|
The Politics Thread
|
| Margh Norway |
Posted on 04-03-2016 12:24
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1507
Joined: 23-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
You mean like it is in all other developed countries who all have much lower gun crime figures and murder rates then America?
Well, Switzerland is the safest place in central Europe (at least gun crime and murder rate related) and has the most liberal gun laws.
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 12:48
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3386
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Margh Norway wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
You mean like it is in all other developed countries who all have much lower gun crime figures and murder rates then America?
Well, Switzerland is the safest place in central Europe (at least gun crime and murder rate related) and has the most liberal gun laws.
Being the safest country in central Europe means nothing. It's a completely meaningless stat. How many countries does that include? 4? 5?
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
[/url]
Here is a list of countries by gun related deaths per 100,000. Switzerland actually has one of the highest rates in the whole of Europe, let alone central Europe. Finland, Montenegro and Serbia are the only countries with a worse record.
More guns = More gun related crime. Simple. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 06-12-2025 07:55
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 04-03-2016 12:57
|
World Champion
Posts: 13662
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Also, using Switzerland as an example in political discussion is like using Hitler arguments, you simply cant. Because Switzerland has unique position in history with its neutrality and very unique type of governing through direct democracy....
About socialist thinking and equal opportunities - that is nice...utopia. Yes, everybody should be equal from position of his beliefs, ethnicity and so on, all reasonable people have to agree. But we are part of nature and nature is never positive with total equality, that is only artifical dream of modern socialists. Some are more able than others and you wont change that with million words. 
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:03
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6546
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1290.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
About socialist thinking and equal opportunities - that is nice...utopia. Yes, everybody should be equal from position of his beliefs, ethnicity and so on, all reasonable people have to agree. But we are part of nature and nature is never positive with total equality, that is only artifical dream of modern socialists. Some are more able than others and you wont change that with million words.
Maybe I didn't make that clear: I fully acknowledge that it's impossible to give everyone equal opportunities. That was actually my whole point 
If we had equal opportunities for everyone, I'd be fine with equal taxes. Since that's not the case, and as you pointed out never will be, we have to take that into account, for instance when taxing people
Also, just because something is impossible doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying to come close, at least. Just because you know it's impossible to eradicate world hunger doesn't mean you give up on trying to feed as many as you can.
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:09
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7374
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
About socialist thinking and equal opportunities - that is nice...utopia. Yes, everybody should be equal from position of his beliefs, ethnicity and so on, all reasonable people have to agree. But we are part of nature and nature is never positive with total equality, that is only artifical dream of modern socialists. Some are more able than others and you wont change that with million words.
For most of us on the left - or at least the centre-left, the far left tend to be a bit mad  - it's easy to recognise that people are naturally more able than others. And it's not an issue for us, provided that them being naturally better doesn't infringe on the freedom of those who don't have the same natural endowments. Personally I'm not bothered if someone makes use of the talents and becomes incredibly wealthy, provided it's not at the expense of others having enough to survive. In a hypothetical community of 100 people, with a total wealth of £100m and each person needing £20k to survive then I'm fine with one person having £98m provided the other 99 have their 20k |
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:16
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6546
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1290.00
|
Margh Norway wrote:
- Obama extended Bush's drone program killing in his first two years twenty times more people in Pakistan than Bush in his whole eight year presidency. In addition to it he expanded drone warfare to Somalia and Yemen.
As a former law student he should have heard about habeas corpus... even if he doesn't have decency to reject targeted killings without a trial.
I agree that drone strikes are extremely problematic, both legally and ethically. But if I had the choice (and I had to do one of the two) of either killing suspected terrorists with drones, or invade the country, I'd probably do the former. I know that is highly simplified, and I don't think Obama is necessarily doing the right thing here, but it seems like you imply he's more violent or at least less moral than his predecessors, who have started wars, and I disagree on that.
This is a good video on the problematics of drone strikes, and critical of the Obama administration, by the way:
To me it actually makes sense, cause when you ban guns the only people left armed are working for the government or are criminals.
That sums up perhaps the main problem of the whole debate. To some, this is a horror vision, to some it's the ideal scenario (minus the criminals of course). It eventually comes down to whether you trust the government or not.
When the constitution was written, the US had just rid themselves of an oppressive regime and there was no functioning police or army. So the people didn't trust the government, and they had no federal protection individually and there was the possibility of the whole nation getting under attack. The right for everyone to bear arms was reasonable then.
I guess no one doubts that the US are capable of defending themselves against foreign countries, so that's no reason anymore.
That leaves the questions whether you fear that the government may become so oppressive again that it needs to be overthrown; whether you believe the police is enough to protect you from criminals; and finally how much lives you're willing to sacrifice for your hypothetical increased safety.
And you'll never get a consensus on that.
|
| |
|
|
| Margh Norway |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:30
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1507
Joined: 23-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Being the safest country in central Europe means nothing. It's a completely meaningless stat. How many countries does that include? 4? 5?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...death_rate
Here is a list of countries by gun related deaths per 100,000. Switzerland actually has one of the highest rates in the whole of Europe, let alone central Europe. Finland, Montenegro and Serbia are the only countries with a worse record.
More guns = More gun related crime. Simple.
Hey, thats not nice you were talking about gun crime figures and murder rates.
The better fitting list would have been this one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icide_rate
...and even to my surprise Switzerland has the least homicides in whole Europe.
But don't mind it's okay. I'm sure you'll find a list to prove your point. And as it seems that certain rules aply making a point valid or unvalid we can keep it that way. Thanks for the exchange! 
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also, using Switzerland as an example in political discussion is like using Hitler arguments, you simply cant. Because Switzerland has unique position in history with its neutrality and very unique type of governing through direct democracy....
Yeah, we can keep Switzerland aside now, but can you eloborate on the bolded part. Why did you say that? Sounds rude?
Other than that you got my point.
Instead of:
More guns = More gun related crime.
It is to me:
More liberty = less violence
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 17833
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Quite frankly every country just needs to adopt The Purge, that'll solve the crime and economic problems. Then we can all be happy
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:35
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16553
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 13638.70
|
jph27 wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Clearly unrestricted capitalism doesn't work well, and there needs to be some common sense compromises, but I always ideologically favor equality over opportunity of equality of outcome. While equality of opportunity has been shaken for sure, that doesn't make me want to switch.
As someone who would probably position himself in about the same ideological space as Sanders on most issues - though I disagree strongly with him on surveillance and tuition-free education - I would honestly say that I believe the same thing, as do many on the left. Equality of opportunity is always better than equality of outcome in my opinion, but the issue is when true equality of opportunity isn't given chance to exist due to underlying structural factors. If things are too unequal in outcomes, then you can't have true equality of opportunity. So therefore, inequalities need to be controlled to ensure no one is left too far behind, and also to ensure a truly meritocratic society.
In summary, basically read Rawls' "A Theory of Justice". Or better still, just a summary of it. That's my argument here
I agree to an point, but in my opinion once you begin to directly redistribute wealth to a great extent, that is favoring outcome over opportunity.
And while most of trickle down economics is bull crap, I think it works the other way as well. Real entrepreneurs will cut their production and jobs if they are constantly attacked as the enemy. For every billionaire out there who inherited everything there is another person who worked their entire lives for what they made. I don't believe they should be punished in a society where individualism and hard work are the very foundation. I think at the very least a tax should cover not a bracket of people but be graduated in the sense that every dollar amount past each point is taxed at that bracket and not the entire sum. I don't support cutting taxes for the rich but I also wouldn't support raising them to the high levels that have been proposed.
I hope I'm making at least some sense cause I'm typing on my phone. I know a lot of people disagree but that's just my perspective.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:47
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3386
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Margh Norway wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Being the safest country in central Europe means nothing. It's a completely meaningless stat. How many countries does that include? 4? 5?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...death_rate
Here is a list of countries by gun related deaths per 100,000. Switzerland actually has one of the highest rates in the whole of Europe, let alone central Europe. Finland, Montenegro and Serbia are the only countries with a worse record.
More guns = More gun related crime. Simple.
...and even to my surprise Switzerland has the least homicides in whole Europe.
But don't mind it's okay. I'm sure you'll find a list to prove your point. And as it seems that certain rules aply making a point valid or unvalid we can keep it that way. Thanks for the exchange!
This was a discussion about guns.
Your the one who has used homicide rate in general to try to prove your argument about Switzerlands gun liberality.
Homicides as a whole are completely different thing to gun crime. Switzerland may well have a low homicide rate. The original point related to guns and Switzerland has more gun related deaths then most other Euro countries. Other homicides are not relevant to the argument.
Don't try to change to direction of the argument to homicide in general. |
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:50
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6546
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1290.00
|
Margh Norway wrote:
The better fitting list would have been this one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icide_rate
...and even to my surprise Switzerland has the least homicides in whole Europe.
But don't mind it's okay. I'm sure you'll find a list to prove your point. And as it seems that certain rules aply making a point valid or unvalid we can keep it that way. Thanks for the exchange!
You cannot seriously accuse someone of fabricating arguments with invalid lists just to immediately misquote your own list! Even if you leave out the small countries like Andorra or Liechtenstein, there are still 5 European countries with lower absolute death counts and at least one with a lower rate!
baseballlover312 wrote:
I agree to an point, but in my opinion once you begin to directly redistribute wealth to a great extent, that is favoring outcome over opportunity.
If I remember correctly, there have been studies that an unconditional basic income does not decrease the work rate in example groups where this has been tested (not too sure about that, I can look it up).
But either way, if your society is built on individualism and hard work, you shouldn't be afraid of people massively starting to slack off. Remember, with "redistribution via taxes" we're not talking about everyone being able to afford a private jet without working. It's about enabling a basic standard of living for everyone.
People will always want more than they have, that's human nature. And they will work for it. Of course there will be some exceptions who'll just hang around on their couch playing video games, but you can't base your legislation on possible exceptions (except for some exceptions of course ).
|
| |
|
|
| Margh Norway |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:51
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1507
Joined: 23-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
@cunego:
About Obama
No I don't think he's less moral than Bush, just that there isn't a lot of difference. But right is he makes me a little more angry cause he came with 'hope' and 'change' and all we got was more of the same with a nicer smile. From Bush you pretty much knew what to expect.
Sometimes it's tough, but I still thinks it couldn't be right to kill someone, because he may can cause harm in the future. Killing a 16 year old boy because he's the son of a terrorist is something hard to swallow. It hurts to see our civilisation head in this direction again.
About guns
Yeah, it is as you said. And it's a personal decision if you want to own a gun. I haven't been to the army and I couldn't imagine to own a gun in the future. But if e.g. my best frient wants to buy a gun to be in case protected and want to defend his loved ones I know I don't want a law prohibiting him from buying one.
@ringo: I mentioned Switzerland to your post Nr. 483
where you wrote:
You mean like it is in all other developed countries who all have much lower gun crime figures and murder rates then America?
Edited by Margh Norway on 04-03-2016 13:55
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 04-03-2016 13:54
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 17833
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ok the gun discussion is definately no long a Political one Y'all also need to do some better research and anlysis on your numbers (hint: Wikipedia is not always a good source). That disucssion has made me laugh at the poor understanding of the numbers in lists.
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 14:04
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6546
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1290.00
|
Oh come on, don't take the fun out of this with your "research" and "analysis" of "numbers"! That really isn't what this is about
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 14:05
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3386
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
I think we're all looking at this from different angles so lets just agree to disagree and move on We've all got better things to do with our lives |
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 14:05
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3386
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
I think we're all looking at this from different angles so lets just agree to disagree and move on We've all got better things to do with our lives |
| |
|
|
| Margh Norway |
Posted on 04-03-2016 14:15
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1507
Joined: 23-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
You cannot seriously accuse someone of fabricating arguments with invalid lists just to immediately misquote your own list! Even if you leave out the small countries like Andorra or Liechtenstein, there are still 5 European countries with lower absolute death counts and at least one with a lower rate!
Lol, you're right that was bad research.
To keep it correct (if one is willing to trust wikipedia): There are less homicides (per inh.) in Europe in the states of Liechtenstein, Iceland and Monaco
@ringo: You're right. A-OK!
|
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 04-03-2016 15:02
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7336
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
jph27 wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Clearly unrestricted capitalism doesn't work well, and there needs to be some common sense compromises, but I always ideologically favor equality over opportunity of equality of outcome. While equality of opportunity has been shaken for sure, that doesn't make me want to switch.
As someone who would probably position himself in about the same ideological space as Sanders on most issues - though I disagree strongly with him on surveillance and tuition-free education - I would honestly say that I believe the same thing, as do many on the left. Equality of opportunity is always better than equality of outcome in my opinion, but the issue is when true equality of opportunity isn't given chance to exist due to underlying structural factors. If things are too unequal in outcomes, then you can't have true equality of opportunity. So therefore, inequalities need to be controlled to ensure no one is left too far behind, and also to ensure a truly meritocratic society.
In summary, basically read Rawls' "A Theory of Justice". Or better still, just a summary of it. That's my argument here
I agree to an point, but in my opinion once you begin to directly redistribute wealth to a great extent, that is favoring outcome over opportunity.
And while most of trickle down economics is bull crap, I think it works the other way as well. Real entrepreneurs will cut their production and jobs if they are constantly attacked as the enemy. For every billionaire out there who inherited everything there is another person who worked their entire lives for what they made. I don't believe they should be punished in a society where individualism and hard work are the very foundation. I think at the very least a tax should cover not a bracket of people but be graduated in the sense that every dollar amount past each point is taxed at that bracket and not the entire sum. I don't support cutting taxes for the rich but I also wouldn't support raising them to the high levels that have been proposed.
I hope I'm making at least some sense cause I'm typing on my phone. I know a lot of people disagree but that's just my perspective.
That bolded part is the system they have in Australia, I know nothing about politics but I don't really understand why you would do it with the other system?
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| weirdskyfan64 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 16:07
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1356
Joined: 15-03-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
A la Jeremy Corbyn over here, Sanders only entered to widen the debate on the left. However, now he can sniff out a win, he's beginning to roll out his own dirty tricks campaign- even if it's only activism photos, Clinton minority record attacks and TV ads, and therefore relatively small, surely it's everything he stands against as an anti-establishment candidate? Also, he increasingly sounds like a broken record, especially regarding inequality.
As for the Republicans, it makes me laugh how desperate the Repulicans are first to keep Trump from going solo, then to discredit Trump once he looks like winning.
Disclaimer- Most of my posts are me thinking aloud. And most of what I think is rubbish.
Winner of a FIFA Prediction Fair Play Award (a phrase becoming increasingly ironic)
"... Because he (me) has a sound tactical mind in general..." jandal7, at 9:30 am GMT on 12th May 2016
|
| |
|
|
| jseadog1 |
Posted on 04-03-2016 16:30
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 9132
Joined: 18-07-2010
PCM$: 17752.00
|
Personally, Hillary has my vote right at the moment.
I love Trump's idea of a wall and deporting illegal's, so if Hillary doesn't win and Trump does, he will get my vote.
PCM.Daily Survivor Season 2 Fan Favorite Winner
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012
PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013
PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021, 2024
|
| |
|
