Fuck the dead. Seriously. There's not a joke, or a witty comment here. Fuck 'em. If you believe in magical fairly tales, then the dead go to heaven or hell - in either case, I don't think they give a good goddamn about what the mortals are saying about their decomposing pile of skin. If you don't believe in magical fairy tales, then 'life' ends at the last link of conscious mind - and the dead still don't give a fuck about what is said.

At 6/26/09 01:38 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: It's just affecting big business. It's not going to heavily affect the normal population, just the big factories that spew out this stuff.

"It's simply going to restrict successful business growth, and encourage mediocrity and stagnation in the American Market. How could it possibly affect everyday life for us everyday citizens?"

Fucking genius.

At 6/26/09 03:06 PM, ReiperX wrote: In all honesty, if it's going to help decrease pollution I don't mind paying a little more in taxes or in higher prices.

As were many folks in Boston perfectly ok with paying higher tea taxes. More power to you.

I, personally, want to see this bill pass. I want to see all Barack's bills pass - every single one. I want him to plummet this country into a time of total economic stagnation and death. I want him to topple America - then we'll see how many hundred of years it takes before this nation's idiot citizens choose socialism and altruism again.

I think America and her citizens should decide, consistantly, if we're going to be isolationists or not. Everyone wants super powers to 'help the poor and needy and enslaved and genocided' - until we do it. Then we're 'world police' and 'war mongers'. I'm advocating niether, at the moment, by the way. Just saying the American populace is all over the map on most issues (especially foreign ones), and we seem to not even be able to spell 'consistant foreign policy'.

At 6/18/09 12:37 PM, Non-existant12 wrote: Personal freedom is a beautiful thing that most Americans either don't understand or don't know how we could ever obtain it. The notion of freedom has been so twisted by our educational system and government. How can you ever truly understand and learn about democracy and freedom if the system you learn in is a fascist system? With no personal privacy or rights for their students. You can't unless you pursue it in your own time. Many children don't have either the means or the mentor to learn about other ways of life. They are only fed the same ideas over and over. That isn't teaching. It's brainwashing.

I would agree, but for different reason (or rather, more 'specific' reasons) than you. They don't teach real history. I mean, they teach you things that happened. They teach them, though, in this altruistic Robin Hood kind of mediocrity, though. Downplayed is the framing of the constitution. Downplayed is the reasons behind the civil war. Cast aside are the victories of mandating that our government relinquish their control. Ever so fucking briefly, they mention the industrial revolution, and the railroad. And when they do mention the railroad - as when they mention the industrial revolution - they never fail to, in the next breath, remind you that it was slavery and explotaition that built those things. Triumphated, though, is Christopher Columbus - a state paid pirate and slaver that brought death and destruction to every little shithole culture her found. Expounded is the murdering of indians, sure. Every notch in the belt of 'anti-constitution thinking' is raved as a step in the best interest of America.
Everything's fine. Go back to bed. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Promise.

At 6/3/09 03:57 PM, yinyangman wrote: Okay. Read this carefully.

Commencing the strapping-in of self.

He's cutting $5.2 billion from schools.

Maybe schools should not be utterly and entirely dependent on government scraps, eh?

He's eliminating CalWorks and Healthy Families.

Because they're overfed, overpromoted, and altruistic social programs which a government has no right to implement in the first place?

Worst of all, he's lowering income rates, no matter how hard employees work!

I'll agree with you on that. A government agent has no right to mandate the minimum or maximum wage a private sector institution pays it's employees.

I'm not arguing for the ol' Arnold now, don't get me wrong. He's yet another ho-hum-don't-worry-go-back-to-bed-Americ a politician. It's just that you're reasons for not liking him suck.

At 6/16/09 03:50 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: They still deserve help. It would be the emotional, irrational and illogical side that would say "No, they don't deserve any study or help."

Do both. Study them while they rot on death row, and on the day of execution, find someone else to study.

At 5/28/09 03:26 PM, Asteraith wrote: One area that I think America has made a huge mistake NOT socializing is health care. By making health a consumer item, we have sacrificed a great deal of our humanity. We are one of very few industrial, 1st world nations where people with life-threatening illnesses can be turned out on the street untreated because they can't pay for care.

If the medical sector were truely exposed to the free market, with no controls or puppet strings or funding from the government, they would be forced to offer prices that people could actually afford. If a hospital had the choice of lowering prices and wages or going bankrupt - guess what they'd do.

The private sectors of business are another matter. The problem, again in America, is that free trade has consistently led to the development of monopolies, which in turn destroy free trade far more efficiently than government can. It is nearly impossible to start and be competitive in any industry or consumer goods service other than the trade of illicit drugs, largely because huge corporations already have done so and completely control the market.

That's not a bad thing, though. That's what a 'free market' is. A company that does it better, faster, and cheaper is not suppossed to suffer competion from people with higher prices and lower quality. Why would they? Isn't the most efficient business the one that deserves to be at the top?

In that sense, I feel that more government control is appropriate in many areas, so long as that government is controlled by people's best interest, not the best interest of whoever has the biggest wallet.

And which way do you feel America is leaning, today?

At 5/31/09 09:14 PM, RDSchley wrote:

At 5/23/09 01:51 AM, animehater wrote: I agree also. Government is too incompetent and power hungry to do any good in most cases.

and a privately owned business is not? what is the difference between a corperation and a government? think about it.

A corporation is subject to the direct dollar vote of a free market (assuming the government doesn't get involve and limit trade, punish success, and abolish failure), while a government is subject to nothing but their own arbitrary laws.

At 6/16/09 02:34 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/16/09 01:32 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: An full-on invasion of Iran by Israel would be swift and, assuming Israel shows the neccessary lack-of-mercy, logistically simple. The could carpet bomb major military targets, roads, bridges, and barracks. Then easily clean up the resistance. Iran is not a third world nation, no. In fact, they have one of the largest armies in the middle east, sure. They pale, however, when held to the scale and training of Israels army.

Logistically they can't invade Iran. They don't have a direct shot at it, and they don't have any allies in the area that would be willing to allow them to set up base. So in order for it to work, they would have to carpet bomb Iran (flying through other enemy airspaces and assume that they won't ally with Iran), and then airlift military over enemy airspace again. This would also drastically decrease their ability to counter any military attack made on Israeli soil by neighboring hostile nations. And they wouldn't have the backing of the US or any of its current allies because the invasion is, well, warrentless.

Well, why would anyone fear them using a nuclear device, then? If the premise is they have no right or ability to attack conventionally, why the hell would they have the right or balls to drop a nuke?

And if they have no right to defend themselves against invaders, what are they to do? Surrender?

At 4/13/09 08:16 AM, generalwinter wrote:

At 4/13/09 08:11 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Newgrounds, do you think that a goverment based purely upon logic, and critical path analysis would work to be a fully functioning society?

Just the government? No, because the citizens would not do things for the greater good based on logic.

"The greater good" and "logic" aren't always the same thing, though. It is not the government's job, in my opinion (and the opinion of the framers of the constitution) to look out for 'the greater good'. The only 'greater good' is the 'betterment and contentment of self'. That's what the idea of liberty pertains to. Our society is one that encourages mediocrity and this bullshit idea of 'brother's keeper' - all in the name of some 'greather good'.

At 4/13/09 10:32 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/13/09 10:28 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: What punishment does she deserve?

No killer deserves punishment. They deserve study and evaluation, and help.

Oh, jesus christ. Let someone kill, in cold blood, someone you love - and we'll see how long you sing that bullshit.

At 4/13/09 11:36 AM, Bighead8 wrote: Lets face it, humans are illogical, flawed, violent, and yes, stupid. Because of this, this "logical society" can never exist.

So you admit, openly on the internets, that you yourself are incapble of logic?
You know, I see what you mean. However you came to draw the premise that caused you to make such a statement, it truely and obviously did not draw from logic.

At 4/13/09 01:14 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: Besides, it's just kinda funny to me how some people seem to equate logicality with this idea that the reasoning must be perfect because it's based on some sequential logical process. Logic can and often is frought with mistakes... hell, that's one of the reasons why the Latin language still gets any burn: for giving fancy-sounding names to all the numerous, different types of fallacious reasoning out there.

Sure. Without a doubt, logic has the same probability of failure as anything else. The difference is that when a chain of logic finds a flaw in itself, it must immediatly correct it to continue to call itself 'logic'. Emotion, on the other hand, will recognize a flaw and either or ignore it, deny it, or even expound it as something to be called 'correct'. Look at the man cheating on his wife, acting on lust and need instead of logic. Look at the man who beats his wife until she either leaves him or puts him in jail, acting on anger and insecurity. Both men know very well that their actions are illogical, immoral, and dangerous to self interest. And yet the behavior continues.
Everything fails, at times. This can be said about almost any premise, or theory, or chain of reasoning. Being able and more than willing to correct those flaws, though, is the difference from Heart and Mind.

And I don't know what this idiot idea of 'logic cannot enjoy a fine meal or sexual intercourse' is all about, either. Doing what is logical does not exclude doing what is pleasurable. Unless, of course, your pleasure includes prostitues and cocaine. I can't help you there.
Logic simply means doing what is most efficient on a given action, idea, or chain of events. Falling in love is not illogical. Getting married is not illogical. Having sex is not illogical. Logic is reasoning. To reason is to justify, correctly, the root or cause of something. How does any of that mean 'machine' to people? What the hell are you people proposing? Anti-logic? Pro-impulsiveness? Living by lust and anger and fear alone?
This little mantra of 'live by heart and never by mind' seems to be what's wrong with a lot of society. Feel, don't think, right? Not only are you not living by logic, you're condemning the very idea of an individual even attempting to live by logic?

:Pffffft

At 6/16/09 01:44 PM, General-Malcontent wrote:

At 6/16/09 01:23 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: May be right. It shall, though, be neccessary. Call it "The Great Correction".

Behavioral change could avert the necessity of an economic and environmental apocolypse. There really are things that we could do, on a global and individual level, that could avert this crisis. We are in urgent need of transition, not just to clean energy but to a more moderate way of life in general.

Alright, sure. Agreed. The correction will come either way, though. We can make the choice to do the logical thing now, or we can wait for the recourse of it happening anyway. I feel, though, that the transition should have started a decade or two ago. Even if we started transitioning today, there wouldn't be enough time. The market and the system of oil production is growing ever un-efficient and thus exponentially expensive. It's only a matter of time. Honestly, I feel like it's a good thing. Maybe if we leech on right up to the point where gas costs eight dollars a gallon, and interstate and intercontinental commerce grinds to an abrupt halt - our society will learn a little something about living on non-value. That's why we're in this stupid boat, isn't it?

I do my best, these days, to try and live by a simple idea of morality.
"If it's logical, it is moral. If it is illogical, it is immoral."

So, if empirical evidence were presented to argue the premise that Hitler was within his logical right to march through Europe, a logical mind would be forced to consider said premise. Funny thing about empirical evidence is that it cannot be logically or intellectually swept aside. One may have the right to express the notion of 'the sun does not exist'. That premise is proven wrong, though, every day at dawn. Having a right to believe whatever you may like is not the same thing as living by logic. Your opinion about gravity is not a factor in the existance of that force.
So if there really were such a document, that somehow indefinitely and empirically proved the logic of burglary, or genocide, I would be more than happy to assimilate that information.

I have a question that no one in this thread has posed - Why would Israel 'certainly without a doubt' use nuclear weapons? Why not conventional weapons? Israel wields a vast and powerful army. Israel was proficient in anti-terror decades before America was selling weapons to the Taliban. They possess a massive stockpile of conventional balistics, plus a well-armed and superbly-trained ground force.

An full-on invasion of Iran by Israel would be swift and, assuming Israel shows the neccessary lack-of-mercy, logistically simple. The could carpet bomb major military targets, roads, bridges, and barracks. Then easily clean up the resistance. Iran is not a third world nation, no. In fact, they have one of the largest armies in the middle east, sure. They pale, however, when held to the scale and training of Israels army.

Why would they use a rocket propelled grenade to shoot someone breaking into the house? Why would you drop a scud on a cockroach?

May be right. It shall, though, be neccessary. Call it "The Great Correction".

At 6/16/09 01:08 AM, LordJaric wrote: Are we humans more evolved then other animals? Sure we have our technology which makes us far more advance, but what about our basic instincts?
We are a territorial (boarders), just like so many other animals.

Ah but, in fairness, we weren't always. Man existed in a nomadic state for many years. One could argue, easily, that a species that settles and maintains borders is more efficient than a species that always roams. So our transition, from nomadic to territorial, was evolution.

We have language, but other animals have their own forms of communication.

Our language is, arguably, more definied and nuanced. The possession of cognitive mind allows us a variety of tones, dialects, innuendos, and insinuation that horses and ants obviously don't possess.

We gather in groups and so do other animals.

So your argument is that because we are social, as almost every species on the planet is, that we are no farther evolved or adapted?
"Humans eat. Ants eat. So we're the same."
"Humans sweat. Pigs sweat. So we're the same."

We have buildings, but other animals still can make their own structures, ants have their tunnels, bees have hives, beavers have their damns, ect.

Are you comparing the grandiosity of skyscrapers and palaces to the base neccisity of a wolf finding a cave to sleep in?

At 5/25/09 03:15 AM, Xemras wrote:

At 5/24/09 06:28 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So I can't prove you wrong. I can't weigh and insane notion of chosen-slavery and anti-constitutional thinking against logic without giggling, my friend. Our founding fathers wrote a document that said, in plain english, that our rights as a people were enumerated and unlistable. In the same document, they listed the far and few powers of the federal government had - and called the list absolutely complete.

Your faith in a 200+ year document is as laughable as a Christian's faith in the Bible or a Muslim's faith in the Quran.

So you cannot refute the point, only dismiss it? Prove to me that we don't have unalienable rights. Prove to me, in text, that power is granted to an institution by free men, and not the other way around. Or just drop it, slave.

At 5/24/09 07:03 PM, Ericho wrote: How is government not already a business in itself?

The united states government is not meant to make profit off of it's people. Operating cost, but not profit. An organization that provides a service but makes no profit is not called a 'business'.

At 5/24/09 12:15 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/23/09 11:22 PM, animehater wrote: They have to be competent in order to stay in business.

No they don't, federal bailouts to major automakers, banks, and other institutions prove this. The fact that you have so many major american industries in trouble because they willfully ignored consumers, cooked books, or just generally sucked and yet were allowed to stick around to the point where it necessitated government intervention proves that you don't always have to be competent in order to stay in business. You just have to be "too big to fail" and/or have the right lobbyists.

I agree. I feel, though, that federal assistance to the private sector is what creates so many problems there. If there wasn't the safety net of 'too big to fail', or government supported business initiatives - maybe the private sector would be privy to the consequences of their decisions, for once. What if making shitty cars and charging way too much of them meant your business went away, and your customers and market-share split between your competitors?

That's not an argument for government to run businesses, government can't even run itself properly. But I see no problem with them acting on behalf of the tax payers when they say to a company "look, we are giving you tax payer money to stay in business, we have conditions on this loan, and one of those conditions is that you get rid of the management that made this mess and get people who can clean it up". I don't think that in any way is an unreasonable request. They want to ultimately see some kind of repayment (or they damn well should) and they don't then want the company to turn around and fail after pouring money into it. Then they will REALLY lose face.

Not worried about that at all, though? Not worried that maybe it's more (and it's always more) than just 'the government wants to help people'? Don't you think, even at all, the the government having a mandated and legal leverage over the private sector - the heart and soul of this country - would be a dangerous and slippery road?

Would it matter if the government's expenses were posted and documented? They are not hiding their corruption from anyone. They openly and without recourse vote on pork-barrel projects, with no fear of public reprisal. They openly and in the wide eye of the media infect the private sector, and buy up stocks to banks. In plain site they subsidize farmers. They slid in the income tax on the citizens with ease, and applaud. In plain site and with great approval, they passed the patriot act. Their list of campaign contributors is often open to public viewing.

They don't operate on fat white guys in a smoky room at three A.M. They operate by us consenting to it, or ignoring it.

On the issue of the definition of 'human', and 'child', I would ask - Is that really the issue? We can define it as either one, and I still don't know if either is an argument against or for abortion. A man who loses all mental capacities in a horrific car accidents has the right (assuming he drew up appropriate legal documents or left a loved one Power of Attorney) to force a doctor to pull out a feeding tube, or unplug his life support. Why would law allow this? Honestly, that man is a homosapien. He even held cognitive mind for a large number of years. Why would law allow the killing of a man, when in most states suicide is against the law? Could it really be for the sole reason that loss of mental capacity has made him 'non-human'?
How about euthanasia? Does a man with a cancer ridden body and a daily hell of a life have the right to take his own life? How about the death penalty? How about a citizen making a choice to enter a potentially lethal situation, such as a war?

Im not arguing for or against any of those things. I'm simply pointing out that in many facets of our society, the taking of human life is acceptable and sometimes even encouraged. So defining a fetus as 'human' or 'non-human' is kind of moot. Even if one proves that a fetus is not only a homo-sapien but also a 'person, it doesn't diminish one's right to abortion. Like it or not.

At 5/23/09 12:36 AM, Xemras wrote:

At 5/22/09 09:00 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 5/22/09 03:39 AM, Xemras wrote: There are no "rights", only priviledges - these can be taken away just as easily as they were given.

Think like a slave, live like a slave.

Prove me wrong then.

There is nothing to prove wrong. You are not presenting an argument, but a flawed premise. If you claimed you could fly, and then challenged me to prove you wrong, you would recieve the same response from me. You claim that cognitive mind holds no rights, that all rights come from the gracings of institutional power. You claim this, forgetting that institutional power is a byproduct of cognitive mind. You claim this forgetting the fact that the constitution was written - and thus America was formed - on the idea that free men weren't dogs of a republic, or an empire. You claim this forgetting that the constitution was the instrument by which the American people granted, or delegated, certain specific powers to the federal government - and not the other way around.

The ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The ninth means that the constitution is not meant to list every single right we could possibly think of. The ninth was written to say that our list of state powers and rights is not complete, because common sense encompasses a lot of things. The tenth, on the other hand, is a list of 'delegated' powers. The tenth says that the list of federal powers is complete, and listed in the constitution already.

So I can't prove you wrong. I can't weigh and insane notion of chosen-slavery and anti-constitutional thinking against logic without giggling, my friend. Our founding fathers wrote a document that said, in plain english, that our rights as a people were enumerated and unlistable. In the same document, they listed the far and few powers of the federal government had - and called the list absolutely complete.

How's that, Toby?

At 5/22/09 03:39 AM, Xemras wrote:

The Right to bear arms is one of the people's most important rights.

There are no "rights", only priviledges - these can be taken away just as easily as they were given.

Think like a slave, live like a slave.

Idiot.

At 5/17/09 11:16 PM, Xemras wrote:

'Value' is not subjective. Something having 'value' means that somebody else wants it.

"Somebody" perhaps, but not "everybody".

If even one person wants what you have, or what you can do, then what you have possesses value. The caliber of that value is judged by how many want it, and what currency they are willing to trade for it.

Anything that someone is willing to pay or trade for has 'value'. Is the value of water, food, and shelter subjective? How about the value of oxygen? Or sunlight? Or manpower?

Values is one thing. Necessity is another.

The two are the same, genius. Water is necessary and thus posesses value. Same with shelter. Anything that has 'value' is called 'necessary' by someone.

You're talking about force. Taking something you want is, obviously, the opposite of trading for it.

Obviously. :: rolls eyes ::

You say obviously, because insults are easier than logic - yet the premise that you're arguing doesn't seem to possess this 'obvious' fact. Taking what you want with a club is not the same as a fair trade of value for value. No matter what anyone says, the two cannot be the same.

Be it a law or a club you use to take what you want, you are still living by a doctrine of non-value.

How so? Why would such people as the Vikings and the Conquistidors not pillage and enslave various indigenous peoples if they did not "value" the things the natives possessed in the first place?

Those that live by a doctrine of non-value, such as yourself, are eventually faced with the choice of dying or adapting - as did the Vikings, and conquistidors.

And that's the point to this thread, isn't it? Assuming a role of 'pro-life' is also assuming the role of 'anti-freedom'. To assume that role is to attempt to achieve what you want not through trade or value, but through force of law.

As Machiavelli once said: "Whatever works."

That's also the code of child molesters, slavers, dictators, and bigots.
Way to define yourself.

None of us has any real rights to begin with other than what we are able to hold for ourselves, either through strength or guile - or both.

And that's why you will always be a slave to society and it's norms and folkways - because you think like a slave. You believed them when they told you that you had a right to nothing but what was dangled on the end of the stick.
Be a good boy, and keep chasing that carrot.

And thus - the free market. I have twenty shovels and no hammers. You have twenty hammers and no shovels. By ourselves, our tools are useless. Allowing trade, though, gives both of our tools value.

Or I could simply kill you and take your things for myself or you could do the same to me. Voluntary exchange is irrelevant at this point.

Again, the doctrine of a thug or rapist or church. One who relies on thuggery and force is worthless to society, and thus is worthless as an individual. Of course, you must realize the irony of supporting vikings, rapists, and slavers to justify saving little babies. You're a great guy, really. I mean it.

At 5/19/09 08:10 PM, svenisgod wrote: and if we dont want sex in the army why is there women in the army?

So anywhere a woman goes, intercourse should be implied? I knew I'd find bigots in this thread, but no so expected was the sexism.

A thought: If a homosexual just loves his or her country so much that he or she would want to serve their country, why would they go out of their way as often as possible to remind everyone that they are gay? I thought the purpose of the idea behind this thread was that gays wanted to serve in the military, and should be allowed. I didn't think the purpose of the idea behind this thread was 'gays should tell everyone their gay.' Keep your fucking lifestyle to yourself, tote your machine gun, and get in the foxhole, soldier.

At 5/17/09 08:15 PM, SonicSheep wrote: Your applying modern notions of right and wrong to an ancient past. To those people concerned, they were doing nothing wrong, the people they kept as slaves were born to be kept as slaves and to serve those who kept them.

It doesn't matter if they said it was right, or wrong. They knew that it was an injustice, as all men of non-value know what they really are.They simply justified it by 'we have no choice' and 'they look different from us anyway' and, yes, 'the public supports it'. The explotation of a cognitive mind is a black and white issue.

Yes i'm saying that morals are judged by public opinion, because in another two hundred years, things we do today may be seen as unjust and morally wrong by people, even if we swear that theres nothing wrong with it.

Logic never changes. What is logical is always right, and what is illogical is always wrong. Keeping people as pets and brutally punishing them for not performing is not logical. In the long run, it's not even productive (see - every example of slavery throughout history).

But can the supreme court alter rulings? Reopen up debate on the 2nd amendment should the government decides to vote on wheter is compatible with a modern 21st century society.

The government possesses no power to step on the toes of the supreme court. Our founding fathers made it that way on purpose. The supreme court could review the case, if they did so out of their own volition, sure. The thing is that once they've ruled, it becomes legal precadent - meaning it becomes documented as 'already decided on'. The supreme court tries to avoid ruling on things over and over again, simply because the idiot populace is having a bad news day.

Yes but if America was to outlaw guns, it would be with the publics consent. It would take time, but sooner or later the guns would be handed in. People wouldnt vote on gun control if they wern't prepared to give up there guns.
The British tried to take them by force from you, the US government would only be allowed to do so if the public was willing to relinquish there right to bear arms. Its a competly different circumstance.

Exactly. As with all forms of tyranny, it takes the publics consent to implement the persecution. You seem to be the kind of person who hands down, across the board, consents to governmental tyranny. I am advising you to never give your consent to another man when he proposes cutting off your arms and legs. Even if some fools hand in their means of protection against man and beast, I never will. I will always have an unregistered gun, until the day they take it by force. And if it's taken by force against my will, then there's nothing I can do about it. If there's nothing I can do about it, why bother worrying about it? Let them do their worst, if they can.

At 5/17/09 08:22 PM, SonicSheep wrote: Why do they not have a right? You posses a weapon where the only use of it is to harm people, in defence or otherwise.

I have a right to own an inanamiate (even if dangerous) object. I have a right to own something that may harm another. If I murder someone in cold blood, I will be prosecuted. If I brandish my weapon in an innapropriate place, I will be prosecuted.

Owning a gun may be all well and good, but what reason is there to not register it?

If our government decides to attempt force, and strip guns from the populace...where do you think they will start? With registered weapons.

Again, your applying a modern concept to an ancient system. Public opinion changes over time, thus meaning whats right and wrong changes.

Right and wrong do not change. Logic is right, anti-logic is wrong. Time or opinion or law has no effect on rationality...no matter how hard you wish it so.

Who are you to decide that your idea of morality is superior to someone elses?

I am a cognitive mind. I operate on value, and not force. You are proposing slave mind, and group definition. You are proposing force to regulate law, and not logic.

At 5/17/09 08:03 PM, SonicSheep wrote: If the US government decided to strip the guns from the populace, then you could still defend yourself, you would just have to make do without a gun.

No, I wouldn't. I own several unregistered guns, and not a single registered one. Nor will I ever register a gun with my government. They have no right to ask such of me. If I am prosecuted for excercising my cognitive freedom, I will accept it. I will not consent to it, as you have, though.

Success does not regulate logic.

Then what defines whats right? If not the will of the people then what does?

Public opinion once supported slavery, genocide, and domestic abuse. Under your premise, those things were right because the people said so.

At 5/17/09 07:52 PM, SonicSheep wrote:

At 5/17/09 07:37 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Any change that is required in the constitution (assuming that change is just and righteous) is easy to make.

Yes but any change is going to, in some way, coincide with current issues and public opion. Whats 'just and righteous' is really a matter of opinion.

Do you even understand what we're speaking of? I'll make it easy for you.
If they want to make guns illegal, or impossible to acquire, they must do so through the constitution. They must not be allowed to arbitrarily circumvent the constitution.

Freeing the black slaves can about due to the growing strength of abolishment groups, and society realising what its doing was wrong.
America was built on the work that slaves did, and was dependant on them for some time, however the US public grew past what the country was 'founded' on, and freed the slaves.
Same case with women near enough.

Incorrect. Exploitation is, and always was, wrong. Slavery was not right, and then wrong. It was always wrong - and slowly accepted by the populace as such. Living in your make pretend mud-puddle world of 'nothing is right and nothing is wrong' is a fallacy and a pipedream. It allows you to play make pretend that an action should not be judged by it's merits and justness, but by public opinion.

Now America stands on the issue of gun control. Gun control groups are growing in support, and what was once only a fringe group has entered mainstream debate to the point where proposistions for changes to the 2nd amendment have made.

Thanks to our constitutionally implemented supreme court, the second amendment is no longer a quagmire of an opinion. They have ruled that the second amendment applies to individuals, and not militias. Your game is up. Once the supreme court rules on something, it's near impossible to circumvent that precedent.

Who knows, mabye i'm wrong and the American public will remained armed for many years to come, but its becoming less and less certain todays world.

You are wrong. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America's circulation. Even if you had your way, and they government attempted to strip constitutional freedom from it's citizens - we would still remained armed. When the british tried to shut down town hall meetings and printing presses, we went on printing papers and excercising our inherant freedom regardless. When they pressed harder to take our freedom away, we rallied against them and ran them off our continent.

At 5/16/09 12:16 AM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: Its not negligence if religious beliefs are involved. The judge shouldn't had been able to make a decision.
Unfortunately this is a part of life we must accept, if people want to live this way then we must let them and not interfere. It's not our place to decide.

A case of exploitation is one of the few times I'd support government stepping into individual lives. Allowing a child to die based on fairly tales and mythology is, in my opinion (and apparently the law's opinion) exploitation. Believing in magic doesn't give you the right to kill people.

At 5/16/09 05:18 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 2. If we're not giving people the right to conciously choose to die, then what rights are they really getting? This seems like a pretty fundamental right if you ask me.

Oh? We don't let thirteen year olds make the decision to have sex, or smoke cigarettes, or own property, or fight in the military. It's alright, though, to allow a thirteen year old the right to die?

Pfffft.

At 5/17/09 07:37 PM, SonicSheep wrote:

At 5/17/09 07:16 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Oh? So it is government that gives an individual a right to live, and thrive? It is a government that invented the justification that a human can speak his mind, or defend himself? Gosh. You sure give them a lot of credit.

Speaking your own mind or free speech is one of the very qualities that allows society to evolve. It allows debate and criticism. It allows people to express themselves and allows people and society to evolve and move toward the future.

I'm agreeing to that premise. I'm arguing that it is not the government that 'gives' those rights to people...they are only 'recognizing' those rights. That is why a government cannot take those things away...because they were not the one's who gave them in the first place.

In regards to defending themselves, aside from police forces protecting them. Restricting guns can limit (but not eliminate) the threat of criminals using guns in a threatening manner, sure it prevents people from perhaps 'lawfully' using them, but its one of those freedoms that government believe is best kept from society in order to protect them.

A government has no right to take and give in such a manner, though. The right to defend myself comes not from an institution, but from my own cognitive mind. Stop being a tool.

Again though, each country believes what there doings right, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks of it.
Many Americans view that restricting guns is a failure on the governments act to provide freedom for its citizens, however many Europeans support it, because they believe they would be worse off with guns on the streets.

It is not an opinion. A government has no right to restrict one's defense. Simply because they succeed in this restriction does not mean they were mandated to it. Simply because a people agree that stripping the right to free mind and life away does not mean it was just.
Success does not regulate logic.

At 5/17/09 07:36 PM, Xemras wrote: Exactly. "Values" is a subjective term. There is no such thing as "inherint value".

'Value' is not subjective. Something having 'value' means that somebody else wants it. Anything that someone is willing to pay or trade for has 'value'. Is the value of water, food, and shelter subjective? How about the value of oxygen? Or sunlight? Or manpower?

There is also the prospect of the stronger and smarter parties taking what they want by any means necessary from the weaker and dumber parties, no transaction or trade required.

Ah, but see - you're not talking about 'value'. You're talking about force. Taking something you want is, obviously, the opposite of trading for it. Be it a law or a club you use to take what you want, you are still living by a doctrine of non-value. And that's the point to this thread, isn't it? Assuming a role of 'pro-life' is also assuming the role of 'anti-freedom'. To assume that role is to attempt to achieve what you want not through trade or value, but through force of law.

There are countries on this planet so saturated with gold and diamonds that those things are literally worthless.

There are also countries on this planet with an abundance of clean water (such as ours) that we can afford to waste even a little of it, whereas the countries you previous mentioned which are rich in gold and diamonds are unable to.

And thus - the free market. I have twenty shovels and no hammers. You have twenty hammers and no shovels. By ourselves, our tools are useless. Allowing trade, though, gives both of our tools value.

At 5/17/09 07:19 PM, SonicSheep wrote: I'm not saying that the US constitution is bad. I'm just saying that, like society, it needs to evolve and change with the times. Not be stuck in the 18th century.
Again, like the constitution, the founding fathers of your country are from a different era. Running a country back in the 18th and 19th century was very different from running a 21st century country. George Washington would one the worst men to lead the US today, because the world has moved forward and has changed considerably.
What was best for the US then isn't always whats best for the US now, thats all i'm saying.

Oh, I would agree. Your argument still makes little sense, though. In fact, I feel like you've backpeddled to the point that there is no argument, on your part. The reason I say this is because you, of course, know that our founding fathers built the constitution to constantly evolve. Thus 'living document'. We gave blacks and women the recognation as free people, as they deserved. We did not do this with arbitrary laws or idiot public opinion - but with a constitutional amendment. "Amendment'' as in 'a change or addition to the previous'. We elect local representatives, and later elect those representatives as Commander in Chief. The Commander in Chief then selects supreme court judges, who weigh the validity of a complaint or grievance against the document that has held this country together for over two hundred years. Any change that is required in the constitution (assuming that change is just and righteous) is easy to make.