Lughost Posts

You can all go fuck yourselves. With your new toys of course.

This is truly a golden age for hentai.

Tentacles in an onahole? Yes please.

OMG OMG ME WANT OMG

$130 of H-stuffs.

No way I can't enter.

Everyone loves dem dragon pussies.

ALL OF MY YES <3

I want this onahole to have my babies.

Just what I always wanted!

>Don't want a dildo
>Fuck it, free stuff

Vintersorg's new album Naturbål is out, and it's pretty good. Certainly not on the level of his earlier works, or pieces like världsalltets fanfar, but overall better then the rest of his more recent works.

Överallt och ingenstans manages to maintain a slow and almost relaxing pace despite the rolling double bass drums throughout most the song. Lågornas rov is my favorite song on the album, with an amazing, if short, solo leading into the final chorus. The female vocals on Rymdens brinnande öar really bring the song to life, and mix very well with Andreas' voice.

In other news, I've heard Alestorm will be releasing a new Album 'Sunset on the Golden Age', and they've already released one song, 'drink', which shows a slightly more refined musical style, while still maintaining the somewhat silly nature I love. I've also gotten wind of a new Skálmöld album in the pipeline. So pirates and vikings fighting for my attention at the minute.

Well, for a start, we have no way of knowing that it is unaware of us observing it. But even so, like in Schrodinger cat, the universe is probably unaware that we are observing it, but the very action of observing the cat when we open the box forced it to 'choose a reality'.



Why I'm not a philosopher :D

If it isn't the best option, and everything else has failed, than that means the best option has failed. If the best option has failed, then a lesser option has a very low possibility of success.

And even so, that's not the main problem here. The problem is that people will jump to violence before they have given other, superior options a fair run, because when people are part of a herd, they become stupid (see bandwagon effect).



As I recall, the Jews were oppressed in Germany long before they attempted any sort of resistance. And any who attempted armed resistance were almost invariably killed or imprisoned. Subterfuge and passive resistance resulted in far fewer deaths.



So far as we know, there have been no organized resistance movements in North-Korea. The extent of most resistance is individuals trying to smuggle information in and out of North-Korea, and obviously people trying to escape. And this has only been going on recently, long after the government began oppressing its people.



That's a very respectable view. And certainly in places where there is a deep rooted culture of gun ownership, it would probably be more feasible to bring in softer regulations at first and tighten them up over time, rather than just go from little to no control to outright banning them.



That is exactly right. And that is why you shouldn't try to force your morals onto another society. Because they may see things differently to you, and both will be 'right' in the sense that neither of you are 'wrong', given the subjectivity of morality.



Yes, you make a good point, so let me change the wording of my argument. Morality is to do with the preservation of our happiness. So whilst getting a job has no morality attached to it, we may think it is immoral for someone to fire us, particularly if we dislike/disagree with the reasons why they fired us.



They have reasons for that. Muslims, or more specifically, Jihadists (and other violent Islamic groups), believe fervently that theirs is the only path to God, and that basically it is their 'holy duty' to 'struggle' against the 'enemies of Islam'. Basically, they give little to no value to the happiness of people they consider enemies, and feel it preserves their chances of getting into their afterlife, and preserves the happiness of their own people.

A similar thing could be said for people who steal; they may believe that the benefits for themselves or others outweighs the repercussions for others. And in some cases, it is certainly a justifiable stance.



Actually isn't it both? They're basically the same thing aren't they? Society works best when the rules of the society pander to the morals of the majority. That's why different societies have different laws and cultures, because of differing moral views changing how it works best.



So why do we do things that are right if they cause us unhappiness? Is it not because it preserves the happiness of other people? And are not the wrong actions that cause us happiness wrong because they cause others unhappiness?



In those situations, I would argue that either they were incorrect in deciding which were 'more likely' to be useful, or that using violence would have just made it worse (or both).



Sure, wanting to give children a right to an alternative is not self-righteous. But trying to force a country to give it's children such rights is. You can try to convince them to do it, that's fine, but once you try to forcibly change the system of a different peoples, you're taking it to far.



Well, that was the type of system you suggested in your hypothetical situation.



There's a whole other conversation here about paraphilias. For a start, most people with sexual fetishes (including homosexuality) could be described as having something mentally 'wrong' with them. Furthermore, there's actually a vast majority of research to suggest the development of paraphilias is prenatal (although not necessarily genetic). And I know that we're not talking about sex here, but the same rules apply.



No, but you would be self-righteous if you tried to force a system where it happened to stop (unless there was internal resistance to it in the system). I mean, there are still many reasons not to do it: physical trauma is still a very real possibility, as well as the 'teachers' potential psychological teachers, and encouraging rape in more 'real' scenarios. But if there is a system where it happens, and everybody is okay with it, then that's fine, if you don't like it, don't take part in that system.

Plus, if they enjoy it, it's not really rape is it? At least in the literal sense. Not that that gets rid of the other reasons. And it's also worth noting that there are instances where you can be self-righteous and still do 'good' deeds.



Yeah, there are a lot of factors to differentiate Finland and America. Although it's worth noting that of those 24 worst mass shooting in the past 50 years, 6 were in Europe, and 1 each in the middle east, Asia and Australia. So that means in south American and African countries, where the illegal gun market is very big, there were no mass murders at all. Interesting stuff.



True, but then, look at for instance Pakistan. The illegal gun industry is massive in Pakistan, and they have very few mass murders (although probably lots of accidental death). But that may be because lot's of the 'fucked up' people aim their attacks more at people of other nations than their own.



If I convince you that you don't need it, then the benefits of having a gun are gone, and all that's left is the negatives. Which means you will want to get rid of it



True, but a lot of criminals really only want guns as a sort of insurance, rather than to actually kill someone.



Well, I'm sure you know my stance on that. I maintain that having guns is ineffective against the government and military.



Even aside from obvious exceptions to that, I imagine that there are a large number of people who are so bad with guns they would cause more harm to their allies than the enemy. Not everybody can shoot straight, or even stand up whilst shooting a gun. There are enough videos on the internet to prove that point.



Certainly, but that will likely be the main weaponry of the military.



I actually know two. But one is military, and the other is ex-military. But I do have a laptop, and an entire internet at my fingertips. With the right technological skill, and enough patience, it would certainly possible to find some instructions. And even so, most guns being supplied to rebels in a civil war will come with at least an instruction manual, and if you're lucky, a demonstration.



There is one problem I have with the source of this data. Nowhere does it say any of these statistics are confined to legally owned guns. So whilst the percentage of firearm deaths which are unintentional is very low, there is no way to tell from the source how high the percentage of legal firearm deaths are unintentional.



I would certainly try to do those things if I joined the enemy, but how successful I would be is a completely different matter. Well, quite simply, after the government starts oppressing people, there will be a lot more people willing to resist it, and it would be easier to start a coup, or subvert those at the top.



Certainly. I'm generally quite active in standing up for things I feel strongly about (like hentai). But I can be quick to back down if there's a threat of physical violence. I'm basically a massive wimp.



Flee, or join the enemy side (if possible). Or if you're against either of those, then sure, fight. But at this point, there will be plenty of opportunity to get decent weaponry, either from foreign aid or international gun-smugglers.



No because Russia is not the only country that might invade. Norway or Sweden invading is something where you're much more on equal level. Although maybe you've got the advantage if the Finnish people display the same Sisu they have in past conflicts.



If they feel the risk of Russian invasion is too great, or that there NATO allies wouldn't help, then no, probably not. Avoiding war with a superior country is a key part of political and literal survival.



I think that depends on the scale of the invasion. If it's too small, then the chances of the smaller country winning is high. If it's too big, other countries will leap to help (mainly America), because very few people want another soviet union. They're already getting funny looks about their involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.

And sometimes you have to engage in war to defend your country. Take the six-days war. The president of Egypt is quoted as having said “our basic goal is the destruction of Israel”. Under those circumstances, you have to fight. Although in this example I think Isreal took there counterstrike a little to far.



As I've said before, if the government truly wants to slaughter you, they're not going to give you a chance to use any rights you have.



But they would have suffered more had they used the right.



I never said that I wasn't worried about my son's life. It's just that seeing that his death is inevitable, I have to then consider the action which will result in the least additional death.

Here's how I count the probability. He will either attack me or not. I can either attack him or not. If I attack him, whatever he does is irrelevant, at least one more person will be injured and possibly die (me or him). If I don't attack him, and he attacks me, again, at least one more person dies. If neither of us attack each other, then no-one else dies. That's 3 out of 4 options resulting in at least one more potential death. Only if I don't attack them is there a probability of no more deaths.



I don't know about that. Guns can be quite difficult to use, especially in close combat, which he will try to initiate if he has a knife. The ideal weapon would be a taser.



Which assumption is this?



No, because the benefits of cars outweigh the potential negative impacts. And even so, there are people who will never be able to learn to drive, because their risk of causing accidental damage to people is deemed too high.

And yes, that is another thing to add to my ideas for gun control. If there is an incident with a gun (a hired hunting gun for example), then, unless it is deemed as out of the shooters control completely, the shooter should be banned from guns for a few months, and have to take a class in how to shoot (or something like that) before he can go hunting again.

This is an even deeper problem. How do we know how things behave when they are unobserved? We can't investigate it because in order to do that, we would have to observe the things, and thus they would not do what they do when unobserved. The only reason this makes so little sense is because our brain relies so much on inductive reasoning.

If something happens every time we observe something, then it is likely that it happens all the time. So every time we go out, our house is still there, and we never see it move when we observe it, so it's logical to assume that it hasn't moved. But there is no way to know that it hasn't.

Ultimately this bears little to no impact on our everyday lives, and it's safe to use inductive reasoning in most scenarios. But it's a pretty interesting thought.

Firstly, even if it is a worse choice, it is still an option. Secondly, you have yet to give me an example where I have not refuted the use of guns being the best option.



Then can you support your claim with an instance of where non-violent resistance has lead to slavery and or death?



Exactly. So you should try to prevent people causing, either intentionally or unintentionally, deaths with legal guns as much as you would try to prevent someone using chemical weapons.



It's simple. I listed (some of) the reasons why doing it is obviously not the best thing to do. In a hypothetical situation where it is the best option, none of the reasons we don't do it can exist, and therefore, by definition, there is no reason not to do it. There are no negative consequences, for anybody.



The reason we think things are morally wrong are because we feel it causes unhappiness to ourselves, or other people. We think murder is wrong because it causes the victims friends unhappiness (and that could be us). We think theft is wrong because it causes the victim unhappiness (and that could be us). So we stop these things happening to protect our own and others happiness, because as you said, we want to maximize the number of people who are happy. That is all morality is, a way to protect our own happiness.



Perhaps so. But has there ever been a case where all methods of non-violent methods were used before either the situation was solved or they resorted to violence? I doubt it, because people are impatient and move onto civil war before trying the more likely non-violent methods, simply because they think it will be quicker. I think they are wrong. In addition, unlike non-violent resistance, it is very difficult to change tactics once you start a civil war. Furthermore, there are a large number of cases where violent resistance has also not worked.



Then you are self-righteous. If a system makes all the people involved in it happy, why is their any need to change it? Additionally, so what if it's factually deadly? So is euthanasia, but an increasing number of countries are legalizing it.



Cool. I like Finland. Hunting is pretty big there, isn't it? And maybe you don't have as many fucked up people as America because of the gun laws. You've got to admit, you hear a lot less about such people from countries with gun control than places without it. But then again, the same could be said about places that aren't America compared to America. In fact 15 of the worlds worst 24 mass killing in the past 50 years were in America.



I'm trying to convince you (or other people, more likely) that you don't need that right. That way, I don't need to deny you that 'right'. You will reject it by yourself. In other words, doing what I think is right whilst causing as little discontent as possible.



Tell me about it. In Alabama, for example, pretty much once you're old enough you can buy a gun, so long as you haven't already done a crime, and walk about with it openly in public. Which is just stupid.



That's cuz we're both smart people :D



I guess in the end, I'm for the banning of all lethal guns. So for instance, you could own a tazer or a gun that fires tranquillizers darts (low voltage/dosage), but not anything that fires live bullets. That way, you can still use it to protect yourself or others, but you have a much lower chance of killing someone, either by accident or on purpose.

There may be some exceptions though, for instance as a historical piece, or to rent for hunting on licensed properties. Those sorts of things. And of course everyone would need a thorough background check before being allowed to handle a live gun.



In what way are they the most effective weapons? Do you think the government is more afraid of the untrained civilian rebels with rifles and handguns, or the untrained civilian rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles? Which will be do any damage at all to the heavy armor of the military?



Is it a minority? Because all the statistics I've seen suggest otherwise. In every piece of evidence I've seen, at least 60% of gun-owners have been involved in a shooting incident. But then again, observation bias, so show me the studies.



Just because I'm 'joining their side' doesn't mean I'm not going to try to change thing. Like Suzaku Kururugi in Code Geass, I'll try to change the system from the inside. Or something along those lines. Maybe anonymously encourage a coup by the military. It's a lot lower risk to myself then fighting or protest, whilst at the same time, I can keep my moral integrity at least somewhat intact by trying to stop the oppression.

And there isn't much in this world I would be willing to stand up for, to the point where I would die for it. But that's mainly because I'm a huge physical coward, rather than any lack of morals.



The problem with arming yourself against the government, is that unlike when countries arm themselves against each other, is that you'll never be able to reach the same level of armament as the government, and so doing so may in fact just provoke the government into acting against you, as a sort of pre-emptive strike against a civil war.



Yes. Arming yourself as a country is a fine, because war between countries is a viable option. The level of armament is on a much closer level, so the chance of victory is not much higher. Additionally, all the people fighting will have been fully trained in their weapons, and so be much more effective therewith.

Do you think having the right to defend yourself stops your people being slaughtered? You pointed out yourself, that MLK and the black people had the right to bear arms during the fight for civil rights, but yet there were many instances of lethal attacks on black people.



Yeah, that's why I don't tend to drink too much. And why I would never mix drink and weaponry.



Yes, because that choice has the higher probability of resulting in no additional deaths.



I'd only let them die because it was the best option in regards to minimizing the amount of suffering the incident caused. I wouldn't be happy about. In fact I'd probably be distraught about it to the point where I would cry myself to sleep for the next month or so. But I would be confident that I made the right choice.



Just because I don't have to, doesn't mean I won't either accidentally kill him (which would be incredibly easy), or be overcome with loss for my son and try to kill. Either way, it would just make me feel worse and cause suffering to more people. There's a much lower probability of accidental death with something like, say, a bat of some kind.



As you should recall, I pointed out that I agreed that the number of deaths was relevant if you're choosing between 2 non-zero numbers of deaths, and that you had simply misunderstood what I was saying.



Yes, I have already made that assertion and backed it up with a valid argument.



Again, I have made the assertion that it is more common for people to make things worse when they use the right than to make things better.



And I say again, that statement in itself is not enough to justify having the right to bear arms if said right is also the cause of suffering in many instances.

No. Just because people made the choice to fight does not mean it was their only option.



Are you sure about that? If the victims are not already being oppressed, then what reason do they have to resist? And there are many examples of where non-violent resistance has been effective in helping to overthrow an oppressive government, including one you brought up, Nazi Germany.



The point is that a primary use of both is to kill people. That is what means they must have the same logic applied. The severity of damage caused by their ill-use is what is taken into account when you decide how strict the regulations should be



That's not what I meant. Obviously if it's a choice between one and six-million, one is the better option. But what I was getting at, was that you should, if you believe so truly in human rights, try to stop a single death as much as you would try to stop six-million deaths.

So for instance, you would try to stop someone shooting another person as much as you would try to stop your government launching a biological strike against another country.



Yes, and again we do. We have drivers licenses and psychological, theoretical and practical tests to determine who can and cannot drive. We enforce speed limits to reduce the chance of accidental death. We have an increasing number of things you can't do while driving (be intoxicated, smoke, speak on the phone ect.). We have punishments for people who break the rules.



See above.



In a hypothetical situation where it was the best way, yes. But it will never be the best way in reality, because of the psychological and physical trauma to the child and myself, the fact that it encourages the children and those raping them to enjoy either giving or receiving rape, as well as giving others the impression that they can get away with raping children if they claim it's to 'educate' them.



Yes, I agree that the regulations on guns should be less than on biological weapons. But I believe that gun control in many places is insufficient. Using America as an example, most states (if not all) require you to have a license and to register your firearm. That's good, although the decisions on who is eligible for licenses could be stricter.

What I don't agree with are the laws which allow you to carry guns in public either concealed or openly. I would suggest also banning many types of guns, in addition to those already banned by the NFA. And castle doctrine is the one I disagree with the most.




If you had actually read what I wrote, I said "I'm not saying that if it is the best option, you still shouldn't use it". That is it is the best option, it's fine to use it, but it rarely is the best option.



Calling you trigger happy was actually meant to be a joke. Sorry if it came across as a serious accusation.

As for the picture, what point are you trying to make with it? As far as I can tell, all you can draw from it is that you'll be unable to protect yourself. And I know that, but I believe the benefits from gun control outweigh that negative.



And why is it that we want to maximize happiness? Because we feel it is moral to do so. Why do we feel it is moral to do so? Because it's a way to say we're not doing for our own pleasure, which in most cases we actually are.

If the government is unwilling to change, you try to force it to do so. I would suggest through non-violent methods, blah blah blah, you know all about what I think is best in this situation by now.



If you had read through what you said, you said "I do not care if all the North-Koreans like the fact that they are being tortured to death, I still believe the government of North-Korea should be removed and jailed."

In the hypothetical situation that you posed, it is a source of pleasure for them. Yet you asserted that you still thought the government should be removed and imprisoned. Thus, you would be denying them a pleasure. And since you base this action on your personal opinion that what's happening is wrong, you are forcing your morals upon them.

Yes it is an unrealistic scenario, and if you tried to dethrone the North Korean government in real life, I would have no cause to argue against it. I was just working on what you said.



Well, I'm not actually denying you your right to own guns am I? For one, I'm guessing that you live in an area without strict gun control policies. For another, even if you didn't I would have had no say in the decision to introduce said gun laws.

And even in the context of this debate, I'm not trying to force you to accept that gun control is a good thing, I'm trying to convince you of it. And even so, you are not my main target, as in most debates, I'm more aiming to convince anybody who reads this and hasn't decided on their stance already that my side is the better one. That and sharpen my debating skills.



Yes, denying the right to self-defense is a liability. I'm simply putting forward the point that having the right is also a liability, and a worse liability at that.



Well, that's kind of subject to one's opinion, but that's not what we're arguing about here.



Maybe in the past, yes, guns were a major help against the government. But in modern times, the governments have enough military technology to make guns almost completely ineffective.



No, in my statement I was referring to the law abiding citizens, with legally obtained guns, who can't distinguish between good and bad times to use a gun.



No, because fleeing and accepting are not the only options, as I have already stated multiple times. Non-violent resistance and peaceful protest etc.



No, I would flee. If I couldn't flee, I would probably try to join the side of the government (unless the government were losing, as unlikely as that is).



Really? I can think of several examples where, had a country not armed itself against it's neighbours, it would have been overtaken by foreign powers and it's people likely slaughtered.



Well yeah, that's the point. I would only do it if I was drunk, because firing it is a stupid idea, and the drink impairs my cognitive reasoning, so I'm liable to make a stupid decision.



The only instance where you would be able to stop him killing your son is if he had incredibly slow reaction times and muscle fibres. Which, if he has managed to get into your house and grab your child in the same amount of time as you grabbing your gun, is highly improbable, to the point where it's affect of the mean result is negligible.

Let me do the maths. Chances are, in this instance, he's going to start his hand movements the moment he finishes his sentence. Lets give his brain a fairly appreciable 100 ms to start the impulses to tell his arm to move. Even at the high end of their speeds, 120m/s, and a long neural pathway to the arm of 2m, the impulse only takes around 17 ms to activate the muscles. Even with a weak bicep and a heavy arm, it'll accelerate at a rate of at least 0.5m/s/s. At this rate, the child will be as good as dead in about 600 ms. That's 737 ms in total. And since the human brain will produce an 'impulse explosion' if it is shut off (ie with a bullet), clenching the muscles for a further 40ms, and the arm will continue moving till the resistive forces of the neck stop it, you need to hit him in about 650ms for your child to have any hope of surviving.

You will need to be standing at least 3m away from him to have a clear shot at his head, so the end of his sentence reaches your ear in 9ms. It takes a further 4 ms to reach your brain. And then there's the analysis in the brain, it will take at least 200 ms to decipher sound information to language and a further 300ms for your brain to analyse this information and decide what to do. Then again, around 17ms to activate the arm. Pulling the trigger takes a surprisingly large amount of time, about 100ms. The gun then takes around 30ms to fire the bullet, and the bullet takes around 12ms (assuming it's a good gun) to reach the target. That's a total of 655 ms.

So yeah, it's pretty close, assuming a very slow criminal and a very fast victim. But as I said before, it's far more likely you have a fast criminal in this situation, so the chance of you saving your child, even with a perfect head shot is incredibly small.



Yes, I would. And if he is going to try to kill more people, he would try to go after me, at which point, since it is now me or him, sure, I would use the gun to fight him off, or anything else I had on hand, but not to kill him, to maim him. And a non-gun object would be preferable for that.



I've already explained what I meant with the number of deaths bit. And anyway, you disagreed with that point, so why are you using it to argue against me?



Yes, because I have yet to be convinced that it isn't.



Good. Then I'm forced to take the better option.



Could you elaborate on how exactly giving people the choose to make things worse, even if they are not forced to take said option, is useful? Because putting it in all-caps and tacking an exclamation point on the end does not constitute an argument.



I agree, but as I have already said, the instances where it is used as the right choice are far outweighed by the instances where it is used as the wrong choice.

Actually, surprisingly enough, the Nazi Government actually made firearm regulation more lenient. They completely deregulated rifles and shotguns, it was only handguns which were affected by control measures. They lowered the legal age of owning/carrying firearms. They extended the length that gun permits were valid for. They expanded the group of people who were exempt from the regulations.

The only thing they became more strict on was that Jews were not allowed to own guns. And since most of them were taken to concentration camps, them having guns probably would not have mattered.

The main reason people would attempt to acquire guns illegally in Nazi Germany, is because all gun manufacturers and dealers had to make records of all transactions and pass them onto the police. It was not safe for a resistance fighter to use legally obtained guns. And in fact, a large proportion of people in resistance groups were people who were exempt from the regulations. They could have used their guns, but didn't, because they knew doing so was a bad idea.



Civil war is never the only option to resist slavery and/or death. As I have said before, non-violent resistance is always an option.



Why are they not the same? One can cause death to more people than the other, sure, but no deaths is better than any number of deaths. If you believe in human rights as much as you say, than surely the number of deaths is irrelevant, the fact that a death can occur is enough to make it negative.



Then change the wording of the final part of my statement to 'to own biological weapons'. It makes no difference, you would still not legalize the ownership of such weapons.



Wait wait wait. You wouldn't use biological weapons if it was the best option? Why not? Best implies that it is the most effective way to do what you want to, so using a different option would be, well, dumb. Unless you thought that your enemy would be expecting you to do it, so you're being unpredictable.



Yes, and it is here in Britain. There are fairly strict regulations on knives, with a miximum penalty of 4 years in prison and A £5000 fine. The regulations on knives are less strict than on guns because they are less deadly than guns.

And saying it is 'possible' to do more damage with a knife than a gun is a stupid point, because it's also 'possible' to do more damage to someone with a jar of peanut butter than with a gun.



As I've said before, it is never the only option. And, just to be clear, I'm not saying that if it is the best option, you still shouldn't use it. Just that it rarely, if ever, is.



Because we are in the age of information (a term I don't particularly like, but whatever). As you said, we have a great deal of knowledge about the North Koreans, and the state of their country. We got that information through methods which are suitable as proof, which we would not have had in the 1940's. Photographs, films, audio recordings, all on compact and easy to transport devices.

In addition, the discovery of concentration camps, and the spread of knowledge of them about the world, was greatly thanks to the efforts of people like Pilecki. Were it not for them, we would have been unlikely to have learned about concentration camps for another few years, the war would have been longer, and many more innocents would have died.

As for North Korea, the threat of nuclear war is less for some countries. If these smaller countries were to try to liberate North Korea, it would likely be a step on the way to larger countries, like America, China, and Russia, moving in to attempt to dethrone the dictatorship. These smaller countries are stopped from doing this by the second option, there apathy to North Korea, or more pressing civil concerns.



Your right, (pun intended) I am denying your right to protect yourself, because I don't trust you to decide which are the right times (also pun intended) to use said right. Maybe not you specifically, but the general populace (although some of your posts do make you sound a bit trigger happy).



Yes, Yes, and not quite. But I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Which is perfectly understandable, because it is a concept which I'm finding hard to iterate.

Human rights are an entirely anthropic creation. It is not a law of the universe. There is nothing forcing us to give people their human rights, we do it because we feel it is moral to do so. If the government does not give you any rights, then you have no rights. But that doesn't mean to say that you can't try to change the way the government works to get rights.

Basically, whether or not you have rights is irrelevant to whether or not you are being oppressed, and thus irrelevant to your decision to resist what ever is happening to you.

And it's more to do with what the general populace likes and dislikes than what individuals like. If a single person protests a decision, they'll likely be ignored (or silenced). If the entire country protests, then there is a far greater chance of change.



Really? You would deny an entire nation a major source of happiness just because you think the way they get their pleasure is morally wrong? That's incredibly self-righteous of you. In fact, if you were to do so, I would call you the tyrant, and try to get you prosecuted for crimes against humanity, because you are forcing your idea of morality onto another group of people. And the entire populace of North Korea would back me.

If you're looking to resolve Human rights issues, do so in countries which signed up to the Geneva convention but still violate people rights on a daily basis. Places like America and Britain, and probably a lot more that I don't know about.



So what if they did? The fact that they didn't use it is a key factor in their success. The fact that using it would have worsened their position makes it a liability.



I agree with you. But I disagree with them, that military action was a good choice, and believe that it is entirely possible the people who started the military action caused an increase in this support for military action; a few bad eggs spoiling the batch, if you will.



I do know the situation (in terms of oppression), is worse in North Korea.

Sadly my laptop will not allow me to view the videos on the link you sent.



If you look at what I said, I said "famine or natural disaster". Even if it was a famine caused by the government, it still very different to aid in a civil uprising/war.

And whilst there weren't any major uprisings in Nazi Germany, there were many smaller resistance groups. Yet there are none in North Korea. The murdering because of public disagreement only puts people of direct confrontation and peaceful protest. They could still do espionage, conspiracy etc.



Yes. I mean, obviously those scenarios aren't the only ones that influence that opinion, but they are a part of it. Basically, in a national context, guns are useless against the military.

In a more individual and daily level, too many people use guns in the wrong situations, because they have the right to use it. Even if having the right is sometimes a very useful thing, the proportion of the help it creates to the damage it causes is very low.

That is the basis of the formation of my opinion.



Basically, yes. This is why a lot of Jews fled Nazi occupated areas in WWII, and why some North Koreans try to escape. Because they knew that gave/gives them the best chance of survival.

The other options are to accept it (more applicable to NK than the Jews), or to resist in subtle fashions.



Then why are we arguing about resisting an oppressor on a national scale? The daily scenarios are the more important anyway, wouldn't you agree?



It depends how sober I was. If I was drunk enough, I may try to shoot him, in which case there would be two dead people, my son and either me or the stranger, because no matter how good quick you are, the stranger is going to be able to slit his throat before you get a shot off. Both results are terrible, and involve 2 dead people.

If I was sober, I would probably let him do it. In this case my son would be dead, and then he would either leave or come after me. So then there's either one or two dead people. Still terrible, but one result involves one less dead people.

So by game theory, the choice to not shoot dominates the choice to shoot, reducing it to a single choice, not shooting.

Is there a flaw in my logic anywhere? I can't see one.



If I have the gun, then I have the ability to choose the worse option. Remove the gun, and I can only choose to make the better option of not shooting him. This is why not being forced to do it is not a useful point, because people are fallible, and entirely likely to make a wrong choice. If you remove a bad choice, more people will make the right choice.

What point exactly does this example prove, because it's certainly not a point for anti gun-control. Unlike structured organizations in Poland and France, the German resistance to the Nazis mainly consisted of small groups engaging in subversion, conspiracy and espionage, rather than direct confrontation.

And even for those who fought directly, do you think they got there guns through legal methods? I'm not sure about what the gun laws were in Nazi Germany, but I have no doubt that the Gestapo would have any civilians who they knew owned a gun under surveillance.

I'm not saying that peaceful protest is always the best option, just that direct confrontation is almost never the best option.

And to be honest, the main reason the Axis lost WWII was because they betrayed Russia. Literally, that was possibly one of the dumbest decisions in military history. Thank god the Nazis did it, or the war could have been a lot worse.



That is completely incongruous with most weapons policies. If there was a single instance were using biological weapons would be the best option, would you say that every country should have the right to use biological weapons? If you did, then you would be being rather ridiculous, because of the damage they can cause. The same logic needs to be applied to guns.

That is, we must look at the instances where using the gun is the best option, and look at the severity of the consequences when it is not used. We must then compare this to the severity of the consequences in instances when people commonly use their guns and it is not the best option. There's also some complicated stuff about probabilities and psychology which are very difficult to judge.



Actually there was a lot of major knowledge about the death camps, it's just that the major countries of the war (Britain, France, Russia, America) did not believe the claims of those who had seen it, until I believe 1944, when some actual footage of a concentration camp discovered by the Russians was released.

Have you heard of Witold Pilecki? He was a Polish officer who volunteered to be caught and sent to Auschwitz in order to collect information on it. Not only did he do so very well, he also organized resistance movements whilst inside Auschwitz. After he escaped Auschwitz, he joined the Polish intelligence department, and published 'Witold's Report', a comprehensive report of the Nazi activities and forwarded it to Britain. But they still refused to help, because they assumed he was exaggerating.

So you see, it's not that people didn't know about death camps, it's just that those who did know did not have the military power to feasibly attempt a liberation.

As for North Korea, there are two reasons why nobody helps them. One is because of the fear of a potential nuclear attack (and thus MAD). The other is because of the lack of protest. People in Nazi Germany resisted, and they were certain to be put to death if caught, so why aren't the people in North Korea resisting? It doesn't even have to be direct resistance or peaceful protest, it could be anything. And yet they don't. Even people who escape North Korea rarely ask foreign powers to try to interfere and help the people.

Why do you think this is? I can think of two possible reasons. The first is that they have resigned themselves to their fate, and thus either put up with it or try to leave. The second is that, despite disliking their conditions, still have utmost respect for their leader (like how people can still believe in God when their life sucks), which would be a result of the indoctrination of everyone to what is essentially the worship of their dictators.

And again, their 'rights' have no value, because as you've said, they have no 'rights'. All that matters is their opinions.



Well, as I said it doesn't have to be peaceful protest, but can be indirect resistance, like subversion, conspiracy and espionage. And the German resistance is a good example of such resistance helping to end oppression.

As for other examples of where peaceful protest has worked, there is of course MLK and the movement for civil rights for black people. There's also the Kent State Demonstrations, which tried to stop Nixon invading Cambodia, and stop the war in Vietnam (that didn't help directly, but caused many more protests). There's the Singing revolution, where Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania successfully gained independence from the Soviet Union after four years of protest.

And I know this last one isn't exactly a life or death, but I'm going to include it anyway. The Lusty Lady Strike, where strippers in San Francisco went on strike to try to gain the ability to form a union.



No, you misunderstand me. I know it was the military who fired first (it almost always is), and I understand that they protested peacefully first. But I was asking who the first rebels were to retaliate (with guns or similar) against the military. Were they, as I suggested, a small group who then rapidly gained support?



Firstly, Syria is a completely different situation to North Korea. Syria is nowhere near as secretive as North Korea, and we are much more familiar with how their people are than we are with North Koreans. Secondly, see earlier in my post for my thoughts on the North Korean peoples. Thirdly, sending relief fr a famine or natural disaster is very different from sending military or medical aid to people in a civil uprising.



Tell me, how useful is a gun when you're caught in a gas attack? How useful is it when an armored tank rolls down the street? How useful is it when you're hit by a strafing run? Not at all is how useful. The weapons that matter in modern war are not the ones you can buy from a local dealer. They are the missiles, the rocket launchers, the armored vehicles and armor piercing heavy machine guns.

I think we may also have to define 'best' in terms of these actions. Civil wars are probably the quickest, but in most cases result in the most loss of life. So I think they are not the best. In my opinion the option which causes the least loss of life is the best, which would be either accepting the oppression, or fleeing. However, I understand that many people will be loathe to accept these options, so will resist, in which case non-violent, but discrete methods are usually the best, followed by peaceful protest and finally war. So why is it that you think war is the best?



Yep, and only the non-oppressed people remain. So the country will either exist in peace or rapidly degenerate if there's not enough people, in which case it will die out or attempt to attack one of it's border countries in desperation and be defeated.



I don't see how you can possible argue that even 100 million people with guns are a match for an air force with bombs, and army with tanks and a navy with artillery. Strength in numbers cannot hope to bridge that gap.

And it's my point in both. The 'people vs. US government and military' is just a particularly extreme example of what it is like in almost all countries.



The assumptions I made were the same as the ones I would make in real life, given the situation you described. Would you have assumed anything different in the circumstances? And I'm interested to hear this realistic scenario. As far as I can imagine, the only scenarios where using a gun is a viable option are ones where picking up and/or aiming and/or firing the gun would give them ample time to do whatever terrible thing they are threatening me with.



I'm sorry, but which things are these that you can achieve with the right to bear arms that you couldn't without it? Because as I recall, in all the situations proposed, I have argued that not only is not using the right a better option, but that using the right is often a bad option, that leads to greater loss and suffering. And without that part of your argument, the rest implies the opposite, that the right is pointless, because there is no situation where it is necessary

What's more, this is far more complicated than simply being occasionally a good choice. Far too often, people choose to use it when it is not a good option to do so. And far too often, people abuse it to cause suffering to others. When faced with these scenarios, game theory and statistical analysis could be used to give an idea of how often the use of guns is justified, and I have little doubt that it would be a strikingly small number.

K, I'll just sit here with my childhood nostalgia and the smell of old books then.

So in the case of genocide, what do you do? Four options come to mind. Side with those committing genocide (if possible), give up, flee, or fight. The only on you would feasibly need a gun for is fight. And if your fighting against a superior force willing to commit genocide, whether or not you have a gun is unlikely to change your fate.



So the bedrock of our argument at this point is, 'are there enough instances where using the right to bear arms is the better option to justify the necessity of said right?'. As I recall, in all instances you've brought up where you've claimed it is better to use guns, I have disagreed with you. I can't think of any situation where it's better to use guns off the top of my head. If you could furnish me with enough situations where I agree it is better to use guns, then I will yield.



It matters not which they actually are. My point if they 'appeared' more as an innocent people being oppressed (regardless of whether they actually are), then they would be more likely to get foreign support. No, disliking your governments ideology will not get you killed. Publicly voicing said negative opinions will get you killed. And as I said before, ones 'rights' have no value in this context. What matters is that you dislike the way your treated.

In addition, I never suggested they should surrender. Surrendering is their worst option at this point. But that is not what I am arguing about. Once you start a war to get better rights, you have to see it through to the end, or things will simply get worse. I am arguing that starting the war in the first place was not the best choice.



Your quote from wikipedia tells me little of the first 'rebel' military action, where the people started to fight back. It tells me why they chose to fight but not who or how.

And furthermore, I still believe there were better ways for them to go about their resistance. Continued peaceful (preferably even more peaceful) protest, as well as getting the stories of their plight to other countries, would have led to a snowballing of foreign aid, and international pressure on the government to stop using lethal force on the protesters.

God that paragraph makes me sound like a hippie... but moving on.

I'm guessing in the moving out bit you were referencing when I said they should chose 'fight or flight' and that I would choose flight? If so you misunderstand. What I was saying was that if the government are that willing to kill their people, then your only 2 options are to fight, in which case it won't matter whether you have guns or not, you're going to be outclassed and are highly likely to die, or you can flee, in which case you will either die on the journey, or survive and take asylum in another country. Both are shit options, but I would personally choose the second.

In fact, everyone fleeing would probably end up with the oppressing government defeated, but the losses would be pretty extreme, so it probably isn't worth it.



This is exactly my point. Even if you have guns, they would be ineffective in a war against the US military. The people who resist will be decimated, demoralized, disbanded and probably harshly punished for their actions. The government doesn't have to commit genocide to crush a rebellion.



Neither. I would calmly ask him what he wants, and give it to him. Then I would wait for him to leave, then comfort my child and call the cops, reporting the crime. If you were to go for the gun, you would be unlikely to be able to reach it, aim and fire before the stranger slits their throat. I would rather lose some money than lose my child and possibly kill someone.