Political Memes/Sayings you wish would die.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

The Gentleman:

Yes. In case you missed it, you spend a lot of money on your sports teams to get your golds. I think you'll be fine.

You need to practice and if you do not have access to guns you can't practice as well.

Are we really fighting over this?

I mean, seriously, it's not like you won't have multi-million dollar facilities to practice in and US$10,000 rifles to shoot with. Just keep them there and secured. Hell, the runner up for your Olympic golds is China, and they aren't exactly the wild west in terms of gun control.

The more opportunities they have to practice the better they'll be. It's a simple concept.

The Gentleman:

The Gentleman:

30,000+ firearm-related deaths per year really isn't helping your case.

I said most, not all.

And, like many things, its the minority of incidents that require some measures to be made. Not everyone drives recklessly, but there are traffic laws in place for everyone's safety.

Bad comparison. Driving recklessly IS dangerous, merely owning a gun is not. The equivalent would be banning cars and forcing everyone to use public transport.

The Gentleman:

SNIP

It still really only shows a correlation, maybe more people own guns because they live in a place with high homicides and want to protect themselves.

Speaking of correlations.
http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png

The Gentleman:

Guilt by Association.

And yet this is what you posted earlier:

Father Time:

Leadfinger:
"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

It's not a guarantee, but it'd definitely make it harder on the tyrants.

When the core of your argument is the same as a ranting lunatic, you may want to reconsider your argument.

When someone calls you out on making the fallacy, the correct course of action is to not make the same fallacy again.

What it means is that you can't determine if something is wrong just based on who said. See also 'a broken clock is right twice a day'.

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

generals3:

Father Time:

Why? It makes sense that if there's a civilian uprising it makes sense that it'll have a higher chance of success if the citizens have guns.

Not really. Because many of these armed citizens might just as well be collaborators and use those weapons "against freedom".

Because don't forget: one man's liberator is an other man's oppressor (and vice versa).

If citizens wanted to join the tyrants army I'm sure the tyrants could supply them with their own arms.

Father Time:

Leadfinger:

Father Time:

It's not a guarantee, but it'd definitely make it harder on the tyrants.

See what I mean! This proves my point.

Father Time, I challenge you to find two examples, aside from the American Revolution, where civilian ownership of firearms was decisive in overthrowing a tyranny.
captcha-cop an attitude

Why? It makes sense that if there's a civilian uprising it makes sense that it'll have a higher chance of success if the citizens have guns.

If this idea makes sense, then there ought to be abundant historical examples of it. Conversely, if there aren't many examples, it's possible that civilian gun ownership isn't a decisive factor in overthrowing a tyranny.

harmonic:

Seanchaidh:

Um.

It's like an eviction.

You do know what an eviction is, don't you?

Um, no. Please help, I don't know what an eviction is.

Also, it's rather crass to refer to a baby as "material." It's fine that it's legal, but don't hide what it is. You're putting a vacuum inside a uterus and sucking the guts out of a human. Just be honest with yourself, stop using flowery language and a callous world view to hide the raw face of everything that you believe.

I very much like this post.

It succeeds on all levels.

Father Time:
The more opportunities they have to practice the better they'll be. It's a simple concept.

Isn't that more of a reason to simply have an exception for ranges and lock up the guns on site?

Bad comparison. Driving recklessly IS dangerous, merely owning a gun is not. The equivalent would be banning cars and forcing everyone to use public transport.

Driving itself is dangerous. It's why every civilized nation has licencing and registration systems for vehicle use and ownership.

Does the US have that for guns generally?

It still really only shows a correlation, maybe more people own guns because they live in a place with high homicides and want to protect themselves.

Speaking of correlations.
http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png


As noted before, the "correlation is not the same as causation" argument starts to wear thin the more consistent the correlations.

For example, you have a 14-year high on suicides and a 4-year high on non-fatal injuries in the time that US gun manufacturing has almost doubled. Half of all your gun related deaths are suicides. And while the murder rate is down, firearms are still used in 66% of all homicides in the US.

The Gentleman:

Guilt by Association.

And yet this is what you posted earlier:

Father Time:

It's not a guarantee, but it'd definitely make it harder on the tyrants.

When the core of your argument is the same as a ranting lunatic, you may want to reconsider your argument.

When someone calls you out on making the fallacy, the correct course of action is to not make the same fallacy again.

What it means is that you can't determine if something is wrong just based on who said. See also 'a broken clock is right twice a day'.

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

It's not just him that's crazy (although he certainly is). It's the idea he's espousing, the same idea you're espousing, that "guns prevent tyranny" despite no real evidence to show for it, that is crazy. Hell, historically speaking (especially in the United States), civilian gun ownership appears to have a higher likelihood of communal tyranny, such as the terrorism in the south against civil rights agitators or genocides in war-torn counties like Iraq (this is why you disarm an army before firing them). Hell, an old law in the colonial Carolinas mandated gun ownership in order to prevent slave rebellions.

And where there is a rebellion, all it does is legitimize much harsher responses by the supposed tyrannical government. They're not going to send troops in to a possible ambush when they can bomb the city block to kill rebels.

Father Time:
If citizens wanted to join the tyrants army I'm sure the tyrants could supply them with their own arms.

Why would they need to if the citizens are already armed to the teeth?

Besides, trained army vs bunch of rednecks with guns? I know I'm betting my money on the army every time. Arming citizens just means a bigger pile of corpses when an uprising has been crushed. You quite simply don't overthrow well-established countries. This is why the only succesfull revolutions are in places where the state has already been heavily eroded by bad policies and resentment by citizens.

Libya is a good example. Khadaffi had already stopped supplying and modernising the army because he feared for disloyalty. The best stuff went to special brigades commanded by his family members. True enough, many army units defected when the uprising started, and still they'd have been crushed if it hadn't been for the French and English intervention.

Father Time:
Guilt by Association.

More like, guilt by national rifle association.

Captcha: Who is buried in Grant's tomb? Where's the zombie army answer option?

The Gentleman:
-SNIP-

I do believe you have to meet some requirements to buy a gun in the U.S., I don't know though, I never tried to buy one. You definitely need a permit for concealed carry.

Anyway you act like if those suicidal and homicidal people didn't have guns they couldn't have found other ways to kill people.

Our country was founded out of a citizen's revolt. We had help from the French but foreign aide isn't out of the quesiton today.

Blablahb:

Father Time:
If citizens wanted to join the tyrants army I'm sure the tyrants could supply them with their own arms.

Why would they need to if the citizens are already armed to the teeth?

Besides, trained army vs bunch of rednecks with guns? I know I'm betting my money on the army every time. Arming citizens just means a bigger pile of corpses when an uprising has been crushed.

Those citizens with guns may have training (in fact I believe you need some to get a concealed carry permit), and they definitely have numbers. There's just too many possible factors to say a citizen's revolt will never be successful. Like you mentioned you could get foreign aide.

Gold:

-"Young and naive become liberals, as they grow older and understand more they become conservative" (or something along those lines)

Yeah this is kind of stupid. My grandfather is a democrat, and hey Bill Clinton is 66 ask him if he's still a liberal.

Father Time:

The Gentleman:
-SNIP-

I do believe you have to meet some requirements to buy a gun in the U.S., I don't know though, I never tried to buy one. You definitely need a permit for concealed carry.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/]It's apparently jurisdiction based, although that is probably one mark against a federal system for these kinds of things.

Anyway you act like if those suicidal and homicidal people didn't have guns they couldn't have found other ways to kill people.

Ego, why not make it easier by giving them access to a weapon? Do we need to go over the China stabbing again?

Our country was founded out of a citizen's revolt. We had help from the French but foreign aide isn't out of the quesiton today.

And you ended up nearly destroying your country over some of the same ideas less than a century later (with the one caveat that you lasted longer than most revolts before doing so).

Leadfinger:

BTW, I'm curious why you think the police and the military aren't required to protect us. Isn't that their raison d'etre?

Nope!

Warren vs. DC. That established the legal precident that police officers are under no obligation to protect anyone except, hold onto your seat, prison inmates.

I cna dig up other court cases that reinforced this as well, including one that states that police have no legal requirement to enforce a restraining order.

harmonic:
Yes, I know there are libertarian-leaning Republicans. I am one of them. Stay out of peoples' bedrooms just as you should stay out of their wallets. Individual responsibility. Unification (we are all Americans and we're in this together) rather than class/demographic warfare. (rich white men are the devil) Merit over forced equality. Social freedoms, not social revenge.

Yup, and I think that - as women, homosexuals and minorities become larger and more politically active demographics - that wing of the Republican party will grow stronger. Frankly, the sooner they replace the Social Conservatives, the better for the Republicans and the worse for the Democrats. Because the Democrats will lose a lot of their base if the Republicans overall become electable on those issues.

However, I always wonder... at what point will you be happy with how liberal and authoritarian America becomes? Just how much more powerful and pervasive do you want the federal government to be, and how much smaller and more anemic do you want the private sector to be?

That's the thing, we seem to have very different understandings of this. I do not view Corporatism as a free market, I view it as a rigged system that destroys equality of opportunity. In fact, regulations are required to ensure the market framework remains free and isn't co-opted and fucked with by monopolies, cartels and special interest groups. The thing is, though, equality of opportunity is not achievable by the government stepping back.

That said, as a European, it's quite funny to me that you mention "liberal" and don't capitalize it in this context (to refer to the American ones). Our liberals are economic liberals (basically the "light" version of Libertarians. At least that's how they present themselves; of course, they no longer fight for civil rights but only for their clientele. I actually very much dislike our liberals, we don't have a proper liberals right now. Although I think the Pirate Party is trying to become that...?

Maybe there is a centralization versus federation debate there, but it can't be nearly as dramatic as ours is.

Probably. We don't have people calling for secession, for instance. But there is EU-skepticism here, too, sure, especially considering Greece's and Spain's economic problems. But the thing about Germany is that we have one of if not the oldest insurance and welfare systems in the world. We have much more established worker rights, we have workers represented on corporate boards. People with actual interest in the long-term success of a their industry rather than the kind of grass hopper mentality we saw employed over and over again over the last decades. Our Neoliberals sure try to dismantle this (and they currently get 2% of the votes in polling in response). But the point is, our federal government has much more influence than yours, sure.

Now think about the German people having to bow down to, say, a powerful centralized government in Antwerp, Barcelona, London, or whatever.

Brussels. The EU governs from Brussels.

Personally, I view the EU as a great step towards ensuring European and German interests across the globe. You mentioned our relative smallness. We have about 1/4 of the USA's populace and much less than that of the geographic size. But we partake in and steer a lot of the economy as well. China isn't the only possible super-power to replace the USA. Europe's interests are best represented by a powerful economic alliance rather than its individual countries.

That is only a slightly more extreme version of what America faces, though, most Americans (and humans in general) seem to be more in favor of Authoritarian style governments.

Funnily enough, I view it quite the other way around. While you may see healthcare, education, gun regulations etc. as Authoritarian, I look at the USA and see massive Authoritarianism there: Civil rights infringements agreed to by both parties, wire-tapping, rendition, waterboarding, indefinite detention, yet no trials, signature strikes and executions of American citizens abroad. All in the name of safety over freedom. A governmental system that's completely dependent on donations rather than public funding, legal corruption through "consultant" and "lobbying positions" for former politicians, too big to fail, too big to prosecute, war on drugs, private military contractors, private prisons with a profit incentive to keep as many people as possible in as bad conditions as possible and have crappy recidivism rates etc..
I'd hate to live in a place as Authoritarian and Corporatist as the USA and not just on principle but also because of the practical negative effects it would have. Especially if what I got in return was the "freedoms" to go bankrupt the moment I get seriously sick and some guns to play with. Wow, that was worth giving up my privacy and freedom. I can only assume that our different understandings of freedom stem from our cultural backgrounds. Germany has enough problems of its own in those regards, but I sure as hell don't view the USA as freer than Germany.

harmonic:
Also, it's rather crass to refer to a baby as "material." It's fine that it's legal, but don't hide what it is. You're putting a vacuum inside a uterus and sucking the guts out of a human. Just be honest with yourself, stop using flowery language and a callous world view to hide the raw face of everything that you believe.

Why do you keep making this point? How often do I have to repost this?

"So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it's okay to cut them open, rip out their innards and pump them full of poisons, basically."
Well, yeah. When we're talking about, say, breast cancer treatment after having given informed consent.

Funny thing is, medical procedures actually are considered assaults ("Körperverletzung") in Germany. It's the consent that means they're allowed. Surgery isn't particularly pretty, but I don't see you reframing a treatment like the above in those terms, nor a hip-replacement, a heart-transplant, a life-saving amputation etc..

Wow, this thread has turned into all the scary R&P topics combined! Who'd a thunk it'd be possible.

Anyhow, any saying that says that 'science is like a religion' or similar makes me murderous.

Arakasi:
Wow, this thread has turned into all the scary R&P topics combined! Who'd a thunk it'd be possible.

That was my thought exactly. It's like the R&P community decided to band together to exemplify why the majority of forum-goers stay the fuck away from R&P.

OT, because apparently so few people can stay on topic and would rather start a million arguments instead, might as well try and balance it out, "It's just a theory." Fuck if that doesn't make me want to punch something. You have to be a special kind of ignorant to use it. I mean, seriously. For someone with barely a high school level of biology to try and claim they know better than actual evolutionary biologists is infuriating. Because that's what you're doing when you trot out the "It's just a theory" line.

The war on drugs, once you can put whatever you want into your own body then we can start saying were free

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

The Gentleman:
-SNIP-

I do believe you have to meet some requirements to buy a gun in the U.S., I don't know though, I never tried to buy one. You definitely need a permit for concealed carry.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/]It's apparently jurisdiction based, although that is probably one mark against a federal system for these kinds of things.

Anyway you act like if those suicidal and homicidal people didn't have guns they couldn't have found other ways to kill people.

Ego, why not make it easier by giving them access to a weapon? Do we need to go over the China stabbing again?

Our country was founded out of a citizen's revolt. We had help from the French but foreign aide isn't out of the quesiton today.

And you ended up nearly destroying your country over some of the same ideas less than a century later (with the one caveat that you lasted longer than most revolts before doing so).

If you're going to pull the China stabbing I get to pull the Oklahoma City bombing or the Bath School Massacre (which currently holds the record for the most deaths but with no one being shot). And the civil war was not destroying the country. Even if the South had won, the USA would still be a country. Just like how Britain was still a country when the US formed.

Father Time:

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

I do believe you have to meet some requirements to buy a gun in the U.S., I don't know though, I never tried to buy one. You definitely need a permit for concealed carry.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/]It's apparently jurisdiction based, although that is probably one mark against a federal system for these kinds of things.

Anyway you act like if those suicidal and homicidal people didn't have guns they couldn't have found other ways to kill people.

Ego, why not make it easier by giving them access to a weapon? Do we need to go over the China stabbing again?

Our country was founded out of a citizen's revolt. We had help from the French but foreign aide isn't out of the quesiton today.

And you ended up nearly destroying your country over some of the same ideas less than a century later (with the one caveat that you lasted longer than most revolts before doing so).

If you're going to pull the China stabbing I get to pull the Oklahoma City bombing or the Bath School Massacre (which currently holds the record for the most deaths but with no one being shot). And the civil war was not destroying the country. Even if the South had won, the USA would still be a country. Just like how Britain was still a country when the US formed.

Would it though? Cotton was worth a lot in international trade, and the death toll from the Civil War already was high, for the North to loose the Civil War, they would have lost a fair chunk of their male adult population, they would have to compete against the South for expanding west, their economy would be in tatters, and how long before other states in the Union decide that they want to Seceede when the Presidential election didn't go thier way?

Father Time:
*snip*

Well I...

Arakasi:
Wow, this thread has turned into all the scary R&P topics combined! Who'd a thunk it'd be possible.

You know what? I'm going to use that as a reason to end this. We have gone waaay off course of what I originally posted over a single nit-pick.

Skeleon:

That's the thing, we seem to have very different understandings of this. I do not view Corporatism as a free market, I view it as a rigged system that destroys equality of opportunity. In fact, regulations are required to ensure the market framework remains free and isn't co-opted and fucked with by monopolies, cartels and special interest groups. The thing is, though, equality of opportunity is not achievable by the government stepping back.

That said, as a European, it's quite funny to me that you mention "liberal" and don't capitalize it in this context (to refer to the American ones). Our liberals are economic liberals (basically the "light" version of Libertarians. At least that's how they present themselves; of course, they no longer fight for civil rights but only for their clientele. I actually very much dislike our liberals, we don't have a proper liberals right now. Although I think the Pirate Party is trying to become that...?

Corporatism plagues our entire system, not just evil whitey and Republicans. I don't see how Democrat voters really think they're making a difference in that regard. Our invincibly entrenched two party system is indistinguishable from the special interests to which its beholden.

When rules are stable and predictable, and cronies are not picked by government, (see Solyndra, GM, AIG, etc) suddenly private enterprise is completely at the mercy of the market, which grants the regular people the greatest power - our wants and needs rule you, rather than your ability to cooperate with government to better manipulate us.

By "liberal" I exclusively speak to the American "liberal" who typically favors growing size and role of the federal government, higher taxes, and more entitlements. I don't know nearly as much about the internal politics of Europe, therefore, I refrain from speaking to it with authority (though some Europeans here have a very selective grasp of their own history.)

Personally, I view the EU as a great step towards ensuring European and German interests across the globe. You mentioned our relative smallness. We have about 1/4 of the USA's populace and much less than that of the geographic size. But we partake in and steer a lot of the economy as well. China isn't the only possible super-power to replace the USA. Europe's interests are best represented by a powerful economic alliance rather than its individual countries.

I'm aware of the EU and its "government" in Brussels, and I'm also aware of very strong resistance from both voters and politicians to what is described as "unelected, out of touch tyrants" in charge of the EU seemingly crushing national sovereignty, as well as weaker Mediterranean economies by forcing them into the Euro. From here, it looks like the European project is anemic at best, and many say that the experiment will end before any sort of super-nation dream can be achieved.

Funnily enough, I view it quite the other way around. While you may see healthcare, education, gun regulations etc. as Authoritarian, I look at the USA and see massive Authoritarianism there: Civil rights infringements agreed to by both parties, wire-tapping, rendition, waterboarding, indefinite detention, yet no trials, signature strikes and executions of American citizens abroad. All in the name of safety over freedom. A governmental system that's completely dependent on donations rather than public funding, legal corruption through "consultant" and "lobbying positions" for former politicians, too big to fail, too big to prosecute, war on drugs, private military contractors, private prisons with a profit incentive to keep as many people as possible in as bad conditions as possible and have crappy recidivism rates etc..

All these stereotypical bogeyman things you're describing are, again, not exclusive to party. (By the way, the government does not rely on donations, parties do, and parties are not part of the government, they're organizations set up to get their people elected into the government.) Would that we were not so obsessed with crushing the other side, mostly due to relatively inconsequential issues (the never-ending abortion debate) and/or issues that have been deliberately used to divide and conquer, (demographic/class warfare) perhaps Americans could realize that by wishing for themselves and their party to have the power to crush the other side, they're dooming themselves to more of the same - more authoritarianism.

Be careful how you put our libertarianism into words. We are not against health care, education, and gun regulations. We want maximum reasonable personal liberty and maximum reasonable decentralization. Minimum reasonable military obligations as well as domestic entitlements.

GunsmithKitten:

Leadfinger:

BTW, I'm curious why you think the police and the military aren't required to protect us. Isn't that their raison d'etre?

Nope!

Warren vs. DC. That established the legal precident that police officers are under no obligation to protect anyone except, hold onto your seat, prison inmates.

I cna dig up other court cases that reinforced this as well, including one that states that police have no legal requirement to enforce a restraining order.

Thank you for the link. That was disquieting reading.

adamsaccount:
The war on drugs, once you can put whatever you want into your own body then we can start saying were free

Because smoking crack makes society better, right?

Both the war on drugs and wanting to not prosecute or legalise drugs are ridiculous extremes.

harmonic:
I'm aware of the EU and its "government" in Brussels, and I'm also aware of very strong resistance from both voters and politicians to what is described as "unelected, out of touch tyrants" in charge of the EU seemingly crushing national sovereignty, as well as weaker Mediterranean economies by forcing them into the Euro. From here, it looks like the European project is anemic at best, and many say that the experiment will end before any sort of super-nation dream can be achieved.

That's mostly stuff you find on populistic blogs and UKIP rubbish. There's overwhelming support for the EU in principle. Everybody save a few populistic idiots realises it's been a smashing succes and will continue to be that.

It's just that exactly how that's going to be shaped in the future, which everybody disagrees on. But if you put forward "Let's destroy the EU and go back to 1952", you'll find almost nobody willing to back that. And without exception they're just populists who can't name a decent reason for why they'd want that.

And even those are being backed into a corner. The populistic conservative left wing party the Socialist Party in the Netherlands for instance campaigned in 2006 with wanting to abolish the euro. It was a stupid idea that would cost billions and yield nothing but disadvantage. Commentators grilled them over it, the dumb factory workers who form their main block of voters weren't all that enthousiastic about it, and the idea got dropped silently after that.

Same elections for the EU parliament, the centrist liberal D66 party campaigned with the slogan "Europe, yes" with a clear pro-EU agenda in everything, and they scored a massive victory.

harmonic:
All these stereotypical bogeyman things you're describing are, again, not exclusive to party.

But they are exclusive to a political ideology, namely small government conservatism, of which libertarianism is one incarnation. Also, libertarianism doesn't advocate maximum personal freedom. It advocates maximum freedom of those who are male, white, rich and Christian. All the others can go fuck themselves as far as libertarianism is concerned.

This is demonstrated for instance in wanting to destroy many essential services, like healthcare, and wanting to impose religious values onto people by force. Gary Johnson is a good example of this. He claims to be for freedom, but he wants to ban gay marriage by official transfering the authority to conduct marriages from the government to the churches. That's theocracy; government power being given to religion.

And of course there's that little trick of his where he wants to control women by making contraceptives unaffordable. Libertarians would rather eat their own arm then admit it honestly, but that's just religious oppression under the guise of 'not paying for others'.

Libertarians claim to be different, but they want exactly the same as other conservatives: Not doing anything for anyone but themselves, going back in time, religious privilege, unequal rights and most importantly: protecting the interests of the rich. Libertarians just wrap it in a different rhetoric.

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
The war on drugs, once you can put whatever you want into your own body then we can start saying were free

Because smoking crack makes society better, right?

Both the war on drugs and wanting to not prosecute or legalise drugs are ridiculous extremes.

Crack is a horrible drug. I dont think anyone who smokes crack cares if its legal or not
edit: drinking bleach is legal too, the idea that legalising something is gonna mean everyones going to go out and do it is false and patronising

Im not saying its going to make society better(though in my opinion thered be a lot less violence if we all got stoned instead of pissed), Im saying that it will make society freer, big difference

Its patronising as fuck that the government can prosecute me for what i choose to ingest in the privacy of my own home

I think the war on drugs will eventually be seen on the same level of morality as pro slavery advocates

double edit: I cant see how any one can be anti assisted suicide either, why make people living miserable lives thanks to illness keep fighting for their last breath if they dont want to?

Father Time:
The more opportunities they have to practice the better they'll be. It's a simple concept.

The Gentleman, and many others including myself, just think said practise should take place exclusively at a shooting range, and not in classrooms of the local highschool.

Demonstrated as in the 2012 games, with the exception of the US, all countries in the top 20 were ones who have a weapons ban of varying strictness in place. If what you said is true, the US, Switserland, Somalia, Afghanistan and other gun-loving countries should absolutely dominate the sport.

Heck, the n1 was South Korea, which has incredibly strict gun laws. No possession of any kind under the age of 20, possession after a permit only, and no permits for anyone of questionable mental stability, with any kind of criminal record which involves prison, and nobody who's ever done drugs.

Father Time:
Bad comparison. Driving recklessly IS dangerous, merely owning a gun is not. The equivalent would be banning cars and forcing everyone to use public transport.

And what's amazing? To be allowed to drive a car, you first have to apply for a permit in the form of a driving license, and you have to demonstrate you can drive before you're allowed. They don't have to disprove your ability to drive. Driving is 'no, unless...', so why should firearms be 'yes, always...'?

Isnt shooting in the olympics down with air guns that are legal nearly everywhere anyway?

adamsaccount:
double edit: I cant see how any one can be anti assisted suicide either, why make people living miserable lives thanks to illness keep fighting for their last breath if they dont want to?

Some people think that it could be open to abuse. So if someone kills someone else, they could just say it was assisted suicide, and it would be hard to disprove. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an understandable argument.

Yeah i suppose thats a fair argument to make but it still doesnt wash with me, its not like legalising murder, there are a lot of easy controls one could put in place such as needing approval from a number of doctors. If a 20 year old unemployed stoner can come up with a solution off the top off my head im sure lawyers could make something more fool proof

DJjaffacake:
Some people think that it could be open to abuse. So if someone kills someone else, they could just say it was assisted suicide, and it would be hard to disprove. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an understandable argument.

Obviously such a thing would be legislated in a way that you need proof that it's assisted suicide, or it's not.

Generally speaking, legislators aren't dumb enough to make those kinds of mistakes.

Then again, creating a procedure where one can apply for euthenasia by doctors tends to limit the amount of requests for assisted severely. Euthenasia is legal in the Netherlands, assisted suicide is not (meaning by that: you kill someone on their explicit request, or play an active enabling role in them killing themselves). There've been only two court cases ever over assisted suicide since it was legislated, and only one conviction to a one year suspended prison sentence.

More importantly, when the government had the effects of the euthenasia legislation studied and evaluated, the statistics of the percentages of deaths in which euthenasia or assisted suicide played a role has remained constant at around 2,9% both before and after the euthenasia legislation. This would suggest that almost the full amount of cases of (illegal) assisted suicide, switch to (legal) euthenasia if legislation is created for that.

This suggests that cases of assisted suicide should be exceedingly rare and very easy to judge in court.

Blablahb:
But they are exclusive to a political ideology, namely small government conservatism, of which libertarianism is one incarnation. Also, libertarianism doesn't advocate maximum personal freedom. It advocates maximum freedom of those who are male, white, rich and Christian. All the others can go fuck themselves as far as libertarianism is concerned.

This is demonstrated for instance in wanting to destroy many essential services, like healthcare, and wanting to impose religious values onto people by force. Gary Johnson is a good example of this. He claims to be for freedom, but he wants to ban gay marriage by official transfering the authority to conduct marriages from the government to the churches. That's theocracy; government power being given to religion.

And of course there's that little trick of his where he wants to control women by making contraceptives unaffordable. Libertarians would rather eat their own arm then admit it honestly, but that's just religious oppression under the guise of 'not paying for others'.

Libertarians claim to be different, but they want exactly the same as other conservatives: Not doing anything for anyone but themselves, going back in time, religious privilege, unequal rights and most importantly: protecting the interests of the rich. Libertarians just wrap it in a different rhetoric.

Everything you wrote here is absolute rubbish. Not even remotely in the realm of fact and truth. Stop associating the word "libertarian" with "everything I, Blahblahb, disagree with" because that is exactly what you just did.

You seriously don't know what the word means. You just described some sort of hybrid of Neoconservatism and Reactionary Theocracy, not Libertarianism. Complete and utter rubbish.

harmonic:

Seanchaidh:

Um.

It's like an eviction.

You do know what an eviction is, don't you?

Um, no. Please help, I don't know what an eviction is.

Also, it's rather crass to refer to a baby as "material." It's fine that it's legal, but don't hide what it is. You're putting a vacuum inside a uterus and sucking the guts out of a human. Just be honest with yourself, stop using flowery language and a callous world view to hide the raw face of everything that you believe.

Material is simply the most general term for the right: flushing living material or human living material is just a subset of the right to flush material out of one's own body. You either believe in a person's bodily autonomy or you don't. You appear to be on the 'don't' side of things.

Seanchaidh:

Material is simply the most general term for the right: flushing living material or human living material is just a subset of the right to flush material out of one's own body. You either believe in a person's bodily autonomy or you don't. You appear to be on the 'don't' side of things.

Right, all the times I've spoken about more personal responsibility, less state responsibility, and maximum possible personal freedoms went right through one eye and out the other without registering in the thing between your ears.

harmonic:

Seanchaidh:

Material is simply the most general term for the right: flushing living material or human living material is just a subset of the right to flush material out of one's own body. You either believe in a person's bodily autonomy or you don't. You appear to be on the 'don't' side of things.

Right, all the times I've spoken about more personal responsibility, less state responsibility, and maximum possible personal freedoms went right through one eye and out the other without registering in the thing between your ears.

No, it just contradicts your position on a woman's right to control her own body. You believe she should be enslaved to the being that inhabits her womb, to provide unpaid shelter and food for it for nine months with absolutely no way out of the relationship.

Oh yeah, you can yammer on about 'maximum possible personal freedoms' all you'd like, but when it comes down to it... nope! You just don't support it. You're a statist.

Seanchaidh:

harmonic:

Seanchaidh:

Material is simply the most general term for the right: flushing living material or human living material is just a subset of the right to flush material out of one's own body. You either believe in a person's bodily autonomy or you don't. You appear to be on the 'don't' side of things.

Right, all the times I've spoken about more personal responsibility, less state responsibility, and maximum possible personal freedoms went right through one eye and out the other without registering in the thing between your ears.

No, it just contradicts your position on a woman's right to control her own body. You believe she should be enslaved to the being that inhabits her womb, to provide unpaid shelter and food for it for nine months with absolutely no way out of the relationship.

Oh yeah, you can yammer on about 'maximum possible personal freedoms' all you'd like, but when it comes down to it... nope! You just don't support it. You're a statist.

What the hell are you talking about? Show me where I said abortion should be outlawed. Show me. You can't, because it never happened. You're arguing with your own shadow.

Yeah, I can't really take you seriously anymore. You're arguing with me even though we have the same policy opinion on this issue. You're arguing because I'm me, you associate me with a template of beliefs, you want to white knight for "women's rights" make pretending I'm "anti-woman" and you apparently can't separate that from the numerous times I've said that I'm not "pro-life". Get with the program, kid.

harmonic:

Blablahb:
But they are exclusive to a political ideology, namely small government conservatism, of which libertarianism is one incarnation. Also, libertarianism doesn't advocate maximum personal freedom. It advocates maximum freedom of those who are male, white, rich and Christian. All the others can go fuck themselves as far as libertarianism is concerned.

This is demonstrated for instance in wanting to destroy many essential services, like healthcare, and wanting to impose religious values onto people by force. Gary Johnson is a good example of this. He claims to be for freedom, but he wants to ban gay marriage by official transfering the authority to conduct marriages from the government to the churches. That's theocracy; government power being given to religion.

And of course there's that little trick of his where he wants to control women by making contraceptives unaffordable. Libertarians would rather eat their own arm then admit it honestly, but that's just religious oppression under the guise of 'not paying for others'.

Libertarians claim to be different, but they want exactly the same as other conservatives: Not doing anything for anyone but themselves, going back in time, religious privilege, unequal rights and most importantly: protecting the interests of the rich. Libertarians just wrap it in a different rhetoric.

Everything you wrote here is absolute rubbish. Not even remotely in the realm of fact and truth. Stop associating the word "libertarian" with "everything I, Blahblahb, disagree with" because that is exactly what you just did.

You seriously don't know what the word means. You just described some sort of hybrid of Neoconservatism and Reactionary Theocracy, not Libertarianism. Complete and utter rubbish.

Blahab doesn't know the difference or is intentionally ignoring it. Don't bother.

Also, he doesn't care that there are numerous churches in the US who are just fine to wed same sex couples....

Blablahb:
Actually, yes, because in both cases abortion becomes unavailable to those who need it.

So are you implying only the poor get abortions?

The Gentleman:

harmonic:
It seems my sarcasm didn't come through earlier. But thanks.

(to everyone generally) I know there are some people out there who are opposed to Poe's Law Pink (which is, ironically, actually magenta), but if you're going to be sarcastic in this subforum, please use the color to identify your meaning. Remember, no matter how insane of an idea it is, there is probably someone in the world who seriously believes it fully.

Please don't do the pink, actually, it's painful to read. A "(/sarcasm)" after the sarcasm gets the point across just fine without the headaches.

OT: "We just want smaller government" from Republicans. Oh, my *ass* you want a smaller government, you just want a bigger government for different shit. Government so small you can drown it in the bathtub... except for wildly expanded border patrolling, ginormous defense budget and support for more foreign interventions, more laws against abortion, more laws against contraception, more laws prohibiting marriage that's not "a man and a woman"... come on, now, stop lying.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked