1
   

IS HOSTILITY TO SELF-DEFENSE PART OF CLASS WARFARE ?

 
 
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 07:22 pm
I don 't know,
but I suspect, that the reason is that
those who favor suppression of the right of self defense,
view criminals as coming predominantly from the poor,
and the anti-gunners FAVOR the poor,
so thay want the poor to be SAFE and PROTECTED when
thay are robbing the more financially successful.


For the most part, those who try to suppress the right to access
to emergency equipment for defeating predatory violence
detest the affluent middle class and the rich,
so incidents of the poor safely and successfully attacking the affluent are secretly FUN for the suppressionists.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,050 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 08:13 pm
Your premise is ludicrous.

I suggest you read Locke's second treatise on government. It answers your question rather well as to what you give up by joining a society and why.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 08:16 pm
I suppose you read about that Doctor in Conn, whose wife and 2 daughters were killed and his house then burned to the ground by two savages, haven't you?

The doctor was bashed over the head, but he did manage to escape from the burning house.

If he had owned a loaded gun, would all of this have happened?

(When my father was alive, he always slept with an armed gun under his bed).
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 08:30 pm
David, I think you're wrong. You can get nearly anyone to concede the right of self defense. Problem is, you cannot get so many to support the means of defending oneself. It's as if we're all supposed to be in our mid twenties, large of stature, and athletic by nature.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 08:32 pm
roger wrote:
David, I think you're wrong. You can get nearly anyone to concede the right of self defense. Problem is, you cannot get so many to support the means of defending oneself. It's as if we're all supposed to be in our mid twenties, large of stature, and athletic by nature.

There it is roger. It isn't class warfare but size warfare. The large of stature people just want to be able to pick on the small people.


It makes as much sense as the original premise here.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 08:34 pm
Sure, parados. There are more big, young guys picking on small, old people than the other way around.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 09:09 pm
Civilization has crept over time toward discourse as a means of solving disputes. Discourse clearly hasn't won the day.

I've not observed that weapons have done mankind much good. I've some familiarity with weapons of the larger sort. I'd rather work towards discourse.

My class position is quite fuzzy and has little import re this question except that I can read and write and compose; sometimes, if not always, I can think with perspective.

My father had rifles for hunting; my husband had a rifle, the same one that did no good whatsoever when his family went through a house invasion when he was about sixteen, and on the floor facing gun(s) from the invaders. The family had been watching tv, with tv dinner trays, when the event happened.

I will never live with a gun again, I'm sick of them. But that is personal.
I do admit to some reasons, especially in the western US on ranchland, that people need rifles, and do understand some about hunting, though I'm no fan of it as sport.

On that family invasion - the person who saved the family was the arthritic mother gimping out the door, calling help, help, as the thuggies were ransacking. She was, I gather, for a time out of sight of the watcher with the gun.

I've lived in gang territory, say a dozen blocks from the core - over 25 years. In that time, I had a picnic table bench stolen. I haven't lived in total gang central, the core blocks, but my husband had. I can understand quandaries if you live there. For everybody else wimpering about defense, I roll my eyes at the firepower creaming.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 09:27 pm
parados wrote:
Your premise is ludicrous.

I suggest you read Locke's second treatise on government.
It answers your question rather well as to what you give up by joining a society and why.

Half a century has passed
since the last time that I read it.

To which language do u have specific reference therein ?
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 09:28 pm
Miller wrote:
I suppose you read about that Doctor in Conn, whose wife and 2 daughters were killed and his house then burned to the ground by two savages, haven't you?

The doctor was bashed over the head, but he did manage to escape from the burning house.

If he had owned a loaded gun, would all of this have happened?

(When my father was alive, he always slept with an armed gun under his bed).

Yeah.
Nite stands work well too.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 09:30 pm
roger wrote:
David, I think you're wrong.
You can get nearly anyone to concede the right of self defense.
Problem is, you cannot get so many to support the means of defending oneself.
It's as if we're all supposed to be in our mid twenties, large of stature, and athletic by nature.

Agreed
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 03:41 am
you know all of this is explainable quite easily.

We are mammals

mammals use instincts to survive in the wilderness

Our instincts make us want to dominate others (alpha-beta males for example)

We use any and every means to attain said dominance.

Its amazing how simple it is really, you cant be dominant if the people you want to submit are capable of defending themselves, ergo you are not dominant.(i cant stand police for this reason, if you dont act submissive they launch into tons of verbal judo type ****, and i just sit there calmy batting aside their idiotic questions which they use to try to get you to say something so they can get probable cause to search you so their "ego" about not having dominance of a situation is quelled because they would then be dominant again)

I mean seriously sometimes a pig will be talking to me and i get this wierd feeling they are trying to coerce or manipulate me into saying something, i mean i wont talk to someone who is trying to manipulate me, so then they get mad. its really quite annoying when a police officer asks "So youve been living in this part of town your whole life? Dont you carry weapons to defend yourself from all the criminals and crackheads?
Not even a knife?"

I mean, WTF? admitting that the area i live in has criminals and crackheads who can pose a threat, then trying to get me to say i have a weapon to defend myself, then (im assuming) be able to arrest me for possessing a weapon?

the fake ass jaywalking stops are one thing, the sweeps where they stop every person walking down the street even if they arent breaking any laws is one thing, but admitting that people need to defend themselves and then be willing to arrest them for it? come on.


Well its obvious to me, but maybe they are out for the good of the people and im just paranoid.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 04:17 am
Quote:
Its amazing how simple it is really, you cant be dominant if the people you want to submit are capable of defending themselves, ergo you are not dominant


There are many ways to be dominant.

By category :
Socially
Politically
Economically
Physically
Sexually
Legally
Intellectually


Maybe other types of categories that I haven't thought of on the spot.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 04:38 am
If you are economicaly dominant, well our whole government is ran by bribes so ecomnomic dominance = political dominance as well. You can buy social dominance. You can afford to pay for education so it can also = intellectual dominance. You can even buy sexual dominance. and you can especially be legally dominant if you can afford the best lawyers.

power makes it easier to get money btw, so power can equal dominance in all of those scenarios, and as a matter of fact it does Very Happy
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 04:45 am
Yes...I came to the conclusion many years ago that it is neither love, money, nor religion that makes the world go round (so to speak)...but rather, power.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 05:05 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Half a century has passed
since the last time that I read it.


...and all this time I thought you were a teenager, because of the way you write Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 07:20 am
Quote:
§128. For in the State of Nature, to omit the liberty he has of innocent Delights, a Man has two Powers.

The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the Law of Nature: by which Law common to them all, he and all the rest of Mankind are one Community, make up one Society distinct from all other Creatures, and were it not for the corruption and vitiousness of degenerate Men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that Men should separate from this great and associate into less Combinations.

The other power a Man has in the State of Nature, is the power to punish the Crimes committed against that Law. Both these he gives up when he joyns in a private, if I may so call it, or particular Political Society, and incorporates into any Commonwealth, separate from the rest of Mankind.

§129. The first Power, viz. of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the preservation of himself, and the rest of Mankind, he gives up to be regulated by Laws made by the Society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that Society shall require;
which Laws of the Society in many things confine the liberty he had by the Law of Nature.

§130. Secondly, the Power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, (which he might before imploy in the Execution of the Law of Nature, by his own single Authority, as he thought fit) to assist the Executive Power of the Society, as the Law thereof shall require. For being now in a new State, wherein he is to enjoy many Conveniencies from the labour, assistance and society of others in the same Community, as well as protection from its whole strength; he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity and safety of the Society shall require; which is not only necessary but just, since the other Members of the Society do the like.

§131. But though Men when they enter into Society, give up the Equality, Liberty, and Executive Power they had in the State of Nature, into the hands of the Society, to be so far disposed of by the Legislative, as the good of the Society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself his Liberty and Property; (For no rational Creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the Society, or Legislative constituted by them, can never be suppos'd to extend farther than the common good; but is obliged to secure every ones Property by providing against those three defects abovementioned, that made the State of Nature so unsafe and uneasie. And so whoever has the Legislative or supream Power of any Commonwealth, is bound to govern by establish'd standing Laws, promulgated and known to the People, and not by Extemporary Decrees; by indifferent and upright Judges, who are to decide Controversies by those Laws; And to imploy the force of the Community sat home, only in the Execution of such Laws, or abroad to prevent or redress Foreign Injuries, and secure the Community from Inroads and Invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the Peace, Safety, and publick good of the People.

§142. These are the Bounds which the trust that is put in them by the Society, and the Law of God and Nature, have set to the Legislative Power of every Commonwealth, in all Forms of Government.

First, They are to govern by promulgated establish'd Laws, not to be varied in particular Cases, but to have one Rule for the Rich and Poor, for the Favourite at Court, and the Country Man at Plough.

Secondly, These Laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the good of the People.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 07:31 am
It's not class warfare. It's theological warfare.

I refuse to be a slave to my government. Those opposed to the right to self defense want us to be subjects, not citizens.

As Americans, we are supposed to despise our own government. You can see that intent by simply reading the constitution.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 07:40 am
I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT OWNING PROPERTY NEGATES ALL OF THAT LOCKE BULLSHIT.

IF I DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF SOCIETY WHERE CAN I GO?

NOWHERE!. ITS EITHER BE PART OF SOCIETY OR BE PART OF PRISON SOCIETY. (I CAN SEE IT NOW, LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, ALL DRESSED IN ANIMAL SKINS ROFL HAHA, AND PARK RANGERS ROLL UP "SIR YOUR COMING WITH US!") ITS SORTA FUNNY BUT TRUE.

UTTER NONSENSE, I NEVER LIKED SOME OF LOCKES IDEAS, ESPECIALLY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BS, ITS NOT A CONTRACT, ITS AN ULTIMATUM.
THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

ALL THAT "TRUE FREEDOM" GARBAGE, GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY ISNT CALLED TRUE FREEDOM! ITS CALLED GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 08:01 am
OGIONIK wrote:
I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT OWNING PROPERTY NEGATES ALL OF THAT LOCKE BULLSHIT.
Actually, you have just shown you have never read Locke but are just spouting your own BS.

Quote:

IF I DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF SOCIETY WHERE CAN I GO?
You can go where ever you want. The problem is you have to deal with a society that has banded together to protect itself from sociopaths that want to do whatever they feel like.
Quote:

NOWHERE!. ITS EITHER BE PART OF SOCIETY OR BE PART OF PRISON SOCIETY. (I CAN SEE IT NOW, LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, ALL DRESSED IN ANIMAL SKINS ROFL HAHA, AND PARK RANGERS ROLL UP "SIR YOUR COMING WITH US!") ITS SORTA FUNNY BUT TRUE.

So your goal is to live without property? This after you said it is property that negates Locke?

Quote:

UTTER NONSENSE, I NEVER LIKED SOME OF LOCKES IDEAS, ESPECIALLY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BS, ITS NOT A CONTRACT, ITS AN ULTIMATUM.
THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Hardly an ultimatum since as Locke points out society has to provide what the people in that society want. You are free to work to change the social contract or ignore it. You are not free to dictate what the majority of other people should want.

Quote:

ALL THAT "TRUE FREEDOM" GARBAGE, GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY ISNT CALLED TRUE FREEDOM! ITS CALLED GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY!
Locke never calls giving up the "perfect freedom" of the natural state anything other than giving up freedom. He never calls it "true freedom."

Quote:
§123. If Man in the State of Nature be so free, as has been said; If he be absolute Lord of his own Person and Possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no Body, why will he part with his Freedom? Why will he give up this Empire, and subject himself to the Dominion and Controul of any other Power? To which 'tis obvious to Answer, that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the Enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the Invasion of others; for all being Kings as much as he, every Man his Equal, and the greater part no strict Observers of Equity and Justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit this Condition, which however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: And 'tis not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to joyn in Society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.

§124. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. To which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.

It seems you want the protections of society without the restrictions. You are not willing to live in a world of uncertainty where anyone or any society stronger can take your skins or kill you if they so desire.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 08:26 am
parados wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT OWNING PROPERTY NEGATES ALL OF THAT LOCKE BULLSHIT.
Actually, you have just shown you have never read Locke but are just spouting your own BS.

Actually, no. gov't owning of property negates society somehow being voluntary, BECAUSE IF THEY OWN THE LAND, THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO

Quote:

IF I DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF SOCIETY WHERE CAN I GO?
You can go where ever you want. The problem is you have to deal with a society that has banded together to protect itself from sociopaths that want to do whatever they feel like.

Wrong, the gov't owns the property, ergo i cannot go anywhere without infringing upon a society if my goal was to leave that society. sorry nice try..

Quote:

NOWHERE!. ITS EITHER BE PART OF SOCIETY OR BE PART OF PRISON SOCIETY. (I CAN SEE IT NOW, LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, ALL DRESSED IN ANIMAL SKINS ROFL HAHA, AND PARK RANGERS ROLL UP "SIR YOUR COMING WITH US!") ITS SORTA FUNNY BUT TRUE.

So your goal is to live without property? This after you said it is property that negates Locke?

that doesnt exactly make sense... wouldnt that in effect be agreeing with me?

Quote:

UTTER NONSENSE, I NEVER LIKED SOME OF LOCKES IDEAS, ESPECIALLY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BS, ITS NOT A CONTRACT, ITS AN ULTIMATUM.
THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Hardly an ultimatum since as Locke points out society has to provide what the people in that society want. You are free to work to change the social contract or ignore it. You are not free to dictate what the majority of other people should want.

nor is society free to dictate what i want, But its not voluntary. its either do or face consequences, and thats an ultimatum.

Quote:

ALL THAT "TRUE FREEDOM" GARBAGE, GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY ISNT CALLED TRUE FREEDOM! ITS CALLED GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY!
Locke never calls giving up the "perfect freedom" of the natural state anything other than giving up freedom. He never calls it "true freedom."

Correct, i mistakelent thought he did, but it was in another debate someone said locke called it true freedom, thanks for the correction.


Quote:
§123. If Man in the State of Nature be so free, as has been said; If he be absolute Lord of his own Person and Possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no Body, why will he part with his Freedom? Why will he give up this Empire, and subject himself to the Dominion and Controul of any other Power? To which 'tis obvious to Answer, that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the Enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the Invasion of others; for all being Kings as much as he, every Man his Equal, and the greater part no strict Observers of Equity and Justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit this Condition, which however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: And 'tis not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to joyn in Society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.

§124. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. To which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.

It seems you want the protections of society without the restrictions. You are not willing to live in a world of uncertainty where anyone or any society stronger can take your skins or kill you if they so desire.


You would be wrong, what protections does society grant me? society makes me weak, society makes it so i cant grow my own food, or attain my own land, society means paying for things i dont use, to subject myself to a system where i will be forced to compete against people who have clear and definite advantages (being set up to fail), to see people enjoying society with these advantages, to be seen as an outcast because of my disadvantages, to be set up to fail, and be punished for that failure, society to me means sacrifice for nothing, police do not protect me, doctors will save my life but in doing so subject me to further monetary debt of which i already struggle to evade, we are PAYING FOR A WAR IN IRAQ, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA DO NOT WANT THIS WAR, by your definitions, society is a failure already.

PEOPLE DO NOT NEED TO BE CITED FOR CROSSING THE STREET AT THE WRONG AREA (how exactly is this benifiting society again?), ANYMORE THAN THEY NEED TO BE PUNISHED FOR INGESTING CERTAIN CHEMICALS, THE SOCIETY OF TODAY IS A FAR CRY FROM (******* caps lock!) what locke is describing. if society was how locke "described" it i would have no qualms about it, but it is not. "society" today does whats best for the rich, for the priviledged, not for the general population, the working class.


Society does not benifit me, society benifits from me. Oh yeah, clean drinking water with so much chlorine in it i want to puke, so i provide my own, food with hormones and chemicals, contant pollution, destruction of the environment, this is what society brings me?

This is what i should sacrafice freedom for? for contant destruction and exploitation of our home? twisting and deformation, abuse, neglect and incompetency in creation of new laws? for obvious corruption that goes unpunished yet, i am held accountable for the most minor of offenses?
To see police break the law every day, supposed defenders of the law, with impunity, to fear the law more than i fear the adverse effects of not having said laws?

Sure, society is awesome.

i will quote aristotle "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god."

Wow, couldn't have said it better. If it werent for females i would leave society in a heartbeat.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » IS HOSTILITY TO SELF-DEFENSE PART OF CLASS WARFARE ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 05:42:49