|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1444092) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1444250) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 13:57:51 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Jul 23 22:26:11 2017. Tell you what— why don't you learn how to actually spell "credentials" correctly and then we can worry about them? Honestly, it took you two tries and you still haven't succeeded. |
|
|
| (1444251) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 13:57:56 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 24 02:14:03 2017. SCOTUS has been wrong many times in historyDon't bother trying to explain that to Dave. Dave is an authoritarian; he's literally unable to comprehend the idea that the government might be wrong. |
|
|
| (1444252) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 13:57:58 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 24 11:16:36 2017. That shows their hatred of the US Constitution, thus saying that they believe that it is not a document written for all time.Exactly! I have the right to an arsenal of hydrogen bombs but the evil liberal nanny government is depriving me of that right! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1444253) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 13:58:00 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jul 24 10:35:05 2017. Swords?That was the original meaning of arms, yes. Did you think it referred to rifles? Because those hadn't been invented yet. |
|
|
| (1444261) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Jul 24 15:26:55 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 23 16:50:44 2017. Chicago , record shootings, and MS-13 hacking deaths.Give De Blasio a chance to eat his donut/ slice of pizza |
|
|
| (1444262) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jul 24 15:28:31 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 13:58:00 2017. True. Muskets were the main arms used by militias. When rifles were invented, they replaced muskets. So long guns in general are what the term definitely refers to. About weapons beyond those, there is room for debate, but not about those. |
|
|
| (1444263) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jul 24 15:50:31 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by AlM on Sun Jul 23 15:39:10 2017. I've occasionally eaten a snack on the subway, and once or twice on a bus. I've tried to make sure not to drop any crumbs, but not with 100% success. Don't most other transit systems (including, in our area, PATH) ban on-board food consumption? Didn't the private bus lines in Queens also do so, until MTA Bus took them over? |
|
|
| (1444264) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jul 24 16:00:38 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jul 24 15:28:31 2017. About weapons beyond those, there is room for debate, but not about those.Even Justice Scalia in Heller acknowledged that you might be prohibited from carrying any kind of gun in front of a school. If Justice Scalia thought there was room for debate, then there is room for debate. |
|
|
| (1444271) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jul 24 17:02:38 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 23 16:55:38 2017. You assuredly don't need to affirmatively prove you need to drive. You need to prove you are capable of driving safely. Not the same thing at all. |
|
|
| (1444272) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jul 24 17:02:52 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Avid Reader on Mon Jul 24 15:26:55 2017. I wonder if he eats a donut with a knife and fork too? |
|
|
| (1444274) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 17:24:49 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jul 24 17:02:38 2017. Linguistic nitpick. |
|
|
| (1444275) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 17:27:15 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jul 24 15:28:31 2017. So long guns in generalA rifle that can be aimed at long distances is a fundamentally different weapon from a musket which can't. You don't get to conflate the two. |
|
|
| (1444298) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Mon Jul 24 21:00:05 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 17:27:15 2017. The authors the Bill of Rights were hardly blind to the progress of technology. Steamships, electricity and mechanical marvels were already in existence, and it was understood that more would follow.The principle of a spin-stabilized projectile began with arrows, when it was found that setting the feathers at an angle to induce rotation in the arrow improved accuracy. This was well known by the 17th century, and rifling was sometimes incorporated into gun barrels such as the Kentucky rifle. |
|
|
| (1444300) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 21:45:16 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Steamdriven on Mon Jul 24 21:00:05 2017. The authors the Bill of Rights were hardly blind to the progress of technology.And yet they allowed slavery. Which is sort of an important point to consider. That a historical accident meant to secure the right to swords and single-shot muskets in a primitive society just happens to use wording loosely applicable to modern automatic weapons in a modern society where such weapons are utterly unnecessary does not mean the constitution actually grants a right to same. But even if it did, you still wouldn't have a right to them. If the Constitution declared that you have an inherent "right" to own guns, that would be an error in the Constitution in need of correction no different from the error that created an inherent "right" to own slaves. Fundamental rights transcend governments; no piece of paper can take them away or grant nonexistent ones. Not being shot is a fundamental right. Owning guns is a privilege that should be subject to tight restrictions specifically to protect that fundamental right to not be shot. The "right" to own guns is a confabulation of the deranged minds of murderers. |
|
|
| (1444303) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jul 24 21:49:37 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 21:45:16 2017. Fundamental rights transcend governmentsFrom whence do they come then? Is it by your own authority that you label a right "fundamental?" |
|
|
| (1444305) | |
How do you do the "post within a post?" |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 24 22:05:48 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 24 00:00:40 2017. How do you do the "post within a post?" |
|
|
| (1444306) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 24 22:14:28 2017, in response to How do you do the "post within a post?", posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 24 22:05:48 2017. What are you talking about; the frame inside a post? It's the <iframe> tag. Look it up. |
|
|
| (1444307) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 24 22:16:38 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Steamdriven on Mon Jul 24 21:00:05 2017. Anybody who has read the Declaration of Independence understands the context of the Second Amendment. |
|
|
| (1444308) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 24 22:17:36 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jul 24 21:49:37 2017. He seems to get that word from the European Union. But even their list of "fundamental" rights are "positive" rights given by government and never "transcend" it. |
|
|
| (1444312) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 22:52:01 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 24 22:17:36 2017. He seems to get that word from the European Union.Actually, the word comes from the dictionary. In fact, it's a fairly basic English word that's already in common parlance. But then, you're not exactly playing with a full deck. Actually, the only cards you're playing with are the jokers. Remember this little gem? |
|
|
| (1444313) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 22:53:04 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jul 24 21:49:37 2017. From whence do they come then?From basic morality. From the fact that every single person would be hurt by their absence, gain from their presence, and thus has a strong incentive to demand their universal acknowledgement. If you genuinely don't understand the concept, then would you agree that slavery was morally just until the 13th Amendment was ratified? That the Nazis committed no wrong because their actions were compliant with German law in effect at the time? Is it by your own authority that you label a right "fundamental?" See, the problem here is that you're an authoritarian— you believe that the only legitimate form of government is a dictatorship or oligarchy in which all power is held by an Authority consisting of at most a small handful of individuals. As such, the idea of rights that transcend governments is almost incomprehensible to you; after all, in your mindset a right of the people can only exist to the extent that a king has decreed it, so how could a right exist without a king to give it? No, you believe that rights exist only at the discretion of Authorities, so if I assert a right that I concede wasn't issued by your authority, the only possible explanation is that I view myself an Authority with the right to issue or rescind rights as I so choose. So you find yourself asking: "If this right doesn't come from the decree of my king, then which king decreed it? Do you believe yourself a king?" |
|
|
| (1444315) | |
Re: How do you do the ''post within a post?'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 23:13:01 2017, in response to How do you do the "post within a post?", posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 24 22:05:48 2017. It's an iframe. Olog is smarting that I'm using them to mock his extremism.Olog's entire sense of self-worth depends on the minimal social contact he gets from being a pest online and posting unnecessary iframes is a mild faux pas in polite company. The fact that I'm using them to mock his extremism only makes it all too clear to him that this is not polite company; that Olog is a one-trick pony and his one trick is now completely played out. In essence, the only thing Olog could ever do was shock people by soiling himself. But now, everyone knows that he's that guy who soils himself; there's no shock to it anymore and people are even mocking him for it. It's sad, but it's what happens when you deliberately refuse to learn any social skills and spend your entire life indignantly whining that the "liberals" (ie, every person on the planet except yourself) are unfairly depriving you of the things you've never made any effort to earn. If you'd like to remind Olog how sad is life is, you can post this: <iframe src="http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=915920" height="400" width="100%"></iframe> |
|
|
| (1444337) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jul 25 09:12:55 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 22:53:04 2017. So you have me wrong. I too believe that rights transcend governments, and it is up to governments to get them right.I just wanted to get a better sense of your "source material" for said rights (that governments ideally would recognize). But I don't believe in any such thing as "basic morality" in a vacuum, so I find that response insufficient. That's more a sense of what you yourself think is good for everyone. From the fact that every single person would be hurt by their absence, gain from their presence, and thus has a strong incentive to demand their universal acknowledgement. Gain and harm suggest an absolute good and an absolute evil between which the world (or local government) can oscillate. Who determines these? How do you really know what is good and bad for someone? And don't you think that for just about every right there are at least some who stand to lose out because of it, if we are merely talking about each's own interest? Obviously if there was a consensus of basic morality out there, we'd be well on the way to having all governments recognize the same rights. The problem is, of course, that people's respective senses of basic morality differ, and such differences exist even among similar intelligence levels and lifestyles. And by the way, I'm a huge fan of democracy, though not all types of it. |
|
|
| (1444343) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 25 10:57:59 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jul 25 09:12:55 2017. And by the way, I'm a huge fan of democracy, though not all types of itSo was Woodrow Wilson. Check out his thoughts on it. (I)t is very clear that in fundamental theory, socialism and democracy are almost, if not quite, one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. . . .We need huge fans of republics again. Wilson was not one. And he certainly hated the notion of individual liberty. |
|
|
| (1444356) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jul 25 11:41:49 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 22:53:04 2017. Yeah, you get it. Kind of. Definitely, people have a basic right not to be shot. But (many would say) they also have a basic right to be able to defend themselves against those who would harm them. As for living in a "modern society", people in 1932 Germany were pretty sure that they were living in one. There is no guarantee that any government will always have the best interests of its people at heart. And even if it does, there's the old saying, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." |
|
|
| (1444360) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jul 25 13:06:09 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 23 21:38:08 2017. Think about 2 major civil rights decisions of the 20th century. Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board Of Education. Within 50 years SCOTUS made a 180 degree turn regarding the “separate but equal” theory. |
|
|
| (1444362) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 25 13:13:34 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by randyo on Tue Jul 25 13:06:09 2017. Plessy would not have happened if the Supreme Court were not legislating from the bench even back then, just as in the case of Scott v. Sanford. States do not have a right to subvert enumerated powers of the federal government. And in recent years, some move back towards pre-Brown segregation has been happening anyhow. |
|
|
| (1444365) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jul 25 13:25:21 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 24 13:57:56 2017. IMHO, the Constitution is a bit imperfect in that it does leave a bit too much room for interpretation as the Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board Of Education illustrates. If I were drafting a constitution, I would close a number of the loopholes that exist. While I realize that it is probably impossible to close them all completely, I think they could certainly be greatly minimized. |
|
|
| (1444373) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Jul 25 14:00:30 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Shiznit1987 on Mon Jul 24 03:39:31 2017. More litter...when they toss away the ticket. |
|
|
| (1444374) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 25 14:03:02 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by randyo on Tue Jul 25 13:25:21 2017. Constitution drafting is not all that different from transit planning. The cliche about how sausage is produced applies. The 3/5 person count for slaves, no vote for women, and many other things we cringe at today were a part of getting the package passed. In turn some issues are simply a reaction to evolving concepts of universal human rights. As a 73 yr old, I was raised when many stereotypes and prejudices which we no longer consider acceptable were simply givens of mass culture. Ultimately the famed "Athenian Oath" applies both as an ideal for each human and agoal forcivilization as a whole. |
|
|
| (1444376) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 25 14:05:49 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Jul 25 14:00:30 2017. which can be turned into liens against their state tax bills, or against renewal of driving licenses.Much like DUI, the real deal is a change in civic culture combined in this case with a much more serious effort to clean up the messes. |
|
|
| (1444377) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 14:06:57 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 25 14:03:02 2017. The 3/5 compromise was wrong not because it counted slaves as too little, but because it counted slaves at all.No vote for women wasn't in the Constitution. |
|
|
| (1444384) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 25 14:40:23 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 14:06:57 2017. It required an amendment to "give" women the vote. QED as written originally they were not entitled.On slaves I would disagree on two points. Anyone denied the vote (other than children) should not count as population for apportioning representation, and, of course, slavery is just wrong. However, it is also worth noting that slavery has been universal throughout human history--another example of somethng we now consider immoral but previously was a normal fact of life. Last semester I audited a class comparing legal systems of Han China and the early Roman Empire. The laws regulating slaves were fascinating. nough non rail. |
|
|
| (1444385) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 25 14:42:14 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by randyo on Tue Jul 25 13:25:21 2017. IMHO, the Constitution is a bit imperfect in that it does leave a bit too much room for interpretation . . .Actually, it leaves no room for interpretation. The examples you cited were of unconstitutional legislation from the bench based on mendacious pseudo-reasoning. If I were drafting a constitution, I would close a number of the loopholes that exist Name the loopholes. Anti-Constitutional decrees are direct subversion of the Constitution, not taking advantage of "loopholes". |
|
|
| (1444386) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jul 25 14:44:47 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 25 14:40:23 2017. QED as written originally they were not entitled.As originally written it was up to the states. Wyoming, Utah, and Washington gave women the right to vote. |
|
|
| (1444419) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 25 17:06:18 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jul 23 16:24:25 2017. A $4 billion surplus. Yet my real estate taxes went up although the market value of my house went down while the assessed value always goes up. How does that even happen? Aren't they supposed to be related? |
|
|
| (1444450) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 25 19:27:24 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 25 17:06:18 2017. How does that even happen?Voting for left-wing Democrats. (And to a slightly lesser degree, left-wing Republicans.) |
|
|
| (1444470) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jul 25 20:42:03 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 25 17:06:18 2017. I feel your pain. I own a house too. |
|
|
| (1444481) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jul 25 21:40:28 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 25 17:06:18 2017. . Yet my real estate taxes went up although the market value of my house went down while the assessed value always goes up. How does that even happen? Aren't they supposed to be related?Haven't you read my posts about real estate redistribution? It's going to happen in NYC. They're going to drive people in 1 family homes out of their homes so that families of six or more can be placed in those homes. A situation where an American family of 2 or 3 are living in a 1 family home is frowned upon and will be "corrected" by government. |
|
|
| (1444482) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Tue Jul 25 21:42:18 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 25 17:06:18 2017. Obviously you don't have a Prop 13 and a Prop 8 like in California. |
|
|
| (1444493) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:09 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by randyo on Tue Jul 25 13:25:21 2017. IMHO, the Constitution is a bit imperfectLOL. A constitution that allows slavery is "a bit imperfect?" |
|
|
| (1444494) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:10 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 25 14:03:02 2017. The 3/5 person count for slavesSeriously? How about the fact that it allowed slavery? I think that's a bigger deal than a clause saying rich white slavers get more votes than rich white people who don't enslave. |
|
|
| (1444495) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:12 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 14:06:57 2017. The 3/5 compromise was wrong not because it counted slaves as too little, but because it counted slaves at all.That the constitution allowed slavery at all was an unforgivable offense. That slavers were given extra representation as a reward for enslaving people is relatively petty in comparison. No vote for women wasn't in the Constitution. The constitution did not guarantee a vote for women. Or anyone non-white. Or anyone who didn't own land. |
|
|
| (1444496) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:14 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 25 14:40:23 2017. However, it is also worth noting that slavery has been universal throughout human history--another example of somethng we now consider immoral but previously was a normal fact of life.How is it worth noting? |
|
|
| (1444497) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:17 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jul 25 11:41:49 2017. But (many would say) they also have a basic right to be able to defend themselves against those who would harm them.The right to self-defense does not require a gun. In fact, the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right; it's derived from the right to safety. (IE, the right to safety is a fundamental right; the right to self-defense is an essential part of that.) Which means that the right to self-defense cannot justify anything that violates the right to safety. And allowing guns is contrary to the right to safety; if you can have a gun, then so can anyone who means you harm, and if you find yourself facing a criminal it's far better that neither of you be armed than both of you. Worse, if anyone can have a gun, it means that any criminal I face may well be armed— which means I'm deprived of my right to self-defense unless I have a gun too. By practical necessity, the "right" to own a gun quickly morphs into the obligation to carry one. And that itself brings another problem along for the ride. See, when a criminal is pointing a gun at you, it's too late— that you're armed doesn't matter because the criminal can shoot faster than you can draw, aim, and shoot. The only way the gun can protect you is if you use it preemptively— if you ready it to shoot someone before they actually point a gun at you. Which means that you actually can't use a gun to defend yourself unless you do so preemptively— but "preemptive self-defense" is just a silly euphemism for aggression. When everyone has guns, you get a powder keg in which everyone is a split second away from shooting everyone else on the mistaken belief that the other person might shoot first. It turns society into a constant n-way standoff, which is not conducive to safety in general, not being shot in particular, or defending yourself from harm. And that's not even considering the potential for negligence (many shootings are the product of "accidents"), or the fact that a gun allows you to kill someone in a moment of anger, or that quick access to killing tools dramatically increases the suicide rate among the mentally ill. As for living in a "modern society", people in 1932 Germany were pretty sure that they were living in one. Yes, and? If people in 1932 Germany had easy access to guns, that would have made everything worse, not better. Do you seriously think it would have improved things if every thug who ran around smashing synagogue windows also had military-grade weapons? There is no guarantee that any government will always have the best interests of its people at heart. The government almost never does. And guns do absolutely nothing to fix this. Protests do. Primaries do. Voting does. Civil disobedience does. But the fuck are you going to do with a gun? Can you name even one occasion in which a representative of the US government (politician, cop, soldier, etc) was shot by a civilian that you consider fully justified in the name of self-defense or defending the interests of the people? Can you name one occasion in which a representative of the US government (politician, cop, soldier, etc) definitely should have been shot for those reasons? Fact is, if someone says we need guns to defend ourselves against oppressive governments, it is virtually guaranteed that exact same person supports oppressive governments. And even if it does, there's the old saying, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." And having a gun would do nothing to change that. It would just make the police more likely to shoot you when they finally show up. |
|
|
| (1444498) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:20 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jul 25 09:12:55 2017. I too believe that rights transcend governmentsIf rights transcend governments but don't arise from morality, where do they come from? But I don't believe in any such thing as "basic morality" in a vacuum, so I find that response insufficient. I'm not sure what you mean "in a vacuum." You would probably assert: "I don't want to be shot." Everyone else on the planet would probably assert: "I don't want to be shot." The best way for each person to guarantee they don't get shot is to impose (and enforce) a universal rule of "no shooting," so we say that "no shooting" is a basic moral rule. Nothing arises out of the vacuum; working for the good of a group that works for the good of the people working for the good of the group is a basic social dynamic that tends to produce the best outcome for the entire group. That's more a sense of what you yourself think is good for everyone. If you think even a sizable minority of the Earth's population wants to be shot, you'll need to provide a citation for that. Gain and harm suggest an absolute good and an absolute evil between which the world (or local government) can oscillate. Not really. Each person can perceive that they gain from certain things and are harmed by others; taken in aggregate, an action can cause gain (ie, many people say they gain from it) or harm (ie, many people say they're harmed by it) or even both. Who determines these? You determine for yourself what you perceive as gain or harm to yourself. How do you really know what is good and bad for someone? They tell you. And don't you think that for just about every right there are at least some who stand to lose out because of it, if we are merely talking about each's own interest? There will be someone who stands to lose from virtually everything. However, a system that provides the greatest gain overall statistically benefits everyone; as such, everyone has reason to uphold that system. Even when it acts against your interest, the cost of that harm is always less than the cost of tearing down a system that's to your benefit overall. Obviously if there was a consensus of basic morality out there, we'd be well on the way to having all governments recognize the same rights. If people were less ignorant of the facts, there would be less harm arising from ignorance. That says nothing about the legitimacy of the facts, nor the irrationality of any goal which is predicated on falsehood. The problem is, of course, that people's respective senses of basic morality differ, and such differences exist even among similar intelligence levels and lifestyles. That a system of rules exist such that following the rules produces the greatest overall gain for those who follow the rules is a fact. That a person seeking to maximise their personal gain would benefit from the implementation and enforcement of that system is a fact. That a particular rule is compliant or noncompliant with that system is a fact. (Or, stated another way, whether a particular rule brings us closer to or further from the hypothetical-but-probaby-unattainable perfect system is a fact.) So if you don't seek to craft rules as close to the perfect system as humanly possible, and ensure widespread enforcement of those rules while remaining constantly vigilant for proposed changes that would make the rules closer to perfection than they already are, then either (a) you're irrational, (b) you're mistaken on a question of fact, or (c) you don't want the things you want, or have confused notions of what you want. That's an oversimplification to say the least, but the underlying point is that there's no contradiction between a universal morality and the existence of people who disobey it. Intelligence doesn't make you rational, nor does it make you more likely to be correct on questions of fact. And by the way, I'm a huge fan of democracy, though not all types of it. Well as they say, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others we've tried. |
|
|
| (1444499) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:24 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 25 10:57:59 2017. Yes, you've made it quite clear that you spend your life twitching with anger at the evil liberals who think mere peasants should have a say in their government.Perhaps you should move to North Korea. It's really more up your alley. |
|
|
| (1444500) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:26 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 25 19:27:24 2017. LOL! |
|
|
| (1444506) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:12:28 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jul 25 21:40:28 2017. Haven't you read my posts about real estate redistribution?It's going to happen in NYC. Yep. Real estate that's currently part of NYC will get redistributed to the Hudson and the Atlantic. |
|
|
| (1444507) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 22:16:58 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:10 2017. IAWTP. Any fixation on the 3/5 compromise misses the forest for the trees. It also confuses the uninitiated into thinking that it's wrong to consider any people to be less than a whole person while ignoring slavery itself. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
