Posts from Oprosik

Imagine a hypothetical situation: you are a citizen of a country where laws are passed in a truly democratic manner, i.e., your vote matters. How would you vote on the above points?

I understand that the wording may be too general or vague, so I will provide some clarifications:
- You can vote for, against, or abstain (in this case, you should not choose any of the answer options in the poll). You should vote "for" even if you have your own view on the issue and ways to solve it (for example, if you think that light drugs should be legalized but not heavy ones, then you should still vote "for"; or, say, if you believe that the state should have the ability to monitor citizens and prosecute them in certain situations, then you click "against" on the item about privacy).
- The question is anonymous, but discussion in the topic is not prohibited. However, I am personally only interested in purely dry statistics.
- It should be understood that even in a society where there is real democracy, corruption and other negative aspects may still exist.
- In this poll, "the right to privacy" primarily implies a complete ban on tracking phone calls, websites visited, etc.

Anonymous question

Too bad. I wish we could identify all these vile homophobes and unleash bears on them.

This is a complex poll, especially considering that the degree of a country's "dysfunction" affects almost all possible answers, even if all decisions at the legislative level are actually made democratically (although this is, in any case, a certain positive and encouraging indicator). For example, do I trust the law enforcement system, or do I assume that, um, um, um, you know what countries I'm talking about.

Anonymous question

But it would have been worthwhile. I would have gladly listened to the arguments of those who voted, for example, for the item "Against legalizing gun ownership."

P.S. I, for one, am ready to explain my choice for any of my items.

I would be happy to hear the arguments of the comrades who voted, for example, for the item "Against the legalization of gun ownership."

Maybe they don't want some idiot to kill them.

For the legalization of marriage between close relatives.

I would like to hear their arguments.

maybe they don't want some idiot to kill them

Well, firstly, an idiot will always find a way to take someone down. But there's no way to defend against it.
And secondly, the more idiots kill each other, the better. Society will become cleaner... Natural selection, yeah... And most importantly, they will start respecting each other more. Otherwise, at the slightest provocation, they start fighting...:mad:

A clear example: the emergence of nuclear weapons put an end to large-scale world wars for at least 70 years. The same applies to firearms...

Added 4 minutes later

I would listen to these guys

Well... The degree of "closeness" isn't entirely clear here. It's clear that it's nonsense between parents and children or siblings. But I think the next level of "closeness" is already acceptable. In my opinion, people should make decisions based on the degree of risk.:smile32:

Well, first of all, an idiot will always find a way to cause harm. But there's no way to defend yourself.

Yeah, you're always on alert and carrying a weapon, expecting some lunatic to pull out a gun and start shooting. You're sitting in a movie theater: one hand on the popcorn, and the other on your favorite gun.

And secondly, the more idiots kill each other, the better. Society will become cleaner...

The problem is that these kinds of idiots usually don't shoot at other idiots. Haven't you heard about school shootings and movie theater shootings?

Haven't you heard about school and movie theater shootings?

We have. If any of the viewers had a gun, one corpse (I hope it's clear whose?) could replace a dozen others...

If any of the viewers had a gun, then one corpse (I hope it's clear whose?) could replace a dozen others...

But if no one had guns, there wouldn't be any corpses at all.

Imagine a hypothetical situation: you are a citizen of a country where laws are passed in a truly democratic manner, i.e., your voice matters.

Didn't read any further.

And if nobody had guns, there wouldn't be any corpses at all.

Firstly, if a moron obtained a weapons permit (which is the case we are considering, right?), then it means that order needs to be restored in law enforcement. And if everyone currently couldn't care less about this, then maybe a mountain of corpses will make them think about it. So there is definitely some benefit...:smile04:

And secondly, if subject A is a moron dreaming of gunning someone down, the absence of a gun will change little. No gun — there'll be a shank...

Secondly, if subject A is an idiot dreaming of taking someone down, the lack of a gun won't change much. If he doesn't have a gun, he'll use a knife...

And a person with a knife is much less dangerous than a person with a pistol. Have you ever heard of someone with a knife stabbing a bunch of people in a movie theater? Or doing something similar in a school?

A person with a knife is much less dangerous than a person with a gun. Have you ever heard of someone stabbing a bunch of people in a movie theater with a knife? Or doing something similar at a school?

"A bunch" is a consequence of the fact that there was no one to stop the idiot.
1. The idiot stabs someone, and they subdue him. One casualty.
2. The idiot pulls out a gun and shoots. He's unlikely to get a second shot off. Assuming that someone present has a gun. Two casualties, one of whom is the idiot himself (who will never harm anyone again, and his father's connections as a colonel won't help him now).

I think both scenarios are not that different.

Okay, I won't vote on these issues for several reasons.

Take the death penalty, for example. If corruption is rampant in a country, the purpose of such a measure is lost because it's obvious who will receive it and for how many stolen chickens (not billions).
Legalizing marriage between relatives, censorship, same-sex marriage, drugs, alcohol, and weapons – all of these are, in my opinion, on roughly the same level from the state's perspective as potential sources of trouble and extra work for law enforcement and the healthcare system. However, on the other hand, they are an integral part of a certain (in moderate limits, of course) human freedom. Again, the extent to which a country is economically (and even morally and spiritually) developed depends on the corresponding development of its population and how often, or even if, they will use such permissiveness.
The same applies to the inviolability of private life. Personally, I believe that if global surveillance could help reduce the high crime rate and prevent possible major crimes, such a measure would seem quite adequate. Otherwise, its purpose is lost.

That's basically it. It seems the problem is that the very possibility of influencing certain laws through democratic means no longer fits into the concept of any modern state; otherwise, I immediately start creating an image of some ideal country, and therefore the answers in the poll may be completely different depending on many factors.

I think both options are not that different.

I think you should read about cases of shootings in public places that occur in countries with legalized gun ownership.