I feel like the "FM is a fascist" mentality should be fleshed out or rescinded as well.
sorry but that is a bullshit statementFlaming_Maniac wrote:
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.
Right to life? Are you against euthenasia?
You guys are seriously ignorant of all the terms in the discussion. How you can read everything else and not realize this I don't understand. Go look up Locke.
ruisleipa wrote:
sorry but that is a bullshit statementFlaming_Maniac wrote:
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.
Oh no, I've said the whole discussion numerous times already, including page one. I just haven't read all your posts because I can't really be bothered. You just used the term "right to life" and that usually implies other opinions, hence my question. Try not to think the world is against you when someone asks a question. Thanks.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You guys are seriously ignorant of all the terms in the discussion. How you can read everything else and not realize this I don't understand. Go look up Locke.
&ruisleipa wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
sorry but that is a bullshit statementFlaming_Maniac wrote:
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.
This is why not everyone should be allowed in DST.Jaekus wrote:
Oh no, I've said the whole discussion numerous times already, including page one. I just haven't read all your posts because I can't really be bothered. You just used the term "right to life" and that usually implies other opinions, hence my question. Try not to think the world is against you when someone asks a question. Thanks.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You guys are seriously ignorant of all the terms in the discussion. How you can read everything else and not realize this I don't understand. Go look up Locke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract
I've read Locke. I know about his (and others) social contract(s). Doesn't mean it's (they are) a good theory. In fact, your statement that we 'sign a contract at birth' is bullshit I'm afraid.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This is why not everyone should be allowed in DST.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract
If you had read and understood Locke you'd know that he didn't argue what you are arguing.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-05-13 11:49:00)
How about hopping off the high horse and simply saying "yes", "no" or "undecided"?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
&ruisleipa wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
sorry but that is a bullshit statementThis is why not everyone should be allowed in DST.Jaekus wrote:
Oh no, I've said the whole discussion numerous times already, including page one. I just haven't read all your posts because I can't really be bothered. You just used the term "right to life" and that usually implies other opinions, hence my question. Try not to think the world is against you when someone asks a question. Thanks.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You guys are seriously ignorant of all the terms in the discussion. How you can read everything else and not realize this I don't understand. Go look up Locke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract
If you don't accept some form of social contract you are an anarchist. This is actually pretty amusing coming from a European liberal.
I mean it's like you're trying to say that the right to life is innate, despite the fact that the ability to maintain your well-being is tenuous at best without society.
I mean it's like you're trying to say that the right to life is innate, despite the fact that the ability to maintain your well-being is tenuous at best without society.
I'm not going to respond just because you asked a question. Especially when it has nothing to do with the discussion. Especially when you won't read what I already fucking said.Jaekus wrote:
How about hopping off the high horse and simply saying "yes", "no" or "undecided"?
I guess it really is that hard. You should take up politics with that kind of spin. I should get some sleep with this kind of tired. Night.
your previous 3-point 'argument' was one lame form of social contract. You can believe in a social contract without believeing yuo sign a contract at birth which gives you the right to life that you can then give up....lolFlaming_Maniac wrote:
If you don't accept some form of social contract you are an anarchist. This is actually pretty amusing coming from a European liberal.
i punched out the back glass of some chicks Izuz Rodeo suv because she stole a pair of Levi jeans
and yes it was a cool story
and yes it was a cool story
It is the most basic form of contract. Social contract theory emphasizes right to property because that is the the minimal goal in nearly all cases, but right to property makes no sense without right to life. You implicitly sign all social contracts at birth, so why you are emphasizing that so much as you are supposedly well read on the issue I have no idea.ruisleipa wrote:
your previous 3-point 'argument' was one lame form of social contract. You can believe in a social contract without believeing yuo sign a contract at birth which gives you the right to life that you can then give up....lolFlaming_Maniac wrote:
If you don't accept some form of social contract you are an anarchist. This is actually pretty amusing coming from a European liberal.
I am not interested in debating WHEN a criminal actually becomes a criminal, in the eyes of the law or the eyes of the victim, for the sake of this discussion about the criminal ( the one shoplifting). So if that is the direction you are going, you will go by yourself.ruisleipa wrote:
blah blah blah ffs lowing if you're not interested in debating your daft 'arguments' why the hell do you bother posting anything.lowing wrote:
bullshit, you are inventing shit to argue about now, and you know damn well what I am speaking of when I say criminal.
when I say criminal I mean the one shoplifting, the one raping, the one murdering. I am not a fuckin lawyer and this is not a fuckin courtroom. I am not going to waste my time saying "alleged" on every mention of a bad guy to accommodate you.
'rape', 'shoplifting' and 'murder' are all crimes THEREFORE they are defined according to a country's legal system AND THE DEFINITIONS OF THOSE CRIMES DIFFERS FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY (or possibly state to state even?). If you can't understand that then there's no fuckin hope for ya.
You don't 'sign' fuck all at birth, so like I say if you really understood social contract theory and it's critics you'd know this statementFlaming_Maniac wrote:
It is the most basic form of contract. Social contract theory emphasizes right to property because that is the the minimal goal in nearly all cases, but right to property makes no sense without right to life. You implicitly sign all social contracts at birth, so why you are emphasizing that so much as you are supposedly well read on the issue I have no idea.
is absurd.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.
lmfao you don't like debating anything that goes anyway to showing how dumb your opinions are lol dear oh dear.lowing wrote:
I am not interested in debating WHEN a criminal actually becomes a criminal, in the eyes of the law or the eyes of the victim, for the sake of this discussion about the criminal ( the one shoplifting). So if that is the direction you are going, you will go by yourself.
Do you know what the word implicit means?
Nope you have strayed too far away from discussion to the point where you want to debate the word CRIMINAL now....No thanks.ruisleipa wrote:
You don't 'sign' fuck all at birth, so like I say if you really understood social contract theory and it's critics you'd know this statementFlaming_Maniac wrote:
It is the most basic form of contract. Social contract theory emphasizes right to property because that is the the minimal goal in nearly all cases, but right to property makes no sense without right to life. You implicitly sign all social contracts at birth, so why you are emphasizing that so much as you are supposedly well read on the issue I have no idea.is absurd.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.lmfao you don't like debating anything that goes anyway to showing how dumb your opinions are lol dear oh dear.lowing wrote:
I am not interested in debating WHEN a criminal actually becomes a criminal, in the eyes of the law or the eyes of the victim, for the sake of this discussion about the criminal ( the one shoplifting). So if that is the direction you are going, you will go by yourself.
What the... man, punish the employee for manslaughter. For sure. Not meaning to do it and killing a guy are two different things.
lmfao as usual you totally miss the fact that you were the one who started making distinctions.lowing wrote:
Nope you have strayed too far away from discussion to the point where you want to debate the word CRIMINAL now....No thanks.
but I'm glad you're here to tell everyone what they're doing wrong - which most of the time is just disagreeing with you.
it would be sad if it wasn't so fucking funny.
anyway I find myself agreeing with pace51. I don't see how anyone can justify killing someone over some fucking toothpaste. if you think otherwise you need to see a psychiatrist.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-05-13 15:10:37)
I used criminal to distinguish the victim and the criminal for clarity of conversation. You seem to think, like in most thread, you are in a court of law. I am not playing that game.ruisleipa wrote:
lmfao as usual you totally miss the fact that you were the one who started making distinctions.lowing wrote:
Nope you have strayed too far away from discussion to the point where you want to debate the word CRIMINAL now....No thanks.
but I'm glad you're here to tell everyone what they're doing wrong - which most of the time is just disagreeing with you.
it would be sad if it wasn't so fucking funny.
anyway I find myself agreeing with pace51. I don't see how anyone can justify killing someone over some fucking toothpaste. if you think otherwise you need to see a psychiatrist.
I agree, this has nothing to do with my attitude that the ALLEGED criminal got killed while committing an ALLEGED crime.
Because sanity is often in short supply over here.Jaekus wrote:
Why do people bring other scenarios like car-jacking into the thread when it has nothing to do with this incident and is totally disproportionate to the discussion at hand, and then have the arrogance to tell people to "get real"?
If that happened over here everyone would say "wow, that clerk is nuts, lock him up because he's clearly the danger to society, not the guy stealing toothpaste".
There wouldn't need to be discussion about it. There'd be an inquiry, the guy would be up on manslaughter charges and most likely receive jail time for at least a few years. Case closed, pretty cut and dried.
I guess we have a lot more common sense here after all.
There wouldn't need to be discussion about it. There'd be an inquiry, the guy would be up on manslaughter charges and most likely receive jail time for at least a few years. Case closed, pretty cut and dried.
I guess we have a lot more common sense here after all.
About this, yes. About censorship and the internet... no.Jaekus wrote:
If that happened over here everyone would say "wow, that clerk is nuts, lock him up because he's clearly the danger to society, not the guy stealing toothpaste".
There wouldn't need to be discussion about it. There'd be an inquiry, the guy would be up on manslaughter charges and most likely receive jail time for at least a few years. Case closed, pretty cut and dried.
I guess we have a lot more common sense here after all.
Every country has its blindsides.