Raid

[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.

 

[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.

[El]

OK, John Lennon isn't oppressed by society except when it comes to the FRA law. When will John Lennon feel oppressed for real? When they force him to have a surveillance camera in his own home, so the government can watch him 24/7? When they put a VeriChip inplant into his skin? When they put a chip into his brain?

When that happens, it will be far too late for any resistance. But the foundation was laid by accepting gun "control".

John Lennon is dead. You do know that, don't you?

Shot and killed by a handgun in the hands of a psycho, BTW ...

Ironic, isn't it?

Dontcha think?

[TheoK]

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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[El]

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.

Very good.  Did you use the potty all by yourself today, too?

[TheoK]

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?

[El]

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.

Yes, and on how saying whatever retarded thoughts come into your head tends to make people hate you.

[El]

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?

Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.

[TheoK]

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.

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.

[TheoK]

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?

Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.

So, you too admit that we're defenseless without guns but you too prefer to stick the head in the sand like an ostrich?

[El]

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?

Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.

So, you too admit that we're defenseless without guns but you too prefer to stick the head in the sand like an ostrich?

Nah, just saying I'm OK with the idea of having you incur bodily injury, especially if it beneifts me.   

[TheoK]

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?

Personally, I was just planning on using you as a human shield.

So, you too admit that we're defenseless without guns but you too prefer to stick the head in the sand like an ostrich?

Nah, just saying I'm OK with the idea of having you incur bodily injury, especially if it beneifts me.   

It'll never happen, wench!