Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Spiral of Violence - Page 70







Post#1726 at 01-11-2011 09:02 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-11-2011, 09:02 PM #1726
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
3. I think something is profoundly amiss in a society in which people claim they need to own semi-automatic weapons to protect their lives and, if need be, their rights against the federal government and government in general. It's really a denial that civilization exists, and it's a threat to civilization. The strength of the pro-gun movement is like the strength of the deregulation movement: it's an indication of the general erosion of respect for government and the authority of the state, which I think is threatening much of the world with anarchy. I know this is not about to change--it would probably take an armed revolution and its defeat to change it now. But it is not a step forward.
There is something I call the "10 minute problem". No matter how effective the police and civil defense, you are on your own for the first 10 minutes of a criminal (or health) crisis. For many people, the solution to this is to own a gun for self defense.

What sets off the alarm bells for these people is when there is some threat to take away what they perceive as their right to self defense.

What would be your solution to the 10 minute problem?

James50
Last edited by James50; 01-11-2011 at 09:11 PM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1727 at 01-11-2011 09:04 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-11-2011, 09:04 PM #1727
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The issue is whether guns contribute to safety.
I tend to agree for another reason. I don't have official statistics available off hand, but I have read that rates of violence in Britain and France are similar to here, if one includes fist-a-cuffs, knife fights, etc. It's not that America is especially violent per se, at the very least nowhere near the severalfold rate higher our homicide rate would suggest. It's that when violence occurs here it is more deadly. And why would that be? Guns.

On a personal level, this makes total sense to me. One can have a situation: Love affair gone wrong, or profound personal insult shouted, what-have-you, and if there is a gun available the situation can become deadly very quickly -- more quickly than the far more visceral use of hands or knives will permit as easily. Also, a schizo freakazoid with a knife, or his bare hands, is far less likely to kill 5, 10, or 20 people, than one with a semiautomatic gun.

Just some thoughts.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1728 at 01-11-2011 09:15 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-11-2011, 09:15 PM #1728
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
1. The Jacob Weisberg piece said more or less the same thing that I did. It's very difficult to regard Loughner's target as random in the current political climate, however wacked out he may be.

.
It was not random, it was a person that Loughner had encountered. It could have been anyone that happened to set Loughner off . I have not seen anything to show the political motives beening assumed. There has already been too much speculation that just inflames the political climate







Post#1729 at 01-11-2011 09:20 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-11-2011, 09:20 PM #1729
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I don't think people in government should be killed, even if they do send people off to war. I didn't approve of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, whom most people here know is not my hero. I don't approve of the war in Afghanistan, but it is a decision made by officials whom we duly elected. If we believe in peace, then we need to practice it.
I agree. Even when there is evidence that much of our government is bought and paid for by corporations, that is no reason for assassination on any level.

I do think that there is validity and wisdom in the type of civil disobedience that MLK Jr. and Ghandi encouraged. Both of these brave men and others like them, stressed that violence in any form, will never accomplish peace or justice.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1730 at 01-11-2011 09:30 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-11-2011, 09:30 PM #1730
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

While this begins with the question of why today's Right justifies its stands against the working poor, it certainly is also their primodial basis for their hatred of BIG government and their lack of concern for the consequences against individuals caught within their catch-all us vs them mentality as evident in AZ. It explains not only those actively caught up in their hatred but also those with lackadaisical, if not nihlist, attitudes to the social pain, if not occasional tragedies as in AZ, that an increasing number of our fellow citizens are experiencing.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/27021

Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer

There's something deeply unsettling about living in a country where millions of people froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don't have it, or who take pleasure at the thought of privatizing and slashing bedrock social programs like Social Security or Medicare. It might not be as hard to stomach if other Western countries also had a large, vocal chunk of the population who thought like this, but the US is seemingly the only place where right-wing elites can openly share their distaste for the working poor. Where do they find their philosophical justification for this kind of attitude?

It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand,
a popular cult-philosopher who exerts a huge influence over much of the right-wing and libertarian crowd, but whose influence is only starting to spread out of the US.

One reason why most countries don't find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand is a textbook sociopath. Literally a sociopath: Ayn Rand, in her notebooks, worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of "ideal man" that Rand promoted in her more famous books -- ideas which were later picked up on and put into play by major right-wing figures of the past half decade, including the key architects of America's most recent economic catastrophe -- former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and SEC Commissioner Chris Cox -- along with other notable right-wing Republicans such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate "entitlement programs" increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru. Sales of her books have soared in the past couple of years; one poll ranked "Atlas Shrugged" as the second most influential book of the 20th century, after The Bible.

So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'" [Sound vaguely familiar even on this forum?]

This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: "He was born without the ability to consider others."

The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's favorite book -- he even requires his clerks to read it.

I'll get to where Rand picked up her silly Superman blather from later -- but first, let's meet William Hickman, the "genuinely beautiful soul" and inspiration to Ayn Rand. What you will read below -- the real story, details included, of what made Hickman a "Superman" in Ayn Rand's eyes -- is extremely gory and upsetting, even if you're well acquainted with true crime stories -- so prepare yourself. But it's necessary to read this to understand Rand, and to repeat this over and over until all of America understands what made her mind tick, because Rand's influence over the very people leading the fight to kill social programs, and her ideological influence on so many powerful bankers, regulators and businessmen who brought the financial markets crashing down, means her ideas are affecting all of our lives in the worst way imaginable.

Rand fell for William Edward Hickman in the late 1920s, as the shocking story of Hickman's crime started to grip the nation. His crime, trial and case was a non-stop headline grabber for months; the OJ Simpson of his day:

Hickman, who was only 19 when he was arrested for murder, was the son of a paranoid-schizophrenic mother and grandmother. His schoolmates said that as a kid Hickman liked to strangle cats and snap the necks of chickens for fun -- most of the kids thought he was a budding manic, though the adults gave him good marks for behavior, a typical sign of sociopathic cunning. He enrolled in college but quickly dropped out, and quickly turned to violent crime largely driven by the thrill and arrogance typical of sociopaths: in a brief and wild crime spree that grew increasingly violent, Hickman knocked over dozens of gas stations and drug stores across the Midwest and west to California. Along the way it's believed he strangled a girl in Milwaukee, and killed his crime partner's grandfather in Pasadena, tossing his body over a bridge after taking his money. Hickman's partner later told police that Hickman told him how much he'd like to kill and dismember a victim someday -- and that day did come for Hickman.

One afternoon, Hickman drove up to Mount Vernon Junior High school in Los Angeles, and told administrators that he'd come to pick up "the Parker girl" -- her father, Perry Parker, was a prominent banker. Hickman didn't know the girl's first name, so when he was asked which of the two Parker twins -- Hickman answered, "the younger daughter." And then he corrected himself: "The smaller one." The school administrator fetched young Marion, and brought her out to Hickman. No one suspected his motive; Marion obediently followed Hickman to his car as she was told, where he promptly kidnapped her. He wrote a ransom note to Marian's father, demanding $1,500 for her return, promising that the girl would be left unharmed. Marian was terrified into passivity -- she even waited in the car for Hickman when he went to mail his letter to her father. Hickman's extreme narcissism comes through in his ransom letters, as he refers to himself as a "master mind [sic]" and "not a common crook." Hickman signed his letters "The Fox" because he admired his own cunning: "Fox is my name, very sly you know." And then he threatened: "Get this straight. Your daughter's life hangs by a thread."

Hickman and the girl's father exchanged letters over the next few days as they arranged the terms of the ransom, while Marion obediently followed her captor's demands. She never tried to escape the hotel where he kept her; Hickman even took her to a movie, and she never screamed for help. She remained quiet and still as told when Hickman tied her to the chair -- he didn't even bother gagging her because there was no need to, right up to the gruesome end.

Hickman's last ransom note to Marion's father is where this story reaches its disturbing: Hickman fills the letter with hurt anger over her father's suggestion that Hickman might deceive him, and "ask you for your $1500 for a lifeless mass of flesh I am base and low but won't stoop to that depth " What Hickman didn't say was that as he wrote the letter, Marion was already several chopped-up lifeless masses of flesh. Why taunt the father? Why feign outrage? This sort of bizarre taunting was all part of the serial killer's thrill, maximizing the sadistic pleasure he got from knowing that he was deceiving the father before the father even knew what happened to his daughter. But this was nothing compared to the thrill Hickman got from murdering the helpless 12-year-old Marion Parker. Here is an old newspaper description of the murder, taken from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on December 27, 1927:

[see link]

This is the "amazing picture" Ayn Rand -- guru to the Republican/Tea Party right-wing -- admired when she wrote in her notebook that Hickman represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Other people don't exist for Ayn, either.
Part of her ideas are nothing more than a ditzy dilettante's bastardized Nietzsche -- but even this was plagiarized from the same pulp newspaper accounts of the time. According to an LA Times article in late December 1927, headlined "Behavioralism Gets The Blame," a pastor and others close to the Hickman case denounce the cheap trendy Nietzschean ideas that Hickman and others latch onto as a defense:

"Behavioristic philosophic teachings of eminent philosophers such as Nietzsche and Schopenhauer have built the foundation for William Edward Hickman's original rebellion against society," the article begins.

The fear that some felt at the time was that these philosophers' dangerous, yet nuanced ideas would fall into the hands of lesser minds, who would bastardize Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and poison the rest of us. Which aptly fits the description of Ayn Rand, whose philosophy developed out of her admiration for "Supermen" like Hickman. Rand's philosophy can be summed up by the title of one of her best-known books: The Virtue of Selfishness. She argues that all selfishness is a moral good, and all altruism is a moral evil, even "moral cannibalism" to use her words. To her, those who aren't like-minded sociopaths are "parasites" and "lice" and "looters."

But with Rand, there's something more pathological at work. She's out to make the world more sociopath-friendly so that people like Ayn and her hero William Hickman can reach their full potential, not held back by the morality of the "weak," whom Rand despised.

That's what makes it so creepy how Rand and her followers clearly get off on hating and bashing those they perceived as weak--Rand and her followers have a kind of fetish for classifying weaker, poorer people as "parasites" and "lice" who need to swept away. This is exactly the sort of sadism, bashing the helpless for kicks, that Rand's hero Hickman would have appreciated.
What's really unsettling is that even former Central Bank chief Alan Greenspan, whose relationship with Rand dated back to the 1950s, did some parasite-bashing of his own. In response to a 1958 New York Times book review slamming Atlas Shrugged, Greenspan, defending his mentor, published a letter to the editor that ends: "Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should. Alan Greenspan."

As much as Ayn Rand detested human "parasites," there is one thing she strongly believed in: creating conditions that increase the productivity of her Supermen - the William Hickmans who rule her idealized America: "If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite."

And yet Republican faithful like GOP Congressman Paul Ryan read Ayn Rand and make declare, with pride, "Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism." Indeed. Except that Ayn Rand also despised democracy, as she declared: "Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom." [sound vaguely familiar on this forum?]

"Collectivism" is another one of those Randian epithets popular among her followers. Here for example is another Republican member of Congress, the one with the freaky thousand-yard-stare, Michelle Bachman, parroting the Ayn Rand ideological line, rto explain her reasoning for wanting to kill social programs:

"As much as the collectivist says to each according to his ability to each according to his need, that's not how mankind is wired. They want to make the best possible deal for themselves."

Whenever you hear politicians or Tea Baggers dividing up the world between "producers" and "collectivism," just know that those ideas and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a serial-killer groupie. When you hear them threaten to "Go John Galt," hide your daughters and tell them not to talk to any strangers -- or Tea Party Republicans. And when you see them taking their razor blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from total abject destitution -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- and brag about their plans to slash them for "moral" reasons, just remember Ayn's morality and who inspired her.

Too many critics of Ayn Rand-- until I was one of them -- would rather dismiss her books and ideas as laughable, childish, hackneyed. But it can't be dismissed because Rand is the name that keeps bubbling up from the Teabagger crowd and the elite conservative circuit in Washington as The Big Inspiration. The only way to protect ourselves from this thinking is the way you protect yourself from serial killers: smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#1731 at 01-11-2011 09:39 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
01-11-2011, 09:39 PM #1731
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
So you keep an AK-47, among other weapons, so that you can fight the government when/if it comes to take your weapons?
That is a reason.

I might also keep them to help defend you when/if the government comes to take your speech.

I might also keep them because I believe every human being (every living creature for that matter) should be free to have the means to defend his or her life from the threats of others.







Post#1732 at 01-11-2011 09:50 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
01-11-2011, 09:50 PM #1732
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
So you are arguing that deadly force is never justified?
Quite a jump, that. From 'justin sez it's ok to kill politicians' to 'justin sez killing is never justified'.

I'm just saying...

...is [killing] still justified if innocent people are likely to be hurt or killed?
What you are trying to ask, using loads of weasel-phrases and cop-outs, is simply, "is there a situation wherein hurting or killing innocent people to get what you want might be not-wrong?".

Of course, the answer is unequivocally no. There are no circumstances under which injuring one innocent person to get what you want is anything but wrong.

This is not to say, of course, that the thing you wanted to get was necessarily wrong. Just that the means by which you propose to obtain it are.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1733 at 01-11-2011 09:56 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
01-11-2011, 09:56 PM #1733
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
It was pretty much dismissed out of hand as liberal claptrap. Warren Buffet is a major stockholder in the newspaper's parent company. He's a liberal anti-gun nut, right?
I neither dismissed it, nor accepted it, and I did read the entire article. I simply don't make up my mind on the basis of one article or argument or set of statistics, regardless of whether the source agrees or disagrees with my beliefs. I merely found the article's premise and conclusion to be incomplete and potentially poisoned by agenda (no different than the NRA's refutation).

To do otherwise would turn a blind eye to critical thinking, which ironically is what this thread has basically degenerated into.







Post#1734 at 01-11-2011 10:00 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-11-2011, 10:00 PM #1734
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
That is a reason.

I might also keep them to help defend you when/if the government comes to take your speech.

I might also keep them because I believe every human being (every living creature for that matter) should be free to have the means to defend his or her life from the threats of others.
So why stop at semiautomatics? Wouldn't you be even better at protecting yourself (and me) if you had something even more powerful?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1735 at 01-11-2011 10:03 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-11-2011, 10:03 PM #1735
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Quite a jump, that. From 'justin sez it's ok to kill politicians' to 'justin sez killing is never justified'.

I'm just saying...


What you are trying to ask, using loads of weasel-phrases and cop-outs, is simply, "is there a situation wherein hurting or killing innocent people to get what you want might be not-wrong?".

Of course, the answer is unequivocally no. There are no circumstances under which injuring one innocent person to get what you want is anything but wrong.

This is not to say, of course, that the thing you wanted to get was necessarily wrong. Just that the means by which you propose to obtain it are.
No weasel-phrases intended. Just trying to pin you down.

So if I understand you correctly, America's involvement in World War Two was immoral and should not have been conducted since our military did indeed kill many innocent people. Is that correct?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1736 at 01-11-2011 10:04 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-11-2011, 10:04 PM #1736
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
To do otherwise would turn a blind eye to critical thinking, which ironically is what this thread has basically degenerated into.
How has it degenerated so? I see plenty of critical thinking bouncing around from different points of view.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1737 at 01-11-2011 10:13 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
01-11-2011, 10:13 PM #1737
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
I might also keep them to help defend you when/if the government comes to take your speech.

I might also keep them because I believe every human being (every living creature for that matter) should be free to have the means to defend his or her life from the threats of others.
I, too, am a liberal with a room-ful of guns. I also have studied a bit of military history along with a bit of military tactics.

Here's the thing:

Going back to the "10-minute problem," this is the only realistic situation where a handgun or shotgun or whatever might actually be of use. IF I hear the burglar coming into my house, only then will I be able to respond. What are the chances that I will have to face such a situation? Practically nil. So I'm prepared for something less likely than winning the lottery. BFD.

Do I think I have any chance at all even with a good military weapon like an AK-47, against the SWAT team, or a squad of marines, or a group of marauding renegade militia folks? Hell no. If I'm in my house and a well-armed group wants me, they're likely going to have me. The idea that a handgun or even a military rifle is going to stop them is ridiculous. What are the chances of something like that happening? Even less than nil.

Yeah, I like my guns. But this idea that I can somehow stand against some fever-brained image of "government" peeling my cold, dead fingers off my gun? Horseshit. Nothing more than post-apocalyptic fantasy.

My choice if civilization as we know it breaks down? My .22 and my thousand rounds of .22 long rifle.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#1738 at 01-11-2011 10:24 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
01-11-2011, 10:24 PM #1738
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
1. The Jacob Weisberg piece said more or less the same thing that I did. It's very difficult to regard Loughner's target as random in the current political climate, however wacked out he may be.
David... Jared Loughner met Gifford's three years ago. He asked her a question. She answered. He didn't like her answer. He fixated on her. Know why?

He's crazy.

That's it. He didn't shoot her over politics. The "current political climate" is your world, not his. That is not the same world he lives in. He shot her because something in his brain is wired in such a way that makes him dangerous to others. Just because you want the reason to be something else, does not mean it will be. Your brain is attempting to fill in the gaps of what you don't know. That is normal. The same behavior gave rise to superstition and religion.

If I recall correctly (correct me if I am wrong), just a couple days ago yourself and a few others were all but ready to arrest and lynch Loughner's taxi driver because you believed he was some sinister mastermind of an assassination plot.

Allow me to tell everyone on this forum a little something about Jared Loughner because I think it bears mentioning.

None of you know shit about Jared Loughner.

You know just as much as I know about Jared Loughner which is nothing. You have been told what the news people know, which is nothing. You have no doubt watched the same "experts" talk about Jared Loughner and they have tried to tell you what they "know", which is nothing. In 20 years you might know a little more about Jared Loughner than you do now, but you still won't really know anything.

The only person who really knows anything about Jared Loughner is Jared Loughner.







Post#1739 at 01-11-2011 10:30 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
01-11-2011, 10:30 PM #1739
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
So if I understand you correctly, America's involvement in World War Two was immoral and should not have been conducted since our military did indeed kill many innocent people. Is that correct?
-yawn-

"America" isn't a thing, and doesn't do things (nor is 'your military', for that matter). Many American people have done many things at any particular period of time. Some of them good, some of them not. Certainly some people engaged in both good things at some times and bad things at other times.

The fiction that there is an "America" as a meaningful moral actor, distinct from the people who acted under its banner, is absolutely no different from the fiction that there is (was?) an "Enron" as a meaningful moral actor, distinct from the people who acted in its name. That is, it serves only to insulate privileged wrongdoers from the consequences of their actions.
Last edited by Justin '77; 01-11-2011 at 10:33 PM.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1740 at 01-11-2011 10:34 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
01-11-2011, 10:34 PM #1740
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
So why stop at semiautomatics? Wouldn't you be even better at protecting yourself (and me) if you had something even more powerful?
Tell you what. Go down to a local gun range that rents fully automatic weapons. Shoot a full magazine at a target on full-auto, then another on semi-auto. Look at the results and then come back and ask me the question again.







Post#1741 at 01-11-2011 10:38 PM by the bouncer [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 220]
---
01-11-2011, 10:38 PM #1741
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
220

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
David... Jared Loughner met Gifford's three years ago. He asked her a question. She answered. He didn't like her answer. He fixated on her. Know why?

He's crazy.

That's it. He didn't shoot her over politics. The "current political climate" is your world, not his. That is not the same world he lives in. He shot her because something in his brain is wired in such a way that makes him dangerous to others. Just because you want the reason to be something else, does not mean it will be. Your brain is attempting to fill in the gaps of what you don't know. That is normal. The same behavior gave rise to superstition and religion.

If I recall correctly (correct me if I am wrong), just a couple days ago yourself and a few others were all but ready to arrest and lynch Loughner's taxi driver because you believed he was some sinister mastermind of an assassination plot.

Allow me to tell everyone on this forum a little something about Jared Loughner because I think it bears mentioning.

None of you know shit about Jared Loughner.

You know just as much as I know about Jared Loughner which is nothing. You have been told what the news people know, which is nothing. You have no doubt watched the same "experts" talk about Jared Loughner and they have tried to tell you what they "know", which is nothing. In 20 years you might know a little more about Jared Loughner than you do now, but you still won't really know anything.

The only person who really knows anything about Jared Loughner is Jared Loughner.
except you just said he was crazy, so you must know something about him that the rest of us don't.

lol you anarcho-nihilists really know how to sling the crap. but it's easy to spot. move along folks nothing to see here.







Post#1742 at 01-11-2011 10:44 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
01-11-2011, 10:44 PM #1742
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by the bouncer View Post
except you just said he was crazy, so you must know something about him that the rest of us don't.

lol you anarcho-nihilists really know how to sling the crap. but it's easy to spot. move along folks nothing to see here.
I also know how to capitalize my sentences.

Come on now, this is not Newsvine.







Post#1743 at 01-11-2011 10:49 PM by jadams [at the tropics joined Feb 2003 #posts 1,097]
---
01-11-2011, 10:49 PM #1743
Join Date
Feb 2003
Location
the tropics
Posts
1,097

Oh I know we're supposed to be all serious here but don't ya justlove gossip too?

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
While this begins with the question of why today's Right justifies its stands against the working poor, it certainly is also their primodial basis for their hatred of BIG government and their lack of concern for the consequences against individuals caught within their catch-all us vs them mentality as evident in AZ. It explains not only those actively caught up in their hatred but also those with lackadaisical, if not nihlist, attitudes to the social pain, if not occasional tragedies as in AZ, that an increasing number of our fellow citizens are experiencing.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/27021
Wow, this was great. Even if it's half true, it's amazing. I always thought Rands views stemmed from her familys experiences during Russian revolutionary period. Never knew about her obsession with this killer.

Now I know everyone on this forum likes to be real serious, but I can't resist the gossip. Of course Rand had many well documented lovers and many devoted followers. One was Alan Greenspan whom it is said was her lover for a time in the 50's when he was 20 years her junior. When I saw him testifying about our economic collapse and his contributions to it, he seemed sincerely befuddled and said something about how he never believed something like this could happen, that something "must have been wrong with his belief system". He said he sincerely believed that the free market would solve all our problems.

At the time I though he and the rest of Wall Street were caught in some sort of shared psychotic disorder (when a stronger disturbed personality with delusions forms an intense relationship with a weaker personality and that person begins to demonstrate the same delusions). Then I thought it was some kind of group think. Put if indeed he did have a highly charged relationship with a sociopathic personally and he became an acolyte, it it explains his stunned shock.

Just like a sociopath can kill a lot of people, a sociopath with a sick idea can infect a lot of people. I wonder if Milton Friedman was one of her set.
jadams

"Can it be believed that the democracy that has overthrown the feudal system and vanquished kings will retreat before tradesmen and capitalists?" Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America







Post#1744 at 01-11-2011 11:03 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-11-2011, 11:03 PM #1744
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Doubtful. How many criminals do you suppose show up at the local gun range to practice? Police? Well, if you know any police officers, just ask them how much they train shooting live ammunition. I bet you will be surprised by the answer (hint: with rare exceptions it isn't very often)
Anyone can be a criminal if you put a gun in his hands, and then he gets into a fight or loses his temper. Besides, you don't know who shows up at a practice range. And besides, it's their line of work to shoot people; not law-abiding citizens. And if you think police don't get practice, then it is you who are irrational.
And frankly given the track record of overzealous police operations gone wrong, I can't say I am impressed or even interested in their brand of "public safety"
You have a point there. I don't know why you even said that to me.
Um, I do not own a "machine gun" nor did I ever say I did.
Uh, whatever dude. You said you own some such sort of crazy weapons in your safe. I could care less which ones they are. You are crazy for even having even one of them.
I merely discussed the laws with which I am familiar.
So was I. I don't need to know how to fire a gun to know about the laws and the issues. To suggest so is irrational. You just blew a hole in your own logic, dude.
If I did own one it would be because I was licensed to do so. I can assure you that every weapon I own is legal according to both my state's and federal law, so I do have every right to own them whether you like it or not. And that being the case Eric, why would the police invade the home of a law-abiding citizen? Do you support home invasion of innocent citizens?
I have to plead error on that one. I just saw a TV report. It frankly shocked me, although I must have known. But yes, you do have the right to your gun in your bag by your bed. I was wrong, and no I guess the police would not raid your home unless they were sure you were stockpiling illegal weapons. I'll take your word. I don't support home invasions, but yes I do support law enforcement removing illegal stockpiles from homes or "compounds" like the one at Waco.

It is amazing though. Only about 13 coastal and Lake states restrict concealed weapons. Arizona gun laws are very lax. Most people can have all the guns they want, and carry them anywhere. I don't know for God's sake why anyone would criticize me for not wanting to travel to heartland states; you know, the places that put those tea party yahoos in the congress? Gee whiz, I don't want to go to a place where I could be shot at a moment's notice, and any stranger I see might be carrying a concealed weapon.

People say this is a "cultural" thing. I guess so, but the other culture is simply wrong. Guns are not needed anywhere for any purpose. There are better ways to deal with people or animals than to blow them away. On other threads I spoke about the possibility of America entering a golden age. Forget it. As long as people have the mentality of folks like you copperfield, that they feel like they need a loaded gun besides their bed, or who legally allow people who do feel that way to do it, then the frame of mind is not that of which America at its best could be. We are just not there. We may never be. America is just not a very civilized country.
With no way of knowing how life will turn out I can only prepare for possible eventualities and give myself a better chance of survival.
Improve your chances. Get rid of your guns.
Oh and just so you know there are no laws here that state I can't keep my revolver where I keep it, in the manner I keep it. You are ignorant and irrational to even assume otherwise.
I was misinformed. I can only wish it were true. If you lived in some states I would be right, but you don't apparently.
Oh and to your last point, none of my weapons have ever been used in a violent manner. But besides that, I made my peace a long time ago that human beings are violent creatures, always have been and always will be. It's in our nature. It's even in your nature Eric.
As long as folks like you think so, there will be violence. I would not be so naive to think that people will change overnight, or that change happens by denying realities. On the other hand, I lived through a time when many people did change quickly for the better. I know almost anything is possible, with God's help. Change is possible, and evolution happens. Otherwise we'd still all be amoebas. Even with all the nonsense here in America these days, on balance we are living better than we did years ago.
But you Eric appear to be getting more and more irrational by the minute. You are sick Eric. I would suggest that you seek some help for that. Maybe get some good meds. I would hate to see you make the news someday holding someone hostage in your underwear.
I see someone has answered you for me. I'll leave it at that.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1745 at 01-11-2011 11:06 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-11-2011, 11:06 PM #1745
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I'm not sure I'd go THAT far, but as a psychiatrist I'd at least speak to the dude in person, and a few family members if possible, before even attempting a diagnosis.
The "medical experts" on TV are entertainers, and nothing more.
Maybe, but it doesn't take an expert to know that someone who goes somewhere and shoots 20 people he doesn't even know, is crazy. I don't care what the particulars are.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1746 at 01-11-2011 11:14 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-11-2011, 11:14 PM #1746
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I hunt. I have a rifle for deer hunting and a shotgun for hunting waterfowl.
A cultural thing, I guess. I hope you get over it. But whatever.
Waco and Ruby Ridge were a bunch of wackos, not a serious military threat. You don't think genuine guerrilla forces can fight the US military? Tell that to the Vietnamese.
They were supplied by the Russians and the Chinese, not to mention an entire state called North Vietnam. Ever hear of it?

Are you thinking that the Chinese will invade the USA, and Americans will form a guerilla army to fight them on our own soil? That might work, but that would be the analogy; not the USA government warring against American citizen rebels.

Come on Odin. As atheist Christopher Hitchens might say, at least use the brain that evolution has given you.

I think "civil war" is possible now in the USA, given this climate and the abundant presence of guns. The Right wing will likely have its way for a few days out in the heartland. I suspect the government will call out the troops to restore order. Given the sprawling nature of the landscape, it may take weeks. That will be our "civil war." It will be bloody, but I don't see it lasting 4 years.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-11-2011 at 11:20 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1747 at 01-11-2011 11:17 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
01-11-2011, 11:17 PM #1747
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Maybe, but it doesn't take an expert to know that someone who goes somewhere and shoots 20 people he doesn't even know, is crazy. I don't care what the particulars are.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the assertion you made above, I'd like to point out that the list that meets just that criteria includes damn near everyone who was ever in the armed forces during wartime. I don't think you meant to say quite what you said, is what I'm saying.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1748 at 01-11-2011 11:19 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-11-2011, 11:19 PM #1748
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Sure, though I think you might agree with me that even someone who joins the army to do just that, might in some way be just a little crazy too. Depending on the circumstances, and the war involved, I suppose.

At least, it's kind of crazy of we humans to keep setting up situations where people are asked to go kill people they don't even know.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1749 at 01-11-2011 11:24 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
01-11-2011, 11:24 PM #1749
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
There is something I call the "10 minute problem". No matter how effective the police and civil defense, you are on your own for the first 10 minutes of a criminal (or health) crisis. For many people, the solution to this is to own a gun for self defense.

What sets off the alarm bells for these people is when there is some threat to take away what they perceive as their right to self defense.

What would be your solution to the 10 minute problem?

James50
I regard the "10 minute problem" as extraordinarily hypothetical. It came out in an earlier discussion of this issue here that the NRA does not keep or release statistics on the numbers of people who actually use guns for legitimate self-defense in a given year. That can only be, I would suspect, because there would be so few such cases among average citizens--far fewer than the deaths caused by accidental and intentional shootings of family members and suicides. I don't have a solution for being a on a plane that has a serious mechanical malfunction, either, but I regard that as about as likely as needing a gun for self-defense.

Amy didn't say anything that I would disagree with about hunting, etc. But if all the NRA really cared about was hunting we wouldn't have the debate that we have had over the last 47 years.







Post#1750 at 01-11-2011 11:35 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-11-2011, 11:35 PM #1750
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
I regard the "10 minute problem" as extraordinarily hypothetical.
More people than you might think are obsessed with this problem. I see you do not share that particular anxiety, but for those who have it, simply telling them that its "hypothetical" would make them think you were other-worldly. I am always surprised at the number of people (many of whom women) who would never leave the house with a pistol in their purse. Try to take away these guns and you will create a generation of scofflaws.

BTW - I have one gun that my dad gave me I keep for sentimental reasons. I have no ammunition and have not discharged it in 30 years or more. I threw away the ammunition when my daughter became increasingly erratic 15 years ago. Like you, I choose to dismiss the 10 minute problem, but unlike you, people who have it do not bother me.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
-----------------------------------------