Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I don't have to offer my reasoning if it is my own sincere intent to succeed. If I were trying to convince you that would be what I need to do, but at the point of taking up arms the convincing is all done.
    Your argument says that taking up arms is all that one can do once legal recourse fails. And of course it's not. One can also do nothing at all.

    So we have two option.
    1. Take up arms
    2. Do nothing.

    If you have convinced yourself, no matter how (hypothetically) stupid or (hypothetically) crazy your reasoning is, that taking up arms is likely to do more good than harm in protecting life, then I suppose your morals are correct no matter how misguided your actions may be.

    But once you start talking about someone other than yourself doing likewise, THEN you do need to provide reason to believe that taking up arms will do more good than harm. If you can't convince "Frank" that taking up arms will do more good than harm and he doesn't come to that conclusion on his own (and you have provided no reason why he should), then he is morally better off doing nothing than taking up arms and therefore you have provided no justification for people in general to take up arms to protect the unborn.

    So as a general statement, it is not at all supported that people should take up arms to protect the unborn once the legal recourse has clearly failed. You might be able to internally justify your own actions if you were to commit violence in the name of protecting the unborn (although I'm guessing you have no way to externally justify it), but that's about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is however important for you to know that on some issues there is a line in which people will simply take up arms and stop talking.
    And by all available evidence, abortion is not one of those issues as evidenced by the fact that no one has taken up arms in any significant numbers to fight abortion and those who have committed violence in the name of protecting the unborn have been rejected by mainstream pro-life groups.

    The pro-life establishment generally distanced themselves from Donald Trump's remark that women who get abortions should be legally punished. But obviously they are not against punishing mothers who have someone else murder their born babies. So pro-lifers generally don't hold that killing the unborn and killing the born is exactly the same (which is not to say that they don't want them both outlawed). So the fact that pro-lifers aren't taking up arms in any significant number regarding the current abortion laws and clearly don't feel that killing the born and the unborn are exactly the same (they are against both, of course, but not to the same degree) shows that the notion that pro-lifers will, en masse, take up arms EVER is extremely unlikely.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is only you assuming your point. You think it is only what I think that I am communicating.
    So you are begging the question
    No, I am not. You are saying that I would dismiss a claim based on subjective morality. I'm accepting that for the sake of argument.

    So Joe says "it's my opinion that murder is immoral" and I don't care what Joe says so I dismiss that claim. Why do I dismiss that claim? Because:
    1. Joe is telling me what's in his head (and I don't care what's in his head)
    2. Joe is not telling me anything that is of interest to me.


    So what if Joe says "Murder is objectively immoral"? First off, if Joe doesn't support that position, then all I'm getting from Joe is that he THINKS that murder is objectively immoral so:
    1. Joe is telling me what's in his head (and I don't care what's in his head)

    But setting that aside, IF murder is indeed objectively immoral, then that does have actual consequences for me and I should take interest. But does Joe himself saying that murder is objectively immoral have any effect on me? Not in the least. I've been aware of the notion of objective morality and its consequences long before Joe mentioned this to me. So Joe's claim does not add anything to my knowledge base regarding objective morality beyond the fact that Joe agrees that it exists. But since I don't care what Joe thinks:
    2. Joe is not telling me anything that is of interest to me.

    So assuming I don't care what Joe thinks, I would dismiss his claim that morality is subjective and I would dismiss his claim that morality is objective.

    Joe has tell me something that I don't already know or have a reason to take interest in before he makes a claim that I won't dismiss.
    Last edited by mican333; July 30th, 2016 at 09:58 AM.

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So assuming I don't care what Joe thinks, I would dismiss his claim that morality is subjective and I would dismiss his claim that morality is objective.
    Which of course is irrelevant to the strength of the claim. You are attacking and addressing the one claiming.
    You say you don't care what he thinks, well that is fine, but it isn't an argument against his position.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But setting that aside, IF murder is indeed objectively immoral, then that does have actual consequences for me and I should take interest.
    yes, my point exactly. The kind of claim it is is superior and thus inherently more interesting then one which self identifies as a personal imagination.

    You appear to be jumping through quite a few hoops to equate a subjective claim with an objective claim.
    When of course they are fundamentally different claims. There is a defense for an objective claim which makes it critically important, and that is it's possible truth value.
    The subjective claim discredits itself inherently, and is thus incomparable.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Your argument says that taking up arms is all that one can do once legal recourse fails. And of course it's not. One can also do nothing at all.

    So we have two option.
    1. Take up arms
    2. Do nothing.
    I see, you turn an inaction into an action. got it.
    You can "do" nothing.

    Sure you got the two alternatives down. Do something or do nothing. but when we are picking from the choices that are actions, and not inaction by definition.. That leaves only one recourse.
    Ie there is only one means to fight back.. and that is to actually fight. (Again, in the context that all legal, voting type actions have been closed).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So as a general statement, it is not at all supported that people should take up arms to protect the unborn once the legal recourse has clearly failed.
    Well, your clearly not seeing that statement from the eyes of one that values the life of the unborn equal to any 2 year old.

    Exactly when should a person pick up arms to protect children, if not when there is no other legal recourse?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    (although I'm guessing you have no way to externally justify it)
    I am not sure what this means? Externally justify? Like offer an argument to those who value the life of the unborn equal to.... (as said before)?
    I'm not really sure that would be a very hard sell, it really just depends on how apparent it is that the legal means are not viable.

    It's would be like an argument to take up arms to maintain your right to bare arms. That is directly proportional to the lack of legal protection of it, and the threat to take them.
    For example, Katrina had the gov going door to door confiscating guns military style. Yet that didn't spark a guns revolt because there was legal avenues to address that injustice. And indeed that is exactly what occurred. The gov lost in court.

    So it has to be very apparent that the legal avenues are gone. That is the external justification.. basically in any instance regarding a strongly held moral position.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Which of course is irrelevant to the strength of the claim. You are attacking and addressing the one claiming.
    You say you don't care what he thinks, well that is fine, but it isn't an argument against his position.
    I'm not arguing against his position. I'm dismissing his claim for it tells me nothing of interest.

    Let's divide claims into two categories

    1. Of Interest
    2. Dismissible.

    Basically, if a claim is not Of Interest, then it's Dismissible. I don't care if he thinks morality is objective just like I don't care if someone else thinks that morality is subjective.

    Now, if you are saying that the moral objective perspective is of interest because it says more than just what the person thinks, then maybe you have a point. More on that below.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    yes, my point exactly. The kind of claim it is is superior and thus inherently more interesting then one which self identifies as a personal imagination.
    It depends on what he's actually claiming. If one is just saying that he thinks that murder is objectively wrong and I don't care what he thinks, then his claim is dismissible.

    On the other hand, if the claimant is attempting to make a statement about the nature of morality, as in say it's a fact that morality is objective when they say that murder is objectively immoral, then he is saying something interesting. But then if the claimant is saying that morality is subjective when he claims that murder is subjectively immoral then he is likewise saying something of interest.

    So I think the problem of you thinking one claim is "of interest" and the other is "dismissible" is because you are not comparing two comparative claims. You seem to be comparing a claim about the nature of reality in regards to objective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding subjective morality. If you switch that around, and compare a claim regarding the nature of reality in regards to subjective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding objective morality, then you'd accept the subjective claim and dismiss the objective claim.

    So if you use the same criteria for both claims, then both claims are equally acceptable or dismissible.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I see, you turn an inaction into an action. got it.
    You can "do" nothing.

    Sure you got the two alternatives down. Do something or do nothing. but when we are picking from the choices that are actions, and not inaction by definition.. That leaves only one recourse.
    Ie there is only one means to fight back.. and that is to actually fight. (Again, in the context that all legal, voting type actions have been closed).
    Actually, there are all kinds of other actions you can take. You can continue to try to change the laws.

    I know in your hypothetical scenario the legal recourse has failed and will always fail. But given that, trying to change the law is still an action. The problem, of course, is that it's an ineffective action (per your scenario). So if you are rejecting ineffective actions as valid actions, then it stands to reason that the only actions that one should take to protect the unborn are effective actions.

    So it needs to be supported that taking up arms is an effective action in order to be a valid action. If taking up arms is not an effective action, then trying to change the law again is a better option because while it is also ineffective, at least no one gets hurt.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, your clearly not seeing that statement from the eyes of one that values the life of the unborn equal to any 2 year old.

    Exactly when should a person pick up arms to protect children, if not when there is no other legal recourse?
    As I argued, and supported, in my last post (you basically ignored it), practically NO ONE sees the unborn the same as a born child. Since I supported that position in my last post, I will not support it here. It stands until you at least attempt to rebut it.

    If there was a law legalizing the killing of born babies, not only would many, many people take up arms to stop it, they would almost certainly be effective in preventing the law from being applied (their numbers would be so large that success is practically guaranteed). They would effectively prevent many, maybe all, attempts to kill born babies from happening. They would effectively remove whoever passed the law from office - by force if needed.

    And yet that doesn't happen when it comes to abortion. Almost a million fetuses are killed each year and almost no opponents of abortion take up arms. And the legal recourse has already failed. There is nothing legal that one can do to stop thousands of fetuses from dying tomorrow or the next day or the next day. Maybe one day the pro-lifers will win the legal battle (but that's extremely unlikely given the current public view of abortion) but that won't save any fetuses that have died over the past decades or the ones that will die this year or the next (whatever legal victory may happen won't be for a while). So if people actually agreed that arms should be taken up to protect the unborn when legal recourse has failed, it would be happening NOW. It's quite clear that very few people feel that the killing of nearly a million fetuses a year is something that one should take up arms to prevent. If they did, we'd have seen armed opposition by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not sure what this means? Externally justify? Like offer an argument to those who value the life of the unborn equal to.... (as said before)?
    I'm not really sure that would be a very hard sell, it really just depends on how apparent it is that the legal means are not viable.
    I think it would be a very hard sell. The proposed action has to be perceived as effective before a reasonable person would agree to do it. Let me present a hypothetical pitch between you and Frank.

    MT: There is no legal recours to prevent abortion. We need to take up arms to protect the unborn!
    F: I agree that we need to protect the unborn by any means necessary and I'm willing to take up arms. I've got my gun right here. Now what?
    MT: Let's use our guns to protect the unborn.
    F: Sounds great. So how can I use my gun to protect the unborn?
    MT: ...

    Since I don't know what your plan might be, I have to stop there. But unless you tell Frank how he can use his gun to effectively protect the unborn, he won't go along with you. So you do have a hard sell. Frank doesn't want to commit violence unless it's for the greater good so until you explain how your plan will effectively do more good than harm, Frank won't join you.

    So in a nutshell, you do have to present an effective plan to protect the unborn before you can externally justify (as in get others to agree that you are justified in your actions) taking up arms to protect the unborn and get reasonable people to join you.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So it has to be very apparent that the legal avenues are gone. That is the external justification.. basically in any instance regarding a strongly held moral position.
    So if you took up arms and shot the first mailman you see, you could externally justify that by pointing out that the legal avenues to outlaw abortion are gone? Of course not. So just taking up arms and committing violence is not automatically justified because of the legal avenues closing.

    Again, you need to clearly explain how whatever action you took did, or at least was suppose to, do more good than harm in your fight to protect the unborn.

    Something as vague as "taking up arms" is not automatically justified. Shooting a mailman qualifies as "taking up arms".
    Last edited by mican333; August 1st, 2016 at 10:57 AM.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now, if you are saying that the moral objective perspective is of interest because it says more than just what the person thinks, then maybe you have a point. More on that below.
    Yea, that is what I'm saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It depends on what he's actually claiming. If one is just saying that he thinks that murder is objectively wrong and I don't care what he thinks, then his claim is dismissible.
    Not really. It is as dismiss able as my claim that you are standing in quicksand.
    Vs
    I had a dream of you standing in quicksand.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I think the problem of you thinking one claim is "of interest" and the other is "dismissible" is because you are not comparing two comparative claims. You seem to be comparing a claim about the nature of reality in regards to objective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding subjective morality. If you switch that around, and compare a claim regarding the nature of reality in regards to subjective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding objective morality, then you'd accept the subjective claim and dismiss the objective claim.
    I disagree. The claims have those elements assumed in them.

    If I say "I think murder is objectively wrong" that is not equally dismissable of a claim, as I imagine ... xyz.

    Again, see quick sand example.
    Dismissing it is just intellectual laziness. Where as the subjective person can be dismissed on the quality of what they are forwarding being self identifying as not relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I argued, and supported, in my last post (you basically ignored it), practically NO ONE sees the unborn the same as a born child. Since I supported that position in my last post, I will not support it here. It stands until you at least attempt to rebut it.
    Yea, I see that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So the fact that pro-lifers aren't taking up arms in any significant number regarding the current abortion laws and clearly don't feel that killing the born and the unborn are exactly the same (they are against both, of course, but not to the same degree) shows that the notion that pro-lifers will, en masse, take up arms EVER is extremely unlikely.
    This doesn't follow. Just because people are not currently taking up arms, doesn't mean that they won't, or that they inherently see the unborn as different.
    I use myself as an example, and offered an alternate reason for why one would not take up arms.
    I also offered a kind of measure as to when we could expect actual taking up of arms. (The whole, proportional to how viable the legal options are). Currently I think the legal options are seen as very viable.
    As to counter evidence, every state had outlawed abortion, and it wasn't because they saw the unborn as different than the born. That is not all that long ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And yet that doesn't happen when it comes to abortion. Almost a million fetuses are killed each year and almost no opponents of abortion take up arms. And the legal recourse has already failed. There is nothing legal that one can do to stop thousands of fetuses from dying tomorrow or the next day or the next day. Maybe one day the pro-lifers will win the legal battle (but that's extremely unlikely given the current public view of abortion) but that won't save any fetuses that have died over the past decades or the ones that will die this year or the next (whatever legal victory may happen won't be for a while). So if people actually agreed that arms should be taken up to protect the unborn when legal recourse has failed, it would be happening NOW. It's quite clear that very few people feel that the killing of nearly a million fetuses a year is something that one should take up arms to prevent. If they did, we'd have seen armed opposition by now.
    Disagree, see above. The legal option is still seen as very viable, that is why the "pro life" label is relevant to conservative candidates. It isn't just for advertising.
    Now I'm not disagreeing that your take on the actual legal hopes are not true, just that they are not seen that way by pro-lifers.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think it would be a very hard sell.
    But you also don't think the unborn is seen the same as the born by the pro-life side. Which is pretty false as far as I can tell.
    How people act on it may be different, but again... I argued above why it didn't follow.

    That people don't act, doesn't mean they don't feel a certain way. Like, do you want kids to starve? Are you o.k. with that?
    Well, have you given anything to feed the hungry children of some distant country you never heard of? .. probably not.
    But that doesn't mean that you are o.k. with kids starving. (not really directed at you personally).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So if you took up arms and shot the first mailman you see, you could externally justify that by pointing out that the legal avenues to outlaw abortion are gone? Of course not. So just taking up arms and committing violence is not automatically justified because of the legal avenues closing.

    Again, you need to clearly explain how whatever action you took did, or at least was suppose to, do more good than harm in your fight to protect the unborn.

    Something as vague as "taking up arms" is not automatically justified. Shooting a mailman qualifies as "taking up arms".
    umm... o.k.
    I really don't see the relevance of this line. certainly some actions are going to be more relevant than others.
    That you can imagine some very dumb attempts... isn't really relevant to the point as far as I can tell.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, there are all kinds of other actions you can take. You can continue to try to change the laws.

    I know in your hypothetical scenario the legal recourse has failed and will always fail. But given that, trying to change the law is still an action. The problem, of course, is that it's an ineffective action (per your scenario). So if you are rejecting ineffective actions as valid actions, then it stands to reason that the only actions that one should take to protect the unborn are effective actions.

    So it needs to be supported that taking up arms is an effective action in order to be a valid action. If taking up arms is not an effective action, then trying to change the law again is a better option because while it is also ineffective, at least no one gets hurt.
    So, I take your point about effectiveness.
    But you have already laid out the two options available to a person given the situation.
    Ether take up arms, or do nothing and accept the new reality.
    that is pretty much exhaustive.

    On a sincerely held moral position, taking up arms is the only action left. (Non action being... well a non action).

    I really don't see how that statement has been negated or shown false by anything you have argued yet. You have at best offered a reason for people to give up their morals and accept the new reality.. after all "It won't do any good anyway".
    But I reject that there must be hope or even a good argument for success when it comes to a moral line in the sand.

    ---For example---
    Some are coming to take my children away and do bad things. Talks(Ie all other legal actions) have broken down, so my only recourse is to ... take up arms(or do nothing).
    Your argument is..
    Well there are to many, and you have no hope of success.
    or, what good is shooting the mailman going to do?
    or, you got to give me a good plan with reasonable hope of success before I would help you.

    Now do you see the problem with that argument? Doing nothing is not really an option, nor should it be if people are going to hack your family up with machetes. (see movie hotel Rwandan)

    Unless of course you disagree that the above is a moral line in the sand issue? Maybe it's relative and doesn't really matter? (intended as a good natured zinger).
    ---
    Your second argument is.. basically "abortion isn't that kind of issue".
    Fair enough, maybe it isn't, I think it is because at least for me, I think it is. So there are SOME who feel that way. You may hope I am in a extremely small minority.


    There are other issues, like guns.

    My point is simply there are issues like that out there.
    Let me end this portion of the exchange with this. It will be for me a real world test to see if you are right, and that abortion is not one of these issues.

    Watch the catholic church hospitals interaction with the Obama care law as it pushes them to preform abortions, and other abortion equivalents to the catholic community.
    If the Catholics close their hospitals, or take a stand and refuse.. then I am more likely to be right.
    If they do not, then I concede the point.

    Other than some real life movement, we simply can not know who is correct here on this board. It could be that people stand silent for many more years and wake up to the fact that the political landscape is hopeless for any progress for pro-life believers, and various communities physically refuse to allow abortion doctors to do business in their towns, by force of arms. (200 armed citizens are too much for local police to do anything with). P.s. that doesn't inherently mean shooting people.

    Or... it could never happen.
    Point, if I am right, there wouldn't be any proof until it happens.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I disagree. The claims have those elements assumed in them.

    If I say "I think murder is objectively wrong" that is not equally dismissable of a claim, as I imagine ... xyz.
    But the claim "murder is subjectively wrong" is not say "I imagine". The claim that murder is subjectively wrong includes the premise that there is no external moral source just as the claim that murder is objectively wrong includes the claim that there is an objective moral source. So they are equal in that regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Dismissing it is just intellectual laziness. Where as the subjective person can be dismissed on the quality of what they are forwarding being self identifying as not relevant.
    But the claim that morality is subjective is not self-identifying. It's a claim about the nature of morality just as the claim that morality is objective is a claim about the nature of morality.

    Both claims give a position about the origin of morality. If one claim is of interest, then so is the other.

    And the quicksand analogy is flawed for, unlike morality, one can immediately see if they are standing in quicksand or not. A good analogy would contain something that might be true but cannot be confirmed by direct observation.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This doesn't follow. Just because people are not currently taking up arms, doesn't mean that they won't, or that they inherently see the unborn as different.
    Actually, it does follow. If one sees two things as the same, it stands to reason that they will behave in the same fashion regarding what happens to both of them.

    As an example, if a man attempts to rescue a child he doesn't know from drowning in a pool, it stands to reason that he will attempt to do the same for a different child.

    If the state legalized child murder, people would take up arms to prevent children from being murdered - likely before the first child is ever killed. If the people won't take up arms to protect something else in a similar manner, then it stands to reason that they view that thing different from a child.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I also offered a kind of measure as to when we could expect actual taking up of arms. (The whole, proportional to how viable the legal options are). Currently I think the legal options are seen as very viable.
    I consider the taking up of arms is what happens when people find a situation intolerable. So when it comes to abortion, what is intolerable about it? Is the slaughter of nearly a million fetuses intolerable? Apparently not because this happens every year with very few people willing to take up arms to prevent it (and those who do take up arms are decried by most mainstream pro-lifers). You seem to be saying that when the legal recourse has run out is when people will say "this is intolerable" and take up arms. So that suggests that people will take up arm to challenge the lack of legal options to reverse the law even though they tolerate the legal killing of the unborn.

    So having legal options is the issue and not the actual killing of the unborn.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As to counter evidence, every state had outlawed abortion, and it wasn't because they saw the unborn as different than the born. That is not all that long ago.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that (as in individual states had legal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Disagree, see above. The legal option is still seen as very viable, that is why the "pro life" label is relevant to conservative candidates. It isn't just for advertising.
    Now I'm not disagreeing that your take on the actual legal hopes are not true, just that they are not seen that way by pro-lifers.
    Any positive legal outcome for pro-lifers is years away at best. So in the meantime, they are apparently tolerating the killing of millions of fetuses (tolerating to the extent that they are opposed to taking up arms to prevent millions of more being killed in the future for the legal recourse to save them does not exist - at best they can save fetuses after millions more have died).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That people don't act, doesn't mean they don't feel a certain way. Like, do you want kids to starve? Are you o.k. with that?
    Well, have you given anything to feed the hungry children of some distant country you never heard of? .. probably not.
    But that doesn't mean that you are o.k. with kids starving. (not really directed at you personally).
    There is a wide gulf between "not okay with it" and "feels the need to take up arms to prevent it from happening". So for starving children in Africa and abortion I'm not Okay with it. If born children were being legally killed in my country (locality is relevant), I would feel the need to take up arms to prevent it from happening.

    And that's because I view these things differently. And the same goes for everyone else.

    Do you disagree that people would immediately take up arms to prevent the killing of born children if child killing were legalized? So why don't they do the same for unborn children? What is stopping them from taking up arms RIGHT NOW to prevent ONE MORE fetus from dying? It's CLEARLY the fact that they aren't as concerned for the life of the unborn (which is not to say that they are unconcerned) as they are for the born. CLEARLY.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, I take your point about effectiveness.
    But you have already laid out the two options available to a person given the situation.
    Ether take up arms, or do nothing and accept the new reality.
    that is pretty much exhaustive.
    That's not even close to exhaustive. I laid out a third option in my last post. You can still attempt to change the law. Yes, it's an ineffective action, but it's still an action. And here's some more actions you can take. Hold a protest. Write a blog. Write a song. Make a video. Put on a play. Talk to your neighbors. And I could go on and on with more options. The options are practically limitless.

    So let's compare "write a blog" to "take up arms". Between the two actions, I'd recommend the blog option. I don't see it as any less effective than taking up arms and no one will get hurt if you write a blog.

    So there you go. You should write a blog instead of take up arms or do nothing at all. And if you reject that option for being ineffective, then you are conceding that an action needs to be effective to be worth doing and therefore need to show that taking up arms will be effective before you can support that it's worth doing.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I really don't see how that statement has been negated or shown false by anything you have argued yet. You have at best offered a reason for people to give up their morals and accept the new reality.. after all "It won't do any good anyway".
    But I reject that there must be hope or even a good argument for success when it comes to a moral line in the sand.
    Then write a blog.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Some are coming to take my children away and do bad things. Talks(Ie all other legal actions) have broken down, so my only recourse is to ... take up arms(or do nothing).
    Your argument is..
    Well there are to many, and you have no hope of success.
    or, what good is shooting the mailman going to do?
    or, you got to give me a good plan with reasonable hope of success before I would help you.

    Now do you see the problem with that argument? Doing nothing is not really an option, nor should it be if people are going to hack your family up with machetes.
    But the issue is not people hacking up my family but abortion so your scenario does not present a problem with my argument. My argument applies to abortion, not hacking up my own family.

    The problem with introducing one own's family is that it adds an emotional element which can override logical and moral considerations. For example, it's feasible that someone would let two other children die to save his own child which would be an immoral, although understandable, thing.

    So let's make it about the killing of born children in general. Using that, my argument still stands. If you can't show that taking up arms will make a positive difference, it's not a good course of action to take (which doesn't mean that one is forced to take no action - they can do something else to attempt to oppose the law).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Other than some real life movement, we simply can not know who is correct here on this board. It could be that people stand silent for many more years and wake up to the fact that the political landscape is hopeless for any progress for pro-life believers, and various communities physically refuse to allow abortion doctors to do business in their towns, by force of arms. (200 armed citizens are too much for local police to do anything with). P.s. that doesn't inherently mean shooting people.

    Or... it could never happen.
    Point, if I am right, there wouldn't be any proof until it happens.
    But we don't need proof to win this debate. We need support.

    I have provided ample support that people are not willing to take up arms to defend the unborn by the fact that they have enough tolerance of nearly a million fetuses being killed each year to not take up arms and even generally oppose those few who do take up arms against abortion providers.

    Going back to your goons killing my family analogy, I would consider "legal recourses finished" when the goons showed up at my door and would not hold off taking up arms because I see the possibility of reversing the law in the future, even if I was optimistic that it would happen one of these days. No, the day the killing starts is when there is no legal ability to prevent the killing from happening. So quite simply, if I refuse to take up arms to prevent the killing when it starts and also refuse to take up arms after millions have been killed, it's safe to say that I have little intention of ever taking up arms and realizing that I will never be able to change the law won't be much of a catalyst. Again, if I was so offended by the killing that I'm willing to take up arms, I would be taking up arms as soon as the killing started. So this is ample support that pro-lifers will not be taking up arms, even if they one day realize that they will never overturn the law.
    Last edited by mican333; August 4th, 2016 at 06:54 AM.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But the claim "murder is subjectively wrong" is not say "I imagine".
    Well, yea, it kinda is.
    Because the assumption is of course as you say, that there is no objective moral source.
    But the claim is basically "I imagine murder to be wrong".

    The end claims however are not equally dismiss able.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But the claim that morality is subjective is not self-identify
    The assumption is self refuting. In that it claims that the objective moral truth, is that there is no objective moral truths.

    and then the claim that follows is self identifying as non-relevant because it is a claim of what one imagines, in the expressed absence of moral truths(Ie objective).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Both claims give a position about the origin of morality. If one claim is of interest, then so is the other.
    They both have an assumption, but those assumptions are not equally valid, nor are they both equally interesting. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And the quicksand analogy is flawed for, unlike morality, one can immediately see if they are standing in quicksand or not. A good analogy would contain something that might be true but cannot be confirmed by direct observation.
    It is not flawed, your ability to perceive does not negate the objective nature of standing in quicksand.
    Don't miss the point of the analogy by looking for flaws that are irrelevant to the point of the analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, it does follow. If one sees two things as the same, it stands to reason that they will behave in the same fashion regarding what happens to both of them.
    There are mitigating factors, that is why it doesn't follow. I offered my support and reasoning of those mitigating factors.

    basically your oversimplifying how people act and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If the state legalized child murder, people would take up arms to prevent children from being murdered - likely before the first child is ever killed. If the people won't take up arms to protect something else in a similar manner, then it stands to reason that they view that thing different from a child.
    But states have legalized murdering children, and we as a nation do not take up arms against them.
    Soo.. now what? (again see history or rowanda or other mass murders that Americans have not taken up arms against).

    mitigating factors, the ones I pointed out.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that (as in individual states had legal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade).
    Good call.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    By the 1880s, all states had laws criminalizing abortions, and these laws stayed intact until the 1960s and 1970s.
    http://family.findlaw.com/reproducti...ackground.html

    Basically Roe V wade overturned many state laws, which are a result of the expressed will of the people at the ballot box.
    Where as judges are not elected.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Any positive legal outcome for pro-lifers is years away at best. So in the meantime, they are apparently tolerating the killing of millions of fetuses (tolerating to the extent that they are opposed to taking up arms to prevent millions of more being killed in the future for the legal recourse to save them does not exist - at best they can save fetuses after millions
    Yes, we are tolerating it. With the hopes of peaceful resolution through legal means.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Do you disagree that people would immediately take up arms to prevent the killing of born children if child killing were legalized? So why don't they do the same for unborn children? What is stopping them from taking up arms RIGHT NOW to prevent ONE MORE fetus from dying? It's CLEARLY the fact that they aren't as concerned for the life of the unborn (which is not to say that they are unconcerned) as they are for the born. CLEARLY.
    I already answered this question. In fact, the answer is a large part of my argument.
    Perhaps you should review my argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That's not even close to exhaustive. I laid out a third option in my last post. You can still attempt to change the law. Yes, it's an ineffective action, but it's still an action. And here's some more actions you can take. Hold a protest. Write a blog. Write a song. Make a video. Put on a play. Talk to your neighbors. And I could go on and on with more options. The options are practically limitless.
    Not in a world where those options are no longer an option. You know.. the premise of the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICA
    Then write a blog.
    Rejects a premise..
    dismissed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But the issue is not people hacking up my family but abortion so your scenario does not present a problem with my argument. My argument applies to abortion, not hacking up my own family.
    Yes it does.. think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The problem with introducing one own's family is that it adds an emotional element which can override logical and moral considerations. For example, it's feasible that someone would let two other children die to save his own child which would be an immoral, although understandable, thing.
    You have clearly forgotten the context of the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by MINDTRAP.. orginal statement post 26
    Such is the case for my position on Abortion. Such that while the gov is failing it its job to put murderers away and protect the innocent, I have to submit to it's rule to the point that I have hope in changing that system through the legal process.
    Short of that I have no recourse but to take up arms, and do the job the gov refuses to do, namely protect the innocent.
    You have abandoned the "no hope of legal process resolution on a significant moral issue", and are appealing to hope at all costs.
    That isn't what I claimed, or the point of the discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But we don't need proof to win this debate. We need support.
    Given some of your responses here, I don't think you are really engaged in the debate on the terms of the debate.

    Your strongest and most relevant point regarding the fact that people have not yet started in regards to abortion, has been addressed.
    I raise the point of mitigating factors, some of which you bring up yourself. Like locality matters.
    Some of the people who have taken up arms in the past were directly effected by abortion, and didn't handle it well.
    Also the immediate threat is an issue. There are many, many factors. These are sufficient to counter your point about how people are currently acting, and all are in line with exactly what I am arguing.


    So.. that's that.
    As to "winning" the debate. I have supported my claim, and offered an actual test to disprove it.
    Or at least that will show it disproved in my own opinion. Some of your rebuttals are relevant, but you have abandoned some of the core elements of what you are objecting to, and are thus not really engaged in the argument.

    If your counter to "if there is no hope to XYZ" is
    "yea, but hope springs eternal in the blogosphere." Then I agree.
    But that doesn't really address the point I made, now does it.


    Anyway, thanks for the exchange. I'll answer direct questions and you can have the last word.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    First off, let's nail down the competing claims (as I think they may have shifted throughout the debate which is equally both of our faults). The claims are:

    1. Murder is objectively wrong
    2. Murder is subjectively wrong.

    And we also agree that all ramifications of these claims (such as there is or is not a source of morality outside of the human mind) are included in these claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, yea, it kinda is.
    Because the assumption is of course as you say, that there is no objective moral source.
    But the claim is basically "I imagine murder to be wrong".
    No. The claim is basically that no external source of morality exists. That is no more dismissible than the claim that an external source of morality does exist.

    BOTH claims forward something about the nature of morality itself and just aren't about "me".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The assumption is self refuting. In that it claims that the objective moral truth, is that there is no objective moral truths.

    and then the claim that follows is self identifying as non-relevant because it is a claim of what one imagines, in the expressed absence of moral truths(Ie objective).
    If the subjective position is correct, it applies to EVERYONE in the world, not just the claimant. An accurate statement about the nature of humanity (especially something that was not know to be true until was shown to be correct) is not dismissible.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There are mitigating factors, that is why it doesn't follow.
    Support or retract that there are relevant mitigating factors.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But states have legalized murdering children, and we as a nation do not take up arms against them.
    I am referring to US states. And no, none have legalized murdering born children.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    http://family.findlaw.com/reproducti...ackground.html

    Basically Roe V wade overturned many state laws, which are a result of the expressed will of the people at the ballot box.
    Where as judges are not elected.
    But I asked you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion prior to Roe. "Many" is not "all" and therefore your "evidence", at this point anyway, fails for lack of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, we are tolerating it. With the hopes of peaceful resolution through legal means.
    There is absolutely no legal means to protect the million or so fetuses that will die this year (again, any legal victory is years away). So you are tolerating the killing of millions of unborn. I see no valid reason to think that what is tolerable now will be intolerable in the future.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not in a world where those options are no longer an option. You know.. the premise of the argument.
    The only premise is that the law will not change. There is no premise that you can't write a blog. How about you write a blog to all of the women who are seeking to have an abortion that convinces them to not have an abortion. If you are successful, then no women will choose to have an abortion and you have succeeded in protecting the unborn with your blog.

    So there you go. You have an option to take an action that, if successful, will save the unborn.

    If you are going to argue against writing a blog because you don't think it would be successful in making any real difference, then it's an accepted premise that one must believe that an action will be successful before it is worth taking. And therefore before you can convince Frank to join you in armed resistance, you must show him that taking up arms would be successful.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have abandoned the "no hope of legal process resolution on a significant moral issue", and are appealing to hope at all costs.
    That isn't what I claimed, or the point of the discussion.
    I'm sorry but you asked me what I would do if goons came for MY children. You made it about my own family which introduces an element that would significantly effect my decision but is not relevant to the debate at hand. But I think we can omit this factor by changing the scenario for goons coming for children that aren't my own. So let's say they came for my neighbors children instead and I don't know them well enough to have an emotional bond but of course still feel that those children should be protected.

    I personally would be willing to commit violence to protect my neighbor's children or any children from killer goons. And if it so happened that I saw hope that one day the law against goons killing children could change, I would still take up arms protect my neighbor's children. In other words, once the goons showed up to kill children the legal options to prevent the killing of my neighbors children has run out. And it can be assumed that if I was the kind of person who sat back and watched the goons take away my neighbors children and then sat back and watched as millions more children are killed over the following decade, I do not care enough about children to take up arms to protect them. If I took up arms when I learned that there is no longer any legal option to stop the legal killing of children, I would taking up arms over the lack of legal options, not over the killing of children.

    So the fact that pro-lifers have not, with minor exceptions) taken up arms over the deaths of millions of fetuses over the past decades leads to only one of two possible conclusions.
    1. They do not view fetuses as exactly the same as born children.
    2. They would tolerate the murder of millions of born children if it were made legal to kill them just they have tolerated the death of millions of fetuses.

    I would say common sense indicates 1 is accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your strongest and most relevant point regarding the fact that people have not yet started in regards to abortion, has been addressed.
    I raise the point of mitigating factors, some of which you bring up yourself. Like locality matters.
    Some of the people who have taken up arms in the past were directly effected by abortion, and didn't handle it well.
    Also the immediate threat is an issue. There are many, many factors. These are sufficient to counter your point about how people are currently acting, and all are in line with exactly what I am arguing.
    And I hold a different view on the respective qualities of our various points and how strong your points are and how strong my rebuttals is. It's a waste of time to go into specifics of what I think of the debate. My arguments are above and if you want to rebut them, then go ahead.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So.. that's that.
    As to "winning" the debate. I have supported my claim, and offered an actual test to disprove it.
    Or at least that will show it disproved in my own opinion. Some of your rebuttals are relevant, but you have abandoned some of the core elements of what you are objecting to, and are thus not really engaged in the argument.
    Right. It's your opinion. I think sometimes you misunderstand my responses (which can happen to anyone). So really, this re-cap stuff is just a waste of time, debate-wise. You are basically just giving me your opinion which does not forward the debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If your counter to "if there is no hope to XYZ" is
    "yea, but hope springs eternal in the blogosphere." Then I agree.
    But that doesn't really address the point I made, now does it.
    But then my point about the blog is not regarding hope springing eternal but just pointing out that there are other actions you can take. I didn't say that you would succeed in changing anything by writing a blog. So this kind of proves what I'm saying. You sometimes misunderstand what I'm saying and that's not necessarily your fault so don't take that as a criticism - maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. But the proper response to any of my arguments is a direct response, which you gave above. You responded to it directly and that allowed me to clear up what I meant so what's above does move the debate along. And what I'm responding to right now doesn't move the debate along.
    Last edited by mican333; August 5th, 2016 at 08:14 AM.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, let's nail down the competing claims (as I think they may have shifted throughout the debate which is equally both of our faults). The claims are:
    1. Murder is objectively wrong
    2. Murder is subjectively wrong.
    Those are not the claims. They are
    1) Murder is objectively wrong.
    2) I imagine murder to be wrong.

    The hidden assumptions are
    In #1 -There are objective moral truths, and #1 is among them.

    In #2 - There are no objective moral truths, and my imaginations are relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. The claim is basically that no external source of morality exists. That is no more dismissible than the claim that an external source of morality does exist.

    BOTH claims forward something about the nature of morality itself and just aren't about "me".
    No the claim as you put above "murder is subjectively wrong. Is the claim that is being dismissed and is dismissable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If the subjective position is correct, it applies to EVERYONE in the world, not just the claimant. An accurate statement about the nature of humanity (especially something that was not know to be true until was shown to be correct) is not dismissible.
    Self refuting claims are not relevant. I showed how the assumption is self refuting.
    It can't be true because it is self refuting. At least not how it is described.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Support or retract that there are relevant mitigating factors.
    You yourself used a mitigating factor in your response. Isn't that one sufficient?
    specifically as follows...

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I am referring to US states. And no, none have legalized murdering born children.
    So imaginary lines on a map, and nationality make murdering born children o.k. or more acceptable?
    IE is that a relevant factor governing behavior but nor ones moral position or not?
    I agree with you that it is, but you just challenged me to provide something you immediately use. So, your confusing me.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But I asked you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion prior to Roe. "Many" is not "all" and therefore your "evidence", at this point anyway, fails for lack of support.
    Go back.. read that post and look at the quoted link Portion right above what you quoted back to me.
    That was a quote from the link. It says "all".
    Now to my quote, I was referring to many laws... of the states. In that, I don't know if it was just a single law in each state, or if each state had many laws.
    My confusing grammar, but the portion you are challenging is clearly in the quote, as you will see upon review.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    There is absolutely no legal means to protect the million or so fetuses that will die this year (again, any legal victory is years away). So you are tolerating the killing of millions of unborn. I see no valid reason to think that what is tolerable now will be intolerable in the future.
    Lack of imagination
    you didn't actually counter what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The only premise is that the law will not change. There is no premise that you can't write a blog. How about you write a blog to all of the women who are seeking to have an abortion that convinces them to not have an abortion. If you are successful, then no women will choose to have an abortion and you have succeeded in protecting the unborn with your blog.

    So there you go. You have an option to take an action that, if successful, will save the unborn.

    If you are going to argue against writing a blog because you don't think it would be successful in making any real difference, then it's an accepted premise that one must believe that an action will be successful before it is worth taking. And therefore before you can convince Frank to join you in armed resistance, you must show him that taking up arms would be successful.
    Well, the law represents the idea that abortions are allowed. How do you make this a place where abortions are not allowed?
    That is the moral affront being faced, not simply that we can stop abortions in some cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm sorry but you asked me what I would do if goons came for MY children. You made it about my own family which introduces an element that would significantly effect my decision but is not relevant to the debate at hand. But I think we can omit this factor by changing the scenario for goons coming for children that aren't my own. So let's say they came for my neighbors children instead and I don't know them well enough to have an emotional bond but of course still feel that those children should be protected.
    But that feeling is at the heart of any true moral conviction.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So the fact that pro-lifers have not, with minor exceptions) taken up arms over the deaths of millions of fetuses over the past decades leads to only one of two possible conclusions.
    1. They do not view fetuses as exactly the same as born children.
    2. They would tolerate the murder of millions of born children if it were made legal to kill them just they have tolerated the death of millions of fetuses.

    I would say common sense indicates 1 is accurate.
    False dilemma. There are mitigating factors.
    For example, #2 actually happens in real life with very little reaction. Due to the mitigating factor of mental disassociation.
    or "out of sight out of mind". Look at the reaction people have when video of actual abortions are preformed. It's grotesque and people have a reaction.
    Just like you or I would have an immediate reaction to watching a child be hacked up with a machete in front of us...yet, when we heart "20K people were killed in bla bla land".
    We can go to work, eat lunch, and not give it a second thought.

    Mitigating factor #1 seems to be clear and present.
    Abortion is not "clear and present" to even some of the people who disagree with it.

    This is at play to a very large extent in regards to abortion. People who are for abortion change their minds when they see a sonogram of their unborn. Why is that? Because it makes it real. Videos of abortions get people who were the day before against abortion, but not involved riled up why? Because it makes it present and clear in their minds.

    -commentary-
    You have said that it would be a hard sell. When to me there is really only 2 points. The first is that legal action is not going to work. (we are far from that point). The second is making it clear and present what is occurring across the street in that non descriptive building, where children are being hacked apart with machetes. (well, a scapulae, but you know, size relevant.)
    When you ask why people are not currently acting, my answer is because #1 is not true yet, and #2 is not clear and present.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then my point about the blog is not regarding hope springing eternal but just pointing out that there are other actions you can take. I didn't say that you would succeed in changing anything by writing a blog. So this kind of proves what I'm saying. You sometimes misunderstand what I'm saying and that's not necessarily your fault so don't take that as a criticism - maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. But the proper response to any of my arguments is a direct response, which you gave above. You responded to it directly and that allowed me to clear up what I meant so what's above does move the debate along. And what I'm responding to right now doesn't move the debate along.
    Your answer simply isn't valid until you can apply it to the situation.
    Like your neighbors kids and goons.. Do you run to your blog? or run to action?
    At some point stuff gets real, and that is the area I am talking about. It is only in the presence of that mitigating factor, that I think we agree on. namely clear and present.
    If it is a kid a world away, you can blog, if it is the kids in our country but states away, you can blog, if it is your neighbor.. you may blog, if it is your own kids... you can't possibly blog and when it is you personally only a fool would blog.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Right. It's your opinion. I think sometimes you misunderstand my responses (which can happen to anyone). So really, this re-cap stuff is just a waste of time, debate-wise. You are basically just giving me your opinion which does not forward the debate.
    Personal note here. For as long and as many people have debated here.. I am still working on a gracious way to bring a debate to some sort of close.
    or else what.. we go 50 pages till one gives up? When I don't see any new points being made, or we start to go in that circle I am trying to learn to stop there. Point out the points, give as much credit to the opponent as I can, by recognizing at least the best points they have made.

    So when I say your strongest point, yes it is my opinion, but it is also a reference to what you have said that has effected me the most. Personally, I would like to know what you think is my best point, even if you disagree with it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Those are not the claims. They are
    1) Murder is objectively wrong.
    2) I imagine murder to be wrong.
    If you honestly want to compare objective morality to subjective morality, the initial claims need to be as similar as they can be. So to do that, the claims must be:

    1) Murder is objectively wrong.
    2) Murder is subjectively wrong.

    If you want to bring "imagination" into the discussion as an unavoidable ramification of subjective morality, that's fair. But one ramification of the claim being dismissible does not make the entire claim dismissible. But we have to apply the same standards to both claims or we aren't analyzing them fairly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The hidden assumptions are
    In #1 -There are objective moral truths, and #1 is among them.

    In #2 - There are no objective moral truths, and my imaginations are relevant.
    There are MANY hidden assumptions amongst both of the claims. And since many of the claims for BOTH of them are of interest, neither are dismissible. The only way you can hold that the subjective position is dismissible is if you choose to not factor in the many interesting claims that stem from that position.

    Just saying ONE hidden claim in the subjective position is dismissible does not mean that the claim itself is dismissible. At least one hidden claim in the objective position is dismissible as well. When one says "murder is objectively wrong" a hidden claim is that this person personally agrees that murder is objectively wrong. But since we agree that personal thoughts are dismissible, that particular hidden claim is dismissible. But that doesn't mean the whole claim is dismissible. And the same goes the subjective claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No the claim as you put above "murder is subjectively wrong. Is the claim that is being dismissed and is dismissable.
    I never said the claim "I imagine that murder is wrong" is not dismissible. I'm comparing subjective morality vs. objective morality and hold that as long as you hold both sides to the same standards when a person says "murder is wrong", they are equally of interest or equally dismissible.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So imaginary lines on a map, and nationality make murdering born children o.k. or more acceptable?
    IE is that a relevant factor governing behavior but nor ones moral position or not?
    I agree with you that it is, but you just challenged me to provide something you immediately use. So, your confusing me.
    We are talking about behavior - basically what people will tolerate and what they won't (what they will take up arms to prevent).

    In the US, people will not allow born children to be murdered within their own country. As evidence, we have uniforms laws banning this.

    Since the debate is about US law (we are talking about abortion laws in the US), it is not arbitrary to limit the debate to within the US.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Go back.. read that post and look at the quoted link Portion right above what you quoted back to me.
    That was a quote from the link. It says "all".
    Now to my quote, I was referring to many laws... of the states. In that, I don't know if it was just a single law in each state, or if each state had many laws.
    My confusing grammar, but the portion you are challenging is clearly in the quote, as you will see upon review.
    I missed that. But the article does not say that abortion was illegal until Roe vs. Wade. It said "all states had laws criminalizing abortions, and these laws stayed intact until the 1960s and 1970s." Before Roe, some states had legalized abortion. In support:

    "By the early 1970s, 20 states have passed abortion reform or repeal laws. Hawaii, Alaska, New York and Washington state have legalized abortion."

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/health...ine/index.html



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, the law represents the idea that abortions are allowed. How do you make this a place where abortions are not allowed?
    That is the moral affront being faced, not simply that we can stop abortions in some cases.
    I don't think this addresses my argument at all.

    My point is writing a blog attempting to get women not have abortions is an action that attempts to stop abortions. So the notion that taking up arms is the ONLY action one can take is clearly not true. You can take other actions. Again, you can write a blog.

    So I will consider the argument that the only thing one can do once the legal recourse is gone is to take up arms to be successfully rebutted. I have shown you another action you can take.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False dilemma. There are mitigating factors. For example, #2 actually happens in real life with very little reaction. Due to the mitigating factor of mental disassociation.
    Since we are talking about US law and society, we likewise comparing fetuses and children within the US. I agree that mental disassociation happens regarding children in other countries, but that is irrelevant to my point. So let me repeat my argument with "within the US" added to make it clear:

    So the fact that pro-lifers have not, with minor exceptions) taken up arms over the deaths of millions of fetuses over the past decades leads to only one of two possible conclusions.
    1. They do not view fetuses as exactly the same as born children within the US.
    2. They would tolerate the murder of millions of born children if it were made legal within the US to kill them just they have tolerated the death of millions of fetuses.

    I would say common sense indicates 1 is accurate.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have said that it would be a hard sell. When to me there is really only 2 points. The first is that legal action is not going to work. (we are far from that point).
    No, we are at that point right now. You said the goal is to protect unborn children. Unborn children are dying RIGHT NOW with no legal action available to save their lives.

    I know that's not what you are referring to but my point still stands. If one truly believes that the unborn must be saved and violence is justified to protect them when the law will not, now is the time to act for millions of unborn are being killed and the law won't do anything to protect them. But of course almost no one seems to think that for armed action is rare and roundly discredited even from the pro-life side.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The second is making it clear and present what is occurring across the street in that non descriptive building, where children are being hacked apart with machetes. (well, a scapulae, but you know, size relevant.)
    When you ask why people are not currently acting, my answer is because #1 is not true yet, and #2 is not clear and present.
    I got news for you. Thousands of fetuses are being killed in those building RIGHT NOW.

    So let me ask you. Why aren't you taking up arms to save those fetuses that will be killed tomorrow?

    You can respond that you think that in the future the laws will change, but that won't save the millions of unborn that will die before the law is changed.

    I think it's pretty clear that those will not take up arms to protect a million unborn now will not do it in the future for they clearly do not feel that these killings justify armed resistance.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your answer simply isn't valid until you can apply it to the situation.
    Like your neighbors kids and goons.. Do you run to your blog? or run to action?
    At some point stuff gets real, and that is the area I am talking about. It is only in the presence of that mitigating factor, that I think we agree on. namely clear and present.
    If it is a kid a world away, you can blog, if it is the kids in our country but states away, you can blog, if it is your neighbor.. you may blog, if it is your own kids... you can't possibly blog and when it is you personally only a fool would blog.
    Correct. And that makes this analogy completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

    The scenario is that the legal recourse to outlaw abortion has ended. This doesn't personally effect you in any tangible way, unlike goons coming for your kids. The effects of realizing that you will never be able to end abortion legally is strictly internal - it effects what you think. But your children are just as safe as they were before you realized that abortion will never be outlawed.

    My point with the blog really refers to you externally justifying taking up arms. Again, you said taking up arms is the only option. My response is that there are many other options and settled on writing a blog as an alternative to taking up arms. So if you can externally justify taking up arms, you should be able to explain to someone, Frank, who agrees that violence can be justified to end abortion but must be convinced that violence will be effective (he won't commit violence if he doesn't think something good enough to justify the violence will happen) how taking up arms will result in a net positive. And so far you have not explained how taking up arms will actually help so you have externally justified taking up arms. So considering that Frank feels he must do something but can't see how violence will actually help stop abortion in any significant fashion, he'd be better off writing a blog. How effective it will be is certainly questionable but at least no one gets hurt.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Personal note here. For as long and as many people have debated here.. I am still working on a gracious way to bring a debate to some sort of close.
    I can think of two ways.

    1. Just say something along the lines of "Well, I think I'm done here. So you get the last word if you want it. Good debate!". I would just avoid the re-hashing or summing up of the debate.

    2. Do not respond at all on the thread and send me a PM saying that you are leaving the debate. So basically you are giving me the last word which is fair if you leave the debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    or else what.. we go 50 pages till one gives up? When I don't see any new points being made, or we start to go in that circle I am trying to learn to stop there.
    But I think some of the points are resolvable. For example, I've pointed out that you would need to convince Frank that violence will be effective to externally justify taking up arms. This can be resolved three ways.

    1. You provide Frank a plan on how violence can be effective.
    2. You concede that you have no such plan, thus giving me that particular argument.

    But you did neither so there is no resolution. But this can be resolved because the options for resolution are clear.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Point out the points, give as much credit to the opponent as I can, by recognizing at least the best points they have made.

    So when I say your strongest point, yes it is my opinion, but it is also a reference to what you have said that has effected me the most. Personally, I would like to know what you think is my best point, even if you disagree with it.
    Again, I don't think summing up and re-hashing the arguments at the end is a worthy thing to do, even if one seeks to be complimentary to one's argument. I do not want you to do that for me and I don't want to do it for you. So I won't. Do not take this as a personal slight - I disagree with the activity no matter who is doing it.

    If I were to pay your debating a compliment on this thread, I would say that I think your etiquette has been very good. In past debate things have sometimes gotten heated and a little nasty at times. In this debate, I feel that you have been entirely respectful in your responses and I appreciate it.

    And I'm perfectly happy to continue the debate but it looks like you are calling it. So I'll say so long for now but feel free to continue if you want.

    And not to egg you on, but I should say that we've had the objective vs subjective claim debate more than once in the past and I'm guessing we will have it again one of these days. So instead of starting over again at a later date, how about we continue just this one (skip the abortion part). But anyway, up to you. If we start again later, that's fine.
    Last edited by mican333; August 6th, 2016 at 11:05 AM.

  10. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  11. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    * Scarps previous response*

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, I don't think summing up and re-hashing the arguments at the end is a worthy thing to do, even if one seeks to be complimentary to one's argument. I do not want you to do that for me and I don't want to do it for you. So I won't. Do not take this as a personal slight - I disagree with the activity no matter who is doing it.

    If I were to pay your debating a compliment on this thread, I would say that I think your etiquette has been very good. In past debate things have sometimes gotten heated and a little nasty at times. In this debate, I feel that you have been entirely respectful in your responses and I appreciate it.

    And I'm perfectly happy to continue the debate but it looks like you are calling it. So I'll say so long for now but feel free to continue if you want.

    And not to egg you on, but I should say that we've had the objective vs subjective claim debate more than once in the past and I'm guessing we will have it again one of these days. So instead of starting over again at a later date, how about we continue just this one (skip the abortion part). But anyway, up to you. If we start again later, that's fine.
    Well your thoughts are appreciated, and I am working on tone as we do a bit of a reset.
    Until next time then.. I'll let your last response stand.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  12. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
  13. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) Do you agree that government (regardless of level) determines winners and losers?
    It certainly influences them, sometimes weakly, sometimes very strongly. Determine might be too srong a word but I get your meaning and mostly agree.

    2) A strong central government, at the cost of states autonomy, lends to a more pronounced set of winners and losers. At one extreme, if no central government existed, then there would be winners and losers within each of the 50 states.
    -- You will argue that the losers still have local representation at the federal level. However, those representatives would be powerless in our two party system when the other party is in control. Whereas a weak central government allows winners and losers of all ideologies to co-exist, a strong central government allows for a rather narrow set of winners and very little mobility.
    I mostly agree. I will say that the minority party is far from powerless. We've seen plenty of minority parites have an impact on majority party actions. Fairly often the minority can spoil a win by they majority in our system.

    3) When one group is consistently a loser there will be strife and little willingness to compromise.
    -- We see it today. When one party takes power, the other party digs in there heels to resist. Federal power is all that matters so the minority party will choose to obstruct rather than compromise. Since winning at the local level means very little, everyone fights for power at the top. We see it very clearly in our national politics where the two parties are unable to compromise. We see it every day as those who perceive themselves as losers behave in increasingly hostile and violent ways. What options do they really have if they wish to be heard.
    But one group is not consistently the looser. Becuse of the nature of the two party system, they tend to move towards the political center to avoid succding too much ground. As a result they are both fairly moderate in possition and control tends to wander back and forth between them. A lack of comprimise and digging in tends to lead to defeat as where reaching across the isle tends to garner wins. Strife tends to happen out at the margines of society where radicals who can never win a center victory turn to other means of political expression.

    4) The 14th amendment was passed by Congress about one year after the civil war and was a response to the ex-Confederate states passing laws which prevented blacks born to slaves from voting. The argument was that these blacks were not citizens since their parents were not born in the U.S. and were not considered citizens. Congress recognized that the black slaves were brought here against their will and that their children, born on U.S. soil, should be considered U.S. citizens. It was not part of the outcome of the civil war.
    That is nonsense. Without the civil war the south would not be giving blacks citizenship. Destroying slavery and giving blacks citizensip was very much the outcome of the war. The Confederate states tried to weasel out of it and the government brought them to heel. You do have some idea of how challenging it is to get an ammendment passed right? You realize that what ended a year after the end of the war had to start well before that right? If you read the history of the 14th ammendment the debates on black citizenship and representation began before the war ended and legislation was in play shortly after the surrender. To say it was not part of the outcome of the civil war is mind boggling and in complete denial of the historical context.
    It was a response to Southern states after the war had ended. The amendment, itself, was well intended. Congress did not intend to put an end to the concept of states rights.
    THe moment they outlawed slavery, they put a giant boot to the neck of states rights. THose states wanted slavery more than just about anything, they went to war over it. They lost, and in doing so lost a good deal of their soverignty which was then codified in the constitution. Were states rights still preserved, slavery would have continued.

    I would like to make a specific point here. I am not arguing for the abolishment of the U.S. government.
    I never thought you were but happy to see that.

    In your utopia, where a central government reigns supreme, there would never have been free states. There would never have been a civil war. The central government would have dictated that all states should permit slavery. We know this because without such a concession, the slave states would never have agreed to enter the union in the first place. The slave states agreed to a compromise, but if you wanted a central government that picked all the winners and losers, then a compromise could never have existed.
    In my utopia there would be no government because people would all be kind and happy to compromise and work together for mutual benefit and no one would try to take undo advantage of anyone else by force or deception. Never going to happen, that's why it is a utopia. Instead we have a large enough cohort of assholes that we need to use force to stop people from taking undo advantage of their fellow man including killing, raping and enslaving them.

    I don't have any great love for large central governments. I think the best government is the smallest one. But... and this is a big but, if those small governments foster opression or evil, then I think a larger more powerful one needs to take control and fix them. That done, it should step back and allow freedom to reign and locals to decide their own affairs. In our history, states were opressors enabling a great evil to take place contrary to all the notions of our declaration of indipendence and the founding of our nation. Since they showed no signs of doing it themselves, the only solution is to have a larger power do it.

    Should we reach a state where all the states in the union were really big on making sure liberty and equality were avialable for all citizens, I'd be 100% for smaller federal judicial control and more rights for states. Mind you at that point the 14th ammendment would be moot anyway, states would alrady be respecting the rights enshrined there, and hopefully many more.

    5) A strong central government has not broadened our liberties as you suggest. Whether it is the Patriot Act or court orders which prevent states from outlawing abortion, liberty has been curbed.
    The patriot act has done almost nothing to actually deny me any liberties. I don't like it, but it is small potatoes compared to slavery and all the laws that states had after that. It's not even as opressive as your typical sodomy law. As for abortion, I don't think dictating to people whether they have children or not is a liberty. Preventing states from imposing their moral values on women is an increase of liberty for the people, not an abridgement of it.

    What is liberty if I cannot live my life per my moral convictions?
    If yoru moral conviction is to make life **** for other people, that is a liberty that destroyes other liberties and thus no liberty at all. You can and should live your life as you think is moral, dictating your morality to others is what you don't get to do.

    Is it religious freedom when a church must offer information on abortion options to its employees?
    Yes, because churches are not the masters of their employees. The owners of the church should not be allowed to dictate to workers what their morality should be. They can do that to their parishiners all they like, but not people they happen to hire.

    Is it free speech when a shop keeper is forced to bake a cake for a homosexual couple?
    No. In fact no one is forced to make cakes for anyone. But any asshole who refuses to offer services to someone out of some moral code that says they are better people than someone else is already a fan of opression and control so I feel no sympathy for them what so ever. If they truly loved freedom they would allow others the freedom to make their own moral choices and keep the hell out of it.

    Becides, there is no federal law forcing anyone to make cakes for anyone else.

    I get that stomping on perceived bigotry makes lots of people feel good and righteous. However, to confuse this as some sort of enligtened liberty is merely kidding ourselves. We have merely replaced one bigotry with another. Heaped one intolerance over another.
    No we havn't. Bigotry is never freedom loving. It's like saying we need the freedom to keep slaves. That is counter productive to freedom. Ultimately freedom requires you have an opperator with monopoly of force to stop poeple from taking away the freedom of others. The fredom to opress is a freedom destroying act. Maximizing freedom requires folks to self regulate acts of opression. Failing to do that an authority must step in to protect osme people from others who would do them harm.
    6) You asked what states prior to the civil war could have done to prevent the Patriot Act. Maybe, a better question would be; without the 16th amendment, could the U.S. government have ever enacted the Patriot Act? The 14th amendment was just the gateway for the federal government. The 16th amendment gave the U.S. government the means. So, prior to the civil war, there couldn't have been a Patriot Act because the states wouldn't have been likely to fund the federal government for such a program. And if such a program had been funded, it would have been temporary.
    A moot argument. The challenge was a matter of whether states have the power to change federal law that falls inside federal jurisdiction. They don't. The federal government can and did have laws and programs prior to hacing access to income tax.

    7) You have this odd and irrational fear that people are unable to govern themselves without some big powerful daddy figure keeping them in check. I am much more worried about the federal government picking winners and losers than my local government.
    Not fear, evidence. The southern states as a demonstrable fact held people in slavery. As a demonstrable fact we have spent decades rolling back their attempts to marignalize their black citizens or any group not in the majority. I fear states rights because I've seen what those calling for it consistently want to do with such power. Meanwhile while I hae issue with some federal actions, by and large I see that insturment of power used to protect people rather than attack them. Were the rolls reversed, I'd be all for states rights in the present world.

    I think smaller government is better, but I think that if it doesn't behave itself, it needs to get overruled.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It certainly influences them, sometimes weakly, sometimes very strongly. Determine might be too srong a word but I get your meaning and mostly agree.



    I mostly agree. I will say that the minority party is far from powerless. We've seen plenty of minority parites have an impact on majority party actions. Fairly often the minority can spoil a win by they majority in our system.



    But one group is not consistently the looser. Becuse of the nature of the two party system, they tend to move towards the political center to avoid succding too much ground. As a result they are both fairly moderate in possition and control tends to wander back and forth between them. A lack of comprimise and digging in tends to lead to defeat as where reaching across the isle tends to garner wins. Strife tends to happen out at the margines of society where radicals who can never win a center victory turn to other means of political expression.



    That is nonsense. Without the civil war the south would not be giving blacks citizenship. Destroying slavery and giving blacks citizensip was very much the outcome of the war. The Confederate states tried to weasel out of it and the government brought them to heel. You do have some idea of how challenging it is to get an ammendment passed right? You realize that what ended a year after the end of the war had to start well before that right? If you read the history of the 14th ammendment the debates on black citizenship and representation began before the war ended and legislation was in play shortly after the surrender. To say it was not part of the outcome of the civil war is mind boggling and in complete denial of the historical context.


    THe moment they outlawed slavery, they put a giant boot to the neck of states rights. THose states wanted slavery more than just about anything, they went to war over it. They lost, and in doing so lost a good deal of their soverignty which was then codified in the constitution. Were states rights still preserved, slavery would have continued.



    I never thought you were but happy to see that.



    In my utopia there would be no government because people would all be kind and happy to compromise and work together for mutual benefit and no one would try to take undo advantage of anyone else by force or deception. Never going to happen, that's why it is a utopia. Instead we have a large enough cohort of assholes that we need to use force to stop people from taking undo advantage of their fellow man including killing, raping and enslaving them.

    I don't have any great love for large central governments. I think the best government is the smallest one. But... and this is a big but, if those small governments foster opression or evil, then I think a larger more powerful one needs to take control and fix them. That done, it should step back and allow freedom to reign and locals to decide their own affairs. In our history, states were opressors enabling a great evil to take place contrary to all the notions of our declaration of indipendence and the founding of our nation. Since they showed no signs of doing it themselves, the only solution is to have a larger power do it.

    Should we reach a state where all the states in the union were really big on making sure liberty and equality were avialable for all citizens, I'd be 100% for smaller federal judicial control and more rights for states. Mind you at that point the 14th ammendment would be moot anyway, states would alrady be respecting the rights enshrined there, and hopefully many more.



    The patriot act has done almost nothing to actually deny me any liberties. I don't like it, but it is small potatoes compared to slavery and all the laws that states had after that. It's not even as opressive as your typical sodomy law. As for abortion, I don't think dictating to people whether they have children or not is a liberty. Preventing states from imposing their moral values on women is an increase of liberty for the people, not an abridgement of it.



    If yoru moral conviction is to make life **** for other people, that is a liberty that destroyes other liberties and thus no liberty at all. You can and should live your life as you think is moral, dictating your morality to others is what you don't get to do.



    Yes, because churches are not the masters of their employees. The owners of the church should not be allowed to dictate to workers what their morality should be. They can do that to their parishiners all they like, but not people they happen to hire.



    No. In fact no one is forced to make cakes for anyone. But any asshole who refuses to offer services to someone out of some moral code that says they are better people than someone else is already a fan of opression and control so I feel no sympathy for them what so ever. If they truly loved freedom they would allow others the freedom to make their own moral choices and keep the hell out of it.

    Becides, there is no federal law forcing anyone to make cakes for anyone else.



    No we havn't. Bigotry is never freedom loving. It's like saying we need the freedom to keep slaves. That is counter productive to freedom. Ultimately freedom requires you have an opperator with monopoly of force to stop poeple from taking away the freedom of others. The fredom to opress is a freedom destroying act. Maximizing freedom requires folks to self regulate acts of opression. Failing to do that an authority must step in to protect osme people from others who would do them harm.


    A moot argument. The challenge was a matter of whether states have the power to change federal law that falls inside federal jurisdiction. They don't. The federal government can and did have laws and programs prior to hacing access to income tax.



    Not fear, evidence. The southern states as a demonstrable fact held people in slavery. As a demonstrable fact we have spent decades rolling back their attempts to marignalize their black citizens or any group not in the majority. I fear states rights because I've seen what those calling for it consistently want to do with such power. Meanwhile while I hae issue with some federal actions, by and large I see that insturment of power used to protect people rather than attack them. Were the rolls reversed, I'd be all for states rights in the present world.

    I think smaller government is better, but I think that if it doesn't behave itself, it needs to get overruled.
    Your argument is not following the logic. You generally agree that government has a say/influence in picking winners and losers. You strongly agreed to my premise that a strong central government results in a more pronounced set of winners and losers. It then follows that the people with the biggest voices (typically not moderates) gain the most influence and drive the parties towards greater extremes leading to an even more pronounced group of winners and losers. Again, the proof is in the pudding where the two parties have found little room to compromise. So, your rebuttal that the parties overlap and that winners and losers are spread out and cross over between issues becomes less and less accurate as the central government becomes larger and more powerful.

    You fear states rights because you have this unrealistic expectation/belief that government can be benevolent. It has never been true in the past and is unlikely to be true in the future.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Your argument is not following the logic.
    Bolderdash sir.

    You generally agree that government has a say/influence in picking winners and losers. You strongly agreed to my premise that a strong central government results in a more pronounced set of winners and losers.
    So far so good.

    It then follows that the people with the biggest voices (typically not moderates) gain the most influence and drive the parties towards greater extremes leading to an even more pronounced group of winners and losers.
    No, that does not follow. Moderates often have substantial voices in american politics. Indeed it is the fringe radicals that tend to be the ones greatly marginalized and kept out of power.The major parties are coalitions of various views and by necessity compromise on possitions and then must work with the opposing parties in many cases to get legislation passed. Indeed any party moving in too radical a direction almost instantly looses power because you need about half the population to be with you or more with you than the other guys to keep power.

    No, it follows that the smaller the election base selecting leaers, the more insular and radical the resulting goverments are likely to be because they represent a local homogenized culture which may vary radically from the overall national culture's middle ground.

    If you have every tried to build concensus in groups you should know that the larger the group, the harder it is, and the more compromises must be made in the concensus action and possition.

    Again, the proof is in the pudding where the two parties have found little room to compromise.
    That is because each of them already represents a compromise possition of their constituents. Not because they are some how radicals or way off center of american politics.

    So, your rebuttal that the parties overlap and that winners and losers are spread out and cross over between issues becomes less and less accurate as the central government becomes larger and more powerful.
    Only in your imagination. The demonstrable truth of american politics is the two major parties roughly split the vote in the country most of the time and they move in and out of power frequently. Only in specific local areas does one party hold a strangle on the policy. That is what we see in the real world.

    You fear states rights because you have this unrealistic expectation/belief that government can be benevolent. It has never been true in the past and is unlikely to be true in the future.
    Government is largely benevolent in the US. It builds roads and bridges and schools and feeds people and defends us and teaches us and watches out for our health and ensures the laws that protect our rights and on and on. None of that is evil or mean or opressive. The biggest problems we have had is in the past and ever less so we decided only some people actually deserved the governments protection and service. We've been slowly correcting that problem since our founding. Many states would rather go back to that kind of situsation where they serve some of us and not others who they deem unworthy. I'm not in favor of that kind of discrimination. I think government should serve ALL the people as its purpose as established in the declaration of indipendence and pre-amble of the constitution is to serve the will and good of the people that constitute the nation.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. Likes mican333 liked this post
  17. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    I responded to your post yesterday, but it apparently didn't post. You will have to give me a little time to redo it as it was kinda lengthy.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I responded to your post yesterday, but it apparently didn't post. You will have to give me a little time to redo it as it was kinda lengthy.
    Sorry about that, alwasy sucks when it happens. Take all the time you like, I don't mind a slow debate. I spent a couple weeks (or felt like it) between my last response, wanted to be in the right mood for it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Bolderdash sir.
    Balderdash. Hehe...


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, that does not follow. Moderates often have substantial voices in american politics. Indeed it is the fringe radicals that tend to be the ones greatly marginalized and kept out of power.The major parties are coalitions of various views and by necessity compromise on possitions and then must work with the opposing parties in many cases to get legislation passed. Indeed any party moving in too radical a direction almost instantly looses power because you need about half the population to be with you or more with you than the other guys to keep power.


    No, it follows that the smaller the election base selecting leaers, the more insular and radical the resulting goverments are likely to be because they represent a local homogenized culture which may vary radically from the overall national culture's middle groun

    If you have every tried to build concensus in groups you should know that the larger the group, the harder it is, and the more compromises must be made in the concensus action and possition.



    That is because each of them already represents a compromise possition of their constituents. Not because they are some how radicals or way off center of american politics.



    Only in your imagination. The demonstrable truth of american politics is the two major parties roughly split the vote in the country most of the time and they move in and out of power frequently. Only in specific local areas does one party hold a strangle on the policy. That is what we see in the real world.



    Government is largely benevolent in the US. It builds roads and bridges and schools and feeds people and defends us and teaches us and watches out for our health and ensures the laws that protect our rights and on and on. None of that is evil or mean or opressive. The biggest problems we have had is in the past and ever less so we decided only some people actually deserved the governments protection and service. We've been slowly correcting that problem since our founding. Many states would rather go back to that kind of situsation where they serve some of us and not others who they deem unworthy. I'm not in favor of that kind of discrimination. I think government should serve ALL the people as its purpose as established in the declaration of indipendence and pre-amble of the constitution is to serve the will and good of the people that constitute the nation.
    Government, rather the people who run the government are just people. They are not benevolent nor righteous. Just like most people, if you stick a hundred dollar bill in their face, they'll reach for it. The bottom line here is you agree, government picks winners and losers and the difference is more pronounced the higher up the government totem pole we go. In a free country, why do we allow winners and losers to be selected by Washington bureaucrats? It is not even just elected politicians. Congress has given agencies like the EPA the power to create and enforce regulations. No one votes on them. Winners and losers are determined without oversight or direct representation from the people they are supposed to serve.

    You define frequently differently than I do. 2-8 years is not frequent for a small business trying to figure out how it will compete. This is not frequent nor short for the average person trying to make a budget. These policies don't just end when one party leaves office. The mortgage policies during started in the Carter era didn't explode until decades later. The biggest problems we have had in this country is when we mistakenly assume the federal government can protect us from ourselves. The Vietnam War didn't occur because some local government made up some anti-gay law in a town of 5000 people. We didn't invade Iraq because some town decided to segregate its schools. The worst crimes in this nation have occurred because we have assumed government is benevolent.

    We have to accept that people are different. Communities are different. Tolerance is not just about getting along. It is about accepting the existence of things we abhor. It is accepting that some town do not like Jews. Or another town does not welcome public displays of Christmas. Or another town wants everyone and everything on display. That's how a nation gets along. When there are places for everyone to call home, then there can be a home for everyone. We accept our differences and in important moments, we come together and defend this life of freedom. It is simply crazy to think we will let the federal government determine who must tolerate and whom must criminalize. It is not the function of a federal government in a republic. Not in this republic.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Government, rather the people who run the government are just people. They are not benevolent nor righteous. Just like most people, if you stick a hundred dollar bill in their face, they'll reach for it.
    Some of them are especially benevolent and righteous, others not. They are people, generally no better or worse than others. Elected officials are kind of by nature vainglorious to a degree. Others are pretty much just people doing a job like any other. By the people, of the people for the people. That is the principle of our government and that is pretty much what it is.

    The bottom line here is you agree, government picks winners and losers and the difference is more pronounced the higher up the government totem pole we go. In a free country, why do we allow winners and losers to be selected by Washington bureaucrats? It is not even just elected politicians. Congress has given agencies like the EPA the power to create and enforce regulations. No one votes on them. Winners and losers are determined without oversight or direct representation from the people they are supposed to serve.
    We allow it because it is practical, often desirable, and sometimes neccesary. You can't elect everyone in government, we'd never get anything done. Some folks just have jobs to do and they do them at the direction of the laws created by elected officials. They can and do get kicked out and changed when folks want to change those agencies because of election results. No one bitches about us not electing generals or their tenure in office. Some folks just need to be career members of some agency or another like any other business. If they go wrong they are subject to elected officials and thus indirectly voters.

    The winners and loosers at the federal level are part of political issues that have wide reaching impacts. Caol producers for instance can be a source of significant polution which has far reaching effects. If the coal industry had no polution, well no one would be making loosers of them. It is only because they have an important effect on a public good (air and climate) do they end up under the microscope. Its a "Tragedy of the Commons" type problem. Individual objectives say "polute as much as you like" and let someone else deal with the problems while you reap all the rewards. Eventually you ruin far more in the economy than you produce. You are still better off, but the society is much worse off. So to resolve these issues we make life harder for Coal producers and consumers to try and tamp down on the commons problem and keep the air clean. Society creates a looser out of coal so the rest of us can breathe clean air and be winners. It is a matter of justice. It is unjust to polute the air unless you pay for that polution somehow.

    You define frequently differently than I do. 2-8 years is not frequent for a small business trying to figure out how it will compete.
    It's not like local government is any faster. Indeed local offices are often held for a very very long time. Due to term limits the presidency has pretty high turn over. Cogress not so much but they are elected.... wait for it... localy at the state level. Really the president is the only nationally elected office.

    These policies don't just end when one party leaves office. The mortgage policies during started in the Carter era didn't explode until decades later. The biggest problems we have had in this country is when we mistakenly assume the federal government can protect us from ourselves. The Vietnam War didn't occur because some local government made up some anti-gay law in a town of 5000 people. We didn't invade Iraq because some town decided to segregate its schools. The worst crimes in this nation have occurred because we have assumed government is benevolent.
    Iraq and Veitnam were both (when initiated) popular with the American public. The government didn't make those decisions for us, they were made with good understanding that it was what people wanted at the time. Americans can be pretty stupid sometimes you know. Again, its by for and of the people. We choose these governments, we support these governments, and we influence these governments. Its done in masse, not each indicidual getting what they want, but we make the choices and those choices have consiquences. Americans hardly ever vote for anyone seen as weak or passive or peaceful. We just don't like it for the most part. We like tough hard fighting bastards who kick our enemies in the teeth. I don't really but that's still what most of America wants so that is what America gets.

    We have to accept that people are different. Communities are different. Tolerance is not just about getting along. It is about accepting the existence of things we abhor. It is accepting that some town do not like Jews. Or another town does not welcome public displays of Christmas.
    America is about liberty for the individual, about natural rights endowed by our creator, about government that serves the people, all the people, not just some of the people. Hating jews and legislating chrismass is not acceptable for ANY American community. The bill of rights are a central unifying document that establishes the rights of every single American which so long as they are not trampling on the rights of others, they are entitled to and no local community is empowered to take them away.

    There are a great many things local communities can and should legislate and make decisions about, but none of those things should violate any American citizens rights. I will not bend on this. I do not think local communities should be allowed to discriminate and deprive people of their rights. Nor should the federal government, nor should any government. Government, all government, should instead strive and work to ensure and protect these rights.

    Difference are great, but for there to be free differnces individuals must have basic rights to express their individual character.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    The way you are laying out the power of the const, namely to trump the states, this appears to be the logical consequence.

  22. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    2nd ammendment didn't do right thing imo! We need to take off weapons.

  23. #60
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Context of the second ammendment

    Quote Originally Posted by ianz123 View Post
    2nd ammendment didn't do right thing imo! We need to take off weapons.
    I'm curious why you think this is the case. If we "take off weapons" we should just delete the amendment right? That seems odd given that the context of the Amendment was the removal of weapons from individuals (including cannons) by a government attempting to suppress native democratic processes.

    Do you think that individuals have no inherent right to self defense with weapons?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. 2nd Ammendment Morality
    By Turtleflipper in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: July 25th, 2007, 09:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •