Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Why we need the 2nd Amendment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84129 is a reply to message #84117] |
Mon, 07 May 2007 18:44   |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI DC,
Everyone should have the right to defend them selves against anyone they
think are lunatics. I should be able to shoot to maim or kill anyone
that I feel are a physical threat to me, my family, my friends or most
important of all my comfortable surrounding.. My bright and shiny
objects are mine objects are mine all mine....
There is no protection by having the gun you are just giving into
propagating a cycle of violence, fear and despair. The people you feel
you need protection from are a product of the same violence, fear and
despair.
Chris
DC wrote:
> Ok, so you think the guy is a fool, but you don't think anyone
> should have the right to defend themselves against misanthropic
> lunatics.
>
> Well everyone gets an opinion...
>
> DC
>
>
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>> HI DC,
>>
>> No I believe humans do not need any help or encouragement when it comes
>>
>
>
>> to self destruction.
>> I think the Paul Watson is as has delusional as they come but has the
>> perfect right to have a gun. He can use it to defend him self against
>> the human race. With Americas justice system it should hold up just fine
>>
>
>
>> when he says he defended himself because he felt "imminent threat" to
>> his person and property. Well at least it will if he is from a pro gun
>> state.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> DC wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> HI DC,
>>>>
>>>> Actually yes that way the virus can eradicate itself with out all the
>>>>
>
>
>>>> extra work.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>> Sooo, you agree that humanity is a virus?
>>>
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Chris Ludwig
>>
>> ADK Pro Audio
>> (859) 635-5762
>> www.adkproaudio.com
>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84141 is a reply to message #84130] |
Mon, 07 May 2007 23:04 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi DC,
DC wrote:
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>> There is no protection by having the gun you are just giving into
>> propagating a cycle of violence, fear and despair. The people you feel
>> you need protection from are a product of the same violence, fear and
>> despair.
>>
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
well everyone gets to have an opinion.
> You want real despair, just find yourself at the end of a knife,
> and all those evil guns are gone.
I've never said to take away anybodies guns. Guns are just inanimate
objects like knifes, clubs, rocks, sticks. Only thing that could
possibly be considered "evil" is the person using it.
> See how far your rap gets
> you then.
>
>
Not sure what Rap Music has to do with it other than being less violent
than country music and rock and roll.
> Read the Clancy book and tell me it is far-fetched...
>
Sounds to me more like the Turner Diaries is more up your ally if you
believe this kinda of literature. You should get the video game thats
been out for it. You'll get to shoot allot of guns in it.
> Without the second amendment, all the other amendments
> are just suggestions.
>
With out the second you wouldn't have anyone to shoot if they infringed
on you 9 other rights. The lack of fair enforcement or of the 3rd to
10th have allot more to do with your need to evoke the 2nd. If the 1st
one is infringed upon by anyone then all the rest aren't worth shit
anyways. But the first one is the one that anyone in a position of power
will more likely to take away because it keeps people from asking questions.
> DC
>
>
Chris
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84156 is a reply to message #84149] |
Tue, 08 May 2007 06:51 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Actually, though this guy is obviously disturbed, I don't think the
>humans-as-disease-on-earth-as-organism is all that far-fetched as a crude
>analogy. And like viruses or bacteria that cause disease in our bodies,
>humans will die off if they "kill" the host, or if the host's defenses get
>the better of them. Nature has ways of dealing with overpopulation. If
we
>don't control it, nature will. No worries.
It's insane, and will lead to bad policy. The real problem with humanity
is not recognizing the inherent absurdity of teaching itself that the earth
is better off without it. Well how do you know, really? You just believe
it.
It is a perverted faith by which the left comforts itself of a supposed
superiority while accomplishing nothing but strife and misery. It is the
basic health and wealth of the free market that allows us even to consider
such nonsense. It's a bauble, an expensive indulgence that serves as a
status symbol for the guilt-ridden. Read the Clancy book. It is not a
political diatribe, it is a story of what could happen should these people
gain power.
>As far as the 2nd Amendment . . . listen, guns don't kill people, it's the
>bullets. :)
http://amazon.com/gp/product/0226493644
Hitler took guns away from the Jews first...
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84161 is a reply to message #84156] |
Tue, 08 May 2007 07:59 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinthetroposphere.com> wrote in message
news:46408072$1@linux...
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>Actually, though this guy is obviously disturbed, I don't think the
>>humans-as-disease-on-earth-as-organism is all that far-fetched as a crude
>
>>analogy. And like viruses or bacteria that cause disease in our bodies,
>
>>humans will die off if they "kill" the host, or if the host's defenses get
>
>>the better of them. Nature has ways of dealing with overpopulation. If
> we
>>don't control it, nature will. No worries.
>
> It's insane, and will lead to bad policy. The real problem with humanity
> is not recognizing the inherent absurdity of teaching itself that the
> earth
> is better off without it.
Hmmmm.........I don't think there's much doubt that when man overpopulates
an area, everything, including man, suffers in a pretty big way.
Well how do you know, really? You just believe
> it.
Having inhabited this place for well over half a century, I can go back to
places that I knew 40 years ago and look at what has happened since then and
see it for myself.
> It is a perverted faith by which the left comforts itself of a supposed
> superiority while accomplishing nothing but strife and misery. It is the
> basic health and wealth of the free market that allows us even to consider
> such nonsense.
Don, you have known me for quite a while and I think you could say that
though I seem sorta' nuts sometimes, I'm definitely not a leftist. I also
believe in the free market. I also own guns (quite a few). I also believe
that the reason that the climate is changing is because there are too many
of *us* and we have chosen to use the cheapest fuels we can find to power
our industries. It's not the fuels that are evil, per se, it's the amount of
them necessary to keep the economic juggernaut in full swing. The economic
juggernaut is not just the US. It's global now, like it or not. We could do
some things that would be painful in the short run and beneficial in the
long run and keep our economy here afloat while we transition ot new energy
sources but we are not doing these things. Whether it would make much
difference if other parts of the pwrld don't do the same is certainly a
valid question, but since we are *free market* kinda' folks, if we did
develop new technologies, we could market them.
It's a bauble, an expensive indulgence that serves as a
> status symbol for the guilt-ridden. Read the Clancy book. It is not a
> political diatribe, it is a story of what could happen should these people
> gain power.
>
Hmmmm.......I don't feel guilt ridden at all. I just see things as I think
they are. I also don't think humans are inherently evil. Too many horses
will overgraze a pasture and turn it into a wasteland. Too many rats in an
enclosed space will result in all sorts of aberrant behaviour, finally
ending in some major *ratricide*.
>
>>As far as the 2nd Amendment . . . listen, guns don't kill people, it's the
>
>>bullets. :)
>
> http://amazon.com/gp/product/0226493644
>
> Hitler took guns away from the Jews first...
>
> DC
Agreed. I believe in the 2nd amendment. Some jerk breaks into my place and
he's toast. Plain and simple. I also believe that we should allocate a few
thousand square miles of some national forest for the trophy hunters. A pair
of them would a allocated 10 square miles and they would be required to hunt
each other. The corpse of the loser is then shipped to a taxidermist to be
mounted for the hunters trophy room and now that he (or she) has proved that
they can point and shoot, the survivor's gun would be forfeit for the
remainder of the hunt and they would then receive a hunting license that
would entitle them to a knife and two weeks to build their own weapon from
whatever resources that might be handy in order for them to attempt to hunt
and kill an animal with their contraption so they could further assert their
manliness.
;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84172 is a reply to message #84161] |
Tue, 08 May 2007 09:50 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>Hmmmm.........I don't think there's much doubt that when man overpopulates
>an area, everything, including man, suffers in a pretty big way.
>
>Well how do you know, really? You just believe
>> it.
No humanity = no one to believe anything. Therefore believing in the
benefit of human extinction is a pernicious irrationality and a conceit
intended to prove one's own moral standing while knowing it is all
a sham.
We have not come anywhere close to overpopulating anything, and
Malthus was discredited generations ago.
>Having inhabited this place for well over half a century, I can go back
to
>places that I knew 40 years ago and look at what has happened since then
and
>see it for myself.
You see changes you do not like. Man, remember the freeways out
here? It was way better in 63, trust me. This does not constitute
overpopulation because we don't like it.
Since '63, we have done stupid stuff like build metro-link rail
systems that even when full, use more fuel and pollute more than cars
to carry the same number of people...
Oh and we HAD to have a new LA subway that is way under-used
while the freeways have been neglected for 30 years...
Ideology corrupting policy.
We have had successes too. The cars are so clean today that the air here
is
actually better than in the 1970's when there were far fewer people.
>Don, you have known me for quite a while and I think you could say that
>though I seem sorta' nuts sometimes, I'm definitely not a leftist. I also
>believe in the free market. I also own guns (quite a few). I also believe
>that the reason that the climate is changing is because there are too many
>of *us* and we have chosen to use the cheapest fuels we can find to power
>our industries. It's not the fuels that are evil, per se, it's the amount
of
>them necessary to keep the economic juggernaut in full swing. The economic
>juggernaut is not just the US. It's global now, like it or not. We could
do
>some things that would be painful in the short run and beneficial in the
>long run and keep our economy here afloat while we transition ot new energy
>sources but we are not doing these things. Whether it would make much
>difference if other parts of the pwrld don't do the same is certainly a
>valid question, but since we are *free market* kinda' folks, if we did
>develop new technologies, we could market them.
Well, you know where the next logical move is, don't you? Since the
envrios, yuppies and NIMBY's won't let us build drilling platforms or
refineries, and photovoltaics cost more to make and install than the power
they replace, while sh*theads like Ted Kennedy won't even allow windmills
to "blight" their view, and our deadbeat president will NOT do anything
to force the development of new resources?
You know what's coming don't you? That's right. Nuclear plants...
Or, we can kill a couple of billion people off.
Great evil is always just below the surface of all demogogues, be they
left or right.
Yes, things can get worse. A lot worse.
>Hmmmm.......I don't feel guilt ridden at all. I just see things as I think
>they are. I also don't think humans are inherently evil. Too many horses
>will overgraze a pasture and turn it into a wasteland. Too many rats in
an
>enclosed space will result in all sorts of aberrant behaviour, finally
>ending in some major *ratricide*.
Funny, the "rats" in NYC seem to be doing fine. No ratricide at all. Hell,
even Calcuttans seem to get along most of the time. Maybe, umm, we're
just not rats? I think your model lacks some sophistication here...
>I also believe that we should allocate a few
>thousand square miles of some national forest for the trophy hunters. A
pair
>of them would a allocated 10 square miles and they would be required to
hunt
>each other. The corpse of the loser is then shipped to a taxidermist to
be
>mounted for the hunters trophy room and now that he (or she) has proved
that
>they can point and shoot, the survivor's gun would be forfeit for the
>remainder of the hunt and they would then receive a hunting license that
>would entitle them to a knife and two weeks to build their own weapon from
>whatever resources that might be handy in order for them to attempt to hunt
>and kill an animal with their contraption so they could further assert their
>manliness.
>
>;o)
You know, I tried and tried to become a vegetarian. I really believe in
it.
I would like my lunch to not involve this:
http://www.meat.org/
wouldn't you?
Are you a vegetarian? If not, the system you support with
your money and choices is far, far worse than hunting. The hunters I
have known have been honorable people. I have no use for it myself, but
I believe that it should continue as long as there is meat for sale.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84176 is a reply to message #84172] |
Tue, 08 May 2007 11:15 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> We have not come anywhere close to overpopulating anything
I disagree with this. There aren't that many places on this planet that are
really favorable for us. These areas must have a water supply, first and
foremost. From water comes everything else, if there is adequate and
favorable surrounding land to grow food. At this point, you can eliminate
approximately 95% of the earth's surface from our life support system
without using some sort of technology to change this...which we have done.
Thing is, when we do this, we start jacking around with the life support
system that lots of other species depend on for their existence as well.
Some of these species regulate the envornoment that we must have in order to
survive. If we jack around with the fundamental life support system by
thinking we can alter it for our own purposes, we are pissin' in the
wind............and yeah, I know that the entire population of the earth
could fit in New Jersey if they stood shoulder-to shoulder..........though I
know some Jerseyites that might object.
;o)
> You see changes you do not like. Man, remember the freeways out
> here? It was way better in 63, trust me. This does not constitute
> overpopulation because we don't like it.
Perhaps not.......but it does constitute a lower quality of life for most
everyone, which produces stress, which contributes to the degradation of
just about any living organism.
>
> Since '63, we have done stupid stuff like build metro-link rail
> systems that even when full, use more fuel and pollute more than cars
> to carry the same number of people...
Hehehe!!......but hey!!!!............it's PC so at least everyone can share
the commonality of the fuckup. Group hug? ;o)
> Oh and we HAD to have a new LA subway that is way under-used
> while the freeways have been neglected for 30 years...
Well, of course....but if you guys can get a bunch of wooden desks down
there to hide under, you can use it for an air raid shelter when the
Rooskies bomb us. Remember that?
;o)
>
> Ideology corrupting policy.
>
> We have had successes too. The cars are so clean today that the air here
> is
> actually better than in the 1970's when there were far fewer people.
>
Remember when we were driving down the Hollywood freeway with the top down
last year? I thought I was going to suffocate from the fumes. Now think
about how much nicer that would have been if those *other* folks would have
been riding the metro or subway.
>
> Well, you know where the next logical move is, don't you? Since the
> envrios, yuppies and NIMBY's won't let us build drilling platforms or
> refineries, and photovoltaics cost more to make and install than the power
> they replace, while sh*theads like Ted Kennedy won't even allow windmills
> to "blight" their view, and our deadbeat president will NOT do anything
> to force the development of new resources?
Agreed. If we kill all the lawyers, they won't be able to survive. that
might be a good starting point.
>
> You know what's coming don't you? That's right. Nuclear plants...
> Or, we can kill a couple of billion people off.
Now you're starting to get my drift. A couple billion won't do it though. I
think mother nature has a few surprises in store for us. We've got a new,
improved batch of bugs now with frequent flyer miles and they're coming soon
to a theatre near you.
> Great evil is always just below the surface of all demogogues, be they
> left or right.
>
> Yes, things can get worse. A lot worse.
I don't think this guy's philosophy is evil. It's just pragmatic. I don't
see it happening in any kind of *actionable* scenario........not while I've
got firearms at my disposal..........which might be just the ticket. If
everyone had firearms and we get pissed off enough, statistically, half of
us are toast anyway. It's a start at least and we can at least do the right
thing and take responsibility for it. We can even find a religious loophole
to jusify it, I'betcha'.
> Funny, the "rats" in NYC seem to be doing fine. No ratricide at all.
> Hell,
> even Calcuttans seem to get along most of the time. Maybe, umm, we're
> just not rats? I think your model lacks some sophistication here...
Well, that's because there are plenty of people there to keep them well fed.
We, OTOH, occasionally require liebenstraum, but in only the best places, of
course.
>
> You know, I tried and tried to become a vegetarian. I really believe in
> it.
> I would like my lunch to not involve this:
>
> http://www.meat.org/
>
> wouldn't you?
Yes.
> Are you a vegetarian?
No.
If not, the system you support with
> your money and choices is far, far worse than hunting.
Agreed. This system needs to change in a big way. In order to avoid these
horrors, we will need lots more land for agricultural grazing, etc, which
takes it out of the moneymaking/development/living space cycle. Can't have
that now can we? Where would we all live? If there were fewer people, there
might be fewer protein factories. Being naturally omniverous creatures, I
can't really see the earth's population going vegan. Less humans=more
humanity?
The hunters I
> have known have been honorable people. I have no use for it myself, but
> I believe that it should continue as long as there is meat for sale.
Please reread my post. I'm talking about *trophy* hunters.
>
> DC
>
Deej
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84180 is a reply to message #84176] |
Tue, 08 May 2007 12:37 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>At this point, you can eliminate
>approximately 95% of the earth's surface from our life support system
>without using some sort of technology to change this...which we have done.
I think you have your percentages way off, and where does the
idea come from that we are not supposed to use technology?
We were -designed to design things-. The idea that we are
apes with big brains who, if we were not so uppity, would be
living in tipis and dying at 27 is utter rubbish.
I guess it depends on where you are coming from...
>Thing is, when we do this, we start jacking around with the life support
>system that lots of other species depend on for their existence as well.
>Some of these species regulate the envornoment that we must have in order
to
>survive. If we jack around with the fundamental life support system by
>thinking we can alter it for our own purposes, we are pissin' in the
>wind
Well we have to be careful don't we? But we are supposed to
be stewards, not servants of the earth. Too many enviros
are Gaian lunatics.
Would you settle for fusion plants, hydrogen cars, and careful
nuclear waste storage?
Technology has had undeniable benefits and has solved
thousands of the scourges of humanity that our ancestors
died from. Now, we are in the stage of learning how to
balance things out. Hell, there are lakes in Russia that are so
radioactive that they will kill you in 30 minutes of exposure...
Ain't it a bit disingenious for US of all people, these big-
brained audio engineers and computer people, to be
whining about technology? Seems silly to me. We do need
to make wise decisions and often do not, but I will tell you
this much; I believe that testing H-bombs in the atmosphere
was really stupid and that we are also stupid today when we
won't let a family build a house because someone found a
fungus-loving spotted dung beetle somewhere near the
property. Also, notice that those prohibiting the new
house ALWAYS have their nice little Ranchette already, don't
they?
>............and yeah, I know that the entire population of the earth
>could fit in New Jersey if they stood shoulder-to shoulder..........though
I
>know some Jerseyites that might object.
>;o)
Depends on how many palms were greased.. snork..
>> You see changes you do not like. Man, remember the freeways out
>> here? It was way better in 63, trust me. This does not constitute
>> overpopulation because we don't like it.
>Perhaps not.......but it does constitute a lower quality of life for most
>everyone, which produces stress, which contributes to the degradation of
>just about any living organism.
As an NYC native I can't imagine such a thing, but I guess
it is what you are used to. At any rate, quality of life issues
are not something to advocate mass extinctions over...
>> Since '63, we have done stupid stuff like build metro-link rail
>> systems that even when full, use more fuel and pollute more than cars
>> to carry the same number of people...
>Hehehe!!......but hey!!!!............it's PC so at least everyone can share
>the commonality of the fuckup. Group hug? ;o)
I like subways a lot... But subways are a reality, not an
idea, and the reality has to *work* dammit... They are finally
getting serious about fixing the freeways out here, but it is
too little too late to prevent horrible commutes for people.
CA used to have the best drivers in the country. Now, it's just
idiots playing bumper cars.
>Well, of course....but if you guys can get a bunch of wooden desks down
>there to hide under, you can use it for an air raid shelter when the
>Rooskies bomb us. Remember that?
>
>;o)
Well, it sure worked for the Brits didn't it? With this guy Putin,
I think another dangerous version of Russia is a real possibility.
>Remember when we were driving down the Hollywood freeway with the top down
>last year? I thought I was going to suffocate from the fumes. Now think
>about how much nicer that would have been if those *other* folks would have
>been riding the metro or subway.
It would have been worse. Metrolink, even when full, pollutes
MORE than the number of cars needed to carry those people...
If we want to accomplish what you have in mind, the rail system
must be electric, not diesel and that means nuclear plants...
>Now you're starting to get my drift. A couple billion won't do it though.
I
>think mother nature has a few surprises in store for us. We've got a new,
>improved batch of bugs now with frequent flyer miles and they're coming
soon
>to a theatre near you.
Yeah, and the idea that this is Gaia's Revenge is the result of
waay too much LSD...
Epidemics tend to be self-limiting. Remember the anthrax scare?
>I don't think this guy's philosophy is evil. It's just pragmatic. I don't
>see it happening in any kind of *actionable* scenario
I think he is certifiable and has brainwashed himself to hate
his own kind. Those sort love all animals except humanity,
and given power will kill as many of us as they can.
>It's a start at least and we can at least do the right
>thing and take responsibility for it. We can even find a religious loophole
>to jusify it, I'betcha'.
Be clear on one thing. Christians believe the end of the world
is not something we can stop. We need to try to, since we
do not know when it will be, and we need
to always be good stewards of the earth, and we need to
NEVER try to bring about war or any other misery to try to
assist God to fulfill prophecy, (what an absurd idea!). You are
right though, people will try to find a religious justification for
their own evil and have done so many times.
>Well, that's because there are plenty of people there to keep them well
fed.
Ain't technology cool?
>> Are you a vegetarian?
>No.
>>If not, the system you support with
>> your money and choices is far, far worse than hunting.
>Agreed. This system needs to change in a big way. In order to avoid these
>horrors, we will need lots more land for agricultural grazing, etc, which
>takes it out of the moneymaking/development/living space cycle. Can't have
>that now can we? Where would we all live? If there were fewer people, there
>might be fewer protein factories. Being naturally omniverous creatures,
I
>can't really see the earth's population going vegan. Less humans=more
>humanity?
As always, how do we get there? The euros are commiting
cultural suicide with 1.1 babies per couple and many do not
bother with marriage, while the muslim immigrants have 4.5.
See where this is heading?
The new clothing store; Burqa Bob's!
Our prices are INSANE!!
>Please reread my post. I'm talking about *trophy* hunters.
I dunno. I don't want a bunch of dead animal heads on the
wall, (I do have a pair of Louie Bellson's drumsticks up
there though) but I doubt that most hunters are jerks.
I don't know many, admittedly.
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84198 is a reply to message #84149] |
Tue, 08 May 2007 21:45 |
Rich Lamanna
Messages: 316
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> As far as the 2nd Amendment . . . listen, guns don't kill people, it's the
> bullets. :)
Sarah, you're a very, very clever and funny woman. You got me laughing at
that one.
Peace,
Rich
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:464037ff$1@linux...
> Actually, though this guy is obviously disturbed, I don't think the
> humans-as-disease-on-earth-as-organism is all that far-fetched as a crude
> analogy. And like viruses or bacteria that cause disease in our bodies,
> humans will die off if they "kill" the host, or if the host's defenses get
> the better of them. Nature has ways of dealing with overpopulation. If we
> don't control it, nature will. No worries.
>
>
> S
>
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote in message news:463f6e43$1@linux...
> >
> > Read this
> >
> > http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903 .aspx
> >
> > then this:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Six-Tom-Clancy/dp/0425170349
> >
> > And you shall understand...
> >
> > DC
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84207 is a reply to message #84197] |
Tue, 08 May 2007 23:33 |
JeffH
Messages: 307
Registered: October 2007
Location: Wamic, OR
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My wife used to work for them machining the bolts, pre-bankruptcy.
Definitely not high on the price performance ratio, but beautiful rifles
Hoov
Rich Lamanna wrote:
> Yeah, Kimber Arms, nice stuff, but expensive.
>
> Rich
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:46401c07$1@linux...
>
>>I want a Kimber Gold Match. yeah baby...
>>
>>DC
>>
>>
>>
>>"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Who the hell put this guy in charge? That's such a romantic, fanciful and
>>>insane view. If they're coming for me, I'm ready. Damn, I wish I had the
>>>bread for that Semmerling LM-4, I guess I'll have to settle for the Colt
>>>Defender or the SPRINGFIELD 1911A1 GI MICRO 45ACP.
>>>
>>>Rich
>>>
>>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote in message news:463f6e43$1@linux...
>>>
>>>>Read this
>>>>
>>>> http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903 .aspx
>>>>
>>>>then this:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Six-Tom-Clancy/dp/0425170349
>>>>
>>>>And you shall understand...
>>>>
>>>>DC
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84246 is a reply to message #84144] |
Wed, 09 May 2007 21:21 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI DC,
Ok back on topic.. :)
DC wrote:
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I've never said to take away anybodies guns. Guns are just inanimate
>> objects like knifes, clubs, rocks, sticks. Only thing that could
>> possibly be considered "evil" is the person using it.
>>
>
> And of course, should one find oneself in a situation in which "evil" has
> lost its "quotes" then one might be well served by such a tool.
>
>
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. Our environmental manipulation was/is one of
our methods of survival. Our tool making ability only made this process
faster and more powerful. With the speed of technology in the past few
centuries I think has made the previously excellent survival mechanism
start to work against use. We need to either to alter this behavior
ourselves or wait for evolution, nature or whatever you want to believe
to get around to changing it. This may involve removing us out of the
picture. Personally I think we should alter our now self destructive
behavior. We have been here a far shorter time than any other species.
I can only hope that this is just the very beginning for use and we will
last as long as the dinosaurs. Heck even lasting as long as some of the
proto-humans would great. Many species have died out in the past from
naturals disasters, plagues, overgrazing, over population. We have as
far we know developed the unique ability of being self aware so we can
potentially change our minds and methods of dealing with he world.
>
>> Sounds to me more like the Turner Diaries is more up your ally if you
>> believe this kinda of literature. You should get the video game thats
>> been out for it. You'll get to shoot allot of guns in it.
>>
>
> And if you think the Clancy book is not eerily predictive of that article
> I linked to then you have not read it. Why would you mistake
> mainstream writing like Tom Clancy for the Turner Diaries? odd...
>
>
>
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. :)
>>> 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.
>> With out the second you wouldn't have anyone to shoot if they infringed
>>
>
>
>> on you 9 other rights. The lack of fair enforcement or of the 3rd to
>> 10th have allot more to do with your need to evoke the 2nd. If the 1st
>> one is infringed upon by anyone then all the rest aren't worth shit
>> anyways. But the first one is the one that anyone in a position of power
>>
>
>
>> will more likely to take away because it keeps people from asking questions.
>>
>
>
> There is no other way to rescue rights from a tyrant, as history has
> shown. This is why the founders put the 2nd amendment in there. It is
> a right, not subject to government. It is fundamental.
>
Thankfully we didn't make our right to bare arms the same as England's.
They only allowed Protestants the right.
> DC
>
Chris
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84260 is a reply to message #84248] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 08:27 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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 #84261 is a reply to message #84260] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 11:14 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"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.
And this is the subtext of all these ideas: the individual behind them is
unbalanced, seeing humans as "no more intrinsically valuable than
earthworms". 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. 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.
>........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.
>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?
>Beware the microbe.
Yes, and the rest of the seven deadly plagues as well....
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84262 is a reply to message #84261] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 11:41 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"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 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 #84263 is a reply to message #84262] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 12:40 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>Assuming that a *regime* is necessary to pull thias off instead of coming
>together and trying to work some sort of common-sense solution.
Ok, you call Bush and Blair, and I will call Ahmadinejad and Olmert. We
can
all get together. I will let you present their population reduction targets
to
them.
And of course, that assumes that Watson we right. I don't buy it without
a
non-insane source.
>> 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..
Wait a minute! Not much of a brain there... How would it differ?
As far as inventing God in our image, that is theology, (and bad Tull lyrics)
and if you want to discuss that, I will, but trust me, that is not an unassailable
position...
>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.
Yeah, and a whole bunch of it came from an education that taught us that
misanthropy is enlightened...
>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.
It isn't. Not yet. So far it is just a dispute, not a discussion. You
and I go back
and forth, the right exposes him for the fool he is, the mainstream left
gets
quiet, while the hard left tries to turn the discussion back to the actual
"facts"
he quotes. No one listens. This subject is not getting the hearing it
deserves,
and that is indeed a problem.
>Well.....it could also be that ther reason there is no refutation
>is..........?
Oh, I dunno, mebbe because Watson is a barking moonbat? And no one takes
him seriously enough to answer his assertions?
I have heard that we have more biodiversity today than at any other time,
and
that humans are responsible for a minute portion of the extinctions we are
experiencing, but I cannot give you the reference for these things.
>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
Then the population reduction goals will not be met. To do so, simply requires
some mechanism for huge numbers of deaths.
The discussion is important, but it must exist among the reasonable. Too
many
lives are at stake.
>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".
In Christianity this was the advice given to the first humans in an empty
earth.
Christians do not generally believe it to apply to us today when the world
is
quite full. How can you proceed from there with such a faulty assumption?
>These religions were born of a time when we weren't necessarily
>at the top of the food chain.
And there you go. Religions were born of man. Simple atheism. I reject
this
worldview out of hand. Now, if you want to talk about stewardship of the
earth, we have much common ground.
>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.
Do you know why? Here is the Catholic position: Life is a gift from God.
We did not give it, and should not take it unless we must to save innocent
lives. When we commit suicide, we commit a sin that cannot be repented
of because we are dead. It is a sin thrown right in God's face against the
very life he gave us.
Now I am not Catholic, and I suspect that God looks at the whole life, not
just the end, but their position is a great touchstone to balance out the
secular culture. They believe that if we have faith, he will get us through
the death we must face, and we will go somewhere much better.
If you believe in God, it makes sense, if you do not, it is barbarity.
>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.
I will not condemn them if they opt out, but I wish they wouldn't.
>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 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.
I just can't bring myself to condemn the person who does this, but I honestly
think it is a horrible thing. Listen my sister died from Oxy, depression,
and
self pity and my Mom is taking the most prolonged miserable way out I can
imagine. It's bullshit, but it's MY bullshit dammit, and I will face it
with my
faith and dignity intact.
The Apostle Paul said:
For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has
come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished
the race, I have kept the faith.
Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the
Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only
to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
And you know what? I don't even CARE about the crown...
take care
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why we need the 2nd Amendment [message #84264 is a reply to message #84263] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 12:40 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We need to get together again and chew the fat............barking
moonbat???...I like that.
;o)
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4643751c$1@linux...
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>
>>Assuming that a *regime* is necessary to pull thias off instead of coming
>
>>together and trying to work some sort of common-sense solution.
>
> Ok, you call Bush and Blair, and I will call Ahmadinejad and Olmert. We
> can
> all get together. I will let you present their population reduction
> targets
> to
> them.
>
> And of course, that assumes that Watson we right. I don't buy it without
> a
> non-insane source.
>
>
>>> 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..
>
> Wait a minute! Not much of a brain there... How would it differ?
>
> As far as inventing God in our image, that is theology, (and bad Tull
> lyrics)
> and if you want to discuss that, I will, but trust me, that is not an
> unassailable
> position...
>
>
>>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.
>
> Yeah, and a whole bunch of it came from an education that taught us that
> misanthropy is enlightened...
>
>
>>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.
>
> It isn't. Not yet. So far it is just a dispute, not a discussion. You
> and I go back
> and forth, the right exposes him for the fool he is, the mainstream left
> gets
> quiet, while the hard left tries to turn the discussion back to the actual
> "facts"
> he quotes. No one listens. This subject is not getting the hearing it
> deserves,
> and that is indeed a problem.
>
>
>>Well.....it could also be that ther reason there is no refutation
>>is..........?
>
> Oh, I dunno, mebbe because Watson is a barking moonbat? And no one takes
> him seriously enough to answer his assertions?
>
> I have heard that we have more biodiversity today than at any other time,
> and
> that humans are responsible for a minute portion of the extinctions we are
> experiencing, but I cannot give you the reference for these things.
>
>
>>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
>
> Then the population reduction goals will not be met. To do so, simply
> requires
> some mechanism for huge numbers of deaths.
>
> The discussion is important, but it must exist among the reasonable. Too
> many
> lives are at stake.
>
>
>>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".
>
> In Christianity this was the advice given to the first humans in an empty
> earth.
> Christians do not generally believe it to apply to us today when the world
> is
> quite full. How can you proceed from there with such a faulty assumption?
>
>>These religions were born of a time when we weren't necessarily
>>at the top of the food chain.
>
> And there you go. Religions were born of man. Simple atheism. I reject
> this
> worldview out of hand. Now, if you want to talk about stewardship of the
> earth, we have much common ground.
>
>
>>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.
>
> Do you know why? Here is the Catholic position: Life is a gift from God.
> We did not give it, and should not take it unless we must to save innocent
> lives. When we commit suicide, we commit a sin that cannot be repented
> of because we are dead. It is a sin thrown right in God's face against
> the
> very life he gave us.
>
> Now I am not Catholic, and I suspect that God looks at the whole life, not
> just the end, but their position is a great touchstone to balance out the
>
> secular culture. They believe that if we have faith, he will get us
> through
> the death we must face, and we will go somewhere much better.
>
> If you believe in God, it makes sense, if you do not, it is barbarity.
>
>
>>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.
>
> I will not condemn them if they opt out, but I wish they wouldn't.
>
>>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 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.
>
> I just can't bring myself to condemn the person who does this, but I
> honestly
>
> think it is a horrible thing. Listen my sister died from Oxy,
> depression,
> and
> self pity and my Mom is taking the most prolonged miserable way out I can
> imagine. It's bullshit, but it's MY bullshit dammit, and I will face it
> with my
> faith and dignity intact.
>
>
> The Apostle Paul said:
>
> For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has
>
> come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished
> the race, I have kept the faith.
>
> Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the
> Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only
> to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
>
>
> And you know what? I don't even CARE about the crown...
>
> take care
>
> DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 23 22:07:48 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06043 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
