• Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
    916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50520106]Is it not possible that the conflict between his sexuality and his religion tipped him over?[/QUOTE] If not for character witnesses from friends, family, and coworkers claiming that he was not a very religious person, and only seemed to take any real interest in it immediately preceding the attack, then possibly yeah. Sexual repression is a common theme in religion, and usually leads to destructive behavior. However, given that his religious interest only seemed to flare up immediately before the attack? I fond it far more likely that he sought out extremist ideology in an attempt to reconcile his beliefs and justify his outrage. Which is to say, he was deeply confused and violent long before ISIS came into play in his life.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50520152]If not for character witnesses from friends, family, and coworkers claiming that he was not a very religious person, and only seemed to take any real interest in it immediately preceding the attack, then possibly yeah. Sexual repression is a common theme in religion, and usually leads to destructive behavior. However, given that his religious interest only seemed to flare up immediately before the attack? I fond it far more likely that he sought out extremist ideology in an attempt to reconcile his beliefs and justify his outrage. Which is to say, he was deeply confused and violent long before ISIS came into play in his life.[/QUOTE] What point are you making here? It doesn't matter whether or not he had been an extremist for years or for a couple of months, or whether he was motivated by fears of his own sexuality or by religion. Whatever the real motivations for his interest in extremist Islam, he was inspired by an extremist ideology which needs to be tackled ideologically and militarily.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50520152]If not for character witnesses from friends, family, and coworkers claiming that he was not a very religious person, and only seemed to take any real interest in it immediately preceding the attack, then possibly yeah. Sexual repression is a common theme in religion, and usually leads to destructive behavior. However, given that his religious interest only seemed to flare up immediately before the attack? I fond it far more likely that he sought out extremist ideology in an attempt to reconcile his beliefs and justify his outrage. Which is to say, he was deeply confused and violent long before ISIS came into play in his life.[/QUOTE] This being problem though, that Jihadist ideology seems to appeal to the flaky muslims out there. ISIS have seen a gap in the market and are fully exploiting it.
On a side note I have to say I'm proud of Texans - every flag that can be at half staff is and I'm seeing a [I]lot[/I] of rainbow flags, even in my hick town and Fort Worth. Solidarity is a nice feeling.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50520257]What point are you making here? It doesn't matter whether or not he had been an extremist for years or for a couple of months, or whether he was motivated by fears of his own sexuality or by religion. Whatever the real motivations for his interest in extremist Islam, he was inspired by an extremist ideology which needs to be tackled ideologically and militarily.[/QUOTE] I think the point he's trying to make is that the attack wasn't motivated exclusively by extremist Islam, rather it was motivated by the guys pre-existing struggles with his own homosexuality and identity. He was in conflict with himself and used Islamic extremism as a way to atone for his homosexuality. Though I think it's possible that he felt like his homosexuality was wrong in the first place because of Islamic teachings that he likely grew up with, regardless of his faith at the time. It was a case of Islamic terrorism targeting the LGBT community specifically.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50520257]What point are you making here? It doesn't matter whether or not he had been an extremist for years or for a couple of months, or whether he was motivated by fears of his own sexuality or by religion. Whatever the real motivations for his interest in extremist Islam, he was inspired by an extremist ideology which needs to be tackled ideologically and militarily.[/QUOTE] He's trying to shift the blame and claim that this attack was more because of western culture. And he makes the claim that religion had nothing to do with it, which he pulled from nowhere sane. The major points of his argument are supposed rectally.
[QUOTE=Govna;50517849]Which is the exact reason why even when German-Jews had access to firearms before the Nazis started confiscating them in 1938, they didn't bother resisting. Because they knew they had no hope of winning, so what was the point? If you resisted, you'd definitely die, and so would your family, you'd accomplish nothing, and that would be the end of the matter. And for what acts of resistance that did take place, especially when it came to so-called "subhuman" enemies of the Nazis, it wasn't so much a matter of them wanting to fight back so much as it was them desperately attempting to survive when faced with the prospect of genocide. And they routinely failed, the Warsaw Uprising being the most spectacular failure of the lot. Not for lack of trying, but the fact is they simply weren't fit for the task. They could not do it successfully as much as they wanted to.[/QUOTE] You are missing my point entirely. My point is freedom, the ability to [B]choose your own fate[/B]. If your government shows up at your door to take you away to a death camp, if you do not have a gun, you have no choice. Fighting back with your fists would be beyond futile. In a country where you are not allowed to be armed, freedom is an illusion. You feel free, you exercise liberties free people have, but at any time, you can be put at the mercy of your government. Likely? Not at all. But still possible. The 2nd amendment is about the freedom to choose your fate. Because if you have a gun in your house, namely a gun that can punch through body armor or be useful in a firefight, you now have a choice as to what happens to your life. Fighting back would likely mean death for you and your family, hence why it is exactly as you said, many people who [I]can[/I] fight back will [I]choose[/I] not to regardless. However, as a human being, you are [B]born with that choice.[/B] When you take away guns, you are telling people who [I]want[/I] to fight back that they [I]cannot[/I]. You are removing their ability to choose what they can do with their own lives. How is that freedom? How can you outright tell someone, "No, you cannot choose to defend yourself because the powers that be have decided they know what's better for you," and in the same breath say they are free? I'm not sure how else to put it, if you can't understand the importance of controlling your own life, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. You can't use, "Well you'll probably lose anyways," as a valid excuse to take away someone's right to fight back. It isn't about winning or losing, it's about having the choice to fight back or not. Many men in history have fought and died knowing they would lose, that does not mean their deaths were in vain. Men at the Alamo fought and died knowing they were outnumbered and outgunned like fuck, but it slowed down the Mexican army. Spartans fought and died outnumbered and outgunned like fuck, but their defiance helped rally other Greeks to the cause. A man with an AR15 trying to defend his home from soldiers in a Humvee with a M2 mounted to the roof is going to lose, but his bravery and death could potentially spark the outcry that leads to other countries coming to aid against tyranny. Hey... isn't that... kind of... like what... the French did? Men fighting in the revolution got their shit stomped, but the French saw an opportunity in that and took it, helping turn the tide of the war. Armed resistance is more important than you might think. It's often bigger than just the man and his family.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;50521432]If your government shows up at your door to take you away to a death camp, if you do not have a gun, you have no choice. Fighting back with your fists would be beyond futile. In a country where you are not allowed to be armed, freedom is an illusion.[/QUOTE] doesn't the fact that you need a law to explicitly give people the right to own firearms (and the fact that the entire purpose of a government is to enforce laws for the common good) already defeat the purpose of this? if you need a law which can only be enforced by a body which possesses the legal right to initiate violence then how does this make you free? you are still unfree because you still have to give up a great deal to live in society. by actually living within a state itself, you have already conceded several key freedoms and cannot be said to be actually a free man.
[QUOTE=Thlis;50520962]He's trying to shift the blame and claim that this attack was more because of western culture. And he makes the claim that religion had nothing to do with it, which he pulled from nowhere sane. The major points of his argument are supposed rectally.[/QUOTE] Uh... No. No I am not? The point that I am trying to make is that this person was deeply unstable long before he became radicalized. He had serious personal issues and resorted to Islamic extremism as a means to justify them. He wasn't perverted into evil-mindedness as a result of being a Muslim. Again, my point in a nutshell: this wasn't a normal everyday guy who somehow became radicalized, it was a deeply disturbed person who chose radicalization as a means to validate himself. By all reports from the people that knew him, religion did not play a prominent role in his life until shortly before the attack, and yet his history of violence and anger is extensive. He wasn't converted to extremist ideology as a result of being Muslim, he chose extremist ideology in order to reconcile his deep insecurities.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50521669]Uh... No. No I am not? The point that I am trying to make is that this person was deeply unstable long before he became radicalized. He had serious personal issues and resorted to Islamic extremism as a means to justify them. He wasn't perverted into evil-mindedness as a result of being a Muslim. Again, my point in a nutshell: this wasn't a normal everyday guy who somehow became radicalized, it was a deeply disturbed person who chose radicalization as a means to validate himself.[/QUOTE] Or maybe his radical Islamic upbringing is what made him so unstable in the first place? He was raised by a Taliban sympathizer with extremely conservative and radical interpretations of Islam.. I feel like that made being gay a little harder for him than if he was raised by a regular family.
[QUOTE=srobins;50521690]Or maybe his radical Islamic upbringing is what made him so unstable in the first place? He was raised by a Taliban sympathizer with extremely conservative and radical interpretations of Islam.. I feel like that made being gay a little harder for him than if he was raised by a regular family.[/QUOTE] What evidence do you have to support that he was raised in this way? His parents immigrated over thirty years ago, back when the Taliban were openly lauded by the president of the United States. Support for them at that point is not the same as support now. Is there actual recent evidence that this guy's father was a terrorist sympathizer? In the lack of that evidence, based on what are you arguing that his parents had radical interpretations of Islam? His parents claimed to be just as horrified as everybody else at their son's actions. Like, please, if I've missed some relevant info here fill me in, because all I'm trying to do is understand what happened here, like anybody else. Deeply conservative religious upbringings can definitely lead to sexual repression and insecurity, yeah. No doubt. What I've read of this guy's history so far, however, states that religion did not play a big role in this guy's life up until recently. If that's not accurate, then fill me in.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50521750]What evidence do you have to support that he was raised in this way? His parents immigrated over thirty years ago, back when the Taliban weren't a terrorist faction. Support for them at that point is not the same as support now. And based on what are you arguing that his parents had radical interpretations of Islam? Like, please, if I've missed some relevant info here fill me in, because all I'm trying to do is understand this guy's motivations. Deeply conservative upbringings, religious or otherwise, can definitely lead to sexual repression and insecurity, yeah. No doubt. What I've read of this guy's history so far, however, states that religion did not play a big role in this guy's life up until recently. If that's not accurate, then fill me in.[/QUOTE] The father literally hosts a pro-Taliban, anti-US satellite television broadcast and after the shooting said that God would punish those involved in homosexuality. Sounds like a really healthy upbringing! [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/[/url]
I really don't see the point in trying to separate his actions from radical islam extremism to prove it was a validation for his beliefs. Like no shit, every extreme group/person does it too even if they are internally motivated for something else. Downplaying the role radical islam had in this guy's upbringing is doing a huge disservice on trying to recognize a pretty clear problem.
[QUOTE=srobins;50521785]The father literally hosts a pro-Taliban, anti-US satellite television broadcast and after the shooting said that God would punish those involved in homosexuality. Sounds like a really healthy upbringing! [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/[/url][/QUOTE] Ah, well that definitely changes things then.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50521669]Uh... No. No I am not? The point that I am trying to make is that this person was deeply unstable long before he became radicalized.[/QUOTE] What evidence do you have of that? Based on what I've read, the only person who has called him "unstable" is his ex-wife. Most people in his life didn't think he had any mental issues.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50521861]What evidence do you have of that? Based on what I've read, the only person who has called him "unstable" is his ex-wife. Most people in his life didn't think he had any mental issues.[/QUOTE] His co-workers claimed that he was completely unhinged, as well. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1522655[/url] Heard several interviews with people on NPR today and yesterday going into the guy's social history, too, includjng reports of people claiming to have interacted with him on previous occasions at Pulse and on gay dating apps. He was an angry and insecure person.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50521876]His co-workers claimed that he was completely unhinged, as well. [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1522655[/URL] Heard several interviews with people on NPR today and yesterday going into the guy's social history, as well.[/QUOTE] I can only find interviews of a single co-worker and he just says the guy was racist, misogynistic, etc., not that he had mental issues. It seems a whole lot more like he was just a bad person than that he was "unhinged."
[QUOTE=sgman91;50521898]I can only find interviews of a single co-worker and he just says the guy was racist, misogynistic, etc., not that he had mental issues. It seems a whole lot more like he was just a bad person than that he was "unhinged."[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, he did murder 49 people.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50521906]Well, I mean, he did murder 49 people.[/QUOTE] Right, so the question to ask is whether this was a logical conclusion based on the ideology he followed or whether it was based on the disturbed mind of a mentally ill person. As far as I can tell, there seems to be a whole lot more evidence of the prior than of the latter.
Good from the very underrated Commentary Magazine: [url]https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/wages-non-judgmentalism/[/url] [QUOTE]Since social pressures to avoid being seen as hypercritical, paranoid, or—worst of all—bigoted are acute, and the rewards for keeping an eye out for the next terrorist plot are virtually non-existent, the vigilant are often inclined to keep their concerns to themselves. While the public is appropriately skeptical of the likelihood that their eccentric coworker may be a member of the local sleeper cell, there are downsides to this phenomenon. Notable among them is that a series of mass casualty attacks that might have been prevented were not. Rarely do the potentially violent and disturbed carry out depraved acts of mass brutality without some forewarning. There are always signs. The aspiring jihadist Omar Mateen, the gunman who executed at least 49 people in Orlando on Sunday, was no exception.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“My son said that he shared [ISIS leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State,” confessed San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook’s father in an interview with an Italian newspaper. “He was also obsessed with Israel.” Farook’s neighbors became suspicious of the murderous couple when they began receiving an excessive number of packages, but those witnesses didn’t report their suspicions to authorities out of the fear that they would be accused of racial profiling. Before executing nine African-American parishioners at a South Carolina church in 2015, there were signs that Dylann Roof might be a problem. “He was big into segregation and other stuff,” said Roof’s 21-year-old roommate of one year, Dalton Tyler. “He said he wanted to start a civil war. He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself.” The security staff at Roof’s local mall had distributed pictures of the future killer after he reportedly rattled employees by loitering and asking them leading questions about staffing and operating hours.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Nine of Major Nidal Hassan’s colleagues were disciplined for failing to flag him as a threat following his 2009 Fort Hood rampage, in which he killed 13 and wounded 43 others. They can hardly be faulted for excessive caution considering the penalties for exhibiting what could be considered Islamophobic sentiments in the armed services. “There were definitely clear indications that Hasan’s loyalties were not with America,” said a former classmate of Hassan’s. “They don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief, or they’re afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.” “This is a tragedy that’s about a failure of imagination,” recalled author Lucinda Roy when reflecting on the massacre on Virginia Tech’s campus in 2007. Before he killed 27 of his classmates, Seung-Hui Cho’s abnormal behavior made them fear him. “Roy contacted four different departments on campus, including the counseling center and university police,” CBS News reported. Because she was requesting a student receive involuntary counseling, her requests were ignored. “[T]hat’s against Virginia Tech policy as it is at several schools across the country unless it’s an emergency,” the report added, “and administrators claim Roy did not indicate it was an emergency situation.” The common thread among suspects in these mass shootings and terroristic incidents is not merely that they had mental health issues and an attraction to extremist political ideologies. In each case, the concerned people in those killers’ lives failed to speak up or their warnings were dismissed when they did. For all legitimate concerns regarding the allure of political extremism and the ubiquity of deadly weapons, few seem concerned about the nearly canonical tenets of non-judgmentalism. A cultural proscription on appearing to be prying or condemnatory has its drawbacks; one of them is that people who “see something” often don’t “say something,” or they are ignored when they do.[/QUOTE] If you see or hear something, report it. If you're in a position of authority, treat serious reports seriously.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50521906]Well, I mean, he did murder 49 people.[/QUOTE] [quote]Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."[/quote] Probably because according to his religion, if he did it then he wouldn't be punished for being gay
That "people who are going to kill regardless of legally owning a gun so we might as well just have more guns" argument is so fucking disgusting. If you lose your head because something stupid happened and there is a gun in your house you'll be much more tempted to use it on someone than if there wasn't because, you know, you didn't fucking own it in the first place. Sure... people who are insane or part of organizated crime are going to commit murder anyways but the regular dudes, who can kill someone just because they can, are not. Don't even begin with that "in this case it's more of a mental issue than gun issue" shit because you don't have to be crazy to use a gun when you can buy it when you go shopping
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521626]doesn't the fact that you need a law to explicitly give people the right to own firearms (and the fact that the entire purpose of a government is to enforce laws for the common good) already defeat the purpose of this?[/QUOTE] Incorrect. You misunderstand the Constitution, but it's a common misunderstanding. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, are not "laws" in the common sense of the word. They are statements acknowledging the rights all human beings are born with. It is not saying, "In America, the law says you have freedom of speech." Actually, it's more like, "You are born with the freedom of speech, and no American law will ever take it away." It's not laws for the people, it's laws for the government. The 2nd amendment isn't a law giving me the right to own a firearm, it's a law taking away the government's ability keep me from owning a firearm. The Bill of Rights is not enforced by the government, it's enforced by the people. The only way for the [B]people[/B] to enforce it, the 4th line in the tetrahedron of our system of checks and balances (other 3 being the executive, judicial, and legislative branches) is through the ownership of arms. It "checks" the government by letting them know tyranny, while inevitable if the government wants it to be so, would be a bloody path. Nobody gives up any of the essential freedoms aka: unalienable rights (Bill of Rights) by living in a state. People misconstrue things like safety/security, having shelter, and a bazillion other actions as unalienable rights when they simply are not. They are moreso liberties than rights, and liberties do regularly have to be sacrificed depending on where you choose to live. However, no location on American soil save for places like prisons/military bases (where people voluntarily give up their freedoms in some way or the other) is allowed to force a man to sacrifice essential freedoms to live there. A store can kick you out for carrying a weapon (being in a store is not a freedom) but they cannot disarm you for entering their store.
[QUOTE=jp_rsardeto;50522807]That "people who are going to kill regardless of legally owning a gun so we might as well just have more guns" argument is so fucking disgusting. If you lose your head because something stupid happened and there is a gun in your house you'll be much more tempted to use it on someone than if there wasn't because, you know, you didn't fucking own it in the first place. Sure... people who are insane or part of organizated crime are going to commit murder anyways but the regular dudes, who can kill someone just because they can, are not. Don't even begin with that "in this case it's more of a mental issue than gun issue" shit because you don't have to be crazy to use a gun when you can buy it when you go shopping[/QUOTE] i have never once been "tempted" to use any one of the 13 firearms in my home for any reason other than imminent self defense this argument is horseshit; anyone who uses a gun to settle an argument is a nut
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50522937]i have never once been "tempted" to use any one of the 13 firearms in my home for any reason other than imminent self defense this argument is horseshit; anyone who uses a gun to settle an argument is a nut[/QUOTE] not everybody is like you
[QUOTE=jp_rsardeto;50522807]That "people who are going to kill regardless of legally owning a gun so we might as well just have more guns" argument is so fucking disgusting. If you lose your head because something stupid happened and there is a gun in your house you'll be much more tempted to use it on someone than if there wasn't because, you know, you didn't fucking own it in the first place. Sure... people who are insane or part of organizated crime are going to commit murder anyways but the regular dudes, who can kill someone just because they can, are not. Don't even begin with that "in this case it's more of a mental issue than gun issue" shit because you don't have to be crazy to use a gun when you can buy it when you go shopping[/QUOTE] "I'm a nutjob who can't be trusted with a gun therefore no one can be trusted with a gun"
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521626]doesn't the fact that you need a law to explicitly give people the right to own firearms (and the fact that the entire purpose of a government is to enforce laws for the common good) already defeat the purpose of this?[/QUOTE]I think I've explained this one a thousand times in my life and you would think it would get easier, but it doesn't. Our Bill of Rights doesn't [I]give[/I] us rights, it legally recognizes them. There is no giving inalienable rights, it isn't something granted like a privilege, it's an inherent, "you have this because you are a person," phenomena that's been recognized by law. Applying your argument the UDHR doesn't count for anything either, but yet it's something that's been recognized across the world. Even if it wasn't the UDHR, Bill of Rights, and any other legal framework that puts laws in place to defend basic rights still recognize something that isn't granted by anyone but nature (or whoever you recognize as "the creator") itself; it's just legal recognition of a natural state. That said, I believe [I]you[/I] have 2nd Amendment rights too. I don't think our borders matter in this regard.
[quote]Nobody gives up any of the essential freedoms aka: unalienable rights (Bill of Rights) by living in a state. People misconstrue things like safety/security, having shelter, and a bazillion other actions as unalienable rights when they simply are not. They are moreso liberties than rights, and liberties do regularly have to be sacrificed depending on where you choose to live. However, no location on American soil save for places like prisons/military bases (where people voluntarily give up their freedoms in some way or the other) is allowed to force a man to sacrifice essential freedoms to live there. A store can kick you out for carrying a weapon (being in a store is not a freedom) but they cannot disarm you for entering their store.[/QUOTE] except by living in a state you automatically have already conceded all of your freedoms in the first place. the bill of rights in itself only "restores" these freedoms back because in order to take advantage of them you must at least implicitly accept the authority of the state which issued it. the only way that these freedoms can be possible in the form as they are written in the bill of rights is that it requires a state beforehand - a state with the monopoly on physical force natural rights in themselves are but illusions of the mind. in order to still have the bill of rights in its existing form with the rights therein protected, you still must have a society of people to enforce it. by enforce, i mean that the people who agree to this set of rules also agree to defend these rights and to enforce defence of those rights. this means using physical force in some capacity in order to defend them, which in turn implies compelling others against their will and in turn limiting essential freedoms the constitution (and bill of rights) is still an agreement between the individual and society in the end. by implicitly agreeing to respect the constitution the rights within grant you some freedom.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50523102]except by living in a state you automatically have already conceded all of your freedoms in the first place. the bill of rights in itself only "restores" these freedoms back because in order to take advantage of them you must at least implicitly accept the authority of the state which issued it.[/QUOTE]No, you consent to follow the laws. That's it. All the concessions that have been made in regards to the individual's relationship to the state can be boiled down to, "I consent to follow laws." Refusing to follow a law because it's unjust is refusing to consent, an example of this is the sit-ins during the fight for civil rights. When blacks sat down and refused to move they were not consenting to an unjust law and flouting it on purpose. [QUOTE]the constitution (and bill of rights) is still an agreement between the individual and society in the end. by implicitly agreeing to respect the constitution the rights within grant you some freedom.[/QUOTE]Again, no rights are granted. Those first ten amendments are there to say "hey, lawmakers, remember that people have these rights!" Would a fence with a "keep out" sign posted restore your property's sanctity? No, it just reminds people to stay the hell off your lawn and the Bill of Rights is there to be the fence and sign for our rights.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50523138]No, you consent to follow the laws. That's it. All the concessions that have been made in regards to the individual's relationship to the state can be boiled down to, "I consent to follow laws." Refusing to follow a law because it's unjust is refusing to consent, an example of this is the sit-ins during the fight for civil rights. When blacks sat down and refused to move they were not consenting to an unjust law and flouting it on purpose.[/quote] except they were still accepting the authority of the state in itself? they were just protesting a particular law they took issue with, rather than the actual concept of laws in themselves. [quote]Again, no rights are granted. Those first ten amendments are there to say "hey, lawmakers, remember that people have these rights!" Would a fence with a "keep out" sign posted restore your property's sanctity? No, it just reminds people to stay the hell off your lawn and the Bill of Rights is there to be the fence and sign for our rights.[/QUOTE] well a fence with a sign on it is just a fence with a sign on it. the actual enforcement of these rights is what matters, and unless they are enforced then you can't be really said to have these rights because otherwise you are subject to arbitrary exploitation and the like in order to establish which rights are those that people can have in society - you must first establish some kind of governing body which enforces this reality. to begin with, this was to protect you from other countries but it quickly goes internal as well. rights only existinsofar as society is willing to enforce protection of those rights. living in such a society in the first place means giving up at least some freedoms in order to make it possible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.