• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you think the roll of the U.S. Government should be?

What do you think the role of the U.S. Government should be? Check all that apply.

  • Total voters
    28
megaprogman said:
What do you mean by sound? You keep mentioning sound arguments, but I don't know what you mean by that word.
Click to expand...
Validity and Soundness [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
How can you say you arrived at your position thru reason when you do not know what a sound argument is?

Oh that. As far as I can tell, the word arm means weapon
Click to expand...
I didnt ask you that. I asked abut the right to a gun. You -clearly- have the fundamental right to a gun.
Why does your "right = extitlement to means" argument not apply?

If you can get enough of society to agree with it and reinterpret any laws, precedent, etc that get in your way, there is nothing I can do to stop you.
Click to expand...
You are dodging the issue.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
I have no problem with what you said except this part. Why should the government have anything to do with lending themselves to spiritual growth?
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
Because it promotes the general welfare!!! :D
Click to expand...

Even if he's being sarcastic, he's correct. And because, fundamentally, that's what the government is as an extension of the will and spiritual being of the people. The government's role is reinforcing the self-perpetuation of the people it is a part of.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Even if he's being sarcastic, he's correct. And because, fundamentally, that's what the government is as an extension of the will and spiritual being of the people. The government's role is reinforcing the self-perpetuation of the people it is a part of.
Click to expand...
naw. I knew the answer.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Even if he's being sarcastic, he's correct. And because, fundamentally, that's what the government is as an extension of the will and spiritual being of the people. The government's role is reinforcing the self-perpetuation of the people it is a part of.
Click to expand...

I think our definition of spirititual varies a bit.
 
Goobieman said:
Validity and Soundness*[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
How can you say you arrived at your position thru reason when you do not know what a sound argument is?
Click to expand...

I know what the definition is, but you seem to be applying a different meaning to the word, I was more interested in your view. You seem to label an argument as unsound if you happen to disagree with it, not if it is illogical.

Goobieman said:
I didnt ask you that. I asked abut the right to a gun. You -clearly- have the fundamental right to a gun.
Why does your "right = extitlement to means" argument not apply?
Click to expand...

Than you are asking the wrong question or perhaps the right question in the wrong way. Given the way you have worded it originally, I have given the answer. The second amendment is about the right to bear arms and it does apply for reasons I just stated. I guess we have different interpretations of the meaning of the word, which is fine since the constitution is open to interpretation :shrug:

I am curious why you think we have a right to a gun when the constitution does not say gun, forearm, projectile weapon, etc. It says arms and that can mean damn well anything that is a weapon.

Goobieman said:
You are dodging the issue.
Click to expand...

No, thats how I feel about the subject. I have thought my stance on things through and I see one possible end result of my ideas as me being possibly persecuted and decided that while it was possible it was a small enough possibility that it was not worth worrying about.
 
megaprogman said:
I know what the definition is, but you seem to be applying a different meaning to the word
Click to expand...
No. I am not.
Now, lay out the sound argument that led you to, and supports your selective application of, your conclusion that having a right necessarily includes an entitlement to the means necesary to exercise said right.

Than you are asking the wrong question or perhaps the right question in the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Please don't continue to dodge the question.
Why does your "right = extitlement to means" argument not apply to the right to a gun.

No, thats how I feel about the subject. I have thought my stance on things through and I see one possible end result of my ideas as me being possibly persecuted and decided that while it was possible it was a small enough possibility that it was not worth worrying about.
Click to expand...
LOL
"Its OK because I dont think I'll ever have to worry about the tables being turned"
That's rich.
 
Goobieman said:
No. I am not.
Click to expand...

I wonder because you have yet to show why my arguments are not logical and this leads me to wonder whether you simply oppose them because you do not personally like them.

Goobieman said:
Now, lay out the sound argument that led you to, and supports your selective application of, your conclusion that having a right necessarily includes an entitlement to the means necesary to exercise said right.
Click to expand...

I believe that a right that cannot be exercised is not really a right, but something people simply declare to be a right. So if we say something is a right, than it has to be exercisable. As such, I make no distinction between a thereotical right and a right in physical reality as I do not believe a distinction is valid.

Goobieman said:
Please don't continue to dodge the question.
Why does your "right = extitlement to means" argument not apply to the right to a gun.
Click to expand...

Because the constitution says arms. You accuse me of dodging, but this is my real, actual belief.

However, I will go on a hypothetical to get you off my back since you seem fixated on this. Lets assume the second amendment states guns and not arms. I would look at the cost of a program to give everyone guns, what the minimum adequate gun was, whether safety training and licensing was necessary and other potential issues. If it is something the country could afford than I would probably go for it, if not, I would wait until something changes and guns became cheaper or something else.

Goobieman said:
LOL
"Its OK because I dont think I'll ever have to worry about the tables being turned"
That's rich.
Click to expand...

I think there is a low possibility of it.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since government is created by people to create a structure for their society, based on the people of that society's needs, morals, and mores, the government role should be whatever the people of that society deem it to be.
Click to expand...

I disagree

that causes tyranny
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since government is created by people to create a structure for their society, based on the people of that society's needs, morals, and mores, the government role should be whatever the people of that society deem it to be.
Click to expand...

It feels that the majority of people feel the role of the gov't should be a redistributor of wealth. A majority of people, though they are in the majority, can be wrong. The government needs to be set up so that such immoral acts cannot be done, even if it benefits 'the majority' of people. It is simply not sustainable.
 
fredmertz said:
It feels that the majority of people feel the role of the gov't should be a redistributor of wealth. A majority of people, though they are in the majority, can be wrong. The government needs to be set up so that such immoral acts cannot be done, even if it benefits 'the majority' of people. It is simply not sustainable.
Click to expand...

If that is what the majority of the people want, and it is efficient and workable to do so, then since the government is of the people, it is the people's decision for this to occur. Government evolves with how society evolves.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree. It only causes tyranny if the people want tyranny.
Click to expand...

there are many forms of tyranny. I hate the mob rule and the appeal to the lowest common denominator. Which is why I support constitutional rights and large capacity ammunition magazines:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
there are many forms of tyranny. I hate the mob rule and the appeal to the lowest common denominator. Which is why I support constitutional rights and large capacity ammunition magazines:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm not supporting "mob" rule, but I do support the people pushing for changes in government based on changes in society, morality, and beliefs. Constitutional rights would be included in that. And of course, the right to carry arms would also.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not supporting "mob" rule, but I do support the people pushing for changes in government based on changes in society, morality, and beliefs. Constitutional rights would be included in that. And of course, the right to carry arms would also.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in allowing the majority to vote away the rights of the minority.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't believe in allowing the majority to vote away the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in allowing the minority to supress the beliefs of the majority.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't believe in allowing the minority to supress the beliefs of the majority.
Click to expand...

so if all the whites in the USA believed that hispanics were a threat and passed a law saying that hispanics were to be shot on sight you'd be in favor of that?
 
TurtleDude said:
so if all the whites in the USA believed that hispanics were a threat and passed a law saying that hispanics were to be shot on sight you'd be in favor of that?
Click to expand...

TD... you know I like you. But when discussing this issue I try never to respond to hyperbolic examples. It's usually a pointless exercise.
 
TurtleDude said:
so if all the whites in the USA believed that hispanics were a threat and passed a law saying that hispanics were to be shot on sight you'd be in favor of that?
Click to expand...

How likely is it that all whites in the USA-- hardly a homogenous group-- could be convinced to support such violent and racist policy?
 
megaprogman said:
I wonder because you have yet to show why my arguments are not logical and this leads me to wonder whether you simply oppose them because you do not personally like them.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- you have refused, thus far, to lay out your argument, much less illustrate how it is sound.

I believe that a right that cannot be exercised is not really a right, but something people simply declare to be a right. So if we say something is a right, than it has to be exercisable. As such, I make no distinction between a thereotical right and a right in physical reality as I do not believe a distinction is valid.
Click to expand...
Amd how is this sound? How do your argument necessarily support the premise in a manner that allows for no other conclusion?

Because the constitution says arms. You accuse me of dodging, but this is my real, actual belief.
Click to expand...
You can believe that all you - guns, under the constitution, are 'arms' and thus, you unquestionably have a right to them -- thus, your dodge is getting rather this.

Lets assume the second amendment states guns and not arms. I would look at the cost of a program to give everyone guns, what the minimum adequate gun was, whether safety training and licensing was necessary and other potential issues. If it is something the country could afford than I would probably go for it, if not, I would wait until something changes and guns became cheaper or something else.
Click to expand...
Oh I see... at least as far as guns go, your 'having a right = entitlement to means to exercise" position is conditional. Comvenient.
How do you reconcile this conditionality with your position that a right thgat cannot be exercised does not exist? Itds OK for people to not have th emeans to exercise their rights if, well, it costs too much?
Do you apply this test to all rights, or just the ones you do not like?
Given your 'afforability" test, tell me why you you support the curent level of entitlement spending?

I think there is a low possibility of it.
Click to expand...
Yes. A great example of 'souind' reasoning.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
TD... you know I like you. But when discussing this issue I try never to respond to hyperbolic examples. It's usually a pointless exercise.
Click to expand...

most of the greatest atrocities in the last 120 years started out as attempts of the majority to make things "better"
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
How likely is it that all whites in the USA-- hardly a homogenous group-- could be convinced to support such violent and racist policy?
Click to expand...

not the point

I think the majority of whites in the USA are against illegal immigration and that will only increase
 
I'm really hoping that people forgot to check, "Protect it's citizen's rights." I'm a little confuse why that isn't 100%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom