sudden valley gunner
- Dec 13, 2008
- Whatcom County
LOL....again another claim I never made.
I never said "nobody".
I never said "nobody".
No. We are done. Enjoy whatever other argument you can get. There is no need to continue a debate with anyone who favors anarchy and the communism it inextricably brings, over properly functioning government.
know for a fact mate, that SVG's comment was not directed towards you whatsoever...
It would be more polite to at least mention who you are directing your remarks.
Also, can I make a suggestion? Calm down. Seriously.
I get it, you are a big supporter of the government and the status quo.
Also seems the thread was never in danger of lock until people felt compelled to respond to the false accusations and misstatements of one poster.
BTW: When does anarchy lead to communism inextricably? I can think of a few recent (post 1990) examples of it not doing so...and what is in your mind a "properly functioning" government?
I would say that we are mostly done because you do not wish to support your argument with ANYTHING approaching fact, just your opinion. So, when you wish to define your terms, we have the basis for a productive discussion. For now, you are wrong and have been wrong all along. good night
Oh childish and puerile anarchist and communist, The word nobody, and the word everybody and all such things do not constitute citations, especially when one lacks the courage to include a quote to which he is referring.
Sorry to contradict again. But societal norms have been touted on this forum. I could not read the entire story, too disgusting. Kenya, Yemen, are there more societies that hold a differing set of norms from "ours?" (Western morals?)
why must 'ours' (western morals) be imposed on anyone?
kinda selfish to wish our moral on anybody...also what certain religious groups have done from their beginning...
it has worked so well over all these years hasn't it (sarcasm)!!
Here it is the quote I meant to respond too.
I have over the years grown to view morals as innate to human nature and natural law. What most people view as "morals" are really values.
Recently I read up on some Richard Overton who predates Locke and he had some great writings on this, he was a strict christian but recognized that belief in a god/gods didn't effect morals as a natural state belonging to natural law or reason.
So this goes to the philosophy of this thread, where do we draw the line? If something is immoral for an individual to posses/own/use it is also immoral for the state. Especially one based on protecting individual rights and set up by consent of individuals.
About "being wrong", did I not say that grenades and such were not WMDs but were destructive devices or something similar? Where exactly does this law prove that I am wrong?
Is the guy who really wants strict definitions going to conflate "destructive device" with "weapons of mass destruction"?
Problem - that entire line is decidedly off-topic.--snipped--
moderator, your positive consideration as this is a legitimate unbiased response to a member's post, it is not directed at the member personally in any shape whatsoever, but only only a specific response with cite, again which the member specifically has been requesting in other posts.
--Mod edited off topic remarks--
Can an individual own nukes? If not can the state and why?
I'd like to see anyone answer this without making some claim that the state/government has rights that the individual does not.
My apologies Grape master for my part in off topicness. Your willingness to reopen and keep this thread is appreciated.
Problem - that entire line is decidedly off-topic.