U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23932
Printed Date: July 15 2025 at 20:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?
Posted By: maani
Subject: U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 15:34
|
http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2006/05/27/top-10-signs-of-the-impending-us-police-state/ - http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2006/05/27/top-10-signs-of-the-impending-us-police-state/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/washington/27leak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/washington/27leak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Only 2.5 more years until the Bushman gets a one-way ticket to Crawford, Texas!
|
Replies:
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 15:46
| Hardly. Keep in mind that you can be arrested for making racist statements in many Western European countries. |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 16:18
At least in Western European countries, they don't care about someone's personal life!
 |
billbuckner wrote:Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 16:34
|
What a great thead, I must say this is an important issue.
What concerns me is the growing of an American Dynasty. All of the political power is related. Bush, his father, and his brother have all held politcal office. Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld all held political positions under Bush's father. Furthermore Bush seems to always select, not the people most qualified for a position, but people he most likes. (e.g. Harriet Myers nominated for supreme court)
The countless resignations are also a concern. George Tenet and Porter Goss both lost their position as head of the CIA. Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan both resigned as Press Secretery, John Ashcroft resigned as Attorney, and Colin Powell resigned as Secretery of State, but why? Powell didn't like the position, Ashcroft got heat, but Fleisher and Scott McClellan both wanted to "spend more time with their families". What a load of bull. The Press Secretery is one of the easiest jobs in politics, you don't have to present policy, you just simply communicate it to the press. -------------  
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 16:41
Unless, of course, another terror attack occurs in summer of '08, necessitating the "temporary" suspension of elections.....
/end tinfoil-hat mode
------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 16:57
Just like the necessary suspension of criminal rights huh? -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 19:36
|
ALFW:
Thanks. You make an interesting, and oft overlooked, observation: isn't it amazingly coincidental that when a high-ranking member of a presidential administration (and unfortunately it is not just Republicans), they always claim that it is to "spend more time with my family." It's not that that is not a good reason for resigning if you have put in umpteen years or whatever. But it is certainly more than just coincidence that this is the reason given in the overwhelming majority of cases...
zappaholic:
Bite your tongue! Actually, that thought has been rolling around the 9/11 truth sites for quite some time. It would certainly not surprise some of us! (Indeed, neither would the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act...)
ALFW:
You mean the fact that the president can unilaterally determine who is an "enemy combatant," and then incarcerate and isolate them indefinitely without access to family or legal counsel (and maybe even torture them in contravention of the Geneva Conventions), is not okay? What are you - a commie pinko liberal or something? LOL.
Peace.
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 20:11
No, I mean that our the president can unilaterally keep us safe by incarcerating "suspects" for an "undetermined" amount of time without access to those who he could communicate his strategy to, and then use all "legal" means to extract critical information. -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 20:29
|
GAH! FOR. THE. LOVE. OF. BAD WORDS. The NSA was not wiretapping!
They were running the information from telecom companies through a computer to try and detect and patterns--they've been doing this for quite some time now. Why do you think that everything suddenly died down and the general was confirmed? Because everyone realized that the media was being hysterical over nothing, and then once the facts came along everyone shut up because they realized it was nothing.
NO WAY! Disclosure of Classified information pose a threat to security! I thought it was Classified to make it easier to file. Why is it a sign that the US is moving towards totalitarianism if they don't want the NY Times leaking classified information? These things are classified for a reason.
I don't like Bush, but stuff like this bothers me. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 08:54
|
Ghandi: Even if the Times did leak classified information (an allegation made and believed solely by the secrecy-obsessed Bush Administration), it would be in a long tradition of high-level "whistle-blowing." (After all, the information had to come from someone with clearance.) A good historical example of this is the Pentagon Papers: they are credited with helping undo what the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident did - get us into an unwinnable "war" in Vietnam in which 58,000 of our troops died for nothing. The publication of the Pentagon Papers was essentially the "last nail in the coffin" of the Vietnam "war" - thank God! Certainly, if any media outlet published or aired truly sensitive information - troop movements, placement of intelligence personnel, etc. - that would be an actionable offense, and rightly so. But this is not such an offense. Indeed, to think that "the enemy" would not be aware that their phone calls might be tapped is to give them zero credit. After all, if "the enemy" could outwit the entire military and airlines apparatuses of the U.S. and use four airliners as suicide bombs (...), then they would certainly be aware that their calls might be tapped. [N.B. It just occurred to me that the evidence supporting the "official story" of 9/11 makes no reference to any info on the hijackers having been obtained through phone- or wire-tapping. Thus, it would seem like a particularly ineffective way to gather intelligence - which makes the NSA wiretapping of American citizens even more suspect...] As for the issue having "died down," you apparently do not keep up with the news. Not only is it still on the front page of many news outlets (and continues to be discussed in others), but a strongly bipartisan group of Senators and Congressman are demanding a thorough investigation of this issue, despite attempts by the White House to get them to back down. I am beginning to wonder if you chose your moniker (Ghandi) to be deliberately ironic and provocative, since you seem to hold few if any of his views or beliefs... Peace. |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 12:04
Vince is a full blown Collectivist!
 |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 12:32
The classification of information is ridiculous at times. The public is supposed to vote in elections every two years, but how are they supposed to make a credible decision when their government never lets them know what they are doing? The reports regarding Kennedy's assasination were to be classified for seventy-five years or so from the date. Nixon used his "plumbers" to prevent the "leaks". Say I'm in favor of Rousseauan Democracy, but we're free to choose our leaders, but we're not free to understand what they do.
Only one telecom company refused to cooperate, Qwest. I'm so happy they provide my telecoms.
About the wiretapping or disclosure without warrants
The disclosure of records or wiretapping isn't the biggest problem, it's the without warrants part that should make citizens worry. This is a process of eliminating the rights of the accused. If the public allows the government to take away one criminal right, how many will it take for the public to say no. Does someone have to be convicted without a trial before the public realizes how necessary criminal rights are?
-------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 12:49
thanks for the correction.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 12:55
|
I don't know about you, but I'm voting for Classified in the next election. I don't care for his running mate, Classified, but I know for a fact that I definitely don't want the opponents (Classified and Classified) in office.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi"> 
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 12:57
whisle-blowing means going to the people or agencies that can investigate a potentially dangerous problem, not running to the new media to get your name all over the place.
phone call records are not exactly invasion of privacy. if the government checking phone records to see what calls go where is invasion of privacy, then heaven help the police who use phone records to determine the time of a murder or who called a crime victim.
and classification of information during a war or times of military action is essential. suspension of rights during such times is not out of the ordinary-look at world war 2! and we got our rights back afterwards. but you have to have secrets for various reasons, such as to stop widespread panic or to keep the enemy from knowing what you have or what you are doing. -------------
|
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 13:10
|
So that's one vote for the police state..........
Just a pity no-one's allowed to vote against.......
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 13:58
so basically you are saying that if i would like to have my government stop some dingdong from blowing me up, i'm for a police state? -------------
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 14:09
|
ALFW: You say, "The reports regarding Kennedy's assasination were to be classified for seventy-five years or so from the date. Nixon used his 'plumbers' to prevent the 'leaks.'" You should add that two years ago Bush unilaterally "sealed" all presidential documents for, I believe, 15-25 years - even those that Clinton, Carter and the estate of Richard Nixon did not want to have sealed! Talk about hubris! You also say, "The disclosure of records or wiretapping isn't the biggest problem, it's the without warrants part that should make citizens worry. This is a process of eliminating the rights of the accused. If the public allows the government to take away one criminal right, how many will it take for the public to say no. Does someone have to be convicted without a trial before the public realizes how necessary criminal rights are?" You should add that what is actually ocurring is that the Executive Branch is essentially becoming "above the law" - i.e., via orders and directives, the president (and often vice president) can basically do anything he wants - break any law on the books - as long as he can claim "executive privilege," "national security" or other rubric. James: You said, "I don't know about you, but I'm voting for Classified in the next election. I don't care for his running mate, Classified, but I know for a fact that I definitely don't want the opponents (Classified and Classified) in office." LOL. A particularly salient comment. I would add that the third-party candidates, Semi-Classified and Patrially Classified, are not exactly my cup of tea either... Darksinger: You say, "Whistle-blowing means going to the people or agencies that can investigate a potentially dangerous problem, not running to the new media to get your name all over the place." Yes, that would be true if hose people or agencies were actually willing to undertake such investigations. However, personal and internal corruption is so rampant that many whistle-blowers are well aware that the media is their only realistic outlet. You also say, "Phone call records are not exactly invasion of privacy. If the government checking phone records to see what calls go where is invasion of privacy, then heaven help the police who use phone records to determine the time of a murder or who called a crime victim." As ALFW points out, it is not the checking so much that is an issue, it is doing so without any warrants or other "permission" - even by those Congressional committees whose clearance give them purview to determine the legitimacy of such warrants or permission. The police (as well as the FBI and CIA) are required to get very specific warrants for wire- and phone-tapping. The president and the NSA are not above the law here. Finally, you say, "Classification of information during a war or times of military action is essential. Suspension of rights during such times is not out of the ordinary...But you have to have secrets for various reasons, such as to stop widespread panic or to keep the enemy from knowing what you have or what you are doing." Apparently, you will be among those most comfortable living in an Orwellian world. The erosion of freedoms and civil liberties at the same time that the Executive Branch is becoming more and more "above the law" is a sure sign of things to come... Re "secrets," yes, it is sometimes important to have them, and no one is claiming any different. But the fact that the NSA is engaged in illegal - literally un-warranted - access to private phone records does not merit the appellation "secret": it is a clear and outrageous example of invasion of privacy, and a trampling of Fourth Amendment rights. crimson thing: You say, "So that's one vote for the police state...Just a pity no-one's allowed to vote against..." Another salient - and frighteningly apropos - comment. It's actually quite brillient. Maybe you should copyright it... Peace. |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 14:14
|
Darksinger:
No, we are saying that if you are one of those who feels that the steady erosion of your freedoms, rights and civil liberties is "okay" with you because you think it provides you with some illusory sense of "security," you are fooling yourself, and you are willingly and happily allowing your government to take you down a proto-totalitarian road.
Peace.
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 14:30
what bothers me more is the outcry over actions taken for national security by a president the media and others perceive as not charismatic enough to be in office, but the nonchalance and silence when a previous president violated actual rights to privacy by illegally obtaining raw data records of political and possible political opponents from the fbi and keeping them in the white house and being handled by unauthorized personnel...or that that same previous president allowed the walls that prevented agencies and law enforcement from sharing information that could have stopped 9-11...all because this president was a charismatic blackguard.
i have seen who favours the orwellian society-it is the ones who think law abiding citizens should not defend themselves and that property can be confiscated and handed over to whoever the government thinks will bring in bigger tax dollars. these same ones oddly flash around the constitution as if they can pick and choose which amendments and parts of amendments they can pick and choose for our liberties. if i have a choice between the one who will act to protect unlawfully to protect others and one who will act unlawfully to protect his own tookus, i will choose the former. -------------
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 14:32
i will say nothing further-you will interpret whatever i say to suit what you want to believe. -------------
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 15:01
|
I agree with darksinger in that nothing said in this forum will likely change your way of thinking. I'd just like to say that if you've never lived under the threat of the selective service draft that was in existence during the fifties and sixties in the USA then "invasion of privacy" isn't really relevant in the same sense. Think about it. Uncle Sam had the right to force you into the armed services. If you refused you would go to prison. WE HAD NO CIVIL LIBERTIES in those days. To quote Mr. Gump, "That's all I've got to say about that." ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 15:04
I'm saying it's rather quaint & touching that you still believe the reasons given to you by the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Bushes & Perles of this world, given the overwhelming evidence that they've lied to you on almost every aspect so far....
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 16:15
so would you say we are more or less totalitarian than where you're at? you have an opinion on how my government is-i want to hear one from you on yours -------------
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 17:59
|
re: call records. The issue is one of judicial process, a major theme in our constitution. The agencies involved did not feel they needed a warrant. Even in wartime, one must prove that the records are of immediate value in a specific action...otherwise, they are simply fishing. If you believe in any sort of individual freedom, that's obviously a Very Bad Thing (and if you don't, why would you be proud of the US, which stands for basic values of freedom and democracy?). On the other hand, only the most naive believe that telephone conversations are completely private. That's why anybody involved in anything that they want to keep secret take precautions- which make even a detailed examination of call records irrelevant. So this is either an embarrassment or an outrage- take your pick. 
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 19:04
Well, unfortunately, Blair's just a guy who can't say no.....to Bush.......whether that's because he (Blair) is also a fundamentalist religious nutter, or because Bush has him by the short and curlies, or because Blair is corrupted by power, or because Blair is really just as stooopid as Bush & believes all that crap, or (an option seriously considered by some very upright & credible commentators here) Blair is clinically insane, I can't say. But I thoroughly disagree with the ubercapitalist system, which has made America hated throughout the world, and is being forced upon us here, whether we like it or not. It is a system designed to make the crooked rich richer, and to keep the poor working all hours just to keep the system running. And before the knee-jerk responses start, No! I'm not a communist - but there are undoubtedly many things worth having in this world that will not come about through a fundamentalist free market approach alone (peace, for one.....) But I think you're a little too young to realise that yet.
Will that do for a soundbite?
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 21:34
Just because something has happened before means it is right? I understand some information has to be classified, but classified information and suspension of rights are two completely different things. Should Japaneese Americans, legal citizens have had to sell their posessions for minimal value, so that it wouldn't have been vandalized to the point of no value during their inturnment? Should they have been inturned in the first place? Many German immigrants were living in the United States, why weren't they inturned? (I'm not inferring you said anything about Japaneese inturnment.) -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 23:25
actually, i meant your society. you call us totalitarian, yet you have cameras everywhere, you cannot own firearms, the police arrest you if they think you might injure a person breaking into your house, they can give "warnings" to violent criminals rather than arrest them, you cannot assemble freely....i'm sure there are some i'm missing. would you say these measures are totalitarian? -------------
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: May 29 2006 at 23:34
during a war, people do things in interest of security. the interment of the japanese and other asians is because you could spot them. germans as a whole are all over europe. their bloodlines are all over. could you tell the difference between a norwegian and a german? or a welshman and a german? but you can tell between a norwegian, welshman or any other european or european descendant and a japanese person. was their interment the correct thing to do? i dunno. i was not in america-or the planet-during world war 2 so i cannot tell. am i all freaky that it happened? not really because i had nothing to do with it. i cannot go back and change it. what i do know is that in times of crisis-war or disaster-the normal rules of society go out the window until such a time the crisis has passed, then they are returned. -------------
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 00:39
|
darksinger:
You may not have been around then, but perhaps a hypothetical situation would give you some idea.
Did you see the movie "The Siege?" As you know, it was about escalating Arab terrorismts in New York City. In the film, not only is Brooklyn (which has most of the city's Arab population) put under martial law, but any male of Arab descent in a certain age group is interred in fenced-in areas in a local stadium, in the same way that Japanese were interred during WWII.
Would you be in favor of such an action?
|
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 03:01
|
darksinger said :
"actually, i meant your society. you call us totalitarian, yet you have cameras everywhere, you cannot own firearms, the police arrest you if they think you might injure a person breaking into your house, they can give "warnings" to violent criminals rather than arrest them, you cannot assemble freely....i'm sure there are some i'm missing. would you say these measures are totalitarian?"
Weirdly, our police do warn you before shooting you, and no, unlike Americans, we don't have the right to shoot up a high school on a whim; thus we have no need of guns. Not sure why you think we can't "assemble freely"; but in general, you're right, we're sadly becoming more like the US each day.......  |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 12:45
WTF are you talking about? I'm starting to worry about you, crimson. First you (deliberately?) grossly misinterpet what I'm trying to say, and now you're saying the US condones murder? :S The VAST majority of gun crimes are simple robberies; I don't know what you hear, but you make it sound like kids go on a shooting spree every week. Crime in the U.K. has increased dramatically since the gun ban. True, there are less gun crimes, but there are many more crimes because people can't defend themselves from criminals.
I'm not clear what you mean by warning, but if somebody is trying to escape (not resisting arrest, actually running away) then the police have the right to shoot to wound to stop him or her. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 13:44
|
I'M AFRAID THIS IS GONNA HAVE TO BE IN CAPITALS. GUNS DO NOT DEFEND YOU FROM CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMAGINE THE SITUATION - A MUGGER CONFRONTS YOU WITH A KNIFE. HE WAITS PATIENTLY WHILST YOU DIG DEEP IN YOUR BAG OR POCKET, RELEASE THE SAFETY CATCH AND SHOOT HIM! YEAH, RIGHT............
FORTUNATELY WE HAVEN'T QUITE REACHED THE STAGE IN THIS COUNTRY, AS SEEMS TO APPLY IN THE STATES, WHERE YOUR 'RIGHT' TO SHOOT ME OUTWEIGHS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE SHOT.
Thank you for listening, but please don't bother me with garbage again.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 13:57
I think you took him a bit too literally there Ghandi 2. I for one am glad that guns are illegal here, they would only lead to an increase in deaths, I certanly wouldnt trust half the population of any country with a gun. Its also nearly impossible to make such a link between the increase in crime and a gun ban (when the hell was that introduced, I dont think it was recent). ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 15:37
|
What's happening in this country is absolutely terrifying. And apparently no one will care until it's too late. Darksinger... have you read the 9/11 commission? If the Patriot Act were truly meant to be a remedy for everything that "went wrong" in order to allow 9/11 to happen, wouldn't they have waited for the results of the investigation first? A majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Why, then, was the bulk of the chapter from the 9/11 Commision's findings on Saudi Arabia's ties to the attack redacted? (Blacked out). Is that in order to protect the American people? Or just _certain_ American's financial interests? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi? Why did we go to war with Iraq, again? Oh, that's right, the "immanent threat" of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where were those? It's a very hard reality to accept that your government doesn't have your best interests at heart. It's far easier to keep your head buried in the sand. But we cannot afford to do this anymore. ------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 15:54
|
"I certanly wouldnt trust half the population of any country with a gun." - sleeper Would you trust them with a car? Piloting an airplane? Educating your children? "FORTUNATELY WE HAVEN'T QUITE REACHED THE STAGE IN THIS COUNTRY, AS SEEMS TO APPLY IN THE STATES, WHERE YOUR 'RIGHT' TO SHOOT ME OUTWEIGHS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE SHOT." - crimson thing Are you serious? Have you read any of the UK newspapers lately? They read like Clockwork Orange without the fashion sense and taste in music. The US has no monopoly on brutal, mindless violence...guns or no guns. Nor are we any closer to totalitarianism than a country with vestigal retarded monarchy on one side and on th eother, self-deluded post-marxists who believe that individual rights must be sacrificed for some vague idea of a better society. Thank you for shouting. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 16:03
I wish I could say I didn't expect the compulsory draft to return. Maybe Dubya's 3rd term? ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 00:13
|
Ghandi:
"...shoot to wound...?" You've been watching too many Dirty Harry movies. Police are not trained to "shoot to wound," they are trained to shoot at "center mass" - i.e., the largest part of the body (torso) - which includes the heart, lungs and other vital organs. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound." Certainly they may not want to (or try to) kill the perpetrator, but neither are they looking to - much less capable of - shooting a gun out of someone's hand, or hitting them in the leg (especially if they are running).
Crimson is correct: guns do not protect you from criminals. In fact, in the U.S., more people are hurt or killed by their own weapons having been taken from them by the criminal than are able to stop the criminal with that weapon!
Peace.
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 00:16
|
Chicapah:
I did live through the threat of the draft. Yet I consider what is happening now far, far worse. Yes, the draft was an "immediate" and very definite matter of government conpulsion. But it is not the overt, obvious intrusions that we have to worry about, but the more subtle, non-obvious ones - especially when they start piling up. And that is exactly what is happening: subtler intrusions are afoot, and are piling up at an alarming rate.
Peace.
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 00:17
|
Empathy:
Ditto and Bravo!
Peace.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 08:03
i dont trust half the drivers on the roads in this country, it seems that people find a driving license to be a dis-engage brain license. If a pilot has had all the training to fly a plain and is considered responsible then I would trust them, ater all its their life as well as mine thats at risk if they screw up at 20,000 feet. I dont see the conection between owning a gun and educateing children. The fact is most people will probably panic if they ever encounter a situation where they need a gun and probably cause more harm than good. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 08:30
|
there was a study done last year that researched the state of civil
liberties all over the world. the USA did not even make the top 50; if
I remember correctly they were ranked 73rd. Germany fell out of the top
10 (they were 12th) due to an incident in which the offices of a
newspaper were searched. at the top of the list were some Scandinavian
states, by the way
-------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 08:44
You know that the people saying that guns do not kill people , but people are killing people are bloody industry puppets. Complete and total BS!
Having a gun in your hand gives you a sense of power that is unreal, makes you act braver that if you did not have one. Guns make it easy to kill someone since you do not have to make contact with the person you want to kill. Killing someone from your own hands (by contact is incredibly difficult)
Let me give you a story of my teen years.
There was a real bully in school, that even most cops were afraid of let alone the school authorities. But he was under 18 and had been found parttaking in two murders >> a really vicious guy, that Canada only waits for him to get to majority to send these arsehloes in Northern territories to cut lumber or dig mines >> but as far away from society as possible >> not exactly prisonners in goulags , but you get the picture >> you have to steal a boat or a place to get away
For some stupid reasons (I was get friendly with a girl he had views on), this guy pulled a knife on me and stuck it to my face pressing enough to draw blood pouring down my collar. I smashed his foot with my heel and kicked him in the teeth as he was bending over to grab his foot , then hoofed him in the balls and he drpped. I grabbed his knife (he had drppoed it) and decided that this arsehole would ruin my life anyway, so I had to do him away >> I just could not do it, plungeing the knife into his body was simply an impossible act for me. HAD THIS BEEN A GUN instead of knife, I am sure I would've pulled the trigger as I was scared enough for my life when he got back on his feet. It was clearly self-defence and I had enough witnesses. So I did not knife that arsehole but I did jump with both feet on his knee destroying it, but at least I was temporarily safe.
What I am trying to say is that widespread gun circulation in a country spreads violence and death . It only spreads more fear of violence and the vicious circle starts, since you will buy a gun to protect yourself and your family, then the kids will soon or later toy with the thing >> let's face it, no-one keeps a gun in a safe, because if you do need it it is inaccessible quickly enough to be effective.
GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 11:16
|
Sean Trane :
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 11:40
|
Ghandi:
Re your comment that the illegal search anhd seizure issues have "died down":
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/washington/31jefferson.html?pagewanted=print - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/washington/31jefferson.html?pagewanted=print
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 11:54
|
Maani:
Registering for the draft and actually being eligible to be forcibly shipped over to Vietnam are two different things. Your profile says you were born in 58 which means you wouldn't have been 18 until 76, long after we were out of southeast asia. ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: man@arms
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 12:12
|
Whoa dude that's scary! But, you made your point and I couldn't agree more. I live in the Kansas City area and we have one of the highest crime rates in the country. Every night on the news you are almost guaranteed to hear about someone shooting someone else. Last night we had another "thrill kill", where two young men shot and killed a poor guy riding home on his bicycle from work simply because "he was there and they were bored". Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 12:22
What's absolutely infuriating about this is that Congress was more than willing to waive due process for search and seizure when it was the "general public" at risk (i.e. Patriot Act)... Now that they see the writing on the wall, and realize that they are _not_ exempt and above the law, they're "outraged". More likely they're terrified that the depth of their corruption is at risk of exposure. Disgusting. ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 14:51
So you're saying that criminals have the right to be guaranteed safety from harm while they are robbing you? That's good...
First, if somebody is trying to mug you, you would probably already be ready for someone to come. But think about this. If you were a criminal would you rather: a) Break into somebody's house when you know they don't have a gun b) Break into somebody's house when you think they might have a gun c) Break into somebody's house when you know they have a gun (like in Switzerland)? I would definately go for a. That's a big way how guns prevent crime. Everyone in Switzerland has automatic weapons, and they have very little crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm - In 1996 http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page66.asp - Violent crime [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page27.asp]Rape[/url] http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page21.asp - Robbery Interestingly, despite that, http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page6.asp - overall crime . http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm - Crime per 1000 people rate compared (Australia also enacted a ban in 1996) Can you prove a link? Obviously not. But you can't really prove anything. If guns are harder to get, then obviously there are going to be fewer gun crimes, but I'm talking about crime overall.
Ha, I wasn't suggesting police shoot a gun out of a person's hand. Hitting someone in the leg is also hard. However, the chances of killing or even seriously injuring someone with one shot is fairly low. And if he is seriously hurt--I know this is going to sound heartless, but it's not supposed to be--then he shouldn't have tried to run away.
Wow, you guys are a bunch of cynical b*****ds. There is no possible way Bush could serve a 3rd term, and there is also no possible way the draft would be re-enacted. You know why? In our modern army, with the technology and gear we have now, training someone is very, very expensive. Much more expensive than it was to train someone back in WW2 or even Vietnam. So it's not cost efficient for the Army to waste all that money on an unwilling conscript.
Eh? I never said anything about search and seizure; I was talking about the NSA and General Hayden. I need to subscribe to view that article, but didn't the FBI search his place because they thought he was taking bribes and find about $90,000 in cash? It's nice to see that Congress can rally around the cry of civil liberties...when they're afraid of also being implicated with the same corruption that that one senator was serached for.
A gun can't get up and shoot someone; it is a tool, and like all tools it can be used well and used poorly.
If that had been a gun you wouldn't have resisted; therefore, your point is moot. And the gun ban had not yet been enacted at that point, so it's not really relevant to the discussion of a gun ban.
Now you're just making **** up. My dad keeps his guns in a safe, and any intelligent gun owner does also. The non intelligent gun owners are usually the criminals anyway, who would probably find a way to get a gun anyway (just like drugs are illegal, but if you're persistent they really are not all that hard to get) ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 16:33
|
I frankly can't be a++ed to reply to the numerous factual errors & schoolboy sophistry in G2's rant above. Just 2 things to ponder.....
"Everyone in Switzerland has automatic weapons, and they have very little crime"
You might like to reassess this...........
and, just how useful a "defensive weapon" is a gun in a safe? You must have very patient & gentlemanly burglars............
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:15
|
Ghandi 2, their are two big reasons for a increase in crime here, drugs (in witch case they wont give a f**k if youve got a gun, they want money and the want it now!) and chavs (also known as the scum of the earth).
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:16
Holy sh*t man! And I thought "happy slapping" was bad. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:23
Cynical? Guilty as charged. However, my parents were in fact wed when I was born.  There was "no possible way" many of the things this administration has done could have happened. Yet, this administration has shown nothing but contempt for rule of law, and have proven again and again that when they don't like the laws, they'll simply ignore them, with the all-encompassing "National Security" blanket. You should do some research on Bush's "signing statements". He has _never_ vetoed a bill, and the amount of signing statements he has issued as justification to ignore legislation he deems contrary to his goals is _more than double the amount of signing statements of all previous presidents combined_. FACT. Some would have claimed that could never have happened. But it's happening. Is it that much of a stretch that in order to "protect us" he decides to ignore the 2-term limit? or reinstate the draft? ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:48
THere is no causal relationship between decrease in gun ownership and violent crime in this country, Hardly anyone had guns in this country before the ban anyway. It's not as if people started taking the oppurtunity to rob people because Old Man Smith down the road had to hand in his double barrelled shotgun. I think you'll find that increasing crime is due, IMO, to an increase in wealth of the individual. Back in the 50s, tehre was very little crime because there was very little to steal. Increases in violent crime, again IMO, are down to the frustration of the working class who are continually being made redundant and a disenchantment of youth cultures as a result of that. While I agree with gun restriction, a total ban is taking it too far, particularly in this country. When a ban on pistols came into effect all that happened was that people who acquired pistols legally and met all the laws regulating their use, dutifully handed them in, while people who want to use them illegally, acquire them illegally, which is why gun crime has still managed to increase, particularly in the city where I live. |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:53
Were do you live Forgotten Son, I know gun crime has been a real problem where I come from. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 18:33
|
When the country of Sweden instituted a total ban on guns decades ago, crime was obviously reduced by an enormous margin. But there was still some crime, and still some illegal gun ownership. However, when they banned all toy guns as well - thus not permitting children to "learn" guns - 20 years later the crime rate dropped to the lowest in the world. So it is not simply gun ownership that is a problem, but the fact that we allow children to play with "toy guns," which teaches them that the "gun culture" is okay. (Of course, then there is the problem of violent action movies, and, more recently, video games.) Re Bush's "third term," Empathy is only mildly overstating the case. Although it would be unprecedented (no pun intended), the president does have the power, under certain conditions, to postpone elections. Normally, this would require a super-majority of Congress (2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House) and, possibly, a majority of State governors. However, the president could attempt it, and even possibly carry it off. However, were that to happen, there would be no question of Bush's despotism (remember that he said, "This country would be easier to rule if it were a dictatorship"), and unless the country truly was in active and immediate danger, there would be an unbelievable backlash.
Peace.
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 18:42
Banning toy guns sounds a little farfetched for some, but I personaly think it may be a step in the right direction. Toy guns, paintball guns, dart guns provide a different influence from movies. Movies do not provide the empirical experience that something like a dart or paintball gun can. From just watching a movie, a person doesn't get the same experience of "violence" or "action" that physically going out and using a toy or paintball gun. -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 19:16
In the early Eighties I was drafted but not really pleased with it (like Frank Zappa ) and started to read books about the importance of selling weapons and support dictatorships in order to continue the situation for the USA multinationals. At about twenty years later few things has changed and, looking at the title of this thread, you can say that 'puppet on a string' Bush Junior and the 'Texas oil and weapons clan' have succeeded to dominate this world. For me it's incredible that such an unreliable and opportunistic person like Bush junior managed to become president of the USA but in my opinoin this is the proove that the democracy in the USA is related with money, bribery, corruptecy and the importance of selling weapons and oil, after Cambodia and Vietnam, I am afraid that Iraq will be another battlefield on which many innocent and poor USA civilians will pay for the interests of some rich families in the USA that rule this earth ....  ..
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 22:48
|
wow, the US gets slammed for lack of civil liberties and then for allowing citizens to own guns. Anybody get the number of that ironic car that just hit us?
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 22:56
|
James:
ROFLMAO!
Erik:
Ditto. Just remember that Bush was not elected, he was "coronated" by the Supreme Court - mostly by justices chosen by Reagan and Bush pere. Indeed, given that Scalia's son was one of Bush's attorneys, Scalia had a clear conflict of interest, yet refused to recuse himself. And for those who think my "coronation" comment is overstated, five different independent, non-partisan studies showed that, had all of the votes in Florida been counted properly, Gore would have won - hands down.
Peace.
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 01:42
|
U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?
I am afraid that it is indeed. The first clue for many was the introduction of the Patriot Act. Everyone, do your homework and explore the internet for answers before the internet is taken from us and the answers come from on "high"
None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsely believe themselves to be free. -- Goethe |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 04:36
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 13:26
My great uncle Johnny Rocco was a Chicago cop. He had guns ALL OVER his house in drawers. He was always afraid someone he busted was going to be paroled and they would come back and wreak havoc on him. Shortly before he died he told my uncle John "I want you to take every gun in my house and give them to my dad when I die." "Oh and John, if you find a gun in my house assume it's loaded, there isn't any point to keeping a gun locked up in a safe with no bulltets. You're supposed to have a gun to use it when you need. You don't plan to have a criminal walk into your house."
So when Rocco died, my uncle took all the guns to his dad who kept two and unloaded the rest and buried them in the backyard.
And about guns in display cases, my uncle David has tons of guns, but only for display purposes, and only a few are loaded. -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 13:40
|
How did this turn into a thread abut gun laws?
------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 15:13
You can open a safe quickly! Especially when it's designed to be opened quickly! My dad's safe can be opened in 10 seconds.
Well yeah, there is no reason for people to own 50 cal sniper rifles: you can't use it for defense, and hunting anything with that monster is complete overkill.
Exactly, which is why I said it could never happen. It would be political suicide for any senator to back it, unless the Russians were invading Alaska or something and an election would make coordinated defense impossible. But I don't think the Russians are going to invade any time soon ;-) ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 16:55
|
Ghandi said: "You can open a safe quickly! Especially when it's designed to be opened quickly! My dad's safe can be opened in 10 seconds."
A burglar could shoot you to death or run at you with a knife and stab you in less than 10 seconds...
Peace.
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 17:35
True. But the idea is to hear him breaking in before he runs up the stairs to stab you, which allows you to take the gun out in time. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 18:17
Because all Americans love guns.  -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 18:35
Ghandi 2 certanly seems to. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 18:53
|
Ghandi:
In other words, under "optimal" conditions, having a gun in the safe might be useful. But how often are conditions "optimal?"
ALFW:
Not all Americans love guns!
Peace.
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 19:03
|
"Guns don't kill people, rappers do..." - Goldie Lookin' Chain I agree with Tlossy about the banning of cap guns, BB Guns and the like. I am terrified of any future child of mine being brought up in a world of gun culture. Obviously I'd hope the morals I instill into them would stand them in good stead, but I fear that's not enough. -------------   
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 19:36
I live in Nottingham. |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 19:41
I'm from Birmingham so I know what your on about with bad guncrime. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 19:49
That's taking things too far, it's perfectly safe to let children play with toy guns etc. There have been toy guns in this country for years and it's not been until fairly recently that gun crime has risen, so the claims that there is a causal relationship between the two has little basis in fact. Increased gun crime, IMO, is the result of increasing drug related crimes. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 19:56
I can't believe you're serious. Banning cap guns? Why not ban all video games depicting guns while you're at it? How about all movies, comic books, television shows, blogs and radio programs with violent content? Oh yeah, and the news. Whoops, it's 1984. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dirk
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 19:57
While i totally agree with you now let's not forget that things have been much better some 6 years before when Clinton was president, while there were some extremely unimportant scandals surrounding him this president has achieved ( and has tried to achieve) quite a few things. Let's not forget the sorry role of our own government here, while many people here are concerned and worried about Bush and his clan our government sympathizes with them all the way  . |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 20:20
|
Well of course it's partly drug related, but cannot blaim everything on drugs. I wasn't saying ban them, per se, but try and educate children better. Would you agree that maybe Air Rifles and BB guns could be banned? They have been used by teenagers to injure people and animals (whether deliberately or by accident). Maybe some of these teenagers were on drugs, maybe some were sons or daughters of single parents... but that's just stereotyping (although there is a lot of truth in those statements of course). I'd certainly be all for a regulation in some television, sure. I feel television has gotten worse and if I had children, I'd limit them to what can view (and I also mean some childrens programs here too). Don't go me wrong, I play violent video games and watch crime related films and I used to watch many 18 rated films when I was 15 or so and it never did me any harm. But I do feel there should maybe be more suitable programs on television for children and teenagers. -------------
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 03:04
well, you don't need weapons then; you will always have Robin Hood coming for the rescue ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 10:00
I don't, do you? ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 11:57
|
FYI:
Another characteristic of proto-totalitarianism is the undermining or control of elections:
http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2006/06/02/must-readrfk-jr-was-the-2004-election-stolen-full-article/ - http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2006/06/02/must-readrfk-jr-was-the-2004-election-stolen-full-article/
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 12:10
|
A few items on the topic of this thread:
This is the way it started for the Jews in Europe:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/us/nationalspecial3/01traveler.html - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/us/nationalspecial3/01traveler.html
Does the following even need comment?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02records.html - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02records.html
Does the following surprise anyone?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02search.html - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02search.html
Peace.
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 12:36
|
"Because all Americans love guns. "That's just as valid as saying all Brits have bad teeth. Or all Mexicans are lazy. Or a few things more offensive (and, of course, just true enough to be effective). On the other hand, I have the same aesthetic response to a beautifully engineered and exquistitely performing firearm as I do a guitar made by a master luthier. Not only that, some of my fondest childhood memories are of my father teaching me how to handle and respect guns. Neither of us are inbred rednecks, crazed militia compound members, or military fetishists. In fact, I'll toot my own horn just enough to say that I doubt many people posting here have put in the same amount of time, study, or thought on the nature and expression of freedom, and of violence. So when I hear the common and almost offhand dismissal of guns and gun owners (usually with nothing more than kneejerk responses and recycled non-causal rationale), I can't help but imagine the type of teetotaling busybody spinsters who love nothing more than robbing people of joys and rights that they themselves have never bothered to attempt to understand. So what exactly do you stand for- a free world, or simply a safer one? Because totalitarianism would make things perfectly safe. Nobody ever has to die a violent death ever again- all you need to do is create a government which will take away all the things which could possibly cause harm. You don't even need violence to do it, either- you just need to keep filling people's heads with 'the right sort of propaganda' until they won't even notice that their freedom has been taken from them. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 13:13
Why should anyone have to choose between a free world and a safer one. The key to society is a good system of ethics.
Let's look at Immanuel Kant's objective ethical system of imperatives. Kant believes that the only good thing that is good all by itself is a good will. Many good traits, such as marksmanship, collectedness, or computer skills are all good things, but can be used for bad intentions. The challenge for Kant is how to get society to act with a good will.
Kant does this with his system of imperatives or "shoulds". One categorical and one hypothetical. Hypothetical imperatives are simple. If you desire A do B sort of thing. (e.g. If you want to earn money, have a job). Categorical imperatives are somewhat more complex. Categorical imperatives are derived from duty. This is the key to morally praiseworthy actions. If you save your friend from a fatality of being hit by a car is that a morally praise worthy action? Kant says no, the action of saving your friend is something done from inclination. Duty is something that should be done, but without inclination. If you were to save a total stranger from a car fatality, Kant says that is a morally praiseworthy action. Why, because it is something done from duty without inclination. You have saved a fellow citizen's life. It effects you in no reasonable way whether that citizen lived or died. The categorical imperative is how citizens fulfill their roles. What to do when two imperatives clash is difficult. Kant says nothing of this and leaves it to his students to decide. Kant also supports his imperatives with his thesis of "always treat humanity as an ends, not as a means." Here is an example: A philosophy teacher does an excellent job of educating his students on the wonders of philosophy, but does just to earn money. Every student walks into the class a dollar sign and out of the class a paycheck. This is using humanity as a means to get money. Kant belives this is wrong. The philosophy teacher who teaches his students all the wonders of philosophy for the sake of fulfilling his duty is using humanity as a means. His students aren't dollar signs, but rather a goal. He then earns a paycheck as a result of his hardwork.
You may think that there is no logical difference between the to. This is not true. Kant's philosophy is non-consequential. It is based entirely on the will, the motive, and the duty. It's safe to say that Kant believes people should act in the interest of society, not in the interest of themelves.
Rousseau has another ethical system. Rousseau has one golden rule of ethics, to allow the maximum amount of freedom for yourself, while causing the least amount of harm to others. This is quite broad. This could be taken to the extreme and mean that a heroine user is morally right and a factory owner is morally wrong, because the heroine user harms only himself. The factory owner pollutes and harms the enviroment and the people in it. Rousseau's rule is excellent, within reason.
Rousseau also has a fondness for duty. He believe citizens should work to support a surplus. The surplus is the key to keeping society happy. With a surplus, there is enough to spare for every, and while working to support a surplus work is always necessary and never useless. Rousseu belives citizens at times, do need to put the good of society ahead of their own good, but isn't the good of society a citizen's own good too?
Combining Rousseau's liberty with Kant's duty results in a selfess, altruistic, free, and safe society.
Carl Sagan has yet another point of view. Sagan ethics are of the "tit for tat" rule. This is rewarding loyalty with loyalty and betrayal with betrayal. Sagan uses the example of two friends being detained by the police. Either you or your friend could get a lesser penalty by one confessing and one refusing to incriminate himself, but both of you could get off by refusing to self incriminate. Sagan belives people should reward loyalty with loyalty and betrayal with betrayal. This is consequential, and different from Kant's non-consequential ethics. Sagan's theory is for more of a man eat man society. There is a maximum amount of freedom, but a minimal amount of safety if society dictates.
So who can save us? Plato can! In Plato's republic the best society is the one which acts in philosophicial dikaiasune for which there is no English translation. The general meaning of the word is justice, goodness, righteousness, and honor. Plato defines justice as the fulfillment of function. (back to Kantian imperatives) Plato's function is much like Kant's imperatives. That society should act in the spirit of duty. For example take a piano. A piano works best when used as a musical instrument. You could try to make a piano into a table, but I doubt it would be very pleasant to rest a glass of water on the keys. A piano plays music better than it does anything else, therefore it should play music. The just way to act is not doing just what you do best, but never doing what harms. A musician cannot make someone unmusical through music! This means that the just man never harms another man. Everyone acts in the interest of society.
Plato has the trump card, but combining Platonic Dikaiasune, Kantian Imperatives, and Rousseaun Democracy, the perfect society can exist acting in the interest of society with the maximum amount of freedom and the fullest potential of skills. -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 13:33
Thanks, ALFW. You just made me nostalgic for my first two years at college.  But you've misquoted me if you conclude that I was asking for a choice rather than a goal. As the topic is totalitarianism, and the current tangent is gun ownership, I'm asking if people would approve of a society that denies freedom but guarantees safety. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 13:47
Well, IMO, it's largely the responsibility of parents to educate their children in how and how not to behave. My dad bought me an airpistol for Christmas when I was about 14 or 15, however I have never and would never use it to hurt people or animals. If a parent suspects that their child isn't to be trusted with such an item then they shouldn't let them have one. It's not as if young teenagers can buy them themselves, there's an age restriction on buying them set at about 18 for BB guns and 21 (I think) for air pistols/rifles. At least there is in the UK. |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 13:52
I don't think age restrictions EVER help. If anything age restrictions just perpetuate the obsession. I don't think a kid that's five years old should be able to walk into a store and by a handle of vodka, let's be resonable here. Either allow an item almost unconditionally with consequences of use, or ban it altogethor. I think making guns, liqour, and drugs an open topic rather than a closed one is a good thing. If a kid is downing vodka often, isn't better that he communicate it to his parents. It's when something becomes taboo that it becomes a hidden problem. -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 14:02
|
^ I agree with that. And James, the whole idea of "perfectly safe" society sounds like an unattainable and undesirable goal to me. Then again, I'm a Buddhist, and believe that pain and suffering exist as lessons. ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 14:18
|
Oh I know it'll never be achieved. But if a parent's child was responsible, yet he hung around with a boy/girl who was irresponsible, who borrowed/stole/coerced the gun from the responsible child, then that obviously isn't a good idea. Obiously most people are sensible when it comes to having guns. But I know someone bought in a BB gun to College once and being adolescents and easy coerced, most of us ended up firing at empty soda cans. None of us (as far as I know), would have ever used it against people or animals, but if others can so easily get hold of such a thing, then it slightly worries me. Sometimes it doesn't matter how sensible a person is, if they're weak-minded, or easily lead, then they will be manipulated into doing something. Especially at school level. Bullying occurred all the time at my school. -------------
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 14:22
| Banning something because it can used thoughtlessly by a small minority is silly. You might as well ban kitchen knives or glue. |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 18:47
|
ALFW:
Not to gainsay Plato, Rouseau, Kant et al, let me simply offer a series of "imperatives" from the system of belief that I follow:
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you."
"Greater love hath no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
"Judge not, lest ye be judged in equal measure."
"He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
"Take the log out of your own eye before you take the mote out of anothers'."
"In 'patience' possess ye your souls."
"...We glory in tribulation also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience." (Empathy, take note! LOL)
"And above all things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness."
"Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely..."
"Be clothed with humility..."
And these are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. There are dozens of others.
And, of course, the one I follow preached a ministry of love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth.
I think these are pretty darn good "imperatives," and words and ideas to live by and to make the world a better, less violent, more loving place.
Peace.
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 20:48
|
I confess I haven't read every post here. But while I agree that there are liberties at risk these days, the NSA wiretapping certainly raises my eybrows and I'm not too keen on a few others like the marriage ammendment the feds want to impose, but people also seem to forget the liberties that have incurred over the last 50 years.
Maani, you're about the same age as I am, so I'm sure you remember the days when you were put in jail for flipping the bird in public, pubic hair didn't exist in Playboy, a toilet wasn't even mentioned on TV 'til All In The Family came to fold, there was no motion picture rating system to expand on artistic expression in films, protests have become more of the norm instead of being countered with fire hoses and on and on. Seems that it goes both ways. To quote Jerry Seinfeld: "See how it all evens out?" |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 21:06
|
MtS:
Yes, I do remember most of those, but not being jailed for flipping the bird in public. At least not in NYC. In fact, until the 1980s, you could smoke a joint on the street and as long as you did it with some sense of "decorum" (i.e., not flagrantly), no one bothered you. In fact, the only time a cop would even say anything was if you were getting high near children - e.g., near a schoolground, or in a park where there were lots of kids.
I also remember that "peacable assembly" was easier and less likely to become violent, or to get any police response beyond making sure everyone was okay. I did not see a single mounted policeman at any rally or protest until the 1980s, much less police in riot gear, or hurling tear gas.
In NYC at least, protesting and rallying has not only become harder to do (more "permits" are needed for more places, etc.), but is also predestined - by the law enforcement community - to become "difficult" and possibly lead to problems. New "penning" procedures, less access, less egress, etc. creates a situation in which the possibility of attendee irritation - to say nothing of simple confusion - can lead, and has led, to near-violent conflicts. You need only read about the numerous civil rights and legal violations by the NYPD during the protests at the RNC to know just how "proto-totalitarian" the Big (wormy) Apple is becoming.
Peace.
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 22:37
I don't know about NYC, but tell that to the people who went to Kent State just up the road from me about how easy peaceful assemblies were in the 60's. |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 23:56
Didn't Herbert Marcuse have something to do with that? -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 00:01
|
MtS:
Perhaps I should have qualified my comment a bit. Clearly, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations under Nixon, things got way out of hand, given Nixon's well-known dictatorial predelections. I guess I was referring more to the post-Vietnam protests re such things as nuclear weapons, nuclear power, environment, and various civil rights issues. It was not that these issues did not bring out equally powerful (if different) passions to the anti-war rallies. It was simply that, under Ford, Carter, Clinton and even Reagan and Bush pere, there was not the same kind of anti-police or anti-protestor sentiment.
What Bush has done is bring back that sentiment - the fear, paranoia, secrecy and increased tension between protestors and law enforcement that has not been this evident since the Nixon years.
Peace.
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 00:08
|
I would just like to add that I have been a college student for five
years now, and have seen a number of protests, yet never have I seen
any kind of trouble with the police as long as things were peaceful. In
my experience, it is not difficult to protest peacefully at all.
However, I should qualify that by saying that I am not the protesting
type generally, so my experience is rather limited and I don't claim to
be an authority on the subject. Just my two cents.
-------------
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 10:33
Yeah, guns are like freakin' Strombringer that sit there humming for you to pick them up and kill people. It turns normally shy, demure and law abiding citizens into cold blooded Manson types by sending forth Satanic vibes for them to go out and kill people. Ignore prosecutring those who illegally obtain one, as it is the demonic gun makers churning out these possessed, vile metal horrors to inflict death and destruction.
Or better yet, even if the UN succeeds in their gun ban for all nations so the armies of petty dictators and terror groups can prey upon the free world at will, I'll be one of the ones keeping my weapons and protecting myself. Keep in mind that it was people who used guns to gain the freedoms that you all enjoy so much, whether you are American, Canadian or European. Guns and the right to defend yourself is not only vital, it is natural. Self preservation is a basic instinct. If you think man is above base desires and instincts, guess again. If you cannot kill someone when you have the opportunity to do so with a knife, chances are you would not do so with a gun. It is not the weapon but the person wielding it that makes the decision to kill. A gun cannot make you kill. A knife cannot make you kill. Only the person can make a final decision. Does it make a difference if a burglar or a murderer kills by shooting someone or by bludgeoning someone to death? The ban of guns will not only stop people from killing, it will not hinder the ones who will kill. Only upping the risks to the criminals will deter the person from doing so. A criminal rarely invades a place where he runs the greatest risk of personal injury or death. One way to up that ante in your favour is to be armed. Yes, death rates do go up when guns are made legal in a place where are first made legal-because the first thing that happens is criminals get shot trying to commit crimes in an area they first ran rampant. You have 911 operators deciding if people are a crank call before calling police or emergency personnel-do you really want to be home alone and unarmed and hear someone trying to break into your house, having to put your life alone in the hands of a 911 operator with something up their tookus? -------------
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 10:39
THANK YOU! By logic of the anti-gun people, we should ban alcohol and cars because someone might drive drunk, we should ban airplanes because someone might use them as guided missiles and we should ban fertilizer because someone might blow up an office building -------------
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 10:52
|
Erm, why ban alcohol and cars? Surely banning just alcohol would be sufficient? Actually, you make a valid point there, maybe there should be a ban on alcohol... I jest, or do I? -------------
|
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 13:07
And by your "logic" - the more people who have guns, the safer we all are........surprised they're not given away free at MacDonalds, actually..........
(Damned forum software - that last bit's by me, CT, not DS, in case you can't tell........) |