Questioning Society discussion
More Enlightment
>
Why do you believe the way you do?
Point, being what? We only stop people when others will get hurt?
That because someone might hurt someone maybe we should take rights away from people.
The only reason we had the right to bear arms in the first place was because there weren't people to protect us. Living on the frontier, you needed a gun to live, because there were no police, and wild animals. At this point, there is no logical reason for everyone to need a gun. There isn't enough danger in most places, and where there is, it's probably from illegally owned weapons anyway. And yes, we took away to the right for people to kill each other and take what they want, to protect people.
You think the police protect you?You live on Mars too, don't you?
They got the bomb out of my school. I think they do pretty well here.
Because they occasionally do something good doesn't make them any less crooked, inhumane, thuggish, law-breaking, the list goes on and on
I am so sick of people complaining that liberals are against the Constitution because they're in favor of gun control. Let's see what the second amendment actually says:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What are those first words? The words NRA members always ignore? Well regulated. Liberals are not trying to undo the Constitution. In addition to defending every other Constitutional right, the ones conservatives gleefully ignore, they are also the only people defending the second amendment. Liberals, almost to a person, do not want to outlaw guns; they simply want to implement regulations, which is what the Constitution mandates. Conservatives and people like H, on the other hand, want completely unrestricted access to guns, which isn't defending the Constitution, but rejecting it.
H seems to miss the obvious point that guaranteeing freedom for people requires limiting other people's ability to infringe on those freedoms. You'll notice that H seems to have no problem with regulations placed on drivers to ensure safe roadways, pilots to ensure safe travel, doctors to ensure safe health care, etc., but when it comes to guns, literal killing devices, H seems to want no regulation whatsoever, and feels that this is somehow a consistent position.
You think the police protect you?You live on Mars too, don't you?
...
Because they occasionally do something good doesn't make them any less crooked, inhumane, thuggish, law-breaking, the list goes on and on
Notice how deftly H changes the premise. First, it was "police don't protect you." When forced to admit that, oh, yeah, they do, don't they, H changes the premise to "police are not infallible." Well, of course, these are by no means the same thing. No one has argued that police are infallible, but, naturally, that doesn't stop H from erecting that straw man to argue against. Again, H does not argue that the fact that doctors are not infallible invalidates the concept of health care, nor that the fact that train conductors and airline pilots are not infallible invalidates the concept of mass transit, nor that the fact that businessmen are not infallible invalidates the concept of capitalism; but, somehow, the fact that policemen are not infallible invalidates the concept of law enforcement, or maybe even laws themselves.
Why the contradiction? The most obvious answer is that H wants adequate health care when necessary, transportation, and the ability to buy things. But H probably also wants to do some things that aren't legal, and doesn't like The Man, so H engages in some philosophical gymnastics to form some bizarre concept of "personal freedom" that bears a striking resemblance to "I want to get what I want." I could be wrong, though. Maybe I was, what's the word, socially conditioned?
"I am so sick of people complaining that liberals are against the Constitution because they're in favor of gun control. "I didn't say they were against constitution. I said they were trying to take away your rights. We were allowed to carry guns around...now we're not.
"A well regulated Militia"
We as citizens fall under the 'well regulated' (even 'over regulated' in my opinion.) And hell, let's just consider the whole country a militia.
"Conservatives and people like H, on the other hand, want completely unrestricted access to guns, which isn't defending the Constitution, but rejecting it."
Oh, I don't want completely unrestricted access, I just want access period. The more restrictions the government puts on our personal defenses the more their heel presses against our skulls.
"H seems to miss the obvious point that guaranteeing freedom for people requires limiting other people's ability to infringe on those freedoms. "
H doesn't seem to miss this obvious point. H agrees that peanuts should be banned. Happy now?
Thanks for putting so many words in my mouth but again, I agree restrictions are needed on fire arms but I still insist private citizens deserve to have them and slowly that right is being stripped away from us. If the police are allowed fire arms and we’re not, who protects us from the police once this facade of protection is over?
"Notice how deftly H changes the premise. First, it was "police don't protect you." When forced to admit that, oh, yeah, they do, don't they"
Are you uncomfortable with addressing me yourself or something? No need to keep such distance, Dan. Let’s be buddies, Dan.
The police DON'T protect you. Their protect their image and if that means you not getting killed in the process, well sure, they have to do that sometimes.
The police force is a government instituted gang. I don't support gangs, does Dan?
"Again, H does not argue that the fact that doctors are not infallible invalidates the concept of health care, nor that the fact that train conductors and airline pilots are not infallible invalidates the concept of mass transit, nor that the fact that businessmen are not infallible invalidates the concept of capitalism; but, somehow, the fact that policemen are not infallible invalidates the concept of law enforcement, or maybe even laws themselves."
Again, you assume things.
Are doctors out for themselves? Yes. They would rather you die then them not get paid. They will maim you if it cuts some corners
Health care? No one in that system gives a shit for your life.
Train conductors and airline pilots have to be safe or else they'll die too. They ALSO don't give a shit about you.
Businessmen? There is no need to repeat myself.
They are all infallible but not as evil as the police (generally speaking)
"H probably also wants to do some things that aren't legal, and doesn't like The Man"
H doesn't need to do anything illegal. H lives H's life in accordance with the law quite happily. H doesn't like ‘the man’ because of specific incidences in H's life where the police have reviled their true colors.
Since you decided to make up convenient fallacies about myself let me return the favor...
Dan pissed his pants once on a public bus and feigned a seizure to cover Dan's embarrassment.
Dan once performed oral sex on a labrador retriever.
If you google Dan's house it will have a blue box over it.
Don't tell Dan I said all this, he might be mad.
"We as citizens fall under the 'well regulated' (even 'over regulated' in my opinion.) And hell, let's just consider the whole country a militia. "Ridiculous.
"The police DON'T protect you. Their protect their image and if that means you not getting killed in the process, well sure, they have to do that sometimes. "
That is a gross generalization.
"Are doctors out for themselves? Yes. They would rather you die then them not get paid. They will maim you if it cuts some corners "
I don't know what happened to you to make you lose all faith that people can be good, and aren't all out for themselves. Obviously, you can't know many nice people.
We were allowed to carry guns around...now we're not.Where? You're still allowed to carry guns most places with a carry permit. Yes, you can't bring a machine gun to the park. But no one is trying to take away your rights. This is a straw man argument. You redefine your "rights" as "whatever you want to do" in order to prove that people are trying to take them away.
We as citizens fall under the 'well regulated' (even 'over regulated' in my opinion.)
A waiting period and the inability to bring machine guns to the park is "over-regulation"? Okay, that's your opinion, but, again, this isn't people "trying to take away your rights," it's simply you wishing you were allowed to do whatever you want.
Oh, I don't want completely unrestricted access, I just want access period.
Straw man. Where are you not allowed access to guns? Guns are legal and pretty easy to get all over the country.
If the police are allowed fire arms and we’re not, who protects us from the police once this facade of protection is over?
No matter how many times you repeat this invented fact that you are not allowed to own a gun, or that people are trying to make it illegal for you to own a gun, that won't make it true.
The police DON'T protect you.
This is simply asinine. What fantasy world do you live in? Let's see, drunk drivers that the police arrest who might otherwise kill me. The police who show up at my house when I call 911 and need their help. The capture and incarceration of murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. No, you're right, that's not helpful to anyone. It's obviously a way of The Man oppressing me.
Now, let's play a fun game. Let's count the number of baseless assertions you make with absolutely no evidence:
Are doctors out for themselves? Yes. They would rather you die then them not get paid. They will maim you if it cuts some corners
One.
Health care? No one in that system gives a shit for your life.
Two.
Train conductors and airline pilots have to be safe or else they'll die too. They ALSO don't give a shit about you.
Three.
Wow, this is fun.
So H, are you an anarchist? Because I just love anarchists.
Lauren wrote: "That is a gross generalization. "Maybe in your world.
Lauren wrote: "I don't know what happened to you to make you lose all faith that people can be good, and aren't all out for themselves. Obviously, you can't know many nice people. "
Maybe you don't know what people are really like.
Dan wrote: "Where? You're still allowed to carry guns most places with a carry permit."
You can't show your gun and in many places guns aren't permitted. Where are you from? Oh, NY. Well, California is pretty different.
Dan wrote: "You redefine your "rights" as "whatever you want to do" in order to prove that people are trying to take them away."
I define right as something we were allowed to do and now aren't because someone might misuse the privilege
Dan wrote: "Where are you not allowed access to guns? Guns are legal and pretty easy to get all over the country."
That statement was suppose to refer to the future when the ability to have guns are finally widdled away.
Dan wrote: "No matter how many times you repeat this invented fact that you are not allowed to own a gun, or that people are trying to make it illegal for you to own a gun, that won't make it true."
Talking about the future again.
Dan wrote: "This is simply asinine. What fantasy world do you live in? Let's see, drunk drivers that the police arrest who might otherwise kill me. The police who show up at my house when I call 911 and need their help. The capture and incarceration of murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. No, you're right, that's not helpful to anyone. It's obviously a way of The Man oppressing me."
I live in a fantasy world called the real one. You don't think the police drive drunk? Murder? Rape? Molest? They are as bad as the criminals they apprehend only they get away with it because they went to a boot camp.
It must be nice to live in a world where there are good guys and bad guys. I'll join you there when I go to bed at night.
Dan wrote: "Let's count the number of baseless assertions you make with absolutely no evidence"
Again, you assume things. ALL my opinions are based on personal experiences. How sheltered has your life BEEN Dan? Good heaven...
Dan wrote: "So H, are you an anarchist? Because I just love anarchists."
No, I just have an affinity for things that begin with the letter 'A'
They would rather you die then them not get paid. They will maim you if it cuts some corners This is a baseless assertion. It is statement purported to be true - an assertion - made without evidence - baseless. I know doctors and nurses. They do care about their patients. They don't maim patients to cut corners, nor would they.
Health care? No one in that system gives a shit for your life.
See above.
They ALSO don't give a shit about you.
See above.
I define right as something we were allowed to do and now aren't because someone might misuse the privilege
So what were you allowed to do that you now are not? If you have a grievance with a specific law or set of laws, argue it based on facts; don't hide behind empty rhetoric about personal freedom and The Man.
That statement was suppose to refer to the future when the ability to have guns are finally widdled away.
So you're complaining about a hypothetical future without presenting any evidence that this hypothetical future is at all probable. Genius.
I live in a fantasy world called the real one. You don't think the police drive drunk? Murder? Rape? Molest? They are as bad as the criminals they apprehend only they get away with it because they went to a boot camp.
Again, I do not claim that police are infallible and do not commit crimes. I think your implication that police regularly get away with murder and rape is an overstatement. If there were no police, these crooked cops would still commit crimes, and they would still get away with them, as would everyone else, because there would be no system of law. Police are brought to justice for crimes. Maybe not every time, but the claim that police are committing countless horrible crimes and covering them up is easy to make, because it can neither be proved nor disproved, as it is a claim of a perfect conspiracy.
It must be nice to live in a world where there are good guys and bad guys. I'll join you there when I go to bed at night.
It's a good thing I'm not playing the H's Straw Men drinking game, as I'd be too drunk now to type. I never claimed that the world was good and bad, black and white, etc.
Again, you assume things. ALL my opinions are based on personal experiences. How sheltered has your life BEEN Dan? Good heaven...
What assumptions did I make? You made assertions and generalizations with no evidence to support them. I simply pointed this out. If you provided evidence and I somehow missed it, then what is it?
It's interesting that instead of supplying evidence for any of your claims or conspiracy theories, you simply call us naive. We don't live in the big, bad world in which H lives, so we must be stupid and have not received The Truth.
Also, you can get a concealed carry permit in California. I may not live there, but I know how to look up laws on the Internet. Or were you referring to hypothetical future police state California?
Well, I missed a lot. I guess I should say that why I believe what I do is because I do. No intentions of sounding mean, but I go with my gut instincts, and I believe that that is what gets the right people through life. If someone asks me if I believe in God, I answer 'yes' because I feel that there is a higher power and I do believe in God, just not that he created this world by himself. He had help from Mother Nature and Ares and all those other Greek Gods and Goddesses out there. You ask me anything and I'll tell you an answer in the now, which means that it may change in the future but until then that is where I stand.~Sessy
H wrote: "so are you going to ban nuts too? "Please, let's ban nuts.
Lauren wrote: "Guns are made to harm.
jayda wrote: "Guns are also made to protect.
Guns are made to accelerate a small chunk of metal to high speed, imparting a great deal of energy to it, in a particular moderately controllable direction. What you do what that small piece of metal is up to the individual. You can use it to fasten boards together. You can use it to punch holes in a piece of paper or tin can. Or you can use it to punch holes through living tissue.
That living tissue can belong to nearly any kind of animal or plant, including that of a human. What, exactly, it drives through is up to the will of the wielder of the gun at the instant of its firing (plus accidents).
Some guns are really pretty much designed to drill through and heavily damage human tissue and have almost no other purpose. Some guns are designed and intended to be used to drill through animal tissue and have almost no other purpose, although of course they generally do just fine with human tissue. Some guns are designed to drill through targets, although they will often work on animals and humans.
The good versus bad assessment of guns is therefore strongly connected to just what kind of thing a gun is intended to punch holes in from far away, PLUS the intention of the wielder of the gun and whether or not they stick to its intended purpose, PLUS in the specific case of shooting people, whether or not it is considered praiseworthy, permissible/forgiveable, or a crime to shoot the particular person or persons under the particular circumstances in question.
A gun, therefore, isn't "made to harm" or "made to protect". It can be used for protection, for hunting animals (which harms the animals, for as much or as little karmic damage as one imagines shooting animals produces -- little if you are shooting them for food, a lot if you're shooting them wantonly for the pleasure of hurting things), for shooting targets (which harms nothing living), for robbing stores (harmful only as a threat, usually), and for committing murder (harming humans) all on the same day and even by the same person.
Mind you, some guns (such as sawed off 12-gauge shotguns loaded with double-ought buckshot, MAC-10's, Thompson submachine guns, and cheap nickel plated revolvers) cannot easily or credibly be used to shoot animals or targets -- unless your "target" is the broad side of a barn -- but they are gangbusters at robbery or murder -- pretty much all harm.
Mind you, I just love guns -- I like to hunt and I'm a damned good shot. I've also shot myself by accident (blew my thumb and almost my head right off with a 410). Guns are dangerous even if one isn't using them to harm anyone deliberately, good or bad.
However, I don't harbor the illusion that guns (especially not unloaded hunting guns with the action removed and ammo locked up, as they are in my house) are much use against criminals breaking into my house or the like. For one thing, one would have to keep them loaded or immediately loadable, and that's simply an insane thing for anyone with children to do (especially boys, which is all I have) -- the odds of hurting yourself, hurting someone you didn't intend to hurt, or watching helplessly as one of your sons dies, accidentally shot by one of his brothers are way, way greater than the odds of being broken into while you are home and actually using the gun to defend yourself without committing a crime (e.g. manslaughter) in a situation where dialling 911 or running like a bunny out the back door or both wouldn't have made far, far more sense.
There are exceptions to this, of course. A single, childless woman who has to work in a rough neighborhood or has to walk to her car after dark every day in a nearly deserted parking lot, yeah, I could see her feeling greatly comforted by a .25 or .32 in her handbag, although she still faces the same risks of shooting somebody by accident (including herself). Guns are dangerous, period, and I've got some lovely scars to prove it. Handguns are the most useful for protection, given that they are for the most part designed solely to shoot people or MAYBE targets (often targets shaped like -- people). Handguns are generally inaccurate, are generally kept loaded (they are for protection, right, and what good is an unloaded gun in a crisis?), and are so very, very easy for children to find, so very easy to accidentally discharge while you're carrying them around pretty much ready to fire (what good are they if they aren't?).
Ultimately it comes down to people, and their intentions. Guns are just another tool -- you can use a hammer to build a house or bash somebody's brains out. A particularly dangerous tool, one designed to be dangerous. Some people are dangerous with or without guns, add in the gun and they go from being a bit dangerous to being very deadly dangerous, dangerous to where a few grams of pressure can take a life. Roughly one person in ten has a personality disorder that makes them a bit unstable and risky to be around at the wrong time. Perhaps 2-3 people per hundred go beyond just having a personality disorder to the point where they perhaps have a psychotic break, to the point where they go into uncontrolled rages, to the point where they feel suicidal (where guns are so easy to use to harm yourself, especially if you are trying).
Statistics are very useful, here, although they are shamelessly manipulated by the gun lobby. Here is a fairly proportional article:
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2746
I particularly like the Atlanta estimate:
A more reasonable estimate of self-defense gun use during burglary comes from a retrospective analysis of Atlanta police department reports. Examining home invasion crimes during a four-month period, researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into single-family dwellings when someone was at home (Kellermann et al. 1995). In only three cases (less than 2 percent) did a victim use a firearm in self-defense.
If this figure were extrapolated nationally for the year the survey covers, it would suggest approximately twenty thousand gun uses against burglary.
That sounds about right, although it may still be optimistic. That sounds just great until you compare it to the roughly 30,000 gun-related deaths -- almost as many people (17,000) use their guns to kill themselves in any given year as use their guns to protect themselves successfully in a robbery situation. And don't forget the 11,000 homocides.
The only comfort I can take in all of this is that it is proof that evolution is not yet finished with humans. I would be willing to bet that stupid people are many times more likely to shoot themselves or be shot by others than smart people, just as I suspect that death by automobile and many other causes is disproportionately biased on the basis of intelligence.
I'd hate to see evolution stop altogether, so I advocate making guns even more readily available. Maybe we could just put big crates of cheap, loaded, handguns on street corners with a big sign saying "free guns, help yourself". Right next to the giveaway table for free cartons of camel unfiltereds and maybe a vending machine that dispenses $0.25 baggies of straight uncut heroin.
Just give me time to get my bunker up in the hills equipped with all the amenities -- a minefield, a few machine guns, night vision goggles, a couple of crates of grenades, and of course enough food for a few years -- first!
rgb
*wanders off to look at H's bookshelves*Lesse...Fight Club...Fight Club... Ah! There it is.
Dan wrote: "I know doctors and nurses. They do care about their patients. They don't maim patients to cut corners, nor would they."And you trust the government too. Like I said, my opinions are based on MY experiences...Not yours.
Dan wrote: "So what were you allowed to do that you now are not?"
I already answered that. You're boring me now.
Dan wrote: "So you're complaining about a hypothetical future without presenting any evidence that this hypothetical future is at all probable. Genius."
Laws are based on a hypothetical future. We don't KNOW people will commit any more murders from this minute on so let's abolish the law against murder. No use in being pessimistic, eh?
Dan wrote: "I think your implication that police regularly get away with murder and rape is an overstatement. "
I invite you to become acquainted with more cops.
Dan wrote: "What assumptions did I make?"
Go back to your post in which you said my name a million times.
Dan wrote: "It's interesting that instead of supplying evidence for any of your claims or conspiracy theories"
When did I say any of this was a conspiracy?
Dan wrote: "Also, you can get a concealed carry permit in California."
Google why I can't take my machine gun to a park.
rgb wrote: "I'd hate to see evolution stop altogether, so I advocate making guns even more readily available. Maybe we could just put big crates of cheap, loaded, handguns on street corners with a big sign saying "free guns, help yourself". Right next to the giveaway table for free cartons of camel unfiltereds and maybe a vending machine that dispenses $0.25 baggies of straight uncut heroin.
"
Finally someone is speaking my language.
Jill wrote: "*wanders off to look at H's bookshelves*Lesse...Fight Club...Fight Club... Ah! There it is. "
Points out the girl with 188 chilren's books...
Davis wrote: "Did H finally wander off? "
Shit, I know I'm popular but I have other things to do. I wouldn't have talked this much but I've been home all day.
I have to leave soon so you'll have to miss me for a while.
You know, I thought this thread was supposed to be about why we believed what we believed, not about debating the validity of those beliefs. Surely there is another section devoted to politics?
"I have to leave soon so you'll have to miss me for a while. "Quite the contrary. The less ignorance around, the better.
H wrote: "Jill wrote: "*wanders off to look at H's bookshelves*Lesse...Fight Club...Fight Club... Ah! There it is. "
Points out the girl with 188 chilren's books..."
189 children and young adult, thank you very much. Also 112 science books, 24 politics, 33 religion, 95 history, etc.
But would you be able to guess that by just reading my posts? I was easily able to guess that you were a Fight Club fan. You strike me as someone who would want to be Tyler Durden when you grow up.
Emily wrote: "You know, I thought this thread was supposed to be about why we believed what we believed, not about debating the validity of those beliefs. Surely there is another section devoted to politics?"Eh, it's the internet. People meander. These things happen, especially when you factor in John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Davis wrote: "Quite the contrary. The less ignorance around, the better. "Oh yes, everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant.
That's really proving your point there.
Jill wrote: "189 children and young adult, thank you very much. Also 112 science books, 24 politics, 33 religion, 95 history, etc.
But would you be able to guess that by just reading my posts? I was easily able to guess that you were a Fight Club fan. You strike me as someone who would want to be Tyler Durden when you grow up.
"
You adults are children. If I rape a 14 year old I can't claim I'm not a peto because the kid is a 'Young Adult, and that's a TOTALLY different section on Borders'
Also, ya, I could guess you read children's books. That's why I went to see the number of which you do.
"Oh yes, everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant.That's really proving your point there."
Not really. I don't agree with Lauren on a lot things and I don't think she is ignorant. Ignorant people, such as H, are ignorant though.
Lauren wrote: "The only reason we had the right to bear arms in the first place was because there weren't people to protect us. Living on the frontier, you needed a gun to live, because there were no police, and ..."The reason we have the right to bear arms was to have the ability to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our own government. Seriously.
Still a pretty good argument for the right to bear arms, actually.
Oh, there was also stuff like hunting, protection from bears and mountain lions and indigenous humans disposed to react badly to our insistence on manifest destiny at their expense. There was war against foreign governments, which (you might recall) had an annoying tendency to invade us or fight with us on one border or another so that they could exploit our indigenous denizens instead.
There wasn't a lot of self-protection against criminals, in the old days. Criminals had a tendency to die young and violently, and not necessarily from being shot by citizens, any more than it happens today. I'd say that historically, domestic (non police, non army) gun use in America has been well over 10:1 using them strictly for some mix of hunting and target shooting. That part the gun lobby has right.
The problem is that pistols are (with a very few exceptions) useless and even illegal to hunt with, and honestly again with a very few carefully engineered exceptions, their accuracy sucks so that they are hardly a pleasure to target shoot with. I've shot a five shot pattern at 50 feet with a good 22 rifle that you can cover with a dime, dead on the bullseye (and still have the target). I'm pretty sure I could duplicate the feat in a couple days' shooting, again with a good rifle. I'm not sure I would live long enough to accomplish this with a cheap 22 pistol.
Truthfully, I think that we could eliminate 90% of the guns used in the commission of violent crimes, especially the really nasty machine pistols, the 45s, the 9mms, the 38s, the 32s, the 25s, the 22s (all pistols, all semiautomatic, cheap, easily concealable, or expensive and disproportionately deadly) if we simply stopped all manufacturing of them and prevented all imports or exports of them (exports to do the world a favor). Surgically remove the eyesight of anyone who commits murder with a gun or uses a gun in the commission of a robbery or rape, then turn them loose. Recividism rate is suddenly zero.
Make people who come CLOSE to committing these sorts of crimes wear opaque contact lenses (or spend their time in completely cave-dark rooms) 24 hours a day for one month during a "training session" to prepare them for life without eyesight if they repeat the offense.
Hmmm, suddenly the violent crime rate drops through the floor. Much better than execution -- scarier, cheaper, more permanent, and yet more humane as it is at least possible to compensate somebody who turns out to be wrongly convicted if they're still alive but blind.
Even Hannible Lecter would have a hard time being a good psychopath if he were blind (although Hannible might make it -- he's exceptional -- but under ordinary circumstances a sighted person can trivially evade or hurt a sociopathic blind person who can't see that knife or vase or hammer you pick up or the sofa in the way.
But alas, I'm not king of the world, so I can't demonize arms dealers so that they are viewed as being even worse that Columbian drug lords and serial rapists, and every time I propose humane blinding as a rational replacement for execution, everybody cringes.
I'm just ahead of my time...
rgb
H wrote: "You adults are children. If I rape a 14 year old I can't claim I'm not a peto because the kid is a 'Young Adult, and that's a TOTALLY different section on Borders'Also, ya, I could guess you read children's books. That's why I went to see the number of which you do. "
But how would you come to the conclusion that I read children's books simply by my posts? Have I some strange version of amnesiac stenographic Tourette's in which I inadvertently type out (in all caps, of course) "BELATRIX LESTRANGE KILLS SIRIUS!!" before spasming and blacking out?
And for the record, I don't read many children's books. Most of that list was an effort by me to recall all the books I'd read in my childhood. You'd be amazed at what you can come up with when you plumb the depths of your memories (and a few people's Goodreads bookshelves).
My point, my dear, is you're acting like a bit of a walking cliche. Might want to look into that.
The way your talk and accuse me of things, my dear. I know your kind, my dear. You read a lot of things that make you feel comfortable and fuzzy inside, my dear.Perhaps I am a walking cliche, my dear, but at least I'm not a walking cunt.
Not to say that YOU are, my dear. I'm just counting my blessings, my dear.
H wrote: "Health care? No one in that system gives a shit for your life."I do so hope that you are kidding -- it does get hard to tell since I have twigged to the fact that unicorns are sly little suckers that like to just blast away at whatever premise is set up like the anarchistic and somewhat paranoid beasts that they are.
But if you really think that nobody in health care gives a shit about their patients, you are fucking nuts. And I don't mean peanuts.
rgb
rgb wrote: "I do so hope that you are kidding -- it does get hard to tell since I have twigged to the fact that unicorns are sly littl..."Why would you think that? lol
rgb wrote: "But if you really think that nobody in health care gives a shit about their patients, you are fucking nuts. And I don't mean peanuts."
Honestly, I don't think that about all of them, but I've met a few nut jobs in that profession.
H wrote: "The way your talk and accuse me of things, my dear. I know your kind, my dear. You read a lot of things that make you feel comfortable and fuzzy inside, my dear.Perhaps I am a walking cliche, my dear, but at least I'm not a walking cunt.
Not to say that YOU are, my dear. I'm just counting my blessings, my dear. "
Oh, my. Such hostility.
I merely suggest that if you've decided to follow the noble path of the keyboard anarchist, you might not want to be so cliche about it. Mention offhand that you find the image of kittens playing with ribbons adorable, that you like Neil Gaiman (even the kid stuff ;)), that sort of thing. You came riding in here, an anarchist knight in a Marilyn Manson t-shirt fresh off the wall of a Hot Topic, and derailed the thread (lest we forget, it was your condescending "Oh, how darling..." and "you're all sheeple" posts that started this whole little side trip).
But I'm the cunt?
Whatever lets you sleep, my dear.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to head to bed now. We cunts need lots of beauty sleep, you know. Nothing worse than a labia with under eye circles.
H wrote: "Because you say so?"You just very obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Jill wrote: "Eh, it's the internet. People meander. These things happen, especially when you factor in John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory."Ah, thank you Jill. I do believe that God regulates my life and that all things happen for a reason. Cable is down (again), I couldn't watch Burn Notice. H is almost as entertaining, once you actually get it that a significant portion of her patter is undiluted just-because unicorn shit:-).
Still, it was just another evening of keyboard masturbation, or so I thought. And then your post.
Suddenly, everything was clear, the pattern was revealed. It was all part of God's plan to bring me to the Satori of the Day, which you so thoughtfully provided. Thank you. Bless you.
It explains so much.
Possibly about myself, although strictly speaking I'm not properly anonymous. But I'm almost certain that I'm going to dream of the GIFT tonight (look at that -- it even has a great acronym:-).
ROTFL,
rgb
H wrote: ""Honestly, I don't think that about all of them, but I've met a few nut jobs in that profession. Note well my earlier remark on prevalence of personality disorder and more serious mental illness. Lessee, I used to have a nice link on this...
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/N...
(I do so like to actually use REFERENCES instead of reporting ANECDOTAL PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OR BELIEFS in discussions of this sort, y'know?)
You'll note 15% prevalence of adults in the US who meet at the standard diagnostic criteria for at least one personality disorder. If that statistic doesn't terrify you, hmmm, when was the last time you were tested...;-)
If you read this article:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/public...
it's even scarier. As I said, 2-3 people in 100 are schizophrenic or bipolar, which is fine if they've been diagnosed, but many of them are not diagnosed until their first psychotic break. I've been around for a few of those psychotic breaks in friends or acquaintences or relatives.
Given these numbers, given the fact that 16% of the population has an IQ under 85 and simply cannot understand things like mathematics and cannot actually reason effectively from premises plus data to conclusions, given our inconsistent and often broken educational system, to me the real miracle is that civilization actually kind of works anyway.
The amazing thing, my dearest H, about a dancing bear is not the graceful perfection of its pirouettes, but that it dances at all.
Although it has gotten quite difficult to know where the unicorn H ends and the real H begins (and where I'm quite confused as to your gender at this point, as you seem to be rapidly varying that as well as everything else) you do seem to be consistently asserting that some really bad things have happened to you that have destroyed your faith in just about everything. The police are no longer neutral or positive, they are negative and evil (instead of most are pretty decent people, a few are bad, some are really good). Health care people are not to be trusted (instead of they are mostly trustworthy, with a few bad apples but with far more that are real saints).
You sound like somebody whose life was really screwed over by somebody else -- sent to prison over something trivial, perhaps -- and were transformed into a bitter, paranoid human who no longer trusts anything at all.
Or perhaps this is just a part of the facade. Your business, really. But if you have a story to tell, tell it. Or don't. This is a list of GIFTed semi-anonymous strangers, you'll never have a better opportunity to vent in a mostly non-judgemental environment (or at least one you can safely walk away from, since you're quite anonymous to me, at least). But otherwise, dark allusions to some unspoken brutality on the part of police isn't even anecdotal evidence -- you're only hinting that there might BE such an anecdote, but you're not telling if there is or there isn't, and you're being so flippant that it is hard to know whether to take you seriously if you said that there was.
So which would you prefer? True confessions? Or more bitter patter, more facade? I'm good either way, you are absolutely entitled to your own privacy, but unless you present links to credible sites that measure police corruption and find it to be enormously high, you're basing your responses on personal anecdotal experience that -- however negative it might have been for you personally -- may not accurately reflect the statistics in the general population.
Given that bad things certainly do happen, and bad people happen as well (although less often than decent-to-good people), bad things done by bad people are bound to happen to somebody, and that somebody could have been you, sure. But that alone doesn't mean that your generalizations are correct.
rgb
Jill wrote: "Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to head to bed now. We cunts need lots of beauty sleep, you know. Nothing worse than a labia with under eye circles."I'm just glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. As a consequence, my keyboard still works and screen is unspattered.
Noooo, must-keep-from-forming-male-equivalent-metaphor...
Whew!
That was close.
rgb
rgbI joined this incredibly inane thread just to pass a message to you. Then I will de-join as soon as possible.
1. Evidently this thing came to me due to my 'friendship-in the GR sense' with you. Thanks a lot.
2. I have lost all respect for your obvious intelligence, that you would join this kindergarten smell-my-poop thread.
3. I am also chagrined that while reading this car-wreck, "H" was practically my only choice for support. I join him in wishing I had an automatic weapon. Although for a minute I was pulling for the 18 year old bozette who had read all about history and studied all 20 religions or something. I assume she was raised by hippies but given where she lives, maybe not. Liberals are the dumbest people on the planet. But that's just my opinion. I thank God that few of them (at least on this thread) want to go to Heaven or believe in the possibility. Keeps me from sinning by hoping like Hell they don't end up where I hope to. RGB, I don't know where in the Hell you're going to end up.Jeez, are you entertaining the grandkids or something?
cheers
PEJ
Okay, I can't help but mention another bozette who has some kind of right to health care. Reminds me of the first real liberal I met years ago. From Darmouth no less. He stated (I'm not making this up)that America was so wealthy no one should have to work. Didn't realize it would become the liberal creed. Now
I'm going to cowardly slink away. God help us.
Well, this was fun. And H did seem very troll-like. Good to know it's true. "Liberals are the dumbest people on the planet."
He wants to slink away so we don't massacre him for that.
Phillip wrote: "rgbI joined this incredibly inane thread just to pass a message to you. Then I will de-join as soon as possible.
1. Evidently this thing came to me due to my 'friendship-in the GR sense' with yo..."
I apologize for contaminating your inbox, although given my general prolixity on GR, I'm amazed that it was only this thread that offended your general sensibilities...;-)
Of course we will both end up in exactly the same place (I assume you are referring to post-death place). You seem to be confusing life with a video game -- a common mistake. There has to be a plot. Winners and losers. There is a great Game Master in the sky who set up these Rules, you see, and who rolls cosmic dice to determine your eternal destiny. Here's a four -- that means this soul will be born a Buddhist, to HELL with him. Oops, rolled a ten -- another damned Muslim. Sacred seven -- let's make this soul a Christian, of precisely the right flavor to end up winning the game! Lucky you! Snake-eyes. Awww, crapped out. Another atheist, a special place in a special eternal barbecue. Nope, it doesn't matter if you have reasons not to believe (reasons like the total incredibility of the source and content of the scriptural mythos you are supposed to believe). Salvation depends on your birth. God himself casts your destiny, and all those souls that will end up damned are led to their damnation by God himself, to emphasize His glory. Says so right in the Bible (want the verses)?
Or, perhaps, life wasn't written by Blizzard and isn't played on the BodyStation 3, a new super-duper sensory input apparatus wherein one explores a purely virtual reality controlled by a hyperintelligent computer that makes the game appear to be purely deterministic and mechanical in its operation but somehow imposes a subtle plot in which YOU are the HERO, the main character, the one the entire game was written for, and you alone were lucky enough to have been spawned near the magic key that will eventually win you the game. Maybe -- just maybe, think about it -- life is precisely what it appears to be. Not a game with a mad (and angry!) game master. Maybe, even if there is a game master, It is not mad, or angry. Maybe it isn't about "winning" -- maybe the very idea of winning is as illusory as it is in World of Warcraft, or Fallout 3, or Zelda. In that case, we'll both of us end up (wait for it) dead when we die! What a surprise that would -- errrm, "not" -- be!
Of course, the real hell will be my complete inability to tell you "I told you so" then, so I might as well say it now...;-)
As far as liberals versus conservatives -- that ever-so-useful and mindless polarization of individuals in to labelled categories that permits you to dismiss them en masse instead of dealing with anything like specific issues in any serious discussion of political policy -- which this was not, being mostly tongue in cheek, with H playing a role, not actually expressing a serious point of view (unless, of course, H has been skipping doses of his/her anti-psychotic medicine again) -- was there something particular I said that bothered you? Perhaps it was my saying that I love guns and wish I had more of them but don't really think that selling 32 caliber snubnosed revolvers that might actually place a bullet within a couple of feet of the direction you point it is really all that good for society? Maybe it was actually citing a credible study that suggests that the 2.5 million defensive gun uses by gun owners PER YEAR was an absolutely absurd number, smoke blown firmly from the ass, and that the correct number was maybe two orders of magnitude smaller instead of being LARGER than the total number of crime events that these guns were presumably used in?
Or was it something else I said? Since you are slinking, I guess I'll never know. Oh well.
rgb
Jill wrote: "if you've decided to follow the noble path of the keyboard anarchist"Didn't I already say I wasn't one?
Jill wrote: "even the kid stuff"
Man, here we are with the pot and the kettle again...
Jill wrote: "You came riding in here, an anarchist knight in a Marilyn Manson t-shirt fresh off the wall of a Hot Topic"
Man, you really do go for the cliche...It's a good thing my Thundercats shirt got too ratty to wear anymore...
Jill wrote: "But I'm the cunt?"
My dear, I never said you were a cunt! I said you weren't (well, insinuated, in any case) Don't let your low self esteem keep you from new friendships. I'm really good at brushing hair, we can talk about cute boys and how well our pubic hair is growing in.
Jill wrote: "and derailed the thread"
I commented on someone's reply to the thread with my mere disagreement (is that not allowed here?) and other people started the long trail down to...What were we talking about? Oh yes, Hot Topic.
I'm just glad you picked Fight Club to judge me with. If you had picked the Satanic Bible it might get really crazy...Or Anne of Green Gables? You would be telling people not to listen to me because in the era I come from, computers haven't been created yet so I must be some sort of witch.
Davis wrote: "You just very obviously have no idea what you are talking about. "
Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Wild want-to-bring-a-machine-gun-to-a-park theories aside, what is truly dangerous in this world are those who cannot accept other's opinions and beliefs.
Look at WW2 and--No, wait, look at every war, bar fight, and domestic abuse case.
rgb wrote: "patter is undiluted just-because unicorn shit:-). "
You wound me sir...
rgb wrote: "(I do so like to actually use REFERENCES instead of reporting ANECDOTAL PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OR BELIEFS in discussions of this sort, y'know?)"
This is teh internetz, don't expect too much. And my posts are for my own entertainment, don't expect any amount of effort on my part unless we actually get on a topic I care about.
rgb wrote: "The amazing thing, my dearest H, about a dancing bear is not the graceful perfection of its pirouettes, but that it dances at all."
I hold my bears to higher standards than you, sir. And don't get me started on pygmies.
rgb wrote: "I'm quite confused as to your gender at this point, as you seem to be rapidly varying that as well as everything else"
I have two sets of genitalia (neither of which is on my pelvis)
rgb wrote: "you do seem to be consistently asserting that some really bad things have happened to you that have destroyed your faith in just about everything"
Bad things have happened to me just as bad things happen to everyone else. I don't believe anyone's life is worse than anyone else’s. I have a lot of faith in a wide variety of things (Oprah, for one) and despite what Jill thinks of me, I'm a rather charming sort in public. It's just genetics that make me distrust everyone and thing, but I'll still give it a smile and nod as we pass.
rgb wrote: "The police are no longer neutral or positive, they are negative and evil "
I have not met a police officer I have liked. The police have done atrocious things to those I am close to. I had been conditioned since birth to not trust the police so even though I know there are some trustworthy and genuinely caring officers, I can't help the fact that if one is walking toward me, I keep my distance and remain silent.
rgb wrote: "Health care people are not to be trusted"
Like I said before, I have met some nuts in the field but you wont find anyone who will praise nurses more than I. I have been in need of medical assistance more times than I can count and some doctors and almost ALL nurses are God's gift to the world.
You need to stop getting me to say kind things lest this thread start to get boring.
rgb wrote: "sent to prison over something trivial, perhaps"
God, no! I'm too delicate!
rgb wrote: "you'll never have a better opportunity to vent in a mostly non-judgemental environment"
I'm not saying these things because I have some dark past I brood over and try to repress but inevitably colors every interaction I have...And then my partner dies and so I get stuck with a B list celebrity comic whom I go on crazy adventures with.
This forum is for our opinions, right? So I shared mine. I'm not giving up my life story to justify them. Why should I when no one else has to? I'm sure my story would be more boring than anything, and, again, I'm fighting tooth and nail to keep this thing from getting boring (despite Lauren's great efforts, what a buzz kill)
Anyway, I'm not all doom and gloom. Someone make a thread on Rainbow Brite and watch me go.
rgb wrote: "So which would you prefer? True confessions? Or more bitter patter, more facade? "
C: Whatever is funniest at the time
rgb wrote: "But that alone doesn't mean that your generalizations are correct."
Not to harken back to that other thread, but the generalizations can be as true to me as your facts are to you.
Phillip wrote: ""H" was practically my only choice for support. I join him in wishing I had an automatic weapon."
Don't leave!
Lauren wrote: "He wants to slink away so we don't massacre him for that."
Good heaven, am I suppose to be on 24/7 for you? I went out last night, sorry I didn't get it approved by you first.
Final thoughts:
Just because I disagree with most of you doesn't make me ignorant or a troll or a Marilyn Manson fan (what did he ever do you?) Considering what this forum IS you all should be pretty accustomed to differing opinions...But no.
Apparently, this forum was created so the lot of you could prance around and agree with each other while sucking your neighbor off (good thing the process involves a lot of nodding)
Do I really want to take a machine gun to a park? No. I don't want to go to a park.
Do I really hate all cops? I reserve the right to hate only those who have personally offended me, so no. I don't hate all cops. I haven't met all of them yet.
My arguments are polarized because...So are yours! My posts should be seen as a mirror for you who are arguing with me. I'm black, you're white. Anyone who's entered puberty understands that nothing but gray can be the closest to the truth as you can get (though it's always unattainable)
And that is the most heartfelt thing I’ve ever said on this sad excuse for a discussion forum.
Perhaps you think I am an anarchist (because I made a lame joke about it) or use Fight Club as my bible (ignoring all the other books I've read). That's fine. I don't care WHAT you think of me, if I did...I might......Fuck, I don't know. I've never cared what anyone thought of me...That's the main reason I never correct anyone on my gender. I don't care.
Let me be honest with you all...I am NOT a unicorn (I am a pre-op unicorn). I do NOT have both sets of genitalia (not both attached to me, in any case). I am NOT an anarchist (There is too much good prime time TV to be too proactive about any cause ((why are all night rallies on the same time as the Bachelorette?))
I share this information to give you a piece of me...my soul...my being...But I in no way want you to stop defaming me. Especially you, Jill, you're insults are by far the most IM-a-copy-to-my-friends worthy.
"My arguments are polarized because...So are yours! My posts should be seen as a mirror for you who are arguing with me. I'm black, you're white. Anyone who's entered puberty understands that nothing but gray can be the closest to the truth as you can get (though it's always unattainable) "
Golden Mean Fallacy. Gosh. :D
I already answered that. You're boring me now.The only concrete example you've given of something you're not allowed to do is bring a machine gun to a park. It's already been explained to you (as if this should be necessary) why a prohibition on something like this is a good idea. Children play at the park; semi-automatic weapons and children are not a good mix, to say nothing of semi-automatic weapons and people who don't realize why you shouldn't bring machine guns to parks.
So either you really don't understand (despite your claim to the contrary) that some people have to surrender certain personal freedoms in order to protect all people's freedoms, or you think that your freedoms are the only freedoms that matter, or you are simply a half-baked quasi-anarchist, or you simply like saying half-baked, quasi-anarchist things just to get a rise out of the Internet, as if getting a rise out of the Internet is difficult.
Laws are based on a hypothetical future. We don't KNOW people will commit any more murders from this minute on so let's abolish the law against murder. No use in being pessimistic, eh?
Wow. This has the bonus of being both ridiculous and irrelevant. Ridiculous because it is simply stupid. There probably hasn't been a single day in all of human history without a murder. Laws are based on facts, on what is happening and has happened, and reasonable assumptions based on these facts. Not guesses about the future.
And it's also irrelevant because what we were talking about was the fact that you conflate the actual present with your personal, hypothetical, baseless idea of the future, and then rant about how much you are oppressed by the future. And, of course, you offer no evidence for why you think the future will be the way you say it will.
I invite you to become acquainted with more cops.
I know plenty of cops. Rapists none. Murderers none. You follow painfully asinine logic:
1. Police officers are not infallible, but are human beings, as susceptible as the rest of us to temptation, corruption, criminality, prejudice, etc.
This is, of course, a non-controversial claim, with which none have disagreed. But from it you extrapolate:
2. Therefore, cops are inherently worse then regular people. They are out to get us.
And in the place of evidence, you simply offer repetition and insult.
Go back to your post in which you said my name a million times.
What you called "assumptions" was me stating that you make baseless assertions. I explained why these are baseless assertions. It's pretty easy to point out a baseless assertion. Until you provide evidence beyond calling us stupid, they will continue to be baseless assertions.
When did I say any of this was a conspiracy?
You implied that police officers regularly use their position to cover up each others' heinous crimes. This is by definition a conspiracy. In another thread you implied that presidential elections are rigged. This is by definition a conspiracy.
Google why I can't take my machine gun to a park.
You claimed that people are not allowed to carry guns around. I pointed out that this is not true, that conceal and carry permits can be obtained pretty much everywhere. You replied, "Well, maybe in New York, but not in California." I pointed out that this is not true, that you can get a conceal and carry permit in California. In fact, New York is one of the hardest places in which to get a carry permit. Yet, I have a friend who has one, and his references were never checked. Hardly the police state you seem to think exists/will exist. So, you change the subject, again, to machine guns in parks. It's a fun guessing game: where will H go next to change the subject rather than defend her claims with, what are they called, facts?
Please see the other thread for my goodbye and giggles.
Wait, does that mean that H is gone now? :)
Lauren wrote: ""May I stay at your house next time I visit Mars? "If unicorns can breath nothing, as Mars isn't terraformed. " So let's terraform it! Won't that be fun? And were do the unicorns fit in?
Lauren wrote: ""May I stay at your house next time I visit Mars? "If unicorns can breath nothing, as Mars isn't terraformed. "
So let's terraform it already! And what do unicorns have to with anything?
Oh, did H leave? Damn my real life obligations! I miss all the fun stuff.
Questioning Society
Books mentioned in this topic
Frozen Charlotte (other topics)Say Her Name (other topics)
Cujo (other topics)
Robert Bloch's Psycho: Sanitarium (other topics)
Duma Key (other topics)
More...
I regard myself as a unicorn and you keep insisting I'm wrong, so they are too.
Lauren wrote: "Did you read what I wrote?"
Talk about the pot and the kettle...
Lauren wrote: "I said MIGHT or MIGHT NOT go off. 50/50. "
Even if there is a chance it might go off...survival is based on taking risks.
Lauren wrote: "If you start some sort of biochemical peanut war, then yes. :)
And thus my point is made.