*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.

Presumably you don't think I should be allowed to have a fully functioning (armed) tank, armed fighter jet, nuclear bomb, etc. If so, I agree, but I'm also not sure how we're drawing the line in which military/law enforcement armaments we should be entitled to also have.

Whatever the reasons we claim that it's OK for the military to own whatever weaponry, apply that logic to everyone.
I.e. if it's because military personnel are highly trained, well... anyone can be trained.
If it's because the military does rigorous background checks and various training and evaluations of an individuals trustworthiness and ability to remain calm under pressure, then OK... make that same standard a requirement for everyone.

Basically, the military doesn't just put anyone in a pilot seat of a fighter jet. Whatever their criteria are to choose whom is suited can be applied to anyone, whether or not they're enlisted.

[boost]

Whatever the reasons we claim that it's OK for the military to own whatever weaponry, apply that logic to everyone.
I.e. if it's because military personnel are highly trained, well... anyone can be trained.
If it's because the military does rigorous background checks and various training and evaluations of an individuals trustworthiness and ability to remain calm under pressure, then OK... make that same standard a requirement for everyone.

Basically, the military doesn't just put anyone in a pilot seat of a fighter jet. Whatever their criteria are to choose whom is suited can be applied to anyone, whether or not they're enlisted.

The military has an ongoing mission that requires certain tools. While a citizen's aims may necessitate an overlap with the military's tool set, there are certain armaments that there is no justifiable reason for a citizen to own, i.e.: nuclear weapons.

Essentially your answering the how, but I'm asking the why.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The military has an ongoing mission that requires certain tools. While a citizen's aims may necessitate an overlap with the military's tool set, there are certain armaments that there is no justifiable reason for a citizen to own, i.e.: nuclear weapons.

If a mission statement is enough for you to trust that someone is not going to misuse WMD's, that's a lower bar than what I envision.

[EDIT] Perhaps a bit of morning snark in there. A mission statement of why someone wants the WMD and some statement of the intent of ownership and intended usage should certainly be a part of the licensing and whatnot.[/EDIT]

Essentially your answering the how, but I'm asking the why.

The answer to "why" is the presumption of innocence coupled with equality in treatment of all humans under human laws.

[boost]

If a mission statement is enough for you to trust that someone is not going to misuse WMD's, that's a lower bar than what I envision.

[EDIT] Perhaps a bit of morning snark in there. A mission statement of why someone wants the WMD and some statement of the intent of ownership and intended usage should certainly be a part of the licensing and whatnot.[/EDIT]


The answer to "why" is the presumption of innocence coupled with equality in treatment of all humans under human laws.

You're letting your silly axioms force you into absurd positions. No one has or will ever have a reason to individually own a nuclear weapon. Even if you want to argue some crazy edge case, I'll simply point out that it'd be such an edge case that the regime necessary to train, evaluate, and regulate individuals' ownership of nuclear weapons would be so wasteful that it simply makes more sense to just not allow it.

I'm afraid that if we can't get passed this, we're stuck at a standstill.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're letting your silly axioms force you into absurd positions. No one has or will ever have a reason to individually own a nuclear weapon. Even if you want to argue some crazy edge case, I'll simply point out that it'd be such an edge case that the regime necessary to train, evaluate, and regulate individuals' ownership of nuclear weapons would be so wasteful that it simply makes more sense to just not allow it.

I envision that expense falling on the owner. I.e. the cost of all the background is billed to the owner.

I'm afraid that if we can't get passed this, we're stuck at a standstill.

If you understand my position, then we're at the goal.
Of course we're at a standstill when we've gotten to the point.

I'm not claiming I'm right; I'm sharing my opinions.
I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm explaining my mind.

[oskar]

I'm not saying this is a coverup, but if you wanted people to believe this was a cover up you'd hire the 85 year old pathologist who is known for investigating the JFK and MLK assassinations.

Is it at all possible that "Michael Baden" is the "Alan Smithee" among pathologists?

[boost]

I envision that expense falling on the owner. I.e. the cost of all the background is billed to the owner.

I'm skeptical rights can exist that are not reasonably attainable-- but nevermind that, I'll walk back my caveat. I don't think there are any edge cases. Certain powers should only be held by committee.

If you understand my position, then we're at the goal.
Of course we're at a standstill when we've gotten to the point.

I'm not claiming I'm right; I'm sharing my opinions.
I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm explaining my mind.

I like this framework. I don't quite agree that we've reached the goal, but certainly a goal. Often times discussions, especially nowadays, seem to be stuck at some lower level where neither person actually understands the position of the other. I believe the next level is to get at how and why the other person has arrived at their conclusions, as well as how and why you've arrived at your own conclusions.

As I've said, I believe you're operating from flawed axioms. We're kinda working from opposite ends. How I see it, you've arrived at your conclusions through deduction, while I see your axioms as flawed by way of induction. I think axioms which give less than satisfactory conclusions are much more suspect than conclusions which aren't clearly traceable to actionable axioms.

So I guess I'd ask you to either say something about the axioms you're working from and why they're so sacrosanct, or give some practical support of your conclusions that aren't just references back to the axioms they're derived from.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Certain powers should only be held by committee.

I agree. I don't think who has what rights should ever fall to a single person.
Once rights have been granted, though, I believe they should apply equally to all.

I like this framework. I don't quite agree that we've reached the goal, but certainly a goal. Often times discussions, especially nowadays, seem to be stuck at some lower level where neither person actually understands the position of the other. I believe the next level is to get at how and why the other person has arrived at their conclusions, as well as how and why you've arrived at your own conclusions.

Well put.

As I've said, I believe you're operating from flawed axioms. We're kinda working from opposite ends. How I see it, you've arrived at your conclusions through deduction, while I see your axioms as flawed by way of induction. I think axioms which give less than satisfactory conclusions are much more suspect than conclusions which aren't clearly traceable to actionable axioms.

Cool.

So I guess I'd ask you to either say something about the axioms you're working from and why they're so sacrosanct, or give some practical support of your conclusions that aren't just references back to the axioms they're derived from.

For the latter, well, you've kinda put me in a corner, because axioms are, by definition, the "unprovable statements we assume to be True" just to start somewhere. I can't give any support for my position that doesn't point back to an unprovable beginning, but that's always true of all logic and all conclusions, so it's not a fault in my position.

To address the former
My primary axiom is "The Presumption of Innocence is among the best ideas humans have ever come up with."

I can't prove that the Presumption of Innocence is a good thing.
Where it's from is hard to tell... ye olde tymes is probably good enough... but as early as the 2nd or 3rd century in Rome. It's also present in Islamic law, but the wikipedia page doesn't really have dates in that paragraph.
My gut says it was a thing long, long before that. Human conflict resolution has to go back as far as humans, and people lie all the time, that's nothing new. Prehistoric people must have had similar ideas that they were using as axioms, 'cause I just made that up and it gives me juicy feels, so it must be true.
*sigh*

Why I hold it sacrosanct is a personal choice. IMO, it is a worse travesty of justice to punish an innocent person than it is to let a guilty person go unpunished. It must be said that in America (where I've always lived), this is the legal precedent in all cases I know of. It must be present as bias in my choice.
I get the feeling that the more popular sentiment in 'Murica these days is to just shoot all criminals and "suspected" criminal is "close enough." That simply can't be justice, IMO.


My Secondary axiom is, "Whatever laws we have should apply equally to all."
Again, I can't prove this is a good idea. It simply strikes me as completely obvious that - if we let one group of people make rules that another group has to follow, but the rule-making group does not - that's a recipe for human oppression.


I have a quiet third axiom that motivates me, but isn't really a part of my argument, and that's "I am deeply skeptical of irrational arguments that favor the curtailing of a vast swath of people's rights." Or maybe that's just a combination of the fist 2 stated emotionally.