Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Don't Think I've Ever Heard it Put So Well

Don't Think I've Ever Heard it Put So Well (Page 3)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Sorry, I tend to ignore discussions involving waragainstsleep.
Well, to alight you to the relevant passage from the post you quoted:

"I posit there is only one from that list which even comes close to justifying the high numbers we have for X: free access acts as a check against tyranny.

As someone who believes it acts as such...

You're free to tell me my belief is incorrect, and you very well may be right."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, to alight you to the relevant passage from the post you quoted:

"I posit there is only one from that list which even comes close to justifying the high numbers we have for X: free access acts as a check against tyranny.

As someone who believes it acts as such...

You're free to tell me my belief is incorrect, and you very well may be right."
Or maybe I didn't read the post I quoted by you well enough.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:03 PM
 
I honestly interpreted that as an outgrowth of your previous statement.

I only pointed it out so you didn't think I was trying to be slippery in regards to my position.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:04 PM
 
I don't think I've ever considered you slippery.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Isn't that a war?
USSR, not Russia. Go back further in history, back when they were part of the USSR.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
USSR, not Russia. Go back further in history.
You're not talking about the 80s?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I don't think I've ever considered you slippery.
We need more time in the sack.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're not talking about the 80s?
The Soviet Union didn't invade. The Afghani government called them in.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're not talking about the 80s?
You said "isn't" which seemed to indicate you were talking present tense. Apologies.

Anyway, the USSR considered Afghanistan to be a Soviet territory/protectorate and tried to officially annex them via occupation, that didn't work out so well because the Afghans were individually so well armed, especially considering the terrain. It would be the same if anyone tried to invade any Appalachian states, considering how well armed the people are and how well they know the region. It would be a tactical briar patch/nightmare. I sure as hell wouldn't want to lead that offensive, and no sane military leader would either.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You said "isn't" which seemed to indicate you were talking present tense. Apologies.

Anyway, the USSR considered Afghanistan to be a Soviet territory/protectorate and tried to officially annex them via occupation, that didn't work out so well because the Afghans were individually so well armed, especially considering the terrain. It would be the same if anyone tried to invade any Appalachian states, considering how well armed the people are and how well they know the region. It would be a tactical briar patch/nightmare. I sure as hell wouldn't want to lead that offensive, and no sane military leader would either.
And there's an intense irony to war people don't often realize.

Anything where just blowing the living shit out of it is a solution isn't worth fighting over.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Anything where just blowing the living shit out of it is a solution isn't worth fighting over.
Many women have come to this conclusion regarding me.
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 03:23 PM
 


I missed it. I wonder why it was taken down? Does the video exist anywhere else on the web?
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 03:42 PM
 
I think this is it...

     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 04:54 PM
 
Here's Eddie's routine. It's not really a focused rant like Jefferies. He segues into monkeys about a minute or two in.

     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
While one can generate a long list of benefits, I posit there is only one from that list which even comes close to justifying the high numbers we have for X: free access acts as a check against tyranny.
The argument is rational, I'm not sure how rational the expectation of sufficient tyranny is. Or how rational the expectation of victory against it is.

You're picking the annual payment plan over the jackpot lump sum. Except the lump sum isn't guaranteed. And if it takes long enough the payment plan will be way more expensive.

Heres the thing: When you take up arms against a tyrannical government you do so of your own free will. Even if the numbers come out in your favour and your guns save more lives than they cost, the lives they cost will often be innocent and may not have chosen to give their lives.

Perhaps guns should come with health warnings like cigarettes. "By purchasing this firearm you willingly adopt the risk that you may injure or kill yourself or your loved ones in the event of mental unwellness, drunkenness, clumsiness, stupidity or plain bad luck on your part."
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The argument is rational, I'm not sure how rational the expectation of sufficient tyranny is. Or how rational the expectation of victory against it is.

You're picking the annual payment plan over the jackpot lump sum. Except the lump sum isn't guaranteed. And if it takes long enough the payment plan will be way more expensive.

Heres the thing: When you take up arms against a tyrannical government you do so of your own free will. Even if the numbers come out in your favour and your guns save more lives than they cost, the lives they cost will often be innocent and may not have chosen to give their lives.

Perhaps guns should come with health warnings like cigarettes. "By purchasing this firearm you willingly adopt the risk that you may injure or kill yourself or your loved ones in the event of mental unwellness, drunkenness, clumsiness, stupidity or plain bad luck on your part."
I posit lump sum vs. payment plan is another math problem.

The next 40 years of insurance (50 if we legalize drugs) costs the equivalent of a small war: 1,000,000 deaths.

Presuming the insurance acts as promised, and the fear of what is being insured against is legitimate, is this a bad trade?

I think it's one worth making. Again, I would understand someone disagreeing, but I wouldn't understand if they took it to the next step and said I was crazy for thinking it was worth it.


Make no mistake however, the question of whether the insurance will act as promised, and whether the fear is legitimate, are no small concerns.


I would put forth two key pieces of evidence for why the fear is legitimate.

The first is we're not that far off from the last example of an exceedingly bad tyrant. Honestly, we're just far enough out it's when people start putting their guard down.

The second is how disgustingly easy it was to push our buttons with 9/11.


Whether the insurance would be effective I fully admit is a gamble, though anyone in that situation would no doubt be relieved the gamble was taken. It should also be noted the gamble need merely act as an effective deterrent for us to have considered it to have "payed out".
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The attitude is superior because we experienced that problem, and we fixed it. Therefore you know the solution but you refuse to fix it. To paraphrase Einstein: "Taking no action whatsoever and expecting the same things not to happen again is the very definition of insanity."
Except the same things aren't happening. You're just falling for the media's hysteria.
Gun violence has been dropping in the US over the decades. Therefore I'd say we're doing something right, and should probably keep doing what we're doing. Strangely people weren't as rabid about banning guns in decades past, proving the only reason they pretend to care about it now is because the modern media has made them more aware of every little event, essentially shaping this perspective of hysteria. I say "pretend to care" because this whole thing reminds me when republicans pretend to care about fetuses.

Since the population of the US has more than doubled since the 50's we'd expect gun violence to go up, which it hasn't'. This demonstrates the gullibility of progressives more than it shows the insanity of the gun crowd. The same knee jerk reaction mentality which is responsible for requiring EVERYBODY to take their shoes off and step through body scanners at airports. All because 2 people may have brought improvised explosives ( a banned item) on a plane.

The item below shows that compared to other "advanced" countries the US ranks pretty average for gun violence, even in places where guns are banned. This doesn't even account for other forms of violence which no doubt went up when guns were banned in these other countries.


The comedian says
"So apparently this kid was aspergers as ****, it's not like you can just walk to the docks screaming GUNS! GUNS! to the black market".
So according to him this aspergers is really obvious when someone is shopping on the black market but not so obvious when buying guns legally... If the psychos are walking into Walmart per-se while screaming GUNS! GUNS! then it seems we could use this as a means to deny certain mentally disturbed people from buying guns, rather than banning them for everybody. So far all the mass shooters have told others their plan and weren't taken seriously. IOW it's the comedian who admits these psychos are so easy to pick out.

"you do understand the government has drones right? Your bringing guns to a drone fight!" said the comedian.
Except it's not a drone fight... The government isnt going to bomb their own infrastructure. But if it were a drone fight the government would run out of drones fast. Iraqis shot some of them down. Iranians with grade-school computer skills highjacked one. Im pretty confident armed Americans could make short work of them in the event it needed to.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 09:12 PM
 
That table only has rampage shootings.

We have a touch less than a 5 per 100,000 homicide rate. A country like France or the UK has a 1 per 100,000 homicide rate.

Not all those homicides are from guns, but I would imagine a hefty percentage are.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2015, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That table only has rampage shootings.
To be fair I think that is what is used as justification for tighter gun regulation. It's the 'extreme' case.

On the other hand, using only 4 years of data strikes me as crazy small. Should be more like 20-30 years.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2015, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Except the same things aren't happening. You're just falling for the media's hysteria.
Hasn't gun ownership ben falling though? Or is it gun owning households? Either way.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The comedian says

So according to him this aspergers is really obvious when someone is shopping on the black market but not so obvious when buying guns legally... If the psychos are walking into Walmart per-se while screaming GUNS! GUNS! then it seems we could use this as a means to deny certain mentally disturbed people from buying guns, rather than banning them for everybody. So far all the mass shooters have told others their plan and weren't taken seriously. IOW it's the comedian who admits these psychos are so easy to pick out.
I think his point is that people with certain social and psychological problems who commit shootings often use legal guns to do so. I don't know how many purchase them themselves. But yes, vendors should refuse to serve those who they have reason to think are a bit off. Its called discretion, like a bartender has for refusing drunks.

I don't know the penalties for irresponsible gun selling or how well they are enforced. I get the impression there isn't a huge shortage of people willing to risk the consequences.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Except it's not a drone fight... The government isnt going to bomb their own infrastructure. But if it were a drone fight the government would run out of drones fast. Iraqis shot some of them down. Iranians with grade-school computer skills highjacked one. Im pretty confident armed Americans could make short work of them in the event it needed to.
Again the point is that drones with infra-red can be used to track and bomb (or perhaps just apprehend) people who fancy themselves as guerrilla holdouts in the wilderness.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2015, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Again the point is that drones with infra-red can be used to track and bomb (or perhaps just apprehend) people who fancy themselves as guerrilla holdouts in the wilderness.
I don't believe American soldiers would be quite as bloodthirsty as you think. Unless the shit hit the fan, such as another real threat of mass secession*, waging war on other Americans on US soil isn't something that many would do and it would take a sociopath to volunteer for it. The mere idea that such action could be required is likely deterrent enough.


*even then, there are much more dire consequences for waging such a war than there was in the past.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2015, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't believe American soldiers would be quite as bloodthirsty as you think. Unless the shit hit the fan, such as another real threat of mass secession*, waging war on other Americans on US soil isn't something that many would do and it would take a sociopath to volunteer for it. The mere idea that such action could be required is likely deterrent enough.


*even then, there are much more dire consequences for waging such a war than there was in the past.
I'm inclined to agree, but then thats a good argument that tyranny isn't a problem you need guns for. At least some of the guys with the real big guns are likely to be on your side. If not all of them. And those who aren't would likely join you the second they were ordered to fire on you.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2015, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm inclined to agree, but then thats a good argument that tyranny isn't a problem you need guns for. At least some of the guys with the real big guns are likely to be on your side. If not all of them. And those who aren't would likely join you the second they were ordered to fire on you.
If the populace isn't armed, the military never gets called in. Everything which needs to be accomplished can (and will) be done with police.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2015, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the populace isn't armed, the military never gets called in. Everything which needs to be accomplished can (and will) be done with police.
Precisely.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2015, 04:38 AM
 
Maybe you could solve the problem with technology?
Install a self destruct mechanism in Congress set to detonate if #overthrowthegovernment trends for too long on Twitter.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2015, 11:19 AM
 
Here's how every discussion I've had on gun control goes.

Anti-Gun: Murder! Death! Kill! You are a frothy nut!
Pro-Gun: Check against tyranny.
Anti-Gun: Still too much death!
Pro-Gun: Here are the numbers. Notable, but less than what people think.
Ant-Gun: Tyranny won't happen!
Pro-Gun: Notably unpatriotic rationale for how it could.
Anti-Gun: Guns wouldn't work!
Pro-Gun: War is much more complicated than who has the biggest guns.
Anti-Gun: Jokes.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2015, 11:26 AM
 
Liberals do love their jokes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2015, 11:34 AM
 
Conservatives love jokes.

That Larry the Cable Guy is a hoot!
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2015, 12:55 PM
 
plus Tater Salad & Jim Foxworthy. I believe the 3 of them often tour together, come to think of it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2015, 12:59 PM
 
No love for Bill Engvall?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2015, 01:09 PM
 
When no one is looking, I see Foxworthy pulling out a well-worn copy of Sartre essays while a single tear slowly rolls down his cheek.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,