Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/7/2006 8:17:43 AM EDT
OK, so here's the topic.... as we know, advanced civilizations have always allowed people - even large numbers of people to live completely independent of 'the world' - they can contribute little or nothing at all towards the common good and apparently nothing happens.

They can be as immoral or self -destructive as they choose and nothing happens (apparently).

And so, without seeing any obviously bad effects to the common good for their actions or lack thereof, they not without a bit of reason claim that their pet hobby, addiction, proclivity, lifestyle, or suicidal tendencies 'don't do anyone harm so mind your own business'.

And apparently they're right, at least when you keep the camera lense pulled way out to the global view... whether or not a given tree is decaying, falling apart or not doesn't affect the look of the forest.

But in small villiages, towns, hamlets, because the sheer numbers of people are smaller and thus each persons' input that much more crucial, it does matter what the villiage idiot does or fails to do. It does matter whether someone is addicted to drugs, or porn or tends to covet their neighbor's goods, wives, and children.

Civilization is the great game of musical chairs... so much of what we take for granted is premised on an intricate and highly interdependent web of human relations with back ups to our back ups.... all of which involves actuarial presuppositions and highly specialized workers each caring for just one little aspect so as to allow themselves and others alot of free time to fool around with.

But when the music stops and the system of systems comes crashing down (mostly along communications and transport lines) the players are faced with each other and it suddenly becomes evident that personal sacrifice will need to be made if 'the women and children' are to survive.

My point is.... while most of us on this forum are 'into' guns and/or disaster mitigation preps, our survival as a family, clan, region, nation depends more on the human capital of our neighbors than on the financial capital invested in guns and grits.

In other words.... when human capital is low because most actors are handicapped by addictions, vices, various and sundry selfish lusts, idiocies of mind and heart.... then it forces those who would survive their rapine and capriciousness to cowboy up with more and more guns, ammo and grits....

It would be infinately better to spend coin on grits and seed corn, than on guns....but since a good % of our neighbors are doing things with their lives that 'are harmless so mind your own business', I fear that when the music stops, we will see vast atrocities, bloodshed and uselss mayhem when otherwise we'd soldier through it with patience, responsibility and reason.

I look at Japan post WW2 and see cities bombed out, millions hungry, and a very small occupying force.... yet Japan didn't completely implode into civil war and mayhem. They pulled themselves together.

Culture therefore - which involves what you believe and how you live according to these ideas and ideals makes all the difference... it's NOT relative. It's NOT harmless to the common good for individuals to indulge in certain proclivities....
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 11:43:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2006 11:50:13 PM EDT by ljtag]
What are you going to do when I show up at your door step with all my guns to take all your corn?

You need a little history lesson? Katrina? Looting? That is what will happen and that is what your neighbors will be doing to you. So the answer to your question is that you damn well better have corn, and you damn well better be able to protect that corn. They(corn and guns) are both equally important.


PS it emphasizes the importance of living in a town/neighborhood/city that is self -reliant and living a "culture" similiar to yours. Do you think what happened after katrina would go on in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana? I think not.

I would not want to be in any liberal commie city/state when the SHTF. You watch what happens to the liberal areas when all hell breaks loose some day.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 6:04:57 AM EDT
Well, if YOU show up on MY DOOR STEP, with all your 'guns' (seriously, you have guns?)in a post SHTF world, I would probably shoot you with my gun, right through my front door (thus totally taking you by surprise).

Then I'd help myself to YOUR GUNS, corn and whatever.

My point is... lots of people (liberals, libertarians, etc) think their private morality that creates their own reality (cf. Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, 1992), proclivities, addictions are no one's business but their own.... without acknowledging that au contraire, what each of us does with "our body" and our mind DOES have an impact. "No man is an island" is true. though some can successfully be pennisulas, especially if you're a michigander .

Self destructive impulses are part of the reason heath care costs are outstripping defense expenditures right now. Crime and "the war on drugs" absorbs millions of lives and billions of dollars that otherwise could have been spent on more productive pursuits and none of it is due to economics or class status. It all boils down to people deciding to do things "to their body" or with their body (rapists) from the perspective that they create their own reality, that goodness is whatever they FEEL it is, and that they owe nothing to 'society' while 'society owes them everything.

Before the howls of 'FASCIST' are made, let me say that even IF 'my ideas' WERE ACCEPTED AND MADE LAW, the number of deaths and destruction would go down, not up and liberty would increase not decrease, whereas continuing the growth of this ideology is leading to ever increased police powers and system of control i.e. less liberty and less freedom.

My idea isn't to do away with prisons but to propose we cowboy up for the next generation, save the children so that our tomorrow is better and thus crime drops along with state powers. Otherwise the future is full of bloodshed my friends.

Once the principle is established that 'everyone can create their own reality' and morality is relative and 'every culture is as good as another except that the high Western culture is worse'.... we get increased numbers of people who become burdens on society rather than helps and in A DISASTER these folk become first liabilities and then outright threats (cf. Katrina).

It was cool in pre-Katrina 'Na'lins, for people to be laid back, dopers, drug or alcoholics, guys who let their libido do the talkin... that was 'their business' and their morality and we were all supposed to grow up and live and let live. But then the web of civilization was torn and the whole thing imploded.

One would expect that 1% of any given population will cause trouble. But in the aftermath of Katrina it seemed like that % was far higher - such that would be rescuers had to essentially invade and occupy first before starting their SAR work. Suddenly all that private morality, mind your own business, live and let live BS was stripped away and we had Americans killing Americans over canoes and canned goods.

The cause of looters and rapists, thugs etc. isn't economic; it's cultural and culture is created by morals - what you believe and what habits of action and self control that you form and live.

The more hedonism and everyone for themselves morality we promote the more bloodshed we'll eventually reap.

Look at it this way.... say you're a smoker. Not illegal. Maybe not even a question of immorality per se. Relatively harmless addiction....in the short term anyway.

POST SHTF world though, and what happens? Serious withdrawl. Mood swings, cravings for cigarettes...

If nation-wide or international transport was ever shut down for longer than a couple weeks most people would run out of their fix of drugs, chemicals, caffinee, etc. and that withdrawl would contribute to further breakdowns in civil self-control.

Which might lead to me needing to use my gun and ammo alot more often than would otherwise need be the case. Which in my book is 'a bad thing to be avoided' NOT a 'cool, I finally get to see someone's head explode under impact from JHP's".

I've seen alot of things in this world but I'm definately hoping I never have to see someone killed by my hand. It might be necessary if they show up at my door step with guns coming to do harm to me and mine.... but I'm hoping it never happens. I'm prepared for it, obviously. But it'd be far far better for me to focus my coin on corn and filters, fuel and food rather than on the latest AR.

Morality matters. It'd be infinately less costly on all levels for a married couple, a family, a clan, a neighborhood, a town, etc. to so think and so act such that fewer and fewer fellow citizens aren't hooked on drugs, promiscuity, and other addictions.

It's just the dicotomy of life... the libertarian view of "just leave me alone to do WHATEVER I want" actually leads to all these self-centered individuals eventually running amok against each other rather than working together in harmony.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 1:20:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 1:44:27 PM EDT by StonerStudent]
JusAdBellum:

Your post sounds very much like the same thing the comunist say......everything for the good of [the party] society ,no personal freedoms except what is good for [the party]society.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 5:54:41 PM EDT

It's just the dicotomy of life... the libertarian view of "just leave me alone to do WHATEVER I want" actually leads to all these self-centered individuals eventually running amok against each other rather than working together in harmony.

Wow.
It seems that we had that EXACT way of being for the longest time in our history.
Guy were blowing each other. Liquor was had during prohibition. Incest happened. All the crazy shit that one might conjure up in a "world run amok". It just wasn't paraded around and shoved down our throats, while we are told to celebrate it.
What you are tlaking abut is the new "conservative" mindset. The mindset that seems just fine with intrusive gov't if it is on moral grounds.

It seems that the commies finally did win without firing a shot. Let us decay from within and even the small gov't conservatives will ask for cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we aren't acting in a "bad" way.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 6:29:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BoogerSnax:

It's just the dicotomy of life... the libertarian view of "just leave me alone to do WHATEVER I want" actually leads to all these self-centered individuals eventually running amok against each other rather than working together in harmony.

Wow.
It seems that we had that EXACT way of being for the longest time in our history.
Guy were blowing each other. Liquor was had during prohibition. Incest happened. All the crazy shit that one might conjure up in a "world run amok". It just wasn't paraded around and shoved down our throats, while we are told to celebrate it.
What you are tlaking abut is the new "conservative" mindset. The mindset that seems just fine with intrusive gov't if it is on moral grounds.

It seems that the commies finally did win without firing a shot. Let us decay from within and even the small gov't conservatives will ask for cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we aren't acting in a "bad" way.



Actually the only differance between what he is talking about and what the "commies" want is.....who the cameras get pointed at........ freedom only for the "right people".
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 6:41:38 PM EDT
I don't want to bust anyones bubble, but;

Ultimately there is not self reliance in todays world.

If the trucks stop tommorow pretty soon all the stores will be cleared out.

Until the population stabilizes, there will not be enough wildlife, etc... to support the masses. Impossible to store enough as well without attracting far too much attention and violence as well.

This nation is teetering on the brink, due to shortsighted policies and a greedy establishment that places making a buck ahead of common sense itself. It wouldn't take much of a catastrophe to turn it inside out as Katrina showed.

Then it will be every man for himself.

You can't eat your rifle. And it wont protect you from disease.

Politicians always take care of themselves first. You last. Nothing different here.

Wont be very comforting when you, much like the victims of Katrina, wake up one day and realized they've sold you out. And you find yourself scrapping with the 82nd Airborne and what's left of your local authorities, instead of the Taliban or Al Qaeda over the last scraps of food as well as your weapon.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:21:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By James_Gang:
I don't want to bust anyones bubble, but;

Ultimately there is not self reliance in todays world.

If the trucks stop tommorow pretty soon all the stores will be cleared out.

Until the population stabilizes, there will not be enough wildlife, etc... to support the masses. Impossible to store enough as well without attracting far too much attention and violence as well.

This nation is teetering on the brink, due to shortsighted policies and a greedy establishment that places making a buck ahead of common sense itself. It wouldn't take much of a catastrophe to turn it inside out as Katrina showed.

Then it will be every man for himself.

You can't eat your rifle. And it wont protect you from disease.

Politicians always take care of themselves first. You last. Nothing different here.

Wont be very comforting when you, much like the victims of Katrina, wake up one day and realized they've sold you out. And you find yourself scrapping with the 82nd Airborne and what's left of your local authorities, instead of the Taliban or Al Qaeda over the last scraps of food as well as your weapon.


You'll get no disagreement from me on what you're saying. Toss in my 9-11 "conspiracy" beliefs and you've got a real, hardcore look at what reality is in our country.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:23:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 7:24:32 PM EDT by BoogerSnax]

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

Originally Posted By BoogerSnax:

It's just the dicotomy of life... the libertarian view of "just leave me alone to do WHATEVER I want" actually leads to all these self-centered individuals eventually running amok against each other rather than working together in harmony.

Wow.
It seems that we had that EXACT way of being for the longest time in our history.
Guy were blowing each other. Liquor was had during prohibition. Incest happened. All the crazy shit that one might conjure up in a "world run amok". It just wasn't paraded around and shoved down our throats, while we are told to celebrate it.
What you are tlaking abut is the new "conservative" mindset. The mindset that seems just fine with intrusive gov't if it is on moral grounds.

It seems that the commies finally did win without firing a shot. Let us decay from within and even the small gov't conservatives will ask for cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we aren't acting in a "bad" way.



Actually the only differance between what he is talking about and what the "commies" want is.....who the cameras get pointed at........ freedom only for the "right people".


The "commies" were nothing more than a construct of the powers that be, to keep on being the powers that be. I simply use the term because of it's universal appeal in this type of discussion.
Otherwise yes. Freedom really is only for the "right" people.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:25:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
Well, if YOU show up on MY DOOR STEP, with all your 'guns' (seriously, you have guns?)in a post SHTF world, I would probably shoot you with my gun, right through my front door (thus totally taking you by surprise).

Then I'd help myself to YOUR GUNS, corn and whatever.




NOW THAT'S FUNNY
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:50:22 PM EDT
This thread makes my brain hurt.

I have guns AND food . .I don't get it. what? huh?

IBTL
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:52:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BoogerSnax:

It's just the dicotomy of life... the libertarian view of "just leave me alone to do WHATEVER I want" actually leads to all these self-centered individuals eventually running amok against each other rather than working together in harmony.

Wow.
It seems that we had that EXACT way of being for the longest time in our history.
Guy were blowing each other. Liquor was had during prohibition. Incest happened. All the crazy shit that one might conjure up in a "world run amok". It just wasn't paraded around and shoved down our throats, while we are told to celebrate it.
What you are tlaking abut is the new "conservative" mindset. The mindset that seems just fine with intrusive gov't if it is on moral grounds.

It seems that the commies finally did win without firing a shot. Let us decay from within and even the small gov't conservatives will ask for cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we aren't acting in a "bad" way.



the commies started the ACLU during the cold war. true story.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:12:47 PM EDT
I knew if I mentioned morality and laws and the effect immorality has on liberty that I would be called a fascist or commie. Especially by Stoner Thus far my master plan has worked flawlessly muhahahahahah

Seriously though, get a grip. Commies were alot of things but their ideology and state system was based on a flawed idea of humanity as infiniately transformable by political or state forces. They didn't believe in human nature or natural law; good was therefore whatever the party said it was.

My view isn't that humans are infinately perfectable at all. We have a relatively narrow range of virtues but a seemingly bottomless pit of vices. But people can and do avoid lots of such self-destructive and other-person destructive vices if they put their minds and hearts to it and work together constructively.

Alcoholics have always existed...but some societies during some periods have seen a marked rise of alcoholics - which has had a bad effect on that society. Outright prohibition perhaps wasn't the solution....but certainly some restrictions on alcohol have been beneficial. And no cameras have had to be posted in the kitchen to enforce 'drinking laws'. Sure SOME kids or adults will abuse the relatively limited supply. But society is a bell curve...most won't and thats a "good thing".

Unlike the commies, I don't think or even suggest creating an America where we all think alike and act alike... some people will always be criminals, some will always be self-destructive and sociopaths... by hope is that we can limit these to a smaller percentage by education, not gulags... because if we don't and society breaks down, we'll be solving this the hard way, via gunfire.

Commies also thought that since goodness was whatever they said it was, they could simply kill anyone who disagreed. I don't share that view. I'm not advocating the state incarceration of homosexuals or libertarians who disagree with me. I don't fear them should law and order break down... but good guys who otherwise would help society rebuild are going to succumb to diseases they have but are kept at bay thanks to modern medications.... their 'personal choice' to engage in 'apparently harmless activity' will rob society - us, me, you, - of otherwise productive people.

And that's a shame.

Libertarians - essentially loners - armed to the teeth and up in the hills with a year's supply of food.... will survive and propably won't cause me any grief because of it....but they won't be helping put Humpty Dumpty back together again either. Their moral choices again don't seem harmful now, but sins of omission will hurt us alot....

My call out to them isn't to not stockpile ammo and food, live off the grid etc. but to think about the bigger picture of their extended family and at least a couple friends.... i.e. some microcosm of society ala "Silver Springs".

I am proposing we don't buy into the modern liberal/hedonist claim that their lifestyles are completely harmless and that WHATEVER a person does to him or herself is completely isolated from their family, their friends, peers, coworkers and society at large. The flu - and cemetaries prove that even on the basic biological level, what happens to one person will have an effect on others. And sometimes the effect is not good.

When we're seeing American cities instantly combust or implode into anarchy in the 2000's (or is it' ought-oughts?) when there wasn't this kind of instant social breakdown in the '50s, '40s the thinking person ought to look for ways to restore some sense of civil responsibility and an ethos of mutual help rather than 'everyone for himself'.

In the 1800s, in New York you did have riots - so obviously human beings don't mature progressively and pass on this trait genetically from generation to generation; each generation has to start from stratch so to speak.

So sure, the wild west was "wild". And you point is???? That America was founded by wild cowboys and prostitutes? That 'leave me alone libertarians' fought and won the Revolution? You'll be hard pressed actually reading their words or primary sources from that generation to come to a liberatian or hedonist view of America's foundation and indeed the first 150 years of the country....fringes, of course, I'll grant that... there were always loners and prostitutes. There were also always homosexuals, atheists, and folk who just loved horses...alot. But they weren't the ones founding and running towns, cities, states, and the country.

The military has long known that the 'private' morality of officers is very much a public matter - men have been courtmartialed for 'indiscretions' that undermine morale and discipline. What amazes me is that a principle of corporate unity (good order, self discipline, common ethics and beliefs) which presumably most here would agree has served the US military well since 1775 somehow has absolutely no civilian counterpart or usefulness.

Rugged individualism, to hell with God, family, traditions, morals, etc. somehow makes America great and somehow is what allows it all to work... Hmmmm and there's absolutely zero evidence of this but it's a faith thing I guess.

I notice that my critics haven't even pointed to much less handled the point of social breakdown when some shock affects the usual status quo. How do you account for instant mobs and instant lootings, instant rapes etc? Are you claiming it was always this bad?

I'm claiming that this is an effect of a generation or two who have been taught and encouraged to form moral habits (and addictions) that leads them to instantly take the law into their own hands when they can. Barbarians were made, not born. Maybe they can't be converted, maybe they can, but their kids certainly can be civilized - and ought to be.

Stoner thinks me begging to differ is the moral equivalent of Communist gulags and police state thuggery. Or me suggesting we educate youth in self control and moral restraint is the moral equivalent of government posting cameras in the bedroom (why stop there? Why not in the garage, living room, and foyer?)

But Stoner feels that his pursuit of happiness trumps all other rights and responsibilities - that his will creates his own reality and hence no one can make a moral judgment about the sanity or insanity of certain actions (far opposed to his moral culpability which is totally different).

Well, so long as the music of civilization keeps playing he's right (to a point) that apparently nothing bad happens should he not do his homework, or cheat or bribe the teacher for an A.... or cut corners at work, or bang everyone in sight... everything rolls on as it always has...But
what happens post-SHTF world Stoner, when all the gays suddenly don't have CVS to run to for STD medications? When their AIDS cocktail perscriptions suddenly cease?

Avoidable diseases suddenly wipe out otherwise good people.

What happens when the Internet goes down for lack of electricity and all the weirdos (present company excepted of course)- the pedophiles and perverts who 'live and let live' so long as they get their daily fix from the net, suddenly are thrown into the survival mix? Are you asserting that these guys will suddenly not be problematic for the young people milling about (who won't be at school anymore)?

No cops, no law to fear... plenty of time on their hands and no porn fix.... hmmm lots of cute little kids wandering all over the place day in and day out.... Yep, I'm sure the enourmous rise in sex offenders both percentage wise and number wise won't have the slightest bad effect on surviving populations Not!

There was a time in the 1830s and again in the 1940s when little kids who got lost or ran away had a good chance of being taken care of by complete strangers and brought back home unharmed. Talk to any vice-squad or FBI agent or social worker and you will know that those days are long gone. It wasn't always this bad.

So there's got to be a way to return social respect to young people and it's not going to happen by promoting the hedonist/libertarian ethos.



Link Posted: 3/14/2006 10:14:06 PM EDT
Easy there Mister Evil Genius... I didn't say you where a communist or a fascist, just pointing out that in the end you both [moralist and communists] end up doing the same thing.... throwing people like me in jail.

And now on to your points
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 10:36:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 10:26:50 AM EDT by StonerStudent]

Stoner thinks me begging to differ is the moral equivalent of Communist gulags and police state thuggery. Or me suggesting we educate youth in self control and moral restraint is the moral equivalent of government posting cameras in the bedroom (why stop there? Why not in the garage, living room, and foyer?)


Well then how do you plan on enforcing the big moral plan?....people are just going to stop watching porn or being homosexual just because the goverment decides it's bad?


But Stoner feels that his pursuit of happiness trumps all other rights and responsibilities - that his will creates his own reality and hence no one can make a moral judgment about the sanity or insanity of certain actions (far opposed to his moral culpability which is totally different).


How does me being a homosexual or somebody watching porn trump all other rights and responsibilities?


Well, so long as the music of civilization keeps playing he's right (to a point) that apparently nothing bad happens should he not do his homework, or cheat or bribe the teacher for an A.... or cut corners at work, or bang everyone in sight... everything rolls on as it always has...But
what happens post-SHTF world Stoner, when all the gays suddenly don't have CVS to run to for STD medications? When their AIDS cocktail perscriptions suddenly cease?

Avoidable diseases suddenly wipe out otherwise good people.



The same thing that will happen to the people who have other fatal diseases...they will die. But the human race [including homosexuals] will go on.


What happens when the Internet goes down for lack of electricity and all the weirdos (present company excepted of course)- the pedophiles and perverts who 'live and let live' so long as they get their daily fix from the net, suddenly are thrown into the survival mix? Are you asserting that these guys will suddenly not be problematic for the young people milling about (who won't be at school anymore)?

No cops, no law to fear... plenty of time on their hands and no porn fix.... hmmm lots of cute little kids wandering all over the place day in and day out.... Yep, I'm sure the enourmous rise in sex offenders both percentage wise and number wise won't have the slightest bad effect on surviving populations Not!




Pedophiles have been around long before the Internet.


There was a time in the 1830s and again in the 1940s when little kids who got lost or ran away had a good chance of being taken care of by complete strangers and brought back home unharmed. Talk to any vice-squad or FBI agent or social worker and you will know that those days are long gone. It wasn't always this bad.

My mother was a heath care worker and a child advocate. and the only differace between now and the 1940's and 50's is you hear about rape,molstation and child abuse now. Before no one talked about it because it was a taboo subject matter.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 3:08:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:So there's got to be a way to return social respect to young people and it's not going to happen by promoting the hedonist/libertarian ethos.

I was already typing a concession of points to your post when I noticed this last line, which I had missed, at the end.
My concession still stands, but I think you know what I mean in the gist of what I've said.

Quire possibly it all was ushered in, and picked up steam with the advent of the hammock that replaced the safety net. Unfortunately, it seems that the answer to these problems has been a pendelum effect of more rules and regulations from the "right" to supposedly counter all the things done by the "left". And as I think it's been proven, with time as our witness, the Regan Revolution didn't change the course of any of these things. All in all, the gov't has grown bigger and more intrusive. That's the one true constant in all of this. So it seems that conservatives have succomed to the liberal trap of having only one option in the framework of the "left/right" mindset, and that is to throw their hands up in disgust and let the gov't handle it.

Anyway, my concession is that yes, people have thrown their hands up in the air and called upon big brother to take care of this problem. It's the only answer that they can see. However, it's only "conservative" in the new sense of the word and in the new "left/right paradigm" where gov't is the answer to everything.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:21:29 AM EDT
No point becoming too fixated with ideology, or economics.

Most societies today are a mix of both.

Anyone have group health or auto insurance? Any if your children go to public schools, in the military or a government employee? I'm sure most of you do. Then technically you're a socialist supporter. Amazing what the concept of group buying power can do to bring down costs for the average Joe.

In every society and every system; Freedom is 90% economic, 10% political. You got the jack, you got status and freedom regardless of the political or economic system.

What's most amazing to me is that so many are willing to disgard the very things that made this country great, and economically prosperous. The rise of the Middle class, the concept of personal liberty and the ownership of private property.

The middle class was created by the distribution of wealth in this country, and a commonly held belief that a man should get an equals days pay for an equal days work. Much of this revolution came after the great depression. Then it wasn't socialism, it was simply survival of a nation.

A bias towards any one political or economic system is counterproductive. They all possess traits that can be considered productive.

And like genetics and evolution itself, the most successful societies often possess sensible traits from all.

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:18:44 AM EDT

A bias towards any one political or economic system is counterproductive. They all possess traits that can be considered productive.

And like genetics and evolution itself, the most successful societies often possess sensible traits from all.


That's a good take on it. And unfortunately, we have become a nation of team sports. People feel that they need to belong to a team. Hell, anymore they crave it over almost all else. With that being the prevailing mindset, the one thing you can be damn sure of, is that the gov't will always exploit that trait to centralize more power for itself.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:57:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 2:06:05 PM EDT by James_Gang]

Originally Posted By BoogerSnax:
That's a good take on it. And unfortunately, we have become a nation of team sports. People feel that they need to belong to a team. Hell, anymore they crave it over almost all else. With that being the prevailing mindset, the one thing you can be damn sure of, is that the gov't will always exploit that trait to centralize more power for itself.



No doubt.

This apparently has become the case regardless of the professed ideological slant of those that currently hold power.

Apparently we are now just the exploited. Something to be used and manipulated. A means to an end. Conquered territory if you will.

Fat, dumb and happy?

Oh well, two out of three isn't bad.


Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:19:46 AM EDT
Oh I see Stoner.... if enough folk think sodomy might pose a health risk, they might do something like, oh, say, make it harder for homosexuals to get access to say, school children perhaps? Perhaps it won't be kosher any longer to teach sodomy K-12 as merely a harmless 'alternative lifestyle' one among many completely harmless 'alternatives' which include bisexuality, transsexuality, and plain old heterosexual promiscuity lifestyle....? Because as we all know, and the CDC reminds us annually, there are absolutely zero avoidable diseases that one could pick up and be killed by through sexual congress right?

Yet I fail to see how if even colleges stopped having "sex week" and Gay pride weeks, that suddenly active homosexuals would be marched before the firing squad. If you're not given a complete pass on the grounds that ANY challenge to the sanity or health of certain PRACTICES active homosexuals engage in is not conducive to a long life, this is the moral equivalent to being jailed???? Dude that's to confuse hyperbole with reality.

Having health/school authorities tell little impressionable kids k-12 to be careful with sexuality is a no no? Why so? Because ANY risk factor mentioned will keep them from experimenting, which would keep the numbers of available new 'friends' lower than is the case now?

Why don't schools teach kids gun safety or "chemistry safety"? SOME KIDS WILL EXPERIMENT WITH GUNS OR PIPE BOMBS ANYWAY.... Oh that's right.... I forgot.... if you WANT kids to experiment with something, what you do is hold a special class about it, let them know HOW TO DO IT. GET THEM ROLE PLAYING ABOUT DOING IT. SHOW THEM VIDEOS/SLIDES/EXPERTS EXPLAINING ALL THE INS AND OUTS, HOW COOL AND FUN IT IS.... AND THEN TELL THEM "BUT DON'T DO IT UNTIL YOU FEEL READY".

iF THEY DID THIS WITH GUNS..... alot more kids would experiment with guns. If they did this with chemistry - teaching kids how to make smoke and explosives....alot more boys (perhaps 95%) would make smoke and explosives.... so the schools' answer is....near total black out, act as though guns don't exist, and limit any discussion of chemistry to safer topics so that only the A level boys would figure out on their own how to make TNT, thus limiting their sheer numbers to a minority.

And this all makes perfect sense.... you know child psychology, you know kids tend to do whatever feels good rather than what IS good for them.... and so you keep harmful or less healthy things from their reach until such time as they're old enough and mature enough to make prudent decisions in light of facts and thus become morally responsible for any consequences.

But if your goal is to make kids perpetually immature, incapable of saying no to their urges and feelings and whims... you teach them how to do things which brings instant gratification and thus is habit forming...

And people with deep seated addictions are manipulable on a far greater level than those who aren't - so governments tend to have those types of folk over the barrel better than folks who are more self-sufficient and self-starters.

But you tell me, why would including the addiction (physical and mental) of open homosexuality (as opposed to mere psycho-sexual attraction unacted on) to the other list of things forbidden suddenly introduce a commie police state?

We can (and do) tell them not to smoke. Not to abuse alcohol - even make it illegal for them to drink below the age of 18 or 21. Schools are unapologetically 'drug free zones' - and teachers enforce the moral code that imbibing certain illegal substances is wrong because those substances HARM the young brain and body.

Heck, we're now removing junk food and soda/pop dispensers from schools so as to encourage children to eat healthy (or MORE healthy) foods because the connection between high-sugar foods and tooth decay and weight gain has been made.

So it's totally OK for public schools to enforce moral codes as to what kids can and can not eat, or smoke or drink on the basis that certain things are not healthy (even if such things won't instantly kill anyone). But somehow it's an imposition of communist secret police, cameras, and gulags for the same public school system to draw the same conclusions about sodomy?

I'm not saying we not teach kids that a small percentage of folk among us are sexually attracted to members of the same sex or both sexs equally, or think that they really belong in the other gender. Teaching kids that a small minority of their fellows might have those FEELINGS is OK.

it's just fine to teach kids to respect people of minority views. But to teach that WHATEVER someone wants to do sexually is totally OK, unproblematic, absolutely hygenic, has NO HEALTH RISKS WHATSOEVER, IS COOL, HIP, CLEVER, SOPHISTICATED, FINE, HARMLESS AND HEALTHY TO THE MAX.... when it's not, is wrong.

And just as most illegal drugs are addictive - as is smoking and do a degree alcohol can be as well - homosexual sex (and porn and masturbation, and indeed virtually anything that provides instant gratification) is addictive. It reduces the power of the will to say "no" or even "not right now".

Any addictions leads to weakening of the powers of reason too - if only because the mind is coopted into coming up with ever more ingenius excuses as to why it's all OK, in the face of growing evidence to the contrary. And if you can excuse an obvious harmful practice.... then you can start excusing OTHER harmful practices.... Bill Clinton comes to mind. Once it's OK to lie about sex, it's OK to start lying about other things....

It's the 'unruly' bit, that makes a mob a mob. The lack of individual self-control, writ large in groups that leads to the grave dangers post SHTF America.

My point being.... that a post-SHTF world in America is scary (needlessly so) because of OTHER Americans who we can't count on to be self-controlled. Everyone is being taught to "just do it" to follow their urges, that since they HAVE urges, they must be 'natural' and whatever is 'natural' must be OK to pursue to the Nth degree, damn any consequences provided it FEELS GOOD RIGHT NOW.

I'm talking about teaching the next generation to avoid falling into bad habits and bad addictions while at the same time nurturing their mental capacity to THINK rather than EMOTE, to analyse rather than mimic slogans and sound bites.

I haven't talked about Republicans or Democrats, Federal government vs State government, Captitalism vs socialism.... those things are the RESULT of certain beliefs of mind and habits of body.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:29:37 AM EDT
Nice little rant you got there JusAdBellum.....


if enough folk think sodomy might pose a health risk, they might do something like, oh, say, make it harder for homosexuals to get access to say, school children perhaps? Perhaps it won't be kosher any longer to teach sodomy K-12 as merely a harmless 'alternative lifestyle' one among many completely harmless 'alternatives' which include bisexuality, transsexuality, and plain old heterosexual promiscuity lifestyle....? Because as we all know, and the CDC reminds us annually, there are absolutely zero avoidable diseases that one could pick up and be killed by through sexual congress right?


Ok show me where the CDC says that homosexuality causes "avoidable diseases".... it doesn't. STD's are the byproduct of promiscuity and unsafe sex. So your argument only works if ALL homosexuals are promiscuous...which they are not. Example lesbians generally don't contact STDs in the same rate at gay males do.... why is that? Because lesbians are relationship based like most hetero couples and they’re for are less likely to contact STDs and spread them.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:45:42 AM EDT
I'm glad you mentioned this


Why don't schools teach kids gun safety or "chemistry safety"? SOME KIDS WILL EXPERIMENT WITH GUNS OR PIPE BOMBS ANYWAY.... Oh that's right.... I forgot.... if you WANT kids to experiment with something, what you do is hold a special class about it, let them know HOW TO DO IT. GET THEM ROLE PLAYING ABOUT DOING IT. SHOW THEM VIDEOS/SLIDES/EXPERTS EXPLAINING ALL THE INS AND OUTS, HOW COOL AND FUN IT IS.... AND THEN TELL THEM "BUT DON'T DO IT UNTIL YOU FEEL READY".

iF THEY DID THIS WITH GUNS..... alot more kids would experiment with guns. If they did this with chemistry - teaching kids how to make smoke and explosives....alot more boys (perhaps 95%) would make smoke and explosives.... so the schools' answer is....near total black out, act as though guns don't exist, and limit any discussion of chemistry to safer topics so that only the A level boys would figure out on their own how to make TNT, thus limiting their sheer numbers to a minority.



Using your line of thinkng....no NRA memeber should be a teacher because they will teach kids that playing with guns is ok....isn't that just what VPC and Brady are always saying?. Not hey teachers shouldn't wave guns around kids.....no gunowning teachers. Because all gunowners are freaks at will promote "unsafe" gun handling......gee isn't that what your saying about homosexuals?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 10:22:39 AM EDT
For someone whose moniker includes the word "student" you sure don't show signs of taking the time to carefully read, i.e. study, what someone posts.

I clearly distinguish between someone who merely has same sex attraction and someone else who is "gay" i.e. acts ON this attraction.

This is a big, big distinction. Plenty of people might be alcoholics - but keep away from the firewater because they know it's bad for them....whereas others are actively getting plastered. First group is the definition of moral, self-controlled people, latter is an example of their opposite even though both groups have the same weakness or urges.

My example as to why teachers don't teach gun safety is not me saying gun safety is bad, but simply a fact that IF public school teachers taught Gun Safety like or as they teach sex-ed, there would be alot more young kids getting interested in the NRA, and guns than presently, and since this is something the libtards in the school want to avoid, they don't go anywhere near guns except to ban them.

Society follows the bell curve - there will be exceptions on both ends of the spectrum on any given subject, but the majority of people will fall somewhere in the middle. This works for marketing to music to education. If you want to hype something there's a certain sure way to do it. If you want to down play something, again there's a scientific way to do it.

Suppose some nefarious political groups wanted to dumb down and morally corrupt a swath of American citizens so as to burden the government and so undermine public order. How would they do it? Obviously by promoting drug use, sexual promiscuity, risky sports, violence as solution to problems, and balkanizing, pitting one group against another. Classic Marxist agitprop. When the lights go off, these animosities and nurtured hatreds of one group towards another will explode and thus weaken the target country even more.

If this enemy country produces outstanding scientists.... one solution is to infiltrate their centers of higher learning and basically dumb down the curriculum with fluff and nonsense so as to undermine sciences and math...so in 20 or so more years, less and less of the brightest kids will even aspire to sciences and engineering.

If this country's strength seems to be free associations and families, seek to undermine the family structure by attacking marriage and getting government - local, state and federal, to assume the roles and responsibilities of the free associations - on the grounds that the state can do things better. Bottom line is always a weaker country thanks to weaker families, weaker private institutions, and a bigger more bloated bureaucracy (which will be needed anyway after the "revolution").

So you see, Stoner, you and your pals are just a small piece of a much, much larger picture. the Soviets didn't like homosexuals did they? No of course not. They considered them security threats etc. So why wouldn't their agents would promote in the USA what they feared was undermining their regime back home? Ditto with porn and drug use. Just because the commies didn't like something doesn't mean that something is automatically wonderful. They didn't like drugs...because drug use undermined control... they want to cause maximum confusion in America....ergo, drug use is promoted (not wholly controlled, not run, not provided, just promoted).

They didn't like religion....mainly because churches tended to be parallel command structures to the Party. But they did allow religion when it had no teeth, no independent existence, i.e. the Orthodox church was full of KGB agents. As they undermined independence from the state at home, it would only make sense that they'd be very interested in penetrating mainline churches here to do the same - undermine their message along with their messengers so as to knee cap that potential rival in the political/cultural propaganda business. And so it happened.

Open homosexuality of the 'in your face' kind has similar undermining effects - and that's all that matters. Not every and not even most of the activists were commies. That's not how you undermine countries. We don't do it, and neither did they work directly like that. Networking is much more indirect than what most conspiracy buffs think... most conspiracy buffs are almost mechanistic - one cog turning another from direct contact etc. That's not how the world works.

The world works by indirect influences, not direct strings and buttons. So you know a given mogul has certain proclivities. You suggest he try to mainstream those proclivities... that perhaps a movie here, a sit-com there, a puff piece now and again would help "modify" the image in the public's mind about that proclivity. You line up 'critics' to give rave reviews of the 'daring' and 'bold', pushing the envelope' new message.... and soon the new promo takes on a life of its own with its own champeons, its own heroes, and its own backers and funders who obviously want to be in on the ground floor of a successful venture.

It doesn't really matter that the proclivity is about man-boy love or the desirability of legalizing prostitution.... anything that undermines the family and a man's self-control is a good thing because in the long run this undermines public morale, causes problems for the government, burdens the state which otherwise can't make bombs and ships.... sand in gears. The sabatuer doesn't care what kind of sand it is, provided it gums up the works.

You identify yourself with an urge or attraction such that if I point to dangers inherent in the action, you instantly think I'm condemning YOU as a person. Not so. I don't dislike you, I just have reservations about some of the activities people who are "gay" claim to do....alot.

You have all the rights I enjoy as an American citizen (AND NO MORE). I don't have the right to impose my whim on the entire American people via a sympatheic court. The only way I can change the Constitution is via an Amendment - which is super-hard and rightly so since the Law ought to favor the status quo until the "people's" will is totally clear.

But gays presume that should they wish to change the very definition of the word "marriage" it's their constitutional right to do so, ipso facto, case closed. So...... you get to change words by re-writing them.....but we don't? We have to pass Amendments just to maintain the status quo while all you need is a favorable judge? Yeah, that's fair!

No one else get's special protection under the law...as in 'hate crime' legislation... only 'victim' groups which are identified by ideology, not by race or other observable distinction. Whereas ACT-UP can (and did) storm a cathedral and assault people during a religious rite, while throwing used condoms around... and get a complete pass.... if someone else merely suggests disagreement with homosexual activitists on a college campi the charge is leveled "creating a hostile environment" and the evil-doer is cast out for 'hate speech'. Again, what's that about "equal treatment" under the law again? The victim gets to be victimizer so as to make these even???? Last time I checked most gays don't know they're gay until after highschool....or thereabouts. Not a whole lot of time for 'homophobia' to have any significant chance of causing more than the normal stresses of highschool cliques. But all gays wear the badge of eternal victimhood because someone sometime beat them up (join the club) or said nasty things about them (join humanity).

And that's ANOTHER reason why homosexuality is nuts.... classic narcissistic hyperbolic behavior. Same hard knocks other kids give and receive are classified as major personal trauma necessitating a life time of SOCIAL and GOVERNMENT approval, honor, praise, subsidies, etc. to even the score. And pray tell, how did that bully or bullies know you were gay? Same way they just decide to pick on other kids....size or clothing differentials? Lots of kids get beat up or shunned for no reason at all other than the whim of the bully/clique chieftans. But the gay subculture claims special persecution requiring special affirmative action (which in turn demands special access in education, in re-education (mandatory) training programs, on pain of hate-speech lawsuits, etc. Yeah, real 'mainstream' tactics, those. Try walking around with big chips on each shoulder and see how it endears you to those around you. Be especially critical of anyone who would try to save you from an early and painful death.

But the sexual practices (sodomy) continues to be the final issue... no matter how you dice it, the act itself is the least hygenic thing a person can do, and so will always be problematic, beyond the psychological and mental issues of attraction etc.

Since I think the actions - based on the data I have - are harmful to your health and thus to the common good, weakening the country as a whole as we have to spend untold $Billions on medicines and healthcare for an avoidable disease - you think I'm just a cruel meanie who wants to create gulags and kill my fellow Americans when in fact it's gulags and civil strife that I want to avoid at all costs by promoting self-control and health.

Because you failed to read my distiction between someone who has an attraction vs. someone who acts on that attraction, you missed my point about why we ought to be very careful with sex-ed.

Those who act out their urges, i.e. the gay or promiscuous heterosexual, are living unhealthy lives and so will do their utmost to justify these lifestyles by teaching impressionable youth that's it's aOK and no problem. And if these people happen to be movie Moguls, of course they're going to write scripts and puff pieces, propaganda pieces to make heroes of themselves! It's Free speech! It's not illegal, it's just damn clever and 101 duh obvious. I'd do it too! But bottom line, some speech promotes sane actions and other speech promotes insane action. It's not the fact that it's 'free" that matters. it's the content/context.

So there's this HIV bug going around? No problem! Don't change your lifestyle! No no. Just wear a condom! HPV? No biggie, just wear a condom (unless of course you really dig someone of course).

How does one happen to contract these bugs? Bodily fluids? Whereas a sane person would reflect and conclude that a lifestyle change is needed...specifically, monogamy, the hedon concludes we either ignore the danger or come up with a flimsy umbrella "protection" that only LIMITS but does not reduce to zero the danger.

Condoms - if perfectly used - are only some 90% effective against most STDs.... and obviously that's perfectly used, 100% of the time.... so the more times you do the dangerous activity, with more people the higher the chance you will eventually land that 10% jackpot.

But it's sex (or drugs, or whatever other thing floats your boat and is addictive) so the rules of reason and self-control are supposed to be completely out of the question eh stoner?

And finally, lest you think my hope is your eternal unhappiness in lonely desolation.....well, if you think a man must have sex with another man to be happy, to find love....well you are immature and don't know the meaning of happiness, friendship, and love.

A Marine who dives on a live hand grenade to save his buddies is showing maximum self-less love for them. But there's no sex involved.

A dad who spends time with his young son loves that boy....without sex.

A husband who foregoes sex to show honor to his wife... shows that love is not the same thing as sex as Ulysses taught us in the Odessey 2300 years ago.

Every human being on earth has an existential, intrinsic need for friendship. Period. So everyone on earth will look for this companionship and friendship. Those who run from sexual encounter to sexual encounter thinking that's "love" and "friendship" confuse eros with Phila and Agappe.

It's possible to live a loving, happy, fulfilled life without sex Stoner. Provided you have and are true, Phila/Agappe friends, not for what the other can give you, but for who they are.

This thread is about what happens if society should break down and small groups of people need to rebuild civilization based on their own level and understanding of CIVILIZATION.

If those people include some with powerful misunderstandings of basic things - like confusing love for sex, they're probably not going to make it. If those involved are burdened with serious health problems, serious mental and physical addictions..... then their survival is going to be a lot harder to attain in the absence of their 'fix' and the cravings for their fix are going to color their choices in tragic ways.

Given that barbarians of all time known to history have always included a good percentage of people with whom honor and shame were not a part of their world-view but who seemed filled with irrational passions.... I fear that American society is breeding new barbarians which will prove to be at least as challenging for us as any foreign invader.

And that's a shame because I'd much rather rely on fellow Americans for my survival than worry about them as a threat to the same.

But you feel that gay lifestyle is absolutely healthy, no problem whatsoever.... mmmmkay let's just hope the music never stops.


Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:30:02 PM EDT
"Ok show me where the CDC says that homosexuality causes "avoidable diseases".... it doesn't"

The gay lifestyle (and promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle) don't cause HIV....but they sure do a good job spreading it. Ditto with all the other STDs that MOSTLY ARE SPREAD via adults who could avoid it, as opposed to kids born with it or the fraction of a percentage who 'oops' into these pathogens innocently minding their own business.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:30:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 4:33:32 PM EDT by James_Gang]
JusAdBellum, nice to know somebodies thinking out there.

But I'm losing you. You cover so much in one fell swoop.

Honestly, I really don't care what another man or woman does in their bedroom with another consenting adult. And hope my home state chooses to continue to not enforce their ban on oral sex, between a man and a woman as a crime against nature. Otherwise, my wife and I are liable to get locked up.

As for homosexuality, as a society, it's sort of like child abuse, spousal abuse, substance abuse, etc...

Burying our heads in the sand wont make it go away. Our children are far smarter than we give them credit for in this regard.

It's sort of like what we were talking about with politicians above and in other posts. They often live in an entirely different world than we do, while they are attempting to craft with the legislative process their utopia of narrowminded taxpaying zombies. That's why they so often seem out of touch with reality. They are. With our reality.

The same can often be said for the problems between adults and children. Our denial of such societal issues, and our insistence that they be swept under the rug and hidden from our sight doesn't address the fact that it is often in the plain sight of our children.

Sort of like the gun issue we all wish we lived in a utopia, based upon our own desires and needs only.

The challenge is also offering the neighbor the same liberty, regardless of his sexual, religious, or other orientation, etc....

After all we can't very well reserve liberty for ourselves while chronically withholding it from our neighbor. Well I guess we can, but then we shouldn't be surprised when one day, such intolerance comes knocking at our door as well and we become the oppressed rather than the oppressor.

Just an alternative viewpoint.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:06:31 PM EDT
JusAdBellum.......the main problem I have with your post is....the board sweeping generalizations you just love to make. Let try to keep it simple please


Last time I checked most gays don't know they're gay until after highschool....or thereabouts. Not a whole lot of time for 'homophobia' to have any significant chance of causing more than the normal stresses of highschool cliques. But all gays wear the badge of eternal victimhood because someone sometime beat them up (join the club) or said nasty things about them


Sorry but I was gay in high school and so was quite a few others...difference between them and me was I'm 6'4 and weighted 200 lbs. So I didn't get called fag, queer etc....but the more femme gays got the crap beat out of them daily with the full knowledge of the school admin, as a matter of fact the Principals response to one beating was and I quote...."stop acting like a fag, and you wouldn't get beat up" the boy in question had busted ribs and a broken jaw after 6 members of the football team worked him over.... I think the word victim applies.


Because you failed to read my distiction between someone who has an attraction vs. someone who acts on that attraction, you missed my point about why we ought to be very careful with sex-ed.


No I read it.....its just BS...Gay is gay where you act on it or not.



Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:17:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

Originally Posted By BoogerSnax:

It's just the dicotomy of life... the libertarian view of "just leave me alone to do WHATEVER I want" actually leads to all these self-centered individuals eventually running amok against each other rather than working together in harmony.

Wow.
It seems that we had that EXACT way of being for the longest time in our history.
Guy were blowing each other. Liquor was had during prohibition. Incest happened. All the crazy shit that one might conjure up in a "world run amok". It just wasn't paraded around and shoved down our throats, while we are told to celebrate it.
What you are tlaking abut is the new "conservative" mindset. The mindset that seems just fine with intrusive gov't if it is on moral grounds.

It seems that the commies finally did win without firing a shot. Let us decay from within and even the small gov't conservatives will ask for cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we aren't acting in a "bad" way.



Actually the only differance between what he is talking about and what the "commies" want is.....who the cameras get pointed at........ freedom only for the "right people".



that's how I read it too.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:26:02 PM EDT

If those people include some with powerful misunderstandings of basic things - like confusing love for sex, they're probably not going to make it. If those involved are burdened with serious health problems, serious mental and physical addictions..... then their survival is going to be a lot harder to attain in the absence of their 'fix' and the cravings for their fix are going to color their choices in tragic ways.


Do you have a license for this BS? I love JT [boyfriend] and there for I have sex with him. There is no confusion there, I know what I feel and I not some 16yr old that doesn't understand what the difference between love and friendship is. I have a lot of friends and I don't have sex with them. I have been with women and it's not the same...the sex was ok but it lacked any "feeling" and if for some reason I couldn't have sex with JT I would still love him in the same way.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 7:16:15 PM EDT
A person who genuinely loves another doesn't do anything that would be harmful to that person - even if the beloved wants it done.

So if for example, 'sex' with your beloved would expose him to danger the loving thing would be to abstain from sex. Out of love for him and his goodness.

Just as love for a wife is why men stay faithful and don't take advantage of 'chances' to fool around. What's good for the relationship is that the man stay faithful to his wife; we have 50% divorce rates now because lots of people aren't being genuinely loving towards each other, people are seeking their own good, their own comfort, their own feelings (which of course seem 'genuine' - in that ,yes, feelings are powerful and euphoric.)

But love isn't 'a feeling of zest'; it's to will the objective good for the beloved. Not what they might want, but what is good for them.

Love towards a son is not to spoil him, but give him what he needs, not necesarily what he wants.

At the end of the day Stoner, my thread is about limiting what's harmful to people during the good times so that in the event times turn dark, people aren't left without chairs to land in when the music stops because they spent their good years getting deeply stuck in addictions or getting deeply infected.

I'd rather you come to know true love and true friendship and live for the next 60 years, contributing to the progress of society and happiness around you, than that you and JT continue to experiment with each other and others on the side occasionally and die of some horrible contagion when you're 43 years old.

I'd rather people live long and happily than not.

Finally how can any historian or social worker claim that the incidence of bad things were 'just as bad' 50 years ago on the premise 'but they just didn't talk about it'? Absence of evidence is evidence? That's nuts. You always - even now - have a % of people who don't report crime, one would expect that to be fairly constant across the board.

50 years ago, without contraception, if so many kids were fooling around with premarital sex there would have been a huge amount of out of wedlock babies or abortions and there simply weren't.

If people were always just as violent then were would have always been lots of violent gangs and the same number and rate of murders...but there weren't.

Talk to cops who walked the beat, teachers who worked in inner city schools.... there's so much evidence to the contrary that the bald faced claim that 'oh there were always the same amount of bad stuff goin on but it wasn't reported' is total BS. A sociologist would look for markers, data, facts. Read the old obituries... do you see gobs of young kids girls and boys dead? No you don't.

Studies done in the 1950's and 60's and even 70's showed a definate jump in promiscuity following the mass marketting of hollywood and Madison avenue 'lifestyles' - as one would expect given the way advertising works (why else would people spend billions of dollars on advertising? If it didn't work to change the way people think and act, why bother?)

It's so laughably easy to blow the little tin horn theories that people from one generation to the next were all the same out of the water I'm amazed the old canard is still floating around.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 8:09:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
At the end of the day Stoner, my thread is about limiting what's harmful to people during the good times so that in the event times turn dark, people aren't left without chairs to land in when the music stops because they spent their good years getting deeply stuck in addictions or getting deeply infected.

I'd rather you come to know true love and true friendship and live for the next 60 years, contributing to the progress of society and happiness around you, than that you and JT continue to experiment with each other and others on the side occasionally and die of some horrible contagion when you're 43 years old.




No JusAdBellum...at the end of this little discusion with you and people like you is always the same...conform to what some "armchair social moralist" says is for the "good of society"......forget it. I have seen your idea of good society and you can keep it....wake up and smell your own bullshit. You don't give to shits about me or anybody like me. You don't know anything about me other then I live a "lifestyle" that you don't like...

Oh and by the way.......I'm turning 45 this year and JT is 44 and both of us are in perfect health
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:31:31 AM EDT
Interesting foreign policy there JusAdBellum.

The term intollerance comes to mind.

Let me ask you. Is controlling the sexual behavior of your neighbors based upon your narrow and self satisfying criteria only critical to public health in your view?

Should they attempt to control yours as well? Since far more diseases have been spread worldwide throughout history from the actions of heterosexuals than the other way around.

Where do you think this all leads?

Tyranny of the majority?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 10:51:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By James_Gang:
Interesting foreign policy there JusAdBellum.

The term intollerance comes to mind.

Let me ask you. Is controlling the sexual behavior of your neighbors based upon your narrow and self satisfying criteria only critical to public health in your view?
Should they attempt to control yours as well? Since far more diseases have been spread worldwide throughout history from the actions of heterosexuals than the other way around.

Where do you think this all leads?

Tyranny of the majority?



Link Posted: 3/19/2006 2:09:21 PM EDT
JusAdBellum,

You make some interesting points, but I find your post very pessimistic, Because you seem to assume that people aren't compassionate/caring beings. You assume that people who are degenerate to themselves will have a degrading effect on society. However, I think the whole reason for communities/villages was to form a self supporting group which, not through socialism, but through compassion, work together to make sure that the community survives as a whole.

There is an unsong rule that people who don't contribute or help others in the community won't receive help from others when needed. So, people can live for themselves and indulge their desires (as long as it doesn't personally conflict with someone else's personal rights). In doing so, they may cut themself off from their community.

So, I take the optimistic view that a purpose of a community is support one another through hard times, not through forced participation, but through individual decision to help, because helping others, by simple logic, is helping themselves.

That being said, the village idiot who's drunk all the time is fine with me, but the second his drunkeness causes him to burn down a house, start a fight, etc.... then he's impeding on my rights. So, the drunkeness itself is fine, if it cause negative impact to others then it's not.

The point I agree with, but don't necessarily believe will happen, is that if everyone in a community lives for themself only that it will have a negative effect on the community. But that's only if it happens that everyone is like that. If that's the case, then I'd expect the community will not survive, because it will decompose internally from the lack of compassion/caring for others.



Link Posted: 3/20/2006 10:52:14 AM EDT
Three points.

1) I'm glad you've made it to 45 Stoner. Hopefully you'll make it to 65. Your lifestyle doesn't threaten me. It's a risk for you and yours. Just as the lifestyle of heterosexual swingers doesn't threaten me. It's just a risk for those who hop from bed to bed.

2) Define 'tolerance' and 'intolerance' and give me the criteria on which YOU determine which is what. Because society - all societies, especially liberal and libertarian ones are extremely INtolerant of the people they disagree with. Hence, hate crimes...rather than focus on the act we don't like, they focus on the actor. So a person's dis-like of certain practices is transmogrified into the person being "a hater". Focus is taken off of a person's OPINION or BELIEF with which you differ and is placed on THE OPINER, THE BELIEVER.

By not defining terms or distinguishing correctly people run the risk of thinking that killing the messenger rather than defeating his message is 'the ultimate solution'. Hence, warfare rather than debate.

John Locke, in his famous "letter on tolerance" had a qualifier in the prologue that he wasn't calling for 'toleration' of the belief of Catholics or Turks...His call for toleration was only for the people who generally agree about the main issues (i.e. Protestants of various stripes). Since they basically believed the same truths, he was calling on all parties to a ceasefire from war and a negotiated settlement of disagreements, peacefully. It's not that the differences didn't matter - it was that what united them mattered more. Eventually this was applied to more and more peoples of more and more different beliefs.

But there is a difference between tolerating someone's ideas and someone's actions. If a man proclaims his favor of NAMBLA's guiding principles, most of us would no doubt give him a pass - that's his opinion, so far, no one is harmed. But should he ACT on those beliefs.... then it becomes 'society's business' does it not? Ditto with people who preach polygamy or incest as a "right". Once their ideas become actions then toleration of ideas gives way to INTOLERANCE of acts, does it not?

So we as a society already show how we can TOLERATE opinions most of us disagree with, while at the same time be INTOLERANT of the application of those ideas. And the guiding principle (such as it is) in making the distinction almost always boils down to harm to health, life or limb that certain actions result in.

We as a society therefore not only tolerate the existence of drug addicts, we go to great lengths to pay for their health care, rehab, etc. both via taxes and charity. As human beings, they have rights...but their addiction doesn't have a right to exist.

So..... am I INTOLERANT? You're damn right I am - and so are you, it's just a question of what "up with we will not put". I am also TOLERANT - and so are you - again, depending on what's at hand.

But my 'toleration' - and yours tends to be in the category of "ignoring" people. My "intolerance" has no teeth. It boils down to an OPINION of the biological and psychological harm certain actions invariably have on people regardless of their subjective feelings about them. That's it.

My opinion - kept in my head or expressed on line has no power, other than persuasion, over other human beings' wills and free actions.

3) My point of the village idiot is essentially - so long as civilization is at peace millions of people can nurture self-destructive habits almost at whim to no decernible society-threatening damage....but after a catastrophe when everything is up in the air, those same relatively harmless problems must loom larger. It's not a question of pessimism or me supposing I'm not going to help them regardless, it's simply fact. A drug addict retains human rights and American civil liberties. He/she has a certain demand on our love.... but the fact remainds that the addict is ADDICTED and without the drug experiences serious withdrawl symptoms which - in an otherwise highly stressful post-SHTF world will likely far more difficult to handle for him/her and the caregivers than is now the case.

And that's my point. Right now, homosexuality, drug use, other addictions.... don't cause any major and apparent harm to society. People with HIV continue to render VALUABLE service to their communities and nation. But like others with other diseases and others with other problems, in a post SHTF world THEY WOULD BE AT RISK AT A HIGHER RATE THAN THE 'NORMAL' POPULATION. And that's 'a bad thing'. I hope we can find a way to limit damage and risk to those people in peacetime so they'll have a better chance of surviving bad times. Part of the way to do this of course is to highlight the FACT THAT THINGS CAN BE BETTER FOR THEM.

Doesn't mean they don't have human rights, or civil rights or a demand on respect. Does me we ought to not think those addictions or life styles are hunky dory and utterly harmless either.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:43:11 PM EDT
1) I'm 24. I'm a libertarian. I'm married. I work a professional job. I've got a Computer Science Bachelor's Degree (working on a Master's degree at night). Those are my credentials... far from the stoner, far from the village idiot... very much a hard worker who wants to retire before 65.


2) Bashing/attacking is not a valid way to get your point accross, because an idea is not embodied by the messenger, the idea embodies the messenger. Any reference to 'you' was in the interested of pointing out how I think your idea comes across. I don't try to attack the person, merely the idea, so if I did, it was unintentional.

Intolerance is stepping on someone else's ability to live their life how they choose, as long as their decisions don't impact my right to life, liberty, or property.

I'm tolerant of anything which doesn't affect my life, liberty, or property. When it extends beyond the individual's circle, then I can no longer be tolerant.

I agree that NAMBLA, Incest, poligamy, etc. are all a personal decision. And most of the time, it's a personal decision between two or more people. If none of those people object, then what's the harm??? You make a good point that when ideas are followed through on, that it's at that point that society cannot be tolerant, but I only think this can be the case when one party is a minor. Society has defined that the age of consent is 18(the age which one is responsible for their life). So, if NAMBLA, incest, poligamy are between 2 or more people of consenting age, then I can tolerate their actions, even though I don't like them. But to take away their decision because I don't like it, then that is being intolerant.

So, we tolerate drunks, drug addicts, etc... but I think the point at which society starts paying for their actions is where we draw the line on being tolerant. If I pay for rehab of a drug addict, then it affects me, so indirectly the drug addict is affecting me. I'm not tolerant of someone else's action affecting me. I don't think we should be forcing people to pay for rehab. People/friends/neighbors/community should help their weak become strong. So, should we make it illegal to use drugs, alcohol, caffeine, etc...? I'm not so sure, because people can use these substance without affecting people outside of their person. It's when somebody abuses these consumables that the issue arises, and since abuse is the issue, then proper training and education from parents/friends/community/society is what's needed to help the person. It would be nice for society to help out someone like this who has need (should not be forced). So, the reason why people will help this drug addict is because they themselves would want help from their community in time of need. If the drug addict repeats over and over, then you should expect society to stop caring, because the drug addict has stopped caring about how society has helped.



3) A drug addict retains human rights and American civil liberties... as long as it doesn't affect my rights. Your rights end, where mine beging. Society defines the tolerance to the point where it infringes somebody else's right. Drugs could be legal, and we will be tolerant until someone abuses them after which we will throw them in jail, because their abuse is negatively affecting society.
Maybe there is a fine line to between where friends/family/community/(not forced participation) handle societies rejects, and where gov't has to step up to take action (jail, prison). A caring/compassionate society will take care of it's own, but will then let gov't take over when all is lost, or extremity of the circumstances require.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:17:12 PM EDT
Stoner, I saw lots of kids get savagely beaten in my highschool.... by the football squad and others for ethnic reasons, jealousy reasons, personal grudges, pet peeves... it happens. It's not nice, it's not ideal, but it's also not a conspiracy of "hate" as many Gays seem to imply.

Most people hit puberty around the age of 12.... about freshman year in highschool right? But psychologically most teenagers aren't mature enough to know what they are and truly want...which is why 'the age of consent' is not 12, but 18. For many factors, a good % of teens experience 'psuedo-homosexuality' which they grow out of.... unless they experiment with same sex acts and get ideologued into thinking they're for sure homosexual or for sure bisexual. Many studys have been done suggesting either those who are 'cured' of homosexuality later were never homosexual to begin with.... or that conversely 'otherwise' normal heterosexual oriented youth can be 'turned' homosexual given enough trauma and social modification.

I'm not suggesting either for your case, just stating what I know for the sake of discussion. Homosexuality is a complicated thing so by no means one-size-fits-all.

Getting back to the age thing. If a guy has sex with a girl under the age of 18, it's statutory rape in most states.... because society has decided that most girls under that age aren't legally capable of making the mature choice with full knowledge etc. of the consequences.

Paradoxically, girls who have sex under the age of 18 (or 16 in some states) are considered to have all the rights in the world to an abortion with no questions asked (because the presumption is that the girl was victim of a statutory rape regardless of consent).

Now NAMBLA stands for 'north american man boy love association' - so is by definition a group promoting statutory rape. Sure, they claim that the boys involved are 'consenting'...but as we see above, by definition youth under a certain age can't legally make certain choices... unless of course the law is changed (which is what NAMBLA is for, obviously).

As I mentioned, some people are FOR this activity.... and it's 'they're right" to think so... but the moment they act on those ideas, they've broken the law.

I'm glad you bring up the cost to tax payers of drug rehab.... because whether or not society legalizes certain substances, they will remain highly addictive and hence highly destructive, so either way we'll need to pay a price.... and suddenly you see how 'personal choices' DO involve 'society' and aren't merely personal.

Go look up the amount of money the federal government spends on AIDS research....billions. Money that has to be spent as American citizens are at risk. Fair enough. But billions that otherwise needn't have been spent or could have been spent on other diseases such as TB or Malaria.

Again, so-called, 'personal liberty' choices - be they homo or heterosexual led to millions of Americans and Africans getting a disease they ordinarily wouldn't have gotten and hence society must pick up the bill for them or suffer the loss of their lives (which is costly too).

I point these things out....and thus am "intolerant" or "a basher/hater"

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:42:48 PM EDT
He isn't gay, so noone should be.

I can't seem to impose myself into others personal lives. especially when they are consenting adults.

some people can't help but do that though I suppose.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:11:02 PM EDT


Again, so-called, 'personal liberty' choices - be they homo or heterosexual led to millions of Americans and Africans getting a disease they ordinarily wouldn't have gotten and hence society must pick up the bill for them or suffer the loss of their lives (which is costly too).



This is a very static analysis. The reason it's costing us so much in medical bills is because Americans have voted in all the representatives who have voted to pass all the laws requiring everyone to pay money.

In today's system, we have set up a gov't which takes responsibility for people's bad decisions. The basis for all my arguments is to say that if we remove most of these welfare programs, that a community will decide for itself who it will help. People, knowing that they have no safety net, won't rely on the gov't to catch them if they mistake. So, my dynamic analysis says that removing welfare will improve personal responsibility.



Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:30:06 PM EDT
Oh but you can't remove health benefits to the millions of people who need miracle medicines during peacetime but can't afford them...because by doing so you'd be effectively pulling their lifesupport off...your action to defund their medication would be seen as the moral equivalent of killing them.

I'm not suggesting we as a society defund AIDS research.... millions of Americans have HIV and will eventually develop AIDS and that's a shame. They're Americans. But at the same time, it's a shame we have to spend the money (or risk their early demise) in the first place....

Just as it's a shame someone didn't show how wrong Osama Bin Laden was back in the "end of History" 1990's with his theory of how his particular read on Islam was the correct one and that the world owed everything to the Muslims and is to blame for all their problems. His 'freedom of speech and assembly' was respected a little too much.... and others didn't use their freedom of speech and assembly enough to win the theological fight before the pen started moving the sword.....

It's a shame.

But in the times of plenty and peace we have to - as a decent society - care for those who aren't caring for themselves.... it's just that.... post SHTF when everyone is in dire need and supplies are desperately short, people are going to have to do some brutal, heart wrenching cultural TRIAGE and it'll come down to who has the best chance of surviving and carrying on the species and culture and who is dying anyway.

I weep for the children and old folk - my parents, my grandparents, the sick I know and love.... it'll be hard, very hard. All things being equal, in disaster areas full of stress everyone needs to suck up and be brave and generous and having unequal burdens such as addictions be they chemical or psychological often tip the scales between a neighborhood that makes it or not.

I've been to 3rd world hell holes during disasters.... some behave remarkably well in the middle of rubble and ruin, human waste and feral dogs, dead bodies and orpans milling about...impromptu families spring up, people go the extra mile.... but in other places stress leads to insanity, suicides, homicides, rapes, men taking advantage of the young, the old, women, and the weak....

The villiage idiots and druggies can be tolerated, even loved and cared for during good times... after all, they're 'ours'.... but in bad times those weaker members can definiately become liabilities and in the worst cases they can become the enemy on TOP of whatever disaster pulls the plug on civilization's musical chair dance.

No one is an island.... Ideas are not neutral - they're either sane or insane, helpful or harmful, leading to noble or ignoble actions....
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 11:21:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hksnyper:
JusAdBellum,

You make some interesting points, but I find your post very pessimistic, Because you seem to assume that people aren't compassionate/caring beings. You assume that people who are degenerate to themselves will have a degrading effect on society. However, I think the whole reason for communities/villages was to form a self supporting group which, not through socialism, but through compassion, work together to make sure that the community survives as a whole.

There is an unsong rule that people who don't contribute or help others in the community won't receive help from others when needed. So, people can live for themselves and indulge their desires (as long as it doesn't personally conflict with someone else's personal rights). In doing so, they may cut themself off from their community.

So, I take the optimistic view that a purpose of a community is support one another through hard times, not through forced participation, but through individual decision to help, because helping others, by simple logic, is helping themselves.

That being said, the village idiot who's drunk all the time is fine with me, but the second his drunkeness causes him to burn down a house, start a fight, etc.... then he's impeding on my rights. So, the drunkeness itself is fine, if it cause negative impact to others then it's not.

The point I agree with, but don't necessarily believe will happen, is that if everyone in a community lives for themself only that it will have a negative effect on the community. But that's only if it happens that everyone is like that. If that's the case, then I'd expect the community will not survive, because it will decompose internally from the lack of compassion/caring for others.






Actually go read Adam Smith, I think it is. Father of economics. Other than familiy units, villages are formed for trade and barter- not love and certainly not compasion. It all functions for one reason and one reason only..."Everyone acting for their own selfish reasons." That is why it works. The beauty of it all is that we are all acting for our own selfish reasons and the village works. This theory is pretty much agreed upon by all Economists and Anthropoligists as well. Most of you people need to quit talking about what you "think" its all about and find out what it"is" all about. These things have been spelled out for a long time by lots of people a hell of lot smater than any of you. If you all looked at anything other than guns you might find that out. I have a graduate dgree in this sort of thing and if I had the time could school you a bit more on the "village" and why it came about. Rest assured it was for one thing and one thing alone--- ease of trade, exchange, money ect. Dont forget the old addage that "Money is the root of all evil."
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 5:35:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ljtag:

Originally Posted By hksnyper:
JusAdBellum,

You make some interesting points, but I find your post very pessimistic, Because you seem to assume that people aren't compassionate/caring beings. You assume that people who are degenerate to themselves will have a degrading effect on society. However, I think the whole reason for communities/villages was to form a self supporting group which, not through socialism, but through compassion, work together to make sure that the community survives as a whole.

There is an unsong rule that people who don't contribute or help others in the community won't receive help from others when needed. So, people can live for themselves and indulge their desires (as long as it doesn't personally conflict with someone else's personal rights). In doing so, they may cut themself off from their community.

So, I take the optimistic view that a purpose of a community is support one another through hard times, not through forced participation, but through individual decision to help, because helping others, by simple logic, is helping themselves.

That being said, the village idiot who's drunk all the time is fine with me, but the second his drunkeness causes him to burn down a house, start a fight, etc.... then he's impeding on my rights. So, the drunkeness itself is fine, if it cause negative impact to others then it's not.

The point I agree with, but don't necessarily believe will happen, is that if everyone in a community lives for themself only that it will have a negative effect on the community. But that's only if it happens that everyone is like that. If that's the case, then I'd expect the community will not survive, because it will decompose internally from the lack of compassion/caring for others.






Actually go read Adam Smith, I think it is. Father of economics. Other than familiy units, villages are formed for trade and barter- not love and certainly not compasion. It all functions for one reason and one reason only..."Everyone acting for their own selfish reasons." That is why it works. The beauty of it all is that we are all acting for our own selfish reasons and the village works. This theory is pretty much agreed upon by all Economists and Anthropoligists as well. Most of you people need to quit talking about what you "think" its all about and find out what it"is" all about. These things have been spelled out for a long time by lots of people a hell of lot smater than any of you. If you all looked at anything other than guns you might find that out. have


So, can we say that compassion/caring in a community is motivated by selfish interests?
ie. I help you because I think that in doing so, it will motivate others to help me if I ever need it... pay it forward my contributions to the "village".
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 7:38:57 AM EDT
SOME villiages are formed for trade.... crossroads on the frontier come to mind...BUT in stable civilizations, i.e. Europe, Africa, etc. where people have lived in the same place for generations, most families knew each other, were interrelated... believed the same things... so altruism or 'family loyalty/love weren't entirely out of the equation.

I agree with you that economics has a large part to play in any village as it does in any family.... seeing the ghost towns along the Napolitan coast line proves that... the Roman military roads by passed some old Greek settlements and an earthquake moved their water source several miles to the north....and so the population moved out of their walled town with greek temples etc. and reformed a town elsewhere completely abandoning their site which then was overgrown and became a pristine, untouched site for almost 1000 years.

Other towns fall into ruin for political reasons (i.e. interpersonal relationships gone sour). In these cases it very much matters what the personal proclivities and morals are of the players as these do impact choices and actions.... Family feuds come to mind over honor violations (Romeo and Juliette anyone? West side story?)

There's no one factor that explains everything... every thing and everyone is multifaceted. We all have good and bad days too... but some things generally are bad to have too much of...
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 6:59:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By James_Gang:
I don't want to bust anyones bubble, but;

Ultimately there is not self reliance in todays world.

If the trucks stop tommorow pretty soon all the stores will be cleared out.

Until the population stabilizes, there will not be enough wildlife, etc... to support the masses. Impossible to store enough as well without attracting far too much attention and violence as well.

This nation is teetering on the brink, due to shortsighted policies and a greedy establishment that places making a buck ahead of common sense itself. It wouldn't take much of a catastrophe to turn it inside out as Katrina showed.

Then it will be every man for himself.

You can't eat your rifle. And it wont protect you from disease.

Politicians always take care of themselves first. You last. Nothing different here.

Wont be very comforting when you, much like the victims of Katrina, wake up one day and realized they've sold you out. And you find yourself scrapping with the 82nd Airborne and what's left of your local authorities, instead of the Taliban or Al Qaeda over the last scraps of food as well as your weapon.



I've been meaning to start a thread in the Survival Forum on the Collapse of America and you've made some good observations

Katrina was a Test Case for what will happen when SHTF

If I could right now I'd move to as Rural an Area as I could and prepare for the collapse
People Like myself who live in Urban / Suburban areas are screwed

Yes Politicians live in an Ivory Tower
Right now they're Busy...........Selling us out
When the Bottom Falls Out there will be hand wringing but they'll be insulated
We'll starve and have to fight it out
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 3:50:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 3:52:19 PM EDT by James_Gang]
That would be a great topic Turnkey.

It's a topic that many would be wise to heed, while they are depending upon the authorities to protect them in such an event.

The problem with the authorities today is they seem to be quite pre-occupied with other parts of the world and seem content to use our national resources to do so.

It's should be no surprise to anyone that much of the Lousianna national guard, and the majority of its equipment was deployed to Iraq during the time of Katrina. By the time other resources from other states became available, it was too late for many. Poor planning by all branches of government. This should come as no surprise.

Therefore if your survival plan currently includes depending upon the authorities in the first week or two after disaster strikes, you may be unpleasantly surprised. Regardless of their current rhetoric about protecting the American people.

These are simply words. Their actions speak much louder. How you feel about the politics of today is largely immaterial and wont change a thing. Nor should you expect the cavalry to come to your rescue.

They have enough difficulty protecting themselves in Iraq with 160,000 troops and endless funds (a country of 23 million). Imagine a similar civil disturbance or breakdown in law and order, or the economy in this country of 300 million people.

Unlike the crash of 1929, I wouldn't expect long lines at the soup kitchens this time.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 5:56:22 PM EDT
I agree that a nationwide crash like 1929 would be far worse than 1929...if only because of our just on time delievery dependence and the fact that most of us don't own our homes or land outright but are under mortgages....

Whereas many people, more than now, lived on farms or close to farms where food was grown etc. back then, and soup kitchens only went up in cities... these days when most of the population lives scattered about in subdivisions rather than towns or cities.... it would be a logistics nightmare to even begin mobilizing relief supplies...

Which come to think of it, reminds me why some bright bulb at DHS might have suggested (with complete ignorance of history since it's not well taught) that building camps with oh, say housing arranged in a grid pattern, with communal kitchens and surrounded by a wire perimeter would be a fantastic solution to safely housing and feeding huge numbers of people....saves on fuel otherwise spent dropping off relief supplies at every subdivision street corner, guarantees 'fair' distribution, and maximizes security...seems like a win win for everyone except for the fact that this also describes a 'concentration camp'.

TJ's threads about what it was like in the old days, how far more independent food and money wise people were...as well as how more close to home and kin they were, makes me pause about what a nationwide disaster would mean... in this thread, the music would stop for alot of folk who are rich or sitting pretty on their yacht with oodles in the bank.... if they didn't have food or anything beyond a trophy shottie with bird shot, what would all their paper money be worth?

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:15:38 PM EDT
Natural Selection does and will solve the problem. Always has and always will.


INCIRLIK
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 5:59:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 6:04:32 PM EDT by James_Gang]

Originally Posted By INCIRLIK:
Natural Selection does and will solve the problem. Always has and always will.


INCIRLIK



Yep.

Natural selection is a great concept.

Except for those that are burying their kin, due to somebody else's negligence or blatant ignorance.

That's the difference between humans and lessor animal species. And still is.

Human beings need not jump off the 20th floor of an office building to be able to imagine the consequences of doing so.

Apparently we have alot of lessor animal species currently masquerading as voters/citizens.

Here's another piece of philosophy for you.

'Hindsight is 20/20'. Didn't do the passengers of the Titanic much good. Not much chance of survival when you're bobbing in 32 degree water 1000 miles from shore.

Natural selection? Or just stupidity?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Be careful whos judgment you trust. May just come back to bite us all in the ass.
Top Top