SA/A/D/SD

[John Dibble]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. -- SD

2.) Ex-felons should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. -- A

3.) In general, people are just too obsessed with sex. -- D

4.) We would all be a lot better off if people followed the Golden Rule. -- SA

5.) The government's main responsibility should be to keep order. -- SD, plenty of tyrannies keep order. Government's main responsibility should be to protect our rights, which in turn normally leads to a sufficiently ordered society.

6.) Music and the arts are essential for a community to flourish and should be funded by the government. -- D

7.) The right to revolution in the New Hampshire state constitution is a good thing that all states should have. -- A

8.) Improvement of the human race through eugenics should be a goal of the government. -- D

9.) A Department of Peace should be added to the presidential administration. -- SD, sounds too much like a Ministry of Truth

10.) The voting age should be lowered to 16. -- D

11.) Immigration is one of the worst problems the United States faces. -- A

12.) The government should not have any business with people's library records, gun purchases, or credit card use. -- SA

13.) Restrictions on cellphone wiretapping should be loosened. -- D

14.) Criticism of religions such as Christianity and Islam are not protected by free speech. -- SD

15.) The drinking age should be lowered or abolished. -- A

[John Dibble]

If a five year old wants to vote, I dont see why not.

Because the number of five year olds who actually want to vote is much much lower than the number who will simply however their parents tell them.

Not to mention they'd be almost completely unable to understand the issues. Try explaining the budget to a five year old.

[John Dibble]

You guys are really worried about nothing.

Letting five year olds vote is a bad idea - I don't let bad ideas stand without being refuted by sound reason, otherwise more people are likely to listen to them. You're honestly too smart to think that five year olds should be allowed to vote.

[John Dibble]

It comes from the same fear of a segment of the population voting. It's all poppycock in the end. 

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with responsibility and maturity.

Incidentally, do you believe that insane persons should be able to vote?

Yes, as they do now.

Do you believe that children should have the right to keep and bear arms?

[John Dibble]

I doubt he does, because he doesn't think adults should either

Well he seems to believe that everyone, no matter their age, have every single fundamental right, and the right to bear arms is fundamental. If we're going to treat five year olds like adults we might as well be consistent.

[John Dibble]

As for "the right to bear arms" that is not a fundemental right, it's just something Libertarians create as an excuse to keep guns to make up for their small penises

At least we don't have small minds like some people here.

[John Dibble]

The U.S. is one of the few countries where this is a right. I hardly call that fundemental.

If the U.S. was the only country that allowed free speech, would that make free speech not a fundamental right?

[John Dibble]

The U.S. is one of the few countries where this is a right. I hardly call that fundemental.

If the U.S. was the only country that allowed free speech, would that make free speech not a fundamental right?

That's not the case though! Why? because freedom of speech is a fundemental right.  Gun ownership is not a fundemental human right, I'm sorry.

No, that's not why, nor is it relevant. If everyone else on the planet is doing something wrong that does not make it right if you do it too.

[John Dibble]

The U.S. is one of the few countries where this is a right. I hardly call that fundemental.

If the U.S. was the only country that allowed free speech, would that make free speech not a fundamental right?

That's not the case though! Why? because freedom of speech is a fundemental right.  Gun ownership is not a fundemental human right, I'm sorry.

No, that's not why, nor is it relevant. If everyone else on the planet is doing something wrong that does not make it right if you do it too.

I know it's not about the rest of the world. It's just evidence that the rest of the world doesnt think it is a fundemental right.

The rest of the world not thinking it's a fundamental right doesn't make it not a fundamental right. True or false: people have a fundamental right to defend themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My, we're not arrogant at all, are we? Just a brilliant argument you've brought to the table here.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My, we're not arrogant at all, are we? Just a brilliant argument you've brought to the table here.

Why is it arrogant to think its more likely that 6 billion people are right than 400 million.

But that doesn´t mean that it´s 6 billion who is right it´s just more likely.

Well, I think that the actual majority of the population lives in less educated countries for one thing. Europe, Australia, and others are educated as well, but you've also got countries like China and India that have tons of people who are mostly not really that educated.

You can't base the argument on numbers alone.

[John Dibble]

How can someone be 'right' about something being a fundamental right or not?  I mean, unless two people agree to a pre-determined framework for determining what is and is not a 'fundamental right' (say, some offshoot of Kant's Catagorical Imperative or something), there is no way for one of them to be 'wrong' since the two people would be operating from different frameworks.

It's like arguing that "6 billion people agree with me that red is a better color than blue" or "Ricky Martin is a better singer than Cher."

It's just a philisophical argument. You try to convince someone else that your philosophy is better than theirs, so they move into the framework you think in if you succeed.

[John Dibble]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

I disagree.

So if I am about to rob your home, you will use a nuclear bomb against me?

If a rogue state were to invade my home, a nuclear bomb would come in very handy

What, you plan to blow up yourself and the entire surrounding area to defend your house? I don't think that qualifies as self-defense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental human right.
[/quote]
That's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I feel that there is a fundamental right to self-preservation and to resistance to tyranny, from which there flows the auxiliary right to bear arms. You don't.
[/quote]

There certainly is a right to defend oneself, but I dont think it is a God given right to have a gun to do so.  If you need a revolution, then the right to own a gun wont really help  you.  It's the same government that gives you those rights that you are fighting against. It's a double standard.
[/quote]

Hardly a double standard. Just because a government at one point respects your right to do something does not mean that government will always respect it. Once the government does try to take away the right, it becomes time to exercise it.

"The real beauty of the second amendment is that it is absolutely meaningless until they try to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson

And you say that we have a right to defend ourselves, but how would you expect people to do that in this modern world without the aid of a weapon? With their bare fists? If you are attacked by someone stronger, or by a large group, or anything similar, your physical force will not allow you to defend yourself adequately. In this modern world, the single most effective means of self-defense is a gun. Denying law abiding citizens the right to own a gun is tantamount to denying them the right to defend themselves, therefore gun ownership is a fundamental right so long as the right to defend oneself is also fundamental.

[John Dibble]

If a revolution becomes necessary, there will be means of getting a gun if necessary.

It is more difficult to attain weapons once the government forbids them. Yes, it's possible, but if you need to commit to a revolution you want to be armed immediately and beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With your bare fists? You haven't answered my question - how in this modern world can a person be expected to defend themselves sufficiently without one? Do you expect women to defend themselves from a rapist with her bare fists? Do you expect someone to stop themselves from getting mugged by a group of thugs with a knife?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't have a right TO one, but you have the right to own one so long as you have the right to self defense. You deny people their right to self defense if you deny them the right to own a firearm. Allowing people to own firearms is essential to the preservation of liberty.


Back to the subject of five year olds getting to vote - you say they should because it is a fundamental right. Now tell me this: Do they have the right to free speech? If yes, then you support making it illegal for parents to punish them for cursing. You need to face the facts - children are not mature enough to have the same rights and privileges as adults, and any sane society recognizes this.

[John Dibble]

If a revolution becomes necessary, there will be means of getting a gun if necessary.

It is more difficult to attain weapons once the government forbids them. Yes, it's possible, but if you need to commit to a revolution you want to be armed immediately and beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However they will be at a fundamental disadvantage if the need for revolution arises.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With your bare fists? You haven't answered my question - how in this modern world can a person be expected to defend themselves sufficiently without one? Do you expect women to defend themselves from a rapist with her bare fists? Do you expect someone to stop themselves from getting mugged by a group of thugs with a knife?
[/quote]
When was the last time a woman defended herself from rape with a gun? They use mace. Knives are also a good thing. The bottom line is, if the attackers have no gun either, there is nothing to worry about. Sure, there will be a black market, but even in just a well regulated area, crimes invaulving firearms are rare. (like here).[/quote]

1. Here's a couple examples. Only a gun control nut would think a raped woman is superior to a dead rapist.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/crime/defense/mar1994/rapist.html
http://iafrica.com/news/sa/351374.htm

If more women carried guns, there would be less attempts at rape.

2. Mace will not necessarily stop a rapist, and it's virtually useless against a group. More info:
http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/mace.html

It is especially ineffective if the criminal is on some sort of drug like PCP or some other drug that might dull pain.

3. When law abiding citizens can't have guns, only criminals will. And even if they don't, they will have a fundamental advantage anyways - criminals generally prey on those weaker than themselves, but when the defender has a gun the criminal's strength no longer matters. So either you can have a level playing field where the weak can have adequate defense or you can

4. Knives have the highest injury rate for the victim among any means of self-defense, even higher than non-resistence. Guns have the lowest - in fact in most cases where a gun is employed for self-defense the criminal will run away without a shot needing to be fired. A 120lb woman is not going to have much of a chance in hand to hand combat with a 250lb rapist.

Further, melee weapons take time that most people do not have to become proficient with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They do have the right to freedom of speech, but only the government can take that away, not their parents obviously. If they chose to live with their parents, they are tennats and have to abide by the rules of the dwelling.
[/quote]

Yes, a five year old is going to choose to go live on his own.

You are aware that child labor is illegal in most countries that have freedom of speech, right? So how do you propose children who decide to leave the nest survive. Sheesh, I'm glad most people in society don't believe in this nonsense.

[John Dibble]

Giving people more weapons is not the solution to these problems. You will only create a society of fear by weaponizing everyone. Mace is a great alternative to firearms I think.

The only people who have to fear when law abiding citizens are armed are the criminals who would seek to harm them. I swear, gun-control advocates often act as if putting a gun in someone's hand will make them a berserk killer or something.

I've already pointed out that mace is not sufficiently effective. I does not immobilize the criminal to the degree that they are unable to harm you, and in some cases it's completely ineffective.

And once again I repeat that using guns as self-defense has the lowest injury rate to the victim of ALL other self-defense methods.



I'd also like you to explain it to me why gun ownership in the US has been going up(along with an increased amount of concealed carry states) while crime in the US has gone down over the last decade.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Group rapes are very rare. Again, weaponizing people is not the answer.[/quote]
 
Rare doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure criminals will have guns, but they will be very difficult to attain, and there will be less of them, and therefore less problems.
Again, criminal acts involving guns are rare in societies that have strict gun laws.[/quote]

Yes, apparently you are fine with a society where the weak are easily preyed upon by criminals. In a society where the law abiding can protect themselves with guns, they have an equalizing force that makes the criminal's superior strength not matter anymore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical anti-gun tactic - make up stuff about the 'huge' number of accidental gun deaths. But if you actually bother to look up the truth, you'll find the number of gun deaths is extremely small compared to the other ways you can die:

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/tabor010405.htm

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned: "Guns don't kill people. Doctors do."


Not just counting doctors, there are tons of other accident types that kill far more than 1500 a year, and considering that guns in the hands of the potential victims save far more lives than that I think it is worth the trade off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracy isn't nonsense, but letting five year olds have equal political standing to adults is. I think Gabu and others cover pretty much why this idea is nonsense. Do you advocate letting kids drive, work, have sex, drink, and everything else that adults can do?

[John Dibble]

Lowering the voting age is really stupid.... Disabled people and the likes grant their right to vote to someone else because they can't physically perform teh act (the person is supposed to cast the vote in teh way the disabled person wants to). There will be a lot of new-borns voting that way, I can assure you. And you acn't strip them of that right, since that would be undemocratic right?

But for obvious reasons, newborns can't make political decisions in the first place. And lowering the voting age is not stupid. As long as the person voting is educated about the issues, why shouldn't they vote? It's age discrimination.

Have you ever met a five year old that was adequately informed on political issues?

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discrimination is a good thing?

It depends. "Discriminating" on the basis of age when it comes to voting, for example, is not something I object to.

Indeed. Discrimination is telling unlike things apart. Discrimination isn't inherently bad. When you decide on the which cereal you are going to buy at the store, you discriminate the difference between cereals.

Discrimination isn't a problem, prejudice however is, but to be prejudiced your reason for discrimination has to be irrational. If age discrimination is prejudice, and you say we shouldn't have that discrimination, then please start allowing five year olds to have drivers licenses and allow them to work.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a little kid that was on the news a few months ago because he was interested in politics. And there are a lot of 18 year olds who aren't adequately informed on political issues either.

Okay, so the news decided to do a story on the 0.000001% of little kids who are actually interested in politics (note that "interested" does not necessarily translate into "informed").  How does this justify allowing the uninformed 99.999999% to vote?

He asked me a question and I answered it. I don't think people should have to wait until they are 18 to be able to vote. As long as they are informed about the election. I do think that the age to vote should be around 12, not 5.

Well, why reduce it to only 12, and not to 5, if we want to let all informed people vote?

Can anyone see the politicians pandering for the votes of little kids?

"If elected, I'll have ice cream served free with your school lunch!"
"Well if you elect me, I'll have cake served in class daily!"