Iowa FTW

[odeon]

The US constitution is a touchy subject for you. I can't help noticing that it is when criticising it that you get mad and start with the name calling. Like here.

I think it's safe to say that it is sacred to a lot of people in the US. It is a weakness you have, IMO, because it can effectively keep you from evolving.

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.

Ok. I think we've reached the root of our disagreement. I see things pretty much the opposite of what you do. The U.S. constitution is actually one of the last American things in my country, and its beginning to die. My government has begun to completely ignore it and operate almost completely separate of the people which was not how this nation was designed to run.

I agree with Semicolon. If we're going to change the constitution, we need to make it much stronger.

On this [the text in bold] we actually agree. However flawed your constitution is, however desperately it needs a review, if the legislation that is in place is not followed by those who are supposed to guard it, you have a huge problem.

Not one that can be solved with guns, I think, but one that needs to be addressed somehow.

[odeon]

If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.

Sadly, people are not treated as equals in your country either. The methods are different, that's all.

[odeon]

How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.

To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc

Where does a gun come in to that?

Everything that is not malum in se is a natural right.

ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"

No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.

You are definitely less intelligent than I am. In odeon's case it's about that double bind. He knows that I'm right when I'm saying that the state might murder us one day, but that is a fact so intolerable that he chooses to pretend that it couldn't happen and instead talks into himself that the state is protecting us.

"he knows that I'm right..."?

"talks into himself that the state is protecting us..."

Why do you insist putting words in our mouths and telling us what we think and why, when you have no clue?

We could talk about intelligence in considerable detail and you might find yourself losing that discussion, but that topic is pretty much completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

It's very difficult to have a discussion, let alone a debate, with someone who keeps trying to put words in one's mouth. We don't pretend to know why you hold your views. I'd appreciate if you showed us that same courtesy.

[odeon]

lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?

I love how you know that over the internet.

You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.

In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.

How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?

[odeon]

No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.

Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary

For what?

Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.

You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.

[odeon]

Yeah I seen a few speeches from the conference.  Milliband's was excellent.  He spoke for over an hour with no notes or prompts. 

Before the conference I would have said the next election would be a battle of centre politics.

I now think it will be left v right.  I don't think Labour have shifted too far to the left.  Just enough.  Of course, any lean to the left, no matter how slight has the advantage of making the Tory party appear more right

(probably not making sense to most of you but hopefully Adam will 'get' my meaning.)

Would you happen to have a link to Milliband's talk?

[odeon]

What problems could the farmer have that he couldn't peacefully solve with his neighbours?

You are joking, right?

Have you any insight at all into the human condition?

[odeon]

so before big bad government came along, everything was peaceful and perfect?

I am not brainwashed by the state. I'm being fucking realistic. Just becuase someone disagrees with you dosen't mean they're brainwashed or stupid.

Here is an article I posted on the green party forum.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/19-2

Full article below

Humans Not Predisposed to War, New Study Finds
Researchers show war is more recent of an invention than previously thought
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer


(Photo via Flickr / jf1234 / Creative Commons License)Countering the prevailing notion that humankind is naturally predisposed to war, new research suggests that primitive humans existed mostly peacefully, with war developing much later than previously thought.

The study's author, Patrik Soderberg, who worked with a team from Abo Academy University in Finland and published their research in the journal Science, said their research questioned "the idea that human nature, by default, is developed in the presence of making war and that war is a driving force in human evolution."

The findings, Soderberg said, challenge "the idea that war was ever-present in our ancestral past."

The study, "paints another picture where the quarrels and aggression were primarily about interpersonal motives instead of groups fighting against each other," said Soderberg.

The research pulls from observations of modern day people and tribes who are still isolated from contemporary society—living like hunter-gatherers did thousands of years ago—as the best living examples of how humans interacted in primitive times.

"About 12,000 years ago, we assume all humans were living in this kind of society, and that these kind of societies made up about for about 90% of our evolutionary path," Soderberg said.

The study found that of all the recorded deaths in these groups, most were considered individual "homicides," while only a few were caused by ongoing feuds. And, as Soderberg writes, "only the minority could be labeled as war."

"Over half the events were perpetrated by lone individuals and in 85% of the cases, the victims were members of the same society."

The researchers said that studying today's hunter-gatherer communities was not a perfect method for understanding ancient societies, "but said the similarities were significant and did provide an insight into our past," BBC News adds.

“It has been tempting to use these mobile foraging societies as rough analogies of the past and to ask how old warfare is and whether it is part of human nature. Our study shows that war is obviously not very common,” said study co-author Douglas Fry.

_____________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments.  Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority.

I need to read up on this.

I did notice an interesting passage, above (highlighted). My question is: would the end result be different? I do think that basic aggressions are about personal (and thus interpersonal) motives, but I also think that whenever humans live in groups, these basic motives will affect the group, effectively creating a predisposition for war for the group.

I get the feel that the difference between the end results of each (a predisposition for war vs interpersonal motives) ends up being a matter of definition. I honestly don't think humans just get along if their wills collide with each other.

Very interesting, in any case. +

[odeon]

You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments.  Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority. 

I know about the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. I have read Zimbardo's book

Sorry but you have a limited understanding. Because Lit says so.

[bodie]

Yeah I seen a few speeches from the conference.  Milliband's was excellent.  He spoke for over an hour with no notes or prompts. 

Before the conference I would have said the next election would be a battle of centre politics.

I now think it will be left v right.  I don't think Labour have shifted too far to the left.  Just enough.  Of course, any lean to the left, no matter how slight has the advantage of making the Tory party appear more right

(probably not making sense to most of you but hopefully Adam will 'get' my meaning.)

Would you happen to have a link to Milliband's talk?

It is very long,  but even his enemies have credited him.  It is a cracking speech.

[odeon]

Thanks. Will watch, tonight.

[TheoK]

But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.

I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.

There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.

Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected.

Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.

In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?

I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.

In short, yes.

And every other thing that would exist in 2013, like the internet, mobile phones, "war on terror" etc? 

[TheoK]

He doesn't understand the concept of natural rights. Most Europeans are still stuck in the thinking when kings and emperors ruled and rights were something that the state gave you.

Implying that I'm stuck in that way of thinking? What are you basing that supposition on?

You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.

Even if the state could be trusted to 100% the gun law and law about self-defence here would still make you helpless against a stalker who wanted to hurt you, for instance. You would have to either accept that the stalker would hurt you or break the law and risk prison to defend yourself. It's impossible that you find this morally right. The dad in Rödeby had an enormous luck. If people hadn't for once been so outraged he would probably have ended up in prison.

[TheoK]

How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.

To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc

Where does a gun come in to that?

Everything that is not malum in se is a natural right.

ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"

No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.

You are definitely less intelligent than I am. In odeon's case it's about that double bind. He knows that I'm right when I'm saying that the state might murder us one day, but that is a fact so intolerable that he chooses to pretend that it couldn't happen and instead talks into himself that the state is protecting us.

"he knows that I'm right..."?

"talks into himself that the state is protecting us..."

Why do you insist putting words in our mouths and telling us what we think and why, when you have no clue?

We could talk about intelligence in considerable detail and you might find yourself losing that discussion, but that topic is pretty much completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

It's very difficult to have a discussion, let alone a debate, with someone who keeps trying to put words in one's mouth. We don't pretend to know why you hold your views. I'd appreciate if you showed us that same courtesy.

Why would I lose a discussion about intelligence? You are not winning this one. You are as usual avoiding the subject and turning to ad hominem and statistics that just show that more people are killed in America but avoiding to see this from the greater perspective.

Can you give an absolute guarantee that Sweden, the UK or the US will never end up like Bosnia or Syria? No you can't. So comparing gun deaths in the US vs. Japan in peacetime isn't an honest way to argue.

(He will respond to this with something like  )

[TheoK]

lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?

I love how you know that over the internet.

You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.

In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.

How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?

It's just not that he disagrees. It is obvious that he often can't grasp the whole picture in a debate. In your case it's obvious that you can but that you avoid certain questions, drag up my disability etc instead of discussing the whole picture in an honest way.