By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Human Rights

akuma587 on 01 March 2009

I don't even think 99% of conservative OR liberal people would agree with you that anyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Sticking to a principle unconditionally when the logical consequences of that principle are absurd is extremely naive. Even "love" can be a bad thing and even "fear" can be a good thing.

Why can't you compare fear and love? Why can't you compare any two things? I think fear and love are in a lot of ways very similar. They motivate people to do all kinds of things they wouldn't do normally. They are two of the driving forces throughout society historically. They are both a chemically induced cerebral phenomenon triggered in response to sensory associations one makes with the external world. Fear and love are completely comparable. I'm going to let you in on a secret, even apples and oranges are comparable!

Here is a question for you, where is the line between life and death at? Even life and death is not a fine line. Plenty of your cells go on living for days or even weeks after you are "dead." You are oversimplifying everything.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 01 March 2009
akuma587 said:
I don't even think 99% of conservative OR liberal people would agree with you that anyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Sticking to a principle unconditionally when the logical consequences of that principle are absurd is extremely naive. Even "love" can be a bad thing and even "fear" can be a good thing.

Why can't you compare fear and love? Why can't you compare any two things? I think fear and love are in a lot of ways very similar. They motivate people to do all kinds of things they wouldn't do normally. They are two of the driving forces throughout society historically. They are both a chemically induced cerebral phenomenon triggered in response to sensory associations one makes with the external world. Fear and love are completely comparable. I'm going to let you in on a secret, even apples and oranges are comparable!

Here is a question for you, where is the line between life and death at? Even life and death is not a fine line. Plenty of your cells go on living for days or even weeks after you are "dead." You are oversimplifying everything.

 

Cells are alive until they are dead. Simple.

And you can compare love and fear, you just can't equate that comparison to being the same as comparing Individualism and Collectivism. For example, I can fear and love something at the same time. A political policy can not be pro Collectivism and pro Individualism at the same time, much like something can not be alive and dead at the same time.

Additionally, you can not have a law that's pro collectivism and pro human rights. Thus, if you are for a law that is pro collectivism, you are for a law that's against human rights.

Give me an example where that logic is not true.

P.S. The number of people who legally own weapons and commit crimes with them is very very small. To fear them is stupid. And to think that someone would personally own a nuclear weapon just because they could is a little crazy. It's legal in this country for 1 person to own 50,000 riffles (and it cost a lot less then a nuclear weapon), and I don't think anyone does.

 



pastro243 on 01 March 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

This is my primary complaint about the video:

 

You can't compare fear and love. Why didn't you compare alive and not alive? Those are two opposites that everything fits into. The problem you are having is for some things, you want to take peoples rights away for the collective good, but you don't want to be the kind of person that takes peoples rights away.

You have a dilemma with yourself, not the principals.

As for your post above this one, yes. Anyone who can afford a nuclear arsenal in this country should be allowed to own one. Not sure why you think Bill Gates is less trustworthy then Congress. In reality, we all already own nuclear weapons, as government property belongs to all Americans.

And the raping babies thing, every individual should have the right to retrain the parent, take him or her to the authorities, and or remove the child and take them to social services.

The solution is not to keep government from doing things, but to keep government from stooping you from doing things. (back to human rights).

Guess I can use your nuclear weapons even if I dont live in the US.Cool

 



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

Jackson50 on 01 March 2009
TheRealMafoo said:As for your post above this one, yes. Anyone who can afford a nuclear arsenal in this country should be allowed to own one. Not sure why you think Bill Gates is less trustworthy then Congress. In reality, we all already own nuclear weapons, as government property belongs to all Americans.

 

I know why...they are our representatives who are responsible to us (the citizens) for their actions. Bill Gates does not have to answer to you or me for his actions. Congress, however, does have to answer to you and me. 

An individual cannot compel his/her neighbor not to work on Sunday, therefore, the individual cannot delegate that power to the government. Yes, a government cannot do what its citizens are unable to do. This means either: a) I have the authority and power to tax my fellow citizens (I doubt anyone would claim this); b) the people cannot grant the government the power to tax because the citizens do not have this power (the Constitution, however, clearly states in Article I Section 7 that the House (the government) has the power and authority to tax; c) the premiss that the government cannot do what its citizens are unable to do is wrong.



pastro243 on 01 March 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
I don't even think 99% of conservative OR liberal people would agree with you that anyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Sticking to a principle unconditionally when the logical consequences of that principle are absurd is extremely naive. Even "love" can be a bad thing and even "fear" can be a good thing.

Why can't you compare fear and love? Why can't you compare any two things? I think fear and love are in a lot of ways very similar. They motivate people to do all kinds of things they wouldn't do normally. They are two of the driving forces throughout society historically. They are both a chemically induced cerebral phenomenon triggered in response to sensory associations one makes with the external world. Fear and love are completely comparable. I'm going to let you in on a secret, even apples and oranges are comparable!

Here is a question for you, where is the line between life and death at? Even life and death is not a fine line. Plenty of your cells go on living for days or even weeks after you are "dead." You are oversimplifying everything.

 

Cells are alive until they are dead. Simple.

And you can compare love and fear, you just can't equate that comparison to being the same as comparing Individualism and Collectivism. For example, I can fear and love something at the same time. A political policy can not be pro Collectivism and pro Individualism at the same time, much like something can not be alive and dead at the same time.

Additionally, you can not have a law that's pro collectivism and pro human rights. Thus, if you are for a law that is pro collectivism, you are for a law that's against human rights.

Give me an example where that logic is not true.

P.S. The number of people who legally own weapons and commit crimes with them is very very small. To fear them is stupid. And to think that someone would personally own a nuclear weapon just because they could is a little crazy. It's legal in this country for 1 person to own 50,000 riffles (and it cost a lot less then a nuclear weapon), and I don't think anyone does.

 

With so many people owning guns in your country it highly increases the chances that there are many lunatics there that have guns. 5 students from my country where atacked like 2 days ago by a inmigrant hater, 2 of them died. It may be normal for you but here it had a high impact, things like that dont happen here, or rarely do. You cant live with fear for those people but a crazy man with a gun is dangerous and if like more than 40% of the houses in  the US have guns, there must be a lot of these dangerous guys.

 



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

Around the Network
akuma587 on 01 March 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Additionally, you can not have a law that's pro collectivism and pro human rights. Thus, if you are for a law that is pro collectivism, you are for a law that's against human rights.

Give me an example where that logic is not true.

 

What about a law that allows a woman to go and get an abortion?  Or a law that allows black people to eat in the same restaurants as white people?  Or the right for someone to not be a slave?  Did people have those rights before we formed a government?

Jackson brings up some great points.  When did people ever have the right to tax each other?  You are deluding yourself if you think that people can't give government powers that none of them had to begin with.  That is one of the main reasons why societies create governments in the first place.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 01 March 2009
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Additionally, you can not have a law that's pro collectivism and pro human rights. Thus, if you are for a law that is pro collectivism, you are for a law that's against human rights.

Give me an example where that logic is not true.

 

What about a law that allows a woman to go and get an abortion?  Or a law that allows black people to eat in the same restaurants as white people?  Or the right for someone to not be a slave?  Did people have those rights before we formed a government?

Jackson brings up some great points.  When did people ever have the right to tax each other?  You are deluding yourself if you think that people can't give government powers that none of them had to begin with.  That is one of the main reasons why societies create governments in the first place.

 

 

Do you think the video or I are claiming that all laws are collectivism by nature? The law that allows a woman to get an abortion only exists because someone passed a law that said she couldn't. If government had no law either way on the matter, she would be free to have one or not. If government stayed out of it, those rights would exist for her.

Some laws are in place to protect your rights.

As for taxes, if the purpose of collecting taxes is to run the government for the good of all, then it's not infringing on your human rights. Especially if it's a county your free to leave.

So to use the village example. If I am a fisherman, and I am expected to work an hour a day after my hunt to help maintain the village, then that's OK. If instead, I decide to give some of my catch to someone so he can do that hour for me, that's OK too. If the village decides to make it a rule that the villagers just give an hour's worth of whatever they do for a living to the village, so they can use it as pay for people dedicated to do work needed to keep the village running, that's fine as well (taxes).

if when I get back from my day of work, and the village takes 2 hours worth of my catch, and uses one hour worth to take care of government, and just redistributes the other hour's worth of fish to the people, that's an infringement on my human rights. I am now forced to work an hour a day in the service of others. That hour's worth of taxes is against the constitution, and my human rights. The first hour of taxes is acceptable.



jv103 on 01 March 2009

Why the hell did they say I can't compel my neighbor to do something? Apparently if I have weapons I can- that should be obvious. If rights come from a gun, then I have the right to do whatever until someone has more guns. If my neighbors don't have guns, then I'm pretty sure I can compel them.

Yes laws are collectivist by nature. I thought that was the whole point in agreeing with a social contract. You lose freedoms to gain protection.



akuma587 on 01 March 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Do you think the video or I are claiming that all laws are collectivism by nature? The law that allows a woman to get an abortion only exists because someone passed a law that said she couldn't. If government had no law either way on the matter, she would be free to have one or not. If government stayed out of it, those rights would exist for her.

Some laws are in place to protect your rights.

As for taxes, if the purpose of collecting taxes is to run the government for the good of all, then it's not infringing on your human rights. Especially if it's a county your free to leave.

So to use the village example. If I am a fisherman, and I am expected to work an hour a day after my hunt to help maintain the village, then that's OK. If instead, I decide to give some of my catch to someone so he can do that hour for me, that's OK too. If the village decides to make it a rule that the villagers just give an hour's worth of whatever they do for a living to the village, so they can use it as pay for people dedicated to do work needed to keep the village running, that's fine as well (taxes).

if when I get back from my day of work, and the village takes 2 hours worth of my catch, and uses one hour worth to take care of government, and just redistributes the other hour's worth of fish to the people, that's an infringement on my human rights. I am now forced to work an hour a day in the service of others. That hour's worth of taxes is against the constitution, and my human rights. The first hour of taxes is acceptable.

How about you just admit that the video has a few logical loopholes?  It was an alright video that had some good things to say, although it wore its bias as proudly as a girl with a brand new prom dress.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Jackson50 on 01 March 2009
akuma587 said:How about you just admit that the video has a few logical loopholes?  It was an alright video that had some good things to say, although it wore its bias as proudly as a girl with a brand new prom dress.

 

Yes, this video is full of many loopholes. If the government cannot do what an individual alone cannot do, which is his premiss, then the Constitution violates this principle and must be totalitarian as his video states. Aside from the tax issue, the "Taking Clause" of the 5th Amendment addresses the government's right to seize private property for public use...even if the owner does not consent, the government may still seize it so long as just compensation is provided. If an individual attempts to seize private property without the owner's consent, that is considered theft.