Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: lee n. field on February 02, 2013, 05:47:46 PM
-
From a new thread at Illinoiscarry (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?s=5f7edb436fcd06f5bd901beb1fb61660&showtopic=34201).
And I get a sense from the audience here, that there is not a lot of enthusiasm for compliance
You could say that.
le YouTube vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BTdhVxva5KU#!)
-
:O :cool:
-
I think it's a safe bet that penalties will be the standard "Men of violence kick your door in and shoot your dog, flashbang your children" followed up by liberal doses of "10 years behind bars" for possession of a piece of molded plastic.
Funny how the State initiates violence on the non-violent to keep the non-violent safe from violence. War is Peace huh?
-
The chest beating and rhetoric is getting even more intense than usual.
-
To me, the real threshold would be spontaneous gatherings of armed neighbors/friends forming up whenever an arrest is attempted on the new NY laws and then possibly even more people arriving from outside the immediate area than local law enforcement is willing to deal with.
If the courts don't strike down these laws in the post-Heller/McDonald era of case law and precedent, that's the last resort.
-
What truly caught my attention in that video was the number of people there that most would normally be considered to be "FUDDS". Several older gentlemen including one wearing the old red and black checkered wool hunting hat and coat.
-
Good on them.
Frankly, I hope the NY politicians get scared of this movement. Truly scared. And step back from the brink, and repeal this.
-
I think it's a safe bet that penalties will be the standard "Men of violence kick your door in and shoot your dog, flashbang your children" followed up by liberal doses of "10 years behind bars" for possession of a piece of molded plastic.
Funny how the State initiates violence on the non-violent to keep the non-violent safe from violence. War is Peace huh?
This.
-
I think the likely threshold will be when the "men of violence" start receiving the violence they dish out on their own home doorsteps. Remember the part in ENEMIES: FOREIGN & DOMESTIC when they published Fed agents' personal info on the Internet?......
-
What I find encouraging is the sheer number of people that are "chest thumping" who there doing it to and that it's being done publicly. I also find it encouraging that the push back is in the heart of the eastern liberal stronghold.
I agree that I think most of the fudds have seen the light.
-
To me, the real threshold would be spontaneous gatherings of armed neighbors/friends forming up whenever an arrest is attempted on the new NY laws and then possibly even more people arriving from outside the immediate area than local law enforcement is willing to deal with.
If the courts don't strike down these laws in the post-Heller/McDonald era of case law and precedent, that's the last resort.
So the arrests happen at inconvenient and unexpected times and places. On a road somewhere. Five thirty in the morning.
-
Good on them.
Frankly, I hope the NY politicians get scared of this movement. Truly scared. And step back from the brink, and repeal this.
If they're going to repeal it, I think it's more likely to result from finding out just how many voters it affects. If not, it will probably take a lot of politicians losing their jobs to get the point across.
-
much as i am at odds with the current and previous ny awb, part of me would like to see a case brought before the supreme court so that we can clarify the term "in common use" in regards to mag capacity, etc.
-
much as i am at odds with the current and previous ny awb, part of me would like to see a case brought before the supreme court so that we can clarify the term "in common use" in regards to mag capacity, etc.
By the time it reaches the SC, Obama may have appointed a couple of new justices.
-
I don't know what I would do with certainty if I lived in NY state. Those Woolrich coats are an institution! "Fudds" aren't the only people that wear them.
-
I don't know what I would do with certainty if I lived in NY state. Those Woolrich coats are an institution! "Fudds" aren't the only people that wear them.
Kevlar vest under the coat ? =|
-
So the arrests happen at inconvenient and unexpected times and places. On a road somewhere. Five thirty in the morning.
Something like a phone network needs to be set up to counter something like this. If something like that did happen to where the word couldn't of gotten out in time, spontaneous gathering at wherever he is being held.
-
So the arrests happen at inconvenient and unexpected times and places. On a road somewhere. Five thirty in the morning.
Exactly what I was thinking, OTOH, if the person was being held at a small enough police station...
Shades of "The Battle of Athens"...
-
All this talk of resistance is a bit misguided.
If you can't organise the votes to do this politically, any campaign to intimidate lawmakers into changing their minds will fail miserably.
Such behaviours and talk will only have the effect of pushing more voters away.
-
All this talk of resistance is a bit misguided.
If you can't organise the votes to do this politically, any campaign to intimidate lawmakers into changing their minds will fail miserably.
Such behaviours and talk will only have the effect of pushing more voters away.
It may be premature now. We'll see whether the politicians listen to the voters.
-
All this talk of resistance is a bit misguided.
If you can't organise the votes to do this politically, any campaign to intimidate lawmakers into changing their minds will fail miserably.
Such behaviours and talk will only have the effect of pushing more voters away.
1. To a degree voting is irrelevant. The whole "Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner", and America is a Republic etc.
2. The concept of retribution and those who may or may not have earned stands independently whether or not it will change their votes.
3. By your way of thinking, the entire American Revolution was extralegal in nature. And counting the nominal 1/3rd of loyalists, 1/3rd of neutrals, and the 3% who actually fought/died actively, needing a majority to do what is right is irrelevant as well. (See #1 back up top about "democracy")
-
All this talk of resistance is a bit misguided.
If you can't organise the votes to do this politically, any campaign to intimidate lawmakers into changing their minds will fail miserably.
Such behaviours and talk will only have the effect of pushing more voters away.
Practically speaking not true.
Campaigns to intimidate lawmakers into making laws that wouldn't pass a popular vote happen effectevly all the time. Prohibition, Gay Marriage (see CA for popular vote on that one), Gun Control.... It happens all the time. Normally the intimidation is the loss of the politicians job, or income.
Frankly I don't give a damn what they're afraid of as long as they are afraid enough of something to not pass laws restricting liberty. Fear of an uprising is as effective as fear of not being elected in this case.
Add to that AJ's point. However effective (or not) any planned resistance to tyranny, if the majority of this country votes to remove peoples natural rights, they should be fought with words, ballots or, if need be, rifles. That would be the duty of free people.
-
Dog mush, those are good examples - look at how positions on each were reversed. It wasn't because of gay marriage protestors blocking ceremonies, or people gathering for drinks at the White House. They mustered enough opposition to get those laws repealed. Gun control is an even better example....30 years of political activism is why so many states have CCW laws. Not because the ATF got scared of gun owners.
AJ, revolutions against monarchs are not the same thing as disagreeing with a representative process.
It's all well and good to ignore democracy when it violates what you think are natural rights, but consider how many people think food and healthcare are natural rights...how would you like them adopting your methods to take it? We have a representative government specifically to handle those kinds of disagreements.
I remember well the militia movement of the 90's, and all the talk about how that was going to undo Clinton's gun laws. As far as I can tell, all the talk of resistance did was retard the very real gains being made by political activists.
-
What I find encouraging is the sheer number of people that are "chest thumping" who there doing it to and that it's being done publicly. I also find it encouraging that the push back is in the heart of the eastern liberal stronghold.
I agree that I think most of the fudds have seen the light.
Some of them have, at any rate.
I think when they woke up to the realization that if "ten" could magically become "seven," "seven" could just as magically become "five" ... and then "four," and then "three," and finally "one" (which, incidentally, has already been proposed in Connecticut), that's when the mental light bulbs started to click on.
-
It's all well and good to ignore democracy when it violates what you think are natural rights, but consider how many people think food and healthcare are natural rights...how would you like them adopting your methods to take it? We have a representative government specifically to handle those kinds of disagreements.
We've already seen what "they" have done along those line with things like the occupy wall street bunch and the "peaceful" protests we've seen at various G8 type events.
We've also seen how our representative government still managed to pass the ACA when it was pretty clear that the majority of Americans did not support it.
-
We've already seen what "they" have done along those line with things like the occupy wall street bunch and the "peaceful" protests we've seen at various G8 type events.
We've also seen how our representative government still managed to pass the ACA when it was pretty clear that the majority of Americans did not support it.
And how much difference have the occupy folks made to banking???
I'm not sure it's clear that most Americans oppose Obamacare. They probably will when they realise what it is, but most opponents of it don't seem to know either.
-
The polls prior to it being deemed passed were pretty clear, and life on the ground here is pretty clear. No one likes Obamacare. It either went to far, or not did not enough. But it doesn't enjoy support of even a large minority of Americans, much less a majority.
And while I do agree that in general it's better to solve these little differences through the political process rather then extra legal or lethal way, if there's one thing history has taught us it's that there's some lines you don't allow your government to cross. To many people have died or been enslaved while trying to work it out peacefully. Peace is good, but there are some things that require blood right now. Free people don't dare let them progress. A credible attempt to disarm a population is one of those things.
Now that being said, I don't think our current Congress has a credible chance of doing so, and I have enough faith in our process to let it pay out. Really. Even in NY where the laws have been passed, so far they're just words. If the NY law enforcement starts a valid attempt to round up and kill or imprison folks who are armed, then we might have to reconsider letting NY's process play. But so far, they're not, the dude with AR mags not-withstanding.
I would also argue that a large portion of overturning prohibition was the overwhelming willingness of the public to publicly ignore those laws, and fight law enforcement if needed to preserve their freedom. Which is what NY'ers are discussing currently.
As a parting note, words have meanings. Some things are natural rights and others aren't. It's not a matter of opinion. A human has the right of self determination. And of self defense. and to defend those rights to the death if he chooses. He does NOT have the right to other peoples labor, which in the end is what healthcare is. So it matters not how many people think healthcare is a right, they are wrong. The only healthcare you have a right to is that which you can administer to yourself.
-
If they're going to repeal it, I think it's more likely to result from finding out just how many voters it affects. If not, it will probably take a lot of politicians losing their jobs to get the point across.
True. How big is this movement? NY already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, so I just don't see politicians being all that worried about gun owners as a political force.
-
Dog mush, that's your view of what is a natural right, but obviously a lot of the population does not agree. Nor will many find the argument that its "natural" for things to be that way convincing. Fundamentals of righs are not a matter of dictionary definition and never will be.
That's why a political process that seeks agreement on these questions is so important.
-
obviously a lot of the population does not agree
obviously a lot of the population expects the rest of the population to support them in the manner to which they want to be accustomed :facepalm:
-
Dog mush, that's your view of what is a natural right, but obviously a lot of the population does not agree. Nor will many find the argument that its "natural" for things to be that way convincing. Fundamentals of righs are not a matter of dictionary definition and never will be.
That's why a political process that seeks agreement on these questions is so important.
You keep trying to bend the debate around to the idea that natural rights are defined by some sort of consensus.
They aren't. They exist whether or not anyone recognizes them at all.
Now, as a functional or a practical matter, the ability to exercise natural rights certainly is impacted by the number of people who recognize them, but that is a different conversation. And this is more about the issue of when you do find yourself outnumbered on the issue. At that point, in the American system, if the courts don't bail you out, you're then in the position with nothing to lose.
It may even not be a matter of "winning" and simply making things as expensive and painful as possible for them on your way down. And unfortunately, waiting until you are certain you're at that point often means it's too late to do even that.
The negatives of being "offputting to the sheeple" are in the long-run outweighed by the American gun-owner taking a do... not... touch... stance in all ways possible. Tactics that many, even myself included, have dismissed in the past, like open-carry walks, or the VCDL showing up to government meetings armed have proven to be effective.
-
You keep trying to bend the debate around to the idea that natural rights are defined by some sort of consensus.
They aren't. They exist whether or not anyone recognizes them at all.
Now, as a functional or a practical matter, the ability to exercise natural rights certainly is impacted by the number of people who recognize them, but that is a different conversation.
In the post modern world where there is no truth there are no natural rights.
Ultimately there are only human constructs agreed upon by society, our social contract.
Our founders believed there was a such thing as truth, as natural rights and attempted to box in the government and the majority with the law.
Once our culture abandoned truth as a concept and rights were conflated with entitlements we became doomed.
We are back where humans always end up, might makes right.
-
In the post modern world where there is no truth there are no natural rights.
Ultimately there are only human constructs agreed upon by society, our social contract.
Our founders believed there was a such thing as truth, as natural rights and attempted to box in the government and the majority with the law.
Once our culture abandoned truth as a concept and rights were conflated with entitlements we became doomed.
We are back where humans always end up, might makes right.
Which of course makes RKBA all the more important, and removing it all the more important to those who would rule us.
-
In the post modern world where there is no truth there are no natural rights.
Ultimately there are only human constructs agreed upon by society, our social contract.
Our founders believed there was a such thing as truth, as natural rights and attempted to box in the government and the majority with the law.
Once our culture abandoned truth as a concept and rights were conflated with entitlements we became doomed.
We are back where humans always end up, might makes right.
What truth? Can you prove that natural rights exist? Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"
Of course not. Natural rights are a human invention. It's an perspective, one that people created. It only has power insomuch as people choose to believe in it.
Even in things that are "well proven" by experiment, there exists varying degrees of uncertainty. To quote Feynman; "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."
-
That's my point Nick, follow that rabbit hole far enough and you can rationalize away anything.
The human animal or the human bio/chem machine has no intrinsic worth other than what society decides at any given time.
Arguing all humans are or should be equal is no more "right" or "true" than arguing the masses should be shepherded by the elite to produce a better life for the elite is "right" or "true".
Our dystopia is upon us, should be interesting.
-
What truth? Can you prove that natural rights exist? Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"
Of course not. Natural rights are a human invention. It's an perspective, one that people created. It only has power insomuch as people choose to believe in it.
Even in things that are "well proven" by experiment, there exists varying degrees of uncertainty. To quote Feynman; "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."
Do you have the right to own a rock?
-
Dog mush, that's your view of what is a natural right, but obviously a lot of the population does not agree. Nor will many find the argument that its "natural" for things to be that way convincing. Fundamentals of righs are not a matter of dictionary definition and never will be.
That's why a political process that seeks agreement on these questions is so important.
I will tell you what is NOT a right, and it is absolute-
It is not a right if it has to be taken by force from one person, to be given to another.
This includes the so called "positive" rights, like jobs, healthcare, housing, telephones, etc.
At this point, the "payer" is a slave to the "payee".
-
Can you prove that natural rights exist? Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"
Actually I can at least in this case - but I'm not quite yet willing to become a violent criminal in order to do so ;)
-
What truth? Can you prove that natural rights exist? Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"
Of course not. Natural rights are a human invention. It's an perspective, one that people created. It only has power insomuch as people choose to believe in it.
Even in things that are "well proven" by experiment, there exists varying degrees of uncertainty. To quote Feynman; "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."
Post modernism at its finest. And rather silly, as of course no one actually lives their life that way or applies it to the structural realities of life.
I still find the absolutist truth statement that there are no absolute knowable truths amusing.
-
I still find the absolutist truth statement that there are no absolute knowable truths amusing.
Ah, please feel free to enlighten me. What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?
-
Ah, please feel free to enlighten me. What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?
How do you know you aren't in an insane asylum and hallucinating this conversation? How do you know you aren't an alien's fever dream and the world will dissappear when he wakes up? How do you know you're not actually dead and 6th Sense was a bio-pic of you? ;/
-
Pardon my saying this, Balog, but I find the above evasive and insulting.
You took a stance, and were asked to back it up. Now, fish or cut bait: throwing sillyness at the question isn't how we're supposed to handle issues here.
-
How do you know you aren't in an insane asylum and hallucinating this conversation? How do you know you aren't an alien's fever dream and the world will dissappear when he wakes up? How do you know you're not actually dead and 6th Sense was a bio-pic of you? ;/
Right off the bat, assuming anyone's sanity is an absolute truth is folly - we have documented evidence of people that are in fact crazy and suffer delusions which they perceive as reality.
As to your other points, is reality as we experience is the feverish dream of an alien fish? Seems improbable, but there are plenty of people who believe that our existence was created by some larger, all encompassing consciousness. While I find it unlikely, I can't disprove it with absolute certainty any more they they can prove it. Not an absolute truth, and not absolutely disproved.
Ditto for 6th sense life-after-death muckery. Near as I can tell from observation, and the recorded observation from other humans, this is extremely improbable. The overwhelming body of evidence from millenia of things dying tends to suggests that creatures cease to exist when they die. I don't know that with complete certainty, of course. It might be posiable that people are more then bio-chem machines and after death some people can become ghosts; I don't see much evidence for it, but I can't conclusivly disprove it either. Can you?
Now that I've answered your query, I'll ask again: What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?
-
Speaking of backlash in New York, anybody here see that video of the January 29th Safe Act Town Hall meeting in Erie County, New York?
http://youtu.be/Ol1SzjHPFGw
If this video got to Mr. Cuomo and his henchmen, you could almost count the seconds before they'd ask their tech people to find out who the insurgents were, and start the no-knocks. =|
-
Pardon my saying this, Balog, but I find the above evasive and insulting.
You took a stance, and were asked to back it up. Now, fish or cut bait: throwing sillyness at the question isn't how we're supposed to handle issues here.
It’s laughable that you’re attempting to dictate how I may respond. The argument is patently absurd, and deserving of no more respect than I gave it. And I thought we handled issues here by posting silly pictures and making jokes involving bacon and detcord?
If you take Nick's stance, there is no way to answer his question. Nothing can be demonstrated to be truth, because all we have are the inputs of our senses and the inputs of our senses are inherently unreliable. I can't "prove" any of the things I believe any more than Nick can "prove" that the answers to any of my questions is no.
The basic post-modernist viewpoint is a claim to know an absolute truth: that there is no absolute truth, and we couldn't know it even if there was. It's an absurd and self defeating argument. All I need to do to refute it is repeat the claim back but aimed at post modernism itself. And it's made even more evident by the simple fact that no one attempts to live their life in accord with that claim.
As for what I believe? I believe that there is an actual reality, as well as absolute truth. We can know it, albeit imperfectly. But I can't "prove" that, any more than a post modernist can "prove" that they actually exist. Debating post modernism is a silly and pointless endeavor, because there is quite literally nothing that one can do that meets the bar of proof implicit in the basic idea of the philosophy.
This all started because Nick denied that it is possible to have certainty about anything. I was addressing that notion.
Right off the bat, assuming anyone's sanity is an absolute truth is folly - we have documented evidence of people that are in fact crazy and suffer delusions which they perceive as reality.
As to your other points, is reality as we experience is the feverish dream of an alien fish? Seems improbable, but there are plenty of people who believe that our existence was created by some larger, all encompassing consciousness. While I find it unlikely, I can't disprove it with absolute certainty any more they they can prove it. Not an absolute truth, and not absolutely disproved.
Ditto for 6th sense life-after-death muckery. Near as I can tell from observation, and the recorded observation from other humans, this is extremely improbable. The overwhelming body of evidence from millenia of things dying tends to suggests that creatures cease to exist when they die. I don't know that with complete certainty, of course. It might be posiable that people are more then bio-chem machines and after death some people can become ghosts; I don't see much evidence for it, but I can't conclusivly disprove it either. Can you?
Now that I've answered your query, I'll ask again: What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?
You're asking me for proof, while rejecting that it is possible to show proof. I'll answer it right after you tell me if you've stopped beating your dog.
-
How do we know his dog exists? His dog is an illusion. Or maybe his dog is Gandhi, given that it hasn't killed him.
This postmodernist sophistry is fun! Not in an absolute sense, but relative to shaving my back with a rusty Bic razor.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrow202.org%2F2008%2Fdog_angst.jpg&hash=ea915927f7dd023d0676eaee69f44c066de9a0e8)
Sit, Gandhi, SIT!
-
So, absolute truths exist; but we don't know what they are, and their validity can't be proven?
-
Again, ;/
Nick: We can't know anything.
Balog: Yes we can.
Nick: Prove it.
Balog: What will you accept as proof?
Nick: Absolutely nothing.
Balog: Then I definitionally can't prove anything.
Nick: I win!
-
Hilarious irony - to prove that natural rights exist apart from people's opinions, the best we get is an appeal to consensus - "but Nick, don't you agree it's crazy to think any other way!"
Surely if they're so fundamental we don't need to rely on other people agreeing with our assumptions about truth to prove them.
And that's the problem with all the 'state of nature' malarkey that's been the source of this - unless you presume that all the other folks in your state of nature already agree with you, the fantasy construct solved no moral problem.
Hilarity number two: folks complaining about how might-makes right is an unfair infringement on their rights, while talking about showing up with guns to prevent said infringement.
Really folks, I'm starting to question whether the right is losing the political battle due to Orwellian implosion more than the "FSA" (you know, all those people who can't possibly deny your picture of natural rights!).
-
There IS such a thing as absolute truth.
Observe
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcinekatz.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2F149246_large.jpg&hash=ef351c7eafda8d337dc8bfb7a726a84db6d53e55)
Kate Beckinsale is beautiful.
If you disagree, you probably are just a figment of my imagination
-
Are those fingerprints on her forehead?
-
I know for a fact that I know nothing for a fact. :P
Natural Rights are those abilities that are necessary for individual humans to live and thrive, just as for the meta-human construct as well (humanity). I suppose the supreme Right of individual Humans and Humanity is that to exist. We have the right to exist, simply because we do exist, naturally.. That Right compounds and gives existence to other rights which are underlying pillars that are essential to sustain that prime right. There is no scientifically significant difference between human and human. Human is Human. Logic dictates that any right necessary for the continued existence of one must be necessary for all.
-
I exist.
I don't need your approval, acknowledgement, or any other external validation.
The right of survival and, by derivation, the right to self defense, is mine, requiring only that I claim it.
That right can be abridged by another, though not without my counter-assertion that I must continue to survive, and my overt and possibly violent efforts to preserve my own life.
This principle applies to any sentient being as an intrinsic attribute, and history is replete with examples of conflict resulting from attempts to deny the right to life, countered by the insistence on living.
The principle of survival, and the drive of all life to persist in the face of efforts to destroy it, may be codified simply as "the right to life."
It is the impulse, the expectation -- and requirement -- of sentient life that it shall continue to live, even in the face of direct threat to that continuation.
It is not necessary that anyone agree that this principle exists, but to act in ignorance or denial of it predictably and commonly comes to a bad end.
All other requisites for viable sentient life derive from this single mandate: to survive.
The principle of personal and individual survival underpins all the ancillary principles that augment survival.
Communication, personal security, personal shelter, and so on are all derived from this. Happiness is found in the effective pursuit of these things.
It is an act of sanity to acknowledge and enshrine these most basic requirements of survival, and a culture or governing construct which consistently ignores or nullifies them will eventually come a cropper. Sentient life will eventually assert its rights of existence, survival, and viability, and whatever stands in opposition will eventually fail.
Efforts to "manage" or govern others do not create such principles or derivations, the principles pre-exist such efforts to control the lives of others.
More simply: life wants to live, and there will be hell to pay for anyone who would act to deny that.
-
Hold a knife to somebody's throat, and/or start carrying off their stuff, and I'm guessing that you will hear a near universal "truth" about what their rights are :P
-
The main thing here for me is, irrespective of the debate about truth, if enough other people don't agree with us that there's a right to keep and bear arms, we will not be able to exercise the right.
Working hard through the political process is exactly how the restrictions of the 70s and 80s were rolled back. That's the answer today as well, and if it doesn't work right away, instead of panicking and talking about armed sit-ins, we should be doing things that actually promote our political agenda.
Hysteria and talk of resistance doesn't help us in the long run,good as it feels to some.
-
The main thing here for me is, irrespective of the debate about truth, if enough other people don't agree with us that there's a right to keep and bear arms, we will not be able to exercise the right.
You always can exercise the RKBA. It's just that you may have to contend with government violence in doing so.
-
Are those fingerprints on her forehead?
Soot
She's dirty
It's from van helsing, in which her hair was amazing
I'll be in my bunk
-
What truth? Can you prove that natural rights exist? Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"
Of course not. Natural rights are a human invention. It's an perspective, one that people created. It only has power insomuch as people choose to believe in it.
Even in things that are "well proven" by experiment, there exists varying degrees of uncertainty. To quote Feynman; "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."
In this nation's founding document, the founders declared equality and human rights to be "self-evident." Which is to say, they are true. If you don't agree with this, shouldn't you find someplace else to live? ???
-
Soot
She's dirty
It's from van helsing, in which her hair was amazing
I'll be in my bunk
So I did some googling....yeah, there's some philosophical goodness there.
-
In this nation's founding document, the founders declared equality and human rights to be "self-evident." Which is to say, they are true. If you don't agree with this, shouldn't you find someplace else to live? ???
And that's the point - what happens when the body politic decides it has a different view? Does that mean you get to find a new place to live?
-
Just in case anyone has forgotten, the Founders didn't just pull the language of the founding docs out of their butt after a night of swilling ale.
It's easy to forget that these guys were exceedingly well read, and well versed in the classical philosophers, as well as the contemporary thinkers of the day.
When you gaze back over some 5,000 years of recorded history, study the unwinding of time's ball of string, and contemplate the animating principles of Mankind, and then remark that certain things are "self-evident," it's just possible you may be onto something, despite the later objections of sophists who have gone to no such effort.
I won't even pretend to be as well versed in life's philosophies as the Framers were.
And yet, my studies, as scant and shallow as they are, seem to confirm their conclusions.
-
And that's the point - what happens when the body politic decides it has a different view? Does that mean you get to find a new place to live?
Not according to MLK.
-
Not according to MLK.
So what do you make of the MLK position on this? If you like it, why the challenge to Nick about agreeing with your view or leaving?
Arfin, I don't think the founders were short on this point - I think modern views about the founders greatly distort their views. Whatever they were, they were not modern free market libertarians (and why should us libertarians be bothered by that?)
-
There IS such a thing as absolute truth.
Observe
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcinekatz.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2F149246_large.jpg&hash=ef351c7eafda8d337dc8bfb7a726a84db6d53e55)
Kate Beckinsale is beautiful.
If you disagree, you probably are just a figment of my imagination
We are all made richer by Fitz's contribution. Thank you.
-
So what do you make of the MLK position on this? If you like it, why the challenge to Nick about agreeing with your view or leaving?
MLK's position was that the founding principles expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution must be fulfilled. That is the position of those who support the 2nd amendment.
I did not "challenge" Nick about agreeing with my view. You would have to be very dull to actually believe that. I simply spoke of a view which is central to American ideas about society, without any reference to my own views.
-
This is hystarical.
You guys are all chasing your tails over estoric philosophical principles that can be removed simply by saying "regardless of the nature of exsistance, imperical truth and the various belives of induvidials, how do we maintain a functional society in which those same various beliefs can be accomidated?"
I, personally, would answer that the best course would be the one laid out by our founders which they came to by study of past societies, the nature of man and the accumulated wisdom of classical thinking.
But you guys have fun getting bent out of shape over Nick's acknowledgement that there is no garenteed absolute truth about anything.
-
"David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel..."
-
"David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel..."
Do you have any rhymes for Pierce and pragmaticism, the word so ugly no one would appropriate its use?
-
Here's a basic truth-
The American left's plan to populate our country with a permanent majority voting block of dependents is moving inexorably to fruition. While others may except fascist ideas like 'democracy', 'majority rule', disarmament, and slavery, there are plenty of us here with their heads screwed on straight that do not.
-
Could you elaborate on what the "left" is? I see where you are going but there's more to it than "the left".
-
Do you have any rhymes for Pierce and pragmaticism, the word so ugly no one would appropriate its use?
The pragmatic approach has led to us synthesizing away the principles our constitution was founded upon.
-
America's decline distilled in two parts:
"We hold these truths to be self evident..."
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw
Ha! I ended up watching a bunch of them.Those are awesome! Made me smile and even laugh out loud a couple times.
-
Hilarious irony - to prove that natural rights exist apart from people's opinions, the best we get is an appeal to consensus - "but Nick, don't you agree it's crazy to think any other way!"
Surely if they're so fundamental we don't need to rely on other people agreeing with our assumptions about truth to prove them.
And that's the problem with all the 'state of nature' malarkey that's been the source of this - unless you presume that all the other folks in your state of nature already agree with you, the fantasy construct solved no moral problem.
Hilarity number two: folks complaining about how might-makes right is an unfair infringement on their rights, while talking about showing up with guns to prevent said infringement.
Really folks, I'm starting to question whether the right is losing the political battle due to Orwellian implosion more than the "FSA" (you know, all those people who can't possibly deny your picture of natural rights!).
You're missing the point.
If you want what you feel to be your natural rights, you have to treat them as absolutes and as having reality. Otherwise you start losing your ability to exercise those rights.