TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Our betrayal
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov What? You're out of your mind. By the way, you're not even consistent with your own positions. You cry about breaches of sovereignty all around the world, but the definition of sovereignty includes "a monopoly of power over a defined geographic territory"... so now you're arguing that the United States should not be a sovereign power, but that it should be some sort of anarchic entity subject to the whims of whomever's stockpiled the most weaponry?

No, you're throwing out straw man arguments. And I am very consistent with my positions. First off, the state has a monopoly on the use of power, i.e., police, army, national guard. Second, the people do not have share this "use of power". They simply have the potential to use their power in opposition to any tyrannical regime, which, as the last 8 years have shown us, came too close for comfort. Power and the use of power are two different things. I may have unlimited power, but choose not to use it. If the people are disarmed, they have no power.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And I am very consistent with my positions. First off, the state has a monopoly on the use of power, i.e., police, army, national guard. Second, the people do not have share this "use of power". They simply have the potential to use their power in opposition to any tyrannical regime, which, as the last 8 years have shown us, came too close for comfort. Power and the use of power are two different things. I may have unlimited power, but choose not to use it. If the people are disarmed, they have no power.

1. That doesn't make any sense.

2. Despite how awful President Bush was, we didn't even come close to a popular uprising (which would not have been warranted or successful even if every citizen had three guns and a hand grenade).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 1. That doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense? I am a citizen and I have a gun and therefore have power. I still can not go out and start arresting people therefore I am not allowed to use my power on others. This "use of power" is reserved for the state. Now, in the event of the state abusing its "use of power", the armed people with their power are able to reject the consent of forced governance. Tyrannical governments govern with or without consent. An unarmed people cannot fight back because they have no power.

quote:

2. Despite how awful President Bush was, we didn't even come close to a popular uprising (which would not have been warranted or successful even if every citizen had three guns and a hand grenade).

Bush wouldn't have dared challenge the people's power by suspending constitutional rights. A lot of conspiracy nut jobs like trancer would say, "We're on our way to a police state, blah blah blah." The fact is, no police state can be established if the people have the power to resist.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No, you're throwing out straw man arguments.

Never have I known of someone who labels shit as "straw man arguments" so fucking often. It's like the only argument you are quasi-familiar with, so everything that doesn't make sense to you is suddenly a straw man argument, which basically means that everything is a straw man argument to you.

Re: Re: Our betrayal

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz No, and that's where I completely disagree. We invented a method to not have to do this. You know what it is? Laws, regulations, morals, law enforcement agencies and the military. They work fine, or at least everywhere outside of the USA they do.

Wait, are you disagreeing with me or with the justification I have presented? Disagree with it all you like, but it does not change the fact that people arm themselves out of fear, out of personal protection or, as Lebezniatnikov brought up, out of simple cohesion to cultural folkways. I didn't say this was everyone and everywhere in the world, but if you think it's only something happens in the United States, then I think you'd best take a look around.

If you also believe that military, morals, laws and establishment "work fine" then perhaps you'd best take a step back and define your terms. Very little about the world "works fine", as innocent people die to the ideals of the self-appointed righteous each and every day in this absurd carnival of weaponry we have built our cities upon, and it's not always to the hands of those who violate your sense of moral conduct.

Between this and the James Joyce thread, I really wish I had more time for c0r lately - which is really something I never thought I'd ever say.

I am not finished with it yet, but one of the series of essays I've been working on re: HST has basically been on his attitude towards guns, weapons in general, "self defense", the paranoia such attitudes brought him, and the ethical contradictions I perceive to be inherent to his obsession with/use of guns in relation to his other writings.

I'll try to wrap it up over the holidays, because anything I tried to post in here right now would probably not do justice to the effort the handful of you have put into this discussion.

Just know that I really appreciated it, and you've reminded me what this place is like at it's best.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Bush wouldn't have dared challenge the people's power by suspending constitutional rights. A lot of conspiracy nut jobs like trancer would say, "We're on our way to a police state, blah blah blah." The fact is, no police state can be established if the people have the power to resist.

I don't think that you understand power... hey, "power" must be a strawman argument!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Never have I known of someone who labels shit as "straw man arguments" so fucking often. It's like the only argument you are quasi-familiar with, so everything that doesn't make sense to you is suddenly a straw man argument, which basically means that everything is a straw man argument to you.

WTF are you talking about? Calm the fuck down. Do you know what a straw man is? Lebez is misconstruing all my previous and current arguments so as to make them seem illogical. Got it? ...

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I don't think that you understand power... hey, "power" must be a strawman argument!

Hey, great argument. You said absolutely nothing.

GRUUUUUUUUUUURRRHRHHHHRHRH, KRYPTON, I AM GOING TO SHOOT YOU.

Let's do this.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Between this and the James Joyce thread, I really wish I had more time for c0r lately - which is really something I never thought I'd ever say.

Lira put it best in the PDD - the c0r is now where the most interesting discussions take place. Who would have thought, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton WTF are you talking about? Calm the fuck down. Do you know what a straw man is? Lebez is misconstruing all my previous and current arguments so as to make them seem illogical. Got it? ...

I don't think I misconstrued anything... but you're welcome to try to explain how the United States should both be a sovereign entity and give up its monopoly on the use of power.

I mean, christ on a bike, you've basically laid down an argument saying it's within the rights (and justified capability) of the people to launch an armed insurrection anytime any law is passed that is disagreeable to the majority with guns. Who is going to choose when the people should rise up with their hunting rifles to take down the government? You? Trancer-X?

That's far more dangerous than George W. Bush ever was.

And using your argumentation about honoring sovereignty over all other considerations worldwide is hardly a strongman - you spend your time tearing down the sovereignty endowed onto the United States through social contract and defending sovereignty where it doesn't even exist in Afghanistan. That's about as incoherent a position as I've ever heard.

Your heart is in the right place on a lot of issues, Krypton, but some of your positions are radically incompatible with one another.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Lira put it best in the PDD - the c0r is now where the most interesting discussions take place. Who would have thought, right?

Because the PDD is rarely a place of discussion or even argument - it is merely people posting articles for other to see as though they fancy themselves some sort of town crier and - at best - a place for people to regurgitate their prepared posts to one another without truly reading those of anyone else. In addition, people there very strongly tend to respond to one another's reputation on that particular board instead of the credibility of what the person actually has to say.

It's really not our PDD's fault, though - these symptoms affect almost every political board I've come across.

lol, krypton krypton krypton. confusing issues once again young man!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And I am very consistent with my positions.

yeah, consistently wrong!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton First off, the state has a monopoly on the use of power, i.e., police, army, national guard.

wrong. what you mean, is that the state has a monopoly on violence. in modern liberal democracies, this is how it should be. why? because the citizens have other recourses to offset their inability to use effective, lethal violence (though of course, individuals still have the ability, just not the right).

the citizenry can mobilise to protest particular issues, they have recourse to the ballot, ombudsman, the courts, the constitution. not to mention the myriad of other institutions (like the ACLU) that fight issues on behalf of the common man? these are the measures that protect the citizens from the state, not their revolvers.

look at things like the vietnam war, which caused such social unrest that it was always doomed to failure. the point is, if the populace cares that much about an issue, weapons are completely redundant.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Second, the people do not have share this "use of power". They simply have the potential to use their power in opposition to any tyrannical regime, which, as the last 8 years have shown us, came too close for comfort. Power and the use of power are two different things. I may have unlimited power, but choose not to use it. If the people are disarmed, they have no power.

as stated above, the firearms are not what give civilians power. the only "power" firearms give civilians is their ability to kill other civilians. if you need a refresher course on the "power" firearms give individuals rebelling against state authority, go and check on the branch davidians.

the contention that the right to bear arms acts as a counter-balance to local, state and federal statutory authorities is absurd.

if your president, your congress, your governors, your courts and your constitution do not protect you from george hitler, then the gangbanger on the street corner with his pistol sure aint going to either.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Because the PDD is rarely a place of discussion or even argument - it is merely people posting articles for other to see as though they fancy themselves some sort of town crier and - at best - a place for people to regurgitate their prepared posts to one another without truly reading those of anyone else.

i think its just more accurate to say that more people engage in threads in here, not to mention the prevalence of humour as argument is more accepted in the COR and it doesnt HAVE to be serious the whole time.

fag.

Humour really is one of the most effective methods of communication there is.

Cockwrangler.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Your heart is in the right place on a lot of issues, Krypton, but some of your positions are radically incompatible with one another.

this is krypton in a nutshell!! its why i like him, at least he cares.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN look at things like the vietnam war, which caused such social unrest that it was always doomed to failure. the point is, if the populace cares that much about an issue, weapons are completely redundant.

A very good point - the most successful anti-authority movements have always been peaceful.

At the risk of nerding out, look at the history of the ANC in South Africa. The initial thinking was that only violent revolution could move the security state there - if apartheid isn't an example of a state deserving protest, what is? But in the end, Mandela abandoned the pursuit of violence in favor of a peaceful movement, and in the end it was more successful than many believed possible at the time.

Not only did the use of non-violence succeed in galvanizing opposition to the state, it also legitimized the movement itself, which is why you saw more or less coalition support behind the ANC after the end of apartheid.

In any case, the belief that guns in the hands of the populace is a good and just balance against the state is not only outdated, but extraordinarily naive and dangerous.

The constitution should probably go under a slight re-wording to entitle citizens to the right to bear muskets.

I opened this thread expecting a funny pic or video. Instead I'm given a book.

You have betrayed me, my son.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On The constitution should probably go under a slight re-wording to entitle citizens to the right to bear muskets.

And well-kept guerrila outfits being necessary to the security of cults.

quote:

Originally posted by FromAbove I opened this thread expecting a funny pic or video. Instead I'm given a book. You have betrayed me, my son.

Yeah, you don't really belong in this thread since it's about intelligent discussions and all.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov A very good point - the most successful anti-authority movements have always been peaceful. At the risk of nerding out, look at the history of the ANC in South Africa. The initial thinking was that only violent revolution could move the security state there - if apartheid isn't an example of a state deserving protest, what is? But in the end, Mandela abandoned the pursuit of violence in favor of a peaceful movement, and in the end it was more successful than many believed possible at the time. Not only did the use of non-violence succeed in galvanizing opposition to the state, it also legitimized the movement itself, which is why you saw more or less coalition support behind the ANC after the end of apartheid. In any case, the belief that guns in the hands of the populace is a good and just balance against the state is not only outdated, but extraordinarily naive and dangerous.

as well as northern ireland. they achieved far more at the ballot box and through negotiation than they did with bombs and guns. Similarly, the revolution in china will (imo) occur because of the growing middle class, infrastructure and information access, not through force of arms.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Because the PDD is rarely a place of discussion or even argument - it is merely people posting articles for other to see as though they fancy themselves some sort of town crier and - at best - a place for people to regurgitate their prepared posts to one another without truly reading those of anyone else. In addition, people there very strongly tend to respond to one another's reputation on that particular board instead of the credibility of what the person actually has to say.

And that's exactly what I'm trying to change

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's really not our PDD's fault, though - these symptoms affect almost every political board I've come across.

Still, I think we'd better find a way to sort that problem. I wish this kind of discussion could happen there...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.