Messages

1

Off Topic / Re: Vulgarity is all about contextuality

« on: February 02, 2013, 10:10:53 PM »

It does not explain why Scheisse is still a vulgar term in German.

Neither does it explain why schmuck is such a taboo term.

2

Off Topic / Re: Do you support the second amendment?

« on: February 02, 2013, 10:06:12 PM »

First of all, "It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]" - Wikipedia. Meaning, if Wikipedia isn't misleading me, they didn't go against any precedence at all. There was no precedence.

What do you call United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois? Both very clearly stated that if a state so chose, they could take away your guns. Only the federal government is limited by the Second Amendment. There's a reason why District of Columbia v. Heller was the first to decide that it protected an individual's right to bear arms; because everything before it stated that there was no individual right to do so.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, I doubt the Framers of the Constitution has such an interpretation in mind when they designed the Constitution. There is abundant evidence of similar amendments that provided for protecting an individual's right to keep arms for the purposes of self-defense, yet the Framers did not model the Second Amendment off of any of them.

Second of all, I didn't say they couldn't rewrite an amendment, I said that in the precedence they haven't.

Then what's your point? I clearly misunderstood what you trying to say with that statement.

3

Off Topic / Re: Do you support the second amendment?

« on: February 01, 2013, 11:26:39 AM »

I generally agree, but the Supreme Court has already made pretty clear that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that people have the right to bear arms separate of the right to be in a militia.

And also, at least in the past, it would appear that Congress does not rewrite the Constitution, instead they make void a past part. This would make an even weirder situation when you read Amendment 2 and it says one thing and then Amendment 28 says that Amendment 2 is void and the new Amendment is "people have the right to have arms." And if they did just actually rewrite the second amendment, there would be so much fear throughout the voting population that it would probably never happen.

But if it could be rewritten, that would be really nice.

In regards to your first statement, District of Columbia v. Heller the majority did not make an exactly convincing case for their decision to overturn two hundred years of judicial precedence, as I briefly explained in my previous post on the subject.

In regards to your second statement, there are no restrictions on what Congress can do with an amendment. A hypothetical twenty-eighth amendment could read "The language in the Second Amendment shall be changed so that it will read 'The right to bear arms for self-defense purposes shall not be restricted'" if that's what Congress wanted to do. The Alabama legislature actually tried to do something very similar with the language of one of their 856 amendments (specifically, the Republicans attempted to remove some tribal language, that, in addition to removing references to the segregation of schools, would also remove the obligation for the state to provide public education).

4

Off Topic / Re: Do you support the second amendment?

« on: January 31, 2013, 03:19:42 PM »

Why's the second admendment in german?
Or is that just me?

That's not the second amendment. That was me describing everything in Wedge's post. There wasn't a specific line that I wanted to quote, so I wrote "A comment that deals with the American Constitution" instead. I was just feeling particularly bilingual at that moment.

is your avatar a real pipe

If you read the avatar carefully, it clearly says that it's not a pipe.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

5

Off Topic / Re: Trip of a lifetime- Germany?

« on: January 31, 2013, 03:16:06 PM »

3 years?

that's not like if you jokingly raise your hand the way Riddler did and your playing around with friends though right?

You can be punished for up to three years of prison time if you do the Roman salute for any purpose that is not educational, scientific, or artistic purposes.

6

Off Topic / Re: Do you support the second amendment?

« on: January 31, 2013, 02:14:31 AM »

Libertarism is more of a moderate thing. Communism is far left wing, Facism is far right wing. Also anarchy and socialism are on the left wing.

The left-right spectrum isn't particularly good for defining anything. Exactly where is anarcho-primitivism supposed to fit on the spectrum? And exactly what makes something "left-wing" or "right-wing" is rather difficult to pin down as well. After all, the Jacobins were considered leftists two hundred years ago, but classical liberals are considered to be right-wing in modern times.

Which brings me to my second point; Libertarianism is not a moderate thing. Any ideology that calls for the elimination of government, or at least the influence of government in one's life, isn't particularly moderate. Secondly, it isn't centrist either, if that's what you actually meant by that statement. Libertarianism can be conservative, as in the case of Grover Norquist, or it can be something like Libertarian Socialism (notably, also known as social anarchism), an ideology to which Noam Chomsky adheres.

Ein Beitrag, der von der amerikanischen Verfassung handelt.

Going off on a tangent, the policy of the Supreme Court has been, for about two hundred and forty years to interpret the Second Amendment exactly as it was written; that people were allowed to own guns while connected to a militia. It was only in 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled (and, if I might interject my opinion here, erroneously, considering the language of the law) that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms even when unconnected to a militia.

Regardless of whether one supports or does not support gun control, it's clearly evident by the wording of the amendment that only the right to bear arms in regards to service in a citizen's militia is protected. If the Framers of the Constitution wanted to protect one's right to defend themselves with weapons, they would have put it in the Second Amendment, as the writers of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights did (see Article 13). The Framers would be more than aware of this, and would have included it if they meant that.

7

Off Topic / Re: Trip of a lifetime- Germany?

« on: January 31, 2013, 01:17:05 AM »

Yes, Dutch is spoken in the Netherlands and Deautsch (German) is spoken in Germany. As of now, Im taking German in High School and hope to be somewhat literate after four years.

(Its kinda sad how I have citizenship to Germany and the USA even though I cant speak German well.)

I'm pretty fluent after eight years of German. It's been a pretty rewarding experience, so I'd encourage you to keep up with it.

On a side note, I have a friend with triple citizenship (United States, Germany and Costa Rica), but he can only speak Arabic and English fluently.

8

Off Topic / Re: Recommend me movies

« on: November 27, 2012, 04:23:59 AM »

Isn't A Fistful of Dollars not related to The Good, The Bad and The Ugly at all except they both have the same character (Although honestly The Man With No Name is more of an idea than a constant character)?

They're part of a trilogy. Admittedly, I haven't seen any of the other films in the series, so I don't know exactly how vital it is to watch them in order, but it just makes more sense to me to do it that way.

9

Off Topic / Re: Recommend me movies

« on: November 27, 2012, 03:36:04 AM »

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, starring Clint Eastwood and some other guys. I'd recommend it, as it's probably my favorite movie.

You should start with A Fistful of Dollars. But why would you watch that when you could watch Yojimbo instead? They're both essentially the same movie, but Kurosawa is a superior director.

Speaking of directors, I'll give you a list of a few directors whose films I would recommend. I'll also include a suggestion of which of the director's films you should watch with each name.

Bergman - The Seventh Seal
Scott - Blade Runner
Lang - M
Scorsese - Taxi Driver
Beatty - Reds
Welles - Touch of Evil
Kubrick - 2001: A Space Odyssey
Tarkovsky - Solaris
Coen - Fargo

I can recommend more films, especially if you're more specific about what sort of films interest you, but this is a nice mix that will expose you to a wide range of genres and cinematographic styles.

10

Off Topic / Re: My sister keeps using my razor

« on: November 27, 2012, 03:10:26 AM »

Get a straight razor. If she uses it, she'll probably give herself quite a few nicks and will never use it again.

Then again, so will you. Sticking with it is worth it, though.

11

Off Topic / Re: What religion are you?/Religion discussion

« on: December 18, 2011, 02:33:54 AM »

I have a good friend who is islamic and he says that one of the commandy things is to die fighting americans, it had some name but if forgot, and that gets you into heaven with 70 virgins, however apparently Self Delete bombing doesn't count but not everyone knows that.

Sounds like someone who hates america made it up.

I don't think your friend is Muslim, or I don't think you understood them when they were explaining things to you. One of these two things has to be right, because everything you wrote is, on its face, absolutely false.

12

Off Topic / Re: What religion are you?/Religion discussion

« on: December 18, 2011, 02:24:59 AM »

I didn't say I don't care about anyone else, I said I don't care about people I have no business caring about.

I'm fully aware of that. I don't think you care about enough people, and you don't care about them enough. Anyone who believes that they should "dominate those who choose to be weak rather than give them the pity they seek" isn't abiding by the social contract.

13

Off Topic / Re: What religion are you?/Religion discussion

« on: December 18, 2011, 01:20:21 AM »

Then I apologize. I misunderstood your post. From what you said, it seems as if my argument is actually the same as the one you were making; everybody is nice if they're reasonable, regardless of what they believe.

So again, I'm sorry. I just take it upon myself to fight intolerance where ever I see it occurring, and occasionally this means that I mistakenly see it some places where it really isn't.

14

Off Topic / Re: What religion are you?/Religion discussion

« on: December 18, 2011, 01:12:37 AM »

So, not including theists makes me an extremist?

Actually, yes. If you are an atheist, then your are specifically singling out any group that doesn't agree with you and saying that it is impossible for them to be reasonable. You are taking your beliefs to the extreme.

If, however, you aren't an atheist, than I apologize for not understanding the context of the statement. This would be okay, as your are singling out a group of which you are not a part, and saying that only like the reasonable members of said group.

15

Off Topic / Re: What religion are you?/Religion discussion

« on: December 18, 2011, 01:09:28 AM »

- A well thought-out argument -

I apologize for not being clear. I was attacking the belief that only he and his loved ones were important in life, and bugger all else. The emotions of others are just as important as yours, even if you don't like them. In society, where the social contract applies, you still have to be civil with people you don't like. The self-preservation instinct is not necessary here, and should not be used as an excuse to treat somebody you don't "love" (I'm not certain how strong the emotion he refers to is. Does he only want to protect the people he loves, or does this extend to people with whom he is merely friendly?) like dirt. The social contract, as Rousseau suggests, states that we should subject ourselves to the general well-being of the people involved. Essentially, our desires are illegitimate if they harm another person.

I think that following the social contract is something that any decent human being should do, regardless of whether or not they believe in a teacup between here and Mars. That's why I find his beliefs, and Objectionist philosophy as a whole, objectionable.