Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > No Guns Allowed

No Guns Allowed (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 01:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Don't worry, I know how to parse a sentence.

We have this ridiculously broad descriptor "arms". AFAICT, there are three ways we can interpret it.

1) Embrace the ridiculousness and let civilians stockpile cannon and grapeshot tac-nukes.

2) "Seat of our pants" through what's acceptable.

3) Use the militia clause as a guideline.

The third seems to be what we've done up to this point and strikes me as the obvious choice of the three.


Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how concealment intersects with the security of the free state. It doesn't for external threats, and using the arms against an internal threat is going to be extralegal anyway. Who cares about the concealment rap when they have you on armed sedition?
The right to keep and bear arms doesn't require a militia, and to me that clause isn't there just to insure one, it shall not be infringed. And frankly, states that are infringing those rights need to be set straight (again).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:00 AM
 
I'm not talking about whether a militia is required, I'm talking about what tools does the Amendment give us to interpret the meaning of the very broad term "arms".

Is not allowing me a naval cannon infringing on my rights?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You're projecting here. If you're not fine leaving your gun someplace safe, then don't frequent places where it's not ok for you to bring a gun. That's your choice as I see it. If you believe that you can't safely go shopping or go to a fast food place without your gun, I think your problem is not the store banning guns from their premises. In fact, respecting all the rules and regulations is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
Then if you're Muslim (a choice), don't frequent places where the owner doesn't want Muslims, that's their choice too. I think you don't understand that just leaving a gun in a car isn't a good option most of the time, and if you have to leave your gun at home you're defeating the purpose of a CWP, which is to allow citizens to carry a concealed firearm where they choose. You don't get to pick and choose for them based on your "feelings" and personal choices.

If you're on someone else's property, you have to accept that certain rules are up to them and no longer up to you. It doesn't matter whether the gun is concealed or not, if I don't want them on my premises I fail to see how that changes anything. Your argument in favor of allowing concealed carry even if the property owner doesn't allow guns to me is like arguing that cheating on a spouse is ok as long as the spouse doesn't notice it. And to equate people think that the self-determination of the owner on his property trumps your right to bear arms are squeamish or opposed to gun rights is just a deflection.
That works well when it's an issue you're fine with, doesn't it? Fortunately, that's not what (most) laws are based on, otherwise we'd always be tripping over each others feelings all day. So yeah, you can't have it both ways, either the business owner can choose their clientele or they can't.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not talking about whether a militia is required, I'm talking about what tools does the Amendment give us to interpret the meaning of the very broad term "arms".

Is not allowing me a naval cannon infringing on my rights?
I think if you can afford such a thing, they're really expensive and have ungodly upkeep, and are up for regular monthly inspections of it (the same as in the military), then that's up to you. Personally, I'd love to have a few nests of SAMs and a working Howitzer or two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I think if you can afford such a thing, they're really expensive and have ungodly upkeep, and are up for regular monthly inspections of it (the same as in the military), then that's up to you. Personally, I'd love to have a few nests of SAMs and a working Howitzer or two.
If it needs a Federal inspection, it's not a right.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If it needs a Federal inspection, it's not a right.
Well, I didn't say federal, just a proper inspection by an expert. There are lots of people in the private sector who are qualified to do that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well, I didn't say federal, just a proper inspection by an expert. There are lots of people in the private sector who are qualified to do that.
The Federal wasn't really the operative part of my point.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't see any logical reason for any of us to trust our government any more because he have some guns. In fact, I find this ridiculous.

For starters, I don't think our government is worried about their physical well-being. When/if we protest violently over their corrupt dealings they'll just tone down what they are doing for a while, establish a new norm, whatever. It's not like there is a single dictator to target, it's kind of death by a thousand cuts, they have ways to get away with what they are doing without a violent uprising. They're doing it as we speak, and yet a very significant percentage of this population doesn't even vote, so they are getting away with it quite easily, they are able to push the envelope with little to no resistance.

Secondly, do you think you are a representation of those politically active in trusting the government? I would say that most ideologues don't trust the government, the polls certainly seem to agree with this. Do you think this would be even worse if our gun laws had been stricter for several decades now?
I trust our government isn't a good environment for a tyrant to flourish because of the existence of an armed citizenry. Whether I trust our government not to **** things up on a day-to-day basis is a different question, even though both have the phrase "trust our government" in them.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 03:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The Federal wasn't really the operative part of my point.
The military requires inspections, and for good reason (if/when stuff like that malfunctions it's a very bad thing, for everyone in an area and environmentally), so I don't see a problem with requiring the same inspections for private ownership.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 03:57 AM
 
If you're mandating inspections, it's not a right.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 04:12 AM
 
Incorrect. Mandates (inspections, licenses, or permits) are already a part of life and tied to other rights, and some of the reasons for them are more important than others. You have the right to free speech, but in many instances you have to get a permit to do it. To get married (identified by the courts as a right) you have to purchase a license. Hell, you have the right to open a pizza shop, but do you know how many permits, inspections, and licenses are involved with that?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 05:26 AM
 
The typical example given to show the distinction of what constitutes a privilege as opposed to a right is your driver's license.

The pizza shop example you gave is exactly analogous to this. Saying you have a right to open a pizza shop is equivalent to saying you have a right to drive. Neither statement would be correct. These are privileges you petition the government for.

Likewise, as someone who has a bug up their ass about civil liberties, if you need a permit to engage in speech under certain circumstances, I consider these circumstances where you don't have freedom of speech. Full stop.


The right to bear arms means I don't need any form of license. Once I do, it's become a privilege. If I need a license in certain circumstances, these are circumstances I don't have the right to bear arms. In Illinois, this includes all firearms, as I'm not allowed to own one without a license. It is thus no longer a right.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 08:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Don't worry, I know how to parse a sentence.

We have this ridiculously broad descriptor "arms". AFAICT, there are three ways we can interpret it.

1) Embrace the ridiculousness and let civilians stockpile cannon and grapeshot tac-nukes.

2) "Seat of our pants" through what's acceptable.

3) Use the militia clause as a guideline.

The third seems to be what we've done up to this point and strikes me as the obvious choice of the three.


Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how concealment intersects with the security of the free state. It doesn't for external threats, and using the arms against an internal threat is going to be extralegal anyway. A concealment rap is pretty penny-ante when they can legit bag you on treason
I agree that if we have descended into revolution, the the right to conceal a weapon become moot. It's to be assumed if we are at that point then it is because there are few rights left and indeed the mere possession of any gun of any kind would likely be illegal.

However, the "militia for the security of a free state" does not just mean to fight against a tyrannical American government. The founders' intention was that the entire citizenry has the right and the duty to be armed and to be the defense against foreign aggressors as well. It's hard to imagine, I mean when was the last time enemy troops were on the ground in the US? Nevertheless, were that to happen they should "find a rifle around every corner" and fear every adult man and woman as they may be armed and (hopefully) trained. In this case can you not see that concealed weapons might be essential? When you are in a situation where there are real armed threats, a visible weapon may be a target on your back. Or front.

In such a situation should we wait for special provisions from the government to allow concealed carry? Or in such an insecure situation should the police and military be trusted not to overreact and exert extra control and authority over us "for our own safety"?

(After typing all that I just noticed you addressed external threats in your post, but I'm leaving the whole of my response in tact...just 'cause)
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The typical example given to show the distinction of what constitutes a privilege as opposed to a right is your driver's license.

The pizza shop example you gave is exactly analogous to this. Saying you have a right to open a pizza shop is equivalent to saying you have a right to drive. Neither statement would be correct. These are privileges you petition the government for.
I would argue that you are wrong about the pizza shop as well as the driver's license.

In the case of a pizza shop, a person has the right to life. That doesn't mean simply a right to "not be dead". That means a right to your own life. To live and thrive how you see fit as long as you don't hurt or defraud others. This means you have a right to try to convince people to pay for a service from you or to sell them pizza. This is what you use to eat, to secure shelter and to care for loved ones (not to mention enjoy your life as in the pursuit of happiness). The right to a business is every bit a right as the right to free speech, it just wasn't enumerated in The Constitution.

Add onto that property rights. The people have a right to their own property and to do with that property what they will. Whether I want to have a pizza party for friends or invite people to buy pizza from me, to the government there should be no distinction. In my view, business licensing, zoning laws, etc. are all a clear violation of a person's right to life and property. They equate to getting permission to live.

As for driving, people have the right to travel, and this has been upheld by SCOTUS. The freedom to move about is necessary to live, for the pursuit of happiness and is essential for the exercise of other rights. Does that mean you have a right to transport yourself in a government approved manner? Or are rights "inalienable"? The right to travel implies the right to choose how you travel as well just like speech, religion etc.. How does the Constitutionally established right to travel differ from any other right in this regard? As you said...

Likewise, as someone who has a bug up their ass about civil liberties, if you need a permit to engage in speech under certain circumstances, I consider these circumstances where you don't have freedom of speech. Full stop.

The right to bear arms means I don't need any form of license. Once I do, it's become a privilege. If I need a license in certain circumstances, these are circumstances I don't have the right to bear arms. In Illinois, this includes all firearms, as I'm not allowed to own one without a license. It is thus no longer a right.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The typical example given to show the distinction of what constitutes a privilege as opposed to a right is your driver's license.
That's why I didn't mention driving, it isn't a right, though you do have the right to travel, as snarcintush said (I don't wear sweatpants, FYI).

The pizza shop example you gave is exactly analogous to this. Saying you have a right to open a pizza shop is equivalent to saying you have a right to drive. Neither statement would be correct. These are privileges you petition the government for.
No, you do have the right, but where it's situational is when you're dealing with others (they have the right to health and not get sick from eating your pizza), by that same token a person who, theoretically, has the right to own a 10" AA gun also has the responsibility of not endangering their neighbors, either through incident or environmental concerns, which would be ensured by proper background checks and an inspection of the equipment and munitions by a licensed 3rd party expert. (This is already established with certain smaller caliber, non-portable firearms.) Right now you can own an M134 minigun, with the proper license and fees, only it must be properly stored and maintained (and they cost ~$400k).

Likewise, as someone who has a bug up their ass about civil liberties, if you need a permit to engage in speech under certain circumstances, I consider these circumstances where you don't have freedom of speech. Full stop.
In those instances you still have the right, but again, it's a situation where doing it in a certain venue would likely violate the rights of others, so giving the state or city a heads-up is expected, so they can provide either proper security or warnings to the rest of the public to stay clear. Say, you're a skinhead and want to have a white supremacist rally in a city square, where you plan on saying a lot of stupid, hateful shit. Well, cities require that you get a permit at least 24 (and sometimes 72) hours in advance, so they can prepare for your barrage of idiocy.

The right to bear arms means I don't need any form of license. Once I do, it's become a privilege. If I need a license in certain circumstances, these are circumstances I don't have the right to bear arms. In Illinois, this includes all firearms, as I'm not allowed to own one without a license. It is thus no longer a right.
But you do require a license, fees, and an inspection (of you showing you can shoot a gun) before you can carry that weapon in public, so you don't screw with the rights of others. The USSC has affirmed that you don't require a license just to own a firearm, just that you may need to meet certain qualifications to carry it around outside your own property. The courts have slapped Chicago and DC for this once already, it seems they need to do it again because they weren't paying attention the first time.

Again, it all comes down to balancing your rights with others, which is why I said that it should be perfectly fine for a person to carry a concealed handgun where they want on their person, provided they have proven fitness to do so, even into the cheese shop of someone who hates guns. What I don't have the right to do is whip it out and boldly show it off, because then that crosses over into violating their freedoms on their property.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
What you feel is a "big deal" doesn't matter, we (Americans) either have freedoms based on our Constitutional rights or we don't. Businesses either get to choose who they serve or they don't. And your "understanding" is completely false, there's no threat from a person carrying a holstered and concealed gun, unless you plan on attacking them and endangering their life for some reason. Then, well, you've only proven that they needed that weapon in the first place, so they could be protected from you.
So freedom of religion is not enshrined in your constitution and there are no states where a home/property owner is legally justified to shoot an armed trespasser on their property?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Oh, social contract BS? Also completely arbitrary.
How is it arbitrary? Its a perfectly fair point.


Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Hey! I agree! In this case he would get what is coming to him wouldn't he? Or perhaps you would prefer to indirectly subsidize the corner store racist by making him take money from people he would otherwise turn away?
Thats not really subsidising him is it? But yes, I would make him serve all customers regardless of his feelings. Sometimes forcing a little integration is the best way to eradicate the fear that drives these irrational prejudices. Letting people isolate themselves just perpetuates the problem.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So freedom of religion is not enshrined in your constitution and there are no states where a home/property owner is legally justified to shoot an armed trespasser on their property?
How you extrapolated that from what I've said is a true mystery, it boggles the mind. No, I'm not repeating myself, because it's a waste of time arguing this issue with someone who lives in a place where they don't have the right to keep and bear firearms. It's like trying to explain freedom of speech to someone from North Korea.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You don't get to pick and choose for them based on your "feelings" and personal choices.
Unless it's on my property, then my »feelings« and personal choices do count.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That works well when it's an issue you're fine with, doesn't it?
You're just going an a fishing expedition here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How is it arbitrary? Its a perfectly fair point.
My point wasn't just that I thought your response was arbitrary, it was that social contract theory in general is arbitrary, unsubstantiated garbage. It essentially asserts that a government can impose itself upon you, and since you gain a so-called benefit from it you are giving implicit approval. Besides the fact that there is no rational argumentation for this, it would require the existence of a choice, which the government either removes directly or indirectly by using the force of law to set themselves up as an artificial monopoly and driving out the private alternatives.

Thats not really subsidising him is it?
Of course it is, indirectly. You are increasing the viability of his business by the force of law. You are removing his ability to make his own poor choices in favor of a government imposed moral mandate that in the end benefits him financially. Maybe it's your goal to improve the livelihood of racists, homophobes etc., I don't know. If that is your goal then my point is moot.

But yes, I would make him serve all customers regardless of his feelings. Sometimes forcing a little integration is the best way to eradicate the fear that drives these irrational prejudices. Letting people isolate themselves just perpetuates the problem.
So is it your view that The State should use force in order to manipulate people whom they don't approve of in order to engender proper, state approved views?

People should never be forced to deal with each other. That's the kind of barbarism that we tried to leave behind in the 18th century.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
...snarcintush said (I don't wear sweatpants, FYI).


I rather like snarcintush.

I actually just thought Cap'n Sweatpants sounded funny in my head, and it's a Big Bang Theory reference.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Unless it's on my property, then my »feelings« and personal choices do count.
Nope, not according to US courts, they've made many decisions that outline who you're required to serve if you own a business, there is no right to refuse service if it infringes on someone else's rights. That's the way it is.

You're just going an a fishing expedition here.
Hardly, just an astute observation based on what seen from the Left around here.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
My point wasn't just that I thought your response was arbitrary, it was that social contract theory in general is arbitrary, unsubstantiated garbage. It essentially asserts that a government can impose itself upon you, and since you gain a so-called benefit from it you are giving implicit approval. Besides the fact that there is no rational argumentation for this, it would require the existence of a choice, which the government either removes directly or indirectly by using the force of law to set themselves up as an artificial monopoly and driving out the private alternatives.
Whether you like it or not, you have to subject yourself to some measure of government. If you wish to run a business, you have to subject yourself to more of it. Since the government belongs to everyone, why shouldn't it take steps to ensure that everyone is treated fairly?


Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Of course it is, indirectly. You are increasing the viability of his business by the force of law. You are removing his ability to make his own poor choices in favor of a government imposed moral mandate that in the end benefits him financially. Maybe it's your goal to improve the livelihood of racists, homophobes etc., I don't know. If that is your goal then my point is moot.
You aren't removing the choices because they are financially poor, you are removing them because they are hateful and unfair to other citizens who deserve not to be discriminated against. I don't want to make him richer, but I like the idea of making him uncomfortable. Thats not really relevant though.

Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
So is it your view that The State should use force in order to manipulate people whom they don't approve of in order to engender proper, state approved views?

People should never be forced to deal with each other. That's the kind of barbarism that we tried to leave behind in the 18th century.
I really don't think that forcing someone to do business (the same business they do with everyone else) with someone they don't like qualifies as barbarism. If you work in a store, and someone you hate comes in and expects you to serve them, do you expect your employer to to take your side and refuse service? Would you even expect them to get another member of staff to perform the sale? I think we all know that most bosses would tell you to suck it up and take disciplinary action if you did anything but comply without further complaint.

And its not force though is it? The citizen still has the right to not operate their own business if they don't like the rules. Many people make that choice anyway. Its encouragement, not force. He still has the choice to opt out. He wants to reap the benefits, he has to take some of the conditions. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it.

Its a lack of integration that causes cultures living side by side to breed resentment towards each other. Its a growing problem. When you take steps to put a stop communities from isolating themselves you foster understanding and tolerance. I see that as a good thing.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
How you extrapolated that from what I've said is a true mystery, it boggles the mind. No, I'm not repeating myself, because it's a waste of time arguing this issue with someone who lives in a place where they don't have the right to keep and bear firearms. It's like trying to explain freedom of speech to someone from North Korea.
I'm not sure why you think my interpretation is mysterious. Its basically exactly what you said.

Your other little gem works both ways too. There is little point in me arguing with someone who doesn't understand what its like to live in a place where you don't have to live in fear that your neighbour will kick the door in and rob you at gunpoint if the supermarket runs out of milk.

Now I'll sit back and watch as the best you can muster will be to focus entirely on refuting my hilarious exaggeration while paying no attention whatsoever to the salient points of my post,
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's why I didn't mention driving, it isn't a right, though you do have the right to travel, as snarcintush said (I don't wear sweatpants, FYI).



No, you do have the right, but where it's situational is when you're dealing with others (they have the right to health and not get sick from eating your pizza), by that same token a person who, theoretically, has the right to own a 10" AA gun also has the responsibility of not endangering their neighbors, either through incident or environmental concerns, which would be ensured by proper background checks and an inspection of the equipment and munitions by a licensed 3rd party expert. (This is already established with certain smaller caliber, non-portable firearms.) Right now you can own an M134 minigun, with the proper license and fees, only it must be properly stored and maintained (and they cost ~$400k).



In those instances you still have the right, but again, it's a situation where doing it in a certain venue would likely violate the rights of others, so giving the state or city a heads-up is expected, so they can provide either proper security or warnings to the rest of the public to stay clear. Say, you're a skinhead and want to have a white supremacist rally in a city square, where you plan on saying a lot of stupid, hateful shit. Well, cities require that you get a permit at least 24 (and sometimes 72) hours in advance, so they can prepare for your barrage of idiocy.



But you do require a license, fees, and an inspection (of you showing you can shoot a gun) before you can carry that weapon in public, so you don't screw with the rights of others. The USSC has affirmed that you don't require a license just to own a firearm, just that you may need to meet certain qualifications to carry it around outside your own property. The courts have slapped Chicago and DC for this once already, it seems they need to do it again because they weren't paying attention the first time.

Again, it all comes down to balancing your rights with others, which is why I said that it should be perfectly fine for a person to carry a concealed handgun where they want on their person, provided they have proven fitness to do so, even into the cheese shop of someone who hates guns. What I don't have the right to do is whip it out and boldly show it off, because then that crosses over into violating their freedoms on their property.
I'm utterly lost. You say driving is not a right, and owning a pizza shop is, but you need a license to protect the rights of others. What is the distinction? Why is driving not a right which you need a license to protect the rights of others.

You claim these things are different, but I fail to see even the slightest difference.


Also, if the SCOTUS determined you can own a gun without a license, no one told the Illinois legislature. They still require all firearm owners to register with the state police and get a Firearm Owner's ID (FOID).

As I've mentioned before, I have one, not because I own a gun, but because the state is such a pain in the ass about guns a range owner won't rent me a gun which will never leave the range unless I have one.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 07:25 PM
 
@smac

I'm confused here too... so driving is a right?

Does anyone at least see the semantic value in my definition? It seems way more precise than what I'm getting. I can tell you exactly why driving, owning a shop, owning property, owning a gun in Illinois, and going on a neo-Nazi march are not rights: they all require state approval.

Rights do not require state approval.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not sure why you think my interpretation is mysterious. Its basically exactly what you said.

Your other little gem works both ways too. There is little point in me arguing with someone who doesn't understand what its like to live in a place where you don't have to live in fear that your neighbour will kick the door in and rob you at gunpoint if the supermarket runs out of milk.

Now I'll sit back and watch as the best you can muster will be to focus entirely on refuting my hilarious exaggeration while paying no attention whatsoever to the salient points of my post,
You have no salient points. Now I'll sit back and watch as you throw a tantrum over your failed trolling.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm utterly lost. You say driving is not a right, and owning a pizza shop is, but you need a license to protect the rights of others. What is the distinction? Why is driving not a right which you need a license to protect the rights of others.
Again, I didn't bring up driving. Ever since my civics classes in school I've been told that it's a privilege and not a right. I'll admit that it's an oddball, IMO.

You claim these things are different, but I fail to see even the slightest difference.
Okay.

Also, if the SCOTUS determined you can own a gun without a license, no one told the Illinois legislature. They still require all firearm owners to register with the state police and get a Firearm Owner's ID (FOID).
An issue that needs to be rectified by the courts, because that was ruled unconstitutional.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 08:21 PM
 
Is there some explanation of the difference I missed? That was why I mentioned not seeing the difference.

Which particular SCOTUS ruling do you think makes the Illinois law unconstitutional?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@smac

I'm confused here too... so driving is a right?
It is my point that yes I consider it to be a right, and that the commonly held view that it is a privilege is incorrect. I say that it is a right in principle (based upon the right to freedom of movement).

I am speaking in principle, not in legal terms. The state views it as a privilege granted to us peons from on high but with a proper understanding of what a right is, driving most certainly is.

The argument that the state owns the roads therefore they make the rules doesn't fly either, because of the same right to freedom of movement. The state has a monopoly on the roads held in place by force. To say that you have the right to freedom of movement, but the right to drive a car is a privilege is a contradiction. It is to say that you have the right to freedom of movement...as long as you move how the state allows you to.

I realize that I can post right past people because I tend to think in terms of principle while others are arguing in terms of concretes.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 10:40 PM
 
@smac, part deux.

WRT an external threat, while a concealed weapon is going to be better than nothing in terms of personal protection, but when it comes to actually fighting the threat, in most circumstances, a person armed with only a pistol is going to be worse than useless.

The vast majority of the time, the weapons useful for fighting an external threat are going to be longarms. Concealment isn't a question with them.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Whether you like it or not, you have to subject yourself to some measure of government. If you wish to run a business, you have to subject yourself to more of it. Since the government belongs to everyone, why shouldn't it take steps to ensure that everyone is treated fairly?
More of the same. You are still arguing social contract, which is baseless. It is nothing more than your arbitrary assertion of how you (and others who think like you do) think things ought to be.

You aren't removing the choices because they are financially poor, you are removing them because they are hateful and unfair to other citizens who deserve not to be discriminated against.
First of all, the motivation is irrelevant, the effect is the same. Using force to make someone do something against his will that will in the end benefit him financially.

Second, to quote William Munny-"Deserves ain't got nuthin' to do with it." A person...ANY person...is not entitled to a certain kind of treatment simply because of his race, sexual orientation or any other inherent "traits" (for lack of a better term). Isn't that the whole point?

I really don't think that forcing someone to do business (the same business they do with everyone else) with someone they don't like qualifies as barbarism.
Forcing people ultimately to be backed by brute, physical force if necessary to behave a certain way falls pretty neatly under the heading of barbarism.

If you work in a store, and someone you hate comes in and expects you to serve them, do you expect your employer to to take your side and refuse service? Would you even expect them to get another member of staff to perform the sale? I think we all know that most bosses would tell you to suck it up and take disciplinary action if you did anything but comply without further complaint.
I'm not sure what your point is, are we talking about employee insubordination now? Or is it that if I run a business that the government is my boss and I should just do as I'm told? I'm seriously confused here.

And its not force though is it? The citizen still has the right to not operate their own business if they don't like the rules. Many people make that choice anyway. Its encouragement, not force. He still has the choice to opt out. He wants to reap the benefits, he has to take some of the conditions. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it.
Right...and if the government wants to tell you what kind of religion you are allowed to practice that's not really force is it? You still have the choice to opt out or just choose one of their allowed ones. This isn't really force, it's encouragement. Oh wait, you don't have the "right" to earn a living do you so the analogy is not valid. So much for that.

Is it really your view that creating laws that will be enforced by people with guns weapons is not force...because you can choose to do something else? Are you KIDDING ME?

Its a lack of integration that causes cultures living side by side to breed resentment towards each other. Its a growing problem. When you take steps to put a stop communities from isolating themselves you foster understanding and tolerance. I see that as a good thing.
Yes, of course. Certain people who don't behave in a state approved manner should be corrected by force. It doesn't count as force if it's for a good reason.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
It is my point that yes I consider it to be a right, and that the commonly held view that it is a privilege is incorrect. I say that it is a right in principle (based upon the right to freedom of movement).

I am speaking in principle, not in legal terms. The state views it as a privilege granted to us peons from on high but with a proper understanding of what a right is, driving most certainly is.

The argument that the state owns the roads therefore they make the rules doesn't fly either, because of the same right to freedom of movement. The state has a monopoly on the roads held in place by force. To say that you have the right to freedom of movement, but the right to drive a car is a privilege is a contradiction. It is to say that you have the right to freedom of movement...as long as you move how the state allows you to.

I realize that I can post right past people because I tend to think in terms of principle while others are arguing in terms of concretes.
Okay... now I got you.

As always, very thought provoking take.

I still have a bit of semantic confusion.

Are you saying driving should be a right, or are you saying freedom of movement should get called out as a sham?

If the former, would you have a system to revoke the right?

I get around this by holding the principle (definition?) a right can't be revoked... thus driving is disqualified because it needs a revocation system.

At the moment, there are all kinds of rights you get revoked if you're a felon. I would say these things aren't ultimately rights because of it. This policy needs to be changed for that very reason.

There's also the reason it's a ****head policy.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
More of the same. You are still arguing social contract, which is baseless. It is nothing more than your arbitrary assertion of how you (and others who think like you do) think things ought to be.
Just stating its baseless is a worthless dead end. You haven't demonstrated how what I'm saying is unfair or unreasonable. Everything is baseless if you want to get philosophical about it. Its based on common sense and (insufficiently) common decency. Theres a basis for you.



[QUOTE=smacintush;4308391]First of all, the motivation is irrelevant, the effect is the same. Using force to make someone do something against his will that will in the end benefit him financially. certain kind of treatment simply because of his race, sexual orientation or any other inherent "traits" (for lack of a better term). Isn't that the whole point? [QUOTE]

The face it benefits him financially is ultimately irrelevant. Its only about requiring him to do the right thing and treat his fellow citizens in a decent and equal manner.

Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Forcing people ultimately to be backed by brute, physical force if necessary to behave a certain way falls pretty neatly under the heading of barbarism.
Then everything is barbarism. Taxes, laws, its all just so barbaric.

Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I'm not sure what your point is, are we talking about employee insubordination now? Or is it that if I run a business that the government is my boss and I should just do as I'm told? I'm seriously confused here.
Just trying to demonstrate that there are other very common circumstances where we have to make compromises to get what we want.



Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Right...and if the government wants to tell you what kind of religion you are allowed to practice that's not really force is it? You still have the choice to opt out or just choose one of their allowed ones. This isn't really force, it's encouragement. Oh wait, you don't have the "right" to earn a living do you so the analogy is not valid. So much for that.
You have the right to follow any religion you like. You don't have carte blanche to earn money any way you like. Perhaps you think that banning drug dealing and people trafficking is also barbaric and oppressive?

Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Is it really your view that creating laws that will be enforced by people with guns weapons is not force...because you can choose to do something else? Are you KIDDING ME?
No. Decisions have consequences. Its this spoiled greedy attitude of "I should be able to do whatever I want on 100% my own terms because freedom" argument that makes the civilised world mock and deride you.


Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Yes, of course. Certain people who don't behave in a state approved manner should be corrected by force. It doesn't count as force if it's for a good reason.
I'm sure anarchy would be so much better.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay... now I got you.

As always, very thought provoking take.

I still have a bit of semantic confusion.

Are you saying driving should be a right, or are you saying freedom of movement should get called out as a sham?

If the former, would you have a system to revoke the right?

I get around this by holding the principle (definition?) a right can't be revoked... thus driving is disqualified because it needs a revocation system.
Let me answer it this way, it is my viewpoint that a person has a fundamental right to pretty much any action that doesn't violate another's rights.

At the moment, there are all kinds of rights you get revoked if you're a felon. I would say these things aren't ultimately rights because of it. This policy needs to be changed for that very reason.

There's also the reason it's a ****head policy.
They way I see it, taking away certain rights is no different than serving jail time or something. Being held against your will in another context is kidnapping and as a matter of justice it is perfectly appropriate.
( Last edited by smacintush; Jan 27, 2015 at 12:07 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Just stating its baseless is a worthless dead end. You haven't demonstrated how what I'm saying is unfair or unreasonable. Everything is baseless if you want to get philosophical about it. Its based on common sense and (insufficiently) common decency. Theres a basis for you.
But no basis in our current or historical executive, judicial, or legislative governance. That's his point.


The face it benefits him financially is ultimately irrelevant. Its only about requiring him to do the right thing and treat his fellow citizens in a decent and equal manner.
This is the part that causes such consternation in us Americans. Who decides when someones doing the right thing? You? Congress? Lawyers? The police??! Hows that going for us right now?

Let's say Joe walks into a store to buy a cake, but the shop owner refuses him without giving a reason. In your world, what happens?

Is the shop owner legally required to provide a reason?
Can Joe sue for discrimination?

You cannot have "Freedom of Expression" alongside "Making people do the right thing by law"

They are, by definition, incongruent.

Just trying to demonstrate that there are other very common circumstances where we have to make compromises to get what we want.
There is a massive difference between the government enforcing that compromise and a business owner operating his sovereign property. The government deprives that owner of his free choice, in the latter situation they simply part ways (or not) by choice.




You have the right to follow any religion you like. You don't have carte blanche to earn money any way you like. Perhaps you think that banning drug dealing and people trafficking is also barbaric and oppressive?
Perhaps banning drugs is barbaric and oppressive, just less so than the cycle of being on those drugs. Is allowing people to CC really on that level?


No. Decisions have consequences. Its this spoiled greedy attitude of "I should be able to do whatever I want on 100% my own terms because freedom" argument that makes the civilised world mock and deride you.
It goes the other way too.

The only thing the "civilized world" that you speak of is able to do is mock and deride you, thanks to that "I should be able to say whatever I want 100% on my own terms because freedom of expression."

IMO, the spoiled greedy attitude is forcing your views of what's right on me and mine. I am perfectly capable of deciding what's right for me without you or your ridiculous attempts to legislate morality on everyone else, often decimating freedom of speech and expression in the process.

You want freedom, so long as that freedom jives with your world views. It is absurdly paradoxical, and you don't have the tolerance for others' views to see it.
You aren't as civilized as you think.



I'm sure anarchy would be so much better.


Strawman much?
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jan 26, 2015 at 11:38 PM. Reason: typo)
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 06:17 AM
 
I'm pretty sure when it comes to racism and equal rights, the people have spoken on that subject. No-one is stopping the business owner from telling people who have a different racial background, religious beliefs or sexual preferences that he hates them, disapproves of them or would rather not serve 'their kind'. His freedom of expression is not under any sanction in that regard and most will take offence and choose to keep their money to spend elsewhere. Its often the case that a registered business advertising goods for sale to the general public at an advertised price constitutes a contract in its own right.

So yes perhaps a civil suit is another way to deal with it. Any precedent set their though would still end up equivalent to legislation requiring non-discrimination.

I understand why you cherish the right to be an asshole, I really do. But if you allow racism in particular to go unchallenged, the problems it can cause have consequences far worse than some asshole feeling oppressed because he didn't get his own way. This is something the rest of the developed world has a far greater appreciation of than you guys do. Your involvement was far more removed the last time it got really out of hand.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Let me answer it this way, it is my viewpoint that a person has a fundamental right to pretty much any action that doesn't violate another's rights.



They way I see it, taking away certain rights is no different than serving jail time or something. Being held against your will in another context is kidnapping and . As a matter of justice it is perfectly appropriate.
I know you're not saying everything is a right, but you're getting close enough I want to respond "if everything is a right then nothing is a right". This goes double if we allow the government to revoke these rights.

You pointedly mentioned how we're (incorrectly) told the privilege to drive is handed down to us peons, but unless I'm misunderstanding, that's exactly what you're calling for. You want a government entity which is given control over our right to drive and has the ability to revoke it.

If you give them that power, saying it is different than a privilege handed down to the peons looks to me like a semantic shell game. What is the concrete difference between what you propose and what we have now?
( Last edited by subego; Jan 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM. )
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I know you're not saying everything is a right, but you're getting close enough I want to respond "if everything is a right then nothing is a right".
I don't understand this logic. If everything is a right...then everything is a right. If I am acting in a way that doesn't harm anyone, what business does anyone have telling me I can't do it or that I need to do it in a state-approved manner? If "everything" is not a right then in your opinion how do you determine what a right is? You have a right to your own life, your own property, and your own pursuit of happiness. In this context, what possible actions that don't violate anyone's rights do you justify allowing government control over? Why?

You pointedly mentioned how we're (incorrectly) told the privilege to drive is handed down to us peons, but unless I'm misunderstanding, that's exactly what you're calling for. You want a government entity which is given control over our right to drive and has the ability to revoke it.

If you give them that power, saying it is different than a privilege handed down to the peons looks to me like a semantic shell game. What is the concrete difference between what you propose and what we have now?
By your assessment then, no form of punishment by the judicial system is allowed then because every punishment dished out is a suspension of rights, either temporarily or permanently.

We give government the power of retaliatory force against those who initiate harm against others. The keyword is initiate. Government should not be initiating force against anyone, ever. THIS is the issue. THIS is what separates a proper rights-respecting government and an oppressive one.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 01:07 PM
 
Having the right to travel does NOT guarantee you can drive. Get a bike, take a cab, get a ride or whatever, you still can travel, which is a right. having a slew of drunk driving convictions will get you a revoked license, but does not mean you can't travel.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Having the right to travel does NOT guarantee you can drive. Get a bike, take a cab, get a ride or whatever, you still can travel, which is a right. having a slew of drunk driving convictions will get you a revoked license, but does not mean you can't travel.
Or if you're legally blind, you're also not allowed to drive yourself. That's why the right to bear arms doesn't mean you're allowed to carry a gun with you in all circumstances (e. g. when you want to fly* or if you have been committed of a felony).

* That reminds me of a funny story: my father's host brother used to be police commissioner for a large city in Michigan. When he visited my parents in the 1970s, he took his gun and badge along. It didn't occur to him that he was breaking quite a few German laws at the time.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm pretty sure when it comes to racism and equal rights, the people have spoken on that subject.
Would it surprise you that I am "of those people" who support gay rights?


No-one is stopping the business owner from telling people who have a different racial background, religious beliefs or sexual preferences that he hates them, disapproves of them or would rather not serve 'their kind'. His freedom of expression is not under any sanction in that regard and most will take offence and choose to keep their money to spend elsewhere. Its often the case that a registered business advertising goods for sale to the general public at an advertised price constitutes a contract in its own right.
This is a straw man. That's not what I asked you.

So yes perhaps a civil suit is another way to deal with it. Any precedent set their though would still end up equivalent to legislation requiring non-discrimination.
Ah yes, lawyers arguing over forms of discriminatory speech in lawsuits. What could possibly go wrong with that??

I understand why you cherish the right to be an asshole, I really do.
Its not "the right to be an asshole" it's "freedom of expression." You can't pick which parts you like out of that - you either have it or you don't.

But if you allow racism in particular to go unchallenged, the problems it can cause have consequences far worse than some asshole feeling oppressed because he didn't get his own way. This is something the rest of the developed world has a far greater appreciation of than you guys do. Your involvement was far more removed the last time it got really out of hand.
Actually, it's intolerance that cannot go unchallenged. You're just imposing your intolerance for one set of views over another. Your first statement literally can apply both ways. You just feel justified in your intolerance of views you find icky and mean, and want to tweak freedom of expression as a result. You are being intolerant in the name of tolerance.


The rest of the world does not have a far greater appreciation of it than the US does. The last time things got out of hand, we only had to get involved when ya'll couldn't handle the problems you all started as a result of your "civilized" intolerance for one set of world views or another. We were content to sit by and let you figure out your civilized intolerance, and as a result the world went to war. Did you not learn nothing by that?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Having the right to travel does NOT guarantee you can drive. Get a bike, take a cab, get a ride or whatever, you still can travel, which is a right. having a slew of drunk driving convictions will get you a revoked license, but does not mean you can't travel.
As I mentioned before, implicit in the concept of rights is that it is the right to choose. That is why I used the analogy of freedom of religion. It is not legitimate to say that freedom of religion is a right, but you have to choose from this list of religions, or you must worship in a state approved location, or that you must get a license/permit to worship. The same applies to right to freedom of movement. You have a right to move about in whatever manner you choose as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

I understand some of what you are saying. Yes automobiles, like weapons, are dangerous. If you are an actual danger to others it is perfectly legitimate to not let them drive, in the same way that a child molester should not be allowed to work in a day care. However, in my view for the rest of the adults who aren't endangering anyone it should not be treated as a privilege doled out by our betters, but a right not to be infringed upon.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post

Actually, it's intolerance that cannot go unchallenged. You're just imposing your intolerance for one set of views over another. Your first statement literally can apply both ways. You just feel justified in your intolerance of views you find icky and mean, and want to tweak freedom of expression as a result. You are being intolerant in the name of tolerance.
Wherever two sets of beliefs are incompatible, something has to give.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The rest of the world does not have a far greater appreciation of it than the US does.
Your next statements contradict this one.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The last time things got out of hand, we only had to get involved when ya'll couldn't handle the problems you all started as a result of your "civilized" intolerance for one set of world views or another. We were content to sit by and let you figure out your civilized intolerance, and as a result the world went to war. Did you not learn nothing by that?
Luckily, the rest of us chose not to sit on our asses being tolerant of a force that wanted to eradicate everyone who didn't live up to their standards of perfection. Perhaps you think that was wrong because we were impeding Hitlers freedom of expression.
That episode of history is probably one of the main reasons we can claim to be more civilised. It is very clear that it had substantially less effect on you lot.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 07:22 PM
 
I don't like the turning the tables on tolerance concept in accusing people of being intolerant of alleged intolerance.

As a society we have made decisions about certain ideals and principles. The obvious ones are that raping and murder is bad, for example. Others are grayer areas. One can make the argument that we should be accepting and tolerances of differences with these gray area issues, but isn't racism being undesired a principal we can all agree upon? Therefore, in the cases of blatant racism that are not terribly debatable, legally or otherwise, no, we should not be tolerant of intolerance.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't like the turning the tables on tolerance concept in accusing people of being intolerant of alleged intolerance.

As a society we have made decisions about certain ideals and principles. The obvious ones are that raping and murder is bad, for example. Others are grayer areas. One can make the argument that we should be accepting and tolerances of differences with these gray area issues, but isn't racism being undesired a principal we can all agree upon? Therefore, in the cases of blatant racism that are not terribly debatable, legally or otherwise, no, we should not be tolerant of intolerance.
I don't think that the fact that "we can all agree" has any bearing whatsoever. It's not OK to legally bar a certain behavior or attempt to bar a certain viewpoint because everyone says it's bad.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I don't think that the fact that "we can all agree" has any bearing whatsoever. It's not OK to legally bar a certain behavior or attempt to bar a certain viewpoint because everyone says it's bad.
You're spinning your tires here. You can't usually legally bar sexual harassment, for example, because it is very difficult to prove without recording devices. However, at the end of the day, as a society we do not tolerate it. That is the point. We don't need to get into quasi-academic arguments to agree upon some basic things in society.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 01:54 AM
 
"What society tolerates" is another way of saying "what is popular", but that's not the point of freedom of expression laws, they're to protect unpopular opinions. As long as you aren't directly hurting someone else, your choices are just as important as any other individual's.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We don't need to get into quasi-academic arguments to agree upon some basic things in society.
Oh really? Without these arguments how do we come to agreement? Are they self-evident? Do they come from inborn knowledge? Are we a Borg collective?

Or is this question too "quasi-academic"?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
The same applies to right to freedom of movement. You have a right to move about in whatever manner you choose as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.
No, you don't have the right to move in whatever manner you see fit, there are plenty of regulations and restrictions in place which are (for the most part) designed to protect yourself and others from endangering someone's rights. Put another way, you don't have to wait for someone to violate your rights (e. g. by driving drunk and T-boning your car), it suffices that the other person is DUI.
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I understand some of what you are saying. Yes automobiles, like weapons, are dangerous. If you are an actual danger to others it is perfectly legitimate to not let them drive, in the same way that a child molester should not be allowed to work in a day care. However, in my view for the rest of the adults who aren't endangering anyone it should not be treated as a privilege doled out by our betters, but a right not to be infringed upon.
I don't think BadKosh and you are saying something different in substance, it's just that you spin it in a different way. You have no right to a driver's license, you have to right to obtain a driver's license (as long the rules and restrictions do not discriminate). So if you fail the driving exam, it's not that the state is infringing on a right that you have. I think this is where BadKosh is coming from.

And to go back to the topic at hand, I think this way to think about the right to move freely is indeed similar to the right to bear arms. I think it's foolish to believe that this implies a right to (literally) bear arms everywhere without regulation, and to expect that a Target is the same as an active hunting ground in a park.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,