Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Roe v. Wade is history

Page 31 of 60 [ 956 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 60  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

30 Jun 2022, 8:34 am

SkinnedWolf wrote:
I have an impression...supporters of guns believe that guns held by citizens can be used to fight against government tyranny.
That seems to have been the rationale of Thomas Jefferson, at least.  Nowadays, it is just an excuse people use to own guns, when what they really want is any chance to use them against other people.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Jun 2022, 8:39 am

I wonder how Thomas Jefferson would feel about people having the unlimited right to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds before reloading.

In Thomas Jefferson's day, guns fired one bullet or shell at a time.



SpiralingCrow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,558

30 Jun 2022, 9:00 am

SkinnedWolf wrote:
I have an impression...supporters of guns believe that guns held by citizens can be used to fight against government tyranny.


I believe this to be true for many groups nowadays.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,712

30 Jun 2022, 9:32 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I wonder how Thomas Jefferson would feel about people having the unlimited right to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds before reloading.

In Thomas Jefferson's day, guns fired one bullet or shell at a time.


All that it takes sometimes is one bullet. I don’t think that people should be allowed even that.

The world is much different than Jefferson’s time, but even so, Jefferson and his cronies weren’t saints put here by God that had a perfect vision of what government should be like. Even they were off on certain matters. Some of them owned slaves. If they weren’t right about slavery, I don’t know why people think they were right about everything else.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

30 Jun 2022, 10:04 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
The world is much different than Jefferson’s time, but even so, Jefferson and his cronies weren’t saints put here by God that had a perfect vision of what government should be like. Even they were off on certain matters. Some of them owned slaves. If they weren’t right about slavery, I don’t know why people think they were right about everything else.
They envisioned a country in which wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Christian males would own everything and run the country while the poor, the non-whites, the non-Europeans, the non-protestant Christians, and especially the women would silently obey the WASPs and never rebel.

For instance, even though the U.S. Declaration of Independence says, "All men are created equal", Jefferson & Co. left it up to each individual state to establish its own definition of "men" (e.g., usually wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Christian males).



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,712

30 Jun 2022, 10:13 am

Fnord wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
The world is much different than Jefferson’s time, but even so, Jefferson and his cronies weren’t saints put here by God that had a perfect vision of what government should be like. Even they were off on certain matters. Some of them owned slaves. If they weren’t right about slavery, I don’t know why people think they were right about everything else.
For instance, even though the U.S. Declaration of Independence says, "All men are created equal", Jefferson & Co. left it up to each individual state to establish its own definition of "men" (e.g., usually wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Christian males).


I think that’s why I’ve never felt much awe when it comes to the Declaration of Independence. I felt like I was excluded from it.

I don’t really care these days, though. I prefer having more of a worldview than a national one.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

30 Jun 2022, 10:20 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
The world is much different than Jefferson’s time, but even so, Jefferson and his cronies weren’t saints put here by God that had a perfect vision of what government should be like. Even they were off on certain matters. Some of them owned slaves. If they weren’t right about slavery, I don’t know why people think they were right about everything else.
For instance, even though the U.S. Declaration of Independence says, "All men are created equal", Jefferson & Co. left it up to each individual state to establish its own definition of "men" (e.g., usually wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Christian males).
I think that’s why I’ve never felt much awe when it comes to the Declaration of Independence. I felt like I was excluded from it.  I don’t really care these days, though. I prefer having more of a worldview than a national one.
When the Founders talked about liberty and equality, they used definitions that came to them from their heritage within English culture.

Liberty was one of the most commonly used terms in the Founding generation. When Patrick Henry thundered, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" in 1775, no one had to ask him to define "liberty" following his speech.

Similarly, when the Founders talked about equality, they thought in terms of all men (e.g., wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Christian males) being equal under God, and of freemen (e.g., males who were not wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, or protestant Christians) being equal under secular Law.  But the distinction of freemen was important.  The founders believed in a natural hierarchy of talents, and they believed that citizenship and suffrage required civic and moral virtue (e.g., virtues they believed could be found only in wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Christian males).

Jefferson wrote, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be."  To that end, restricting the status of freemen was essential, in the Founders' view, to the liberty of the republic, which is why some states initially had property qualifications for voting, and why equality did not extend to slaves (or for that matter to women or children).

Most of the Founding generation favored a "natural aristocracy" consisting of men of talent and virtue (e.g., wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Christian males).  They believed that these men -- and ONLY these men -- would be, and should be, the leaders of a free society.  Therefore, their idea of society was as follows:

↑ The Aristocracy (the rulers)
↓ Freemen, Merchants, and Craftsmen
↓ Foreigners and Hired Laborers
↓ Slaves and Women



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Jun 2022, 11:02 am

Well as far people going on a sex strike goes, wouldn't that just be making things worse because it limits how my many people will go for a person in the dating market if that person choose to remain abstinent?

It just seems like abstinence gives the competition more of an advantage?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

30 Jun 2022, 11:09 am

ironpony wrote:
Well as far people going on a sex strike goes, wouldn't that just be making things worse because it limits how my many people will go for a person in the dating market if that person choose to remain abstinent?

It just seems like abstinence gives the competition more of an advantage?
What competition?

Sex is not a prize to be won; it is a privilege to be granted.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Jun 2022, 11:11 am

What I mean is a lot if people do like dating people who choose to be abstinent, so the competition in the dating market increases as a result, if that makes sense.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

30 Jun 2022, 11:12 am

ironpony wrote:
What I mean is a lot if people do like dating people who choose to be abstinent, so the competition in the dating market increases as a result, if that makes sense.
It does not make sense.  Dating is not a "market", unless you are paying your date for the privilege of dating.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Jun 2022, 1:36 pm

Maybe market is the wrong term but people would be limiting their options of who would date them if they choose to remain abstinent.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

30 Jun 2022, 1:41 pm

ironpony wrote:
Maybe market is the wrong term but people would be limiting their options of who would date them if they choose to remain abstinent.
There is the other side to consider.  By claiming abstinence, a person automatically rejects those suitors who are only looking for sex.  The suitors that remain are more likely to be interested in the abstinent person as a person and not as a living sex toy.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Jun 2022, 1:49 pm

Fnord wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Maybe market is the wrong term but people would be limiting their options of who would date them if they choose to remain abstinent.
There is the other side to consider.  By claiming abstinence, a person automatically rejects those suitors who are only looking for sex.  The suitors that remain are more likely to be interested in the abstinent person as a person and not as a living sex toy.


That's a good point. Well put.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,314
Location: Right over your left shoulder

30 Jun 2022, 2:08 pm

Clearly we're taking the wrong approach. We just need to frame termination as a stand your ground situation.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,314
Location: Right over your left shoulder

30 Jun 2022, 2:14 pm

SkinnedWolf wrote:
I have an impression...supporters of guns believe that guns held by citizens can be used to fight against government tyranny.


Basically. Ironically the guys who are most invested in that idea are the ones who'd be most impacted by the complete disruption of society that would be required to end up with a scenario where a bunch of militias can defeat their national army.

3% chuds don't generally look fit enough to defeat much except for a 6 pack and a box of twinkies.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.