Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

At what point would you fight back?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#31 SZ James

SZ James

    1 888 CAM PAIN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,429 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:01 PM

OP is nothing but calling out a hypothetical scenario that's rehashed thousands of times on gun boards with the same response. Of course gun owners aren't going to want to give up their guns, just as smokers don't want to give up their cigarettes, drinkers their beer, drivers their car, etc... It's intentionally evoking an emotional response, ie; "trolling"


It's clear the politics forum isn't for you then. There's going to be debates in which there are differing opinions that evoke emotional responses. That applies to every thread in the tinderbox.

The argument of fighting back against tyranny in government is very common when debating the second ammendment, wouldn't you agree? Asking at what point would it be okay to exercise that right isn't trolling.

"Would you let the communists rape your daughters" on the other hand, is trolling. Next.

#32 FuzzyPanther

FuzzyPanther

    ...feeling sexy as usual

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 432 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:27 AM

The argument of fighting back against tyranny in government is very common when debating the second ammendment, wouldn't you agree? Asking at what point would it be okay to exercise that right isn't trolling.


I do agree, this question has been asked hundreds (or more) of times, over and over, yet the response is always the same. Add a new aspect or angle to the issue, and it's an interesting topic. As it is, it's a rabble-rousing "would you kill a cop for something that a cop would do illegally?" thread, is absurdly obvious trolling. As you stated, there are differing opinions in this forum (and as such, I don't belong), but I would argue that I belong here as much as you because my opinion differs.

#33 SZ James

SZ James

    1 888 CAM PAIN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,429 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 01:09 AM

It's never been asked here. No one else thinks I'm trolling but you it seems. Posters are quite candid about the issue.

Whatever though. Cry moar. Not reading it.

#34 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,667 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 22 December 2012 - 11:19 PM

Slowly but surely this country is stripping it's citizens of liberty. I am starting to get really fed up with it.



this is why things are so complicated to me. on the one hand, you're right, there are liberties being stripped, and that's something that's fundamentally a problem, right?

and yet you see people uttering these very words when legislation is passed that, say, mandates wearing helmets while riding bicycles after some kid hit a tree and died, or mandating wearing seatbelts after some guy flew out the windshield of his car and died.

is it your right to do whatever the hell you want if it ultimately affects someone else? sure, maybe it's your right to not wear a seatbelt and go sailing through your windshield if it damn well pleases you, but what happens when your sailing body hits an innocent bystander and kills them?

how do we determine the fine line between individual liberties and collective decisions made for the good of the group as a whole?

#35 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,381 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 01:07 AM

this is why things are so complicated to me. on the one hand, you're right, there are liberties being stripped, and that's something that's fundamentally a problem, right?

and yet you see people uttering these very words when legislation is passed that, say, mandates wearing helmets while riding bicycles after some kid hit a tree and died, or mandating wearing seatbelts after some guy flew out the windshield of his car and died.

is it your right to do whatever the hell you want if it ultimately affects someone else? sure, maybe it's your right to not wear a seatbelt and go sailing through your windshield if it damn well pleases you, but what happens when your sailing body hits an innocent bystander and kills them?

how do we determine the fine line between individual liberties and collective decisions made for the good of the group as a whole?


for what purpose can you think of did people form societies, or even before that tribes? in my opinion: sharing our successes and distributing our burdens to lessen them on the individual. pooled food to get through winter, etc. and i think part of that is paying for the risks and failures of other people. if that means paying enough taxes for guards for schools, i'll do it; if that means welfare, i'll do it. you don't have to be perfect, we set up a society so that we can fug up and usually will still have a scaffolding to be able to live. another main goal of the collective is to ensure freedom. even when there are negative side effects of freedom: free speech has Westboro Baptist, guns have Sandy Hook, etc. the collective has to understand that they take on the burdens, that's what being a society of people is. we can't be too quick to say "some of this burden is being distributed, we have to shut it down." no, we have to deal with it as the collective. minimize it and try to fix it, but not by losing the purpose we set up. build more scaffolding, don't knock the building down.

#36 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 23 December 2012 - 01:37 AM

What is freedom?

To reside in a cave, feed off the land, club your rivals to death, steal their women and only have to take a bath whenever it rains? Who among us, would want to "live" under those conditions today?

Advancement of mankind throughout the eons has always required trade offs that present new opportunities while eliminating previously acceptable behaviors.

Does anyone doubt for a minute their was once a time when intransigent men were bitchin' about their "lost rights/freedoms" to forcibly rape their mates and slaughter their sexual rivals?

"But my freedoms!" cries the Neanderthal!

#37 CCS

CCS

    Glutton for heart break and punishment

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,331 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 07:31 AM

I won't fight, I'll just move to Canada.

#38 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 08:00 AM

I won't fight, I'll just move to Canada.


fug that, too cold.
And the cartels have Mexico thanks to our war on drugs.

I'm afraid we're stuck with America so we are just going to have to fix this fuging mess.

#39 MCP

MCP

    Peace, Love, Uke

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,131 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:06 PM

this is why things are so complicated to me. on the one hand, you're right, there are liberties being stripped, and that's something that's fundamentally a problem, right?

and yet you see people uttering these very words when legislation is passed that, say, mandates wearing helmets while riding bicycles after some kid hit a tree and died, or mandating wearing seatbelts after some guy flew out the windshield of his car and died.

is it your right to do whatever the hell you want if it ultimately affects someone else? sure, maybe it's your right to not wear a seatbelt and go sailing through your windshield if it damn well pleases you, but what happens when your sailing body hits an innocent bystander and kills them?

how do we determine the fine line between individual liberties and collective decisions made for the good of the group as a whole?


Pretty sure more people have been killed by flying tires, then flying bodies, so guess we better start banning tires.

#40 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,667 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

Pretty sure more people have been killed by flying tires, then flying bodies, so guess we better start banning tires.


how is it you managed to miss the entire point of my post? is it because you were too busy trying to make a cute remark with analogies gleaned from Tea Part Conservatives images someone shared on your facebook?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.