International Democratic UnionBoard

Bears Armed wrote:

Thirded.

All in favor?

Gardavasque wrote:

Aye. What a joy it is to have skilled debaters and articulate leaders among us. Perhaps this is a strength we can leverage in a way that benefits everyone. These are good skills an for issue-creation team.

I must agree with you. It is the mark of a good group where everyone can express their views in a (mostly) respectfully manner and entertain a lively debate.

Fourded

Shameless plug for my draft "On Investment Equity": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=454684.

If anyone has any time (and is willing), feel free to take a look and provide me your feedback and criticisms. I'm hoping to take it to the floor within the next week or so and would prefer if any wrinkles in the resolution draft are ironed out beforehand.

Trive 38 wrote:

The IDU-Trive Baseball Classic Friendlies begin today.

https://theidu.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1918

Interesting... maybe should join the forum. Looked at it once, but didn't have the time and inclination to register and haven't bothered to go back since. Does this require any active participation on our part or can we just sit back and watch the simulations play out?

Gonhog wrote:

This is going to be my last comment on this, as your no true Scotsman’s fallacy is during me nuts.

A) My support for this is coming off the assumption that a fraction, even a small one like 1/15 or 1/20, would participate, which is still millions of Americans, whereas you claim that no one would participate. And let me use your logic- do you have any proof of Americans unwilling to fight against a tyrannical government? Solely going on social media platforms like Instagram, I can found numerous pages with thousands of followers that advocate for things like this, and they all seem to be in agreement.

B) What are you confused about this? You claimed that you never said that people would charge a tank, and I quoted you using the quote above, where you said they’d act like “Rambo,” suggesting pretty heavily theay’d do something equally stupid. Using it in the context of our culture suggests that, and i fail to see how else you could use that phrase.

Did you not read my first sentence? I said that we weren’t repressive basically at all, and traced the roots. What parts of U.S. culture are more “authoritarian” or “repressive” than say, the cultures of France, the Netherlands, or Ireland?

I recall a story with the court siding against a man who protected his home from a raid by federal police when they wrongfully raided his home with no justifiable cause and ended up not finding any. Citizens have the right to bear arms and protect themselves as seen fit. I have already stated that this is a sad reality; no, I am not rejecting these stories as “fake” or saying that these are not the fault of the police. You also used a story against my argument that I wasn’t arguing against. I did not say, in the context of the marine story, that it was partially the Marine’s fault. If I recall correctly, I said that “in other circumstances” or something similar to that.

I despise your grouping of “WASPs” as ready to execute all minorties. I know a good many people, and you are now going past the point and pissing me off by continuing this argument with no proof that these people, many of them fine, good people, would be ready to execute a Hispanic on command. They are also still a tiny majority, and you are overplaying it to make it seem like they are a minority in the same sense blacks are a minority- a minority but still a large part of the population. Your views are incredibly segregating and divisive for seemingly no reason.

You in no way demonstrate how this argument falls apart. You go on to say how authoritarian the government is, our culture is, how WASPs would join death squads would commit mass genocide, then do a 180 and say “oh, but this would never happen.” Right. I’m sure that’s what people in Soviet Russia said, what Jews said in Germany under the Weimar Republic, and people under repressive governments, like those in Latin America- “This will never happen.” I refuse to give up my arms and stop protecting the Second Amendment as long as corrupt officials and the fact of humans being imperfect exist. The whole military and police force wouldn’t abandon, they’d continue to fight.

I will keep my arms until humans are perfect. Because when a robber enters my home, or a mugger meets me on the streets, or a mass murderer confronts a crowd, I will relish in the fact that I or someone else will gun him down before he can do much damage and harm innocents- because God knows how much damage someone can do, even with a knife, in the time it takes for the police to arrive.

I don't think you know what "No True Scotsman" is.

A) I literally never said, "no one would participate." Love how you accuse me of a fallacy and then immediately engage in strawmanning. Going "Nuh-uh, you first!" to someone who asks for evidence for your assertion is not "logic." You're the one making the positive claim, it's your job to provide the evidence--that's how the burden of proof works.

B) What does Rambo have to do with charging a tank? I said, "They'd piss themselves at the first sight of the tanks" (or something like that). You then combined the mention of tanks with the follow-up mention of Rambo and somehow got, "Americans would charge at tanks!" (which, again, I never said nor implied). You're strawmanning so hard you've forgotten where the strawman ends and the actual argument begins.

The US literally uses prisoners for slave labor. US prison laws are the most severe in the developed world, with the longest sentences (on time of that "three strikes" garbage). Recreational drug use is illegal (federally). Prostitution is illegal (except in one county in NV). Getting caught committing either crime lands you several years in prison. Black people are more likely to be arrested than white people. Black people get longer sentences for the same crimes. Black people are more likely to be executed. Same-sex marriage took a court ruling to legalize when other countries have done it via the legislature. Culturally, the US has a massive preponderance of fundamentalist Christians. The result of this is restrictive abortion laws and less access to contraceptives. Non-conformity and any criticism of America are met with accusations of being "un-American." This is just off the top of my head. Sheldon Wolin's works on inverted totalitarianism and fugitive democracy specifically go into detail of the undemocratic and repressive nature of US government and politics. This is the article where he initially introduced the concept (he has built on it much, since) : https://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism/

The argument is utterly idiotic. Yes, the police violate the man's right for not having a search warrant, but having a gun wouldn't have helped him--it would've gotten him killed. Sure, it's awful that they violated his rights like that, but it sure as hell isn't worth getting shot over. Regardless, threatening the police is still illegal, even if they are entering your home without a warrant. You don't magically gain the authority to shoot police just because they, themselves, have broken the law--that's not how it works. I don't recall you saying, "in other circumstances," but I could've simply overlooked it.

I also didn't say that "all WASPs are ready to kill minorities." Stop. Strawmanning. Me. If you can't debate without putting words in the other person's mouth, then don't debate at all.

Yeah, it's called a hypothetical, bud. Those are the things that would (likely) happen if such a scenario broke out. That doesn't imply that the scenario itself is likely or realistic. Jesus Christ. And, no, people in those countries didn't think, "This would never happen," because their countries up to that point had always been dungholes. I already pointed out way back at the start of this those countries never had stable democracies, so falling into dictatorship was a realistic possibility. How many tries did it take France before the whole democracy-thing actually stuck? The US, while pretty crappy as far as industrialized countries go, has never not had a representative government. So comparing the US to those countries is a false equivocation.

This last sentence is just delusional posturing and grandstanding about how you think you're a hero in a movie--further demonstrating my point.

Trive 38 wrote:

The Americans also underestimated the capabilities of Viet Cong troops - composed mostly of southern peasants with no combat experience.
They got their arses handed to them.
A valuable lesson was learned that day: that one cannot underestimate the capabilities of a people to join armed struggle for what they believe in.
You've been underestimating the capacity of the militias several times - should I mention more examples of successful militias?
> American Revolutionary War
> French Revolution
> February Revolution
These are just some out of many more ^_^

I love it when people bring up the Viet Cong in these arguments, because it shows how they know absolutely nothing about the history of that group (or the Vietnam War in-general). The Viet Cong won for several reasons that we be irrelevant in a US civil war. A) The Viet Cong (or their predecessor, the Viet Minh) had literally been fighting for 20 years by the time the US intervened. They fought against both the Japanese and the French, perfecting the tactics they'd use against the Americans. B) The US soldiers knew absolutely nothing about the terrain. The entire war was a logistical nightmare from start to finish. C) The South Vietnamese were extremely incompetent and corrupt. Their inefficiency pushed more South Vietnamese to the North's side (the Catholic Diem's brutality towards Buddhists didn't exactly help, either--even after he was removed, the RVN's relationship with Buddhists never recovered). The only relevant factors from Vietnam are morale--in a conflict within the US, morale levels would likely be equivalent (with rebels more willing to fight than soldiers)

>American Revolutionaries were supported by the French, Dutch, and Spanish. Without them (especially the French), we would've lost. Their materiel and training helped American troops and fighting elsewhere in the world pulled British troops away from America.
>France is a somewhat apt comparison, but 21st century America is not 18th century France. The conditions causing the French Revolution (and its eventual outcome) were unique to France. Trying to replicate it tends not to go well for revolutionaries (as the Revolutions of 1848 can attest to).
>While bloodier than the October Revolution, the February Revolution wasn't a particularly brutal affair. The Tsar lost control of the country and abdicated. The Provisional Government just took his place.
And it's all pretty funny, because I can just easily point out revolutionary groups that completely failed. See: the Confederate States of America, the Sepoys, aforementioned Revolutions of 1848, Russian Civil War, various generic guerrilla movements in the Cold War (some of which also successful, true). Uprisings are a bit more complex than, "Well, they're fighting for their beliefs, that's what really matters!"
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gonhog wrote:

No. I don’t believe he is. He’s saying that illegals will still get guns. That doesn’t mean he wants to abolish the laws around murder or rape.

Except you can easily make the same argument. "Making murder illegal doesn't stop people from murdering!" That's the problem with the "outlawing X doesn't stop X" argument--it is, necessarily, begging the question.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Laws exist partially to prevent unwanted behavior but also to punish that behavior when it occurs. Laws designed exclusively to prevent unwanted behavior that fail are bad laws. That does not mean they fail at punishing the wrongful party, but they do fail at their intended purpose: to prevent crime.

Murder and rape laws don't exist exclusively to prevent murder and rape. But laws designed to restrict accessible firearms are clearly preventative and not punitive. And, in that sense, they don't work.

Except First World countries with stricter gun laws have less gun violence than the US, so yes, they do work.

Sanctaria wrote:

Ok one debate hogging the RMB for a week is a little much.

You're not going to change any minds on gun control, regardless of the side you're on.

Topic change please.

If you say so.

Guys, at least eleven IDU members supported the idea of ending the gun control debate on the RMB. Since this is the International Democratic Union, maybe we can all respect the wishes of the majority. Those who still want to debate could always telegram each other.

Algebron wrote:

If you say so.

I do say so.

I've had complaints about the debate hogging the RMB for the past week. There is the NS forum, the IDU forum, and TGs to go to if you wish to continue debating gun control and gun violence.

The RMB is no longer the place for it, you're (plural) making the RMB less enjoyable for others in the region when you continue to debate it in such a protracted manner.

The topic will change please, or else I will discuss with the Delegate and the other nations who have access to the founder if suppression of posts will be necessary.

I am no longer harping on the gun debate. That ship has clearly sailed. With that said, I was reading back over the debate and got to the pat where Algebron, rightfully, called me out for saying something like "Your argument is invalid." I have no issue with this. It is very true in fact. Saying things like that discredit your argument making skills.

No biggie, but then I realized that Algebron was actualy the most guilty of saying things like that. In 1/2 of his posts he says something like "This discredits your argument" or "Your argument is stupid. Hypocrisy? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, bud.

Furthermore, you talk of restrictive abortion laws as being something that makes America authoritarian. How not wanting someone to kill a child 3 minutes before they are about to be born authoritarian? It sounds like common sense to me. I don't wish to blow it up into a separate argument, I am just wondering how you would justify that comment?

Again, just one response for my knowledge, not a whole other argument.

Sanctaria wrote:

Honestly LOM, what part of take it to TG did you not understand?

Look, people have expressed quite publicly they don't want this stuff continued on the RMB. If you want to continue debating, at least 2 people have given you alternative avenues to do so.

I'm sick of having to be the bad guy here, but enough is enough. I don't want to see this debate continued past this message.

Ok, I'll drop it. Anyway, on a a positive note: The LOM National team is moving on to the BoF knockout round!

I've posted results for Shuell v. Gnejs, the last IDUFC match before the final.