|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted August 06, 2010 07:58 AM |
|
|
@Mytical wrote:
Quote:
I will ask again, since it seems to have been missed.
I think you missed that I answered this example of yours in the post just below.
@Mytical & Binabik
It does of course matter how you use your ground and there are laws for that, but any law which predefines that you cannot build X, when the consequence of X is not clearly defined (where the conseuqnce is clearly defined in Myticals example) would be oppressing, in my opinion.
[Off topic]
Also, though it doesn't belong here I guess, I think it's funny the difference of owning ground in relation to government in the given country and in the neighbour country. Neighbouring countries of country X can break the law of the law of country X, yet country X won't do anything. However if someone who owns property in country X, country X will still act like they've a right to decide. So you can say it's not true ownership in this essence, though I'd of course dislike if you could kill someone in your own home without consequence.
A real life example would be the soccer player Muhammed Zidan.
He's from Egypt and in Egypt you aren't forced to serve your country in the military if you're the only one to take care of your family economical. That was the case for a long time with Zidan, but now his brother have got his own business.
So what happens? Well Egypt wants him to serve, but as long he's outside of Egypt, Egypt aren't going to do anything to try to get him. No claiming to Germany (he playes in Dortmund), that they require him back. No what they do is that when he goes on holiday back to Egypt, they restrict him to leave the country again and forces him into their military.
It's so absurd, and clearly shows how it's only due to sufficient power that any government would dare to into anyones private property. Egypt would never dare to enter Germany, they'd at most send a letter. Likewise Germany would never do the opposite, because they find money more important than the individual (at least that's my guess). So neighbouring countries can oppress to a degree beyond the law of said neighbour. If someone had the same power on their private property, they'd properly truely have what I imagine private property really means, though what's really is sad, is that people think just because they've the power, they've the right to decide that someone should spend ~1 year in military, just because said person happened to be born in that random defined region.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 08:05 AM |
|
|
Ah, Bin, the problem is, you don't.
CAN but SHOULD NOT is somewhat different from
HAS A RIGHT TO but SHOULD NOT.
And we are talking about HAS A RIGHT TO but SHOULD NOT.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 08:26 AM |
|
|
OK fine. I'll correct it.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, in the end it's the likes with Corribus' opinion who make it possible: sure, they HAVE rights - but they shouldn't make use of them, should they.
EXACTLY!
OMG OMG OMG, does JJ finally get it?
Just because you CANhave a right to do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 08:43 AM |
|
|
Ah, but here you are wrong.
If you have the right, THERE IS NO SHOULD NOT.
If there was, you shouldn't have the right in the first place.
Drastic example: Law gives you the right to kill your wife when you catch her with another man. But you should not make use of it? Come on! If you shouldn't - why do you have the right in the first place?
Bottom line: if you have the right to do something, there is no such thing as "should not". If there is, due to moral or other issues - change the right. If THAT would be wrong for some reason - bad luck.
Now note, that this principle is valid within the whole body of the law: there is no "should not" when the right to do something is established.
The reason should be obvious. What should or should not be done is - beside the objective law difficult to impossible to determine.
Example: People have the right to be obscenely rich - but should not be so in the face of millions of people starving to death.
And that's the end of it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 08:53 AM |
|
|
Now, hold on, JJ. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean they should. I have the right to stick a knife in my garbage dispenser - but I shouldn't. I have the right to spend all of my disposable income on candy - but I shouldn't. Etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:05 AM |
|
|
Comeon, this starts to sound like the, either you're with me or you're against me kind of argument.
There are more possibilities than should and should not. All in all, it's up to the person with the right to decide what they want, if they even take a stance towards it.
So if you've a right, it's up to you what you'll do in that regard. There's no, you should follow it, then it's not a right, but something you're "forced" to, and there's no, you should not follow it, then like jj said it's no right really, or at least, it shouldn't be.
No it's, you've a right and you decide what you'll do with it.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:08 AM |
|
|
The law is not the end all and be all. There have been plenty of WRONG laws in the past. Like for instance..at one time it was perfectly legal to OWN another person, and to (if you wanted) whip them in public. So..that makes it ok?
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:12 AM |
|
|
I agree that power does not make right. However we live in a world that is real to us and we should adjust it compared to what we want. As it is, those in power have decided upon some law, and as long as those laws are like that, that is reality we adjust to.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, hold on, JJ. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean they should. I have the right to stick a knife in my garbage dispenser - but I shouldn't. I have the right to spend all of my disposable income on candy - but I shouldn't. Etc.
But the only one to decide is YOU. NO ONE ELSE can tell you, hey, you shouldn't do that. And if you decide to do it, it's still your right to do so, and no one has a right to keep you from doing it
By the way, what's a "garbage dispenser"? I kno, for example, a condom dispenser or a soap dispenser, but I did't know there are garbage dispensers now in the US. What do they do? You put i a quarter and get a couple of empty candy bar wrappers or something?
Well, you learn something new every day.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:17 AM |
|
|
err... Obviously I meant "garbage disposal". It's one o'clock at night, what do you expect? 
Quote:
NO ONE ELSE can tell you, hey, you shouldn't do that. And if you decide to do it, it's still your right to do so, and no one has a right to keep you from doing it.
Well, yes and no. Certainly, no one has a right to keep you from doing it. On the other hand, people can tell you that it's a bad idea to do it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The law is not the end all and be all. There have been plenty of WRONG laws in the past. Like for instance..at one time it was perfectly legal to OWN another person, and to (if you wanted) whip them in public. So..that makes it ok?
At the time, for the individual, yes, that makes it okay. A society can be as good or bad only as the general level of, well, illumination or whatever you may call it, is.
EDIT:
Quote:
On the other hand, people can tell you that it's a bad idea to do it.
That they certainly can. But they better had very good REASONS why it's a bad idea, and that reasons should be different from "I don't like it, it's tactless or it's unseemly". And they should certainly not try to rub their point in with their fists.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
At the time, for the individual, yes, that makes it okay. A society can be as good or bad only as the general level of, well, illumination or whatever you may call it, is.
To me, this is one of the problems. People never question things anymore. "Well, its the law..so it has to be right." Nothing gets changed that way.
I personally am for personal freedom of all kinds, but I also realize there is a sensible line. A point, where you HAVE to say..Hey now, wait a minute, that law is WRONG. I guess some people only think that if it directly affects THEM. However, I've gotten this off on a tangent, and I apologize.
Should a Mosque be allowed to be built. Yes. Absolutely. Should it be built? No. It is a matter of Tact. Some people have it, some don't. Some get it, some won't. Simple as that.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But they better had very good REASONS why it's a bad idea, and that reasons should be different from "I don't like it, it's tactless or it's unseemly". And they should certainly not try to rub their point in with their fists.
I agree. But I think what most of them are saying is, "A lot of stupid people are going to whine about it, and it's probably not worth the whining."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:51 AM |
|
|
To be honest, I don't see tact as much of reasoning anymore than "it makes me feel bad". If it really was so, then the government shouldn't have sold that ground in the first place.
I agree many laws are wrong, copyrights could be an exmple of what is wrong in my opinion, however I can't see how it's relevant in this case, because we've to take into consideration reality as it is and not how we'd like it to be. If we break the law, there'll artificial consequences, which makes it less useable, than it otherwise would.
Quote:
"A lot of stupid people are going to whine about it, and it's probably not worth the whining."
Yeah, but that should be up to the owners to decide, how much whining they can take.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 09:55 AM |
|
Edited by bixie at 11:02, 06 Aug 2010.
|
Elodin:
History does not lie about christians.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 10:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
At the time, for the individual, yes, that makes it okay. A society can be as good or bad only as the general level of, well, illumination or whatever you may call it, is.
To me, this is one of the problems. People never question things anymore. "Well, its the law..so it has to be right." Nothing gets changed that way.
I personally am for personal freedom of all kinds, but I also realize there is a sensible line. A point, where you HAVE to say..Hey now, wait a minute, that law is WRONG. I guess some people only think that if it directly affects THEM. However, I've gotten this off on a tangent, and I apologize.
Should a Mosque be allowed to be built. Yes. Absolutely. Should it be built? No. It is a matter of Tact. Some people have it, some don't. Some get it, some won't. Simple as that.
Indeed, people question laws all the time - they just do it ONLY WHEN THEY ARE PERSONALLY INVOLVED (see he underlined part of the quote).
THAT is the REAL problem. People will ALWAYS point to the law, when it's good for them and tend to doubt the law and cry for changes, when it's not, when they find the law isn't right. You won't see people protesting against THEMSELVES: "I COULD do this by rights, but somehow it's wrong." That's VERY rare.
Here, however, we have a deeper problem: it's STILL about guilt by affiliation.
Let's say a young idiot hits somene with a car driving drunk, too fast, whatever - should the parents of said young idiot express their condolencesto the parents of the victim or not? Guilt by affiliation? Should those parents be ashamed? What if they ARE NOT? What if they really feel sorry?
Who are you to tell anyone what's tactful and what not? What IS tact anyway? Tact is, avoiding the awkward, but sometimes "awkward" is absoutely right - or don't you relish the "turd on the cake" when something is wrong with the revellers? It's even true for funerals. Sure, you are not supposed to say something bad about the deceased - most tactless -, but, heck, just why not, if the deceased deserves it?
In other words, why should some people be spared from all awkwardness and others gulp things down?
Or, in still other words - have the non-muslim Americans somehow "lost" more than the muslim Americans?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 10:03 AM |
|
|
@Bixie
The first and last Elodin inconsistence is claiming he is christian. He only memorized the bible because it allows him to skip difficult questions, by quoting bablefish from it.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 10:29 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 11:10, 06 Aug 2010.
|
Hi again
I will go back to page 4 when - as an act of good will to Mytical's request for a slower pace in the thread - I self-silenced myself for 24h.
So, let's see, because we are arguing for the sake of arguing and this explains why the OS of M is in the state that it is.
JJ, you are saying "who cares what some folks declare for a religion?" I do, many others do, and probably you should too (yes!). This is more obvious when you phrase it differently and ask "why would it matter that a guy calls for Jihad? He can call as much as he wants, who cares? It's just PROPAGANDA in a desperate attempt to spread the unrest, get support and so on." And here I already answered. What desperate propaganda ? Are you denying here that 9/11 happened (because people followed that "desperate" propaganda) ? Are you denying this now ? Either you believe that 9/11 happened, or you don't; which one is it ? (Of course you can also know that 9/11 happened, or you can also know that something happened at an area called Ground Zero, but let's not go into that; it is just technical.) So, are you denying that 9/11 happened ?
I explained my main point of mentioning "jihad" and the different interpretations in the previous post. But this is just the start. Nobody did the obvious thing. So, I repeat the question, what does "jihad" mean ?
And now let's see some more answers.
* Wiktionary
* Online Etymology Dictionary
In other words, it literally means "struggle, contest, effort".
-- There is probably something to be added here, but later.
Let's move to the next post in page 4. You are calling my statement "Because in the end, all the terrorists on 9/11 were muslims and did what they did in the name of some sort of "jihad"." propaganda of the terrorists in which I and the US fell for. Same question as before; is the statement not true ? Simple question, yes or no ? Where do you see the propaganda ? Wait ... hmmm ... I think I get it. It is in a subsequent post.
"Just hire someone doing something gruesome "in the name of [something you want to discredit]" and, voila. Mission accomplished."
Ta-da!
What ? Are you saying that 9/11 was the result of hiring some people to attack the US in the name of [something that someone wanted to discredit] ? Do you have information that we do not JJ ? Please, share this piece of information.
And since we are in that post, you ask "Why should you bow your head each time when a dickhead does something stupid and CLAIMS to do it in your name or in the name of something you stand for? Don't you see the disastrous route there?"
These guys do not claim that they did it in somebody else's name. The guys claimed that they had religious obligation to go on a war. They have said this before the attacks, right after the attacks, and they are still in that mode. It is amazing that you don't see anything hostile or at least suspicious in the way many-many muslims interpret the word "jihad". What is even more surprising is that you call this a "claim"! Seriously, was it just a "claim" ? Let me understand once again. Are you now claiming that the guys who were on the planes did not believe in anything when they flew the airplanes straight to the towers ? Or is it because someone "funded" them and they will take the money with them, well ... , in after-life ? Who is claiming what now ? JJ, what are you saying ?
Coming back to the previous post, you are making the statement "EVERYONE can do EVERYTHING in the name of EVERYTHING, that doesn't have any meaning." Errmm, ... what ? Does the word "laws" ring any bell ? You are taking this back, right ?
I will come to historical facts and the rest, but at some point you should start answering questions. That's the idea of discussion.
____________
The empty set
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 10:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's move to the next post in page 4. You are calling my statement "Because in the end, all the terrorists on 9/11 were muslims and did what they did in the name of some sort of "jihad"." propaganda of the terrorists in which I and the US fell for. Same question as before; is the statement not true ? Simple question, yes or no ? Where do you see the propaganda ? Wait ... hmmm ... I think I get it. It is in a subsequent post.
"Just hire someone doing something gruesome "in the name of [something you want to discredit]" and, voila. Mission accomplished."
Ta-da!
What ? Are you saying that 9/11 was the result of hiring some people to attack the US in the name of [something that someone wanted to discredit] ? Do you have information that we do not JJ ? Please, share this piece of information.
Exactly. You need money to pull something like that. Osama has that money (or HAD it). You need people to finance that stuff, and you need people who do it. OSAMA (and al quaida) is viewing the US as evil, nd he's ighting against them - for his own reasons. That HE (and maybe his leadership) is claiming "jihad" doesn't matter a thing, it's just a propaganda claim toget followers, because Osama and al quaida are no religious leaders and therefore have no religious authority.
That's all there is to it.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 10:45 AM |
|
|
No JJ, that's not all. You haven't answered the majority of questions above.
____________
The empty set
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
