Who's evil: The gunman or politician?

@Warlock13,

I can't see where the politician did anything immoral or unlawful, thus the blame are soley on the gunman.

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Warlock13 wrote:
The politician decided she had the right to force every American to buy something (health care bill). The gunman decided he had the right to take her life.

That sounds like the guy shot the lady for being too much of a libtard or demokkkrat, which is entirely false. He shot her for not being ENOUGH of a libtard and demoKKKrat and because his own brain had been rotted out by demoKKKrat/libtard propaganda.

Friends, sit back and enjoy with me this clash of intellectual titans.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

the gunman aside, it's certainly not illegal to become a politician, but it's certainly an immoral practice

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

Warlock13 wrote:
The politician decided she had the right to force every American to buy something (health care bill). The gunman decided he had the right to take her life.

That sounds like the guy shot the lady for being too much of a libtard or demokkkrat, which is entirely false. He shot her for not being ENOUGH of a libtard and demoKKKrat and because his own brain had been rotted out by demoKKKrat/libtard propaganda.

Friends, sit back and enjoy with me this clash of intellectual titans.

Such flights of fancy are bound to make us feel rooted in reality... Just for an opinion; isn't a right something a person cannot live without; and does not killing require the taking of rights???

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Just for an opinion; isn't a right something a person cannot live without; and does not killing require the taking of rights???

No and yes.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Fido wrote:
Just for an opinion; isn't a right something a person cannot live without;
and does not killing require the taking of rights???

No and yes.

Fido, a right is NOT necessarily
anything that someone cannot live without;
e.g., I have a right to vote in the School Board elections,
but I ignore that and stay home, without voting.
No death results from my failure to vote.

Note also that killing does not necessarily violate
anyone 's rights, e.g., if a victim kills his predator in self-defense,
the predator's right was already forfeit by his malicious attack.

Your thinking is confused and fraught with error; tedious error,
lengthy tedious error. That is Y I have u on Ignore.

David

1 Reply

Wow, what a hilarious thread

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Words cannot describe.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Ineffably ineffable

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Fido wrote:
Just for an opinion; isn't a right something a person cannot live without;
and does not killing require the taking of rights???

No and yes.
Fido, a right is NOT necessarily
anything that someone cannot live without;
e.g., I have a right to vote in the School Board elections,
but I ignore that and stay home, without voting.
No death results from my failure to vote.

Note also that killing does not necessarily violate
anyone 's rights, e.g., if a victim kills his predator in self-defense,
the predator's right was already forfeit by his malicious attack.

Your thinking is confused and fraught with error; tedious error,
lengthy tedious error. That is Y I have u on Ignore.

David

The right to vote is a general liberty, and it is liberty that is your right because if you could not do as you please, then you would be living at the pleasure of another, or not at all...

Consider the process by which the state legally takes a life... Do they not always first legally remove the person from their rights, first, to freedom and then to life??? It may be true that through their own licence they have proven that they are not worthy of their rights, but on almost every level that is a fact that must be proved in order for the rights of the accused to be taken...It is only rights that stand between a person and their death.... In the past, all that was required was for a person to be declared an outlaw by church or state, and anyone might kill them on sight... It is understandable when you realize that in some languages law and right are the same word... To be outside of law was to be outside any claim to right...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Stating the right to vote is a general liberty and that liberty is your right...well it is a non-statement. You are claiming that the term right is synonmous with the term liberty. There are billions of people that neither have the right, nor the liberty to vote, yet they are living.

And then you state if you don't have the right to do as you please you are "living at the pleasure of another". So you have answered your own question. A person can be living and not have rights.

If you wan't to go down the road of what it truly means to be living, then you should be posting in a thread on philosophy, not politics.

2 Replies

@DrDick,

DrDick wrote:

Stating the right to vote is a general liberty and that liberty is your right...well it is a non-statement. You are claiming that the term right is synonmous with the term liberty. There are billions of people that neither have the right, nor the liberty to vote, yet they are living.

And then you state if you don't have the right to do as you please you are "living at the pleasure of another". So you have answered your own question. A person can be living and not have rights.

If you wan't to go down the road of what it truly means to be living, then you should be posting in a thread on philosophy, not politics.

He has badly confused thought processes that are very troublesome to disentangle.
For that reason, I have him on Ignore.

David

0 Replies

@DrDick,

DrDick wrote:

Stating the right to vote is a general liberty and that liberty is your right...well it is a non-statement. You are claiming that the term right is synonmous with the term liberty. There are billions of people that neither have the right, nor the liberty to vote, yet they are living.

And then you state if you don't have the right to do as you please you are "living at the pleasure of another". So you have answered your own question. A person can be living and not have rights.

If you wan't to go down the road of what it truly means to be living, then you should be posting in a thread on philosophy, not politics.

Certainly a right is a liberty; but it is also a power... Show me the powerless and I will show you one without rights.... Just as you say; people can be living and breathing, and so technically defined as living, and without rights... Look at all the slaves shipped to the gulf states in the Antebellum South... They were sold down the river to die of malaria, humidity, snake bite, and exertion... They had a life expectancy of under ten years, and it could have been worse... And the cost of replacing them helped to set the price of Cotton, since no one could afford to grow cotton at less than the cost of those who grew it... Did those people have a life, because from the standpoint of all who comment on slavery, those killed by it do not matter... Slavery is often held a kindness by those who support the South... Many were treated with kindness, and even loved, like pets perhaps, and well clothed, and housed... Ya, right; for having no rights their lives and deaths are unaccounted for; and no one answered for their murders, and no one shall...

You know, and you would not have me make the case except out of a pretend stupidity that slavery is any sort of life anyone would trade a life for... In fact, since we all know the fetters of slavery, wage slavery, few of us can fairely judge our condition... But I say that what we know today is as far from liberty as true chattel slavery is from us... We are half way to freedom or slavery depending upon the choices we make; to be free, or to be slave... Liberty is our right just as every right is the expression of liberty... In fact; they are indistinguishable.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Like I said, you are arguing what it means to be "living". Applied to this thread you are trying to justify the gunman's actions by stating he was not free, therefore not living. That is a ridiculous claim that only zealots will support.

2 Replies

@DrDick,

DrDick wrote:

Like I said, you are arguing what it means to be "living". Applied to this thread you are trying to justify the gunman's actions by stating he was not free, therefore not living. That is a ridiculous claim that only zealots will support.

A worm will turn, but a human being will strip and run to the land fill his dead body will be pushed into... When we say life, what do we mean; because people facing death will want life only, but those with life will want happiness as well, and what if ones happiness leads to the physical or moral death of another... Where do rights end, and when does resistence begin, and at what point is it justified... We all live lives of quiet desparation, but only the crazies among us, the John Browns or the Mc Veighs have the ability to act on their insanity, and the problem is that those nuts only got there first; that the absolute denial of rights is putting left and right in a position where they must deny civility and act to preserve their lives -which means- to preserve their rights... There is a better way, and I know it; but most of us simply do not understand the situation we are in well enough to act as one, and end the forms which are feeding off us and making our rights meaningless...

What has always been said of slave, that they are vocal instraments, tools, is as true today as ever... Don't be a tool... Act on your own accord, but if you really want to change things then do not act; but resist... The monster lives by our cooperation... We allow the foxes of the world to exist, and the political parties to function... We allow our explotation and the denial of our freedom... We consent by doing nothing... Some people do not consent, but they are no less slaves for it; but only slaves of a different sort....They are not ready for freedom until prepared for death... I think we are not prepared for freedom until prepared for life... What does it take to form healthy relationships, and what would a healthy political relationship look like???

We started out this country with a curse of slavery laid upon us... We found it necessary to defend ourselves first from strangers and then against ourselves when our strength had grown.... But we are still cursed with slavery as the inevitable result of civil rights in competition with property rights... If we cannot manage to change the old cursed form of our political relationship we are doomed to slavery and then international defeat... Only if we are free can we be a beacon of freedom to all people.... But we must dare it, dare to toss the old and form the new; and then we must ask: what sort of healthy relationship allows the exploitation of one for the benefit of another???

1 Reply

@Warlock13,

Warlock I agree with you and would like a snippet of a butchered quote that I will make off the top of my head.

"When the politicians fear the people there is freedom, but when the people fear their politicians there is tyranny."

We know that our politicians are corrupt yet very few of us are willing to do anything about it outside making some comments online or to friends. This is because we are complacent and feel we have more to lose than to gain by challenging the system. But as another quote goes, and yet butchered just as much.

"Those who are willing to give up their freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Both of those quotes are from the founding fathers of the US. They had some perspectives on government that are currently considered backwards or would deem yourself as unpatriotic or even a terrorist to uphold. Funny how we have come full circle and are becoming the very state which the founders were trying to get away from.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Warlock I agree with you...

I find your post quite ironic, Krumple.

While making a case for why it's okay to take up arms against authority, you employ, as your form of argument, a double appeal to authority.

(Not only that, but you made no honest attempt to show you had used your quotations in their proper context.)

Dear God. Rolling Eyes

All this, in order to agree with ... what exactly? That Giffords was somehow more evil than the lunatic who shot her? ... Wow!

1 Reply

@Oylok,

"All this, in order to agree with ... what exactly? That Giffords was somehow more evil than the lunatic who shot her? ... Wow! "

That is what I am referring to. What one person calls a lunatic another will call a revolutionist. We have become so complacent that anyone who has political descent is deemed irrational or a lunatic? They are quick to try to paint someone as being crazy for having a strong political objection, yet through out history the time when corruption gets dealt with, blood is shed as sad as that is to state it is the truth. In fact so much so that the founding fathers also were noted as saying, "From time to time freedom is refreshed by the blood of patriots." However you might look at that statement as being idiotic or insanity but this was the very basis for the founding of a free state. We are far from a free state and a majority assume that we simply can not function without a billion laws and a billion more put into place. It is saddening that we are sold the illusion of freedom when we are far from free.

0 Replies

@DrDick,

DrDick wrote:

Like I said, you are arguing what it means to be "living". Applied to this thread you are trying to justify the gunman's actions by stating he was not free, therefore not living. That is a ridiculous claim that only zealots will support.

Even zealots (those who can reason)
will find a non-sequitur.
The Jews in the nazi camps were not free,
but thay were still alive until thay were murdered (or simply died).

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Even zealots (those who can reason)
will find a non-sequitur.
The Jews in the nazi camps were not free,
but thay were still alive until thay were murdered (or simply died).

Not to discredit your reply but why is it that just about every political discussion devolves into some comment about WWII Nazi Germany and the persecution of Jews? How come no one brings up the fact that it was religiously motivated to begin with. Had the bible not portrayed the Jews as being worthy of punishment then perhaps this elected politician wouldn't have found it fit to exterminate them. Hitler didn't kill the Jews, the bible did, Hitler was just the person carrying out what he thought the bible wanted him to do. Besides that every politician needs an escape goat when there is economic turmoil and the Jews were just a convenience for him to use to gain support. Sure a lot of people were tortured and starved to death, but does it always have to be used as a tear jerker rebuttal tactic?

1 Reply

Who's evil: The gunman or politician?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know