Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness

...

Gwydion, have you not at all been listening to what I've been saying here, that it all comes down to OPINION which was exactly why I stopped discussing it UNTIL I GOT DRAGGED BACK IN! GAH!!!

Gah! Wrong thread, anyway, ehmm, right empires. What was up and about in Asia with empires before about 1500, I don't know anything about that.
 
There I'm not dodging your stupid points anymore.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to post this type of remarks?

Thread closed.

EDIT: Thread unlocked for the time being.

Gwydion, do try to stay reasoneable

-Kharn
 
Sorry, but Briosa seems to be getting on my back lately. Maybe accusing Welsh of posting from fear rather than reason crossed the line?

I'm sorry if the "stupid points" comment offended you. Feel free to tell me why you think they're good points. Defend your argument.
 
To try to finish this up and to get an answer to my question there(and get this thread back on the road), I'll just sum up the main arguments:
Pro gun control:
1) Guns cause more harm than they save people(This incroporates the small yet significant argument that guns don't CAUSE crime but make it easier and MORE HARMFUL).
-Rebuff: No statistics prove it, and I like using guns.
There is no 2(I think).
Against gun control:
1) Guns are indeed used in crime, but they're also used in self defense.
-Rebuff: YOu can't prove that.
2)It'll limit the freedom of the people.
-Rebuff: It will protect people from harm.

It all comes down to opinions in the end, and where you draw the line. There, futility proven. DOne? ;)
 
Actually I had a nice post (you'd love it Gwydion, long and detailed with useful info that you could dismiss) but got locked out of it.

There a certain lack of civility in all this exchange.

To answer a few points above-

No, I am not per se against guns. I am for higher regulation and control of guns, as well as stiffer penalties for their missuse. If society can't control itself, than the law must try. So yes, let the hunter and the hobbist have their gun. But force responsiblity on those who own and those sell guns.

Gwydion- I'd like to see where you got that UN statistic. I am not doubting its there, but it sounds like a bit inflated. True, a lot of folks own guns and enjoy them in the US, and most don't get used. But as Sander pointed out, would regulation really affect that?

Anyway, this gun debate has filtered through many good threads here and managed to lose a good conversation. So lets try to get it back on course. (Or, Gwydion, do you want to continue throwing mud? )

I think Gwydion's point on guns originates on a notion of the social contract, Locke- that people have a right to rebel against their state if it represses them and that having guns would help that along.

It's a nice idea, and one heres it a lot among undergrads. But the empirics point the other way. Unfortunately, the guns lead to more violence, wars become almost perpetual as access to guns by both sides grows. Since most wars are fought with small arms, (yes, its automatic weapons and not really handguns), and since neither the state nor the revolutionary can win, these wars become violent stalemates, in which no one can win, but the society loses.

Even if society wins, the guns are turned on each other.

THerefore with revolutions-
So you begin to find peace and democracy either where there was little means of violence to begin with, or a desire not to use, violence. Or after significant violence where the people are tired of it, or after most of the rivals have been killed and those who leaders who are left realize that they are not going to win this thing and agree to compromise.

But revolutions are not that common. The major way that dictators change is either coup d'etat, by a collapse from within with pressure from the right wing to leave, or through a process of democratization in response to social demands.

Ok, I think we're back on track. Gwydion, I know you want to talk guns. Start a post and have a talk on guns. You can bad mouth me all you want there ok.
 
Regarding pro gun point 1, there are a lot of documented cases in which guns are used for self defense.

Regarding point 2, I'll let Mr. Franlkin answer that: "Those who give up essential liberties in exchance for a little temporary freedem receive none and deserve neither."

Paraphrased, of course. In a way, I've come to think of Welsh as an Anti-Franklin during these debates. The single most consistant point throughout his posts is that safety of the individual, and presumably by extension society, is the ultimate goal. If I'm misrepresenting your sentiment, welsh, please correct me.
 
there are a lot of documented cases in which guns are used for self defense.
Click to expand...
And there are MORE documented cases of it being used in crime. Done?

#2 Quotes and paraphrases mean NOTHING, give me an explanation of WHY it is like that, and IMO, it is NOT like that, because simply, you don't gain temporary freedom, you gain SAFETY.

Must I repeat myself yet again? It's all about opinion, no use AT ALL discussing this, unless you like it, but then GET OUT OF THIS THREAD.

And someone, PLEASE answer my question about the empires in Asia...
 
Damn Gwydion- this gun control thing really burns you up.

Well, like I mentioned above, this gun control thing is boring. Kharn is right. We had a good thread here, and the gun control is ruining it again.

You've gone a bone to pick. In our messages you have called me an idiot, a socialist, afraid and an incoherent rambler. Now you want to call anti-Franklin. Hey man, sometimes fear is a rational response to.

I don't have time for this. We've had these arguments before. Time and again, we have spoken and the weakness of your arguments has been revealed. A lot of what you have thrown up over the past few pages is the same stuff you've thrown up before. And it got burnt then too.

I got nothing against you. You seem well intentioned and you seem to want to do what you think is morally right. I question your ability to think critically. I also wonder if you haven't picked up too much of the pro-gun line. But I don't care about changing your opinion Gwydion. It's not worth it.

And even when you are waving the flag of gun ownership, you have come down in support of gun regulation!

You want to bad mouth me, go ahead. I said this to you when carried this debate over in PM. When you can be civil, then we can talk.
 
"Burnt"? By what, your bizarre emotional rants on "bringers of death" or somesuch? You're right about one thing, though, this isn't worth discussing much more. When you won't even define what you mean by "more restrictions" despite my requests it's pretty hard to put together clear arguments.

FYI, here's a link to an article about the study. The numbers are a little higher than I said previously.
 
Gwydion- Gosh, let it go. We did this discussion earlier remember, when you were telling us about the federal regulations? More restrictions- ok, point to point. from manufacturer to seller and every resell- register the gun. This way we know where guns are moving, who's selling them to criminal and how many phoney sales occur. For liability- strict civil liability and criminal punishments more severe.

WIth regard to the notion of victims- think about this. Common hold-up.
A couple guys buy a gun from a pawn shop, decide to rob a fast food store.

In the process these, kids, on their adrenaline rush, shoot the cashier.

Lets say that the manager decides to protest. They shoot him too, but only wounded.

A concerned citizen gets up, and has a gun, draws, shoots one criminal.

Other criminal returns fire- kills him.

How many victims?
 
welsh said:
In our messages you have called me .... a socialist
Click to expand...

Ye Gods what an insult!

That said, Gwydion is a bit out of line, but meh, just scrap it out on the other thread if you feel the need.

That said, Sander was just asking about Asian empires before 1500, since he knows little about them.

Come to think of it, I know little about them.

Hmmm, I have some points to make concerning some of the imperialism-stuff, but I'll do it later.
 
Sander- OK, Asian empires- Well its been a while since I did Asian dynasties but the thing that stands out is the dynastic cycle. Chinese dynasties would go through early periods of emergent growth through conquest, usually building on the victory of the last and then moving onwards. Most CHinese dynasties are internal, two exceptions being the brief rule by the Mongols and a longer conquestion by barbarians to the North (the last dynasty is actually of foreing origins).

SO, what's up?
 
Thank god that whole gun rant is over with. It was pretty obvious that Welsh answered it when concerning dictators correctly (IMO) with his first responce. Looks like Gwydion really loves his guns...

*pictures Gwydion in bed coddling his Magnum and cooing to its muzzle how much he loves it and will never let it go*

ugh...

About Chinese Dynasties, I think the coolest aspect about these early empires are the whole "Mandate of Heaven" justification for the fall of one Dynasty and its replacement by another. Not only does it still leave the god-appointed, near-deity status of the Emperor intact, but if he is ever removed from power by another, the new emperor can say it was the will of God for him to be the new ruler because the old dynasty wasn't do a good job anymore. Of course, if God "said" so, you know the people aren't going to try and contradict the new ruler. Simple, effective, ingenious and it probably saved some court philosophers ass when the new Emperor came to power.
 
That's true, and in a way that goes back to Sander's point early about benevolent dictatorship.

THe original mandate from heaven, (and its been ages since I did China) comes down in part from legend. A long time ago the great rivers of China flooded and this destroyed much of the crops. Three emperors ruled during this time, more like leaders than really emperors, whose mission was to deal with this terrible flooding.

Because they were considered to be virtuous leaders, people did what their will not because of the fear of violence, but because these leaders were virtuous. It was believed that their virtue pleased the Gods, and therefore standards of virtue were believed important, and is part of the Confucian system of social relationships- including ruler-subject.

Damn easy to corrupt though.
 
Enough about this stupid gun control issu, as my former English teacher said, "if you got an american that is convinced that he is right, telling him that he is wrong is useless." SO in other words there is no way any one here can convince gwyndion that he is wrong, or even remotly scratch his impenetrable armor unless they go out and shot him, his familiy, and all of his class mates whit a gun you have bought directly from a shop two hours earlier. The same thing goes for weslh, gwyndion you cannot convince him unless you make him feel the need for a gun, probably you can only do this by killing a lot of people

Now lets talk about me.

Me and my scuba diver class is going scuba diving with killerwhales in a few weeks, and i`m soooo looking forward to it. I think it will be a blast.

it is also easy to see for most people that the best way to rule a country is to take humans out of the process and to develop a really smart computer.
 
...

Loxley.....right, first of all, we STOPPED with the gun control issue, and second of all, what has scuba diving got to do with this? Third, seriously, a really smart computer will not make the best ruler, because it cannot adapt as fast as normal humans can, as well as that, most people won't be happy with the idea of being ruled by a computer(Mainly because they're thinking of doom-day scenarios, which won't happen with those robot hardware imprinted cards thingies that were outlined in a series of books).

As for Asia, thanks welsh, but what was also the general relation, so not just China(even though it's the largest), but also their relations towards India, INdonesia, Japan etc.

Also, I'm not sure what Confucianism means, I've heard of it(obviously), but I don't know what the teachings of Confucius mean, never decided to look into it...
 
Loxley said:
, as my former English teacher said, "if you got an american that is convinced that he is right, telling him that he is wrong is useless." SO in other words there is no way any one here can convince gwyndion that he is wrong...The same thing goes for weslh, "

Me and my scuba diver class is going scuba diving with killerwhales in a few weeks, and i`m soooo looking forward to it. I think it will be a blast.
.
Click to expand...

OUch! Actually the point of dialogue is to share ideas, and perhaps convince another person that your argument is better. WIthout that, there is no point in dialogue. Actually Gwydion has forced me to take a look at certain issues a second time, and while I overall disagree with him, I have seen some merit in a few of his arguments. But I will leave that for the gun control debate.

Point here, you can only be convinced if you are willing to listen and if the person you are arguing against can make a better case.
Otherwise, the point of argument is useless.

I'd like to think I could be convinced- provided a good enough argument was raised. I have my doubts about Gwydion, to be honest, but I think that's more a matter of age and rhetorical style. Young guys want to "win" arguments, not to discuss. Having a dialogue is not a war. You win nothing if the other side capitulates when he or she figures out that there is a stalemate that is unwinnable. IF the person walks away unconvinced and pissed off, you lose. You win by sharing ideas and rethinking through real problems. THis way the dialogue continues, and the sharing and thus both parties win.

To a certain extent Gwydions argument above was normative, I responded with empirics- two different types of argument.

ANd Scuba rules. Go for it. Is this your first Open Water? I am trying to do advanced, but need to find my NAUI card. Are you doing it NAUI or PADI?

Make sure you have a dry suit or you will freeze your ass off. Also don't bring shiney objects or swim too close to the Killer whales. Even if they aren't aggressive (and I can think of no attacks by killer whales except at Sea World) you could be badly injured with a flip of the tale. Also watch out, where there are killer whales there are often seals and otters, and where there are seals and otters, there are big sharks that aren't so discriminating.
 
I´m currently going to take a cmas certificate, one star, but by the end of the year i will probably be a at level 3, wich i think is the same as advanced.

It will also be diving down to wrecks( our instructors are going to dive into tirpitz this wekeend) and other things, there is no such ting a seals and oters in lofoten and there is no sharks. I Have a drysuit and our teacher is very experienced (1000 dives or so) more than 50 of them with killer whales.

I see your points about argument welsh, but my english teacher actually mentioned gun controll and american foregn policy as an example of things that you should be carefull about. My english teacher, is by the way from the us, and he is rather funny character. And as i see it he is very correct about the weapon controll issue.

It is fun to read such posts as the ones you and gwyndion read, but you are both banging your heads against an adamantinium wall here , and it is better to leave such issues before they turn nasty, as i notice our great moderators also have noticed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top