No one has lived more than 120 years you say? All of them were decrepit and tied to a hospital bed? So what? Oh, you think my 200 years alive requirement is unreasonable? how so?
PS: I do agree though, there is a serious problem with population, we're about due for an exodus.
Fuck the "the world is flat" or "a sea-route connecting the east-west." What about traveling around the world in 24 hours, or turning on a light just by flipping switch? I'm serious, in the future, you won't even need a flint to turn on the light! I tell you, it won't even use fire!
If they thought that was amazing, these days we can send instantaneous messages across the globe w/o utilizing any kind of physical connection, not even radio or laser. We did it using quantum mechanics. You're a fool if you think the 20th century was as far as humans were going to go, as if we were just going to all the sudden quit advancing our technology. At this next level of technology the "reality" you keep preaching about starts to break down.
You act like the criminals have no choice of who they rob. If they know a house is home to "gun people" they'll just target the guy down the street. Anyway, I'm not going to argue that point. Just look up the amount of homes registered as owning a gun with relation to time, you'll notice gun ownership by household doesn't change very much (no where near 50%, hyperbole? really?) whether or not "strict" gun laws are in place.
So like you said, criminals aren't stupid, they'll just pick a home that doesn't have "gun people" in it, and really, it's not going to matter if that house has 20 AKs, only one, or a couple of handguns, you can only shoot one or two of them at one. As for the rest, I'm going to have to call bullshit on your statement that laws preventing the ownership of 6 or more guns causes 50% of gun owners to disarm themselves.
According to this Ad Absurdum logic, dropping sand-bags in an at-risk hurricane zone actually causes the hurricane. Ever see hurricanes hit where NOBODY is getting prepared? No? Well, there you go, responding to a hurricane caused that hurricane, just like responding to a flux in gun violence caused that flux in gun violence.
PS: I don't advocate the removal of any of our constitutional rights, just the abandonment of shitty logic. Don't look so surprised, of course your regurgitated politically rhetoric is going to contain a dozen logical fallacies, it was drummed up to incite argument, not to dig into the root causes, that might *ghasp* bring closure to the argument and no politician wants that.
And nobody was arguing whether or not they were correct in defining it how they did. The only argument is that is how it was defined, not whether it was accurate or correct to define it.
Whether or not it's true is how you define "retarded". Most idiots would think of some down syndrome patient masturbating on the short buss with drool coming out of his mouth. That isn't how "retardation" was defined in the DSM, it wasn't invented to be nor was it always a derogatory word. Stricly speaking I myself am retarded, I have bi-polar.
Medically speaking most of the population has some form of retardation or another. Pretending your weaknesses are posative attributes won't make them go away or stop them from causing you difficulty in life.
If X is A, and a C is an X, then a C is an A as well.
Since we're talking about logical fallacies, nice Red Herring there, but citing an authority's position isn't an "appeal" to the said authority unless you were arguing that same position, which nobody is. All he was saying is that "suffering from mental illness" is the politically correct slang for calling someone a "retard", and that Autism is a mental illness.
If X is A, and a C is an X, then X is A.
Please, tell me more about how a person who spends 80 years staring into space, pissing and shitting themselves, and not responding to stimuli shouldn't be judged to have something wrong with them.
If there is something wrong with a person behaving in such a way, and a another person behaves the same way to some extent, while not as severe but for none the less the same reasons, then wouldn't they also have, to some extent, the same something wrong with them?
When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.