The Case for Equality in Gun Ownership

[Dans La Lune]

You seem confused. You not liking the answer, doesn’t mean I didn’t answer it.

I answered the question.

If it was a right, meaning it can’t be taken away, they wouldn’t have been murdered. Rights are philosophical human constructs. They do not exist outside of that construct.

You got it perfectly.

 

[RF667799]

Rights are determined and enforced by government. Under a fascist right-wing government, Jews did not have the right to live. Neither did the disabled, socialists, LGBTQ, etc. This is not rocket science.

So why are you agreeing with fascists?

 

[aociswundumho]

I answered the question.

No you didn't, because you don't believe the garbage you are spewing.

 

[Dans La Lune]

So why are you agreeing with fascists?

Huh?

 

[Dans La Lune]

No you didn't, because you don't believe the garbage you are spewing.

You can't defend or articulate your own arguments.

 

[RF667799]

Huh?

You and the fascists both believe that rights are bestowed and withheld by governments, and that people have no real rights aside from that.

 

[Dans La Lune]

You and the fascists both believe that rights are bestowed and withheld by governments, and that people have no real rights.

Government is a vehicle for society. Period. It can be used for good or bad, depending on the forces that control it. In my model of government, people would have rights that are protected and enforced by government. Rights only exist when they are challenged, and are only acknowledged by other humans. This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[aociswundumho]

Under a fascist right-wing government, Jews did not have the right to live.

I'm not asking what the Nazis believed, I'm asking what you and rahl believe.

Let's see if you can answer the question that he couldn't:

Did the Jews murdered by Hitler have the right to live? Answer with a yes or a no.

Rights are determined and enforced by government.

That's the Nazi view, and it's wrong. Here's a neo-Nazi saying exactly what you and @rahl are saying:

Timestamped:

 

[Dans La Lune]

I'm not asking what the Nazis believed, I'm asking what you and rahl believe.

Facts don't care about what we think.

Did the Jews murdered by Hitler have the right to live? Answer with a yes or a no.

Did their rights protect them? Yes or no. If not, what rights did they have and who determined them?

LOL I love the avatar of that video. A legit lying conman and a fraudster, Dinesh D'Souza.

 

[rahl]

No you didn't, because you don't believe the garbage you are spewing.

Nobody cares that you don’t like the answer.

 

[RF667799]

Government is a vehicle for society. Period. It can be used for good or bad, depending on the forces that control it. In my model of government, people would have rights that are protected and enforced by government. Rights only exist when they are challenged, and are only acknowledged by other humans. This is pretty basic stuff.

So it's just a matter of liking some governments and disliking others, out of a sense of self interest. Any government strong enough to bestow the rights you believe are imaginary, is also strong enough to wipe those sort of rights out at its whim. Maybe you haven't considered that hazard.

But here's the thing. Even in the absence of some right the government says you don't have, you would likely act as if you do- given an interest in doing so.

 

[aociswundumho]

Did their rights protect them? Yes or no. If not, what rights did they have and who determined them?

Just like @rahl, you won't answer the question. The reason you two won't answer it is because neither of you really believe it. You both desperately want it to believe it, but deep down you both know it's false.

 

[rahl]

Just like @rahl, you won't answer the question.

Lying doesn’t make the written record of the forum, which specifically contains the answer, go away.

The reason you two won't answer it is because neither of you really believe it. You both desperately want it to believe it, but deep down you both know it's false.

 

[Dans La Lune]

So it's just a matter of liking some governments and disliking others, out of a sense of self interest. Any government strong enough to bestow the rights you believe are imaginary, is also strong enough to wipe those sort of rights out at its whim. Maybe you haven't considered that hazard.

What did I say that confused you? I'm using very basic words.

But here's the thing. Even in the absence of some right the government says you don't have, you would likely act as if you do- given an interest in doing so.

Society provides us with accountability to each other. How you act in the absence of government, without the law, is called a moral foundation. Or your ability to behave responsibly and according to your values is called an ethical frame.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Just like @rahl, you won't answer the question. The reason you two won't answer it is because neither of you really believe it. You both desperately want it to believe it, but deep down you both know it's false.

Time-stamped.

 

[RF667799]

What did I say that confused you? I'm using very basic words.

Nothing has me confused. You can't refute what I'm saying, so you're leaning toward deflection by personal attack.

Society provides us with accountability to each other. How you act in the absence of government, without the law, is called a moral foundation. Or your ability to behave responsibly and according to your values is called an ethical frame.

So what? We're discussing your idea that government is a collection of overseers with a big bag of rights that they hand out or withhold as they wish. This just cheapens the concept, and enables and justifies fascists.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Nothing has me confused. You can't refute what I'm saying, so you're leaning toward deflection by personal attack.

You seem confused. You don't need to reinterpret and mangle my comments to fit whatever you think they're trying to say.

So what? We're discussing your idea that government is a collection of overseers with a big bag of rights that they hand out or withhold as they wish. This just cheapens the concept, and enables and justifies fascists.

What enables fascists is fascism (which is a methodology of manipulation designed to seize political power). Government exists, it will always exist, because society will always exist, and society needs a structure to be sustainable. It can't be just a loose collection of people behaving how they want. You call this structure government, which ideally is represents the will of the people (read: democracy or representative government). Fascism only exists because society has been manipulated into ceding their power, and is only sustained through violence. If your goal is to eliminate government to get rid of fascism, you're not really equipped for this battle, because you'd be chasing your own ass endlessly.

 

[CLAX1911]

Rights are determined and enforced by government. Under a fascist right-wing government, Jews did not have the right to live. Neither did the disabled, socialists, LGBTQ, etc. This is not rocket science.

So was it wrong to do the Holocaust and if so why?

 

[CLAX1911]

Huh?

If people don't have the right to live because the government says You must die how is that wrong?

 

[Dans La Lune]

So was it wrong to do the Holocaust and if so why?

Um, yeah it was wrong. Because it's wrong to commit genocide and mass slaughter people as a moral principle. Morality is ultimately a personal ideological and value system. Thus, it's wrong because I think it's wrong. It goes against my values.

No offense, but that you have to ask a question like this is a massive indictment of your ability to reason on a fundamental level. You been smoking something? Because it's the kind of question I would normally not attribute to a high functioning person.

 

[Dans La Lune]

If people don't have the right to live because the government says You must die how is that wrong?

You are terribly, painfully confused about things like 'rights' and 'basic morality'. It's frankly an embarrassing spectacle.

 

[Rich2018]

Natural rights are human rights. Are you going to sit and claim human beings have no rights?

Human rights are not actually "rights" as such, but rather a minimum standard that the rulers of a given land are expected to treat their people.

 

[CLAX1911]

You are terribly, painfully confused about things like 'rights' and 'basic morality'. It's frankly an embarrassing spectacle.

You said it's something the government gives you permission to do. I view it as limits put on the government.

If I'm confused I'm the realm of Rights granted by government thanks for the compliment. Rights are taken typically through violence.

 

[CLAX1911]

Um, yeah it was wrong.

Why the government said the Nazis had the right to kill Jews

Because it's wrong to commit genocide and mass slaughter people as a moral principle.

Wrong according to what

Morality is ultimately a personal ideological and value system.

Morality has to be somewhat objective in order for this to mean anything

Thus, it's wrong because I think it's wrong. It goes against my values.

So if it doesn't go against someone else's prove their morality is wrong

You open this can of worms with the ideology of moral relativism.

No offense, but that you have to ask a question like this is a massive indictment of your ability to reason on a fundamental level.

I'm trying to determine if you have any morality.

You been smoking something? Because it's the kind of question I would normally not attribute to a high functioning person.

So you can't answer without betraying moralistic relativism so I must be intoxicated to compensate for your incompetence?

 

[Rich2018]

You said it's something the government gives you permission to do. I view it as limits put on the government.

If I'm confused I'm the realm of Rights granted by government thanks for the compliment. Rights are taken typically through violence.

No, rights are also granted via democratic means - eg: Civil Rights in the USA or women's suffrage.