Text 11070, 86 rader
Skriven 2008-02-14 13:20:33 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Shootings in USA
========================
Hello Jeff,

On Wednesday February 13 2008 14:54, you wrote to me:

 JS>>>>>      Umm... Sorry but raping girls isn't what anyone that I
 JS>>>>> know here would consider a lost freedom. Course that may be
 JS>>>>> differant in other countries but I would hope not.

 MV>> The "I hope not" is passing judgment on those that have not yet
 MV>> abolished the practise of raping girls.

 JS>     The "I hope not" means I personally wouldn't consider raping young
 JS> girls as a freedom.

That is the twist you give it now, but it is not what you wrote. You clearly
wrote that you hoped that it would not be different in other countries.

 JS> You have stated that you can not see our need or desire to own or
 JS> possess guns.

No, that is not what I wrote. What I worte is that societies can function very
well and people can be happy without the need for private citizens to have
guns. Subtle difference.

 JS> Aren't YOU passing judgement on what you think is best
 JS> for us or is your statements just your personal opinion?

No, I am passing judgment on what I think is better for *us*.

 JS>>> What you and/or the people there think is better for your
 JS>>> country is fine with me.

Unless it affects your country too. Or if you think it will affect you...

Countries are not islands. Not any more, The times that what one country does,
has little or no effect on others is long gone. The world has become a global
village and almost every country's actions or ideologies affect others,
directly or indirectly.

When people in islamic countries believe they are better of when their
countries law is the Sharia, it affect us because they come here and try to
introduce it here too if they get the chance. I do not want to live under the
Sharia.

When people believe their country is better of if everyone has the right to
bear arms, it affects us. Not because those guns reach across the border but
because the ideology behind it: that every conflict can be solved with
volence, affects us. It is that ideology that lead to the wars in Afganistan
and Irak. And that affects us. In a very negative way.

And that us why I express the hope that some day the people who insist on their
right to bear arms will see the light some day.

 JS>      It should be the people that decide what rights are desired.

So if the people of Iran decide they desire nuclear arms that is ok? Or are you
now goig the push the "that is different button" again?

 JS> It is true that times are always a changing. It is also true that
 JS> differant societies and countries react differantly and at differant
 JS> rates to the changing times. Does one country's rate of change mean
 JS> that it is better than another country's? Is your country ahead of
 JS> ours?

I think in many aspects it is ahaed. Especially in the department of peacefully
resolving conflicts. We had to. It is a small, densely populated country. If
there is a conflict with the neighbour one just has to find a way to peacefuly
resolve it. One can npt run away from it, there are no places left where there
are no neighbours and a shoot-out is too costly. We just *had* to find ways to
resolve conflicts without violence.

 MV>> There is no way a government can push something through if there
 MV>> is no general acceptance of the measures taken. They can lead but
 MV>> they can not force. Not in a democracy.

 JS>     I think that that happens more that what you would like to think.
 JS> How often are laws, legislations, amendments, enacted based not on the
 JS> true will of the people but more on the will and cooperation of
 JS> government and big business?

If that happens in your counttry, it os not my problem. <beg>

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)