quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Out of morbid curiosity.. which European countries would you say were socialist?

Can I play too ?

Wouldn't that pretty much be all or most of Western Europe. Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway come to mind. Oh and I cant forget Greece. That one is a biggie.

define what socialist means for you please

Countries where the economic gap between people that have and people that have less is not that great. They have a capitalist side but lean heavily on social support systems for things like health care and schools, and they over regulate the business sector.

In America, socialism is a dirty word in many circles but we are certainly headed in that direction if not practically there. Though we have this thing called a constitution that's not supposed to give rise to socialism, its been misinterpreted over the years. We think we're so freakin capitalist even though we aren't so much as we used to be. We think we're a free country but that's probably because the citizens have a crap load of firepower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

So in addition to not knowing the difference between "lending" and giving, or what 100% actually means, you also use words like "socialist" without actually knowing what they mean?

I don't know if that was partly directed at me but the countries I mentioned lean more to the socialist side than they do to the free market. So just to qualify my remarks, I'm not saying they are 100% socialist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Out of morbid curiosity.. which European countries would you say were socialist?

Can I play too ?

Wouldn't that pretty much be all or most of Western Europe. Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway come to mind. Oh and I cant forget Greece. That one is a biggie.

define what socialist means for you please

Eulero, last week I read in the news that a court in Britain, equivalent to our Appellate court here, determined that the government run hospital and medical system could decide to take a person off life support over objections from the family. To me, a three percent chance to get mugged here is far better than a 100 percent right of the government to kill me when it no longer has a use for me. I honestly don't know why you and peon fear being here.

And again you misrepresent the facts. The boy was terminal ill and the parents were hoping for a miracle. To keep the boy on life support only caused him more pain and a higher risk of medical complications. In short the boy was already dead.

Hum, if the boy was already dead then your other arguments about pain and whatnot are invalided. You're going to have to pick which of the two arguments on which you'd like to hoist your petard.

I don't think you understand the point I made so I don't think I need argue your assignment of misrepresentation. I'll just let other who grasp the point comment.

For everyone else, when you disrespect life and give the government control of said life then the government will decide when you are no longer useful. If a family wants to hope for a miracle thay can make that choice. With respect to that and this thread, it's certainly not the governments responsibility to adjudicate my god given rights. Including my right to defend myself from which all of my other rights are exercised.

If the government can kill me when I'm no longer useful, which is what the legal president was in Britain, then the government can take anything else it wants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

So in addition to not knowing the difference between "lending" and giving, or what 100% actually means, you also use words like "socialist" without actually knowing what they mean?

I don't know if that was partly directed at me but the countries I mentioned lean more to the socialist side than they do to the free market. So just to qualify my remarks, I'm not saying they are 100% socialist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Out of morbid curiosity.. which European countries would you say were socialist?

Crazy, out of real morbid curiosity, what do you think of immature men with real tiny dicks who get off on goading people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Out of morbid curiosity.. which European countries would you say were socialist?

Can I play too ?

Wouldn't that pretty much be all or most of Western Europe. Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway come to mind. Oh and I cant forget Greece. That one is a biggie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

So in addition to not knowing the difference between "lending" and giving, or what 100% actually means, you also use words like "socialist" without actually knowing what they mean?

I don't know if that was partly directed at me but the countries I mentioned lean more to the socialist side than they do to the free market. So just to qualify my remarks, I'm not saying they are 100% socialist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would help if other Englishmen didn't insist that we should just brush aside the constitution and do as we are told.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Out of morbid curiosity.. which European countries would you say were socialist?

Crazy, out of real morbid curiosity, what do you think of immature men with real tiny dicks who get off on goading people?

Oh I'm sorry, I missed this.

I'm quite sure I can't speak for immature men with real tiny dicks.

I do have views on people who stoop to ad-hominem attacks and simultaneously accuse others of goading.

It's not complicated.

Do you, or do you not acknowledge that your statement that 100% of research studies support c/c was incorrect?

What would a mature man with a big dick do... would he say "Noes, you're just trying to goad me" or would a really mature man say "ALright, you have me on that one?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Others have said as much... the poet Dryden's 'eldest law' comes to mind. Apparently not everyone agrees that self defense is a good thing, but I'm in favor of it... myself.

The usual debate rhetoric seems to revolve around the logical fallacy that a right can be carried to the absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I would hope that everyone would disparage criminal violence, but as you can see from this thread, there is a lot of jingoism, revisionism, and othering going on from all corners of the globe.

The fundamental problem in comparing the US to other countries, is that there is no country with the needed factors to serve as a control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

My feeling is that this thread has been hijacked by people who want to disparage "American Violence." I'd like to discuss the right of the individual as discussed in the constitution and Declaration of Independence.

But, after disparaging criminal violence, what right do individuals hold to protect themselves to protect themselves from said violence? I say whatever complete right.

That is an interesting point. It's also a point that a post modern philosopher would agree with from the standpoint of who judges 'right'. In my case I then have to go back to the question does might make right? In a majority of the world it does. For instance if I'm in a bad part of town and accosted by bad people, if I have the might do I have the right to protect myself to an extreme. I believe I do. That extreme may not be right in an alternate situation. But, what right does the government have to pre-ordain my right prior to examination of the situation?

I am sure gun owners like Raul Rodriguez, Donald Montanez/Rivera, John Spooner and others feel the same way you do when they shot and killed innocent people and are now in prison. I would say the Government has every right.

I'm pleased to hear you say you're sure you know how crazy people think.

I worked in mental institutions so I do have some experience. You seem to be biased and very judgmental and know little of many things you have posted as I corrected a few. Do you really know anything about Marxism? Have you read "Das Kapital" and/or "The Communist Manifesto" "Socialism Past, Present and Future", Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" or are you just ranting?

Actually, shortly after his death, someone published a list of the ten books President Kennedy thought should be read. So, darn ol me read them. The Communist Manifesto was on the list. So I started reding that tripe something liked forty years ago. In addition I was once engaged to a woman who taught philosophy at Harvard. Ya, I know, being silly again. If you don't think I had to read to keep up with her then you've not been around smart women. Interestingly enough, when Red China released Chairman Mao's diaries the Pentagon immediately bought rights to them. I actually helped my fiancé translate them for the Pentagon. It was cool. We actually started translating Mao's poems into English as well.

With Mao's diaries you actually saw the implementation of the Chinese socialist system of forty years by Mao. I'd like to bet nosthro that's an experience you didn't have at the mental Heath facility.

In the post modern philosophical paradigm you are never limited to either or. That is modernistic thinking. In post modernism you can choose your world view and not have to prove it. That's how you can accept your whacked out theories about slave holders and the second amendment. Socialism is a post modern construct. It never has to prove itself, just as you cherry pick your facts. I understand that about your thinking nosthro. What is happening here is that I reject post modern philosophy and think with modern logic. You can't understand that so you think I misrepresent things because I don't validate your chosen logical paradigm. I understand that and you don't. So I accept you have trouble understanding me. Yet, I don't believe your misunderstanding merits condescension as you seem to. But, I find that is often a trait of post modern thinkers who are having their paradigm shaken. Those people only seem to like to speak to people who parrot them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would help if other Englishmen didn't insist that we should just brush aside the constitution and do as we are told.

Yep, I can understand why that would be annoying. It's worth pointing out that the only people that get to decide what the 2nd Amendment means are the people that sit on the USSC.

It's also a huge leap for many Europeans to place themselves in a position where they can talk even close to sensibly about the gun debate in the states. I have the slight advantage of having lived in Concord MA for two years, in a house that was standing a couple of miles from the North Bridge, when your lot kicked their first Redcoat butt. I spend about a quarter of my year in the US.

In the UK in particular, the general availability of firearms (both legal and non legal) is minute compared with the USA - so a complete prohibition is far more likely to be effective.

I don't see how a complete prohibition could possibly work in the USA. I'm not all that interested in fighting over "how we got here" so this isn't a silly "europeanist" claim that we Europeans are ever so civilised or any bollocks like that - it's just where we are today.

I can see, given the likelihood of encountering a criminal who is armed is much higher in the US, how c/c could have an impact on reducing crime, I can also see how it might result in an escalation too (criminals getting increasingly powerful/dangerous weapons)- So, I'll be reading the research you've pointed to with interest, and an open mind. I certainly don't believe that the correlation between gun ownership and gun crime that the anti gun lobby goes on about so much has been properly demonstrated. Even that commie bastard Michael White observed that gun ownership is higher in many parts of Canada where gun crime is a lot lower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
So, being true to this thread, if we don't discuss socialism as merely economic control but also control of the rights granted to citizens, how is that not socialist control?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would help if other Englishmen didn't insist that we should just brush aside the constitution and do as we are told.

Yep, I can understand why that would be annoying. It's worth pointing out that the only people that get to decide what the 2nd Amendment means are the people that sit on the USSC.

It's also a huge leap for many Europeans to place themselves in a position where they can talk even close to sensibly about the gun debate in the states. I have the slight advantage of having lived in Concord MA for two years, in a house that was standing a couple of miles from the North Bridge, when your lot kicked their first Redcoat butt. I spend about a quarter of my year in the US.

In the UK in particular, the general availability of firearms (both legal and non legal) is minute compared with the USA - so a complete prohibition is far more likely to be effective.

I don't see how a complete prohibition could possibly work in the USA. I'm not all that interested in fighting over "how we got here" so this isn't a silly "europeanist" claim that we Europeans are ever so civilised or any bollocks like that - it's just where we are today.

I can see, given the likelihood of encountering a criminal who is armed is much higher in the US, how c/c could have an impact on reducing crime, I can also see how it might result in an escalation too (criminals getting increasingly powerful/dangerous weapons)- So, I'll be reading the research you've pointed to with interest, and an open mind. I certainly don't believe that the correlation between gun ownership and gun crime that the anti gun lobby goes on about so much has been properly demonstrated. Even that commie bastard Michael White observed that gun ownership is higher in many parts of Canada where gun crime is a lot lower.

Good thesis. Now with those thoughts in mind, yesterday, I believe Peon, said that in Britain that the government just decided unilaterally, with no input from the people, to abolish all gun rights.

quote:



So, being true to this thread, if we don't discuss socialism as merely economic control but also control of the rights granted to citizens, how is that not socialist control?

quote:

ORIGINAL: nosthro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: nosthro

I wonder how long you hat this little speech saved? Did I mention you are judgmental?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would help if other Englishmen didn't insist that we should just brush aside the constitution and do as we are told.

Yep, I can understand why that would be annoying. It's worth pointing out that the only people that get to decide what the 2nd Amendment means are the people that sit on the USSC.

It's also a huge leap for many Europeans to place themselves in a position where they can talk even close to sensibly about the gun debate in the states. I have the slight advantage of having lived in Concord MA for two years, in a house that was standing a couple of miles from the North Bridge, when your lot kicked their first Redcoat butt. I spend about a quarter of my year in the US.

In the UK in particular, the general availability of firearms (both legal and non legal) is minute compared with the USA - so a complete prohibition is far more likely to be effective.

I don't see how a complete prohibition could possibly work in the USA. I'm not all that interested in fighting over "how we got here" so this isn't a silly "europeanist" claim that we Europeans are ever so civilised or any bollocks like that - it's just where we are today.

I can see, given the likelihood of encountering a criminal who is armed is much higher in the US, how c/c could have an impact on reducing crime, I can also see how it might result in an escalation too (criminals getting increasingly powerful/dangerous weapons)- So, I'll be reading the research you've pointed to with interest, and an open mind. I certainly don't believe that the correlation between gun ownership and gun crime that the anti gun lobby goes on about so much has been properly demonstrated. Even that commie bastard Michael White observed that gun ownership is higher in many parts of Canada where gun crime is a lot lower.

Good thesis. Now with those thoughts in mind, yesterday, I believe Peon, said that in Britain that the government just decided unilaterally, with no input from the people, to abolish all gun rights.

We're fortunate to be a democracy - So the notion of "Government" and "no input from the people" is nonsensical. The government is elected by the people, it is given a mandate to pass laws on behalf of the people.

The (effectively) complete ban on handguns in the UK was enacted after the Dunblane massacre. To a large extent it was a knee-jerk, but there was very very little public opposition to it - Certainly far far less than there was to the ban on fox hunting.

quote:



So, being true to this thread, if we don't discuss socialism as merely economic control but also control of the rights granted to citizens, how is that not socialist control?

Can you please just look up the definition of "socialist"... it has a very specific meaning relating to government control of the means of production.

Suffice it to say, there is just no actual interest in relaxing the very tight firearms legislation. We don't have a "hunting" tradition (being too small an island to have any of the amazing wilderness that there is in the states) and gun ownership has always been really very low - even prior to the ban.

And, it's worth noting - it is possible to own firearms, shot guns are relatively easy to obtain, and even rifles can be licensed if you have a good reason (eg pest control) to own one.

Despite what you may think, the British are very keen on their rights. When the Labour govt banned hunting with dogs (notably Fox hunting) close to 100,000 people marched through London to protest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


My comment was a response to a paraphrase of what I think ( without looking back) peon said. He stated, I paraphrase and could be wrong, that such a change in your government should have gone to the people and didnt. He used that as an example of how easy it was for the government to circumvent the people and we yanks should do the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: nosthro

I wonder how long you hat this little speech saved? Did I mention you are judgmental?

–-----------------------------------
Dude, it's only in post modern philosophy where they say you may not be judgmental because all ideas and cultures have the same validity so you can't judge...in fact you have to leave it to the intellectual elites to make judgements (The government say). I already told you I reject post modern philosophy. As a modern thinker I'm supposed to make judgements. Every day of my life I make judgements and don't sit waiting for the government to tell me what to do. As an engineer I literally make hundreds of judgements every day.

Making judgements is only bad when you have a controlling authority that doesn't allow that. Such as socialized government. With regard to this thread, every day I arm myself I make a judgement that can possibly harm myself and other people.


You see, this is what I mean when I say I understand you and you don't understand me. I pride myself on my judgement and frown on politically correct post modernists who will only follow orthodoxy.


You argue my point for me dude.

Oh and dude, I didn't have a speech. You asked and I answered. Why does that upset you?