Radical Islamicsstart massacring people shopping in Kenya - over 20 murdered so far by JAYNEZTOWN

America loves a winner!

Every religion has its extremists

Muslims are exactly the same as any other main stream religion.

Exactly.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2013 12:02 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

more info, photos, interviews

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Every religion has its extremists

Muslims are exactly the same as any other main stream religion.

Exactly.

Tell me about it. My wife told me how upset she and the other boosters were when Millie Jarvis showed up with an apple pie for the church bake sale instead of a blueberry pie as she had been asked to bake. 59 dead, 175 wounded in Kenya, meh, just Islam's version of a bake sale gone awry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2013 10:58 PM

COuld we at least do without graphic images on this thread?

It interests me to see the lack of compassion from those who use this thread to score idealogical points. Can almost hear the hand rubbing going on with the 'I told you so' posts.

For those who might be interested in how this is unfolding, this is from the guardian.

Kenyan security forces remain in a standoff with gunman at an upmarket shopping centre in Nairobi following a shoot-out on Saturday in which the suspected Islamist militants took hostages and opened fire indiscriminately with automatic weapons and threw grenades, also reportedly singling out non-Muslims to be killed. Here's where we are now:

• Kenya's interior minister, Joseph Ole Lenku, told reporters that the confirmed death toll in the attack had now reached 59 people, with 175 wounded. The militants who carried out the attack, who are believed to be associated with Somali Islamist group al Shabaab, were estimated to number ten to 15, he added.

• The militants remaining inside the mall are believed to be holding a number of hostages. Reporters outside heard a burst of gunfire this morning.

• Those killed include children, with the confirmed injured varying in age from two to 78. Many victims were taking part at a cooking competition. A number of foreign nationals were involved, with two French, two Canadian and one Chinese victims confirmed. The Foreign Office in London says it has no news of British casualties but, with around 30,000 or so Britons living in Nairobi, expects some to have been caught up in the attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2013 11:08 PM

So who exactly are Harakat al-Shabab al-Mujahideen, to give them their full title? The shortened version of their name translates as "The Youth" - the current generation of which in Somalia has grown up with some of the bleakest prospects on the planet. Most have known nothing but anarchy in their home country, which has been without a properly functioning government since 1991. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that many have broken with Somalia's long-standing tradition of moderate Sufi Islam to embrace the more militant strains exported from the Saudi peninsula, which has set up vast numbers of madrassas in Somalia throughout the past 20 years.

I first heard of al-Shabab on a trip to Mogadishu in 2006, when a coalition of Islamists - including moderates - had managed to impose peace after nearly a decade-and-a-half of warlord thuggery. As we saw during a visit to a barracks outside the capital, the Islamists' trick was partly to put warlords' ex-footsoldiers through religious "bootcamp", converting yesterday's murderers, robbers and rapists into tomorrow's holy warriors.

But alongside the fragile peace came Taliban-style strictures banning music, dancing and most other kinds of fun. Fearing that Somalia's new Islamist overlords would also turn it into a haven for al-Qaeda, in early 2007 Washington authorised an invasion by neighbouring Ethiopia. Islamist rule was replaced with a transitional government propped up by United Nations mandate, Western cash, and African Union troops from Somalia's mainly Christian neighbours.

The invasion also had the effect, though, of turning al-Shabab into an all-out guerrilla movement, divorced from its more moderate allies. It began a vicious insurgency against the transitional government, and also seized control of much of Mogadishu and swathes of southern Somalia, dreaming up edicts as ludicrous as anything imposed by the Taliban.

Teenage girls would be stoned to death for adultery, women were banned from wearing bras on the basis that they showcased the chest, and in 2010, men were even forbidden from watching the South Africa World Cup. In the stern words of an al-Shabab spokesman: "They will not benefit anything or get any experience by watching mad men jumping up and down."

For children, meanwhile, one of the few acceptable forms of entertainment was Koranic recital contests, for which prizes would include guns, grenades and land mines to use against the "infidel" African Union forces. With the piety also came hypocrisy. While publicly condemning the piracy industry that boomed in Somalia from 2008, al-Shabab is also thought to have quietly taken fat slices of ransom payments in exchange for turning a blind eye to buccaneers on their turf.

In the last two years, the movement has been somewhat on the back foot, losing control of Mogadishu and alienating even its own followers through its refusal to let foreign aid agencies operate in the country, a policy that caused a widespread famine.

But while its domestic fortunes have waned, its international agenda has grown in tandem with other African militant groups, such as Nigeria's Boko Haram and Mali's al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. During the 2010 World Cup, al-Shabab bombers carried out their first major attack abroad, killing 74 people in an attack in Uganda, which contributed troops to Somalia's African Union force. As Ahmed Abdi Godane, an al-Shabab leader implicated in the murder of two British aid workers 10 years ago, put it: "What happened in Kampala is just the beginning."

Events over the weekend have now proved him right. The fear now, though, is how it might end. Already there are fears of reprisals against Kenya's Somalis, hundreds of thousands of whom have fled there in recent years precisely to escape al-Shabab. Sustained terror campaigns there could also devastate the country's vital tourism sector, destabilising an economy already reeling from the world financial crisis.

There are fears that the success of such a terrorist "spectacular" could act as a recruiting sergeant for impressionable young Somalis in Britain. From London's Wood Green through to Cardiff's Grangetown and Manchester's Cheetham Hill, an estimated 100,000 Somalis are now resident in Britain - many of them jobless, and suffering the same disaffection that drove the Pakistani contingent of the July 7 bombers.

Somali youth leaders have warned me in the past that they feared such an attack was only a question of time - warnings that acquire an added credence when one follows the sneers and insults on al-Shabab's English-language Twitter feed. Not only are many of its postings surprisingly literate for a jihadi group based in the Somali bush, they bear numerous jokes, slang and linguistic tics that are distinctly British. Someone, somewhere in Somalia's British diaspora, apparently finds al-Shabab's Nairobi atrocities, however sickening to us, very funny indeed.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/a-new-source-of-terror-who-are-alshabab
-20130923-2u933.html#ixzz2fgI2hcCw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 5:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I'm going to score some political points here: Somalia has been held up by CTS as a libertarian paradise: no government, and everybody armed. Yep, I can see how well that worked out!

In any case, this is the end result of Saudi Arabia funding madrasses all over the mideast and northern and eastern Africa for decades and decades. Somebody should be following the money trail and see how these jihadists are being funded. After all, fighting a guerilla war requires a lot of "consumables"- bullets, bombs, and landmines as well as food, water, fuel (petrol). They're getting support from SOMEwhere- either extorting it out of the population, or from abroad, or both.

Also, the jihadist narrative needs to be replaced by something more compelling than "capitalism", since Africa's experience of capitalism has been that foreign businesses and banks cooperate with corrupt leaders to screw everyone else into the dirt. "Freedom" just ain't gonna hack it when it means that everything you might have owned, including your farmland, is being sold out from under you by someone else who is pocketing the cash.

In times past, we killed off all the uncorrupted leaders. We never really fostered development and stability. Africa was just some place for the Europeans to exploit. As far as I'm concerned, this is just another form of blowback.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 5:44 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, I'm going to score some political points here: Somalia has been held up by CTS as a libertarian paradise: no government, and everybody armed. Yep, I can see how well that worked out!

If CTS has actually made such claims, then that's not libertarianism. That's extreme anarchy, and not a recipe for humanity to flourish.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 5:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We have our Sandy Hooks. More people are killed here by firearms than by car accidents, right here in the good old USofA. Is that not "anarchy"? And yet, libertarians defend it as being right and noble. They're as blind and filled with "ism" as any jihadist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 8:22 AM

America loves a winner!

This isn't Sandy Hook, not even close. 68 dead? All at the hands of 1 religious minded group .

Oh, in Pakistan? More of the same by Muslims . 2 suicide murderers blew up *81 Christians in a church.

No guns used. Imagine that.

* edit - updated

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 9:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
We have our Sandy Hooks. More people are killed here by firearms than by car accidents, right here in the good old USofA. Is that not "anarchy"? And yet, libertarians defend it as being right and noble. They're as blind and filled with "ism" as any jihadist.

Most firearms deaths are suicides. Even events such as Sandy Hook are often viewed as "suicide by cop". There are more suicides annually that either total gun deaths(including suicides) or traffic deaths, and suicides are increasing while both gun murder rates and traffic deaths are decreasing.

Maybe we should do something about suicide, and mental health in general.

As for "libertarians defend it as being right and noble", you know this in not true. We've been over what actual libertarians believe enough times that, unless you consciously blind yourself to their philosophy, you know that they do not support aggression in any form.

Now if you were to compare these radical Islamists with, say, gangbangers who shoot up crowds of folks with blatant disregard for innocent casualties as long as they might hit a rival gang member, that might be more accurate.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 10:36 AM

America loves a winner!

And on it goes. Day 3 of the militant Muslim attack.

Yeah, just like Sandy Hook, huh?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 11:02 AM

America loves a winner!

Suicides & accidents shouldn't be confused with actual gun murders. Nor should legit home/ self defense ( see E Zimmerman ) either.
Shame on those who'd intentionally muddy the stats to promote their agenda.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 12:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RAPPY

Quote:
Shame on those who'd intentionally muddy the stats to promote their agenda.

Yeah, because the 62 dead (so far) in a Kenyan mall far oustrips the tens of thousands dead in the USA. (Speaking of muddying the stats!)

Honestly Rappy, why do you think anyone would ever take you seriously? If you ever pulled your head out of your ass, it would surprise us all.

GEEZER
Yes, I know: The goals of the libertarian are as pure as the driven snow.

Thank you for making my point for me.

NOBODY (well, hardly anyone) shoots people because they SAY they like to kill, or they'd rather rob than work. EVERYONE (well, nearly everyone) has some ideal society in mind, whether it's the socialist paradise, the capitalist paradise, the Islamic paradise, or the libertarian paradise. But at some point, you should look at the carnage around you and ask yourself the question: Am I heading in the direction I'd imagined? Or is this not turning out as planned? So, AFA libertarians are concerned, we have a lot of very real deaths that are weighed against some very theoretical (and implausible) arguments about rebellion against an abusive government. The idealogue says "Full steam head" without ever considering actual results. That's what I mean by blind and full of ism. And since there's apparently more than enough "ism" to go around, this is all pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 12:56 PM

America loves a winner!

Sig - the uncivil manner of your replies dismisses any point you may wish to make.

My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

140 murdered, directly by Muslims in 2 incidents alone, against non muslims, is the issue here.

This has FAR more in common with Beslan, Bali, Mumbai, London, Madrid and Boston than anything else. Yes, continue to muddy the stats , as much as you possibly can.

G - not dismissing YOUR valid concern of gun deaths , I'm just not sure this discussion should be mixed in with the lot of violent Muslim slaughterfests.

Alluha Akbar, yadda yadda.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
[
Most firearms deaths are suicides. Even events such as Sandy Hook are often viewed as "suicide by cop". There are more suicides annually that either total gun deaths(including suicides) or traffic deaths, and suicides are increasing while both gun murder rates and traffic deaths are decreasing.

Maybe we should do something about suicide, and mental health in general.

Good idea. How about free mental health services? Oh right, you only get to do something about mental health if you are rich enough to afford treatment, or the rich feel like your kind of mental health is deserving of charity.

Quote:
As for "libertarians defend it as being right and noble", you know this in not true. We've been over what actual libertarians believe enough times that, unless you consciously blind yourself to their philosophy, you know that they do not support aggression in any form.

Once again to point out that libertarians assume that in a libertarian society everyone will magically adhere to a non violent philosophy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 5:53 PM

BYTEMITE

My goodness, which thread posting should I read today. The Delhi Rape thread or the Massacre thread. Nothing like a helping of atrocities ladled up with whatever off-topicness we'd like to contribute to brighten up my day. Because the atrocities just aren't bad enough, I have to be sickened by the reactions too.

You know what my dad said? He said that we need to "round up all the radicalized Muslims... and nuke them."

And I come here and I see Auraptor and Jongstraw bandying around their religion of peace in-joke. I see libertarians and anarchists and gun arguments. I go to the rape thread and see a knee-jerk dismissal. And what's more, you know why I haven't read or commented on either thread up to now? BECAUSE I KNEW THAT'S WHAT I WOULD FIND.

People are dying. Both sides. Child soldiers used for cannon fodder. Used like soulless weapons against CIVILIANS. Brutal attacks on people for being some religion, or some gender, or some race. And here we all are in comfort, posting on the internet, salivating like the media jackals over a tragedy, barely able to do more than shrug and make nasty jokes before we move on.

There is nothing about any of this that is not horrific.

I hate this goddamn world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

My goodness, which thread posting should I read today. The Delhi Rape thread or the Massacre thread. Nothing like a helping of atrocities ladled up with whatever off-topicness we'd like to contribute to brighten up my day. Because the atrocities just aren't bad enough, I have to be sickened by the reactions too.

Yeah, your life really sucks.

Quote:
You know what my dad said? He said that we need to "round up all the radicalized Muslims... and nuke them."

Nothing would be finer, but why stop at "radicalized?"

Quote:
And I come here and I see Auraptor and Jongstraw bandying around their religion of peace in-joke. I see libertarians and anarchists and gun arguments. I go to the rape thread and see a knee-jerk dismissal. And what's more, you know why I haven't read or commented on either thread up to now? BECAUSE I KNEW THAT'S WHAT I WOULD FIND.

Well ain't you the little clairvoyant! Any stock market tips?

Quote:
People are dying. Both sides. Child soldiers used for cannon fodder. Used like soulless weapons against CIVILIANS. Brutal attacks on people for being some religion, or some gender, or some race. And here we all are in comfort, posting on the internet, salivating like the media jackals over a tragedy, barely able to do more than shrug and make nasty jokes before we move on.

There is nothing about any of this that is not horrific.

I hate this goddamn world.

Lighten up! Pull up your big girl underpants and just say fuckkit. Or be miserable every day of your life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 10:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
I don't know if you are doing this on purpose but when I hear someone make the point about suicides it's almost as if they are saying it's not a *real* death. It is another gun death.

I tend to see quite a difference between a person wanting to die themselves and a person wanting to kill another person. As misguided as suicide may be, it doesn't take the life of a person who didn't want to die.

Quote:
"Maybe we should do something about mental health?" How about better background checks? How about fewer guns so that's not an easy option for the mentally unstable? Right there - mental health, check! Yeah, I know, never going to happen, O's too weak.

I've advocated better reporting of folks with dangerous mental problems so they could be put on the NICS database and not be allowed to buy guns. I've also not seen any of the "Gun Lobby" coming out against this. In fact many support it. Don't know why the government hasn't made any moves on it.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 10:59 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER
Yes, I know: The goals of the libertarian are as pure as the driven snow.

Thank you for making my point for me.

NOBODY (well, hardly anyone) shoots people because they SAY they like to kill, or they'd rather rob than work. EVERYONE (well, nearly everyone) has some ideal society in mind, whether it's the socialist paradise, the capitalist paradise, the Islamic paradise, or the libertarian paradise. But at some point, you should look at the carnage around you and ask yourself the question: Am I heading in the direction I'd imagined? Or is this not turning out as planned? So, AFA libertarians are concerned, we have a lot of very real deaths that are weighed against some very theoretical (and implausible) arguments about rebellion against an abusive government. The idealogue says "Full steam head" without ever considering actual results. That's what I mean by blind and full of ism. And since there's apparently more than enough "ism" to go around, this is all pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

Not much point in responding to you, as you completely ignore anything I say, and replace it with your paranoid delusions about what you think Libertarians believe.

Have fun living in your dystopian fantasy world.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 11:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Maybe we should do something about suicide, and mental health in general.

Good idea. How about free mental health services? Oh right, you only get to do something about mental health if you are rich enough to afford treatment, or the rich feel like your kind of mental health is deserving of charity.

Why? The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) should be able to provide better treatment. If nothing else, folks identifed as having suicidal or homicidal tendencies could be listed on the NICS database and prevented from buying guns.

Quote:
Once again to point out that libertarians assume that in a libertarian society everyone will magically adhere to a non violent philosophy.

No. Libertarians(the majority who follow the Non-aggression Principle) will adhere to a non-aggressive philosophy. If aggressive violence is used against them, they can morally respond with violence against an aggressor. I'm really not sure why some folks are having a problem understanding this.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 11:16 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I hate this goddamn world.

I get pretty tired of it myself, sometimes.

Maybe you should take a break from RWED. I do so from time to time when either the thread topics get too horrific or folks want to blame me for the problems of the world.

It skews your point of view when it's all bad, and even posting pictures of a panda baby draws nothing but screeds aganst zoos. Folks here sometimes just got a stick up their asses.

I'd suggest a roadtrip. Even just over a weekend. Generally works for me.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2013 11:37 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:

Lighten up! Pull up your big girl underpants and just say fuckkit. Or be miserable every day of your life.

I can't. Because as hard as I try not to, I still care.

And I know you all do too. Somewhere inside of you all, you ALL CARE.

Here I've been calling myself the cynic and the nihilist, but I think now you all have thicker shells of cynicism and nihilism than even I can imagine. And the world did that to you too.

My life, as you said, is not so tragic. I have nothing to complain about. So what on EARTH have you all gone through? Is just exposure to each other enough to cause this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:11 AM

Quote:
I can't. Because as hard as I try not to, I still care.

And I know you all do too. Somewhere inside of you all, you ALL CARE.

Here I've been calling myself the cynic and the nihilist, but I think now you all have thicker shells of cynicism and nihilism than even I can imagine. And the world did that to you too.

My life, as you said, is not so tragic. I have nothing to complain about. So what on EARTH have you all gone through? Is just exposure to each other enough to cause this?

Woody Allen said in Annie Hall "I feel that life is divided into the horrible and the miserable. That's the two categories. The horrible are like, I don't know, terminal cases, you know, and blind people, crippled. I don't know how they get through life. It's amazing to me. And the miserable is everyone else. So you should be thankful that you're miserable, because that's very lucky, to be miserable."

Besides, the world hasn't done anything to me. Whatever its done, its done to itself. I just live in it the best I can .... yanno like KC sang ....do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonite. Work hard, be loyal to friends, pay your bills, love your spouse and children, save money, take whatever pleasures out of life you can, and keep on keepin' on. Everything else ... fuck it ... like water off a duck.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:34 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:

I just live in it the best I can .... yanno like KC sang ....do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonite. Work hard, be loyal to friends, pay your bills, love your spouse and children, save money, take whatever pleasures out of life you can, and keep on keepin' on. Everything else ... fuck it ... like water off a duck.

You can make things better for yourself. That's fine. Sometimes that's all you can do, the only way you CAN make things better.

Niki doesn't understand me, why I'm miserable. You don't understand either. Probably you don't want to understand. It IS tiresome, and I'm not so unaware I don't realize that.

I can't fix myself. I don't have what the rest of you have. I don't have the same capacities. So I stay miserable, so I can see what's wrong. And then, despite the futility of it all, I try do do something about it. Because what else is there? What else is worth fighting for? What else is worth dying for? What else is worth living for?

I have plenty of bad temper to go around. And I shun sentimentality like a scalded cat. Sometimes hate is enough to be a mirror for people, and shock them out brutal habits. But whatever I might be, I've also learned the hard way: some things hate can't fix.

My point is, if people only ever go about bettering their own situation, and if all it takes to derail a conversation about a tragedy is politics, then everything will only get worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Niki doesn't understand me, why I'm miserable. You don't understand either. Probably you don't want to understand. It IS tiresome, and I'm not so unaware I don't realize that.

Nobody fully understands anybody. We're all strange and mysterious little creatures.

Quote:
I can't fix myself. I don't have what the rest of you have. I don't have the same capacities. So I stay miserable, so I can see what's wrong. And then, despite the futility of it all, I try do do something about it. Because what else is there? What else is worth fighting for? What else is worth dying for? What else is worth living for?

The "rest of us" don't have anything you don't have, but it sounds like some counseling might be good for you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:34 PM

America loves a winner!

Guns don't kill. People do.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:23 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
We agree on bg checks - seems most Americans do. Why we don't have it - haven't got a clue, can't imagine what Congress motivation was on the last vote.

Putting folks with mental health problems on the NICS list has been discussed here earlier, and some of the issues were the stigma that might be imposed on folks self-reporting mental health issues causing them to not seek help, and the lack of guidelines on what the deciding factors are ans who can do the reporting - Psychiatrists, school counselers, police, etc.

Quote:
Suicide. I have to say that I never gave it that much thought until I saw those numbers. I'm a bit staggered that there are that many people who kill themselves. Thing is I'd guess there are 2? 5? 10 times the number of people who have seriously considered it but since they didn't have an easy means (gun) they're still alive. So yeah, it starts and ends with the gun for me no matter whose life is being taken with one.

It's been reported, though it's hard to prove, that many single-car auto (and some head-on) accidents are suicide. So is that the car's fault?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 12:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RAPPY

Quote:
Sig - the uncivil manner of your replies dismisses any point you may wish to make.

RAPPY, the uncivil manner of my presentation does NOTHING to change the facts. If I were the biggest asshole in the world and pointed to the east and said 'The sun comes up there", guess what.... yep, the sun still comes up in the east! You have a funny way of denying, ignoring, and obfuscating the truth when its inconvenient to your ideology. So my point still stands... gun deaths in the USA represent a far larger danger to us than terrorist deaths abroad. If we were a rational people (once again, rational comes from the word ratio, in which one makes a comparison of size) we would address the BIGGEST problem first, and not just the one that LOOKS huge because it's been magnified by jumpy adrenals and amydgdala.

GEEZER

Quote:
Not much point in responding to you, as you completely ignore anything I say, and replace it with your paranoid delusions about what you think Libertarians believe.

Can I get a clear statement, then, about what you believe about guns and gun ownership?

Universal registration, even for currently-owned guns, and guns traded within a family or between friends - yes or no?
Banning gun posession by the mentally ill or those with previous violent criminal history, yes or no?
Bans on large-magazine and high rate-of-fire weapons, yes or no?
Bans on certain types of ammunition such a teflon-coated, or the newer armor-piercing bullets, yes or no?
Regulations requiring that all guns be stored unloaded, and that both guns and ammunition be stored in a gun safe or other sturdy lockable cabinet, yes or no?
Registration requiring a gun safety and gun shooting course, including (obviously) a practicum, yes or no?

I predict that you're going to be against all of these. And the REASON, the REASON is that in a Libertarian society, where everyone needs to be fully self-sufficient, eveyone also needs to be able to defend themselves (to the death, if necessary) at a moment's notice. This readiness to defend to the death is what (a) keeps the peace and (b) prevents government takeover. Putting government in control of gun-ownership is like the fox guarding the henhouse. It will remove the single most effective measure that people might have against tyranny, which is a weapon.

So universal gun ownership (if such a thing were possible) would create the greatest freedom to do what you want with your "stuff" without interference by some instrusive, kelptocratic government. Correct? And this is considered by libertarians to be the highest form of freedom: freedom to have and to use your possessions as you see fit (including guns, so that philosohpy wraps around pretty nicely).

Have I got it right so far?

Because I don't want to be accused of "not understanding what you're saying, especially when I think I understand your viewpoint pretty well.

If all of that is true then

Select to view spoiler:

you have simply, once again, proven my point. Your vision of some perfect future is keeping you from seeing the carnage that results from your choices. This is the same mistake that Stalin made when he sacrificed the kulaks for a property-less Russia, and that Mao made when he tried to gather all of the peasants into collectives, and that we made when we tried to bomb nations into capitalism. At some point, you have to get some ground-truth about your strategy: Is it working? Are you heading to the future you desire? Or does it seem you've taken a pretty long-term detour that is taking you farther and farther away from you goal?

Quote:
Have fun living in your dystopian fantasy world.

Um... that's OK, I'm having as much fun as I can living in YOURS.

Quote:
So what is your suggestion on what to do about "gun" violence? What about violence in general? Is there actually a difference, besides the weapons used?

Yes, there is- gun violence is MORE EFFECTIVE violence. The problem with the acceptance of violence in general is those most willing to be violent will have an advatange over those who hesitate. Putting GUNS into the hands of a pro-violence population will, again, simply allow the most violent to bubble to the top.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 1:26 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Putting folks with mental health problems on the NICS list has been discussed here earlier, and some of the issues were the stigma that might be imposed on folks self-reporting mental health issues causing them to not seek help, and the lack of guidelines on what the deciding factors are ans who can do the reporting - Psychiatrists, school counselers, police, etc.

Yeah - it's new thinking so it's not going to be easy and it's going to take time. Unfortunately that's also what makes it the perfect blind alley to send gun reduction advocates down. That's why LaPierre does it - it's easy to see the misdirects and dodges by just listening to him. And it's got the "so you don't care about mental health?" strawman built in - perfect for project creep - nothing will ever get done and gun violence can just keep rolling.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:It's been reported, though it's hard to prove, that many single-car auto (and some head-on) accidents are suicide. So is that the car's fault?

Really? You don't know the difference between a car and a gun?
I'll play along... most people use a car to get to work, get groceries, take their kids to school, shop for clothes, it's really an indispensable part of almost everyone's every day life. Is a gun?
We'd have to see some alleged numbers on the suspected car suicides. How are these even guessed at? Because they were seeing a Dr.? If you're honest I think you'd admit it's just another dodge.

Sorry to see that you've developed the "If it doesn't agree 100% with what I think, it's a ploy, a dodge, or a straw-man." approach that's so common here.

So what is your suggestion on what to do about "gun" violence? What about violence in general? Is there actually a difference, besides the weapons used?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 4:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Geezer, did you catch my post on libertarianism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 4:40 PM

America loves a winner!

Sig

Gun deaths have been on the decline for several years, despite the hype and hysteria genned up by the MSM over random, tragic events.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 5:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RAPPY- So what? If there was ever an irrelevant point made on this board, that was it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 6:25 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
RAPPY- So what? If there was ever an irrelevant point made on this board, that was it.

Thanks for showing yours is nothing but a hard core extreme socialist agenda.

Kinda like AGW. Where for the past 15 years, the planet has NOT grown hotter, but what do we get from the alarmists ? Do they take ANY credit or promote that steps taken are having the tiniest positive effect ? Hell no! The goal isn't to stem global warming, it's to push an anti-American, anti-capitalist agenda!

Same here. Reduction in gun deaths SHOULD be viewed as a good thing. But for you ... " So what ? ", and your best Hillary impression, we see what matters most.

It's the agenda, of repealing the 2nd Amendment. Nothing short of that will suffice.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 7:20 PM

Quote:
No. Libertarians(the majority who follow the Non-aggression Principle) will adhere to a non-aggressive philosophy. If aggressive violence is used against them, they can morally respond with violence against an aggressor. I'm really not sure why some folks are having a problem understanding this.

My difficulty understanding this philosophy stems from the fact that you assume in your society that people will follow the non aggression philosophy. Because the way I see it, they're armed to the teeth and there is lawlessness. I guess you're hoping that when the bad guys band tohgether and make life miserable for others, the good guys will come riding into town and blow them away. Let's hope there are more good guys and they ahve the superior arms capacity (and that no bystanders, children, old people et al are in the middle of this war)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 7:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thanks for showing yours is nothing but a hard core extreme socialist agenda.... Reduction in gun deaths SHOULD be viewed as a good thing. But for you ... " So what ? "

Thanks for showing that you can't follow simple math. My "so what"? is related to the fact that it would take a LOT fewer gun deaths... something like a 99.9% reduction... to bring the scope of our internal problem into the realm of our external one. So, have we had that massive reduction in gun deaths? Can we claim that the total number of gun deaths in the USA is less than the total number of terrorist-incited American deaths outside of the USA? Hmmm... not so that anyone would notice.

That's what it means be "rational"... do at least of back-of-the-envelope estimation to see which is the bigger problem by comparing the numbers. You'd be surprised what you can figure out that way. If you decided to think for yourself, that is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 10:10 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So Geezer, did you catch my post on libertarianism?

I caught your post.

What it actually has to do with libertarianism eludes me.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 27, 2013 10:59 PM

America loves a winner!

You " comparison " is comical, at best, Sig.

Seriously. You posit this inane apples or mollusks position where if one accepts your premise, then we should by all rights ban cars too.

But keep trying.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:39 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Is there actually a difference, besides the weapons used?

More thinking on this: it's critical to define "weapon."

Spike - " YOU are the weapon "

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
No. Libertarians(the majority who follow the Non-aggression Principle) will adhere to a non-aggressive philosophy. If aggressive violence is used against them, they can morally respond with violence against an aggressor. I'm really not sure why some folks are having a problem understanding this.

My difficulty understanding this philosophy stems from the fact that you assume in your society that people will follow the non aggression philosophy.

Simple. Unless you have a pretty large preponderence of folks who believe in any philosophy, you won't be able to have a society that operates under that philosophy. If folks didn't believe that Democracy was a workable system, for example, and preferred a Monarchy or Theocracy, you couldn't have a Democracy.

Quote:
Because the way I see it, they're armed to the teeth and there is lawlessness. I guess you're hoping that when the bad guys band tohgether and make life miserable for others, the good guys will come riding into town and blow them away. Let's hope there are more good guys and they ahve the superior arms capacity (and that no bystanders, children, old people et al are in the middle of this war)

As noted in other threads, depends on the level of government Libertarians want. A Minarchist Libertarian society, for example, might want a police force available to handle folks who use violent aggression or violate contracts.

I've pointed out several times in other discussions that there are various flavors of Libertarians, including some that are quite socialist.

Not sure why you get stuck on this gun-slinging, kill em' all and let God sort 'em out fantasy.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article on Libertarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:51 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
In the US there is a huge difference in the weapon used. For instance, browse you local dvd emporium and look at the covers. Guns rule. It's almost funny if you look at them with that in mind - they're on 2 out of 3 covers at least. Not knives or tanks or any other weapon, they're part of the story and definitely part of the characters, good and bad, part of what makes the movie. They're damn exciting.
So I would say as an influence, as far as weapons go, guns attract many times more people.

Don't go to DVD shops much, but looking on Amazon's new movie releases page today, it's mostly Iron Man. Not that many covers show guns.

Quote:
1. Mandatory registration, with annual renewal. Proceeds can go to.... blank. Throw the NRA a bone and split it with them. Not much would happen without them as a willing partner. See #4

Not sure what this would accomplish in reducing gun violence. Law abiding folks would comply. Criminals would not. If you'd explain your thinking behind this...

Quote:
2. Severe penalties for owning a weapon without registration. Proceeds can go to.... blank.

There are already severe penalties for weapons posession by many classes of people, including felons, folks adjudged mentally incompetent, folks convicted of spousal abuse, etc. Federal sentences up to 10 years. Unfortumately, the Feds very rarely prosecute for these crimes. For example, one of the folks charged in the recent Chicago shooting had been in "boot camp" (State or city, not sure) for firearms posession by a felon, but got out after a few months. He could have been in a Federal prison instead of shooting up a park, but the Feds didn't prosecute.

Quote:
3. Worse penalties for people selling unregistered guns of any kind. Proceeds can go to.... blank.

Worse than 10 years? Already a Federal crime. But once again, Feds rarely prosecute.

Quote:
4. Obama out of office, new leadership at the NRA. Obama has been a gun shop owner's dream - every time he says anything about guns the shelves clear.

Swapping Obama for Clinton, as is likely, won't improve the situation.

Quote:
5. Cultural shift - we're obsessed with guns, we indulge ourselves with guns like we do with food. I really don't hold out for a change in that though, it's too far ingrained. I cranked my xbox when I play it to hear the guns better, I have a coffee table book, "The Worlds Great Small Arms" - I find them fascinating too. Not sure what could change that other than a lot of time.

Need to seperate guns from violence. Most people who enjoy shooting sports know that this is not a foreordained connection. I know a bunch of folks who spend lots of money and time just trying to make holes in a piece of paper 1000 yards away that are closer to the center than anyone else - or sometimes in the deer they'll fill their freezer with.

Also need to do something about violence in general. When kids are running around beating up random folks just for "fun", there's a problem that needs to be addressed.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I caught your post. What it actually has to do with libertarianism eludes me.

GEEZER

I'm tossing back to you what I got out of our extended discussion on the topic of libertarianism. I thought I had got it correct: that everything depends on "contracts" between individuals, or between individuals and institutions, or between institutions. BUt that requires that everyone be able to walk away form a contract... after all, it's not a fair contract if extorted under duress. I also got the sense that everyone in your libertarian world was to act sheerly individually... not collective agreements etc. That means that everyone is as self-sufficient as possible, or at least has something of value with which to baragin.

All of this is to ensure that everyone has complete ownership of their "stuff" to do with what they want (except as it negatively impacts their neighbors) and this is defined as freedom by libertarians and remains its ultimate goal no matter which flavor you prefer.

Yes?

If not, let me know, because then obviously I STILL haven't gotten it.

-------------------------------------

On to gun control:

I asked for answers to a series of "yes" or "no" questions to make sure that I inderstand your view on gun control.

Why?

Because I don't think I understand your views on that topic. In all of the dicsussions we've had on libertarnianism specifically, that topic has never really come up. OTOH, in other discussions about guns and gun control (which I mostly avoid) you seem to lean more towards gun onwership as a near-universal right, as long as people were properly trained in gun safety and maintenance.

And what does it have to do with your Libertarian viewpoint? Well, maybe nothing. That is why I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions so at least I knw where you are on gun control, and then tell me how your views of gun control mesh- or not- with your views on everything else: Are guns necessary in THIS society? Are they merely a pathway to a future libertarian society? Would they be necessary in a future libertarian society? Or do you see universal gun ownership as the basis for ALL societies?

So please don't just skip the questions, beecause I really want to know. I have a tough time understanding your world view, so I need explanations because I still don't "grok" how it's all supposed to work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 28, 2013 11:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You [sic] " comparison " is comical, at best, Sig.

Seriously. You posit this inane apples or mollusks position where if one accepts your premise, then we should by all rights ban cars too.

Okay, so let's do the car versus guns comparison. Before we start, tho, we have to make the point of comparison fair. There are about as many registered passenge vehicles in the USA (approx 270 million) as there are guns (approx 300 million). On the other hand, most passenger vehicles are used twice nearly every day- once to go to work and once to get home, plus running errands, going out, etc. So I think it would be fair to say that every registered vehicle is turned on at least twice a day.

So, how often does someone pull the trigger of their gun? (That is the closest analogy to turning the key in the ignition and stepping on the gas, altho this is biased against cars, since a car is, in many ways, a 2000- 4000 pound bullet that travels many miles.)

And out of their repsective use rates, which one has more deaths and accidents associated with it? I'll leave you to do the apples-to-apples comparison as an exercise in fair comparison.

-------------------
How does the passenger vehicle achieve its low accident and death/ per usage rate, compared to guns?

1) It's harder to own and drive a car than to own and use a gun. In order to get a drivers license, I have to pass a written test, and (the first time, anyway) a practicum. And you have to get your driver's license renewed every few years. When you're really old, (or really young) special restrictions apply. Can you say that about guns?

2) Every car should be registered to its owner, even if you just gave it to your kid for going back and forth to school. Cars have a registration tag which allows the police to be able to see quickly and easily whether the car has a current registration. And pulling cars over for out-of-date registration is pretty common around here. Every time you're pulled over for ANYthing, they want to see your license and registration, required to be carried at all times. Can you say the same thing about guns?

3) There are a lot of laws on car driving, such as speeding, DUI, and driving while distracted. Can you say the same thing about guns?

4) Every year, vehicles are recalled for potential safety problems with prematurely wearing brakes, stuck accelerators, transmissions that slip into "drive", and air safety bags that blow up or don't inflate. Every few years, new safety features are added to vehcles, from lap belts to shoulder belts to air bags (They really do save lives, I knew someone who was passangering in a car with no air safety bag- she was killed while everyone else survivied a head-on collision.); anti-lock brakes. Can you point to ongoing effort to recall unsafe guns or add safety features across the board to new production?

5) Infrastructure is always assessed for safety improvements... wider shoulder, added stoplights, better turn lanes.

------------------------------------
Now, just to round out the topic back to terrorists killing people- the largest number of people killed for political purposes in the ME in the past 10 years happen to be approximately 110-150 thousand Iraqis killed by Americans, followed by the civil war in Syria at approx 100 thousand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_Ea
s

Of those, a vanishingly small number of people were Americans.

Those numbers pale in comparison to the number of Americans killed within our borders.

Those number pale yet again compared to the number of children who die from hunger every year: 8 million.

Again, just trying to put this into context about tackling the biggest problems first. If we were to just sit down and think about what we would like to see-

the right to life
clean water, clean air and clean land for everyone
meaninful work for a living wage for everyone who wants to work
a safe place to sleep
equity between genders and fairness to the young
education for all adults
neighbors and family that you can build bonds with
a voice- inidividual and collective- in your future

then start looking at ..... number (1) Where are people dying or being killed in vast numbers, and what can we do to help? ... maybe we won't be tempted so very far astray by such gahfla

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:00 PM

America loves a winner!

Sig. You're so over thinking this comparison, it doesn't even warrant discussion.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Simple. Unless you have a pretty large preponderence of folks who believe in any philosophy, you won't be able to have a society that operates under that philosophy. If folks didn't believe that Democracy was a workable system, for example, and preferred a Monarchy or Theocracy, you couldn't have a Democracy.

That's not actually true. We have a system of government and society that is defined and limited by law. If you don't believe in the system, it wont just cease to exist. you'd have to overthrow it. It's not philosophical belief that keeps democracy existing, its law.

In a libertarian society, you don't have the same/any laws. What prevents people from behaving badly is that libertarians believe in non aggression. You have said this many times. You have also said that if someone did behave badly, aggression, including lethal force may be used.

In a true libertarian society, there would be no laws, just the above principlea. I understand that has never been your belief system. What you believe in sounds an awful lot like the current system, but without the kind of laws that you find restrictive ie gun laws, business regulation and with minimal tax.

However, I find it intriguing that whenever the idea of conflict and aggression and libertariansim is trotted out, you rarely say things like - 'of course there will be laws that govern this sort of thing, and a police force to enforce the laws' - instead you bring up the non aggression principle. See above discussion on this. So you see where I find your phiosophy inconsistent and confusing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:41 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig. You're so over thinking this comparison, it doesn't even warrant discussion.

Hmmm.... which is the bigger problem for Americans to solve... 4 (maybe 6!) dead in Kenya, 31,000 dead in the USA of gun deaths? Oh, I'd think this thing through but that's too much thinking! It makes my head hurt!

Wow.

Just so you stay a bit more rational in discussion, I suggest you apply some sort of crude estimates to your responses. When thinking about "American deaths", keep in mind that approximately

45,000 die every year due to lack of health insurance
37,000 die due to car accidents
31,000 die thanks to guns

Approximately 40 Americans died in 3 years due to terrorist acts around the world, including in the USA

So before you get your panties in a twist about something, just make sure it's something worthwhile.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Meanwhile, Geezer, I've described what I THINK you've said in the past, and am asking for further elucidation and corrections to my understanding.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I caught your post. What it actually has to do with libertarianism eludes me.
GEEZER

I'm tossing back to you what I got out of our extended discussion on the topic of libertarianism. I thought I had got it correct: that everything depends on "contracts" between individuals, or between individuals and institutions, or between institutions. BUt that requires that everyone be able to walk away form a contract... after all, it's not a fair contract if extorted under duress. I also got the sense that everyone in your libertarian world was to act sheerly individually... not collective agreements etc. That means that everyone is as self-sufficient as possible, or at least has something of value with which to baragin.

All of this is to ensure that everyone has complete ownership of their "stuff" to do with what they want (except as it negatively impacts their neighbors) and this is defined as freedom by libertarians and remains its ultimate goal no matter which flavor you prefer.

Yes?

Well, No.

As noted several times, including in a response earlier in this thread, and quoted from Wikipedia's article on libertarianism, there are various flavors of libertarianism, from Propertarians to Socialists, and from pretty much Anarchists to Minarchists who are happy with limited government in a law enforcement and judicial role.

Or, to quote the Wiki article...

Quote:
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism. Different schools of libertarianism disagree over whether the state should exist and, if so, to what extent. While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system. While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources (see right-libertarianism), others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management (see libertarian socialism).

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

As noted, I'd probably fall in the Propertarian Minarchist school.

-------------------------------------

Quote:
On to gun control:

I asked for answers to a series of "yes" or "no" questions to make sure that I inderstand your view on gun control.

Here's my view.

Law-abiding citizens shouldn't be prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms. They shouldn't have to register them or provide information about them to law enforcement. If they want to carry them, they should be allowed to do so after passing a safety test.

Certain classes of folks - violent felons, the mentally ill, illegal aliens, spouse abusers, etc. should not be allowed to own firearms. I have no problem with a registry of such persons being used to screen purchases. If these persons are found with firearms, or attempting to obtain firearms, they should be prosecuted. People trying to aid these people in obtaining firearms, wheter by illegal sale or straw purchase, should be prosecuted.

In general, I figure that gun control laws that focus on the firearms rather than the people using them are ineffective.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
That's not actually true. We have a system of government and society that is defined and limited by law. If you don't believe in the system, it wont just cease to exist. you'd have to overthrow it. It's not philosophical belief that keeps democracy existing, its law.

I have to disagree. There may be laws in place, but the fact is that most people agree with them and follow them voluntarily, or the system wouldn't work. If a majority of folks didn't have a philosophical belief in the system of laws, law enforcement wouldn't be able to maintain the system.

Quote:
In a libertarian society, you don't have the same/any laws. What prevents people from behaving badly is that libertarians believe in non aggression. You have said this many times. You have also said that if someone did behave badly, aggression, including lethal force may be used.

Don't you believe in non-aggression? That it's wrong to attack someone or take their stuff? And response to aggression is self-defense, not further aggression, and can be proportinal, not always (or even mostly) lethal. As noted several times, this doesn't have to mean an only an individual acting in self-defense. It could be a governmental police, a private security firm, or a voluntary self-defense association.

Quote:
In a true libertarian society, there would be no laws, just the above principlea.

Not true. As noted in the Wiki article (did you read it?) there are various schools of Libertarianism that concieve of various gradients of laws, government, law enforcement, etc.

Quote:
However, I find it intriguing that whenever the idea of conflict and aggression and libertariansim is trotted out, you rarely say things like - 'of course there will be laws that govern this sort of thing, and a police force to enforce the laws' - instead you bring up the non aggression principle. See above discussion on this. So you see where I find your phiosophy inconsistent and confusing.

I've mentioned minarchist societies that have law enforcement several times in this and other threads, so I'm not sure where you get this idea. I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't actually read through my responses, but just fill in with what you think I'm going to say, based on your stereotype of me.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 29, 2013 4:42 PM