Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Yup, I just banned him...  (Read 17815 times)

Description:

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« on: October 13, 2013, 06:38:04 PM »
Amiga.org used to be a great forum for hackers (the good kind,) those in the know, those moderately in the know, and those who wished to be could mingle; 99% of the threads in the hot list were directly Amiga-related.  It used to be an Amiga forum.  Now it's devolved into an IRC channel.  Sometimes I wonder why it's still at the top of my "awesome bar."
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2013, 02:13:27 PM »
Quote from: yssing;750115
@SysAdmin >> While we are at the subject of fixing things on the site, maybe it would be possible to add bootstrap or make the site responsive using an other tool.
I browse this site using my phone more than I use a computer.


Adding features isn't really fixing things.  Anyway, I've had good results using the "mobile" style selection at the bottom of the page with the NetFront browser built into my phones.
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2013, 06:24:47 PM »
Quote from: Kesa;750124
That's what i think about redheads.


See attached.

Quote from: Kesa;750125
Screw using a smartphone. If you really cool you would be browsing using a classic Amiga. Which is what i would be doing if i actually owned an Amiga  : /


I am considering trading in my Amiga for an electric car.
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2013, 02:44:56 PM »
Quote from: dammy;750260
1st Amendment applies to the government and not to private entities such as amiga.org.


Thank you.  I am tired of the distortion of the First Amendment from people who cannot be bothered to :rtfm:, let alone understand the difference between a "freedom" and a "right."
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2013, 12:31:51 AM »
Quote from: Kesa;750277
What is the difference between a freedom and a right? Maybe you could explain this to us non-Americans (i hope it makes more sense than trying to justify gun culture).

In the simplest sense, a "right" is something which is guaranteed by our Creator as an inherent component of our existence: to wit, life.  A "freedom," on a similar token, is something like an act which we are innately capable of performing, but which may have limitations based upon cultural perspective or other governance.  Both may also be self-limited.

In regards to speech, we accept that everyone has ideas and thoughts and is free to conjure them, while at the same time we also understand there are appropriate venues for expression.  For instance, in most cultures there are certain topics of conversation which are deemed inappropriate for children, topics which we do not discuss at the dinner table, or things we may say around our friends but not around customers.  The concern is not about offending someone, but more about the decorum of the position or situation.  No matter the concern, you may be chastised for exercising speech in inappropriate situations, though rarely would (or should) you be criminally punished for doing so.

The Supreme Court of the United States has also gone so far as to address speech which may be dangerous to public safety (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) or instances of security as such speech may be the cause of injury or fatality to others.

It's hierarchical, as well.  You have the right to worship under religion, and the freedom to choose which religion to follow; or not in both regards.  As a consumer you have the right to purchase toilet paper, and the freedom to choose the brand, two-ply, rough or soft.

Both are naturally limited when it comes to the violation of others' rights or freedoms.  In terms of living, I have the right to life but not the right to live by denying you your right to life.  I have the freedom to choose how to live my life, but it is frowned upon to do so at the imposition of the freedoms of others.

Some rights are not just rights, but duties as well.  For democratic societies the right to vote is also a responsibility for the society cannot exist without the exercise of this right.  Even so, one may, and often does, exercise the freedom not to participate.

This is just simple and really only touches the surface.  There are much deeper arguments which go beyond a simple explanation and some on which I simply am not qualified to pontificate -- many which we face today, some for time immemorial.  Governance is a huge issue when it comes to rights and freedoms as government's natural tendency is toward tyranny, which is the loss of both.  We can also exist in a quasi-tyrannical state called a soft-tyranny in which we willfully cease or otherwise surrender our rights and freedoms because of the perception of imposed consequences.

I hope that I've been fairly articulate here.  You mentioned "gun culture," which has derogatory connotation.  Gun ownership is essentially a freedom we have to choose how we supplement our lives provided we do not impose upon others.  We concluded at our Founding that our right to life included the freedom not to have a sundry, or necessary, implement of our lives taken from us provided it was not used to harass or harm others.

We also concluded that, in the peaceful exercise of our freedoms, we had the right to be free from harassment thereof.  In direct regard to gun ownership: we concluded based upon history that people's right to life included the responsibility to defend themselves against tyrannical society or governance, and that arming themselves was part and parcel to this responsibility and therefore, as a component of our right to life, a right in and of itself.

(As well, I truly hope my explanation does justice to these immensely important constructs. In doing so, I often feel like I am trying to define the devine.)
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 12:34:53 AM by LoadWB »
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2013, 06:39:54 AM »
Quote from: Kesa;750298
Thanks LoadWB. Maybe too much info but that's OK. I still don't understand gun culture though. I have in my 29 years of life never seen a gun before apart from the police which are not even loaded. Why do you need guns in the first place? We don't need them - why do you?

Honestly, I don't think I included enough information.  I tried to pare it down some to give simple comparison and illustrations.

Where does this term "gun culture" come from?  The question isn't so much about "need."  We all have our basic "needs" which provide our survival.  We also have our individual "wants" or "likes," and one of those happens to be guns.  It could be anything, really.  Guns are hobbies and for most people a responsible way of life.  The fact that so many in our society abuse guns does not in any way give power to have them taken away from those who use them responsibly and for the right reasons.  In the hands of the right people a gun is effective for self-defense.  The "anti-gun culture" plasters the rest of the 10% all over the place for its own purposes, completely ignoring the reality and statistics.

Again, though, the gun debate completely detracts from the fundamentals.  If one answers the question of, "Why should people not own guns" with, "Because they are dangerous and can kill people," then the same question can easily be applied to anything on the slippery-slope leading to the point of many things suddenly being defined as dangerous and therefore needing prohibition or severe regulation.

Gun ownership is a question of personal property rights.  I own guns because I enjoy the skill involved in shooting, and because I am trained to use them effectively, and by corollary to NOT use them when appropriate.  The thinking is the same as a martial art: the idea is to know when to use it for proper defense, never for offense, and never to gain attention.  Should I have my guns taken from me because my neighbor abuses his, or rather more accurately statistically abuses one he has acquired illegitimately?  Should I have my kitchen knives over eight inches long be taken away because the man down the street used a similar item to kill someone?

In terms of personal property, I have a finite time on this Earth.  I spend that time earning a living performing jobs for other people.  Those people compensate me as an exchange for the time I have provided to them from my finite supply.  I then use that compensation to obtain products for myself, some to keep and some to consume.  The property I keep, or wealth I accumulate, becomes a tangible incarnation of the expenditure of my life.  Therefore, my property IS my life, and illegitimately taking away my property is tantamount to taking away my life.

PM me with your address.  I have a book I will send you if you promise you will read it -- the expense is worth it to me if you will do so.  It is a great book culminating centuries of the guiding philosophy of the American creed.  I've read a good number of the books referenced, and I have to say this one masterfully pulls it all together and has lead me to more.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 06:44:40 AM by LoadWB »
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2013, 08:09:30 AM »
Quote from: Kesa;750301
I've had this very same debate with many of my American friends and it always ends the same way. They basically say what you said and i reply with "but i still don't understand why you need guns in the first place" which is the honest truth. I don't think either of us is going to convinve the other they are right or wrong so we should just leave it at that. No point getting heated over it.

I think gun loving Americans are born into it that is why they are so accepting of it whereas the rest of us non Americans haven't been. I'm sure if i were born where you are i would probably have a different perspective on it.

I think it's scary how you try to justify having guns as hobbies and then compare them to kitchen knifes as a point in argument. I mean, really? That's silly.

Where i am if you even mention the word gun everyone will think you are a bad person and i'm pretty sure every cop in town will be bashing your door down before you kill someone but you talk about guns as if they are harmless hobbies. Really scary stuff.

Overall i think you and i are living in two very different perspectives so each to their own. Thanks for the offer for the book but i already have my mind made up so i probably wouldn't read it. Thanks anyway.

Not heated, so long as you don't come to my door with the force of law to take anything away from me which is rightfully mine to own and do with as I please.  

I do not consider comparing a knife to a gun silly; in terms of what I may or may not be allowed to own or use, why would I?  I find the presumption that I would eventually kill someone as justification for being a "bad person" and having police invade my sanctum simply for owning a gun far more silly.  Obviously we are from different cultures and we are different people: I accept that I can be secure in my ownership of whatever I desire, and you accept that police may take away whatever they deem I should not on premise alone.  A properly-used gun -- or knife, or hammer, or lead pipe, or car, or umbrella -- is no more dangerous than the Amiga on your desk.

The book I was offering you is not about gun ownership; it isn't propaganda or compelling you to join a cause.  I cannot explain any better what our motivations are, nor can you ever understand us, especially if you have a closed mind: you've made up your mind that if we cannot explain why we "need" something, "want" is invalid or at least insufficient.  I cannot argue a negative.  Again, whether we need certain things is not relevant: it is our God-given right, or our simple right inherent to our very existence, which allows us to possess whatever it is we desire and to be free from harassment provided we do not infringe upon others.  I realize this sentiment is not shared with many in the world, at the very least enshrined in doctrine.

I believe this book would help you to understand us and answer some of the questions you ask of your friends.  It has allowed me to understand some things we know and feel inherent to our nature which is difficult to articulate, those "gut feelings" we get when confronted with certain actions or arguments from others.  While I am disappointed, I appreciate your honesty with me.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 08:23:05 AM by LoadWB »
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2013, 10:17:25 PM »
Quote from: SpeedGeek;750335
This thread is way OT. But Kesa has good point in that the gun culture perpetuates itself. Unfortunately, it's at the great cost of human life and we would probably have to have another civil war because gun owners aren't willing to give up their rights for the same reason slave owners refused to give up their slaves.

I happen to be in the minority of people who would voluntarily trade my right to bear arms for a license to bear arms in the interest of saving human lives and that's what I call being true a pro-life advocate (rather than distributing propaganda regarding the unborn).

According to MADD, 27 people are killed by drunk drivers every day.  According to NBC, 30 people are killed by guns every day.

What do?
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 10:21:03 PM by LoadWB »
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2013, 11:23:04 PM »
Quote from: Crumb;750345
@LoadWB

Increase control and deny driving licenses to irresponsible people. About your gun ideas: what happens I would like to drive a Tank, to walk by the street carrying a bazooka and would love owning some napalm bombs, grenades and nuclear bombs? don't I have the right? USA government allows its citizens to be armed (it's their right) but decides that other countries don't have the right to have weapons, funny uh? strangely USA trains terrorists and sells weapons to terrorist groups.

If you read what I said, I pretty clearly point to government as a problem.  I cannot speak for our government as for the past 100 years our government has represented us less and less.  As for your outrageous scenario with tanks and bazookas, again, we have the right to bear arms, but the freedom of what arms we may choose is limited.  Napalm?  That's easy enough to make so, sure, I can have that.  But I cannot use it.  Grenades?  Sure, but I cannot use them without repercussions.  Tank?  Sure, but impractical and the average citizen would not be able to arm it.  Bazooka?  Pretty certain that's limited.

Quote
IMHO only police and army should have weapons. About the right to protect yourself and how weapons protect you: in USA if someone wants to enter your house to steal something he'll simply shoot you in the face when you go out to throw the trashcan and later steals you. In Europe he steals you but leaves you living. I prefer to be steal than murdered.

(citation needed)

Quote
It's difficult to prevent retards and crazy people accessing weapons. Hunters can access easily weapons, despiting half of them are psychos without empathy. If selling weapons for hunting wouldn't be allowed I would feel much safer too.

Again, (citation needed).  My grandfather was a hunter and the first thing he taught me about guns was what they could do to a person and how we never want that to happen.

Quote
It's usual to read news about crazy students killins a dozen of students in USA. That doesn't happen in European countries due to weapons not being so common.

Again, the vast majority of those killings are perpetrated by people who have obtained the guns illegally or illegitimately, and even more noteworthy is how all but one of the mass murders in the past decade and a-half have been committed in gun-free zones.

Quote
In general "life" worths much less in America than in Europe: it's easier than someone kills you to steal you in USA, Mexico and some southamerican countries than in European ones, killing you to steal you is a concept difficult to understand here... even for robbers. They can steal you without killing you and concepts like "self-defense" doesn't exist here so you can't kill robbers who enter your house (otherwise you open the doors to a slaughterhouse... if you wanted to kill somebody you could easily trick him to visit your house, kill him and claim he attacked you)

I read your first point several times, and I still cannot make sense of it.  Sure, I can post on Craigslist and invite you to my home and rape, torture, and kill you.  We can kill someone who enters our home and is a threat, but there is no slaughterhouse here.  Recently the big anti-gun culture target was the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, which gives someone a legal authority to kill someone if the person is an imminent threat to life.  When these statutes passed around 2004 we were told it would be the Wild West, people would walk around armed to the hilt and pick fights just to kill other people.  Never happened, and even the Zimmerman-Martin case was never prosecuted nor defended as a "SYG" case.  
tl;dr?  We aren't the Wild Wild West of here, but we do have more than our fair share of violent people who, by the way, are violent with or without guns.

Quote
Would you give shotguns to 12-year boys so they can protect themselves of each others? They have the right, don't they? oh perhaps they aren't mature enough... what do we do with people over 21 that are not mature enough? Some people with more than 50 years will never mature anyway...

That's just a terrible posit.  No, we teach our children that we resolve disputes with discourse or, if necessary, a good ass-beating. Again, never on the offensive, only on the defensive.  I fired my first gun when I was 8: my grandfather had me shoot a .22 rifle that my dad shot when he was my age.  As with anything, while our children are under our tutelage, we instruct them of the correct ways to interact with people, to handle themselves, and to handle dangerous objects.  At some stage there is little we can do other than influence their behavior and they have to take on the responsibility for their own actions.  You're right: some people in their 50s aren't mature, but we do not elect to impose restrictions on all people in their 50s for the fallacy that therefore ALL people in their 50s are immature or will be.

Quote
IMHO the world is better without violence and violence tools. Weapons should only be owned by armies and police. Of course you can kill people with a knife but many less, just like if you get mad you'll kill less people with a knife than with a bazooka.

Oh stop.  Bazooka, again?

Quote
Anyway European countries sell anti-personal mines and weapons to other countries so it's not so pink here.

But if you think everyone should have the right to own weapons you should agree every country deserves having nuclear weapons to bomb your cities.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest.  My prior presentation clearly stated that we may exercise our rights and freedoms so long as they do not impose upon others', and the latter is subject to limitations.

It's probably a good idea you stay over in your country.  If you were to ever come here, I'm likely to lure you into my home and shoot you with my nuclear bazooka.  FFS.

To recognize for a moment the people who will gladly give up their rights and freedoms to protect others, first you do not understand a thing I have said already, and secondly that you would do so gives you no right nor power to impose the same unto me or others who would not.  I am happy that, in your opinions, you would give up your sovereignty for the safety of others.  I hold onto my sovereignty because I am not a threat to others, and if I ever become one I will face the repercussions.

All of this notwithstanding, guns exist.  Weaponry exists.  Always has and always will because there are no angels amongst men.  So long as our civil society persists, we have no reason to turn those arms on each other and those who do are punished (well, not so much under our current administration.)  To paraphrase my homosexual friends, "We're here, we're armed, get used to it."
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 11:30:08 PM by LoadWB »
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2013, 12:19:35 AM »
Quote from: Kesa;750349
Confirmation bias?

Intentionally.  And your bias is just as good as mine.

In any case, I said my piece, and I think it has resonated with several people here, for better or worse.  I have nothing more to say so long as all I have to respond to are dramatic hyperbole and spit-balls.

My first point: the difference between "rights" and "freedoms."  I made the mistake of responding to the snarky "gun culture" derision you made, falsely making the intrinsic link between rights and freedoms and our penchant for gun ownership and that one cannot be discussed in the absence of the other.

My second point: in our country and our culture our right to live is supplemented by our right to defend ourselves with arms.

My last point: things are different in your country.  Good, enjoy it.  I don't begrudge you your culture, and I expect that you don't begrudge me mine.  No one I know will ever come to your country and push anything on you, or take anything away from you, to which you might object.  Don't do the same to me.  (Governments aside, I have no control over that.)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:23:25 AM by LoadWB »
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2013, 12:21:41 AM »
Quote from: AmigaClassicRule;750350
I do not understand that last part of the sentence "my homosexual friends". Are you saying all these people who have posted here are homosexual just because they do not like violence or gun? If I do not like violence, or see people dispute matters through violence or shooting each other....does that mean I am sissy, or love having sex with men? Please do not imply that if a man hates violence or do not like having weapons around means he is homosexual.

YES.  You figured me out!  If you don't own guns, then you're a homo!

*sigh*  If anything, I equated gun owners to queers.  The slogan is, "We're here.  We're queer.  Get used to it."  You are free to draw your own inferences,  erroneous or otherwise.

But thanks for the laugh.  And another spit-ball.
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Yup, I just banned him...
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2013, 01:06:39 AM »
Quote from: nicholas;750353
In the UK we have the right to free healthcare but not gun ownership.
In the USA they have the right to own guns but not healthcare.

I know which right I prefer.

Damn, trolled me into it.  FYI, everyone in the US gets health CARE.  Just not private health INSURANCE because the insurance companies have to amortize the costs of care for individuals which are not in optimal health.  Group coverage, however, is different, and thanks to the "Liberal Lion" of the senate and his friends back in the 60s, the primary way to obtain group coverage is through an employer, though some families have incorporated or formed organizations which allow them to purchase group coverage irrespective of health conditions of individual members as the risk is spread more broadly.

Under the new "Affordable Health Care" law, however, that has changed.  I received notice from my insurance provider that the policy I've had for over a decade is no longer allowed under the law.  I have a non-group policy which is provided to me as I am self-employed.  I pay under $500 a month for essentially 100% coverage -- I pay $10 to see a doctor (some first visits are actually free,) $15 for urgent care, $50 for emergency room visits, $15 for specialist visits.  I haven't had to pay for a single test, and in the past few years I've had several MRIs as we attempt to discover the source of a condition I suffer.  My medicines cost as low as $2 and no more than $50.  It's a great plan.

Thanks to the ACA, my provider is no longer allowed to provide this plan to me, or small families who have formed organizations for small group coverage.  My new premium will indeed be lower, but only by a couple hundred dollars and I do not qualify for subsidies (someone else pays part or all of the premium) as I'm self-employed.  My deductible will be just over $5,000.  After that it would cover 80%.  In the end my out-of-pocket costs will increase.

Everyone has heard stories about how someone was denied treatment in the US because they lacked insurance.  That hasn't happened for decades, until now.  Hospitals and doctors are now requiring that patients pay their deductibles up-front or they get to wait or get turned away altogether.


As for your comment about the UK having free health care, I sent that in a text to my cousin living in England.  Her response is "Bollox!"
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 01:08:43 AM by LoadWB »