Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Debate opinion topics of original content.

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:51 pm

exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:It means that individuals will generally go about their daily lives until forced by circumstance to organize.

I would argue that Natural Rights Philosophy starts with the individual as sovereign as the ideal. There are a lot of benefits of starting from this idea as it ensures protections of the weakest among us. People with no allies, no clear belonging to a collective.

I don't see it as a conclusion.


If that is what it means, it is definitely nonsense. Human beings are born into social organization. There is never not a time when a human being isn't accountable to another human being, through a system of organization. Except for maybe when you are lost in the woods or something.

The point I'm trying to make is that natural rights philosophy is very convenient. It allows us a means of making decisions in a uniform way - does such and such violate this particular right, which is enumerated by law? But it is obviously incorrect, because any "right" that naturally occurs wouldn't require any sort of protection by law, and could not be determined by it without losing it's status as a right. And yet human beings decide what rights are, and sometimes protect them, and sometimes not, and it's all a bunch of bullshit meant to give a veneer of logic to a series of completely irrational, emotional decisions, made over time, by large numbers of people, simultaneously. Ugh. It's actually a super-annoying philosophy, because it simply asserts something and runs with it, never once actually establishing itself as a valid premise. There is no reason to believe that human beings have rights - what they have is circumstance and individual action, and it seems pretty luck-of-the-draw which one wins out. /rant


The social organizations that humans are born into are about the worst to organize around. That's where we get royal families, dukes, and lords. Not to mention, laws based around groups like this tend to get complicated and are even more prone to devious interpretation than rights-based governance.


Agreed, doesn't change the fact that rights theory is obviously wrong, since human beings require social organization in order to function, with no big exceptions.


Can I cut and paste your false dichotomy comments from the other thread? Why does a recognition of individual rights have to conflict with social organization?
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:30 pm

:p
Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:It means that individuals will generally go about their daily lives until forced by circumstance to organize.

I would argue that Natural Rights Philosophy starts with the individual as sovereign as the ideal. There are a lot of benefits of starting from this idea as it ensures protections of the weakest among us. People with no allies, no clear belonging to a collective.

I don't see it as a conclusion.


If that is what it means, it is definitely nonsense. Human beings are born into social organization. There is never not a time when a human being isn't accountable to another human being, through a system of organization. Except for maybe when you are lost in the woods or something.

The point I'm trying to make is that natural rights philosophy is very convenient. It allows us a means of making decisions in a uniform way - does such and such violate this particular right, which is enumerated by law? But it is obviously incorrect, because any "right" that naturally occurs wouldn't require any sort of protection by law, and could not be determined by it without losing it's status as a right. And yet human beings decide what rights are, and sometimes protect them, and sometimes not, and it's all a bunch of bullshit meant to give a veneer of logic to a series of completely irrational, emotional decisions, made over time, by large numbers of people, simultaneously. Ugh. It's actually a super-annoying philosophy, because it simply asserts something and runs with it, never once actually establishing itself as a valid premise. There is no reason to believe that human beings have rights - what they have is circumstance and individual action, and it seems pretty luck-of-the-draw which one wins out. /rant


The social organizations that humans are born into are about the worst to organize around. That's where we get royal families, dukes, and lords. Not to mention, laws based around groups like this tend to get complicated and are even more prone to devious interpretation than rights-based governance.


Agreed, doesn't change the fact that rights theory is obviously wrong, since human beings require social organization in order to function, with no big exceptions.


Can I cut and paste your false dichotomy comments from the other thread? Why does a recognition of individual rights have to conflict with social organization?


It doesn't necessarily, but that doesn't address the contradictions already noted. You could come up with a conception of individual rights that makes sense with social organization being innate... You could call it legal rights. They would be enforced only so long as the government enforcing them had the support of the majority of people. Kind of like exactly how it works but just without BS natural rights philosophy.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:34 pm

exploited wrote:It doesn't necessarily, but that doesn't address the contradictions already noted. You could come up with a conception of individual rights that makes sense with social organization being innate... You could call it legal rights. They would be enforced only so long as the government enforcing them had the support of the majority of people. Kind of like exactly how it works but just without BS natural rights philosophy.


The system we have is pretty close. Local and federal governments serve the social organization under particular guidelines that preserve important individual rights. Calling them natural over legal is a perceptual framework really, so that people don't forget their importance. But I don't know why that needs to be a hangup.

These users thanked the author Medius for the post:
eynon81
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:26 am

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:It doesn't necessarily, but that doesn't address the contradictions already noted. You could come up with a conception of individual rights that makes sense with social organization being innate... You could call it legal rights. They would be enforced only so long as the government enforcing them had the support of the majority of people. Kind of like exactly how it works but just without BS natural rights philosophy.


The system we have is pretty close. Local and federal governments serve the social organization under particular guidelines that preserve important individual rights. Calling them natural over legal is a perceptual framework really, so that people don't forget their importance. But I don't know why that needs to be a hangup.



It's a nice thing to remind juries. Non's not the biggest fan of utilitarianism.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:05 am

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:It doesn't necessarily, but that doesn't address the contradictions already noted. You could come up with a conception of individual rights that makes sense with social organization being innate... You could call it legal rights. They would be enforced only so long as the government enforcing them had the support of the majority of people. Kind of like exactly how it works but just without BS natural rights philosophy.


The system we have is pretty close. Local and federal governments serve the social organization under particular guidelines that preserve important individual rights. Calling them natural over legal is a perceptual framework really, so that people don't forget their importance. But I don't know why that needs to be a hangup.


See, this is what happens when I do the point by point thing. Why were we talking about this?

...because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy).


This spawned from my comment that you guys are operating intellectually from the basis of a mythology based around a legal document (US Constitution) that is itself based upon obvious nonsense (natural rights philosophy). It is therefore impossible for you to think about it from an outside perspective, because you have internalized bullshit that doesn't exist outside the US.

As you've hinted at, the reason they are presented as natural rights is because framing the issue as such makes people far less likely to question the validity of the very assumptions that underline that philosophy. If people understood that rights were simply the result of government policy, that they can be modified, removed or altered at will, and that they do not exist outside a government capable of defending them, a simply huge chunk of the pro-gun argument has been demolished from the start.

Afterall, the pro-gun position is predicated on the idea that you have a right to a gun. Remove that assumption, and the entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of gun nuts talking about why their hobby is worth tens of thousanss of murders a year, a militarized police force, thousands of accidental deaths, etc. The rest of the arguments that back it - the US is culturally unique - are also nonsense.

Without tricking people into believing bullshit, the pro-gun need would lose all the time. Alas...
Last edited by exploited on Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:30 am

exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:It doesn't necessarily, but that doesn't address the contradictions already noted. You could come up with a conception of individual rights that makes sense with social organization being innate... You could call it legal rights. They would be enforced only so long as the government enforcing them had the support of the majority of people. Kind of like exactly how it works but just without BS natural rights philosophy.


The system we have is pretty close. Local and federal governments serve the social organization under particular guidelines that preserve important individual rights. Calling them natural over legal is a perceptual framework really, so that people don't forget their importance. But I don't know why that needs to be a hangup.


See, this is what happens when I do the point by point thing. Why were we talking about this?

...because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy).


This spawned from my comment that you guys are operating intellectually from the basis of a mythology based around a legal document (US Constitution) that is itself based upon obvious nonsense (natural rights philosophy). It is therefore impossible for you to think about it from an outside perspective, because you have internalized bullshit that doesn't exist outside the US.


Except that I haven't. I just had a whole discussion with you about how I don't see natural rights as a concrete truth, but rather a perceptual framework to understanding things over which a government cannot easily retain long-term control.

If the people need to revolt, they will arm themselves. No amount of legislation will keep a populace that has determined the necessity of revolution from taking back those rights necessary to complete the task.

So if you flip the viewpoint around and look at how to make a long-term government that allows for peaceful revolution, you start by keeping governmental hands off of the means of revolution. You let people talk freely, you let them remain armed, you let them be secure in their privacy, and you don't surround them with soldiers.

I think it is you that have internalized a bullshit assumption that people who defend the constitution and the second amendment as positive have not applied deductive reasoning or questioned the fundamental concepts involved.
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:39 am

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:It doesn't necessarily, but that doesn't address the contradictions already noted. You could come up with a conception of individual rights that makes sense with social organization being innate... You could call it legal rights. They would be enforced only so long as the government enforcing them had the support of the majority of people. Kind of like exactly how it works but just without BS natural rights philosophy.


The system we have is pretty close. Local and federal governments serve the social organization under particular guidelines that preserve important individual rights. Calling them natural over legal is a perceptual framework really, so that people don't forget their importance. But I don't know why that needs to be a hangup.


See, this is what happens when I do the point by point thing. Why were we talking about this?

...because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy).


This spawned from my comment that you guys are operating intellectually from the basis of a mythology based around a legal document (US Constitution) that is itself based upon obvious nonsense (natural rights philosophy). It is therefore impossible for you to think about it from an outside perspective, because you have internalized bullshit that doesn't exist outside the US.


Except that I haven't. I just had a whole discussion with you about how I don't see natural rights as a concrete truth, but rather a perceptual framework to understanding things over which a government cannot easily retain long-term control.

If the people need to revolt, they will arm themselves. No amount of legislation will keep a populace that has determined the necessity of revolution from taking back those rights necessary to complete the task.

So if you flip the viewpoint around and look at how to make a long-term government that allows for peaceful revolution, you start by keeping governmental hands off of the means of revolution. You let people talk freely, you let them remain armed, you let them be secure in their privacy, and you don't surround them with soldiers.

I think it is you that have internalized a bullshit assumption that people who defend the constitution and the second amendment as positive have not applied deductive reasoning or questioned the fundamental concepts involved.


As you've hinted at, the reason they are presented as natural rights is because framing the issue as such makes people far less likely to question the validity of the very assumptions that underline that philosophy. If people understood that rights were simply the result of government policy, that they can be modified, removed or altered at will, and that they do not exist outside a government capable of defending them, a simply huge chunk of the pro-gun argument has been demolished from the start.

Afterall, the pro-gun position is predicated on the idea that you have a right to a gun. Remove that assumption, and the entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of gun nuts talking about why their hobby is worth tens of thousanss of murders a year, a militarized police force, thousands of accidental deaths, etc. The rest of the arguments that back it - the US is culturally unique, defense against tyranny and so on - are also nonsense.

Without tricking people into believing bullshit, the pro-gun movement would lose all the time. Alas...
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:58 am

exploited wrote:As you've hinted at, the reason they are presented as natural rights is because framing the issue as such makes people far less likely to question the validity of the very assumptions that underline that philosophy. If people understood that rights were simply the result of government policy, that they can be modified, removed or altered at will, and that they do not exist outside a government capable of defending them, a simply huge chunk of the pro-gun argument has been demolished from the start.

Afterall, the pro-gun position is predicated on the idea that you have a right to a gun. Remove that assumption, and the entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of gun nuts talking about why their hobby is worth tens of thousanss of murders a year, a militarized police force, thousands of accidental deaths, etc. The rest of the arguments that back it - the US is culturally unique - are also nonsense.

Without tricking people into believing bullshit, the pro-gun movement would lose all the time. Alas...



it's the right of self-defense.

the practical impact is that armed people are harder to mess with either by domestic or foreign sources.

it's an ancient concept that used to be more of an obligation than a right. much of the rest of the world lost that concept because the oppressive powers that be took it from them (Scotland, Russia, India) or they bask on the protection of Pax Americana....(you're welcome). In the United States we've gone beyond other countries who maintained that tradition (like the Swiss or Fins) because we've commercialized it like everything else we do.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:05 am

exploited wrote:As you've hinted at, the reason they are presented as natural rights is because framing the issue as such makes people far less likely to question the validity of the very assumptions that underline that philosophy. If people understood that rights were simply the result of government policy, that they can be modified, removed or altered at will, and that they do not exist outside a government capable of defending them, a simply huge chunk of the pro-gun argument has been demolished from the start.

Afterall, the pro-gun position is predicated on the idea that you have a right to a gun. Remove that assumption, and the entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of gun nuts talking about why their hobby is worth tens of thousanss of murders a year, a militarized police force, thousands of accidental deaths, etc. The rest of the arguments that back it - the US is culturally unique, defense against tyranny and so on - are also nonsense.

Without tricking people into believing bullshit, the pro-gun movement would lose all the time. Alas...


I think you need to go back and spend some more time learning about the US system of government.

We have a constitution. That constitution lays out the explicit powers of the government. The areas of the individual (rights) were protected by not giving government power over those areas. At some point this became rather fuzzy, so an explicit list of rights were added to the constitution.

1.) The nature of rights has no bearing on this at all. Rights are enforced because the constitution is the contract between the people and the government and it says that certain things may not be done by the government.

2.) The constitution can be changed. There is a whole part of it that lays out exactly how one can go about making changes, including, if one was so inclined and the people so supportive, giving the federal government the explicit power to regulate, ban, or melt down firearms.

So your argument above is junk. People aren't appealing to natural rights, they are appealing to the document that defines and limits our government. Natural rights would only be an argument against amendment, however such an argument is only philosophical in nature as the amendment process provides no restrictions. If the people want it in sufficient quantity, they can make the change. They don't.

I will add here, that even if the people did want it in sufficient quantity, it may be one of those issues that some people will not concede. In that instance, yes, it may become a point of revolution. Though, the 2/3 requirement should avoid this from being a likely scenario.

Whether natural or not, we have a second amendment. It is a rule for the government. It shall not be infringed except by process of constitutional amendment (or a re-write, another process that can be called).
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:12 am

eynon81 wrote:
exploited wrote:As you've hinted at, the reason they are presented as natural rights is because framing the issue as such makes people far less likely to question the validity of the very assumptions that underline that philosophy. If people understood that rights were simply the result of government policy, that they can be modified, removed or altered at will, and that they do not exist outside a government capable of defending them, a simply huge chunk of the pro-gun argument has been demolished from the start.

Afterall, the pro-gun position is predicated on the idea that you have a right to a gun. Remove that assumption, and the entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of gun nuts talking about why their hobby is worth tens of thousanss of murders a year, a militarized police force, thousands of accidental deaths, etc. The rest of the arguments that back it - the US is culturally unique - are also nonsense.

Without tricking people into believing bullshit, the pro-gun movement would lose all the time. Alas...



it's the right of self-defense.

the practical impact is that armed people are harder to mess with either by domestic or foreign sources.

it's an ancient concept that used to be more of an obligation than a right. much of the rest of the world lost that concept because the oppressive powers that be took it from them (Scotland, Russia, India) or they bask on the protection of Pax Americana....(you're welcome). In the United States we've gone beyond other countries who maintained that tradition (like the Swiss or Fins) because we've commercialized it like everything else we do.


The right to self-defense simply states that every person can defend themselves from violence. It doesn't say anything about how they do it, what weapon they use, who they use it against, etc. It has almost nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and exists in just about every Western country in the world, whether it is presented as a right or merely a long-established precedent. Whereas the Second Amendment is unique (and uniquely stupid).
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

PreviousNext

Return to The Soapbox

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest