Jump to content

Omar

Members
  • Content Count

    6662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Omar

  1. The police are constantly using their guns, just not actually pointing or shooting at anyone. The fact that they have guns is enough to affect other people's behaviour.
  2. If you don't want to argue, that's alright, but I don't think it's really derailing. We're discussing moral philosophy as it applies to gun control, not moral philosophy without applications.
  3. Well if you're just going to be a cynic about it, why are you debating here at all? You know every problem on this topic boils down to this.
  4. I would not be so fast and loose with the term "aggression" as it applies to the government. The government is a representation of the will of the people, after all. No, like, literally, anything that is called government has to initiate force (threaten to jail, expropriate, or kill you) in order to qualify. The state is a monopoly on the use of force. This is true for a democracy as well. When people talk about the will of the people, they allude to Rousseau's Social Contract, but they never realize that Rousseau was talking about the intersection of the wills of all people. Democracy doesn't pass that test; it's actually tyranny of the majority. If I go to your house with a bunch of my friends, say it's a democracy, and that we can expropriate you because we had a vote about it, the only real difference is the scale of aggression. Under Rousseau's definition, people willingly give up their rights, because they have a good incentive to--namely the set of rules that replaces their rights is superior by their judgement as well as everyone's, since it's the intersection of all wills. This is the reason why (or maybe the causation is reversed) voluntaryists stand by the non-aggression principle. Retaliation is fair game though, in proportion. In any case, government is aggression; either you call yourself non-violent because you believe in non-violence, or you call yourself a consequentialist because 100% agreement will never happen (it does all the time--I don't vote on the price of computers for example) and you don't believe in rights (since rights are universal moral rules). Finally, you claim it's never right to take a human life, no matter what the crime. a) if someone threatens to shoot you and you can kill them to save yourself, is it wrong? b) why is it wrong to take a human life? c) if someone ignores someone else's right, do they still have that right? d) what are rights, where do they come from?
  5. Yeah, if I was Range and I had a gun I would have shot, provided it's safe for me and for innocents.
  6. I think it might be legitimate to disable the thief in this case. Not sure if the law would consider that self-defense, but I might. @Range: If you're a non-violent person, then why do you want people to initiate force against people who purchase guns? Voluntary cooperation is peace. The defining characteristic of government is aggression.
  7. Omar

    Today...

    Just realized I think Ginger has pointy ears because of his long-gone Link avatar.
  8. a) You want a group of people who have guns to stop you from using guns. Just letting you know about this little quirk. b) Suppose that a serial killer/burglar is known to invade homes at night in your town (despite the existence of trustworthy locks). There is a gun shop in town, and you want to purchase one, but in an effort to stop the criminal, the mayor has decided to shut it down. As a result, your property is damaged, your body also, maybe your life. Has the mayor done anything wrong, considering he used force (the threat of jailing anyone who buys or sells guns) to stop you from defending yourself? How does this compare to taking a gun out of your hands when the burglar is already in your home? Are these scenarios any different if the gun shop is closed because a group of anti-gun activists with pitchforks closed the shop or took your gun away? c) Why would we want the state if we don't trust it? You know the whole point of democracy is that leaders aren't trusted and that's the people gets to pick, right?... But anyway, I trust neither the state nor democracy, so you can deduce whether I want there to be a state or not; this brings up a whole bunch of other issues though so let's keep it to guns. d) Your point about critical mass makes a certain amount of sense. Indeed gun ownership is a collective action problem in that no law-abiding citizen wants guns to be around, but for his protection he has to get some, which means everyone is worse off in the long run. The problem is felons get guns regardless of whether they are legal or not, that's why law-abiding citizens need protection; felons don't get guns because law-abiding citizens want them; they get them because it gives them an advantage; it's not because your neighbour has a gun that you want one; it's because some ratchet-ass dude is going around stealing pocket change from small businesses. e) You place excessive trust in a state's ability to regulate the trade of weapons amongst criminals, just like people placed excessive trust in its ability to regulate alcohol during prohibition in Canada and the US, and just like people still place excessive trust in its ability to regulate the drug trade just about everywhere (which, by the way, is one of the major causes of gun crime in the US--get rid of those regulations and you largely solve it). f) You're right, gun crime is a big problem in the US. It's been steadily declining since about 1990 though. This has nothing to do with regulations (Steve Levitt argues in Freakonomics it's because of Roe v. Wade; make of that what you will). School shootings are actually a tiny fraction of gun homicides--our money would be better spent protecting people from being struck by lightning, considering that happens three times as often. [Edit] A grown man is swinging at a kid with a machete and all you can think of doing is call the cops? Suppose the cops show up within 3 minutes. You think that's not enough time to significantly hurt a little girl with a machete? Do they ride clouds to school and poop rainbows where you come from?
  9. Lol, how to confuse Scandinavian states. In any case, this only strenghtens my point--you have less than 0.5% of the population of the US instead of whatever I said. I have no opinion on the matter, but why do you think gun laws should be federal? If you believe in democracy, you'd expect the smaller the level of government, the more reflective of preferences laws are, no?
  10. Stockholm syndrome is enough to show this to be irrelevant. Also, Finland's population is about 5.3M,i.e 1.6% that of the US. You're surprised shootings are so rare?
  11. Omar

    Today...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57578711/porn-piracy-tracked-to-computers-in-vatican-city/ Other than this, no.
  12. Prets, your mindset is that you should make sure she's right for you and then have sex. Why not go the other way around, if it increases your chances dramatically? PS: Where I come from the SAQ is a public alcohol distribution company. Just saying :lol:
  13. I have a friend whose last name is actually Wright. Believe it or not, he already has plans to get married with his girlfriend...
  14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEffig_rHZs This guy has a kind of synthesis between pursuing and not pursuing going on (I haven't read anything other than the OP): http://www.pua-zone.com/showthread.php?2569-quot-Planting-a-seed-quot-in-order-to-get-girls-to-chase-you
  15. Yeah, so that jives with what I wrote when I edited my post. His method for becoming indifferent--yelling in the shower that you're indifferent, amongst other things--makes sense in that light; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. [Edit] I stopped trying with online dating, because it seemed pretty clear to me that without making it work IRL, the internet wasn't going to help me at all.
  16. If you ask directly, you've made it clear you care. Whether that makes you needy or not, I'm not sure, but you're starting on the wrong foot if it does. Brent's method as I understand it goes like this: act/be aloof, confident, be "the mayor" (basically talk everyone and sort of get them involved in your whirlwind of party), girls will ask you for your number. When they text you to hook up, you say "come to my place for drinks at 8 on Thursday", leave it at that and go for it when she shows up. No dates. I don't know how Brent's method fits in with the polyamory idea. Maybe it doesn't, but it seems pretty clear to me that there's nothing other than sex going. That being said, if I need to discuss the epistemology of economics, I can do that with my friends... I can't think of much I can't do with a really good friend, but can with a girlfriend, other than sexual relationships. @muggi: seems to the only way to get over that neediness is to fake it long enough that you have the chance to gain the experience to make it become true though...
  17. From what I understand, chicks also dig people who are not needy. Acting with the goal of getting a date implies that you care about the end result. You can still show you're confident without being super upfront with her. I think it's plausible, maybe even likely, that Brent's method works, but it's self-contradictory. You can't be indifferent and still want sex. Literally, indifferent means neither outcome is better to you. It's deeply unscientific and it needs a good dose of logic, but it works, so that doesn't actually matter that much. So I think to a degree you have to act it out, at least at the beginning; it is about tricking yourself. You have to have the discipline to pretend to care about every cute girl you meet as much as the dudes you meet. You should exude confidence in your interactions with people at, say, a bar (sitting in a corner doesn't do the trick, or it might but it's more complicated). That gives a girl all the signs that you're what she wants (non-needy and confident), which is why she will pursue at that point.
  18. Yes, and the police uses locks to fight crime, not guns. Yeah there would. You know who would have a problem with it? Every single person who was told their name wouldn't be released.
  19. I wouldn't make this a one-on-one thing. Invite her to an event you're going to with friends, where you know you're going to have a blast regardless, and don't focus all your attention on her.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.