Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(04-28-2018, 10:39 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]And as I've repeated unendingly: you can't know how you would react until presented with the situation that requires it.  Ask our resident shrink, if she's still monitoring the site.

True. I can't really say that I could and I would until I've actually been there and done it so to speak. That's a given and that point was ceded to you a long time ago.

(04-28-2018, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2018, 10:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I have claimed that if one is afraid of a terrorist or nut shooter, one should seek training, the right equipment, and be mentally prepared.  That seems a common red perspective.

There are many among the blue who seem obsessed with the worst case, that the training, equipment and readiness will be perpetually inadequate.  In some ways one is right.  You have to be a veteran, to have regularly encountered lethal incidents, to be truly ready.  You can only do so much in the classroom.

Me, I have studied western armed conflict and eastern unarmed.  I do not see the preparation as useless.  It seems obvious I can't convince those that avoid the training.  By inclination and inexperience, they remain perpetual victims and ready to perpetuate this helplessness.  They will say absurd things like it is not risky or less risky to let a lethal shooter continue to shoot and kill.  They seem ready so say anything to retain helplessness, the lack of responsibility for self defense and that of the community.

And the result is the sort of stalemate that comes from world view clash, with greatly varied understanding of how the word works.  To me, it is the blue who seem irrational.

These are good points, so let me ask a question: if we are planning to rely on well trained and mentally prepared members of the general public to be our safety shield in times of danger, what is the downside to this?  It sounds remarkably like a Samurai culture, which worked in a very disciplined Japan in the past, probably would not work in the Japan of today and seems totally out of step with America in the past, present and future.  In short, I don't see this as a viable model, and some very limited variant would be not just less valuable but actually antithetical to law and order -- the assumed target.

It's the old cats and dogs discussion; cats just don't play well as a team.  Dogs do.  All of which raises the question, are we socially more like the latter than the former?  Personally, I think not.

Your choice of description is curious.  In the Agricultural Age, many privileged military classes extended their dominance over politics and economics.  The samurai make a good example.  In these cultures, weapons prohibitions were common, if futile.  Yes. the common men were forbidden and could not afford swords, but their instruments for threshing grain?  Their nunchaku?

It might have begun with the Vikings.  The English were forced to be strong everywhere.  The People had to be strong at the weakest point.  It might have been the longbow and musket era, where the English were more ready to trust the common man to dominate traditional Agricultural Age cultures that did not.  It led to the English Civil War, where the side with the support of the local militia often had an advantage.  It followed into the era of colonial and revolutionary culture, when you had to have a strong populace to survive.

In some ways, the Right to own and carry weapons is the antithesis of the privileged samurai culture.  It led in period to human rights and democracy.  Did you dare deny those things to an armed populace?  Did you expect the elite to confront them successfully?  In many ways the Right to Bear Arms is key.  The same arguments that led Jim Crow  to adapt a legal stance against the underprivileged were used against the labor unions, who were denied the Rights to Assemble and Bear Arms at the same time.  Somehow, the Pinkerton men weren't.  The suffering and elitist Gilded Age resulted.

The reds remember.  The reds, given that Washington is as usual awash in elitist privilege, will yield their weapons from cold dead fingers.  It is possible to see the Right to Bear Arms as very very American, as the key to all else, the very antithesis of samurai privilege.

I think the blue ought to remember that, with their strange ideas that associate helplessness with strength.  Militia culture has not entirely died.  It is alive and well in so called fly over country.  Alive and well and for good reason.

(04-28-2018, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2018, 10:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I have claimed that if one is afraid of a terrorist or nut shooter, one should seek training, the right equipment, and be mentally prepared.  That seems a common red perspective.

There are many among the blue who seem obsessed with the worst case, that the training, equipment and readiness will be perpetually inadequate.  In some ways one is right.  You have to be a veteran, to have regularly encountered lethal incidents, to be truly ready.  You can only do so much in the classroom.

Me, I have studied western armed conflict and eastern unarmed.  I do not see the preparation as useless.  It seems obvious I can't convince those that avoid the training.  By inclination and inexperience, they remain perpetual victims and ready to perpetuate this helplessness.  They will say absurd things like it is not risky or less risky to let a lethal shooter continue to shoot and kill.  They seem ready so say anything to retain helplessness, the lack of responsibility for self defense and that of the community.

And the result is the sort of stalemate that comes from world view clash, with greatly varied understanding of how the word works.  To me, it is the blue who seem irrational.

These are good points, so let me ask a question: if we are planning to rely on well trained and mentally prepared members of the general public to be our safety shield in times of danger, what is the downside to this?  It sounds remarkably like a Samurai culture, which worked in a very disciplined Japan in the past, probably would not work in the Japan of today and seems totally out of step with America in the past, present and future.  In short, I don't see this as a viable model, and some very limited variant would be not just less valuable but actually antithetical to law and order -- the assumed target.

It's the old cats and dogs discussion; cats just don't play well as a team.  Dogs do.  All of which raises the question, are we socially more like the latter than the former?  Personally, I think not.

I make my choices based upon statistical probability (if emotion does not get too strongly involved, and emotion is human -- and necessary for what makes us human). I prefer not to be driving around as the bars close, during fog, or on iced roads. I can usually wait for some other time in which to do what I need to do. Having heard of the crash of a jetliner does not cause me to buy a motorcycle, which is about the most dangerous way to get around. I do not smoke or use street drugs, and even if I drink, I am a light drinker.

Am I perfectly rational? No. If I were I would be a vegetarian. But I come from a farm family, and meat is an indelible part of the culture from which I come.

But guns, aside from sport hunting, are not. Guns are more likely to get one into trouble than to get one out of it. A criminal is more likely to steal my gun in a burglary and use it against me than I am to use a gun against a burglar (who could be more dangerous than a thief, especially if a rapist). A dog? Different story. If I were truly scared of crime and could not move, then I might get a German shepherd, Rottweiler, or Doberman who would scare off an attacker or intruder with a loud bark-- but would leave loved ones alone. If 'Woof! Woof!' didn't scare off a crook with the prospect of injuries slightly less lethal than those of a bear or Big Cat, then the fangs and claws might send the crook to the hospital... and after a suitable recovery, the criminal-justice system. Police officers compete to get opportunities to work with K-9 units... the police units that crooks most dread. An 80-pound police dog can knock down a 240-pound crook easily.

Would I travel to China or South Africa? That's easy. South Africa has a far higher crime rate. Sure, I know the rules in China -- don't do crime, don't bring or use drugs, and stay clear of Chinese politics. But I know that in one country I am more likely to be mugged than in the other. I also recognize that much of the appeal of South Africa is to see such wildlife as lions, leopards, hippos, elephants, and crocodiles in the wild... some of the most dangerous animals on Earth. I'll stick to dogs, animals around which you are usually safe unless you do something incredibly stupid, and cats, animals that act much like leopards but are too small to do any real harm to you unless you do something incredibly unwise. China has the archeological and antiquarian prizes.

Yes, there are means of self-defense that can disarm a crook of a weapon. Press on certain muscles behind the wrist (a former Marine showed me the trick), and a hand opens up, losing its grip. Bye-bye, knife or even gun! You can then step on the gun or knife and take command of the situation. 9-1-1 gets the cops, who will be delighted to relieve you of the weapon... and get your testimony.

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

(04-29-2018, 05:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]... In some ways, the Right to own and carry weapons is the antithesis of the privileged samurai culture.  It led in period to human rights and democracy.  Did you dare deny those things to an armed populace?  Did you expect the elite to confront them successfully?  In many ways the Right to Bear Arms is key.  The same arguments that led Jim Crow  to adapt a legal stance against the underprivileged were used against the labor unions, who were denied the Rights to Assemble and Bear Arms at the same time.  Somehow, the Pinkerton men weren't.  The suffering and elitist Gilded Age resulted.

This does not address my point at all. My concern is the apparent willingness -- preference in many cases -- to rely on the willing stranger to provide personal security. This has nothing to do with militias, since the only militias we have at present are state sponsored ceremonial ones (Virginia Military Institute is ours), or ad hoc assemblages of the willing, notable for being typically RW extremists (the Michigan Militia, for instance).

If that is the preferred approach, then a warrior class must necessarily provide the service, or it falls to petty despots or self-appointed vigilantes. None of those options appeals to me.

... then Bob Wrote:The reds remember.  The reds, given that Washington is as usual awash in elitist privilege, will yield their weapons from cold dead fingers.  It is possible to see the Right to Bear Arms as very very American, as the key to all else, the very antithesis of samurai privilege.

I think the blue ought to remember that, with their strange ideas that associate helplessness with strength.  Militia culture has not entirely died.  It is alive and well in so called fly over country.  Alive and well and for good reason.

You are coming close to advocating insurrection here ... or reporting on it at the very least. Nowhere is there a right to rebel, as every attempt in the past has demonstrated. It's odd that the ones so focused on draining the swamp are the ones least likely to use the ballot box to accomplish it. Instead, they prefer a friendly tyrant who will do it for them, or, barring that, to take up arms.

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

I would argue that we are every bit as violent by nature today as our ancestors in the past, but we have learned to get along ... at least those of us that chose to do so.   When life is hard short and brutal it's easier to risk it, but that's not the same as our temperament toward those we hate and fear.

(04-27-2018, 10:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I have claimed that if one is afraid of a terrorist or nut shooter, one should seek training, the right equipment, and be mentally prepared.  That seems a common red perspective.

The blue perspective, is that we need and deserve to live in a society where one would rarely encounter a terrorist or a nut shooter, such as blue states and liberal/socialist nations pretty much offer. Thus, training to behave like the criminals do (shoot weapons) in response to their behavior, would not be necessary. The red perspective is to be self-reliant and defend yourself. However, defending yourself is not needed in a civilized society, so why not help create a civilized society, instead of living in fear like people did in the Dark Ages?

Quote:There are many among the blue who seem obsessed with the worst case, that the training, equipment and readiness will be perpetually inadequate.  In some ways one is right.  You have to be a veteran, to have regularly encountered lethal incidents, to be truly ready.  You can only do so much in the classroom.

Obviously it is the red perspective that is obsessed with the worst case, claiming that we have to assume that the world is full of criminals and terrorists and one should be armed to protect yourself against them anywhere you go.

Gun control and bans on weapons of war in civilian use would mean there are fewer guns around for unqualified people to grab and use, less likelihood that a fearful or aggressive "law-abiding" person supposedly carrying a weapon for defense doesn't turn into a criminal, and most of all, fewer guns to steal. This means that gun owners should be required to store them where criminals can't steal them, and should not give them or sell them to others. Which means guns would not be available for self-defense anyway.

Quote:Me, I have studied western armed conflict and eastern unarmed.  I do not see the preparation as useless.  It seems obvious I can't convince those that avoid the training.  By inclination and inexperience, they remain perpetual victims and ready to perpetuate this helplessness.  They will say absurd things like it is not risky or less risky to let a lethal shooter continue to shoot and kill.  They seem ready so say anything to retain helplessness, the lack of responsibility for self defense and that of the community.

Good guys with guns do not prevent bad guys with guns. The best you can hope for in that case is a shootout after the shooter has already fired his weapons; a shootout in which many including bystanders will die. Eastern unarmed self-defense does not risk deaths of many people, although it might not work against a shooter. The way to stop shooters is to take away their guns. Dogs are indeed another alternative for self-defense, along with alarms, mace, pepper spray, locks, neighborhood watch, and moving to a middle class blue neighborhood.

Quote:And the result is the sort of stalemate that comes from world view clash, with greatly varied understanding of how the world works.  To me, it is the blue who seem irrational.

Calling it a world view clash is elevating a safety issue into metaphysics and ontology. Not so. Everyone wants to be safe; the question is how. The rational thing is to notice the fact that heavily armed and gun-permissive nations and states have the most gun violence, and more murders overall, and thus be willing to take action. If gun control is irrational, why do the police favor it? Or is it more rational to fire all the police and just depend on every man and woman to defend themselves in the war of all against all?

(04-29-2018, 05:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]In some ways, the Right to own and carry weapons is the antithesis of the privileged samurai culture.  It led in period to human rights and democracy.  Did you dare deny those things to an armed populace?  Did you expect the elite to confront them successfully?  In many ways the Right to Bear Arms is key.  The same arguments that led Jim Crow  to adapt a legal stance against the underprivileged were used against the labor unions, who were denied the Rights to Assemble and Bear Arms at the same time.  Somehow, the Pinkerton men weren't.  The suffering and elitist Gilded Age resulted.

The reds remember.  The reds, given that Washington is as usual awash in elitist privilege, will yield their weapons from cold dead fingers.  It is possible to see the Right to Bear Arms as very very American, as the key to all else, the very antithesis of samurai privilege.

It's a curious myth that has grown up in Red America, and nowhere else. Flyover country lends itself to people hanging on to outdated, parochial, provincial beliefs.

The right to have arms did not lead to human rights and democracy. The Enlightenment and liberal ideology did that. The right to bear arms in America was a device to protect slaveowners. It was not that they wanted to keep arms out of the hands of rebellious slaves, but to keep them in the hands of the slaveholders. And in a wild country like the USA was, with no organized police or national guard, the well-regulated militia was the only alternative to protect against criminals and pirates. But this Second Amendment provision was soon rendered out of date, as police and armed forces were developed, and the power and business of guns soon outstripped the intent of the amendment. The right to bear arms is now the leading threat to the security of our free state.

Th Gilded Age of course resulted of course from the same laissez faire philosophy that the Republicans have restored today. Such a philosophy insists that non-whites and labor should have no rights. The LAST thing that reds remember today is the rights and values of the underprivileged and the workers.

Quote:I think the blue ought to remember that, with their strange ideas that associate helplessness with strength.  Militia culture has not entirely died.  It is alive and well in so called fly over country.  Alive and well and for good reason.

The helplessness is confidence that society protects, educates and elevates the people so that criminals are not running rampant and people respect the law. States with virtual militias because of lax gun laws are the least safe states to live in, and red flyover states are the least rational in every way. Because arming more people with powerful weapons means that more of those people might turn into criminals, or be criminals to start with because of lax checks on purchases, and that criminals might steal their weapons.

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

I don't know if I think like that or not; I'm not sure. But thinking nice thoughts is not without power. At least an attitude and confidence that you live in a safe society, borne of taking responsibility to make your society safe and prosperous through government and volunteer action, contributes to respect for law and human rights.

Dogs successfully deter many criminals. True, it is not foolproof against an armed criminal. But guns are practically useless. The only way to create a safe society, is to think the nice thought that it can be done, and then get together with your fellow citizens and do it. It helps to live in a state where there's a long tradition of people doing it. They are called blue states. If you prefer barbarism, move to a red state and arm yourself to the teeth. Most guns today are owned by a relatively few gun fanatics there.

There is no limit to how strong you have to be in order to be stronger than all the other guys. That is as futile as to think that wishful thinking alone makes things so. There is always someone better than you in any competitive situation. Give up the quest and accept your weakness. In numbers there is strength, not isolation and individualism.

(04-30-2018, 06:57 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]You are coming close to advocating insurrection here ... or reporting on it at the very least.  Nowhere is there a right to rebel, as every attempt in the past has demonstrated.  It's odd that the ones so focused on draining the swamp are the ones least likely to use the ballot box to accomplish it.  Instead, they prefer a friendly tyrant who will do it for them, or, barring that, to take up arms.

In fiction, I think the hero in Shogun advocated one thing that justifies rebellion against your overlord.  You have to succeed.  In real life, the founding fathers are among those that successfully rebelled.  I will go with Thomas Jefferson's justification for rebellion in the Declaration of Independence.  I deny your claim that every rebellion has failed, that every tyrant is morally correct.

(04-30-2018, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

I don't know if I think like that or not; I'm not sure. But thinking nice thoughts is not without power. At least an attitude and confidence that you live in a safe society, borne of taking responsibility to make your society safe and prosperous through government and volunteer action, contributes to respect for law and human rights.

Dogs successfully deter many criminals. True, it is not foolproof against an armed criminal. But guns are practically useless. The only way to create a safe society, is to think the nice thought that it can be done, and then get together with your fellow citizens and do it. It helps to live in a state where there's a long tradition of people doing it. They are called blue states. If you prefer barbarism, move to a red state and arm yourself to the teeth. Most guns today are owned by a relatively few gun fanatics there.

There is no limit to how strong you have to be in order to be stronger than all the other guys. That is as futile as to think that wishful thinking alone makes things so. There is always someone better than you in any competitive situation. Give up the quest and accept your weakness. In numbers there is strength, not isolation and individualism.

And yet, criminals will prey upon the weak, and todays active shooters turn to cowards or suicide if confronted. Any society to work just has to be stronger that its criminal element to work well. The red theory is that one can best do that by allowing private individuals to be strong as cops get to where the criminals perceive weakness only after the criminal is long gone. This is also why so many of the shootings take place in or near schools, hospitals or some military bases. The opposite is thought, that if you disarm the lawful, this creates zones where the criminal or active shooter sees himself as operating freely for a time.

(05-01-2018, 01:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:57 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]You are coming close to advocating insurrection here ... or reporting on it at the very least.  Nowhere is there a right to rebel, as every attempt in the past has demonstrated.  It's odd that the ones so focused on draining the swamp are the ones least likely to use the ballot box to accomplish it.  Instead, they prefer a friendly tyrant who will do it for them, or, barring that, to take up arms.

In fiction, I think the hero in Shogun advocated one thing that justifies rebellion against your overlord.  You have to succeed.  In real life, the founding fathers are among those that successfully rebelled.  I will go with Thomas Jefferson's justification for rebellion in the Declaration of Independence.  I deny your claim that every rebellion has failed, that every tyrant is morally correct.

Save that one rebellion against an absent overlord (and one separated from the American colonies by time as much as distance), no other attempt has succeeded.  Now we have to ask, is anything so vile today that this option should be considered?  I don't think so. 

The opposition we need to address today is the same opponent we faced in the First Gilded Age: unbridled wealth.  Solving it then took courage, a leader with vision and integrity, and a lot of votes at the ballot box ... twice, if you consider both Roosevelts to be part of the same solution.  I think that's fully viable again, though the power of technology enhanced propaganda is making it harder than it should be. 

If that solution fails, and we fall into something reminiscent of Fascism, then you might have a point, but some nascent uprising of hoi polloi would still be likely to fail.  When we elected to go with a professional military, we stacked the cards in favor of a tyrant should one arise.  The military is the most hide-bound traditional institution in the country.

(05-01-2018, 02:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]And yet, criminals will prey upon the weak, and todays active shooters turn to cowards or suicide if confronted.  Any society to work just has to be stronger that its criminal element to work well.  The red theory is that one can best do that by allowing private individuals to be strong as cops get to where the criminals perceive weakness only after the criminal is long gone.  This is also why so many of the shootings take place in or near schools, hospitals or some military bases.  The opposite is thought, that if you disarm the lawful, this creates zones where the criminal or active shooter sees himself as operating freely for a time.

This runs counter to the experience of other advanced countries. Though crazy seems to be on the rise everywhere, other countries are still much safer places to be than the USA.

(05-01-2018, 02:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

I don't know if I think like that or not; I'm not sure. But thinking nice thoughts is not without power. At least an attitude and confidence that you live in a safe society, borne of taking responsibility to make your society safe and prosperous through government and volunteer action, contributes to respect for law and human rights.

Dogs successfully deter many criminals. True, it is not foolproof against an armed criminal. But guns are practically useless. The only way to create a safe society, is to think the nice thought that it can be done, and then get together with your fellow citizens and do it. It helps to live in a state where there's a long tradition of people doing it. They are called blue states. If you prefer barbarism, move to a red state and arm yourself to the teeth. Most guns today are owned by a relatively few gun fanatics there.

There is no limit to how strong you have to be in order to be stronger than all the other guys. That is as futile as to think that wishful thinking alone makes things so. There is always someone better than you in any competitive situation. Give up the quest and accept your weakness. In numbers there is strength, not isolation and individualism.

And yet, criminals will prey upon the weak, and todays active shooters turn to cowards or suicide if confronted.  Any society to work just has to be stronger that its criminal element to work well.  The red theory is that one can best do that by allowing private individuals to be strong as cops get to where the criminals perceive weakness only after the criminal is long gone.  This is also why so many of the shootings take place in or near schools, hospitals or some military bases.  The opposite is thought, that if you disarm the lawful, this creates zones where the criminal or active shooter sees himself as operating freely for a time.

I know what the red side thinks. I understand that in the parts of America where most of them live, there's some truth that cops would arrive late, and so they need to be armed or own firearms. Understandable; but I still think it's wrong, since unless the arms are locked away where they can't be stolen, the criminals and the unqualified can steal them. And they do. And the owner himself can turn violent and shoot people. And locking the guns up makes them far less useful in a sudden crisis. This Trump-trumpeted idea about gun free zones is a red favorite, but it's wrong. Gun free zones means that no-one there can turn into a shooter. A gun free zone may also allow for an armed and trained guard, if I remember correctly. Or at least some other protections.

The shootings take place in many different places, of all different kinds, all in good numbers. Churches, concert venues and clubs, shopping centers, theaters, offices, restaurants have all been hard hit. Few of them take place in areas advertised as gun free zones. They take place in locations handy to the shooter, or related to his frustrations. I would hardly think a military base could be considered a gun free zone!

(05-01-2018, 11:33 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2018, 01:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:57 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]You are coming close to advocating insurrection here ... or reporting on it at the very least.  Nowhere is there a right to rebel, as every attempt in the past has demonstrated.  It's odd that the ones so focused on draining the swamp are the ones least likely to use the ballot box to accomplish it.  Instead, they prefer a friendly tyrant who will do it for them, or, barring that, to take up arms.

In fiction, I think the hero in Shogun advocated one thing that justifies rebellion against your overlord.  You have to succeed.  In real life, the founding fathers are among those that successfully rebelled.  I will go with Thomas Jefferson's justification for rebellion in the Declaration of Independence.  I deny your claim that every rebellion has failed, that every tyrant is morally correct.

Save that one rebellion against an absent overlord (and one separated from the American colonies by time as much as distance), no other attempt has succeeded.  Now we have to ask, is anything so vile today that this option should be considered?  I don't think so. 

The opposition we need to address today is the same opponent we faced in the First Gilded Age: unbridled wealth.  Solving it then took courage, a leader with vision and integrity, and a lot of votes at the ballot box ... twice, if you consider both Roosevelts to be part of the same solution.  I think that's fully viable again, though the power of technology enhanced propaganda is making it harder than it should be. 

If that solution fails, and we fall into something reminiscent of Fascism, then you might have a point, but some nascent uprising of hoi polloi would still be likely to fail.  When we elected to go with a professional military, we stacked the cards in favor of a tyrant should one arise.  The military is the most hide-bound traditional institution in the country.

Yes I agree. I wouldn't say an armed rebellion never succeeds, but it's rare. As a student of the history of revolution and its cycles, I can think of a number of successes. There are some conditions that may apply. One that frequently comes up, is that the military defects from the overlord and sides with the people. If the USA military is too hide-bound, that's unlikely in the USA. And sometimes a new rulership is installed that is supposed to be better, but in fact he turns out to be little better, if any, than the old boss. I think there's a song about that

Foreign intervention on the side of the rebels happens on a few occasions, as was also true of the American Revolution. But sometimes there's progress. More than likely, this happens when there is great agreement among the people that change is needed. That's very unlikely in our divided society today. 40% of the American people are brainwashed to support the oligarchy, and even in the name of "freedom" (doublespeak). And if such agreement happened here, what happens after the old fascist boss is removed by the hoi polloi after the ballot box fails? Very likely, as indicated by the ballot box, the same divisions will apply, and thus the same oligarchy would continue.

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

Nature is red in blood. The human-canine partnership is effectively one bear, Big Cat, or hyena.

The dog that the crook knows about and for which he has a firearm ready is going to lose. But remember that if the crook does not know about the dog, then the advantage goes to the dog. A dog is usually strong enough to overpower a man three times the dog's mass. of the crook is knocked down, then the dog may have effectively separated the crook from his weapons. He will be be defending himself from bites, and not very well. Crooks often act at night, but dogs have better night vision, let alone scent and hearing. The fog knows about a crook, all too often, before the crook knows about the dog. Whoever attacks first wins.

(05-01-2018, 06:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

Nature is red in blood. The human-canine partnership is effectively one bear, Big Cat, or hyena.

The dog that the crook knows about and for which he has a firearm ready is going to lose. But remember that if the crook does not know about the dog, then the advantage goes to the dog. A dog is usually strong enough to overpower a man three times the dog's mass. of the crook is knocked down, then the dog may have effectively separated the crook from his weapons. He will be be defending himself from bites, and not very well. Crooks often act at night, but dogs have better night vision, let alone scent and hearing. The fog knows about a crook, all too often, before the crook knows about the dog. Whoever attacks first wins.

You must not be as familiar with dogs as me. How many dogs are professionally trained or simply allowed by their owners to be ruthless and mean and conditioned to attack humans? I don't see very many of them in homes or out on farms or on the streets for that matter.

(05-01-2018, 12:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2018, 02:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

I don't know if I think like that or not; I'm not sure. But thinking nice thoughts is not without power. At least an attitude and confidence that you live in a safe society, borne of taking responsibility to make your society safe and prosperous through government and volunteer action, contributes to respect for law and human rights.

Dogs successfully deter many criminals. True, it is not foolproof against an armed criminal. But guns are practically useless. The only way to create a safe society, is to think the nice thought that it can be done, and then get together with your fellow citizens and do it. It helps to live in a state where there's a long tradition of people doing it. They are called blue states. If you prefer barbarism, move to a red state and arm yourself to the teeth. Most guns today are owned by a relatively few gun fanatics there.

There is no limit to how strong you have to be in order to be stronger than all the other guys. That is as futile as to think that wishful thinking alone makes things so. There is always someone better than you in any competitive situation. Give up the quest and accept your weakness. In numbers there is strength, not isolation and individualism.

And yet, criminals will prey upon the weak, and todays active shooters turn to cowards or suicide if confronted.  Any society to work just has to be stronger that its criminal element to work well.  The red theory is that one can best do that by allowing private individuals to be strong as cops get to where the criminals perceive weakness only after the criminal is long gone.  This is also why so many of the shootings take place in or near schools, hospitals or some military bases.  The opposite is thought, that if you disarm the lawful, this creates zones where the criminal or active shooter sees himself as operating freely for a time.

I know what the red side thinks. I understand that in the parts of America where most of them live, there's some truth that cops would arrive late, and so they need to be armed or own firearms. Understandable; but I still think it's wrong, since unless the arms are locked away where they can't be stolen, the criminals and the unqualified can steal them. And they do. And the owner himself can turn violent and shoot people. And locking the guns up makes them far less useful in a sudden crisis. This Trump-trumpeted idea about gun free zones is a red favorite, but it's wrong. Gun free zones means that no-one there can turn into a shooter. A gun free zone may also allow for an armed and trained guard, if I remember correctly. Or at least some other protections.

The shootings take place in many different places, of all different kinds, all in good numbers. Churches, concert venues and clubs, shopping centers, theaters, offices, restaurants have all been hard hit. Few of them take place in areas advertised as gun free zones. They take place in locations handy to the shooter, or related to his frustrations. I would hardly think a military base could be considered a gun free zone!

Gun free zone means one is free to shoot/wound as many people as possible and turn as many people as possible into hostages too.

(05-01-2018, 08:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2018, 12:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2018, 02:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

I don't know if I think like that or not; I'm not sure. But thinking nice thoughts is not without power. At least an attitude and confidence that you live in a safe society, borne of taking responsibility to make your society safe and prosperous through government and volunteer action, contributes to respect for law and human rights.

Dogs successfully deter many criminals. True, it is not foolproof against an armed criminal. But guns are practically useless. The only way to create a safe society, is to think the nice thought that it can be done, and then get together with your fellow citizens and do it. It helps to live in a state where there's a long tradition of people doing it. They are called blue states. If you prefer barbarism, move to a red state and arm yourself to the teeth. Most guns today are owned by a relatively few gun fanatics there.

There is no limit to how strong you have to be in order to be stronger than all the other guys. That is as futile as to think that wishful thinking alone makes things so. There is always someone better than you in any competitive situation. Give up the quest and accept your weakness. In numbers there is strength, not isolation and individualism.

And yet, criminals will prey upon the weak, and todays active shooters turn to cowards or suicide if confronted.  Any society to work just has to be stronger that its criminal element to work well.  The red theory is that one can best do that by allowing private individuals to be strong as cops get to where the criminals perceive weakness only after the criminal is long gone.  This is also why so many of the shootings take place in or near schools, hospitals or some military bases.  The opposite is thought, that if you disarm the lawful, this creates zones where the criminal or active shooter sees himself as operating freely for a time.

I know what the red side thinks. I understand that in the parts of America where most of them live, there's some truth that cops would arrive late, and so they need to be armed or own firearms. Understandable; but I still think it's wrong, since unless the arms are locked away where they can't be stolen, the criminals and the unqualified can steal them. And they do. And the owner himself can turn violent and shoot people. And locking the guns up makes them far less useful in a sudden crisis. This Trump-trumpeted idea about gun free zones is a red favorite, but it's wrong. Gun free zones means that no-one there can turn into a shooter. A gun free zone may also allow for an armed and trained guard, if I remember correctly. Or at least some other protections.

The shootings take place in many different places, of all different kinds, all in good numbers. Churches, concert venues and clubs, shopping centers, theaters, offices, restaurants have all been hard hit. Few of them take place in areas advertised as gun free zones. They take place in locations handy to the shooter, or related to his frustrations. I would hardly think a military base could be considered a gun free zone!

Gun free zone means one is free to shoot/wound as many people as possible and turn as many people as possible into hostages too.

Maybe in this day and age it's advisable for larger places who can afford it to have trained, armed professional guards or campus police, etc. Not armed teachers and students or whoever.

Most dogs I know are barking monsters.

(05-01-2018, 08:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2018, 06:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2018, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2018, 09:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Am I perfectly rational? No.

I know you have some sort of dog thing.  You seem obsessed and delusional.  Well, in the old days of hunter gatherers, the dogs would corner or exhaust the prey, and wait for the more deadly of the two partners to arrive.  The humans were equipped, trained and ready.  They would finish the job.  The humans were dominant, the dogs less so.

Since then, many humans have chosen to become wimps.  Not all, but many.  Technology has potentially made them all the more potent, but many choose to be helpless.  Even today, if a criminal with a gun wanted a dog dead, the dog would be dead.  You would be a fool to seriously think otherwise.

Or at least as dead as your arguments.  Many blue think that if they really concentrate on thinking nice thoughts, they can ignore nature red with blood.  Well, they can't.  It isn't done by wishful thinking.  Bottom line, you still have to be stronger than the other guy.  If you think you don't have to be, you might be dreaming.

Nature is red in blood. The human-canine partnership is effectively one bear, Big Cat, or hyena.

The dog that the crook knows about and for which he has a firearm ready is going to lose. But remember that if the crook does not know about the dog, then the advantage goes to the dog. A dog is usually strong enough to overpower a man three times the dog's mass. of the crook is knocked down, then the dog may have effectively separated the crook from his weapons. He will be be defending himself from bites, and not very well. Crooks often act at night, but dogs have better night vision, let alone scent and hearing. The fog knows about a crook, all too often, before the crook knows about the dog. Whoever attacks first wins.

You must not be as familiar with dogs as me. How many dogs are professionally trained or simply allowed by their owners to be ruthless and mean and conditioned to attack humans? I don't see very many of them in homes or out on farms or on the streets for that matter.

Dogs don't have to be 'professionally trained' to be deterrents. A crook has to be 'professionally trained' to be able to confront every dog that he might encounter. The trained attack dog is as much a master of stealth as a leopard, and in a confrontation with a criminal it is almost as effective. Almost -- because a criminal has everything to lose in the encounter, but unlike an encounter with a leopard the crook is likely to survive. If one is a rapist looking for a victim, a woman with a canine companion is a non-target.

Dogs are not innocuous wimps. They are predators and excellent defenders. That is the wolf heritage. They are simply the best-behaved of large animals capable of killing and eating people.  Dogs are like humans in being able to defend themselves or loved ones (the dog becomes a family member, and a human family has much the same structure as a wolf pack) even if untrained for such a role.

I lived in a high-crime area in college -- but from my understanding, crooks left us college students alone. Why? Because we knew how to carry car keys. We also had heavy college textbooks that made excellent blunt-force weapons.  We also went in groups. We were excellent witnesses for the prosecution in the event of a crime. We may have been comparatively liberal, but we were the sorts who reported people looking into parked cars for valuables or car keys. Our reputations followed us. Crooks picked other victims, especially drunks and dopers, to victimize.