Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 2. (Read 36619 times)

I was going to add that in reality, there would be five lifeboats, and all five have knife jugglers.  Four of them are friends, the fifth isn't.  One of the four threatens the fifth.  The fifth threatens to retaliate, and the other three declare it unsafe for the fifth to have knives.

M

thats just as much as about other countries don't want you to visit.

Not everyone is eligible to leave. Their are certain groups of people that can't get a passport. Look it up.

Anarchy is the only real form of democracy as people can take charge of the own lives instead of a "government".

That's not a democracy. I can call an airplane an apple pie, but that doesn't make it so. Move along.

Like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

And you can generally leave a country which is a democracy.

I normally don't edit other peoples posts, but here goes:

See? not that different. your clearly don't like bitcoin. (No really! its no joke, this is what bitcoin is like)

Just about right. Im a nihilistic egoistic rationalists(what makes me happy is ultimately good), who like to troll on you people's poor logic and assumptions, but have no real opinion, except it's fun to sling mud.

Bitcoin has no politics, rather it is about pure honesty..  It is good for all people, of all types, irregardless of the political systems (or lack of them) in which they find themselves by accident of birth.  It is as much communal and democratic, authoritarian and anarchistic it is all of these when it is the honest and best for that aspect and so also it is none of them.
Its checks and balances are encoded mathematics.  It is outside of the box.

how many logical fallacies does this post embody?

Anyway, I was quoting someone else's tagline, which I agree with. I'm on this forum because I find bitcoin immensely interesting, I'm in this subthread because I find the subject matter interesting, and I'm engaging in these arguments because they are being presented in a way I cannot find any legitmate anarchist or even libertarian would ever endorse.

As to how that relates to bitcoin (the quote), that should be obvious. Both the humour and the truth of it.

In a modern democracy (the few that actually ARE democracies rather than thinly disguised empires like the United States) 51 percent of those who have the franchise can completely disenfranchise the remaining 49 percent without repercussion which is a violation of the non aggression principle. Thus, I am opposed to democracy. I have many other reasons to oppose it as well, which I'm not currently inclined to go into in detail. Suffice it to say that I am an individual, and proud of it. Democracy does not recognize that there is such a thing as an individual, only groups. Groups are statistical constructs. I'm all for voluntary cooperation, but such is nigh impossible in a democracy.

Worse still, democracy is mob rule. The loudest voice generally rules the mob, so it becomes dictatorial to the whims of the few very quickly. It happened in Athens, and it's happened everywhere else that democracy has been the "rule of law" as well. Democracy is about as stable as nitroglycerin in sunlight, but far less useful.

If you are going to cherry pick quotes, at least have the decency to indicate SOME of the context.

While I disagree with FirstAscent's position, they can at least post up a cogent argument. You just seem to run off at the keys with no goal aside from provocation. It's hard to hit a moving target, and a pain in the ass to debug the logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and emoting of someone who either has no position or just likes to sling mud. 

Presented for the pure edification of your miserable soul: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

why are you even on this forum then? don't you like bitcoin?

NAP is an adjunct. It is the logical expression of a peaceful warrior, not the suicide clause you seem to want it to be. Democracy is mob rule, BY DEFINITION. Mobs never make good decisions, and if they do by some miracle, the next one will negate it.

I have been debating anarchist philosophy for over a decade on the side of anarchism, and NOT ONCE have I seen someone who was actually an anarchist posit such a crazy thing. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that anyone would be that stupid in print unless they were simply trying to provoke you.

So, yeah, I'll revisit it. If some dipshit is juggling knives on the inflatable life raft that I am on, I'll ask him politely to stop. If he don't, I'll shoot him before you have to. I intend to live. He's endangering me. If he is merely stupid, give him a chance. If he's a deliberate menace? Feed him to the fucking sharks. (BTW, "lifeboat situations" are often used as red herrings in debate. In truth, it is such an unlikely event that it only would ever come up IN debate. )

NAP is part of an ethical framework that eschews the initiation of violence UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND ONESELF. thus Non AGGRESSION principle. It is not pacifism, as a pacifist would not stop the juggler and simply accept his fate. Most political systems either explicitly or implicitly reject the NAP because they CANNOT exist without massive fraud, theft, and violence. This is especially true of Democracy. If taken to it's logical conclusions, if three men said that YOU should be killed, it would be your duty to allow them to take your life. Anarchy, and NAP, stand in opposition to that. Or that they should take your property. Or deliberately endanger you. Or reduce you to a component in the great god Society that the democraticly minded all seem to bow down before.

You will never get away from democracy, unless you wish to go the full authoritarian route.

NAP is democracy at its best, and authoritarian at its worst. Do you care to revisit the knife wielding juggler on the life raft?

I fall in the other 20 percent, though I question your figures. I *was* a socialist when I was quite young, but there are more problems than answers there. Socialism leads to totalitarianism or worse yet, democracy. Don't recall who, but somebody here has a good tagline: "Democracy: The original 51% attack". I can expand on that, but I can't improve on it.

I agree.  By most standards I am an athiest but I seem to get along quite well with religious people of the sort who consider religion a matter between themself and their superior.  Not so well do I get along with the asses preaching whatever.

The 80% of "athiests" who are socialists, I don't get along too well with.

Were I to get back in the political fray, I would probably back small l libertarians. Not the LP, as they have shown themselves to be traitors to the cause they allegedly champion even before Murray walked away in disgust. Rothbard's libertarian vision is similar to my anarchic one. But, unlike Mr. Rothbard, I have come to the conclusion that the system cannot be changed for the better from within, because it works too well for those who run it. The barrier to entry, in the US, isn't money. Ron Paul pretty well proved that. It's price is much higher. It's your soul.

Which brings me to your last paragraph. I am an atheist, and I disagree that there is a god necessary for morals. That being said, I'm not a "positive" atheist, but rather simply an unbeliever after having spent half my life searching for a way to believe in a benevolent god. I think this thread is probably the wrong place, but I'd like to hear your views on the subject. Your post, unlike those who subscribe to most any religion, showed some thought. I gave up on the idea of a god that wants to be worshiped a good while back, but I'm still open, somewhat, to the idea that one might exist.

However, the ideas of basic morality are easily derived from human experience, and to a lesser degree, the non human world around us. Things just work better when you have an ethical framework. Not necessarily FASTER, but better.

-KB.

I was going to say something very similar, but decided against it.  I too don't agree with any one party, but I lean more towards libertarianism.  Like you, my guiding principle is love.  Love, of course, is God.  Those who've read my posts long enough know I believe the answer to all the problems is more morality, which stems from Godliness.  I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking true Godliness.  I don't claim to fully comprehend it myself, just stating my stance and underlying belief.

M

You have a point there.  Most gun use, and all nuclear use, is by government.
We've outsourced our culpability.

If they aren't a threat, what's the issue?  And who's going to enforce it?  What makes the US or the UN "better" than any other country with nuclear weapons?  Governments certainly can not be trusted more than individuals, in fact, I'd argue the opposite.

M

For the folks that need SSRI, they can probably be a great thing.  What they aren't is perfectly safe (and what is?).  The list of side effects includes things like suicidal thinking.  They are very widely prescribed and probably do good things for some but not all folks.  They are one of the most prescribed drugs. 
There is a lot of common ground between SSRI and weapons.  Most of those folks that use them do so safely.  Both are heavily regulated.  Both require an authority approval to obtain in most cases (SR excepted presumably, I wouldn't know), and when they go wrong it can make the nightly news.

Where they diverge is when there is some blame game to play in the media.  The reason for that divergence would be interesting to understand but all I'd be able to do is speculate.

Part of where this line of reasoning leads is that if the abuse of the psychoactive pills is the culprit in mass murders (It is beginning to look that way) those who go nuts and kill due to the pills are not going to stop if they simply can't get guns. 

There are actually some interesting questions in this problem.  For example, consider the particular way they go nuts.  Maybe it is a way in which they are particularly eager to do something like pulling a trigger, and not interested in swinging an axe, or blowing up a building.