggestion for you. Before the BSA allowed girls into the regular program, they still had a program called Venturing that girls and boys could join, go on adventures, and earn rank in a similar fashion. While girls were excluded from earning the traditional boy scout ranks like the famous Eagle Scout, they could still go to events with the regular boy lead troops. In this way, the traditional experience was preserved, girls could still attend boy lead programs, and girls and boys could still opt for a unique experience in the Venturing program. Now, if I understand correctly, according to recent changes girls can join the regular program and I suppose technically that means boy lead troops are no longer an official part of the Boy Scouts of America.
Your stance on prostitution doesn't make any sense. If I vote for this, I would like an admission, or an actual reason.
>>What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
You are actually trolling here.
Is this meant with sincerity?
Thank you for the sound advice
**"What do you mean by "aren't necessarily less effective"?
**What metric are you using to get this conclusion?"
I don't necessarily use a metric in the sense that you do, but if a someone dies from an incident involving a collision with a car or bullet than I would consider both examples to be equally effective, and therefore the car is not necessarily less effective than a bullet in the context of homicide, assuming that both may convey lethal force. Both actually do, hence the initial statement.
**"Why are you not bringing in your own definition of effective instead of the one you use? "
Because you said it was false, and I'm NOT ARGUING. I am curious about how you approach the problem in respect to cars and guns. I'm not using a made up definition. I just don't have a good way of communicating that effective does not mean personal preference with you. If you are actually referring to personal preference, than I might have questions about that, but right now I'm asking about effectiveness.
I said "aren't necessarily less effective". I'm not arguing with you... I'm not "dropping" arguments. You are not getting your point across because I am asking about effectiveness, while you continue to answer about personal preference in contrast with "to successfully produce the desired result". Are you pretending not to understand this?
>>No, it does not mean the "best" way to murder someone.
Say what you said in the simplest way you can.
Effective, the actual effect, ex breaking every bone and dying, not how you prefer to do so
>>This may be impossible
So you are making this up?
No, I am out of ways to communicate with you, and perceive no expression of having any idea what I have been asking, nor any semblance of contextual awareness
>>I would consider Dead to be maximally effective in the context of homicide.
Does this mean the best way to murder someone?
No, it does not mean the "best" way to murder someone.
>>I am really curious about what you are referring to though.
What comment?
This may be impossible
Typically, I would consider Dead to be maximally effective in the context of homicide. I am really curious about how you are considering a metric though.
I'm not countering. I'm asking about effectiveness. If you mean something else I might have questions about that too.
" A car requires a collision whereas a gun requires a collision with the bullet which is fired using a gun from a range that suits the person. "
You just happen to value murdering someone from range
I'm not sure how to simplify this. Are you really unable to understand that you think a bullet suits your subjective values/tastes in murdering people better than an automobile? That is personal preference
I'm not asking about your personal convenience, though might have more questions on that if that is how you actually approach the problem. For now I'm asking about effectiveness.
I'll put this another way
"Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
^^As I recall in addition to writing about your examples, you said something to the effect that the statement above is false. I'm asking why
"">>I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is.
I never said that. What are you quoting?
Guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
You made the claim which started this with this comment "Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
>>"I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
Who said I was?
My claim has been guns are more effective at murder compared to cars. ""
Okay, say someone dies from a driving incident. What are you actually saying is effected more greatly than that?
"I made the case guns are more effective at murder. Murder as in killing someone alive not already dead. This has got to be arguing in bad faith. You clearly understand no-one in their right mind talks about how to kill dead people because they are already dead but for you to say that gives me the impression you are arguing in bad faith."
I don't really want to argue at all. Its just that an implement would only have to be used by someone to be effective up to a certain threshold in my view. I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is. That's why I said "I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
Ooh, tempting
"Did I say I "think of some murder victims being more dead than others."? This has got to be a straw-man. Why not ask for my position instead of lying about it? "
In the context of homicide, there is a maximal effectiveness to my way of thinking, known as dead. I figured more effective murder would mean something like being more dead.
"I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm."
You said this, without giving a direct answer to someone else (as far as I noticed) and I was curious about why cars shouldn't be treated as such in your view, being notably "effective at bringing human harm"
"Next time do tell me how I am wrong about guns being more effective than cars when in respect to murder."
I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though
Dead is Dead
I'm not gonna talk about personal preferences like we are shopping for a premeditated murdering machine.
Could you please quote the false statement so that I can understand where you are coming from?
>>Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm. If you take the position not blaming the tool. Are you for legalising tanks, rocket launchers and mortars and going with doing something about mental illness since you are not for banning guns?
Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm. They can impart massive amounts of energy, and they're generally more difficult to operate.
Do you happen to have any other approaches to this problem?
"If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving, pencils are responsible for misspelled words, and spooks and forks make people fat."
This isn't just a talking point. It actually dehumanizes us to inappropriately blame the instrument
How would forced assimilation work?
"Which is strange because you seem to be all about preserving American culture"
There is no such thing as American culture
"Okay, what if it is culture based, that's just another face of bigotry."
Now, I'm clearly NOT saying Trump is going about things right, wrong, better, or worse. I'm just being reasonable. Politically, (what we care about as voters) it could weigh in on Trump in a variety of areas. It could effect skepticism about sustained welfare. It could mean how he considers assimilation. It could mean he wants merit based immigration. It could mean he's awkward outside of his social circle. Maybe he gives zero shits about race. It could mean he miscalculates his adversaries or maybe he has a way of going about things that works. Really, I don't know. It would be something to consider in context and seems more precise than "bigotry". Its one aspect out of many.
"He's literally accused people of being illegals simply because they're brown."
That would be racism.
Not necessarily on race, could be culture biased
There is no point. Its just something people say. Hombre is not used as a loaded term where I am from at least.
This is an interesting topic when its covered with reason. Thanks guys
"The point is that his argument specifically targets Hispanics. That's why he says Hombres. That's a form of racial slur. It's lock calling a French person jock."
While I'm open to the possibility upon further examination, the quote above may be a casualty of confirmation bias.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1640
"How does Abuela fit into this"
"Absolutely, it is my best topic. Were you looking to debate me on it?"
That's nice to know. Yeah, I would like to present an argument on this sometime and see how it stands. It will probably take me at least a week before I have time to commit though.
Would you consider doing another one of these sometime?