Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

About the American gun culture....

123457

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Precisely. But I wouldn't be tooling up for war just to protect my dried leaves, boiled (Douglas Adams). What makes this ephemeral 'freedom' concept worthy of deadly force?

    And I really am serious when I ask "Freedom from what?" and "Freedom to what?" Those are entitlements, freedoms, that can be dealt with properly. To simply say "Freedom" is to use the word so loosely as so blur meaning and impede rational discussion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by thanatos:
    Turn THAT around and apply it to YOURSELF, oh bleating sheep...


    I didn't say I wasn't a hyprocrite <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif"&gt;

    Oops, I've just admitted that I may have been wrong somewhere - buggers up your little theory then.

    You may also note that I often state an opinion. I do not say that I am right, just that it is MY opinion.

    According to some of you that is something I should/do not have - being a 'subject'.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:
    Doubro,

    You are really missing the point when you condemn others' 'relativism.' The simple fact is that if someone says something is right it is right for them. You may disagree with them. Fine.>

    Ok, listen up. I'm going to say this for the umpteenth time... Relativism is wrong when it comes to questions of universal human truths. If someone says something is "GOOD FOR THEM", they DAMN WELL BETTER BE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ONLY F*CKING EFFECTS THEM.

    But , My short sighted Anglophilic brother, you seem to be saying that you, or any one of your wretched countrymen can speak on behalf of EVERYONE ELSE and say "Oh this National Ban on EVERYONES right to defend themselves with a gun suits me just fine...bla bla bla " ad infinitum..., and it is then beyond reproach by anyone, and should be implimented as policy because you figure that's the way ALL your fellow Brits should feel.

    Well, they DONT All FEEL THAT WAY. And therein lies the problem. You can not claim that the fact that your country denies people certain Human rights is simply a harmless little difference in our respective "Cultures", or even one that most English people accept, when it's simply not true. Look around, check out the local shooting clubs where people had to give in their family hierlooms to the torch, and ask them if they agree with your collectivist view that all people in England agree with you on this... You may find out that your "cultural difference" is thought of as excessive and oppressive on YOUR side of the Atlantic as well as mine.


    <You feel that there are absolute values that transcend cultural boundaries. Bully for you. Not everyone may agree with that. If you had truly taken aboard the American philosophy you would disagree with them in a far less adversarial way.>


    Um... you guys are the "diplomats"...not us... we basically say what we think to be true and good, while you Sophists run around trying to impress us with the command of your own language and grammar, attempting to prove that black is white and night is day...just a "Cultural difference away"...

    <You have repeatedly condemned the US Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. If so, it was a war fought on the same grounds as you use to condemn those of us that recognise that cultural differences exist and do make a difference to morality.
    >

    That's why the South lost... They were attempting to fight over their percieved "Cultural Difference", when they were really fighting partially over universal truths that transend all boundaries. My support of the South's argument for "States Rights" has nothing to do with Slavery. Slavery was the Moral issue Lincoln used to justify the complete subjugation of the south through military conquest. Lincoln himself would be considered a racist by any standard. The North primarily wanted to keep control and expand the power and control of the Federal government, freeing the Slaves was a by product... an afterthought, if you will.

    If Lincoln could have kept the union without Freeing the slaves, he would have done that even sooner.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:

    On a completely different note...

    Well, yesterday at the office I had a cup of tea. Would I have been annoyed if someone had spilt or spoiled it? Yes. Would I have tooled up with a heavy machine gun and grenades, ready to blow to smithereens anyone who dared to interfere with my 'right' to have a cuppa, milk and one, in peace? No. Am I undeserving of my tea, then>

    Again with the extreme rhetoric? What...do you think it's going to magically make sense to all of us if you use it enough...?

    Fine, here's my Extremist retort...

    You're talking about having a tea...undisturbed. Right? Ok, where are you? At work? Well, work is public for the most part, and therefore, you can expect no right to privacy in a public place...by it's very nature...

    However, if you break into my home... and try to rob me while I'm sexing up the wife, I'm gonna frag your ass...two bullets in the chest, one in the head. Then I'll have tea over the dead guy... Get it now Mr. Smarty pants?

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Doubro:
    But , My short sighted Anglophilic brother, you seem to be saying that you, or any one of your wretched countrymen can speak on behalf of EVERYONE ELSE and say "Oh this National Ban on EVERYONES right to defend themselves with a gun suits me just fine...bla bla bla " ad infinitum..., and it is then beyond reproach by anyone, and should be implimented as policy because you figure that's the way ALL your fellow Brits should feel.

    Doubro, if you can quote me a passage in which I have claimed that I speak for all British people, you can have that point. You'll have to earn it, though.

    You keep on saying that there are universal truths yadda yadda yadda. In your opinion. You have already conceded that
    concensus doesn't equate with morality.

    So how does the fact that your opinions may be shared by a few other people make them certain universal truths? Hmm?

    You have your opinion - fine. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that it is universally true, 'cause a few hundred years ago you'd have been asserting that Kings were chosen by God and that the Sun went around the Earth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, I just thought of another wee point...
    Originally posted by Doubro:
    Again with the extreme rhetoric? What...do you think it's going to magically make sense to all of us if you use it enough...?

    While I may search the extremes for counterexamples to other people's assertions, I'm not as guilty as some of the use of rhetorical devices.

    I speak, of course, of those who attempt to ridicule their opponents' arguments by appealing to words of loose definition and emotive content, by the use of phrases that imply some kind of mental deficiency on the part of their interlocutors. Phrases like "self-evident", "obvious", "liberty", "freedom" &c. Oh, and the ultimate giveaway of having no reasoned argument upon which to rest, "God-given".

    Those of you guilty of these (and you know who you are) are FAR more guilty of the use of "extremist rhetoric" than I.

    :: whistles ::
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    start your insults on the new thread, this one is long enough
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:
    Sorry, I just thought of another wee point...

    While I may search the extremes for counterexamples to other people's assertions, I'm not as guilty as some of the use of rhetorical devices.>

    You guilty of using really weak ones.

    <I speak, of course, of those who attempt to ridicule their opponents' arguments by appealing to words of loose definition
    and emotive content, by the use of phrases that imply some kind of mental deficiency on the part of their interlocutors. Phrases like "self-evident", "obvious", "liberty", "freedom" &c. Oh, and the ultimate giveaway of having no reasoned argument upon which to rest, "God-given".>

    "self-ev·i·dent"
    Date: 1671
    : evident without proof or reasoning
    - self-ev·i·dent·ly adverb

    "Obvious" from Latin obvius, from obviam in the way, from ob in the way of + viam, accusative of via way -- more at OB-, VIA
    Date: 1603
    1 archaic : being in the way or in front
    2 : easily discovered, seen, or understood
    synonym see EVIDENT
    - ob·vi·ous·ness noun

    "Liberty" : from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
    Date: 14th century
    1 : the quality or state of being free: freedom from physical restraint : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

    "Freedom" the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another

    "God":1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

    These definitions don't sound that "loose" to me. You may disagree, but don't accuse me of being vauge or arbitrary. Your demand for a "Proof" that people's lives have a primary value, and that people are intrinsicly entitled to defend their lives is absurd. It IS Self-Evident...meaning that If your own life was in immediate danger, you would use every means neccessary to defend it at your disposal, without thinking about it. People who believe they would not be inclined to such actions are either fooling themselves, or are possibly affected by some mental illness, like passivism.

    <Those of you guilty of these (and you know who you are) are FAR more guilty of the use of "extremist rhetoric" than I.>

    I belive your more guilty of "extremely inaffective" rhetoric...at least that's what I should have accused you of.

    Man, I'd hate to have you in my fox hole.




  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    <Doubro, if you can quote me a passage in which I have claimed that I speak for all British people, you can have that point. You'll have to earn it, though.>

    I don't have to quote it... you're entire argument, which you've repeated over and over, is based on your assumption that you "Democratic" legal process can make laws which overrule the INDIVIDUAL rights of the people in your counrty who would oppose such gun restrictions.

    Every time I asserted that your laws were wrong, you shot back that it was a "Cultural Difference" and that the majority of English don't like or want access to guns, therefore, the laws which restrict access universally are supposedly justified...yet, a majority is not unanimity, and therefore, you are imposing your view on those who do not agree, based on the theory that "might makes right". More English people might think the way you do, than don't, but you are still forcing your beliefs on those, (now ex) English-gun owners.

    <You keep on saying that there are universal truths yadda yadda yadda. In your opinion. You have already conceded that>

    I my opinon, I am an American. Or so it says on my Birth certificate. You think I'm really a Russian spy?... (I know... I'm stealing a page from your useless rhetoric book)


    quote:
    concensus doesn't equate with morality.

    <So how does the fact that your opinions may be shared by a few other people make them certain universal truths? Hmm?>

    It doesn't make them universal truths, I don't care how many people agree...or don't. Universal truth is independant of anyones opinons. It just "is".

    <You have your opinion - fine. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that it is universally true, 'cause a few hundred years ago you'd have been asserting that Kings were chosen by God and that the Sun went around the Earth.>

    Only if I was English...

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    doubro, you do have a valid point that we pro-control brits do not speak 'for our country'. but, therefore, you must admit that you, as a pro-gun american, do not speak for your entire nation either. therefore, what you assert as being 'morally correct to all americans' (or some such) is merely an argument put forward by you, not your country's viewpoint. you, are in fact, the one that is putting forwards the idea that 'might is right' - after all, you're the one with the gun.

    so, as neither of us can argue to speak for our nations, we must let the laws speak for the nations. british law says 'no guns' and american law says 'guns'. therefore, gun ownership is not a 'universal' or 'self evident' truth, because otherwise the UK would have the same laws. truth is subjective - always has been, always will be. therefore, so-called universal truths are a matter of, in part, opinion. so, even 'all men are created equal' is a subjective truth - people have only recently (in the history of the world) come to accept it as true - had you said that in Roman times, you would have been laughed at. therefore, as much as you believe it to be true, it is only universally true when eevryone believes it. and, as i do not believe that the right to own a gun should be perpetuated, gun ownership is not a universal truth.

    come to think of it, name me a universal truth that supports your argument. or name one at all. remarkably difficult.

    and that, my american gun-toter, is why your arguments are based on rhetoric <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt;

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by dazed_dan:
    doubro, you do have a valid point that we pro-control brits do not speak 'for our country'. but, therefore, you must admit that you, as a pro-gun american, do not speak for your entire nation either. >

    I don't claim to speak for my entire nation as you do. I simply assert that anyone who wishes to speak for me is wrong. Including my country men.

    <therefore, what you assert as being 'morally correct to all americans' (or some such) is merely an argument put forward by you, not your country's viewpoint.>

    I say that the countries founding documents recognize these truths explicitly. People are free to disagree, but they are true nontheless.


    <you, are in fact, the one that is putting forwards the idea that 'might is right' - after all, you're the one with the gun.>

    Not only do I have a gun, but I have the "Right" to a gun... as do all free men. Inherent in the theory that "Might Makes Right" is a level of coersion. This comes into play when certain people wish to have a monopoly on guns...this is where the differential access creates an imbalance of power... like you English do when you want only the government to own and use them. Guns are tools of coersion... therefore, in your country, they are to be used against those who are not the government, and if you had your druthers, against those who were statutorily unarmed, and so it is you who supports the "Might= Right" philosophy, not me.

    I simply want to level the playing field. treat everyone relatively the same as individuals.

    No individual (at least by law)any "stronger" than another...in the sense of real or institutionalised coersive power.


    <so, as neither of us can argue to speak for our nations,>

    I never have, but you certainly have.

    <we must let the laws speak for the nations.>

    I can demand that my law reflects the nations charter (which is the supreme law of the land), which specifically states that Free men have the right to own guns.

    <british law says 'no guns' and american law says 'guns'.> therefore, gun ownership is not a 'universal' or 'self evident' truth, because otherwise the UK would have the same laws.>

    Not true, there are different stages of development. Both our countries have regressed from a time when gun ownership was considered a Right on BOTH sides of the Atlantic. You have lost sight of the truth, as many have over here. Truth can be evident, but people can ignore hard realities of life, the thing that is right in front of them, if they are afraid of it, or they are lied to, or engulfed in a fantasy of the "perfect world" without violence.

    < truth is subjective - always has been, always will be. therefore, so-called universal truths are a matter of, in part, opinion.>

    No, opinion is seperate from objective truth.

    <so, even 'all men are created equal' is a subjective truth - people have only recently (in the history of the world) come to accept it as true - had you said that in Roman times, you would have been laughed at.>

    I would have been killed.

    <therefore, as much as you believe it to be true, it is only universally true when eevryone believes it. and, as i do not believe that the right to own a gun should be perpetuated, gun ownership is not a universal truth.>

    You can not determine universal truth, it determines you.

    <come to think of it, name me a universal truth that supports your argument. or name one at all. remarkably difficult.>

    Slavery is Wrong. Not that hard I think.

    <and that, my american gun-toter, is why your arguments are based on rhetoric >

    Really? well, you've turned me all around on this one...Excuse me while I go turn in my weapons...I'm gonna go join the peace corp, and work for a Subversive Neo-Marxist political party so that we can have a groovy Socialist government like merry old England.
    Oh, I can't wait till they nationalize medicine so I can finally completely the process and afford to have my brain surgically removed and put on a stick... Then I'll be a True Anglophile

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 13-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 13-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Doubro:
    Originally posted by dazed_dan:
    doubro, you do have a valid point that we pro-control brits do not speak 'for our country'. but, therefore, you must admit that you, as a pro-gun american, do not speak for your entire nation either. >

    I don't claim to speak for my entire nation as you do. I simply assert that anyone who wishes to speak for me is wrong. Including my country men.

    <therefore, what you assert as being 'morally correct to all americans' (or some such) is merely an argument put forward by you, not your country's viewpoint.>

    I say that the countries founding documents recognize these truths explicitly. People are free to disagree, but they are true nontheless.


    <you, are in fact, the one that is putting forwards the idea that 'might is right' - after all, you're the one with the gun.>

    Not only do I have a gun, but I have the "Right" to a gun... as do all free men. Inherent in the theory that "Might Makes Right" is a level of coersion. This comes into play when certain people wish to have a monopoly on guns...this is where the differential access creates an imbalance of power... like you English do when you want only the government to own and use them. Guns are tools of coersion... therefore, in your country, they are to be used against those who are not the government, and if you had your druthers, against those who were statutorily unarmed, and so it is you who supports the "Might= Right" philosophy, not me.

    I simply want to level the playing field. treat everyone relatively the same as individuals.

    No individual (at least by law)any "stronger" than another...in the sense of real or institutionalised coersive power.


    <so, as neither of us can argue to speak for our nations,>

    I never have, but you certainly have.

    <we must let the laws speak for the nations.>

    I can demand that my law reflects the nations charter (which is the supreme law of the land), which specifically states that Free men have the right to own guns.

    <british law says 'no guns' and american law says 'guns'.> therefore, gun ownership is not a 'universal' or 'self evident' truth, because otherwise the UK would have the same laws.>

    Not true, there are different stages of development. Both our countries have regressed from a time when gun ownership was considered a Right on BOTH sides of the Atlantic. You have lost sight of the truth, as many have over here. Truth can be evident, but people can ignore hard realities of life, the thing that is right in front of them, if they are afraid of it, or they are lied to, or engulfed in a fantasy of the "perfect world" without violence.

    < truth is subjective - always has been, always will be. therefore, so-called universal truths are a matter of, in part, opinion.>

    No, opinion is seperate from objective truth.

    <so, even 'all men are created equal' is a subjective truth - people have only recently (in the history of the world) come to accept it as true - had you said that in Roman times, you would have been laughed at.>

    I would have been killed.

    <therefore, as much as you believe it to be true, it is only universally true when eevryone believes it. and, as i do not believe that the right to own a gun should be perpetuated, gun ownership is not a universal truth.>

    You can not determine universal truth, it determines you.

    <come to think of it, name me a universal truth that supports your argument. or name one at all. remarkably difficult.>

    Slavery is Wrong. Not that hard I think.

    <and that, my american gun-toter, is why your arguments are based on rhetoric >

    Really? well, you've turned me all around on this one...Excuse me while I go turn in my weapons...I'm gonna go join the peace corp, and work for a Subversive Neo-Marxist political party so that we can have a groovy Socialist government like merry old England.
    Oh, I can't wait till they nationalize medicine so I can finally complete the process and afford to have my brain surgically removed and put on a stick... Then I'll be a True Anglophile

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 13-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 13-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Doubro:
    [BI don't have to quote it... you're entire argument, which you've repeated over and over, is based on your assumption that you "Democratic" legal process can make laws which overrule the INDIVIDUAL rights of the people in your counrty who would oppose such gun restrictions.

    Every time I asserted that your laws were wrong, you shot back that it was a "Cultural Difference" and that the majority of English don't like or want access to guns, therefore, the laws which restrict access universally are supposedly justified...yet, a majority is not unanimity, and therefore, you are imposing your view on those who do not agree, based on the theory that "might makes right". More English people might think the way you do, than don't, but you are still forcing your beliefs on those, (now ex) English-gun owners.[/B]

    So the purest form of your argument - that the majority do not have the right to force their will on the minority - would be anarchy. It is the majority will which creates the law process, it is the will of the majority which maintains your Bill Of Rights. For example, if by some freak outcome the US electorate returned sufficient Senators and Congressmen who wished to abolish your 1st Amendment - right to free speach - what could you do about it?

    Use your guns? Wouldn't this be a case of the minority dictating to the majority - and isn't that more of a threat to democracy?

    I my opinon, I am an American. Or so it says on my Birth certificate. You think I'm really a Russian spy?... (I know... I'm stealing a page from your useless rhetoric book)

    But is that a universal truth? Arent national boundaries subjective? They CAN be changed.

    Anyone on your continent can refer to themselves as American - the very term has been hijacked to describe citizens of the United States of America by those very people. Therefore it is subjective.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    <So the purest form of your argument - that the majority do not have the right to force their will on the minority - would be anarchy.>

    Wrong again.

    You seem to missunderstand a key element of our representative government. While it is true that laws are made by the majority rule, they are quite rightly tempered by restrictions that limit the majority from making laws that would in effect circumscribe basic human rights.

    So I am not opposed, as you claim, to majority rule in ALL cases, but rather believe that majority rule is very dangerous as it will always create governments which tend appropriate as much power as is possible through crass populism, neccessarily restricting individual autonomy, and therefore MUST have limits so that it can not interfere with fundamental freedoms of all people.


    <It is the majority will which creates the law process, it is the will of the majority which maintains your Bill Of Rights. For example, if by some freak outcome the US electorate returned sufficient Senators and Congressmen who wished to abolish your 1st Amendment - right to free speach - what could you do about it?>

    It would then become a matter of certainty that the 2nd Amendment's true relavence to the rest of the Bill of Rights would gain focus.

    The whole point, in fact of the Second Amendment is to protect us from such Freak occurances, no matter how unlikely they seem. It is NOT true however that the majority "maintains" our Bill Of Rights, because it is a document predicated on the assumption that the "Rights" agknowledged therein are apriori, or existed before anyone thought enough to make them up. They just are. The rights in existence are therefore independant of the documents which merely descibe them, the Bill of Rights is simply a marker in time. When did we Americans first realize our rights , so to speak.

    If the People (with a capital P) ever decided by majority to deny these rights to the minority, then there would either be a bloodbath, or a lowly and quiet submission, it depends on how successful the Government is in it's attempt to misinform and misrepresent it's role and responsibility to the People. It would inevitably be determined by it's success in disarming those who would be likely to lead resistence movements.

    <Use your guns? Wouldn't this be a case of the minority dictating to the majority - and isn't that more of a threat to democracy?>

    A moral person would only use weapons to defend their own rightful position. If by "dictating" you mean demanding by force that I am LEFT ALONE to determine at LEAST the most basic personal questions of life... Whether I can defend myself and family, where (What part of the country)I live, what I do for a living, who I marry, how many children I have...etc... then you'd be dead wrong again.

    I'm not telling anyone ELSE what to do, SO NO...!!! IT WOULD NOT BE "DICTATING" ANYTHING TO ANYONE, EXCEPT IN REGARDS TO MY OWN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.


    <I my opinon, I am an American. Or so it says on my Birth certificate. You think I'm really a Russian spy?... (I know... I'm stealing a page from your useless rhetoric book)

    But is that a universal truth? Arent national boundaries subjective? They CAN be changed.>

    I NEVER said being an "American" is a Universal Truth, only an Objective reality.

    It is a truth that, at the moment, I am an American, no matter where the boundaries are. If your country was destroyed, you would still be a product of the English speaking culture... As long as we live, we will be a product of our western tradition.

    I Agree that I am not timeless, but as Long as I exist, I will truly be American.


    My example of Universal truth was one in which I declared Slavery to be wrong. That is a universal truth. And It can not change...EVER.


    <Anyone on your continent can refer to themselves as American - the very term has been hijacked to describe citizens of the United States of America by those very people. Therefore it is subjective.>


    It is implied that I am refering to the United States of America, as I am typing in the majority language here which is American Standard English. Language transmits culture.

    If I was a South American, I would more than likely refer to myself as a Guatamellan or Brazillian first, rather than a SudAmerican.



    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 14-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 14-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 14-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doubro, just to clarify - your position is that even if you are a minority of one - there are some 'rights' which cannot be removed by the majority?

    So what are the 'basic human rights' you refer to? At the point of birth, in which ever country, to whatever culture, what are these 'basic human rights'?

    In your opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    <So what are the 'basic human rights' you refer to? At the point of birth, in which ever country, to whatever culture, what are these 'basic human rights'?>


    Some of the basic rights I refer to are encapsulated quite nicely in our BOR. The Right to Free Speech, the Right to worship, the Right to defend ones person, home and family, The Right to Trial by Jury, Right to be secure in ones home, and person. There are others like..the Right to keep most of what one earns and therefore benefit from your own labor...

    And none of these rights preclude others I have not thought to mention.

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 15-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 15-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1479000/1479852.stm

    Just an interesting little article I thought might be relavant to the discussion on freedom to protect ones self.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    doubro, you say (and i rightly agree) that 'slavery is wrong' is a universal truth. today. but, 200 years ago, when the slave trade was a vital part of the US eceonomy, 'slavery is wrong' was not a universal truth, it was considered by many as stupid. so, for a truth to be universal, it must be applicable to all times, as well as all societies. therefore, there are no such things. truth relies on belief, after all, so universal truth relies on universal belief.

    my last post was not an attempt to convert you - thats not what i'm here to do (perhaps you are, but hey...). rather, i was simply showing that your arguments are indeed based on shapeless, unfounded rhetoric.

    and another thing, using the bill of rights as a basis for supporting your argument is slightly dodgy ground (as with any legal text, including british ones). for a start, your rights are altered over time - the right to consume alcohol, for example, has been subject to intense scrutiny in the last century. now, before you leap down my throat, i'm not saying that prohibition wasnt a big mistake (thats why you got the right back again). but, my point is, people's definition of rights changes over time. and, if i may be blunt, although i do think the bill of rights is a superb document, setting down many of the rights of every human being, it also contains a number of rather pointless rights, which are not really worthy of being included in the same class as 'right to free speech'. such as the second amendment to your consitution, your favourite one. i dont really see 'the right to bear arms' as an absolute right. at the time the bill of rights was drafted, perhaps it was (i dont live in the 18th century, so dont know. some people, on the other hand....).

    you mention about the 'regression of rights' which has introduced gun control. i, personally, see it more as an 'evolution of rights', and that the UK has develoepd further in this way than the US. but after all, that's just my opinion. i'm not trying to turn you in to a socialist hat-eater or whatever you called me. and another thing, before you accuse me of speaking for my country as a whole, quote me as saying that i did. otherwise you're talking shit.

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Talking of contradictory rights, this is my favourite:

    Suppose some bunch of nutters release a nasty bug in the States. I don't know, Ebola Mayinga, perhaps. In a country with travel networks like the USA this would spread like wildfire. Sensible thing to do? Ban all movement over at least state if not county lines. Ground the airlines. Shut down all shopping malls and cinemas. You get the idea? People don't move (except to hospital) and the virus spreads far less than it would have done. Lives get saved by the thousand.

    Of course, these measures breach the rights to free assembly and free movement. So, if the President gives these orders, he can get taken to court and his order will be overturned, with all the nasty consequences that entails.

    On the other hand, if he didn't give the order, he'd have the blood (and lungs and guts) of thousands or millions on his hands. Guess what? Yes, he gets sued for not protecting the lives of American citizens.

    Anyone else see the controdiction here?

    Now, of course, he could sign an Emergency Order suspending the Constitution... But that wouldn't change the fact that these are INALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, would it? One right or the other has got to give. What'll it be, Mr. President?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^^^^^^^^
    Guess that's why he gets to be called MR President <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif"&gt; No-one said it was easy.

    As for Doubro's rights, I hop you noted that I did emphasise that these would be YOUR opinion. However I agree with every one of them. Including the right to protect your property.

    Where I disagree is the interpretation of this. It's a little excessive to kill/shoot someone to protect a material possession, like a video.

    But then this MY opinion based on the culture I in which I was raised. if I lived in Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia, I would expect different rights. I would expect to have a hand removed for theft (for example), here that is barbaric. And I think that this is the point that others have tried to get across.

    There are no rights. Nature (or if you believe, God) hasn't bestowed ANY rights on us. What we have is a series of statements agreed by society. These change. Society changes - prohibition being a very good example.

    Out of interest - the BOR - is it exactly the same as when it was first written?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by dazed_dan:
    doubro, you say (and i rightly agree) that 'slavery is wrong' is a universal truth. today. but, 200 years ago, when the slave trade was a vital part of the US eceonomy, 'slavery is wrong' was not a universal truth, it was considered by many as stupid.>

    No it was considered by many, even then to be an abomination. There have been abolitionists as long as there has been slavery.


    <so, for a truth to be universal, it must be applicable to all times, as well as all societies. therefore, there are no such things.>

    A truth doesn't have to be recognized by ALL PEOPLE at all times to be truth.

    <truth relies on belief, after all, so universal truth relies on universal belief.>

    Nothing could be further from the "Truth" so to speak. Some people understand the truth about human rights, some don't. These are reasons that people fight wars and start social movements... The "Proof" of Truth is objective... every action has an equal and opposite reaction... a demonstratable theory.


    <my last post was not an attempt to convert you - thats not what i'm here to do (perhaps you are, but hey...). rather, i was simply showing that your arguments are indeed based on shapeless, unfounded rhetoric.>

    Rhetoric schmeteric... you guys rule the kingdom of Meaningless Rhetoric.


    <and another thing, using the bill of rights as a basis for supporting your argument is slightly dodgy ground (as with any legal text, including british ones). for a start, your rights are altered over time - the right to consume alcohol, for example, has been subject to intense scrutiny in the last century.>

    Yes, but the BILL OF RIGHTS was the Basis for the Constitution being Ratified. Those rights, being agnowledged as "Natural rights" were seen as the foundation, but completely seperate from the social contract that was to follow.


    <now, before you leap down my throat, i'm not saying that prohibition wasnt a big mistake (thats why you got the right back again).>

    We never lost the Right to "pursue happiness", (thanks what drinking falls under in my estimation)the Government was simply WRONG, just as they are today about Narcotics and other controled chemical substances. There are great travesties commited here and abroad, in the name of "temperance".


    <but, my point is, people's definition of rights changes over time.>

    Nope, people's understanding of them might change their behavior, but people are entitled to basic human freedoms, and most of them are fairly easy to recognize.


    <and, if i may be blunt, although i do think the bill of rights is a superb document, setting down many of the rights of every human being, it also contains a number of rather pointless rights, which are not really worthy of being included in the same class as 'right to free speech'. such as the second amendment to your consitution, your favourite one.>

    Well, as I have said before, some people are sadly unaware of or can not recognize their rights because they choose not to. They wish to live in a perfect world, so objective reality be damned... They believe what they want to...


    <i dont really see 'the right to bear arms' as an absolute right. at the time the bill of rights was drafted, perhaps it was (i dont live in the 18th century, so dont know. some people, on the other hand....).>

    An if today, I met you on the street and said that I think your right to breathe was suddenly suspect? Would I be right in assuming I could kill you then? After all, "rights do change over time", and perhaps your right to life had just expired...Maybe more people than me feel this way about you...you never know right?

    <you mention about the 'regression of rights' which has introduced gun control.
    i, personally, see it more as an 'evolution of rights',>

    Well, it can't be an "Evolution" because you are going from originally not having your rights acknoledged, to HAVING THEM ACKNOLEDGED during the period of time known as the "Enlightenment", to NOT HAVING THEM ACKNOWLEDGED.

    Therefore, you are REGRESSING TO AN EARLIER STATE. Time order is important to understand here.

    <and that the UK has develoepd further in this way than the US.>

    Further towards Neo-Fascism you mean.

    <but after all, that's just my opinion. i'm not trying to turn you in to a socialist hat-eater or whatever you called me. and another thing, before you accuse me of speaking for my country as a whole, quote me as saying that i did. otherwise you're talking shit.>


    Are you a Numb skull? What's with you people? You are talking for your ENTIRE COUNTRY when you say that ANY LAW made by "Majority rule" is JUSTIFIED. WHAT ABOUT THE GOD DAMNED MINORITY? WHAT IF THEY THINK THE MAJORITY ARE BOLLOCKS OVER A CERTAIN ISSUE? WHAT IF THAT ISSUE IS LIFE OR DEATH FOR THEM AND THEY DISSAGREE WITH YOU? THEN YOU ARE ERRONEOUSLY SPEAKING FOR THEM WHEN YOU SAY "MY COUNTRY SUPPORTS THIS" BLA BLA BLA...

    YOU AREN'T JUST TALKING FOR THEM, YOU ARE FORCING THEM TO ACCEPT IT. EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NOT REAL AUTHORITY TO TELL SOMEONE THAT THEY CAN'T PROTECT THEMSELVES OR THIER FAMILIES.

    WHAT IS SO F***ING HARD ABOUT THIS TO UNDERSTAND?

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:
    Talking of contradictory rights, this is my favourite:

    <Suppose some bunch of nutters release a nasty bug in the States...Sensible thing to do? Ban all movement over at least state if not county lines>

    See, in the USA, the Government is not supposed to treat people like children as they do in England. They can quarantine people who are sick from infecting others,(therefore preventing direct harm to other people, but can not impose a national curfew without declaring martial law. The governments responsiblity is to WARN us about the dangers, and let us live our lives...
    much in the same way it did over AIDS.

    Imaging the government forcing people to STOP having SEX indefinately... because it would save some lives ... No my freind,

    It's alerts us to the dangers and offers assistance. Government is not OUR NANNY like it is in YOUR sad Country.

    The only time marital law would be appropriate would be if we were under an intentional Biological attack, not from some "Nutters" playing with dangerous compounds, but from another country seriously tring to kill all of us... only then
    would the Government have an explicit role, set forth in the Constitution, in defending the public from harm... but it would still have to be weighed against the RIGHT of the people to be left alone.



    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 16-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:

    <Where I disagree is the interpretation of this. It's a little excessive to kill/shoot someone to protect a material possession, like a video.>

    There is no Right to protect your property from "theft", only to protect your person. However, there is the right to use deadly force when being Robbed of your property, since the definition of "Robbed" means to be assaulted in the process someone stealing from you. In other words, if it is in question as to whether or not harm may come to you during a burglary or theft, you may respond with progressively effective force
    to deter such injury to oneself.

    <But then this MY opinion based on the culture I in which I was raised. if I lived in Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia, I would expect different rights.>

    I would only expect different interpretations of the same rights. Some erroneous, some not so...


    <I would expect to have a hand removed for theft (for example), here that is barbaric. And I think that this is the point that others have tried to get across.>

    Here, there, everywhere, that is barbaric.

    <There are no rights. Nature (or if you believe, God) hasn't bestowed ANY rights on us. What we have is a series of statements agreed by society. These change. Society changes - prohibition being a very good example.>

    (I believe in Myself...as being part of nature) As far as rights being bestowed... it doesn't matter if you disagree, you are not dependant on society to allow you to live and breathe! Our lives are worth more than a "series of statements agreed upon by Society". Society can be WRONG (Prohibiton is the prime example)and therefore can NOT be relied upon to uphold or defend our Rights, therefore we MUST do it ourselves or forfeit them through our own stupidity.
    And still they remain with us...in ouir sight, independant even from our fruitless poltical meanderings...

    <Out of interest - the BOR - is it exactly the same as when it was first written?>

    YES, I myself went to the Nat'l Archives to see it in person...little tough to see under all that glass, but still says and MEANS the SAME THING TODAY AS IT DID THEN.

    I suggest you make the trip if yer ever in the neighborhood.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:

    Out of interest - the BOR - is it exactly the same as when it was first written?

    The first ten amendments to our constitution REMAIN as written... there are MANY who attempt to subvert and pervert the meaning for their own nefarious agenda...

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doubro,

    I'm curious. On what document or belief system is your concept of a universal set of moral/ethical beliefs based? And why is that set of beleifs more valid than those based on Buddhism or Hinduism or the worship of Bali?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doubro:

    (1) Answer the question: which right's going to give? Forget how this hypothetical plague was launched and deal with it. Freedom of movement or freedom to life? Tic. Toc. Tic. Toc...

    (2) The Bill of Rights says the same words, but their meanings have changed. Words mean what we want them to mean. You have no real way of knowing exactly what sentiments were meant to be embodied by those drops of ink.

    (3) Truth is not an objectively perceived absolute. Can't you understand that even when you do an 'objective' experiment in the science lab you are perceiving it subjectively, through the filters of your senses and brain? There is only the truth as you see it. A court of law wouldn't send someone down for perjury if s/he had thought themselves to be saying the honest truth for precisely this reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Sean_K:
    Doubro,

    <I'm curious. On what document or belief system is your concept of a universal set of moral/ethical beliefs based?>

    The U.S. legal code is based on the traditional Judeo/Christian Ethic or belief.

    <And why is that set of beleifs more valid than those based on Buddhism or Hinduism or the worship of Bali?
    >

    Most belief systems hold a few of the same tenants... the ones here are about the right to life...the right to protect ones life. If the Hindu's hold that one must sacrifice one's self so as not to injure an attacker, then I make a pragmatic judgement that their belief system is inherently flawed and doesn't take into consideration the moral imperitive of self defence.

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 21-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 21-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find it hard to find fault with the character or beliefs of Gandhi. But obviously you would have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doubro, the whole point of majority rule is that things get done. you cant please everybody all of the time. but the point of certain rights is to ensure that the minority have their interests protected too.

    to go back to your own 'hypothetical', say you're walking down the street and decide my right to live has expired.

    (1) firstly, you yourself assert that rights never change (i'm rather sceptical of this, but i'l play along). therefore I will always have my right to live. as an upstanding law abiding citizen <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif"&gt; you cannot take that from me. otherwise you would be a gun-crazed killer. oh, wait a minute......

    (2) we both have to respect one another's rights. depending on where we are, that means i may have to respect your right to bear arms, even if i dont like it. but, if its back here in the land of meaningless rhetoric, you dont get to carry a gun.

    (3) you say we 'rule a land of ... rhetoric' glad you agree i'm not a subject, but a citizen, at last.

    nobody forces their rule on to others in the UK, just like they dont in the US. so dont tell me that my view is forced upon an unwilling minority. they choose to accept our laws, or they fuck off elsewhere (eg the states, just like your gun-toting ancestors).

    evolution of rights - we dont have 15 year olds shooting up their school chums. you do. i rest my case.

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Sean_K:
    I find it hard to find fault with the character or beliefs of Gandhi. But obviously you would have.
    >


    It's not hard at all. In fact Ghandi tried applying his "Satyagraha" philosopy in South Africa first, and failed miserably.

    Look how the Indians and the Pakistanians treat each other today. His success was limited... and ultimately untenable as a permanent solution. But Idealism springs eternal I guess...


Sign In or Register to comment.