elijah keep your points shorter please. i'm a conservative. i don't like reading things ever. not to mention that the best answers are generally simple and direct. you don't need miles of text to be heard or understood.
elijah keep your points shorter please. i'm a conservative. i don't like reading things ever. not to mention that the best answers are generally simple and direct. you don't need miles of text to be heard or understood.
your welcome
No, dude. The basis for the U.S. laws is from the one i linked. We are a nation that makes our laws from moral right and wrong(criminally speaking). and our crimes stem from that. Meaning the real definition of a criminal(Atleast in the U.S.) is someone who abandons moral right and wrong, not someone who simply disobeys a law. Are people who speed seen as criminals? OFCOURSE NOT YET THEY BRAKE LAWS. Are people who do things like put people out of their misery when asked seen as criminals (by most people) Ofcourse not. Criminal in the U.S. is defined through commiting crimes on a moral ground, which usually overlaps with existing laws(BECAUSE HEY THATS WHERE THE LAWS COME FROM AND ARE CHANGED AND MADE FOR RIGHT AND WRONG(in the U.S.)) however don't always.Originally Posted by Solly
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
If the percentages of crimes are 30% unknown 45~50% what i was saying, 25~30% what you were saying, i have a majority.. thats how it works. untill you can make up for the unknown that the document you quoted didn't cover.
i never said i didn't make claims dude. I said when you quoted me saying stuff about the law, saying i was wrong, you were quoting the parts that were just conjecture about what if this happened..... THATS WHAT IM SAYING,
I said you were right about the one of the 2 points i made about real life. You were right, they don't make people take saftey classes. that was one of the 2 things i said. the other was that most crimes happen in public as opposed to home/work/airport/policestation/ect. Which you provided proof that i was right. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS CONJECTURE.
Do you understand now?
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
sorry. I like having conversations and arguments that aren't just simple bullet points. Thats not to say i can't but its the internet.
Heres some of my points.
-Guns should require saftey classes federally
-Guns should not be able to be obtained without a background check
-Registered guns should be able to be carried in public.
-Vigilantism shouldn't be criminalized without searching for alternatives that would involve cooperation with police.
Side note, i watched the show your quote is from, thats in the first couple of episodes, but man i remeber when they touched the spiders i was like, OMG NOOOOOO WAY. Also that time one of the "mystery creatures" was a girl sitting there lol. i thought someone might accidently touch something in apropriate for a second. That would have been comedy GOLD
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
YOUR LAW IS BASED ON ETHICS (at least, on principle it should, but that's a whole other story, oil barons pharmaceutical companies etc.). A CRIME IS NOT A BREAKING OF ANY MORAL CODE, EVEN BY YOUR DEFINITION IT IS A GRAVE OFFENSE, A HEAVY BREAKING OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. I once teased a puppy, a morally questionable act, does that make me a criminal?
NO IT ISN'T. IT IS NOT. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM. WHO TOLD YOU THIS? DO YOU KNOW ANYBODY WHO WILL AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS? DO WE NEED TO POLL ALL THE OTHER AMERICANS ON HERE TO SEE WHAT THEY THINK? DO WE NEED TO DO A WIKIPEDIA CHECK ON US LAW? No, we don't, because either of those acts would prove you wrong.Meaning the real definition of a criminal(Atleast in the U.S.) is someone who abandons moral right and wrong, not someone who simply disobeys a law.
Yes lolAre people who speed seen as criminals?
Yes.Are people who do things like put people out of their misery when asked seen as criminals (by most people)
Um... no. A person is convicted for breaking the law, which makes them a criminal. Law is based on morality, however a breaking of morality does not constitute a criminal offense. It's a very simple concept.Criminal in the U.S. is defined through commiting crimes on a moral ground, which usually overlaps with existing laws(BECAUSE HEY THATS WHERE THE LAWS COME FROM AND ARE CHANGED AND MADE FOR RIGHT AND WRONG(in the U.S.)) however don't always.
Ok, teher you go. You proved me wrong through an articulate argument. Was that really that hard?
I NEVER SAID YOU SAID THAT. READ MY POSTS.i never said i didn't make claims dude.
No, you were making conjecture based on claims. I was tearing into those claims, which made your conjecture pointless, even though I didn't really care about the conjecture, just the false claims.I said when you quoted me saying stuff about the law, saying i was wrong, you were quoting the parts that were just conjecture about what if this happened..... THATS WHAT IM SAYING,
No. I don't, and you still haven't addressed vigilantism.I said you were right about the one of the 2 points i made about real life. You were right, they don't make people take saftey classes. that was one of the 2 things i said. the other was that most crimes happen in public as opposed to home/work/airport/policestation/ect. Which you provided proof that i was right. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS CONJECTURE.
Do you understand now?
Those are all great arguments, too bad you made terrible claims to support them. Try again with some actual facts or logic to back them up.
It's called "open-carry" and many states allow it.
The KKK is a vigilante group. Should they be criminalized?
I understand what you are saying, and i am telling you that it is deeper than that. You are talking about the FACTS and im talking about what people ACTUALLY FEEL. What society thinks, which is where our laws are supposed to come from, not what happens to be the route facts of the matter.
If i speed 99% of people would say, no your not a criminal.WHY? because 99% of people feel speeding is an acceptable crime. Meaning it isn't even really a crime. The only reason its a crime is because without the law and the enforcement of the law more deaths WOULD occur. However it could be that since alot of people don't speed to much that speeding is actually not that dangerous, only when everyone is speeding together does it ramp of the danger level. Arguments everywhere for everywhich thing and all of them have a strong basis.
All life is is opinions what opinions people hold of you, learning the difference and what really constitutes a crime for most people is something that i am talking about. Not wether i would get in trouble for it or not, because thats not how people should live their lives.
People should be who they are. It doesn't help us as a race for everyone to just hind behind laws like children. It doesn't change who we are, it prevents some small minor crimes but really if you want to do it your going to do it anyways. We should just be focusing on what people think of it instead of what the law thinks of it one way or another. Thats what they did when they made the laws. Thats what they do when they make the laws and change the laws now. Thats how it works. Or atleast that is how it is supposed to work.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
Dude, thats the whole point i've been saying, i know ITS ALLOWED I KNOW THIS GOD DAMBIT I NEVER DIDN'T KNOW THIS i can't keep saying thing, all im saying is that it shouldn't ever be changed to where they can't.
Because that was the argument me and kirby were having.
Edit: @ your question. The KKK can and should do whatever they want, and if society disagrees as a whole with what they do they should and will be criminalized. if not they shouldn't. I personally agree they should be criminalized, but the point is no 1 person deserves the right to say what is and isn't criminal. That is the whole point of the american government, and in most cases old laws should be striken when society changes it's mind. However that happens less and less and less because of POLOTICS. It stopped being the people run the government and started being controversy runs and stops the government. Nothing gets done because of devided interests at war over issues. Instead of polling all americans that have oppinions on certain issues, they just elect one guy who is the eptimy of a set of issues that you could agree with some of it on and disagree with some of it on too.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
ElijahWyatt the anarchist.
So... what you're saying is... how people feel will always trump factual information. I think I'm done here. If you honestly are going to base any argument around that, I don't think you're worth having any argument with. So you know what, hey you win, I wave the white flag I'm done.
When i said what i said, it elliminated me from winning. Because you were arguing with me over a seperate issue, and hey don't act like i've won, you won too. you disproved me on something i thought was true. I don't want you to be done though, i want you to take at hand the topic i have made you fully aware of now(i think) and to go with me on that. Theres no reason to throw in the towell when we finally come eye to eye on what the argument is even about. Also read what i wrote in the edit of the post above, good stuff and that might explain what i have been meaning by criminality and laws all along.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
I want PEOPLE to be anarchists, i don't want anarchy. I want people who disagree with laws to disagree with them, and people who agree with laws to support them. Right now if someone disagrees with a law well though luck. And right now if the majority of people agree with a law but they can't get it to anywhere important, or a majority of the people who agree can't get to voice their oppinion, tough luck. The only way to stop this is through rebellion which i would love to see more of. For a long time our system has grinded to a gaint hault, and this is the only road i see happening in the future to get us on the road towards progress again.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
Elijah, the problem is you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. You're arguing as if the US is some fascist state, and while its government certainly fucks shit up a lot with social policy like healthcare and gay marriage, when it comes to actual criminal law it really isn't all that bad, so when you say things like "The KKK should be able to do whatever they want and the people should be able to decide if this is correct", the government, as an acting representative democracy, should be able to deal with the issue along the same lines as your argument. making it criminal.
...
Do you not understand how government works?
Often times the government doesn't act appropriately to what the people think should be done. Look at the wars we are in. I know i didn't sign off on any of them, and niether did my parents. You are acting as if KKK is the only type of group that could use criminal methods to accomplish its goals for moral enlightenment. Sure i agree i can trust the government to respond accordingly to something so glaring and obvious, but when they just act as if they know the will of the people(the same will they should be enslaved to) when they clearly don't abide by it or know what it is, they can make huge mistakes and step over the line of power they should be allowed to have.
Heres an example. I make a company that helps employers find out about people. Say you are an employer where there is 0 tolerance for fighting, and they want to find employees that will never fight with each other (say because a fight could cause an extreme mistake to be made) So i pay someone to try and pick a fight with the potential employees and see if they fight or not when provoked. Is that legal to do so? Nope. Would the government shut down a buisness like that? Yep, what are the opinions of the majority of people as to whether that should be allowed or not? WHO KNOWS. They government surely doesn't and niether do you. I am saying they shouldn't be allowed to just close them down without atleast afterwards polling the public to see if this kind of buisness should be given a provision under which they could legally operate.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
Yes, we elect people who run on issues/promises.
They make the laws/change the laws.
If you were to poll all of america on every issue they could want gay maridge they could want whatever and also could want a conservitive tax plan. Meaning a conservative gets ellected, and takes that to mean no gay marridge when infact it just ment america agrees with your tax plan over the other guys and taxes are more important than the other issues. That is how it works and that is it's flaw. What we should be doing is electing serveral people all the time on invididual issues. Instead of electing 300 so people all together for every single issue.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
Congress does not cover all the laws in the country, they cover federal laws and determine what laws should be governed on a federal or state level. Effectively, anything without a clear yes or no from congress usually gets pinned as a state law, which is why different states have different laws on gay marriage (the federal government cannot seem to come to an agreement on whether it's legal or not), and anything that is not covered by the state or federal level (such as what a town spends its taxes on) goes to the local office of mayors and such.
The fact that there are so many issues to cover is why the US has the three tiered system of federal, state and local. However, gerrymandering and political segregation skew the results a bit, thereby usually making one party weaker in an area. You cannot just decide to rebel and get what you want. It doesn't work like that in the modern world. The only reason it worked in 1776 was because the colonies were under a monarchy (one enemy to blame, the king), the enemies were at a geological disadvantage (though certainly the british were militarily advantaged), and the british just really didn't care about the colonies. Not to mention that people were still recovering from the Seven Years War.
The best part about living in the US is that anyone upset with the laws can take office and try to change them. While not as dramatic as anarchy, it can be way more effective in the long run. Hell, even public speakers and protesters can change the nation, the Civil Rights Movement is a great example of that.
Also, as a lasting note, while it's a constitutional freedom to rebel, it is not a right. After the Civil War, it is considered domestic terrorism to promote violence against the government and people in office. So if you want a true and violent overthrow of the united states government, it's not going to happen.
Giving the majority whatever they want is the tyranny of the majority, and if we always allowed it segregation would still exist in the south today.
Tyranny of an EDUCATED majority wouldn't be that bad. And no, i am talking about federally. not statewise.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
I know, i meant their are 51 congresses and the presidents and governers and judges, so like really a few thousand people decide everything. When they majority could think completely opposite on some issues.
Also, it will. The governement as which we know it will be overthrown, either by the people or by the people in control themselves. Democracy is a strong form of government but we do not have that, we have a republic and republics crumble under the pressure of disagreements. Mutiny is inevitable. That or destruction. One thing i can tell you is that in 100 years the U.S. will either be non existant, or have changed forms. Maybe after it is torn down it will be rebuilt the same once peace emerges. However there is no way we will be able to keep our rights throughout the upcoming times.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
But those individuals got their seats through the majority (or part of the majority) vote. If the public let officals in office that make laws that are different from what they want, they only have themselves to blame.
Sure, powerful nations will fall, it has happened before. But just because we exist doesn't mean we have to fail. I believe the opposite, I think we are going through a low phase and will bounce back. You know how cool it would be if the citizens fully supported the president instead of complaining all the time of how he's the Muslim anti-christ? We'd get shit done. Instead of whining of how their pick didn't get the seat, people of office should instead use that energy to actually do something of use other than to make their salary cap higher.
You have that faith, and if that is a growing movement, supporting fully whoever happens in, i would love it. As they say to go forward sometimes you need to take a few steps back. I think all movement is good movement. However i don't agree that there is ANY hope for that happening. Maybe it will happen on a small scale, but i doubt it will really happen.
How do you think the U.S. will go through hitting the population limit, without taking away tons of rights, causing a divide in the nation that i think would border around the same as the civil war? I see no constitutional way for us to go about that, and i think what will happen is civil war or someone will start saying things are this and that way and thats that. (not democracy or republic)
Not to say its hopeless for us to come over that democratically, but i think these and other emerging crisises will be too much for our current (inefficient slow system) to handle.
Edit: I LOVE HOW PEOPLE SAY THAT elections are decided by the majority. Do you know voter turnout? Most people don't have any choices. You get 2 people to decide from, you don't like either you have no voice. 57% voted in the last election, 43% had no voice.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
Statistically, first world countries have less babies per couple (though more elderly) so I don't worry about a population limit. It's not like we are touching shoulders like India either, we have vast space for people to live, like Wyoming and Alaska.
For some reason you think big government = less rights. However less governement =/= more rights so I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I don't understand the natural instinct to distrust the people who run the place you live. I understand telling them when they run it differently than I want them to, but not the wariness that people give it.
I believe it was Aristotle who said that the ideal polity is one with a large, content middle class. If the people are comfortable, they are more open to the wishes of the government. However, in a recession, this state of comfort is not possible, so people complain and want change to go back to the comfort level they had before.
Initially, once the comfort is back, people won't be worried as much about the economy and way the country is going. This is how the government can keep in power: to make as many people as content as possible. To do that, people need jobs, need a secure income, and need to own property. Unemployment and poverty deter from that and the rich people in congress don't understand how to decrease the levels of unrest without having to sacrifice their own pocketed money... :|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote