Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Agreed 100% and that last argument is one, sadly, you never seem to hear. Not that it matters, we're lazy asses, why try changing the constitution?? Anywho, just saying different techniques need to be used, and not always the protection from government thing. Most Americans, even here in liberal, upper middle class central NJ, don't wanna ban guns or such extreme measures. But it's still a turn off to hear ya know?
I'm turned off by a lot of things.
Doesn't mean I think laws should be based on my turn-offs.
Agreed 100% and that last argument is one, sadly, you never seem to hear. Not that it matters, we're lazy asses, why try changing the constitution?? Anywho, just saying different techniques need to be used, and not always the protection from government thing. Most Americans, even here in liberal, upper middle class central NJ, don't wanna ban guns or such extreme measures. But it's still a turn off to hear ya know?
I'm turned off by a lot of things.
Doesn't mean I think laws should be based on my turn-offs.
Awww and I thought you knew me better than that! Naturally that's the last thing I want, and opposition should always be given to such things. Just cool off the crazy. BTW you and most here are pretty sane (kinda) it's these sillies on FB and the internet forums that make me cringe.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 17 2013 at 20:22
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
So the people who do the admin are immoral, and those that do the cleaning - they're immoral, and those that collect the recycling and those that provide IT support or ...... they should all resign their jobs? Oh and those that provide services to those that provide services etc..
Nope. And I never said anything like that.
And I thought you said the work of the irs was immoral. And people who did it should find another Job
Implicit in that was a specific function of the IRS and not just the IRS as the IRS. A guy who sweeps the floors really has nothing to do with the tax collecting function.
Finding another job is specific to the person involved. If the tradeoff is working for the IRS as opposed to a Burger King, then I have an issue with that. If the tradeoff is working for the IRS as opposed to not feeding your kids, then I would be rather insane to take issue with that.
Working on Burger King for 9 bucks an hour vs collecting for the IRS for 17 buck an hour. Such a clear-cut decision.
. Though in Monopoly the players aren't really affected at all when that happens
I got positively f**ked on Tennessee Avenue when my family played for the first time ever. And I was the banker!
If I was ever the banker as a kid, I'd try to steal $$ from it. Little did how I know how world savvy I was!
The game is quite un-libertarian too. Income tax, luxury tax, jail, a bank that functions like the Fed, what the hell.
It is monopoly...after all!
Hmmmm serious note, how yall feel about monopoly laws and what not? I know that monopolies formed from natural market forces are, well natural, and without assistance they won't last...but is buying companies and consolidating them into a mega one really true market success? Havn't really thought about it, but I could see the justification for trying to keep monopolies from forming that way.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
Posted: January 17 2013 at 20:50
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
So the people who do the admin are immoral, and those that do the cleaning - they're immoral, and those that collect the recycling and those that provide IT support or ...... they should all resign their jobs? Oh and those that provide services to those that provide services etc..
Nope. And I never said anything like that.
And I thought you said the work of the irs was immoral. And people who did it should find another Job
Implicit in that was a specific function of the IRS and not just the IRS as the IRS. A guy who sweeps the floors really has nothing to do with the tax collecting function.
Finding another job is specific to the person involved. If the tradeoff is working for the IRS as opposed to a Burger King, then I have an issue with that. If the tradeoff is working for the IRS as opposed to not feeding your kids, then I would be rather insane to take issue with that.
Working on Burger King for 9 bucks an hour vs collecting for the IRS for 17 buck an hour. Such a clear-cut decision.
Don't forget the absurd amount of vacation time.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Oh yeah, all those freaking the f**k out about how all guns were gunna be banned were just being paranoid and quite irrational. A friend of mine was posting 20 things a day on his FB about it....then it turned out the Obama ideas were generally in line with the NRA. THIS is what gives libertarians a bad name (and how they live in a cult of the rich) but yeah...gotta stop flying off the handle and spouting anger constantly, there's so many great arguments in our favor...just be calm and think. Even if it's the heart of your belief (and while I DO agree with the notion behind it) I also wish a rights/stats based argument against gun control was used, instead of the whole "we need em to protect ourselves from the government!" again, not that I disagree but it comes off a lil nutty and turns people off.
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Posted: January 17 2013 at 22:03
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
The IRS may be evil incarnate but remember...they are just people. People doing their job, especially the "lower" people...the ones that deal with us. They are just trying to earn a living like any of us.
I don't really buy the people doing their job thing.
Why not?
I don't see how you receiving a paycheck for your actions relieves you of moral culpability. I'm awaiting an argument from you in favor of this proposition since you're the one proposing an additional ethical principle.
I didn't propose any ethical principles. I asked you to explain your statement.
Oh yeah, all those freaking the f**k out about how all guns were gunna be banned were just being paranoid and quite irrational. A friend of mine was posting 20 things a day on his FB about it....then it turned out the Obama ideas were generally in line with the NRA. THIS is what gives libertarians a bad name (and how they live in a cult of the rich) but yeah...gotta stop flying off the handle and spouting anger constantly, there's so many great arguments in our favor...just be calm and think. Even if it's the heart of your belief (and while I DO agree with the notion behind it) I also wish a rights/stats based argument against gun control was used, instead of the whole "we need em to protect ourselves from the government!" again, not that I disagree but it comes off a lil nutty and turns people off.
...This more or less is in agreement with what I said yes
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: January 18 2013 at 00:29
It seems unreal that the "well regulated militia" line is so completely misunderstood. Due to media propaganda and public school awfulness ignorance of the rather clear meaning (that is, if you speak english), like dtguitarfan's, is rampant.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 18 2013 at 03:09
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dean wrote:
I see no reason to infringe your right to muzzle-loading flintlocks and maybe, just maybe, a small sword if you promise not to cut yourself with it. Gunpowder and lead balls are another matter and are not covered by the 2nd Ammendment.
How are they not exactly?
How are they inexactly?
Are you being pithy and asking me to explain the Constitution or being pithy for pithy's sake?
All three.
Arms are mentioned, munitions are not, unless you're to read a hell of a lot more into "keep and bear" than is semantically possible.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 18 2013 at 03:43
manofmystery wrote:
It seems unreal that the "well regulated militia" line is so completely misunderstood. Due to media propaganda and public school awfulness ignorance of the rather clear meaning (that is, if you speak english), like dtguitarfan's, is rampant.
I love Penn Jillette, & Teller, (I'm currently reading How To Play In Traffic), most of the time they're sharp and on the money. This time I'm not convinced.
There are many reasons for doubting them. Firstly there is no "BUT" following that telling comma in the ammendment, you cannot invent a silent "but" to change the meaning of a sentence just because it fits your interpretation. Secondly the latter part of the sentence is a follow-on from the first - the right of the people to keep and bear arms is so they can be formed into a militia of the defence of the country. The ammendment does not call for a militia to be ever present and fully trained (unlike earlier British statutes that required archery practice for every man under forty once a week for that very reason) - the militia is not a standing army. The militia of the people is to protect the free State from attack from external forces (such as a reprisal by the British once they'd sorted out the French, or incursions from Mexico, or even the French themselves who always had eyes on a large portion of the country) - no Government would make provisions for their own violent demise at the hands of their own people, not even an American one.
Before arriving at its present form one draft of the ammendment reads:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, theright of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"
...any ambiguity there? Anybody think the militia and the people are two opposing forces?
If there still any doubt, how is it that a year later congress were discussing how this militia was to be formed?
"Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."
And that sounds a lot like Henry VIII's long-bow law of 1512 to me.
"ALL Sorts of Men under the Age of Forty Years shall have Bows and Arrows, and use Shooting; certain Persons excepted."
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 18 2013 at 06:07
Epignosis wrote:
From George Washington:
George Washington wrote:
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
In this context, would George Washington conceivably recommend people who have been denied certain classes of weaponry?
No. "Well regulated" does not mean "well restricted." It means "properly disciplined" in the context of the time.
It seems to me that Washington is talking about the number of men required, not the class of weaponry they were equiped with, in that letter to Major-Genral Schuyler, Washington (during the Civil War) is cautioning him against using unregulated militia:
"but my experience of the many evils attending the calling in of a body of raw militia obliges me to give you my sentiments upon that head, and to tell you, that I fear they will render you more disservice than any real good. From their want of every camp necessary, when they join a regular army, they commit an intolerable waste of stores, which once put into their hands can scarcely be regained, and are so much dead loss to the public; and for want of regularity in their drafts of ammunition, provision, and other necessaries, they consume much more than it is convenient to spare from a garrison even near a source of supplies, much less from one at such a distance, that it requires every exertion to keep up the magazines in the best of times."
So Washington was making the distinction between a regulated militia and an unregulated one and not just to the weaponry and ammunition, but to all the provisions they require during a seige, such as food and clothing. The weapons available to unregulated militia at that time was restricted to muskets, flintlock pistols, swords and sabres and their access to ammunition would be limited to what they could carry - a regulated militia would have been equiped with heavier artillery and a supply chain of amunnition and other provisions and supplies (provided by the State, not those they purchased themselves from a General Store).
"Well regulated" means "organised" and "conformable" and that does imply some measure of restriction, as does "properly disciplined" even though that particular interpretation is not implicit even in the context of the time, it does not mean "unrestricted".
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
Posted: January 18 2013 at 07:09
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
The IRS may be evil incarnate but remember...they are just people. People doing their job, especially the "lower" people...the ones that deal with us. They are just trying to earn a living like any of us.
I don't really buy the people doing their job thing.
Why not?
I don't see how you receiving a paycheck for your actions relieves you of moral culpability. I'm awaiting an argument from you in favor of this proposition since you're the one proposing an additional ethical principle.
I didn't propose any ethical principles. I asked you to explain your statement.
If an action is wrong, then being paid to do that action does not make it not wrong.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
Posted: January 18 2013 at 07:12
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dean wrote:
I see no reason to infringe your right to muzzle-loading flintlocks and maybe, just maybe, a small sword if you promise not to cut yourself with it. Gunpowder and lead balls are another matter and are not covered by the 2nd Ammendment.
How are they not exactly?
How are they inexactly?
Are you being pithy and asking me to explain the Constitution or being pithy for pithy's sake?
All three.
Arms are mentioned, munitions are not, unless you're to read a hell of a lot more into "keep and bear" than is semantically possible.
Since I'm not really interested in a linguistic argument where I have to research usage of 'arms' and 'munitions' in the late 18th century, I'll just agree with you. However, even without the second amendment it would be unconstitutional to regulate firearms so the larger point still holds.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 18 2013 at 07:16
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Since I'm not really interested in a linguistic argument where I have to research usage of 'arms' and 'munitions' in the late 18th century, I'll just agree with you. However, even without the second amendment it would be unconstitutional to regulate firearms so the larger point still holds.
I don't follow your reasoning but I don't think that will make a great deal of difference to our respective viewpoints.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
Posted: January 18 2013 at 07:20
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Since I'm not really interested in a linguistic argument where I have to research usage of 'arms' and 'munitions' in the late 18th century, I'll just agree with you. However, even without the second amendment it would be unconstitutional to regulate firearms so the larger point still holds.
I don't follow your reasoning but I don't think that will make a great deal of difference to our respective viewpoints.
The Bill of Rights does not grant any protections that are not already provided by the general text of the Constitution itself. It serves merely as a clarification. Congress is enumerated with no power to ban firearms.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.255 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
Topic Options
Epignosis wrote:
. Though in Monopoly the players aren't really affected at all when that happens 
) it's these sillies on FB and the internet forums that make me cringe. 
