done4good

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 1,841 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by done4good

• 
  75

  Guns. Well said Mr President, if only your countrymen had the same courage to consider changing course.

  by nicolaou in

  1. social
  2. current

  ive had to make statements like this too many times.

  communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.

  once again, communities [were harmed] because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no problem getting their hands on a gun.. lets be clear: at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  Half Banana - Isn't the real issue the mass availability of weaponry permitting the reckless to massacre the innocent?

  If you understand probability theory, (many people do not), then the answer is yes.

  d4g
  
• 
  75

  Guns. Well said Mr President, if only your countrymen had the same courage to consider changing course.

  by nicolaou in

  1. social
  2. current

  ive had to make statements like this too many times.

  communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.

  once again, communities [were harmed] because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no problem getting their hands on a gun.. lets be clear: at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  TD - Would you disagree that in a general sense, other rights were originally predicated on virtually the same fear? --Including but not limited to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceable assembly, right to privacy, right to due process, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc., etc., etc.?

  In the general sense, I would not disagree with your assertions. Within the context of 18th century early America, a fragile new democratic government and both internal and external threats to the country's existence, the USA likely required a constitutional amendment as such. Much existential fear existed during that era.
  

  Having said that, the government we are discussing was intended to be a government "by the people, for the people". Of course, that sounds a bit naive in modern context, however it is not naive on the basis of the government somehow being tyrannical. Many other issues that are quite complex, but mostly related to the plutocracy in the country have largely corrupted our government, (think Citizen's United). That plutocracy to this very day is quite adept at creating straw men, such as "look at the big bad federal government and how they want to take away all of your rights". Those assertions do not hold up under scrutiny.

  The fact that most of the western, and a good part of the eastern world is largely democratic today, without the same level of constitutional protection of gun rights, (granted this is only a correlation), strongly provides at least anecdotal evidence that such an amendment is likely not necessary in modern society.

  One really needs to believe that America is somehow exceptional to believe otherwise.

  d4g
  
• 
  75

  Guns. Well said Mr President, if only your countrymen had the same courage to consider changing course.

  by nicolaou in

  1. social
  2. current

  ive had to make statements like this too many times.

  communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.

  once again, communities [were harmed] because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no problem getting their hands on a gun.. lets be clear: at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  little_Socrates - Yes, I do understand the Second Amendment. How do you explain the following:

  1. What empirical evidence exists to prove this actually keeps the government in check?

  2. If tyranny is the ultimate fate of countries without a similar provision, why do we not see such in other modern democracies?

  I think it is time to amend the very old and out of modern context amendment.

  d4g
  
• 
  75

  Guns. Well said Mr President, if only your countrymen had the same courage to consider changing course.

  by nicolaou in

  1. social
  2. current

  ive had to make statements like this too many times.

  communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.

  once again, communities [were harmed] because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no problem getting their hands on a gun.. lets be clear: at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  LRG-

  I am really not trying to be the instigator here, (and I do live in the USA), but are you aware of the history of the 2nd Amendment and how it came into existence? Did you ever question the part concerning militias, inasmuch as they are illegal in the USA? There is a reason that language is there, and it has to do with the era in which the US constitution was written.

  Post Revolutionary War, (or Revolt for you on the other side of the pond), much debate existed over how to defend the USA in times of peace. Generally, it was understood a Navy was necessary. We needed to guard our ports and waterways. It was not so clear what a standing army would do, however. Much fear existed that a standing army could cause mischief and harm if they had access to weapons, and others did not.

  We never came around to eliminating a standing army. Meanwhile, instead, what happened was the Articles of Confederation were tried, and failed. As you are likely aware, the Articles gave states far greater latitude than our current constitution. Generally speaking, the southern states preferred this form of a federal government, mostly because they feared the social stigma that was growing in the northern states with respect to the still very legal slavery situation and would eventually make slave holding illegal, (obviously it did with Emancipation some 80 years later). In any event, the Articles failed, (remember, there was not even a common currency among the states then), and the more federally focused document was back on the table.

  The southern states would still not ratify it. Basically what happened was they needed to be persuaded, (or pandered to), to do so. Gun ownership was regarded loosely as a "way to keep the government in check", at least in a "feel good" kind of way, (certainly nothing empirical to prove this), so although the standing army concern was never really addressed, the original language as written into the draft document, (militias and all), remained.

  So there you have it. The Second Amendment was in fact a provision to appease states that would not ratify it without it, mostly over federal government paranoia, (sound familiar?). Advocates for the 2nd Amendment give all kinds of reasons for it, (self protection being the most common), but the argument does not hold water in light of history. It was an anti-government provision from the beginning.

  Bottom line, is that unless people really are anti-federal government, (and we all know the kooks that are), the Second Amendment really has very little practical meaning in modern society.

  Sorry, but these are facts, and I truly expect to get flamed over this...

  d4g
  
• 
  24

  David Splane address bethelites

  by rosesinbloom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i did not write this piece.

  i enjoyed the simple and understandable reasoning.

  hope some of you enjoy it too.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  Half Banana - That was an excellent post. It should be bumped regularly.

  Much of thinking outside of the lines, (other words to see the bible as just another amalgamation of pre-existing ideas), takes understanding the boundaries between the "contained" system, (the bible itself in this case), and the "containing" system, (the system that led to its creation indirectly). This type of stuff is taught in graduate level logic classes, but can be read up on easily.

  Most people that typically take up a very Protestant view towards the bible do so because they do not learn to discern those lines of distinction between systems. I know in my case several years ago I could see the bible did not add up, and when I continued to research its history, (and Christianity's history by extension, one of the big elements of the containing system), it was not too long before I was well on my way to becoming atheist.

  d4g
  
• 
  78

  My experience of christians and religion

  by Doltologist in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  one or two of you have noticed that i use derogatory terms when talking about matters religion.

  i offer no apology.

  you do, however, deserve an explanation.. my father, bless him and now dead, was a survivor of belsen, the german concentration camp.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  Cappy-

  I have to respectfully disagree with you. I get that Asperger's can mean that a person communicates differently, but if half of what Doltologist states concerning himself is true, I don't believe he has severe issues with communication.

  If anyone has read any of my posts, (including in this very thread), I made it perfectly clear that I am not a believer of any kind. I was not only misrepresented, but called out and called names by this poster. How is that acceptable?

  This is worse than a honey and vinegar scenario. In my 9+ years on this forum, this is a first. Frankly, I am surprised the mods allowed it to continue as long as it has.

  d4g
  
• 
  78

  My experience of christians and religion

  by Doltologist in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  one or two of you have noticed that i use derogatory terms when talking about matters religion.

  i offer no apology.

  you do, however, deserve an explanation.. my father, bless him and now dead, was a survivor of belsen, the german concentration camp.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  Dolt - And I just love how you call others out on "not reading" and "assuming" which is what you do in every post you write. Either you are the biggest hypocrite on earth, or just too stupid to know you are.
  
• 
  78

  My experience of christians and religion

  by Doltologist in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  one or two of you have noticed that i use derogatory terms when talking about matters religion.

  i offer no apology.

  you do, however, deserve an explanation.. my father, bless him and now dead, was a survivor of belsen, the german concentration camp.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  Doltologist - You appear to have anger management issues. You need to get it sorted.

  Don't you dare throw that red herring in my face. YOU are the one who had the audacity to call me what was it?

  1. Evil

  2. Vile

  3. A low-life

  4. You thought I was a christian, (or as you say Christard), and proceeded to call me out without reading anything I had to say on the matter.

  5. I could keep going on, and will if you keep it up.

  You will not will win. I am one tenacious SOB when you piss me off. You did. I am well within my rights to tell you FUCK OFF!!! Simon will have to ban me for language, but I won't bow down to your bullshit until that happens.
  

  d4g
  
• 
  89

  Richard Dawkins talking about a Creator

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.

  (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.

  time: "could the answer be god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  done4good,

  You must not be reading the same comments from atheists that I see on other threads (such as by Jonathan, Viviane, etc.

  I have read many of Viv's threads and what I can you is she will call you out on a post by post basis. If you say something stupid, you will be called on it. It is not a question of character, it is a matter of pointing out a foolish remark. Truth be told, I just did the same above. Perhaps with a bit less edge, but I was fairly direct just the same.

  d4g
  
• 
  89

  Richard Dawkins talking about a Creator

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.

  (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.

  time: "could the answer be god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  done4good

  FusionTheism - This refutes those atheists who say anyone who believes in a Creator is STUPID or an IDIOT.

  Really, who says that? Not any atheist I know, (Oh wait, I forgot about Dolt, but I digress).

  The above is a straw man. Atheists neither claim, nor believe those that believe in a creator are idiots or stupid. Please stick to real talk points.

  We do try to make theists see that facts and reason matter. Pointing out logical fallacies such as the straw man above, (even though it has nothing directly to do with facts concerning if a creator exists or not), is a good way to help someone learn for themselves how to use logic.
  

  d4g