Number of anti's on THR?
- Thread starter Glock22
- Start date
- Status
"confiscation has always led to tyranny or genocide or both"
The last time I checked Great Britain wasn't a hot bed of either.
Wait for it.
What you're essentially saying right now is that Summer does not necessarily lead to fall, and that fall won't necessarily lead to winter.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
The last time I checked Great Britain wasn't a hot bed of either.
Wait for it.
What you're essentially saying right now is that Summer does not necessarily lead to fall, and that fall won't necessarily lead to winter.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
It is, nowadays, practically axiomatic that (a) all politicians are lying thieving scoundrels who will dissemble through their teeth to fool the electorate into voting for them, and (b) the electorate comprises a body of people poorly educated and mis-educated and indoctrinated to the point where they are pre-disposed to believe the bilge spewing from the oral cavities of those who would rule regardless of glaring inconsistencies in their assertions and their equally glaring failures to perform in accordance with past promises.
So what you're saying is that anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong.
That's not the American Way.
So what you're saying is that anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong.
That's not the American Way.
Heywood Case
Member
I'd like to thank all who have contributed to this very interesting thread. It seems to me that antis should be welcomed with robust and respectful debate, not because their arguments make sense but because the presence of dissenting viewpoints encourages the reconsideration of fundamental beliefs, which can lead to new ideas or at least a new appreciation of old ideas. Maybe you understand better why you are right, or maybe you can suddenly see why you are wrong. Either way you are better off. It does not matter whether the argument is emotional or rational. It does not matter if anyone is converted at the end of the day. The only thing to be really afraid about is unanimity.
"...since the Big Ban in 1986 (many types of gun were banned and it became a LOT harder to get a gun), gun crime has increased by 1,000%"
In 2003/2004 there were a total of 24,070 firearm offences in England and Wales of which 57% (13,822) involved air weapons. That's 10,350 "real" firearm offenses for a population of 52 million+.
In the US in 2005 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
Hich would you prefer?
In 2003/2004 there were a total of 24,070 firearm offences in England and Wales of which 57% (13,822) involved air weapons. That's 10,350 "real" firearm offenses for a population of 52 million+.
In the US in 2005 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
Hich would you prefer?
Population of Great Brittain est. Jul 2007 - 60.7 million
Population of the US est. Jul 2007 - 301.1 million
(google searches of "population of XX")
24k X 5 = ~120k which is still much less than 477k, course - stats are so incongruous. Your stat of the us say "faced an offender" the UK stat says offenses that involved. the use and the non-use are not considered. (god stats are fun)
"air" guns are the new guns in Brittan. They are the next best thing - as I've stated before in this thread - the action continues, the method changes. There are even stats for crime in Brittan where the air guns have been "modified" to be regular firearms. If you care to look them up.
Jason
Population of the US est. Jul 2007 - 301.1 million
(google searches of "population of XX")
24k X 5 = ~120k which is still much less than 477k, course - stats are so incongruous. Your stat of the us say "faced an offender" the UK stat says offenses that involved. the use and the non-use are not considered. (god stats are fun)
"air" guns are the new guns in Brittan. They are the next best thing - as I've stated before in this thread - the action continues, the method changes. There are even stats for crime in Brittan where the air guns have been "modified" to be regular firearms. If you care to look them up.
Jason
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Lack of Merit
Much in the same way you can't be bothered to understand the 18th century meaning of "regulated" you likewise choose to misconstrue what I have said.
When I say that politicians break their promises, your response is that they don't "agree with" me? When I say that they lie, you believe that to be a matter of opinion? When I point out the sorry state of learning among our electorate, you dismiss this as a failure of agreement?
Your assertion completely fails. It is dismissive and dishonest.
Rubbish.
Much in the same way you can't be bothered to understand the 18th century meaning of "regulated" you likewise choose to misconstrue what I have said.
When I say that politicians break their promises, your response is that they don't "agree with" me? When I say that they lie, you believe that to be a matter of opinion? When I point out the sorry state of learning among our electorate, you dismiss this as a failure of agreement?
Your assertion completely fails. It is dismissive and dishonest.
Sorry, that's just way too much irony.
Now that is an interesting train of thought Cosmoline. The logical conclusion of it, given the nature of the ratification of the Constitution is that since the BoR was an explicit condition by several states for ratification, eliminating any of the first 10 amendments would violate the original ratification agreements.
I would also like to point out that most arguments I have seen against natural rights center around the idea that because governments have routinely abandoned or legislated against natural rights, they do not exist. Surely it must be obvious that this is not an argument against natural rights, but rather a statement of a problem.
The fact that governments legislate against natural rights does not negate them in any way or mean that they do not exist - it simply means that there are laws against them.
The fact that governments legislate against natural rights does not negate them in any way or mean that they do not exist - it simply means that there are laws against them.
budney
member
That's about the most ignorant thing you've said in this thread, and that's saying something. If you simply have no intention of attempting to understand 18th-century English in context, then further discussion would seem impossible.
You're not even trying to prove your assertion. Where do the "majority of voters" get the right to molest my person or confiscate my property?
One can invoke God in a phrase without believing in God. Atheists say "Oh my God!" all the time. To an atheist, "God given right" is simply a flowery, perhaps unfortunate, way to say "inalienable right," just as "honest to God" is a flowery way to say "I'm telling the truth."
--Len.
Titan6
member
Omhanew- Since you refuse to read the source material and have been poorly educated let me try a last post before I concede that you are hopeless. But remember I told you if choose to remain ignorant that is your fault and no longer a failing of the schools. Since that appears to be the case I am sure we will see more stunning debate along the lines of ''I know you are but what I am''. This is sad really but I really never pity a person who refuses to educate themselves when libraries are free. I don't normally debate the merits of the arguer but gosh, you have not presented any argument to speak of so where does that leave us? One can not debate willfull ignorance there is no point to be made.
There are different kinds of rights. The only type rights you seem to recognize are certain legal ones granted by the government. These are not the rights of which we speak. So I tell you again do some research on ''rights'' and get back to us. Who knows maybe you will learn something...
There are different kinds of rights. The only type rights you seem to recognize are certain legal ones granted by the government. These are not the rights of which we speak. So I tell you again do some research on ''rights'' and get back to us. Who knows maybe you will learn something...
Titan6
member
Yemen- It occurred to me that I gave you names but no refferences. The concepts of Platonic Realism are found in ''The Republic'', ''Phaedo'', ''Phaedrus'', ''Meno'', and the ''Parmenides''. Keep in mind that Plato's works were flawed due to the overriding mysticism of the day. I would say almost deliberately obtuse likely due to seeing his mentor murdered by the state for herasy. If you overlook that aspect than you will find the basis there.
On Descarte ''Cogito ergo sum'' or''Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum'' is often erroronously used to sumarize his argument. Descarte rejected this summation in his earlier works upon his development of thought to "I am, I exist". Given the nature of THR this is not only highly relevant but also quite amusing. Once you accept the axiom of existance than the rest of the proof is quite easy and well laid out.
In Judeo-Chrisitan thought when one thinks of ''I am, I exist'' I would say it is hard not to think of Moses up on the mountain top speaking with g-d. The threat perceived by many religious leaders is that what he may be saying is; ''I am my own g-d''. Luckily Descarte makes no such conciet. We had to wait for a blind German to come up with that.
Read Discourse on Method (1637), Principles of Philosophy (1644) and I would review his basis for analyitcal geometry and Scientific Method if you really want to know how smart he is. If you truly do like logic as you stated earlier you have some big holes that need filling.
I was not appealing to an authority as you stated but to the system of logic and a written proof that already eixists. You want a proof; there it is go read it. I am not going to waste a few hundred pages of bandwidth retyping it or cutting and pasting.
On Descarte ''Cogito ergo sum'' or''Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum'' is often erroronously used to sumarize his argument. Descarte rejected this summation in his earlier works upon his development of thought to "I am, I exist". Given the nature of THR this is not only highly relevant but also quite amusing. Once you accept the axiom of existance than the rest of the proof is quite easy and well laid out.
In Judeo-Chrisitan thought when one thinks of ''I am, I exist'' I would say it is hard not to think of Moses up on the mountain top speaking with g-d. The threat perceived by many religious leaders is that what he may be saying is; ''I am my own g-d''. Luckily Descarte makes no such conciet. We had to wait for a blind German to come up with that.
Read Discourse on Method (1637), Principles of Philosophy (1644) and I would review his basis for analyitcal geometry and Scientific Method if you really want to know how smart he is. If you truly do like logic as you stated earlier you have some big holes that need filling.
I was not appealing to an authority as you stated but to the system of logic and a written proof that already eixists. You want a proof; there it is go read it. I am not going to waste a few hundred pages of bandwidth retyping it or cutting and pasting.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Let me reference my earlier post. What we're seeing here is a difference of "values" or "world views" or even epistemologies.
Budney's post highlights this. There is an important difference between a "God given right" and an "inalienable right," and the difference is a critical one for this discussion. Omahanew seems to be arguing that there is no such thing as an inalienable right, I assume because his logic or rationale begins with the assumption that human beings are nothing more than the result of long evolutionary processes, with the consequence that those with power can enforce their definition of "rights" in the absence of any absolute or externally defined (or supernatural) "truth." From this perspective, we might all have common desires (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.), but these are only common desires, to be pursued to the best of one's ability. They are not "rights" in the sense of universal entitlements. And power determines who can achieve and enjoy these desires as benefits. Not even the government has the "right" to exercise power; it is just the most efficient and effective mechanism.
In contrast, the Founding Fathers, as theists (or deists), believed that rights truly are ... that they exist independently of the aspirations of people. They believed that such rights were universal because they were given by and reflect the very nature of a creator God. I believe it is incumbent on anyone who wants to claim an "inalienable right" to identify the source of that right. You can't just say that "it is."
And so, to get back to my earlier point about discussions/debates with rational antis, we have to understand the logic or rationale of those we are talking with. And that gets back to presuppositions, or "first things." I find an argument like Omahanew's quite logical or rational ... it is completely consistent with what appears to be his logical starting point.
I also find those who argue from the basis of God-given inalienable rights to be quite logical and rational. If such rights truly do exist (and I believe they do), they can be called upon to limit government. But WE have to be able to defend the existence of inalienable rights--not just assert that they exist. Otherwise, we are guilty of the same charge of "ungrounded assertions" that many here are leveling at Omahanew. In this grand argument, the one's I find least "rational" are those who want to argue that a universal, inalienable right can result from Darwinian evolution. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't believe this. If we want to claim the position of the Founding Fathers, we better understand their basis for ascribing inalienable rights, just like we want antis to understand the 18th century meaning of the words "well regulated militia."
Budney's post highlights this. There is an important difference between a "God given right" and an "inalienable right," and the difference is a critical one for this discussion. Omahanew seems to be arguing that there is no such thing as an inalienable right, I assume because his logic or rationale begins with the assumption that human beings are nothing more than the result of long evolutionary processes, with the consequence that those with power can enforce their definition of "rights" in the absence of any absolute or externally defined (or supernatural) "truth." From this perspective, we might all have common desires (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.), but these are only common desires, to be pursued to the best of one's ability. They are not "rights" in the sense of universal entitlements. And power determines who can achieve and enjoy these desires as benefits. Not even the government has the "right" to exercise power; it is just the most efficient and effective mechanism.
In contrast, the Founding Fathers, as theists (or deists), believed that rights truly are ... that they exist independently of the aspirations of people. They believed that such rights were universal because they were given by and reflect the very nature of a creator God. I believe it is incumbent on anyone who wants to claim an "inalienable right" to identify the source of that right. You can't just say that "it is."
And so, to get back to my earlier point about discussions/debates with rational antis, we have to understand the logic or rationale of those we are talking with. And that gets back to presuppositions, or "first things." I find an argument like Omahanew's quite logical or rational ... it is completely consistent with what appears to be his logical starting point.
I also find those who argue from the basis of God-given inalienable rights to be quite logical and rational. If such rights truly do exist (and I believe they do), they can be called upon to limit government. But WE have to be able to defend the existence of inalienable rights--not just assert that they exist. Otherwise, we are guilty of the same charge of "ungrounded assertions" that many here are leveling at Omahanew. In this grand argument, the one's I find least "rational" are those who want to argue that a universal, inalienable right can result from Darwinian evolution. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't believe this. If we want to claim the position of the Founding Fathers, we better understand their basis for ascribing inalienable rights, just like we want antis to understand the 18th century meaning of the words "well regulated militia."
Titan6
member
Okay Legionaire we will do it your way.
I submit that you do not exist.
Go ahead and prove you do.
I submit that you do not exist.
Go ahead and prove you do.
budney
member
His argument isn't logical, I'm afraid: he's shifting the burden of proof. He's saying, "I plan to rape you, unless you can prove you have the right not to be raped." The burden of proof is on him to prove he has the right to rape, not the other way around.
--Len.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
I think I see where you are going with this, but my inference from his several posts is that "rights" don't have anything to do with it. Rather, his logic or rationale is based on ability. From a purely power perspective, one doesn't have to deal with rights at all. Ability to impose one's will is all that matters. Omahanew, I'm drawing this inference from your definition of rights (post #119) as being something people (governments) collectively agree to. If I'm misrepresenting your logic, sing out.
But that's not really my point. I don't really want to take this discussion in a direction that's off topic for or inconsistent with the rules of THR. My only real point in posting at all was in response to the earlier question about whether one could have a rational debate with an anti. Of course one can. We just have to be clear on what constitutes "rational." I consider an internally consistent argument "rational" if it follows logically from its presuppositions. There are many inconsistent and irrational arguments from both sides, to be sure. But a debate between two people who have different starting points, without identifying and recognizing those starting points, isn't going to make much headway.
Thanks, but no thanks, Titan.
Would be a fun discussion on APS, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to go there. Only wanted to make the point about rational discussion using the give and take with Omahanew as an example. Maybe I've read more into the discussion than I should have; I'll go back and read it again. But I think my original point still stands. If we want to assess another's rationality, we need to include an assessment of their belief system, especially their epistemology.I have followed this post with interest, and at times even had a bit of a brain fry. I do not intend to off rail,
divert, or otherwise distract from the discussion going on here, but I couldn't resist putting in my thoughts on
something that seems to me, so elementary. Debate is good, educational and beneficial to all. However there is no
need to debate for some, I for one, as it all seems very clear and simple. The 2A is a right, not a granted
permission. I am not a historian nor do I do a lot of research on the the early writings such as the Federalist
Papers, etc. However, as I stated it is to me this simple:
1. A bunch of people got fed up with tyranny.
2. They started anew
3. They considered what was left behind
4. They considered what they felt were God given rights and enumerted (listed) them
5. They outlined what the government is and established a system of balances
6. DID NOT want a repeat of what they left behind!
7. Set forth measures that would help assure their desires
8. Realized that government could get out of hand and set forth a way to keep that in check - the 2A.
This was done with much thought, prayer, insight and reflection by a group of God-fearing (read respecting)
individuals. When they set down our system of government, it was not intended to be a lord over us, but a servant to
us. That is one of the things that was left behind and reflected upon.
The 2nd ammendment, guaranteeing the right to bear arms. This one requires just a little bit of thinking. If the
government is an entity, it is not a “people”. The second amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.
To whom is this right guaranteed? The people.
The term "God given rights" is an interesting phrase. Presume for just a moment that there is no government of any
kind. No laws, no guiding authority of any kind. Now in that framing, place yourself in this situation: Person A
desires to have a specific item. Person B has such item. Person A decides to remove it from the possession of Person
B. What do you think Person B is going to do? Allow this to happen? Probably not. Where did Person B get the idea
that he had the authority to protect possession of the item? Answer: The ingrained sense that it is theirs. That is
that "God given right".
I know that there are more than a few folks on here that could and would debate me into a corner on various topics.
I am so thouroughly convinced of the spirit and intent of the 2A based on what I have said, that I feel no need to
prove that it is a right, of which is ingrained in us. That it is a God given right that deserves plenty of watchful
eyes.
Again my appologies if I divert things, that was not my intent. Some will probably notice that I am not a studied
historian. Again... it is a simple thing.
divert, or otherwise distract from the discussion going on here, but I couldn't resist putting in my thoughts on
something that seems to me, so elementary. Debate is good, educational and beneficial to all. However there is no
need to debate for some, I for one, as it all seems very clear and simple. The 2A is a right, not a granted
permission. I am not a historian nor do I do a lot of research on the the early writings such as the Federalist
Papers, etc. However, as I stated it is to me this simple:
1. A bunch of people got fed up with tyranny.
2. They started anew
3. They considered what was left behind
4. They considered what they felt were God given rights and enumerted (listed) them
5. They outlined what the government is and established a system of balances
6. DID NOT want a repeat of what they left behind!
7. Set forth measures that would help assure their desires
8. Realized that government could get out of hand and set forth a way to keep that in check - the 2A.
This was done with much thought, prayer, insight and reflection by a group of God-fearing (read respecting)
individuals. When they set down our system of government, it was not intended to be a lord over us, but a servant to
us. That is one of the things that was left behind and reflected upon.
The 2nd ammendment, guaranteeing the right to bear arms. This one requires just a little bit of thinking. If the
government is an entity, it is not a “people”. The second amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.
To whom is this right guaranteed? The people.
The term "God given rights" is an interesting phrase. Presume for just a moment that there is no government of any
kind. No laws, no guiding authority of any kind. Now in that framing, place yourself in this situation: Person A
desires to have a specific item. Person B has such item. Person A decides to remove it from the possession of Person
B. What do you think Person B is going to do? Allow this to happen? Probably not. Where did Person B get the idea
that he had the authority to protect possession of the item? Answer: The ingrained sense that it is theirs. That is
that "God given right".
I know that there are more than a few folks on here that could and would debate me into a corner on various topics.
I am so thouroughly convinced of the spirit and intent of the 2A based on what I have said, that I feel no need to
prove that it is a right, of which is ingrained in us. That it is a God given right that deserves plenty of watchful
eyes.
Again my appologies if I divert things, that was not my intent. Some will probably notice that I am not a studied
historian. Again... it is a simple thing.
Titan6
member
''I consider an internally consistent argument "rational" if it follows logically from its presuppositions.''
And there in lies the problem. The presuppositions are the underlying issue. This has to do with a difference in the fundamental reason of being. Even politics and religion are not proper modifiers as the same religion and theory mean different things to different people. An identity of self has a everything to do with ones relationship with the world and those in it. If a person believes in a nihilist philosophy then a debate on gun rights (like everything else) is pointless. If one is totally egocentric than guns are for me; begone serf!
Since there is no fundamental identity of self we have a wide varied view point. In 1792 in America the majority of European transplants and colonists seemed to have a sense of self that revolved around strong individuality and distrust of community systems. These days we seem to have the opposite.
To accept guns into one's self; one has to accept a total change in value system that most people no longer have to deal with on a daily basis (at least that is what they think). For just about any anti this is a bridge too far.
And there in lies the problem. The presuppositions are the underlying issue. This has to do with a difference in the fundamental reason of being. Even politics and religion are not proper modifiers as the same religion and theory mean different things to different people. An identity of self has a everything to do with ones relationship with the world and those in it. If a person believes in a nihilist philosophy then a debate on gun rights (like everything else) is pointless. If one is totally egocentric than guns are for me; begone serf!
Since there is no fundamental identity of self we have a wide varied view point. In 1792 in America the majority of European transplants and colonists seemed to have a sense of self that revolved around strong individuality and distrust of community systems. These days we seem to have the opposite.
To accept guns into one's self; one has to accept a total change in value system that most people no longer have to deal with on a daily basis (at least that is what they think). For just about any anti this is a bridge too far.
- Status
