Las Vegas

Duck and cover
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:03 am

gun = dope

what you want to do = want, desire, power

what you are allowed to do by government = rights, the law

It occurs to me you have a short window to figure out to maintain your yapping point regarding your right to do whatever you want to do because other people drive cars to work. What you gonna do when cars are all controlled by law by AI? ........... and the death from cars drops to near zero? What silly BS analogy will you {!#%@} on next? In the rank order of things, I'm guessing it will be knives.....and then baseball bats?

"I'll admit to the obvious truth that guns kill people when you admit to the irrelevant BS that knives kill people too." aka: I'll give up my drum operated machine gun when you eat food with your bare hands because both guns and flat ware kill people.

Silly position.

Also of note: guns can currently be made safer like AI cars by having biometrics installed. Gun Nutter controlled governments around the USA are making such safety measures "illegal."=====>hmmm......I have the details on this a bit muddled....probably....not illegal, just not mandated? So.........your insanity will continue for some more time.

Fun to see just how crazy the Gun Nut position is. It may take some dead cold hands.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:06 am

On the right to comment.

I would speculate that the way it happened was something like this. Multiply the example by many people.
Some aristocrat (has to an aristocrat, since a peasant would have been hung) said something reckless about the king and was punished. Afterwards, he complained to family and friends, and they decided to agitate for the right for free speech. The king cannot combat a strong movement among his nobility, so gives in.

So I have inherited the right to comment. If that right is taken away, there will be opposition.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:51 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Rights don't come from the people or the government.

They come from an agreement between the people and the government.

Rights are negotiated, not taken or bestowed.

Just catching up on this thread. This is a most excellent observation, deserving more than one thumbs up. ha, ha.......and just posting in admiration.......gave my brain time to recognize you are WRONG. Rights come from the government. If the people don't agree....the rights don't change....you just get unhappiness, unrest..... revolution.

Think about it EM. Has your clear thinking been polluted by having to read X's BS?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:So I have inherited the right to comment. If that right is taken away, there will be opposition.


Where did you get the right to oppose?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:38 am

You see right there X? You have the right to oppose as the government may grant/allow.

But you always have the POWER to oppose........if you have the power.

How completely do you confuse these two related concepts?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:39 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Think about it EM. Has your clear thinking been polluted by having to read X's BS?


It warms my heart, booboo, to know that your thinking has been polluted by having to read my BS.

It seems my participation here has not been pointless after all. :wgrin:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:41 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You see right there X? You have the right to oppose as the government may grant/allow.

But you always have the POWER to oppose........if you have the power.

How completely do you confuse these two related concepts?


I don't confuse them. The issue of power simply has nothing to do with my position on rights, and therefore I don't bother bringing it up.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:45 am

Oh well....................good read X. Yes. I projected my own reality onto EM.......assuming we are all more alike than different. Its the RECOGNITION of the issue that allows me to follow the straight course.

I posted on two threads that my current read of wiki and the 2A changed my mind about the utility of using "the militia" as a way to amend the Constitution. I don't think that came from your BS, but rather my own interest in words and how they affect how we think. The psycholinguistics of it all. Guns to Ladders, Militias to FireStations.

But the last week or so engagement with you and your insistence and confusing over "rights" has given me a deeper recognition of the harm bad ideas cause to society....and the difficulty in getting back to normal. The pen (ideas) is mightier than the sword........but ideas can kill as well with pens having little counter.

My humor: whats gonna kill us first? drug resistant ecoli, AGW, or some Gun Nut exercising his freedom?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:46 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You see right there X? You have the right to oppose as the government may grant/allow.

But you always have the POWER to oppose........if you have the power.

How completely do you confuse these two related concepts?


I don't confuse them. The issue of power simply has nothing to do with my position on rights, and therefore I don't bother bringing it up.

You did just confuse them. "Right there." That is the nature of being confused. You think you aren't.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:53 am

There is no single source of human rights. They come from a variety of places. Uncle Tom's Cabin led to the right for slaves in the US to become free. Magna Carta to other rights. The United Nations charter has influenced governments all round the world to implement human rights. Sometimes it is one thing, and sometimes another.

But they are always human inventions. They are not "natural ". I have seen enough of 'primitive ' tribal ways of living to know that their more 'natural ' way of living does not result in human rights. Quite the contrary. The more primitive the society, the fewer rights people have. Including the right to keep living.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You did . . .


Did not.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:So I have inherited the right to comment. If that right is taken away, there will be opposition.
xouper wrote:Where did you get the right to oppose?
Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no single source of human rights. They come from a variety of places.


Where specifically did you get the right to oppose?

For example, is it in the UN Declaration of Recommendations?

If not, then by your own argument, that right doesn't exist.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:11 am

xouper wrote: Where specifically did you get the right to oppose?

You get the right to oppose when the sovereign allows it.

You always have the power to oppose.

....................... still confused, you are.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:25 am

Yes, Xouper is not clear on what constitutes a human right. Actually, neither were the founding fathers of the USA when they called the pursuit of happiness a right.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:49 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Yes, Xouper is not clear on what constitutes a human right. Actually, neither were the founding fathers of the USA when they called the pursuit of happiness a right.


Sorry, I'm not the one confused here. You don't get to change the definition of a word that they used. You have to use the definition they intended. Otherwise, you are guilty of a straw man fallacy.

You still haven't answered this question, Lance:

Lance Kennedy wrote:So I have inherited the right to comment. If that right is taken away, there will be opposition.
xouper wrote:Where did you get the right to oppose?
Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no single source of human rights. They come from a variety of places.


Where specifically did you get the right to oppose?

For example, is it in the UN Declaration of Recommendations?

If not, then by your own argument, that right doesn't exist.

Bobbo says you don't have the right to oppose unless the government allows it. Do you agree with that?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Yes, Xouper is not clear on what constitutes a human right. Actually, neither were the founding fathers of the USA when they called the pursuit of happiness a right.

The Declaration of Independence was an "aspirational" document. Our law is based on and flows from the Constitution.

Its good to tell the {!#%@} aka HYPE from the shinola aka LAW.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7363
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby TJrandom » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:56 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Where do rights come from ? They are human inventions.


That's what I've been saying all along. Not government inventions. Individual people invented them.

When someone first picked up a weapon to use in self defense and declared he had the right to do so, that's an example of where rights come from. Someone decided to claim the moral right of self ownership. It's very much a human invention. No god or government needed.


Lance Kennedy wrote:And I do not decide what rights the government gives me. I can and do comment on them. But the government giveth and the government taken away.


So if the government decides to take away your right to make such comments, then what will you do? Will you then concede you no longer have a right to make such comments?


When the larger community ran that self-righter out of the territory for having used a weapon against another member of the community, the community/government asserted its right to grant rights or not. Your example was of where anarchy came from, not rights.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:14 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:When someone first picked up a weapon to use in self defense and declared he had the right to do so, that's an example of where rights come from. Someone decided to claim the moral right of self ownership. It's very much a human invention. No god or government needed.


When the larger community ran that self-righter out of the territory for having used a weapon against another member of the community, the community/government asserted its right to grant rights or not. Your example was of where anarchy came from, not rights.


Obviously I disagree.

I have the moral authority of self ownership and self defense. That right has nothing to do with anarchy.

In the US today, when a person uses a weapon in self defense, he does not get run out of the territory. That right of self defense has not led to anarchy. Just the opposite, the government protects the right of self defense.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:19 am

Is moral authority any different than a right? Why the change up in terminology???

aka: Creating your own vocabulary is about the third stop until you arrive in Crazy Town. How fast are you pulling this train???
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:00 am

There are "rights " and there are inevitabilities.
A right is a gift. A gift from whoever is in power. If you exercise that right, the people in power will not punish you for it. But there are events that are not gifted. Those events sometimes result in punishment. Sometimes not.

The pursuit of happiness is not a right, since it is not a gift. Instead, it is an inevitability. People pursue happiness regardless of what those in power say or do. So it is not a gift. Therefore it is not a right. The right to free speech is a gift. Once, you would not be permitted to say anything negative about those in power, or else be punished, and likely killed. Now you can. This is a gift from those in power, and has become a right.

Self defense, if valid, is a right, since those in power have given you that, and you can exercise it (where valid) without being punished for it. It has not always been a right, and in more barbaric times, many people were punished or killed for defending themselves.

You do not have a "right " to breathe. It is simply inevitable that, as long as you are alive, you will breathe. That is not a gift from those in power, and so is not a right. It is, instead, an inevitability.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:22 am

breathing is a power.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8101
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Poodle » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:24 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:breathing is a power.

"man". You forgot to add "man".

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Is moral authority any different than a right? Why the change up in terminology???

aka: Creating your own vocabulary is about the third stop until you arrive in Crazy Town. How fast are you pulling this train???


Apparently I'm pulling it faster than you can keep up.

Moral authority is exactly what I mean by a natural right.

I have the natural right to self ownership.

I have the moral authority to self ownership.

They both mean the same thing.

Get a dictionary. Look up "right". If you got a good one, then it will have the phrase "moral authority" or something equivalent.

Example:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/right wrote:Right: that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:A right is a gift. A gift from whoever is in power.


Utter BS.

The UN Declaration of Rights disagrees with you.

Is that your answer to my question?

Lance Kennedy wrote:So I have inherited the right to comment. If that right is taken away, there will be opposition.
xouper wrote:Where did you get the right to oppose?
Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no single source of human rights. They come from a variety of places.


Where specifically did you get the right to oppose?

For example, is it in the UN Declaration of Recommendations?

If not, then by your own argument, that right doesn't exist.

Are you saying that your right to oppose is a gift from the government?

If so, then by your argument, if the government revokes that right (as they did in Nazi Germany), then you have no right to oppose.

Now what will you do?

You have no right to complain.

You have no right to oppose.

Now what?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:23 am

Brick by misunderstood brick........ you build your fantasy world.

Moral principles is not the same thing as moral authority..........."except in your fevered imagination...."

Here is some of my moral authority: I think all people are equal and deserve a nice life as far as they can fashion. So..... if you live in a summer house for one month a year..........I see no reason at all I should not have the right to move in and occupy it when you aren't around. Its my RIGHT to be out of the elements and have a roof over my head. YOU aren't even inconvenienced. And since possesssion is 9/10 of the law..... if you break into my house while I'm there....I can shoot you in self defense.

....................or.........................

We can live with the rights and obligations as set forth by LAW!.

LAW................. are you feeling it yet?.............. I doubt it. Thats what fantasy brick commodes are all about.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:29 am

Xouper

Rights are important. But they are not everything. Not everything I do is a right. Some things I do because I want to do them. If legal, fine. If not, I might get punished. If I want to oppose the government on something, that is not a right. But I might do it anyway.

Your simplistic argument is a bit silly.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:36 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Brick by misunderstood brick........ you build your fantasy world.

Moral principles is not the same thing as moral authority..........."except in your fevered imagination...."

Here is some of my moral authority: I think all people are equal and deserve a nice life as far as they can fashion. So..... if you live in a summer house for one month a year..........I see no reason at all I should not have the right to move in and occupy it when you aren't around. Its my RIGHT to be out of the elements and have a roof over my head. YOU aren't even inconvenienced. And since possesssion is 9/10 of the law..... if you break into my house while I'm there....I can shoot you in self defense.

....................or.........................

We can live with the rights and obligations as set forth by LAW!.

LAW................. are you feeling it yet?.............. I doubt it. Thats what fantasy brick commodes are all about.



Some people should refrain form posting when they're too drunk to be coherent.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:41 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Rights are important. But they are not everything. Not everything I do is a right.

Some things I do because I want to do them. If legal, fine. If not, I might get punished. If I want to oppose the government on something, that is not a right. But I might do it anyway.

Your simplistic argument is a bit silly.


So you are saying that the Jews did not have the right to oppose the Nazi government.

Incredible. :shock:

And you have the nerve say MY  argument is silly. Yours is morally repugnant.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:46 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:If I want to oppose the government on something, that is not a right. But I might do it anyway.


Why do you feel justified in telling the government what rights it must give you?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:52 am

xouper wrote: So you are saying that the Jews did not have the right to oppose the Nazi government.

Thats correct. Just like the South did not have the right to secede from the USA........and so forth.

Again..............you fail to deal with the very real difference between a right and a power.

.................contra: there is a field of "Natural rights" that would support the notion of people defending themselves. This applies against genocide.......but not in arming one's self in a civil society.......so you lose in all scenarios.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:16 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote: So you are saying that the Jews did not have the right to oppose the Nazi government.

Thats correct. Just like the South did not have the right to secede from the USA........and so forth.

Again..............you fail to deal with the very real difference between a right and a power.

.................contra: there is a field of "Natural rights" that would support the notion of people defending themselves. This applies against genocide.......but not in arming one's self in a civil society.......so you lose in all scenarios.


Some people should refrain from posting when they're too drunk to be coherent.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7363
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby TJrandom » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:26 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:When someone first picked up a weapon to use in self defense and declared he had the right to do so, that's an example of where rights come from. Someone decided to claim the moral right of self ownership. It's very much a human invention. No god or government needed.


When the larger community ran that self-righter out of the territory for having used a weapon against another member of the community, the community/government asserted its right to grant rights or not. Your example was of where anarchy came from, not rights.


Obviously I disagree.

I have the moral authority of self ownership and self defense. That right has nothing to do with anarchy.

In the US today, when a person uses a weapon in self defense, he does not get run out of the territory. That right of self defense has not led to anarchy. Just the opposite, the government protects the right of self defense.


Disagree all you want. I too disagree that the US system is the right one. Try that here and you would be swiftly jailed, and of course then deported since you would be an alien here.

Even having an object within reach that could be used as a weapon is against the law here unless that object is legitimately in proximity for use - such as a screwdriver while you are using it for screws. I use knives, hammers, bars, scrapers for various tasks - but cannot transport those in the cab of my truck lest I break the law.

I cannot say that our system is the natural one, but I contest your claim of a right to use a weapon to be the natural one. I can say that we seem to have much less violence.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:32 am

TJ: "Even having an object within reach that could be used as a weapon is against the law here unless that object is legitimately in proximity for use - such as a screwdriver while you are using it for screws. I use knives, hammers, bars, scrapers for various tasks - but cannot transport those in the cab of my truck lest I break the law." //// Wow!....... so..... if you are in a car, you better be going someplace relevant?

Ha ,ha.......I fear left to my own druthers and just walking around in Japan theses days.........I'd be an out of control criminal. ................. and this is the same country that sells used womens underpants in public in vending machines??????

Well, if I had to chose one public vice over another.........make mine silk.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:39 am

Poodle wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:breathing is a power.

"man". You forgot to add "man".

OK.........if you insist:

"Man breathing is a power." //// Seems a bit odd to me. More than just men have to breath. :lol:

..................OH!!!!!!! I see my mistake:

"Breathing is a man power." //// Much better..... but I don't want this appended to the Porn/Sex sub thread as men being dominant over women. Treating air like an object and all....................... ;)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:51 am

TJrandom wrote:Even having an object within reach that could be used as a weapon is against the law here unless that object is legitimately in proximity for use - such as a screwdriver while you are using it for screws. I use knives, hammers, bars, scrapers for various tasks - but cannot transport those in the cab of my truck lest I break the law.


Wow. I'm stunned. I did not know that.

Here in the US, almost no one would put up with that kind of limitation on freedom.

When I lived in Idaho, it was not unusual to sometimes see pickup trucks in the restaurant parking lot with a gun rack in the back window, with rifles in it, unattended, windows rolled down, and the truck not locked. And lots of dangerous tools in the pickup bed.

Different cultures, apparently.

Which confirms even more that you have no moral grounds for telling Americans they are doing it wrong.

You have sacrificed liberty for safety. Americans tend to abhor that idea. Well, excluding some Democrats, I guess.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7363
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby TJrandom » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:00 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Even having an object within reach that could be used as a weapon is against the law here unless that object is legitimately in proximity for use - such as a screwdriver while you are using it for screws. I use knives, hammers, bars, scrapers for various tasks - but cannot transport those in the cab of my truck lest I break the law.


Wow. I'm stunned. I did not know that.

Here in the US, almost no one would put up with that kind of limitation on freedom.

When I lived in Idaho, it was not unusual to sometimes see pickup trucks in the restaurant parking lot with a gun rack in the back window, with rifles in it, unattended, windows rolled down, and the truck not locked. And lots of dangerous tools in the pickup bed.

Different cultures, apparently.

Which confirms even more that you have no moral grounds for telling Americans they are doing it wrong.

You have sacrificed liberty for safety. Americans tend to abhor that idea. Well, excluding some Democrats, I guess.


You misunderstand if you think I try to tell Americans they are doing things wrong. I simply point out that there may be better/other solutions. You may disagree.

We live in a society, as members of that society - not as individuals fighting against the society, I have not sacrificed any freedom for safety, for indeed freedom is meaningless if safety isn`t present. you seem to advocate for freedom to be unsafe.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:03 am

xouper wrote: Which confirms even more that you have no moral grounds for telling Americans they are doing it wrong.

Wut?????? More pepper spray? TJ is saying societies organize themselves according to different values/laws, one affecting the other, along with the vagaries of history. Just notice: moral authority has nothing to do with it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3064
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Las Vegas

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:08 am

There are a lot of things being confused here.

A government doesn't grant rights, it guarantees them.
Which rights these are depends on the agreement between state and its supporters.
Arguing that rights come from either people or state, and that the state gets its power from the people, and that the people need to state to organize their power just leads to circular arguments.
One big confusion comes from the "universal" or "natural" right fiction, which only makes sense as long support of the government is universal - which is historically not the case:

A liege lord would grant his supporters rights to land and people in return for support. The more support, the more rights. Leaders who grant too few rights get replaced, and so do those who grant more than they can guarantee.
As we can see in many failed states, rights only work when the state can guarantee them. Or a government that can rule with only minority support can get by with guaranteeing only the rights of said minority.

With the ascent of representative democracies, in principle all citizens are the supporters of the State, and have to be assured rights in return. That all citizens are required to support the state is implicit, which is why we don't do it one a person-by-person basis. Instead, we use rituals and celebrations to show our loyalty to the state: the Pledge of Allegiance is exactly what the citizens give the state in return for protection.
This is also the reason why traitors are stripped of their rights in most countries: a state doesn't owe any protection to people who work against it.

Talk of natural or universal rights only started to make sense when states became so democratic and so powerful that protecting its citizens from others, the state and each other became feasible. And the hope for universal peace and cooperation meant that countries benefited from granting rights not only to citizens, but also non-citizens - but that is (in theory) contingent on other countries granting these rights to citizens of your country.

A lot of current tension around immigration comes from a sense of double standards, when migrants enjoy rights in their target country that they didn't have in their own country and that their home country doesn't grant to foreigners.

In the absence of a World Government, Universal Rights are a fiction to aspire to, a courtesy countries extend to foreigners without any way to enforce them - as becomes obvious in armed conflicts and with asylum seekers.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:12 am

I quibble with: "This is also the reason why traitors are stripped of their rights in most countries: a state doesn't owe any protection to people who work against it. " .............I assume you can write a contra as well as I could.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:39 pm

TJrandom wrote:You misunderstand if you think I try to tell Americans they are doing things wrong. I simply point out that there may be better/other solutions. You may disagree.


I accept your word that I misunderstood. You know better than I do what you intended to mean.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest