Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Dries007

      ATTENTION Forum Database Breach   03/04/2019

      There has been a breach of our database. Please make sure you change your password (use a password manager, like Lastpass).
      If you used this password anywhere else, change that too! The passwords themselves are stored hashed, but may old accounts still had old, insecure (by today's standards) hashes from back when they where created. This means they can be "cracked" more easily. Other leaked information includes: email, IP, account name.
      I'm trying my best to find out more and keep everyone up to date. Discord (http://invite.gg/TerraFirmaCraft) is the best option for up to date news and questions. I'm sorry for this, but the damage has been done. All I can do is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Claycorp

      This forum is now READ ONLY!   01/20/2020

      As of this post and forever into the future this forum has been put into READ ONLY MODE. There will be no new posts! A replacement is coming SoonTM . If you wish to stay up-to-date on whats going on or post your content. Please use the Discord or Sub-Reddit until the new forums are running.

      Any questions or comments can be directed to Claycorp on either platform.

Who do you support?    33 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party would you identify with, or none at all?

    • Republican
      10
    • Democrat
      9
    • Neutral, whoever I think best stands for America, regardless of party.
      14
  2. 2. Which democrat candidate would you support?

    • Hillary Clinton
      2
    • Martin O'Malley
      0
    • Bernie Sanders
      14
    • None, I'm republican or I'm party neutral and don't like these candidates.
      17
  3. 3. Which republican candidate would you support?

    • Ben Carson
      2
    • Jeb Bush
      0
    • Chris Christie
      0
    • Ted Cruz
      2
    • Carly Fiorina
      2
    • Mike Huckabee
      0
    • John Kasich
      0
    • Rand Paul
      6
    • Marco Rubio
      0
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • The Donald
      3
    • None, I'm democrat or I'm party-neutral and I don't like these candidates.
      18

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

84 posts in this topic

I would vote for Stephen Colbert :P But i'm no American. Incidentally, senator Elisabeth Warren had a lot to say, convincingly on the topic of Treyflix above.

I will come up with a detailed response to your comment, Treyflix, when I get the time. I'm so busy right now. But Elizabeth Warren belongs in a mental institution, don't know why she's even allowed to hold public office.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure you and I want the same things. Safety for our families. Equal rights to all people, regardless of race, gender, cultural background, religion, or sexual orientation. The ability to make a living wage. Hospitals we can go to without going into debt for the rest of our lives. GOOD education for our children. Quality food, not pumped full of poisons. The right to pursue happiness.

It's hard to tell who you're talking to in most of your post Trey.  Just anyone I guess.  This list though, reads like the typical pie-in-the-sky liberal laundry list.  All great sounding things, but it falls apart at the brass tacks. 

Everyone *already has* equal rights and the *ability* to make a living wage (excluding of course homosexuals in the marriage deparment, but that's on the way out). Those issues are just democrat vote-getting drums.  The rest is basically the fault of the federal government inserting itself into the economy way too much, screwing up and mismanaging everything, and then wanting to pass more laws to try and fix what they screwed up.  Democrats/liberals being the party of all-but-open desire for government to control every little aspect of peples' lives, I side with republicans/conservatives.  The duality is a sham, it's true, used to control the political system, but it's where things are, and at least the R/conservative side has to pay *lip service* to freedom.

 

The problem is, for some people, happiness is being wrapped in a warm government blanket, and never having to think or act for themselves, never having their feelings hurt, and basically being a child their whole life.  Other peoples' happiness is the exact opposite.  That's the cultural conflict we live in right now.  You can talk puppies and lollipops all you want, but there's a limited supply of puppies and lollipops, so to give them to one person you take from another.  Don't be surprised when the takees get upset.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so here it goes.

Wait a minute, you actually think having guns would help us fight the government in a worst case scenario? You're crazy. The government's weapons so far outstrip guns it would be like taking a toothpick into a medieval battle. If the government wanted you dead, you'd already be dead.

That's why I've said the people need to be as equally armed as the government, or close to it. The government should never have that kind of power while the American people don't. That's a dangerous situation. And the government shouldn't be able to just up and kill anyone when they want to, that's blatantly unconstitutional. And 50 million+ armed Americans + military defectors (most of the army wouldn't side with a federal power-grab) would defeat 100,000 or so federal government goons any day. Never underestimate the power of the American people. We defeated the most powerful army on earth with little more than a couple hundred thousand guys with hunting muskets and a few cannons.

Also your statement about most corporations being leftist is false. Look at the donation lists for the conservative canidates. It's like a who's who of the richest people in America.

There's only a handful of truly conservative corporations. Big government and big business are best buds. They cooperate, they ally against the common people. It's how progressive fascism works, that's what we're headed for. And the "conservatives" getting all this money aren't true conservatives. Trust me, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are not conservatives. If one of them were to be the nominee, I wouldn't vote. They're just like the democrats, they've just been bought off by different people.

Here is what it comes down to. The party system is an elaborate game designed to turn the people against themselves. The real enemy is not conservatives or liberals, it's the 1%. The people who control all the wealth and don't give a flying fuck about the middle class. You talk about Sweden being such a horrible place, but they outstrip us in every category except defense budget and the number of adults who believe in angels.

People in Sweden have close to no freedom. Sweden's just one of them dime-a-dozen European Union puppet states. I'd rather be deported to Mars than live in Sweden. There's nothing special about them.Why do you hate the rich so much? They worked hard to get there. It's okay to be rich. That's one of the great things about America, you can climb your way up from the bottom without anyone stopping you. That doesn't mean I believe in the rich controlling everything, though. Most of those occupy Wall Street types complaining about the rich wouldn't be complaining if they were one of 'em.

I'm pretty sure you and I want the same things. Safety for our families. Equal rights to all people, regardless of race, gender, cultural background, religion, or sexual orientation. The ability to make a living wage. Hospitals we can go to without going into debt for the rest of our lives. GOOD education for our children. Quality food, not pumped full of poisons. The right to pursue happiness. Instead of fighting among ourselves, bickering over semantics, we should unite and focus our efforts. Only through cooperation will we create a better future for our children.

Gays are free to be gay, and to live as they please. And they should be able to, I'm fine with that. But the rest of us, normal people, should not be made to accept their different lifestyle. Gays can not be truly married, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. That is what marriage has been ever since it has existed. The Supreme Court can't just up and decide to change the previous 10,000 years of human history and toss all our morals out the window. It makes no sense. It defies religious freedom. They can't make people cater to gays.And they definitely shouldn't be able to adopt kids, that just creeps me out. It's like allowing pedophiles to adopt kids. Sexually confused people should never be allowed to have children. And you realize the liberal politicians couldn't care less about the gays. They just want to destroy traditional American culture, because that's the only thing in their way, and allowing gay marriage is one step in that process.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That's why I've said the people need to be as equally armed as the government, or close to it. The government should never have that kind of power while the American people don't. That's a dangerous situation. And the government shouldn't be able to just up and kill anyone when they want to, that's blatantly unconstitutional.

And 50 million+ armed Americans + military defectors (most of the army wouldn't side with a federal power-grab) would defeat 100,000 or so federal government goons any day. Never underestimate the power of the American people. We defeated the most powerful army on earth with little more than a couple hundred thousand guys with hunting muskets and a few cannons. "

Waaaaiit, you want everyone to have drones and nuclear weapons? And no, we would lose. That's the scary thing about drones. The people rising up wouldn't really matter. 1000 people with the right equipment could hold off billions of civilians.

Look, I made my point, and you proved it. You clearly believe to strongly in your view points to have your mind changed. That's the thing about you guys, you just have faith, not critical thinking. If new information came my way, I would change my opinion. Like when I found out about how much of a monster president Clinton was. And how bad Hilary would be (although not as bad as Trump, God forbid). So I changed my mind after observing facts. You won't change. But your kind is slowly dying out. Education is becoming better, information is more free, more people are realizing how fucking ridiculous the Bible actually is. I hope some day I'll be able to tell stories about the crazy right wing religious nuts to my grandkids, and that they won't believe me. Adios.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waaaaiit, you want everyone to have drones and nuclear weapons? And no, we would lose. That's the scary thing about drones. The people rising up wouldn't really matter. 1000 people with the right equipment could hold off billions of civilians.Look, I made my point, and you proved it. You clearly believe to strongly in your view points to have your mind changed. That's the thing about you guys, you just have faith, not critical thinking. If new information came my way, I would change my opinion. Like when I found out about how much of a monster president Clinton was. And how bad Hilary would be (although not as bad as Trump, God forbid). So I changed my mind after observing facts. You won't change.

Did I ever say the words "nuclear weapons"? I don't think so. WMD's would be reserved for the federal govt, but there would be fewer of them. Only enough to be effective and keep us safe. If we were to get rid of them entirely, we would be sitting ducks. The threat of mutual destruction saved us during the Cold War. If you don't believe strongly enough in your views to not have your mind changed, then what's the point? You don't truly believe what you're saying if your mind could be changed, you don't hold it in your heart. (I don't mean with everything, we're talking about politics.)

But your kind is slowly dying out. Education is becoming better, information is more free, more people are realizing how fucking ridiculous the Bible actually is. I hope some day I'll be able to tell stories about the crazy right wing religious nuts to my grandkids, and that they won't believe me. Adios.

You liberals always blow me away with your exceptional tolerance and intelligent, high-level arguments.(sarcasm) Education is worse now than it has ever been in the history of America. Public schools are utterly worthless. I would never send my kids to a public school. Never. Education was in a better state 200 years ago. The church is as strong as ever, it has survived millennia, against incredible odds. To say that Christianity is dying out now just proves how dillusional you are. Can you say that and truly believe it when over 85% of Americans at least claim to be Christian? Christianity is growing all over the globe. Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread is just hilarious.

It just illustrates what it wrong with the USA, and why its not going to get fixed any time soon. We in Europe have issues too, but nowhere near what you are having.

*cough*

2nd.jpg

*cough*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread is just hilarious...

As is your comprehension of what the second amendment provides.  As a preventative measure, the benefits of guns can be hard to quantify - it's difficult to count things that do not occur.  Your completely biased cartoon conveniently omits all the lives saved by people using guns in defense of themselves and their loved ones.  Or do you believe that this never happens?

Food for thought:  http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread is just hilarious.

It just illustrates what it wrong with the USA, and why its not going to get fixed any time soon. We in Europe have issues too, but nowhere near what you are having.

*cough*

2nd.jpg

*cough*

Actually, there was a tyrant that was overthrown thanks to the second amendment. Abraham Lincoln.

While I agree with Lincoln on many issues, especially the abolition of slavery, he was an incredibly brutal person who went far past the limits of the Constitution. He killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in a military campaign against anti-federalism so that the federal government could have more control. Slavery, though it was an issue, was of very little importance during the Civil War, the main idea was to expand the power of the federal government. Lincoln himself was an avowed racist, who started out his presidency by promising to protect slavery. Meanwhile, southern leaders like Thomas Jackson and Robert E. Lee started schools for blacks and freed slaves, respectively.

Neither side was totally right, both the north and the south had flaws.

Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there was a tyrant that was overthrown thanks to the second amendment. Abraham Lincoln.

While I agree with Lincoln on many issues, especially the abolition of slavery, he was an incredibly brutal person who went far past the limits of the Constitution. He killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in a military campaign against anti-federalism so that the federal government could have more control. Slavery, though it was an issue, was of very little importance during the Civil War, the main idea was to expand the power of the federal government. Lincoln himself was an avowed racist, who started out his presidency by promising to protect slavery. Meanwhile, southern leaders like Thomas Jackson and Robert E. Lee started schools for blacks and freed slaves, respectively.

Neither side was totally right, both the north and the south had flaws.

 

Ok, so historically the second amendment was a good idea. Maybe. But nowadays it won't protect you against the government, which means that its original purpose is void and it should be modernized. Laws should evolve with the times and "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." hasn't been valid for a long while.

 

PS. about your Christianity figures in an earlier post

"To say that Christianity is dying out now just proves how dillusional you are. Can you say that and truly believe it when over 85% of Americans at least claim to be Christian? Christianity is growing all over the globe."

This statement is mostly false. In 1990 86% of Americans where christian, 76% in 2001 and 76% in 2008. Christianity is growing very slightly globally, but the growth-rate is lower then the growth-rate of the global population.

 

 

As is your comprehension of what the second amendment provides.  As a preventative measure, the benefits of guns can be hard to quantify - it's difficult to count things that do not occur.  Your completely biased cartoon conveniently omits all the lives saved by people using guns in defense of themselves and their loved ones.  Or do you believe that this never happens?

Food for thought:  http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

 

Oh no, I know guns save lives in home defense. Against other people with guns. (and yes, that is conveniently left out of the cartoon. Also: the cartoon is also 10 years old, so the board on the right should be a lot bigger by now.)

If the bad guys didn't have guns, the good guys woudn't need then either.

I realize that this is impossible to achieve in the USA, but for example Australia did it successfully.

 

Guns are cool, they make for entertaining TV, movies and game, can be collectors items, used for sport, but that's it in my book.

 

The website you linked is biased. Its founder is John Richard Lott, Jr. Google him, read all of the first page results (that are not his twitter and own site) and tell me you still trust him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so historically the second amendment was a good idea. Maybe. But nowadays it won't protect you against the government, which means that its original purpose is void and it should be modernized. Laws should evolve with the times and "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." hasn't been valid for a long while.

Our rights never "evolve with the times." Human nature never changes, our rights do not simply get old and outdated. If they did, then there would be no point in having them at all because they wouldn't really be rights. They are always applicable and should always be protected. Everyone has fundamental rights that they are born with, and no entity has the right to take those rights away.

And yes, as I have already stated, it very much would protect us against the government. Tens of millions of of armed citizens against a couple hundred thousand at most government goons, the couple hundred thousand wouldn't stand a chance. Hell would freeze over before they would become victorious.

P

The website you linked is biased. Its founder is John Richard Lott, Jr. Google him, read all of the first page results (that are not his twitter and own site) and tell me you still trust him.

Everyone in the world is biased. Bias is a fact of life. Bias is unavoidable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so historically the second amendment was a good idea. Maybe. But nowadays it won't protect you against the government, which means that its original purpose is void and it should be modernized. Laws should evolve with the times and "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." hasn't been valid for a long while.

As AC mentioned, there is a good chance that the military as a whole would not go along with widespread government tyranny.  So if half the military defects, them combined with an armed population will have the advantage.  Quite frankly, if it ever came to that, I think the tyranny in question would be bringing in foreign troops to fight the people, because the US military would not.   This does not address tyranny by small degrees though, unfortunately, which is how things are progressing currently.  As for the second amendment, the supreme court has already upheld that an active Militia is not necessary for these rights to be in force, so in fact it is still currently valid.

 

 

Oh no, I know guns save lives in home defense. Against other people with guns. (and yes, that is conveniently left out of the cartoon. Also: the cartoon is also 10 years old, so the board on the right should be a lot bigger by now.)

If the bad guys didn't have guns, the good guys woudn't need then either.

I realize that this is impossible to achieve in the USA, but for example Australia did it successfully.

 

Guns are cool, they make for entertaining TV, movies and game, can be collectors items, used for sport, but that's it in my book.

 

The website you linked is biased. Its founder is John Richard Lott, Jr. Google him, read all of the first page results (that are not his twitter and own site) and tell me you still trust him.

So do you believe that guns used in self defense are *always* used against other guns?  You don't think they are ever used against people with knives or other melee weapons, or by lone defendents against groups of non-gun-armed attackers?  You don't think that hearing a pump-action shotgun being racked is enough to scare off home invaders (armed or otherwise)?  You don't believe that some meth-head and his pal, in the rural parts of Kentucky or any other heavily gun-owning state, has ever thought "hey, we should go rob someone tonight" and then thought "Oh ya, 3 out of 4 homes around here have guns, let's not go try to rob someone".  If you've never thought so far as these situations, and moreover that they likely occur very, very often, then quite frankly I'd say you've never put any real thought into the issue.

 

The only way to achieve a situation where criminals don't have guns, is to make sure the populace in general don't have them.  Because criminals come from the populace in general.  So your choices are, respect the second amendment, or trample over it and take all guns from everyone.  Everything in between is just pandering and hand-waving. 

 

Yes of course JR Lott is biased.  I'm biased (being a gun owner and hunter).  Quite frankly anyone that bothers to post on this topic is probably biased.  Anyone that writes books and papers almost definitely is.  This is true on both sides.  So instead of poisoning the well, did you actually read the article?  Or do you begin a such a read by looking up the author and if he has ever been on Fox news you instantly discredit him?  If you read it, do you dispute any of his figures?  I'm not a statistics major myself, and I'm immediately suspicious of most statistics, as they're very often used to mislead.  But this is basic stuff.  Mostly in terms of deaths per capita.  That's not as easy to fudge as surveys.  It is possible to split hairs over 'gun deaths' vs 'gun violence' and there are also timeline choices that can be questioned, which is always the case.  But that's why I said "Food for thought" and not "Read this, it's gospel".  His thesis was basically that Europe is not really so far above the US when comparing *death* *rates* from "mass public shootings".  He's examining rates, which is better than just bare numbers, due to population disparities.  He's examining deaths, not injuries.  And He's examining a specific definition of mass public shootings - one which used 15 deaths as a threshhold, which does seem a bit arbitrary.   As a reader, keep those things in mind, and then make a judgement.  If there are actual factual flaws in his data, I'd love to hear about it.  I have an open mind.  But I'm not interested in ad-hom based on which news stations he's been on, or internet rumor-mill bull****.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our rights never "evolve with the times." Human nature never changes, our rights do not simply get old and outdated. If they did, then there would be no point in having them at all because they wouldn't really be rights. They are always applicable and should always be protected. Everyone has fundamental rights that they are born with, and no entity has the right to take those rights away.

 

Human rights should be inalienable, and they should only be added too. But owning a gun isn't a human right, its a right given to you by your constitution, which is a law. These are The Human Rights. (Which mentions health but not guns.)

 

Also, if you respect that the 'active malitia' doesn't need to be the case because of the Supreme Court, you cannot say that they don't have the authority do define the legal definition of a marriage. That would be the equivalent of only reading all uneven pages of a book.

I'm taking about the legal contract here, not the religious definition, which should be (and is still) up to the church to decide on.

 

So do you believe that guns used in self defense are *always* used against other guns?  You don't think they are ever used against people with knives or other melee weapons, or by lone defendents against groups of non-gun-armed attackers?  You don't think that hearing a pump-action shotgun being racked is enough to scare off home invaders (armed or otherwise)?  You don't believe that some meth-head and his pal, in the rural parts of Kentucky or any other heavily gun-owning state, has ever thought "hey, we should go rob someone tonight" and then thought "Oh ya, 3 out of 4 homes around here have guns, let's not go try to rob someone". 

 

I admit that a gun can would probably be an effective deterrent against a burglar for example. But you are making assumptions on how much that happens, without any figures to support your statements.

But does that benefit outweigh the problems associated with guns? It does not in my book.

If I hadn't put any thought into this, I wouldn't post here. I have had these discussions before and I don't generally respond with my thoughts on the matter if I can't back up my numbers with data.

Although I do think all statistics can be (intentionally) misinterpreted.

"Never trust a statistic you didn't forge yourself" :P

 

"The only way to achieve a situation where criminals don't have guns, is to make sure the populace in general don't have them.  Because criminals come from the populace in general.  So your choices are, respect the second amendment, or trample over it and take all guns from everyone.  Everything in between is just pandering and hand-waving. "

 

So, no guns it is then. I'll be honest, I don't think this is feasible but if you don't try you have lost the battle before it starts.

 

"did you actually read the article?  Or do you begin a such a read by looking up the author and if he has ever been on Fox news you instantly discredit him?  If you read it, do you dispute any of his figures?"

 

I started to read the article, thinking that I was on some sort of official website, but the second I read the first paragraph I thought it was BS.

I didn't look up the author until somewhere halfway trough, and yes, the fact that he wrote a column for FOX made me more suspicious.

I wouldn't have an issue with bias if this website wasn't presented as the ''Crime Prevention Research Center" or '' a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research".

 

I dispute all of the figures that are non-USA, as the article only seems to mentions other in house articles as sources for those numbers, if it mentions sources at all that is.

Also, it counts bombings too, which isn't a mass shooting. Its just another thing he does to make the statistics line up. Besides the "death vs injury", time table, his definition of mass being 15, ....

 

Just taking 'EU vs USA' for this next bit, no China, Russia or Africa

I'll agree that there may be more shootings in Europe then I first thought (I did some proper research) but it still doesn't add up to the USA numbers if you take the EU together a whole.

If you don't take the EU as a whole, you should also separate the USA into states. (I didn't make a proper table but I'd bet that would end up being a list with a mixed top 10)

 

Let me sum up my thoughts on the USA real quick:

Once a great nation, and it saved us during the second world war. Now its just a great place to live if you are rich and have no legal or health issues. I'd love to go and visit (or work/live there) but I would not give up my Citizenship of the European Union.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human rights should be inalienable, and they should only be added too. But owning a gun isn't a human right, its a right given to you by your constitution, which is a law. These are The Human Rights. (Which mentions health but not guns.)

The constitution does not grant rights. A mere piece of paper is not what gives us our liberty. It is natural law and the law of GOD that gives us our rights. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution simply protects and enforces our rights and makes it clear that they can not be taken away.

If we allow a globalist mafia organization like the UN to dictate our rights, then trust me, we are too far gone to be saved. The UN is a joke. They have no real authority. They can't tell me what my rights are. Rights are useless if it's a council of commie globalists that are granting them to you. If I could be king for a day, the very first thing I would do would be to withdraw the U.S. from the UN and kick them all out of New York. They haven't done a single positive thing in well over 50 years. Anything the UN says in the way of rights is illegitimate, they simply do not have the authority to tell everyone in the world what their life is worth, what their rights are, and how they can live.

Oh, their Geneva Convention war crimes stuff is just great. It basically says "we're fine with you killing millions of people. You just have to kill exactly how we tell you to kill them. Your taking of human life has to meet UN standards."

If a human gives you your rights, then a human can just as easily take your rights away. We do not have rights under man's authority but under GOD's.

 

Also, if you respect that the 'active malitia' doesn't need to be the case because of the Supreme Court, you cannot say that they don't have the authority do define the legal definition of a marriage. That would be the equivalent of only reading all uneven pages of a book.

I'm taking about the legal contract here, not the religious definition, which should be (and is still) up to the church to decide on.

Ok so here's the thing. The Supreme Court does not make laws. They approve or disapprove of laws. Congress makes laws. So no they certainly do not have the authority to define marriage, either religious or the legal definition of it.They do not have the authority to make any laws at all. You obviously don't quite understand how America's system of government works. And that's fine, but know what you're arguing about before you get into it.

And they weren't asserting that the active militia does not need to apply, they were re-affirming it. The second amendment itself clearly states that everyone has the right to bear arms, whether they are in a militia or not. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE infringed."

And at the time the second amendment was written, "militia" was defined as every able-bodied man in any given area, because they would all ban together to fight when necessary. A militia was not a formal military structure like the national guard, for example. It was a just group of civilians that would protect their community. Thus militia should be interpreted as what it really meant at the time, every able-bodied male citizen who has not committed serious crimes.

 

I started to read the article, thinking that I was on some sort of official website,

Generally, I find that the official websites are the ones you can't trust. They're all propaganda, for the most part.

 

I'll agree that there may be more shootings in Europe then I first thought (I did some proper research) but it still doesn't add up to the USA numbers if you take the EU together a whole.

If you don't take the EU as a whole, you should also separate the USA into state.

The EU is a union made up of many different sovereign nations. It is not one big nation. Our states are not independent nations. Switzerland and the U.S. are two different countries. Switzerland and West Virginia are not. Thus, America and Switzerland should be treated equally as two different countries in a statistical analysis such as that article.

 

Once a great nation, and it saved us during the second world war. Now its just a great place to live if you are rich and have no legal or health issues. I'd love to go and visit (or work/live there) but I would not give up my Citizenship of the European Union.

Yeah the U.S. saved the world from Germany (now the de facto leader of the EU.) (Yeah, we saved the world from Europe.) And now everyone, especially the nations we helped most, is totally ungrateful and treats like we're the problem when we're not. And the U.S. is still an all around great place to live. It is by far the most free nation on earth, no other country could even be compared to the U.S. in terms of economic and personal freedom. The reason we're declining is because of leftist policies like, for example, gun control and unlimited welfare.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a human gives you your rights, then a human can just as easily take your rights away. We do not have rights under man's authority but under GOD's.

 

Well, I'm agnostic so I don't have any rights? Once you pull religion into an argument about something like this you've lost. Ultimately society gives us rights, and takes them away. (Prohibition?)

 

The UN is a joke. They have no real authority. They can't tell me what my rights are.

 

They have less authority then I'd like due to veto rights, which in my opinion should be abolished (a more democratic system should be setup then the security council, but that is only a small part of the UN)

 

If I could be king for a day, ...

 

I hope you know this, but the USA doesn't have nobility, I assume you mean dictator :P . (Which, in my opinion, would in an ideal world be the best form of government for a number of reasons, but we don't live in utopia)

 

Ok so here's the thing. The Supreme Court does not make laws. They approve or disapprove of laws. Congress makes laws. So no they certainly do not have the authority to define marriage, either religious or the legal definition of it.They do not have the authority to make any laws at all. You obviously don't quite understand how America's system of government works. And that's fine, but know what you're arguing about before you get into it.

And they weren't asserting that the active militia does not need to apply, they were re-affirming it. The second amendment itself clearly states that everyone has the right to bear arms, whether they are in a militia or not. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE infringed."

 

I know how the system works, otherwise I wouldn't be posting this, though I'm not a law expert. There is this great series of videos you should watch, if you think congress or the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to define what a legal marriage is.

 

Polygamy existed long before the now traditional "1 man + 1 woman", this doesn't make it legal.

 

The EU is a union made up of many different sovereign nations. It is not one big nation. Our states are not independent nations. Switzerland and the U.S. are two different countries. Switzerland and West Virginia are not. Thus, America and Switzerland should be treated equally as two different countries in a statistical analysis such as that article.

 

Switzerland isn't part of the EU. Its part of Shenzhen, but that isn't the same thing. I guess you don't quite know what the EU is or how it works, and that's fine, but know what you're arguing about before you get into it.

The EU is a big government that makes legally binding laws, has a court, takes representation, has a national bank, has elections,... Its not one country by name, but it could be on some fronts. On others we are hopefully different, but not on really on any points relevant to this discussion.

 

Yeah the U.S. saved the world from Germany (now the de facto leader of the EU.) (Yeah, we saved the world from Europe.) And now everyone, especially the nations we helped most, is totally ungrateful and treats like we're the problem when we're not. And the U.S. is still an all around great place to live. It is by far the most free nation on earth, no other country could even be compared to the U.S. in terms of economic and personal freedom. The reason we're declining is because of leftist policies like, for example, gun control and unlimited welfare.

 

The US staved the world from the vile that was The Third Rich, which it helped create in Treaty of Versailles. So, thank you?

And then in 2008 the US helped collapse the global economy into a hole that the EU is still climbing out of. (I'm not saying its all the US's fault, I'm not a financial expert)

 

In my opinion, the US is declining because of education. Seriously, its an investment in the future of your nation and instead of making it affordable you let people take on a HUGE dept?

Over here, the government spends about €12k per student per year, for 5 years on average. This is an investment with a huge return rate, considering the average masters makes that back in taxes in the fist 5 to 10 years of working. All of the 30 to 45 years after that the state is making a profit.

My parents payed less then €1k tuition fee, with some royal estimation of extra costs I get to a yearly cost of €2.5k

 

I don't know of any state with unlimited welfare, though some states need a reality check on there budgets.

Edited by Dries007
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm agnostic so I don't have any rights? Once you pull religion into an argument about something like this you've lost. Ultimately society gives us rights, and takes them away. (Prohibition?)

This is just wrong. A right is not really right if it can be taken away. If someone can just tell me "never mind, I decided you don't have that right anymore," then what's the point of even having rights in the first place?

I hope you know this, but the USA doesn't have nobility, I assume you mean dictator :P . (Which, in my opinion, would in an ideal world be the best form of government for a number of reasons, but we don't live in utopia)

That was a hypothetical. What made you think I was saying the U.S. had nobility? Lmao.

I know how the system works, otherwise I wouldn't be posting this, though I'm not a law expert. There is this great series of videos you should watch, if you think congress or the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to define what a legal marriage is.

I didn't say that Congress didn't have the authority to define the legal definition of marriage. I said that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to define it. The U.S. is not ruled by a 9-member council of unelected judges that decides everything. The Supreme Court approves or disapproves of laws passed by Congress bass on their constitutionality. They do not tell everyone in the country what they can and can not do and how they must run their lives.

 

Switzerland isn't part of the EU. Its part of Shenzhen, but that isn't the same thing. I guess you don't quite know what the EU is or how it works, and that's fine, but know what you're arguing about before you get into it.]

That does ring a bell. Switzerland stays out of pretty much everything. Seems like I chose just about the only major European nation that isn't in the EU.

When you've been splitting wood all day and you're dead tired it can be kinda hard to keep your facts straight.

  

The US staved the world from the vile that was The Third Rich, which it helped create in Treaty of Versailles. So, thank you?

And then in 2008 the US helped collapse the global economy into a hole that the EU is still climbing out of. (I'm not saying its all the US's fault, I'm not a financial expert)

 It seems wrong to blame a whole country for a situation that some of its liberal elites had a hand in creating. And the EU leaders had as big as or an even greater role in the 2008 collapse than the Americans did.

Yes, the Treaty of Versailles. After we saved Europe's ass the first time in WWI. (No, I don't agree with the Treaty of Versailles, as it established a prototype UN called the League of Nations. It was a complete train wreck, as is the current UN.)

Woah, I didn't see that coming! Nazi Germany was America's fault?!? Of course! Everything is America's fault! They only saved us twice, and ended the Soviet Union, but yeah, everything is still their fault.

It totally wasn't Britain's fault. All they did was invite the Nazis to invade various nations. It totally wasn't the USSR's fault. All they did was ally with Nazi Germany. It wasn't the German citizens' faults. All they did was step aside and allow the Nazis to take control, even though they knew it was the wrong thing to do.

I don't know of any state with unlimited welfare, though some states need a reality check on there budgets.

The U.S. certainly has de facto unlimited welfare. It may not always be that way on paper, but that's what it ends up being. Many people are on welfare pretty much their whole lives when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves, they just choose not to.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It seems wrong to blame a whole country for a situation that some of its liberal elites had a hand in creating. And the EU leaders had as big as or an even greater role in the 2008 collapse than the Americans did.

Yes, the Treaty of Versailles. After we saved Europe's ass the first time in WWI. (No, I don't agree with the Treaty of Versailles, as it established a prototype UN called the League of Nations. It was a complete train wreck, as is the current UN.)

Woah, I didn't see that coming! Nazi Germany was America's fault?!? Of course! Everything is America's fault! They only saved us twice, and ended the Soviet Union, but yeah, everything is still their fault.

It totally wasn't Britain's fault. All they did was invite the Nazis to invade various nations. It totally wasn't the USSR's fault. All they did was ally with Nazi Germany. It wasn't the German citizens' faults. All they did was step aside and allow the Nazis to take control, even though they knew it was the wrong thing to do.

 

The 2008 collapse was a direct result of the US housing bubble, with it being exacerbated by bad policy in the EU.

 

No, Nazism wasn't the US's fault, it was the Treaty of Versailles, signed by GB, US, France, Italy and Japan.

A problem again exacerbated by bad policy decisions in GB and France.

Also, (in the 1930's) I wonder what you would do if your county went into hyperinflation* and you had to use wheelbarrows to carry your week worth of salary home. And then someone appeared with all of the answers. (Oh and if you spoke out against them you'd disappear.) I don't think there would be much resistance, not while it was still possible anyways.

 

* Hyperinflation on the scale of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 in 9 years! Prices doubled every two days in 1923.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human rights should be inalienable, and they should only be added too. But owning a gun isn't a human right, its a right given to you by your constitution, which is a law. These are The Human Rights. (Which mentions health but not guns.)

I'm with AC on this one.  The UN is utter garbage.  The rights of US citizens do not stem from it at all.  They stem from our constitution.  I'll depart from AC though and not try to bring god into it.  God is all well an good in a philosophical argument, but at the end of the day if a dictatorship with goons says you don't have some rights, and god says you do, only one of those two parties is going to enforce their opinion.  I'm more interested in that case.  I also have no problem with gay marriage, though I have extreme problems with people being forced to violate their religion to provide such a wedding cake, among other flagrant constitutional violations.  I also have no problem with polygamy, and I don't see how a logical argument can be made for the former without also allowing the latter.

 

 

I admit that a gun can would probably be an effective deterrent against a burglar for example. But you are making assumptions on how much that happens, without any figures to support your statements.

But does that benefit outweigh the problems associated with guns? It does not in my book.

Well, that does depend on one's definition of "a lot".  As with many topics, I see the statistics over the years, but I don't keep a statistics diary.  It's cumbersome to try to dredge this stuff up, but for instance, we all know Wikipedia is not to be entirely trusted, but it is a good jumping-off point for finding some quick sources.  That page cites government as well as 'private' research.  The lowest figure I saw was over 50k incidents of defensive gun use by civilians, and that is the NCVS, a 'government' survey.  Most of the data is rather old, but I see no reason to assume it's changed much in terms of magnitude.  The private studies seem to mostly estimate higher than the NCVS.  Some rather wildly so (I don't particularly believe there are millions of legitimate defensive gun uses in a year amongst civilians).  Again, the problem is while shootings are relatively precisely recorded, non-shootings that don't occur due to the mere threat of gun use are not.   There will frankly never be undisputed statistics for that.   But for me, even 50k legitimate defensive gun uses (and again, this is the very bottom-end estimate, conducted by the US government) completely and totally justifies the second amendment. 

 

So, no guns it is then. I'll be honest, I don't think this is feasible but if you don't try you have lost the battle before it starts.

Ya, we get it.  And in my fairy-tale land I would give gun rights back to all of Europe and the world. Click your heels Dorothy!

 

 

I started to read the article, thinking that I was on some sort of official website, but the second I read the first paragraph I thought it was BS.

I didn't look up the author until somewhere halfway trough, and yes, the fact that he wrote a column for FOX made me more suspicious.

I wouldn't have an issue with bias if this website wasn't presented as the ''Crime Prevention Research Center" or '' a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research".

Oh, there's nothing wrong with suspicion.  I fully encourage that.  Both sides of the argument have organizations that present themselves as conducting 'academic' research when in fact it's agenda-driven biased research.  I don't even consider government research unbiased. 

 

 

I dispute all of the figures that are non-USA, as the article only seems to mentions other in house articles as sources for those numbers, if it mentions sources at all that is.

Also, it counts bombings too, which isn't a mass shooting. Its just another thing he does to make the statistics line up. Besides the "death vs injury", time table, his definition of mass being 15, ....

 

Just taking 'EU vs USA' for this next bit, no China, Russia or Africa

I'll agree that there may be more shootings in Europe then I first thought (I did some proper research) but it still doesn't add up to the USA numbers if you take the EU together a whole.

If you don't take the EU as a whole, you should also separate the USA into states. (I didn't make a proper table but I'd bet that would end up being a list with a mixed top 10)

 

Let me sum up my thoughts on the USA real quick:

Once a great nation, and it saved us during the second world war. Now its just a great place to live if you are rich and have no legal or health issues. I'd love to go and visit (or work/live there) but I would not give up my Citizenship of the European Union.

Ya, it would have been nice to see clearer numbers sources. I did not find anyone directly disputing the numbers - and there are plenty of people devoted to disputing pro-gun studies - and I imagine they're relatively easy numbers to find for people that know where to look.  It'd be a lazy and easily exposed fudging so I take them at face value until I see them disputed.  He links to several news stories with well-reported casualty figures.  I assume none of those are in dispute.  I believe Norway's toll comes from that one very large shooting which I think has something over 70 deaths. That one at least seems like a lock.  As for bombings, he's not adding that figure to mass shooting deaths.  I believe he's pointing out that in countries with lower gun ownership, other weapons are found.  Including bombs.    So for a country with a relatively low gun-death rate, it's possible for it to have abnormally high 'mass-killings' from other methods.  It's basically an aside to the argument

 

It's funny, my thoughts on Europe are similar.  They basically formed all the great foundations of the world as we know it today - including many modern innovations and the notions of tolerance and freedom.  And now it's just a decaying heap of socialism and laziness (except Germany) antithetical to freedom.   And maybe a hotbed of theocracy in a couple generations, with all the Muslims you guys are taking in and, if the news is to be believed, not assimilating very well.  That'll be interesting for the atheists among you.  But for now it's a very warm and comfortable decaying heap of socialism, I'm sure. 

 

Oh, and as for the financial crisis,the US did not invent modern banking systems, so insofar as the current world financial system is one giant ponzi scheme that is designed to fail over and over, that's not our fault.  Every western nation was complicit in that.   Our 'housing bubble' was a trigger that was pulled, and just as much to our detriment as everyone else's.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -7.5 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

So... there. Sanders anyone? Right-wing politics are destroying America.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny, my thoughts on Europe are similar.  They basically formed all the great foundations of the world as we know it today - including many modern innovations and the notions of tolerance and freedom.  And now it's just a decaying heap of socialism and laziness (except Germany) antithetical to freedom.   And maybe a hotbed of theocracy in a couple generations, with all the Muslims you guys are taking in and, if the news is to be believed, not assimilating very well.  That'll be interesting for the atheists among you.  But for now it's a very warm and comfortable decaying heap of socialism, I'm sure. 

 

Let me remind you that we (Belgium at least, but as far as I can find most of the EU) have absolute separation of state and church. You are not allowed to show any religious affiliation whatsoever when holding public office. (including secretaries, librarians, ....)

The US has as official motto 'In God we trust'. You take oaths on bibles. Your pledge of allegiance has 'One nation under God' in it.

Even if the EU takes in ALL Syrian refugees, our total percentage of Muslims would go from 4% to a whopping 5%.

I agree that the assimilation process is THE problem right now, especially since most refugees/immigrants end up in communities of other refugees/immigrants where they are less likely to integrate into the society and culture.

 

Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -7.5 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

So... there. Sanders anyone? Right-wing politics are destroying America.

 

I'm somewhere in the -4 and -4 area didn't write it down.

Political extremism is destroying America. But most of that does seem to come from the right wing.

 

This whole thread just reminded my of this

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me remind you that we (Belgium at least, but as far as I can find most of the EU) have absolute separation of state and church. You are not allowed to show any religious affiliation whatsoever when holding public office. (including secretaries, librarians, ....)

That is not separation of church and state, that is anti-religious oppression/persecution. Separation of church and state means that the church is not the state and vice versa. It means that there is a state that is not a religious institution; basically just not a theocracy. It does not mean public leaders can't show their religion and that the state can't adopt priciples from a religion. Since America is a Judeo-Christian nation with mostly Judeo-Christian founders and is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, we incorporate Judeo-Christian principles, and that is completely appropriate.

Political extremism is destroying America. But most of that does seem to come from the right wing.

There is almost zero political extremism coming from the right. We simply want to return America to how it is used to be, a great place where you could determine your own path in life and do what ever you wanted with your life without anyone holding you down or taking from you. Where you can worship and live however you choose, and where no one can order you around. How is that so extreme?

I've heard leftists say rich people should be guillotined, that mentally ill and physically handicapped people should be shipped off to death camps for euthanization, that northerners are genetically superior to southerners, that gun owners are like ku klux klansmen, that free speech should be done away with, that all southern whites are rabid sub-human mongrels that don't deserve anything, that all constitutional rights should be suspended, that whites should have to pay a white privilege tax, that private education and homeschooling should be banned, that we shouldn't hold elections anymore, that people should go to jail for not catering to homosexuals, that people should get the death penalty for eating meat, and that there should be "abortions" for children up to two years in age. But none of those are really that extreme, now are they?

Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not separation of church and state, that is anti-religious oppression/persecution. Separation of church and state means that the church is not the state and vice versa. It means that there is a state that is not a religious institution; basically just not a theocracy. It does not mean public leaders can't show their religion and that the state can't adopt priciples from a religion. Since America is a Judeo-Christian nation with mostly Judeo-Christian founders and is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, we incorporate Judeo-Christian principles, and that is completely appropriate.

 

No its not completely appropriate. Your nation was also founded on slavery. 3 / 5 of a man. So should the US go back to that too? Nations evolve, just like everything else.

Also, I shouldn't have to deal with your religion when you serve me in a public institution. (With perhaps the exception of a "<religion name>'s party", since its the founding principle of such a party.) In private you can do whatever you want, but if you want to work for the government that is a requirement and something you agree with when signing your contract. Same with political party symbols.

You can't wear a rainbow t-shirt either, if that is any consolation.

 

that private education and homeschooling should be banned

 

Its should. There is piles of evidence that is a major cause of indoctrination of children, and it causes negligence towards the public schools. Homeschooling is also not good for your kid's social skills.

(Private education can be necessary, and it can be done well, but the US isn't an example of such a system.)

We have 2 major school system, about equal in size. Both equally funded by the government: State run schools and christian schools. Both are by law non profit businesses, with quality standards to maintain.

I went to a christian school because it was simply the best option near me. The only difference is that christian schools are not required to accept you as a student if you have a bad record, and then I didn't get to choose what religion class to follow.

 

that people should go to jail for not catering to homosexuals

 

It you can go to jail for not serving a black man, you should go to jail for not serving a gay man. You can't pick and choose with equability, otherwise its meaningless.

That does certainly not mean you should treat minorities better then the general population, just equally.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not completely appropriate. Your nation was also founded on slavery. 3 / 5 of a man. So should the US go back to that too? Nations evolve, just like everything else.

Also, I shouldn't have to deal with your religion when you serve me in a public institution.

No it wasn't, that is simply false. Slavery was dying out at the time the Constitution was written. Most of the founding fathers hoped it would be gone soon enough anyway, and they new that if they banned slavery in the Constitution, most of the states wouldn't sign it. Slavery is barely even mentioned int the constitution, and it was never a constitutional right.

And comparing Christianity to slavery is so bigoted and so wrong in so many levels.

Its should. There is piles of evidence that is a major cause of indoctrination of children, and it causes negligence towards the public schools. Homeschooling is also not good for your kid's social skills.

(Private education can be necessary, and it can be done well, but the US isn't an example of such a system.)

So you think parents shouldn't be allowed to educate their own children. You think children must be educated by the government? This pretty much sums up half of what is wrong with Socialism. Everyone is indoctrinated and raised by the government. Socialism is basically a form of worship of the government in which government is viewed as a deity that provides the people with everything they need and decides every aspect of how they will live their lives, and even controls their minds through the education system.

It is unacceptable that government runs education anywhere. Unacceptable and appalling. It is in direct opposition to personal freedom, and even a person's right to control what they learn and what they believe. Government must not be involved in education in anyway. That's one of the first things Hiter did, get gov't more involved. He started the Hitler Youth, and indoctrinated countless German children into practical worship of the Nazi Party and NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

And how could it be negative for a child's social skills? Most homeschooled children are in just as much in contact with children their age as kids that go to school, through church, extracurricular activities, co-ops, etc. Do you really believe that just because they don't go to school, they won't have any social contact? They also have much more family time, and time with their siblings and relatives, which is far more important than even social skills.

It you can go to jail for not serving a black man, you should go to jail for not serving a gay man. You can't pick and choose with equability, otherwise its meaningless.

That does certainly not mean you should treat minorities better then the general population, just equally.

You shouldn't go to jail for turning down people because of race. Yeah, maybe fined or penalized. But sending someone to jail because of that is just stupid. Plus, there are so few racists in America now, that if the public found out someone was doing that, they would probably boycott them and they would quickly go out of business.

And in most of those cases, they were serving gay people, they just don't want to participate in the gay wedding. So a lawsuit was filed against them. If I owned a business, I would be fine serving gay people, but I would never ever ever cater to a gay wedding. That doesn't mean I should have to serve gay people. It defies religious liberty to force people to violate their religious commitments by making them serve gay people.

Here's a quote from one of the most vile dictators this world has ever seen, and it has to do with public education. If the government controls education, then it controls all of its people, and controls everything; most likely for very negative purposes. In Nazi Germany, the result was a level killing never before known on this planet. And we're headed for that again, unless we change our ways fast.

If America hadn't stopped Hitler when we did, he would have quickly built a nearly indestructible socialist state that ran off industrialized slaughter and controlled all of Europe.

post-18216-0-46938900-1444917170.jpg

Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the founding fathers hoped it would be gone soon enough anyway, and they new that if they banned slavery in the Constitution, most of the states wouldn't sign it. 

 

So, as I said, nations should evolve.

 

And comparing Christianity to slavery is so bigoted and so wrong in so many levels.

 

So is comparing normal socialism to fascism or nazism.

You are completely wrong about realistic socialism, I suggest you read this.

 

So you think parents shouldn't be allowed to educate their own children. You think children must be educated by the government? This pretty much sums up half of what is wrong with Socialism.

 

School != Government.

Children need to be educated by professionals, and by standards set not by government and/or churches, but by experts. (That step is where is goes wrong most of the time, including here sometimes)

Parents are generally incapable of providing a proper schooling, so over here, if you want to homeschool your kinds, you have to be certified.

School also provide an environment where kids can be more then just son/daughter of there parents.

I don't go to church, so I should not have that social experience? Another example of substituting a proper, neutral environment (at least that is what it should be), by an environment of indoctrination.

 

That's one of the first things Hiter did, get gov't more involved. He started the Hitler Youth, and indoctrinated countless German children into practical worship of the Nazi Party and NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

 

The Hitlerjugend is a great example of extremism, and incredible social engineering, but that is about it. Its just as bad as slavery."

 

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. [...] It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and businesses.

 

In other words, Nazism isn't socialism at all.

 

If the government controls education, then it controls all of its people, and controls everything; most likely for very negative purposes.

 

This is exactly what churches do too.

I mean, teaching creationism instead of evolution? (I don't mind teaching both, in context)

No proper sex ed, because you have to wait until marriage?

There is probably more examples, but I hope you see my point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School != Government.

Children need to be educated by professionals, and by standards set not by government and/or churches, but by experts. (That step is where is goes wrong most of the time, including here sometimes)

Parents are generally incapable of providing a proper schooling, so over here, if you want to homeschool your kinds, you have to be certified.

School also provide an environment where kids can be more then just son/daughter of there parents.

I don't go to church, so I should not have that social experience? Another example of substituting a proper, neutral environment (at least that is what it should be), by an environment of indoctrination.

You just think everything should be controlled by the government don't you? Seriously, is there anything you don't think should be controlled by the government? You even think the friggin atmosphere should be controlled by the government.

-Most parents, especially moms, are professionals at raising and educating children. And I don't believe everyone should be homeschooled. It certainly isn't the right choice for everyone, not for many people, but it is a choice that should always be available and never discouraged.

-Neutral is neutered. It is meaningless and pointless. You might as well not teach anything at all if it is all neutral. It is void and empty.

-I never said that homeschooling should be required, it shouldn't be. So no, I don't mean that because you are atheist you shouldn't get social experience. Where did you get that idea?

 

 

This is exactly what churches do too.

I mean, teaching creationism instead of evolution? (I don't mind teaching both, in context)

No proper sex ed, because you have to wait until marriage?

There is probably more examples, but I hope you see my point.

Do you really think the government should be teaching sex Ed? Do you really think it is a that important?

-I am not going to debate creationism v evolutionism in this thread. That is totally off topic. All I will say is that there's scarcely a shred of evidence that would ever convince to believe in evolution.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me remind you that we (Belgium at least, but as far as I can find most of the EU) have absolute separation of state and church. You are not allowed to show any religious affiliation whatsoever when holding public office. (including secretaries, librarians, ....)

Ya, that's one way to do it.  And in the instance of gay marriage, I do think it's wrong for instance, for a government clerk to refuse to issue licenses based on their religion, when the law in that state clearly allows for GM.  On the other hand, it is a travesty to prosecute someone for refusing to serve a gay wedding.  The reason is that there is only one government, and it is guaranteed in the constitution that you will be treated equally by it.  People don't have an option of another government to go get a license from.  Therefore religious refusal should definitely not be allowed.  It opens the door for people to refuse other government services based on religion, and that. is. wrong.

But cakes and photographs are NOT constitutional guarantees.  In most cases you will have PLENTY of options for other people to get them from.  You can be married without any cakes, photographers, or venue at all.  You go to the county courthouse, spend 30 minutes with a judge (who should *not* be allowed to refuse), and bam you're married.  And so to me, allowing people to exercise their religion in that case far outweighs the hurt feelings of gay people.  You are guaranteed a government. You are not guaranteed a cake. 

Refusing to serve people based on race is slightly different, because no religion I'm aware of (and I am far from an authority) outlaws serving a certain race.  So one can't plausibly claim religious exemption for that.  There are a variety of cases where organizations are allowed to exclude whites (various scholarships, classes, etc) but nobody ever raises a cry about those.   Laws about discrimination in this country are very lopsidedly enforced, and if they cannot be uniformly enforced, they should be done away with.  I assume you agree, since you yourself said "You can't pick and choose equality, otherwise it's meaningless."

 

 

Your nation was also founded on slavery. 3 / 5 of a man. So should the US go back to that too?

That was written into the constitution in order to get the agreement of the south to form a nation.  Which was needed badly in order to defend against the British. It was an unfortunate expedient and frankly they were doing well to get 3/5.  Don't forget who enabled the slave trade (the Dutch).  The original colonists came for religious freedom, not to own slaves.  It was when European commercial interests entered the picture that slavery took off.  Although we and everyone always had indentured servitude, which is all but slavery.

 

As for homeschooling, it can be a mixed bags, and it's very much up to states to enforce standards and that's how it SHOULD be.  The federal government should have no place, only the state.  I can't speak for other states, but my state already has regulations for homeschooling.  You don't just get to say "I'm homeschooling you won't see my kids" and the state is like "OK bye!".  You have to submit plans and meet some standards.    I think you would find in my state at least - and some studies find nationally, homeschooled children outperform public schooled ones on average.  This is not surprising, because a parent who cares enough to homeschool their children is probably a very involved parent that cares for their kids.  Those kids probably would have done well in public schools too, on average, though in some cases of disability homeschooling is probably preferable to public.  The point is, homeschooling parents most often want the best for their kids.

These claims of lack of socialization are largely a concern of religious homeschooling, I think, which can be very insular.  We've probably all seen the outlier stories of crazy religious parents isolating their kids from society.  Even then, what of it?  We have the Amish here in America.  There's no laws against being weird and anti-social.  I think (*think*) most homeschooling parents are acutely aware of the danger and take steps to ensure their kids get plenty of outside contact.  Homeschoolers in my state are very organized, and have regular 'play dates' for their kids.  I am frankly of the opinion that the USA should offer assylum to European parents who are being persecuted for wanting to homeschool their kids.

 

You may not *think* that school does not equal government, but if the (federal)government sets the standards and funds them, then yes, the schools are government schools, and a government with an agenda (that is, every Democrat government in this country) can insert their agenda against the wishes of the populace.  You can't just dismiss the Hitler Youth as an anomaly.  The entire structure of the Third Reich was indoctrination from the top down, and it started in schools.  It's still going on today all over the place.  Where do you get your ideas of home schooling?  You seem to have this idea that homeschooling = only learns about religion, and never sees anyone but their parents.  That is far, far, far from the general case where I am.

Edited by Darmo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites