|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:05 pm
*tilts head to the side reading that post* Wha? O_o; Morality is supposed to be about doing the right stuff. Somebody could never do something for what was supposed to be morality's sake and do it because they wanted to get out of doing what they thought was right at the same time.
Though two side notes: First, I'd say morality first does exist (since many people question if it even does when you stop considering religion) and is important, just a lot of people have the wrong idea about what it is, thinking it is just a bunch of made up junk with no real point to it and is whatever you say it is. Second, though what's right CAN be hard(er,est), it isn't always. And also, being hard(er,est) doesn't mean something is right either. This is a common mistake I see that really irritates me. People think just because something is easier it can not be right and just because something is harder it is right. I almost wish this problem would get pointed out and named as an actual logical fallacy if it doesn't already have a name or fall under any exact category. (I don't have all the names memorized for logical fallacies and I've never seen a really complete list, so there could be one. In which case, that would be awesome.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:20 am
Alright, then how about an example to back up my quarry.
Think Global warming for example. Simple solution? Decrease population. Problem? Morals. It'd be 'Wrong' to do such a thing.
But, if the death of a few could survive lives on a world wid scale, then wouldn't it be in moral's favor to end the few's lives to save the many?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
(treating global warming as if a 100% sure thing in all of existence, relation to humanity in cause, and in serious threat to human survival for the purpose of this topic)
To your last question: Nope!
Who gets to decide who these people are killed off for the sake of everybody else deciding? In this kind of a situation a whole bunch of people might want it done, but only as long as they and the ones they care about are not the ones killed. Where is anybody getting the right to go pick out these innocent people to be killed? I'd say in such a situation where population decrease would fix the situation of humanity, just let it go on. People will just compete for resources to survive and be happy. Those who prove themselves capable to survive still and/or valuable to other people for survival will out last the other less able/willing people until population is no longer a problem and whoever is left is there still without having to go on a murdering spree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:41 am
Now that's an idea I can live with! Let the world battle each other, and then the strong shall survive, and the weak, wither into nothingness.
only problem with that is that the law would undoubtedly try to interfere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:47 pm
Ah, but unlike other animals, for humanity strength to survive is not just in the physical sense of course. Brains, skills, talents, personality - these can help you out too. 3nodding Especially since guns kind of defeat the muscle strength difference mattering at all if it came down to a physical force contest. And as for the government, if it ever got that bad, governments that prove more harmful than beneficial to their governed have been over thrown before and it can be done again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:37 am
bluecherry
Ah, but unlike other animals, for humanity strength to survive is not just in the physical sense of course. Brains, skills, talents, personality - these can help you out too. 3nodding Especially since guns kind of defeat the muscle strength difference mattering at all if it came down to a physical force contest. And as for the government, if it ever got that bad, governments that prove more harmful than beneficial to their governed have been over thrown before and it can be done again. It's not the same ball game it once was, though, you've gotta admit. The framers of the Constitution didn't want their following generations of rulers to get too comfy and power-drunk, so they built in (what they thought at the time was) adequate protections for the populace to have the tools to overthrow bad government. The right to bear arms is a large part of that, but has become so weakened over time as to mean almost nothing. Seriously, there isn't a single weapon you have the right to own that is a match to even local law enforcement. And if you put together enough like-minded people with crappy legal firearms, the federal government storms in and arrests everyone -- if there are any survivors. It's sort of a "letter of the law versus intent of the law" thing... Our forefathers weren't aiming for a namby-pamby complacent nation of sheep that has a 30% voter turnout, but a nation of politically active and aware participants. And the ruling body wasn't intended to be "The Man", but "of the people, by the people, for the people". We're all anesthetized with iPods, Gameboys, flash videos, and told not to worry -- that Uncle Dubya has it all under control. Hmmmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:16 pm
True though that may be unfortunately, that things have gotten over time to favor keeping those in power in power to the point of going beyond legitimate protection to the point of them being kept in even when they aren't wanted and even harmful, I think the fact of sheer numbers still helps enough. The majority of the civilians of the U.S. V. those in the U.S. government, it might be a tough fight at first, but I don't see them winning in the end even if you just have to keep the government people trapped and sieged until they give up or die. We'd need a very largely coordinated effort and confidence that we could indeed succeed (the last thing we'd need would be a bunch of self-fulfilling prophecies of defeat being assured and everybody making it so by giving up and deciding to work for the corrupt government's side in hopes of getting let off easy after the government takes back over) though admittedly, but it is a feasible possibility. It is largely just a matter of, like you said, getting enough people to snap out of their apathetic trance and to actually pay attention, care about what is going on, and grow a spine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:29 pm
Baulder Alright, then how about an example to back up my quarry. Think Global warming for example. Simple solution? Decrease population. Problem? Morals. It'd be 'Wrong' to do such a thing. But, if the death of a few could survive lives on a world wid scale, then wouldn't it be in moral's favor to end the few's lives to save the many? Secularly, yes. But let's face it, "Global Warming" is not only a lie, it's a lie of propaganda. A lie that benefits a lot of people. The worst kind of lie. Also, whose decision would it be, killing off a huge ratio of the population? No-one's. For so many reasons. Not everyone would agree who should be killed or spared, first. Second, not everyone would even agree that it were our place to decide to begin with. And I mean, as if all those "marked for death" as well as the entire population on the other side of the fence are just going to stand by and take it up the a**, right? The world would end up being ravished by anarchy anyway. That's not a plan, that's an underdeveloped idea about as valid as the concept of "global warming". Jesus, look how the jews manipulated the "holocaust". Imagine what they'd do with a sequel like that. We'd be visiting museums and reading Elie Weisel's "The Day the Whole Wide World Got Annihilated by Evil Anti-Semetic White People" in school for millenia to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:38 pm
every1lafs bluecherry
Ah, but unlike other animals, for humanity strength to survive is not just in the physical sense of course. Brains, skills, talents, personality - these can help you out too. 3nodding Especially since guns kind of defeat the muscle strength difference mattering at all if it came down to a physical force contest. And as for the government, if it ever got that bad, governments that prove more harmful than beneficial to their governed have been over thrown before and it can be done again. It's not the same ball game it once was, though, you've gotta admit. The framers of the Constitution didn't want their following generations of rulers to get too comfy and power-drunk, so they built in (what they thought at the time was) adequate protections for the populace to have the tools to overthrow bad government. The right to bear arms is a large part of that, but has become so weakened over time as to mean almost nothing. Seriously, there isn't a single weapon you have the right to own that is a match to even local law enforcement. And if you put together enough like-minded people with crappy legal firearms, the federal government storms in and arrests everyone -- if there are any survivors. It's sort of a "letter of the law versus intent of the law" thing... Our forefathers weren't aiming for a namby-pamby complacent nation of sheep that has a 30% voter turnout, but a nation of politically active and aware participants. And the ruling body wasn't intended to be "The Man", but "of the people, by the people, for the people". We're all anesthetized with iPods, Gameboys, flash videos, and told not to worry -- that Uncle Dubya has it all under control. Hmmmmm... I'm pretty sure Uncle Dubya is the one who brought back some of our rights to bear arms, but okay (assault-rifle ban? Holey s**t that was idiotic). Now I'm all for "bearing arms", in fact I think we the responsible citizens should have unbarred access to all small arms, no questions asked. But I gotta say, pretty much ANYONE, even as it is now, can own guns more powerful than local law-enforcement. I mean the police are just using 12-gauge shotguns and 9mm semi-automatics. It's legal to own .45ACP, just about any revolver you can even get, even some automatics. Law enforcement is actually pretty underequipped. They use guns and ammunition designed to be used to less-than-lethal effect -- like they say, if they end up killing someone, they have failed their duty. I guess they leave the big guns to the military and the elites. What can we say? The constitution was written by people smarter and more independent than us, as they generally tend to have been at the time. I mean seriously, you can imagine our forefathers writing the constitution and saying, "the right to bear arms... no-one could possibly NOT understand that, right?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:57 pm
Out here in Shake N Bake, CA it's pretty hard to buy a more substantial rifle than, say, an SKS. *yawn* But local SWAT has AR-15 etc. Your assault rifle ban is great example. Just try to buy a SEMI-auto AK-47 out here for less than the price of a Mercedes! LOL
"It's my job to worry about it , it's your job to go about your business." --GWB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:02 pm
Well I would hardly call SWAT "local law enforcement", especially considering the acronym stands for "Special Weapons And Tactics". The average SKS is more than capable of taking out a lot of people at once; it's not really the access to firearms that prevents the masses from overpowering the authorities, it's the training and experience. An elite officer such as those in SWAT hardly ever so much as take a single bullet -- but if they do, just like anyone else, they're usually down for the count as long as it's anything over a poorly-placed 9mm hollowpoint. If you really wanted to, you and a hundred others could probably fight back so hard the military would be called in to stop you. It's not the guns, it's the numbers and the ability.
As for the accessibility of high-powered firearms in your area, you can blame no-one but the typical "thuggin' jungle bunny" type that apparently populates the California area. They're the ones bringing the guns in to commit petty crimes and shoot small children with. Ironically, maybe if a few more righteous people owned firearms it would have prevented these pathetic lowlifes from using firearms in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:51 am
It's on L.A. news tonight, a 19-yr-old has been picked up for fatally shooting a 3-week-old infant. Makes me physically ill. scream
I hope he's released into the general prison population, and the guards decide to take a smoke break... twisted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
