American Politics IX: Winter is Coming

[Maricarland]

People are not inherently evil. I firmly believe in the Anne Frank quote "In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."

Ever read thomas hobbes?

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all misunderstand human nature. Neurological evidence, genetic evidence, archeological evidence, anthropological evidence, and so on... are all basically converging on the idea that humans are inherently neutral (neither good nor evil, but having the potential for both), rather what we are is creative and adaptable, and if we live in conditions that foster cooperation people become more cooperative, and if we live in conditions that foster competition or selfishness people become more competitive and selfish. The interesting thing is that while we are shaped by our societies, we also shape the societies themselves, it is a positive feedback loop.

[Kazak Yeli]

The ability to own guns in the United States should not be a right but a privilege that you may lose.

No, this is ridiculous. The right to bear arms is exactly that: a right.

We do not need people owning certain weapons,

The only people to which I'll agree that this applies are mentally unstable nutcases. But there is too much room for an authority to abuse that. Any subversive person may be declared crazy, just to justify illegally taking their weaponry.

and there needs to be a legitimate reason for an individual to own the weapon.

No, there doesn't. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? A firearm-owner does not have to justify themselves to you.

[The Jamesian Republic]

”In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."
Anne Frank

This.

Also in terms of police I think they need help and there needs to be reform.

[Ifreann]

People need authority to keep them in line and to work for the good of society.

Speak for yourself.

Im tired of hearing MSNBC, CNN, FOX, PBS, OANN, every god damned politican and even people online bitching about "muh rights".

Muh right to get abortion (murder children)
Muh right to not wear a mask (get others sick with deadly pandemic spawn)
Muh right to guns (perpetuate gun violence)
Muh right to not get vaccinated (right to make the pandemic worse.

These arn't really rights and are whats wrong with this country and world.

There needs to be someone enforcing the rules. You cant play football without refs.

You have a point with the football comparison, but I suspect not the one you intend to have. You can't play football without refs because the nature of the sport inherently incentivises cheating. If you cheat and get away with it, you could win, and that's the objective of the whole thing. So if we need cops in society the same way we need refs in football, that would mean that people have incentives to cheat. And that's true, some crimes can be hugely beneficial to the criminal, if they get away with it. But a critical difference here between football and society is that if you changed the rules of football to make it no longer a competition, it wouldn't really be football any more. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't change society to make it cooperative instead of competitive.

[Just-An-Illusion]

The ability to own guns in the United States should not be a right but a privilege that you may lose.

We should implement a stronger system to ensure no one that should not be able to purchase a gun or own a gun has one.

We do not need people owning certain weapons, and there needs to be a legitimate reason for an individual to own the weapon.

Despite my staunch socialist stance, I do not believe is is yet necessary to embrace revolution. We may attempt higher and stronger reform first.

Okay but considering that some of you guys want to abolish the police. How would the government exactly enforce gun laws if there are no police?

Abolish marriage? What about LGBT marriages? Aren't we literally fighting to protect that right?

Marriage abolition is also sometimes called marriage privatization. What it means is that the government should not be officially recognizing any marriage, marriage should not confer any special rights or privileges or benefits that non-married people don't have. People would still be free to have their own marriage ceremonies and traditions if they want, but what marriage means is completely up to the parties getting married (they would draw up their own marriage contracts, including the terms to dissolve the marriage). The government would not be in the marriage business anymore and able to tell same-sex couples or polycules that they cannot get married. The only role the government will have is to prevent forced marriages.

Fair enough

[The Alma Mater]

Abolish marriage? What about LGBT marriages? Aren't we literally fighting to protect that right?

Marriage abolition is also sometimes called marriage privatization. What it means is that the government should not be officially recognizing any marriage, marriage should not confer any special rights or privileges or benefits that non-married people don't have. People would still be free to have their own marriage ceremonies and traditions if they want, but what marriage means is completely up to the parties getting married (they would draw up their own marriage contracts, including the terms to dissolve the marriage). The government would not be in the marriage business anymore and able to tell same-sex couples or polycules that they cannot get married. The only role the government will have is to prevent forced marriages.

But what would that achieve ? The complaint most christians have is that e.g. gay marriage "devalues" the concept of marriage.
Making marriage "whatever you want" would make that 100x worse - I could declare marriage is a union between a man and a small gerbil and that would be just as valid as their definition.

[Kazak Yeli]

Okay but considering that some of you guys want to abolish the police. How would the government exactly enforce gun laws if there are no police?

Mental health experts.

[San Lumen]

”In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."
Anne Frank

This.

Also in terms of police I think they need help and there needs to be reform.

I agree completely and having lived in the big city ive seen evidence of that quote many times.

Regarding the police there definitely needs to be reform but calling for defund the police ruins the message and scares people.

[Vassenor]

Is that why NYPD strikes made crime go down?

You again.

Way to avoid the question.

In New York, major crime complaints fell when cops took a break from ‘proactive policing’

NYC cops did a work stop, yet crime dropped

[Maricarland]

Marriage abolition is also sometimes called marriage privatization. What it means is that the government should not be officially recognizing any marriage, marriage should not confer any special rights or privileges or benefits that non-married people don't have. People would still be free to have their own marriage ceremonies and traditions if they want, but what marriage means is completely up to the parties getting married (they would draw up their own marriage contracts, including the terms to dissolve the marriage). The government would not be in the marriage business anymore and able to tell same-sex couples or polycules that they cannot get married. The only role the government will have is to prevent forced marriages.

But what would that achieve ? The complaint most christians have is that e.g. gay marriage "devalues" the concept of marriage.
Making marriage "whatever you want" would make that 100x worse - I could declare marriage is a union between a man and a small gerbil and that would be just as valid as their definition.

A gerbil cannot consent to marriage (nor does it understand the concept - marriage is a human social construct, so it only makes sense to humans, or potentially sentient AI or aliens).

Also, well, it is called marriage abolition/privatization, so yeah it would devalue a standard marriage recognized by an authority figure, in favor of whatever people want it to mean (giving people the freedom to have same sex marriages, marriages between all genders including those whom are not men or women, and multi-spousal marriages).

[Ifreann]

The ability to own guns in the United States should not be a right but a privilege that you may lose.

We should implement a stronger system to ensure no one that should not be able to purchase a gun or own a gun has one.

We do not need people owning certain weapons, and there needs to be a legitimate reason for an individual to own the weapon.

Despite my staunch socialist stance, I do not believe is is yet necessary to embrace revolution. We may attempt higher and stronger reform first.

Okay but considering that some of you guys want to abolish the police. How would the government exactly enforce gun laws if there are no police?

It wouldn't, because there would be no government either.

---

Marriage abolition is also sometimes called marriage privatization. What it means is that the government should not be officially recognizing any marriage, marriage should not confer any special rights or privileges or benefits that non-married people don't have. People would still be free to have their own marriage ceremonies and traditions if they want, but what marriage means is completely up to the parties getting married (they would draw up their own marriage contracts, including the terms to dissolve the marriage). The government would not be in the marriage business anymore and able to tell same-sex couples or polycules that they cannot get married. The only role the government will have is to prevent forced marriages.

But what would that achieve ? The complaint most christians have is that e.g. gay marriage "devalues" the concept of marriage.
Making marriage "whatever you want" would make that 100x worse - I could declare marriage is a union between a man and a small gerbil and that would be just as valid as their definition.

It would achieve maximum freedom for people to conduct romantic relationships in whatever manner best suits those involved in them. I don't believe that appeasing conservative Christians is a concern.

[San Lumen]

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-bu ... b5b5da01d7

Former Senate leader Harry Reid lies in state at Capitol

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Therm, it t doesn't make you right, but it doesn't make you wrong. It doesn't make me and us right, but it doesn't make me and us wrong. In Politics no one is right and no one is wrong.

You have said some things that have made my head hurt quite often, some things have been more outrageous than others, and to be honest this is actually rather mild in comparison to others.

But for some reason this to me is above all the other things, the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

It means, I GMS respect the democratic rights of Therm, you and all persons, to their different, economic, political and social views, to strongly disagree with me, without me telling them, I am right and your are wrong, without me telling them, I am right based on facts and the scientific method process, and they are wrong based on their opinions, we all have different, economic, political and social views, in politics no one is right and no one is wrong, we just strongly disagree on the issues. Including on Republican President Donald J Trump of the USA. GMS with Pride and Honor.

[Daniel-Franklin]

Ever read thomas hobbes?

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all misunderstand human nature. Neurological evidence, genetic evidence, archeological evidence, anthropological evidence, and so on... are all basically converging on the idea that humans are inherently neutral (neither good nor evil, but having the potential for both), rather what we are is creative and adaptable, and if we live in conditions that foster cooperation people become more cooperative, and if we live in conditions that foster competition or selfishness people become more competitive and selfish. The interesting thing is that while we are shaped by our societies, we also shape the societies themselves, it is a positive feedback loop.

Most people are morally neutral, yes, but literally half of all people by definition have below average intelligence, rendering them gullible to warlords, cultists, and con artists. Crime exists, so police should as well. To remove criminals from the streets.

[San Lumen]

You have said some things that have made my head hurt quite often, some things have been more outrageous than others, and to be honest this is actually rather mild in comparison to others.

But for some reason this to me is above all the other things, the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

It means, I GMS respect the democratic rights of Therm, you and all persons, to their different, economic, political and social views, to strongly disagree with me, without me telling them, I am right and your are wrong, without me telling them, I am right based on facts and the scientific method process, and they are wrong based on their opinions, we all have different, economic, political and social views, in politics no one is right and no one is wrong, we just strongly disagree on the issues. Including Republican President Donald J Trump of the USA. GMS with Pride and Honor.

There are not two sets of facts. Your opinions are not facts.

If someone believes the Earth is flat does that make it true?

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

It means, I GMS respect the democratic rights of Therm, you and all persons, to their different, economic, political and social views, to strongly disagree with me, without me telling them, I am right and your are wrong, without me telling them, I am right based on facts and the scientific method process, and they are wrong based on their opinions, we all have different, economic, political and social views, in politics no one is right and no one is wrong, we just strongly disagree on the issues. Including Republican President Donald J Trump of the USA. GMS with Pride and Honor.

There are not two sets of facts. Your opinions are not facts.

If someone believes the Earth is flat does that make it true?

My opinions are not facts and your opinions are not facts, in Politics?

[San Lumen]

There are not two sets of facts. Your opinions are not facts.

If someone believes the Earth is flat does that make it true?

My opinions are not facts and your opinions are not facts, in Politics?

Opinions and facts are two different things.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

My opinions are not facts and your opinions are not facts, in Politics?

Opinions and facts are two different things.

Who gets to define opinions and facts in politics, you or me?

[Untecna]

The ability to own guns in the United States should not be a right but a privilege that you may lose.

No, this is ridiculous. The right to bear arms is exactly that: a right.

And how has that worked out so far? The UK, which uses the system I propose, has less gun homicide than we do. You shouldn't be entitled to a weapon without reason, you should have to earn the ability to own and use that weapon.

We do not need people owning certain weapons,

The only people to which I'll agree that this applies are mentally unstable nutcases. But there is too much room for an authority to abuse that. Any subversive person may be declared crazy, just to justify illegally taking their weaponry.

Read that part again, because you misunderstood the point of it.

and there needs to be a legitimate reason for an individual to own the weapon.

No, there doesn't. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? A firearm-owner does not have to justify themselves to you.

[/quote]
Why shouldn't they? For what reason does someone need to be entitled to a firearm? No other country does that and most have far less gun crime than we do, for the reason that we entitle people to own weapons and don't have a strong enough system to prevent crime from being done.

The ability to own guns in the United States should not be a right but a privilege that you may lose.

We should implement a stronger system to ensure no one that should not be able to purchase a gun or own a gun has one.

We do not need people owning certain weapons, and there needs to be a legitimate reason for an individual to own the weapon.

Despite my staunch socialist stance, I do not believe is is yet necessary to embrace revolution. We may attempt higher and stronger reform first.

Okay but considering that some of you guys want to abolish the police. How would the government exactly enforce gun laws if there are no police?

I do not seek to abolish the police personally, I only seek to reform them so that they are left with rightfully enforcing the law and letting other agencies handle other issues that we currently assign to police. Besides, the police, more likely to have local information and whatnot, could actually assist in the acquirement of a firearm far more than they already do.

[Flanderstan]

This has degenerated.

[Comerciante]

Opinions and facts are two different things.

Who gets to define opinions and facts in politics, you or me?

Try a dictionary.

[Hemakral]

Abolish marriage? What about LGBT marriages? Aren't we literally fighting to protect that right?

They prolly meant the legal status rather than the act itself, which would mean changing some laws instead of forcibly destroying monogamous bonds. I could be wrong, though.

Give interest-free mortgages to young families. Outlaw foreign ownership of residential property. Bring back the homestead acts and legalize squatting.

I'll do ya one better: Mortgage shouldn't have interest.
If "foreign" means "people not residing in the country", then yes.
Homesteading probably isn't going to make a comeback anytime soon, but I could be wrong.
Squatting ignores property laws, so yeah, cool.

[Flanderstan]

why do people like legalizing everything?

[Spirit of Hope]

Marriage abolition is also sometimes called marriage privatization. What it means is that the government should not be officially recognizing any marriage, marriage should not confer any special rights or privileges or benefits that non-married people don't have. People would still be free to have their own marriage ceremonies and traditions if they want, but what marriage means is completely up to the parties getting married (they would draw up their own marriage contracts, including the terms to dissolve the marriage). The government would not be in the marriage business anymore and able to tell same-sex couples or polycules that they cannot get married. The only role the government will have is to prevent forced marriages.

But what would that achieve ? The complaint most christians have is that e.g. gay marriage "devalues" the concept of marriage.
Making marriage "whatever you want" would make that 100x worse - I could declare marriage is a union between a man and a small gerbil and that would be just as valid as their definition.

It would achieve the government not being involved in marriages, which are deeply tied to religion. So yes, if you wanted to get married to a gerbil you could, if you wanted to be in a polygamous marriage you could, etc. A marriage would be defined by the parties involved without the government having to be involved and say what counts, or doesn't count, as a marriage.

Opinions and facts are two different things.

Who gets to define opinions and facts in politics, you or me?

Reality determines what are facts.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Who gets to define opinions and facts in politics, you or me?

Try a dictionary.

ok, one person says, Republican President Trump is bad, no good and evil.
The other person says, Republican President Trump is the greatest President of the USA, according to my economic, political and social views. Who is right and who is wrong? Which statement is a fact and which statement is an opinion?