Iowa FTW

[TheoK]

By the way: if rights don't exist, the state doesn't have them either. The only "right" that the state has is that it has superior firepower and organisation.

So if rights exist, they belong to individuals, not states. If they don't exist, the state is likewise wrong.

Especially considering this NSA shit, faked "war on terror" etc it's unbelievable that you are so narrow-minded that you think that anything could be worse than the state.

And Somalia isn't an anarchy, because those living there don't have equal firepower and organisation. Somalia is on the contrary the example of everything that is wrong with a state, because that never shows as clearly as when a state collapses.

[odeon]

still waiting for you to back up this:

I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.

Which I contested.

Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.

I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?

Back it up or shut up.

[odeon]

No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.

Im not replying to all this properly yet but skimming thru before I go to bed

just seen this though and...

what?

I think that's what Lit was trying to say. "what?"

Lit got it wrong, more than once, so it's understandable that he says "what?"

I have tried to explain but I'm not getting through to him. Hence his rather nonsensical post, above.

[odeon]

By the way: if rights don't exist, the state doesn't have them either. The only "right" that the state has is that it has superior firepower and organisation.

That's correct. If rights do not exist, nobody has them. You can't have something that does not exist.

So if rights exist, they belong to individuals, not states. If they don't exist, the state is likewise wrong.

The first sentence is far from obvious. Prove it. The second is just irrelevant.

You are mixing things and the result is mostly incoherent.

Especially considering this NSA shit, faked "war on terror" etc it's unbelievable that you are so narrow-minded that you think that anything could be worse than the state.

I don't think I have attempted to list anything in this manner, i.e. "things worse than a state". This makes very little sense to me.

And Somalia isn't an anarchy, because those living there don't have equal firepower and organisation. Somalia is on the contrary the example of everything that is wrong with a state, because that never shows as clearly as when a state collapses.

What's Somalia doing in this discussion?

[TheoK]

I don't understand why you want to live in an Orwellian nightmare, but it seems obvious that you want to, since you like the gun law, which is one of the things that the state uses to control people.

You focus on a side effect of the gun law, that there are less accidents with guns etc if you have gun control. It's somehow like saying that you save a lot of money if you don't have an insurance.

[RageBeoulve]

still waiting for you to back up this:

I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.

Which I contested.

Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.

I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?

Back it up or shut up.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that. The answer is, I did. Its in the quote of that post. Now if you were to be an honest man, you could say, "Rage, i'm too lazy to go back in the thread and read that, or give it any thought. Could you be a punkin and do all my work for me? Thankies."

And i'd say, you're a faggot, groan, and do it.

[McGiver]

We are all born equal, man.

Prove it.

Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN

Fail.

some are born with physical deficiencies, some mental.  And because all of life depends on a monetary system, very few are born with advantage.  Some countries, like India, for instance, you are fated to live your entire life within the caste system.

Not equal

[McGiver]

Show me where the contempt is, Lit.or rage

Here's the thing: I tend to win arguments by *arguing*. I don't buy the "argument" where you or Rage or someone else puts words in my mouth, where you claim to know what i think, that I somehow delude myself, that I pretend something different than what I actually believe to be right. I think that's where you frequently lose your argument because instead of producing an opposing viewpoint, you belittle mine by claiming that it's not what I'm saying at all, that I'm only *pretending*.

I am difficult to argue against, I know. I won't be making apologies for my intelligence or that number I got in a test, I simply make my points in any way I know of. If you want a serious argument with me, take your own argument seriously.

Or be prepared for me getting back at you using your own game.

In other words, don't belittle me and I won't belittle you. Treat me as you want to be treated. Pot kettle black and all that.

this

[odeon]

still waiting for you to back up this:

I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.

Which I contested.

Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.

I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?

Back it up or shut up.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that. The answer is, I did. Its in the quote of that post. Now if you were to be an honest man, you could say, "Rage, i'm too lazy to go back in the thread and read that, or give it any thought. Could you be a punkin and do all my work for me? Thankies."

And i'd say, you're a faggot, groan, and do it.

Let's quote your whole post:

You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

By your logic we should have more killings than you, then.

OBJECTION: misleading!

We were always more violent, even with you had guns. Don't even try that shit, man. Also, after guns were banned over there, violent crime skyrocketed.

Both the UK and Australia instituted strict gun control legislation which basically eliminated private gun ownership in 1997. However, neither countries' legislation had an impact on lowering violent crime, and in both cases violent crime actually went up in the years following the enactment of the gun legislation.

Some gun control advocates, like Piers Morgan, would point towards the lower homicide rate of each country, but the fact of that matter is that both countries enjoyed the same lower homicide rates than the United States even before enacting their gun legislation, making those claims disingenuous.

Moreover, despite the UK having its gun ban, the violent crime rate is still far above that of the United States, and the country has also earned the title of violent crime capital of Europe.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths

Also, how many of those dead people in the statistics are career criminals, rapists, thieves, etc?

Where did I insult your country? Where did I "show my contempt" for it? You said:

You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?

And then:

It doesn't matter how many times you say that. The answer is, I did. Its in the quote of that post. Now if you were to be an honest man, you could say, "Rage, i'm too lazy to go back in the thread and read that, or give it any thought. Could you be a punkin and do all my work for me? Thankies."

"Its [sic] in the quote of that post."

Now, if *you* were an honest man, you might finally want to come clean and tell the class what got your knickers in a twist, but no, you apparently couldn't be arsed to do any work. You were personally insulted, somehow, and are starting to realise that you might have misread what I said and meant, but instead of straightening it out with me, you went right on with the internet tough guy routine.

And now it's all this.

Perhaps you wish to refer to my post, the one you replied to:

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.

This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.

To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.

Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.

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.

If you are talking about my comment re the quality of the voting population, that comment is directed at the entire globe. I have little faith in democracy because I think people in general don't know enough and are too easily swayed.

This opinion is not news; I have stated it before, many times.

And if we are talking about "universal" rights, we are talking about more than just rights applicable on the US.

So again, if you insist on claiming that I showed contempt for your country, prove it. Back up your shit. Or apologise.

C'mon, big boy, show me that you are more than an irresponsible internet tough guy.

[odeon]

Oh, and a little afterthought.

We humans misunderstand each other all the time. IRL, here, everywhere. It happens. But if we go the extra mile to straighten things out, explain that no, it's not true, that's not what I meant, maybe we'd end up with one less misunderstanding in the way. But to get there, maybe we should also remember to listen, one extra time.

You said that the contempt was all there, in the quoted post, and then went on to accuse me of being lazy because I asked you to back up what you said. You didn't. And you also conveniently (?) ignored an earlier comment I made:

But I don't want to see the US crumble. It is a nation with problems but it is also a great nation, one that contributes so much more to the world than the nonsense that is usually on the news. Please don't think I dislike your country or your people just because I criticise your constitution.

So again, back up what you said or apologise.

[TheoK]

But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.

[McGiver]

But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.

in this system of small anarchistic societies would none of them war against each other? Would many of them want more land, more people, more control? Would not some of the most psychopathic behaviors get on the top of society by any means necessary in order to control their fellow man?

What would become of all these WMD that are currently owned by the huge nation states? Would we divvy them up equally?

I'm all for the anarchistic society. I just don't know how it would work.

[TheoK]

But you are talking against yourself. You have said that you have little faith in democracy and that you think that politicians break the laws, are corrupted etc. Or you still mean that this corrupted system with enormous nation states is better than a system with small anarchistic societies with a few hundred persons in each would be? Strange. In a society with 500 members the control is of course much greater than in a nation state with 10 millions or 300 millions or one billion.

in this system of small anarchistic societies would none of them war against each other? Would many of them want more land, more people, more control? Would not some of the most psychopathic behaviors get on the top of society by any means necessary in order to control their fellow man?

What would become of all these WMD that are currently owned by the huge nation states? Would we divvy them up equally?

I'm all for the anarchistic society. I just don't know how it would work.

Well, 99% of all people are not psychopaths. it's just that they are being passive and reluctant to do anything or that they can easily be forced to obey someone stronger. One must learn them some kind of awareness.

In the state most people are passive because the state has a monopoly on violence. In an anarchy there would be no monopoly on violence. Everyone would be equally armed (if needed). That way you would be able to control the psychopaths. When the kings and aristocrats gained power once upon a time, no modern firearms existed, so the one with an army was the one who won, simply.

WMD would be scrapped.

I'm very skeptical myself how to create this system. Once it is created I think it would work very well. The hard thing would be to dissolve the nation states.

[RageBeoulve]

Odeon, you are only able to produce one statement where you "admit" you don't want to see my country crumble. However peppered throughout this thread, are statements like this.

right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution

My country and its laws. You don't have to like the laws that govern our government because you are not a citizen here. I can produce more quotes like this by the way. One statement saying "please don't think I dislike your country or its constitution" doesn't make everything else you say about it non-existent. That's like when some dude says "with all due respect" then says something blatantly disrespectful after it, as if saying with all due respect is a license to fuck with people. 

[RageBeoulve]

We are all born equal, man.

Prove it.

Because we can all think. BURRRNNNN

Fail.

some are born with physical deficiencies, some mental.  And because all of life depends on a monetary system, very few are born with advantage.  Some countries, like India, for instance, you are fated to live your entire life within the caste system.

Not equal

Problem with that:

Caste systems and monetary disadvantages are artificial disadvantages created by other humans to garner profit for themselves. That has nothing to do with natural human rights.