Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[astra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which, with the greatest respect, astra, merely goes to emphasise the point that it's the system you grow up with that seems "right".

Not really.
In Soviet Union education was absolutely free.
In Israel, I believe, it was very similar to the USA model.

In both systems, however, you had to pass tests in order to be accepted.
You had to pass certain level of tests in order to be able to stay in, and continue. If you didn't pass the tests in SU, you were kicked. As simple as that. The consequences in your life were very unpleasant to say the least.
In Israel, they didn't really care whether you pass or not. You pay money, they teach you. You don't pass a test, you have one or two more opportunities then you get kicked out. No one was talking about equal opportunities. One bad student cannot lag a whole class of students who desire to learn and get a lot for the money the paid.

So, I have seen 2 different approaches. I think (not sure, I left them in 1992) that xUSSR has a similar model nowdays as in Israel or in the majority of countries in the Western World. You want to study? Pass test, do you best to achieve certain grades and pay money for it.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which, with the greatest respect, astra, merely goes to emphasise the point that it's the system you grow up with that seems "right"

Similar to the idea that you are more likely to have the same political ideology of those by whom you are surrounded while growing up. Unless the status quo personally and negatively affects you (or those very close to you), you're more likely to defend it. Obviously, this is a huge, sweeping generalization, but I've never talked to a history professor who didn't think it was true.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Nope, plenty of posts where people question Harry's posts, and plenty of posts where Harry questions others'.

While I'm here though, might as well stick in a thought about the topic (this is the Conservatory after all ).

I've always been struck by Mme de Staël's maxim "to know all is to forgive all" - to me that seems both profound and comforting .

The knee jerk reaction is "but what if your x was y'd by z" - and the honest answer is I don't know. I hope I could live up to that principle; and every x I know would hope so too (as I would if I was x). But if I failed to live up to the principle, that wouldn't invalidate it. (And it also doesn't mean, imho, that my forgiveness matters, or is even relevant, in most situations - any more than my condemnation.)

I don't mean "question" someone's post. I mean doing some research into the supposed facts and statistics that Harry likes to include in his posts, and which are all to often pulled out of the air.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Apologies for the error; I think, though, that the point I was making remains valid, regardless of that - which is that there is clear evidence that tightening gun control laws lowers the suicide rate.

To quote from a rather lengthy article on the subject:

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.


Mexico also has a much lower suicide rate overall than the UK, and has little or no gun control. Homicides are very high, but then the drug cartels are in charge of much of the country.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Got me on that one I was a tad angry at the time. I mean to say that you can't arbitrarily decide who should give birth and who shouldn't, that it is a biological drive in many women, and let's not forget men sometimes play a part in the creation of children, and they also have biological drives too.

And the planet where it is a biological necessity is Omicron Persei 8

You should never post in anger, because your argument will end up full of holes. The fact that the desire to breed is an important drive for "many" women does not give them the "right" to do so.

I suppose you might remember the case of the woman, here in the States, who gave birth to something like 8 children over her lifetime and murdered every last one of them (or most of them). I can look it up for you if you never heard of it. Are you saying that the state must honor her right to produce her little murder victims, or just that once she has exercised her breeding rights, then she can't exercise her apparent drive to murder?

I happen to think that the state has a duty to keep people like that from breeding, and as long as it is done with a hearing and not arbitrarily, that women like that should be prevented from breeding. There are a lot of women who have a biological "drive" to reproduce (thank the maker that I am not one of them), but that does not mean that they have any desire to be a parent, much less a good parent.

I'll just admit to being on the other side of the fence with regard to people's biological drives giving them "rights" .... a man might have a very strong desire to breed, but if he carries that out through the means of rape, I think he's ended his "right" to do so. Feel free to disagree.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I don't mean "question" someone's post. I mean doing some research into the supposed facts and statistics that Harry likes to include in his posts, and which are all to often pulled out of the air.



To quote from a rather lengthy article on the subject:

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.


Mexico also has a much lower suicide rate overall than the UK, and has little or no gun control. Homicides are very high, but then the drug cartels are in charge of much of the country.



You should never post in anger, because your argument will end up full of holes. The fact that the desire to breed is an important drive for "many" women does not give them the "right" to do so.

I suppose you might remember the case of the woman, here in the States, who gave birth to something like 8 children over her lifetime and murdered every last one of them (or most of them). I can look it up for you if you never heard of it. Are you saying that the state must honor her right to produce her little murder victims, or just that once she has exercised her breeding rights, then she can't exercise her apparent drive to murder?

I happen to think that the state has a duty to keep people like that from breeding, and as long as it is done with a hearing and not arbitrarily, that women like that should be prevented from breeding. There are a lot of women who have a biological "drive" to reproduce (thank the maker that I am not one of them), but that does not mean that they have any desire to be a parent, much less a good parent.

I'll just admit to being on the other side of the fence with regard to people's biological drives giving them "rights" .... a man might have a very strong desire to breed, but if he carries that out through the means of rape, I think he's ended his "right" to do so. Feel free to disagree.

I'm sorry but the gap between what I 'should' do and what I actually do is often cavernous. That's just the way it is with me.

And if the state has a duty to prevent these women from procreation, how is to be enforced, who makes the judgements, who are the ones who control the procreation of these individuals? How could we possibly trust anyone to make a decision on stopping people from procreation. I hope you're not advocating some kind of sterilisation or anything of that sort by the state? The example of the woman who had 8 children then murdered them is so gruesome and sickening that I hesitate to ask the following question, but I must: why wasn't she imprisoned after the first killing?

Also, there is a 'right to reproduce' as mandated by the UN, it's article 16 of the human rights declaration of 1948. Also ratified in article 12 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1950.

I don't think it's helpful to confuse rape with a biological drive, a biological drive that is apparent in all species on this planet - if only for pleasure (and why not indeed). Rape is a sickening violent crime and those who perpetrate it should be imprisoned to the maximum extent of the law.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I happen to think that the state has a duty to keep people like that from breeding, and as long as it is done with a hearing and not arbitrarily, that women like that should be prevented from breeding. There are a lot of women who have a biological "drive" to reproduce (thank the maker that I am not one of them), but that does not mean that they have any desire to be a parent, much less a good parent.

Forced sterilization by the state has been recognised by the Rome Statute as a "crime against humanity". You're not advocating the practise, are you?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Forced sterilization by the state has been recognised by the Rome Statute as a "crime against humanity". You're not advocating the practise, are you?

NOFI, but the USA opted out of that statute in 2002.
Anyway, forced sterilization of imbeciles and the like happened until the early '70s in the USA, Sweden, and a few other countries that I don't feel like looking up right now, never mind that its illegality was probably already implicated by the above-mentioned "right to procreate", as stated in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. Not that that bothered anyone back then.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Anyway, forced sterilization of imbeciles and the like happened until the early '70s in the USA, Sweden, and a few other countries

Yes, I know it did, but I had hoped that such "eugenics" programmes were generally accepted as being an unacceptable violation of fundamental human rights these days.

[ahammer]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

How is it good for society to let someone who is otherwise fully educated sit collecting welfare because he/she became ill once, who then can't or couldn't get medical care because society figures "tough luck. shouldn't have gotten sick while unemployed"? Healthy people are more likely to stay motivated, to be hired, work harder, and perhaps even like the government that's keeping them healthy better.

what ever happed to having a rainy day fund. what ever happed to planing for the bad time. it seems to have all gone out the window with people getting more and more loans. this is the true issue with while we are having so many issue right now the companys that are doing well are the one that paid as they go insted of getting loans hoping to make more money latter.

this is a issue with my generation. tell me did the person have a xbox or cell phone or hgtv tv so on. it not "tough luck. shouldn't have gotten sick while unemployed" its "tough luck. should have planed just incase you became unemployed".

look at past gen. you did not take a home loin you paid for it when got the home. same with cars and now people are taking out loans for tv becuse they can not wait till they have the funds to buy it.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

NOFI, but the USA opted out of that statute in 2002.
Anyway, forced sterilization of imbeciles and the like happened until the early '70s in the USA, Sweden, and a few other countries that I don't feel like looking up right now, never mind that its illegality was probably already implicated by the above-mentioned "right to procreate", as stated in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. Not that that bothered anyone back then.

Is that true, about the USA opting out? Christ on a bicycle that's terrible.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Is that true, about the USA opting out? Christ on a bicycle that's terrible.

Afraid so. In 2002, the USA and Israel both withdrew from the treaty. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_St...Criminal_Court

It was because the US objected to the formation of the International Criminal Court in 2002. See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Criminal_Court

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Afraid so. In 2002, the USA and Israel both withdrew from the treaty. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_St...Criminal_Court

It's dumfounding, I just can't get it through my head why any country would opt out. I really can't imagine any possible reason why they would do this.

Thanks for the link.

[HarryT]

It's because of the ICC. See my edited post - apologies for editing it while you were typing your reply!

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It's dumfounding, I just can't get it through my head why any country would opt out. I really can't imagine any possible reason why they would do this.

Sure you can.

Anyway, it was mostly done to remove any doubt about what they thought about the legal status of the ICC. (same goes for Israel and their behavior in Palestine)
The USA adamantly stated, before and during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that they would not accept having soldiers tried by foreign courts for war crimes.
Going as far as suggesting that any and all American nationals tried for these things would be forcefully extracted by the USA. (i.e., violating - specifically dutch, as that's where the ICC is - national sovereignty by invading the country to "save" them.) Pretty neat when you look at Abu Ghraib, and the fact that the highest ranking military official convicted there was what, a staff sergeant?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Sure you can.

Anyway, it was mostly done to remove any doubt about what they thought about the legal status of the ICC. (same goes for Israel and their behavior in Palestine)
The USA adamantly stated, before and during the invasions of afghanistan and iraq that they would not accept having soldiers tried by foreign courts for warcrimes. Going as far as suggesting that any and all American nationals tried for these things would be forcefully extracted by the USA. (i.e., violating - specifically dutch, as that's where the ICC is - sovereignty by invading the country, whatever that meant)

I'll amend my earlier statement to -- I just don't want to believe that any country would do this.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It's dumfounding, I just can't get it through my head why any country would opt out. I really can't imagine any possible reason why they would do this.

"The obvious concern, which has been expressed by many
American politicians and commentators, is that American
troops travel all over the globe, including areas where Americans
are not popular. We do not want to see our men and women
put on trial before an international tribunal every time they
offend a local group. Most efforts by ICC officials to appease
American concerns have addressed this issue.
There is, however, another basic concern about the ICC
that is too often overlooked. Part of the American resistance
to the ICC stems from the judicially-mandated growth in
the size and authority of the U.S. federal government that
has come at the expense of state autonomy. The American
experience reveals that an active federal judiciary leads to a
larger central government. If we now imagine an active world
court, it is easy to envision a centralization of global power that
is unprecedented in history. To many Americans, that is not a
welcome development. In short, American opposition to the
ICC is based in significant part on courts’ failure to adhere to
the doctrine of federalism....
An international court with the express authorization to
modify customary international law has extraordinary power.
Consider the Constitution of the United States. Judges have
used that document to create new rights that do not appear in
the text of that document. What is to stop ICC judges from
inventing new crimes, new rights, or otherwise trampling on
national sovereignty?
With 18 judges (balanced in terms of gender, geography,
and legal systems) and a potentially slow docket, there is
every reason to think that ICC judges will be pressured to
add new crimes. Following the attack of September 11, 2001
representatives from the nation of Turkey proposed adding the
crime of terrorism to the ICC’s jurisdiction. There have also
been proposals to add international drug transactions to the list
of ICC crimes. Suppose ICC judges conclude that denial of
the right to euthanasia constitutes a violation of human rights?
Or what if they find that a society must recognize the right to
same-sex marriage or outlaw the death penalty? Regardless of
how members of a society feel about such issues, does anyone
really want international judges to decide these issues for all
nations?"

That's one analysis of it, the full text can be found here.

It's more of that American world-view. We fought a war for independence.....we don't intend to give it up anytime soon.