«12. . .1,9301,9311,9321,9331,9341,9351,936. . .2,5872,588»
Ahh, there you go. I hate to use this argument, but... Since corruption is defined as illegal activities, outlawing it makes more things illegal. There will always be a certain portion of the politicians taking bribes, but, by that definition, they aren't corrupt unless it's illegal. Pedantic, I know, but operational definitions of ideas like that are difficult to make.
Hello everyone! I am new, thrilled and happy to be one of the Democratic Socialist Assembly members.
Herrebrugh, Ratateague, Lemur Isles, Gallifrax, and 1 otherMettia
No oxford comma, 0/10 worst player.
(Just kidding, I really hope you have a good time here. This is a gem of a region.)
Lemur Isles, Gallifrax, and Nordvicia
The ol' If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns type argument. The fallacy here being that laws are responsible for defining crimes, that without them, technically no crime would exist. Say we were to spontaneously legalize murder, would we cease to view it as a wrong? Probably not in the short term. If laws only worked that way, we wouldn't need 'em. However, we do because it is not simply a matter of what is or isn't arbitrarily legal. It's the spirit of the law, the ethics that we've developed as a species and society. What we are regulating is perceived as a societal ill and against our better (collective) nature. We've grown to recognize that by removing certain advantages of the individual, we will flourish more as a whole. That by voluntarily abandoning few rights to form an authoritative body, we are able to guarantee a certain level of insurance to the individual. Laws are merely a reflection of our ethics, and a fair amount of it is difficult to translate officially onto paper. And there are abundant examples of poorly-legislated ethics where perceived violators are following the letter of the law, but not the spirit, and are still viewed such as unethical. Such actions are acknowledged as moral grey area, but are still done out of self-interest. Given, it's our definitions of such things that leads to the problem of enforcement. (like certain semantics :p)
This is the effect of the use of Polish punctuation in English language - sorry for this and probably many more mistakes in the future :-)
No worries, not using the Oxford comma isn't a mistake. I prefer not to use it either, mainly because of Netherlandish punctuation practices.
Yeah, it's just a convention used by certain institutions, including Oxford University (hence the name). Even within both America and the UK, opinion differs on if it should be mandatory.
Hey, is anyone here a pro second amendment? Or just pro gun?
I'm not really anti gun, but I wouldn't call myself pro gun either. The second amendment is important though.
But do you think its wise for citizens to arm whatever they want?
I support the right to have a gun, but I think if a person shoots another person, they should responsible for all medical bills if they live, and if they die, given a long sentence. Guns should not be used against people.
Zambique and Bourboncois
I mean, obviously the common man has no need for nuclear technology, but being able to fight back against an oppressive government is crucial. We don't want to move any closer to 1984.
Though I am all for mandatory education on how to lock up a gun and things of the sort. As much as the NRA is off the deep end, their "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra is pretty true. I'm all for mental health expansion.
Granted, I am an ardent pacifist, but just because I don't want a gun doesn't mean no one should.
I am against civilians carrying anything that holds more than 9 rounds. I think 9 chances to "defend" yourself is plenty
Ratateague and Uupha
Goodness forbid it end there. We still have arms, legs, a brain, and a wallet. What really irks me about the gun arguments is how people like to pretend there's no self-defense outside of firearms.
True, but having a gun means you don't have to work out (to quote Chris Rock, lol)
If someone is coming at you with a gun, be it oppressive government or disgruntled NRA member, punching them isn't gonna help.
Uupha, Zambique, and Maztechia
As of two days ago, our ally North Zatar, is closed, and no idea when it will re-open.
Please smile for North Zatar. They are experiencing turbulent times and their capital city is closed, some riots are happening. They asked that Maztechia hold their supplies until they re-open.
-Billy-Bobus, Maztechian Representative.
Could we help our ally with military support against rioters?
Post self-deleted by Ratateague.
If someone is coming at you with a gun, not much is going to help, because they already have it drawn and you don't. Then again, that's a ridiculous hypothetical free of any historical context. What happened before the gun was drawn?
Post self-deleted by Guertonia.
Depends how hard you hit...
Swept up the backlog of Charter Opt-In requests. Congrats to all new Charter Members!
Who else followed Eurovision?
«12. . .1,9301,9311,9321,9331,9341,9351,936. . .2,5872,588»
Advertisement
