Ponderances …
responding to 2:
We are becoming less violent , IMHO, due to reverse evolution. A hundred, two hundred years ago, humans had to be willing to be mreo violent, have more of some intangible capacity for violence, just to survive. In many places (the USA, EUUUUUUrope, Japan, etc) you can get by without that capability. You can live without the willingness to defend yourself, and give rise to progeny who lack that same capability (whether instilled by how you are raised or genetic, I dunno). So by getting good at providing for the saftey and security of our citizens, we’re making sheeple.
It could be the lack of exposure to real violence, creating a frame of mind that can’t do violence…
3: we don’t want ‘them’ to have the bomb. last thing we need is a ship cruising into Boston Harbor or Long Beach or even cruising past lady liberty and into the heart of NYC with a ‘Fat Man’ class bomb. Consider, everyone we don’t want to have bomb-making capability, is on the list of countries likely to be willing to use it against us.
4: define ‘crazy’
5: I hope so. I can’t say, and wouldn’t bet on anything past 100.
oh yeah… first.
1. For getting the motherf**king terrorists to squeal like a pig...HELL YES!
2. We’re just as violent now as we were when Cain killed his brother Abel. We just have more ways of accomplishing this.
3. 9/11 and that’s just for starters. At least as a culture, WE LOVE LIFE while THEY LOVE DEATH. If they insist, we should oblige them fully by 1.3x10^9!
4. This will depend on what one terms “crazy.”
5. Ditto on what Draven said.
I still don’t think we’re as violent- because the people with no capacity for violence are surviving instead of getting razed.
1. As opposed to what, for example? A hard question to answer if one prefers to stay politically correct. Not so hard if one is practical and doesn’t mind the “breaking a few eggs to make an omelet” routine.
2. Not really ....... we’re not. This is just one aspect of the “global village syndrome.” There is not more violence, it’s just reported better. Genocide in Africa is still genocide and fat guys still run the show and keep the money.
3. Possession is 9/10’s the law. It’s not in our best self interest for “them” to have it, so therefore, we don’t have to provide for them.
4. Going to have to take a page out of the other guy’s book on this one ...... define “CRAZY.”
5. Whatever it turns out to be, it won’t be what the Founding Fathers envisaged. We’ve already left the Republic behind in favor of democracy.
1) I agree with Macker and bowshot4. If the torturee intends or intended to kill American Citizens, then they don’t deserve any respect, they are a criminal, whatver it takes to save lives.
2) Some of us are (gangs), some of us aren’t (pussy liberals), some of us haven’t changed our ways in hundreds of years (guess which religion I’m referring to here).
3) We are civilized enough to not use it offensively against people who don’t deserve it. Unlike NoKo and Iraq, who haven’t proven themselves to be.
4) If they will cause physical harm to themselves and others, or property damage, or loss of revenue to a business, then yes. That falls under the PRIMARY duty of government: to protect it’s citizenry from harmful attack, both foreign (war) and domestic (crime).
5) I’ll get back to you on that one in 100, 500, or 1000 years. Altho if the dems manage to get back in power, and use their over the edge ego to lock themselves in power by subverting the constitution (I’m not counting out that possibility after their nightmare of the last 5 years), then no, it will be gone in a few years, or a few decades at most.
Posted by FJBill
05/11/2005 at 02:03 AM
I left ‘crazy’ as an ambiguous term on purpose.
My definition of ‘crazy’ is anyone who poses a danger to themselves or others by irrational behavior.
It’s like the definition of ‘porn’ given by Supreme Court Justice Whoever ... I know it when I see it.
So do you.
As to the other questions ...
1. Absolutely. As long as it ain’t me.
2. We are becoming more efficient at rendering violence.
3. The bomb is a manifestation of our power. It would be folly to not exercise that power to our own ends.
4. Covered that above.
5. No.Posted by Steel Turman
05/11/2005 at 04:09 AM
Good questions, Steel.
(1): The answer is no. Apart from its indefensibility from an ethical point of view, torture is clumsy and unreliable at best.
(2): The answer is again no. Until our nature as a species is altered, our characteristics as a species will remain unaltered. The monster lurks in all of us. We delude ourselves about its existence at our own risk.
(3): This is not a matter of rights. It is instead a matter of acting in our own best interests. Only a suicidal idiot willingly yields an advantage in a struggle for survival.
(4): If they are a threat to themselves or others, yes. The trouble is their latter-day proliferation. Moonbats abound!
(5): I doubt it. I give it about 25 years at the most.
Damn OCM, your answer to number 3 shows that pot does fuck up the brain or had a big effect. I think I am going to change my mind about making it legal. The fact you can’t tell the differance between the U.S.A. and countries like Iran, North Korea makes me take pause about you. You would be the first one bitching about your government check if something happen to this country. Your answer to number 5 tells me you don’t have kids or Grandchildren or don’t give a fuck about them. You are one selfish old longhaired lowlife hippy. You should O.D. and make this a better world.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the WORK I do would be boosted by NK acting up. I just think beyond myself when it comes to things like this.
OCM,
many GFWs feel that any person that owns a firearm is a danger to themselves and others. If that person is a judge, they can put ‘crazy’ people away. No jury, just a judge… and then you’ve been ‘adjudicated a mental defective’ and lose your 2nd amendment rights.
and I fope you live way the hell away from any kind of nuke targets, cause if you think Iran and NK getting a nuke won’t mean terrorists getting one, I need a bowl of what you’re smokin.
1. They have found that establishing a Stockholm Syndrome scenario with a prisoner from whom you wish to extract information is the most effective method. If you start a good cop/bad cop routine and slowly lose the bad cop, the prisoner, without being able to help himself due to his innate desire for survival, will begin to welcome the ‘good’ cop. It’s not perfect, and it takes a long time, but the information one gleans from this is usually the best.
2. This is a difficult question to answer. We are not eye-witnesses to history, and history is not always recorded through the eye of the beholder. History seems to show much violence that to us was gratuitous murdering and pillaging. The religious wars, the Crusades, do they count as violence? If something has a noble purpose, is a violent act? We may not agree, hundreds of years later, that the purpose was noble, but the question still stands - was it noble or sheer violence? I don’t consider all wars violent. I don’t believe the United States ever engaged in a ‘violent’ war. Is defending ourselves considered violent? Is defending a small country from invaders considered violent? The United States has been a non-agressive nation since its founding, but many feel we are a violent nation. Ridiculous. To defend ourselves is not violent by any stretch of the imagination. It is reality.
Maybe a better way to answer the question is to ask how noble is our cause? That can be asked, as well, for any country who deems violence is the only way to go.
Person-to-person violence has increased. More people, terrible influences to conduct violence. Too much to address here.
3. What gives us the right to deny the bomb to other countries is that it will be one, small rogue nation with an idiot for a leader to set this planet aflame. Simple. America is a peaceful country. We are the world’s peacemaker - not that we asked for that role, but that’s the way it is.
4. Yep. The problem is, little kids die before we figure out someone is crazy.
5. Yes. Technology will save us. The only way I would say no is a natural disaster.
Posted by Phoenix
05/11/2005 at 05:41 PM
2) The human race is as violent as it has always been, however our capacity to achieve that violence has been increased mightily by technology. The 20th century saw the killing (not death by disease, hunger or natural disaster) of somewhere near 500 million people. More than any time before.
Posted by alangrey
05/11/2005 at 08:02 PM
Alan,
If you produced an equation to account for number of people on the planet at any given time vs. number of people killed by violence during that particular time, how would it work out?
Posted by Phoenix
05/11/2005 at 08:21 PM
Hi Phoenix, this equation may work.
Victims = (Population ÷ Fanatics) - (Government x Ideology²)
