Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Some Republicans reconsider gun-control, raising taxes
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Until then, the letter and spirit of it is exactly what we should be basing our current legislation on.


Fine legal principle, totally incoherent ethical principle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
comm wrote:
Until then, the letter and spirit of it is exactly what we should be basing our current legislation on.


Fine legal principle, totally incoherent ethical principle.

It's ethically fine because, if the beliefs of our society change, the Constitution can change with them. You know, like the slavery example you gave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fox wrote:
comm wrote:
Until then, the letter and spirit of it is exactly what we should be basing our current legislation on.


Fine legal principle, totally incoherent ethical principle.

It's ethically fine because, if the beliefs of our society change ...


Justice is not dependent upon the beliefs of society.

comm wrote:
You know, like the slavery example you gave.


I insisted that slavery was unjust even when it was constitutional. Either you agree with me, which undermines your own "Constitution-centric" position by subordinating the Constitution to a superior standard, or you disagree with me, in which case you actively endorse slavery so long as enough others also approve of it to keep it enshrined in the Constitution. Whichever it is, I am not sure what you are going for here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
I insisted that slavery was unjust even when it was constitutional. Either you agree with me, which undermines your own "Constitution-centric" position by subordinating the Constitution to a superior standard, or you disagree with me, in which case you actively endorse slavery so long as enough others also approve of it to keep it enshrined in the Constitution. Whichever it is, I am not sure what you are going for here.

At one time slavery was accepted under the Constitution and by the majority of American citizens. When the morality of American citizens changed, the Constitution changed as well. That's the point.

I think our disagreement is one of practicality. You have one set of ethics that determines what is "just", but other Americans have very different opinions. Personally, (as I've said many times before) I'm hoping to see 100% taxpayer funded healthcare run by the States, and believe that is just. But that's not the kind of thing to push on America with a simple majority in Congress.

If the majority of Americans share your views, the Constitution will change. Until then, American law won't reflect what you believe is "just".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not about what I personally "think" is just or not. I am not perfect, I could be wrong about any given specific detail. None the less, two doctors disagreeing on a diagnosis does not mean there is no right answer, and the same applies here. What is worse is that you do not even realize that much of what you yourself often say relies upon an (admittedly incoherent) sense of natural justice; when you go on about how freedom is good and the Constitution ought to be upheld, you clearly have a greater reason in mind than, "If they violate the Constitution or take away people's freedoms, I'll be sad." The problem is that, precisely because your concept of justice is incoherent, it cannot properly manifest, leaving you struggling to fill the gap with vague references to freedom and written law to represent it. I should probably stop hassling you about it, because I do not think it will go anywhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
The problem is that, precisely because your concept of justice is incoherent, it cannot properly manifest, leaving you struggling to fill the gap with vague references to freedom and written law to represent it. I should probably stop hassling you about it, because I do not think it will go anywhere.

Really?
Let me put it this way:
The Constitution is the stable core of government, and no government action can (should) supersede it or contradict it.
Therefore, it is very stable and difficult to change... but can be changed in accordance with the prevailing values of American society.
I believe this is necessary to maintain a stable society that isn't destroyed in the political upheaval of a 51% majority changing everything that came before.

My values don't align perfectly with the Constitution, but it should be upheld as above unless:
1. The government ignores the Constitution
2. The Constitution changes to drastically oppose my values (if Americans voted to reinstitute slavery or something)

This perspective isn't "natural law", but instead a "law and order" perspective. Between Stage 4 and Stage 5 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development if you will. Yes, I have strong beliefs about the importance of personal freedom, but I also acknowledge that our system (the Constitution anyway) is designed to satisfy the values of the greatest number of people possible. And even though my values may be different, I recognize the morality of that.

I honestly can't see anything being further from "natural law".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ghostrider



Joined: 27 Jun 2011

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
A summary of the legislation that Senator Feinstein will propose-
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

It looks like current owners will be allowed to keep their weapons. However, they will have register their guns, be fingerprinted, and pass a background check.

Feinstein is the biggest hypocrite imaginable. She openly admits she carried a concealed weapon to protect herself, but now wants to ban all us little people from doing the same. Nothing but an authoritarian hypocrite with no credibility whatsoever.

Her legislation will be resisted tooth and nail. The strategy of anti-gun (i.e. pro-tyranny) crowd here is incrementalism: to start off small, and carry on inch by inch until all guns are totally banned. This is their true agenda and any attempts by them to seem even handed and reasonable are not to be trusted for a second. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

What's this paranoia about a total ban on all guns? Even in Australia and England one can own a rifle or shotgun with the right license. Senator Feinstein wants assault weapons to be registered under the NFA (National Firearms Act). Machine guns are already regulated according to this law so similar restrictions would apply. To get approved to own a machine gun in the US you have to submit a photograph, fingerprints, pass a thorough background check, pay a tax, get permission from your local police chief, and register the weapon. The NFA was probably one of the most successful gun laws in US history. Machine guns are rarely used nowadays in crime although it was common in the 1930s by gangsters such as Al Capone. I think most criminals decided it wasn't worth risking serving a five year prison sentence for being caught with an unregistered machine gun. Now we can add one more category of firearms to this already successful law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ghostrider wrote:
I think most criminals decided it wasn't worth risking serving a five year prison sentence for being caught with an unregistered machine gun. Now we can add one more category of firearms to this already successful law.

No, I don't think we will. Semi-automatic rifles wouldn't be getting those restrictions, just weapons that are cosmetically scary. Though I suspect even that won't happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International