Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 21:45:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
452 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
(snipped)
> > > Absolutely. The citizens of the US do not have a right to drive. But we do
> > > have a right to bear arms. All of them. Without "special permission."
> >
> > And then you get really shocked about stuff like Columbine, Waco, or that
> > recent San Diego massacre...
>
> No I don't.
!
> And those have to do (I believe) with children who are
> institutionally abused
Yeah, right...
> more than with firearms. The firearm was a only
> tool...a means of expression.
That is why mankind invented LANGUAGE... to express. A tool for expression
is a pencil, a guitar, a toy, the body expression... A gun is a tool to
*end* the need for speech. You shoot, you win, you are alone, you lose. That
is the logic.
> > > In the US, we have the right to bear arms. And the priviledge to drive is
> > > cheaper and easier than in much of Europe (as I understand it). So I would • say
> > > that looking at only these two issues, we do enjoy more freedom.
> >
> > In Europe, we have small, human scaled cities - thus the car is less needed.
> > We walk, and we don't become fat. Then we don't need plastic surgeries to
> > look nice on topless beaches.
>
> Why is it that Europeans often start in with this kind of stuff? It has
> nothing to do with rights which is what we were discussing. I know you have
> little cities and better mass transit, and I even wish that we would follow
> your lead.
Then why don't you?
> I'm not one of these US bumpkins who thinks that _everything_ in
> the US is better than _everywhere_ else. But so what?
I never would have said you were. It is a *right* of yours to think that, to
say that, and to actually believe that. I have a similar right. And none of
us can interfere with each other's right to do so.
> > And thank god gas is expensive! I'd rather see more people using mass
> > transit, so that I could breathe better, and not have these pesky asthma
> > problems!...
>
> I wish that our gas were not unfairly subsidized by our government. I would
> like rail transport to get a fair chance against road transport. And I would
> like our gas price to increase so that it included the costs of clean up
> efforts and research for cleaner energy. But it still doesn't reflect well on
> your rights as opposed to ours.
I have the right to breathe *well*, ergo *absence of atmospheric polution*,
ergo *lesser usage of carbon + sulphur* in energy sources. And I am closer
to exercise that right than the average american, if such right exists there
( I'm sure it does).
And I am not that fundamentalist to say only a train is good enough. Cars
can be a good choice for families... the thing is on an everyday basis one
should invest in mass transit by one's self. Train, Tram, Subway, Monorail,
Bus, Carpool, Bike, Skate,... no matter the means, as long as it reduces the
emissions (I guess this time I used the word properly :-).
> > > > So, it
> > > > makes sense to limit their use to people who have shown to be worth at least
> > > > some confidence in the respective area.
> > >
> > > Disagree. We should limit the use of goods only to those who have • demonstrated
> > > that they will act criminally with them.
> >
> > And exactly how do you demonstrate one will comit a crime BEFORE one
> > actually comits it?
>
> You don't. Our system is (and should be more) based on trusting everyone and
> only after they prove that they can't be trusted is something remediated.
Benefit of the doubt above all?
> Maybe under such a system (thought I'm not really willing to concede it) more
> things can go wrong, but at least we treat each other like adults.
If we were all kids, the world would be safer... :-)
But I agree, we should all be treated as adults (i.e., held responsible for
our actions). Of course, our actions can injure third parties, and this
creates a very big moral dillemma.
> > > > Statistics prove pretty clearly that there is a fundamental right that gets
> > > > violated in the US far more often than in any other western democracy: the
> > > > right to live, and not be murdered.
> > >
> > > I didn't find homocide rates, but you are much more likely to be the victim • of
> > > a violent crime if you call England your home than the US. I haven't looked • up
> > > Germany or Portugal.
> >
> > England is funny. It is also cramped with people, and lots of rain. It is
>
> So now you're saying that it's not actually guns that should be outlawed...it's
> population density and precipitation? Come on.
Population density is directly linked to crime density - nothing new about
that. It is more likely to step on someone's toes if more people are in the
same place. As for precipitation, I did not mean it as a cause for crime...
but now that I think of it, it is pretty depressing to watch rain falling
day after day - I dunno of the relation between depressive state and crime,
but it is a nice area to study! :-)
> Either the presense of guns
> causes violence or it does not. (I'll give you a hint -- it doesn't seem to in
> the US.)
Neither does here. But we don't have guns... So the factor remains
unresolving (I can claim murder rates are higher there, but I'd drive the
discussion into a circle, and far out of topic)
> > > Yes. It has been clearly and convincingly demonstrated that as firearms
> > > increase in commonality, violent crime decreases.
> >
> > See Colombia and South Africa to refute that claim.
>
> OK, within the system of the United States, it has been clearly and
> convincingly demonstrated.
You never had any other system, so any comparison you make is void. *What
if* it is not the system?
> > > > And isn't it true that conflicting rights must
> > > > always be carefully balanced?
> > >
> > > I don't think there is any such thing as conflicting rights.
> >
> > The right to work, and the right to rest. Both are rights, and conflict.
>
> No. As a citizen of the US, I have the ninth amendment rights to work and to
> rest. I can choose whenever I want to, to work or to rest, or to do both.
And you could write a best-seller about working while resting. Per
definition, they are self excluding actions.
> Whether or not I can actually succeed at these actions is up to me. The rights
> do not conflict at all.
See above. The rights conflict, you chose the one you wish to use at any
given moment in time.
Maybe the right is to choose between work and rest freely, that would be a
proof of legislative inteligence.
> For rights to conflict, they would have to be mutually
> exclusive somehow.
Again, see above.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) What if? (...) No I don't. And those have to do (I believe) with children who are institutionally abused, more than with firearms. The firearm was a only tool...a means of expression. (...) say (...) Why is it that Europeans often start in (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
