Arming Police in the UK

[North Arkana]

Hasn't this just devolved into,
"They're a right."
"Well why are they a right?"
"Because I said so."
"Well what makes you say so?"
"Because they're a right."
Ad absurdum

He's just dragging it in a mess of circular logic.

[The New California Republic]

Hasn't this just devolved into,
"They're a right."
"Well why are they a right?"
"Because I said so."
"Well what makes you say so?"
"Because they're a right."
Ad absurdum

He's just dragging it in a mess of circular logic.

Par for the course really...

[Telconi]

Noted.

The chances of a philosophy being objectively wrong are zero.

In that, like Russell's teapot, we can't actually prove that your "inherent rights" don't exist, sure. But if a philosophy rests on some supposed property of the universe that we conveniently cannot investigate at all, we can certainly say that it's a very, very shaky philosophy, effectively a religion.

Absolutely, and I've said as much before, political philosophis are functionally a point of belief, which is why clashing philosophies cause so much trouble. There is no objectively true philosophy. and thus no true victory.

[Ifreann]

It is when you're claiming they should have firearms because they have a right to firearms. If you want to argue that they should have firearms because they cannot effectively do their jobs without them, then you should probably just make that argument and stop talking about rights.

Presumably I could.

The concept of inherent/human/God given/etc. rights is an interesting one however.

Maybe get a big bag of weed and contemplate that over four pizzas and The Wall on repeat.

[Telconi]

Presumably I could.

The concept of inherent/human/God given/etc. rights is an interesting one however.

Maybe get a big bag of weed and contemplate that over four pizzas and The Wall on repeat.

Sounds like a bad idea, thanks for the suggestion tho.

[Yagon]

Maybe get a big bag of weed and contemplate that over four pizzas and The Wall on repeat.

Sounds like a bad idea, thanks for the suggestion tho.

I kind of like the idea...but I dunno what the cannabis situation is in the UK.

[The New California Republic]

Sounds like a bad idea, thanks for the suggestion tho.

I kind of like the idea...but I dunno what the cannabis situation is in the UK.

Still very illegal.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

In that, like Russell's teapot, we can't actually prove that your "inherent rights" don't exist, sure. But if a philosophy rests on some supposed property of the universe that we conveniently cannot investigate at all, we can certainly say that it's a very, very shaky philosophy, effectively a religion.

Absolutely, and I've said as much before, political philosophis are functionally a point of belief, which is why clashing philosophies cause so much trouble. There is no objectively true philosophy. and thus no true victory.

Except some political opinions are a little more grounded in reality than "I believe the universe itself approves of this".

[Telconi]

Absolutely, and I've said as much before, political philosophis are functionally a point of belief, which is why clashing philosophies cause so much trouble. There is no objectively true philosophy. and thus no true victory.

Except some political opinions are a little more grounded in reality than "I believe the universe itself approves of this".

Not really, you honestly can't objectively justify any political opinions, hence why they're opinions.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Except some political opinions are a little more grounded in reality than "I believe the universe itself approves of this".

Not really, you honestly can't objectively justify any political opinions, hence why they're opinions.

But you can construct an argument that goes something like this:

>people say that X would make them happy
>legalising X is unlikely to tangibly harm anyone
>making people happy is good
>we should legalise X

There's still subjectivity in "tangible harm" and "making people happy is good", but you must see how that's a little more grounded in human experience than:

>the universe approves of X
>we want our society's laws to be in accordance with the universe's wishes
>we should legalise X

The latter doesn't bother to engage with anything so tangible as societal consequences. What if X is "slipping polonium into other people's coffee"? Do we still legalise it?

[Telconi]

Not really, you honestly can't objectively justify any political opinions, hence why they're opinions.

But you can construct an argument that goes something like this:

>people say that X would make them happy
>legalising X is unlikely to tangibly harm anyone
>making people happy is good
>we should legalise X

There's still subjectivity in "tangible harm" and "making people happy is good", but you must see how that's a little more grounded in human experience than:

>the universe approves of X
>we want our society's laws to be in accordance with the universe's wishes
>we should legalise X

The latter doesn't bother to engage with anything so tangible as societal consequences. What if X is "slipping polonium into other people's coffee"? Do we still legalise it?

Who said anything about the universe having a will, or willing anything?

[Fartsniffage]

But you can construct an argument that goes something like this:

>people say that X would make them happy
>legalising X is unlikely to tangibly harm anyone
>making people happy is good
>we should legalise X

There's still subjectivity in "tangible harm" and "making people happy is good", but you must see how that's a little more grounded in human experience than:

>the universe approves of X
>we want our society's laws to be in accordance with the universe's wishes
>we should legalise X

The latter doesn't bother to engage with anything so tangible as societal consequences. What if X is "slipping polonium into other people's coffee"? Do we still legalise it?

Who said anything about the universe having a will, or willing anything?

Where do you think rights come from?

[Ifreann]

Maybe get a big bag of weed and contemplate that over four pizzas and The Wall on repeat.

Sounds like a bad idea, thanks for the suggestion tho.

Well your metaphilosophical thoughts are really not relevant to this thread so, you know, scratch that itch on your own time, man.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

But you can construct an argument that goes something like this:

>people say that X would make them happy
>legalising X is unlikely to tangibly harm anyone
>making people happy is good
>we should legalise X

There's still subjectivity in "tangible harm" and "making people happy is good", but you must see how that's a little more grounded in human experience than:

>the universe approves of X
>we want our society's laws to be in accordance with the universe's wishes
>we should legalise X

The latter doesn't bother to engage with anything so tangible as societal consequences. What if X is "slipping polonium into other people's coffee"? Do we still legalise it?

Who said anything about the universe having a will, or willing anything?

If you're claiming that objective, universal rights exist independent of human laws and human social conventions, then you're claiming they're a property of reality. F=ma, E=mc², and humans having guns=good.That may not require the universe to have a conscious will (maybe?), but it is asserting that there exists some kind of "Cosmic Law" specifically concerning human affairs. Like a Divine Command theory without the divine.

[Telconi]

Who said anything about the universe having a will, or willing anything?

Where do you think rights come from?

I believe human rights are universal truth's of benefit to all people. They are particular traits, that all people can and do benefit from if allowed to excersize these things. And should be preserved unless under specific circumstances in which the exercise of them actively harms another equally sacrosanct right. As to their source, as a person who believes in an all powerful God, I would say they were design features given to us, however, I don't believe the source effects their inherent value.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Sounds like a bad idea, thanks for the suggestion tho.

Well your metaphilosophical thoughts are really not relevant to this thread so, you know, scratch that itch on your own time, man.

The post he responded to (yours) wasn't very relevant to the thread either.

[Yagon]

I kind of like the idea...but I dunno what the cannabis situation is in the UK.

Still very illegal.

That's a bummer. I thought they'd legalized it during the time John Lennon was prime minister.

But how would they even catch you smoking it? The yellow submarines that British people live in are airtight, aren't they?

[Vassenor]

Can we maybe get back to the topic, much as it is, please?

[Uxupox]

Who said anything about the universe having a will, or willing anything?

Where do you think rights come from?

from yourself.

[Yagon]

Can we maybe get back to the topic, much as it is, please?

Where I'm from, the police have always been armed and are increasingly militarized.

I do hope the UK can find a way to continue to have police who solve problems more often by conversation (or at worse, wrestling) than by ballistics.

But I don't think that's the way the world is going...