Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on January 10, 2013, 06:59:16 AM
-
Ok so in an attempt to better understand different political views and the basis for them I'm gonna try and pose a different question that I think there will be fundamental differences on so we can discuss the reasons for them.
Hopefully this won't divulge into the normal shit storm it usually does at least not before we have some decent posts on it.
The first question stems from the recent debate on gun control.
I feel that those who oppose gun control for the most part feel that the govt should have a healthy fear of the ppl.
I also feel that while those in favor feel that in this day and age it is not necessary for the govt to fear it's constituents or at the very least the citizens are basically powerless against them so why try.
So the base question is should the govt have a HEALTHY fear of its constituents?
-
Hey you fruit eating fairies answer the fucking question!!! :)
Should the govt have a healthy fear of its constituents?
-
YES.
If a Congressman comes out and states they would like to disarm this nations citizens I would ask that Congressman if he would be comfortable in not having an armed to the teeth security detail.
I wonder what his answer would be....
-
Of course.
People that think government tyranny could never happen in the USA are naive. History it's full of dead people that didn't think their government would fuck them over. I think the Jews would have shag-assed out of Germany if they knew Hitler was fixing to do with them. It pays to turn a skeptical eye to politicians.
-
Yes. Look at Europe - the scumbag politicians destroy the society and all the peasants can do is break windows and toss rocks.
-
Anyone with an opposing viewpoint care to chime in?
-
I find it odd giving non-living things agency; so I'm skeptical of how a government can "fear" something.
I'm not really sure what is being asked. Care to rephrase?
-
I find it odd giving non-living things agency; so I'm skeptical of how a government can "fear" something.
I'm not really sure what is being asked. Care to rephrase?
How about this for you - the scumbag pieces of garbage elected to public office fearing that if they try to usurp citizens'freedoms that they will be sent to the gallows or shot for treason?
-
How about this for you - the scumbag pieces of garbage elected to public office fearing that if they try to usurp citizens'freedoms that they will be sent to the gallows or shot for treason?
Property laws limit "freedom" and hardly anybody argues against those. So simply "limiting freedom" isn't enough to count as "treason." If we add the common stipulations onto what we ordinarily mean by "freedom", then the concept becomes empty. Sounds like there is a lot of confusion in these questions.
Back to the thread: Should there be limits to the power of elected officials? Is revolution ever justified? Yes to both, but I don't think that's what is being asked.
-
Property laws limit "freedom" and hardly anybody argues against those. So simply "limiting freedom" isn't enough to count as "treason." If we add the common stipulations onto what we ordinarily mean by "freedom", then the concept becomes empty. Sounds like there is a lot of confusion in these questions.
Back to the thread: Should there be limits to the power of elected officials? Is revolution ever justified? Yes to both, but I don't think that's what is being asked.
Would you agree that a certain point it is justified? I guess the only question - which is debated often - at what point?
-
Would you agree that a certain point it is justified? I guess the only question - which is debated often - at what point?
Yea I would agree that at a certain point, a revolution is justified. I think the french revolution, for example, was obviously justified.
"what point?" is a tough question.
-
I find it odd giving non-living things agency; so I'm skeptical of how a government can "fear" something.
I'm not really sure what is being asked. Care to rephrase?
You're so intelligent! :o
-
Yea I would agree that at a certain point, a revolution is justified. I think the french revolution, for example, was obviously justified.
"what point?" is a tough question.
Well - many people are at that point now, and more and more daily as the govt loses control over the currency and ability to have a stable society.
-
I find it odd giving non-living things agency; so I'm skeptical of how a government can "fear" something.
I'm not really sure what is being asked. Care to rephrase?
A government is made up of human beings which , the last time I checked, are capable of fear.
I find it odd that you are pretending not to know what is being asked here. Perhaps you are trying to give the appearance that you are intellectually superior........which you are not.
-
A government is made up of human beings which , the last time I checked, are capable of fear.
I find it odd that you are pretending not to know what is being asked here. Perhaps you are trying to give the appearance that you are intellectually superior........which you are not.
I claim to be a dumbass. Even if we give agency to government we run into a second problem. The question was should a government fear its constituents. But those who make up government are themselves constituents. So the question ends up as "should some people (those elected to public office) fear themselves?"
I think what was being asked was something along the lines of "Can revolutions be justified?" I'm sure he'll clarify.
-
your question presupposes the support of government in general. therefore i cannot answer.
-
your question presupposes the support of government in general. therefore i cannot answer.
not it doesnt you brainiac...reality is there is govt you dont have to support it to have an opinion on this subject.
-
oh for the love of shit Magoo, this topic got all of 3 posts not by me before the idiocy started.
Youre smarter than this and youre just trying to be a little shit.
Do you think that politicians who make up govt should fear the constituents they govern?
Is that better? now answer the fucking question.
-
Good question,
Every time a politician considers doing something, he should know that he'll be held responsible.
-
not it doesnt you brainiac...reality is there is govt you dont have to support it to have an opinion on this subject.
should government fear its constituents? no.. government shouldnt do anything. it shouldnt exist at all. would it result in a better society if a government feared its citizens rather than if it had no fear of rebellion at all? sure, i think thats fairly obvious ! lol
-
government shouldnt do anything.
X2
-
should government fear its constituents? no.. government shouldnt do anything. it shouldnt exist at all. would it result in a better society if a government feared its citizens rather than if it had no fear of rebellion at all? sure, i think thats fairly obvious ! lol
Thank you for the contribution dizzle
So you're against all forms of govt?
Are you against co-op type agreements as well?
-
oh for the love of shit Magoo, this topic got all of 3 posts not by me before the idiocy started.
Youre smarter than this and youre just trying to be a little shit.
Do you think that politicians who make up govt should fear the constituents they govern?
Is that better? now answer the fucking question.
I don't think elected politicians should fear for their life with every political decision they make, no.
-
I don't think elected politicians should fear for their life with every political decision they make, no.
Not quite the question I posed, my original used the term healthy.
For instance I have a healthy respect for electricity or fire. That doesn't mean I fear for my life if I'm around a fire or every time I turn on a light. I would however have some fear if I was using it appropriately.
-
Not quite the question I posed, my original used the term healthy.
For instance I have a healthy respect for electricity or fire. That doesn't mean I fear for my life if I'm around a fire or every time I turn on a light. I would however have some fear if I was using it appropriately.
There's one liberal in the world, one liberal with many faces. Asking them simple, direct questions or making well though out, relevant analogies won't get you very far with them. I respect you for trying though.
-
A government is made up of human beings which , the last time I checked, are capable of fear.
I find it odd that you are pretending not to know what is being asked here. Perhaps you are trying to give the appearance that you are intellectually superior........which you are not.
Yes you're dead-on...a pathetically desperate attempt to come across as smart, lol.
As to the thread...yes there should be a healthy fear of the constituents.
-
Not quite the question I posed, my original used the term healthy.
For instance I have a healthy respect for electricity or fire. That doesn't mean I fear for my life if I'm around a fire or every time I turn on a light. I would however have some fear if I was using it appropriately.
I forgot to respond to this. I won't waste much more time. I think elected officials should respect their constituents. I don't think anyone should go through life in fear of other people.
-
I forgot to respond to this. I won't waste much more time. I think elected officials should respect their constituents. I don't think anyone should go through life in fear of other people.
respect as in respect their ability to defend themselves from laws and actions they deem unfair?
-
respect as in respect their ability to defend themselves from laws and actions they deem unfair?
I think respect as in show equal concern for the quality of the lives of their constituents and they should strive to make the lives of their constituents better (what is "better" is irrelevant now). I think the actions flowing from this "equal respect/concern" are basically the same actions you think should be done. The result would probably be the same. I'm uneasy about using the word "fear". I think what you mean by "healthy fear" is something along the lines of what i mean by "respect."
As a sidenote, I don't think simply feeling a law to be unfair is sufficient to justify civil disobedience.
-
I think respect as in show equal concern for the quality of the lives of their constituents and they should strive to make the lives of their constituents better (what is "better" is irrelevant now). I think the actions flowing from this "equal respect/concern" are basically the same actions you think should be done. The result would probably be the same. I'm uneasy about using the word "fear". I think what you mean by "healthy fear" is something along the lines of what i mean by "respect."
As a sidenote, I don't think simply feeling a law to be unfair is sufficient to justify civil disobedience.
I agree, I think we could use the term fear and respect interchangably here but I would say that without the aspect of fear the respect is based in altruism. Do you really believe our politicians to view their actions towards us in an altruistic light?
at what point to you believe civil disobidience is justified?
-
I agree, I think we could use the term fear and respect interchangably here but I would say that without the aspect of fear the respect is based in altruism. Do you really believe our politicians to view their actions towards us in an altruistic light?
at what point to you believe civil disobidience is justified?
I don't think politicians do view their actions toward us with a moral (i'll use 'moral' instead of 'altruistic') light. I think they should. Kind of a guide to judge how they really treat us.
When civil disobedience is justified is a very tough question. I'll say when it violates conscious, then civil disobedience is morally justified. This is a more stringent requirement, i think, than merely thinking the law to be unfair. I'm not sure whether we should criminally punish those who partake in civil disobedience though (draft dodgers for example). I've read arguments on both sides, and I'm leaning towards that we should criminally punish them. But I see the obvious paradox.
-
I don't think politicians do view their actions toward us with a moral (i'll use 'moral' instead of 'altruistic') light. I think they should. Kind of a guide to judge how they really treat us.
When civil disobedience is justified is a very tough question. I'll say when it violates conscious, then civil disobedience is morally justified. This is a more stringent requirement, i think, than merely thinking the law to be unfair. I'm not sure whether we should criminally punish those who partake in civil disobedience though (draft dodgers for example). I've read arguments on both sides, and I'm leaning towards that we should criminally punish them. But I see the obvious paradox.
so tough to many dispicable actions have been done with "moral" intentions. It isnt up to the govt to determine morals in my mind. The govt is set to govern the constituents given the parameters that are constrained by not set morality in the US. To say that their actions are based in morality is overstepping their bounds in my mind.
What about the means and ability to be disobidient?
you do realize that even with ability without the means to do so the disobedience will not be succesful right?
If you agree that their is a time and place for civil disobedience against a government then you must agree that the govt must have a healthy fear of its constituents.
If not then civil disobedience is nothing more than political masturbation.