quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ETA- from the article you listed it says that the European immigrants took 3-4 generations to get to the level of middle class, including a college degree, so it looks like Mexican immigrants are not that far behind the European immigrant's rate. [/QB]
But what was America like back then? Was a high school education available to all? Was there discrimination against non-Protestants? Were there welfare benefits? Immigrants today simply have a far greater chance to become upwardly middle by the second generation as evidenced by Asians. One merely hopes that Mexican-Americans will achieve. Asians already do. Why not prefer the latter and restrict the numbers of the former?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to the "it's going to take them 3 or 4 generations" point: how long have Puerto Ricans been in the US? And how about Mexicans? There have always been Mexicans in the U.S since Texas was acquired.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually from your article, they are much more successful than their parents so they are upwardly mobile. Second generation are often getting 7-8 grade levels more than their parents, which is a pretty big deal. Unfortunately, it is not enough. Also, we are looking specifically at 2nd generation americans. Are you now making the claim that the 5th generation Mexicans are unsuccessful- cause all your data so far has addressed first and second.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This'll be an artful display of bs hackery that doesn't directly address your point:) If I liked popcorn, I'd munch some.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, when folks start using terms like 'underclass', it always conveys a message they do not intend.
He intends it and only wants to mask what he would genuinely say on the subject this early; he thinks that people of chinese ethnicity are inherently superior to people of hispanic ethnicity and will eventually get around to stating that, first in a roundabout way, then more directly, then bluntly. All the while denying racism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Olson Johnson: All right... we'll give some land to the n****s and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish! [everyone complains] "
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just imagine if instead of all those Hispanics the U.S got Chinese immigrants. We'd probably be in better shape economically AND we'd be better able to afford a more generous welfare state.
I agree with you that we need to welcome skilled over unskilled workers, but that has everything to do with better enforcement of our current laws and nothing to do with a Chinese people/Mexican people racial dichotomy. For heaven's sake. Your shit stirring makes people less likely to be persuaded by your actual, legitimate point.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: "Olson Johnson: All right... we'll give some land to the n****s and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish! [everyone complains] "
Surely the best Mel ever to sit behind a camera.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The perpetual desire for cheap labor is rather different than the tragedy of the commons . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to make a thread about the current events involving the Roma in europe and the recent controversies and evictions but stuff like this reinforces the fact that this forum's not ready to touch that yet as long as we've got clive candy lurking about.
Welp, maybe sometime in the future.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel somewhat conflicted. I think the historical out-performance of Chinese immigrants will likely narrow somewhat in the future. On the other hand, its a welcome change having conservatives advocate increased Chinese immigration for once. So meh.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also conflicted. While I want more Chinese people to immigrate here to the US, I also care enough about China to not want it to suffer a brain drain.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You care about a communist country using international capatilism to the financial benefit of the government but not the people?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You care about a communist country using international capatilism to the financial benefit of the government but not the people?
Wrong. Since China's economic reforms in the '70s, they've reduced their poverty rate from 64% to 10%. That's more than 500 million people lifted out of poverty. China's continued economic rise can and will improve the standard of living of 20% of the world population dramatically. China's economic collapse would do the opposite-- do you see why I'd be worried about a brain drain? Not that a major brain drain is at a serious risk of happening, mind, intellectuals are more happy in China now than ever since the university reforms, but I don't want the US to throw its doors wide open to all Chinese immigrants either.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, define communism as you're using it. Seriously. That word is being used in such strange ways lately that I'm not even sure it has a meaning anymore. What kind of communism do you think China operates under, and what is the problem with it?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im not afraid to admit that I dont know much about China, but they are communistic, they essentially finance N. Korea, have a thriving international sex slavery industry and are developing military technology to directly oppose American naval ships. I am not very sympathetic for a theoretical loss for China.
quote: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Does China not fit into that definition?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wrong. Since China's economic reforms in the '70s, they've reduced their poverty rate from 64% to 10%
That's a nice statistic that anybody can read on Wikipedia. Sure'd be nice if an independent research firm could confirm such wonderful news.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. "but they are communistic" "All economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party" Nope. Not since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform (Wikipedia for convenience, feel free to comb through the actual linked references for inconsistencies if you're worried about its validity) China's economy is essentially capitalist, even if it's far more state-controlled than the Western versions of capitalism. The single party thing is true. China isn't a democracy.
2. "finance N. Korea" What do you mean by "finance"? They are trading partners, yes, which gains them the leverage needed to get N. Korea to talk to anyone at all. What's China supposed to do, break all ties with N. Korea and impose draconian sanctions on it? That would threaten the precarious peace we have with N. Korea and possibly make it do something desperate. And it's not like China is the only country in the world with unpopular trading partners. Israel is our ally, after all, and it's just as unpopular in the world as N. Korea (let's NOT get into an argument over the net effect of Israel on the world, please. It's just that in the lack of an objective "most evil countries" list, "most unpopular countries" is the closest substitute we have).
3. "have a thriving international sex slavery industry" Elaborate. Sex trafficking occurs in China, as it does in many less developed countries in the world, and even in more developed countries like our own. Do you think the government is actively supporting it? If so, evidence please.
4. "and are developing military technology to directly oppose American naval ships." Erm. So since China doesn't share all the same strategic interests as America... and is trying to catch up a little to America's overwhelming military edge over everyone in the world... it's evil? If evil increases proportionally to "intent to develop powerful military technology," China isn't the problem here.
"Im not afraid to admit that I dont know much about China"
So you don't know much, if at all, about China, and yet you still wouldn't mind if it "lost" (by which I'm guessing you mean something like "collapses as a country"). So the 500 million+ people possibly slipping into poverty again don't bother you? How about the economic effects on the rest of the world, including America? You haven't provided nearly enough evidence to prove that the Chinese government is a net negative on the wellbeing of its own citizens, let alone the world.
Also, I feel like everyone should be ashamed to admit to making extraordinary judgments without extraordinary evidence, let alone with hardly any evidence at all. But that's just a personal quibble.
quote: While this at least sounds encouraging, it masks regional variations, and perhaps most glaringly the impact of China:
•China’s poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million people •China accounts for nearly all the world’s reduction in poverty •Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10%
As a result, the World Bank feels that while China is on target to reach the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty and tackle various other issues, most other countries are not.
posted
sinflower/AchillesHeel: The argument appears to be premised on the idea that immigration is a net negative for China and whether that should be encouraged or not in order to either help or hurt China.
I suspect that this basic assumption is flawed, or at the very least incomplete. One simple idea is that of, "don't keep all your eggs in one basket." Another is to consider:
quote:Both China and Russia had a common communist past and both had abundant human resources. Russia was initially better off because of its trained scientists and engineers. Gorbachev threw open the doors to Russia but no one came, contrary to the Chinese experience. This puzzle is easily explained, but it makes the Chinese success even more intriguing.
Why did Russia fail in attracting foreign direct investment? Western investors had to cast a dubious eye on investments in Russia. Only a few Russians had experience in world markets, and they had all worked for the foreign trade monopoly. There was no one who could credibly explain to foreign business what would happen if contracts were violated, how investments could be secured in the absence of private property laws, or how these investments were to be integrated into what was still a planned economy. Western concerns were being asked to make huge infrastructure investments in energy in the absence of any law on subsoil resources. There was simply no credible intermediary to stand between Russia’s desire for foreign investment and the willingness of the West to risk its capital in Russia.
Russia lacked a Russian Diaspora. A few Russians had emigrated to the United States and Israel. But China had a “Greater China” that numbered in the millions of Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Southeast Asia, and North America. These “Greater Chinese,” especially in Hong Kong and Taiwan, still had roots on the mainland. They had demonstrated their business acumen, and they understood the potential of a low-wage country with abundant human resources strategically situated in the heart of booming Southeast Asia. These Greater Chinese intermediaries could explain to investors how to invest and with whom. Who could be trusted? Who could not? Which government officials are reliable? Equally important, these intermediaries were successful and had business and property outside of China that could be used as collateral for doubting foreign investors.
posted
Ooh, very interesting article! Yes, emigration can be a net positive for China, and has been in the case of Chinese people immigrating to Southeast Asian countries. I was operating from the idea that ethnic Chinese in America lose their ties to China more quickly, and end up in employed rather than entrepreneurial roles more often compared to ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asian countries, who end up owning a large proportion of the businesses in those countries.
Another view on emigration and investment, based on Russia, which was closer to what I was thinking about:
quote:Russia’s Generation Exile, a tide of businessmen, lawyers, accountants, and bankers who have fled their country after being robbed and threatened by Russia’s corrupt law-enforcement officials. Transparency International, an NGO, estimates that fully one third of Russian businesses have been targeted in attempted corporate raids by police. An anti-raider hotline set up by the Moscow city hall reported a 10-fold jump in complaints, from 200 to more than 2,000, over the last year. And while it is hard to calculate exactly how many of the estimated 300,000 Russians living in London are the victims or beneficiaries of police-backed shakedowns, the number of business exiles afraid to return to their homeland for fear of arrest is certainly in the thousands. According to a survey last year by the Moscow-based Levada Center, many more may exit voluntarily: 13 percent of 1,600 respondents said they wanted to leave Russia, the same percentage as in 1992, a year after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The economic impact of the brain drain—and the bureaucratic racketeering that drives it—is startling. In the decade since Vladimir Putin first came to power, Russia fell from 52nd to 63rd on the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index, despite massive oil-funded state spending and an ambitious--sounding modernization program. On property rights, Russia came 119th, right down there with Malawi and Nicaragua; on judicial independence, 116th; on reliability of police services, 112th; and on professional management, 77th. Despite steady macroeconomic growth driven by rising oil and gas prices, there are few signs that it is developing beyond oil. “Only free, independent, and enterprising people are capable of being the driving forces behind modernization, but those are exactly the people whom the state is persecuting,” says Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of a prominent opposition party, Another Russia. “How can Russia attract Western investors when the country’s most successful businessmen are forced to flee the country for fear of arrest?”
But China doesn't have the problems which drove that mass emigration, at least not to that extent, and supposedly even the Russian brain drain is slowing down now in the economic downturn. So my worry was probably overinflated.
I like this part of the article you linked too
quote:The success of China’s entrepreneurs in creating the institutions of private markets is told by some remarkable statistics. In 1978, state enterprises generated about 80 percent of China’s gdp, while the rural commune produced the other 20 percent.11 There were no private businesses. By 1997, there were 961,000 private enterprises and 28.5 million small family private firms. By 2002, the nonstate sector’s share exceeded two-thirds of gdp, with the share produced by truly private companies comprising more than half. By 2004, there were more than three million private companies employing more than 47 million workers.12 Before 1980, entrepreneurial activity in China was illegal. Today, there are over 40 million entrepreneurs, whose businesses employ over 200 million and generate two-thirds of industrial output
For showing the magnitude of how China's economy has changed since the economic reforms.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
sinflower: I did look at the link. I looked up other studies too, and they all seem to be using the government's figures.
Look I'm not saying there haven't been huge strides in getting many Chinese people out of poverty. I'd be surprised if the Chinese government's numbers were exaggerated beyond 8%, even if we add that 8% it's still a strong achievement. But the fact remains the only large scaled social studies that take place in China (excluding Hong Kong) are government instigated, and the results don't come out unless the government says it's OK.
I use the US a lot in these discussions, but there are plenty of government reports where the data is fudged, and badly. Why should China be any better?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm intriqued by the AZ debate. AZ is the the first dominoe to fall in the immigration debate, just as CA is the first to fall in the liberal vs conservative one.
The self righteous liberal from Michigan agrees with the California Liberal when it comes to teacher's unions. Of course, Democrats are a a party of coalitions.....those from Michigan wouldn't like the cheap illegal alien labor and those from california wouldn't like the Michigan gun rights stance.
The truth shall set you free....the highest unemployment rates are in Michigan...Union states.....followed only by California, NY, NJ, MA.....any common thread here?
The highest murder rates are also in Dem strongholds....cities that have the stronges anti-gun laws, to boot.
If you like Obama's ideals, move to Detroit or Chicago.....there's no longer institution of what he stands for than what you'll find in those cities. He certainly brought hope and change to South Side........his first stepping stone.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, at least both Pew and Gallup are allowed to do polling on income in China. But there's no way they'd be able to match the reach of an official census, which is pretty much the case in North America anyways.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone else remember China's media manipulation during the olympics?
Polling Chinese citezens is like polling Auschwitz prisoners.
What ever happened to that guy who stood in front of that tank? In the US....he'd be a celebrity and we'd all know his name.
He's dead....murdered for the betterment of society. Progressives and socialists commit genocide, while Libertarians and conservatives respect the individual's "right to life".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Wait.... I'm confused. When was sinflower on my side in these debates? When did this start happening?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... He's dead....murdered for the betterment of society. Progressives and socialists commit genocide, while Libertarians and conservatives respect the individual's "right to life".
I would note that while "tank man"'s fate remains unknown, it was the conservatives that ordered the military into Beijing, while progressives such as Zhao Ziyang (who voted against the move) were turfed out and put under house arrest.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm intriqued by the AZ debate. AZ is the the first dominoe to fall in the immigration debate, just as CA is the first to fall in the liberal vs conservative one.
The self righteous liberal from Michigan agrees with the California Liberal when it comes to teacher's unions. Of course, Democrats are a a party of coalitions.....those from Michigan wouldn't like the cheap illegal alien labor and those from california wouldn't like the Michigan gun rights stance.
The truth shall set you free....the highest unemployment rates are in Michigan...Union states.....followed only by California, NY, NJ, MA.....any common thread here?
The highest murder rates are also in Dem strongholds....cities that have the stronges anti-gun laws, to boot.
If you like Obama's ideals, move to Detroit or Chicago.....there's no longer institution of what he stands for than what you'll find in those cities. He certainly brought hope and change to South Side........his first stepping stone.
The murder rates are highest in areas with relatively high poverty and crime rates. None of that has anything to do with gun laws, and everything to do with 40 years of history under both Republican and Democratic control. Especially in Michigan, where on party hasn't had total control for any stretch of time in the last couple decades. We've been passed back and forth between parties, and both sides have had a shot with their own ideologies.
Also, while the unions had a small role to play in the problems of the Big Three, they weren't nearly the biggest factors. The Big Three totally abdicated control of several parts of the car market, and when the market violently shifted in 2000-2002, they were caught totally off guard by a nation that started to eschew SUVs and demand small cars. That was the fault of management being stupid, and while the unions didn't make things easy by demanding huge contracts (that management never should have given then in the 90s), they weren't even close to being the reason why Michigan's economy is in the crapper. It's in the crapper because an entire state based its economy on one major industry, and when that industry went belly up, it took the whole state with it.
It's like you're playing some sort of ideological statistical mad libs to prove causality, and it doesn't even hold up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... He's dead....murdered for the betterment of society. Progressives and socialists commit genocide, while Libertarians and conservatives respect the individual's "right to life".
I would note that while "tank man"'s fate remains unknown, it was the conservatives that ordered the military into Beijing, while progressives such as Zhao Ziyang (who voted against the move) were turfed out and put under house arrest.
Not to mention it was conservatives who murdered King and Gandhi. Conservatives also fired the first shots of the civil war, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But hey, it was also conservatives who didn't want to get involved in WWII, and the American Revolution.
Conservatives are willing to kill, if they weren't, they wouldn't need guns.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really have no strong feelings about China (aside from the anti-carrier thing) and have little concern for the rise and fall of the Chinese govt. and will just concede this argument.
On the other hand, Blade? what proof do you have that the South Carolinian troops that fired at the ship Star of the West were conservatives?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those on the state's side of things in the debate between state's rights and federal rights seem to be on the conservative side of the issue. Further, it was progressives who were trying to end slavery not conservatives.
edit: Or were you saying the actual troops might not have been conservative and were simply following orders?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a pretty sneaky change of things, Achilles. It's likely you know perfectly well that that is not considered the opening shots of the American Civil War, especially since Buchanan specifically didn't do anything about it. It can't be called the first shots of the Civil War if war didn't ensue as a result of it.
Ruffin was believed to have fired the first shots but didn't, if I'm not mistaken, and it was a Confederate artillery officer. Are you seriously suggesting that a volunteer Confederate army officer wasn't a conservative, Achilles?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Conservatives are willing to kill, if they weren't, they wouldn't need guns.
I'm willing to kill to protect my family. A gun is simply easier than using my own hands. I'm not a gun crazed lunatic, but I want to make sure my family is safe.
In the event of a global apocalypse (Earth is covered in water, nuclear holocaust, or if dragons are unleashed from a London Subway tunnel) I think a gun would come in handy.
My wife will not allow guns in the house. We have no kids and she doesn't mind me shooting them once a year at our family reunion's skeet shoot, but she doesn't want one in our house. I'm ok with that. I almost have her convinced to let me get a high powered laser beam for protection instead.
Who needs to ruin good carpet and paint with blood when I can just shine this thing in someones eyes and burn their retinas so they go completely blind?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, while the unions had a small role to play in the problems of the Big Three, they weren't nearly the biggest factors. The Big Three totally abdicated control of several parts of the car market, and when the market violently shifted in 2000-2002, they were caught totally off guard by a nation that started to eschew SUVs and demand small cars. That was the fault of management being stupid, and while the unions didn't make things easy by demanding huge contracts (that management never should have given then in the 90s), they weren't even close to being the reason why Michigan's economy is in the crapper. It's in the crapper because an entire state based its economy on one major industry, and when that industry went belly up, it took the whole state with it.
Small role? I'd give 30 to 50%. The union-demanded total compensation per worker made it significantly harder to be profitable making small cars (and the total compensation being provided by foreign car companies in the US that were making those small cars was pretty good; this wasn't a question of people being paid unfairly), largely tying CEO's hands.
The companies were required to keep employees around who did absolutely nothing unless they wanted to close a plant (and even closing a plant was something the union frequently prevented, again making it more expensive to respond to a changing market), making it much harder to adjust workforces to compete. What's more, the large debt obligations imposed by the incredible pensions the unions demanded kept financing more difficult to get.
There are plenty more, if we want to keep going.
How problematic they've been should be even more clear when you notice that, despite the total failure of two of the big three absent some of the most extreme government intervention there's been in private companies in decades, they've still been prevented from fully restructuring like they need to, because the unions used their clout to prevent many of the most needed changes (even going so far as to make it so only new hires could have their wages reduced to be in line with market wages for jobs of the type. And that most employees couldn't be fired, of course).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine: I wasn't trying to comment on the ethics of owning a gun. Only that if you are going to posit that conservatives are the ones who value life, then owning a gun isn't exactly the ultimate expression of that belief.
I have thought about owning a gun on many occasions. Right now the furthest I am willing to go is to become proficient in their use, should I ever need to use one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I really have no strong feelings about China (aside from the anti-carrier thing) and have little concern for the rise and fall of the Chinese govt. and will just concede this argument.
On the other hand, Blade? what proof do you have that the South Carolinian troops that fired at the ship Star of the West were conservatives?
The United States has 14 carriers, Britain, France, India, Thailand, Russia, and heck even Spain all have aircraft carriers, there is every justification for China being a Great Power and a member of the UN Security Council and hence having peacekeeping obligations and responsibilities should work towards getting aircraft carriers if it supports their national interests, China also has an extremely large and permeable coastline, even further reason for it to have a blue water navy.
There's also the chance of militerists gaining more traction in Japan and rearming beyond their current modest peacekeeper and self defense needs, of which every asian nation including China have ample reason to be concerned about.
That China and the US are strategic competitors is no big deal.
IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what you are trying to get at Blackblade. I just don't think it is an accurate statement. Owning a gun does not express a belief. It is a tool just a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat are tools. Each have their uses, none are an extention of my beliefs. I am not an advocate for global warming just because I use a gardening hoe.
If I am still misunderstanding you I'm sorry. It was a long weekend and I'm in a foggy cloud of IDGAF today.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have no kids and she doesn't mind me shooting them once a year at our family reunion's skeet shoot, but she doesn't want one in our house. I'm ok with that. I almost have her convinced to let me get a high powered laser beam for protection instead.
Who needs to ruin good carpet and paint with blood when I can just shine this thing in someones eyes and burn their retinas so they go completely blind?
This led to an interesting series of online inquiries for me. Apparently blinding laser weapons like the one you link to are illegal in war:
On the other hand, it seems absurd to outlaw weapons which are clearly less harmful than guns. Blindness is a bad injury, but compared to the things bullets can do?
The rules of war can be so bizarre.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Owning a gun does not express a belief. It is a tool just a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat are tools. Each have their uses, none are an extention of my beliefs.
Wrong.
Owning a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat implies that you believe it is okay to dig, garden, or play baseball. Owning a gun for the purpose of potentially shooting someone is absolutely 1) an extension of your belief that you have the right to use deadly violence and 2) an indication that you are willing to exercise that right.
I would never own a gun for the very fact that I accept neither of those propositions.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I own five swords, two combat knives and two folding knives in addition to a plethera of training equipment and am well experianced with all of them. Several years of working in a knife store and three more of an extensive weapons martial art has left me very comfortable around edged weapons and curiously I have no need to stab people. There is one particularly demoralizingly long folder that I keep in my car just in case (I work the graveyard shift and my city has alot of junkies) but that fact absolutly does not make me an aggressive person or the type who looks forward to hurting people.
I have been attacked by strangers for no reason at all enough times in my life to know that my well being comes before anyone hostile enough to want to hurt me or any innocent person, if you had a facial scar to remind you of just how quickly someone with no weapon at all can alter your life you may change your position on this Dante. Weapons are simply tools that are designed for a task, owning them makes you no more violent than someone who owns a #2 pencil, now if that person stabs said pencil into someones one the facial orrifices that person is violent. The pencil did not make them that way. Pepper spray, stun guns, rope, kitchen utensils, actual construction tools and most household chemicals are all used to kidnap torture and kill people all around the modern world every year and yet somehow I dont expect you to refrain from owning anything like these objects.
I am a peaceful person, I pay taxes and put in forty hours a week and see no reason why a someone should be able to use violence to change my life. So does that make me a horrible person?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Weapons are simply tools that are designed for a task, owning them makes you no more violent than someone who owns a #2 pencil
I didn't argue that owning a gun makes someone violent. I said that it's an extension of the belief that using violence can be acceptable. Just as the fact that I don't and wouldn't own a gun is an extension of my belief that it's not. I didn't make a moral argument there.
quote:Pepper spray, stun guns, rope, kitchen utensils, actual construction tools and most household chemicals are all used to kidnap torture and kill people all around the modern world every year and yet somehow I dont expect you to refrain from owning anything like these objects.
I submit that anything that is 1) made for physical violence and 2) acquired for the purpose of physical violence is indeed a tool--a tool of physical violence. This differentiates it from something whose primary purpose is not physical violence. This is why owning a handgun and owning a lawn rake are not the same thing.
quote:I am a peaceful person, I pay taxes and put in forty hours a week and see no reason why a someone should be able to use violence to change my life. So does that make me a horrible person?
I doubt I'm qualified to answer that.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Owning a gun does not express a belief. It is a tool just a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat are tools. Each have their uses, none are an extention of my beliefs.
Wrong.
Owning a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat implies that you believe it is okay to dig, garden, or play baseball. Owning a gun for the purpose of potentially shooting someone is absolutely 1) an extension of your belief that you have the right to use deadly violence and 2) an indication that you are willing to exercise that right.
I would never own a gun for the very fact that I accept neither of those propositions.
So according to you, everyone that owns a gun has one for the purpose of potentially shooting someone. Except not everyone owns a gun for that reason. Sure, someone may have one for protection. Another may have one to hunt with. Yet another to participate in shooting competitions. Another may have a gun collection. One may simply have one because it is a family heirloom. I have a rifle that my great grandfather used during World War 2.
Owning a tool does not express a certain belief. I could have a belief that a shovel over the head is a great tool for killing someone, not for digging. I may have the belief that a baseball bat is a tool that is better used to hit ice skaters in the kneee with. I have a large knife that I take with me when I camp. I'm not going to stab anyone, I like to carve wood when I am up in the mountains.
Tools are just that. Tools. Like Achilles said, its how you use those tools that matters.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So according to you, everyone that owns a gun has one for the purpose of potentially shooting someone.
No. Please read more carefully.
quote:Owning a tool does not express a certain belief. I could have a belief that a shovel over the head is a great tool for killing someone, not for digging.
You "could have" that belief, yes. But if you notice that someone has a shovel in his garage, do you assume that it is for killing people? Or is the overwhelmingly logical choice that it was acquired for digging?
C'mon, guys, I'm not saying that owning a gun of any sort means you're planning to kill somebody. But let's not pretend that a gun is "just a tool" without meaning. Its purpose is to kill. If you own one that's not obviously for another purpose (like an antique), it's a completely reasonable assumption that you have the belief that it's okay (in some set of circumstances) to cause injury to/kill someone.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does pacifism dictate that you cannot harm/kill anyone under any circumstance? It seems odd to me that someone could view an act of literal self preservation to be unacceptable. Maybe I misunderstood you.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. You are in fact making a moral argument, that you are more peaceful than a person who owns a weapon. To be accepting of acts of violence shows a perpensity towards it, and therefore violent yourself. By your statements I am violent, because I own many weapons. My actual reason for owning weapons is to prevent violence to be used upon me, therefore can be construed as an active attempt to stop violence in the first place. I do not accept violence in any form, and if the confidence that I can defend myself and the visual of five inch tanto blade prevents violence, then my life is better for it.
2. Level of effort vs. intent. The average swiss army knife key-chain can be used to sever the carotid artery, but it is diffucult whereas children have been know to successfully discharge firearms. Technically you could bludgeon a person with a hard-back book, but it would take awhile and you would really have to want that person dead, so no need to restrict books. Guns are meant to kill things, we have laws to restrict them to make our society safe and are trying to improve those laws. Handguns are weapons designed to effectively wound or kill a target at medium range, but you need a person to use it (or a monkey trained by the C.I.A. running around Charlton Hestons home.) No one is saying that weapons are not dangerous, simply that owning and operating weaponry does not make a person a danger as well.
3. Fine, you wont make a direct statement against me then let me ask you another question. Have you ever been attacked? (Edit. and I dont mean in a fight, actually attacked) and if you have would defending yourself have made you a less peaceful person?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Does pacifism dictate that you cannot harm/kill anyone under any circumstance?
There are many types of pacifism, but AFAIK, in the most strict schools, such as some in Buddhism or Gandhi, the answer is yes.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Assuming of course he read the article.
