Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Tero]

Why can 40 percent of gun purchases be made without a background check at gun shows? Why are people on the Terrorist Watch List able to purchase a gun even though they are declared too dangerous to step onto a plane? Why can anyone purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition over the internet without even showing his or her face, let alone an ID? When will Congress do the right thing and pass sensible gun laws?

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.s ... n_tha.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Wrong. You're arguing that it is good becuz animals do it. It's nature, therefore good. Naturalistic fallacy dood.

Actually, he didn't. He argued that it existed as a trait, not that it was good. In other words, he suggested that preserving one's own life is a trait much like eating, breathing and pooping. Good is a value judgment.

[Coito ergo sum]

Dood.. naturalistic fallacy. Google it.

You've got it wrong. The naturalistic fallacy is when we deduce an "ought" from an "is." That isn't what was done. The statement "self-preservation is a trait of living things" or words to that effect is not an "ought" and he did not deduce an ought from it. YOU said that he said self-preservation was good. He didn't. Someone might think self-preservation is bad, like the Amish, who don't believe in self-defense and prefer to let people kill them or beat the crap out of them. That's the moral value judgment.

[Coito ergo sum]

Good for the individual maybe. We all know that evolution doesnt favor the individual

Evolution doesn't favor anything. It's not a creature, it's a process. It just is.

[Coito ergo sum]

P1 Life is better than no life

Sez who dood?
Provide warrants for your first premise. (yeah I studied logic and argumentation in a fucking university)

Because to even perform this exercise you need life.

irrelevant, life is necessary for lots of things. No life is often better than life. Extreme suffering for example

Says you.

Whether life under extreme suffering is better or worse than non-life is a value judgment. None of you can definitively say that life or nonlife is better, and it can't be reasoned out. It's purely a matter of opinion.

1. Existence exist. That is axiomatic, because the only way to prove that axiom wrong is to presume that it is true. I.e. you can't prove there is no existence without there being a you. You must presuppose existence.
2. We are alive. That too is axiomatic, because to prove it untrue, we have to presuppose that it is true, because if it wasn't true, we'd not be here to think about it.

So -- whether existence or life is "good" or "better" than the alternative, is purely a matter of opinion. Someone might well think a completely barren universe, devoid of all life would be ideal. Others may think the more life the better. Others may think only life without self-awareness would be good. The possibilities are endless.

But, from a self-defense standpoint, it doesn't really matter whether one person or another thinks it is good. The way to get to self-defense through reason to presuppose that each individual person has equal rights. This is done differently in different philosophies. In social contract philosophies, the philosopher posits a starting point with mankind in a "state of nature." In that state of nature there is no law or man is a law unto himself. So, a man encountering another man can do as he pleases -- the law of the jungle, so to speak, applies - and the strongest or best equipped survives, and power determines who lives and dies, etc. When mankind band together in groups, however, a social contract forms, and this is where people make the laws and the rules to live by. There are no rules otherwise.

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree that a well-regulated society should have police etc. as a main agency to deter violence by citizen on citizen, but they are not always going to be around.)

In fact, "not always" is an overstatement, implying that "not always," but most of the time. It's not even close. Police are almost never around when serious crimes are committed. Typically, they show up afterwards to make arrests, investigate, fill out reports, and look for suspected perpetrators. You're lucky if police happen to be around when someone is going to try to kill you. Usually, a perp will wait until cops aren't around to attempt murder.

[Coito ergo sum]

little over the top, IMO...

I agree that a well-regulated society should have police etc. as a main agency to deter violence by citizen on citizen, but they are not always going to be around. Even if the techniques one learns mainly involve defusing violence, there may come a time where some basic self-defence skills are pretty vital. Some martial arts schools get too macho, and go way over the top, sure, and you know I'm not a fan of citizens owning pistols for self-defence, but I think you have perhaps confirmed for Seth and others some sort of stereotype of the ultimate defenceless liberal...

I'm sensible enough to realise that if someone really wants me dead they will succeed, all you can do is try and build a society where this is less likely, o

That's true as far as it goes, but like the fact that if someone wants to steal stuff from you, they can figure a way to do it -- but, that doesn't mean you leave your house unlocked and your money sitting there in stacks by the front door.

And, declawing the cat doesn't make him any less likely to be killed by another cat or wild animal if he goes outside.

[Coito ergo sum]

you seem to be having difficulty distinguishing defence from attack.

I have a problem with being prepared for self defence actually reducing the chances of your getting hurt.

It's actually as similar problem to fire extinguishers, do they actually in domestic situations save lives?. You might think its an obvious one but does it encourage amateurs to try and fight fires instead of getting out and bringing in professionals

LOL -- a fire extinguisher allows you to put out a very small fire quickly, before it burns the house down. So, it prevents a lot of things, including fire-related deaths. If you have some evidence that people who use fireextinguishers have a disproportionately high death rate from fires because they're hanging around fighting the kitchen fire, then please, by all means present it.

[Coito ergo sum]

If someone genuinely and extremely rarely needs to defend themselves then its legal up to a certain extent but no one should be encouraging someone to go around in a state of prepardness to do so.

There you go again with the authoritarian concept of squelching free expression and freedom of belief. You want to ban "encouragement?" Really? WTF? So, in your world, the way to "keep us safe" is to stop people from "encouraging" others to defend themselves or be prepared. LOL. I'll ruminate on that a bit. I almost, literally, spit out my coffee.

"Come on, Little Johnny! I'm going to teach you to box today and do some basic moves to help you if some school bully comes after you." --- Mr. Jonno calls the police and Child Protection Services, because dad wants to "encourage" Little Johnny to be able to handle a bully. "No, no, Little Johnny," says Mr. Jonno,"you're supposed just sit there and take it, and if the police don't come, the ambulance will be sure to scoop you up and take you to the hospital promptly."sad

Comes from the basis of any sensisble society the state monopoly on violence, prviate citizens can use violence in very limited cases but only because the state permits you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Well, you're reading too much into Weber. He did not exclude the use of private force, such as private security forces and the defense of self and property. His exposition on this monopoly of violence is more of a statement of modern reality, and not as advocacy for what a "sensible society" would do, because he illustrated that in the past the connection of legitimate violence and the State was not united as it generally is today. In the past, there were, for example, Ecclesiastical Courts which exerted force and violence against people outside of the State itself.

[aspire1670]

If someone genuinely and extremely rarely needs to defend themselves then its legal up to a certain extent but no one should be encouraging someone to go around in a state of prepardness to do so.

There you go again with the authoritarian concept of squelching free expression and freedom of belief. You want to ban "encouragement?" Really? WTF? So, in your world, the way to "keep us safe" is to stop people from "encouraging" others to defend themselves or be prepared. LOL. I'll ruminate on that a bit. I almost, literally, spit out my coffee.

"Come on, Little Johnny! I'm going to teach you to box today and do some basic moves to help you if some school bully comes after you." --- Mr. Jonno calls the police and Child Protection Services, because dad wants to "encourage" Little Johnny to be able to handle a bully. "No, no, Little Johnny," says Mr. Jonno,"you're supposed just sit there and take it, and if the police don't come, the ambulance will be sure to scoop you up and take you to the hospital promptly."sad

Comes from the basis of any sensisble society the state monopoly on violence, prviate citizens can use violence in very limited cases but only because the state permits you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Well, you're reading too much into Weber. He did not exclude the use of private force, such as private security forces and the defense of self and property. His exposition on this monopoly of violence is more of a statement of modern reality, and not as advocacy for what a "sensible society" would do, because he illustrated that in the past the connection of legitimate violence and the State was not united as it generally is today. In the past, there were, for example, Ecclesiastical Courts which exerted force and violence against people outside of the State itself.

When you plagiarize a Wiki article (yet again) don't forgot to include the following caveats that Weber applied to the use if private force:

"So, for example, the law might permit individuals to use physical force in defense of self or property, but in this case, as in the example of private security above, the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state."

[Tero]

Apples and oranges. You can have dozens of fire extinguishers around the house. Fire extinguisher deaths are very few a year.

[Coito ergo sum]

If someone genuinely and extremely rarely needs to defend themselves then its legal up to a certain extent but no one should be encouraging someone to go around in a state of prepardness to do so.

There you go again with the authoritarian concept of squelching free expression and freedom of belief. You want to ban "encouragement?" Really? WTF? So, in your world, the way to "keep us safe" is to stop people from "encouraging" others to defend themselves or be prepared. LOL. I'll ruminate on that a bit. I almost, literally, spit out my coffee.

"Come on, Little Johnny! I'm going to teach you to box today and do some basic moves to help you if some school bully comes after you." --- Mr. Jonno calls the police and Child Protection Services, because dad wants to "encourage" Little Johnny to be able to handle a bully. "No, no, Little Johnny," says Mr. Jonno,"you're supposed just sit there and take it, and if the police don't come, the ambulance will be sure to scoop you up and take you to the hospital promptly."sad

Comes from the basis of any sensisble society the state monopoly on violence, prviate citizens can use violence in very limited cases but only because the state permits you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Well, you're reading too much into Weber. He did not exclude the use of private force, such as private security forces and the defense of self and property. His exposition on this monopoly of violence is more of a statement of modern reality, and not as advocacy for what a "sensible society" would do, because he illustrated that in the past the connection of legitimate violence and the State was not united as it generally is today. In the past, there were, for example, Ecclesiastical Courts which exerted force and violence against people outside of the State itself.

When you plagiarize a Wiki article (yet again) don't forgot to include the following caveats that Weber applied to the use if private force:

"So, for example, the law might permit individuals to use physical force in defense of self or property, but in this case, as in the example of private security above, the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state."

We were talking about that link. I didn't "plagiarize" anything. I didn't copy what was in the wiki article and pass it off as my own -- the ideas are not owned by wikipedia. You need to learn the definitions of the words you use before you use them. Now, if I copied it word for word and said that it was mine, that would be plagiarism. But, I didn't, I reiterated ideas, in part, and added my own. That's not plagiarism.

[Jason]

Bum Custard

[MrJonno]

"Come on, Little Johnny! I'm going to teach you to box today and do some basic moves to help you if some school bully comes after you." --- Mr. Jonno calls the police and Child Protection Services, because dad wants to "encourage" Little Johnny to be able to handle a bully. "No, no, Little Johnny," says Mr. Jonno,"you're supposed just sit there and take it, and if the police don't come, the ambulance will be sure to scoop you up and take you to the hospital promptly."sad

I would say any parent that encourage their child to hit a bully was an appalling parent and almost certainly a bully themselves

Nothing to do with authortarian mind control , its to do with restricting commercial adverstising which has some pretty strict controls in the UK and at least some in the US

[Coito ergo sum]

"Come on, Little Johnny! I'm going to teach you to box today and do some basic moves to help you if some school bully comes after you." --- Mr. Jonno calls the police and Child Protection Services, because dad wants to "encourage" Little Johnny to be able to handle a bully. "No, no, Little Johnny," says Mr. Jonno,"you're supposed just sit there and take it, and if the police don't come, the ambulance will be sure to scoop you up and take you to the hospital promptly."sad

I would say any parent that encourage their child to hit a bully was an appalling parent and almost certainly a bully themselves

LOL -- nonsense. What I was referring to was encouraging a child to defend themselves if a bully tries to hit them. That seems to be a distinction you are either not grasping, or ignoring.

Nothing to do with authortarian mind control , its to do with restricting commercial adverstising which has some pretty strict controls in the UK and at least some in the US

Very few in the US, not much beyond fraud and deceit. You can't hawk a product based on lies, basically, but even if what you say is very tenuous and unproven, it can't be prohibited by the State. That's why late night television has commercial after commercial hawking various "supplements" that are strongly implied to cure almost everything. As long as it isn't an out-and-out bald-faced indisputable lie, they can get away with it.

And you keep saying it's about advertising, but then your statements are the exact opposite -- you said originally that it should be illegal to use guns, knives and karate to defend oneself. You then said you didn't mean they couldn't use karate, you were talking about advertising. Then you went ahead and said people should not be able, legally, to "encourage" other people to prepare for self-defense. And, now you're talking about advertising again.

Are you talking about advertising, or "encouraging?" Or, only encouragement by means of advertising?

Anytime you want to make it illegal for people to argue for or encourage something, you're taking an authoritarian position. It's a "thou shalt not," and of the worst kind.