And thus, another anniversary for a heinous and tragic event is created.

[Atreides]

Dudes, you're totally missing the chance to say socialism or communism > the "hedonistic" capitalism because capitalism creates the wealth gaps that set the dude off!

[Walsingham]

Dudes, you're totally missing the chance to say socialism or communism > the "hedonistic" capitalism because capitalism creates the wealth gaps that set the dude off!

 

I thought this guy was railing against capitalist corruption? And I'll take the odd loon over Five Year Plans that reduce millions to starvation and cannibalism.

[Atreides]

Saw a bunch that were taking the opportunity to start on gun controls, so might as well keep it interesting.

 

Btw if you're really concerned about the effects of restricting weapons that increase the likelihood of nutcases dealing (more) serious harm relative to conventional stuff, getting on Iran and NK's case should be right up your alley.

[Walsingham]

On a related point

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6570721.stm

 

I feel obliged to observe that in my opinion Cowell was probably expressing cultural disjunction rather than disrespect. We Britishers find weepy grandstanding utterly stinkworthy. To me it would seem as if the contestant, not Simon Cowell, was being iditiotic about the poor people who were killed.

[Atreides]

Well we see 1 minute silences in football games when tragedies like this and deaths within the football community happen.

[Walsingham]

Well we see 1 minute silences in football games when tragedies like this and deaths within the football community happen.

 

True. But they are, as it were collective expressions. Not some individual grandstanding. Anyway, I've no doubt the chap meant well. It's just that to an Englishman it would look crass, and thus the eyerolling arose.

[Gorgon]

Dudes, you're totally missing the chance to say socialism or communism > the "hedonistic" capitalism because capitalism creates the wealth gaps that set the dude off!

That has to be the worst straw man I have seen in ages.

 

Incidentially, I heard John Howard, the Australian PM, comment that he was determined that Australian gun culture should never become the negative that it has become in the US. I believe he is conservative.

[Hell Kitty]

Dudes, you're totally missing the chance to say socialism or communism > the "hedonistic" capitalism because capitalism creates the wealth gaps that set the dude off!

That has to be the worst straw man I have seen in ages.

 

Incidentially, I heard John Howard, the Australian PM, comment that he was determined that Australian gun culture should never become the negative that it has become in the US. I believe he is conservative.

 

He's also anti death penalty.

[Calax]

you mean the gun culture like the militias you find popping up everywhere that think that the liberal government is going to destroy the nation and relieve itself on the torn shreds of the constitution?

 

Or the fact that guns mean we can kill people with more ease?

[Gorgon]

Dudes, you're totally missing the chance to say socialism or communism > the "hedonistic" capitalism because capitalism creates the wealth gaps that set the dude off!

That has to be the worst straw man I have seen in ages.

 

Incidentially, I heard John Howard, the Australian PM, comment that he was determined that Australian gun culture should never become the negative that it has become in the US. I believe he is conservative.

 

He's also anti death penalty.

That is not so strange, all modern democracies with the exception of the US and Japan are against the death penalty, and Japan probably has it because McArthur wanted it that way.

[mkreku]

It's a nation discovered some five hundred years ago that still relies on that same piece of worthless paper that was written three hundred years ago. What do you expect?

 

The world is NOT the same now as it was three hundred years ago.

[Walsingham]

Not that this is relevant to the topic, but frankly if the folks that vote go on to vote for the death penalty then that's what democracy gives them. To argue against it would be elitist snobbery and I shall sue you for demarcation.

[Calax]

It's a nation discovered some five hundred years ago that still relies on that same piece of worthless paper that was written three hundred years ago. What do you expect?

 

The world is NOT the same now as it was three hundred years ago.

I'm gonna have to say for the sake of clarity that the first nation should be "land". After all, I think the closest thing to a nation back then was the guys who we bought the most priceless real estate from (now) for three beads and a dance.

[metadigital]

It's a nation discovered some five hundred years ago that still relies on that same piece of worthless paper that was written three hundred years ago. What do you expect?

 

The world is NOT the same now as it was three hundred years ago.

Human rights are relative?

[Sand]

Well, for the most part yes. Think on this. Back in ancient Greece homosexuality was not viewed as taboo and there was no social stigmatism for being homosexual. They were treated equaly as everyone else. LOW AND BEHOLD CHRISTIANITY! Suddenly homosexuality is vilified and even today homosexuals do not share the same equal rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Right or wrong, it is how social dynamics works.

[mkreku]

Human rights are relative?

Since when is the right to bear arms a human right?

 

But yes. Human rights are rights written by humans. They did not descend upon us from some infallible higher being. They've changed before, they've change again. They are relative to the times.. in a much longer perspective.

[Gorgon]

It's a nation discovered some five hundred years ago that still relies on that same piece of worthless paper that was written three hundred years ago. What do you expect?

 

The world is NOT the same now as it was three hundred years ago.

Nothing wrong with relying on hundred year old values as long as they are good values. The US constitution ,howerver, among other things guarantees a slave owner one vote mandate per 1/3 slave he owns which makes all the other high browed talk of freedom and rights hypocritical in context.

[Walsingham]

I do not agree that human rights are shifting in a vacuum. We may have only arrived at some notion of what the inalienable righst of Man are over time, but it does not mean they have changed. I suggest, for your own edification, that you read:

 

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

[Sand]

It's a nation discovered some five hundred years ago that still relies on that same piece of worthless paper that was written three hundred years ago. What do you expect?

 

The world is NOT the same now as it was three hundred years ago.

That is pretty much how I feel about religion.

[Dark_Raven]

It's a nation discovered some five hundred years ago that still relies on that same piece of worthless paper that was written three hundred years ago. What do you expect?

 

The world is NOT the same now as it was three hundred years ago.

That is pretty much how I feel about religion.

I feel the same way.

[Walsingham]

Are we not getting a little sidetracked?

[Dark_Raven]

Could be.

 

 

Those poor souls who lost their life by that deranged killer, RIP.

[Gromnir]

It's a nation discovered some five hundred years ago that still relies on that same piece of worthless paper that was written three hundred years ago. What do you expect?

 

The world is NOT the same now as it was three hundred years ago.

Nothing wrong with relying on hundred year old values as long as they are good values. The US constitution ,howerver, among other things guarantees a slave owner one vote mandate per 1/3 slave he owns which makes all the other high browed talk of freedom and rights hypocritical in context.

 

 

wrong. Constitution does not provide for slavery. the amended Constitution strictly prohibits slavery. Amendments is part of the Constitution. Bill o' Rights is all Amendments to Constitution, and each o' those Amendments can be altered by a subsequent Amendments. the Constitution ain't 300 years old even if we use original date o' authorship, but even if it was, the Constituion has built-in feature allowing for updating. slavery is no longer good for USA? fine, abolish slavery. women should deserve right to vote? ok, add that to Constitution.

 

but why makes some laws part of the Constitution? after all, wouldn't it be grand if we coulds kill freedom of speech or religion with a simple majority o' Congress vote? you realize that we would now have a prohibition 'gainst flag burning if that were the case. all you folks who seems to thinks republicans is evil might wanna reflect on how many years in past 5 decades we has had republican controlled Congress. the Constitution makes it very difficult for Congress to mess with Fundamental & Specifically Enumerated Rights.

 

the Constitution is a check on the whims o' fashion. Founding Fathers thought that speech and religion and jury trial and right to bare arms were important 'nuff that they amended the Constitution to add those fundamental rights to the Constitution. if times change and we needs a different set o' Laws, we can always Amend the Constituion. and next time you go get drunk, recall that you is able to do so 'cause the Constituion can be amended... heck, you kiddies who gets to vote at age 18 might also be thankful that in 1971 the Constituion were Amended.

 

seems to be some confusion 'bout the workings o' the US govt. am glad we is here to clarify for folks like mk who obviously is more than a little ignorant o' the process.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

One might even say that all the high browed talk of freedom and liberty doesen't mean a damn thing before about the end of the civili rights movement. The constitution had to be a comprimise between two concepts that are in reality completely unreconcilable ; the notion of liberty, personal and social, and slavery.

 

It illustrates the point about human rights rather well though, liberty used to apply exclusively to male white landowners and has slowly been extended to cover everyone.

 

The story of the American constitution and civil liberty is one that starts in hypocricy and ends in the logical conclusion. Still subject to degenerate though.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gorgon

[taks]

The constitution had to be a comprimise between two concepts that are in reality completely unreconcilable ; the notion of liberty, personal and social, and slavery.

that doesn't make sense at all. personal liberty and slavery are not irreconcilable. the rights provided by the constitution cannot infringe upon inalienable rights, of which life and freedom stand highest, and the "right" to slavery would most definitely infringe upon another's freedom.

 

taks