 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Nice hippie post, AG. You forgot to condemn the murder of trees for paper, though.
Guns are by far the most shameful invention of humanity. The cruelty and death caused by firearms results in the loss of countless lives every year, some from crime and others form accidents. To protect the people, guns should be banned entirely except for the police and military, who genuinely need them in order to protect the people from criminals or enemy nations. But there is no reason for civilians to own guns, or any other weapons for that matter, because they do not fight in wars and they do not fight crime. The only reason to have a gun, outside of the police or military, is to use it in the commission of a crime. To prevent crimes, we should take away guns so that criminals are not able to use them to rob and kill. Further, many children die every year because they find guns in their parents' homes and an accident ensues. Guns are simply too dangerous for the average person to use responsibly, they can only be handled with special training as received in the armed forces or police service. Anyone who wishes to be able to have and use a gun in the context of civilian life should be viewed with distrust, since their only possible motives would be criminal. Guns have no application other than for killing people, and civilians are not entrusted with the right to kill people. Also, it is false to claim that gun control leads to more violence, as this is only true when gun control efforts fail. Once all guns have successfully been removed from the hands of the populace, as in Norway, there is a dramatic reduction in crime because it is no longer possible to get guns, on the black market or otherwise.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Speckles
Velociraptor
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 440
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm finding Orwell's posts hard to read  . Having no spaces between paragraphs hurts my eyes.
Sorry for being a grammer nazi  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Speckles wrote: | I'm finding Orwell's posts hard to read . Having no spaces between paragraphs hurts my eyes.
Sorry for being a grammer nazi |
Sorry, I'll separate any new ones out more. I've generally been posting in one connected paragraph, since I'm only on one topic. No grammar Nazism can apply there, since I didn't use incorrect grammar.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7324
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Guns are by far the most shameful invention of humanity............ |
Fire-arms are necessary for good citizens to protect themselves and to protect their families, no one can take that freedom and RIGHT from me to own a gun for the sole purpose of protection.
Governments that have stricter laws against gun ownership and the ban of gun ownership are just Totalitarian and they make their own law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to real criminals, because they that don't follow the law and eventualy they will posses fire arms anyway, which makes their criminal job easier. I just think it is a matter of control, obviously they are in more power when the population lacks of handguns and are vulnerable so they can intimidate them.
That's why I find PC people, liberals, left wing nut jobs or whatever you want to call them, ridiculous on their claims about doing stricter gun controls or the complete banning for that matter, they are so incredibly naive and delusional to think all should be peace and love and to think the authority will do a better job to protect my family than myself.
Owning a gun is the only guarantee for your own protection.
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7324
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Nice moral nihilism, greenblue. |
Thanks, wasn't sure if I was going to do that as well, probably the next I made wasn't that good, it is actually difficult.
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm |
|
| Back to top |
|
Filelleni
Emu Egg
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Women should take care of home and children. It is enough for a woman to learn to read and count money. It is not necessary to educate women further, as the investment of society gets wasted anyway when the woman gets married and stays at home with her children. She does not need a Ph.D in physics to cook and change diapers. Even if a smart woman remains single and devotes herself to career, it is not better for the society - her smart genes will be lost from the gene pool and she will waste all earned money for her own pointless pleasures - flying around the world, wearing expensive clothes and feeling important - with zero investment in future generations.
Evolution always means differentiation and putting weaker beings to service of stronger ones, so the life of the weaker ones gets a purpose and the stronger could evolve even further. Just like animals eat plants and stronger animals eat weaker animals, so the stronger part of humanity should put the weaker part of it to service of the stronger one, for benefit of the whole humanity. We do not expect people to produce their food from sunlight and CO2, we use plants and animals for that purpose (well, they have their "rights" too, meaning it is stupid to abuse and waste them). It would be equally wrong to expect men to do dishes and babysit, while there are enough healthy women in the world to do womens' chores, so men could do creative work, organize society and advance technology for benefit of both men and women.
If a woman has enough education to get well-paid jobs, she stops obeying her husband and starts living for her own pleasure instead of continuing the life cycle. If our nation does not regulate this question by law, it will regulate itself - in just some generations more fertile nations will take over our cities and governments and women will be put into their place anyways. They will be better off returning to their traditional and natural duties voluntarily and in time, so they will not get punished for abusing the temporary weakness of leaders when the order in the society will be restored.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sargon
Sea Gull
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Too bad none of the more fundamental Christians have come forth to argue that there is no God, or fundamental atheists to argue there is a God. At any rate....
The Americans should not have declared independence from Great Britain in 1776. At the time, they were a British colony, and benefited greatly under such status. Great Britain provided public goods to the Colonial Americas which were paid for mostly by people in England. The Americans were taxed, but no where near the costs of the public goods that Britain provided. The British also provided protection for the colonies (again mostly not paid for by the colonists), and kept the Indians at bay. Because of this policy, they also prevented the killing of the Indians which the American revolutionaries engaged in after they declared independence. The British navy protected ships trading ships from pirates and going to Europe, which considering the Colonies were mostly export driven was a large benefit. As for "taxation without representation", the taxes were already comparatively low to begin with, and it would be highly impractical at the time to have an elected representative travel from the Colonies to Britain and back to the Colonies again. The Colonies did have a representative in Parliament, just not in the way the Colonists claimed to desire. Rebellious acts such as the Boston Tea Party needlessly destroyed property and caused environmental damage. It is also claimed that the King tried to oppress the Colonists, but the only reason stronger measures and the quartering of troops occurred was because of the Colonists rebellious acts in the first place. Prior to that, they lived under Common law, not so different from mainland England. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^I actually agree with most of that, Sargon. And check your PMs.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5529
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Free will of the libertarian sort certainly exists, and it is an essential part of the human experience that cannot be denied. We know of it phenomenologically, it is a source of variance in human society, and it is essential for moral responsibility.
Free will, to define at first, is a choosing agency that allows for a being to pick one out of multiple options without being necessitated to do so by previous events, this allows for counterfactuals, indeterminacy of the future, and through this it allows agents to independently act morally or not so rather than be impelled to do so by past determining factors.
One of the ways that we know that free will exists is through our experiences. When choosing we experience the feeling of being free to pick our options according to whatever our will seeks at that point, and when we reflect upon the past, we know that we could have done things differently but chose not to. If it were other than that, then where would the notion of choice come from and why? Why could we reflect upon the past to feel regret about choices made if we never had a choice in the first place? Given those who die from their regrets, how could evolution would not pick that for us, and what kind God could ever assign such a fate?
Free will is also a necessity for variation in human societies and the indeterminate paths they take. Often times, looking in retrospect, we see the lineage of historical trends leading to the present, part of us thinks that these sights were obvious, but did people at that time ever predict their future? No. The notion that the history had a set path seems false for that reason, for if the data we have is not sufficient for prediction, then where does this variation come from? It comes from outside the evidence from the freedom of the will, not something to be apologized with some post hoc explanation, but rather from that which CANNOT be known. We can keep on postulating determinism, but causality is not a fact, but rather an assumption, and to hold to it as a dogma of faith is but that.
Finally, to take this history down to a more personal level, moral responsibility demands the freedom of the will. In a world with no counterfactuals, there is no ability for a being to do other than what they have been programmed to do. Do we attempt to punish a computer program for it's actions? Do we beat up a man for the actions of another half-way across the world? No, and this is because we do not punish people for that which they could not control. This is a fundamental moral conclusion reached by majorities of people across the world, if there is no freedom of the will then there is no morality. Now, determinists can once again apologize this away some ad hoc rationalization but the actual REASON we feel this way is not related to determinism, but rather intimately connected to free will. To take away the freedom of the will is to take away the fundamental intuition driving the moral concept in the first place, and ultimately to create some twisted recreation of it without the driving soul and thus destroy the concept of true morality into an abyss of tormented thoughts to rebuild what was once so clearly found in our hearts and intuitions.
Ultimately, free will is a necessity of the complete human experience and one that we fundamentally know exists, and that has been denied only due to a desire by some to dehumanize man by applying the same causality that once only applied to crude matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ooh, free will. Nice one, I couldn't have put forward nearly as good an argument for that.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5529
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Ooh, free will. Nice one, I couldn't have put forward nearly as good an argument for that. |
Yeah, I figured it would not be a bad choice. I was sort of worried about it too, as I have not seen many good arguments for free will given that most people I have seen have argued it for theological reasons or based upon bad physics(I could have tried arguing that the quantum brain allowed for it, but that would have been dishonest), or some other such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
