Oh, you're saying all green people look the same? Racists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonono... I am pretty sure it's a gobbo.
Nonono... I am pretty sure it's a gobbo.
Hehehe!
|
Is your argument that you cannot possibly be free without a gun?So you would gladly give up the first amendment? Happily go to what church the gov says to and only say what is allowed?Well Mr. Betts,
You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.
To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?
Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.
Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).
Are you arguing you cannot be free without what you want?
|
|
In all seriousness, though, I saw the first half of Occupy Unmasked today. It was pretty awesome. I don't watch much television, so all of that news footage was new to me. And I'm wicked jealous because, in comparison, Occupy NH was wicked lame.
I don't agree with much of what was said, obviously, but it was interesting how they got a lot of stuff right on, imho. Of course, they also got just as much stuff wrong, again, imho.
Worth watching anyway, although I didn't get to the part about mass murder plots.
:(
If i recall it was in connection to a plot to firebomb the RNC.
Guns don't kill people, jackasses with anything at hand do. where are the petitions to control flammable liquids?
Well, as I said, I didn't finish watching it, but, again:
Google results with keywords: Plot, firebomb, RNC doesn't reveal much unless they're talking about 2008. And, again, the only video "promoting" firebombing cops that I could find on cop websites was a Kanye West video which, imho, doesn't really count.
|
|
Are you arguing you cannot be free without what you want?What part of his post gave you that idea?
Nice dodge of his question tho. Did you want your first question answered or was it just rhetorical?
Short answer, if ANY amendment is on the table to be taken they all are. and yes i do believe the ability to defend yourself is indeed needed to be free.
So, Andrew R, in your view, are Europe, the UK, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and dozens of other countries not free because the citizenry isn't armed?
I would say a lot of those are less free, not merely because of stricter gun control laws though. Many have greater limits on speech as well, for example.
So, Andrew R, in your view, are Europe, the UK, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and dozens of other countries not free because the citizenry isn't armed?I would say a lot of those are less free, not merely because of stricter gun control laws though. Many have greater limits on speech as well, for example.
Not really.
In fact, according to the Index of Freedom in the World, which measures countries according to the strengths of classical liberties, New Zealand is the most free country on the planet - followed by Australia, a couple European countries, Hong Kong, Canada, and then the United States in 7th place. Japan is in 9th. Freedom in the World also ranks all of the nations Paul Watson mentioned as "Free", including the entirety of Western Europe (the study ranks countries by "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free"). The Index of Economic Freedom ranks New Zealand, Australia, and two European countries above the United States (which is in 10th place).
So, fortunately, we do actually have people whose job it is to measure how free everyone in the world is, and according to basically all of those people, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, the UK, and Japan are all super free (in some cases, reliably more free than the United States).
I suspect Paul Watson was familiar with the various freedom index rankings.
So your claim is that in many European countries, there are not some strict restrictions on speech that are not present in the US?
|
[Removed some as Pres Man is responding to thejeff rather than Scott beetts so I was being harsh]
And no, Scott, I wasn't not familiar with the stats, I just know that most of Europe is free in any but the most ludicrous sense of the word because I live here and took issue with Andrew R saying that you need a gun to be free when, patently, you don't. Thanks for doing my research for me, though.
Are you arguing you cannot be free without what you want?Is your argument that you cannot possibly be free without a gun?So you would gladly give up the first amendment? Happily go to what church the gov says to and only say what is allowed?Well Mr. Betts,
You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.
To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?
Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.
Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).
Your question does not answer mine. Is it your position that freedom is impossible without ownership of a gun?
|
|
Your question does not answer mine. Is it your position that freedom is impossible without ownership of a gun?Are you arguing you cannot be free without what you want?Is your argument that you cannot possibly be free without a gun?So you would gladly give up the first amendment? Happily go to what church the gov says to and only say what is allowed?Well Mr. Betts,
You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.
To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?
Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.
Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).
limited. And easily revoked. Is it limited by state mandated church? By what you can say?
So, Andrew R, in your view, are Europe, the UK, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and dozens of other countries not free because the citizenry isn't armed?I would say a lot of those are less free, not merely because of stricter gun control laws though. Many have greater limits on speech as well, for example.Not really.
In fact, according to the Index of Freedom in the World, which measures countries according to the strengths of classical liberties, New Zealand is the most free country on the planet - followed by Australia, a couple European countries, Hong Kong, Canada,
I don't think this addresses freedom of speech, at all
In addition, we include indicators of crime and violence, freedom of movement, and legal discrimination against homosexuals.
Also the other countries you mentioned got a 10 in freedom of speech: the same score as the us, despite some actual government restrictions on speech in those countries.
limited. And easily revoked. Is it limited by state mandated church? By what you can say?Your question does not answer mine. Is it your position that freedom is impossible without ownership of a gun?Are you arguing you cannot be free without what you want?Is your argument that you cannot possibly be free without a gun?So you would gladly give up the first amendment? Happily go to what church the gov says to and only say what is allowed?Well Mr. Betts,
You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.
To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?
Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.
Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).
If criticizing the government is illegal, you're not free.
If disobeying the church is illegal, you're not free.There are numerous examples of nonviolent movements successfully struggling for their freedom. In fact, they are twice as likely to succeed as an armed revolution. So freedom is explicitly possible without a gun.
So your claim is that in many European countries, there are not some strict restrictions on speech that are not present in the US?
It's a matter of definition. Take Germany for example: we have freedom of opinion. That means, while you can think whatever you like, you are not allowed to voice it anyway you want. If you seriously insult someone (i.e. use "defamatory" language), it may very well be that that person will sue you.
If you state your opinion in public (be it vocally, or written down), and what you say violates section 130 of the criminal code, which forbids "incitement of the people" ("Volksverhetzung"; that includes the propagation of racism), then you will be charged for that.
Which is, btw, very similar to the restrictions to freedom of speech in the US, which forbid "defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words" (Wikipedia).
|
|
limited. And easily revoked. Is it limited by state mandated church? By what you can say?Your question does not answer mine. Is it your position that freedom is impossible without ownership of a gun?Are you arguing you cannot be free without what you want?Is your argument that you cannot possibly be free without a gun?So you would gladly give up the first amendment? Happily go to what church the gov says to and only say what is allowed?Well Mr. Betts,
You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.
To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?
Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.
Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).
If criticizing the government is illegal, you're not free.
If disobeying the church is illegal, you're not free.There are numerous examples of nonviolent movements successfully struggling for their freedom. In fact, they are twice as likely to succeed as an armed revolution. So freedom is explicitly possible without a gun.
If defending your life home and family is not legal you are not free.
If you want to argue with imaginary people, you don't need to quote me.
Is there a country in which defending your home and family is not legal?
Is there a country that does not restrict the means by which you may do so?
A few incidents in England get pretty close.
Some places aren't as lenient as Florida either, where you can defend yourself while chasing your attacker down.
Some places aren't as lenient as Florida either, where you can defend yourself while chasing your attacker down.
We don't know if thats the case yet.
Mr. Betts:
Yes, I believe you are trolling when you introduce an incendiary argument about slavery into a discussion about gun control.
I believe your understanding is supperficial when you denigrate the wisdom of the forefathers when you don't understand the 3/5 clause.
Project full representation rights counting slaves - and the south has the voting majority to ensure all subsequent states are brought in as slaves. The 3/5 of a person compromise allowed the union to be saved and gave time to find another solution to the problem.
So yes, far more brilliant, and meaningful than anythig you, or I are ever likely to say or achieve in our lifetimes.
As for guncontrol:
*If* the federal government could protect its citizens from people released from mental institutions; from repeat criminals, from people crazed on drugs - then people would have no need of guns.
But the federal government in all its bloated repugnance can't. So please spare me the lecture on what measures I can take to defend me and mine.
Have you ever watched car thieves steal a car - follow them and been told not to bother because the police won't bother to do anything?
Have you ever caught someone breaking into your home - and handcuffed him and been told you were the bad guy?
Have you ever been mugged your home and your place of work, or had your neighbor killed in a home invasion?
Have you ever had roving gangs of black looters come into your work after a hurricane?
All those things have happened to me Mr. Betts. And everytime it happens to any citizens; everytime people have to endure unsafe neighborhoods a certain number will turn to guns to protect them and their families.
Frankly it would be my preference that people not have guns. But trust in a bloated oppressive government that has demonstrated incompetence, abuse of power, factionalism and corruption.
Never.
Frankly your words have inspired me to donate $100 to the NRA today, a group I am not a member of and have never donated to before. I hope all that feel likewise, do likewise.
Mr. Betts:
Yes, I believe you are trolling when you introduce an incendiary argument about slavery into a discussion about gun control.
I believe your understanding is supperficial when you denigrate the wisdom of the forefathers when you don't understand the 3/5 clause.
The point is this: in the original Constitution, slavery was an accepted practice, they even accounted for it when counting for representatives.
So when people want to talk about how something is in the Constitution, I'm going to point out that the Constitution has changed over time. If you want to argue that change in the Constitution is a bad thing, I'm going to bring up this example, an example where we changed the Constitution.
It can change. It has changed. It will change in the future.
I don't think this addresses freedom of speech, at all
"The index consists of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, individual economic choice, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, violence and crimes, freedom of movement, homosexual rights and women's rights."
Classical civil rights.
Also the other countries you mentioned got a 10 in freedom of speech: the same score as the us, despite some actual government restrictions on speech in those countries.
We have actual government restrictions on speech. A "10" doesn't mean you can say anything you want.
biased study?
You wish.
Mr. Betts:
Yes, I believe you are trolling when you introduce an incendiary argument about slavery into a discussion about gun control.
I didn't introduce anything of the sort. The first post even mentioning slavery or the 3/5ths Compromise was Irontruth's a couple pages back.
Your flailing for reasons to call me a troll is cute, though.
I believe your understanding is supperficial when you denigrate the wisdom of the forefathers when you don't understand the 3/5 clause.
I don't really care what you believe. I understand it way better than you do.
Project full representation rights counting slaves - and the south has the voting majority to ensure all subsequent states are brought in as slaves. The 3/5 of a person compromise allowed the union to be saved and gave time to find another solution to the problem.
No, it didn't. The South had that political monopoly even with the 3/5ths Compromise - up until the Civil War, they had a near stranglehold on the election of the President, Speaker of the House, and appointment to the Supreme Court from 1800 until 1844 (save 1824, which was a crazy election, and 1840). On top of that, it literally allowed the southern states to buy political power.
So yes, far more brilliant, and meaningful than anythig you, or I are ever likely to say or achieve in our lifetimes.
It wasn't brilliant for its elegance or its effectiveness. It was a compromise that allowed the Philadelphia convention to proceed. In fact, people proposed 1/2 and 3/4 compromises as well. 3/5ths was just the one they eventually settled on. Your continued views of the founding fathers as monolithic and infinitely wise is childish, and it's making you even more wrong than you'd normally be.
As for guncontrol:
*If* the federal government could protect its citizens from people released from mental institutions; from repeat criminals, from people crazed on drugs - then people would have no need of guns.
But the federal government in all its bloated repugnance can't. So please spare me the lecture on what measures I can take to defend me and mine.
No.
Have you ever watched car thieves steal a car - follow them and been told not to bother because the police won't bother to do anything?
Actually, my girlfriend had her car stolen last year. The car was later found by the police and returned to her.
Does the fact that I have a counter-anecdote matter to you? I'd wager not, because your argument was silly to begin with.
Have you ever caught someone breaking into your home - and handcuffed him and been told you were the bad guy?
Cool story.
Have you ever been mugged your home and your place of work, or had your neighbor killed in a home invasion?
No, thank goodness.
Have you ever had roving gangs of black looters come into your work after a hurricane?
"Black looters"?
I'd say I'm astonished, but frankly the last two pages put any doubts about how racist you are to rest.
All those things have happened to me Mr. Betts.
Have you ever considered, I don't know, moving someplace where you're not dealing with crime on a constant basis?
And everytime it happens to any citizens; everytime people have to endure unsafe neighborhoods a certain number will turn to guns to protect them and their families.
Depressed people often turn to alcohol as a "solution". That doesn't mean it was a smart choice.
Frankly it would be my preference that people not have guns. But trust in a bloated oppressive government that has demonstrated incompetence, abuse of power, factionalism and corruption.
You're just a crazy anti-government extreme right-winger. Your over-the-top rhetoric doesn't mean a lot, here.
Frankly your words have inspired me to donate $100 to the NRA today, a group I am not a member of and have never donated to before. I hope all that feel likewise, do likewise.
Why not just go spend a few hundred dollars on guns? The NRA would end up with a significant chunk of the money, anyway, and then you'd get guns, too!
But I'm glad to hear my words have so much sway over you, cp. Stick around. Maybe I can convince you to give them more!
We have actual government restrictions on speech. A "10" doesn't mean you can say anything you want.
No, but the us is significantly closer to it than Canada or Europe and the study isn't reflecting that.
I also don't see how legal discrimination against homosexuals, or a high crime rate, indicate a lack of freedom: in fact, one of th problems with freedom is that you have to accept that individuals will abuse it.
The study doesn't appear to be measuring freedom it appears to be measuring liberal-mindedness.
Denying rights to certain individuals is a lower level of freedom than granting the same rights to everyone. That's why legal discrimination against homosexuals is a negative score.
I'm not sure what your associating between high crime and liberal-mindedness. That only liberals want low crime?
We have actual government restrictions on speech. A "10" doesn't mean you can say anything you want.
No, but the us is significantly closer to it than Canada or Europe and the study isn't reflecting that.
I also don't see how legal discrimination against homosexuals, or a high crime rate, indicate a lack of freedom: in fact, one of th problems with freedom is that you have to accept that individuals will abuse it.
The study doesn't appear to be measuring freedom it appears to be measuring liberal-mindedness.
Crime is, in many schools of thought, simply a non-state-actor form of oppression, and is therefore antithetical to freedom. Furthermore, legal/tolerated discrimination against protected groups remains discrimination even if legal. It is, again, a form of oppression, and the elimination of forms of oppression tends to result in a net increase in freedom.
You can keep redefining freedom until the United States comes out on top, but that's not generally how we do things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously people... Freedom of speech is a function of a lot of things. For example, the likelihood that you get sued for saying something. Today, the UK is said to be worse than the US at this, because of various pieces of legal praxis and the actual law on the subject. Still... Many countries have this risk at bloody close to zero. In Sweden, it is because it is costly to run such processes and there is little to gain because damages are generally very low here. So, while it is technically true that american law on the subject is more alowing than here, there is no contest about where exercising the right of free speech is safer.
Crime is, in many schools of thought, simply a non-state-actor form of oppression, and is therefore antithetical to freedom.
Malarky. If you want to survey "how well are people doing" by all means, survey that but don't call it freedom.
Furthermore, legal/tolerated discrimination against protected groups remains discrimination even if legal.
And stopping it, while by and large a good thing, is the government forcing action at the point of a gun: ie, the antithesis of freedom.
It is, again, a form of oppression, and the elimination of forms of oppression tends to result in a net increase in freedom.
Its merely replacing the malintentioned discrimination of individuals with the well intentioned use of coercion by the government.
You can keep redefining freedom until the United States comes out on top, but that's not generally how we do things.
I've had to do no such thing. You are the other hand are flailing around blindly with some ad hom asserting patriotic fervor in place of reason... which really doesn't work when you try to use it against someone thats called the us "not bad for an evil world ruling empire", "not first world, maybe 1.5 world" and "the best army lobbyists can buy"
You can't expect me not to notice when its been defined as something else completely. I'm sorry, but restricting an individuals ability to decide how they other want to treat other groups of people is not freedom.
Malarky. If you want to survey "how well are people doing" by all means, survey that but don't call it freedom.
That's not what this means. Crime is the unlawful imposition of one's will on another. It is distinguishable from similar government imposition only by legality.
You can call it malarkey, but this is a pretty unremarkable position in both criminology and political science.
And stopping it, while by and large a good thing, is the government forcing action at the point of a gun: ie, the antithesis of freedom.
Freedom is not binary, nor is it a zero-sum game. It is possible to, by preventing one person from exercising freedom in a way that reduces the freedom of another, desirable freedoms are improved while undesirable freedoms (if they can be properly termed freedoms) are marginalized. Again, you can define freedom to mean the ability to do whatever you want, but that wouldn't make an index of such freedoms something to aspire to - in fact, it would probably be an indicator of what nations to avoid. Indeed, a geographical area with absolutely no government of any kind would rank highest on such an index.
Its merely replacing the malintentioned discrimination of individuals with the well intentioned use of coercion by the government.
Exactly. There are freedoms which are desirable, and whose encouragement elevates the freedoms of all peoples, and freedoms which are undesirable, and whose encouragement elevates the freedoms of one group to the extreme detriment of another.
I've had to do no such thing. You are the other hand are flailing around blindly with some ad hom asserting patriotic fervor in place of reason...
I'm doing nothing of the sort. (And that's not ad hominem anyway)
which really doesn't work when you try to use it against someone thats called the us "not bad for an evil world ruling empire", "not first world, maybe 1.5 world" and "the best army lobbyists can buy"
That's fine, but I'm telling you that the way you are considering freedom is such that an index ranking level of freedom would likely indicate the least hospitable places to live, and would not be useful as a way of encouraging governments to enact policies which increase freedoms.
Remember, these indices measure classical freedoms, not absolute freedoms.
You can't expect me not to notice when its been defined as something else completely. I'm sorry, but restricting an individuals ability to decide how they other want to treat other groups of people is not freedom.
It's the only way to approach the issue of freedom if you consider freedom to be something to aspire to rather than something to be avoided. Remember, a state-of-nature environment would have the highest ranking on an index of absolute freedoms.
|
|
BNW,
So, just to check your argument out, America was more or less free prior to the repeal of the Jim Crow laws? Your current argument is that America was more free when Africa-Americans were discriminated against because racists weren't being restricted in their ablity to decide how to treat people. I presume you don't actually beleive this which indicates a flaw in the argument.
It's really a tangent on the issue, here. BigNorseWolf is arguing from the position that an index of freedom ought to measure absolute freedoms, when instead they measure the freedoms associated with classical liberalism (note: not modern liberalism or social liberalism) because measuring absolute freedoms would result in an index that is essentially inversely proportional to the number of laws enacted in each country, and thus would not be of any use in determining policy focus or encouraging low-freedom countries to improve (since essentially no one sees the utter absence of government as an ideal).
It's the only way to approach the issue of freedom if you consider freedom to be something to aspire to rather than something to be avoided. Remember, a state-of-nature environment would have the highest ranking on an index of absolute freedoms.
And this is the crux of the matter.
I do not need to approach freedom the way you are, the way I've never seen it done, because I realize that freedom is a double edged sword. Its like salt, or alchohol, or chillie cheese fries. Its good onto itself, but too much of it is a bad thing. Its something to be embraced but you need to know what you're getting into.
Or in gamer terms.
I do not need to equate chaos with good.
I do not need to approach freedom the way you are, the way I've never seen it done
That's pretty hard to believe. Classical freedoms are part of some pretty basic discussions of classical liberalism and modern political thought in general. When people discuss being free, in a political context, they're not referring to absolute freedom, pretty much ever. You might not be familiar with the distinction in terminology, but that's basically how comparative politics looks at freedoms, always. I can all but guarantee that you've seen it done that way before.
Sure, absolute freedom is a double-edged sword, but these indices don't measure absolute freedoms. In fact, no major index of nations ranked by freedoms does.
So, I mean, you can rail that the countries listed are not the free-est, in an absolute sense, and sure, we'll agree with you. But no one really measures absolute freedoms because that's not a particularly useful way of looking at comparative politics. We're talking about indices of classical freedoms, which is what people are (ostensibly, even if they don't know what that term means) referring to when they say things like, "The United States is the best country in the world because we have more freedom than anywhere else!" (the jingoism isn't really important here, I don't want to get sidetracked on that)
So I don't think anyone really disagrees with you that the freedom indices aren't ranking nations properly by levels of absolute freedom, but none of us really care about which country is the most free in an absolute sense. This all boils down to an objection I had with something pres man said about freedom of speech - a classical freedom considered by those indices, so for the purposes of this discussion (and really all political discussions) those indices are useful tools.
I put to you, BNW, that freedoms/liberties that remove similar freedoms from others ought to be less weighted. As such, the degree to which said liberties remove the liberties of others should be how you decide how important they are.
Example: me exercising my freedom of speech, for 99.99% of instances, doesn't detract from anyone else's freedom. It may hurt their feelings, but...no one cares nor should they. The moment you actually threaten to take someone's life, or defame them, your freedom to say that becomes less important than their freedom to go about their life not in fear.
Thus, there is a min/max point at which all freedoms are weighed and allowed to exist at the optimal point, JUUUUST before they infringe on others' freedom. And that is what that scale measures.
I thought that is what we, including yourself, were trying to do in this thread: extoll that balance in liberties--in this thread, your ability to get a gun that shoots really really fast cuz it's wicked cool vs. schoolchildren's right not to get shit in the face--as a virtue.
BNW,
So, just to check your argument out, America was more or less free prior to the repeal of the Jim Crow laws? Your current argument is that America was more free when Africa-Americans were discriminated against because racists weren't being restricted in their ablity to decide how to treat people. I presume you don't actually beleive this which indicates a flaw in the argument.
The Jim crow laws MANDATED racist behavior: a railway owner HAD to have separate cars for blacks and whites. There was no freedom, the government was telling someone what to do. (Its lawful evil) So I'm not seeing where my argument would say that Jim crow laws had more freedom.