| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
 |
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:33:19 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
You are definitely not a proponent of theoretical discussion -- you seem
trapped in a very small 'actual' mindset -- most unfortunate, as your
horizons are severely and strictly limited.
|
Logical fallacy is not "theoretical discussion"
It's a waste of time |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:37:36 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
So, explain how this "social order" is maintained.
What keeps the violent criminal from attacking his victim?
|
Society is governed by a rule of law
You cannot "keep" anyone from an act if they chose to
Break that law deliberately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:37:36 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Subject yourself to the the social order,
and it will care for your every need.
|
right there is a fallacy in your predication.
| Quote: |
BEGGING THE QUESTION (CIRCULAR REASONING)
Description: An argument that assumes as part of its premises the very
conclusion that is supposed to be true. Another way of saying this is:
Fallacy of assuming at the onset of an argument the very point you are trying to prove.
BIFURCATION
Description: Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation is the
presentation of a situation or condition with only two alternatives,
whereas in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
COMPOSITION
Description: An argument in which one assumes that a whole has a property
solely because its various parts have that property.
Composition is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:00:16 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The colloquial term "Mormon" refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints.
All other groups, fundamental, splinter, or otherwise are not considered
Mormons unless qualified.
|
So if I decide that Fundamentalist, charasmatic
christians are not real christians---they are not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:52:46 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
You see, the problem with this whole permit business is that it
negatively affects the people that it is designed to protect, while the
offenders proceed unhindered.
|
How can it "negatively affect" a law abiding citizen if
all they have to do is apply, and/or fulfill the legal
requirements set down by elected officials and
legislatures?
"Offenders" aren't of the issue---they are clearly
outside the rule of law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:52:46 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
This kind
of permit serves the maintainance of social order.
Except that traditional "social order" is to absolve the criminal and
place blame for actions somewhere else.
|
another fallacy statement.
No such evidence supports that claim of the "Social
order there to absolve criminals...."
A consequence of any given incident MAY lead to that
occurance, but your warrant is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:52:46 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
True social order, in its most coarse sense, would be to remove the
violent criminal from society
|
Another logical fallacy
BLanket generalization not supported by any evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:52:46 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The DC governing councils are full of ignorance and self-indulgence.
|
Fallacy---
that's merely a "begged question" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:52:46 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
What good has come from their gun control actions over the past decades?
|
What good does passing a law that makes it a crime to
have dandelions in your yard, when your neighbor lives
in a different governing authority and no law says he
can't?
Gun laws just mere miles away allow anyone to drive a
few miles, and not be under the same legal requirements
to get the millions of available weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:31:52 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Glad to see that you are still open minded to other's points of view in
a discussion.
A "discussion" predicated on nonsense can hardly be
called that, can it?
|
What do you call someone who willingly and knowingly participates in
this predicated nonsense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:37:36 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Subject yourself to the the social order,
and it will care for your every need.
right there is a fallacy in your predication.
|
You really don't know what you are talking about, and your attempts at
applying fallacies is similarly founded in ignorance.
Take a moment and read the following or any other description of Social
Order, and then participate in the discussion as an informed individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
Some of us object to public nudity laws because they prohibit girls from
going naked, but the vast majority of those that object are lecherous
old men, and society (American) accepts the abridgement as necessary
maintain social order.
We (America) never gave gay marriage a second thought. We always felt
that to maintain social order, we should confine marriage to that of one
man and one woman -- with the notable exception of one man and multiple
women, as is practiced among some Mormons (which the Mormons accept but
the rest of society rejects). Over the past decade or so, gay rights are
beginning to topple the old standard social order and question the
validity of not allowing gays to marry. Social order accepts the
abridgement as a reasonable constraint, but the social view is changing.
I'm not taking a stand here for or against gay marriage -- although it
is widely known that I object to it -- but I am using the issue to
illustrate the idea that rights can be abridged to the extent we accept
the abridgement as necessary to social order. Today, 2008, it appears
that we as a society no longer accept this particular abridgement any
longer.
|
It sounds like what you are describing is social contract -- relativism.
The majority, or those in power, decide what is and isn't a right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:ljSek.20524$%q.12111@newsfe24.lga...
| Quote: |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:R4Vdk.20139$oY2.19317@newsfe21.lga...
The argument of the case was defective, as was the ruling. There isn't
a right to keep and bear arms, per se, but there is a right to life and
a right to preserve that life.
Neither the argument nor the decision are defective.
Your right to life is not abridged just because the guy next door owns a
gun. The ruling and the argument state that the right to bear arms was
denied for no other reason than the city in which one resides. The court
held that such an abridgement was overly broad.
THAT is what the argument should have been -- Heller should have argued
that he was denied the ability to defend himself in and out of his home,
using whatever appropriate means necessary. Under the ruling, Heller is
'permitted' to defend himself in his home, but STILL DENIED the ability
outside of his home.
But defending oneself outside of the home through the carrying of a fire
arm would amount to a return to the Old West, and this is contrary to the
maintainance of social order.
So, explain how this "social order" is maintained.
What keeps the violent criminal from attacking his victim?
|
The promise of of punishment is supposed to keep the criminals at bay. The
problem is, there is no punishment. At worst, they get a lifetime membership
in the gym, with three hots and a cot and endless hours of recreation.
I'm a huge proponent of Capital Punishment for some, and harsh punsiment for
the rest.
| Quote: |
The only thing old west about this is your thinking -- self defense knows
no age and is independent of government or contemporary or modern thinking
or viewpoints. The mere presumption that self defense is the
responsibility of some other entity is precisely and definitively the
appeal of totalitarianism. Subject yourself to the the social order, and
it will care for your every need. That is fine if you have no desire for
autonomous freedom, but stinks for those that are personally responsible
and freedom-loving.
|
Whis is why we need capital punsihment restored, and harsh punishment for
those that don't deserve a death sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:52:46 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
You see, the problem with this whole permit business is that it
negatively affects the people that it is designed to protect, while the
offenders proceed unhindered.
How can it "negatively affect" a law abiding citizen if
all they have to do is apply, and/or fulfill the legal
requirements set down by elected officials and
legislatures?
|
Let's ask and answer the question in another context:
Suppose you had to have a permit to speak; and each permit was only
applied to one particular topic.
Would the above negatively affect a law abiding citizen if all they have
to do is apply, and/or fulfill the legal requirements set down by
elected officials and legislatures?
| Quote: |
"Offenders" aren't of the issue---they are clearly
outside the rule of law.
|
So, what is the purpose of the law? None. Pretty stupid, isn't it.
Rather than making something more illegal or a right more difficult to
exercise for the law abiding, the action SHOULD BE to make the
punishment more severe and swift for the actions that are already
legally protected.
Do you see yet? The whole presumptive point of permit laws doesn't
serve its promulgated purpose in the least -- quite the opposite.
If legislative bodies were interested in solving the issue regarding
infringement of rights by the law breaker, they should facilitate the
affecture of the penalty.
Executive summary: Punishment, not Permits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:ljSek.20524$%q.12111@newsfe24.lga...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:R4Vdk.20139$oY2.19317@newsfe21.lga...
The argument of the case was defective, as was the ruling. There
isn't a right to keep and bear arms, per se, but there is a right to
life and a right to preserve that life.
Neither the argument nor the decision are defective.
Your right to life is not abridged just because the guy next door
owns a gun. The ruling and the argument state that the right to bear
arms was denied for no other reason than the city in which one
resides. The court held that such an abridgement was overly broad.
THAT is what the argument should have been -- Heller should have
argued that he was denied the ability to defend himself in and out
of his home, using whatever appropriate means necessary. Under the
ruling, Heller is 'permitted' to defend himself in his home, but
STILL DENIED the ability outside of his home.
But defending oneself outside of the home through the carrying of a
fire arm would amount to a return to the Old West, and this is
contrary to the maintainance of social order.
So, explain how this "social order" is maintained.
What keeps the violent criminal from attacking his victim?
The promise of of punishment is supposed to keep the criminals at bay.
The problem is, there is no punishment. At worst, they get a lifetime
membership in the gym, with three hots and a cot and endless hours of
recreation.
I'm a huge proponent of Capital Punishment for some, and harsh punsiment
for the rest.
The only thing old west about this is your thinking -- self defense
knows no age and is independent of government or contemporary or
modern thinking or viewpoints. The mere presumption that self defense
is the responsibility of some other entity is precisely and
definitively the appeal of totalitarianism. Subject yourself to the
the social order, and it will care for your every need. That is fine
if you have no desire for autonomous freedom, but stinks for those
that are personally responsible and freedom-loving.
Whis is why we need capital punsihment restored, and harsh punishment
for those that don't deserve a death sentence.
|
The term 'Capital Punishment' scares a lot of people -- unenlightened
people I might add.
I've suggested this in the past, the issue isn't capital punishment, per
se, but rather a penal system that isn't based on restitution.
If the criminal must make restitution for their crime, then the penal
system would have a chance at working as both a deterrent and for
reform, not to mention alleviating the $$ costs of crime on the victim
and society. The current system serves none of those. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
