Author Topic: Iowa FTW  (Read 18057 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DirtDawg

  • Insensitive Oaf and Earthworm Whisperer
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 31555
  • Karma: 2540
  • Gender: Male
  • Last rays of the last days
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #675 on: October 03, 2013, 12:57:21 AM »


So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?

The only gun I can think of that poses a threat to me is my oldest, worn out twenty two, which has a worn down firing pin and does not fire consistently.

Obviously I keep it clean as it is a family heirloom which belonged to my grandfather. I am fortunate to own it, but it could be considered a threat, since it is NOT reliable.

If I did not own several more similar rimfire rifles, WHICH ARE PERFECTLY RELIABLE, I would endeavor to repair it.
Jimi Hendrix: When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. 

Ghandi: Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.

The end result of life's daily pain and suffering, trials and failures, tears and laughter, readings and listenings is an accumulation of wisdom in its purest form.

Offline DirtDawg

  • Insensitive Oaf and Earthworm Whisperer
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 31555
  • Karma: 2540
  • Gender: Male
  • Last rays of the last days
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #676 on: October 03, 2013, 01:04:20 AM »
Actually "legally blind" is a matter of legislation and quite clear. The details may differ between your country and mine, but not significantly, as I understand it.

Being "liable" will not help if the damage is already done.

Let's see...in Iowa a few blind people might get guns. They might mistakenly shoot innocent people when firing the guns in self-defence. In Sweden you are not allowed to carry a gun in self-defence at all, which means that an armed criminal or a criminal with a knife or just a physically stronger criminal or a number of criminals might rob, rape, beat and kill you without you being able to defend yourself.

So which gunlaw poses the greatest danger to a law-abiding citizen?

Statistically? Accidental shootings involving firearms in the home.

Counting accidents with guns is dishonest. It is like counting accidents with cars as cases where people are hit by cars on purpose.

And gunlaws are still not to protect you from other citizens, they are to protect the state from you.

Quote
Let's allow them to be fighter pilots, too. Plenty of visually impaired people out there should be allowed to realise their dreams, ffs.

 :agreed: :indeed:

Review your English usage briefly, then restate this, please.
Jimi Hendrix: When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. 

Ghandi: Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.

The end result of life's daily pain and suffering, trials and failures, tears and laughter, readings and listenings is an accumulation of wisdom in its purest form.

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #677 on: October 03, 2013, 03:12:02 AM »
Adam isn't a philosopher  :M

Neither are you. :hahaha:

I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.

Did you complete a degree in it (serious question)? I have a friend who did.

No, I didn't, but I understand the basic logical facts. That's what's important. Many people who have never studied philosophy at all don't understand certain things because they are still in "everyday thinking".
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 03:26:10 AM by Lit »

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #678 on: October 03, 2013, 03:24:10 AM »
But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.

Or we can postulate universal rights and don't back off on them a millimeter, like in Spooner's system. That is consistent and will guarantee you that no one infringess on your rights.

Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.

Logic fail. "No universal laws" does not equal "all laws are made up and have no moral justification".

You should know this, considering your university background, regardless of what your opinions re universal laws are.

You are thinking about false dicotomies here. That is not the case. In this case it is thus: the world above quantum level literally functions so that something either is or is not.

I said that you must either postulate universal laws or accept that there are no universal laws and subsequently accept that you have no rights at all, but you don't seem willingly to do this.

It's not about opinions, it is either so that  universal laws exist or they do not.

That is by the way what Spooner's Natural Law is about, so you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Universal law/natural law is the same thing. It means that rights exist as an entity. I personally don't believe in that they exist as an entity, but I postulate that they do. It is necessary to postulate that natural rights exist if you believe in rights at all.


TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #679 on: October 03, 2013, 03:44:55 AM »
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.


Quote
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

OK, there are no universal rights. Then there are no rights at all. There is no right to live, no right to be healthy, no right to have an income etc etc etc.

This is pure logic, as I said. Why I mention quantum level is because on quantum level the logic doesn't have to be binary. But above that it has to.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 08:01:41 AM by Lit »

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #680 on: October 03, 2013, 03:59:57 AM »
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.


Quote
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.

That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.

Is this the way you think it should be? 

Offline Semicolon

  • The Punctuated Equilibrium Of The Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • Karma: 693
  • I am an echolalic mastodon.
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #681 on: October 03, 2013, 05:29:36 AM »
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.


Quote
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 05:37:32 AM by Semicolon »
I2 has a smiley for everything. Even a hamster wheel. :hamsterwheel:

Quote from: iamnotaparakeet
Jesus died on the cross to show us that BDSM is a legitimate form of love.
There is only one truth and it is that people do have penises of different sizes and one of them is the longest.

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #682 on: October 03, 2013, 06:55:45 AM »
If he doesn't at least admit that universal rights must be postulated he paradoxically says that he doesn't have any rights himself.

It doesn't matter if you are a materialist to 100%. You must postulate universal rights or accept that you don't have any rights.

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #683 on: October 03, 2013, 07:27:13 AM »
"THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

Section I.

If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.
If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.
If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.
But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed --- by any power inferior to that which established it --- than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men --- whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name --- to set up their [*12] own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.

 Section II.

If there be any such principle as justice, it is, of necessity, a natural principle; and, as such, it is a matter of science, to be learned and applied like any other science. And to talk of either adding to, or taking from, it, by legislation, is just as false, absurd, and ridiculous as it would be to talk of adding to, or taking from, mathematics, chemistry, or any other science, by legislation.

Section III.

If there be in nature such a principle as justice, nothing can be added to, or taken from, its supreme authority by all the legislation of which the entire human race united are capable. And all the attempts of the human race, or of any portion of it, to add to, or take from, the supreme authority of justice, in any case whatever, is of no more obligation upon any single human being than is the idle wind.

Section IV.

If there be such a principle as justice, or natural law, it is the principle, or law, that tells us what rights were given to every human being at his birth; what rights are, therefore, inherent in him as a human being, necessarily remain with him during life; and, however capable of being trampled upon, are incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated or eliminated from his nature as a human being, or deprived of their inherent authority or obligation.[*13]
On the other hand, if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and coming into the world destitute of rights, he must necessarily forever remain so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another. And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights; and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be to talk of things that never had, never will have, and never can have any existence.

 Section V.

If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.
On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor ever can exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist; that there is nothing for them to do, and that there is nothing that they can do. They are confessions that the governments exist for the punishment and prevention of acts that are, in their nature, simple impossibilities.[*14]


Section VI.

If there be in nature such a principle as justice, such a principle as honesty, such principles as we describe by the words mine and thine, such principles as men's natural rights of person and property, then we have an immutable and universal law; a law that we can learn, as we learn any other science; a law that tells us what is just and what is unjust, what is honest and what is dishonest, what things are mine and what things are thine, what are my rights of person and property and what are your rights of person and property, and where is the boundary between each and all of my rights of person and property and each and all of your rights of person and property. And this law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth.
But if, on the other hand, there be in nature no such principle as justice, no such principle as honesty, no such principle as men's natural rights of person or property, then all such words as justice and injustice, honesty and dishonesty, all such words as mine and thine, all words that signify that one thing is one man's property and that another thing is another man's property, all words that are used to describe men's natural rights of person or property, all such words as are used to describe injuries and crimes, should be struck out of all human languages as having no meanings; and it should be declared, at once and forever, that the greatest force and the greatest frauds, for the time being, are the supreme and only laws for governing the relations of men with each other; and that, from henceforth, all persons and combinations of persons --- those that call themselves governments, as well as all others --- are to be left free to practice upon each other all the force, and all the fraud, of which they are capable.[*15]

 Section VII.

If there be no such science as justice, there can be no science of government; and all the rapacity and violence, by which, in all ages and nations, a few confederated villains have obtained the mastery over the rest of mankind, reduced them to poverty and slavery, and established what they called governments to keep them in subjection, have been as legitimate examples of government as any that the world is ever to see.

Section VIII.

If there be in nature such a principle as justice, it is necessarily the only political principle there ever was, or ever will be. All the other so-called political principles, which men are in the habit of inventing, are not principles at all. They are either the mere conceits of simpletons, who imagine they have discovered something better than truth, and justice, and universal law; or they are mere devices and pretences, to which selfish and knavish men resort as means to get fame, and power, and money.[*16]"


TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #684 on: October 03, 2013, 07:35:10 AM »
"CHAPTER III.

NATURAL LAW CONSTRASTED WITH
LEGISLATION.
Section I.

Natural law, natural justice, being a principle that is naturally applicable and adequate to the rightful settlement of every possible controversy that can arise among men; being too, the only standard by which any controversy whatever, between man and man, can be rightfully settled; being a principle whose protection every man demands for himself, whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not; being also an immutable principle, one that is always and everywhere the same, in all ages and nations; being self-evidently necessary in all times and places; being so entirely impartial and equitable towards all; so indispensable to the peace of mankind everywhere; so vital to the safety and welfare of every human being; being, too, so easily learned, so generally known, and so easily maintained by such voluntary associations as all honest men can readily and rightully form for that purpose --- being such a principle as this, these questions arise, viz.: Why is it that it does not universally, or well nigh universally, prevail? Why is it that it has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey? Why is it that any human being ever conceived that anything so self-evidently superfluous, false, absurd, and atrocious as all legislation necessarily must be, could be of any use to mankind, or have any place in human affairs?

Section II.

The answer is, that through all historic times, wherever any people have advanced beyond the savage state, and have learned to increase their means of sub-sistence by the cultivation of soil, a greater or less number of them have associated and organized themselves as robbers, to plunder and enslave all others, [*17] who had either accumulated any property that could be seized, or had shown, by their labor, that they could be made to contribute to the support or pleasure of those who should enslave them.
These bands of robbers, small in number at first, have increased their power by uniting with each other, inventing warlike weapons, disciplining themselves, and perfecting their organizations as military forces, and dividing their plunder (including their captives) among themselves, either in such proportions as have been previously agreed on, or in such as their leaders (always desirous to increase the number of their followers) should prescribe.
The success of these bands of robbers was an easy thing, for the reason that those whom they plundered and enslaved were comparatively defenceless; being scattered thinly over the country; engaged wholly in trying, by rude implements and heavy labor, to extort a subsistence from the soil; having no weapons of war, other than sticks and stones; having no military discipline or organization, and no means of concentrating their forces, or acting in concert, when suddenly attacked. Under these circumstances, the only alternative left them for saving even their lives, or the lives of their families, was to yield up not only the crops they had gathered, and the lands they had cultivated, but themselves and their families also as slaves.

Thenceforth their fate was, as slaves, to cultivate for others the lands they had before cultivated for themselves. Being driven constantly to their labor, wealth slowly increased; but all went into the hands of their tyrants.
These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labor of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organizations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and cooperate with each other in holding their slaves in subjection.
But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws.[*18]
All the great governments of the world --- those now existing, as well as those that have passed away --- have been of this character. They have been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations, and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to each his agreed share of the spoils.
All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes, and the more peaceable division of their spoils.
Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class --- of persons to plunder and enslave others, and hold them as property.


Section III.

In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class --- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth --- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-hodling class --- their former owners --- for just what the latter might choose to give them.
Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative --- to save themselves from starvation --- but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that.[*19]
These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life. They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labor. They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters.
The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection; that is, laws fixing the prices at which they should be compelled to labor, and also prescribing fearful punishments, even death itself, for such thefts and tresspasses as they were driven to commit, as their only means of saving them-selves from starvation.
These laws have continued in force for hundreds, and, in some countries, for thousands of years; and are in force to-day, in greater or less everity, in nearly all the countries on the globe.
The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of the robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of laborers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labor to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained.
The result of all this is, that the little wealth there is in the world is all in the hands of a few --- that is, in the hands of the law-making, slave-holding class; who are now as much slaveholders in spirit as they ever were, but who accomplish their purposes by means of the laws they make for keeping the laborers in subjection and dependence, instead of each one's owning his individual slaves as so many chattels.[*20]
Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in subjection, and extorting from them their labor, and all the profits of their labor.
And the real motives and spirit which lie at the foundation of all legislation --- notwithstanding all the pretences and disguises by which they attempt to hide themselves --- are the same to-day as they always have been. They whole purpose of this legislation is simply to keep one class of men in subordination and servitude to another.


Section IV.

What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.

NOTES

Sir William Jones, an English judge in India, and one of the most learned judges that ever lived, learned in Asiatic as well as European law, says: 'It is pleasing to remark the similarity, or, rather, the idenity, of those conclusions which pure, unbiased reason, in all ages and nations, seldom fails to draw, in such juridical inquiries as are not fettered and manacled by positive institutions.' --- Jones on Bailments, 133.
He means here to say that, when no law has been made in violation of justice, judicial tribunals, 'in all ages and nations,' have 'seldom' failed to agree as to what justice is."

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #685 on: October 03, 2013, 07:49:17 AM »
This should be especially highlighted:

What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.

This is what legislation is really about. Denying you your real rights.

Offline RageBeoulve

  • Super sand nigger
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16783
  • Karma: 927
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #686 on: October 03, 2013, 08:59:11 AM »
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.


Quote
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I do, which is why its obvious to me that giving government a monopoly on violence is suicide.
"I’m fearless in my heart.
They will always see that in my eyes.
I am the passion; I am the warfare.
I will never stop...
always constant, accurate, and intense."

  - Steve Vai, "The Audience is Listening"

Offline RageBeoulve

  • Super sand nigger
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16783
  • Karma: 927
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #687 on: October 03, 2013, 09:01:26 AM »
Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.


Quote
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.

That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.

Is this the way you think it should be?


Well I sure as fuck don't. That really is the direction things are going in, and its fucking retarded.
"I’m fearless in my heart.
They will always see that in my eyes.
I am the passion; I am the warfare.
I will never stop...
always constant, accurate, and intense."

  - Steve Vai, "The Audience is Listening"

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #688 on: October 03, 2013, 12:40:36 PM »
Salò is actually the perfect metaphor for society - not just for the consumerist society, as Pasolini intended it to be, but for all etatistic societies: we are forced at gunpoint to get raped and eat shit from fascistic psychopaths just for their pleasure.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 12:46:38 PM by Lit »

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iowa FTW
« Reply #689 on: October 03, 2013, 12:49:21 PM »
I disagree with odeon about universal rights.

I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.

Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery

Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do