Bitcoin Forum
August 15, 2018, 06:05:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Gun is Civilization  (Read 3797 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 04, 2011, 02:30:17 AM
 #1

"The Gun Is Civilization" - Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
1534313158
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313158

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313158
Reply with quote  #2

1534313158
Report to moderator
1534313158
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313158

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313158
Reply with quote  #2

1534313158
Report to moderator
1534313158
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313158

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313158
Reply with quote  #2

1534313158
Report to moderator
BOUNTY PORTALS
BLOG
WHERE BOUNTY MANAGEMENT
MEETS AUTOMATION
SIGNATURE CAMPAIGNS
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
MEDIA CAMPAIGNS
AND MORE!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 05:41:36 AM
 #2

Quote
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.


ummm... no.

sex.

mutual lust is not forced.  but i don't believe the data is at all supportive of the idea that 'reason' enters into it even a little.  in fact, the most common conclusion by those who study love, sex, and lust professionally, is that it is its own particular form of insanity.  chemically-induced, apparently.

and then the argument could be made that civilization exists for the protection and nurture of the offspring of that lust.  but we'll save that for another day.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:43:54 AM
 #3

Yes, I like this idea of empowering the weak.... it intrigues me.
realnowhereman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:44:06 AM
 #4

sex.

mutual lust is not forced.  but i don't believe the data is at all supportive of the idea that 'reason' enters into it even a little.  in fact, the most common conclusion by those who study love, sex, and lust professionally, is that it is its own particular form of insanity.  chemically-induced, apparently.

and then the argument could be made that civilization exists for the protection and nurture of the offspring of that lust.  but we'll save that for another day.

Unless you think that lust leads inevitably to sex.  Erm...  no.

There are plenty of women I find attractive.  Somehow I manage not to ravage them.

Reason is a perfectly workable override for lust.

1AAZ4xBHbiCr96nsZJ8jtPkSzsg1CqhwDa
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 04:11:42 PM
 #5

sex.

mutual lust is not forced.  but i don't believe the data is at all supportive of the idea that 'reason' enters into it even a little.  in fact, the most common conclusion by those who study love, sex, and lust professionally, is that it is its own particular form of insanity.  chemically-induced, apparently.

and then the argument could be made that civilization exists for the protection and nurture of the offspring of that lust.  but we'll save that for another day.

Unless you think that lust leads inevitably to sex.  Erm...  no.

There are plenty of women I find attractive.  Somehow I manage not to ravage them.

Reason is a perfectly workable override for lust.

RTFA.

Quote
mutual lust...

[and the conclusions which follow only from that]
realnowhereman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 04, 2011, 04:18:50 PM
 #6

mutual lust is not forced.  but i don't believe the data is at all supportive of the idea that 'reason' enters into it even a little.  in fact, the most common conclusion by those who study love, sex, and lust professionally, is that it is its own particular form of insanity.  chemically-induced, apparently.

and then the argument could be made that civilization exists for the protection and nurture of the offspring of that lust.  but we'll save that for another day.

Unless you think that lust leads inevitably to sex.  Erm...  no.

There are plenty of women I find attractive.  Somehow I manage not to ravage them.

Reason is a perfectly workable override for lust.

RTFA.

Quote
mutual lust...

[and the conclusions which follow only from that]

Is my point any different if it's mutual lust?  Two people who find each other attractive do not necessarily jump into bed.  Therefore reason overrides lust.

Humans are not animals.  We are capable of choosing not to let our instincts guide us.  If you are going to say "lust", you might as well say "anger", "sadness", "joy", or "envy" as well.  Humans experience all of these things, and for the most part keep them under control.

The OP is correct: reason and force is all there is.  Even when lust is a factor, the conversation might go "so, I fancy you"; "good, I fancy you too".  That is reason.  It's not explicit but it is code for "I offer you X in exchange for Y", where X and Y is "your pleasure" and "my pleasure".


1AAZ4xBHbiCr96nsZJ8jtPkSzsg1CqhwDa
eturnerx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 06:24:03 PM
 #7

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.

Anonymous
Guest

June 05, 2011, 06:25:52 PM
 #8

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.


That's assuming that person won't settle for reason but forcing the other person to their bidding.

Anyways, the first person that shoots would probably be shot by others.
eturnerx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 06:31:22 PM
 #9

That's assuming that person won't settle for reason but forcing the other person to their bidding.
So that implies that there is some other ethical/moral value at play here. What is that?


Anyways, the first person that shoots would probably be shot by others.
What stops a chain reaction of shooters progressively taking out those that fired first?
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 05, 2011, 06:35:18 PM
 #10

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.


That's assuming that person won't settle for reason but forcing the other person to their bidding.

Anyways, the first person that shoots would probably be shot by others.

Through his action, he makes a morality judgement: it is acceptable to use violence if reason fails.

I see no way that he could claim that it does not apply to others against himself.
eturnerx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 06:41:02 PM
 #11

Through his action, he makes a morality judgement: it is acceptable to use violence if reason fails.

I see no way that he could claim that it does not apply to others against himself.
What is that morality judgment based upon?
Anonymous
Guest

June 05, 2011, 06:48:50 PM
 #12

Through his action, he makes a morality judgement: it is acceptable to use violence if reason fails.

I see no way that he could claim that it does not apply to others against himself.
What is that morality judgment based upon?

His best-interest. What gives him pleasure.
chickenado
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500


One of the world's leading Bitcoin-powered casinos


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 10:23:01 PM
 #13

Most people don't carry a personal gun for the same reason they don't carry a personal dentistry kit.  They suck at defending themselves, even with a gun.  So they outsource security to people who are good at using guns, usually by joining a guarded territory. 

In most European countries, where governments have a quasi-monopoly on guns, this guarded territory tends to encompass the entire nation.  The quality of service provided by government is variable though. 

In Latin America, and to some extent North America, there is an increasing trend of joining gated communities because government sucks as providing security.   

I would say that most rich countries are reasonably "civilized". I agree with the statement in the title, though "The Gun" does not necessarily mean a personal gun.

Division of labour isn't always a bad thing, you know?

    ▀   ▄   ▀
▀      ███  ▄   ▀
    ▀   ▄  ███  ▄   ▀
▀      ███     ███  ▄   ▀
    ▀   ▄   ▀   ▄  ███
▀      ███  ▄  ███      ▀
    ▀   ▄  ███  ▄   ▀
▀      ███     ███  ▄   ▀
    ▀   ▄   ▀   ▄  ███
▀      ███  ▄  ███      ▀
    ▀   ▄  ███      ▀
▀      ███      ▀
    ▀       ▀
Bitcasino.io
▄        ██ ██          ▄
▄ ▀▀     ██████████▄       ▀▀ ▄
▄▀▄█▀       ███   ████      ▀█▄▀▄
▐█ ▄         ███▄▄▄███▀        ▄ █▌
▄ ▀▄▄        ███▀▀▀▀███▄      ▄▄▀ ▄
▀▀▄▀▄        ███    ████      ▄▀▄▀▀
██▄█ ▄     ▄▄███▄▄▄▄███▀       █▄██
▄▄ █      ▀▀▀██▀██▀▀▀        █ ▄▄
▀▀▀ █▌       ▀▀ ▀▀         ▐█ ▀▀▀

▀█▄▀ █                   █ ▀▄█▀
▄██ ▀█▌▄           ▄▐█▀ ██▄

▄██ ▄▀ ▀▀   ▀▀ ▀▄ ██▄
▀▀▀▄█▀   ▀█▄▀▀▀
...Welcome offer...▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
████████████████▀     ▐████
███████████████       ▐████
██████████████▌   ▐████████
██████████████▌   ▐████████
███████████           █████
███████████          ▐█████
██████████████▌   ▐████████
█████████████▌   ▐████████
██████████████▌   ▐████████
██████████████▌   ▐████████
▀█████████████▌   ▐███████▀
nickwit
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 11:13:06 PM
 #14

This is morally infantile nonsense.

Morality is only based on self-interest for the emotionally undeveloped.

Morality is only based "His best-interest. What gives him pleasure." if you're a fucking child... otherwise it's based upon empathy.


The train of thought you're entertaining was done (to death) about 70 years ago and belongs in the same dustbin as eugenics.



Anonymous
Guest

June 06, 2011, 02:51:00 AM
 #15

This is morally infantile nonsense.

Morality is only based on self-interest for the emotionally undeveloped.

Morality is only based "His best-interest. What gives him pleasure." if you're a fucking child... otherwise it's based upon empathy.


The train of thought you're entertaining was done (to death) about 70 years ago and belongs in the same dustbin as eugenics.




Empathy is derived from what you value. What you value gives you pleasure. My point still stands.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 06:10:42 AM
 #16

This is morally infantile nonsense.

Morality is only based on self-interest for the emotionally undeveloped.

Morality is only based "His best-interest. What gives him pleasure." if you're a fucking child... otherwise it's based upon empathy.


The train of thought you're entertaining was done (to death) about 70 years ago and belongs in the same dustbin as eugenics.




Empathy is derived from what you value. What you value gives you pleasure. My point still stands.

Empathy is an emergent property of the human (and other mammals) brain (mirror neurons, hyppocampal involvement in cognition) and needs no system logic or system of reason to exist.  You disregard the discoveries that science has made of the past 50 years at your own peril.
Anonymous
Guest

June 08, 2011, 05:13:55 PM
 #17

This is morally infantile nonsense.

Morality is only based on self-interest for the emotionally undeveloped.

Morality is only based "His best-interest. What gives him pleasure." if you're a fucking child... otherwise it's based upon empathy.


The train of thought you're entertaining was done (to death) about 70 years ago and belongs in the same dustbin as eugenics.




Empathy is derived from what you value. What you value gives you pleasure. My point still stands.

Empathy is an emergent property of the human (and other mammals) brain (mirror neurons, hyppocampal involvement in cognition) and needs no system logic or system of reason to exist.  You disregard the discoveries that science has made of the past 50 years at your own peril.

You cannot objectively speak for every perspective, pseudo-scientist.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 05:38:40 PM
 #18

This is morally infantile nonsense.

Morality is only based on self-interest for the emotionally undeveloped.

Morality is only based "His best-interest. What gives him pleasure." if you're a fucking child... otherwise it's based upon empathy.


The train of thought you're entertaining was done (to death) about 70 years ago and belongs in the same dustbin as eugenics.




Empathy is derived from what you value. What you value gives you pleasure. My point still stands.

Empathy is an emergent property of the human (and other mammals) brain (mirror neurons, hyppocampal involvement in cognition) and needs no system logic or system of reason to exist.  You disregard the discoveries that science has made of the past 50 years at your own peril.

You cannot objectively speak for every perspective, pseudo-scientist.
How do you interpret the experiments of Sperry, Ramachandran, and other experiments of modern cognitive neuroscience?  I realize this is a very new field and the study of deficits from neural insults are not as specific and advanced as other disciplines but I believe the preponderance of evidence does support the very small claims that have been made from such observations.  With the advances in fMRI and othere measurement tool the field is advancing quite quickly.
Anonymous
Guest

June 08, 2011, 05:42:15 PM
 #19

This is morally infantile nonsense.

Morality is only based on self-interest for the emotionally undeveloped.

Morality is only based "His best-interest. What gives him pleasure." if you're a fucking child... otherwise it's based upon empathy.


The train of thought you're entertaining was done (to death) about 70 years ago and belongs in the same dustbin as eugenics.




Empathy is derived from what you value. What you value gives you pleasure. My point still stands.

Empathy is an emergent property of the human (and other mammals) brain (mirror neurons, hyppocampal involvement in cognition) and needs no system logic or system of reason to exist.  You disregard the discoveries that science has made of the past 50 years at your own peril.

You cannot objectively speak for every perspective, pseudo-scientist.
How do you interpret the experiments of Sperry, Ramachandran, and other experiments of modern cognitive neuroscience?
Sure, there are primal instincts and values that invoke themselves all in the name of preserving the species but it has also been shown that humans can negate these in place of a new system of value. We are not complete slaves to our biology.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 05:50:51 PM
 #20


Sure, there are primal instincts and values that invoke themselves all in the name of preserving the species but it has also been shown that humans can negate these in place of a new system of value. We are not complete slaves to our biology.

How does this make us slaves to our biology?  Why should this be seen through a dichotomy model of slave or free?  I'm not so concerned about "primal instincts" as I am about how biology influences perception, human interaction, and what this says about the cooperative capacity of mankind as a whole.  For example I find it fascinating that the average primate is born with a near universal ingrained nonverbal communication system.
Anonymous
Guest

June 08, 2011, 06:00:57 PM
 #21


Sure, there are primal instincts and values that invoke themselves all in the name of preserving the species but it has also been shown that humans can negate these in place of a new system of value. We are not complete slaves to our biology.

How does this make us slaves to our biology?  Why should this be seen through a dichotomy model of slave or free?
It makes us subject to the whims of the machine we inhabit. As a sentient being, it would be preferable to achieve value and happiness through my own determined will. Not sporadic circumstances.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 06:10:33 PM
 #22


Sure, there are primal instincts and values that invoke themselves all in the name of preserving the species but it has also been shown that humans can negate these in place of a new system of value. We are not complete slaves to our biology.

How does this make us slaves to our biology?  Why should this be seen through a dichotomy model of slave or free?
It makes us subject to the whims of the machine we inhabit. As a sentient being, it would be preferable to achieve value and happiness through my own determined will. Not sporadic circumstances.

I find no evidence for existence of mind body duality but a ton of evidence to the contrary. It is not that it is impossible but that given the current understanding of the human brain and behavior it doesn't appear to be necessary.  I can see how viewing oneself as a slave to the machinery they inhabit could have distressing consequences stemming from cognitive dissidence.  The brain is plastic and can be remodeled within limits with conscious effort and as science and technology advance we learn how to have more control over our minds.

On a side note I find this brief overview of a case study quite amusing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 08, 2011, 06:20:31 PM
 #23

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.



This results in a social event wherein the violently uncivilized are quickly identified by the rest of society, by reason of their victims.  Then, as a method of protecting itself from future violence from such persons, proceed to negate their violent tendencies in an organized fashion.  Some would form posses (or hire rough & tumble types) to capture or kill the offender, as well as send the appropriate warning to others with a violent tendency to squash it or face similar consequences; or the offender will eventually encounter someone who is aware of his history and is faster than he is.  Thus the old adage, 'an armed society is a polite society'.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
eturnerx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 09, 2011, 10:14:20 AM
 #24

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.



This results in a social event wherein the violently uncivilized are quickly identified by the rest of society, by reason of their victims.  Then, as a method of protecting itself from future violence from such persons, proceed to negate their violent tendencies in an organized fashion.  Some would form posses (or hire rough & tumble types) to capture or kill the offender, as well as send the appropriate warning to others with a violent tendency to squash it or face similar consequences; or the offender will eventually encounter someone who is aware of his history and is faster than he is.  Thus the old adage, 'an armed society is a polite society'.
Agreed - but the original victims of the overly-violent are still dead. The posse system was notorious for it's corruptibility. But the tendancy of people to band together for the common good is, I think, a better claim for the basis of civilisation than the gun.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 09, 2011, 02:49:09 PM
 #25

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.



This results in a social event wherein the violently uncivilized are quickly identified by the rest of society, by reason of their victims.  Then, as a method of protecting itself from future violence from such persons, proceed to negate their violent tendencies in an organized fashion.  Some would form posses (or hire rough & tumble types) to capture or kill the offender, as well as send the appropriate warning to others with a violent tendency to squash it or face similar consequences; or the offender will eventually encounter someone who is aware of his history and is faster than he is.  Thus the old adage, 'an armed society is a polite society'.
Agreed - but the original victims of the overly-violent are still dead. The posse system was notorious for it's corruptibility. But the tendancy of people to band together for the common good is, I think, a better claim for the basis of civilisation than the gun.

It's in the nature of humans to band together.  That doesn't always result in civilization.  Gangs & mobs are perfect examples of groups of people who band together for a force advantage, and is entirely contradictory to a civilized society.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


Agorist


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 05:35:12 AM
 #26


Is my point any different if it's mutual lust?  Two people who find each other attractive do not necessarily jump into bed.  Therefore reason overrides lust.

Humans are not animals.  We are capable of choosing not to let our instincts guide us.  If you are going to say "lust", you might as well say "anger", "sadness", "joy", or "envy" as well.  Humans experience all of these things, and for the most part keep them under control.


Relevant quote:

"Man is a being capable of subduing his instincts. A man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses; he does not devour every piece of food that entices him; he does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill . . . man rationalizes the satisfaction of his sexual appetites. Their satisfaction is the outcome of a weighing of pros and cons. Man does not blindly submit to a sexual stimulation like a bull; he refrains from copulation if he deems the costs—the anticipated disadvantages—too high. In this sense we may apply the term moral restraint. "--Ludwig von Mises

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
Basiley
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 05:59:14 PM
 #27

why no good, 'ol Freud. for exampl ?
anyone freaky-addicted/twisted about something specific, eventually try compare/measure something/anything, relatively to it.
liky gun-addicts, for example.
niemivh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 06:11:23 AM
 #28

"The Gun Is Civilization" - Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Are you equal to this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vl9FniemlE&feature=related

I'll keep my politics out of your economics if you keep your economics out of my politics.

16LdMA6pCgq9ULrstHmiwwwbGe1BJQyDqr
bitcredit
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 06:15:02 AM
 #29

For once I agree with you.

With a 2 BTC handgun a 3-year-old child can easily kill his/her abusive 6' 300 lb father. No other piece of technology brings about this sort of social equality.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 04:53:16 PM
 #30

For once I agree with you.

With a 2 BTC handgun a 3-year-old child can easily kill his/her abusive 6' 300 lb father. No other piece of technology brings about this sort of social equality.

Oh Noes!  Somebody please think of the children!

Wow, you really went deep to find the straw to stuff this one.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Basiley
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
 #31

For once I agree with you.

With a 2 BTC handgun a 3-year-old child can easily kill his/her abusive 6' 300 lb father. No other piece of technology brings about this sort of social equality.

Oh Noes!  Somebody please think of the children!

Wow, you really went deep to find the straw to stuff this one.
sure.
fusion/alloty of Juvenal justice and democracy, driven to extreme.
IVNAY ALBIN FAHAD 150
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 25, 2018, 12:23:51 AM
 #32

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. So yes, I agree gun is civilization.
anazinovjeva
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 03:25:52 PM
 #33

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. So yes, I agree gun is civilization.
I would rather leave weapons in hands of police. I don't want to be shot by a policeman just because he is afraid that I might have a gun.

▀▀▀▀▀▀     │      SWIPE      │      Monetizing Mobile Engagement Data     ▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄       Whitepaper     Telegram     Twitter     Reddit       ▄▄▄▄▄▄
coolcoinz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 570


★Nitrogensports.eu★


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 03:34:07 PM
 #34

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. So yes, I agree gun is civilization.

Great explanation.
Guns are tools meant to help us. The main argument of those who are against them is that they give too much power. One moment you're walking down the street and another you're dead after being shot in the head by some maniac. But this can happen anyway. Gons already exist and this maniac will be there whether you like it or not. Carrying a gun will give you the edge if you meet this maniac face to face. If you won't have it what will you do against him? Start running?


           █████████████████     ████████
          █████████████████     ████████
         █████████████████     ████████
        █████████████████     ████████
       ████████              ████████
      ████████              ████████
     ████████     ███████  ████████     ████████
    ████████     █████████████████     ████████
   ████████     █████████████████     ████████
  ████████     █████████████████     ████████
 ████████     █████████████████     ████████
████████     ████████  ███████     ████████
            ████████              ████████
           ████████              ████████
          ████████     █████████████████
         ████████     █████████████████
        ████████     █████████████████
       ████████     █████████████████
▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
▬▬ THE LARGEST & MOST TRUSTED ▬▬
      BITCOIN SPORTSBOOK     
   ▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
             ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄
     ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀        ▀▄▄▄▄           
▄▀▀▀▀                 █   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
█                    ▀▄          █
 █   ▀▌     ██▄        █          █               
 ▀▄        ▐████▄       █        █
  █        ███████▄     ▀▄       █
   █      ▐████▄█████████████████████▄
   ▀▄     ███████▀                  ▀██
    █      ▀█████    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
     █       ▀███   ████      ████   ██
     ▀▄        ██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
      █        ██        ▄██▄        ██
       █       ██        ▀██▀        ██
       ▀▄      ██    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
        █      ██   ████      ████   ██
         █▄▄▄▄▀██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
               ██▄                  ▄██
                ▀████████████████████▀




  CASINO  ●  DICE  ●  POKER   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   24 hour Customer Support   

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
coolcoinz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 570


★Nitrogensports.eu★


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 03:38:02 PM
 #35

I would rather leave weapons in hands of police. I don't want to be shot by a policeman just because he is afraid that I might have a gun.

You would rather, but you don't have that choice. Remember that the policemen are also people. They get depressed, drunk, have their own problems, lose people they love...
Some of them are dirty and might lead double lives. If you allow them to carry weapons there's a chance these weapons will be aimed at you at some point. I think that we either should ban guns completely which is impossible, or allow every adult and sane person to carry.


           █████████████████     ████████
          █████████████████     ████████
         █████████████████     ████████
        █████████████████     ████████
       ████████              ████████
      ████████              ████████
     ████████     ███████  ████████     ████████
    ████████     █████████████████     ████████
   ████████     █████████████████     ████████
  ████████     █████████████████     ████████
 ████████     █████████████████     ████████
████████     ████████  ███████     ████████
            ████████              ████████
           ████████              ████████
          ████████     █████████████████
         ████████     █████████████████
        ████████     █████████████████
       ████████     █████████████████
▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
▬▬ THE LARGEST & MOST TRUSTED ▬▬
      BITCOIN SPORTSBOOK     
   ▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
             ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄
     ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀        ▀▄▄▄▄           
▄▀▀▀▀                 █   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
█                    ▀▄          █
 █   ▀▌     ██▄        █          █               
 ▀▄        ▐████▄       █        █
  █        ███████▄     ▀▄       █
   █      ▐████▄█████████████████████▄
   ▀▄     ███████▀                  ▀██
    █      ▀█████    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
     █       ▀███   ████      ████   ██
     ▀▄        ██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
      █        ██        ▄██▄        ██
       █       ██        ▀██▀        ██
       ▀▄      ██    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
        █      ██   ████      ████   ██
         █▄▄▄▄▀██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
               ██▄                  ▄██
                ▀████████████████████▀




  CASINO  ●  DICE  ●  POKER   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   24 hour Customer Support   

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1038


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 07:19:27 PM
 #36

"We're Going To Start A Revolution": 500,000 People Storm Washington To Protest Guns





Survivors of the deadly Valentine's Day shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (along with numerous celebrities such as Oprah, George and Amal Clooney, Steven Spielberg, Chrissy Teigen and a handful of other celebrities) are leading some 500,000 high school students Saturday during the "March for our Lives" anti-gun protest in Washington, DC.

The march was organized to build on the momentum of last week's National School Walkout and put further pressure on lawmakers to ban assault weapons after shooter Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students and faculty with an AR-15.

Participants gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue near the US Capitol on Saturday morning ahead of the march, which was slated to begin at noon.


Live stream: March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIzzuvqCU1Y



Read more at https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-24/what-democracy-looks-500000-people-storm-washington-during-march-our-lives.


Cool
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1038


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 11:42:36 PM
 #37

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership...





Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself.

The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero.

The National Rifle Association often points to Switzerland to argue that more rules on gun ownership aren't necessary. In 2016, the NRA said on its blog that the European country had one of the lowest murder rates in the world while still having millions of privately owned guns and a few hunting weapons that don't even require a permit.

But the Swiss have some specific rules and regulations for gun use.


Read more and click the links at https://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Switzerland-has-a-stunningly-high-rate-of-gun-12709383.php.


Cool
Pages: 1 2 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!