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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So, rights are eternal and unchanging. Opinions, however, do change with time and cultural background. Hmm. What are the chances that you, sitting at your computer in 2001, just happen to have synchronised your beliefs and these 'universal, eternal rights'? Pretty darn small, I'd say. Personally, I think it's the height of arrogance to presume that you're tuned in to some cosmic truth. All you are going on is your emotion.
And, again, 'inalienable' means 'cannot be given away or obviated by ANYONE'.
AHAH! So, it's not really about being MORAL, it's about abiding by whichever set of transitory laws happens to be in place at the moment! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Define fascism and I'll consider letting you have that point.
Yea, right, You just have 10 year olds stoning toddlers to death.[/B][/QUOTE]
Way OOO. You know what he meant.
I'll ignore the insensitivity of the post and remind you that this happenned ONCE and that was TEN YEARS AGO.
How many gun incidents have happened in school in the past year alone, in the US? Can you count them on one hand?
I think you'll find that this is hardly any comparison.
Mods, d'you think you could lock this thread, please? It is getting absurdly long, and a suitable "daughter" thread already exists (Guns Pt 2).
Cheers.
<So, rights are eternal and unchanging. Opinions, however, do change with time and cultural background.>
Sure, but some cultures are a bit off the mark...retarded... or would you like to live in Somalia? I'll bet I can find a few Ethiopians who wouldn't mind trading places with me...
< Hmm. What are the chances that you, sitting at your computer in 2001, just happen to have synchronised your beliefs and these 'universal, eternal rights'?Pretty darn small, I'd say. Personally, I think it's the height of arrogance to presume that you're tuned in to some cosmic truth. All you are going on is your emotion.>
Me...emotionally inventing rights in 2001? Are you serious? I didn't have to "synchronize" myself to anything...to recognize beliefs that have been the corner stone of my countrys self government since it's inception over 200 YEARS AGO! For Christ sake...sometimes I wonder if you read what you write. What's the chances that there's something to the whole "unalienable rights" thing? Pretty friggin good considering the whole USA was founded on such a belief...and it appears we got someting going for us...
<And, again, 'inalienable' means 'cannot be given away or obviated by ANYONE'.>
Stop with the nonsense symantics... You can deny yourself a human right, but that doesn't mean you are ever truly without it. For example; Youself or others can deny you any form of expression, but your right to free speech is always there...even if your voice is not.
You can be wronged by someone or many people...having your rights denied by them, but if you are in the right, then you are still entitled to them no matter where or when.
The State recognizes or temporarily denies peoples existing rights based on the ephemeral social contract of each culture, yet even those in jail have their basic human rights...the only time the State can ultimately and effectively revoke all rights a person possesses is in the case of capital punishment. I disagree with capital punishment... the State should never have the power of life of death over it's citizens. The only time a person can lose their right to life, morally, is in an immediate conflict caused by said person, in which they are threatening to kill someone else.
quote:
As long as you are a "upstanding Law abiding citizen", you will maintain your right to live.
<AHAH! So, it's not really about being MORAL, it's about abiding by whichever set of transitory laws happens to be in place at the moment! >
There is supposed to be a nexus between morality and legality. I know that you think one should have nothing to do with the other, but I beg to differ...Laws are based on moral precepts... Any law that is Immoral is null and void... however, someone losing their rights over breaking a law, would have to be breaking laws against assault...murder...etc...all of which are clearly moral laws.
quote:
But then what do you expect from a bunch of god damn Facsists.
Define fascism and I'll consider letting you have that point.
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
quote:
<evolution of rights - we dont have 15 year olds shooting up their school chums. you do. i rest my case.>
Yea, right, You just have 10 year olds stoning toddlers to death.[/B][/QUOTE]
Way OOO. You know what he meant.>
What?
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 24-08-2001).]
yes, the high-school killings were copycats, but no, they haven't stopped. a far better solution than saying 'oh they've stopped' would be to tackle part of the cause of this - the fact that kids have an almost farcical access to firearms.
i'm now stopping posting on this, so if you want to carry on your pointless argument doubro, i'll be on guns part 2.
oh look. i just made a choice of my own free will. or was i forced in to it by my oppressors?
and about the fascist thing - now apply that to tony blair's labour party, or any other party in british politics. even the BNP doesnt come close to fascism. by implying that the government is fascist, you are implying that a sizeable minority of this country voted 'fascist', to which all i can say is 'fuck off'.
see y'all on part 2.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Which also explains the difference between the two cultures. One death upset a large portion of this country. How many were killed in Columbine - that seems to have been swept under the carpet. An irrelevance, victims of freedom, the reaction we see over here is that the US Society rubs its hands, shrugs its collective shoulders and says "well, what can we do about it" - and "shit happens, you know".
As for your allegation about 'copycats' who was being copied then? Surely you don't mean Columbine? Or are you suggesting that was the first incident in a school? Ever read about the incident at Texas U, in Austin back in the sixties (as an example)? This has nothing to do with copycats, but it's a nice attempt to divert attention for another of the causes - lax gun laws. It's not the ONLY cause, but a significant factor.
You have just ascertained that gun control laws will have an effect on these types of crimes. I would like to see your proof. Not opinion, not "reasoning", but proof. Logical proof that will stand up under the analysis of symbolic logic.
Kinda difficult when the only way to prove it conclusively would be to institute gun control in the US, otherwise it would not be a true comparison.
But if you would like to take a look around the world at the countires where gun control exists and look at the GSW rate, I'm sure you will find most of the evidence you seek.
As a small example - How many shootings happen in schools in the UK? Is this partly because we have tighter gun laws?
I don't suggest that guns are the ONLY reason that these crimes take place, just that they are a huge contributing factor
Proof? And is this SOLELY because of gun control? Is the assumption from this that it would be higher or lower if guns were more freely available in these scoieties?
The same rules apply to your statements as mine.
There is an acceptable level of death, whether it be by accident or by violence.
It is completely arbitrary when a culture decides "enough is enough". For example, English have had WAY MORE RIOTS resulting in DEATHS at soccer games than Americans have had at ALL AMERICAN SPORTING EVENTS COMBINED. Yet the English won't end soccer games because a few people are violently killed once in a while.
While it's possible you can assert that in the absense of gun control, people are freer to commit violent crimes more effectively... it must also be considered that the condition of the public under pervasive gun controls would represent a form of passive duress. Assuming People would commit less crime, they would also be less free to speak, resist governmental force or demands, and repel criminal attack.
The Social benefits of freedom usually outweigh the costs. While I can understand British people thinking it's better to surrender their power to the authorities, they really don't have a choice at this point, since they have already and it's very VERY difficult to get it back... so it makes sense they would feel this way. If they allowed themselves to seriously question it, they'd be in the unhappy position of having to admit they are now practically powerless over their own condition.
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 06-09-2001).]
Not quite. I said "may". I did not attempt to state a fact, unlike yourself.