BrownNoeser's forum posts

Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

You shouldn't trust your government, it's a rogue state: it consistently is (along with it's lap-dop, Israel) the only country that votes against UN resolutions which try and reinforce the basic human rights in the Geneva Conventions. The US has been breaking international law for decades, your presidents are war criminals. It has invaded and attacked Latin American countries like Uruguay, Panama, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Chile and El Salvador (amongst others) and instituted dictators in those countries whom oppress it's people. Big corporations then swoop into those countries and profit off the cheap labour and resources they produce. James Madison said that the purpose of democratic society is to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that the state should be controlled by the "wealth of the Nation" i.e. so-called "democratic" countries should be ran by wealthy businessmen: plutocrats. It has been that way and has only been getting worse.

However, having said that, you can have an influence over your government. You can't have a say in the activities of the giant corporations that govern world affairs; they are perfect tyrannies. The government, however, is not a perfect tyranny because it is potentially democratic i.e. if you, the workers of the country, organise and protest then you can have a say in your government and can change it.

To the poster above me who is under the illusion that Obama is a socialist: The most basic tenet of socialism is that the means of production (the factories, the workshops, all land, tools and materials that produces wealth) should be collectively owned such that there is no class divide between people who own the means of production (Capitalists or "bourgeoisie") forcing the working class (or "proletariat") to work for them through an oppressive and exploitative system of wage-labour that transfers wealth upwards (to the Capitalists) causing further class divide and wealth inequalities and so on. Has Obama done anything that suggests anything of this sort? No, of course he hasn't, in fact he brings in reforms that further benefit the Capitalists. The biggest protectionist (i.e. Capitalist-supporting) presidents have been republicans: like Nixon. The US economy goes, and has always gone, like this: massive protection for the rich, free-market discipline for everybody else. The state subsidises the rich all the time, if a big business goes down it's YOU the public who have to pay for it in taxes. The big businesses take NONE OF THE RISKS and get ALL THE PROFITS. All that risk taking that the public has been taking has led to the mass unemployment/redundancy: the likeliness of bankruptcy has increased significantly in the last couple of decades. American families spend less and food and less on clothes (etc.) now than they did in 1976. In 1976 11% of an average families income went towards savings, the average America family today has 0% in savings. Wealth is moving upwards. Obama isn't changing that.

The US has one of the worst health-care systems in the world. It has a worse health-care system than Cuba. Do you know how much wealthier the US is than Cuba? It's ridiculous that American health-care is so bad. France has the best health-care system in the world and that's because the public put it in the hands of their government rather than let it be controlled by tyrannical business owners which care more about profits than people's lives. If the US government provides Universal health-care that is poor the public will protest and force the government to provide better health-care, which it can afford. If health-care remains in the hands of business then it doesn't matter how sick you are, if you can't pay up then it's tough-luck.

Your media is controlled by wealthy Capitalists. Your news is propaganda fed to you by the bourgeoisie class. There is no "liberal media", the media that Fox News talks about certainly isn't "liberal". As long as you let these news programmes control your opinions, whether that news programme calls themselves "liberal" or "conservative" ("conservative" being far-right and "liberal" being more centre-right), you won't have any real freedom or control over your lives. These news programmes want you to keep thinking about golfers having sex so you aren't thinking about people dying in wars, people dying because they can't afford health-care, people losing their jobs because of a ridiculous economy etc. They want you to think that it's "commies" and "terrorists" and "socialists" etc. that are causing all your problems. They want you to argue over abortion and gay marriage so as to keep you distracted. They want you to hate your government and your president so that you become more and more distrustful of the only institution that you can potentially control!They want you to hate each other to prevent you from turning against the real cause of your problems: "the minority of the opulent", "the wealth of the nation."

Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] Your argument is based on assumption; the assumption that trespassers are more dangerous than anyone else.Pirate700

I'm not arguing anything, I am telling you the law is framed around self defense. Someone that unlawfully enters your house is definitely a threat in some manner.

Don't bother dude. He's probably one of those criminals are misunderstood people.

loladhominem. Oh, and criminals are misunderstood to an extent. Some people seem to have it that all criminals are evil. The reality is that some people are criminals out of necessity not evil.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] Your argument is based on assumption; the assumption that trespassers are more dangerous than anyone else.

I'm not arguing anything, I am telling you the law is framed around self defense. Someone that unlawfully enters your house is definitely a threat in some manner.

How do you know they are "definitely a threat" and are not just planning on shaking your hand and leaving?
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] Well, I suppose what the women did was illegal then because he didn't seem to attack her in any way before she shot him. Ok. Lets define "self defence" here. I assume you mean that he "poses a threat". Lets say the trespasser has a gun. He comes onto your property and you shoot him. Now why can't I do that in the street? Someone walks up to me who has a gun. I shoot him because he "poses a threat". The only difference is where it took place. Take note that in both cases neither of those who were shot actually drew their gun, they just had one and therefore "posed a threat."

I am not going back to this argument with you if you aren't going to listen to the maybe dozen or so posts already about this. Google it if you want to learn more, but since you don't seem intent on learning anything, just arguing, you probably won't bother.

Your argument is based on assumption; the assumption that trespassers are more dangerous than anyone else.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The guy walking down your street didn't break into your house...

coolbeans90

How is a house any different from someone touching my drink in public.

Because there are larger consequences typically associated with people breaking into houses than people messing with other people's drinks.

So in other words, in America, trespassers are assumed with certainty to be life threatening. Therefore the law is based on superstition. Assuming something to be true without reason to believe it s irrational. There is no certainty that anyone who trespasses into your home is intent on killing you.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] Well the woman shot at the man and she didn't seem to acknowledge that he had a gun, everyone applauded so I assumed that killing trespassers was fine. Ok, so when are you allowed to shoot someone unwanted on your property?

As self defense. :|

Well, I suppose what the women did was illegal then because he didn't seem to attack her in any way before she shot him. Ok. Lets define "self defence" here. I assume you mean that he "poses a threat". Lets say the trespasser has a gun. He comes onto your property and you shoot him. Now why can't I do that in the street? Someone walks up to me who has a gun. I shoot him because he "poses a threat". The only difference is where it took place. Take note that in both cases neither of those who were shot actually drew their gun, they just had one and therefore "posed a threat."
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]

Better to be safe than sorry. I haven't ever heard someone breaking into someone's house to say hello. Most people knock, or use a doorbell. A random interaction on the street is much less likely to kill you than someone breaking into your home. Your sanctity of property question makes no sense, since my argument isn't about property rights.

coolbeans90

There is now way you can prove the man was attempting to harm her. He could of been a hungry bum like someone hear said.

Can you prove that this "hungry bum" did not have murderous intentions? Personally, I would not risk my life to find out. If he wanted food he could have knocked. I have plenty of PB & J to spare.

I'm walking down the street. A man comes up to me. Can I prove he doesn't have murderous intentions? Better not risk it!
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] I'm not "enraptured by the theft" aspect, I am trying the lack of reasoning behind your "right" to shoot people in your house. Self-defence is not the issue. Like I said, people pose a threat to you all the time; you aren't allowed to kill them for it. Oh, and what does it matter if the trespasser has a gun or a straw, your still allowed to shoot them aren't you? Whether they are "unequal" or not.

Ugh... Self defense is the issue since it is the reason behind this. Posing a threat and intent to cause harm are totally different things. Also, no, you do not have the right to shoot anyone unwanted on your property. If that is where the whole confusion came from why did you try to make a connection about sipping someone's soda? :|

Well the woman shot at the man and she didn't seem to acknowledge that he had a gun, everyone applauded so I assumed that killing trespassers was fine. Ok, so when are you allowed to shoot someone unwanted on your property?
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"][QUOTE="spazzx625"] Why are you so enraptured by the theft aspect of this? The whole point is personal safety. Self defense. If someone is attempting to harm you, regardless of if you're in your home or not you can defend yourself within reason. If someone is coming at you with a plastic straw you can't use a firearm, since they are unequal. bloodling

I'm not "enraptured by the theft" aspect, I am trying the lack of reasoning behind your "right" to shoot people in your house. Self-defence is not the issue. Like I said, people pose a threat to you all the time; you aren't allowed to kill them for it. Oh, and what does it matter if the trespasser has a gun or a straw, your still allowed to shoot them aren't you? Whether they are "unequal" or not.

People do NOT pose a threat to you all the time. They COULD pose a threat. When they break into your house, they DO pose a threat...

Define "pose a threat", because we're obviously not using the same definitions.