Raid

[TheoK]

How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.

Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.

[TheoK]

How stupid can it be? Ban all cars, so no-one will die in a traffic accident. Ban all matches and lighters, so that no-one will die in an arson. Anyone can buy a car for $100 and matches and lighters cost about 50 cents and are sometimes just lying around anywhere. Outagerous! How big fires can't one create with a box of matches?

Oh, and a Japanese kid actually managed to kill 7 other kids with only a knife. In Japan you can only buy firearms to collect them, but this tricky kid fooled the fantastic gun control and did it with a knife. So you must also ban knives.

And electricity...should we ban electricity or all things that a kid or an idiot could put in a socket? Wait, they usually put knives and chisels there, so we'll ban it all, of course.

All these steps will make everyday life incredibly harder; you'll not be able to transport yourself or chop your food or lit a fire or use any electrical device, but hey, no price is too high to pay when it comes to the nice, warm, fuzzy feeling of security...

[TheoK]

"The penal code is the confession document of the legislators."

 - Aksel Sandemose

He was the man who coined the expression "Jante", originally  for the mentality of a narrow-minded Danish town, but nowadays usually an expression for the mentality in Sweden.

Do you understand what he meant with that, you passive-aggressive ostrich?

[odeon]

Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...

(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)

Fixed.

Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.

I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....

I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.

Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?

In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...

I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.

 

Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.

Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.

Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.

Copout. Then again, it's pretty much what I expected you would do. 

Next!

[odeon]

If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.

It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".

It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.

OK, who'll defend us against the police and military after every citizen is disarmed? The police and military?

All you need is love.

[odeon]

His insults is the least irritating thing. What's really irritating is that he knows very well that we're right but prefers to stick his head in the sand and hope that he'll be dead before VeriChip inplants become compulsory.

Actually it's the other way around. You know perfectly well that love is the answer, but it's so hard to just come out and say it with all the macho bullshit you try to impress the 13-yo's with.

[TheoK]

His insults is the least irritating thing. What's really irritating is that he knows very well that we're right but prefers to stick his head in the sand and hope that he'll be dead before VeriChip inplants become compulsory.

Actually it's the other way around. You know perfectly well that love is the answer, but it's so hard to just come out and say it with all the macho bullshit you try to impress the 13-yo's with.

Planet Earth calls: the ones in power don't care about the love talk.

[odeon]

How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.

Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.

Personally I'm all for PMS Elle's idea.

[odeon]

His insults is the least irritating thing. What's really irritating is that he knows very well that we're right but prefers to stick his head in the sand and hope that he'll be dead before VeriChip inplants become compulsory.

Actually it's the other way around. You know perfectly well that love is the answer, but it's so hard to just come out and say it with all the macho bullshit you try to impress the 13-yo's with.

Planet Earth calls: the ones in power don't care about the love talk.

It's OK, Lit. It really is. You can drop the act now.

[DirtDawg]

If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.

It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".

It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.

Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.

[El]

How can one not understand that it's actually better that a few people are totally meaninglessly killed by guns every now and then than that the whole population has to rely on the mercy of the authorities? Only an idiot or someone with slave mentality.

Swedes (and the Swedishized Finn) are stupid, naïve safoholics, but Americans should know better, since this right, the most precious of all, is a part of your constitution for this very reason.

Personally I'm all for PMS Elle's idea.

OK, but how does my hooking up with Adam Gontier save the world?

[Christopher McCandless]

Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...

(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)

Fixed.

Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.

I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....

I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.

Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?

In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...

I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.

 

Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.

Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.

Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.

Copout. Then again, it's pretty much what I expected you would do. 

Next!

We shall see what mark my essay on it gets

[Alex179]

If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.

It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".

It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.

Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.

We had a Vice President (Burr) and a Treasurer (Hamilton) duel to the death with pistols.   Poor Alexander Hamilton should have known that Burr was an experience shooter.   That guy got pwned.   

As a famous person in such a huge ass city (that had bad crime at the time), Lennon should have had good security and probably a gun himself.   Crazies had an easier time getting guns at that time compared to now, and it can still happen today.   A crazy person could have obtained the same gun off of the black market today, even if he was not allowed to do so legally.    Felons can buy guns from private sales and from arms dealers (back door deals).    How do you think people rob banks and such in nations that do not have legalized guns?   It sure doesn't happen nearly as often as it does here, but it does occur.   Most of the people in prison here are in for drug related offenses though.

[odeon]

Sorry, just going to have to step in and interrupt the laughter. Most credible moral philosophers don't believe in political obligation these days - so really in academia Lit has more backing than you tbh. Might want to start by reading A. John Simmons, Joseph Raz, Noam Chomsky and so on...

(btw I have spent today in the library pouring over books on the whole matter - so if you fancy arguing here, go for it. Make sure you be able to match my level of pretention first; if you manage to best me without citing the same books I have chosen to read I'll feel like a loser for wasting my day)

Fixed.

Rather unfunny. Just thought I would point out that I chose to read about Political Obligation because its a way of getting my 3 essays that I have to do overlap, so really I have saved myself a lot of time.

I actually wonder if anyone else in the thread knows what Political Obligation actually is....

I do, of course. It's the moral obligation to obey the laws of your state, which is absurd, at least if you're a rational person only believing in mutually volountarily agreements, and no such agreement, "social contract", between the people and state does exist, of course.

Aha - that would be the basic way of looking it. Though of course, how do we define a state, or even a moral obligation? What state are we obligated to, if any?

In fact I find it rather amusing that Odeon is essentially defending Nationalism, whilst also proclaiming himself to be a socialist. Hmm...

I'd be interested in hearing your arguments in favour of such a notion, right after you're finished explaining Political Obligation to us. Use your own words, btw, not links to sites that know more than you do. So far, the only thing you've managed to show is that you know how to enter search words into Google.

 

Nationalism was not in that article though, so I have at least proved I know how to use a module handbook and my Uni library (Reference: B. Goodwin, Using Political Ideas). Given that I have to write a paragraph or so on my essay, I may as well do it here, though I first have to finish off deciding what my argument is going to be.

Didn't I just tell you that references were a no-no? Your *own* words, remember? And ffs, stop making excuses when you are cornered.

Actually coming to think of it I have better things to do than prove myself to you. You should watch the latest House instead, much more efficient way of understanding the issues involved with the social contract and by extension political obligation.

Copout. Then again, it's pretty much what I expected you would do. 

Next!

We shall see what mark my essay on it gets

Care to elaborate on any of the bullshit assumptions you've been spreading here, or will you be writing essays on them, too?

[El]

I do think it's quite impressive that Mr. Mark and Lit find the time and energy to post on here on top of doing all that library research and fellating each other.