What's wrong with being a front for collectivist indoctrination? People are indoctrinated enough into selfish greed by the rest of society that a little balance is called for. Let's get people thinking about acting cooperatively instead of competitively. We could use a little more democracy and a little less corporatism.
The importance of the difference is this: we can predict the climate, even if we can not predict the weather.
Aggregate over time, the climate is undeniably getting warmer, not based on one or two anecdotes, but on actual temperatures averaged over time. I'm not saying "look how hot it is today, global warming!!" Denialists do that. Show me a climate change supporter saying something dumb like that, please.
There ARE NOT equal numbers on both sides of this debate. It is not a he said, she said situation. There are people who understand science, and agree that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem, and idiots. I mean that in the original Greek sense of 'selfish private individuals' because there is no reason to doubt climate change except for selfish, personal reasons. And even those reasons are illogical and stem from ignorance, not any real knowledge of what would benefit an individual.
This topic is NOT nuanced. It is clear cut. The climate is getting warmer, and we are making it happen. And we WILL stop it before it is too late, despite any defeatist statements designed to make people feel helpless about it.
When defeated by logic, denialists will often switch to claiming that we are fucked. The whole goal of denialism is staunch conservative defense of the status quo. Denialists don't want any change, and if they can not convince people that we don't need change, they will attempt to convince people that change is impossible. So thanks for that, you're doing a great job defending the status quo. Too bad for you your effort is doomed. People aren't as dumb and easy to manipulate as you seem to think.
You continue to assert that climate and weather are the same thing. They aren't. It is not semantics, it is a fundamental difference. For instance, I can predict that on average over the next year, Arizona will be hotter than Alaska. That is climate. Yet I can not predict accurately whether, on any given day, Arizona will be hotter than Alaska. That is weather. Now, if I can't predict on any given day whether Alaska or Arizona will be hotter, how can I tell that Arizona will be hotter on average? Because Alaska is in the fucking arctic circle. get it?
There are many cases where we can predict the aggregate but not the specifics. Are men or women taller, on average? Easy, men are taller. Is a given man taller than a given woman? No way to predict. On average, yes, but any given woman may be taller than any given man.
Here's NASA's explanation for laymen of the difference between climate and weather.
Do you realize how dumb you sound when you say things like that? You are not a trained scientist of any stripe, let alone a climate scientist. You have no idea what you are talking about, and are relying on your preconceptions and common sense, which have failed you utterly. I explained, in clear laymans terms, what the difference is, but you don't like that, and so you impugn climate scientists' motivations.
You have no idea how science works. Go back to digg.com, it's more your speed. This place is for smart people, now GTFO.
I didn't ask you who you idolize, I asked who you admire, but I guess I was really asking who has been influential in shaping your views.
You don't explain why you give anarchism such a bad rap. You do realize the stated goal of communism is anarchism, right? Communists just don't think the people can initially be trusted with anarchism, and think we need a vanguard to implement it. Possibly true, but it can obviously lead in the exact opposite direction, towards authoritarianism. Communism mandates an imposed system in order to achieve an organic system.
This is why I suspect you aren't as well read politically as you claim to be. You don't seem to understand the basics of the philosophies you mention. I am reminded of the scene in A Fish Called Wanda
Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape? Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct you on a few things; Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!" And the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them up.
Your answers reminds me of Sarah Palin when asked what magazines she reads.
I don't need your permission or mutual agreement to control the rewards of my work or to take my own life. It is a basic human right whether you recognize it or agree to it. That's when you and your cronies come in. You mutually agree on what I can own and what I can't. You sound like a commie Troll or maybe a democrat.
Yes, you do. Practically speaking, you do. You may not like it, but you live with other people, and their opinions matter. If you have the power to resist their opinions, good for you. If not, well, welcome to the real world.
I like Simple Minds. Have you ever read any Proudhon? Property is theft, yes, but property is also freedom. He has an interesting take on the benefits and dangers of private property. He was one of those Anarchists that the early Marxists hated so much. Never got the old ice pick through the temple treatment that Trotsky got.
I know I must seem irrational to you, my rationality is based on a very different set of basic assumptions than yours. Based on what I've seen you write, I don't think you've studied these issues very much, sorry. Your views are conventional, pedestrian, and you haven't thought through the consequences of your beliefs. I have. Seriously, what political and philosophical thinkers do you admire? Can you even name any you've actually read?
I've explained this. Nobody owns those things, just like no one owns the air we breath. One can not own a human, it is ludicrous to think so. In fact, only someone trying to justify the concept of 'ownership' would even start there.
I have those rights you mentioned not because I own my body. I don't even understand how that works. If I could own my body, it would not change whether or not I actually have those rights. I have those rights because I live in a society that upholds and protects those rights. If I did not live in such a society, I could whine about my rights until the cows came home, and it would not change the fact that my rights are just meaningless noise to the person oppressing me.
I am just a thing which someone with more power can abuse. That is just a cold hard fact. You can dress it up however you like, and protest that Mr. Powerful is trampling your rights, but will whining stop him? No. Action will stop him, and if he is more powerful, it must be collective action by society. Which is one of the main reasons we band together, to keep the powerful from oppressing us.
"The money, at this point, has disappeared. It is missing. No one can account for it."
That's the bit that I was taking as the fact. You really can't see anything else in your post that's speculation? I'd say you're "reading comprehension problems" are somewhat more serious if you can't even read what you've written yourself.
Please enlighten me then as to what you mean by speculation. I'm sorry, but that sounds like the words of a guy who has got nothing and is throwing up a desperate smoke screen. I'm something of an ass, but when definitively proved wrong, I admit it. So, you wanna be the first guy this month to do it? Show me where I'm speculating.
I agree that taking life is always wrong. No more wrong for a 'state' than a person though, because a state is just a group of people, right? I do not support the death penalty, nor do I support revenge as a motivation for punishing crime. Protecting the innocent is the only legitimate reason to punish a crime=. Remove and reeducate the criminal.
Someone is paying for the externality of pollution. If you aren't polluting, for whatever reason, good. You're paying for someone else's pollution. If it creates a cost, and no one is specifically paying that cost, we all end up paying a little bit of it.
Whether you make another energy source cheaper by giving a credit, or you make coal more expensive by taxing it, economically, the effect is the same: less coal and more other things. Don't you see? Credits for clean energy and taxes on dirty energy have the same effect, people see the true costs and can make decisions based on that.
I'm all for rewarding the good, but why are you against punishing the bad as well? Why can't we do both? Actually, it isn't even punishment, it is just making polluters pay their fair share of the cost. It's enforcing individual responsibility and removing a moral hazard.
If companies could raise prices willy nilly, they would without waiting for the excuse that the government imposed a new cost on them. Market forces restrict them from raising prices beyond the elastic limit of demand.
But that's besides the point. The point is that there are costs, and the ones gaining the benefits should pay the costs. If consumers are gaining the benefit, they should pay the true costs.
Encouraging good behavior is certainly good. Punishing bad behavior will not necessarily result in more good behavior, but it will result in less bad. If less bad means that being good is now cheaper, people will choose to be good.
That five grand punishment for being bad does not simply disappear out of the economy. And things do not become more expensive. They were already that expensive. You just weren't paying your fair share directly. Now, I understand people like getting stuff below cost, but someone has to pay that cost. Maybe you see paying your fair share as someone 'taking' things from you, but that cheap price was not rightfully yours to begin with.
When you get a cheap product that causes pollution, you only pay a small percentage of the cost, that's what an externality is. I and everyone else, who may be refraining from buying that underpriced, polluting thing, have to pay for the part you didn't pay for.
You seem to be the only one with trouble understanding what the rest of us are discussing.
You putting me in a position where I either agree to your demands, or starve, is initiation of force. You don't have to be the one holding the gun, the government holds the gun for you. You say "Government, this man is infringing my property rights. Stop him." And they will.
Your turnabout phrase "If my right to life trumps your right to property, I can enslave you, unless you also own no property." makes no sense, unless I am initiating economic coercion against you. You don't get to simply take my property if you feel like it, but if I have a local monopoly on arable land, for instance, you would be justified in using my land to grow your crops, assuming I am not also using said land to grow crops that are necessary for my survival. You would not be justified in forcing me to grow your crops, though.
I am saying that if our relative wealth is such that I have more than I need for survival, and you have less than you need, AND I am not willing to offer you an equitable trade for your labor, AND you have no other local buyers for your labor, AND you can't go out and raise your own food on unowned or unused land, then yes, you are justified in using raw natural resources I have claimed in order to produce enough food to feed yourself. Do you have a right to take the fancy house I built? No. Can you take my clothes? Of course not. Can you take my factory? Perhaps that is justified, perhaps not.
Although property rights have trumped equitable opportunities, whenever things have gotten bad enough, the people have risen up and killed their oppressors, or tried, and that is simply a power that humans have, to throw off oppression, to refuse to participate in inequitable systems, to kill those who try to limit their freedom, or to die fighting for what they need. We have that power. If we as a society want to limit that power, we have to make it worthwhile for all members.
Or, to make it short, if you don't want people in open revolt, give them equitable opportunities. Do not allow the powerful to exploit the weak. Simple as that. If the powerful have the power to oppress the weak, well, the weak also have the power to band together and oppress the powerful. If one is wrong, both are. You can't say that it is okay for a strong individual to deprive a group of freedom, then turn around and say, it is not okay for a group to deprive an individual of freedom. And making someone an offer they can't survive refusing is limiting their freedom.
That's a really stupid premise unsupported by any actual proofs. You've just asserted that we can't change the temperature of the environment. But simple engineering calculations tell us exactly how we can, and how we can cool it. If you believe in modern technology like rockets and televisions, then you must believe that engineers can make correct calculations and predictions. These calculations say, not only can we change the environment, we are. What mathematical proofs do you have that show that we can not possibly change the environment? I doubt you are an engineer, I doubt you have such proofs, you are simply going on the common sense notion that the environment is huge and we are small. Well, you are wrong.
Okay, if they are unlimited it is incoherent to speak of them as rights, they are powers. In the social contract, we give up certain powers for rights we value more.
Can you voluntarily sell yourself into slavery? Nope. You can try, but it isn't a binding contract. Because society says so. Now, if you have absolute property rights, you can say what I can do on your property, and if you say I am not allowed to walk certain places (like the exit) then I am infringing your property rights by leaving, assuming I was born there. Assuming you buy up all the property around me, then I can't leave and no one can visit. I am your slave, and you don't even have to buy me, you just have to live in a society where property rights are absolute.
If there is some overriding right that allows me to trespass on your land in certain circumstances (like, I have to in order to leave my land) then property rights are not absolute.
"Absolute property rights" means that the rights are absolute, that they trump all other rights, and I have shown that absolute property rights lead to legal slavery.
We were arguing about where rights derive from, I thought that was clear.
I'm saying that, if property rights are absolute, then people can initiate force through property. If my property rights trump your right to life, I can enslave you, unless you also own property. I'm not saying it will happen in every case, I'm saying, when property rights have trumped the right to equitable opportunities in life, we have had slavery. Simple historical fact.
Okay then, if you agree with me that natural or god given rights don't exist, we really have nothing to argue about, because, in case you hadn't noticed, that is the issue under discussion here. If you'd like to argue whether people should have absolute property rights, or society sometimes has an overriding interest that trumps individual property rights, sure, we can open up another debate.
In those instances you named, the trade off is less conclusive because society is trading a life's worth of lived experience. But I'm not arguing for abortion here, or against it, merely showing how the argument works.
In none of those cases you mention is the individual completely dependent on another person who does not want them. Letting them live won't damage them but letting an unwanted fetus live is a punishment against the mother and child.
You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a misunderstanding in your own head, a fantasy. You have not addressed a single point I've raised, merely contradicted my supposed conclusions, with no explanation.
I do not have a right to life. I explained that. You did not refute or even address my explanation, you simply contradicted and insulted me.
In Afghanistan, they are using far more than guns to resist.
I'm saying, violent revolt against the government is unrealistic. I think you live in a fantasy world. Not that, given the motivation, I wouldn't stand up and fight. I just don't think guns are the best tools for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
The rich are redistributing wealth by buying laws that favor them. I'm just suggesting we do the same back to them.
What's wrong with being a front for collectivist indoctrination? People are indoctrinated enough into selfish greed by the rest of society that a little balance is called for. Let's get people thinking about acting cooperatively instead of competitively. We could use a little more democracy and a little less corporatism.
The importance of the difference is this: we can predict the climate, even if we can not predict the weather.
Aggregate over time, the climate is undeniably getting warmer, not based on one or two anecdotes, but on actual temperatures averaged over time. I'm not saying "look how hot it is today, global warming!!" Denialists do that. Show me a climate change supporter saying something dumb like that, please.
There ARE NOT equal numbers on both sides of this debate. It is not a he said, she said situation. There are people who understand science, and agree that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem, and idiots. I mean that in the original Greek sense of 'selfish private individuals' because there is no reason to doubt climate change except for selfish, personal reasons. And even those reasons are illogical and stem from ignorance, not any real knowledge of what would benefit an individual.
This topic is NOT nuanced. It is clear cut. The climate is getting warmer, and we are making it happen. And we WILL stop it before it is too late, despite any defeatist statements designed to make people feel helpless about it.
When defeated by logic, denialists will often switch to claiming that we are fucked. The whole goal of denialism is staunch conservative defense of the status quo. Denialists don't want any change, and if they can not convince people that we don't need change, they will attempt to convince people that change is impossible. So thanks for that, you're doing a great job defending the status quo. Too bad for you your effort is doomed. People aren't as dumb and easy to manipulate as you seem to think.
You continue to assert that climate and weather are the same thing. They aren't. It is not semantics, it is a fundamental difference. For instance, I can predict that on average over the next year, Arizona will be hotter than Alaska. That is climate. Yet I can not predict accurately whether, on any given day, Arizona will be hotter than Alaska. That is weather. Now, if I can't predict on any given day whether Alaska or Arizona will be hotter, how can I tell that Arizona will be hotter on average? Because Alaska is in the fucking arctic circle. get it?
There are many cases where we can predict the aggregate but not the specifics. Are men or women taller, on average? Easy, men are taller. Is a given man taller than a given woman? No way to predict. On average, yes, but any given woman may be taller than any given man.
Here's NASA's explanation for laymen of the difference between climate and weather.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Do you realize how dumb you sound when you say things like that? You are not a trained scientist of any stripe, let alone a climate scientist. You have no idea what you are talking about, and are relying on your preconceptions and common sense, which have failed you utterly. I explained, in clear laymans terms, what the difference is, but you don't like that, and so you impugn climate scientists' motivations.
You have no idea how science works. Go back to digg.com, it's more your speed. This place is for smart people, now GTFO.
I didn't ask you who you idolize, I asked who you admire, but I guess I was really asking who has been influential in shaping your views.
You don't explain why you give anarchism such a bad rap. You do realize the stated goal of communism is anarchism, right? Communists just don't think the people can initially be trusted with anarchism, and think we need a vanguard to implement it. Possibly true, but it can obviously lead in the exact opposite direction, towards authoritarianism. Communism mandates an imposed system in order to achieve an organic system.
This is why I suspect you aren't as well read politically as you claim to be. You don't seem to understand the basics of the philosophies you mention. I am reminded of the scene in A Fish Called Wanda
Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct you on a few things; Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!" And the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them up.
Your answers reminds me of Sarah Palin when asked what magazines she reads.
I don't need your permission or mutual agreement to control the rewards of my work or to take my own life. It is a basic human right whether you recognize it or agree to it. That's when you and your cronies come in. You mutually agree on what I can own and what I can't. You sound like a commie Troll or maybe a democrat.
Yes, you do. Practically speaking, you do. You may not like it, but you live with other people, and their opinions matter. If you have the power to resist their opinions, good for you. If not, well, welcome to the real world.
Look folks, that's just a cover story. Geraldo Rivera has actually contracted with NASA to search for Jimmy Hoffa's body on Mars.
I like Simple Minds. Have you ever read any Proudhon? Property is theft, yes, but property is also freedom. He has an interesting take on the benefits and dangers of private property. He was one of those Anarchists that the early Marxists hated so much. Never got the old ice pick through the temple treatment that Trotsky got.
I know I must seem irrational to you, my rationality is based on a very different set of basic assumptions than yours. Based on what I've seen you write, I don't think you've studied these issues very much, sorry. Your views are conventional, pedestrian, and you haven't thought through the consequences of your beliefs. I have. Seriously, what political and philosophical thinkers do you admire? Can you even name any you've actually read?
I've explained this. Nobody owns those things, just like no one owns the air we breath. One can not own a human, it is ludicrous to think so. In fact, only someone trying to justify the concept of 'ownership' would even start there.
I have those rights you mentioned not because I own my body. I don't even understand how that works. If I could own my body, it would not change whether or not I actually have those rights. I have those rights because I live in a society that upholds and protects those rights. If I did not live in such a society, I could whine about my rights until the cows came home, and it would not change the fact that my rights are just meaningless noise to the person oppressing me.
I am just a thing which someone with more power can abuse. That is just a cold hard fact. You can dress it up however you like, and protest that Mr. Powerful is trampling your rights, but will whining stop him? No. Action will stop him, and if he is more powerful, it must be collective action by society. Which is one of the main reasons we band together, to keep the powerful from oppressing us.
"The money, at this point, has disappeared. It is missing. No one can account for it."
That's the bit that I was taking as the fact. You really can't see anything else in your post that's speculation? I'd say you're "reading comprehension problems" are somewhat more serious if you can't even read what you've written yourself.
Please enlighten me then as to what you mean by speculation. I'm sorry, but that sounds like the words of a guy who has got nothing and is throwing up a desperate smoke screen. I'm something of an ass, but when definitively proved wrong, I admit it. So, you wanna be the first guy this month to do it? Show me where I'm speculating.
I agree that taking life is always wrong. No more wrong for a 'state' than a person though, because a state is just a group of people, right? I do not support the death penalty, nor do I support revenge as a motivation for punishing crime. Protecting the innocent is the only legitimate reason to punish a crime=. Remove and reeducate the criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
Someone is paying for the externality of pollution. If you aren't polluting, for whatever reason, good. You're paying for someone else's pollution. If it creates a cost, and no one is specifically paying that cost, we all end up paying a little bit of it.
Whether you make another energy source cheaper by giving a credit, or you make coal more expensive by taxing it, economically, the effect is the same: less coal and more other things. Don't you see? Credits for clean energy and taxes on dirty energy have the same effect, people see the true costs and can make decisions based on that.
I'm all for rewarding the good, but why are you against punishing the bad as well? Why can't we do both? Actually, it isn't even punishment, it is just making polluters pay their fair share of the cost. It's enforcing individual responsibility and removing a moral hazard.
If companies could raise prices willy nilly, they would without waiting for the excuse that the government imposed a new cost on them. Market forces restrict them from raising prices beyond the elastic limit of demand.
But that's besides the point. The point is that there are costs, and the ones gaining the benefits should pay the costs. If consumers are gaining the benefit, they should pay the true costs.
Encouraging good behavior is certainly good. Punishing bad behavior will not necessarily result in more good behavior, but it will result in less bad. If less bad means that being good is now cheaper, people will choose to be good.
That five grand punishment for being bad does not simply disappear out of the economy. And things do not become more expensive. They were already that expensive. You just weren't paying your fair share directly. Now, I understand people like getting stuff below cost, but someone has to pay that cost. Maybe you see paying your fair share as someone 'taking' things from you, but that cheap price was not rightfully yours to begin with.
When you get a cheap product that causes pollution, you only pay a small percentage of the cost, that's what an externality is. I and everyone else, who may be refraining from buying that underpriced, polluting thing, have to pay for the part you didn't pay for.
Why do you want me to pay for your things?
You seem to be the only one with trouble understanding what the rest of us are discussing.
You putting me in a position where I either agree to your demands, or starve, is initiation of force. You don't have to be the one holding the gun, the government holds the gun for you. You say "Government, this man is infringing my property rights. Stop him." And they will.
Your turnabout phrase "If my right to life trumps your right to property, I can enslave you, unless you also own no property." makes no sense, unless I am initiating economic coercion against you. You don't get to simply take my property if you feel like it, but if I have a local monopoly on arable land, for instance, you would be justified in using my land to grow your crops, assuming I am not also using said land to grow crops that are necessary for my survival. You would not be justified in forcing me to grow your crops, though.
I am saying that if our relative wealth is such that I have more than I need for survival, and you have less than you need, AND I am not willing to offer you an equitable trade for your labor, AND you have no other local buyers for your labor, AND you can't go out and raise your own food on unowned or unused land, then yes, you are justified in using raw natural resources I have claimed in order to produce enough food to feed yourself. Do you have a right to take the fancy house I built? No. Can you take my clothes? Of course not. Can you take my factory? Perhaps that is justified, perhaps not.
Although property rights have trumped equitable opportunities, whenever things have gotten bad enough, the people have risen up and killed their oppressors, or tried, and that is simply a power that humans have, to throw off oppression, to refuse to participate in inequitable systems, to kill those who try to limit their freedom, or to die fighting for what they need. We have that power. If we as a society want to limit that power, we have to make it worthwhile for all members.
Or, to make it short, if you don't want people in open revolt, give them equitable opportunities. Do not allow the powerful to exploit the weak. Simple as that. If the powerful have the power to oppress the weak, well, the weak also have the power to band together and oppress the powerful. If one is wrong, both are. You can't say that it is okay for a strong individual to deprive a group of freedom, then turn around and say, it is not okay for a group to deprive an individual of freedom. And making someone an offer they can't survive refusing is limiting their freedom.
That's a really stupid premise unsupported by any actual proofs. You've just asserted that we can't change the temperature of the environment. But simple engineering calculations tell us exactly how we can, and how we can cool it. If you believe in modern technology like rockets and televisions, then you must believe that engineers can make correct calculations and predictions. These calculations say, not only can we change the environment, we are. What mathematical proofs do you have that show that we can not possibly change the environment? I doubt you are an engineer, I doubt you have such proofs, you are simply going on the common sense notion that the environment is huge and we are small. Well, you are wrong.
Okay, if they are unlimited it is incoherent to speak of them as rights, they are powers. In the social contract, we give up certain powers for rights we value more.
Can you voluntarily sell yourself into slavery? Nope. You can try, but it isn't a binding contract. Because society says so. Now, if you have absolute property rights, you can say what I can do on your property, and if you say I am not allowed to walk certain places (like the exit) then I am infringing your property rights by leaving, assuming I was born there. Assuming you buy up all the property around me, then I can't leave and no one can visit. I am your slave, and you don't even have to buy me, you just have to live in a society where property rights are absolute.
If there is some overriding right that allows me to trespass on your land in certain circumstances (like, I have to in order to leave my land) then property rights are not absolute.
"Absolute property rights" means that the rights are absolute, that they trump all other rights, and I have shown that absolute property rights lead to legal slavery.
I believe that a sizable percentage of teabaggers are frothing, virulent racists, based not on fantasy, but what I have witnessed with my own eyes.
We were arguing about where rights derive from, I thought that was clear.
I'm saying that, if property rights are absolute, then people can initiate force through property. If my property rights trump your right to life, I can enslave you, unless you also own property. I'm not saying it will happen in every case, I'm saying, when property rights have trumped the right to equitable opportunities in life, we have had slavery. Simple historical fact.
Okay then, if you agree with me that natural or god given rights don't exist, we really have nothing to argue about, because, in case you hadn't noticed, that is the issue under discussion here. If you'd like to argue whether people should have absolute property rights, or society sometimes has an overriding interest that trumps individual property rights, sure, we can open up another debate.
In those instances you named, the trade off is less conclusive because society is trading a life's worth of lived experience. But I'm not arguing for abortion here, or against it, merely showing how the argument works.
In none of those cases you mention is the individual completely dependent on another person who does not want them. Letting them live won't damage them but letting an unwanted fetus live is a punishment against the mother and child.
Those are all lovely examples of imaginary racism. Thank you for sharing your inner fantasy life with us.
You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a misunderstanding in your own head, a fantasy. You have not addressed a single point I've raised, merely contradicted my supposed conclusions, with no explanation.
I do not have a right to life. I explained that. You did not refute or even address my explanation, you simply contradicted and insulted me.
In Afghanistan, they are using far more than guns to resist.
I'm saying, violent revolt against the government is unrealistic. I think you live in a fantasy world. Not that, given the motivation, I wouldn't stand up and fight. I just don't think guns are the best tools for the job.
Since you have no argument except "Yer wrong and I'm right!" perhaps you should shut up, as you aren't contributing anything to the discussion.
You haven't seen it because you haven't looked and you don't want to find it. If you do want to find it, maybe you should read this report?