Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:59:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
414 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> > 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."
>
> I understand that this is the current situation. But why would you want to
> maintain it exactly this way? What makes driving different from bearing
> arms? Why is it acceptable to require permission for one but not the other?
Well actually, I would have argued that we ought to have the right to drive.
But since Richard pointed out that we do, the point is rather moot.
> > Yes. It has been clearly and convincingly demonstrated that as firearms
> > increase in commonality, violent crime decreases.
>
> Really? Why is it, then, that the murder rate in the US is higher than in
> most European countries (I didn't know about Britain, so, granted, there
> seem to be more factors)?
First of all, I don't know that it is. I just spent about a half hour trying
to find those stats and came up empty. Also, what do you count as most? But I
would venture to guess that you can correlate the degree to which cultures have
mixed with crime rate and there would be interesting results. How open is
Germany to immigration and fair treatment of those newcommers?
> Quite regularly, kids get shot in the US at
> school.
I think you need to get out more. Is this really a widely spread lie in
Europe? Or is it that you have a ridiculous notion of "quite regularly?"
> Do you think the same would still happen when people who want to
> have and use arms were required to demonstrate some basic skills and
> rightful intent?
It doesn't happen now. It wouldn't happen then. It's a tough question to
answer.
> > > 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.
>
> So you think that exercising one's rights never limits the rights of others?
That's correct.
> That the rights we have and use should not be limited by the rights of
> others?
Not that they shouldn't be, but that they -- by definition, can not be.
> That there is no priority of some rights over others?
If you wish to prioritize your rights, that's fine. I prefer absolute ones.
> Come on ...
> this simplistic picture cannot be your real and only idea of rights.
:-)
> Getting back to the original topic: You don't think that the Middle East
> conflict is all about conflicting rights of Israelis vs. Palestines?
Not at all. To whatever extent it is rights based at all, I think it is about
members of each group trampling on the rights of members of the other. But
mostly it seems like neither side even wants to get along. Since both sides
want to continue fighting, why not let them?
> <SARCASM ON>
Thanks for letting me know.
> Well, if most US-Americans think like you do, THAT would explain a lot of
> the inappropriate (to say the least) portions of US foreign policy.
I don't think so. I think that our inappropriate foreign policy (and there is
plenty of it at which we can point) comes from people disregarding rights
altogether.
> I firmly believe, that no one has the right to define good and bad.
And I firmly believe that each of us has that right. Not just that right, but
in fact a responsibility to try and do so. I have revised my notion of good
and bad all my life.
> This always has to be a consensus of society.
No. Bad is bad even if lots of people don't know that it is. We once had a
majority that allowed those of African decent to be enslaved by those of
European decent. That was bad even then. The majority of Germans once
supported their leader in the murder millions of people. That was bad even
then.
If you believe that good and evil are determined by consensus, then you accept
that those attrocities were once good things and only since those times have
they become evil. I reject that.
> Now, there is no real worldwide society, which
> makes things harder ... sometimes, it seems, not for the US, because they of
> course know what is good and bad, and consequently ignore even the minimum
> consensus of worldwide legislation. This of course makes it hard to stand up
> against "international terrorism", without losing international credibility.
> But then, what does a superpower need credibility for ...
I don't support some of what people are discussing in this war on terrorism
thing -- though our bombing in Afghanistan has seemed fairly measured thus far.
But that doesn't mean I think we should wait for world consensus...nothing
would ever get done. How would we ever convince evil people that we should
eradicate evil?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Well, open enough for my taste, given the fact there are very few other countries which have that many people per square mile. As far as fair treatment is concerned, I think there is two answers: - On one side, there is the official side of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| Hello Chris, (...) I understand that this is the current situation. But why would you want to maintain it exactly this way? What makes driving different from bearing arms? Why is it acceptable to require permission for one but not the other? (...) (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
