Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 03:08:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1238 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > By contrast, those kids in Tiananmen Square were merely massacred outright.
> > > Why? No guns.
> >
> > No democracy
>
> What about Kent State? Was that also no democracy?
Would guns truly have made a beneficial difference? Or would it have made
the students seem like armed combatants who deserved whatever they got? I
expect that it would depend on how the press chose to spin it, but at the very
least it would have been perceived as carte blanche for the Guard to open fire
unabated. I don't think that would have been right, but it would in all
likelihood have happened.
> And since we clearly can't count on that happening, we should be armed so we
> can see to our own needs in whatever sized groups we can form.
But to what end? Where is the balance between "Everyone needs a gun to
protect himself" and "Every trigger-happy psychopath is entitled to a
world-shattering nuclear warhead to protect himself"? My point is that,
short of extensive military-grade weaponry, one small group of people really
has no practical chance of defending itself against a determined and organized
military arrayed against the group. And I frankly can't imagine the argument
that would demonstrate to me why every lunatic is entitled to own whatever
weapons he desires.
> > Sell your point--it is the nature of
> > capitalism--if people like what you have to say, if they believe in your
> > cause, they will vote accordingly the next election.
>
> What if I'm bad at selling?
Then buy! Buy your own rep, or get together with like-minded individuals who
can, in the aggregate, support a rep who truly understands your vision.
> > If they don't follow
> > your lead, it isn't because they're dumber than you are, it's because maybe
> > they just don't believe in your opinion--The nature of democracy.
>
> Or maybe it's because they _are_ dumber than me. Or simply that I don't
> have the skills to explain how things are messed up and how to fix them.
Well, that's a legitmate problem, because in practice it is no different from
having dumb ideas or having no ideas at all. Your task should be to acquire
the skills to communicate your ideals or else to find someone who can do it. I
mean this in all sincerity; if you simply assert that people don't get what
you're explaining, or that they don't get the way you're explaining it, then
you risk being lumped into the same heap as other fringe political groups that
maintain their theoretical purity simply because they're never exposed to the
blast furnace of reality. I don't mean this in any way as a put-down (since I
certainly don't have a neat encapsulation of end-all answers), but it is
imperative, on the political state, that you at least come across as able to
articulate your visions (or else you can hire your father's Cabinet to do it
for you).
> > Uninformed, again. Hmmm... If Person B doesn't like Person A's opinion,
> > Person B is obviously uninformed.
>
> That's not it. If person A displays a woeful misunderstanding of something
> (whether the scientific method, the theory of evolution and speciation,
> history in general, or specific political systems -- to pick four perfectly
> random topics) _then_ that person is uninformed. Or ignorant. And maybe
> willfully so. But that's just speculation.
Speculation perhaps, but it's worth repeating! Dave, your objection is very
similar to such no-win summations as "we don't know what Reality REALLY is" and
"there's more than one side to everything, so they're all right." Chris is
correct to maintain his point that "uninformed" is not by definition equal to
"I do not agree with."
> That's because it's a dumb example. There are times when people used guns
> against agents of the government productively.
Example? And could you clarify "productively"? I can't think of any in
recent years that ended rosily for the private citizens, but maybe I'm missing
something.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty rate. No one would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 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
|
|
|
|
