Classism

That depends very much on how they are run though.

Well it's more about mob mentality and social impetus with large countries. Once you get the death-ball rolling, it keeps going.

Besides, Mao is by percentage, one of the easiest regimes to have been replaced. You're talking like maybe 30-40 million people died under him. You look at the Imperial Dynasties that fell you had population counts cut by up to 2/3s from the disastrous fallout of their mass corruption and poor governance.

Fall of Han Dynasty for instance, 2/3 of the population died in the ensuing conflicts due to their complete mismanagement of the economy and letting all the land fall into the hands of a few ultra-wealthy families.

When you got a big country, it's hard to manage social evolution instead of revolution because of the sheer number of people sitting on the old system. It's the difference of convincing 200-300 people something is wrong, versus 20 000 to 30 000 people.

2/3rds?... wow, that beats... just about everything I've ever heard of, to be honest. You sure?

Seems that large countries tend to get a lot of momentum going in one direction that is hard to stop. While this is great when the direction is positive, things go downhill fast and for a long time when it isn't...

Chinese history is fascinating.

Cao Cao is almost a devil-equivalent in Chinese culture. Instead of "Speak of the Devil" it's something like "mention Cao Cao".

Dare I attempt to twist it back on topic?

The whole point of writing a constitution for a democratic state is that you dont want violence to be a necessary means of social progress. You want people to be able to use the political processes that are available for the purpose. A great many people believe that if things get to the point of where some constituency must fight to preserve their core values, then the nation has already failed due to poor design. As long as steps have been taken to ensure minorities have a voice in the system, then patience and persuasive messages should be all the weapons they need.

This presumes that anyone who cant use a fair and open democratic process to get what they need either isn't trying hard enough, has a hidden agenda, or is pro-violence by choice. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Revolution is like war, a sometimes necessary evil, but never a preference.

^^ I thought Cao Cao was a pretty cool guy, eh had awesome plans and doesn't afraid of nothing.

^ I wholeheartedly agree. Still, we need backdoors in case of blatant bad design, but those are a freaking Last Resort.

edited 1st Nov '10 2:24:33 PM by RawPower

Thank you, De Marquis. People also tend to forget that slow progress and compromise are also useful parts of the democratic process.

More like vital.

Are you sure that was the original topic? I thought the original topic was that rich people shat on poor people and then we discuss that view.

I'm not sure how that became a discussion on a right to bear arms.

Well, the opening post didn't narrow down the topic much and the I think the thread title alone allows for a broad range of things involving classes to be discussed.

Still, my views haven't been properly challenged. Allow me to give the laconic, most provocative, trollish version  ^x

• Poor people are ugly  ^*
  ^{A disgusting cheap diet, a lifestyle where drugs such as alcohol, tobacco and pot are ever-present, and a constant sulk in your face will do that to you}
  and stupid  ^**
  ^{when you can't pay for a proper education and you can't get a stimulating job, you'll never get the chance to develop your smarts and grow even smarter by learning and stuff}
  , they suck.
• They can't do anything about it, or so they think, so instead they drink to forget how much they suck.
• One day they die, and someone else might have achieved much through their work and effort... or it might all have gone to waste. It's not theirs to decide.
• If they are ever allowed to realize this, shit will go down. Hence, they must be kept lulled at all times.
• But even in a stable situation, there is always a number of them that feel cornered... in the absence of the Lil' Slugger they'll have to cope with their anger. People like that should not be allowed weapons that are easy to use with little training and can kill at a distance. Only Montana Max is harmless with those. They are a Menace II Society, and it's not like they have any constructive ideas. That why in the nineties there were the Los Angeles RIOTS, not REVOLUTIONS, nor STRIKES, RIOTS, because they're too fucking ugly, stupid, and self-feedbackingly ignorant to do anything else than shout like monkeys.

Next post will be against the rich, and the next one against the middle class. Let's see how much of a reaction I can get out of people.

edited 2nd Nov '10 3:06:29 PM by RawPower

So you're channeling Nietzsche? Well, Fred, of your five bullets, number one is subjective and is purely a matter of personal opinion, bullets 2-4 are factually incorrect, and the last bullet might be true, but that's an argument against arming anyone (because the poor are not the only ones with grievances).

Then how come middle-aged married middle-class women practically commit no crimes at all? Social standing is a determinig factor.

1-might be "subjective", but all determining factrs of beauty (symmetry, skin smoothness, clothes, attitudes) and all the determinig factors of those (health, diet, happiness, status) are dismal.

As for nietzsche... let's just say I'm being The Gadfly.

Poor married women commit practically no violent crimes. Besides, they're actually quite cute up to age 22 or so. So we deny weapons to single males of any persuasion and that will do much more to reduce the danger than anything other policy you could follow.

"Anyone who actually wants a gun is unqualified to own one"

Anyone who wants to make decisions is unqualified to make them.

More like "Anyone who actually thinks they're smart enough to make a good decision isn't qualified to make one"

So basically those who are qualified to making decisions are the persons that have those decision-making moments forced on them?

It's a play on the phrase "Anyone who wants to be elected to office isn't qualified to serve." So, yes.

The quote, DM:

"Anyone who actually wants a gun is unqualified to own one"

Wouldn't that be good fodder for totalitarians who advocate disarmament of the citizenry or advocates of conscription? Again, another moment.

Anyone who desires a gun for its own sake rather than for established, immediate needs.

Still a bad idea. Having to justify owning a gun allows for far to easy abuse. Just like anything else.

Does the discussion at hand involve more than America? Of the constitutions I know, only USA has the right to bear arms. It doesn't seem very useful at all. When the American civil war broke out over slavery and as an extension to that, state rights, they certainly weren't using the right to bear arms to uphold slavery.

Its actually a massive derail. We should probably end this.

Well right to bear arms had some vague connection to ending classism issues I think, was the original cause of the off-topic discussion but even then, I think America believes too much in the magical right to bear arms. When in the entire history of America or any other country has the right to bear arms ever made any difference in resolving social issues (such as rich-poor divide)?