Prop 8 Overturned

[Soup]

To apply Anchorman to Count Choc's post:

 

Angel of death: "When in rome."

Everybody else: "I dont think that really applies to this situation."

[lord_casek]

I was saying that with a smile, man. I was joking with you.

 

moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

immoral: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

ethics: a system of moral principles

 

Now to my questions that I have been trying to get you to answer. What is it about gay marriage that you find immoral? What is it that defines your ethics?

 

You have stated that it is not for you, but that doesn't make it immoral. My mother orders her cheeseburgers without onions, not because she finds the consumption of onions immoral, but because she finds them unpleasant to eat because of the texture and strong odor.

 

You don't engage in homosexual relationships because that's just not your flavor. You are not attracted to Men. What I am getting from you is that you choose to not participate in homosexuality not because homosexuality or homosexual marriage is immoral, but because its not for you. You are using the wrong words to describe your views and that is where we ran into confusion. Preferences are distinctly different from principles, Casek.

 

P.S. While this is on the more mature, serious side, try to take my posts with a grain of salt. I come on here to joke and clown around. When it comes to research and debate, I tend to funnel most of my debating energy into making argumentative papers for school, not 12oz prophet, home of many stubborn people that I will never meet.

 

 

What I'm dancing around is that my religious beliefs say that it's not right. I just don't like to come out and say it. My belief is that marriage is for men and women. It has a purpose to be that way.

 

I also don't think "Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband" sounds very good. If it was giant robots and space aliens, you might see me change my mind, but it's not. Not now, anyway. Soon, maybe.

 

/me crosses fingers

 

Also, don't get me started on gay illegal alien anchor dolphins.

[angelofdeath]

heaven forbid anyone has religious beliefs in crossfire...

*awaiting the wrath of north east and san fran progressives to release hellfire on casek

[angelofdeath]

To apply Anchorman to Count Choc's post:

 

Angel of death: "When in rome."

Everybody else: "I dont think that really applies to this situation."

 

i think you are still sore because i called your arguments a distraction from the real issue at hand.

should gay marriage be 'legal' or 'illegal.'

instead you wanted to talk about the real non issues of the subject and how it pertains to the law.

i simply hold that unless there is a victim, there is no crime.

[lord_casek]

heaven forbid anyone has religious beliefs in crossfire...

*awaiting the wrath of north east and san fran progressives to release hellfire on casek

 

 

Yes, I may have stepped in a whopping pile of angry gay anchor dolphin poo, there.

[shai]

I treat religion with equanimity till it oversteps its boundaries into my life and the lives of people I care about.

 

In my opinion/cosmology, God (in the Judeo-Christian context) doesn't really sweat the small stuff...as long as you're on a relatively compassionate/correct path and not fucking over your fellow man with your actions or beliefs, that's what's important. Everything else comes down to agendas motivated by desire, vanity and/or learned behavior.

 

Asking casek to qualify his belief system or values in this matter really makes no sense since he's already stated his case and explained what informs his values. Nothing he says strikes me as inflammatory or prejudiced...it could be argued that's he's somewhat biased, but he's discreet about it.

[Soup]

i think you are still sore because i called your arguments a distraction from the real issue at hand.

should gay marriage be 'legal' or 'illegal.'

instead you wanted to talk about the real non issues of the subject and how it pertains to the law.

i simply hold that unless there is a victim, there is no crime.

 

Wat

[cunt sauce]

What I'm dancing around is that my religious beliefs say that it's not right. I just don't like to come out and say it. My belief is that marriage is for men and women. It has a purpose to be that way.

 

I also don't think "Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband" sounds very good. If it was giant robots and space aliens, you might see me change my mind, but it's not. Not now, anyway. Soon, maybe.

 

/me crosses fingers

 

Also, don't get me started on gay illegal alien anchor dolphins.

 

Holy shit, I thought this cat was just "spritual". Dis dood is Christian!!! Wowzas :eek:

[cunt sauce]

 

Asking casek to qualify his belief system or values in this matter really makes no sense since he's already stated his case and explained what informs his values. Nothing he says strikes me as inflammatory or prejudiced...it could be argued that's he's somewhat biased, but he's discreet about it.

 

I could really care less if casek disapproves or not, I will never encounter him in my life, and neither will anyone I care about. I will say that despite his differing views, he is pretty respectful. In questioning him I was just trying to understand where he was coming from and learn about what drives his perspective on this issue. Curiosity is all, I guess I kinda blew it though in my joshing around though...

[cunt sauce]

ent[/color] in their beliefs

 

Who's mad here buddy? I'm just trying to push you to develop new thoughts and get off the same rant cycle you have been engaging yourself in for the last, oh year or so I have been participating in this part of the great forum that 12oz is. I don't really know why I care so much. Maybe I like hearing how a gun-slinging libertarian makes sense of the world. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm trying to learn from you and your view of this world, cowboy. :)

[lord_casek]

I could really care less if casek disapproves or not, I will never encounter him in my life, and neither will anyone I care about. I will say that despite his differing views, he is pretty respectful. In questioning him I was just trying to understand where he was coming from and learn about what drives his perspective on this issue. Curiosity is all, I guess I kinda blew it though in my joshing around though...

 

 

It's all good. I don't go advertising what I think about certain issues for a reason.

I figured I would speak up in a thread that asked for someone to speak up about

having differing views, though.

 

You have just as much right as I do to your opinion and to question others views.

[angelofdeath]

Who's mad here buddy? I'm just trying to push you to develop new thoughts and get off the same rant cycle you have been engaging yourself in for the last, oh year or so I have been participating in this part of the great forum that 12oz is. I don't really know why I care so much. Maybe I like hearing how a gun-slinging libertarian makes sense of the world. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm trying to learn from you and your view of this world, cowboy. :)

 

my comment was a specific finger pointing at you, it was more of a broad statement of fact when most 'conventional types' encounter someone who, in an argument between left and right about whether voluntary prayer should be legal in public schools, someone like myself might say...'why have public schools in the first place? privatize and then everyone can be happy.'

and people go into hysterics.

or as in this case...instead of arguing about a state issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, i say privatize the whole thing and remove marriage licenses from straight couples and everyone else for that matter.

so while my arguments may seem like a broken record to some, its simply the non aggression principle applied to EVERYTHING. you can always get people to agree with that principle on certain issues, but it really tends to get people mad when you ask them to apply it to issues that they want banned by the state. for instance, the right wants certain morals imposed generally speaking in personal matters and the left wants certain morals imposed in the economy, on 'corporations,' etc.

getting them to apply the principle of liberty to those issues is what generally gets people fired up.

[cunt sauce]

Uh did you really say privatize school? Uhhh.....

 

Legalize high quantity amounts of Cyanide for human possession. Cyanide present in peoples fountain soda drinks doesn't kill people, the people who put it there kill people so why should anyone prevent me from possessing it? Same Logic that you are using AOD. Maybe all humans have the fundamental right to develop a nuclear arsenal. You know, just in case aliens attack Earth.

 

Also I have to ask, how is the conventional shotgun filled with bird shot not one of the most effective, easily accessible self defense weapons? You barely even have to aim that shit! I would much rather sleep with a shotgun behind my headboard than a fucking battle rifle. When someone is standing in your doorway 10 feet from you would you rather line up the sights of a rifle on them in the dark, or just point in the general area of their silhouette with a nice 12 gauge?

[christo-f]

agreed. partially. in theory.

 

 

 

this can easily be countered with....'your freedom stops at my door.'

its that simple.

what you are suggesting is that if someone wants a nanny state (or to be safe or has rights to someone else's property, or is forcing someone to pay for the nanny state....) that this arrangement squares with the anti nanny staters rights. it doesnt. it is a conflict of rights.

again... your freedom stops at my door. put another way, you can do whatever you want, so long as you dont force me to do anything or hurt me, my property or my liberty. freedom bounded by rights.

Regardless, my argument still stands, you can't have a nanny state for some and not for others, it is contradictory.

 

 

 

i must laugh at this logic.

if a majority decides that everyone named christo-f must surrender and meet the firing squad tomorrow at 0800, are you to just shrug your shoulders and say..'well, i gotta either like it or leave it!'

the majority has decided.

 

Straw man argument. The logic is there but the reality isn't.

 

For your argument to come true, in Australia at least, each state and electorate would have to vote in enough parliamentarians that had the agenda of changing the constitution, form a referendum and then a majority of people in the majority of states would have to change the constitution to make it legal for a referendum to be held to vote on my fate no matter what my personal wishes are.

 

So yes, there are mechanisms that can allow this to happen. However, we live on planet reality here, not planet theory.

 

Next straw man argument...

 

this is essentially the issue with govt and with all issues... and touches on this gay marriage thing in particular.

a majority decided they dont want gay marriage.

yet you are still arguing that this is not legitimate. if you were true to your belief in democracy, the majority has spoken. no gay marriage. end of story. move to another country.

 

Show me where I said that it was not legitimate.

 

personally i believe that any natural rights are not up for any vote any time. period

.

 

Personally I don't believe in fairy tales, such as "natural rights". Rights are a social construction made by civilised man. There is nothing natural about them.

 

this is a circular argument if there ever was one because precisely what we are trying to do is establish if govt is legitimate. you say it is simply because 50.01% of the people say it is.

 

i knock on your door with 2 other guys. i say i am here to rob you. you say, get the hell out. i say... now now, we are all fans of democracy here right? lets put this to a vote. 3 against one. you lose. we get your stuff.

this is essentially politics explained in 1 simple lesson. i do not support this system at all.

 

Firstly whilst I would like to see how some people would go in a place where guns really are everywhere, that comment was not overly serious. I support people to be active in shaping their country the way they see is right.

 

However, your logic is totally off the mark here. Democracy in governance doesn't equal mob rule, which is exactly what you have described. Show me any constitution in any land that says if you're outnumbered in anything at all you must resign to the popular will. Show me any state legislation in any modern state that says that.

 

Seriously dude, having a law that says the citizens choose their own legislators goes nowhere NEAR equating to "if you're outnumbered in any decision anywhere on any call you must submit to any wish of the majority at any time". I'm going to let that one go through to the keeper and just assume that you were drunk when you wrote that.

 

 

put another way.

my ancestors arrive on virgin territory in 1650. they homestead a farm. they own property. along comes a guy in 1789 after ratification of the constitution and the creation of the current set up of US government. he says...'hi, we are starting this club. we want you to be a member.' my ancestor says...'oh that sounds like a great idea. but im not interested. i live out here and tend to my own problems. but i wish you luck. i wont aggress against you, you dont aggress against me. we'll trade, we'll have a grand old time.'

the guy says...'you dont understand, you are part of this club whether you like it or not. we are the govt. you have to pay your doors or i get to shoot you.'

 

how can you square this with freedom?

 

AOD, you just don't understand the world.

 

There is no freedom, there never was and there never will be. Power ebbs and it flows but it is always there. Sometimes you have the power to make your own decisions most of the time you don't. Haven't you got that yet?

 

Power resides in number and force. These ideals of natural freedoms and liberty are pipe dreams and fairy tales, they don't exist. For every year of "freedom and liberty" that you can point to in history somewhere in the world I can point to a thousand where power decided what was best for everyone. Your idea of freedom is a statistical anomaly, bro. It is not real.

 

 

The only true path to freedom is power.

[russell jones]

What I'm dancing around is that my religious beliefs say that it's not right. I just don't like to come out and say it. My belief is that marriage is for men and women. It has a purpose to be that way.

 

I also don't think "Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband" sounds very good. If it was giant robots and space aliens, you might see me change my mind, but it's not. Not now, anyway. Soon, maybe.

 

/me crosses fingers

 

Also, don't get me started on gay illegal alien anchor dolphins.

 

I think what sauce was getting at was to have you explain how gay marriage is morally wrong beyond the level that you find it repugnant. I think his hamburger with onions analogy is perfect. You seem to be expressing a preference from your point of view rather than a moral precept. Perhaps it would be better to say that you prefer that marriage was reserved for heterosexuals, rather than saying you find it morally wrong, since you have not explained how it conflicts with any type of moral precept.

[lord_casek]

I think what sauce was getting at was to have you explain how gay marriage is morally wrong beyond the level that you find it repugnant. I think his hamburger with onions analogy is perfect. You seem to be expressing a preference from your point of view rather than a moral precept. Perhaps it would be better to say that you prefer that marriage was reserved for heterosexuals, rather than saying you find it morally wrong, since you have not explained how it conflicts with any type of moral precept.

 

 

Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.

[angelofdeath]

Regardless, my argument still stands, you can't have a nanny state for some and not for others, it is contradictory.

 

what we are trying to figure out is the govts' legitimacy in the first place.

is it right if a few of my friends get together and call ourselves a government and say that we all want to have our way with your wife or your daughter?

surely if people want a nanny state, THEY can have it, but no right exists for you to force people to be involved in the nanny state.

let me illustrate this another way. im not even against socialism. im against coerced socialism.

if a bunch of people want to live in a commune, that is there choice, but just because some people want to live in a commune, it gives them no right whatsoever to force me to live in the commune and be governed by its rules.

if your rights conflict with mine, then the person who is doing the conflicting must cease and desist or risk a self defensive action by the person who is having their rights infringed upon.

 

Straw man argument. The logic is there but the reality isn't.

 

the logic is there 100% and you know it.

 

For your argument to come true, in Australia at least, each state and electorate would have to vote in enough parliamentarians that had the agenda of changing the constitution, form a referendum and then a majority of people in the majority of states would have to change the constitution to make it legal for a referendum to be held to vote on my fate no matter what my personal wishes are.

 

in the US, the obama administration just argued in court that they have the right to assassinate american citizens they think are a threat. no trial, no due process, no nothing.

 

sure in theory, all laws must obey the constitution in the US, but 95% of them dont. do we really think this is going to stop them? in fact this is the specific intent of a republic and a written constitution. to attempt to curb power and curb the will of the majority. the increased democratization of the US has made it so the old republican checks on govt power are no longer there. people want more and more democracy with less protection of rights.

 

the majority of the people in nazi germany elected a leader who decided that it was cool to kill 10 million people he/they didnt like.

 

but all this aside, you even conceded that if a majority of people through whatever government arrangements decides they want to kill you, its ok and that you have no right to stand up to it.

i say you do have a right, and i hope people will stand with you. and i hope it is with thousands of military assault weapons that are pointed at the government in your defense.

 

my rights are not up for popular vote, no matter if it is direct democracy or through government or levels of govt bureaucracy or procedure.

 

in the US the majority of the people and the majority of governments thought slavery was fine and even protected property rights in chattel slavery. is this ok? just because a dually elected government supports it?

 

Personally I don't believe in fairy tales, such as "natural rights". Rights are a social construction made by civilised man. There is nothing natural about them.

 

this is the basis of the disagreement. i believe people are born free. its that simple. i do not believe my rights come from tradition or from governments, like you do.

 

However, your logic is totally off the mark here. Democracy in governance doesn't equal mob rule, which is exactly what you have described. Show me any constitution in any land that says if you're outnumbered in anything at all you must resign to the popular will. Show me any state legislation in any modern state that says that.

 

the very basis of government is the will of the majority. every one says it all the time...'but such and such percent of the public wants it!!!!'

 

the very act of politics is if you are outnumbered on anything you resign to the popular will.

 

you decided that you dont like guns, a bunch of people also decide it. the government takes takes away. majority of people say that people cant drink raw milk.... so its illegal. a majority of people say large bowled toilets and big toilet tanks are bad, they are illegal. majority in government says you have to have shoes with leather that is a certain thickness, otherwise you are fined. thin leather shoes are outlawed. majority of people think people dont own their bodies and dont have a right to consume various plant substances otherwise known as 'drugs.' outlawed. the majority of people think the 'rich' have to much money and they want to take it from them and they do. try to keep your earnings and not pay, you go to jail. resist forcibly enough, the police can shoot you.

 

i dont know how in the world you can come off saying that the will of the majority is never used or never conflicts with rights. you could write a 25,000 page books of the various laws enacted that majorities in government and in the citizenry that violate citizens rights. and the 'majority' won the debate, rights be damned.

 

Seriously dude, having a law that says the citizens choose their own legislators goes nowhere NEAR equating to "if you're outnumbered in any decision anywhere on any call you must submit to any wish of the majority at any time". I'm going to let that one go through to the keeper and just assume that you were drunk when you wrote that.

 

things are better illustrated on the extremes.

but the premise is the same whether its a group of thugs or a government. government is nothing but a gang of thieves writ large!

 

every single right of the people has been infringed in some way by the will of a majority.

 

 

AOD, you just don't understand the world.

 

i understand the world. history is nothing but the tale of the struggle against arbitrary power.

you think because i want freedom restored that i dont understand its probably a no win battle.

im a fan of lost causes. you win some you lose some. we won one in 1775. but that doesnt mean one should stop fighting, does it?

 

i am also a realist in the sense that i know ron paul will never get elected for instance. i know people dont want liberty. but if people want out of the system, what gives anyone the right to keep them in?

i also have a bone to pick with the excessive theorizing that goes in on freedom circles. its great for the mind, but in reality, arguing about small small details in an ideology you agree with someone on 90% of the time drives a wedge in the group. libertarian, big L libertarian, anarcho capitalist, agorist, classical liberal, jeffersonian, ron paul republican, it really doesnt matter. its like trying to name the grandchild of an embryo and no one is even pregnant. which is why i try my hardest to focus on broad issues

 

There is no freedom, there never was and there never will be. Power ebbs and it flows but it is always there. Sometimes you have the power to make your own decisions most of the time you don't. Haven't you got that yet?

 

i get it, i dont like it and i will continue to promote the idea of freedom whenever possible.

just because something is hard or difficult to attain, does it mean we should just shut up and go home?should the jews of been armed in 1930's germany and fought back? would you fight with them if you were there or would you be a good jew and march off willingly on the cattle car never to be seen or heard from again?? should everyone who is oppressed just simply shut up and take it and be killed? should we just shrug our shoulders at oppression?

what a disturbing world view.

[angelofdeath]

Uh did you really say privatize school? Uhhh.....

 

"and people go into hysterics. "

 

Legalize high quantity amounts of Cyanide for human possession. Cyanide present in peoples fountain soda drinks doesn't kill people, the people who put it there kill people so why should anyone prevent me from possessing it? Same Logic that you are using AOD. Maybe all humans have the fundamental right to develop a nuclear arsenal. You know, just in case aliens attack Earth.

 

i dont even know where to start with this, because the logic is hardly coherent. from my argument for privatizing education you came up with twisted logic talking about cyanide?

you'll have to explain that one further if you are serious in this post... maybe you are just trying to be sarcastic and i missed it

 

Also I have to ask, how is the conventional shotgun filled with bird shot not one of the most effective, easily accessible self defense weapons? You barely even have to aim that shit! I would much rather sleep with a shotgun behind my headboard than a fucking battle rifle. When someone is standing in your doorway 10 feet from you would you rather line up the sights of a rifle on them in the dark, or just point in the general area of their silhouette with a nice 12 gauge?

 

no where did i say that you SHOULD use a battle rifle for home defense.

 

you are correct a standard shotgun is the best home defense weapon you could have, for a typical intruder, there is. only draw back would be if you live in a really small place and you cant easily maneuver your floor layout with a shotgun shouldered and in condition zero. then you would want a handgun

 

if i made any statement to say that shotguns were useless... i apologize. you may of drawn this conclusion because of my adamant ideological defense of more powerful weapons. idea being if the big boys are protected the smaller more common guns have less to fear.

[lord_casek]

Wow. I missed that part where Christo said "natural rights" are fairy tales.

I'm going to go beat and enslave some black people now. Fuck 'em. They don't

have natural rights not to be beaten and enslaved. If anyone catches them

ganging up on me, I'm gonna tell them to shoot the black people. After all,

they don't have any right to defend themselves.

[cunt sauce]

 

 

i dont even know where to start with this, because the logic is hardly coherent. from my argument for privatizing education you came up with twisted logic talking about cyanide?

you'll have to explain that one further if you are serious in this post... maybe you are just trying to be sarcastic and i missed it

 

It was in regards to your "guns don't kill people, people kill people" statement.

 

Cyanide doesn't kill people, people who dump it into groundwater kill people.

[Soup]

It's a man's obligation to stick his boneration in a women's separation. This penetration will increase the population of the younger generation.

 

Fixed. I dont know why people just dont come out and say what they're trying to say.

[KM4RT]

Laissez-faire marriage!

[Decyferon]

Wow. I missed that part where Christo said "natural rights" are fairy tales.

I'm going to go beat and enslave some black people now. Fuck 'em. They don't

have natural rights not to be beaten and enslaved. If anyone catches them

ganging up on me, I'm gonna tell them to shoot the black people. After all,

they don't have any right to defend themselves.

 

haha I dont think he meant it like that, how it came across to me was that 'rights' are something that we have invented as humans, we associate them as natural rights but there is nowhere in nature that says we have the rights as determined in documents such as the constitution or the bible or whatever, they are manmade ideas.

 

In Nature no animals have rights they have to survive/exist there is nothing in place that says a rabbit has the natural right not to be eaten by the fox, the same can be said of our 'natural rights', they are just constructs that we have come up with. There is no natural right that says you can't enslave the human race if you wanted, there are laws against it and you would have quite a fight on your hands, but I don't have a natural right, a god given right, to not be enslaved by you, we have decided as intelligent human beings that you cannot go around enslaving people.

 

Thats how CHristo's comment came off to me

[angelofdeath]

It was in regards to your "guns don't kill people, people kill people" statement.

 

Cyanide doesn't kill people, people who dump it into groundwater kill people.

 

you have to understand proximate and ultimate cause.

if someone dumps cyanide into someones well, the person who did it is responsible.

 

people use guns or in your case, cyanide, to inflict harm. guns by themselves sitting on a living room floor cannot inflict any harm.

 

if guns do ultimately kill people.... then why cant this defense be used in court.

guy shoots a guy at 100 yards walking down the street. the police come and arrest the suspect. the guy says...'now now, I didnt kill that guy, it was the bullet!!!'

 

hopefully you can see the point.

[Decyferon]

AOD, just out of interest, do you think that everything should then be available to the general public? If it is the human that is the cause of the problem and not the object used, should weapons grade uranium be available to anyone that wants it, or things like Anthrax etc?

 

And if you don't think these should be available, why? how are they any different to guns?

 

On the flip side, if these items shouldn't be available to just anyone, who decides who can have them?

[angelofdeath]

haha I dont think he meant it like that, how it came across to me was that 'rights' are something that we have invented as humans, we associate them as natural rights but there is nowhere in nature that says we have the rights as determined in documents such as the constitution or the bible or whatever, they are manmade ideas.

 

 

rights come from your humanity. from the mere fact that you are born. you are born free. if you are a religious person, you believe that your rights come from the Creator and that you are born in the image of God. you believe that since God is perfectly free, you are born perfectly free.

the secular argument is basically the same, except there is no God in the equation. your rights simply come from your humanity.

rights coming from the constitution would reflect christo's notion that rights come from government. the bill of rights in the US constitution merely recognizes certain inalienable rights and says the federal government must respect them. big difference than saying the constitution GIVES you rights.

 

In Nature no animals have rights they have to survive/exist there is nothing in place that says a rabbit has the natural right not to be eaten by the fox,

 

men are different than animals. animals do not have rights. if this were the case we would not be eating them.

 

the same can be said of our 'natural rights', they are just constructs that we have come up with. There is no natural right that says you can't enslave the human race if you wanted, there are laws against it and you would have quite a fight on your hands, but I don't have a natural right, a god given right, to not be enslaved by you, we have decided as intelligent human beings that you cannot go around enslaving people.

 

you just dont grasp the concept, decy. seriously.

everyone has a natural right to be left alone.

there is a natural right that says you cannot be enslaved, it is a violation of these rights that enslaves people. its a very simple concept. if there is any law that says you cant enslave people, this is nothing more than protection of your rights from being enslaved.

 

by extension of your logic, that if there was no law against enslavement, you would also have to say that if a govt did exist, you would need to have government recognize property rights in other humans. and you would also have to say that no one has a right to throw off an enslaver.

 

the US in 1776 officially seceded from great britain. no law gave them permission to do so. they sought liberty through their natural rights to life liberty and property. and when the tyrant came to further enslave them, they used ILLEGAL military assault weapons to throw off said oppression, to protect their rights.

 

if you choose not to recognize natural negative liberties, you are essentially saying that government decides what you have the right to do and that you have no legitimate recourse if it decides to oppress you.

however you will have no problem with this, because absent shooting you or putting chains on you in jail, you consider yourself free as a bird and that any oppression under these levels is 100% fine.

[Decyferon]

AOD we are animals, just because we are intelligent animals, doesn't make us any less of an animal, we have the same rights as animals, nothing in nature detarmines our rights to be left alone, if we didn't have this society that we live in, then a person in Africa wouldn't have the natural right to not be eaten by a lion.

 

We do not have the natural right to be left alone, we have built a style of life that means we can be left pretty much alone.

 

Human rights, natural rights the whole thing are man made constructs, they are not natural laws, that is the point I am trying to make, I am glad we have decided we have these rights, I am not denying that, but what I am saying is they do not exist outside the fabric of what man has constructed, they are not natural laws like physics.

[angelofdeath]

AOD, just out of interest, do you think that everything should then be available to the general public? If it is the human that is the cause of the problem and not the object used, should weapons grade uranium be available to anyone that wants it, or things like Anthrax etc?

 

And if you don't think these should be available, why? how are they any different to guns?

 

On the flip side, if these items shouldn't be available to just anyone, who decides who can have them?

 

i think any human can own anything as long as they do no harm to anyone else.

 

as far as i see it, guns are simply part of the broader category of weapons. guns just happen to be common weapons that stir up a controversy among people on both sides of the argument.

 

so a little background.

the non aggression principle says you can do what you want so long as you dont engage in uninvited border crossings and/or invasive violence. this is sort of the what christo and myself were talking about previously with firearms. he says that the mere ownership of a firearm by another person is a threat to his life. i disagree vehemently. we must distinguish between brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner and having the firearm locked up at home or in your car as well as someone peaceably going about their daily routine with a holstered side arm. it seems ironic to me that most people who think the sight of a gun is a threat or is invasive and that we should ban such activity, have no problem with the police walking by all day with guns or the military having guns. i would hope anyone can see the difference of intent and threat between the guy threatening to kill you and brandishing a firearm and a calm citizen with a holstered gun. (i know it is breaking the paradigm of gun controlled countries to try to think like this, but urge you do. it might be liberating)

 

the act of brandishing the firearm in a threatening manner violates the non aggression principle where as the mere ownership of the firearm or carrying of a firearm does not.

yes there is possible danger in gun ownership, but if we are to prohibit all such occurrences of danger we must get rid of knives, autos, letter openers, arms (for boxers) and legs (for martial artists)

 

enters your question, can someone be compatible with the non aggression principle and own anthrax or uranium. first we must ask... can we use weapons and limit the collateral damage or can it be used in a defensive manner. can you use a shoulder launched recoilless weapon and limit its collateral damage? absolutely. therefore its not a violation of the non aggression principle.

 

the tricky question is not whether one can own uranium, its whether they can own a nuclear bomb. to my knowledge, (im not expert by any means) uranium is only one component of the nuke. the question then becomes can one detonate a nuclear bomb without harming another soul? most would argue that they cant and that therefore the bomb in its self is necessarily invasive for 'on world' activity. however, if we include outer space, it could be seen as legitimate.

 

BUT, lets look at this some more. if a nuclear power plant were to blow up, it would have the same effect as a nuclear bomb, no? innocents would be harmed, etc. the TVA that is part of the US govt, owns 50 something nuclear power plants. this is not counting the dozens of others across the country.

and i think the other issue would be... why should governments have nukes instead of citizens? if we have determined a nuclear device is more or less invasive because the impact/damage can not be limited to the user/owner and the target/aggressor... what gives govt the right? and what makes us think that only government would use these weapons in a defensive manner and use them justly? considering the US killed millions by the war crime that was dropping 2 nuclear bombs on japan... we can see the impact of such weapons. if we launched nukes at russia, look at the innocents who would be killed. surely we cant trust governments with nukes either. but is there an effective way to ban said weapons that is effective and that doesnt forbid people from owning common household 'nuclear components' like copper pipe(i believe copper is an ingredient of a nuclear device)?

 

furthermore, since the nuclear energy plant has the possibility of catastrophe if it blows up and we want to prohibit this from happening or if we want to prohibit catastrophe from various appliances in a worst case scenario, we'd also have to eliminate scientific research facilities of deadly viruses, all aircraft, etc.

 

this is a tough issue and i dont think there is a solid answer. it is largely a continuum problem. how far from b's nose does a's fist have to be before b is justified in launching a counter attack in defense?

the debate could continue forever.

 

on a practical level though, i'd submit that there is very little to worry about a neighbor getting a nuclear weapon, if legal, due to the absurd cost of said weapon.

[angelofdeath]

AOD we are animals, just because we are intelligent animals, doesn't make us any less of an animal, we have the same rights as animals, nothing in nature detarmines our rights to be left alone, if we didn't have this society that we live in, then a person in Africa wouldn't have the natural right to not be eaten by a lion.

 

if we didnt have a right to be left alone, then we are not justified in using self defense. its that simple.

 

i also reaffirm that animals do not have the same rights as humans. if this were the case we would not raise animals in slavery to kill them to eat them. we would not shoot them to eat them in the wild. we dont put our babies in outside chicken houses do we? if we are worried about protecting the rights of animals, we couldnt even walk around because we are killing tons of tiny unseen animals simply by walking. we cant enslave humans but we can surely enslave animals.

 

i simply reject the 'animals have rights' argument all together.

[Decyferon]

but an animal has an instinct to defend itself it a predator comes, we have that same instinct, it is just that rather than us calling it an instinct you are using the word rights.

Fight or Flight. That is a natural instinct not a right.

 

While I do have issues with gun control, I would have no problem shooting someone that was attacking my family, I would use any weapon to hand, whether gun or brick, but only to defend my family. I could get in trouble for that, for instance using excessive force to stop an attacker but I would still do it because it is my natural instinct. In the eyes of the law I wouldn't neccesarily have the right to smash the attacker in the face 100 times with a brick but that would be my instinct.