Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[dairygirl4u2c]

16 hours ago, superblue said:

after everyone is killing each other with swords, will there be legislation to come about to regulate what kind of swords we can carry ?

the stats say that people are more likely to kill someone with a gun. where there are less guns there is less OVERALL death. that means people dont just make up for it by killing with knives and swords etc. so there wouldn't need to be laws against swords cause eventually it does become people will just kill each other with whatever they got... but with guns the issue is multiplied. 

[superblue]

4 hours ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

the stats say that people are more likely to kill someone with a gun. where there are less guns there is less OVERALL death. that means people dont just make up for it by killing with knives and swords etc. so there wouldn't need to be laws against swords cause eventually it does become people will just kill each other with whatever they got... but with guns the issue is multiplied. 

so your answer is no, there will not be legislation against swords when guns are outlawed, amesome !, I will start stock piling on quality swords for physical use then.

They do get pricey though, I think there is a guy in Michigan who makes viking swords by hand an they can be upwards of 6 grand, then you have to figure out which is a better and more versatile sword.

UGH wait, what about biological killing,  what  laws are out there that will prevent me from infecting myself with something that can be airborne and just cough an sneeze all over a public transport place ? we need more comprehensive forward thinking laws.

Wait what if people find a way to do away with guns and instead just use the bullets ?

Edited January 30, 2016 by superblue

[Winchester]

On 1/28/2016, 4:02:10, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think you can address my argument without repudiating Catholicism, or at least without denying Leo xiii the authority to teach definitively in the manner he did.

I was hoping to put time into reading and responding, and you erased it all. Now I have to grab books from my shelves, which is even more tedious.

 

Dude.

Nope, nvm, I see it now.

Still. Time. Need it.

[Winchester]

This is a collection of encyclicals against modernism. It's full of highlights and bookmarks. It doesn't have Immortale Dei, but that's in my old files. I read and internalized these things over a decade ago. While I think rereading is warranted, I think you need to understand that I was going down a libertarian path for a long time,  and it started with documents like this. I held onto modern American patriotism and the binary political outlook for too long, which is an embarrassment now. You may feel as though you fell into a trap. Perhaps these documents were new to you. Perhaps you didn't apprehend the actual arguments for libertarianism as presented by Woods,  Tucker, or Casey  (all Catholic), or Murphy (Christian who isn't yet catholic). 

I'll read, but I'll also be going back to my old notes,  which led me to feudalism,  which is minarchy, whose appeals are utilitarian. 

[Nihil Obstat]

53 minutes ago, Winchester said:

This is a collection of encyclicals against modernism. It's full of highlights and bookmarks. It doesn't have Immortale Dei, but that's in my old files. I read and internalized these things over a decade ago. While I think rereading is warranted, I think you need to understand that I was going down a libertarian path for a long time,  and it started with documents like this. I held onto modern American patriotism and the binary political outlook for too long, which is an embarrassment now. You may feel as though you fell into a trap. Perhaps these documents were new to you. Perhaps you didn't apprehend the actual arguments for libertarianism as presented by Woods,  Tucker, or Casey  (all Catholic), or Murphy (Christian who isn't yet catholic). 

I'll read, but I'll also be going back to my old notes,  which led me to feudalism,  which is minarchy, whose appeals are utilitarian. 

I have no problem with many, and perhaps a majority of libertarian positions, but the core of libertarianism, its fundamental basis, is - as you yourself have pointed out - a basis in classical liberalism. While many positions it articulates are good ones which I share or at least respect, that deepest basis is not compatible with the Church's teaching, and you have read for yourself the condemnations of and warnings against liberalism.

[Winchester]

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I have no problem with many, and perhaps a majority of libertarian positions, but the core of libertarianism, its fundamental basis, is - as you yourself have pointed out - a basis in classical liberalism. While many positions it articulates are good ones which I share or at least respect, that deepest basis is not compatible with the Church's teaching, and you have read for yourself the condemnations of and warnings against liberalism.

The condemnations of the beliefs described by a particular pope in their conclusion might well fall under infallibility. What would not be infallible is the argument presented or the interpretation of the beliefs of others. So the route might be wrong (this would work against someone pointing out the many errors in economic thought present in social justice writings) but the conclusion correct. And it might be possible for the condemnation of the in the teaching to be correct, but the description of a belief itself might conform to what someone actually holds true. This is a terrible sentence. What I'm saying is that the liberalism Gregory XVI's "On Liberalism" might not be the liberalism Bastiat held (although I've only read Bastiat's economic works partly, not any purely moral writings he might have written).

That I believe someone may be left to sin does not mean that I reject that it is a sin, or, in the case of condemnations of indifference or syncretism (beliefs a classical liberal might hold, but that are not necessary for one to be a classical liberal), that believing another may belong to a different religion does not mean that I believe the religion to be true.

It amounts in most cases to not hurling a stone. And also not supporting those who hurl them. There is in classical liberalism no prescription to disobey laws. For instance, I understand what drug prohibition does. I see that the greater evil is in the prohibiting of them. It makes things worse. It's counter productive, and tolerating the evils of drugs instead of the evils of prohibition is acceptable. It doesn't follow that I must approve of drugs, or help people obtain drugs. It doesn't follow that I may (as a Catholic) disobey prohibitions of drugs (even alcohol prohibition). I might be under a moral obligation to obey the laws--it's inarguable that if people simply obeyed marijuana prohibition, there would be more peace.  Even a non-Catholic classical liberal can go along in the interests of  minimizing evil. If people stopped dealing in the illegal drug trade, there would be fewer murderers, kidnappers, and thieves among our police forces and court thingies--not for lack of intent, but in practice.

Said more than I intended. I printed out your chosen excerpts. Did you ever read Gerard Casey's "Libertarian Anarchy"?

 

[superblue]

5 hours ago, Winchester said:

This is a collection of encyclicals against modernism. It's full of highlights and bookmarks. It doesn't have Immortale Dei, but that's in my old files. I read and internalized these things over a decade ago. While I think rereading is warranted, I think you need to understand that I was going down a libertarian path for a long time,  and it started with documents like this. I held onto modern American patriotism and the binary political outlook for too long, which is an embarrassment now. You may feel as though you fell into a trap. Perhaps these documents were new to you. Perhaps you didn't apprehend the actual arguments for libertarianism as presented by Woods,  Tucker, or Casey  (all Catholic), or Murphy (Christian who isn't yet catholic). 

I'll read, but I'll also be going back to my old notes,  which led me to feudalism,  which is minarchy, whose appeals are utilitarian. 

This would have looked a lot better had it been surrounded by empty bullet casings and a revolver.

[Nihil Obstat]

59 minutes ago, Winchester said:

The condemnations of the beliefs described by a particular pope in their conclusion might well fall under infallibility. What would not be infallible is the argument presented or the interpretation of the beliefs of others. So the route might be wrong (this would work against someone pointing out the many errors in economic thought present in social justice writings) but the conclusion correct. And it might be possible for the condemnation of the in the teaching to be correct, but the description of a belief itself might conform to what someone actually holds true. This is a terrible sentence. What I'm saying is that the liberalism Gregory XVI's "On Liberalism" might not be the liberalism Bastiat held (although I've only read Bastiat's economic works partly, not any purely moral writings he might have written).

That I believe someone may be left to sin does not mean that I reject that it is a sin, or, in the case of condemnations of indifference or syncretism (beliefs a classical liberal might hold, but that are not necessary for one to be a classical liberal), that believing another may belong to a different religion does not mean that I believe the religion to be true.

It amounts in most cases to not hurling a stone. And also not supporting those who hurl them. There is in classical liberalism no prescription to disobey laws. For instance, I understand what drug prohibition does. I see that the greater evil is in the prohibiting of them. It makes things worse. It's counter productive, and tolerating the evils of drugs instead of the evils of prohibition is acceptable. It doesn't follow that I must approve of drugs, or help people obtain drugs. It doesn't follow that I may (as a Catholic) disobey prohibitions of drugs (even alcohol prohibition). I might be under a moral obligation to obey the laws--it's inarguable that if people simply obeyed marijuana prohibition, there would be more peace.  Even a non-Catholic classical liberal can go along in the interests of  minimizing evil. If people stopped dealing in the illegal drug trade, there would be fewer murderers, kidnappers, and thieves among our police forces and court thingies--not for lack of intent, but in practice.

Said more than I intended. I printed out your chosen excerpts. Did you ever read Gerard Casey's "Libertarian Anarchy"?

 

But Catholic social teaching does, very definitively, hold that there are times when "stones", as you put it, have to be hurled by a state for the common good. There is simply no way to get around that. The coercive power of the state for the benefit of the common good is enshrined in our social teaching.

Have not read that one, no.

[Amppax]

Winnie, it's interesting you say that these documents lead you to libertarianism, because they are what lead me out of it. I confess though, as I go back and reread these documents now, with a more robust understanding of theology, I do see them as supporting a large state less and less. Anyway, some interesting stuff, as always. It's fun when you post seriously.  I'm enjoying being a fly on the wall for this discussion. 

[superblue]

No one here should be allowed to comment on guns or gun laws, or how it correlates with the faith, unless you physically own a gun and name it Church Militant.

[Winchester]

@Nihil Obstat, I decided to read all of I.D. rather than excerpts, since in my memory it's addressing concerns that Catholics will cause trouble by following the Church rather than local rule (which, oddly enough in spite of its appeasement language, says just that. Essentially "As long as you don't go outside your authority (which really everyone has) you'll get no trouble from us) rather than support of legal positivism (which anarchism, like Catholicism, rejects) the "novel conception of law" the pope refers to, ie: legislative law.

Of course, this won't clear up the muddy terms "society", and "state", and "nation", but I believe the unclear thinking in the encyclical can be overcome by looking at the full intent of the pope's message. I'll still refer to the bits you felt made your case, but if one were to look at just those, it's possible to believe the pope was calling (following logic) a one world government with one person ruling over all. Unless that person is God (the Catholic anarchist position is, of course, just that), I find that highly unlikely. Subsidiarity, and all that. Honestly, I find the sentence in question to be devoid of merit, but as it's an argument, not a conclusion, it needn't be right, anyway.

On 1/31/2016, 5:13:30, Nihil Obstat said:

But Catholic social teaching does, very definitively, hold that there are times when "stones", as you put it, have to be hurled by a state for the common good. There is simply no way to get around that. The coercive power of the state for the benefit of the common good is enshrined in our social teaching.

Have not read that one, no.

It doesn't follow that this is the sole purview of a State--there's always the qualifier that these things be just.

The idea that justice is the monopoly privilege of the State is an innovation, and, more to the point--Anti-Catholic. What the anarchist says is not that the State is wrong, but that what is wrong is wrong, even when done by the State. It applies justice and law across the board. Anarchists follow a concept of law, not legislation (which seems to be a problem for atheists).

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

@Nihil Obstat, I decided to read all of I.D. rather than excerpts, since in my memory it's addressing concerns that Catholics will cause trouble by following the Church rather than local rule (which, oddly enough in spite of its appeasement language, says just that. Essentially "As long as you don't go outside your authority (which really everyone has) you'll get no trouble from us) rather than support of legal positivism (which anarchism, like Catholicism, rejects) the "novel conception of law" the pope refers to, ie: legislative law.

Of course, this won't clear up the muddy terms "society", and "state", and "nation", but I believe the unclear thinking in the encyclical can be overcome by looking at the full intent of the pope's message. I'll still refer to the bits you felt made your case, but if one were to look at just those, it's possible to believe the pope was calling (following logic) a one world government with one person ruling over all. Unless that person is God (the Catholic anarchist position is, of course, just that), I find that highly unlikely. Subsidiarity, and all that. Honestly, I find the sentence in question to be devoid of merit, but as it's an argument, not a conclusion, it needn't be right, anyway.

It doesn't follow that this is the sole purview of a State--there's always the qualifier that these things be just.

The idea that justice is the monopoly privilege of the State is an innovation, and, more to the point--Anti-Catholic. What the anarchist says is not that the State is wrong, but that what is wrong is wrong, even when done by the State. It applies justice and law across the board. Anarchists follow a concept of law, not legislation (which seems to be a problem for atheists).

No, it does not. But even less does it follow that a coercive state is inherently immoral or unjust. You are correct, Immortale Dei does not concede to the state unlimited power. You should notice the temporal power reserved to the Church as well. But there is no room whatsoever to interpret any of that as allowing for anarchism.

[Anomaly]

Please place horse here:

(It really is dead.)

[Not A Real Name]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

What the anarchist says is not that the State is wrong, but that what is wrong is wrong, even when done by the State. It applies justice and law across the board. Anarchists follow a concept of law, not legislation (which seems to be a problem for atheists).

Given that anarchy is synonymous with lawlessness, I do not see how this could be the case. Who's laws and justice do the anarchists apply? 

9 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Please place horse here:

(It really is dead.)

Beating a dead horse can be a great upper body workout.  Shhh, don't tell PETA. 

[Nihil Obstat]

11 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Please place horse here:

(It really is dead.)

Thank you, old man. Go eat a bowl of prunes or something.