1. Cultural Settlement - Feudal Japan

    Arising from the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan, the clan of Akechi Mitsuhide has requested your help.
    As the Daimyo of his village, it is your task to lead the Feudal Japan to prosperity! Detailed information here!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Changelog 1.156

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.156 will take place on Wed, July 10, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. GvG Improvements

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    We'd like to keep you updated on what we're planning to do, as we're about to get started on implementing the following improvements, and would love to hear some community insight into if you feel these additions address some of the fundamental issues GvG faces.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Changelog 1.157

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.157 will take place on Wed, July 24, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Thread Closed

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Lucifer1904, Mar 24, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Graviton

    Graviton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    I don't think he's saying that, I think he's questioning that there is a specific logic in the order that those things are presented. It certainly reads in the correct order; was that intentional? It's been a looooong time since I read the Federalist Papers and the two Jefferson bios and one Madison bio that I have so I don't recall, but I don't think it was a happy accident.

    That's true, however you're discounting the deep-seated distrust of organized government that under lies our founding documents, and the thinking of those who designed it. Viewing it through 21st Century eyes it's easy to scoff, but they all saw first-hand how an oppressive government operates; they experienced themselves the impotence of living under a distant ruler and his royal decrees; and they, a rag-tag band of volunteers and farmers, defeated a "well-regulated militia".

    All of that history must inform one's thinking about the 2nd Amendment before dismissing it as obsolete. The document is about principles, not specifics. The specific application is up to the courts, but the principles are sound and cannot just be handwaved because we're 200+ years on.
     
  2. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Well if you really want to go by the wishes of the founding fathers, we should disband our armed forces, because that's what they distrusted most in this area of thought.
     
    mamboking053 likes this.
  3. Graviton

    Graviton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    I said their mindset and historical context should be considered when evaluating the purpose and application of the founding documents, not that we prance off into reductio ad absurdum. Although there's a very good point to be made about distrusting a standing army...

    Is your point that since they didn't establish a standing army, but we have one anyway, that means we should discount their intent and context when evaluating everything they wrote? Good luck with that.
     
  4. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    Why should we trust armed citizens any more than we trust a standing army?
     
    Stephen Longshanks likes this.
  5. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    We laugh and jeer at religious fundamentalism, but no one ever mentions this curious brand of political fundamentalism. And like both, it's almost certainly applied only when it secures someones interests.
     
  6. Graviton

    Graviton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    There's that context thing I'm trying to get across. From their perspective standing armies were tools of oppressive despots. They still are. The citizenry is generally interested in defending its own property, not imposing political goals. There will be individuals and small groups that do, but none of those have the power, particularly the political power, of a state army.

    Another attempt to dismiss an argument by painting it as extreme. I didn't say anything fundamentalist, I simply advised that when debating the intent and application of Constitutional amendments one should consider the historical context and reasoning that produced them in the first place. I didn't say, "follow them blindly," as you and Longshanks would like to portray my words; I said they must be considered. If that's "political fundamentalism", well that explains a lot about the current state of politics.
     
  7. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    Maybe it's the threat of immediate consequence from federal and local law enforcement that keeps the chaos down to just a few small groups and individuals.

    I support gun rights fully based simply on the idea that guns are property that does not pose an immediate threat to other people. I was just lampooning the marketed idea that a person owning guns is linked to the moral struggle of a citizen versus a tyrannical government. Both, even unarmed, are worthy of suspicion. Armed, they make me that much more nervous.

    Well...I was referring to Razorbacks comments. I think he's right to bring up the 2nd and he's made pretty solid arguments, but fails when he starts to present an argument based on exact wording- diving into fundamentalism. My opinion though...

    edit: except the part about it being different to put down animals versus humans. I don't think it's any different. It's wrong to put down a person against their will or without their consent. But we allow it with animals because we don't really give animals the same rights as people because we consider them either property or something other. Not saying we should be vegans or anything, I'm just saying there is no difference between an animal and a human. We are both living, feeling beings that understand death and pain. We say the animal has no right because...we say the animal has no right. That's pretty much it I think.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
  8. Lancer

    Lancer Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Do you wish to have this closed?
     
  9. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Okay, now that argument is absurd. Not even counting the mass shootings, there are all the accidental deaths and injuries from firearms. Sounds like an immediate threat to me. Or maybe that term means something else to you. An item that a child can get their hands on, whether intentionally or not, and maim or kill another human being is the very definition of an immediate threat. Not to mention all the gun owners that accidentally shoot themselves...or commit suicide...or use them on friends or family...or take into the workplace they just got fired from and use it on the people who still have a job. I don't think I need to go on.

    What I would really like to know from the gun nuts who keep yelling "Second Amendment!" is how they justify ignoring the whole first part. "A well regulated militia." How can anyone claim to be going by the founding fathers' intent if they ignore that whole phrase? They started with that as the basic premise of the whole sentence! You can't just throw that out willy nilly and then try to claim you are being faithful to their original intent. Until the Constitution is amended to take out that phrase, any Second Amendment debate has to accept that as the condition for a guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
  10. Emberguard

    Emberguard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    A guns one and only purpose is to kill or be able to kill. That's no less a threat then a crocodile chasing you on the bank (facebook link)

    And there's another inherent problem. By putting humans on the same level as animals then we get things like abortion and the Nazi's. Oppression of blacks was also in part justified by saying they're less then human because of evolution. This all might seem extreme, but when you remove the biggest reason to treat people as people then you open the door to genocide and/or oppression. We wouldn't have abortions if people saw the child as a child instead of justifying them as being a bunch of cells and allowing the mothers freedom of choice to infringe both on the childs right to live and overriding the mothers responsibility and duty of care towards that child.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
  11. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    I think the better question to ask is why shouldn't I be entitled to own weapons? Not the school shooter, not the enraged lover, not the robber or the killer, me. Does the law state that a person cannot bear arms, and even if it did, is that Constitutional? On what basis? From what I am hearing, you are trying to use the criminal activity of others to apply legislation to the whole.
     
  12. Emberguard

    Emberguard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    That's definitely a good question. But I'd also ask the opposite, why should you be entitled or need a weapon? If one side of the argument can be answered then you should also be able to answer the other side (either for or against)
     
    Stephen Longshanks likes this.
  13. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    I gave you a direct quote of what Militia means from one of the drafters of the document as he was explaining it to the Virginia State Legislature as it was up for ratification. In the link I gave you listing founding father quotes about the Second Amendment, there are many others.
    You won't read the words of the Authors, because you can understand it just fine, but now, you can't understand ... That is just willful ignorance and that makes you a fool.
    Any further discussion would be casting pearls before swine. I will leave you with this.

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    - Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
     
    Graviton likes this.
  14. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    Guns can also be used for sport- like marksmanship. It can be used to kill, but it can also be used to prevent people from being killed.

    Humans are animals. We just lack empathy with other animals and so subject them to our whim for our convenience. The Nazi's and the oppression of Blacks, Whites, and every other human being, similarly, has more to do with the lack of regard for another persons well being over their own whims or interests.

    As for abortion, my personal opinion is that it's the mothers body, the mothers child, and the mothers responsibility, so it is her choice, for better or worse. I'm not sure just how much right people think they have to govern the actions of other people. I'd say that she has a certain amount of time to decide whether or not she wants to abort. Past a certain point of maturation, I would call it murder, sure. But before that it is her body. It is her will. I don't believe you have the right to demand of her something that will affect her life.
     
  15. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    The way I see it we start off as free beings. In order to live in a society the law will restrict these freedoms, but only when necessary in order to maintain the safety and well-being of each individual and their property. That means that if I have property, the only reason I should be told I cannot have it is if I have done something with it to hurt another person. Even so, I am the only one who get's my property removed, not my neighbor, my town, or my country.
     
  16. Emberguard

    Emberguard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    and I don't believe she has the right to demand something of the doctor or anyone else that'd effect the life of her child without just cause. The child being inconvenient isn't just cause
    and there's my point. You only justify it because you don't see it as human even though it is human
    Ok, that sounds like a reasonable argument for having guns. The argument I'd have against guns is duty of care. They're dangerous weapons and not toys so at the very least I'd say children should be allowed guns (which I assume your country doesn't allow)
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
  17. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    There's problems with this idea. One, there are stages of maturation and there's definitely points where we can say that even though the organism is living, it is not yet a human being. Two is that you are completing cutting the mother out of the issue and focusing on the child as if these are two separate issues, but they aren't. This simplification of abortion as simply child-killing is wrong. Yes there will be plenty of women who abuse it, but, again, you cannot punish everyone for the actions of others.

    Honestly, I don't like abortion, but making a law to prevent it doesn't solve the problem of abortion because we're not really trying to understand what the reasons are for people to have one. The many reasons- not just I don't want it.
     
  18. Emberguard

    Emberguard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Yes there are many reasons. There are doctors that encourage patients to have tests on the unborn to see if they'll have any disabilities for the sole purpose of aborting. There are partners that pressure the other into abortion. Usually the reason for an abortion boils down to it being easier then raising or adopting out the child. There can be a legit reason for a abortion. A egg that plants itself in the tubes instead of the womb will kill both mother and child if not aborted but that's a pretty rare case to happen.

    Now here's the interesting thing, any child aborted in the 2nd or 3rd trimester can't be for medical reasons. Abortion takes at least a week once the child gets that far along. If there's a medical reason the mother would be dead in hrs or a couple days at most. A c-section would save both mother and child
     
  19. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Like keep her legs shut? And don't give me any bullshit arguments about rape. We all know that's not what's being discussed here. She willfully engages in an activity who's natural outcome is one thing and one thing only, procreation. Then when a life is produced as intended by engaging in the very act, you think it's okay to kill the only innocent party, a baby. As a society, we have decided a woman's right to pursue her hedonistic pleasures is more important than an innocent baby's right to life. So in essence, anything goes. Or as the Satanists like to say it, "Do what thou wilt."

    Sorry, once that life is conceived, that baby's right to life supersedes the mother's right to kill it.

    Rationalize murder all you want, but that's how we got the Holocaust and Slavery. Once you dehumanize a person and allow their killing, all the rest is just a matter of agreement. As Virginia's blackface or clan hood, can't remember which Governor has stated, and the State of New York has legislated, inside her body or outside of her body doesn't matter, They've decided there's no longer any difference between Abortion and Infanticide. Same old sacrifices to Moloch, we just now dress up in medical garb and call our worship choice.

    If I were to go into a dog's womb, rip it's whelps apart limb from limb with forceps, remove them piece by piece, then reassemble them on a table to make sure I got all the parts, I would go to jail for animal cruelty. Something is clearly wrong with a nation's morality when a puppy is afforded more rights than a baby and that bothers you not.
     
  20. mamboking053

    mamboking053 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    The idea I'm functioning under is this. People will make decisions that you disagree with or that upset you deeply. Life should not be taken so lightly, but I think she will...must...have the legal option to abort without anyone else's consent or moderation on the issue. I consider anything else a form of rape against the woman, regardless. For better or worse, it is her right.

    I would argue that the best way to solve this is to negotiate the issue on mutual terms without resorting to the brute tactics of physical, emotional, psychological, or social abuse to force your opinion on someone. The ultimate danger I see here is the violation of an intimate right of a human being- ceding this personal freedom to the state and/or society. This is dangerous because it be the precedent and likely the first step to something else. Next, outraged people will have the government stepping in to control the family based on what they consider "abuse" or "reckless" or "endangering the child's welfare". I understand we have this now, but I'm talking a real escalation or stretching of the meanings of what many would believe severely intrusive.
     

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.