First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods. The Taliban in Afghanistan, the insurgents in Iraq, and the Viet Cong in Vietnam all fared pretty well with little more than small arms and bombs they made themselves. The Viet Cong and the insurgents in Iraq won, and the Taliban are still going at it. A big, conventional army isn't very effective at ending a guerrilla resistance.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
If I break into your house and steal your TV, you still own the TV. Just because I've taken it away doesn't mean it's not yours.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
I mean it would certainly work if we assumed all people to be perfectly moral... yeah then everyone owning a nuclear weapon or having a large stock of sarin in their basement wouldn't be a problem, but the moment you admit that there are reasons why we cannot allow for people to have that right.... it all goes to shit.
And more importantly, if we decide to change any given law (as we do all the time), does that imply that the law that was replaced wasn't an accurate reflection of the natural law? Does that mean it now is? Or is it possible that even though we may think that our current law is accurately reflecting natural law it's not reflecting natural law at all? Can you bridge that gap somehow?
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
Really, it already IS legal to own tanks and fighter jets. The only laws against tanks would be local ones about not destroying their roads, and the only laws against jets would be noise ordinances. And those laws are perfectly fine. The roads are owned by the state, it's their call on what can and can't use them. Similarly, constant sonic booms would damage windows and possibly even deafen some people. The other items are all strawmen that in their acquisition would require breaking some other law. If you're acquiring nukes or poison gas or whatever, there is likely evidence that you're plotting to use it for nefarious acts. And plotting to commit an immoral act is itself immoral. If you are not plotting anything, and can store the sarin or nuke or whatever without it being a hazard to the community constituting negligence, there's nothing wrong with having it.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
Really, it already IS legal to own tanks and fighter jets. The only laws against tanks would be local ones about not destroying their roads, and the only laws against jets would be noise ordinances. And those laws are perfectly fine. The roads are owned by the state, it's their call on what can and can't use them. Similarly, constant sonic booms would damage windows and possibly even deafen some people. The other items are all strawmen that in their acquisition would require breaking some other law. If you're acquiring nukes or poison gas or whatever, there is likely evidence that you're plotting to use it for nefarious acts. And plotting to commit an immoral act is itself immoral. If you are not plotting anything, and can store the sarin or nuke or whatever without it being a hazard to the community constituting negligence, there's nothing wrong with having it.
"The right to bear arm" is a concept much needed in our society but however there should be laws about responsible gun usage. The law should state that if should be purely be used to protect your own lives and the ones of the others in time of trouble.
To analyse if someone is legible to bear firearms, there need to be a carefully designed ethnic quiz that one have to pass in order to gain such right.
Also if you know that someone is out there have the tendency to kill in an offensive manner, it is your job to talk to that person and help the person to sort out what ever demons he have in his life. In this case, Elliot was ignored by his families even though they knew that he have some mental issues (proven by the fact that the parents provided psychology care) but the person to converse to in time of distress shouldn't be a hire professional but by the nurture of your relatives and friends. It is extremely difficult to emotional connect with someone who is simply there to be paid to listen to you. This is not to say that all psychiatrist are not needed, they are. However, a close individual should always be the first one to do w/e in his/her power to prevent any disasters (before getting a professional involved) since if you simply send him to a an essentially "paid friend", the trouble individual will sense even more neglect and emotional pain.
In this regard, the society needs to offer more lessons to help their child to cope with life instead of brushing the problem away. In the case of Elliot, his father was primarily occupied with his artwork but it was known that his mother and stepmother had free time of their own. So why didn't they attempt to connect with him? That's the question we should be asking.
If your daughter or son end up doing drugs, having intercourses with individual of bad traits, conducting any ballistic act; it is totally your fault because of your neglect, abuse, and bad parenting skills. And if your excuse is that "because I don't have any time, I was busy with my work.", well then that's your inability to plan things out. There are countless of examples where even though parents are busy with their career, they'll take their kids out on the job and connect with them so they can learn life skills. You can't have everything, you gotta make some priority and if you know that you will be putting your needs before your child(ren), don't cease to have unproductive sex. Its bad for you to be distracted by family matters and your child(ren) will grow up without directions.
Another way to ameliorate better child cares is that one parent should stay at home to supervise the action of the child and intervene when needed. Traditional parental approach have always produced more disciplined, hard working individuals. And actually talk to your kid about his dreams and endeavors. If the idea isn't danger inducing, then do your best to support him. This is why many teens rebel against their parent, its the constant put down of ideas that makes teens to perform in such methods.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
Really, it already IS legal to own tanks and fighter jets. The only laws against tanks would be local ones about not destroying their roads, and the only laws against jets would be noise ordinances. And those laws are perfectly fine. The roads are owned by the state, it's their call on what can and can't use them. Similarly, constant sonic booms would damage windows and possibly even deafen some people.
Ok, where I live owning a tank or a fighter jet is not legal, I wasn't aware that it is legal in the US. But that's beside the point anyway.
edit: I've just done some research and while it is true that you can own a tank or fighter jet in the US, the firing system must be deactivated. But that's not really what I was talking about, I was talking about fully operational military vehicles, pretty obvious actually in the context of this conversation.
The other items are all strawmen that in their acquisition would require breaking some other law.
That's not what we are debating though. We are talking about the natural law being the basis for our law. If it contradicts our law then I'm afraid that's tough shit, because the only thing that would entail (if it were objective) is that our current law is wrong.
If you're acquiring nukes or poison gas or whatever, there is likely evidence that you're plotting to use it for nefarious acts. And plotting to commit an immoral act is itself immoral. If you are not plotting anything, and can store the sarin or nuke or whatever without it being a hazard to the community constituting negligence, there's nothing wrong with having it.
Irrelevant.. if we knew the intentions of all people then I certainly agree that it would be piss easy for us to enforce the law. But that is sooo missing the point.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology?
The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution.
Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
They should change when the conditions they were formed under no longer apply. The arguments made in favor of the right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention still apply. Whether the UK has changed its laws is irrelevant.
It's also not very unclearly worded if you ask me. Or the Supreme Court.
You're saying that US citizens need weapons and have a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the US as a free state? Now? In 2014? The redcoats are gone, what exactly is this "well regulated militia" ensuring today and how come everyone (not just those in militias) need access to weapons? What kind of security does this ensure? Against who does it protect?
Also you seem highly misinformed. The Supreme Court has made multiple rulings precisely because the original wording isn't considered clear enough.
Quote Alito (McDonald v. City of Chicago 2010) "We have previously held that the most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the states. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."
However, in the same case (quote Scalia): "Like most rights, the right secure by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
This is why for example mentally ill people or felons have seperate regulations. Or that's why certain states can ban certain guns if they so choose which technically is against the Second Amendment as well coming from your interpretation.
Hell, the Supreme Court has been debating this since pretty much the inception of the Constitution. (1876) "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence", in (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Two quotes straight up from the first paragraph of the wiki article on the subject.
There is no "universal right to bear arms" in the US. It is not part of the constitution that citizens have some right to bear any firearm they so desire. Don't pretend there is by taking a quote from the constitution out of context.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology?
The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution.
Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
They should change when the conditions they were formed under no longer apply. The arguments made in favor of the right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention still apply. Whether the UK has changed its laws is irrelevant.
It's also not very unclearly worded if you ask me. Or the Supreme Court.
You're saying that US citizens need weapons and have a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the US as a free state? Now? In 2014? The redcoats are gone, what exactly is this "well regulated militia" ensuring today and how come everyone (not just those in militias) need access to weapons? What kind of security does this ensure? Against who does it protect?
Also you seem highly misinformed. The Supreme Court has made multiple rulings precisely because the original wording isn't considered clear enough.
Quote Alito (McDonald v. City of Chicago 2010) "We have previously held that the most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the states. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."
However, in the same case (quote Scalia): "Like most rights, the right secure by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
This is why for example mentally ill people or felons have seperate regulations. Or that's why certain states can ban certain guns if they so choose which technically is against the Second Amendment as well coming from your interpretation.
Hell, the Supreme Court has been debating this since pretty much the inception of the Constitution. (1876) "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence", in (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Two quotes straight up from the first paragraph of the wiki article on the subject.
There is no "universal right to bear arms" in the US. It is not part of the constitution that citizens have some right to bear any firearm they so desire. Don't pretend there is by taking a quote from the constitution out of context.
Remember, to him it's a natural right. If it's not in the Constitution, couldn't be negotiated in. Contrary interpretation by the Supreme Court, politics or just misunderstanding. Practical results mean nothing, because the underlying premise that it is a natural right trumps all.
Arguing against it is as futile as arguing against a creationist. It's pretty much akin to a faith based belief system.
On May 30 2014 07:16 xM(Z wrote: first you break him, split (not literally) the mind from the body, don't let him think/rationalize then work on his body, totally ignoring the mind; physically crush him. the mind will have to adjust and in turn shift its perspective. then and only then work on the mind since it'll be (more) open to a different view. uproot, confuse, paradigm shift, recovery.
(throughout his memorandum he showed an affinity for control; he seemed in total control (rationally). when you're in control you create whatever answers you want to whichever questions you come up with. they're all lies so just break him, break the control)
???
you can fix people like you can fix robots/machines; tighten or loosen up a screw and voila. he wasn't fixed. he was allowed to become a murderer, he wasn't born one.
Hello guys, I don't post much here anymore but the subject of PUA and the "science" of dating being brought up caught my eye.
For about 2 years now, I've been an avid reader/participant in much of the manosphere, which PUA is understood to be a part of. I'm not going to give too many details about my tale, both for brevity's sake and because much of it isn't relevant. I do want to convey some part of my experience there though, in hopes it might lend a little depth to this discussion.
Let me say at the outset that I'm more or less done with my participation in the manosphere, partly because I've learned all I'm going to need from it, and partly because of the atrocity committed by Elliot Rodger, whom I do believe to have been negatively influenced by some of the more fucked-up theories about women that are floating around there. While the community mostly denies culpability for Rodger's actions, dismissing him as a lone psychopath, and a member of "PUA hate" besides, a few more reasonable voices have asked if this might not be a time for introspection, and getting rid of the more toxic/negative elements in the community. And I fully agree with them.
I think the PUA community and its various branches emerged out of laudable motives -- simply a bunch of dudes trying to help other dudes build confidence and achieve some success with sex/dating. Many of the guys who enter into PUA are damaged from a bad relationship(s), are insecure, have low self-esteem, are socially stunted, are overweight, have never had a girlfriend and feel resentful... etc. Other members naturally want these newbs to overcome their hurdles, self-improve and, above all, gain confidence so they can eventually go out and approach women.
There is a right way to help someone achieve this. You explain to them that wanting sex/intimacy with a woman isn't bad or wrong, but their approach is. Perhaps they're trying to covertly NiceGuy their way into a relationship and failing. Perhaps they're just awkward in social situations and need a lot more experience talking and connecting with people. Perhaps they just had shit luck. Yes, sometimes you will run into a woman who is simply a bad egg... a gold digger, unfaithful, an entitled princess, or what have you. Doesn't mean all women are like that, just that you need to keep putting yourself out and not settle for less. Somewhere out there is a quality woman who's right for you!
Unfortunately, this is not the way many veteran PUAs use. Either for expediency's sake, or because they've bought into their own BS, they will give these frustrated men a message that is much easier to digest, that produces confidence (of a sort) much more rapidly than the above, but is ultimately detrimental in a lot of ways. Instead of saying "you have to accept that your approach was fucked up, and that you are mostly to blame for this. Now what you have to do is keep trying hard, take risks by being open and honest and putting your emotions on the line, and just accept that part of dating (approx 50%) is always going to be sorta beyond your control" ... they will say something like: "Listen bro, women ain't nothing but sluts and bitches. They're all like that, so you might as well stop fawning over them and start figuring out ways to get what you want out of them, because they'll always be doing the same to you."
What this message does is instill contempt. The biggest problem among new members always was and will be fear. Fear of rejection, fear of failure, fear of shame, etc. It all translates into being afraid of women, especially of being direct with them and risking rejection. But it is actually insanely difficult to be afraid of someone you have contempt for, who you see as lesser than you. If they reject you, so what? They were nothing but a slut/bitch/whore anyway. On to the next.
Weirdly enough, when you mix in fear and contempt of women in equal parts, the outcome is a man whose actions often resemble those of a man who respects, but does not fear women (which I'm sure is what most women actually want). It's a sort of shortcut to acting like a halfway decent, desirable man. The "science" used by PUA, if anything, is just a jumble of papers these PUA-vets find after the fact to justify their initial stance: contempt for women.
What happens, though, when a man continues to have no success with women despite absorbing all these PUA concepts? Well, contempt can also serve as a salve for one's own wounded ego; after all, if women are all stupid and shitty, that makes failing with them a sort of mark of pride. Even so, in a state of chronic isolation, one's feelings of loneliness and frustration are bound to deepen, requiring even greater doses of contempt for women to cover up... it's a feedback loop of sorts, and if one does not eventually realize how stupid it is to blame women for each and every one of one's own shortcomings, the results can be disastrous.
In any case, it's easy for a less analytical-minded sort, or simply someone who *wants* to believe, to look at this process and think, "huh! This dark psychology stuff gets RESULTS! The shittier I am to women the more they like me! Forget all that politically correct mumbo jumbo, I know what these bitches REALLY want." Add some confirmation bias from this newly-minted asshole attracting exactly the kind of women who are attracted to assholes, and you witnessed the creation of a die-hard believer in PUA principles. Others will grow out of their initial contempt for women after realizing all of what I just laid out. Maybe they stick around, maybe not. Right now, I'm in the 'not' category.
Hope this gives a little insight. Also sorry I posted this late, I see ya'll are mostly talking about gun control now...
@Zahir, you might want to kill that post, PUA discussion has been banned for a few days. Interesting thoughts though . Honestly it's getting to the stage where gun control discussion needs to be as well, it's moved way beyond the specific relevance of gun control to Elliot's case, which would be the restriction of handguns specifically for those who have displayed signs that they may be of danger to the community.
I think expecting widespread gun control in the states is expecting too much. As much as I think gun control is an actively helpful step to preventing this kind of shit, there's a cultural barrier in the States that makes it ineffective that can't just simply be glossed over.
Stepping back to the main line of conversation, there have been a couple of notes in the last pages about Roger's insanity and, particularly this quote from the otherwise rather nice article
But this “witch hunt” we go through every time a school shooting happens is a total ruse. Elliot Rodger didn’t become a killer because he was a misogynist; he became a misogynist because he was a killer. Just like Eric Harris didn’t become a killer because he loved violent video games; he loved violent video games because he was a killer. Just like Adam Lanza didn’t become a killer because he loved guns; he loved guns because he was a killer.
I agree and empathise with the sentiment expressed here- the desire to blame everything and sundry for these kind of events, and the politicization in the mass media is very sad. That said, what is actually said here is beyond retarded. There's no justification given of what a 'killer' is, as if it's some inherent quality like being Caucasian or having downs syndrome. Sure, these people didn't become killers because they loved violent games or guns or hated women, but it's equally, in fact even more stupid, to say they loved/hated those things because they had some kind of inherent trait (at least without trying to explain what that trait was).
This speaks to the worst parts of the genetic-determinist crowd. In lay terms, people who think your genes determine who you'll be in a binary fashion. I really suggest reading the wiki articles on gene expression and non-mendelian inheritance.
To summarise the ideas contained within 1) many genes do not operate in accordance with mendelian laws (you know that classic dominant-recessive thing they taught you in school) 2) More importantly, just because you are born with a gene that predisposes you to a certain thing does not mean you will have that thing, or even actually have the thing that causes you to be predisposed either. Sometimes genes just don't turn on.
On top of that, it's a good idea to understand the concept of predisposition thoroughly. Predisposition does not mean that you are going to suffer from the effect, it just means you are more susceptible (for whatever reason) than the average bear.
So a gene that makes you predisposed to cancer of a certain type almost certainly works by altering your body in some way that means it does something more often than other people's bodies, and that thing has a higher risk of generating cancerous cells. The gene's expression causes the risk, not the gene itself. And gene expression can be controlled, or compensated for.
So saying Elliot was 'a natural killer' or 'born a lunatic' is disingenuous, because it suggests that no matter what happened in his life, he would have ended up like this. Even the (expert) proponents of the nature case in NvN don't agree with this, they simply argue that genetic predispositions play more important roles in our lives than we commonly admit.
I feel it's important to figure out what triggered his pathological spiral and what factors caused normal treatment to fail. I realise that it's probably a number of factors, but since we have access to a fairly detailed history of his life, plus his own self-reflections, we have a chance of doing so.
To those who, again, dismiss his own words as useless because he was nuts, I say that they are even more valuable because of this. They allow us to see where his perceptions separated from reality, which in turn helps find the places where his spiral of pathological thought began, how his pathology arose and so on.
That he was eventually an extreme narcissist is beyond doubt, but what caused that extreme narcisssim to develop? Again, I don't agree with comments like 'spoiled rich kid durrrr', because there are plenty of spoiled rich kids who aren't collossal narcissists. What do you have to add to spoiling a child to result in a case like this? I don't think the answer is simple.
On May 30 2014 17:22 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I feel it's important to figure out what triggered his pathological spiral and what factors caused normal treatment to fail. I realise that it's probably a number of factors, but since we have access to a fairly detailed history of his life, plus his own self-reflections, we have a chance of doing so.
To those who, again, dismiss his own words as useless because he was nuts, I say that they are even more valuable because of this. They allow us to see where his perceptions separated from reality, which in turn helps find the places where his spiral of pathological thought began, how his pathology arose and so on.
That he was eventually an extreme narcissist is beyond doubt, but what caused that extreme narcisssim to develop? Again, I don't agree with comments like 'spoiled rich kid durrrr', because there are plenty of spoiled rich kids who aren't collossal narcissists. What do you have to add to spoiling a child to result in a case like this? I don't think the answer is simple.
I actually think that the "What triggered this spiral? / What factors caused a case like this?" questions are so complex that trying to answer them is almost pointless. Simply based on numbers given enough human beings, enough possible influences and enough ways to do damage like this to others there will always be cases like this. We can't prevent them or screen for them because those things would infer so deeply with individual freedom that it quite honestly isn't worth it.
There are however two thing that can be done. First of all there has to be some basic awareness about others that is getting less and less developed for a vast majority of people. Whether it's a guy like this going insane without having anyone close enough to talk to about it or about an old person rotting away in their apartment because there wasn't anyone close enough to notice their death I believe they're both symptoms of the same disease. In the end solid social structures have a huge influence that can prevent a LOT of things but we tend to sacrifice those for superficial relationships more often than we should.
Two, and this actually makes talking about gun control a lot more important than talking about pickup or violent videogames, we need to look at the tools we make readily available to the general public. One can argue about home defense and the second amendment (as I explained earlier it does not grant a universal right to bear arms according to the US Supreme Court) as much as one want but in the end it's a lot harder to kill lots of people with a German AR-15 than it is with an American AR-15. It's harder to kill lots of people with a knive than with bombs just like it's harder to kill lots of people with conventional bombs than with nuclear weapons. This isn't about preventing any crime, it's about making crimes harder to commit with more potential roadblocks in the way and therefor in the end about making crimes that will be committed anyway less dangerous to the people involved.
Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.
Link:
Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks. Imagine a father that has a reality show in the house, keeps talking about “his son” and the “three of us” as in “Mother, Father, and son” as opposed to sons.
Elliot mentions the jealousy he has for the other brother. The fact his father says on TV, in the house Elliot lives in, that he has one son, might be enough to push someone over the edge.
If you go to 23:50 you can see Elliot in the back ground. The crazy part is if you see them shaking Stallone's hand, Elliot reaches out to shake his hand but the new wife is the target jumps in and Elliot is ignored and he awkwardly puts his hand down. Jumping with excitement to meet a perceived superstar and then being shunned by your own mother.
I always forget how fake people can be these days haha. Poor Elliot was definitly not prepared to live in a world like that. Those guys are acting even when they are not actually filming stuff.
And they say he was a huge narcissist LOL. It is just hilarious. Actors everywhere, money everywhere, fame and bullshit everywhere, and the narcissist is the aspie kid who goes insane haha. Yea sureeeeeeeeeee.
Hello, I don't know if this video has already been linked; This is a 2 hour analysis by Stefan Molyneux (owner and animator of a popular philosophy show called Freedomain Radio) He goes pretty deep in the relationship beteween Elliot and women.
Here is briefly a take on his analysis :
Elliot feels like he never connected with women and always got rejected by them. The root of this comes from the fact that he got rejected and failed to connect with his mom and his step mom. The image of women that Elliot forged in his head is based on the lack of love from his mother. This is a pretty deep freudian slip; He saw his mother(s) as being pretty cold bitches. Elliot was always about those pretty cold bitches. He only talks about pretty blonde girls, and fail to have an interest on other women (which is pretty ironic to have high beauty standard for others, and then bitch about those beauty standards when they become applied to you) He only fantasized about the sofisticated ladies and ignore the rest. This kid didn't have a solid bond with any woman, not even his mother. And when his mother(s) represent 99% of his interaction with women, it becomes more possible to understand how he managed to have such a twisted and negative image of women.
They are also much rarer. Mass killings are extraordinarily rare, regardless of what the media would have you believe. More people drown in their pools.
Yes, but the potential for mass death caused by pools is quite low.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods. The Taliban in Afghanistan, the insurgents in Iraq, and the Viet Cong in Vietnam all fared pretty well with little more than small arms and bombs they made themselves. The Viet Cong and the insurgents in Iraq won, and the Taliban are still going at it. A big, conventional army isn't very effective at ending a guerrilla resistance.
The statement that a big, conventional army is ineffective at ending a guerrilla resistance is wrong. Since 1945, governments have won as often, if not more than, rebels have in civil wars. There are so many factors involved in civil wars that you can't just boil it down to rebels having access to small arms being the key to rebel victory.
And when his mother(s) represent 99% of his interaction with women, it becomes more possible to understand how he managed to have such a twisted and negative image of women.
Guess you can always chalk it up to bad parenting, huh? (Not being sarcastic here, i do believe that parenting - or lack thereof - always has a role in these cases.)
EPT
But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
