Iowa FTW

[RageBeoulve]

From what I understand it was found that the Syrian rebels were the ones who committed mass murder with chemical weapons. And those were the same rebels being trained and supplied by NATO forces. That's a pretty damning situation for the guy any way you look at it, especially with the whole Benghazi debacle still stinging a lot of us.

Who found it? Granted I haven't looked into it deeply, but the mainstream USA news sources I saw said it was Assad's regime with the chemical weapons, and Putin's article in the newspaper said it was the rebels.

Now that there's an agreement, who's preparing the reports and turning over the chemical weapons?

Yeah our media wouldn't tell us that part. The UN did their own investigation and found out the origin of the attacks. Basically the UN and Russia UNNED Oblamo's mass murder plan. Actually that's misleading. I have no idea what he was actually trying to do by supplying the rebels with chemical weapons and other stuff. It just looks pretty bad from where i'm sitting.

[odeon]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.

Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.

You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.

IF Spooner is right.

Which he isn't. Next.

Of course you read the link and studied his arguments 

Yes. Why?

[TheoK]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.

Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.

You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.

IF Spooner is right.

Which he isn't. Next.

Of course you read the link and studied his arguments 

Yes. Why?

Are the legislators God? No. On the contrary they are often psychopaths and people with a very low moral.

Legislation cannot be morally or logically justified. A system where everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone is on the other hand logically consistent.

[TheoK]

Or simpler: no one has the right to rule anyone else, neither a dictator nor a democratic system (not that we have democracy, but not even a real democracy can be morally justified). You have no right to decide over other people because you are a majority. It's just something someone came up with.

[TheoK]

If God existed he could have a moral right to rule human beings. Human beings can't have the moral right to rule each other.

[odeon]

Odeon-

He very clearly commented on an existing mess. Next.

How convenient that everyone hates my country right now, giving everyone an excuse to talk shit about it as much as they like. Contributing to that really helps. Thanks a lot, Adam and Odeon.

Did we hurt your precious feelings by pointing out some of the problems your country is faced with? Poor thing.

You are implying that your common sense knows something about why these tools were created that the researches do not? Right.

Its not rocket science, man.

Maybe you should contribute to the field, then, because the people who actually do the research don't know.

Logic fail. You are not the one to decide. Next.

I can decide whatever I want. And I decide that yes, I crushed him. He only returned when you came and "stood up" to the evil realist, days later.

You do realise that we have lives outside this place? I, for example, tend to open this thread only in the mornings, when drinking my morning coffee, knowing that headway can't be made. You and Lit only rarely allow anyone's arguments to affect yours, and never when guns are discussed. Lit will call us brainwashed and you will make the whole thing to be about your country.

And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.

So while it can be entertaining in the short term to reply to posts like this one, it will not actually lead anywhere. To me it's just something I do while waking up.

So decide what you want. It won't magically make it true.

Here's an example of a study Of the 626 shootings in or around the home, 54 were unintentional.

How would you label those 54? Collateral damage?

Next.

Here is something that causes a lot more deaths. Hospitals, and medical error. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php Whats your excuse for 195,000 deaths a year? Accidents happen? Well then that's my excuse too. Heres another fact: Guns save about a hundred times more lives than criminals manage to take. You want to play with numbers huh? I can do that too.

Do try to stay on topic, please.

You make it sound like Adam changed the subject but your earlier

Adam turned it into a gun control debate, and took it to the "U CAN'T REBEL AGAINST GUBMINT" level, not me.

Because it is in there, it is there for a good reason? Logic fail. Next.

Hah! I think most americans agree with me, which is why gun bans have failed so far. This is -their- country, after all.

And their problem.

Who is changing the subject now? "Bank interest driven government"? Subtle. I'm still interested in why you don't seem to think that equal health care should not be a right when gun ownership is.

Because health care is something you work for, and rights are defended with your gun.

So if you are unemployed, you don't have a right to health care unless you use the gun to force it?

Right.

Gee, I wonder why the 13th amendment was deemed necessary and fought so bitterly?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html

The thirteenth amendment was taken out of context back then to make slavery okay, and even after being abolished and all these years its still being used the same way. *hint*

How do you manage to so completely miss my point? Deliberately?

It's OK for you to say that people who do not agree with you are empty-hearted, but not OK for me to question your reading comprehension?

You set the stage, now live with it.

I didn't say that people who disagree with me are empty hearted. You are taking things out of context to be divisive. Won't work on me.

Actually you pretty much did:

I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.

I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.

But if it's not what you meant, then you should explain.

Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.

Should I remind you that the NRA has effectively been able to block a lot of research into gun-related violence?

So since the EVIL NRA has engaged in conspiracy and blocked this heroic research, we should still go ahead and immediately change things around anyway without knowing what will happen because our feelings. That's a stretch, even by your logic.

Feelings? What feelings?

You are not making any sense. Want to try again?

Adam-

Also Rage, I think it's kinda funny that you think you can educate me and odeon on history by posting links to 5 minutes youtube videos

I read books, and if I recall correctly, so does odeon

Get off your high horse, mate

That youtube video must be a damnsight better than whatever drivel you've been reading, or I would not have been concerned. Also, your business with me has nothing to do with Odeon. I'm handling him just fine, and i'll chase you off this issue a second time while debating him.

You're not handling me at all, mate. Takes a lot more than the above.

That's funny to me. I'm not 100% sure i'm right, actually. But when I speak with people who think like you, it convinces me a bit more every time. At least odeon attempted to produce some numbers and such. How about you bring something to this instead of a bunch of fingerpointing and empty denial? If you are so eager to socially engineer the people of my country, and you are sure that you are justified in this, how about you actually convince me?

Unlike you, I back up my numbers. You just seem to invent yours.

[odeon]

Rage, don't bother.

I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.

[TheoK]

Rage, don't bother.

I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.

But that's what it is. It is all about that double bind complex I posted a link about. You don't like guns, so guns should be banned or restricted, despite the fact that you can only protect yourself with guns.

Isn't it true that the civilians in Syria wouldn't have been slaughter sheeps and rape victims right now if they had had machine guns and grenades to defend themselves with?

[odeon]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.

Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.

You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.

IF Spooner is right.

Which he isn't. Next.

Of course you read the link and studied his arguments 

Yes. Why?

Are the legislators God? No. On the contrary they are often psychopaths and people with a very low moral.

Legislation cannot be morally or logically justified. A system where everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone is on the other hand logically consistent.

What you are saying is that anyone who reads his arguments is bound to agree with them. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

[TheoK]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.

Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.

You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.

IF Spooner is right.

Which he isn't. Next.

Of course you read the link and studied his arguments 

Yes. Why?

Are the legislators God? No. On the contrary they are often psychopaths and people with a very low moral.

Legislation cannot be morally or logically justified. A system where everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone is on the other hand logically consistent.

What you are saying is that anyone who reads his arguments is bound to agree with them. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

So what is wrong with what he is saying? Explain.

I'm not sure that you understand this. If they were God they could have moral rights being above the rights of humans and thus logically have a right to rule, but they are not God.

[odeon]

Rage, don't bother.

I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.

But that's what it is. It is all about that double bind complex I posted a link about. You don't like guns, so guns should be banned or restricted, despite the fact that you can only protect yourself with guns.

Isn't it true that the civilians in Syria wouldn't have been slaughter sheeps and rape victims right now if they had had machine guns and grenades to defend themselves with?

I actually rather like guns. I had great fun on the range.

But this has nothing to do with my feelings, any more than (presumably) Rage's or TA's pro-gun stance has to do with theirs. Saying it is the case doesn't make it true; it's just the only strawman technique TA seems to know about.

[TheoK]

Rage, don't bother.

I thought you knew that your rights end where their feelings begin.

But that's what it is. It is all about that double bind complex I posted a link about. You don't like guns, so guns should be banned or restricted, despite the fact that you can only protect yourself with guns.

Isn't it true that the civilians in Syria wouldn't have been slaughter sheeps and rape victims right now if they had had machine guns and grenades to defend themselves with?

I actually rather like guns. I had great fun on the range.

But this has nothing to do with my feelings, any more than (presumably) Rage's or TA's pro-gun stance has to do with theirs. Saying it is the case doesn't make it true; it's just the only strawman technique TA seems to know about.

You like guns but you don't understand that gunlaws are there to protect the state from you and not you from mad spree killers?

[odeon]

So what is wrong with what he is saying? Explain.

I'm not sure that you understand this. If they were God they could have moral rights being above the rights of humans and thus logically have a right to rule, but they are not God.

We've been through this a number of times, Lit, and never agree on any of it. I've commented on some of it and others have commented on other bits. I'm not interested in doing any of it again so you'll either have to live with it or use the search function.

[TheoK]

So what is wrong with what he is saying? Explain.

I'm not sure that you understand this. If they were God they could have moral rights being above the rights of humans and thus logically have a right to rule, but they are not God.

We've been through this a number of times, Lit, and never agree on any of it. I've commented on some of it and others have commented on other bits. I'm not interested in doing any of it again so you'll either have to live with it or use the search function.

You know that I am logically right but you still think "But it won't work without governments and laws".

Because I am right. When kings and emperors said that they had a right to rule because God had given them their power, this was a logically flawless argument, given the premiss that God exists. But if God doesn't exist and can't give human beings the right to rule in his place, no one has a right to rule, and that is pure logic.

[TheoK]

Are politicians, officials, cops and soldiers superior beings vs. other human beings? If not, they logically have no right to decide what others should do and not.

Though it seems like people who haven't studied philosophy don't understand that it must be like this.