Eddie Vedder = nonsense
I normally require an intellectual argument before I get drawn into the mire of someone else's thought. But alas, I too, sometimes befall the follies of emotion. I watched this video of Eddie Vedder and its lack of usable information and overly emotional propaganda, angered me. It angered me so much that I felt at first that I would only be able to rant about its sheer stupidity and not be able to find a word of logical discourse. So, I did what I should in such times, I put the leashes on my dogs and took them to the park and looked at the stars. My dogs called to nature and she called back where I came away from that breezy evening sky with at least a sense of willingness to re-listen to him with an attempt to hear his rambling foolishness without the vehemence.
You can watch the video here: (http://youtu.be/qEDUERnILQM)
He says:
“…continue the discussion…”
Continue the discussion is a clever phrase, because it does set forth a prospect of debate. It simply says, let’s keep talking about it. It does not set forth any facts. It does not imply any truths. It does not accurately, or more importantly, tell the truth. The problem with this point of argument is that it does not say whom is too keep having this discussion. If you listen to him, he makes it clear, that it is not you and I, that is the Free Individual People, under the Constitution, that are having this discussion. We’re not allowed that freedom, but this power, he believes, lays in the hands of law makers. You and I can sit around a table all night long, according to Vedder’s logic and in the end agree to disagree, because the lawmakers will sit upon their castle thrones and dictate policy to us, in abject absence of the core philosophical ideal of our founding fathers. You see Eddy, your discourse and discussion is relevant to Free People, and only illustrates that you have not understood a word about the nature of our Country.
For example, it says in the Declaration of Independence the following: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is something that John Locke put forward and he included “Estate” as his third basic principle instead of Happiness. Estate, is the implied property of the Self. That you, and I, are our own Estate, and thus, our own property and that no one, not you, not your fans, not your elected officials, have the authority or right to take anything from any Individual (without Due Process of established guilt).
What then could the discussion be? Are you talking specifically about violence? I didn’t hear you mention violence in your rant, but I did hear you specifically mention firearms, or more accurately, the Gun Lobby. So, as I’ve asked other celebrities, is it that you want to end all forms of violence or is it, that you believe tools invented by men can somehow be un-made? There is a youtube video of a man that is actually asked a series of questions that lead him in this direction. He is asked if he believes knives and forks and baseball bats should be outlawed. He flatly says yes and then says, that science should be working on ways to make those tools ‘safe’ for humans, like we are made of a different material than the rest of the universe and some how steel can’t hurt us but is good for cutting prime rib. He is then asked, what about fists and feet? The guy, finally realizes that his argument has reached an impasse and must say, “Well, we need to teach kids about love…” OH?!? In other words, when confronted with a logical argument about the nature of the tool used to commit violence against another he was forced to concede that his argument against firearms was really about teaching love and in the end the tool was, well, just a tool. So, Eddy, is your argument just as fallacious as his?
“…be very careful…defame your character…take away your right to speak…”
Oh my god, I feel dirty even answering this remark. It reeks of just plain idiocy. So I’ll be simple: No one is trying to take away your right to speak. We want a valid argument: we want facts, we want truths. We want you to tell us how you’re going to allow we Free People (protected by endowed inalienable rights from our Creator) to Keep and Bear as property our own Estate, while you strip away the rights of criminals. There has been no discussion on this, in fact, history has shown, that we gun owners have had our right to keep and bear stripped and changed every ten years or so. We’ve backed up and consented to your theft ‘for the children’ since the first restrictions were put on us. What exactly have you given up? You had your pride hurt over some stupid comments you made, and somehow that equates to the National Firearms Act? Are you for fucking real? Seriously, you’ve got a warped sense of logic. What normal people do, that is normal Free People, living in a Free Country under the Constitution, is they stop listening to your music and call you an idiot. Sorry, Eddy, you and I are equals, you’re no King. You have no authority over me. If I don’t like you I can say whatever I want about you, just like you. But for clarity, I want you to have the same rights that I have. I want you to be equal to me in every way. Neither of us the peacock to the feathers. You want equality protected under the Constitution, then accept the whole document, not just the pieces that suit you. For if we are equals in form and function, then I can never manifest my insanity on you and you can never do the same back to me. It seems to me that what you really wish is a world of inequality, because of your fear. Talk about arrogance, to bend the whole world's individuals to your ideas. Then you have the gall to wonder why people want to defame your character? You've already done it to yourself.
“…we’ve done some research…the myth that gun lobby is the most powerful…”
We’ve done research he says, but he doesn’t qualify that with facts. Is he talking about gun violence or is his segue into the gun Lobby (that is the NRA I am sure) the research he’s talking about? I don’t know what special research he’s referring too, but anyone with Google can invalidate his argument in two minutes. Best estimates: 80,000,000 gun owners in this country and 270,000,000 million guns. His argument is obviously an attack on the NRA specifically, because the NRA is about 5M people and more over, those that want stronger gun laws believe that those 5M members are not of important and that in fact the NRA is actually just the rich, greedy, gun manufactures that number in the dozens (remember, corporations and those that run them are all evil…except apple and Google for some reason. Smith and Wesson should get the same PR team - You should look up what S&W has made through the course of their history, not always guns.).
Vedder’s argument is silly, because, again, we are a Free People and the gun lobby, as he dares to call it, is actually that 80M people and probably a few more that believe in the Constitution. I might even go as far as to say, that the so-called gun lobby that stops these laws from getting any traction is around 100M, with everyone that believes in the founding principles and the rights, born into us, of every single equal person. Not only did you not apply any facts, you attempt to refute basic logic and known statistical data. Bad form, sir, bad form.
“…all the polls are saying…majority of people agree…”
Here’s this argument again. I don’t know if you’ve heard of popvox.com or not, but they are a website where you can send letters to your Congresspersons on any issue they are currently addressing. Right after Sandy Hook, there was all this, “...common sense gun law…” nonsense being bantered around, along with a number of actual bills that would restrict the 2nd amendment to law abiding individuals. The comedy is in stats. There was an actual petition in congress to address the ‘common sense gun law’ put forth by the President, that had an overwhelming majority in agreement. The number the last time I checked was 79% for ‘common sense’ gun laws. But, when asked about specific laws, for example restricting 30 round magazines (the fabled high capacity ‘clip’) it was 95% against. In fact, every single bill was overwhelming against. Read that again, every singe bill that would further restrict firearm ownership, was over 90% against. Why is that Eddy? If so many people want ‘common sense’ how is that when asked to prove out the details, no one actually wanted them? You and I both really understand why, I can assume you’re smart enough to understand the psychology of the way it was phrased had more to do with the actual details of what was expected. That is, by using the phrases of 'common sense' and 'for the safety of children' that it would appeal to emotion and more importantly, to the guilt of looking like some kind of demon for being against helping children. Who could be against common sense? Who would want to be that guy? But, alas, the facts show that the real commonsense, much like the kind Thomas Paine was talking about, lay deeper than a few well manufactured words and are in fact, in the details.
“…drivers license…a car…”
I don’t believe in driver’s licenses or vehicle registrations, go read more of this blog to see why. But you’d probably not understand it there anyway, thus I won’t waste time trying to explain it again.
“…what we don’t want is any of those children’s lives to be wasted…”
…and there it is. It shouldn’t shock me that you return to the core basic principles of this emotional diatribe. Are you implying that I want bad things to happen to children? To me this is the biggest tell of your opinion of other people. You must believe that other people are bad, in fact, you’re willing to enforce your ideas on 300 million of us, because you must assume that that number is stupid and evil in comparison to you. It further proves that you do not believe in equality. You do not believe that 299,999,999 of us are actually good people, who want their children to grow up and have beautiful lives, to love and breathe in the depth of this world. Instead, you demand that we suffer your fear and your worry and your hatred for us, and live in the chains of your intellect! I am not your servant. I am not your slave. You have zero power or authority to instruct me or my children in the proper way to live a life and more importantly, you can not --I will not allow you to—dictate the meaning of my work, the value of my Estate and the overall progress of those things I put into Property. In any other time, such a crime against someone would be met with an outright duel and if done against a Prince, lead directly to war. How is it you feel you can tell all of us the meaning of what we are and we in turn don’t have the same authority to shun you and put you to the screw? Who died and made you king?
You can watch the video here: (http://youtu.be/qEDUERnILQM)
He says:
“…continue the discussion…”
Continue the discussion is a clever phrase, because it does set forth a prospect of debate. It simply says, let’s keep talking about it. It does not set forth any facts. It does not imply any truths. It does not accurately, or more importantly, tell the truth. The problem with this point of argument is that it does not say whom is too keep having this discussion. If you listen to him, he makes it clear, that it is not you and I, that is the Free Individual People, under the Constitution, that are having this discussion. We’re not allowed that freedom, but this power, he believes, lays in the hands of law makers. You and I can sit around a table all night long, according to Vedder’s logic and in the end agree to disagree, because the lawmakers will sit upon their castle thrones and dictate policy to us, in abject absence of the core philosophical ideal of our founding fathers. You see Eddy, your discourse and discussion is relevant to Free People, and only illustrates that you have not understood a word about the nature of our Country.
For example, it says in the Declaration of Independence the following: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is something that John Locke put forward and he included “Estate” as his third basic principle instead of Happiness. Estate, is the implied property of the Self. That you, and I, are our own Estate, and thus, our own property and that no one, not you, not your fans, not your elected officials, have the authority or right to take anything from any Individual (without Due Process of established guilt).
What then could the discussion be? Are you talking specifically about violence? I didn’t hear you mention violence in your rant, but I did hear you specifically mention firearms, or more accurately, the Gun Lobby. So, as I’ve asked other celebrities, is it that you want to end all forms of violence or is it, that you believe tools invented by men can somehow be un-made? There is a youtube video of a man that is actually asked a series of questions that lead him in this direction. He is asked if he believes knives and forks and baseball bats should be outlawed. He flatly says yes and then says, that science should be working on ways to make those tools ‘safe’ for humans, like we are made of a different material than the rest of the universe and some how steel can’t hurt us but is good for cutting prime rib. He is then asked, what about fists and feet? The guy, finally realizes that his argument has reached an impasse and must say, “Well, we need to teach kids about love…” OH?!? In other words, when confronted with a logical argument about the nature of the tool used to commit violence against another he was forced to concede that his argument against firearms was really about teaching love and in the end the tool was, well, just a tool. So, Eddy, is your argument just as fallacious as his?
“…be very careful…defame your character…take away your right to speak…”
Oh my god, I feel dirty even answering this remark. It reeks of just plain idiocy. So I’ll be simple: No one is trying to take away your right to speak. We want a valid argument: we want facts, we want truths. We want you to tell us how you’re going to allow we Free People (protected by endowed inalienable rights from our Creator) to Keep and Bear as property our own Estate, while you strip away the rights of criminals. There has been no discussion on this, in fact, history has shown, that we gun owners have had our right to keep and bear stripped and changed every ten years or so. We’ve backed up and consented to your theft ‘for the children’ since the first restrictions were put on us. What exactly have you given up? You had your pride hurt over some stupid comments you made, and somehow that equates to the National Firearms Act? Are you for fucking real? Seriously, you’ve got a warped sense of logic. What normal people do, that is normal Free People, living in a Free Country under the Constitution, is they stop listening to your music and call you an idiot. Sorry, Eddy, you and I are equals, you’re no King. You have no authority over me. If I don’t like you I can say whatever I want about you, just like you. But for clarity, I want you to have the same rights that I have. I want you to be equal to me in every way. Neither of us the peacock to the feathers. You want equality protected under the Constitution, then accept the whole document, not just the pieces that suit you. For if we are equals in form and function, then I can never manifest my insanity on you and you can never do the same back to me. It seems to me that what you really wish is a world of inequality, because of your fear. Talk about arrogance, to bend the whole world's individuals to your ideas. Then you have the gall to wonder why people want to defame your character? You've already done it to yourself.
“…we’ve done some research…the myth that gun lobby is the most powerful…”
We’ve done research he says, but he doesn’t qualify that with facts. Is he talking about gun violence or is his segue into the gun Lobby (that is the NRA I am sure) the research he’s talking about? I don’t know what special research he’s referring too, but anyone with Google can invalidate his argument in two minutes. Best estimates: 80,000,000 gun owners in this country and 270,000,000 million guns. His argument is obviously an attack on the NRA specifically, because the NRA is about 5M people and more over, those that want stronger gun laws believe that those 5M members are not of important and that in fact the NRA is actually just the rich, greedy, gun manufactures that number in the dozens (remember, corporations and those that run them are all evil…except apple and Google for some reason. Smith and Wesson should get the same PR team - You should look up what S&W has made through the course of their history, not always guns.).
Vedder’s argument is silly, because, again, we are a Free People and the gun lobby, as he dares to call it, is actually that 80M people and probably a few more that believe in the Constitution. I might even go as far as to say, that the so-called gun lobby that stops these laws from getting any traction is around 100M, with everyone that believes in the founding principles and the rights, born into us, of every single equal person. Not only did you not apply any facts, you attempt to refute basic logic and known statistical data. Bad form, sir, bad form.
“…all the polls are saying…majority of people agree…”
Here’s this argument again. I don’t know if you’ve heard of popvox.com or not, but they are a website where you can send letters to your Congresspersons on any issue they are currently addressing. Right after Sandy Hook, there was all this, “...common sense gun law…” nonsense being bantered around, along with a number of actual bills that would restrict the 2nd amendment to law abiding individuals. The comedy is in stats. There was an actual petition in congress to address the ‘common sense gun law’ put forth by the President, that had an overwhelming majority in agreement. The number the last time I checked was 79% for ‘common sense’ gun laws. But, when asked about specific laws, for example restricting 30 round magazines (the fabled high capacity ‘clip’) it was 95% against. In fact, every single bill was overwhelming against. Read that again, every singe bill that would further restrict firearm ownership, was over 90% against. Why is that Eddy? If so many people want ‘common sense’ how is that when asked to prove out the details, no one actually wanted them? You and I both really understand why, I can assume you’re smart enough to understand the psychology of the way it was phrased had more to do with the actual details of what was expected. That is, by using the phrases of 'common sense' and 'for the safety of children' that it would appeal to emotion and more importantly, to the guilt of looking like some kind of demon for being against helping children. Who could be against common sense? Who would want to be that guy? But, alas, the facts show that the real commonsense, much like the kind Thomas Paine was talking about, lay deeper than a few well manufactured words and are in fact, in the details.
“…drivers license…a car…”
I don’t believe in driver’s licenses or vehicle registrations, go read more of this blog to see why. But you’d probably not understand it there anyway, thus I won’t waste time trying to explain it again.
“…what we don’t want is any of those children’s lives to be wasted…”
…and there it is. It shouldn’t shock me that you return to the core basic principles of this emotional diatribe. Are you implying that I want bad things to happen to children? To me this is the biggest tell of your opinion of other people. You must believe that other people are bad, in fact, you’re willing to enforce your ideas on 300 million of us, because you must assume that that number is stupid and evil in comparison to you. It further proves that you do not believe in equality. You do not believe that 299,999,999 of us are actually good people, who want their children to grow up and have beautiful lives, to love and breathe in the depth of this world. Instead, you demand that we suffer your fear and your worry and your hatred for us, and live in the chains of your intellect! I am not your servant. I am not your slave. You have zero power or authority to instruct me or my children in the proper way to live a life and more importantly, you can not --I will not allow you to—dictate the meaning of my work, the value of my Estate and the overall progress of those things I put into Property. In any other time, such a crime against someone would be met with an outright duel and if done against a Prince, lead directly to war. How is it you feel you can tell all of us the meaning of what we are and we in turn don’t have the same authority to shun you and put you to the screw? Who died and made you king?
Comments
Post a Comment