According to Nietzsche in his book ''beyond good and evil'' the notion of good and bad had to be replaced by the notion of ''values''.

Maybe the values of those who experienced a terrible tragedy like this simply switched from total freedom to a certain type of regulation (particularly for those who are mentally unstable).

Just sayin...

Is that, "Hell no the president didn't force her", or is that " Hell no she didn't have a choice"?

Well I think putting someone up on the mic like that is pretty damn manipulative. It's a direct and blatant effect to tug on people's heartstrings, as opposed to sound logic and reasoning. Which, from a certain point of view (:O: ), is wrong and immoral.


Honestly, I think he was waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Did you watch the speech where he supposedly cried? I'm no expert on body language, but his crying on stage was lacking some vital details of sincerity:
- Your eyes are connected to your nose via tear ducts. I don't recall him sniffeling at all.
- His eyes weren't red in the slightest, as crying is apt to cause.
- No tear left his eyes. He put his finger up to the corner of his eye, paused in his speech, and that was it.

Now, it's not my intention to turn this into a debate about Obama, body language or what not, my point here is I doubt it was the worst day of his presidency, and i'm just giving you the reasons why I think this.


Well i agree nobody is going to change their minds. In fact I think it will only serve to heighten tensions between opposing views, and here I would take issue with Obama, Fienstien, et al, for inflaming and making the issue more divisive then it needed to be. They sure as hell got me politically active, which is no easy task.


EDIT:
I experienced plenty of violence growing up as a kid. Drive by shootings, gang violence, people out to get me wiith assorted weapons including guns, etc. etc. It didn't change my opinion any. Law and legislature is the field of logic and reasoning. Not emotionally charged kneejerk reactions.

Did you miss his reply to Ducimus? He was being sarcastic in response to the OP. His point was that she isn't being forced, but doing it of her own free will.

I think you both missed it, possibly due to emotionalism on your parts.

And his response was well, stupid.I know she is not being forced.However, she is most likely still emotionally fragile and on an emotional driven, non rational crusade now that Dear Leader is exploiting so he can continue to solidify power and dominance over this country.Of course, it is all in the name of safety.

I couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or not, hence I asking for elaboration on that. Because if that's not sarcasm.. again.. citation needed! :haha:

I missed the sarcasm all right which was the reason for my post, but I'm far from emotional about the thread topic.

But you do have time to spout emotionalist rhetoric? And when have you ever argued a point here at all? I'm still waiting for you to figure that out.

And that kind of insult will get you to the point where you can't post here at all.

And again you just don't get it. I am just as hardcore on this issue as you are, maybe more so. The problem isn't which way someone leans, but your childish habit of coming in with a headline in big bold letterw, stating your opinion and then refusing to actually discuss it. After all this time you still have not learned what I've told you so many times before: It's not what you say, it's how you say it. You continue to say it as if your opinion is the only one that counts.

The sooner you'll learn that the sooner you might actually get some credibility and respect around here.

That's why I hedged my bet with "possibly". :sunny:

I dunno about you, but I hedge my bet's all the time. Im usually, not always, but usually, very careful in my wording. "Possibly" or "probably" are quite possibly some of my favorite words. :haha:

(did you see what i did there? :88) )

Her emotional effect is exactly why she's been chosen to give the address. Politics is ALL about emotion and whilst logic and reasoning are held up to be higher forms of thought but some, emotions are the reason we care enough about something to say something or do something. That is initelf entirely logical. The choice of speaker is also entirely logical and well reasoned because of the emotional response it is expected to promote. The bigger question is whether it will have enough emotional power to change peoples opinions or not.

So your emotions were engaged to get you off your backside and become politically active.

But politics is all about emotional reactions and quite a lot of law and legislature is based on those emotions. The two cannot be separated. The birth of your country and its consittution was based almot entirely on the emotional responses of the Founding Fathers. Were they not, you would still be flying a flag with a Union Jack in the corner.

Tarjak, in short, I disagree, on all points.

@Ducimus

My comment wasn't pointed at you directly, it's just that I see a lot of emotion vs reason comments on this forum.

----

Speaking of reason and facts why can't they admit that among all nations of western civilisation, United States is BY FAR the country with the highest crime rates due to firearms?...

Firearm homicide rate per 100 000 pop.

Canada: 0.51
England: 0.07
Germany: 0.19
United States: 3.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Now, are those facts or emotion?

As Sheldon would say: ''Don't answer, it's rhetorical'' :)

So the govt are not trying to use this woman's emotional tug to sway opinion?
Further emotion plays no part in politics.?
Thats some pretty strange logic and reasoning in my book.

I admit you'll see that alot from me. Though I think that's because I'm more well practiced in compartmentalization then most people.


I would say your skewing, no.. i'm sorry, not skewing, cherry picking the data to taste. Why just guns? Why not overall violent crime?


EDIT:

I digress.

I agree that the government is trying to play on heart strings. I said as much earlier.

While emotions do run high in politics, i feel they have no place there.

Remarks about myself, or the founding fathers of my country I disagree with. For one, you really don't know me. For two, originally the founders tried to avoid war. Which i would call a sign of logic and reason.