Gun Control and Government Genocide/Mass Murder - Page 14

mosdef · #**131** 04-24-2007, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, wonderful! No need to worry, slaves! Soon "the majority" will decide your treatment is unfair and end it. Maybe. And when I say "soon" I mean "in the next several hundred years".

[/ QUOTE ]

What was their alternative? To use their martial force to overcome? Why do you think they didn't?

[ QUOTE ]
But the majority outlaws certain marriage contracts, based on the sex of the participants. Don't worry! They might change their minds!

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that's wrong, I think that's wrong, so what? Why does our version of right and wrong count more than anyone elses?

Borodog · #**132** 04-24-2007, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I invite you to change people's mind, but not to circumvent the existing law because you don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition there can be no moral obligation to obey immoral laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does each individual get to define their own morality and act accordingly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, is it okay for someone to mow down the crowd at a steak house if he thinks eating meat is immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion? No, it is not "okay." Did you really need to ask this question?

[ QUOTE ]
He's just stopping the immorality!

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps in his opinion. Which is why it's a good idea to carry concealed when you're out and about. You never know when you'll run into a nutjob.

mosdef · #**133** 04-24-2007, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why it's a good idea to forcibly prevent nutjobs from carrying concealed when you're out and about. You never know when you'll run into a nutjob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog · #**134** 04-24-2007, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why it's a good idea to <font color="red">magicly</font> prevent nutjobs from carrying concealed when you're out and about. You never know when you'll run into a nutjob.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn · #**135** 04-24-2007, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, wonderful! No need to worry, slaves! Soon "the majority" will decide your treatment is unfair and end it. Maybe. And when I say "soon" I mean "in the next several hundred years".

[/ QUOTE ]

What was their alternative? To use their martial force to overcome? Why do you think they didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were just obeying the majority, I guess. Might makes right!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the majority outlaws certain marriage contracts, based on the sex of the participants. Don't worry! They might change their minds!

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that's wrong, I think that's wrong, so what? Why does our version of right and wrong count more than anyone elses?

[/ QUOTE ]

It DOESN'T! That's why I don't impose my version on anyone else, regardless of how many people agree with me.

mosdef · #**136** 04-24-2007, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What was their alternative? To use their martial force to overcome? Why do you think they didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were just obeying the majority, I guess. Might makes right!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did it change? Because the oppressed minority armed itself or because of changes in the majority opinion? Without the majority opinion to bring pressure to bear on the slave owners, why would they change? How is the abolition of slavery an argument against majority rule?

pvn · #**137** 04-24-2007, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What was their alternative? To use their martial force to overcome? Why do you think they didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were just obeying the majority, I guess. Might makes right!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did it change? Because the oppressed minority armed itself or because of changes in the majority opinion? Without the majority opinion to bring pressure to bear on the slave owners, why would they change? How is the abolition of slavery an argument against majority rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

The abolition isn't. The imposition of it is.

Note also that the abloition isn't an argument *for* majority rule, since that was simply the majority undoing previous injustice it implemented. You don't get credit for cleaning up a mess you made in the first place.

John Kilduff · #**138** 04-24-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If certain rights are not enshrined and protected as inviolable for all persons, then it is assured that eventually the majority preference will trample the rights of those not in the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. Who gets to set the list of inviolable rights? You? Me? 55 men who died over 100 years ago and didn't get to use the benefit of subsequent experience in making their decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the USA, it is based on the legal document by 55 men who died over 200 years ago, but not before they produced that document that contains the most liberal and encompassing protections of individual rights ever known to mankind.

Canada: Parliament. Do you realize that your rights in Canada exist only at the discretion of Parliament? As an article I linked elsewhere pointed out, those aren't rights, they're privileges. Only the U.S. Constitution enshrines rights as deriving from the Creator and states that these rights are INALIENABLE. Your rights - er, privileges - are a gift from Parliament only.

You might like your "no inherent rights" idea, and the ease of overcoming rights - er, make that privileges - by mob rule or by votes according to the whim of the moment, but to me that idea is downright scary.

It's a good thing you live in Canada and I live in the U.S., I guess, although even in the U.S. there are many trying to subvert the rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS - what a concept. Maybe you should dwell on that for a little bit.

pvn · #**139** 04-24-2007, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If certain rights are not enshrined and protected as inviolable for all persons, then it is assured that eventually the majority preference will trample the rights of those not in the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. Who gets to set the list of inviolable rights? You? Me? 55 men who died over 100 years ago and didn't get to use the benefit of subsequent experience in making their decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the USA, it is based on the legal document by 55 men who died over 200 years ago, but not before they produced that document that contains the most liberal and encompassing protections of individual rights ever known to mankind.

Canada: Parliament. Do you realize that your rights in Canada exist only at the discretion of Parliament? As an article I linked elsewhere pointed out, those aren't rights, they're privileges. Only the U.S. Constitution enshrines rights as deriving from the Creator and states that these rights are INALIENABLE. Your rights - er, privileges - are a gift from Parliament only.

You might like your "no inherent rights" idea, and the ease of overcoming rights - er, make that privileges - by mob rule or by votes according to the whim of the moment, but to me that idea is downright scary.

It's a good thing you live in Canada and I live in the U.S., I guess, although even in the U.S. there are many trying to subvert the rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS - what a concept. Maybe you should dwell on that for a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to note this. The US Constitution doesn't "create" rights or "grant" them. It simply *acknowledges* them, and lists things that the government is not allowed to do.

mosdef · #**140** 04-24-2007, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For the USA, it is based on the legal document by 55 men who died over 200 years ago, but not before they produced that document that contains the most liberal and encompassing protections of individual rights ever known to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't object to their fundamental principles, so I wouldn't vote against them.

[ QUOTE ]
Canada: Parliament. Do you realize that your rights in Canada exist only at the discretion of Parliament? As an article I linked elsewhere pointed out, those aren't rights, they're privileges.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think would happen if parliament tried to revoke the rights/privileges that were supported by the majority? Do you really think the Canadian military could stop 30 million enraged hockey fans?

[ QUOTE ]
INALIENABLE RIGHTS - what a concept. Maybe you should dwell on that for a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Inalienable rights defined by 55 men (much better than silly old majority rule) and written in stone for all enternity with no room for debate. Maybe you should dwell on that for a little bit. By that logic, the ten commandments ought to have suited us forever. Or did that Creator not count, only the Creator as envisioned by the apparently infalible Founding Fathers?