|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Nov 18, 2011 0:00:52 GMT -5
It was pointed out to me that if that law had been passed, a miscarriage would have to be considered manslaughter. That is whole dimensions of stupid I hadn't even considered. Personally, how any libertarian could support pro-life legislation is beyond me. Property rights are supposed to be extremely important to those guys. But they get around it with "hurr durr let the states decide" - because obviously a state ban of abortion is much less of a transgression of property rights than a federal ban...  Most Americans who identify as liberatarian are actually rather authoritarian. As others have said, "Conservatives wants a small government. Small enough to fit in to your vagina or anus and tell you that you can't have sex or control your body." |
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 18, 2011 0:09:48 GMT -5
Ha ha ha. Funny.
They are only small government when it comes to regulating businesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 18, 2011 1:18:01 GMT -5
Ha ha ha. Funny. They are only small government when it comes to regulating businesses. Conservative =/= libertarian. In fact, if you sat two of them down at a table and had them talk about politics, they'd disagree on just about everything when it comes to social issues. Or at least, I'd disagree with them. |
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 18, 2011 1:18:47 GMT -5
If Libertarians view the fetus as a person, then they could claim that we'd be taking the fetus right to live, although it's pretty much a parasite. And other libertarians would claim that the fetus is acting as a parasite and is taking the mother's resources by force. Therefore, she can "evict" it by force. |
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 18, 2011 1:20:45 GMT -5
Ha ha ha. Funny. They are only small government when it comes to regulating businesses. Conservative =/= libertarian. In fact, if you sat two of them down at a table and had them talk about politics, they'd disagree on just about everything when it comes to social issues. Or at least, I'd disagree with them. Except gun control and destroying the enviroment. |
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 18, 2011 17:20:08 GMT -5
Conservative =/= libertarian. In fact, if you sat two of them down at a table and had them talk about politics, they'd disagree on just about everything when it comes to social issues. Or at least, I'd disagree with them. Except gun control and destroying the enviroment. The environment is something that libertarians do not agree on. In fact, left-libertarianism (which I consider myself to lean towards) focuses on protecting individual freedoms while also protecting the environment and the people who live there from exploitation. Environmental exploitation and oppression/aggression to the people often go hand-in-hand. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism) But yeah, gun control is a no-brainer. Make it like a driver's license, where you have to pass a safety test and be above a certain age before you can own one. Other than that, there should not be any restrictions on guns or ammunition. (Columbine would have ended rather quickly if one of the teachers had just pulled out a shotgun from beneath the desk and shot the shooters as they came in - oh, did I mention it took place on a "gun-free zone"?) |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Nov 18, 2011 21:09:24 GMT -5
But yeah, gun control is a no-brainer. Make it like a driver's license, where you have to pass a safety test and be above a certain age before you can own one. Other than that, there should not be any restrictions on guns or ammunition. (Columbine would have ended rather quickly if one of the teachers had just pulled out a shotgun from beneath the desk and shot the shooters as they came in - oh, did I mention it took place on a "gun-free zone"?) So I take it you feel that close quarters combat training should be part of teachers college. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 18, 2011 21:30:40 GMT -5
You know, I hear that argument a lot, but at MINIMUM it would require that you'd have to get a special gun license for using gun defense in a public setting. Shooting a deer in the woods is way different from shooting an assailant in a class room. Then you still get to explain to the kiddies why they shouldn't be concerned that Mrs. Jenkins just blew some guy's head off.
In fact, when I say "at minimum," don't think I mean "that will suffice." There are a lot of situations you aren't capable of handling just because you have a gun. What if he takes hostages? What if he has accomplices? What if they have explosives? Oh, & for added fun, how would you make sure people know where their "vigilante rights" end?
I know you're tempted to say "people wouldn't be that reckless," but the fact that you call it a "no brainer" assures me that they will do just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 18, 2011 22:01:45 GMT -5
I know you're tempted to say "people wouldn't be that reckless," but the fact that you call it a "no brainer" assures me that they will do just that. I have yet to see a limit to human recklessness, which is just one of the myriad forms of human stupidity. I have trouble accepting anyone can reach adulthood and really believe that “no one will be that reckless.” Guess that’s one of the reasons I never really got into philosphy—seems half the so-called “great thinkers” come up with systems that rely on human beings being rational agents. Rational is just something that the average human is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 18, 2011 22:32:02 GMT -5
They often had strange definitions of "rational."
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 19, 2011 10:45:06 GMT -5
I know you're tempted to say "people wouldn't be that reckless," but the fact that you call it a "no brainer" assures me that they will do just that. I have yet to see a limit to human recklessness, which is just one of the myriad forms of human stupidity. I have trouble accepting anyone can reach adulthood and really believe that “no one will be that reckless.” Guess that’s one of the reasons I never really got into philosphy—seems half the so-called “great thinkers” come up with systems that rely on human beings being rational agents. Rational is just something that the average human is not. So much this post. Approve 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 19, 2011 17:34:07 GMT -5
But yeah, gun control is a no-brainer. Make it like a driver's license, where you have to pass a safety test and be above a certain age before you can own one. Other than that, there should not be any restrictions on guns or ammunition. (Columbine would have ended rather quickly if one of the teachers had just pulled out a shotgun from beneath the desk and shot the shooters as they came in - oh, did I mention it took place on a "gun-free zone"?) So I take it you feel that close quarters combat training should be part of teachers college. No, I don't believe in forcing people to own guns, just as it's wrong to force people to own cars. Your competence with firearms has nothing to do with your competence as a teacher. |
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 20, 2011 17:33:34 GMT -5
So I take it you feel that close quarters combat training should be part of teachers college. No, I don't believe in forcing people to own guns, just as it's wrong to force people to own cars. Your competence with firearms has nothing to do with your competence as a teacher. But you'll force them to take classes if they decide to own guns. IDK if guns in school is a good idea though. They probably could get stolen. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 18:01:31 GMT -5
No, I don't believe in forcing people to own guns, just as it's wrong to force people to own cars. Your competence with firearms has nothing to do with your competence as a teacher. But you'll force them to take classes if they decide to own guns. I don't have a problem with this. People SHOULD be forced to be educated about the lethal object that they're buying. I mean, heck, they make you take a class for hunter's safety before letting you go hunting. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 21, 2011 8:33:30 GMT -5
But you'll force them to take classes if they decide to own guns. I don't have a problem with this. People SHOULD be forced to be educated about the lethal object that they're buying. I mean, heck, they make you take a class for hunter's safety before letting you go hunting. Which apparently doubles for concealed handgun training in Wisconsin now. |
|
