http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ6iF5AmsYw
The Marching Discipline is Shocking in this display..
Posture, and timing is terrible.
The Lower Leg should be vertical when the knee is raised and the toe pointing downward. LOL.
Some are producing, what we refer to as "Platting". :D The Alignment of the Legs cross over in the step as though they are on a "cat walk" ! LOL.
They look like they have been out on the plonk the night before. :D
In the 1980's I was a Marching Instructor with my 1st wife.
Usually the Chinese put on a far better display than this... :D
Well there you have it, real proof that China has a thriving robot industry.....
Or was that Korea?
QuoteThe Lower Leg should be vertical when the knee is raised and the toe pointing downward. LOL.
I was drill instructor with the air force cadets, Matrix is right, of course.
But that toe pointing down stuff is a shao-lin thing, not suited to the military at all, i would think.
Any Brit ex-forces want to comment on this?
Wow. Look at all the NON military in there. If They were all properly armed unorganized militia, what are the odds, if They had to fight the military present, They would win?
Yes, the military mind is present in a small percentage. BUT - what happens to a military if there is nothing to pay the soldiers with? What if You cannot give Them anything They can't get for free? You don't have an army, is what happens. You may have a small gang - at best - but no underlings, no toadies, no goons, no rank and file.
So... What's Your point, z?
I think Z's point is that you can't change people who have been programmed to be this way.
A military mind has but one goal: to win, by any means possible.
However, they have a big weak spot. Leadership.
They need someone to give them orders, without that they are clueless as to what to do.
Eventually, after some time without (military) leadership their own true human nature will assert itself.
They are humans like us, after all... ::)
Yes, Luke, it is true some will not adjust well, but rather than having the support base needed for the pyramid of power, You will have only a few Beings - Human or not - who may agree on how things should be but with no underlings. Maybe a few diehard personal friends. But the structure, presently held together with the delivery of a means to survive at some level of "richness" to PAY for the loyalty, service, goon action, etc. the foundation cannot be built except on ideology. If statistically ALL of Us choose to ignore (or try to help) the Ones who cannot change to benefit both Themselves AND Humanity They really can't do much.
As for those seeking leadership, leaders will emerge. But no ARMY, prepared to kill. Sure many will gravitate to the mock battle scenarios, some preferring the medieval scene, others will have higher (or lower) tech involved. Sure People will lead and follow. But without survival on the line, without the percs (power) in the system of accounting for meaningful energy expended, the ability to sway Humans to battle (except in Self defense) will vanish. Most grunts are there because it was sign up or resort to crime to survive. Not because They want to KILL.
And if TAP hits the tipping point, We will see that We can achieve something never before available on this planet. We can achieve a base system to provide well for basic needs, along with things there is a demand for, upon which to free each Human to Hume's gift, Hume's bliss - and work done by Ones whose bliss it is to do the work is done FAR better than by those who are doing it for a job.
So. Sure. There will be groups. And the battles will be of the paintball sort. Realistic enough, but not deadly as a rule. (There may be some who agree to fight to the death - and as long as They are consenting adults, They can have at it.)
The ONLY true Leader is the LIFE Entity, i.e. "Awareness", experiencing ALL!
Any other leadership is based on "Double Logic", embedded in the human Genome, producing "Superstition" and "Fear" !
If we rely on the "Human Species", all we are only going to get, is B.S.
When are we going to learn ?
QuoteAs for those seeking leadership, leaders will emerge. But no ARMY, prepared to kill. Sure many will gravitate to the mock battle scenarios, some preferring the medieval scene, others will have higher (or lower) tech involved.
Are we talking about 'war games' instead of actual wars?
Certainly it would be good for those who like a bit of competition, exercise etc, get rid of their agression/ anger etc.
It works for all the bikers who are members of the 'Battle of Hastings Re-enactment Society' LOL
Zorgon would love it, on alternative years you can either be a Norman, Saxon, or Viking mercenary ::)
QuoteAnd if TAP hits the tipping point, We will see that We can achieve something never before available on this planet
Indeed ;)
I will have to read that book of yours again Amy, got it here somewhere.....
QuoteSo. Sure. There will be groups. And the battles will be of the paintball sort. Realistic enough, but not deadly as a rule. (There may be some who agree to fight to the death - and as long as They are consenting adults, They can have at it.)
Paintball wars?
More fun than elections, i'll give you that!
Duels, pistols at dawn, that sort of thing, worked really well until TPTB put an end to it.
If 2 people genuinely want to hurt each other,and cannot be dissuaded, then lock them in an arena & let them have at it :D
Only first they will have to sign a disclaimer that they will not be treated for their wounds before someone who was in a car accident etc, they will have to wait.
And they will be required to donate their organs if they get killed.
At least that way, they give something back to society, even in death ;)
Awareness is a big word, Matrix :)
We have to become more aware of everything around us, each other, both the 'inner' & 'outer' worlds, more aware of this Program, though i'm not sure many of us can do all of that.
Bot Communication is the real deal here, those of us that see certain aspects of the 'whole' can report or explain it to others. That way we can start to build up a picture of how the universe really is, and maybe most importantly, our role in it.
Deep thoughts for sundays ::)
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 23, 2012, 01:53:23 AM
Wow. Look at all the NON military in there. If They were all properly armed unorganized militia, what are the odds, if They had to fight the military present, They would win?
As I have been saying in all the guns laws threads, information is a much better weapon.
One good example is my boss. He was raised in a private, church-connected school, where they had an almost military training, so those schools were the first the government turned to when they needed people to train and send to war in the then Portuguese African colonies.
Having been properly brainwashed during all their lives (the dictatorship was very good at limiting information), they accepted as natural that they would need to fight for their country against the "communists" that were trying to steal the colonies from Portugal.
While on active duty in what is now Guinea-Bissau, he met a doctor that treated all the same way, those fighting "for their country" and those trying to get a country of their own, even one time when an officer told him not to take care of the enemies. He answered that he would stop only if the officer would kill him, as it was his duty as a doctor and as a human being to treat a wounded person.
My boss was very impressed with that (he is a person that is incapable of being unjust), so he started talking with the doctor. The doctor explained the situation to him, that there was no reason for an European country (any European country) to keep colonies just to strip them of what they could take from the land while the native people were treated almost as slaves (any white man had the right to beat a black man, for example).
It was that kind of thinking and the prospect of an unending war and injustice in the promotions that made a (at first) small group of captains to organise and make a revolution that ended the dictatorship and allowed the colonies to get their independence (although they were somewhat rushed and, in most cases, turned into internal wars, like what happened in Angola and Mozambique).
People, either on the military or civilian, are people; they have the same dreams, the same needs, the same problems, the same diseases, the same happy moments. You just have to show them the truth for them to see that they are on the wrong side.
That's why the Carnation Revolution was such a success, without a shot being fired by the revolutionaries and most of the people coming down to the streets to great them with what was more at hand at the time, carnations.
PS: sorry for keeping on talking about the Carnation Revolution, but witnessing a
real revolution, done without any killing from the revolutionaries, to end a 48 years long dictatorship has marked me for the rest of my life. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on December 23, 2012, 01:40:15 PM
Having been properly brainwashed during all their lives (the dictatorship was very good at limiting information), they accepted as natural that they would need to fight for their country against the "communists" that were trying to steal the colonies from Portugal.
There are two types of mentality that can appear among military people that are extremely dangerous, in my observation.
The first is due to the soldier being deliberately starved of vital geopolitical information by his parent organisation. (Government, army, whatever) This is usually done for the express purpose of creating an entirely delusional and fictitious worldview within said soldier's mind.
In my 17 years of using the Internet, I can very safely say that I have never come across a more information-starved, or fundamentally delusional group of people than the American military. They believe without question the lies which the civilian public are also told, as justification for the conflicts that they are in; but the difference is that at least a minority of civilians will actively seek out contrasting or opposing information, in order to verify said worldview, whereas soldiers will not only refrain from persuing said research, but will consider it a form of active loyalty to their government, to deliberately remain ignorant. Said ignorance will also be aggressively (even savagely) defended, if it is challenged by civilians.
The second mentality, which is even more dangerous than the first, is that attitude which, after a certain period of time, begins to see continual warfare as an entirely natural way of life. This is a mentality which considers it unavoidable and inevitable that somewhere, there will always be another theatre; and indeed
wants there to be, because war becomes a source of validation, and an element of individual identity. I will never forget the quote I once read about Vietnam.
"It may be a lousy war, but it's the only one we've got."
Zorgon has made certain statements about what he considers to be intractable human nature, but has subsequently admitted that at least a significant portion of the people he surrounds himself with, are current or former military. There is a scientific term for that; it's known as confirmation bias.
As far as the claim that a need for leaders and followers in rigid terms is an element of pre-programmed, and inevitable, human nature is concerned; maybe. My own research into the subject, however, has made me far more inclined to believe that such is a consequence of a very deliberate form of social acculturation and brainwashing, which has been taking place for at least the last 2,000 years, and possibly longer.
Civilians are exposed to one type of mind control from the cradle, yes; and usually it is the kind which tells them to be submissive and obey authority, and to be infantile and largely mindless in the absence of a controlling authority. Boot camp imposes its' own form of indoctrination, which includes a greater degree of autonomy than what civilians are allowed, (in some limited respects, such as the learning of survival skills) but which in another sense, actually regiments and controls the target's mind far more severely. I have seen the effects of military indoctrination in a maternal uncle of mine, who is Dutch Afrikaans and served in the South African Navy. Underneath what they did to him, has proven to be a good and kind man; but for many years, his training and experiences made him hard, distant, and largely emotionally unreachable.
As a third point, to answer the claim of whether or not there is a natural,
emotional inclination towards militarism, from my own observation, I would probably say yes. This does not, however, include the entirety of the human population; it does not include more than probably 25% of it. My own greatest source of internal psychological conflict, arises from the fact that my own nature contains elements of both; tendencies towards aggression and rage on the one hand, and pacifism on the other, as well as from the fact that, reincarnationally speaking, I do not currently have a body which would support a military career, even if the entirety of my personality had wanted such a thing. Given the background of some of my relatives, this has been a source of humiliation for most of my life.
So yes; Amaterasu is almost certainly correct when she says that, if a scenario such as TAP could exist, you would probably still see something like paintball or other forms of martial sport exist, among a certain number of individuals.
QuotePeople, either on the military or civilian, are people; they have the same dreams, the same needs, the same problems, the same diseases, the same happy moments. You just have to show them the truth for them to see that they are on the wrong side.
This is true, but another danger where the American military in particular is concerned has shown itself, which is that of paternalism. Military people tend to have a strong superiority complex, relative to civilians, and hence, even if they can be shown that by supporting the government they are on the wrong side, they are still likely to assume that they know better than the civilian population.
In my own observation, as mentioned, the truth is actually the opposite. The soldier, more than anything else, is a tool and pawn of the psychopath, and the psychopath's training of him will generally prevent him from being able to see that.
Quote from: petrus4 on December 23, 2012, 04:13:56 PM
In my own observation, as mentioned, the truth is actually the opposite. The soldier, more than anything else, is a tool and pawn of the psychopath, and the psychopath's training of him will generally prevent him from being able to see that.
Well, I guess there's only one option, then: people should raise their children as knowledgeable as possible about everything and train them to have a critical mind and then having them following a military career and trying to reach relatively high status inside the military, then trying to change it from the inside.
But I suppose that's just a dream. :)
Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on December 22, 2012, 09:24:14 PM
The Marching Discipline is Shocking in this display..
Posture, and timing is terrible.
The Lower Leg should be vertical when the knee is raised and the toe pointing downward. LOL.
Some are producing, what we refer to as "Platting". :D The Alignment of the Legs cross over in the step as though they are on a "cat walk" ! LOL.
They look like they have been out on the plonk the night before. :D
In the 1980's I was a Marching Instructor with my 1st wife.
Usually the Chinese put on a far better display than this... :D
Hmmmm I remember an Irish Sergeant Major called Baron...lol. or Drill Sergeant Bastard as he was affectionally called ;D
"You will now all refer to me as Sgt Bastard ....very soon you will grow to hate me..that's good I want you to hate me...you will want to be better than me..well that aint gonna happen...but in time you will grow to respect and understand why I'm about to be so cruel and heartless to you now...when the whole becomes greater than the some of its parts...you will thank me and buy me many many beers"
C..
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on December 23, 2012, 12:57:54 PM
Are we talking about 'war games' instead of actual wars?
Certainly it would be good for those who like a bit of competition, exercise etc, get rid of their agression/ anger etc.
Absolutely!
QuoteI will have to read that book of yours again Amy, got it here somewhere.....
Ah. One of the three who have bought My book? Brilliant! Do leave glowing remarks at Amazon, eh?
QuotePaintball wars?
More fun than elections, i'll give you that!
An understatement if there ever was one!
QuoteDuels, pistols at dawn, that sort of thing, worked really well until TPTB put an end to it.
If 2 people genuinely want to hurt each other,and cannot be dissuaded, then lock them in an arena & let them have at it :D
As long as it is consensual and between adults, I agree.
QuoteOnly first they will have to sign a disclaimer that they will not be treated for their wounds before someone who was in a car accident etc, they will have to wait.
And they will be required to donate their organs if they get killed.
At least that way, they give something back to society, even in death ;)
I am for no restrictions. As soon as You put restrictions on, You are limiting freedom. And the whole goal was to create a society where, but for three Laws (which all deal with a narrow band of behaviors against Others), One is completely free.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 23, 2012, 04:32:16 PM
Well, I guess there's only one option, then: people should raise their children as knowledgeable as possible about everything and train them to have a critical mind and then having them following a military career and trying to reach relatively high status inside the military, then trying to change it from the inside.
But I suppose that's just a dream. :)
Not if We can take the profit out of war by eliminating the need to account, through exchange, for meaningful energy expended by adding effectively infinite energy available to all.
I understand you Amy, it's just that if someone (in a TAP society) was young, and in perfect health, decides to get him (or her) self killed in a duel, then they could at least do one last honourable thing, & donate organs to those of us that are very ill, after all, that very society has nurtured & fed them.
OK maybe not a restricion, but it should be encouraged, no?
We are wandering a little off topic here.
Games wil be very important, they helped to keep Rome stable for decennia ;)
OK so no more christians & lions (sad for both) but maybe the Duels could be attended? And stuff like the Cirque D'Soleil, which uses only (very talented) human performers, & no animals at all.
Wandering again, sorry :-[
I think that while a reason for having a gun still exists, then we will still have guns.
They are after all just tools, like robots or cars. Cars kill more people than guns, i should think, so that's where we should be concentrating our efforts...
Personally, i can handle a gun, but i do not own one. I rely on my brain & my bare hands to get me out of a situation, and i always have a very large wrench in my toolbox should negotiations (or my car) break down :)
Let's see if he can draw & fire before he gets my size 32 angled wrench in the head 8)
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on December 24, 2012, 01:42:40 PM
I understand you Amy, it's just that if someone (in a TAP society) was young, and in perfect health, decides to get him (or her) self killed in a duel, then they could at least do one last honourable thing, & donate organs to those of us that are very ill, after all, that very society has nurtured & fed them.
OK maybe not a restricion, but it should be encouraged, no?
Oh, I'd say encourage the hell out of it - but I'm guessing it won't be too much longer before We will have replacement organs made with Our own DNA and will not need to transplant... Just sayin'. [smile]
QuoteWe are wandering a little off topic here.
Games wil be very important, they helped to keep Rome stable for decennia ;)
OK so no more christians & lions (sad for both) but maybe the Duels could be attended? And stuff like the Cirque D'Soleil, which uses only (very talented) human performers, & no animals at all.
As animals are of Consciousness, any cruelty to one will earn pariah points for sure. But as for what We choose to do - games of ANY sort, willingly entered into between consenting adults, are awesome and acceptable.
QuoteWandering again, sorry :-[
NP. [smile]
QuoteI think that while a reason for having a gun still exists, then we will still have guns.
They are after all just tools, like robots or cars. Cars kill more people than guns, i should think, so that's where we should be concentrating our efforts...
LIFE kills People... Life is a risk, and to try and "pass laws" to keep Us safe from risk is futile and absurd. We should learn from the mistakes Others make, teach Our children best practices to MINIMIZE risk, but once They are adults, risk is Their choice.
QuotePersonally, i can handle a gun, but i do not own one. I rely on my brain & my bare hands to get me out of a situation, and i always have a very large wrench in my toolbox should negotiations (or my car) break down :)
Let's see if he can draw & fire before he gets my size 32 angled wrench in the head 8)
Good at wrench-throwing? [grin] I have no issues with guns and wish We all were presumed armed. "Drills," hoaxes, psyops (like Aurora, Gifford, Sandy Hook, 9/11, etc.) aside, We Humans overall handle guns well.
So... I am totally unconcerned that Humans have guns.
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 24, 2012, 06:33:31 PM
I have no issues with guns and wish We all were presumed armed. "Drills," hoaxes, psyops (like Aurora, Gifford, Sandy Hook, 9/11, etc.) aside, We Humans overall handle guns well.
I don't have any issues with guns, I would like to own some myself, but, even if I could, I know that I would be a more dangerous person because of that, as I know that I, sometimes, may get angry enough to stop thinking as I should.
Having seen someone killed with a shotgun in September, I didn't like what I saw and I could see how final something like that is, with no possibility of "taking it back" (it was not even possible to help the victim, he died in less than 5 minutes), so, even if I have that possibility, I don't think I will ever own a gun.
PS: the only time I tried to use a gun (a small shotgun owned by my uncle) I didn't have any problems using it and hitting the target.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 24, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
I don't have any issues with guns, I would like to own some myself, but, even if I could, I know that I would be a more dangerous person because of that, as I know that I, sometimes, may get angry enough to stop thinking as I should.
Having seen someone killed with a shotgun in September, I didn't like what I saw and I could see how final something like that is, with no possibility of "taking it back" (it was not even possible to help the victim, he died in less than 5 minutes), so, even if I have that possibility, I don't think I will ever own a gun.
PS: the only time I tried to use a gun (a small shotgun owned by my uncle) I didn't have any problems using it and hitting the target.
Heh. No One HAS to own a gun - just that it would work better if We all were PRESUMED armed. A higher degree of politeness emerges.
I'd prefer it if I knew that people were being genuine when they are polite - not scared. ::)
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 24, 2012, 07:38:27 PM
Heh. No One HAS to own a gun - just that it would work better if We all were PRESUMED armed. A higher degree of politeness emerges.
But it's a fake politeness, real politeness does not depend on the other person, it depends (or at least it should) on the one being polite.
That would be the same thing as being polite because the other person is richer or taller or whiter.
Quote from: Pimander on December 24, 2012, 08:06:03 PM
I'd prefer it if I knew that people were being genuine when they are polite - not scared. ::)
Not "scared," Pim. Each respecting the Other, BOTH presumed armed.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 24, 2012, 08:36:20 PM
But it's a fake politeness, real politeness does not depend on the other person, it depends (or at least it should) on the one being polite.
That would be the same thing as being polite because the other person is richer or taller or whiter.
No. It is mutual respect. You both are taking an "OMG the OTHER guy is not armed and is just being polite because I am" approach. And who CARES if it's real or fake as long as no One is KILLING the Other?
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 24, 2012, 09:19:44 PM
No. It is mutual respect. You both are taking an "OMG the OTHER guy is not armed and is just being polite because I am" approach.
It can only be respect if it is present regardless of being armed or not.
Don't you have respect for a snail, for example? Don't you have respect for plants? We should respect things for what they are, not for what they carry.
QuoteAnd who CARES if it's real or fake as long as no One is KILLING the Other?
I care, I would rather be killed than to be a two faced cheater that nobody could know if I was being honest in my respect or not.
PS: I have to had that I wasn't expecting something like this from you. :(
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 24, 2012, 09:19:44 PM
And who CARES if it's real or fake as long as no One is KILLING the Other?
I care. I'd rather share the planet with people who do not need guns to show each other respect.
ArMaP, I fear you might be wasting your time.... I'm also shocked. :-\
Quote from: ArMaP on December 24, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
PS: the only time I tried to use a gun (a small shotgun owned by my uncle) I didn't have any problems using it and hitting the target.
Wow ArMaP The hunter... who woulda guessed?
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l106/metallica_dude10/Fear%20and%20loathing/southpark-hunter-s.jpg)
Hey I ordered one of these for you :D
(http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/51919.jpg)
Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on December 22, 2012, 09:24:14 PM
The Marching Discipline is Shocking in this display..
Posture, and timing is terrible.
The Lower Leg should be vertical when the knee is raised and the toe pointing downward. LOL.
Some are producing, what we refer to as "Platting". :D The Alignment of the Legs cross over in the step as though they are on a "cat walk" ! LOL.
They look like they have been out on the plonk the night before. :D
In the 1980's I was a Marching Instructor with my 1st wife.
Usually the Chinese put on a far better display than this... :D
So Im not losing it, eh Matrix?
I thought it looked a bit weird...not that Im a marching instructor. just wrong for some reason...
Happy Holidays anyhow!LOL!
Dave
Quote from: ArMaP on December 24, 2012, 10:11:15 PM
It can only be respect if it is present regardless of being armed or not.
Don't you have respect for a snail, for example? Don't you have respect for plants? We should respect things for what they are, not for what they carry.
I care, I would rather be killed than to be a two faced cheater that nobody could know if I was being honest in my respect or not.
PS: I have to had that I wasn't expecting something like this from you. :(
There's a difference between being "a two faced cheater that nobody could know if I was being honest in my respect or not" and encountering someOne and feigning politeness so as to ensure no weaponry is drawn. Where do You get this hyperbolic image of something not connected? We're not talking friends, here. Friends usually don't worry about such things (and all the less so in TAP, where there is nothing to steal that One cannot have for free.
And when I say respect, I am thinking I am using it not as emotion-ladened as You are. I'm talking the respect of strangers meeting. Willing to give the Other politeness. Not idolize Hume.
Quote from: Pimander on December 25, 2012, 02:21:36 AM
I care. I'd rather share the planet with people who do not need guns to show each other respect.
ArMaP, I fear you might be wasting your time.... I'm also shocked. :-\
[sigh] When You eliminate crime, that will be what You have. Sadly, until We no longer need to account for energy, there will be crime. And governments trying to tyrannize... In TAP, there IS NO GOVERNMENT, so... None to tyrannize.
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 25, 2012, 06:10:35 AM
There's a difference between being "a two faced cheater that nobody could know if I was being honest in my respect or not" and encountering someOne and feigning politeness so as to ensure no weaponry is drawn.
Not to me. To me, someone that lies is someone that cannot be trusted in what he/she says, someone that feigns emotions is someone that cannot be trusted when he/she displays some emotion.
I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I was a liar.
QuoteWhere do You get this hyperbolic image of something not connected? We're not talking friends, here. Friends usually don't worry about such things (and all the less so in TAP, where there is nothing to steal that One cannot have for free.
Even in an imaginary, fairytale perfect TAP, people will be responsible for their own actions, and people should respect each other (or not) because of what they do and how they act, so a liar will still be a liar, a faker will still be a faker, and I cannot have full respect for people like that, so I cannot act like that.
QuoteAnd when I say respect, I am thinking I am using it not as emotion-ladened as You are. I'm talking the respect of strangers meeting. Willing to give the Other politeness. Not idolize Hume.
Yes, respect of strangers meeting, but not because I am expecting the other person to carry a weapon, respect because, to me, a stranger starts out as being another person like me, with things that make them happy, sad, nervous, mad, calm, etc., so I begin by respecting their own personality so I will not affect them negatively with anything I may say or do.
In the same way I respect a snail that goes about it's business, trying to live it's live like all other living creatures, even if I don't know if a snail can be happy or sad, I do know that there's no reason for me to make it's live worse than it may be.
That's how I see respect.
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 25, 2012, 06:13:52 AM
[sigh] When You eliminate crime, that will be what You have.
I don't need to eliminate crime in order to know that the world is a better place with less shootings.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 25, 2012, 12:09:05 PM
Not to me. To me, someone that lies is someone that cannot be trusted in what he/she says, someone that feigns emotions is someone that cannot be trusted when he/she displays some emotion.
So... You have never been in a place and smiled and nodded to a stranger that You really couldn't care less about? Giving the impression that maybe You did?
I think You are seeing this as an ACTIVE behavior I am speaking of. There's a BIG difference between trying to make anOther believe You care (active) and smiling warmly when You're introduced to someOne who You will likely never meet again (passive).
There's a big difference between how, say, gangs would behave in a presumed-armed society than the one We have now.
QuoteI wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I was a liar.
There We go again, equating social behavior (passive) with an act of willful deceit (active). Is discretion lying?
QuoteEven in an imaginary, fairytale perfect TAP, people will be responsible for their own actions, and people should respect each other (or not) because of what they do and how they act, so a liar will still be a liar, a faker will still be a faker, and I cannot have full respect for people like that, so I cannot act like that.
Whether or not One "should" respect Others for behavior, it clearly is failing in this rude society We live in now. Choosing NOT to be rude on the off chance someOne might die is hardly "lying."
QuoteYes, respect of strangers meeting, but not because I am expecting the other person to carry a weapon, respect because, to me, a stranger starts out as being another person like me, with things that make them happy, sad, nervous, mad, calm, etc., so I begin by respecting their own personality so I will not affect them negatively with anything I may say or do.
And for One sensitive to that, which is most of Us, that works well enough. But clearly Our society is devolving in that, and I say it is because We are presumed helpless.
QuoteIn the same way I respect a snail that goes about it's business, trying to live it's live like all other living creatures, even if I don't know if a snail can be happy or sad, I do know that there's no reason for me to make it's live worse than it may be.
And ArMaP. that is how it SHOULD be - and if everyOne was like You, I am sure guns would be moot. But They're not. People assault (mostly for money). People rape. People molest. And governments tyrannize. This last is the BIG reason to have arms.
Quote from: Pimander on December 25, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
I don't need to eliminate crime in order to know that the world is a better place with less shootings.
Yeah. But that's not relevant to the point I was making, is it? The point was that as long as We have a reason for crime (tyranny, money, etc.) We will have a need for defending against it.
With stigmergic governance there is no controlMIND (governMENT) to tyrannize and with everything freely available to All, the motive to assault and thieve is gone. So too is the better part of rape - rape is not a sexual thing (though it has sexual elements). It is a CONTROL thing. When We all have 100% control of Our lives, controlling something becomes far less imperative.
That is a major aspect of TAP and why, though it is not "utopia," it is a hell of a lot better than what We operate under NOW.
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 25, 2012, 06:13:52 AM
Sadly, until We no longer need to account for energy, there will be crime.
Not all crimes are related to energy or money. In fact the most dastardly crimes have nothing to do with it. and TAP will not effect them one bit 8)
One example would be a psychopath setting fire to a building as a trap to kill first responders for sport
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 25, 2012, 06:14:42 PM
So... You have never been in a place and smiled and nodded to a stranger that You really couldn't care less about? Giving the impression that maybe You did?
No, why would I do that? ???
QuoteThere We go again, equating social behavior (passive) with an act of willful deceit (active). Is discretion lying?
I don't understand what you mean by that.
QuoteWhether or not One "should" respect Others for behavior, it clearly is failing in this rude society We live in now. Choosing NOT to be rude on the off chance someOne might die is hardly "lying."
It's not honest, and, to me, that's the same thing.
I choose not to be rude because I think there's no reason for it, in the same way I may be rude (or cruel, as people have said) when I think I should.
The fact that it may be failing is meaningless to me, I am not on a popularity contest.
QuoteAnd for One sensitive to that, which is most of Us, that works well enough. But clearly Our society is devolving in that, and I say it is because We are presumed helpless.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that either.
QuoteAnd ArMaP. that is how it SHOULD be - and if everyOne was like You, I am sure guns would be moot. But They're not. People assault (mostly for money). People rape. People molest. And governments tyrannize. This last is the BIG reason to have arms.
In the same way I don't think we should feign respect to someone we know is armed I don't think that being armed is any kind of solution for tyranny.
Weapons (of all kinds) is what the tyrants use to force their power onto other people, knowledge is what they fear, so that's what the people should use to remove the tyrants' power.
QuoteYeah. But that's not relevant to the point I was making, is it? The point was that as long as We have a reason for crime (tyranny, money, etc.) We will have a need for defending against it.
That's true.
QuoteWith stigmergic governance there is no controlMIND (governMENT) to tyrannize and with everything freely available to All, the motive to assault and thieve is gone. So too is the better part of rape - rape is not a sexual thing (though it has sexual elements). It is a CONTROL thing. When We all have 100% control of Our lives, controlling something becomes far less imperative.
Sorry, more things I don't understand. What's "stigmergic governance"? And "controlMIND"? And why did you write "(governMENT)"? All that only confuses me.
Edit: I noticed now that the last part was an answer to pimander, so maybe I was not supposed to understand it. :)
The way this forum software removes quotes makes quoting a post with quotes confusing, or maybe all those cakes I ate are making side effects. ;D
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 25, 2012, 06:14:42 PM
And governments tyrannize. This last is the BIG reason to have arms.
I have refuted this point several times. You have either ignored my posts or need reminding....
This was the point that A51Watcher made about debating... One makes a point, the next person says why they differ and gives reasons as opposed to ignoring their point then repeating what has already been refuted.
The same point that I have tried to make but been largely ignored (which happens a lot when there is no real argument to counter you). All the guns. All the homicide that comes with them but still a rogue government.
Still suppression of anything resembling energy independence.
Still an unelected president allowed into and voted back into office.
Still perpetually at war.
Still poverty in the "richest country on the planet" while multi-nationals and bankers pay next to no tax.
Still ripped off by the federal reserve and world bank.
Still ripped off for health care while people die untreated.
Still allow yourselves to be governed by people who can side-step your constitution using executive orders.
Don't worry though. You have a gun so you are free.
DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH
So what difference have your guns made then? Take a pea shooter to a helicopter gun-ship? Your guns have made no difference...
Transition to TAP? You can't even push for proper democracy in your own country.
So I have challenged what you are saying. Do you have a reasoned response or not? If your guns are so great why is crime so bad in the USA? Homicide? Could it be that you guys have missed the point?
Quote from: zorgon on December 25, 2012, 07:42:50 PM
Not all crimes are related to energy or money. In fact the most dastardly crimes have nothing to do with it. and TAP will not effect them one bit 8)
One example would be a psychopath setting fire to a building as a trap to kill first responders for sport
Yeah, z. And I never said We would do away with ALL crime - again, I point out in several of My pieces that the crimes of passion (jealous spouses, etc.) and the EXTREMELY rare psychopath who actually does things like You describe are not crimes TAP can "fix" - just the 99.99999 % of crime which is motivated at some level by money/power or the lack thereof.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 25, 2012, 08:37:05 PM
No, why would I do that? ???
Because You made eye contact and it's a polite thing to do?
QuoteQuoteQuoteI wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I was a liar.
There We go again, equating social behavior (passive) with an act of willful deceit (active). Is discretion lying?
I don't understand what you mean by that.
You seem to be equating a smile at a stranger You made eye contact with but really don't care about with a form of "lying." Or keeping Your mouth closed (discretion) when somebody at a party starts spouting something You don't agree with but You know it might get ugly if You speak up... That's "lying?"
QuoteQuoteWhether or not One "should" respect Others for behavior, it clearly is failing in this rude society We live in now. Choosing NOT to be rude on the off chance someOne might die is hardly "lying."
It's not honest, and, to me, that's the same thing.
Well, I can see you likely DO think smiles at strangers and using discretion is "lying." Ok.
QuoteI choose not to be rude because I think there's no reason for it, in the same way I may be rude (or cruel, as people have said) when I think I should.
Ok. But most tend towards some discretion.
QuoteThe fact that it may be failing is meaningless to me, I am not on a popularity contest.
Are You that dissociated from society? It sounds like is and I'm so sad if You are.
Quote from: Pimander on December 26, 2012, 01:02:38 AM
I have refuted this point several times. You have either ignored my posts or need reminding....
This was the point that A51Watcher made about debating... One makes a point, the next person says why they differ and gives reasons as opposed to ignoring their point then repeating what has already been refuted.
The same point that I have tried to make but been largely ignored (which happens a lot when there is no real argument to counter you). All the guns. All the homicide that comes with them but still a rogue government.
Still suppression of anything resembling energy independence.
Still an unelected president allowed into and voted back into office.
Still perpetually at war.
Still poverty in the "richest country on the planet" while multi-nationals and bankers pay next to no tax.
Still ripped off by the federal reserve and world bank.
Still ripped off for health care while people die untreated.
Still allow yourselves to be governed by people who can side-step your constitution using executive orders.
Don't worry though. You have a gun so you are free.
DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH
So what difference have your guns made then? Take a pea shooter to a helicopter gun-ship? Your guns have made no difference...
Transition to TAP? You can't even push for proper democracy in your own country.
So I have challenged what you are saying. Do you have a reasoned response or not? If your guns are so great why is crime so bad in the USA? Homicide? Could it be that you guys have missed the point?
Pim, don't make ME laugh. When this system devolves to the point the troops are invading Our towns, We will know the value of Our guns. Also, what goes VASTLY underreported in the "news" are the many, many cases where guns kept crimes from happening. They don't want THAT out there working against Their main aim which is to disarm most of Us.
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 26, 2012, 09:47:22 AM
When this system devolves to the point the troops are invading Our towns, We will know the value of Our guns.
When it gets to THAT point your guns will be useless because they will have 30,000 plus unmanned Predator drones over your head that can singly take out your house and city block... and from a distance that you won't even see them :D
QuoteTheir main aim which is to disarm most of Us.
If that was their main aim... we would already be disarmed
Quote from: Pimander on December 26, 2012, 01:02:38 AMIf your guns are so great why is crime so bad in the USA?
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Unfortunately for us, there are many bad apples around the world that burn their papers and come in under false pretenses
Jamaica cleans out their jails and bans Rasta but Canada and the US welcome them
Castro cleans out the jails in Cuba and sticks them on a boat and sends then to Florida
Muslims extremists escaping being hunted down claim refuge status then stir up sh!t once they get here
Mexican drug lords and their hoards of affiliated bad dudes swarm into the country from the south and form gangs
Shall I go on?
THAT is why their is so much crime in the US
::)
Quote from: Pimander on December 26, 2012, 01:02:38 AM
I have refuted this point several times. You have either ignored my posts or need reminding....
The same point that I have tried to make but been largely ignored (which happens a lot when there is no real argument to counter you). All the guns. All the homicide that comes with them but still a rogue government.
I don't think anyone needs to be reminded over and over and over again what your position is. I think everyone is VERY aware of where you stand. You seem to want to beat the dead horse over and over and over again. I think that most members here just
DON'T agree with you. Move on ;D ;)
Rock 8)
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 26, 2012, 09:47:22 AM
Pim, don't make ME laugh. When this system devolves to the point the troops are invading Our towns, We will know the value of Our guns.
You still haven't dealt with my point. All of the above tyrannical acts by your government. So what good did the guns do? How free have they really made you? I'd say the governments guns have secured your freedom in a bigger way than your own.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 26, 2012, 12:37:05 PM
I don't think anyone needs to be reminded over and over and over again what your position is. I think everyone is VERY aware of where you stand. You seem to want to beat the dead horse over and over and over again.
It isn't a dead horse at all, it's called a debate. An important issue for millions of people including the families of people who continue to be needlessly murdered every time a person loses the plot. I'm winning it as nobody has anything to counter my point.
You may not like it but there is a massive collective delusion about the effectiveness of guns in protecting freedom in the modern world. Most of the planet know about it and do things in a more civilised way these days.
And yes, I agree that some people do need guns. If I lived out a long way from a big population centre in Nevada, I'd want a gun. Some people are mentally equipped to use guns. But do they really need assault rifles in small towns? But my point still stands. It also stands unchallenged by anything other than something that was true a hundred or more years ago - that guns protect citizens from government tyranny - which they so obviously do not in modern America.
Quote from: Pimander on December 26, 2012, 02:28:27 PM
It isn't a dead horse at all, it's called a debate. An important issue for millions of people including the families of people who continue to be needlessly murdered every time a person loses the plot. I'm winning it as nobody has anything to counter my point.
No, you aren't winning anything, I'm sorry. We've simply acknowledged that we disagree with you, and we've moved on.
Also; you accused me earlier of making appeals to emotion, but I honestly haven't seen anything
but emotion from you where this topic is concerned, I'm afraid. Continually mentioning dead kids isn't really indicative of detachment. :P
I just came away from a rural place where people have guns and Severe Prejudice.
I personally would choose to reforest and let the Eagles and Hawks come in and do the Clean Up Biz myself. But hey I seen that happen and others aint :P
Seeing a family of 6 wegde-tail Eagles "HUNT" is something BBC would Jizz over, and most likely most here ;)
Quote from: Pimander on December 26, 2012, 02:28:27 PM
And yes, I agree that some people do need guns.
Hmmm on a whim i did a little search very little actually :P
Found this on the first hit
UK Gun Ownership Up, Deaths Down Offering Stark Comparison with US Figures QuoteGun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent , yet private gun ownership continues to grow with 1.8 million legally held. Obviously there's no way of telling how many illegal guns are in circulation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/uk-gun-ownership-up-deaths-down_b_1209967.html
Seems you guys are following in our foot path...
::)
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 26, 2012, 09:43:08 AM
Because You made eye contact and it's a polite thing to do?
What, smile to someone I don't know just because we made eye contact? If we acted like that we will be constantly smiling like idiots to everyone. ???
QuoteYou seem to be equating a smile at a stranger You made eye contact with but really don't care about with a form of "lying."
If I don't have any reason for smiling then I see it as deception.
QuoteOr keeping Your mouth closed (discretion) when somebody at a party starts spouting something You don't agree with but You know it might get ugly if You speak up... That's "lying?"
No, that's not lying, and I don't think I said it was.
QuoteWell, I can see you likely DO think smiles at strangers and using discretion is "lying." Ok.
No, I think that smiling at strangers because "it's the polite thing to do", when I have no reason for it, is deception. As for "using discretion" I don't see why you interpreted what I said that way, what I said was that I could be rude "when I think I should", it's not the same thing as not being discrete.
QuoteAre You that dissociated from society? It sounds like is and I'm so sad if You are.
From US society? I probably am, I don't know why you think everyone, everywhere, acts according to what you think is "the right way".
PS: I read once (I don't remember where) that in the US many people, when talking with another person, look more to the other person's mouth than to the eyes. Is that true?
Quote from: zorgon on December 26, 2012, 10:57:40 AM
When it gets to THAT point your guns will be useless because they will have 30,000 plus unmanned Predator drones over your head that can singly take out your house and city block... and from a distance that you won't even see them :D
Perhaps so, z, but the 30,000 drones cannot be EVERYWHERE...
QuoteIf that was their main aim... we would already be disarmed
They cannot disarm Us by force - not MOST of Us. We have to be convinced collectively that We will "be safer" if We VOLUNTARILY disarm Ourselves. That is what They are working towards.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 26, 2012, 09:31:54 PM
What, smile to someone I don't know just because we made eye contact? If we acted like that we will be constantly smiling like idiots to everyone. ???
If I don't have any reason for smiling then I see it as deception.
No, that's not lying, and I don't think I said it was.
No, I think that smiling at strangers because "it's the polite thing to do", when I have no reason for it, is deception. As for "using discretion" I don't see why you interpreted what I said that way, what I said was that I could be rude "when I think I should", it's not the same thing as not being discrete.
From US society? I probably am, I don't know why you think everyone, everywhere, acts according to what you think is "the right way".
PS: I read once (I don't remember where) that in the US many people, when talking with another person, look more to the other person's mouth than to the eyes. Is that true?
I guess We are at loggerheads here. [shrug] I don't think social norms of politeness for its own sake is "lying" or "deceitful" - I mean if someOne smiles at You, do You feel They are motivated by a desire to deceive You??? But, whatever.
As for the last question, I don't know. Never noticed one way or another. I tend to make eye contact.
There are 2 debates raging here...
1) Guns to protect against tyranny
2) Guns for personal defense
The debate on #1 is pretty much a dead horse as we all know unless you have an army backing you there is no chance of using your gun without you likely dying trying.
#2 is where the debate is at and as Zorgon mentioned unless immigration policy changes it may be a nessecity to keep a gun on hand. An assault rifle? I don't think so though. If people are not physically fit enough to defend themselves or face uneven odds a gun does provide an adequate deterrent. I am not scared of guns just the guy pointing it.
There will always be guns for 2 reasons.
1. No One Trusts LIFE..... As the Flesh is at WAR against LIFE !
and
2. Billions of $$$$$$$$$ are made each year from this Industry.
When we make "Peace" with LIFE, then and ONLY then, shall ALL our problems evaporate ! :D
But can people make peace with LIFE in this world ?
I hope so, sooner rather than later, but LIFE has "Eternity" to observe. :D
The ONLY ONE which shall "Win" in the End is LIFE !
The human species has already lost the WAR even before it started.... ;D
It just needs the human species to realise this, and begin to learn !
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 27, 2012, 07:38:49 PM
I guess We are at loggerheads here. [shrug]
Maybe, I don't know what that means. ???
QuoteI don't think social norms of politeness for its own sake is "lying" or "deceitful" - I mean if someOne smiles at You, do You feel They are motivated by a desire to deceive You??? But, whatever.
What you don't seem to understand is that each country has it's own social norms of politeness, and I think those in use in the US see the appearing polite more important than the being polite. But that's just me.
In Portugal we don't smile at strangers because we happened to look at each other, we only smile at people if we have a real reason for doing it, and we have been doing it for centuries (generally speaking, I'm not that old, yet ;D).
People in the US like to have guns and smile at everyone? Good for them, we prefer not to smile at everyone and not depend on weapons to feel safe.
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Thoughts and data on gun control.
Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on December 27, 2012, 09:14:15 PM
There will always be guns for 2 reasons.
1. No One Trusts LIFE..... As the Flesh is at WAR against LIFE !
and
2. Billions of $$$$$$$$$ are made each year from this Industry.
When we make "Peace" with LIFE, then and ONLY then, shall ALL our problems evaporate ! :D
But can people make peace with LIFE in this world ?
I hope so, sooner rather than later, but LIFE has "Eternity" to observe. :D
The ONLY ONE which shall "Win" in the End is LIFE !
The human species has already lost the WAR even before it started.... ;D
It just needs the human species to realise this, and begin to learn !
I say We can achieve this peace is We stop accounting for meaningful energy expended - which is the function of exchange - be it barter, trade or money.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 27, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
People in the US like to have guns and smile at everyone? Good for them, we prefer not to smile at everyone and not depend on weapons to feel safe.
I don't trust people that smile all the time :o Experience has shown me they usually have something to hide..
Religious zealots smile all the time... even when telling you their god is about to destroy the world...
Used car salesmen smile a lot, especially the shady ones... run away!!!
Schmarmy Lawyers on TV ads are always smiling.... they are usually the ambulance chaser types
::)
And the rest are all perpetually in Lotus Land :P
Quote from: zorgon on December 28, 2012, 03:24:26 AM
I don't trust people that smile all the time :o Experience has shown me they usually have something to hide..
Religious zealots smile all the time... even when telling you their god is about to destroy the world...
Used car salesmen smile a lot, especially the shady ones... run away!!!
Schmarmy Lawyers on TV ads are always smiling.... they are usually the ambulance chaser types
::)
And the rest are all perpetually in Lotus Land :P
Thinkin' Ya wouldn't like Me in person then...
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 28, 2012, 06:36:02 AM
Thinkin' Ya wouldn't like Me in person then...
You and
me, on the other hand... *wink*
Quote from: petrus4 on December 28, 2012, 06:54:27 AM
You and me, on the other hand... *wink*
[hugs] [smile]
Quote from: ArMaP on December 23, 2012, 04:32:16 PM
Well, I guess there's only one option, then: people should raise their children as knowledgeable as possible about everything and train them to have a critical mind and then having them following a military career and trying to reach relatively high status inside the military, then trying to change it from the inside.
But I suppose that's just a dream. :)
Amaterasu is right when she says that adequate information will free us. Your own perspective, Armap, and that of Pimander, is based on the assumption that the government's claims about these shootings are correct; namely, that they are committed by a mentally disturbed young adult, who randomly, and without other explanation, "goes off."
I would invite you to speculate, if only hypothetically, about how different your perspective might be, if you believed as I do, that these incidents are staged by the government. Your entire internal narrative about these events, and the cause behind them, would change radically.
That is one example of having different information.
Quote from: petrus4 on December 28, 2012, 07:03:33 AMif you believed as I do, that these incidents are staged by the government.
But you haven't been able to show to what end they would stage something like that...
Its not accomplishing anything so what reason would they have..?
Quote from: zorgon on December 28, 2012, 09:33:14 AM
But you haven't been able to show to what end they would stage something like that...
Its not accomplishing anything so what reason would they have..?
Yeah it has. Gun-grabbing efforts are under way. Many more People are THINKING about it and a number are even saying it would be a good idea. Jefferson is rolling in His grave. And Old Bennie's words ring clear:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ah, who needs guns anyway?
Once they are out of ammo or start to rust, it will be back to sticks & stones :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/inventors_group/images/ODD/Def-3.bmp)
There are other ways of protecting yourself, than filling someone with lead.....
Quote from: zorgon on December 28, 2012, 09:33:14 AM
But you haven't been able to show to what end they would stage something like that...
Its not accomplishing anything so what reason would they have..?
They want to legally disarm the population if possible, so that they will have minimal difficulty/casualties when they activate the concentration camps. Realistically, they have to know that they are not going to literally disarm the majority of the population, but outlawing the posession of guns could still make things a lot easier for them. More importantly, it will cause gun advocates to become social outcasts, at least among those members of the population who value perceived governmental security over reason.
Pimander might say that the civilian population has no chance of successfully rebelling against the government, given their current weapons, and he's right. However, said weapons do still have the potential to cause large scale loss of life among government forces. The government wants to try to minimise said loss of life as much as possible. That is what this is about. It's not about the government needing to secure its' position in that sense, because it doesn't need to. It is about the government reducing the level of damage that it might otherwise experience.
I know your next question will be to ask why the government is going to activate said concentration camps. The reason is that as a political meme, fascism has a progressive lifecycle, and concentration camps and mass murder come at the terminal phase of said lifecycle. America has been following the fascist timeline now since at least Nixon, which means that unless it is fundamentally disrupted, the activation of the camps is only a matter of time. It might not happen under Obama, or possibly even still the next President; but it
will happen if the country's government continues to adhere to the fascist process.
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 28, 2012, 10:37:23 AM
Yeah it has. Gun-grabbing efforts are under way. Many more People are THINKING about it and a number are even saying it would be a good idea. Jefferson is rolling in His grave. And Old Bennie's words ring clear:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
What is it called when you give up liberty for corrupt governments? Do these people neither deserve safety or liberty? Where does liberty fit in when it is your own government coercing you to give up your rights under threat of penalties?
Loved that post, Petrus!
QuoteThose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Where does liberty fit in when it is your own government coercing you to give up your rights under threat of penalties?
It depends on what the 'safety' is.
If you were asked to give up tour gun & rely on the cops protecting you in a dark alley one night?
I have lived many years in England, where the cops had nothing but a whistle & a stick.
And they used those sticks, & it worked, they kept order.
Now, many of the UK cops are armed, even if it's a 9mm in the trunk or a so-called armed response unit. Plenty of stories on that, but the main thing is, can people not simply reason out if they are safer or not on the streets in a particular place?
If i walk the streets of Amsterdam, i carry no weapons, even though i know that there are tons of weapons in that city.
If i walk the streets in London, i carry a big knife, or maybe some Ninja-type weapons.
The difference is in the FEEL of the place, if you feel threatened, go & live in the hills.
As Z said, it makes no difference if there's a drone with your name on it.
But it takes a lot of infrastructure to keep those drones in the air, in a SHTF scenario, i don't think they will be flying for long...
We the People still have a chance, my advice is: keep those weapons, but try not to use them!
Quote from: petrus4 on December 28, 2012, 01:32:10 PM
The government wants to try to minimise said loss of life as much as possible.
The government (any government), if they learned something from other governments in other countries, know that while the military and the people see each other as, at least, "the other side" (at most as "the enemy"), people will never be a match to the military. What the government tries to avoid is to make people and the military to see that they are the same, the only difference is in what they do for a living.
When (if) the people and the military see that they are the same then the government doesn't have a way of turning one against the other.
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on December 28, 2012, 10:10:01 PM
We the People still have a chance, my advice is: keep those weapons, but try not to use them!
My advice is: ignore the weapons, what you need to use is information, make people see what is happening, make people see that we are all the same and all in the same position, only a few are above the common people's problems.
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on December 28, 2012, 12:58:36 PM
Ah, who needs guns anyway?
Once they are out of ammo or start to rust, it will be back to sticks & stones :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/inventors_group/images/ODD/Def-3.bmp)
There are other ways of protecting yourself, than filling someone with lead.....
Only if You get up close & personal - and if THEY have a gun... Really hard to even get close.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 28, 2012, 03:32:50 PM
What is it called when you give up liberty for corrupt governments? Do these people neither deserve safety or liberty? Where does liberty fit in when it is your own government coercing you to give up your rights under threat of penalties?
It's called tyranny. And Those who let it happen, "deserve" it... In tyranny, "liberty" does not fit in. And if They are "coercing," You have a choice to rebuke that coercion.
Quote from: petrus4 on December 26, 2012, 08:32:35 PM
Continually mentioning dead kids isn't really indicative of detachment. :P
Stop mentioning dead kids then. ::)
Quote from: petrus4 on December 28, 2012, 07:03:33 AM
Amaterasu is right when she says that adequate information will free us. Your own perspective, Armap, and that of Pimander, is based on the assumptiony.
Your conspiracy based theme regarding the shootings are based on fantasy.
Quote from: Pimander on December 30, 2012, 11:03:10 AM
Your conspiracy based theme regarding the shootings are based on fantasy.
Prove it. 8)
Quote from: petrus4 on December 28, 2012, 07:03:33 AM
Amaterasu is right when she says that adequate information will free us. Your own perspective, Armap, and that of Pimander, is based on the assumption that the government's claims about these shootings are correct; namely, that they are committed by a mentally disturbed young adult, who randomly, and without other explanation, "goes off."
It looks like you have missed all my posts where I say that information is more important than weapons.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 30, 2012, 02:01:09 PM
It looks like you have missed all my posts where I say that information is more important than weapons.
ArMaP, Ghandhi, Martin Luther King and Pimander are right.
ArMaP, I put us in the same sentence as some greats there. I am almost embarrassed. ;D
Quote from: Pimander on December 30, 2012, 05:01:19 PM
Prove a negative. :o
Exactly my point. I am not commonly able to resort to Spartan rhetoric, but occasionally, it seems I am capable of it.