Comments by "Frenchie’s Philosophy" (@tsuich00i) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
antonizoon Considering the critical role marriage plays in society, yes.
Families are like the atoms comprising a civilization, with each civilization being but one object among many: If the nuetrons (mother) and protons (father) grow apart, the nucleus will collapse, sending charged electrons (children) scattered every which way, causing a chaotic chain reaction that ripples through the whole apparatus- threatening to undo the entire superstructure all together- that beyond the analogy, manifests itself in antisocial behavior, poor habits, a lack of focus and motivation, and unproductive efforts, and as this begins to destroy the whole object, others move to fill it's place.
It's pretty easy to observe these trends in the unmarried population, which I think speaks quite clearly to the benefits.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime I don't know. Seems like just about anyone who get's there hands on one has a burning desire to use it. I'd hardly call this "phenomena" an isolated event in human history.
I mean my people invited the Guillotine, and it was tuns of fun for a while, believe me, on second thought don't because I wan't there, but i've heard stories to that effect, anyway, at the end of the day it was a terrible mess, and, as hard as it is to imagine, killing people senseless is bad press. Who knew?
More seriously, an instrument of destruction, invented and intended to be used, especially in the context of war, where mass casaulties are the aim (thats why shooting sprees are so deadly: the imitate military scenarios), can never be "redeemed" as something less dangerous then what it is made to be.
It doesn't matter that they're inanimate when people are always there to animate them! so that oversimplified contention is nonsense. There is however, some pretty basic mathematics to the contrary however. Less guns = less harm. If you reduce the temptation of an individual to live-out their fantasies by denying them the opportunity to do so through a lack of means to kill, then the problem is no more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime This comment is so frawt is vaunted, indignant stupidity, it hardly warrants reference to. But here are a few points for anyone else interested in precisely how maniacal you are.
1. Wars are expensive. Governments rarely make a profit from them. Remind me, how much debt did Iraq rep up for you?... Oh and that's rhetorical.
2. Police, real police, require training, discipline, organization, and most importantly knowledge of the law, ALL things the average citizen lacks in abundance. They also must coordinate between themselves to prevent and end crime in an ever-evolving elicit environment. All of this seems to escape you however.
3. Psychology isn't magic. Many men see and use guns as a way to assert there masculinity, forcing people to pay attention to them, because they failed to develop the social skills necessary to be confidant in who they are in-themselves, which grows into a negative and twisted self-image which casts everyone around them in a poor, and even paranoid light. (your distrust of all public organizations is a good example of this) Which is done to avoid the a self-critical look at how they might be wrong. It is something in their childhood I would gather, leaving them damaged and broken, a danger to the public and therefor useless to the rest of society, which is a source of resentment on their part, and the cause of lashing out and clinging to guns as their only outlet and power they have over the world. That is it's most extreme expression, but those who find it with themselves to act on their fantasies, are symptoms of a larger, more common problem.
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime 1. nnnooooo, wars make profit for the military-industrial complex, and major corporations intertwined with the political body, but not a dime goes to wellfare, healthcare, public services, infastructure, or the treasury department. Unless you can show proof, I call bullshit.
government isn't in the business of making money because it isn't a business. Government oversees the orderly conduct of it's citzens, and fair and equal participation each plays in the economy, through rules and regulations. You haven't the slightest clue what your talking about.
2. Proof that your police system is flawed doesn't not make policing a flawed enterprise. Talk about fallacious.
3. http://onlinestatbook.com/case_studies_rvls/guns/index.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime It's an analogue. It's logically equivalent. A cat is like a child, I am like the government.
We force people who are over the age of eighteen (and under, laws still apply to minors) to do the speed limit. All laws fall within the perimeters of "forced"- if you don't believe in force, you don't believe in law.
At the very worst, a government is granted the power by law to restrain* a disorderly, non-rule abiding citizen, in the event they are unwilling to comply (if they are unable by menta/physical disability they aren't punishable) and then either made to pay a due to the community, or detained and confined for their safety and the safety of others. There is nothing violent about that. Police Brutality is a feature of the American policing system, most of the western world has found a way to go about enforcing the law without resorting to violence.
*restraint is not violent for the following logical reason: restraint is in fact, the prevention of violence by apprehending the offending subject, and securing his faculties (limbs usually), so that he can not bring harm to himself or others.
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime Government exists at many different levels, in many different ways.
If you like Presidents, there's the executive, if you like Judge's you've got your judicial, if you fancy a new law or two, try out the Congress.
If your like me, and want to keep radiation out of your food, and curse words out of your day time television, you've got your FDA, FCC, and EPA. My favorite kind of government.
If you want something that has the most immediate impact, look into your city council or mayor.
Political Parties aren't the best place to look to improve upon the structure and function of government.
Democrats and Republicans don't have to differentiate themselves, because they know it's only between the two of them, so as long as the cater culturally to their camps, it doesnt matter: the South will go red, the coasts will go blue. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. That is the problem with only having two. In Europe, we enjoy a variety of parties that have to work hard for our vote.
2
-
Soff1859 Exactly. It's fallacious to say that simply because something is done in geographic location X, it ought to remain that way. Apparently, in this quaintly simplistic worldview of they'res, people never change, nor have they the need to change, because the convenience guns afford them matter more than the worthless lives of everyone who doesn't share the same good fortune of being at the right place and at the right time, as gun-nuts seem to posses an almost uncanny ability of finding themselves in- or so they have dreampt up.
The brutal truth is that a mainstream, middle America has accepted the practice of taking it upon themselves to seek their safety, not through any rational or remotely moral methods, but by judging for themselves who should live or die.
So far, the only argument made in favor of gun ownership by the posters above has not been guns are good- no one would believe that- but that there isn't anything you can do about them. Essentially, they're fatalistic defeatists.
The lesson we should derive from this, is an almost absurdly amusing conclusion, where it not for the fact it is so abhorrent: That Americans have given up on working toward the "hard solution", as evidenced by what the Japanese and others like them have accomplished, through centuries of cultivating a culture that is intolerant of these gruesome atrocities, and stands firm against indiscretion. They don't want to have to look in the mirror and reflect on the prospect that they have been in the wrong all along: even, and especially by their own standards! Instead, the easy route is opted, with no a care in the world for the dire consequences. They just go about there business pretending like nothing is wrong with this picture. In a phrase, shootings are the new J-walking. Something which makes American culture, a lazy culture and a weak one. For all the talk by neo-cons of self-discipline and hard work, they have all but given up on the prospect of making good on those principles here. What cowardice.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
fmlAllthetime 1st reason. "other than... blah blah blah" It also has the right to eat, shelter, etc. Sounds like rights to me. First reason debunked.
2nd reason: the analogue was to children. Children have no say in what they do. They have rights, but they are not actors, they can not assert their will or have say in society. "limited physical control" What other control is there? Mind control? Lol. Objection sustained.
3rd. It is possible I have more than one cat. As for me having to be a cat, that isn't important to the analogue, because that isn't the "like" quality I am targeting.
What makes me an arbitrary force over my cat? I adopted my cat, take care of it, it likes me, its a fairly reciprocal relationship. "cats cannot overthrow your will" Cats run away all the time. Like kids.
"We as the people can" So what? What does that have to do with ethicacy of government? Your sidetracking into oblivion over a very simple analogue which has clearly gone over your head, so I will repeat my even simpler original question- What is unethical about a monopoly of force?
1
-
1
-
fmlAllthetime You don't know how an analogue works at all. "a literary work that shares motifs, characters or events with another, but is not directly derived from it"
You want cats to be exactly the same as children. Guess what? if they were, we wouldn't need the analogue! The point is to abstract similar qualities to get a sense for a simple case of a more complex phenomena.
"Life is like a river" is also an anlogue: it moves in one direction, it has twists and turns, and it ends. But they aren't exactly the same. But the ideas translated perfectly. You just don't have the education to figure this out, I can't help you.
2. Murder is physical last I checked, and unless your talking about the death penalty or war, I'd happily accept those could be immoral, I have no strong feelings about them anyway. But by your own logic you'd have to concede a war of defense is justified. Otherwise, I don't see the reason to bring this up.
"...provoking force upon adults acting peaceably.." uhm, where did you even get this? Who said or implied this? I'm utterly confused. "unprovoked force" was your term, not my. I asked why you think "force" is never justified, don't put words in my mouth. Secondly, you presume everyone is acting peacefully all the time in this statement. what? Thirdly, you connect the two in the weirdest way possible, as if to suggest the government is "out to get everyone" and "looking for trouble" which is a thought consistent with the rest of your paranoid preconception, but is still bizarre and bewildering beyond belief.
1
-
fmlAllthetime when did I ask if the destruction of indigenous cultures is unethical?...
you draw very strange conclusions from words having nothing to do with each other.
That is my opinion. Something wrong with taking pride in the accomplishments of your people? I'm sure the Chinese, Brazilian, and Russian feel the exact same way, and why shouldn't they?!
Technology is the global standard of civilization most used throughout the world, but I don't agree that it's the only one. I think the high cultural works of other peoples have great merit. Take the Louvre for example: Most of it's contents are not European, but are in fact from ancient cultures outside our domain, like Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Assyrian, Polynesia, Nubia, early dynastic China, Inca, Aztec, Mayan, and so on.
1
-
fmlAllthetime I think my analogy was pretty general. I didn't say anything specific about the cat or myself, just that the power relationship is similar not the same. As for what I believe, I could say the same of you, saying so doesn't get us anywhere.
Really? So a war of self-defense is also unethical? Thats strange. So what gives people the "special" ability to defend themselves and not groups of people?...
If you fail to contribute to your community, which is all a tax is, you loose the privilege of living in it, which is what prison is- a separate society which sees to your needs and needs alone. What is so hard about this concept? Taxes are collected to do what individuals cannot or will not do. Like disaster relief, research, education, safety and utilities.
In theory, you should have a say in what your taxes go towards, like a war you don't support, many liberal thinkers feel that is highly unjust, and I am sympathetic with that view, but the feelings of a minority, do not outweigh your obligation to support the majority.
1
-
1
-
fmlAllthetime again, you keep adding qualifiers, I already argued unambigously that not all force is violent under the concept of restraint.
Actually I just took it as granted: If a community raises you you owe them. Period. If you ever drank from there fountains, open a book in their library, or accepted medical services from their hospitals, you owe them. Now, if they asked you for six cents for that book you read, and 13 for the water, and 1450 for the stitches in your head, that wouldn't be very efficient or neighborly. So instead we do it lump-sum at one time.
Think about what it costs for you to exist even before you are born. Think of the planning your parents put into beforehand, the advice they took from friends in family around them, the cost of the pediatrician they saw to oversee the health of the embryo, the incubator that may have breathed for you when you couldn't, the opportunity cost of the nurses who delivered you when they could have been out shopping, the amount of research that went into any medication you've been prescribed, vaccine you've had, or antibiotics you've needed over the course of your life. And then theirs the education you've had, the sidewalks you've walked on, the water, food, electricity, and shelter you've consumed, the training of the military that kept harm far from your home, and so much more. So by the time you reach the age of eighteen, you already owe your society a tremendous debt, which is offset and payed for by the previous generation (because babies don't make money) as you will one day pay for the next succeeding batch and so on, cyclically, forever. That is the foundation for the Social Contract and why it works, and it's a very ethical exchange if i've every seen one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ScottHigh23 "People are the problem, not the guns" is a very bad argument for a number of reasons.
1. Guns make the problem worse, not better. A.) The "good guy with a gun" is not a phrase substantiated by the evidence- most people with the opportunity to intervene, either choose not to, or freeze up. The NRA boasts a number between 2-2.5 million acts of self defense. However, a study from the Violence Policy Center places that figure closer to 67,740, nothing close to what gun advocates have in mind. So as counter-intuitive as it seems (serious sarcasm here), Guns don't actually save lives. Go figure.
2. Guns came before gun culture. Remove the guns, and the culture dies. The examples you vaguely attempted to rebute are true, despite your incredulity. Countries like Japan, China and most of Europe, have removed guns from their public life, and as a result, have drastically reduced the normative acceptance of guns as valid security option, and thus, gun related homicides with it. This position is strongly supported by multiple studies, including, but not limited to, a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine report, documenting that a household gun increased the risk of a fatal accident by three times.
3. Gun related incidents are psychologically traumatic for even the most well prepared. So even if you think you know how you will respond, say from a training exercise, the result may differ drastically in a real life, uncontrolled, chaotic scenario. Related to this, is the "Weapon Effect", which, to quote the man who coined to term: “Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.”
—Leonard Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin. Though his findings are disputed, there are numerous examples of unstable persons, acting on impulses with impunity, simply because a gun in their possession made it possible for them to do so. The Turner Diaries for example, has inspired criminal behavior related to a obsession with guns.
Lastly, Human nature is one thing, and as destructive as we might be, our primary nature is constructive- Man has mastered the environment, much of his mind, and imposed his will on his fellow man, creating the great countries of the here and now; erecting monumental marvels, inventing ingenious gadgetry, and inspiring through his creativity and talents, both physical and mental, to the credit of his kind. So to say that guns are somehow a "wild force" outside our control is utter nonsense- We brought it into the world, and we can take it out just as easily. Like the USPS, neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night may stop us doing what need be done- and if we see fit to eradicate the gun from our mists (as has already been done throughout much of the world), I haven't the slightest doubt our efforts shall prevail, for the human spirit is an inconquerable vessel through which anything is possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
gainmelk France being my beloved home, I am mortified by the acts perpetrated against her.
But to one line in particular, I must object vehemently; "After all, we are all responsible for our own safety, regardless of where we live."
It is the State of whichever country we owe allegiance to that is chiefly responsible for the protection of it's Citizenry, and unfortunately, the police here failed us, but passing the burden on to the average Joe isn't about to make things better, and I stand by the data when saying you would see an increase as guns fill cabinet draws and line the pockets of the public, in violent and accidental crime, when normal people take it upon themselves to conduct their own self-defense and pursue vigilante justice.
As policing training, surveillance technology, and education improves, so to will the decline of gun violence, and indeed, the need for guns on both sides- Civil and Criminal- decline.
What is important to remember is that guns are capable of a great deal more than most minds can handle- the speed and ease at which one may execute one's will alone is cause for great concern, and the same sort of "empowerment" that it gives people to perhaps do good, is more often than not, misplaced, and dangerous. Guns are by design, intended to kill, and they do it very well. If they weren't and it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As it stands today, we have access to military handy-downs that we treat like toys, and the only thing worse than an evil army, is when the public thinks and acts like one. I'd much rather stare down the barrel of the State, and accept certain doom, then be thrown to a mob who's blood lust knows no end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joseph Keenan You lost me when you said "the job of a mob". A mob is a mindless, meaningless rampage which has no place in civilized society.
And who said I supported the methods of the french revolution? I'm not even sure why you brought that up or what it has to do with..
The tribes of the Goths and Franks were a mob. The word "Berserk" for example, comes from Nordic tribes that would enter a fit of rage, possibly aided by hallucinogenic drugs according to some historians, who seemed to posses no sense of self preservation, and who's savagery was unparalleled- A mob mentality if I ever knew one. Refer to the "Sacking of Rome" for additional proof of my point.
Rebirth? Civilization is an everlasting wellspring from and through which it is eternal sustained. Society by it's nature, seeks stability and tranquility whenever and wherever it is possible. It is in no need for a "restart button" as you so grotesquely suggest.
What did the barbarians of Europe conclude upon conquering Roman? That they were much worse for wear without her. In fact, they regretted it almost immediately. It turns out life without lasting infrastructure, market economies, and sophisticated bureaucracies to tend to people's every need and whim, is'nt all it's cracked up to be.
So what did they do? Well at just about the exact moment the last Roman bleed out, they went about rebuilding Rome in whatever crude fashion they could pass off as "Romanesque", culminating in the great Empires of Europe some thousand years later, who paid homage In both form and function, to the Romans, which is evidenced by the architecture, art, and languages- not the cultural products of the Nords, Franks, or Goths mind you- abundant throughout the continent to this day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jack black LOL Leaving it up to faith- historically, humanities most tried and true, and valued virtues... Because what could be better than explaining the unknown, by the even more unknown? (paraphrased, Aristotle)
Hell, Why bother thinking at all, when you can just belief whatever you want on a whim? Lord knows that has a high success rate...
While we're still entertaining your senseless suggestion, allow me to propose one of my own: Instead of doing any real work maximizing the efficiency and efficacy of our public policies, why don't we just put the ideas on a spinning wheel and choose what to do based on where the needle lands?! Because if where going to be sit here and play stupid all day, the least we can do is enjoy ourselves- and what could be more fun then probability? I mean, probability is at least twice as fun as faith!
yeah... You'll have to forgive me if I don't differ to the dismal decision making (or should I say lacking?) abilities of the average schmuck off the street when it comes to my well being.
1
-
atomgonuclear I take your point however, I think you are limiting the options available to us in the 21st century. Monitoring and surveillance equipment, facial recognition software that is beginning to be able to detect and recognize emotional expression (such as nervousness), as well as chemical detection devices (that can scan for specific types of radiation, gun powder residue, and so on) coupled with diligent record keeping of known and suspected criminals/terrorists are just a few of the advances that make crime prevention possible in the hands of a strong state.
The problem is a question of scale not implementation- these methods are already standard practice for the likes of the FBI and CIA and internationally in most first world intelligence services. The only downside is the cost, which is why these technologies remain relegated and apply only to a small, but growing portion of the population.
And with the advent of Drones, I suspect "personnel/personal-policing" will be made obsolete by a fleet of machines who do not share man's prejudices and susceptibility to error.
Now that I finished discussing my methods, it is important to address the fact that guns have not been shown to help in the case of a home invasion / rape: Findings from John-Hopkins Center for Gun Policy Research have revealed that Women who lived in a home with a gun are three times more likely to be shot themselves in this scenario then had they no gun at all. This has much to do with the fact that you are much more likely to be the victim of a crime of someone you know then a stranger, and if that someone you know knows where your gun is, the chances of it ended up in your hands is negligible, especially if the assailant is a man who can physically overpower you even if you do. So not only do guns make it not easier to protect yourself, they actually ADD to the danger of the situation. In light of the overwhelming data that shows this trend, it would be irresponsible to recommend a gun to anyone based solely on the off-chance it "might" help, when we know it almost certainly will make things worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1