|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 20, 2010 11:04:00 GMT
No, it means that ultimately human societies decide what is right and wrong according to their own needs, then believe in those things. Are you truly saying you cannot see the difference? Sure, from a human point of view, there are morals. But from an objective point of view there aren't. From an objective point of view, there's no reason why we should follow one kind of moral over another. Hitler was just as moral as Jesus. Because, from an objective point of view, morals do not exist. With no offence at all Ube, I do not believe that. It's not the mid 80's anymore, Elliot. Edit: Just looked at the article and it's totally irrelevant to the wider point. This guy is quoting his opinion and that's all. Totally irrelevant? He's explaining how religious Swedes are, how is that irrellevant to how religious Swedes are? Quoting his oppinion? Like you're not! Unlike you this guy have lived here for all his life. He's been a Christian (the real kind) for most of his life, he's been a theologian and he's now studying much of what you are studying - how human society works. If you scroll down a little here you might get a better look of how much he does and does not know. He might not be God but he's better than anything you have. The US was no more advanced in 1790 than was Europe, seeing as they were all immigrants from Europe..Yet they formed the Constitution..  Yeah, though that might be because a lot of the smart europeans moved to the US since implementing the kind of society they wanted was easier there than in Europe. And Europe's come a long way since 1790 too, and I dare say we've surpassed you. Besides, I was speaking in favor of the constitution there, in case you missed it...  And how is the Constitution not perfect??....please enlighten me with your wisdom. I've already given you one example: separation of church and state. If your constitution doesn't support that then your constitution isn't perfect. A second example is the right to bear arms. In modern society there are only drawbacks of having free gun laws, so this right only stands in the way of legislation that will improve the US as a country. The notion that having guns will somehow protect you from the goverment is silly and naive. Freedom of speech and freedom to protest does far more than guns ever will. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 20, 2010 11:50:18 GMT
The US was no more advanced in 1790 than was Europe, seeing as they were all immigrants from Europe..Yet they formed the Constitution..
Dissenting opinion here, Sam - because they formed a constitution of a republican state. In the 18th century western civilization that was revolutionary and unique (before the French revolution). While they weren't more educated than European thinkers - they did grab the chance of going one step further.
They did not opt for a parliamentary monarchy, nor a centralist, absolute government - models of which were present in the 'super powers' of the time. I'd call that an advance.
Is the constitution, or any constitution, perfect - certainly not. They are all written within the context of their time and specific circumstances. Notwithstandig that, the US constitution in its original form is a good one for regulating the minimum fundamental for future generations' operation.
Of course, they were in a unique historic position none of their successors (even themselves in later functions) could ever equal - they did not stand there to be reelected into offices; they were, and could be, statesmen.
The point with 'improvements' to a constitution - and I'm not limiting this to the US one - is that IMHO most improvements suggested or made are not limited to fundamentals in government structure or basic principles.
As an example: The removal of the unification article in the German constitution (that was the one allowing areas which had been German in the past to join the Federal Republic of Germany) was a necessary change after Germany united (Because there remain areas outside the current Germany which now are Polish and Russian, even French, if one'd stretch it) - whether the inclusion of animal protection rights should be part of a constitution is debateable. I personnally think that such worthy goal should and can be codified, but its place is not there. Those who want it there are political power gamers, because a later constitution change is so much harder to codify than changing a simple law.
edit:
Actually - to get to our Swede's point about the non-inclusion of a formal separation of church and state:
I believe they did exactly that - by not including a state church.
The whole concept is a "we include everything we believe necessary for the effective operation of government". By not including it they effectively called it 'not required' without having to offend any church.
(Weren't American colonists/immigrants a melting pot of religious dissidents of all sorts? Weren't the Puritans fleeing an oppressing state church as much as the Catholics?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 20, 2010 11:59:54 GMT
Sure, from a human point of view, there are morals. But from an objective point of view there aren't. From an objective point of view, there's no reason why we should follow one kind of moral over another. Hitler was just as moral as Jesus. Because, from an objective point of view, morals do not exist. Therefore neither was 'moral' in an Objective sense at all. Yes. ALL moral systems are Subjective and Consensual. We're both a bit wrong, but I acknowledge I was more wrong. Sweden does appear to be a net contributor. Of course I'm just giving my opinion, but I'm not trying to claim it's anything but. You are claiming this guy's opinion is an accurate reflection of the entirety of Sweden, despite having no actual statistical data to back up his opinion. Without a government census any claim on the proportion of religious people in any nation is bound to be uncertain, and even then a lot say they are one thing when they are really something else. Also, the wider point is the world, not just Sweden. I was unclear in my point there, though. *** Followed the link & scrolled down. He's equating Theism with organised religion - they are not the same thing. Nor does it matter whether Americans would see Swedish Christians as Christians or not. I don't doubt that Medieval Christians would see many modern Americans as non-Christians. Faiths grow differently in different places and like every other social system they change and adapt over time. Hmmm... You're not trying to get me to do your debating for you are you, Ube? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 20, 2010 12:41:12 GMT
To address 'the wider point' more exactly: any society that feels itself to be secure (safe from enemies without and general harmony within) loses the (perceived) need for those systems that allowed it to reach such a pinnacle in the first place. For a while they continue out of inertia ('Custom' and 'Tradition') but then people question the old moral and ethical systems that once pertained and the over-riding need for cohesion against common (Mostly outside) threats is no longer there. So the society discards these things as being anachronistic and 'old fashioned'. A less cohesive society is formed where there is far more room for individual freedom and individual expression, as the perceived need for cohesion is no longer strong or urgent. The new moral and ethical systems that evolve from this change are more suited to the new society; the new perceptions within that society. The grip of religion is loosened (Often fatally) as the strong cohesion (And the strict rules) required by the religion(s) are deemed irrelevant to the needs of the new social order. The religions adapt and change to this new reality, trying to relax their own rules without fatally undermining themselves (Perhaps an impossibility. I do not know of one that has succeeded). But the society as a whole trends in the direction of more moral and ethical freedom, with most such choices left to individuals rather than decided upon by institutions. Moral and ethical positions that were once considered immutable law become a matter of opinion or are discarded utterly, whilst new moral and ethical positions are born that are widely accepted within society as the social norm, carrying the same weight of social displeasure if broken as any other social rule throughout history. As old beliefs are discarded, so new ones (Including both religions and pseudo-religions) that are more fitted to the society are adopted. Humans create the moral and ethical systems they need in order to best serve their current societies. Inertia holds those systems in place after a few generations, but ultimately new generations create change as the Cycle turns. This is all part of the great Cycle Of Civilisations and applies to every society there ever was - check your history books if you doubt me. The evidence is all there. *** That should hopefully make my position clear  |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 20, 2010 14:12:43 GMT
@ Glance
I should have been clearer in my question to Ube..My opinion is that with Article 5 of the constitution, improvements (if that is the word that you want to use) can be made by amending the constitution.
The base document, which is about 4 pages long, still gives us the best form of government, I believe, that exists in the world.
There have been thousands of tries to amend the constitution but only 33 (since the 1700's) have made it through the ratification process laid out by Article 5 of the base unit. The founding fathers saw to it that emotions cannot push through an amendment, because all the states have to ratify it and the Supreme Court justs says that a "reasonable" amount of time is needed to accomplish that...most have been around 7 years..so a lot of thought and debate has to go into such a process...fail safe IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 20, 2010 15:35:21 GMT
Well, I did say it's a pretty well written document, didn't I?
(Improvement only because not every amendment is necessarily an improvement - though sometimes, only time tells...)
And it is so, because it restricts itself to a minimum of regulation - something that has been forgotten in contemporary Europe, it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 21, 2010 11:18:17 GMT
Actually - to get to our Swede's point about the non-inclusion of a formal separation of church and state: I believe they did exactly that - by not including a state church. The same can be said about slavery and that went on for about 70 years after the constitution was implemented. What is in there should be enough, but because of the ambiguity it isn't. Of course I'm just giving my opinion, but I'm not trying to claim it's anything but. You are claiming this guy's opinion is an accurate reflection of the entirety of Sweden, despite having no actual statistical data to back up his opinion. Well, there was the wikipedia article claiming merely 23 % believe in a God. And just because he didn't dish out statistics doesn't mean he's talking out of his ass. He's lived here for more than 30 years, and for pretty much all of that time he's been interested in religion. Lately he's become very insterested in how humans work on an indivdual level and on society level. I doubt what he's saying is 100 % true all of the time, but if we were to be given the key we'd find out that he was more or less correct in the vast majority of the cases. Followed the link & scrolled down. He's equating Theism with organised religion - they are not the same thing. Nor does it matter whether Americans would see Swedish Christians as Christians or not. I don't doubt that Medieval Christians would see many modern Americans as non-Christians. Faiths grow differently in different places and like every other social system they change and adapt over time. Hmmm... You're not trying to get me to do your debating for you are you, Ube? ;D No, I made those points (well, at least on the Theism = organised religion part) a couple of weeks ago when that debate was going on. He's got a reason to equate Theism with organised religion: it's what most pepole do, like Atheists being equated with gnostic Atheists who believe all followers of religion are stupid per definition and does their best to make everyone know it. He believed that using it in the correct sence I was using it is dangerous because other pepole are making similiar arguments to mean something different. But nevermind that. @your second post: I still think your lack of objective morals makes you a moral nihilist. Or acually, you're more of a moral relativist, but to me that still makes you a nihilist, since the result is ultimately the same: nothing is right or wrong. Why does your idea of morality mean nothing is right or wrong? Well, our ideas of the world doesn't mean anything in an objective sence so if no morals exists outside of our mind then no morals exists (because morals don't exists only because we think they do). Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 21, 2010 13:14:26 GMT
I don't think he's talking out of his ass, Ube, just that his perspective is very strongly Subjective. There's nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, but it is bound to affect the results of his investigations. Someone who brings an agenda to research will frequently 'prove' his or her own expected perspective. It's why I try so hard to take myself out of the equation when it comes to all this stuff.
As for morality & ethics: I have my own, but just because I feel that something is Subjectively right doesn't in any way make it an Objective truth. That gave me trouble for a lot of years, actually. But in the end I wanted what was real more than I wanted a comforting lie, and there it went. The more you study history and cultures down the ages, the more you see both similarities (The importance of religion, the ever-presence of ceremony and hierarchy, etc) and the differences (The way lifestyle and attitudes change by environment, perceived security and perceived power). You realise that things you think of as 'moral' or 'immoral' would have gotten you killed in under five minutes in many, many societies throughout history. Not because your values are 'wrong' but simply because the requirements of differing circumstances require a totally different approach.
Morals and ethics, when viewed through the lens of society, are a way to help people live with each other with a minimum of strife. Or a maximum of strife, in the case of dangerous neighbours! ;D
Morals and ethics are necessary to humans for that reason. If we do not limit ourselves, we cannot live together and the only 'law' is that might makes right; the strong take what they want and the weak suffer. Between tribes, such thinking leads to skirmishes and outright war. Within a tribe, it destroys the tribe.
So humans need the limitations that will help them and their tribe survive and thrive in the time and place in which they live. But those needs are very much Subjective and/or Consensual, because they are a survival tool, as with all other social systems we develop. There is nothing Objective about any of them.
That's not Nihilism; it's Realism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 21, 2010 17:30:27 GMT
I don't think he's talking out of his ass, Ube, just that his perspective is very strongly Subjective. There's nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, but it is bound to affect the results of his investigations. Someone who brings an agenda to research will frequently 'prove' his or her own expected perspective. It's why I try so hard to take myself out of the equation when it comes to all this stuff. So does he (and I), though it's all but impossible to avoid it even for the best of us. As for morality & ethics: I have my own, but just because I feel that something is Subjectively right doesn't in any way make it an Objective truth. Of course not. My beliefs aren't true because I hold them, I hold them because (I believe) they are true. And why hold a view that is only subjectivly true in the first place? If the objective truth is that no morals exists then why persist to hold views on what's right and wrong? If no morals exists then any view on right and wrong is bound to be wrong by definition. The more you study history and cultures down the ages, the more you see both similarities (The importance of religion, the ever-presence of ceremony and hierarchy, etc) and the differences (The way lifestyle and attitudes change by environment, perceived security and perceived power). You realise that things you think of as 'moral' or 'immoral' would have gotten you killed in under five minutes in many, many societies throughout history. Not because your values are 'wrong' but simply because the requirements of differing circumstances require a totally different approach. Since I don't believe anything in itself is inherently wrong and that "right" and "wrong" is entirely up to what circumstances you find yourself that don't shake up my view on morality at all. Things that are wrong today were right in the past and things that were right in the past are wrong today. And pepole making the wrong choices still isn't proof that no right choice exists. Morals and ethics are necessary to humans for that reason. If we do not limit ourselves, we cannot live together and the only 'law' is that might makes right; the strong take what they want and the weak suffer. Between tribes, such thinking leads to skirmishes and outright war. Within a tribe, it destroys the tribe. So humans need the limitations that will help them and their tribe survive and thrive in the time and place in which they live. But those needs are very much Subjective and/or Consensual, because they are a survival tool, as with all other social systems we develop. There is nothing Objective about any of them. And, since no objective morality exists, this is pointless. Wether we die because we make the wrong choice and go with the wrong moral systems doesn't matter at all, because no objective morality exists. We can live as we do today or we can live as in 1984, from an objective point of view it doesn't matter. We're not really better off because of these system, that's just something we think. We don't really have any reason to bother, that's just something we think. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 21, 2010 19:04:19 GMT
So does he (and I), though it's all but impossible to avoid it even for the best of us. Indeed Not so. You are confusing Objective' with 'important to humanity'. Objectively speaking humanity has no real importance whatsoever. We are just one of many species inhabiting a tiny planet in a spiral arm of a galaxy far removed from the centre. If humanity vanished in its entirety, the rest of the universe would neither notice nor care. What we do to each other is even LESS important, Objectively speaking, as in universal terms our life spans are less than an eye blink anyway and there are quite literally billions of us. But from the point of view of humanity, not only do we matter, but we matter a lot! Indeed, from the very Subjective viewpoint of humanity, there is no more important species in the universe, because it includes ourselves, our relatives, our friends... Everyone we know and care about. So from the very specialised and very Subjective view of humanity, Objective Reality can go take a running jump! You are assuming Objective is the only meaningful form of reality, but it's not. Objectively, it does not matter if the cat kills the mouse, but to the mouse it is the most important thing there is: a literal matter of life and death! No matter how much you tell the mouse (Could you but converse with him) that his life has no meaning in the larger sense and thus whether he lives or dies has no meaning, could you convince him? Of course not! No more could you convince a human. His life has meaning because he gives it meaning. He interacts with other humans in a social group and that group has rules - many unwritten - that it's members follow and to all of them this is 'real'. They create their own Consensual Reality, be they a friend group, a small tribe, or all the way up to a huge empire. This is the Buddha's 'dream of the world' - the reality we create for ourselves that underlays everything we ever do. Words have the meaning we say they do; no more and no less. Actions may have no Objective merit whatsoever, yet be Subjectively or Consensually of enormous import. Even this discussion is Objectively meaningless, yet it may have seismic impact upon your life, or that of some reader wandering through who does not know or understand these things. Objectively it may not matter, yet Subjectively it could change everything for him or her. So is it also with morals and ethics. Whether the universe cares or not, they are vitally important to humanity. We'd still be living in small family groups in caves without it. Objectively, that may not matter, but Subjectively it matters a very great deal. If an 'eternal truth' exists I have yet to find it. But that doesn't mean that humanity's ability to tailor it's 'truths' to suit it's needs is unimportant, nor that it is 'wrong' to do so. Reality is not all of a piece; importance and Objectivity are not necessarily connected and 'truth' is often where you find it. Thus, it is perfectly possible to know and understand all these things, yet still have a firm and unwavering personal morality |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 21, 2010 19:10:17 GMT
As I said before, there are Darwinian morals - those which if not obeyed weaken our species, which I think is about as close to objective morals as you're ever going to get.
I suspect that there are some morals that could be considered universal (applied to the universe) morals, but we don't have the experience/knowledge/understanding of the universe to know what they are. And they probably conflict with a lot of Darwinian morals simply because the priorities of a universe are very different to the priorities of tiny little motes that live in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 22, 2010 9:48:11 GMT
Well, THE universe has no competition - as it is all encompassing, even should it change/evolve dramatically, it would still be THE universe (a 'unique version' so to speak).
One could argue that the speed of light constant is a fundametal, objective 'truth' (fact) on the universal scale (as far as we know...).
But for a few facts like that, anything within the universe is subjective to viewpoint and/or reference frame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 22, 2010 9:56:00 GMT
Actually - to get to our Swede's point about the non-inclusion of a formal separation of church and state: I believe they did exactly that - by not including a state church. The same can be said about slavery and that went on for about 70 years after the constitution was implemented. What is in there should be enough, but because of the ambiguity it isn't. Übereil That is a good point - more so as, beyond slavery, the constitution indeed attributes to 'all Men' (humans) certain unalienable rights - and subsequently in its practical use basically denied the Black (and Red Indians) the status of being humans. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 22, 2010 10:36:14 GMT
Well, THE universe has no competition - as it is all encompassing, even should it change/evolve dramatically, it would still be THE universe (a ' unique version' so to speak). One could argue that the speed of light constant is a fundametal, objective 'truth' (fact) on the universal scale (as far as we know...). But for a few facts like that, anything within the universe is subjective to viewpoint and/or reference frame. However, even the speed of light has changed over time... |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 22, 2010 10:42:13 GMT
Light speed changes near black holes too, doesn't it? Sure I read that somewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 22, 2010 10:45:47 GMT
We're talking about the physics constant "c" which is defined as the speed of light through a vacuum. The speed of light through other medium does vary (such as round a black hole, or through a glass of water)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 22, 2010 11:12:41 GMT
So even the speed of light is a qualified truth, being both time- and space-bound |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 22, 2010 20:00:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 23, 2010 0:34:00 GMT
Yeah, though that might be because a lot of the smart europeans moved to the US since implementing the kind of society they wanted was easier there than in Europe. And Europe's come a long way since 1790 too, and I dare say we've surpassed you. Besides, I was speaking in favor of the constitution there, in case you missed it... And how is the Constitution not perfect??....please enlighten me with your wisdom. I've already given you one example: separation of church and state. If your constitution doesn't support that then your constitution isn't perfect. A second example is the right to bear arms. In modern society there are only drawbacks of having free gun laws, so this right only stands in the way of legislation that will improve the US as a country. The notion that having guns will somehow protect you from the goverment is silly and naive. Freedom of speech and freedom to protest does far more than guns ever will. Übereil I'm so glad you are in favor of our constitution Ube. Why should the constitution address "Separation" Jefferson stated the obvious concerning the "wall of separation" and he was NOT addressing the same issue....google him and you will see. That had nothing to do with individual States requiring that to be elected to public office they had to be Christian men in good standing in the community. But then again, the constitution also says that those things not directly allocated to the jurisdiction of the federal government remains under the term "States Rights"...which was also the primary reason for the Civil War.....Lincoln never mentioned slavery or the abolishment of it until he was in dire peril of losing the union. I am NOT debating the right or wrong of slavery here, it is and always has been wrong (morally)...that word you don't like.. ;D The framers simply made sure that there would be no "state" church or religion. It did not then or now imply that one could not vote his/her conscience whether atheist, or Christian. It made sure that you (legally) cannot be persecuted for or against your religious views....and no matter how many times it is tried, it is always ruled illegal. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed----- You refer to modern society...what a crock....there is more crime, violence, hate, bigotry, immorality (whether or not you think Hitler and Jesus had the same moral structure) than has ever existed in my lifetime, and I am a lot older than you. You are soon going to have to "bear arms" here to cross the street without being assulted....just think what will happen when only the criminals (who don't care a bit about the law) are the ones with weapons. ? Come for a visit Ube, I will take you to some interesting parts of ANY city you care to visit.....unarmed of course....  I love a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly and all the other freedoms the constitution gives us....why do you want to pen and ink correct where you think fit..?? Here is part of an article that straightens some misconceptions out. " By and large, resentment of America takes the shape of criticism directed at the U.S. Constitution. It’s interesting that no one – not even communist sympathizers – ever take issue with the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, the so-called left has a tendency to predicate all that is good in America upon the Declaration of Independence. All venom is aimed at the Constitution, because it is clear to those with an overview that if the Constitution falls, the United States of America, as we know it, will fall as well. To be sure, the Declaration of Independence contains many of the noblest thoughts ever articulated by man. Above all, it expresses that ancient longing of Englishmen: equal treatment by the law. But in the absence of a supreme law under whose authority such lofty aspirations may be pursued and increasingly secured for successive generations, it would have remained a distant dream. Attacks on the Constitution typically begin with phrases such as “…it is a very fine document” or “…it is certainly a worthy document.” It is after a few more similarly meaningless words or sentences that we arrive at “of course it is a seriously flawed document.” Detractors of the Constitution have a limited repertory. Indeed, only two items are being trotted out, pontificated about and beaten to death from coast to coast, north to south. The suggestion is that two items make it a “seriously flawed document.” The Three-Fifths Myth. The most poisonous criticism has to do with the so-called “three-fifths” clause, a now-defunct portion of Article I, Section 2, which deals with the composition of the House of Representatives. The section, changed in 1868 by the 14th Amendment, reads as follows: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be Apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Based on the foregoing, an ugly rumor was put about where-by “the Constitution classified black people as only three-fifths of a human being.” The perpetrators have been so successful that millions upon millions of Americans today believe the fabrication. Few ever read the actual text. It is not difficult to imagine the resentment black Americans must feel when told their constitution did not regard them as full human beings. A tragically high proportion lives under that misconception today. And for white Americans who resent their country, the distortion provides the perfect excuse for doing so, citing “objective” reasons. In reality, the now-defunct passage had to do with the concern delegates from northern states had with the potential of southern states to increase their numbers in the U.S. House of Representatives well beyond the legitimate proportions envisaged by the framers by simply swelling the number of slaves. The actual wording of the provision is an object lesson in the brilliance of those who created it. “All other persons” is as broad and non-specific as is humanly possible. That the passage does not refer to people of black skin or African origin is, of course, clear from the start when we recall how many free blacks lived even in southern states at the time. But the wording does not specify social status such as “slave,” either, thereby avoiding the branding of any kind of person, necessitating a reversal at a later date. This is one of many instances where careful reading of the Constitution fills one with awe of the wisdom and foresight of the framers, making certain at every turn that the Constitution would not stand in the way of future developments. That is why—unlike basic documents of other societies—our character did not have to be thrown away every time we changed government. It never stood in the way. There is, of course, the obvious question concerning the descendants of those who were brought here from Africa as slaves. Have they benefited? Most certainly. The document that eventually led to their rise was the same as the one providing opportunity for all. There could have been no civil-rights movement without constitutional foundation. Yes, it has taken time. But the time it took for black Americans to become full participants was considerably shorter than the millennia during which most of Africa did not participate in the advances made elsewhere in the world. The Women’s Vote. A fraudulent charge is that the U.S. Constitution denied women the right to vote. Some say women had no rights at all under the Constitution, that in fact all rights and privileges accrued solely in favor of white males. Unlike in the previous case, it is not possible to cite an actual provision to contradict the fraudulent charge,******* for the Constitution does not speak to the matter at all.**** To the surprise of many, no provisions were made with regard to individual voting rights. As for denying other rights to women, the Constitution speaks only of “the people” or “citizens.” No distinction exists with regard to sex. Consequently, it is among the most cherished moments in public debates, when the voice of America’s accuser reaches fever pitch, to hand the person a pocket edition of the Constitution with the request that the speaker directs us to the passage in question." |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 23, 2010 9:39:13 GMT
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed-----
You refer to modern society...what a crock....there is more crime, violence, hate, bigotry, immorality (whether or not you think Hitler and Jesus had the same moral structure) than has ever existed in my lifetime, and I am a lot older than you. You are soon going to have to "bear arms" here to cross the street without being assulted....just think what will happen when only the criminals (who don't care a bit about the law) are the ones with weapons.?Well, you're not that much a lot older than I am - and I think that is a Catch 22 argument. Of course I live in Europe, where to cross the street you have to watch more for irresponsible driving than for being shot at, assaulted or mugged - not that we do not also have our share of crime, violence, hate, bigotry and immorality... Comparing the USA to Europe (I'm not sure whether Canada is more North-American or European here - but I presume the latter) is not totally fair, as there are fundamental differences in principle. In Germany, the state (government) has the monopoly of force, and with that the responsibility for public safety. Individual freedom is cherished here as well, but its defence lies within the laws and the law making process, not upon an individual duty - or right. It is not that I could not legally get a gun here - the bureaucratic hurdles are many (German!), granted, but they can be passed. Yes, my weapon(s) would be registered to my ownership, yes I could only buy ammunition for exactly those weapons and I would be accountable for the ammunition. Yes, there are safety regulations on how to store and transport weapon and ammuntion, and to carry a loaded gun in public I would need a 3rd, special permit (and have to have a valid reason for doing so). And yes - I am not allowed to buy, own or use any semiautomatic or automatic weapons even though I qualified expert on them as a soldier. No, I don't mind that - and I'm quite happy that this applies to others around. I do not feel bad or opressed by those limitations - and looking around me, I'm not unhappy, that anybody walking about with a gun can be restricted and have the weapon confiscated if in infringement of the regulations. The amok runs we had in schools here all were with weapons legally owned for sporting or hunting, where safety regulations had been infringed. But, as I said, there is a principle difference in concept - ceding the monopoly of force to the government versus explicitly NOT doing so. I personally think the latter results in an arms race spiral as between the blocks in the Cold War. If one has a problem with criminals being armed and freely using them (And you have), the solution of arming anybody may be as bad as providing everybody with bullet proof vests. At least, if one allows everybody to acquire weapons, one should ensure that they're proficient in their use (something that did not come up as an issue in pioneer days).
|
|
.com
