View Full Version : Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin says bloodshed may be needed to protect conservatism
Mr. Goodtimes
10-18-16, 21:23
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html?client=safari
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin says bloodshed may be needed to protect conservatism
Michael WalshSeptember 13, 2016
Bevin speaks at a picnic on Aug. 6, in Fancy Farm, Ky. (Photo: Timothy D. Easley/AP)
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin said conservatives may need to turn to physical violence in order to protect the United States against contemporary liberalism.
The Republican governor put forth the controversial suggestion after speaking of the “degradation of society” during an impassioned, 15-minute speech at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. The provocative comments started to gain national attention at the start of this week.
“America is worth fighting for ideologically. I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically. But that may, in fact, be the case,” he told the crowd.
Bevin suggested that if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would set the nation on a dangerous course that might require bloodshed to correct. He told the audience that the “candle” of liberty might go out “on our watch.”
To hammer home his point, he paraphrased a famous quote from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
“Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children,” he said. “It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something that we, through our apathy and our indifference, have given away. Don’t let it happen.”
Governor Matt Bevin | InsideGov
Bevin encouraged young conservatives to speak up, be bold, sound the alarm and wake up others. He told the conference attendees to not keep what they’ve learned from speakers and their books to themselves.
According to Bevin, too many people these days are following the example of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who infamously tried to appease Adolf Hitler and promised “peace for our time,” as opposed to his successor, Winston Churchill, who is widely celebrated for understanding and combating the threat of Nazism.
He said liberals mock conservatives into silence by accusing them of being intolerant when they speak their minds. He lamented, for instance, that many conservatives have remained silent concerning “the atrocity of abortion.”
“It’s a slippery slope. First we’re killing children. Then it’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Now it’s this gender-bending kind of ‘don’t ask, don’t be a bigot, don’t be unreasonable, don’t be unenlightened, heaven forbid, just keep your mouth shut.’”
On Friday, at a banquet in Washington, D.C., Bevin was awarded the Distinguished Christian Statesman Award from the D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship, a ministry of Evangelism Explosion International.
Bevin’s office has not responded to a request for comment from Yahoo News, but he did post a statement on Twitter encouraging people to listen to his comments in their entirety. He suggested that the mention of bloodshed in his remarks was a reference to military sacrifice and that “any intelligent person will easily understand the message” if they listen to the speech.
Watch Gov Bevin’s full #ValuesVoters speech here: https://t.co/TEwi7BuYft pic.twitter.com/XusKroLU7m
— Matt Bevin (@MattBevin) September 13, 2016
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-18-16, 21:27
No justice, no peace; right?
All well and good, but until some Governor pulls a Ft. Sumter....
yawn
RetroRevolver77
10-18-16, 21:39
I think we are about to have our convictions tested in this nation. If we stand strong, freedom can survive.
Pretty much what Tom Paine said in his pamphlet "Common Sense". You know, one of the many things that wasn't covered--much less read--in your history classes.
MountainRaven
10-19-16, 00:00
Pretty much what Tom Paine said in his pamphlet "Common Sense". You know, one of the many things that wasn't covered--much less read--in your history classes.
"The people have read Thomas Paine's Common Sense, I doubt very much that Congress has."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Honestly, I worry that the Constitution might be eroded by some of "his" values and political beliefs as well. And a second "shooting war" probably won't result in a restoration of our Constitutional republic, we are far more likely to end up with a combination of Obamaland and Bernie's Socialist dream.
But I guess he didn't say anything like "Grab them by the vag" so it won't make the news.
TacticalSledgehammer
10-19-16, 03:01
If we only had half the governor KY does....
Moose-Knuckle
10-19-16, 05:25
Gov. Abbott among other TX leaders will push for secession if and when Hillary attempts to cut down the tree of liberty. Some other states have in their own constitutions that if the blue bellies ever attempt to repeal the 2nd that they can and will pop smoke.
When several states attempt to break away I can see how Hillary's little man syndrome would trigger a shooting war between the feds and states. That is of course if she doesn't push Russia to nuke us all first.
I look at the demographics, it makes me sad. I see no way back to the Constitution that doesn't involve pain.
I look at the demographics, it makes me sad. I see no way back to the Constitution that doesn't involve pain.
That is why the Obama Admin, and Hillary are facilitating the hordes of illegal aliens coming across our southern border, and importing Muslim refugees at increasing rates. Fundamental Transformation.
KalashniKEV
10-19-16, 09:08
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Indeed old boy, God save the Queen!
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
When it comes to tyranny and oppression, I do not agree. When it comes to philosophical, ideological, ethical, moral, and other debates, then I agree (which is what I believe you were referencing).
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-19-16, 09:36
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Isn't that how every govt law and regulation is enforced? Do as the govt says or guys with guns show up and put you in jail.
If it is such a good idea, why do you need to pass a law to make people do it.
Isn't that how every govt law and regulation is enforced? Do as the govt says or guys with guns show up and put you in jail.
If it is such a good idea, why do you need to pass a law to make people do it.
We cannot debate with facts now. It is not cognitive to reality.
Averageman
10-19-16, 09:52
We cannot debate with facts now. It is not cognitive to reality.
And this for the overwhelming WIN!
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
People can say what they will, but this is a true statement.
It is a double edged sword of course.
For all the scholars and Ivy Leaguers in govt, the Social Contract and so on seems to be lost on them.
We, each new day, get pressed to choose between "Don't Tread on Me" in the most unironic and literal of contexts or "pay up sucker, keep your mouth shut or go to jail...or worse".
It is unnecessary and should not be an issue.
It should not matter whonis elected, our rights are our rights. Not a trend on facebook, not a tweet, not a youtube video, but actual rights. Bestowed upon us by birth. The government is not to grant rights but to acknowledge and respect them. They were already ours with or without someone else's approval.
So we are being backed in a corner, defiance or compliance.
When did simply being left alone stop being an option?
This is the kind of thing you never discuss in public, and especially on an internet forum. As a former field grade officer, my thinking would require a defined mission and specified targets. Since we're talking the civilian realm, who gets to define the mission, and who gets to select the targets? Are we talking roughing up opposition voters, politicians, or are we discussing actual lethal violence? Such discussions, if they take place, should happen in another venue.
Now, if we're talking taking out some New Black Panther Party scum or SEIU members trying to prevent me from entering a voting location, that's an easy answer. The application of measured violence would be in order to protect your Right to Vote.
Real talk. I dont care how black someone is. Getting in my face with a baseball bat is the E ticket ride to getting it shoved up your ass and looking like a fudgesicle.
I furthermore do not care how feminazi nor communist. I will not be obstructed.
Like Confucius say "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing"
KalashniKEV
10-19-16, 10:37
When it comes to tyranny and oppression, I do not agree. When it comes to philosophical, ideological, ethical, moral, and other debates, then I agree (which is what I believe you were referencing).
You win the M4C reading comprehension award!
(or probably you were the only other one who read the copypasta?)
...speaking of the “degradation of society” during an impassioned, 15-minute speech, (mystery speaker) said:
“(COUNTRY/EMIRITE/CALIPHATE X) is worth fighting for ideologically. I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically. But that may, in fact, be the case,”
Here are your choices:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/08/01/17/Bin-Laden.jpg
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/09/04/18/Abu-Bakr-al-Baghdadiv2.jpg
http://s3-origin-images.politico.com/2015/05/29/150529_matt_bevin_ap_629.jpg
Note that the speaker is not discussing defending the United States Constitution through violence, but fighting to impose his own personal ideology or spirituality.
That is what you may wish was said, but that is not what was said.
Note also that this speech was delivered at the "Value Voters Summit" where the topics of the day are mostly strategies to subvert the United States Constitution and enforce their personal ideology on their fellow citizens. They are very much an anti-constitutional, authoritarian bunch.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-19-16, 10:49
I struggle with what you would even do as direct action that would further the cause, especially when you consider if the TEA Party followed the BLM model of stopping highways and widespread rioting there would be massive crackdown.
The Progressives are passive aggressive to the n-th degree. They don't come after guns, they just pass laws outlawing what you have and really don't care if you are non-compliant, you are now a criminal. They use the MSM to marginalize and ostracize any traditional viewpoint.
Think of it like the stapler guy in the movie "Office Space", they just kept on pushing him without firing him. Maybe not the best example because he eventually burns down the building- but at least no one dies.
So basically, don't F with my stapler.
KalashniKEV
10-19-16, 10:54
So basically, don't F with my stapler.
I got'cha there, but it's important to recognize both the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right- both are against Freedom and Liberty.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archepelago"
(When did simply being left alone stop being an option?)
This is the kind of thing you never discuss in public, and especially on an internet forum. As a former field grade officer, my thinking would require a defined mission and specified targets. Since we're talking the civilian realm, who gets to define the mission, and who gets to select the targets? Are we talking roughing up opposition voters, politicians, or are we discussing actual lethal violence? Such discussions, if they take place, should happen in another venue.
Now, if we're talking taking out some New Black Panther Party scum or SEIU members trying to prevent me from entering a voting location, that's an easy answer. The application of measured violence would be in order to protect your Right to Vote.
Conservatives tend to have things to lose such as jobs, nice houses, comfortable incomes, and leisure time spent on the internet. That is a powerful disincentive to the notion of going all Bill the Butcher. Moreover, the world is a very easy place to navigate - I'm in Vegas today and can be in Europe in 15 hours with full access to my financial portfolio. My point is that many of us will do what my in-laws did when opportunity dried up in their native land: get on a plane and leave.
Like you, I spent most of my prime "defending Merica." As I grew older, my definition of America has shifted from a physical land and people to a concept. I suppose that is because my travels have taken me to equally beautiful lands, and introduced me to equally charming people. However, the concept of America's founding has always stood as a unique pillar in my mind. If our population wants to do away with that concept, that is fine. I'm not going to stop them and I'm done risking my life for ideals. That is a contingency for which I am prepared.
ramairthree
10-19-16, 11:42
I got'cha there, but it's important to recognize both the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right- both are against Freedom and Liberty.
I agree with this.
However, as someone that does not go to Church except for a wedding or funeral,
It is clear to me that a society based on Western European laws, values, cultural norms and Christian law and family values works.
It seems to provide the most freedoms, organizations, safety, function, etc.
The jack hammering away at that foundation makes for a pretty crappy society.
While not Christian,
And not 100% pure European descent,
I prefer what we had to where we are going.
There are 100s of other countries and 1000s of young boomer failed communes that have had alternatives with far inferior results.
PatrioticDisorder
10-19-16, 11:51
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Thankfully the founders never got that memo. :rolleyes:
Conservatives tend to have things to lose such as jobs, nice houses, comfortable incomes, and leisure time spent on the internet. That is a powerful disincentive to the notion of going all Bill the Butcher. Moreover, the world is a very easy place to navigate - I'm in Vegas today and can be in Europe in 15 hours with full access to my financial portfolio. My point is that many of us will do what my in-laws did when opportunity dried up in their native land: get on a plane and leave.
Another great movie reference.
Vegas...EM conference? I think I know some folks out there.
You win the M4C reading comprehension award!
I'll have you know I graduated kindergarten. :sarcastic:
Averageman
10-19-16, 12:16
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=9529#more-9529
Who are the big losers of 2016, besides the two candidates themselves? The D.C. ‘establishment’ and its ‘elites’
Collate the Podesta e-mails. Read Colin Powell’s hacked communications. Review Hillary’s Wall Street speeches and the electronic exchanges between the media, the administration, and the Clinton campaign. The conclusion is an incestuous world of hypocrisy, tsk-tsking condescension, sanitized shake-downs, inside profiteering, snobby high entertainment — and often crimes that would put anyone else in jail.
The players are also quite boring and predictable.
This is a good read. It pretty much establishes the facts many of you already know and has a few suggestions for some more reading.
Summary;
You don't get to sit at the "Adult" table, just take what we put on your plate and be ready to clear the table and wash those dishes.
Another great movie reference.
Vegas...EM conference? I think I know some folks out there.
Yep. Show me another professional medical organization that hires dancing pu$$y at its opening party...
42043
I KNOW that the American College of Surgeons doesn't do that...
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-19-16, 12:38
I got'cha there, but it's important to recognize both the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right- both are against Freedom and Liberty.
The issue is the asymmetry of the threats. The right's pushes were blunted by the courts over the last 40 years while the left's authoritarian pushes are actually enforced by the courts.
Both sides are a threat, but the left is far more of a threat to freedom now.
KalashniKEV
10-19-16, 13:20
Both sides are a threat, but the left is far more of a threat to freedom now.
Both sides threaten Freedom. The reason why the Left may be perceived as the greater threat is because they have more power- for right now.
When society breaks down, many people who assume they will gravitate to the "Patriotic" side and serve with honor are in for a rude awakening.
There may-well-be a "Patriot" faction that believes in strict constitutionalism, freedom, liberty, enlightenment thought (just like the Framers), but there is a guarantee that they will share the battlefield with a deplorable left and a deplorable right.
Note that the speaker is not discussing defending the United States Constitution through violence, but fighting to impose his own personal ideology or spirituality.
That is the part that pinged my sonar.
KalashniKEV
10-19-16, 14:38
That is the part that pinged my sonar.
Good to know that you're still calibrated, homey.
:)
That is the part that pinged my sonar.
Maybe I missed something when I read the article but exactly what wording leads you to believe he is "fighting to impose his own personal ideology or spirituality"? I guess I can ask that of you and Kev since you were quoting him. He laments a few things and mentions being shouted down if you oppose abortion but nowhere did I see that he espoused fighting for anything other than protecting conservatism. Even that phrase is paraphrased into the title. Not trying to nitpick but point me in the right direction with regards to what was in that article.
It's one thing to surmise something about intent but basing it off of a specific article that doesn't (to me) allude to that is why I ask.
RetroRevolver77
10-19-16, 16:55
Both sides threaten Freedom. The reason why the Left may be perceived as the greater threat is because they have more power- for right now.
When society breaks down, many people who assume they will gravitate to the "Patriotic" side and serve with honor are in for a rude awakening.
There may-well-be a "Patriot" faction that believes in strict constitutionalism, freedom, liberty, enlightenment thought (just like the Framers), but there is a guarantee that they will share the battlefield with a deplorable left and a deplorable right.
Constitutional Conservative is farther right than any of the current political parties.
Like you, I spent most of my prime "defending Merica." As I grew older, my definition of America has shifted from a physical land and people to a concept. I suppose that is because my travels have taken me to equally beautiful lands, and introduced me to equally charming people. However, the concept of America's founding has always stood as a unique pillar in my mind. If our population wants to do away with that concept, that is fine. I'm not going to stop them and I'm done risking my life for ideals. That is a contingency for which I am prepared.
I've been all over the world with the Army, but my family has been in this part of the Southwest for 394 years, one of New Mexico's older families. We've been on this area of Land Grant acreage since the 1840s and this parcel was established in 1879. I'm not going anywhere. I too have traveled Europe and have seen the sights, experienced the people, but for me it's always good to come back to the USA. I've also seen some of the crappier parts of the 3rd World and have no wish to go back.
I have said this for a long time that any revolution or bloodshed will be localized events, but perhaps in lots of areas. If the American people are suicidal and vote in Hillary, then the people have spoken and they have to live with their mistake. At that point you have to keep your distance from a suicidal crowd, and I will continue to operate in my part of the world, keep close to home the ideals and freedoms that I have enjoyed, and that of my ancestors. If that means keeping a low profile in a new dark age in America, I can do that too.
RetroRevolver77
10-19-16, 17:22
I've been all over the world with the Army, but my family has been in this part of the Southwest for 394 years, one of New Mexico's older families. We've been on this area of Land Grant acreage since the 1840s and this parcel was established in 1879. I'm not going anywhere. I too have traveled Europe and have seen the sights, experienced the people, but for me it's always good to come back to the USA. I've also seen some of the crappier parts of the 3rd World and have no wish to go back.
I have said this for a long time that any revolution or bloodshed will be localized events, but perhaps in lots of areas. If the American people are suicidal and vote in Hillary, then the people have spoken and they have to live with their mistake. At that point you have to keep your distance from a suicidal crowd, and I will continue to operate in my part of the world, keep close to home the ideals and freedoms that I have enjoyed, and that of my ancestors. If that means keeping a low profile in a new dark age in America, I can do that too.
That's the whole thing, the American people aren't voting in Hillary. The election is being stolen through use of manipulated polling data, biased media, programmed voting machines in 16 states provided by a foreign entity, 20 million invalid registered voters, and general election tampering such as busing people to different polling stations as well as mail in ballot fraud. Now we just have to decide if we will allow them to steal our basic right of a free election process or not.
Maybe I missed something when I read the article but exactly what wording leads you to believe he is "fighting to impose his own personal ideology or spirituality"?
Here are the parts that gave me concerns.
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin said conservatives may need to turn to physical violence in order to protect the United States against contemporary liberalism.
So what constitutes "contemporary liberalism" in his mind? Gay marriage, drinking on Sunday, Playboy magazine, the books of Karl Marx? He's going to need to specifically define some things before he starts with physical violence. I don't want to start any Christian Taliban crap, but keep in mind Muslim fundamentalists are also waging a war with "contemporary liberalism" if you ask them.
The Republican governor put forth the controversial suggestion after speaking of the “degradation of society”
Again, I need more than ambiguous "buzz words." This is like Obama vowing to fight racism but supporting various forms of "racism." I need specific problems identified, specific solutions proposed and not boogeyman "buzzwords."
“America is worth fighting for ideologically. I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically. But that may, in fact, be the case,” he told the crowd.
Again, what ideologies? Spiritually, what context is being used? If I don't subscribe to his spiritual views can I expect to be one of those he proposes to wage war against? While I probably share his concerns about the number of Muslim immigrants entering this country, I think the true reasons behind our concerns may be very different, and I don't want to fix that problem by promoting anything like a Christian theocracy in concept or practice.
Bevin suggested that if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would set the nation on a dangerous course that might require bloodshed to correct.
Again I'm gonna need specifics. Are we talking about waging war because abortion is legal, gay marriage is legal, because Hillary is a bulldyke in a pantsuit? Or is it strictly addressing attacks on the Constitution and the discarding of rule of law? I need to know what kind of war and why.
And then there is this.
On Friday, at a banquet in Washington, D.C., Bevin was awarded the Distinguished Christian Statesman Award from the D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship, a ministry of Evangelism Explosion International.
I'm not sure he is the guy I want waging a war to promote his view of what he thinks America should be. That said, if he was the Republican candidate I'd still vote for him over Hillary despite my many reservations and concerns.
I don't doubt there's voter fraud, but there are a lot of uninformed people in the United States. They are not engaged in the process and information that's required to protect our Republic. So I think that if Hillary wins, it's a mix of fraud and just purely stupid people. But I don't have any inside info to say with any certainly other than what I have experienced.
Maybe I missed something when I read the article but exactly what wording leads you to believe he is "fighting to impose his own personal ideology or spirituality"? I guess I can ask that of you and Kev since you were quoting him. He laments a few things and mentions being shouted down if you oppose abortion but nowhere did I see that he espoused fighting for anything other than protecting conservatism. Even that phrase is paraphrased into the title. Not trying to nitpick but point me in the right direction with regards to what was in that article.
It's one thing to surmise something about intent but basing it off of a specific article that doesn't (to me) allude to that is why I ask.
Nevermind
That's the whole thing, the American people aren't voting in Hillary. The election is being stolen through use of manipulated polling data, biased media, programmed voting machines in 16 states provided by a foreign entity, 20 million invalid registered voters, and general election tampering such as busing people to different polling stations as well as mail in ballot fraud. Now we just have to decide if we will allow them to steal our basic right of a free election process or not.
It sounds like you are not prepared to accept the results of the election unless Trump wins. Interesting.
Good luck.
Singlestack Wonder
10-19-16, 18:24
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Utterly clueless statement...Our Country's Founders ignored such cowardly rhetoric when they decided to use violence against the British to create our Nation.
Here are the parts that gave me concerns.
So what constitutes "contemporary liberalism" in his mind? Gay marriage, drinking on Sunday, Playboy magazine, the books of Karl Marx? He's going to need to specifically define some things before he starts with physical violence. I don't want to start any Christian Taliban crap, but keep in mind Muslim fundamentalists are also waging a war with "contemporary liberalism" if you ask them.
Again, I need more than ambiguous "buzz words." This is like Obama vowing to fight racism but supporting various forms of "racism." I need specific problems identified, specific solutions proposed and not boogeyman "buzzwords."
Again, what ideologies? Spiritually, what context is being used? If I don't subscribe to his spiritual views can I expect to be one of those he proposes to wage war against? While I probably share his concerns about the number of Muslim immigrants entering this country, I think the true reasons behind our concerns may be very different, and I don't want to fix that problem by promoting anything like a Christian theocracy in concept or practice.
Again I'm gonna need specifics. Are we talking about waging war because abortion is legal, gay marriage is legal, because Hillary is a bulldyke in a pantsuit? Or is it strictly addressing attacks on the Constitution and the discarding of rule of law? I need to know what kind of war and why.
And then there is this.
I'm not sure he is the guy I want waging a war to promote his view of what he thinks America should be. That said, if he was the Republican candidate I'd still vote for him over Hillary despite my many reservations and concerns.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. A true Constitutional Conservative and a Christian right-winger may share some ideals but are two mostly different animals. I agree in that regard, and I'll also agree that if he was the nominee you better bet I'd vote for him over the alternative!
I don't need or want a Moral Police be it Christian or Muslim. That said the latter has a much more recent track record of atrocities than the former. Yeah yeah, the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, yada yada. I wasn't alive then and neither was anyone else here. Beirut in 1983 began our collision with radical Islam and it ramped up greatly 15 years ago and hasn't let up. This is today's reality, not history.
Nevermind
Please, expound on your response. I wasn't being confrontational and I'm not a "church person" (weddings and funerals). If you're reading between the lines of what he said please explain. Is it because the award was given by some Christian group? If so that automatically negates the gist of what he said?
Averageman
10-19-16, 19:01
I'm equally concerned with anyone from any religion, any religious person or .gov "Official" at any level espousing the use of violence to gain political change in the name of religon.
I really don't care which deity, book or sect the prefer, it's simply supporting Tyranny.
I'm equally concerned with anyone from any religion, any religious person or .gov "Official" at any level espousing the use of violence to gain political change in the name of religon.
I really don't care which deity, book or sect the prefer, it's simply supporting Tyranny.
Agreed 100%.......but is that what he was doing?
Averageman
10-19-16, 19:28
Agreed 100%.......but is that what he was doing?
I think in the context of the time, place and audience it was inappropriate.
Of all of the quotes he could have chosen to use that night, that might have been the worst choice.
Lots of Military stuff, lots of direction leading toward conflict, I have to ask why? I think if I were receiving an award from a Christian organization, I would have written a very different speech to show my appreciation .
KalashniKEV
10-19-16, 19:35
Yeah yeah, the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, yada yada. I wasn't alive then and neither was anyone else here.
Those of us who know history don't have to go back that far.
It wasn't very long ago at all that a modern day "Crusader" of the Knights Templar 2083 Order of the Looneybird was blasting kiddies by the dozens and dozens and detonating bombs in the name of Jesus. Also not sure if you've ever heard of Joseph Kony... and you obviously must have been switched off for much of the 90's when full scale genocide operations were underway, perpetrated by men who were blessed and sprinkled with holy water before going to work slaughtering everyone from kids in their beds to patients in the hospital.
Religion is a tool to move weak minded people to action. Sometimes that's good. Many times it can be exploited for bad purposes.
Agreed 100%.......but is that what he was doing?
Read up on Bevin- he's anti-reproductive freedom and anti-marriage equality.
One of his biggest things has been trying to get government into the pussy by going force-vag on women seeking abortions.
His constituents have moved to impeach him several times this year (his first year). If KY had a recall, he would not survive it.
Calling for some kind of wacky Christian intifada at the Values Voter Summit is not helping him keep his job.
Please, expound on your response. I wasn't being confrontational and I'm not a "church person" (weddings and funerals). If you're reading between the lines of what he said please explain. Is it because the award was given by some Christian group? If so that automatically negates the gist of what he said?
I don't see any violent conservative revolution directed at gays, abortion clinics, or any other secular agenda. We have too much to lose. Like I said in an earlier post, conservatives will simply continue to withdraw. Guys like OH58D will retreat to their farms. Those with the means (financial or technical) and less attachments will find their ways to parts of Europe, Asia, Aus/NZ. The only uptick in violence will come from the increased crime associated with the rise in poverty that now seems unavoidable.
I don't see any violent conservative revolution directed at gays, abortion clinics, or any other secular agenda. We have too much to lose. Like I said in an earlier post, conservatives will simply continue to withdraw. Guys like OH58D will retreat to their farms. Those with the means (financial or technical) and less attachments will find their ways to parts of Europe, Asia, Aus/NZ. The only uptick in violence will come from the increased crime associated with the rise in poverty that now seems unavoidable.
Going to Europe or Asia is a non-starter. Way less freedom, way more "migrant" violence, and absolutely nothing to do.
You did touch on a point. More people will just give up. Why do anything if you are just going to get taxed to death?
Why care anymore?
I think some people will just start living off the grid with chicks with hairy underarms.
That's a plan of mine, one of several. Depends. Whatever happens happens.
I will say that politicians got us into this mess, why or how would you think they would get us out
RetroRevolver77
10-19-16, 19:51
I don't see any violent conservative revolution directed at gays, abortion clinics, or any other secular agenda. We have too much to lose. Like I said in an earlier post, conservatives will simply continue to withdraw. Guys like OH58D will retreat to their farms. Those with the means (financial or technical) and less attachments will find their ways to parts of Europe, Asia, Aus/NZ. The only uptick in violence will come from the increased crime associated with the rise in poverty that now seems unavoidable.
What more can we lose if we no longer have free elections? Just accept the results of massive voter fraud? Decide it's OK for them to pull this every time there is an election, bus in their EBT slobs from polling station to polling station, rig voting machines nationwide, and then just vote themselves more of our tax dollars? No taxation without representation.
Outlander Systems
10-19-16, 19:54
Firefly and me will be running our hustle in Adidas and Puma track suits, respectively, behind a liquor store in Clayco.
He'll answer only to the name, "El Cuchillo," and I to, "Sammy Scarface."
Those of us who know history don't have to go back that far.
It wasn't very long ago at all that a modern day "Crusader" of the Knights Templar 2083 Order of the Looneybird was blasting kiddies by the dozens and dozens and detonating bombs in the name of Jesus. Also not sure if you've ever heard of Joseph Kony... and you obviously must have been switched off for much of the 90's when full scale genocide operations were underway, perpetrated by men who were blessed and sprinkled with holy water before going to work slaughtering everyone from kids in their beds to patients in the hospital.
Religion is a tool to move weak minded people to action. Sometimes that's good. Many times it can be exploited for bad purposes. Yeah, I'll agree with no reservations.
If you're referring to Bosnia and Kosovo you're right about the religious enemies they each were to one another. But IIRC the U.S. intervened on behalf of the Muslim folks over there when the atrocities were made public. Was this a full-on religious Crusade? Nah, mostly just hard-core elements in each group who hated each other. Hell, they had inter-married for centuries! Religion was the excuse for settling scores and likely petty local differences. One side got the upper hand (Serbian Orthodox) and those "differences" became fatal. Ultimately they lost, as they should have for pulling that shit. However, had the tables been turned and the Muslims had perpetrated the deeds I would have been for them losing their asses too. I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember those events as a voting adult.
Averageman
10-19-16, 19:59
What more can we lose if we no longer have free elections? Just accept the results of massive voter fraud? Decide it's OK for them to pull this every time there is an election, bus in their EBT slobs from polling station to polling station, rig voting machines nationwide, and then just vote themselves more of our tax dollars? No taxation without representation.
There is no way you can get six Conservative people to agree on a single candidate, even less likely many would answer a call to arms, were more likely to come here and bitch about it and get up in the morning and trudge off to work.
My plan is to withdraw, retreat and quietly do as I damn well please. Trust me, I literally crunch the numbers about four times a year and figure down to the dime what it will cost my to drop off the grid.
I'm really trying hard to not get bitter and turn in to more of a grumpy old fart, it's getting hard.
I don't see any violent conservative revolution directed at gays, abortion clinics, or any other secular agenda. We have too much to lose. Like I said in an earlier post, conservatives will simply continue to withdraw. Guys like OH58D will retreat to their farms. Those with the means (financial or technical) and less attachments will find their ways to parts of Europe, Asia, Aus/NZ. The only uptick in violence will come from the increased crime associated with the rise in poverty that now seems unavoidable.
Thanks for replying.
Question: why in the Hell (or rather where in the Hell) are you going to go? You're on this site, you like guns. Where other than here can you find that freedom (at least as long as it remains on the up-and-up). Europe? Asia? If that isn't overly important to you I guess with the proper $$$ you could settle somewhere nicely.
I don't see any violent conservative revolution directed at gays, abortion clinics, or any other secular agenda. We have too much to lose. Like I said in an earlier post, conservatives will simply continue to withdraw. Guys like OH58D will retreat to their farms. Those with the means (financial or technical) and less attachments will find their ways to parts of Europe, Asia, Aus/NZ. The only uptick in violence will come from the increased crime associated with the rise in poverty that now seems unavoidable.
Actually Ranches.... In the case of our family, we were here beginning in 1622 as part of the Spanish Conquest. We were a family of soldiers, and survived the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 when a lot of families returned to Mexico City after 400+ Spanish inhabitants were killed by Native Tribes. By the middle of the 18th Century, New Mexican colonists were left to fend for themselves, form their own government and military since support from Spanish Mexico City was all but non-existent. We managed OK when Stephen Watts Kearney rolled into Santa Fe in 1846 and later we were briefly under the control of the Confederacy during the Civil War. By the early 1870s my ancestors had joined the 3rd US Cavalry and served here, in Arizona and the northern plains. Getting out of the Army in 1879 my great grandfather and his brother devoted their time to ranching and being involved in Territorial New Mexico affairs.
Yes, we will survive any change in government, even some kind of totalitarian leadership in Washington. I am a believer that the United States is a special experiment created in a time when freedoms here were not seen in the world. I am a big booster for traditional American values and the Constitution. If need be, I would be willing to take up arms to fight for America, I just would like some clarity as to whom I would be fighting. Certainly I have no love for Progressive Marxists that seem to be rising in power.
Beirut in 1983 began our collision with radical Islam and it ramped up greatly 15 years ago and hasn't let up. This is today's reality, not history.
We could probably take it back to 1979 when Iran seized our embassy and held hostages for about a year. Globally it could go back as far as the Munich games in 1972 and all of the follow up acts of terrorism. Too many hijacked airlines to list them all.
But modern political terrorism probably begins with the bombing of the King David Hotel (British HQ at the time) to force England to abandon the Palestinian territory. Ironically the Stern Gang and the Irgun showed the Palestinian arabs how to effectively fight an insurgency. But religious conflict and holy land deeds are nothing new.
Firefly and me will be running our hustle in Adidas and Puma track suits, respectively, behind a liquor store in Clayco.
He'll answer only to the name, "El Cuchillo," and I to, "Sammy Scarface."
My Fila stuff still fits, there's also a kangol somewhere in the back of that closet.
My Fila stuff still fits, there's also a kangol somewhere in the back of that closet.
Your street name will be Hightop
Your street name will be Hightop
I got sounds covered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_NsirYK9e0
KalashniKEV
10-19-16, 23:16
But IIRC the U.S. intervened on behalf of the Muslim folks over there when the atrocities were made public.
You recall incorrectly.
Get smart on OPN STORM, Dyncorp, and Croatia.
Was this a full-on religious Crusade? Nah, mostly just hard-core elements in each group who hated each other.
What?
You mean like an enthno-sectarian war among the same ethno?
Or like really a religious turf war?
I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember those events as a voting adult.
However you curiously choose to forget...
Is it your assertion that you were not "switched off" at the time, but you are now?
Quite curious... curious indeed!
Going to Europe or Asia is a non-starter. Way less freedom, way more "migrant" violence, and absolutely nothing to do.
No.
More Freedom, same violence, and LOTS to do.
Where other than here can you find that freedom (at least as long as it remains on the up-and-up). Europe? Asia?
Europe, Asia, SA, Africa... take your pick.
You might not find as much CAI or PW Arms imports always coming in, but hey... this brotha can survive with an old AK or and FAL or G3.
I dunno. I spent a week in Japan, Kev and while it was fun for a day or two; It was claustrophobic. I am very tall and it was very uncomfortable. People minded their own business but if you do not have blue eyes and blonde hair you don't seem "American" to them.
The only shooting range was airsoft and they had some arcades that put Dave and Busters to shame. And while it is not my religion, I think everyone should see a Shrine Temple just once. It wasn't bad but I couldn't live there.
I'm not into Asian women. Nothing against them but not my thing. Not into Blondes or redheads either for that matter.
Other places are interesting for a while, but if I were going anywhere else in exile; I'd find some place in the boonies of South America. It'd be more familiar, the women would be a bit more acceptable, and it'd just feel more natural. If I could bring my stash with me that'd be even better.
Moose-Knuckle
10-20-16, 03:14
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Read up on Bevin- he's anti-reproductive freedom . . .
Kind of like feminists and reproductive violence, aka abortion?
Moose-Knuckle
10-20-16, 03:27
It sounds like you are not prepared to accept the results of the election unless Trump wins. Interesting.
Good luck.
When you fly off to your bolt hole in the EU, have you prepared for the latest islamic invasion they are suffering? Last I checked personal ownership of firearms and self-defense in general are not popular notions there. But perhaps you have yours in Eastern Europe where they still have a modicum of common sense.
You recall incorrectly.
Get smart on OPN STORM, Dyncorp, and Croatia.
What?
You mean like an enthno-sectarian war among the same ethno?
Or like really a religious turf war?
However you curiously choose to forget...
Is it your assertion that you were not "switched off" at the time, but you are now?
Quite curious... curious indeed!
Apologies to the OP for the sidetrack.......
You can cloak the Balkans mess under the guise of "religion" if you want but those people had lived as neighbors for centuries. When they went at it I would say it was more of an ethnic as opposed to a religious war (of course it largely divided along who was a Serb Orthodox and who was a Muslim). You obviously know we intervened in both Bosnia and Kosovo, so yeah, 'Murica took up the torch to protect Muslims being faced with genocide.
Croatia is a little different of course and was definitely more of an ethnic situation as opposed to the others (Croats are Christians and Serbs are Christians but the Croats wanted the Serbs out and did some nasty stuff in the aftermath). And no, we didn't intervene in that particular situation.
Averageman
10-20-16, 06:15
You can cloak the Balkans mess under the guise of "religion" if you want but those people had lived as neighbors for centuries. When they went at it I would say it was more of an ethnic as opposed to a religious war (of course it largely divided along who was a Serb Orthodox and who was a Muslim). You obviously know we intervened in both Bosnia and Kosovo, so yeah, 'Murica took up the torch to protect Muslims being faced with genocide. Croatia is a little different of course.
And what did that get us?
No really, did any of that stop 9/11?
And what did that get us?
No really, did any of that stop 9/11?
Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Thanks for replying.
Question: why in the Hell (or rather where in the Hell) are you going to go? You're on this site, you like guns. Where other than here can you find that freedom (at least as long as it remains on the up-and-up). Europe? Asia? If that isn't overly important to you I guess with the proper $$$ you could settle somewhere nicely.
Right now, nowhere. America is still the nicest house in an ugly block. However, I have a house in a village between Sparta and Gythio (my wife is a Greek citizen), and NZ is an option for me. I'm not eligible to work in Greece, but the registration process in NZ is fairly straightforward for physicians in my specialty.
I'm not leaving tomorrow, but I'm also not staying if the standard of living plummets and violence soars.
Mr. Goodtimes
10-20-16, 08:55
It sounds like you are not prepared to accept the results of the election unless Trump wins. Interesting.
Good luck.
So we should just except whatever our government tells us to accept because we always have in the past? Sounds legit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right now, nowhere. America is still the nicest house in an ugly block. However, I have a house in a village between Sparta and Gythio (my wife is a Greek citizen), and NZ is an option for me. I'm not eligible to work in Greece, but the registration process in NZ is fairly straightforward for physicians in my specialty.
I'm not leaving tomorrow, but I'm also not staying if the standard of living plummets and violence soars.
Real Talk: If things ever got to the point of a shooting Civil War in the US again; I am pretty sure a lot of countries will be closing borders to Americans.
We would be viewed as no different than the Syrians or North Africans. I besmirch the "refugees" from fleeing their countries and it would be hypocritical not to put my money where my mouth is.
I'm staying. I have not so much European ancestry and no ties there. I would not fit in. This is my hemisphere.
I was saying if I were exiled, I could do South America. But if it comes time to pick up rifle, pike, and sabre and fly the Southern cross once more; I'm staying.
I would prefer it not come to that and would hope we are mature enough as a Nation to leave folks be. But if not, that's fine too.
If you are of that mindset, I would respectfully encourage you to hit up Greece or NZ now while it would be easier to get resident status and visa free entry.
Because the second it gets close or even within a mile to being that bad; No American is getting anywhere unless they are a multi-millionaire minimum.
So we should just except whatever our government tells us to accept because we always have in the past? Sounds legit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, we shouldn't 'just accept' the results, but we should abide by them, simply because warts and all, that is the way our country is supposed to work, and it still beats any other system.
Now if you are speaking from the perspective of massive orchestrated voter fraud, first we need to prove it IAW our legal system, then act.
I know this isn't popular here, but we seem to forget that absent the fraud of the counts in Florida, Al Gore would have been President, not GWB. We probably weren't advocating that the Gore folks not accept the results. Hell, I've sincerely voted for myself in every election since Bush v. Clinton, and I accept the results.
America won't work if we don't follow the Constitution. We have problems, but they are correctable problems. Once we start down the path of simply accepting the things that go our way and outright rejection of all else, the Constitution is dead.
JMO sorry for the rant, and it was general, not directed with any enmity towards you Kind Sir.
No, we shouldn't 'just accept' the results, but we should abide by them, simply because warts and all, that is the way our country is supposed to work, and it still beats any other system.
Now if you are speaking from the perspective of massive orchestrated voter fraud, first we need to prove it IAW our legal system, then act.
I know this isn't popular here, but we seem to forget that absent the fraud of the counts in Florida, Al Gore would have been President, not GWB. We probably weren't advocating that the Gore folks not accept the results. Hell, I've sincerely voted for myself in every election since Bush v. Clinton, and I accept the results.
America won't work if we don't follow the Constitution. We have problems, but they are correctable problems. Once we start down the path of simply accepting the things that go our way and outright rejection of all else, the Constitution is dead.
JMO sorry for the rant, and it was general, not directed with any enmity towards you Kind Sir.
Maybe I read it wrong but you're not saying that fraud put GWB in the White House, are you? The Miami Herald (hardly a conservative bastion) conducted an extensive review after the election and determined that Bush won FL by 500-some votes.
Again, maybe I took it out of context but was just asking.
we need to prove it IAW our legal system, then act.
You mean the ones that ignore or skirt the system? Sounds legit.
(I am not advocating immoral, unethical, or other misguided solutions- just being facetious)
Real Talk: If things ever got to the point of a shooting Civil War in the US again; I am pretty sure a lot of countries will be closing borders to Americans.
We would be viewed as no different than the Syrians or North Africans. I besmirch the "refugees" from fleeing their countries and it would be hypocritical not to put my money where my mouth is.
I'm staying. I have not so much European ancestry and no ties there. I would not fit in. This is my hemisphere.
I was saying if I were exiled, I could do South America. But if it comes time to pick up rifle, pike, and sabre and fly the Southern cross once more; I'm staying.
I would prefer it not come to that and would hope we are mature enough as a Nation to leave folks be. But if not, that's fine too.
If you are of that mindset, I would respectfully encourage you to hit up Greece or NZ now while it would be easier to get resident status and visa free entry.
Because the second it gets close or even within a mile to being that bad; No American is getting anywhere unless they are a multi-millionaire minimum.
You missed the part where I said that my wife is a Greek citizen and I/we already own a house in Greece. NZ is a bit of a process, but I could have limited MCNZ registration (1 year) in about 4 months since I'm ABEM certified.
https://www.headmedical.com/userfiles/HeadMedical/WebContent/files/NZ%20Doctor%20Guide.pdf
You missed the part where I said that my wife is a Greek citizen and I/we already own a house in Greece. NZ is a bit of a process, but I could have limited MCNZ registration (1 year) in about 4 months since I'm ABEM certified.
https://www.headmedical.com/userfiles/HeadMedical/WebContent/files/NZ%20Doctor%20Guide.pdf
If you own a home in Greece, I am happy for you. If your wife can get you an "in", moreso the better. That would be a good alternative if you chose that route. It's your life.
But, NZ would not be above shutting it down.
With all due respect, and seriously not in a smarmy or sarcastic way, you aren't the first doctor in the world nor the last. I'll assume you are exceptional at what you do but unless you are Dr. Kildare with 25 Mil in an off shore account; they wouldn't take you as a mere migrant with no familial ties if you were deemed to be in a refugee sutuation.
My guy that is fixing me up is from Africa. Good guy. Smart. I'm better off now than I was several months ago. When I got my foot mangled/broken in 2015; my doc was Egyptian. Now I can walk.
My point is, we often find out the hard way how "important" we really are. Or aren't. I know right now that despite any education I have or language proficiency, I would be looked at like a Somali or a Libyan if it ever topped off here.
So migration is simply not an option for me even if I wanted. But, at least I can rest well at night knowing my homey Sensei will be chilling in a Greek village, eating gyros, and playing the mandolin while CW 2.0: The Balkanization is going down. It'll keep my morale up amidst the vast, chaotic, anarchic unrest.
When you fly off to your bolt hole in the EU, have you prepared for the latest islamic invasion they are suffering? Last I checked personal ownership of firearms and self-defense in general are not popular notions there. But perhaps you have yours in Eastern Europe where they still have a modicum of common sense.
Just try emmigrating to mainstream Europe or Canada. Hint: they won't let you in unless you have a skill they need and the means to support yourself. In Canada's case you have to speak English or French can prove it via language test.
Just for grins I took the Canadian Entrance Test. Its online, anyone can take it. 20 years younger and I could get in due to trade skills, English speaking, and financial means. At current age I would be borderline as I'm close to retirement. They only want you if you were going to contribute more than you consume. What a radical concept
Australia and New Zealand are tougher yet. So all the talk about how we cannot screen immigrants is just silly, our neighbors to the north screen at levels the progressives would die from
I'm not eligible to work in Greece, but the registration process in NZ is fairly straightforward for physicians in my specialty.
I love NZ, the people, the terrain. And would probably still qualify to emigrate, for sure as an ex pat.
But you need to look at cost of living, firearms ownership restrictions, restrictions on bringing in money, etcetera. Leave any pets at home.
Pretty much the same for Oz and firearms issues are worse in most states
Folks also need to look and see what various trades earn in the other countries. Medical fields do not pay as high and many other countries. With Cuba being an extreme example.
If you are extremely wealthy you can jet set around and live nicely as an expat another countries. But try to settle and you will encounter many realities that most or not aware off.
Poorer (bankrupt) countries are an option (Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc.) But have different issues.
Bizarre stuff, you can buy Italian goods cheaper in the US than in Italy in many cases. Taxes.
Then there is $8/gal fuel.
Just try emmigrating to mainstream Europe or Canada. Hint: they won't let you in unless you have a skill they need and the means to support yourself. In Canada's case you have to speak English or French can prove it via language test.
Just for grins I took the Canadian Entrance Test. Its online, anyone can take it. 20 years younger and I could get in due to trade skills, English speaking, and financial means. At current age I would be borderline as I'm close to retirement. They only want you if you were going to contribute more than you consume. What a radical concept
Australia and New Zealand are tougher yet. So all the talk about how we cannot screen immigrants is just silly, our neighbors to the north screen at levels the progressives would die from
This can't be repeated enough.
A lot of these "safe" areas are so because they lock it down tight and don't try to police the world.
Everyone thinks Canada is like another US state. NEWWP. They will kick your ass out faster than you can say Donald Trump.
Switzerland. HA! Hope your Swiss German, Swiss French, and Swiss Italian is up to par.
And AUS/NZ have a strict limit on how many people are considered in a year. Not accepted, considered.
They don't want our BS. I don't blame them.
Right now, nowhere. America is still the nicest house in an ugly block. However, I have a house in a village between Sparta and Gythio (my wife is a Greek citizen), and NZ is an option for me. I'm not eligible to work in Greece, but the registration process in NZ is fairly straightforward for physicians in my specialty.
I'm not leaving tomorrow, but I'm also not staying if the standard of living plummets and violence soars.
Certainly New Zealand looks like an attractive option for the scenery. I can understand trying to avoid the violence, if in a major city, and standard of living is kind of a subjective thing. We are a two income family; self-employed business income from the livestock industry and my wife has her Masters in Nursing, and she works as a hospital head of Nursing, 70 miles from home. We could survive on the cattle business only, but the wife likes what she does.
If it all goes to shit in America, I would think everywhere else in the World would be taking a dump; New Zealand included. I would prefer fighting on my own turf and after spending years with the Army from Central America to the Horn of Africa, and beyond, it would be a different experience. I personally don't think everything will be going to shit in the short term, but it will be a gradual removal of freedoms and increase in the gap between the two Americas. If it all blows up rapidly, I don't have to retreat anywhere, but survive off of what I do right now. If the currency is gone, I can eat my own beef, and live of of my own home grown produce. And water will never be a concern for this place.
The one thread that seems to go through what everyone is posting is most of us agree that the country is going to enter into some bad times in the near future.
The question then becomes two fold, first how involved are you going to become in trying to turn things around if the country sinks into violence. Second how to not only survive in the what is coming but also even thrive in what is coming. History shows in bad times some people make a lot of money.
If you just want to watch the mess on TV and not be involved at all, then I think you have two options. Live in the most remote place possible, where a tyrannical government would not spend a lot of it's resources due to lack of population base. Or option 2 is to move out of the USA. The more money you have, the better you can live in a 3rd world country. With money you can get guns, you can get good medical and if you have enough money you can even get away with violating the law to a certain extent.
I don't remember who posted it but they said the USA in their view has become less about a geographical location and more about spreading the old time views of what the once great country stood for.
I am using all my connections to build a great life outside the USA, in case that becomes the way to go. I also own a ranch in the middle of no where, inside the USA.
KalashniKEV
10-20-16, 11:28
I'd find some place in the boonies of South America. It'd be more familiar, the women would be a bit more acceptable, and it'd just feel more natural. If I could bring my stash with me that'd be even better.
Believe it or not, MEXICO is the best country for doing just that.
(We made it that way.)
Kind of like feminists and reproductive violence, aka abortion?
Haha... it's fun to make up words, but Freedom is a real thing.
Apologies to the OP for the sidetrack.......
You can cloak the Balkans mess under the guise of "religion" if you want...
Without addressing your post point-by-point, which would create a major sidetrack, you are actually agreeing with me.
The conflict in Iraq isn't about religion either, and neither were the Crusades. It never is.
Religion is simply what gets the sheeple all frothy and ready to pick up a sword/ gun/ svest and get to the slaughter. It's a tool in the hands of the manipulators.
I believe it about Mexico.
See I watch Univision. If I could curtail the corruption; it would be my Site B.
Currently it is my Site C. One of my more bizarre fetishes, of many, are latin broads with accentless English. I dunno why. Like they look like a Contra bushfighter with a yellow scarf, toting a FAL, wearing OG-107s with a shock of dark hair but sound like the NPR lady.
So hot.
I like the Columbian accented English... like Sofia Vergara. In fact, I like Sofia Vergara.
I could really hang out with her even One Second After
I like the Columbian accented English... like Sofia Vergara. In fact, I like Sofia Vergara.
I could really hang out with her even One Second After
Funny you should mention that. I looked up Medellin a few weeks ago when it was mentioned in another thread. Because it is equatorial the temps never vary much and because of the altitude it is not smoking hot. IIRC the highs year round were like 81-83 degrees, the lows were like 62-64. That's it! Of course humidity hangs in the 60-some % range year round so it's warm and a bit muggy. However, I'd say that is PERFECT weather.
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, but congratulations on realizing that 90% of the laws passed by government are a bad idea! Question is, are you willing to put your marbles where your mouth is and willfully defy those laws? ;)
KalashniKEV
10-20-16, 13:30
Question is, are you willing to put your marbles where your mouth is and willfully defy those laws? ;)
Yes, and I have always ignored laws that I don't agree with- throughout my whole life.
Truth.
http://www.tattoobite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/fresh-black-thug-life-tattoo-design.jpg
"Live in the most remote place possible, where a tyrannical government would not spend a lot of it's resources due to lack of population base."
We have Magpul, nukes, and no state income tax. Not bad for starters. Immigration preference given to good looking wimmen due to serious shortage of same.
https://www.amazon.com/Neither-Predator-Prey-Mark-Spungin/dp/0615224091/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477012137&sr=1-1&keywords=neither+predator+nor+prey
"Live in the most remote place possible, where a tyrannical government would not spend a lot of it's resources due to lack of population base."
We have Magpul, nukes, and no state income tax. Not bad for starters. Immigration preference given to good looking wimmen due to serious shortage of same.
https://www.amazon.com/Neither-Predator-Prey-Mark-Spungin/dp/0615224091/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477012137&sr=1-1&keywords=neither+predator+nor+prey
Never read that book, or even heard of it before, but it sounds like what planning for in rural northeastern New Mexico. The same for my fellow livestock growers as well.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-21-16, 03:06
Head for the hills? Nope. I'm going to become the warlord of my subdivision.
I still think that this 'Net-Zero' push in buildings is because that comet or asteroid is actually going to hit us in 2029 and the grid is going down hard.
Moose-Knuckle
10-21-16, 04:10
You can cloak the Balkans mess under the guise of "religion" if you want but those people had lived as neighbors for centuries. When they went at it I would say it was more of an ethnic as opposed to a religious war (of course it largely divided along who was a Serb Orthodox and who was a Muslim). You obviously know we intervened in both Bosnia and Kosovo, so yeah, 'Murica took up the torch to protect Muslims being faced with genocide.
Reminds me of how Slick Willy turned a blind eye to Rwanda's genocide of the Christian minority Tutsis at the hand of the muslim majority Hutus.
Moose-Knuckle
10-21-16, 04:13
Just try emmigrating to mainstream Europe or Canada. Hint: they won't let you in unless you have a skill they need and the means to support yourself. In Canada's case you have to speak English or French can prove it via language test.
How racist of them! :jester:
They have had their own troubles with mass influx of Chinese and Middle Eastern refugees.
Moose-Knuckle
10-21-16, 04:20
Haha... it's fun to make up words,
Actually reproductive violence is real term, I would of thought a leftist like you would know it since you seem to use other leftist vocabulary here like reproductive freedom (LOL) and marriage equality.
. . . but Freedom is a real thing.
So is Murder . . .
Head for the hills? Nope. I'm going to become the warlord of my subdivision.
I still think that this 'Net-Zero' push in buildings is because that comet or asteroid is actually going to hit us in 2029 and the grid is going down hard.
As of 2013, nobody thinks it's going to happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
As of 2013, nobody thinks it's going to happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
Probably a good thing because the "grid" would be the least of our worries then!
Probably a good thing because the "grid" would be the least of our worries then!
Probably a good thing.
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Hilarious Already debunked and rightfully mocked by several other posters, so I'll leave it at that
The conflict in Iraq isn't about religion either, and neither were the Crusades. It never is.
Religion is simply what gets the sheeple all frothy and ready to pick up a sword/ gun/ svest and get to the slaughter. It's a tool in the hands of the manipulators.
Yeah sure. I guess Mohammed's violent conquests had nothing to do with religion. And neither did 9/11.
More confident assertions by Kev that we should all accept.
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Agreed. Slavery should still be a thing. So should the English colonies.
KalashniKEV
10-22-16, 21:05
Yeah sure. I guess Mohammed's violent conquests had nothing to do with religion.
Well if he didn't declare himself the prophet of the one true god, how else was he supposed to mobilize his people to conquer the other tribes?
Start a rumor they were stockpiling WMDs?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLL!!1!
Agreed. Slavery should still be a thing. So should the English colonies.
Slavery and colonial oppression were both bad ideas enforced by violence.
I'm glad we're in agreement.
Freedom always wins... eventually.
The_War_Wagon
10-22-16, 21:59
I look at the demographics, it makes me sad. I see no way back to the Constitution that doesn't involve pain.
Only in urban areas, New England, NM and WI. :cool:
https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/wp-content/gallery/us2008/2008_General_Election_Results_by_County.png
Slavery and colonial oppression were both bad ideas enforced by violence.
I'm glad we're in agreement.
Freedom always wins... eventually.
And they were fought with violence.
Your statement said, without any implied exception, that any idea enforced by violence is bad. That cuts both ways. Opposition to an idea is an idea in and of itself. To fight slavery is to hold the idea that slavery is bad. Sorry, but fighting a bad idea with violence, according to you, makes the defense as equally bad. It is literally a pacifist's stance.
People either read too much into Kev's posts or not enough. Call me wacko, but I doubt I would call Kev a pacifist.
At the end of the day, once superstitions fade and dictatorships fall, freedom really does always win.
Violence, if anything, is incidental.
How much stuff could one do today that would get them jailed or killed a century ago?
In a hundred years, maybe we'll have more education and freedom to where our descendants may look back on us today and say "Maaan, those guys were hung up on that?! Jeeez..."
my exact thoughts also :)
Thankfully the founders never got that memo. :rolleyes:
People either read too much into Kev's posts or not enough. Call me wacko, but I doubt I would call Kev a pacifist.
At the end of the day, once superstitions fade and dictatorships fall, freedom really does always win.
Violence, if anything, is incidental.
How much stuff could one do today that would get them jailed or killed a century ago?
In a hundred years, maybe we'll have more education and freedom to where our descendants may look back on us today and say "Maaan, those guys were hung up on that?! Jeeez..."
Never said he was a pacifist. I'm simply calling him on a false blanket statement that coincidentally happens to be a pacifist's stance.
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Fighting an idea is an idea in and of itself. Fighting slavery with violence is the idea that freedom is worth the violence necessary. It cuts both ways and is a very poorly stated argument.
I am not Kev and will not dare speak for him, but speaking for myself, I actually agree with the thesis behind his statement.
Too much of the whole "I had to destroy the village in order to save it" mentality has been allowed to perpetuate to modern times.
The paradigm transcends a lot, he's not saying defend yourself, nor saying not to kick someone in the balls/ass/teeth for doing wrong.
Merely saying if an idea has to be enforced with violence that it isn't a good idea.
Case in point: "People of the age of majority should vote."
"Right on! Yay America!"
vs
"Go vote or we shoot you"
"...uhh.....hmm..."
Claiming that an aggressor's idea is indeed an "idea," but that a defender's stance opposing that idea is not an idea is illogical. Actually, it reeks of revisionism.
Well if he didn't declare himself the prophet of the one true god, how else was he supposed to mobilize his people to conquer the other tribes?
Start a rumor they were stockpiling WMDs?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLL!!1!
So your argument is that religion isn't to blame because religion is a human construct, and hence it's a human problem.
Hmm okay. Sure.
Yes, I suppose that if you take "religion" to be merely the invention of humans with various other intentions, that would make sense.
However, if those intentions are purely ideological/doctrinal, then it would be hard/impossible to separate out the religious components from the other ones.
Interesting how your deflection only seems to apply to Islam, yet you love going off against Christianity.
Back on topic: Americans do not have to accept the results of this election, as the Dems have been rigging elections for the past 50 years, in one manner or another.
Freedom always wins... eventually.
Wish I had your optimism.
Moose-Knuckle
10-23-16, 04:45
Slavery and colonial oppression were both bad ideas enforced by violence.
Way to be obtuse.
We all know it took . . . wait for it . . . VIOLENCE to bring an end to the trans Atlantic slave trade in North America and to end oppression by the crown. Which totally contradicts your original post #12 on page one of this thread.
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
Moose-Knuckle
10-23-16, 04:56
In a hundred years, maybe we'll have more education and freedom to where our descendants may look back on us today and say "Maaan, those guys were hung up on that?! Jeeez..."
IF we survive the next century and that is a big if I assert people of the future will look back at this period of time as if we were all bat shit insane.
When a college campus grinds to a halt due to some liberal professor not using the "proper gender pro-noun", when the USAF excludes men from PT standards because they pretend to have a vagina between their thighs, when government funded programs sell baby organs/tissue to the highest bidder and laugh about it, when a particular race of people can cry racism and put fire to a city after a LEO of the SAME race shoots one of their own . . . yeah history is not going look kindly upon this topsy-turvy time we find ourselves in.
KalashniKEV
10-23-16, 08:02
*sigh*
I could probably start a thread called "water is wet" and the usual trolls would pop up to argue otherwise...
Never said he was a pacifist. I'm simply calling him on a false blanket statement that coincidentally happens to be a pacifist's stance.
Wrong.
On a long enough timeline, Freedom and Liberty will always defeat "good ideas," no matter how violently enforced.
Do you know any history?
Look at Communism vs. Capitalism.
Observe how the Soviet giant fell despite tremendous sacrifice on the part of the people, and a government that was willing to do anything it took to bend reality to it's will. Are you old enough to remember the breakup?
Look at what's taking place in China right now- as wealth continues to accumulate and the middle class grows, education is expanding and the people are constantly on the brink of demanding their rights... they never get to the exact point that they will be forced to demand them, because they are always gifted more freedom just before that happens.
In this way the Communist regime will extend it's relevancy ten times into the future, perhaps indefinitely- because they know that as soon as they need violence to enforce their ideas, they lose.
Yes, I suppose that if you take "religion" to be merely the invention of humans with various other intentions, that would make sense...
I'm just agreeing with ABNAK in post #55 where he (correctly) states: "Religion was the excuse for settling scores..."
It always is- that's why it was invented!
In primitive (and often advanced) societies where competition for scarce resources is rough business, it's needed to tie people together, point them in a direction, and turn them loose to rage against the "other." This is always done to the benefit of some manipulator who walks away with most of the spoils after doing little of the work, and none of the sacrifice.
In our society, we have substituted the political parties, but it's the same game.
Interesting how your deflection only seems to apply to Islam, yet you love going off against Christianity.
We have a lot of switched off types and head-up-ass-thinkers on here.
They don't know history that isn't in a facebook meme, so they need to be reminded about things that happened way back in the 1990's and early 2000's.
If the opposite condition existed, you'd see the opposite from me.
Meme magic is real though, and people are thirsty to seek out and rehearse BS talking points so they can become better sheeple-soldiers for their particular group. They swill it down by the bucket.
They actively seek it out and will study it harder than they ever studied in school. Then they repeat it and circulate it.
There is no way you can get six Conservative people to agree on a single candidate, even less likely many would answer a call to arms, were more likely to come here and bitch about it and get up in the morning and trudge off to work.
My plan is to withdraw, retreat and quietly do as I damn well please. Trust me, I literally crunch the numbers about four times a year and figure down to the dime what it will cost my to drop off the grid.
I'm really trying hard to not get bitter and turn in to more of a grumpy old fart, it's getting hard.
This exactly.
The fact that this needs to be revisited about every third generation confirms how true it is...
THE GODS OF THE COPYBOOK MAXIMS----Rudyard Kipling
AS I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place;
Peering through reverent fingers, I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Maxims, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision, and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither Cloud nor Wind borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and usually word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its ice-field or Creation crashed at Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied the Moon was Stilton, they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshiped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian marshes were forming, they promised perpetual peace,
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
And when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our foe
And the Gods of the Copybook Maxims said:—“Stick to the Devil you know.”
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith.
And the Gods of the Copybook Maxims said:—“The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
And, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money would buy.
And the Gods of the Copybook Maxims said:—“If you don’t work you die.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued Wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four—
And the Gods of the Copybook Maxims limped up to explain it once more!
. . . . .
As it will be in “The Future,” it was at the birth of Man—
There are only four things certain since the Larger Primates began:
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire.
And after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
Where all men insist on their merits and no one desists from his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Maxims with terms and slaughters return!
—Rudyard Kipling
:big_boss:
*sigh*
On a long enough timeline, Freedom and Liberty will always defeat "good ideas," no matter how violently enforced.
Do you know any history?
Look at Communism vs. Capitalism.
"On a long enough timeline"? I must ask, did you study history? Because the Western concepts of Liberty didn't start to form until the signing of the Magna Carta, and even then, that was in a very limited concept. It wasn't until the 1600-1700s that the ideas were fully realized and expanded upon upon to form what the basis of what a modern, classically-liberal republic looks like. The concept of Western Liberty isn't old enough to discuss as a vetted topic in course of human history.
Your argument is paradox. It cites the viability of good ideas vs bad (Darwinism) without recognizing that the ideas are not entities capable of living or dying - they are constructs created and enforced by man. Therefore, it is not the idea that can win or lose, simply the men behind them. Bad men can continue to enforce bad ideas long after it is realized that the ideas will not work. So while most men will allow a bad idea to die once it is discovered to be one, it is not a universal truth nor is it fact that all men will allow bad ideas to die, and we see this repeatedly throughout history. It is only when the bad men's power and grasp weaken and can no longer enforce the idea, that the idea weakens.
To your point about the USSR, so what if it fell? Communism is still alive and well in Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and arguably China. Communism still exists, and as long as it exists people are being killed by it. Your point is entirely academic. So what if Communism eventually loses? What about the 100+ million people who died to let the experiment happen? Should they lie down and let themselves be starved, arrested, tortured, and exterminated until the day someone declares "Welp, looks like Communism isn't working - let's try something else"?
Any innocent human life is worth the violence to defend it, even if the only person willing to fight for it is the person themselves. That is their Creator-granted, inalienable right. That in and of itself is an idea, one worth defending with violence.
"Any innocent human life is worth the violence to defend it, even if the only person willing to fight for it is the person themselves. That is their Creator-granted, inalienable right. That in and of itself is an idea, one worth defending with violence."
True even if public opinion is 100% against it--STILL true.
KalashniKEV
10-23-16, 14:14
"On a long enough timeline"? I must ask, did you study history? Because the Western concepts of Liberty didn't start to form until the signing of the Magna Carta...
Wrong again.
Freedom and Liberty have been around for a long time... and natural human rights have existed since the time that man opened his eyes and found himself in a state of nature.
If you're willing to drop the attitude and quit trying to be a smart Aleck, you should read some of what Aristotle had to say on the topic.
There's a lot that you don't know, and like many, you fail to see the big picture.
RetroRevolver77
10-23-16, 15:41
Wrong again.
Freedom and Liberty have been around for a long time... and natural human rights have existed since the time that man opened his eyes and found himself in a state of nature.
If you're willing to drop the attitude and quit trying to be a smart Aleck, you should read some of what Aristotle had to say on the topic.
There's a lot that you don't know, and like many, you fail to see the big picture.
Aristotle is a footnote in history. We're at a real crossroads now as the world's only Constitutionally limited Republic is collapsing before our very eyes. The freedom we have is a threat to every crooked government across this planet including our own and that is why they are doing everything in their power to take that from us if we allow it.
Wrong again.
Freedom and Liberty have been around for a long time... and natural human rights have existed since the time that man opened his eyes and found himself in a state of nature.
If you're willing to drop the attitude and quit trying to be a smart Aleck, you should read some of what Aristotle had to say on the topic.
There's a lot that you don't know, and like many, you fail to see the big picture.
"Liberty" is vague, abstract, and unnatural. There is no such thing as human rights, natural rights, or any kind "rights" in nature, outside of the "right" of natural selection in that the weak take from the strong. The natural state of existence is poverty, decay, and survival of the fittest (Natural Selection +/- Darwinism).
Your claim that "liberty" has been around for a long time is utterly disingenuous. Certainly, the word "liberty" has existed; what it means, however, has never been consistent, nor has it meant what we have come to understand it as until the last 300 or so years of human history, literally an almost insignificant footnote in the history of mankind.
In Roman times in ancient Rome, "liberty" meant that you had the right to be subjected to Roman law, but it only fully applied if you were a Roman and not under indentured servitude. Slaves were completely legal to own. There were no established lists of "human rights," simply legal rights that were afforded to those more-human than others (Romans by birth).
In medieval Western Europe, "liberty" meant that you were free to build a home if you paid homage to your king or magistrate. You could only worship in accordance with the religion(s) allowed by the crown, and speaking contrary to the crown or the established religion resulted in imprisonment and, usually, death. Slaves were completely legal to own. There was the Magna Carta (if you were lucky enough to be in England) and that was all. If you were outside of England or its territories, you had no rights - you were at the mercy of your king.
In the newly-founded United States of 1776, "liberty" meant that your Creator-given rights, acknowledged in the Constitution, were undeniably real and existent. All law in the United States was based on the concept from thence forward. Slaves were completely legal to own.
In the the modern-day United States, a majority of current college graduates believe that "liberty" means the government protects and shields you from hateful words and unpleasant ideas under the guise of freedom, in turn by taking away rights to speech and rights to defense.
At any point in human history, the word "liberty" has never been consistent nor has it been consistently progressive in that objective liberty (true Classic Liberalism) has never been fully recognized. In fact, many times it has been regressive. Liberty is only as true and genuine as the people that implement it.
The concept of a "natural" liberty is contradicted directly by Natural Selection and by science in general. There are no rights granted in nature, nor are the weak protected from the strong. The idea that there is some sort of "understood" natural rights contradicts everything we know about nature and science. There are no natural rights, there is entropy, decay, and predation; and there are men who fight to minimize and prevent it as much as possible with their ideas.
Liberty is such an idea, that revolves around the concept of all men being equal, without regard to their physique, color, race, or any other discernible feature. The concept of liberty is a man-made construct and is not natural; nowhere in nature or natural order do you find a strong creature willingly giving way to a weaker creature without some benefit; nowhere does a creature that can control others not use their force to control others at some point. No, liberty is simply a logical agreement between men who wish to live, progress, and to pursue that what fulfills them without fear of interjection and control from others (we'll call this "a right to life and the pursuit of happiness"). Throw out the acknowledgement that all men have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, and you'll find that liberty is no longer needed nor is it logical.
Ergo, the entire concept of Western "Liberty" is that all men are equal and all have a right to pursue their interests and endeavors in life. That is not only naturally illogical in an objective sense, it is found nowhere else in human history or in nature. The entire premise of Western liberty surviving requires that men, good men, preserve it and fight for it, as it is unnatural and contrary to the natural state of existence. That most certainly requires violence at times, because the majority of men in the world do not agree with that, as human history has repeatedly shown.
So no, there is literally no such thing as "natural" rights (that is, acknowledged by biology and/or nature) or naturally-occurring liberty. There are simply ideas, and our concept of individuals being equal did not exist prior to the 1700s. The closest thing we had previously was the Roman Empire, but, according to your own statement, it was not a "good idea" because Rome fell and along with it, its government and laws. Of course, it is ridiculous to assume that all of Rome's human rights' efforts were flawed, primarily because (and contrary to what you stated) good ideas fall all of the time in favor of bad ones. Edmund Burke said it best:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke
Violence is most certainly necessary to defend good ideas, primarily because the concept of good triumphing over bad, and the concept of "human rights" are completely contrary to nature. Nature and the natural disposition of uneducated men do not bow to niceties or pleasant requests, they respond only to violence. Are you not aware of the last nearly 6,000+ years of recorded human history?
Nothing in my post was sarcastic or "smart Aleck [sic]," it was straightforward and based on historical facts. Even Ronald Reagan himself said:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Your original statement:
When you need violence to enforce your ideas, it means they aren't good ideas.
...is contradicted by science, nature, and by human history. Believe what you wish, but reality always prevails.
lol everybody giving dissertations.
The man said what he said and believes what he believes, why y'all mad tho?
lol everybody giving dissertations.
The man said what he said and believes what he believes, why y'all mad tho?
Not mad in the least. Some of us here happen to enjoy polite, educated debates.
KalashniKEV
10-23-16, 19:12
"Liberty" is vague, abstract, and unnatural.
Wrong again.
Liberty is the most natural state of being, and is simple to understand.
If you are truly in need an example, and not just playing dumb, a person could show up where you live, demonstrate an example of tyranny, and you would instantly understand.
There is no such thing as human rights, natural rights, or any kind "rights" in nature...
Errrr... Man as he exists in a state of nature is in possession of all his rights. He may elect to enter into a social contract in order to... bah... I'm sure I'm just wasting electrons.
Nothing in my post was sarcastic or "smart Aleck [sic],"
Awwwwww... SCHNAPPS!
What is it.. smart "alec?"
Ya got me, muchacho.
Anyway, I think you think you're sounding really smart, but your post is actually not smart (I'm not name calling... it just is).
Basically what you've proven in many words is that you don't understand what Liberty is.
...or maybe that you think you do, but... as you stated, you find it to be vague, perplexing, abstract, nebulous, obscure, puzzling, etc.
It aint, homey.
Liberty means the same thing today as it did to a Mesopotamian slave as it did to an English Privateer as it did to a Chinese railroad worker. It's not a tough concept to grasp, it doesn't change over time, and it doesn't come in any other flavor.
Liberty means the same thing today as it did to a Mesopotamian slave as it did to an English Privateer as it did to a Chinese railroad worker. It's not a tough concept to grasp, it doesn't change over time, and it doesn't come in any other flavor.
Liberty involved owning slaves for Mesopotamians.
Also, you said "social contract." There is literally no such thing. If there is, please, point to exactly where that is. Cite it. lol
KalashniKEV
10-23-16, 20:56
Liberty involved owning slaves for Mesopotamians.
More failure to grasp the concept of what "Liberty" is.
You're just digging yourself deeper...
Also, you said "social contract." There is literally no such thing. If there is, please, point to exactly where that is. Cite it. lol
LOL your Smart Alkali self way to the Cop on the corner and ask him. ;)
Make sure you tell him his badge is pressed tin, his uniform is just dark colored polyester clothes, and then feel free to take a leak on the nearest tree trunk.
MountainRaven
10-23-16, 21:26
Liberty involved owning slaves for Mesopotamians.
Also, you said "social contract." There is literally no such thing. If there is, please, point to exactly where that is. Cite it. lol
The social contract is what keeps your neighbors from murdering you, raping your wife, and enslaving your children.
Pretty impressive for something that basically only exists in the mind.
Moose-Knuckle
10-24-16, 04:39
*sigh*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_J1yRCLS2A
I could probably start a thread called "water is wet" and the usual trolls would pop up to argue otherwise...
Well are we talking about water equality in a solid or vapor state?
Outlander Systems
10-24-16, 05:01
Negative.
LE prevents that.
The social contract is what keeps your neighbors from murdering you, raping your wife, and enslaving your children.
Pretty impressive for something that basically only exists in the mind.
MountainRaven
10-24-16, 10:41
Negative.
LE prevents that.
No, they don't.
They only come to clean up the crime scene after you're dead, your wife is traumatized, and your children are missing.
Whiskey_Bravo
10-24-16, 11:01
No, they don't.
They only come to clean up the crime scene after you're dead, your wife is traumatized, and your children are missing.
Well then you could say the threat of repercussions/penalties prevent that. You don't honestly believe that it would not be much more common if there was no LE?
Also, you said "social contract." There is literally no such thing. If there is, please, point to exactly where that is. Cite it. lol
We literally don't sign a contract, but there is an implicit agreement between members of society which guide their interactions with one another. Why do you greet others as you go about your daily business? Why do you hold the door open for folks when you are leaving or entering a building? Why do you run to help an elderly neighbor, whom you may have never spoken to, when they fall in their drive way?
Sure, there are outliers, but, for our society to function the majority need to adhere to the 'contract.'
The social contract has evolved and continues to evolve, ranging from the lesser hunter turning their head as the best hunter in the tribe took their woman to his bed, to the current state of affairs.
Well then you could say the threat of repercussions/penalties prevent that. You don't honestly believe that it would not be much more common if there was no LE?
Would you not agree that in our society such acts are not acceptable? They are committed by the outliers of society.
Would you not further agree that some members of the 'tribe' would take care of this affront to the societal good?
For example, do you think the Carr brothers would still be alive if they weren't in jail? Trust me, they wouldn't be.
I think Sir Robert Peel said it best: The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Outlander Systems
10-24-16, 11:21
Exactly. The fear of rotting in a cell keeps the scum in line. Even with that, there's the bottom of the barrel that won't even let that deter them.
Well then you could say the threat of repercussions/penalties prevent that. You don't honestly believe that it would not be much more common if there was no LE?
MountainRaven
10-24-16, 11:37
Well then you could say the threat of repercussions/penalties prevent that. You don't honestly believe that it would not be much more common if there was no LE?
There has always been the threat of repercussions and penalties. It still doesn't do a marvelous job of keeping bloodshed in line in places with a less secure social contract, like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sure, the threat of being shot, arrested, prosecuted keeps some people from doing crime. Is that why you haven't murdered your neighbors, raped their women, and enslaved their children? Part of the social contract that you have accepted is to surrender the right to vengeance for the state to exact justice against those who have done you wrong.
There isn't enough LE to keep Chicago and DC under control, never mind the whole country. Especially if everybody woke up one day and decided that society had failed to uphold its end of the bargain and started bloodletting in earnest. If you do not accept the existence of the social contract, why do you acknowledge the legitimacy of the government? Why are you content to hand monopoly over legitimate use of force over to government? Do you not vote? Do you not pay taxes?
The social contract - and the crown's breach thereof - is the basis under which the United States declared its independence and the basis on which the Constitution was written. It is also the basis for the bloodless exchange of power that occurs in the US every four to eight years or so.
Whiskey_Bravo
10-24-16, 11:38
Would you not agree that in our society such acts are not acceptable? They are committed by the outliers of society.
Would you not further agree that some members of the 'tribe' would take care of this affront to the societal good?
For example, do you think the Carr brothers would still be alive if they weren't in jail? Trust me, they wouldn't be.
I think Sir Robert Peel said it best: The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Of course people that rob, rape, and murder are outliers. That does not mean that LE keep those that are on the fence or attempting to repress those thoughts/desires from crossing the line. But yes, there will always be those who there is no amount of deterrent(LE, mob hanging, etc) that will stop them.
Most people are decent people at heart and view murder, rape, robbery or other crimes as not acceptable. It doesn't mean we don't need to keep honest people honest. The locks on your car door are only there to keep half ass decent people half ass decent. If someone wants to break in they will and we all know that, yet we still lock our car doors. LE is the same deterrent. I like me some freedom, and even lean on the libertarian side but I would rather not live in a society that does not have LE.
There was a time that if you messed up bad enough; drunken posses would string you up, bushwack you, or burn your house down while you slept and shoot anyone who ran outside.
Whiskey_Bravo
10-24-16, 11:43
There has always been the threat of repercussions and penalties. It still doesn't do a marvelous job of keeping bloodshed in line in places with a less secure social contract, like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sure, the threat of being shot, arrested, prosecuted keeps some people from doing crime. Is that why you haven't murdered your neighbors, raped their women, and enslaved their children? Part of the social contract that you have accepted is to surrender the right to vengeance for the state to exact justice against those who have done you wrong.
There isn't enough LE to keep Chicago and DC under control, never mind the whole country. Especially if everybody woke up one day and decided that society had failed to uphold its end of the bargain and started bloodletting in earnest. If you do not accept the existence of the social contract, why do you acknowledge the legitimacy of the government? Why are you content to hand monopoly over legitimate use of force over to government? Do you not vote? Do you not pay taxes?
The social contract - and the crown's breach thereof - is the basis under which the United States declared its independence and the basis on which the Constitution was written. It is also the basis for the bloodless exchange of power that occurs in the US every four to eight years or so.
Yes there is a social contract. Also it comes down to the value of life. Western society seems to value it more than those in many part of the world. That is why people throw a fit when a state wants to execute a raping, pillaging, murderer here. The value of life in many inner cities here in the US has taken a nose dive as well. How else could you explain some of the mindless killings and dumassery that takes place there.
I don't think anyone is denying that there is a social contract. I know I don't , but I also accept that LE has a place and is a deterrent as well. I would not rape and murder my neighbor even if there was no law but there are probably those that would. Look at how a city reacts when civil service breaks down. People that would never murder or steal are breaking windows to the 7/11 and stealing stuff.
Outlander Systems
10-24-16, 14:37
Anyone spouting the "inherent goodness of man," please report back to me after the latest Black Friday videos are released this time next month.
Skyyr, you're right in that human societies have not recognized liberty as we do today. This though, does not equate to liberty being a social construct. You fail to realize that since humans began philosophy, epistemology, and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding that we have been struggling with these ideologies for thousands of years. Socrates was sentenced to death because he challenged the gatekeepers. Study philosophy with a little bit of theology and you will understand.
Natural rights and liberty exists, and always have. Man chose to suppress such things because of power, greed, and hubris.
Please do not radicalize Darwin's teachings. What's next, using them to justify one race more superior to another?
In this way the Communist regime will extend it's relevancy ten times into the future, perhaps indefinitely- because they know that as soon as they need violence to enforce their ideas, they lose.
Just like Hitlery chose to do instead (infiltrate) of her mentor Alinsky's path of violent revolution.
Interesting read, all 14 pages.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
Skyyr, you're right in that human societies have not recognized liberty as we do today. This though, does not equate to liberty being a social construct. You fail to realize that since humans began philosophy, epistemology, and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding that we have been struggling with these ideologies for thousands of years. Socrates was sentenced to death because he challenged the gatekeepers. Study philosophy with a little bit of theology and you will understand.
Natural rights and liberty exists, and always have. Man chose to suppress such things because of power, greed, and hubris.
Please do not radicalize Darwin's teachings. What's next, using them to justify one race more superior to another?
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from, or the nature of what I'm trying to discuss. I'm very much aware of philosophy and of the discourses on "natural rights." Certainly, when one looks at man and his interactions with his fellow man, one must arrive at some version of liberty if they wish to live in harmony and in peace. At the end of the day, however, it's all but purely academic. Natural rights do not exist for a stronger enemy that does not recognize them - that is the reality of life, and history is filled with it.
If a natural right "exists," but you cannot exercise it - perhaps for your entire existence - because of someone else's authority, is it truly a right? A right cannot be denied as it is inherent, it is not granted by another. Again, this is where history contradicts philosophy.
We literally don't sign a contract, but there is an implicit agreement between members of society which guide their interactions with one another. Why do you greet others as you go about your daily business? Why do you hold the door open for folks when you are leaving or entering a building? Why do you run to help an elderly neighbor, whom you may have never spoken to, when they fall in their drive way?
Sure, there are outliers, but, for our society to function the majority need to adhere to the 'contract.'
The social contract has evolved and continues to evolve, ranging from the lesser hunter turning their head as the best hunter in the tribe took their woman to his bed, to the current state of affairs.
I do those things out of a Biblically-grounded respect for others and because I value innocent people, not because I'm required nor because I care about societal norms. I do it because I have a voluntary choice to do it. The second someone tells me they're required, I'm not going to do it.
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from, or the nature of what I'm trying to discuss. I'm very much aware of philosophy and of the discourses on "natural rights." Certainly, when one looks at man and his interactions with his fellow man, one must arrive at some version of liberty if they wish to live in harmony and in peace. At the end of the day, however, it's all but purely academic. Natural rights do not exist for a stronger enemy that does not recognize them - that is the reality of life, and history is filled with it.
If a natural right "exists," but you cannot exercise it - perhaps for your entire existence - because of someone else's authority, is it truly a right? A right cannot be denied as it is inherent, it is not granted by another. Again, this is where history contradicts philosophy.
I adamantly disagree.
Because a person, entity, or group denies or refuses to acknowledge such rights (or anything for that matter) does not negate their existence. Math existed before humans discovered its use. Think of Descartes's epiphany about his own existence. Liberty as we now know it has always existed. It took thousands of years of philosophy and "rebellion" versus thousands of years of "gatekeeper" authority to get where we are now, and still people deny its existence or accredit it to social constructs (such as yourself). There is nothing "academic" about natural rights or liberty. Just because an entity has some form of arbitrary power through threat or force and chooses the narrative does not equal nonexistence or constructs. Because one is born into a world where some free will and rights (some more than others depending on geographic location/culture/structure etc.) are relinquished (by choice or through force/threat) for social order does not mean they are notional. I am sensing your philosophy has traces of skepticism.
You believe rights are social constructs correct?
I adamantly disagree.
Because a person, entity, or group denies or refuses to acknowledge such rights (or anything for that matter) does not negate their existence. Math existed before humans discovered its use. Think of Descartes's epiphany about his own existence. Liberty as we now know it has always existed. It took thousands of years of philosophy and "rebellion" versus thousands of years of "gatekeeper" authority to get where we are now, and still people deny its existence or accredit it to social constructs (such as yourself). There is nothing "academic" about natural rights or liberty. Just because an entity has some form of arbitrary power through threat or force and chooses the narrative does not equal nonexistence or constructs. Because one is born into a world where some free will and rights (some more than others depending on geographic location/culture/structure etc.) are relinquished (by choice or through force/threat) for social order does not mean they are notional. I am sensing your philosophy has traces of skepticism.
You believe rights are social constructs correct?
I'm speaking in a realistic and historical sense (and if we're being objective, the frame of history is the only sense that matters for reference). You're speaking philosophically and as an educated man. Try arguing logic with a shark and you'll see the pointless endeavor of trying to have nature acknowledge a man's logic.
"Liberty" only exists in as much as a people realize it. I fully agree that rights have existed before humans or recorded history (primarily because I believe humans were created in God's Image, but I digress as it's not relevant), but they have to be acknowledged by man to be of any use. Just as a firearm must be picked up and held to be useful to a man, so must our rights be possessed and acknowledged by our society to be useful. If I alone acknowledge my freedom, but no one else does, is it of any use when a strong man comes to me and says, "you must do my work?" It does not. This is why the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident." If they were truly and universally self-evident, they would not have had to explicitly state such. They were stating that their newly-found nation - our society - agrees that they are self-evident, in that we all recognize them.
Outside of men acknowledging to respect each other's rights, there are no given rights (except perhaps the rights that man was intended to have, but that again is theological/religion in nature). That is reality.
To answer your question, no I do not believe that natural rights are granted by society, but they must be realized by society to be of any use. Even our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that our natural rights are granted by our Creator. Without acknowledgement of a/the Creator, we have no natural rights, which was a large emphasis of the Declaration of Independence.
About the only course I ever had in college of any value was intro to political theory. I still have the textbook! And still gnawing on the subject all these years later.
Quite remarkable that discussions like this crop up in places like this...well done.
To Skyyr and Endur:
I appreciate the ability you have both shown to be very passionate and articulate in your diverse and differing opinions without resorting to the "bickering and name-calling".
The civility of discussing opposing views is often lost here, so a sincere thank you to both of you.
I'm speaking in a realistic and historical sense (and if we're being objective, the frame of history is the only sense that matters for reference). You're speaking philosophically and as an educated man. Try arguing logic with a shark and you'll see the pointless endeavor of trying to have nature acknowledge a man's logic.
"Liberty" only exists in as much as a people realize it. I fully agree that rights have existed before humans or recorded history (primarily because I believe humans were created in God's Image, but I digress as it's not relevant), but they have to be acknowledged by man to be of any use. Just as a firearm must be picked up and held to be useful to a man, so must our rights be possessed and acknowledged by our society to be useful. If I alone acknowledge my freedom, but no one else does, is it of any use when a strong man comes to me and says, "you must do my work?" It does not. This is why the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident." If they were truly and universally self-evident, they would not have had to explicitly state such. They were stating that their newly-found nation - our society - agrees that they are self-evident, in that we all recognize them.
Outside of men acknowledging to respect each other's rights, there are no given rights (except perhaps the rights that man was intended to have, but that again is theological/religion in nature). That is reality.
To answer your question, no I do not believe that natural rights are granted by society, but they must be realized by society to be of any use. Even our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that our natural rights are granted by our Creator. Without acknowledgement of a/the Creator, we have no natural rights, which was a large emphasis of the Declaration of Independence.
We are speaking of human nature, morality, and of our conscious and subconscious minds, not that of other species. Trying to apply our realities to other species is futile and not really relevant, but I get what you are putting down.
"Liberty" only exists in as much as a people realize it. I firmly believe it exists whether people choose to accept it, acknowledge it, deny it, or whether we even have knowledge of it (selfless service and sacrifice to fight for others oppression around the world come to mind here as some populaces actually have no knowledge of it because of that oppression. SF's motto comes to mind-De Oppresso Liber
).
but they have to be acknowledged by man to be of any use To the contrary, think about the men and women throughout history who have fought for these "self-evident" truths in opposition from overwhelming powers and thought. It does not have to be acknowledged by a society to be useful. All it takes is one person in a quest for knowledge and truth for it to be useful. History, that of which you speak, has proven so.
If they were truly and universally self-evident, they would not have had to explicitly state such. They stated such because some people actually had no knowledge of it because of historical oppression to such truths. It exists and is self-evident, but we must first have knowledge of it. I believe it was Plato who believed all knowledge is innate. I believe some of their meaning behind self-evident was that it is innate.
I have a much different philosophy on deities and religion, and which I am still at odds with (man made social construct for control and influence, or forms of allegories/metaphors/symbolisms as sort of a predecessor to philosophy).
To Skyyr and Endur:
I appreciate the ability you have both shown to be very passionate and articulate in your diverse and differing opinions without resorting to the "bickering and name-calling".
The civility of discussing opposing views is often lost here, so a sincere thank you to both of you.
It is definitely a good discussion. For all I know we could both be completely wrong or even misguided. That is the wonder of philosophy.
About the only course I ever had in college of any value was intro to political theory. I still have the textbook! And still gnawing on the subject all these years later.
Quite remarkable that discussions like this crop up in places like this...well done.
It is funny that you mention that. I am actually about finished with a philosophy class and my last class was psychology, mix it in with my ethics class a year or so ago, you see how much of it crosses over (even with all the theories of why people commit crime (I am in CJ) and this information puts light on a lot of things). Throw in some self-education-knowledge and your mind runs off in so many directions.
Moose-Knuckle
10-26-16, 04:06
Please do not radicalize Darwin's teachings. What's next, using them to justify one race more superior to another?
Have you read what Darwin wrote of other races?
Have you read what Darwin wrote of other races?
I have and some radical people took it far far out of context and used it to justify their racism, elitism, etc.
It is funny that you mention that. I am actually about finished with a philosophy class and my last class was psychology, mix it in with my ethics class a year or so ago, you see how much of it crosses over (even with all the theories of why people commit crime (I am in CJ) and this information puts light on a lot of things). Throw in some self-education-knowledge and your mind runs off in so many directions.
Allow me to save you some tuition money.
The source of all crime is:
-Money/valuables
-Women/sex
-Dope/booze
-Ego/pride
Pretty much it.
No grand reason. No overreaching arc of pathology. Merely hairless apes being hairless apes. It is actually pretty disillusioning.
"You killed him over that?!
Ugh.
ramairthree
10-26-16, 10:14
Have you read what Darwin wrote of other races?
I suspect most have not.
He basically thought each race continued evolving in its own nice and some were more evolved than others.
And there is evidence of some very ancient divergence of, say, the Khoisans and Pygmies.
The classic use of race, of course makes no sense.
The current correct, approved speech thought of there being no such thing as race and the only difference being the color of skin also makes no sense.
Clines, the existence of as much diversity within a race as between races, etc. are all quoted as evidence of this.
Well, no crap,
The "white race" to describe Italians, Irishmen, etc. and "Black" to describe half a dozen different groups of peoples from Africa makes no sense.
If we went by true biology, there were a few dozen subspecies of humans running around.
Any physical anthropologist could lay it out. ( of note, physical anthologist are very unpopular with social anthropologists pushing them out).
Just like there are dozens of sub species of Canines all with the same number of chromosome pairs that can get it on and produce litters if you bring them in proximity.
Mammals are pretty morphologically plastic in general, see what you can do with dogs and horses. So we can't take just looks into consideration.
There are known medical differences. High blood pressure is particularly devasting when uncontrolled in many black populations, and there are some differnces in management. Some whites have macrophages ill suited to some types of pneumonia in comparison. Differences in kid's chemotherapy dosing for at least one agent to achieve desired blood levels. Some Native American populations will become obese, get diabetes, and have insane cholesterol levels from relatively normal diets. Differences in alcohol metabolism. Differences in types of muscle fiber percentages. But of course, there could not possibly be any differences in IQ distribution, or other unpopular concepts.
I think scientific honesty is out the window on this topic.
There are plenty of groups of people that would meet the scientific sub species definitions.
Some want to use this as evidence of superiority. Some want to pretend this is not something that exists.
It would be like arguing the species and various sub species of Wolves, Coyotes, Jackals, African Hunting Dogs, Dingoes, etc. have no differences. Or stating why one is superior to the others when each has their pros and cons and better than the others in some situations.
And, at the end end of the day, just like people, if you take away geographical isolation and provide opportunity, they will often get it on like donkey kong.
The term "race" makes about as much sense as the world "assault weapon."
Allow me to save you some tuition money.
The source of all crime is:
-Money/valuables
-Women/sex
-Dope/booze
-Ego/pride
Pretty much it.
No grand reason. No overreaching arc of pathology. Merely hairless apes being hairless apes. It is actually pretty disillusioning.
"You killed him over that?!
Ugh.
Very true, but there is a whole lot of underlining psychological aspects of why they use those "excuses." They are also not universal. One explanation might be applicable to one person or even as far as sub-culture, but not another. It boils down to some people are just evil f*cks that influence others directly or indirectly to be evil f*cks.
I suspect most have not.
He basically thought each race continued evolving in its own nice and some were more evolved than others.
And there is evidence of some very ancient divergence of, say, the Khoisans and Pygmies.
The classic use of race, of course makes no sense.
The current correct, approved speech thought of there being no such thing as race and the only difference being the color of skin also makes no sense.
Clines, the existence of as much diversity within a race as between races, etc. are all quoted as evidence of this.
Well, no crap,
The "white race" to describe Italians, Irishmen, etc. and "Black" to describe half a dozen different groups of peoples from Africa makes no sense.
If we went by true biology, there were a few dozen subspecies of humans running around.
Any physical anthropologist could lay it out. ( of note, physical anthologist are very unpopular with social anthropologists pushing them out).
Just like there are dozens of sub species of Canines all with the same number of chromosome pairs that can get it on and produce litters if you bring them in proximity.
Mammals are pretty morphologically plastic in general, see what you can do with dogs and horses. So we can't take just looks into consideration.
There are known medical differences. High blood pressure is particularly devasting when uncontrolled in many black populations, and there are some differnces in management. Some whites have macrophages ill suited to some types of pneumonia in comparison. Differences in kid's chemotherapy dosing for at least one agent to achieve desired blood levels. Some Native American populations will become obese, get diabetes, and have insane cholesterol levels from relatively normal diets. Differences in alcohol metabolism. Differences in types of muscle fiber percentages. But of course, there could not possibly be any differences in IQ distribution, or other unpopular concepts.
I think scientific honesty is out the window on this topic.
There are plenty of groups of people that would meet the scientific sub species definitions.
Some want to use this as evidence of superiority. Some want to pretend this is not something that exists.
It would be like arguing the species and various sub species of Wolves, Coyotes, Jackals, African Hunting Dogs, Dingoes, etc. have no differences. Or stating why one is superior to the others when each has their pros and cons and better than the others in some situations.
And, at the end end of the day, just like people, if you take away geographical isolation and provide opportunity, they will often get it on like donkey kong.
The term "race" makes about as much sense as the world "assault weapon."
Very true. "Races" evolved to there surroundings/environments and to their intellectual/philosophical, and technological advancements. Funny how some people deny humans have these differences, yet do not deny other animals do, e.g. polar bears to the artic and grizzlies to the forest; try swapping them and see how well they do. The same applies to us as humans.
ramairthree
10-26-16, 11:27
I think the initial reluctance to use species and sub species regarding mankind was religious in nature
Vs Now social/political/etc
RetroRevolver77
10-26-16, 12:05
I think the initial reluctance to use species and sub species regarding mankind was religious in nature
Vs Now social/political/etc
To me personally it's more important in what people believe- not what race they so happen to be born into.
I categorize people based on whether they are a rational thinker or not.
Essentially people who use emotion to guide their thought processes are not rational.
7n6
I think the initial reluctance to use species and sub species regarding mankind was religious in nature
Vs Now social/political/etc
It was religious in nature, originally, and was eventually proven wrong by Classic Liberalism through scientific thought and study...
...which is why it is now quite ironic, since the "Liberal" (in name) Progressive movement denies any such differences, yet claims to be pro-Darwinism, pro-science.
ramairthree
10-26-16, 13:59
Sounds fine for choosing friends, who to hire, etc.
But completely useless in anything biology or medicine oriented.
And not too useful dealing with large groups of people vs individuals.
What is your point 7N6?
I suspect most have not.
He basically thought each race continued evolving in its own nice and some were more evolved than others.
And there is evidence of some very ancient divergence of, say, the Khoisans and Pygmies.
The classic use of race, of course makes no sense.
The current correct, approved speech thought of there being no such thing as race and the only difference being the color of skin also makes no sense.
Clines, the existence of as much diversity within a race as between races, etc. are all quoted as evidence of this.
Well, no crap,
The "white race" to describe Italians, Irishmen, etc. and "Black" to describe half a dozen different groups of peoples from Africa makes no sense.
If we went by true biology, there were a few dozen subspecies of humans running around.
Any physical anthropologist could lay it out. ( of note, physical anthologist are very unpopular with social anthropologists pushing them out).
Just like there are dozens of sub species of Canines all with the same number of chromosome pairs that can get it on and produce litters if you bring them in proximity.
Mammals are pretty morphologically plastic in general, see what you can do with dogs and horses. So we can't take just looks into consideration.
There are known medical differences. High blood pressure is particularly devasting when uncontrolled in many black populations, and there are some differnces in management. Some whites have macrophages ill suited to some types of pneumonia in comparison. Differences in kid's chemotherapy dosing for at least one agent to achieve desired blood levels. Some Native American populations will become obese, get diabetes, and have insane cholesterol levels from relatively normal diets. Differences in alcohol metabolism. Differences in types of muscle fiber percentages. But of course, there could not possibly be any differences in IQ distribution, or other unpopular concepts.
I think scientific honesty is out the window on this topic.
There are plenty of groups of people that would meet the scientific sub species definitions.
Some want to use this as evidence of superiority. Some want to pretend this is not something that exists.
It would be like arguing the species and various sub species of Wolves, Coyotes, Jackals, African Hunting Dogs, Dingoes, etc. have no differences. Or stating why one is superior to the others when each has their pros and cons and better than the others in some situations.
And, at the end end of the day, just like people, if you take away geographical isolation and provide opportunity, they will often get it on like donkey kong.
The term "race" makes about as much sense as the world "assault weapon."
At the genetic level what most people call "race" becomes little more than a visual classification. If you categorize people based upon similar skin pigment you get too many genetic exceptions for a valid classification.
Obviously there is divergence among humans, especially groups that have closed interbreeding practices. This is why some groups like jewish communities are more vulnerable than others to certain kinds of birth defects.
But evolution is not a design or a plan. Variation occurs with every generation. Sometimes the variation is so minimal it is of no consequence. Sometimes the variation is beneficial and is passed on, sometimes the variation is detrimental and is passed one.
All races originated from humans who left Africa and displaced other distinctly different human species. From there what we consider "races" were nothing more than the evolutionary impact on humans subjected to their environments of hundreds of thousands of years. It is no surprise that humans who evolved near the equator might have a genetic tan.
But vulnerability to disease is usually the result of having never been exposed to a disease in your genetic history. The bubonic plague wiped out thousands of Europeans and those who descended either had some level of natural immunity or were survivors who built up some level of immunity and passed that on. When Europeans first encountered people of North and South America, the diseases they had a genetic tolerance to wiped out entire populations that had never been exposed to such things.
But this isn't the result of one race being "so distinct" from another that they almost constitute another species. Most of what qualifies as "race" are cultural factors rather than commonality at the genetic level.
ramairthree
10-26-16, 17:52
No, historic groupings of humans actually have differences that meet and exceed those that were used to define species and subspecies in other animals.
Changes to environment, disease, food availability, etc. are part of what drives it.
Again, I am not going with cultural issues that are compared between races.
From a purely scientific definition, that is. There could probably have been half a dozen species and a few dozen sub species of man. That did not sit well religiously then, and does not sit well politically or socially now. That is because we try to apply rankings to them or something. All kinds of baggage. There is no baggage historically where polar bears enslaved black bears and grizzlys hate them both but like grizzly, polar, black, and Asian bear chicks, and don't have any issues with being brown.
Tall skinny dudes with tons of endurance got lumped in with muscular fast twitch laden dudes from the opposite side of a huge continent, who both got lumped in with two of the earliest diverging groups known of man period.
The concept of race is flawed scientifically. Some groups within a race have more in common with some groups in another race than between other groups in their own race. I am talking strictly morphologically and physiologically.
It is flawed socially and politically as superiority, treatment, and other factors occurred.
But that does not change the fact we have applied a different set of standards to applie to animals and pretend we are not animals.
Take something we are all very familiar with.
Canines. Something like 8 species in the wolf like canids alone. with further sub species.
All with the same number of chromosome pairs.
Hell, another even has a different genus.
We have not applied the same criteria to man.
If we had applied "race" to canines,
I guess it would have have been take three groups, put a different genus, over half a dozen species, another dozen or two subspecies into those three groups somehow, label one superior, and ignore science.
But we are also ignoring pure science to say there are no differences between to all of them.
Now, in parts of Canada it is not easy to tell wolf from coyote and there is a lot of hybridization.
Which, gasp, goes on with humans also.
Same in America with red wolves and coyotes. If they were ever really a species, hint.
If there is something wrong with you and you do not like dogs, read up on bears, which species have the same number of chromosome pairs, and will also get it on between species.
So, we have either gone way overboard declaring the number of species and sub species in the animal kingdom, or are refusing to use those same standards with historic, geopgrapical, and cultural groups of humans with distinctive features and traits. Or both. Which is how I lean.
Don't blindly deny or argue against this. Don't agree 100% off the bat.
Don't confuse groups of humans meeting the same criteria as species, subspecies, and possibly a case here and there of genus that we apply to the animal world as being me saying the race construct as we know it is scientifically correct. Don't confuse me as saying there is a master race.
Look up some different animals with the same number of chromosome pairs that can breed together and how many different species or subspecies are classified from that. Look at those differences, the variability within, compared to the variability between, and Decide for yourself if we have applied the same standards.
Outlander Systems
10-26-16, 18:07
Not sure if racist or taxist!
:jester:
No, historic groupings of humans actually have differences that meet and exceed those that were used to define species and subspecies in other animals.
True, but not of those other species survived. There is evidence that we carry some of their genetic traits, but homo sapiens sapiens is the only human species that didn't become completely extinct.
Also we are now way off topic.
All I have say about race is sometimes you need a little cream in your coffee
No, historic groupings of humans actually have differences that meet and exceed those that were used to define species and subspecies in other animals.
Changes to environment, disease, food availability, etc. are part of what drives it.
Again, I am not going with cultural issues that are compared between races.
From a purely scientific definition, that is. There could probably have been half a dozen species and a few dozen sub species of man. That did not sit well religiously then, and does not sit well politically or socially now. That is because we try to apply rankings to them or something. All kinds of baggage. There is no baggage historically where polar bears enslaved black bears and grizzlys hate them both but like grizzly, polar, black, and Asian bear chicks, and don't have any issues with being brown.
Tall skinny dudes with tons of endurance got lumped in with muscular fast twitch laden dudes from the opposite side of a huge continent, who both got lumped in with two of the earliest diverging groups known of man period.
The concept of race is flawed scientifically. Some groups within a race have more in common with some groups in another race than between other groups in their own race. I am talking strictly morphologically and physiologically.
It is flawed socially and politically as superiority, treatment, and other factors occurred.
But that does not change the fact we have applied a different set of standards to applie to animals and pretend we are not animals.
Take something we are all very familiar with.
Canines. Something like 8 species in the wolf like canids alone. with further sub species.
All with the same number of chromosome pairs.
Hell, another even has a different genus.
We have not applied the same criteria to man.
If we had applied "race" to canines,
I guess it would have have been take three groups, put a different genus, over half a dozen species, another dozen or two subspecies into those three groups somehow, label one superior, and ignore science.
But we are also ignoring pure science to say there are no differences between to all of them.
Now, in parts of Canada it is not easy to tell wolf from coyote and there is a lot of hybridization.
Which, gasp, goes on with humans also.
Same in America with red wolves and coyotes. If they were ever really a species, hint.
If there is something wrong with you and you do not like dogs, read up on bears, which species have the same number of chromosome pairs, and will also get it on between species.
So, we have either gone way overboard declaring the number of species and sub species in the animal kingdom, or are refusing to use those same standards with historic, geopgrapical, and cultural groups of humans with distinctive features and traits. Or both. Which is how I lean.
Don't blindly deny or argue against this. Don't agree 100% off the bat.
Don't confuse groups of humans meeting the same criteria as species, subspecies, and possibly a case here and there of genus that we apply to the animal world as being me saying the race construct as we know it is scientifically correct. Don't confuse me as saying there is a master race.
Look up some different animals with the same number of chromosome pairs that can breed together and how many different species or subspecies are classified from that. Look at those differences, the variability within, compared to the variability between, and Decide for yourself if we have applied the same standards.
The proverbial nail has been hit on the head.
No, historic groupings of humans actually have differences that meet and exceed those that were used to define species and subspecies in other animals.
Changes to environment, disease, food availability, etc. are part of what drives it.
Again, I am not going with cultural issues that are compared between races.
From a purely scientific definition, that is. There could probably have been half a dozen species and a few dozen sub species of man. That did not sit well religiously then, and does not sit well politically or socially now. That is because we try to apply rankings to them or something. All kinds of baggage. There is no baggage historically where polar bears enslaved black bears and grizzlys hate them both but like grizzly, polar, black, and Asian bear chicks, and don't have any issues with being brown.
Tall skinny dudes with tons of endurance got lumped in with muscular fast twitch laden dudes from the opposite side of a huge continent, who both got lumped in with two of the earliest diverging groups known of man period.
The concept of race is flawed scientifically. Some groups within a race have more in common with some groups in another race than between other groups in their own race. I am talking strictly morphologically and physiologically.
It is flawed socially and politically as superiority, treatment, and other factors occurred.
But that does not change the fact we have applied a different set of standards to applie to animals and pretend we are not animals.
Take something we are all very familiar with.
Canines. Something like 8 species in the wolf like canids alone. with further sub species.
All with the same number of chromosome pairs.
Hell, another even has a different genus.
We have not applied the same criteria to man.
If we had applied "race" to canines,
I guess it would have have been take three groups, put a different genus, over half a dozen species, another dozen or two subspecies into those three groups somehow, label one superior, and ignore science.
But we are also ignoring pure science to say there are no differences between to all of them.
Now, in parts of Canada it is not easy to tell wolf from coyote and there is a lot of hybridization.
Which, gasp, goes on with humans also.
Same in America with red wolves and coyotes. If they were ever really a species, hint.
If there is something wrong with you and you do not like dogs, read up on bears, which species have the same number of chromosome pairs, and will also get it on between species.
So, we have either gone way overboard declaring the number of species and sub species in the animal kingdom, or are refusing to use those same standards with historic, geopgrapical, and cultural groups of humans with distinctive features and traits. Or both. Which is how I lean.
Don't blindly deny or argue against this. Don't agree 100% off the bat.
Don't confuse groups of humans meeting the same criteria as species, subspecies, and possibly a case here and there of genus that we apply to the animal world as being me saying the race construct as we know it is scientifically correct. Don't confuse me as saying there is a master race.
Look up some different animals with the same number of chromosome pairs that can breed together and how many different species or subspecies are classified from that. Look at those differences, the variability within, compared to the variability between, and Decide for yourself if we have applied the same standards.
Progressives and the Political Correctness groups don't like it because it undermines the Left's concept of "equality is equal results."
If some men are indeed inherently different, some stronger, some more enduring, and some (*gasp*) smarter (this is the one the Left really hates), and it can be proven scientifically and biologically, then the Left can no longer claim that men should expect equal results.
Men who are convinced they are the same as every other man can be lied into believing they are no better than the heathens and barbarians, and can then be forced to treat them and their ideologies as equals.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.