Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Why we need the 2nd Amendment
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84268 is a reply to message #84260] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 14:07   |
Carl Amburn
Messages: 214
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I like your argument DJ - Our will and instinct to survive is going to kill
us ! Oh, I'm laughing.... sort of...
-Carl
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:46433b62@linux...
> Don,
>
> This article down to and including the sentence:
>
> "It's a train that carries all the earth's species as unwilling passengers
> with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to use the brake
> pedal."
>
> ........appears to be deadly accurate. The remainder is simply a pragmatic
> argument based on statistics. Do you dispute the statistics? If so, can
you
> disprove them. Has anyone even tried? Is there even any point in it? If
not,
> why would you dismiss this as being Hitlerian? He's not advocating the
> survival of one group of *superhumans* over another group of *subhumans*.
> I'd say he's pretty egalitarian for a Nazi. I personally don't think
there's
> a chance in hell that things are going to change for the better here
unless
> we drasticall reduce the number of *us* somehow and I also believe that
our
> biological imperative to breed and survive will eventually be the end of
us
> but I think that this will be taken out of our hands if we don't take some
> steps that, by virtue of our very instinct to survive at all costs, we
will
> never be willing to take.
>
> Beware the microbe.
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4642aa36$1@linux...
> >
> > Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I don't think the person that is attacking me our that I'm attacking is
> >
> >>evil. If they are directly mine or someone else's life and the only way
> >
> >>I have to stop them is to kill or injure them I think is perfectly
> >>except able and a normal reaction pf our species. We are hoarding
> >>pack/tribal creatures that have been lucky enough to our brains become
> >>our main survival tools. snip...
> >
> > We will not agree on solutions because we utterly disagree on these
> > premises. I reject this view of life on its face, as you surely do
mine.
> >
> >
> >>A radical group of people that feel that the dominant government/society
> >
> >>is destroying their beliefs and way of life. They believe that the only
> >
> >>way to stop this is by committing terrorists acts on a large scale
> >>against their protagonists killing thousand if not millions of their
> >>enemies to bring about their vision of the world.
> >>Luckily Clancy did not write the Turner Diaries because would probably
> >>be influential on enough actually make a difference. It has only
> >>influenced fringe groups so we've only had a Oklahoma city bombing so
> >>far. The book is poorly written almost as bad a Mein Kampf. Another book
> >
> >>that I'm glad Clancy didn't write. :)
> >
> >
> > Even using Clancy in the same sentence is silly. Does doing so, strike
> > you as clever?
> > You should read Rainbow 6, you have got it totally wrong. In this case
> > it is the radicals who are planning a giant die off in the name of Gaia,
> > not
> > the government.
> >
> > The closest thing to Mein Kampf in this whole discussion is right here:
> >
> > http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.htm l
> >
> >
> >>>> Without the second amendment, all the other amendments
> >>>> are just suggestions.
> >
> >>And very good ones at that. but like the 10 commandments they should
> >>have been more detailed.
> >
> > And of course, you know better than the author of either... Amazing.
> >
> >
> >>Thankfully we didn't make our right to bare arms the same as England's.
> >
> >>They only allowed Protestants the right.
> >
> > I'm sure there is a point in here somewhere...
> >
> >
> > DC
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84269 is a reply to message #84268] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 14:10 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
one heck of a conundrum all right
where are the evil aliens when we need them?
"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:46438b16@linux...
>I like your argument DJ - Our will and instinct to survive is going to kill
> us ! Oh, I'm laughing.... sort of...
>
> -Carl
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:46433b62@linux...
>> Don,
>>
>> This article down to and including the sentence:
>>
>> "It's a train that carries all the earth's species as unwilling
>> passengers
>> with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to use the brake
>> pedal."
>>
>> ........appears to be deadly accurate. The remainder is simply a
>> pragmatic
>> argument based on statistics. Do you dispute the statistics? If so, can
> you
>> disprove them. Has anyone even tried? Is there even any point in it? If
> not,
>> why would you dismiss this as being Hitlerian? He's not advocating the
>> survival of one group of *superhumans* over another group of *subhumans*.
>> I'd say he's pretty egalitarian for a Nazi. I personally don't think
> there's
>> a chance in hell that things are going to change for the better here
> unless
>> we drasticall reduce the number of *us* somehow and I also believe that
> our
>> biological imperative to breed and survive will eventually be the end of
> us
>> but I think that this will be taken out of our hands if we don't take
>> some
>> steps that, by virtue of our very instinct to survive at all costs, we
> will
>> never be willing to take.
>>
>> Beware the microbe.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>>
>>
>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4642aa36$1@linux...
>> >
>> > Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I don't think the person that is attacking me our that I'm attacking
>> >> is
>> >
>> >>evil. If they are directly mine or someone else's life and the only way
>> >
>> >>I have to stop them is to kill or injure them I think is perfectly
>> >>except able and a normal reaction pf our species. We are hoarding
>> >>pack/tribal creatures that have been lucky enough to our brains become
>> >>our main survival tools. snip...
>> >
>> > We will not agree on solutions because we utterly disagree on these
>> > premises. I reject this view of life on its face, as you surely do
> mine.
>> >
>> >
>> >>A radical group of people that feel that the dominant
>> >>government/society
>> >
>> >>is destroying their beliefs and way of life. They believe that the only
>> >
>> >>way to stop this is by committing terrorists acts on a large scale
>> >>against their protagonists killing thousand if not millions of their
>> >>enemies to bring about their vision of the world.
>> >>Luckily Clancy did not write the Turner Diaries because would probably
>> >>be influential on enough actually make a difference. It has only
>> >>influenced fringe groups so we've only had a Oklahoma city bombing so
>> >>far. The book is poorly written almost as bad a Mein Kampf. Another
>> >>book
>> >
>> >>that I'm glad Clancy didn't write. :)
>> >
>> >
>> > Even using Clancy in the same sentence is silly. Does doing so,
>> > strike
>> > you as clever?
>> > You should read Rainbow 6, you have got it totally wrong. In this
>> > case
>> > it is the radicals who are planning a giant die off in the name of
>> > Gaia,
>> > not
>> > the government.
>> >
>> > The closest thing to Mein Kampf in this whole discussion is right here:
>> >
>> > http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.htm l
>> >
>> >
>> >>>> Without the second amendment, all the other amendments
>> >>>> are just suggestions.
>> >
>> >>And very good ones at that. but like the 10 commandments they should
>> >>have been more detailed.
>> >
>> > And of course, you know better than the author of either... Amazing.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Thankfully we didn't make our right to bare arms the same as England's.
>> >
>> >>They only allowed Protestants the right.
>> >
>> > I'm sure there is a point in here somewhere...
>> >
>> >
>> > DC
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84272 is a reply to message #84262] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 16:19 |
JeffH
Messages: 307
Registered: October 2007
Location: Wamic, OR
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:464360f7$1@linux...
>
>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don,
>>>
>>>This article down to and including the sentence:
>>>
>>>"It's a train that carries all the earth's species as unwilling passengers
>>
>>>with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to use the brake
>>
>>>pedal."
>>
>>No it doesn't. That is the part you extract because you care so much
>>about this issue. In reality, the article boils down to this
>>
>>There is NO way to implement the recommendations of Watson
>>without a regime that would make the Nazi's look polite.
>
>
> Assuming that a *regime* is necessary to pull thias off instead of coming
> together and trying to work some sort of common-sense solution.
>
>>And this is the subtext of all these ideas: the individual behind them is
>>unbalanced, seeing humans as "no more intrinsically valuable than
>>earthworms".
>
>
> I'll bet that an earthworm would differ with you. I think that we place far
> too much importance on ourselves, which is natural to us since we have
> evolved to the point that we have invented God in our own image..
>
> This is, of course, absurd. Ironically it takes a human,
>
>>with all the benefits of our big brains, our schools, our science, and our
>>reasoning and writing skills, to say such stupid shit.
>
>
> We say lots of stupid shit besides this Don.
>
> The statement
>
>>itself proves him to be wrong and a fool since the earthworm cannot
>>assent to it, nor dispute it. Watson is a moron and a misanthrope.
>>
>> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?ind id=1217
>>
>>http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3370
>>
>>There's lots more.
>>
>>If you would like a serious discussion of these important issues, we
>>will have to find a different starting point, one informed by rational
>>beliefs and willing to examine contradictory evidence.
>
>
> I'd certainly be willing. I'd say the larger question is why does it take
> someone with such extremist views to rattle our cages to the point where the
> problem is discussed in a serious manner.
> >
>
>>>........appears to be deadly accurate. The remainder is simply a pragmatic
>>
>>>argument based on statistics. Do you dispute the statistics?
>>
>>Abso-fuggin-lutely. I dispute anything out of Watson's mouth.
>>
>>
>>>If so, can you
>>>disprove them. Has anyone even tried?
>>
>>I looked around. There is no specific scientific refutation of the piece
>>out
>>there yet. It is too new. There will be one.
>
>
> Well.....it could also be that ther reason there is no refutation
> is..........?
>
>
>
>>>but I think that this will be taken out of our hands if we don't take some
>>
>>>steps that, by virtue of our very instinct to survive at all costs, we
>>>will
>>
>>>never be willing to take.
>>
>>I, of course have a different view of the future of humanity.
>>
>>But even within your perspective, we would have to commit genocide on
>>all the people who will never accept the brave new world you try to
>>convince them of. Do you have no love for those billions of souls?
>>Is love and respect reserved only for animals? Can you not see how
>>psychotic Watson's ideas are?
>>
>
> I don't advocate genocide. I do advocate a refocus on what is good for the
> survival of the ecosphere, which happens to include us, and I think there
> are ways to start changing this stuff....but we need to start taking this
> very seriously
>
>
>>>Beware the microbe.
>>
>>Yes, and the rest of the seven deadly plagues as well....
>>
>>DC
>
>
> I think a good start would be a bit of common sense as far as our breeding
> and end-of-life thinking goes. Our religions tell us to "be fruitful and
> multiply". These religions were born of a time when we weren't necessarily
> at the top of the food chain. This philosophy is utter insanity nowadays.
> Also, on a more personal note, something that really sticks in my craw is
> the strange affinity we have for prolonging life when it isn't desired by
> the living (and yes, I have experienced suicides and know the devastation
> this causes). As I get older, I often wonder when I will get to the point
> when I'm so damn miserable I'll be ready to move on. I'm only 57 but I have
> lived a lot in those years and I have already decided that the living death
> that is a nursing home route isn't for me. It just ain't gonna happen, nor
> would I desire to inflict my decline on a family by being set in a hospital
> bed in their living room (which I have seen happen as an alternative to
> nursing homes) . I'll likely choose my own way if it isn't chosen for me. My
> mom is to that point right now. We have had some open and frank discussions
> about this but her religion tells her that to end her life on her own terms
> is a sin and she will burn in hell. She is 85, still active and she is
> praying for a swift and merciful end when it comes so she won't be required
> to experience thie final indignity of losing all control over her body as
> she becomes an total invalid. I doubt I'll have these reservations. I really
> don't think it's *humane* to force elderly and sick folks to carry on if
> they are ready to leave this life. It has been stigmatized though by certain
> religions to the point where there is the certainty that eternal life in a
> burning hell is waiting for us unless we eke every last bit of misery out of
> this life, and by doing so, prolong the misery of our loved ones as they try
> to mitigate it, which they cannot do. Maybe I will just move to Oregon when
> it comes time
Go ahead and cart your studio with you... I got room for those pretty
little boxes...
;-)
JH
to take a powder...of course, I'll have to make it look
> accidental so my life insurance company will still pay off. Maybe a nice
> coctail of Oxy and Succinylcholine would do the trick.
>
> Regards,
>
> Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84299 is a reply to message #84269] |
Fri, 11 May 2007 02:00 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
400 years ago...we were the aliens. ya know, there are days i'm proud
to be shallower than a footprint on a rock.
mr. footballhead
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:10:14 -0600, "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com>
wrote:
>one heck of a conundrum all right
>
>where are the evil aliens when we need them?
>
>"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>news:46438b16@linux...
>>I like your argument DJ - Our will and instinct to survive is going to kill
>> us ! Oh, I'm laughing.... sort of...
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:46433b62@linux...
>>> Don,
>>>
>>> This article down to and including the sentence:
>>>
>>> "It's a train that carries all the earth's species as unwilling
>>> passengers
>>> with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to use the brake
>>> pedal."
>>>
>>> ........appears to be deadly accurate. The remainder is simply a
>>> pragmatic
>>> argument based on statistics. Do you dispute the statistics? If so, can
>> you
>>> disprove them. Has anyone even tried? Is there even any point in it? If
>> not,
>>> why would you dismiss this as being Hitlerian? He's not advocating the
>>> survival of one group of *superhumans* over another group of *subhumans*.
>>> I'd say he's pretty egalitarian for a Nazi. I personally don't think
>> there's
>>> a chance in hell that things are going to change for the better here
>> unless
>>> we drasticall reduce the number of *us* somehow and I also believe that
>> our
>>> biological imperative to breed and survive will eventually be the end of
>> us
>>> but I think that this will be taken out of our hands if we don't take
>>> some
>>> steps that, by virtue of our very instinct to survive at all costs, we
>> will
>>> never be willing to take.
>>>
>>> Beware the microbe.
>>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4642aa36$1@linux...
>>> >
>>> > Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> I don't think the person that is attacking me our that I'm attacking
>>> >> is
>>> >
>>> >>evil. If they are directly mine or someone else's life and the only way
>>> >
>>> >>I have to stop them is to kill or injure them I think is perfectly
>>> >>except able and a normal reaction pf our species. We are hoarding
>>> >>pack/tribal creatures that have been lucky enough to our brains become
>>> >>our main survival tools. snip...
>>> >
>>> > We will not agree on solutions because we utterly disagree on these
>>> > premises. I reject this view of life on its face, as you surely do
>> mine.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>A radical group of people that feel that the dominant
>>> >>government/society
>>> >
>>> >>is destroying their beliefs and way of life. They believe that the only
>>> >
>>> >>way to stop this is by committing terrorists acts on a large scale
>>> >>against their protagonists killing thousand if not millions of their
>>> >>enemies to bring about their vision of the world.
>>> >>Luckily Clancy did not write the Turner Diaries because would probably
>>> >>be influential on enough actually make a difference. It has only
>>> >>influenced fringe groups so we've only had a Oklahoma city bombing so
>>> >>far. The book is poorly written almost as bad a Mein Kampf. Another
>>> >>book
>>> >
>>> >>that I'm glad Clancy didn't write. :)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Even using Clancy in the same sentence is silly. Does doing so,
>>> > strike
>>> > you as clever?
>>> > You should read Rainbow 6, you have got it totally wrong. In this
>>> > case
>>> > it is the radicals who are planning a giant die off in the name of
>>> > Gaia,
>>> > not
>>> > the government.
>>> >
>>> > The closest thing to Mein Kampf in this whole discussion is right here:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.htm l
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>>> Without the second amendment, all the other amendments
>>> >>>> are just suggestions.
>>> >
>>> >>And very good ones at that. but like the 10 commandments they should
>>> >>have been more detailed.
>>> >
>>> > And of course, you know better than the author of either... Amazing.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>Thankfully we didn't make our right to bare arms the same as England's.
>>> >
>>> >>They only allowed Protestants the right.
>>> >
>>> > I'm sure there is a point in here somewhere...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > DC
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Dec 03 05:01:08 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03542 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
