The Vera Nazarian Project 2

Don't bother to argue anything on the Internet. And I mean, ANYTHING... The most innocuous, innocent, harmless, basic topics will be misconstrued by people trying to deconstruct things down to the sub-atomic level and entirely miss the point... Seriously. Keep peeling the onion and you get no onion.”
― Vera Nazarian

To the point, I have to disagree with Mrs.Nazarian, because over the last month I and WDC member Richard (brennus,) managed to argue not 1 but 20 different topics without resorting to name-calling.

The plan was simple:

1) Send 10 questions to the opposite party

2) Answer theirs

3) Discuss

This is the second part of a two part series! Go check out the other part first: "The Vera Nazarian Project" 

Big Disclaimer: I did not edit any responses after the fact, nor did I twist anything. Any comments I added after the fact are clearly labeled. These are direct quotations taken from emails.

His Questions, My Answers


1) If you could partake of a selfless, yet extremely safe act, that would positively impact others’ lives, possibly saving lives, would you do it? Of course, I think selfless acts are always a good thing. And saving lives is important.

2) When faced with statistical and empirical evidence that contradicts your personal beliefs, do you examine that evidence and possibly adjust your beliefs or do you dismiss it without consideration?
I use evidence and personal experiences to form my opinions in the first place, and then continue to research if something new arises. Being young, I admit I don't have a large degree of "life experience" (which is what I assume you meant by empirical evidence) but I do research into what I don't know much about. If there's evidence against my opinion, I take a look at my opinion.

3) Are your personal beliefs and opinions more justified than other peoples, or should all point of view be considered?

If you can justify your opinion, it's justified. All points of view should be considered, although some points of view are obviously going to be more popular than others.

4) When does the responsibility for children stop? Are only the unborn worthy of protection?
The government doesn't owe any responsibility for your children (aside from public education) if that's what you meant. If you're asking in regards to parenting, your responsibility stops when the child is no longer a child, or can fend for themselves (so 18+). All children are worthy of protection, but no one is advocating for the genocide of 1-18-year-olds, at least in large populations. We talk about the unborn so much because they're the threatened population. I actually wrote an abortion article if you'd like further reference "Front Page: Legalized Murder" 

5) Voting rights are a basic tenet of American Freedom. Under what circumstances should the right to vote be denied? Should states make it harder for any segment of their population to vote?
The right to vote for American representatives at any level should be restricted to legal American citizens. I personally believe that criminals currently serving time shouldn't be able to vote either, but that right shouldn't be held after they get out. It's illegal to make it harder for a segment of the population to vote under the US constitution, but voter ID laws don't fall under "Making it harder for someone to vote." 2/3 of states require IDs to vote, and you need IDs to do everything from driving to purchasing certain products. State IDs are also available. Getting an ID is not hard.

6) Multiple incidents involving semi-automatic rifles, often with large-capacity magazines have occurred in America. Do you think such weapons of war and destructive power should be allowed? And Why not or Why?

Another article I wrote: "Freedom VS Safety" 

Yes, guns should be allowed. No, guns should not be sold to criminals. Yes, criminals will illegally get guns regardless of whether or not law-abiding citizens are allowed them. No, criminals don't have a problem with breaking the law. I'd rather have a means of protection. No one is forcing you to own a gun, but you don't have the right to take mine either. See the second amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

7) Every major manufacturing segment in America is subject to liability lawsuits, except for firearm manufacturers. Do you think those firearm manufacturers should be held liable for damages caused by their products? Why or why not?
First of all, your original claim isn't accurate. Vaccine manufacturers aren't subject either, but that's another argument entirely. Allow me to lead you through a hypothetical. Someone owns a Chevy truck. One day, they decide, for whatever reason, to mow down a group of schoolchildren at the neighborhood bus stop. Is Chevy at fault? Or is the crazed lunatic that decided to murder kids at fault? Guns and Gun Manufacturers don't kill people. People kill people, and if someone is really set on causing fatal injuries or harm, they will find a way. That doesn't mean that the manufacturer is to be held accountable.

More about liability lawsuits and laws can be found here: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/product-liability-lawsuits.html

8) Do you believe that healthcare is a basic human right? Do you believe that healthcare and health insurance should be a for-profit entity?
Healthcare is not a basic human right, per se (https://opseu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/30_basic_human_rights_list_english....) but it should be accessible to all citizens. That being said, everything costs money, and taxpayers pay for a lot of things. If healthcare were universal or "free", taxes would go through the roof. Private healthcare is the best way to do things,.so people can decide how they want to go about receiving their healthcare.

9) When a party loses an election and exhausts all legal means to overturn that loss, what is the right and proper thing to do?
Move on. Or refuse to go to class, depending on who you are. There will always be dramatic people who have a hard time accepting what the new reality is (on both sides, of course) but the right answer is to move on and do the best you can with what you have.

10) Cancel Culture is a loaded term. Often it is directed at the removal of what one group of people deem offensive symbols. What symbols do you find offensive? Should they be removed? What instances of Cancel Culture can you cite?

I don't find any symbols particularly offensive, aside from the nazi swastika. That being said, I don't believe they should be removed, because of first amendment "symbolic" free speech and freedom of expression.

Instances of cancel culture in the last 3-ish years, with sources attached: https://www.canceledpeople.com/cancelations?

Also, Dave Chappelle, JK Rowling, and Gina Carano.

His Responses to My Responses

Re #1 So based on this answer, can I assume that you have made a selfless choice and are fully vaccinated against any and all diseases that can harm you, your family, your friends, and others?

Re #2 Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.
An example of empirical evidence might be;

Localities with the highest mask compliance, coupled with higher vaccination rates have exhibited lower Covid fatalities then localities with little of no mask compliance and lower vaccination rates.

Re #4 No, that is not what I was asking — You consider Abortion Legalized Murder, since I too consider abortion to be a non-starter, I am not debating that point with you.

However, my question goes to what happens to children after the lack of alternatives forces their birth?

At Risk Populations?

What about children born into poverty, many of those children have two working parents?
What about children affected by an environment, not of their creation, such as refugees escaping a crime-ridden land?

Re #5 Really? Getting ID isn’t hard?

Many states have closed facilities, particularly those in low income areas, and curtailed hours available at locations that issue IDs. Some states have in the past and currently have instituted fee schedules that preclude economically poor citizens from obtaining ID.

Many states have closed polling places in areas populated by specific populations. States have made it illegal to provide water or food to voters waiting online.

That being said most states require ID when voters register, signatures are matched at the polls. Why add another layer and level of difficulty to a system that has already proven to a have very small percentage of fraud?

Re #6 First, thank you for providing me with a link to the second amendment. Please re-read the following clause;

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

I also invite you to read Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger’s opinion on the matter.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-gu...

That being said please re-read and answer the question I asked, not the question you decided I asked. My question specifically asked about;
“semi-automatic rifles, often with large-capacity magazines”

Nowhere in my statement did I allude to taking anyone’s weapons, keeping law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. I asked about the control of a weapon created specifically for war, I asked about the weapon. They're coming to take our weapons is overused excuse for not debating and enacting reasonable controls

Re #7 I'll give you the gotcha regarding the Covid Vaccine, to a point. But, only to that point that this was a one-time indemnification, put in place to facilitate the emergency preparation of a single vaccine. So your claim while not inaccurate, leaves out pertinent details.

The pharmaceutical industry has been, is currently, and will be, unless laws are changed, subject to litigation and liability.

As for the Chevy Truck analogy, Thank You!

I love these hypotheticals where we equate an everyday object with a gun.

First, in the year 2019, the FBI was able to document in 13,922 cases of homicide what weapon was employed. Out of those murders (13,922) 10,258 were committed using a gun of some type. All other methods combined totaled 3,662—ALL OTHER METHODS.

Second, the purpose of a gun is to inflict harm or death, the weapon serves no other purpose. The trucks on the other hand are designed and normally utilized as a mode of transportation.

Third, automobile makers have either by choice or legislation been forced to constantly improve the safety of their product. The gun industry has taken no steps to improve the safety of their product. In fact, their only innovations have been to create a more deadly product.

Fourth, if people kill people;

Why is the CDC prohibited from studying gun violence as a health risk?
Why is law enforcement prohibited in many states from accessing mental health records before issuing gun permits?

Fifth, not to be callus, your example of the Chevy Truck mowing down children at a bus stop? Let's weigh the the potential lethality of two events. A madmen with a truck, one bus stop full of kids—verses a madman with unlimited and uncontrolled access to a high powered, large capacity weapon capable of repeated fire, from a relatively long distance. Are those really the same?

Re #8 Yes it’s true that taxes (though many economists disagree) might increase to cover the cost of health care, your answer fails to account for the fact that people will no longer be forced to pay for-profit health insurance costs (in some cases a huge savings). People will no longer be forced to subsidize the cost of the uninsured (as we do now when an uninsured individual seeks care and receives it under law.) Public healthcare works and functions, without an undue tax burden, in multiple nations. Why won't it work here.

Re #9 Just for the record, the First Amendment does not, and never has covered hate speech, libel, or misinformation. The litmus test is the old, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded venue when no fire exists" rule of thumb. A recent example is Alex Jones, making false statements regarding the innocents killed in Sandy Hook.A Nazi swastika is the very embodiment of hate.

Re #10 Sorry but citing people who knowingly violated their contract like Gina Carano isn’t cancel culture, she made a choice and paid the consequences. In the same light, everyone is entitled to an opinion and has the right to voice that opinion. However, private entities and the public also have a right to reject that opinion, taking whatever steps they deem needed.

Spotify has opted to side with Joe Rogan, as a consequence of that artists are choosing to withdraw their catalogues.

People need to live with the consequences of their choices.

And, Finally, My Re-Responses to His Responses


1) I have received all vaccinations aside from Covid. I'm a minor, so even if I wanted to get vaccinated I couldn't without parental consent, and besides, no one in my house/immediate family is high risk. I make the choice to wear a mask around high-risk people. We don't fully know the long-term effects, so can you really call it 100% safe?

4)

If you're insinuating that they would be better off dead, I'm not sure you want to go that route. I'm assuming not, since you seem at least fairly reasonable.

So, if you truly aren't ready to support children, you get together with an adoption agency and find your child a home where their life will be better. The foster care system, which people like to bring up as an example, isn't for adoption per se, its long-term goal is reunification with the original family when the family is in a more stable condition. Adoption agencies almost guarantee that the child will be adopted.

If a family is seeking asylum, then there are options for them. The government should help those truly seeking asylum.

5) Look, I'm 15 and have at least one form of photo ID. Passports count, driver's licenses, school IDs, depending on where you are, IDs are a necessary part of life. Should we not strive for a 100% legitimate election?

6) Semi-automatic rifles are everyday guns, and "The term high capacity ammunition magazines (sometimes called large-capacity magazines or high capacity ammunition feeding devices) generally refers to gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. But statutory definitions vary. A 1994 congressional ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition expired in 2004 and was not renewed. Consequently, high capacity ammunition magazines are legal unless banned by state or local governments."

There are handguns with "High-capacity" or "large-capacity magazines" Banning such magazines bans most guns, self-defense, hunting, etc...

They aren't "Weapons of War" they're tools. I do understand guns can be used to kill someone, I'm not that naive, but Homicides go UP when guns are banned. If you didn't read my article, I address that towards the end.

7) My point was that criminals will find a way to harm people anyway, why punish law-abiding citizens? My secondary point was that a gun is an inanimate object. It isn't good or evil. It's just a gun. Now, someone behind the barrel of a gun? Deadly, potentially. But also potentially someone's saving grace. Believe what you want, please, but my rights aren't attached to your feelings. I'm tired of talking about guns.

8) Fair point, I'll have to look into it more.

10) It's the obvious double standard to me, though. Because let's be honest, no one's being fired for supporting Biden.