Tyranny in America? Somewhat funny vid

[DJM]

So someone took a hostage, most likely with a gun, and this shows that guns stop crime?

fk another day of this
the US is the most violent nation among all major industrialized countries......the reputation precedes itself
something is going on that is not in other places.....removing guns is not the 100% solution, but its a step in the right direction

arent officers in prisons gun-less for the same reason?

[DJM]

I agree with FPR on this. You get rid of guns, crime goes up.
.

not all crimes are perpetrated with the use of a firearm.......crimes could become less violent and/or fatal without guns

[Cobalt]

So someone took a hostage, most likely with a gun, and this shows that guns stop crime?

I was actually showing that the situation happened a few hundred yards from my house and I knew nothing of it until the next day, even though I drove right past it on the way to work.

[Cobalt]

not all crimes are perpetrated with the use of a firearm.......crimes could become less violent and/or fatal without guns

Violent crimes may go down, but crime as a whole goes up.
A burglar with a gun breaks into a house, pulls a gun and doesn't have to worry about firing it. It is just used as intimidation. If guns are banned, the burglar knows this and doesn't have to worry about being shot at when breaking in. The crime was just committed, but no one got hurt.
I agree that less fatal crime is better, but once it starts to rise, things get ugly.

[DJM]

^^^then the govt must adapt and increase penalties for said crimes, there is way too much leniency for certain stuff

and for the prison over crowding bs, put the burglars in (who had the notion they could invade someones home which imo is bad regardless of non violence) and stop filling cells with misdemeanor marijuana busts and the like

your burglar who is gunless, and if caught is looking at a more severe sentence, will think twice, of course not all, you cant fix stupid, but a decline is the goal here, sadly eradication is a pipe dream in the world we live

[dirkwright]

The video just shows that the media have done their job of making most Americans feel good and comfortable while their personal freedoms are taken away one bit at a time. It also shows that the CFR has done a good job of placing their people in important positions in the media and government so that their plan for one world government continues on.

[bikeswimlive]

I just had an interesting thought. When people are killed by guns, aren't their rights being stolen (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)? Why should the rights of gun owners be more important than others right to life? Which right is more vital to the U.S. (hell the world)? I see too many GOP congressmen talking about Obama "stealing their rights and freedoms", but none talking about the victim's rights.

[DJM]

^^^^the bikeswimlive independent party for 2016

[bikeswimlive]

^^^^the bikeswimlive independent party for 2016

Beyond the fact that running on a platform of common sense/middle ground rhetoric would never even come close to touching a ballot because of the partisan lunacy, I don't have the millions in SuperPAC and Lobby Group support. America!

[DJM]

I don't have the millions in SuperPAC and Lobby Group support.
support, payment for favors, same thing

[longBallLima]

I just had an interesting thought. When people are killed by guns, aren't their rights being stolen (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)? Why should the rights of gun owners be more important than others right to life? Which right is more vital to the U.S. (hell the world)? I see too many GOP congressmen talking about Obama "stealing their rights and freedoms", but none talking about the victim's rights.

Unfortunately, and I agree with your position, the right hasn't been violated until the gun is used in criminal fashion. That feeds into the gun-nut's arguments that other things are lethal too, therefore, should be banned before or along with guns, such as "Cars and alcohol may deprive people of their basic right to life."

I don't think, culturally speaking, much will change until americans realize that the way things are done here are not the only way to do things, and that the american constitution is outdated and nothing special really when it comes to constitutions. Plus, the founding fathers are not much more than a bunch of guys and weren't acting on some fictitious divine intervention.

[h2s]

Beyond the fact that running on a platform of common sense/middle ground rhetoric would never even come close to touching a ballot because of the partisan lunacy, I don't have the millions in SuperPAC and Lobby Group support. America!

Ill give you 5$.

[BBG]

461

- - - Updated - - -

462

[longBallLima]

461

- - - Updated - - -

462

LOL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et0Bssnm1mw

[h2s]

Chris Rock's solution is better than all of yours.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/32d2703a8ad6d00b2cee81834e6821c1/tumblr_mfcu7zhU8g1rezvkuo1_500.gif

[bikeswimlive]

Chris Rock's solution is better than all of yours.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/32d2703a8ad6d00b2cee81834e6821c1/tumblr_mfcu7zhU8g1rezvkuo1_500.gif

"No more innocent bystanders. Anyone that kills someone will stay behind to get their bullet back"

[BBG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuhZvO1DKg

[burlyman30]

Just heard the latest report on Sandy Hook shooting. Medical examiner has confirmed there was not an AR-15 used in the shooting. Only handguns. Apparently the AR-15 was still in the vehicle with him, and unused. Not sure how this affects the push toward banning weapons defined as assault rifles/weapons or if the new information would change anyone's opinion on matters.

[bikeswimlive]

Just heard the latest report on Sandy Hook shooting. Medical examiner has confirmed there was not an AR-15 used in the shooting. Only handguns. Apparently the AR-15 was still in the vehicle with him, and unused. Not sure how this affects the push toward banning weapons defined as assault rifles/weapons or if the new information would change anyone's opinion on matters.

Links?

[burlyman30]

Links?

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

[DJM]

Chris Rock's solution is better than all of yours.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/32d2703a8ad6d00b2cee81834e6821c1/tumblr_mfcu7zhU8g1rezvkuo1_500.gif

ahahh iv seen that long time ago, hes right lol.......if you want to defend your home, you only need a bullet

- - - Updated - - -


"No more innocent bystanders. Anyone that kills someone will stay behind to get their bullet back"

i believe thats my PROPERTEEEEEE

[DJM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuhZvO1DKg

hulk hogan 'REAL AMERICAN'
he made wrestling, but...........
stepped on everyone, ego maniac, steroid user, had a reality tv show, cheated on wife with daughter's friend, was videotaped banging his best friend's wife, sued when it was leaked, cocaine and pot addict, attention whore, and so on........'REAL AMERICAN'?

[longBallLima]

Just heard the latest report on Sandy Hook shooting. Medical examiner has confirmed there was not an AR-15 used in the shooting. Only handguns. Apparently the AR-15 was still in the vehicle with him, and unused. Not sure how this affects the push toward banning weapons defined as assault rifles/weapons or if the new information would change anyone's opinion on matters.

doesn't really change my opinion that neither are necessary for whatever purpose the NRA and its fans claim they need guns

[longBallLima]

interesting factoid from this morning. my wife needs a handicap plaque and we need to apply and bring a form to the doctor so he can fully explain health facts to a govt agency. one could say that a handicap plaque is more regulated than a gun. nice huh

[burlyman30]

doesn't really change my opinion that neither are necessary for whatever purpose the NRA and its fans claim they need guns

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

[longBallLima]

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

Well, I think one can defend his property with a gun that is not compact or automatic just fine. If one needs heavy or concealed armament to defend their life or property, not moving is just plain irresponsible.
As far as the constitution goes, if it can be easily amended, the gun debate is not about constitutional rights, because, well... fix the constitution then. Which leaves the debate solely on gun owners wanting their way, rather than trying to defend the spirit of the nation or some demagogue rhetoric of the kind.

I disagree with you that the constitution held up well. I would argue that american society KIND OF held up ok with what I see as a flawed constitution (and I do mean flawed for modern times). The frequency of these violent episodes that require constitutional protection for the preparation are, to me, evidence that that is no longer the case.

Again, many cultures work fine, and in some aspects, better than the US with different constitutional values and they are a lot less resistant to change than here.
The american model of access to guns, freedom of speech and government restriction is not incredibly common in other places, I believe.

[h2s]

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

See...but that is exactly what is being argued here. You are stating that the constitution is still relevant because it was designed with the ability to receive modification (amendments). Those advocating regulation here are calling for modification. Yet those against it claim "it is in the constitution, it can not be changed." It is that argument set that makes the constitution a dated document.


The reasoning behind the need for weaponry in a developing nation and the reasoning for it in a current age developed first world country are very different.

[bikeswimlive]

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

Slavery? Denial of votes to women and non-whites? Constitutionalist are you?

[longBallLima]

Slavery? Denial of votes to women and non-whites? Constitutionalist are you?

can you even vote from the kitchen?!?!

[burlyman30]

Slavery? Denial of votes to women and non-whites? Constitutionalist are you?

You've just proven my point. It's imperfect, but has been amended when necessary. Thanks for playing.

[Rodja]

hulk hogan 'REAL AMERICAN'
he made wrestling, but...........
stepped on everyone, ego maniac, steroid user, had a reality tv show, cheated on wife with daughter's friend, was videotaped banging his best friend's wife, sued when it was leaked, cocaine and pot addict, attention whore, and so on........'REAL AMERICAN'?

Sounds like the American way. Success at the expense of others and doing whatever it takes to achieve his/her goal. "It's not personal; it's just business."

[longBallLima]

Sounds like the American way. Success at the expense of others and doing whatever it takes to achieve his/her goal. "It's not personal; it's just business."

Granted, i will say this is not an american phenomenon in my experience. Humanity is just pretty ugly sometimes.

[Rodja]

Granted, i will say this is not an american phenomenon in my experience. Humanity is just pretty ugly sometimes.

No doubt that it isn't isolated to the US, but these figures get romanticized with only 1/2 of the story told. I will say that the wrestling business as a whole is very, very nasty. Some of the most cutthroat and ruthless people are involved in that business yet very little of it is known to the fans.

[Cobalt]

I personally feel that the government is just scared of an uprising, and want to pull high power weapons from the masses.
They say handguns are ok for self-defense, right? Last I checked, they aren't trying to ban ALL guns.

I fully understand where people are coming from in wanting 'assault' guns banned, and I would agree too if it weren't for my paranoid the-government-is-out-to-get-me attitude. If my government feared me and wasn't abusing it's power, I'd give up high power rifles and assault guns any day.

I don't really think this is about stopping violent shootings and lowering crime. Going back to the story about the hold up at the gas station by my house, the dude had a 9mm pistol, nothing else. Also pulling from the Sandy Hook case, it's now confirmed that pistols were used.

No matter what happens, as long as I can keep my swords and crossbow, I'll manage.

[Rulk]

I personally feel that the government is just scared of an uprising, and want to pull high power weapons from the masses.
They say handguns are ok for self-defense, right? Last I checked, they aren't trying to ban ALL guns.

I fully understand where people are coming from in wanting 'assault' guns banned, and I would agree too if it weren't for my paranoid the-government-is-out-to-get-me attitude. If my government feared me and wasn't abusing it's power, I'd give up high power rifles and assault guns any day.

I don't really think this is about stopping violent shootings and lowering crime. Going back to the story about the hold up at the gas station by my house, the dude had a 9mm pistol, nothing else. Also pulling from the Sandy Hook case, it's now confirmed that pistols were used.

No matter what happens, as long as I can keep my swords and crossbow, I'll manage.

Sounds like someone is ready to slay some zombies.

[longBallLima]

I really have a hard time with this. The greatest military machine known to man is afraid of rednecks with AR15's...

[burlyman30]

I really have a hard time with this. The greatest military machine known to man is afraid of rednecks with AR15's...

100,000,000 armed male citizens against 500,000 armed military personnel... it would be a bloody mess no matter what.

[burlyman30]

See...but that is exactly what is being argued here. You are stating that the constitution is still relevant because it was designed with the ability to receive modification (amendments). Those advocating regulation here are calling for modification. Yet those against it claim "it is in the constitution, it can not be changed." It is that argument set that makes the constitution a dated document.

To be honest, I have not heard anyone in the political arena directly challenging the validity of the 2nd Amendment, and at this point in time, I am not "afraid" it is going away. I think gun owners/consumers are upset with the changes to the law and are asserting the 2nd Amendment as ammunition for that. I'll be honest, I'm not all that fired up about certain guns being restricted in ownership. Obviously, the bonafide assault rifle has been banned for more years than some of you guys have been alive. People can certainly defend their homes and family with shotguns and handguns. What does concern me is watching trends overall. Not just with guns, but with many freedoms that people enjoyed that have been signed away into law.


The reasoning behind the need for weaponry in a developing nation and the reasoning for it in a current age developed first world country are very different.

I may be viewing this from a different set of glasses than you, so maybe you can help me understand your point better. From my perspective, the point of gun ownership, aside from hunting, has always been the same: protection for yourself/family, your property, and from government gone wrong. Points could be made on both sides of the argument whether or not you need protection from your own government. But I think the other two reasons are less disputable.

[Cobalt]

I think this is interesting:

1773: Boston Tea Party
1774: British Law passed banning gun/gun powder imports into the states
1774-1775: British attempted confiscations of guns/gun powder in states
1776: American Revolution

[AestheticOne]

I can honestly say as an 18 year old American citizen, I have an immense amount of fear and anxiety surrounding the recent moves our government is making, with gun-control, patriot-act, NDAA bill... I'm with you cobalt, I want to sleep with my bushmaster under my bed from now on for fear of waking up to the National guard trying to beat in my door.

[longBallLima]

Then what will you do? Fire at them?

[AestheticOne]

Then what will you do? Fire at them?

If i felt my life was being threatened, no shit.

[longBallLima]

If i felt my life was being threatened, no shit.

Your Life? What do you envision that entails the National Guard carrying out random executions?

[h2s]

Your Life? What do you envision that entails the National Guard carrying out random executions?

He is guy faux

[h2s]

To be honest, I have not heard anyone in the political arena directly challenging the validity of the 2nd Amendment, and at this point in time, I am not "afraid" it is going away. I think gun owners/consumers are upset with the changes to the law and are asserting the 2nd Amendment as ammunition for that. I'll be honest, I'm not all that fired up about certain guns being restricted in ownership. Obviously, the bonafide assault rifle has been banned for more years than some of you guys have been alive. People can certainly defend their homes and family with shotguns and handguns. What does concern me is watching trends overall. Not just with guns, but with many freedoms that people enjoyed that have been signed away into law.

Honestly, liberty was always broken promise. Every society has always had limitations on true liberty for the greater good of that society.




I may be viewing this from a different set of glasses than you, so maybe you can help me understand your point better. From my perspective, the point of gun ownership, aside from hunting, has always been the same: protection for yourself/family, your property, and from government gone wrong. Points could be made on both sides of the argument whether or not you need protection from your own government. But I think the other two reasons are less disputable.
My point was that in those days, it was more of a wild west. To think that the members of this board lie in bed at night with the same fear of their homes being pillaged as some of our founding generations is absurd. The protection of ones self is an overblown defense in my eyes. I would love to see true and accurate statistics on guns used to save lives verse destroy them. Although an accurate study on this would be near impossible, I have a feeling as to what the results would be.

I know one person (and "know" is a loose term, as we never met, it was a father on of a friend) who saved their own life with a gun. Unfortunately he is now dead. When some thug piece of shit in Detroit tried to rob his store, he reacted properly to the threat of a gun facing him by shooting the man. Unfortunately, there was a response at a later date where he was shot dead in his store. Did his gun save his life the first time? Very much so, but to think it didn't feed a never ending circle of gun violence is ignorant. I don't at all fault the usage of his gun, I think he did exactly what he should have. Unfortunately, the end picture was a more accurate depiction of the benefit of guns.

Now what happened if his son was there, a gun owner, who sought vengeance? The slope keeps getting steeper.

Illinois just passed conceal and carry. I am not a fan. One of my buddies is and is also licensed (although I don't know what step he took for the c&c yet). I told him that under this law, all of the pieces of shit I deal with on a daily basis while commuting on the train, can now have a weapon on them and I wouldn't know. His response was that criminals carry them already, so if I had one, and they knew I could have one. They would be less prone to pulling the gun on me (I disagreed, stating that it would probably lead him to shoot it instead of intimidate with it). My better example, however, was on bars. How many completely normal people have you all seen go absolutely crazy in a bar fight. I have seen bar fights where seemingly normal people smash each other's head through glass. Knock men out cold, break bottles on each other, etc..what happens when both of these people have a gun? Why the fuck do I have to worry about this when I am at a club trying to enjoy some music...is that not an invasion of my rights?


I know c&c is not the topic of this thread, but it is relevant.

[burlyman30]

Every society has always had limitations on true liberty for the greater good of that society.

This assumes a couple things... first, that the government has the best interests of it's citizens at heart. Second, it assumes that government knows better than it's citizens which liberties that can be handled.

Let me say that there are some great people in government. But power corrupts. And a corrupt government cannot be trusted to think selflessly of it's citizens best interest. Look at congress' recent vote to increase our social security tax by 50% while concurrently voting themselves a pay raise. Which of these actions was for the good of society?

There are some easy laws to put forth, like "do not murder" that obviously are for the greater good of society. No brainer there. But even motorcycle helmet laws, while meant to protect citizens, infringe on personal choice. I lost my brother to a motorcycle accident in which he was without a helmet. In his case, a helmet probably would not have saved his life. But I support the ability of an adult to decide if he will put himself in harms way like that. I personally would ride with a helmet.

[Rulk]

My point was that in those days, it was more of a wild west. To think that the members of this board lie in bed at night with the same fear of their homes being pillaged as some of our founding generations is absurd.

My Mom, who lives all alone, when her house got broken into, it immediatly got my attention. Every little fear I had dismissed before then started to come back and prompt me to think along the lines of "self defense". I'm of the belief that if you feel safe in your own home and don't prepare for situations and events, that is on you. Those that think otherwise seem to be labeled as paranoid, which doesn't seem fair.

Speaking for myself, I would rather be prepared for almost any situation, just in case. Call me paranoid or a survivalist, whatever, if it keeps me and my family alive I can easily justify it. Essentially my thought pattern echoes countless of humans before me. It's part of our survival instinct, to try and think of every dire situation that one can find themselves in. That flight or fight response to the noise at night? That is survival instinct at it's base, and it just snowballs from there?

Is it reasonable? Is any of it in good taste? Do we look a little foolish? To try and dissect all that, is trivial. Untill we live in a complet and perfect utopia, this will keep going on and on.

[Rulk]

The debate should be whether we can change human nature or not. The horses are already out of the barn, we must think of other ways to help lower violent crimes.

[h2s]

This assumes a couple things... first, that the government has the best interests of it's citizens at heart. Second, it assumes that government knows better than it's citizens which liberties that can be handled.

Let me say that there are some great people in government. But power corrupts. And a corrupt government cannot be trusted to think selflessly of it's citizens best interest. Look at congress' recent vote to increase our social security tax by 50% while concurrently voting themselves a pay raise. Which of these actions was for the good of society?

There are some easy laws to put forth, like "do not murder" that obviously are for the greater good of society. No brainer there. But even motorcycle helmet laws, while meant to protect citizens, infringe on personal choice. I lost my brother to a motorcycle accident in which he was without a helmet. In his case, a helmet probably would not have saved his life. But I support the ability of an adult to decide if he will put himself in harms way like that. I personally would ride with a helmet.

Good post. I have heard the argument before, but yours was well stated. I still disagree, however. I think our government is corrupt. This is evident everyday with corporate bribe scandals, pay raises as you stated, etc...but I don't for a second buy that the government doesn't have our interests, in terms of public safety, as a core foundation. Even looking at it from an extremely "corruption-based" angle, it is in their interest career and legacy wise to keep tragedy out of the country.

The government doesn't know better than it's citizens. However, a country in which citizens vote on every matter would be non-functional. Therefore we elect individuals, based on our interpretation of their intention, and how aligned we presume it to be with ours. While the system works no where near as well as the theory, it does work, at least as a best possible solution.

Ill begin my last point with my condolence for your brother, while I have never lost a sibling, I couldn't imagine what it is like. There is an interesting point, however, that can be seen in this type of situation and others similar to it. While forcing a rider to wear a helmet may take away a sense of liberty from that person, it does serve a purpose. While your brother was most likely insured, etc...these is a cost to the government when an accident becomes fatal (and for this example we can assume that the chance of an accident being fatal in a motorcycle accident is less than that of one where no helmet is being worn). In the event of a fatal accident, there are more first responders to a scene, more government time/resources spent on the accident, government processing of paperwork, potential locking up of the court systems if lawsuits are brought between related parties, etc...While the accident is not cost-less when there is no fatality, it can take significantly less government resources to resolve.

This definitely seems to take a "greedy" look at the reasoning for these types of enacted laws, but I did so purposely, to tie back to my prior point that even in the greediest/most corrupt angle, public safety is still a desire of elected officials.

Burly, even though we often disagree, you are actually one of my favorite people to debate politics with. You are just moderate right enough, and I am just moderate left enough (remember, I am not for a full ban on guns, something the left would want), that I think we agree on many of the larger pictures, and bicker on the details.

[h2s]

My Mom, who lives all alone, when her house got broken into, it immediatly got my attention. Every little fear I had dismissed before then started to come back and prompt me to think along the lines of "self defense". I'm of the belief that if you feel safe in your own home and don't prepare for situations and events, that is on you. Those that think otherwise seem to be labeled as paranoid, which doesn't seem fair.

Speaking for myself, I would rather be prepared for almost any situation, just in case. Call me paranoid or a survivalist, whatever, if it keeps me and my family alive I can easily justify it. Essentially my thought pattern echoes countless of humans before me. It's part of our survival instinct, to try and think of every dire situation that one can find themselves in. That flight or fight response to the noise at night? That is survival instinct at it's base, and it just snowballs from there?

Is it reasonable? Is any of it in good taste? Do we look a little foolish? To try and dissect all that, is trivial. Untill we live in a complet and perfect utopia, this will keep going on and on.

I understand where you are coming from, and I know people of a similar mentality. My mentality is simple: If I live a life of fear, I am not living, so I don't care to fret over something with such a small chance of occurring. I do not know how I would react if my house was broken into and I was home. I can tell you my first reaction would be to protect those with me, but who knows how it would go to someone who is untrained. Even with a gun in the house, what if I cant get to it? What if he is too fast to approach me? If I keep worrying to this level, I should just build a moat and fortress around my house. It just isn't practical.

[burlyman30]

If I keep worrying to this level, I should just build a moat and fortress around my house. It just isn't practical.

Keeping that moat full.... your water bill would be atrocious!

[DJM]

The debate should be whether we can change human nature or not. The horses are already out of the barn, we must think of other ways to help lower violent crimes.

zanex

[BBG]

The debate should be whether we can change human nature or not. The horses are already out of the barn, we must think of other ways to help lower violent crimes.

We could shoot the horses with bullets.

[burlyman30]

Burly, even though we often disagree, you are actually one of my favorite people to debate politics with. You are just moderate right enough, and I am just moderate left enough (remember, I am not for a full ban on guns, something the left would want), that I think we agree on many of the larger pictures, and bicker on the details.

I echo your sentiments. Always appreciate a well thought out point of view that is logically supported.

I don't entirely disagree with your last post. My earlier statement could have been taken to mean "all government decisions are corrupt ". This wasn't clear, so my apologies there. I meant to allude that we cannot count on our government to always act in our best interest. Certainly there have been times when it has.

I understand your point about all the little details that we cannot possibly vote for daily and our representatives do much of this for us. I just happen to think that there are a lot of laws on the books that hinder personal freedoms that neither need to be there, nor need to be voted on. The phrase "live, and let live" comes to mind. Having either the advantage or disadvantage (you decide) of being a bit older than some of you, I've seen quite a few changes in this country in the last 40 years. Some of them are pretty amazing and exciting, while others are troubling.

I'm not without the ability to look at issues and evidence and occasionally change my mind, either. I have (even at my advanced age) come to a different place in my opinion on recreational drug use that is certainly more in line with the other views I hold on personal freedoms even though I choose not to partake in said recreation.

[Rulk]

Today's life is all about multitasking^. ( replying to H2 last post ).

- - - Updated - - -


We could shoot the horses with bullets.

Can we eat the horses after?

[burlyman30]

zanex

And castration.

[burlyman30]

Saw this article and thought that this thread was a perfect place for it. Some interesting points and perspective in this...


"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)


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.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

[Macdon1588]

Your Life? What do you envision that entails the National Guard carrying out random executions?

In the 1960's the National Guard killed students at Kent State and you ought to look up footage of a Guardsman firing a vehicle mounted "Ma Deuce" into an apartment complex.

[DJM]

the article is interesting and well versed argument, unlike a few pages back

not american, but a human, my only rebuttal is this, he states carrying a gun around with him equals the playing field if a situation arises, and thats civilized, i ask this to you as americans, is your country so dangerous that possibility of danger is so present around the corner one must have his gun much like his car keys as he heads out the door?

impo, i just think dealing with 'the mugger' more severely, regardless of the state of his victim, would result in less of this action

as a child when you did wrong, mommy telling you no or daddy taking the belt to your ass (as a psych im against but for the purpose of this), which was more effective in stopping the undesirable action? daddy obviously as his consequence was more severe, and you as a child weighed that against the desire to commit whatever it is he opposed, and more than likely knowing the belt was a possibility you thought long and hard, the permissive parent has a child that will be a repeat offender because they are unfazed by the consequence. i see this all the fkn time.....children with no defined limits and subsequent consequences more often than not have behavioral issues of different degrees......because mommy and daddy didnt say no firmly enough, be it through a myriad of techniques.

murder, rape, robbery, ect will always exist, it has since beginning of time, but if it was managed better, more severe consequences as opposed to a horrific judicial system of deals and rules and different levels of murder where one can get off serving 2yrs cause it was involuntary or altered state of mind........a rapist is sentenced on was level of injury his victim obtained, rape and murder or rape and flee is still fkn rape imo, only instead of looking at one as more severe, it was actually two crimes, the second being more severe

you cant solve a gun violence with guns, that is the problem on a whole
much like you dont hit your child for hitting

[h2s]

Well said.

[Rodja]

the article is interesting and well versed argument, unlike a few pages back

not american, but a human, my only rebuttal is this, he states carrying a gun around with him equals the playing field if a situation arises, and thats civilized, i ask this to you as americans, is your country so dangerous that possibility of danger is so present around the corner one must have his gun much like his car keys as he heads out the door?

impo, i just think dealing with 'the mugger' more severely, regardless of the state of his victim, would result in less of this action

as a child when you did wrong, mommy telling you no or daddy taking the belt to your ass (as a psych im against but for the purpose of this), which was more effective in stopping the undesirable action? daddy obviously as his consequence was more severe, and you as a child weighed that against the desire to commit whatever it is he opposed, and more than likely knowing the belt was a possibility you thought long and hard, the permissive parent has a child that will be a repeat offender because they are unfazed by the consequence. i see this all the fkn time.....children with no defined limits and subsequent consequences more often than not have behavioral issues of different degrees......because mommy and daddy didnt say no firmly enough, be it through a myriad of techniques.

murder, rape, robbery, ect will always exist, it has since beginning of time, but if it was managed better, more severe consequences as opposed to a horrific judicial system of deals and rules and different levels of murder where one can get off serving 2yrs cause it was involuntary or altered state of mind........a rapist is sentenced on was level of injury his victim obtained, rape and murder or rape and flee is still fkn rape imo, only instead of looking at one as more severe, it was actually two crimes, the second being more severe

you cant solve a gun violence with guns, that is the problem on a whole
much like you dont hit your child for hitting

I've only lived in TX and most of my life has been in low crime areas, but the first 12 years of my life were in Houston and not in the ritzy suburbs of Houston. I have never been involved in some form or even an attempt of a crime in my life and have only personally known one person who has been involved in anything beyond having something stolen from them (car jacking). My wife's cousin was recently shot in San Antonio, but that was a gang related crime.

It's not that the country is more violent; it's only that it's covered more vociferously. Fear sells and you only need to see the sales of security systems and prevalence of the commercials to see that it's working.

[longBallLima]

In the 1960's the National Guard killed students at Kent State and you ought to look up footage of a Guardsman firing a vehicle mounted "Ma Deuce" into an apartment complex.

An american soldier killed 16 civilians in Afghanistan but that is not what makes the actions of the american military illegal.

I understand National Guard members have been murderers and such, but he was referring to a government action using the national guard as I understood it. Perhaps he was talking about a break-in where the criminal happened to be a member of the national guard, but I don't think that was the case.


Which, by the way, for someone who is as worried about the government infringing on privacy and liberties as he is, claiming the will to fire at members of national security in a public internet forum might not be the smartest of moves.

[Rulk]

DJM, it sounds like you are for stiffer penalties, as a way to help minimize violent crimes. I always wondered why they didn't have some kind of crime awareness class in schools, throughout 1st grade, and all the way up to highschool. Teaching and hammering in that consequences of crime in society.

[h2s]

DJM, it sounds like you are for stiffer penalties, as a way to help minimize violent crimes. I always wondered why they didn't have some kind of crime awareness class in schools, throughout 1st grade, and all the way up to highschool. Teaching and hammering in that consequences of crime in society.

They don't work. I took dare class at school, didn't stop me from smoking pot, lol.

[DJM]

DJM, it sounds like you are for stiffer penalties, as a way to help minimize violent crimes. I always wondered why they didn't have some kind of crime awareness class in schools, throughout 1st grade, and all the way up to highschool. Teaching and hammering in that consequences of crime in society.
i doubt with all the budgetary cuts thats an option in the school system, however modeling by parents is equally effective

im with rodja in that the american media sensationalizes alot of this stuff, personally asking a 6yr old if they were scared after the incident in newtown is beyond fkn classless and an embarassment

its no wonder you get so many copycats, these psychos want something grandiose and the media gives them just that

we all know timothy mcvey but not one victims name

take the media exposure away and these nuts would just off themselves, and im applying my education in this assessment

killers wise iv said it before, uninvolved family if you dont notice these nutjobs slipping, as for run of the mill crime yes stiffer penalties as i referred to above

i understand crime in 3rd world countries like mexico but not the US

[Rulk]

I see. I remember meeting a reformed gang member who spoke to our class, and it made an impact on me.

@h2, I did lol.

[Coolazice]

I am not a fan of war at all, they accomplish little, but I wouldn't feel safe in a country without an extreme level of defense.

So, h2s... let me get this straight. It's ok for government to use the ultimate form of lethal force to "protect our country", but we shouldn't have the ability to use certain firearms to defend our family and property. Also, nukes make you feel safe, but guns are really scary? Interesting philosophy.

[Macdon1588]

the article is interesting and well versed argument, unlike a few pages back

not american, but a human, my only rebuttal is this, he states carrying a gun around with him equals the playing field if a situation arises, and thats civilized, i ask this to you as americans, is your country so dangerous that possibility of danger is so present around the corner one must have his gun much like his car keys as he heads out the door?

impo, i just think dealing with 'the mugger' more severely, regardless of the state of his victim, would result in less of this action

as a child when you did wrong, mommy telling you no or daddy taking the belt to your ass (as a psych im against but for the purpose of this), which was more effective in stopping the undesirable action? daddy obviously as his consequence was more severe, and you as a child weighed that against the desire to commit whatever it is he opposed, and more than likely knowing the belt was a possibility you thought long and hard, the permissive parent has a child that will be a repeat offender because they are unfazed by the consequence. i see this all the fkn time.....children with no defined limits and subsequent consequences more often than not have behavioral issues of different degrees......because mommy and daddy didnt say no firmly enough, be it through a myriad of techniques.

murder, rape, robbery, ect will always exist, it has since beginning of time, but if it was managed better, more severe consequences as opposed to a horrific judicial system of deals and rules and different levels of murder where one can get off serving 2yrs cause it was involuntary or altered state of mind........a rapist is sentenced on was level of injury his victim obtained, rape and murder or rape and flee is still fkn rape imo, only instead of looking at one as more severe, it was actually two crimes, the second being more severe

you cant solve a gun violence with guns, that is the problem on a whole
much like you dont hit your child for hitting

This post makes an excellent point. Our prison system is pathetic and seems to have a revolving door. When prisoners served longer, harder time, there was less crime. In this country today, people are growing up in such violent environments, prison isn't the deterrent it used to be. I know it will be debated, but gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem that requires such a MASSIVE sociological/societal changes, it would be a revolution in line with the Enlightenment of Europe after the dark ages. I think that, of all of the things wrong with the right wing in this country, the idea that the family unit needs to be restored is they're best idea. As you said, children need stability, rules and boundaries.

[AestheticOne]

I would love to sit down with you guys and hash out this stuff in a conversation, however i cant, and i have a horrible stomach virus that is making even this hard to type.

My views are simply this, if criminals have guns, i would like them too. I think Switzerland is a great example of how arming, training, and educating your citizens on guns, instead of simply trying to pretend they don't exist, is a better solution. I have yet to see someone put forth an argument backed by evidence that gun-control works.

I think this is an interesting article and would like to here your guys opinion on it.

If They Come For Your Guns, Do You Have A Responsibility To Fight? (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/)

Also for those of you that are Pro-Gun, Front-sight Firearms training out in Nevada is an amazing example of how citizens can be well trained to use their weapons, and educated, and i think anyone interested in getting trained should highly consider checking them out.

[DJM]

I think that, of all of the things wrong with the right wing in this country, the idea that the family unit needs to be restored is they're best idea. As you said, children need stability, rules and boundaries.
crime rates are high in lower class neighboorhoods, why is detroit the crime capital of america.......generally lower class is the end result of lack of or minimal education, which usually is the result of the family environment, ect......its a chain reaction that starts very early........as you said the family, and ill say education, or lack there of, is cultivating your future criminals

the guy robbing the store in cobalt's example, was not an engineer, and more than likely his hand was forced because of lack of funds , the end result of a poor childhood model, subsequent lack of sufficient schooling and career opportunities, ends up in a rut of a situation and sees the robbery as a way at making money seeing other avenues arent there to him in his eyes, he came from a poor background of poor decision makers, and hes doing what he knows

[Coolazice]

Some points I do agree on:

1. Being there for your kids is of the utmost importance. Letting TV and video games 'raise' children because the parents are too busy is one of the biggest and most common mistakes being made today. Raising a child is the most important things most of us will do in our lifetime. Coincidentally, it is the most rewarding I've personally participated in as well.

2. Educating people on laws, penalties and other consequences of improper gun use would likely help. Getting graphic might add to help drive the points home.

3. Stiffening penalties might help and probably more-so with the gun-related and violent crimes.

4. Locking people up for weed is an incredible waste of time, money and our limited resources of police availability.

5. Longer waiting periods and more thorough background checks are necessary.

And I'm going to add another point that nobody is talking about:

6. Taking God out of everything is not helping anything.

[longBallLima]

Some points I do agree on:

1. Being there for your kids is of the utmost importance. Letting TV and video games 'raise' children because the parents are too busy is one of the biggest and most common mistakes being made today. Raising a child is the most important things most of us will do in our lifetime. Coincidentally, it is the most rewarding I've personally participated in as well.

2. Educating people on laws, penalties and other consequences of improper gun use would likely help. Getting graphic might add to help drive the points home.

3. Stiffening penalties might help and probably more-so with the gun-related and violent crimes.

4. Locking people up for weed is an incredible waste of time, money and our limited resources of police availability.

5. Longer waiting periods and more thorough background checks are necessary.

And I'm going to add another point that nobody is talking about:

6. Taking God out of everything is not helping anything.

I agree with most of this. Parents are more often than not, not involved enough. Stiffer penalties might deter some gun violence and some is better than none. It doesn't address the psycho shooters, but it addresses something. Mixed feelings on that, because it's a measure that will affect the urban area, poor and minorities, and not do much to resolve the rest of the issue. Weed should, soon enough, not land anybody in jail anymore, we'll see. Here in CO it doesn't. As much as I find the habitual pothead annoying, i can't give a shit about it as long as they don't smoke and drive. Waiting and background is necessary regardless of an eventual ban on certain types of firearms or ammo. It is ridiculous how easy and quick anyone can get a gun here.

Now, I dont see education on guns having that much impact. And as much as I know I differ from most of you on this and this is based solely on my personal belief, I believe if I never saw mention of god or jesus again, this would be a much more developed society. I find it somewhat unbelievable that this day and age, over 90% of the american population believes in god. I think it may be the only developed (1st world, if you will) country that goes over 90%

[DJM]

Some points I do agree on:

1. Being there for your kids is of the utmost importance. Letting TV and video games 'raise' children because the parents are too busy is one of the biggest and most common mistakes being made today. Raising a child is the most important things most of us will do in our lifetime. Coincidentally, it is the most rewarding I've personally participated in as well.

2. Educating people on laws, penalties and other consequences of improper gun use would likely help. Getting graphic might add to help drive the points home.

3. Stiffening penalties might help and probably more-so with the gun-related and violent crimes.

4. Locking people up for weed is an incredible waste of time, money and our limited resources of police availability.

5. Longer waiting periods and more thorough background checks are necessary.

And I'm going to add another point that nobody is talking about:

6. Taking God out of everything is not helping anything.

good points, the cliff notes
the last one tho, in this day and age the church does not have the influence it had hundreds of years ago when it practically ran things, its the changing times

also

Conservatives Have Their Worst Week Ever | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/conservatives-have-their-worst-week-ever-20130123)

[h2s]

So, h2s... let me get this straight. It's ok for government to use the ultimate form of lethal force to "protect our country", but we shouldn't have the ability to use certain firearms to defend our family and property. Also, nukes make you feel safe, but guns are really scary? Interesting philosophy.

Why is that an interesting philosophy? I consider guns like an ar15 and ak47 to be military weapons. I do not see the use for civilians. As for if the military should have military weapons, why yes. The US is a country of excessive force, but given how many fans we have in the various shit hole deserts of the world, defense is a necessity. Completely different levels and incomparable...

I am ok with handgun ownership.

[h2s]

Some points I do agree on:

1. Being there for your kids is of the utmost importance. Letting TV and video games 'raise' children because the parents are too busy is one of the biggest and most common mistakes being made today. Raising a child is the most important things most of us will do in our lifetime. Coincidentally, it is the most rewarding I've personally participated in as well.

2. Educating people on laws, penalties and other consequences of improper gun use would likely help. Getting graphic might add to help drive the points home.

3. Stiffening penalties might help and probably more-so with the gun-related and violent crimes.

4. Locking people up for weed is an incredible waste of time, money and our limited resources of police availability.

5. Longer waiting periods and more thorough background checks are necessary.

And I'm going to add another point that nobody is talking about:

6. Taking God out of everything is not helping anything.

1. Agree.

2. Cigarette packs have pictures of lungs that are completely scarred black in some countries, doesn't stop smokers.

3. The penalties for recent tragedies would be death if the person lived, which punishment would be more severe?

4. Hey hey hey smoke weed err'day.

5. The right has been very against this, it encroached on liberties.

6. As an athiest, adding god to anything is the easiest way to fuck it up. Everyone has their own beliefs and most are radically defensive of it. Religion (in an organized sense, I have no problem with believers, in fact most of my family is very religious), causes many more issues in this world than it solves.

[Macdon1588]

H2S, don't blame faith in God for the actions of zealots. I respect your atheism, but true faith in God, and, in particular, the understanding of God within the Judea-Christian context served as the primary driver of human rights for most of the last 3000 years. The idea of equality of man is purely due faith. Anyway, please don't blame faith in God for the acts of religion.

[h2s]

H2S, don't blame faith in God for the actions of zealots. I respect your atheism, but true faith in God, and, in particular, the understanding of God within the Judea-Christian context served as the primary driver of human rights for most of the last 3000 years. The idea of equality of man is purely due faith. Anyway, please don't blame faith in God for the acts of religion.

As much as I truely do not understand faith (not in term, but in how people have it), I don't have anything against the concept of God, nor the faith itself. My attack is on "religion" in the context of it's organized form.

Unfortunately, I do believe religion and faith play a larger role in destructive habits beyond just the radicals, but that is not a discussion I want to go into in respect for everyone else's beliefs.

[Cobalt]

Oh man, we have politics, and now religion.
All that is left is to argue about money and then sex.
Considering DJ has the biggest porn stash, I'll leave the sex references to him.

[DJM]

Oh man, we have politics, and now religion.
All that is left is to argue about money and then sex.
Considering DJ has the biggest porn stash, I'll leave the sex references to him.

as long as these discussions are discussions, i think its awesome.......i lean towards bikeswim,h2s, ect views obviously, and my views differ of coolazice, macdon,burly
ect, which makes this threads great..............

money - sadly makes the world go round, and 95% of the worlds money is in the hands of 5% of the population, the term economics is so loosely thrown around these days, nations' 'economic' plans are to drain the world of all its resources as fast as possible to make profit, where is the economize in that????

sex - yes please

[Rodja]

H2S, don't blame faith in God for the actions of zealots. I respect your atheism, but true faith in God, and, in particular, the understanding of God within the Judea-Christian context served as the primary driver of human rights for most of the last 3000 years. The idea of equality of man is purely due faith. Anyway, please don't blame faith in God for the acts of religion.

As with anything, man has found a way to abuse religion and use it as justification for horrid actions. The words of holy texts have been changed throughout centuries of translations (speaking solely of Christianity here) and the selective nature of deciding which parts of the Hebrew texts they elect to include/follow are my main contentions.

I use this as an example when I talk about how the "word" has changed meanings via translations: grab two copies of the Iliad by two different translators and compare the wording. Although they both started from the same origin, the words/wording is very different and that's only from one translation. Take that through multiple translations from Hebrew to Latin to Old English to Modern English and you get something that resembles the game telephone than the actual message.

[Macdon1588]

As much as I truely do not understand faith (not in term, but in how people have it), I don't have anything against the concept of God, nor the faith itself. My attack is on "religion" in the context of it's organized form.

Unfortunately, I do believe religion and faith play a larger role in destructive habits beyond just the radicals, but that is not a discussion I want to go into in respect for everyone else's beliefs.

I definitely agree that religion has had a destructive force, but I firmly believe that religion and faith are two separate entities. Faith shouldn't be solely limited to words that define faith in the context of a belief in God. I'm sure that you know this but in the early Jewish faith, the Jewish people did not use a name for God or Yahweh openly. I think there were a lot of reasons for this, and the early texts indicate principles of cleanliness and other factors, but principally I think that it was a recognition of the inherent danger of defining the supreme sovereignty with the temporally limited context of language. Therefore, faith could also be defined as the belief of a sovereign principle. For me, that principle is in a righteous and forgiving God, but for others, that principle could be a faith in goodness or equality. Either way, faith is a transcendent belief that defies the empirical evidence offered by day to day reality. So, since faith is in opposition to that which is observable, faith cannot readily be deemed the causation of our worldly woes. That said, people often confuse their faith with their religiosity. Religion in a sense is adherence to a certain set of behaviors, and that, is simply not faith.

[burlyman30]

I definitely agree that religion has had a destructive force, but I firmly believe that religion and faith are two separate entities. Faith shouldn't be solely limited to words that define faith in the context of a belief in God. I'm sure that you know this but in the early Jewish faith, the Jewish people did not use a name for God or Yahweh openly. I think there were a lot of reasons for this, and the early texts indicate principles of cleanliness and other factors, but principally I think that it was a recognition of the inherent danger of defining the supreme sovereignty with the temporally limited context of language. Therefore, faith could also be defined as the belief of a sovereign principle. For me, that principle is in a righteous and forgiving God, but for others, that principle could be a faith in goodness or equality. Either way, faith is a transcendent belief that defies the empirical evidence offered by day to day reality. So, since faith is in opposition to that which is observable, faith cannot readily be deemed the causation of our worldly woes. That said, people often confuse their faith with their religiosity. Religion in a sense is adherence to a certain set of behaviors, and that, is simply not faith.

Well put. Faith and religion are very different yet often confused as the same. Religion is a man-made manifestation of a set of beliefs, i.e., "we as a group believe this way, so now we will define ourselves in a certain way and do or not do certain things". I have a faith in an infallible God, but I can't put that kind of faith into fallible humans. Humans are flawed and given enough time, will disappoint. Religion, being man-made, will do the same.

[markam]

Someone asked me why I didn't believe in God. I said that the burden of proof was on them. So they stoned me to death.

Sorry, not funny.

[longBallLima]

Someone asked me why I didn't believe in God. I said that the burden of proof was on them. So they stoned me to death.

Sorry, not funny.

LOL it actually is


I feel that the constant ties between govt and religion are undemocratic and go against the 1st amendment (hey, it even comes before the 2nd!) but no one really screams about that!

[burlyman30]

LOL it actually is


I feel that the constant ties between govt and religion are undemocratic and go against the 1st amendment (hey, it even comes before the 2nd!) but no one really screams about that!

I can appreciate this. But keep in mind that many of the countrys original laws actually came from a Biblical standard.

While the laws about government and religion were to keep government out of religion and not the other way around, I do have issues with politicians parading a cause under the guise of religion in order to garner political support.

[burlyman30]

Someone asked me why I didn't believe in God. I said that the burden of proof was on them. So they stoned me to death.

Sorry, not funny.

Made me chuckle, actually. I'm sure when you said you had never seen God, that they felt you should be introduced. It's the polite thing to do.

[longBallLima]

I can appreciate this. But keep in mind that many of the countrys original laws actually came from a Biblical standard.

While the laws about government and religion were to keep government out of religion and not the other way around, I do have issues with politicians parading a cause under the guise of religion in order to garner political support.

well, Jefferson did speak of a wall between church and state, so I think, at least for some of the founding bros, it was meant to go both ways. I could be off here though, as it seems a little subjective.

Curious, does any SwoleSourcer believe in creationism and think it must be taught as part of science (or biology or whatever you guys have in school here)?



Made me chuckle, actually. I'm sure when you said you had never seen God, that they felt you should be introduced. It's the polite thing to do.

LOL

[DJM]

wouldnt there be a conflict of interest ?

[longBallLima]

wouldnt there be a conflict of interest ?

??

[Macdon1588]

[QUOTE=longBallLima;10774]well, Jefferson did speak of a wall between church and state, so I think, at least for some of the founding bros, it was meant to go both ways. I could be off here though, as it seems a little subjective.

Curious, does any SwoleSourcer believe in creationism and think it must be taught as part of science (or biology or whatever you guys have in school here)? [Quote] I believe God created the universe through scientific means. I went to a Catholic school that taught that the two aren't necessarily conflictual. On this subject, any one that believes straight creationism is a literalist in book and I stay away from them as a rule.

[Cobalt]

I believe in Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)

[longBallLima]

[QUOTE=longBallLima;10774]well, Jefferson did speak of a wall between church and state, so I think, at least for some of the founding bros, it was meant to go both ways. I could be off here though, as it seems a little subjective.

Curious, does any SwoleSourcer believe in creationism and think it must be taught as part of science (or biology or whatever you guys have in school here)? [Quote] I believe God created the universe through scientific means. I went to a Catholic school that taught that the two aren't necessarily conflictual. On this subject, any one that believes straight creationism is a literalist in book and I stay away from them as a rule.

so you believe in god as sort of the being that triggered events described by science, like big bang, evolution and such?

[burlyman30]

well, Jefferson did speak of a wall between church and state, so I think, at least for some of the founding bros, it was meant to go both ways. I could be off here though, as it seems a little subjective.

Curious, does any SwoleSourcer believe in creationism and think it must be taught as part of science (or biology or whatever you guys have in school here)?


If you look at what the founding fathers came from, where government controlled the church, it is plain to see that they wanted the government influence out of the churches. People's faiths are a part of who they are and a moral guidepost for how they make decisions, so while you can keep government out of the church, I would say it is impossible to keep a person's faith or religion out of government.

As for Creationism... It's part of my belief system. I find there to be far too many holes in evolutionary theory to put much stock in it. As for being taught in schools... evolution is really bad science and cannot be taught as history. Science and history both are dependent on observation and recorded events or outcomes by their very definition. Evolution does not fit within the stipulation of either.

As for what is taught in schools, I have a problem with flawed theories being taught. Though, being government run, I'm not sure I would sign off on Creationism being taught, either. That seems to cross the line of government's intended role.

[Macdon1588]

To long ball yes, I think that God certainly acts through science.

[longBallLima]

If you look at what the founding fathers came from, where government controlled the church, it is plain to see that they wanted the government influence out of the churches. People's faiths are a part of who they are and a moral guidepost for how they make decisions, so while you can keep government out of the church, I would say it is impossible to keep a person's faith or religion out of government.

As for Creationism... It's part of my belief system. I find there to be far too many holes in evolutionary theory to put much stock in it. As for being taught in schools... evolution is really bad science and cannot be taught as history. Science and history both are dependent on observation and recorded events or outcomes by their very definition. Evolution does not fit within the stipulation of either.

As for what is taught in schools, I have a problem with flawed theories being taught. Though, being government run, I'm not sure I would sign off on Creationism being taught, either. That seems to cross the line of government's intended role.

huh, i'm curious as to what you'd consider the holes. and isn't a large portion of science taught as theory anyway? and a little further, what, in your opinion, should be taught as the source of the universe, mankind, etc?


To long ball yes, I think that God certainly acts through science.

i think in ways, the difference of belief lies in the belief of sentient, self aware energy X natural energy with no awareness behind it. meaning, it seems to me that you believe there is an energy that is aware (and kind, and with a plan of sorts) that drives the natural phenomenons and you call that energy god, whereas i believe in natural reactions.

lol did that make any sense? i know i shouldn't have stayed away from drugs...

[burlyman30]

huh, i'm curious as to what you'd consider the holes. and isn't a large portion of science taught as theory anyway? and a little further, what, in your opinion, should be taught as the source of the universe, mankind, etc?


I wont go into everything... just a couple of points.

The actual requirement of science is that events are not just recordable, but repeatable. Evolution theory, and it is still only theory because of this, has no evidence of repeatability. The theory cannot be retested because they still cannot find cross-species evolution. They came up with a theory, then looked for evidence to support said theory. But the crux of the theory still has no evidence or basis in fact to support it.

Furthermore, the evolution theory still cannot answer the biggest question of all... origin of first life. Many theories have been thrown around, some saying that all thing originated from primordial sludge. But where, then, did the sludge come from? Simple question, really. But unanswerable by top scientists.

On the flip side of things, if you look at some of the fossil record and how species that were purported to live thousands or even millions of years from each other...yet are found next to each other... it lends great credibility to the evidence of a worldwide flood. I can tell you with great certainty that even if you do not believe in the premise of an all powerful God, the accurate history recorded in the Bible is an incredible resource for historians and researchers alike. Historical findings are very much in line wth the Biblical record, from the great flood to the building of the pyramids.

As for what should be taught in schools... I think the schools would either have to teach multi-theory classes, or not teach it at all. In my opinion, our tax dollars should be used to teach things we actually DO know with certainty, i.e. math, grammar, factual and repeatable science, etc. and leave the guesswork out.

[h2s]

Evolution is repeatable and very present in our society. A simple virus undergoes this process quite rapidly. Evolution entails survival of the fittest (and in the case of sexual beings, replication through gene selection). In the example of the virus, it evolves as means of survival to combat drugs, and hence why many viruses leave doctors struggling to find a cure. In the case of sexual beings: The environment becomes hot, those of fair skin do not survive, and their genes diminish through replication, Hunting requires alot of running to survive, those who are fit survive and those that can't do not and their genes diminish through replication. We now see a population of these beings who are darker in color and more physically fit (in terms of genetic ability).

[burlyman30]

Evolution is repeatable and very present in our society. A simple virus undergoes this process quite rapidly. Evolution entails survival of the fittest (and in the case of sexual beings, replication through gene selection). In the example of the virus, it evolves as means of survival to combat drugs, and hence why many viruses leave doctors struggling to find a cure. In the case of sexual beings: The environment becomes hot, those of fair skin do not survive, and their genes diminish through replication, Hunting requires alot of running to survive, those who are fit survive and those that can't do not and their genes diminish through replication. We now see a population of these beings who are darker in color and more physically fit (in terms of genetic ability).

I think what you are calling evolution is simply adaptability. A virus adapts to its environment and gets stronger, but a flu virus does not change into a "cancer virus", if there were to be such a thing. It's just a stronger flu virus. Our muscles adapt to stresses we give them. They adapt, but they don't evolve. They are still just a muscle.

Evolutionary theories of both origins and evolving beings is in contrast to both the first and the second Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific law trumps scientific theory. As far as gene selection, according to Evolution, the species should get better and purer and diseases should get weeded out eventually, but this is not what we see across the globe. We are no more disease resistant than people were a few hundred years ago. We have more advanced medicines, treatments, and nutritional knowledge, but no reduction in disease. Research has "evolved", but the researchers haven't.

[h2s]

I think what you are calling evolution is simply adaptability. A virus adapts to its environment and gets stronger, but a flu virus does not change into a "cancer virus", if there were to be such a thing. It's just a stronger flu virus. Our muscles adapt to stresses we give them. They adapt, but they don't evolve. They are still just a muscle.

Not quite. The virus is evolving. The "adaption" is the short term dynamic of the virus's cycle, the long term dynamic is evolution. It is similar to steroids, in how very little changes to a compound can have drastic differences in terms of what it does in the body. In the case of the virus, we may see an adaptation in the "XE131" virus that trends towards resistance to medication "Med-A," unfortunately the difference in the virus that is resistant to Med-A (which is now moving from an extremely small percentage of the population to being the dominant part of the population) also happens to cause Cancerous tumors in addition to the Bone density loss we originally saw from made up virus XE131...The virus as a whole now has evolved through genetic selection from a virus that slowly causes bone density loss to a virus that causes bone density loss an the occurance of Cancerous tumors.


Evolutionary theories of both origins and evolving beings is in contrast to both the first and the second Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific law trumps scientific theory. As far as gene selection, according to Evolution, the species should get better and purer and diseases should get weeded out eventually, but this is not what we see across the globe. We are no more disease resistant than people were a few hundred years ago. We have more advanced medicines, treatments, and nutritional knowledge, but no reduction in disease. Research has "evolved", but the researchers haven't.

I would be curious on your take on the application of the law of Thermodynamics to current evolution based theories. I don't follow, so I am curious.

Do you really think that common man is not more resistant to disease than "early man" (not sure what to call it without referencing evolution)? We do not see the drastic changes over time in modern man due to the intervention of science. This is also why we have people who survive as fat, un-fit, un-motivated, etc.....If the application of science were removed from man, we would see those of weak genetic structure die, and reproduction occurring through those who survived, giving way to trend shifting in the genetic make up of man in the micro approach, and evolution in the macro. Hence, survival of the fittest.

[burlyman30]

Not quite. The virus is evolving. The "adaption" is the short term dynamic of the virus's cycle, the long term dynamic is evolution. It is similar to steroids, in how very little changes to a compound can have drastic differences in terms of what it does in the body. In the case of the virus, we may see an adaptation in the "XE131" virus that trends towards resistance to medication "Med-A," unfortunately the difference in the virus that is resistant to Med-A (which is now moving from an extremely small percentage of the population to being the dominant part of the population) also happens to cause Cancerous tumors in addition to the Bone density loss we originally saw from made up virus XE131...The virus as a whole now has evolved through genetic selection from a virus that slowly causes bone density loss to a virus that causes bone density loss an the occurance of Cancerous tumors.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point, at least as far as in the way we both define evolution.



I would be curious on your take on the application of the law of Thermodynamics to current evolution based theories. I don't follow, so I am curious.

The first law of Thermodynamics states that matter or energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Big Bang theory doesn't fit. If there was nothing prior, where did the "bang" come from? If there were stratospheric gases that miraculously created an entire life-sustaining universe by accident, then where did the gases come from? Nothing and nothing cannot be added or multiplied to become something.

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all is in a state of decline. Yet evolutionary theory would tell you that things are getting better, fitter, and more advanced. While technology has advanced, that is simply knowledge passed on and built upon and, I don't believe, relevant in evolution which deals with evolution of species. Each generation, according to Evolution should grow stronger, healthier, have bodies that are disease resistant, and would trend into a more superior species than human. Yet, over the 4,000 years of history that we do have, we see no changes in human bodies that could be said to be trending into a "superhuman". Disease is still with us and peak lifespan is really no greater when you figure in environmental and medicinal factors.



Do you really think that common man is not more resistant to disease than "early man" (not sure what to call it without referencing evolution)? We do not see the drastic changes over time in modern man due to the intervention of science. This is also why we have people who survive as fat, un-fit, un-motivated, etc.....If the application of science were removed from man, we would see those of weak genetic structure die, and reproduction occurring through those who survived, giving way to trend shifting in the genetic make up of man in the micro approach, and evolution in the macro. Hence, survival of the fittest.

Since we do have modern medicine keeping the fat and unfit alive, don't you think we would also see the same modern medicine giving a distinct advantage to the more genetically superior, and that they, in turn, would have children more genetically superior to them? Then how is it that two healthy, fit individuals with zero health or genetic issues can have a child that gets cancer? Or gets Down's Syndrome? Autism and other unexplainable abnormalities are rampant today, and being born in huge numbers by healthy couples. This is becoming more common, rather than less. The curve for evolution of a species should trend continually upward, not up, then down.

EDIT: I had to step back and chuckle for a moment... here we are again, on different sides of a subject. But in the same thread. This thread covers a little bit of everything now. lol. Thanks, h2s, for being part of a well-reasoned discussion/debate. I can always count on you to keep your cool, even in the more sensitive hot-button issues like politics and religion.

[DJM]

if cell division does not work, and one needs to know where they come from, hence supporting their argument for a god created universe, who created god please? i have to know

no one took biology or genetics???

[DJM]

Each generation, according to Evolution should grow stronger, healthier, have bodies that are disease resistant, and would trend into a more superior species than human. Yet, over the 4,000 years of history that we do have, we see no changes in human bodies that could be said to be trending into a "superhuman". Disease is still with us and peak lifespan is really no greater when you figure in environmental and medicinal factors.

first recorded man is 6million years old, to expect big changes inside 4000yrs which is a blip on the scale, is far fetching


Since we do have modern medicine keeping the fat and unfit alive, don't you think we would also see the same modern medicine giving a distinct advantage to the more genetically superior, and that they, in turn, would have children more genetically superior to them? Then how is it that two healthy, fit individuals with zero health or genetic issues can have a child that gets cancer? Or gets Down's Syndrome? Autism and other unexplainable abnormalities are rampant today, and being born in huge numbers by healthy couples. This is becoming more common, rather than less. The curve for evolution of a species should trend continually upward, not up, then down.

computers, cell phones, tanning beds, pick one.........cognitive delays and diseases have increased 80% in the last 2 decades (i might be off), we as humans are doing something different thats causing this, and if one were to push me for an answer its the above, something new has been incorporated into our lives thats causing damage somewhere, beit via radiation or something of the like

the us population has a rate of autism almost 1:100, in africa, nigeria, somalia, ect, the rate is closer to 1:1500.....cases are predominant in wealthy families mmmmmmm wonder what it could be

[markam]

The Human race has 'jumped the shark'*

*Someone out there must know what that means. :)

Edit. There you go..... Jumping the shark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark)

[longBallLima]

first recorded man is 6million years old, to expect big changes inside 4000yrs which is a blip on the scale, is far fetching


and even then there's noticeable signs of evolution, such as height. humans evolve through sexual selection rather than ecological selection, so it is a sign of evolution.

[DJM]

and even then there's noticeable signs of evolution, such as height. humans evolve through sexual selection rather than ecological selection, so it is a sign of evolution.

theres reptiles that have evolved slowly over 150million yrs

[burlyman30]

first recorded man is 6million years old, to expect big changes inside 4000yrs which is a blip on the scale, is far fetching

This timeline assumes a lot. Carbon dating was created using some bold assumptions in order to create the dating system they established as "scientific". Libby, who originated the process, assumed that earth's atmosphere was identical to today's atmosphere when making calculations. Without a valid starting point, you cannot have a valid end point, or age calculation.

The Great Flood, recorded in history with many civilizations (not just the Bible), would have buried with it, large amounts of carbon-based life. Fossil fuels indicate a massive amount of vegetation in the past. This means the carbon content of in living organisms could have been as much as 500 times what we have today. Yet carbon dating does not take this into account.


computers, cell phones, tanning beds, pick one.........cognitive delays and diseases have increased 80% in the last 2 decades (i might be off), we as humans are doing something different thats causing this, and if one were to push me for an answer its the above, something new has been incorporated into our lives thats causing damage somewhere, beit via radiation or something of the like

the us population has a rate of autism almost 1:100, in africa, nigeria, somalia, ect, the rate is closer to 1:1500.....cases are predominant in wealthy families mmmmmmm wonder what it could be

I worked with autistic kids for several years, and socioeconomically, they "appeared" to come from middle class, both upper and lower ranges of that class. Having said that, middle class in America is beyond wealthy in comparison to 3rd world countries. And there are certainly factors at play that we do not fully understand. My point wasn't simply about autism, though. In evolution, you would think that a more developed human DNA strand would arise. We have seen that happen actually, with those with Down's Syndrome having an extra chromosome. But rather than said chromosome giving someone super strength or more cognitive ability, it renders them mentally challenged. Otherwise healthy and fit individuals with what might be thought of as superior genetics, do not guarantee a genetically pure or superior child.

[burlyman30]

and even then there's noticeable signs of evolution, such as height. humans evolve through sexual selection rather than ecological selection, so it is a sign of evolution.

I can't really see qualifying height changes as evolution... that's like saying you can breed out blond hair. Sure, you can do that, but that doesn't really mean that brunettes are more evolved. (smarter, though. lol)

[longBallLima]

I can't really see qualifying height changes as evolution... that's like saying you can breed out blond hair. Sure, you can do that, but that doesn't really mean that brunettes are more evolved. (smarter, though. lol)

isnt sexual selection a form of evolution? the selection of mates leads to change in the species. If everyone wanted to bone a blond, maybe we'd evolve into a blond species in a couple of thousand years lol that'd suck

[burlyman30]

isnt sexual selection a form of evolution? the selection of mates leads to change in the species. If everyone wanted to bone a blond, maybe we'd evolve into a blond species in a couple of thousand years lol that'd suck

I guess that would determine how someone would define Evolution. If Evolution requires "evolving", then I don't see the correlation. Two people have a child which is no more evolved than the parents. That offspring mates with another and has a child that is not more evolved than the parents. And so on.

- - - Updated - - -


If everyone wanted to bone a blond, maybe we'd evolve into a blond species in a couple of thousand years lol that'd suck

But it could never happen... men aren't that patient or that picky when it comes to sex. haha.

[longBallLima]

I guess that would determine how someone would define Evolution. If Evolution requires "evolving", then I don't see the correlation. Two people have a child which is no more evolved than the parents. That offspring mates with another and has a child that is not more evolved than the parents. And so on.

the theory here would be that 2 people have a child who is biologically inclined to pick the most apt mate, therefore combining favorable genetic traits and that cycle would repeat itself. humans would evolve based on those favorable traits, and obviously that would take a few thousand generations to result in any change.

now, whether being taller is better or not is debatable, but from 4k years ago to now, humans are taller.

- - - Updated - - -



But it could never happen... men aren't that patient or that picky when it comes to sex. haha.

lol yah, depending on the time of night, we'd evolve into a fat, drunk species, no?

[burlyman30]

the theory here would be that 2 people have a child who is biologically inclined to pick the most apt mate, therefore combining favorable genetic traits and that cycle would repeat itself.

You've seen the mates that some people pick, right? Definitely not evolving based on those choices. lol



lol yah, depending on the time of night, we'd evolve into a fat, drunk species, no?

lol

[h2s]

This thread needs a round of beers.

[burlyman30]

lol yah, depending on the time of night, we'd evolve into a fat, drunk species, no?


This thread needs a round of beers.

What are you trying to do to the species?!?!

[longBallLima]

You've seen the mates that some people pick, right? Definitely not evolving based on those choices. lol

lol

it's the only reason we can't fly yet!

[DJM]

going out there
i firmly believe man as we know it, was not the most evolved species on earth, there was a species before us, much more evolved that subsequently went extinct, possibly so many millions of yrs ago there is no reminence outside the debatable chance they are responsible for the pyramids, stone henge ect, they did not develop computers and war machines but developed their mind much greater than the 10% we use

again we are such an insignificant blip in the history of the planet and universe

as for the down syndrome and why arent we more ahead of the game, i firmly believe we will one day be able to pinpoint why and how, and im quite sure it is the end result of something we are doing quite wrong

[burlyman30]

debatable chance they are responsible for the pyramids

Did a research paper on the pyramids back in the day. Pretty interesting stuff, actually. I won't go into it here unless someone really thinks it necessary.


as for the down syndrome and why arent we more ahead of the game, i firmly believe we will one day be able to pinpoint why and how, and im quite sure it is the end result of something we are doing quite wrong

DS has been around for a lot of years, long before the modernization, refining and sterilization of foods, and certainly long before technology became a regular part of daily life. But, as you indicated, we aren't going to cure the world of genetic malformations here on this forum.

I want to thank you all for a civil discussion on all this stuff. It is subject matter that can get contentious, but everyone stated points without disrespecting another, even if we disagree with a viewpoint.

This thread is the motherload of hot topics... what's next? lol

[DJM]

the pyramids,,,, shoot

[longBallLima]

Did a research paper on the pyramids back in the day. Pretty interesting stuff, actually. I won't go into it here unless someone really thinks it necessary.



DS has been around for a lot of years, long before the modernization, refining and sterilization of foods, and certainly long before technology became a regular part of daily life. But, as you indicated, we aren't going to cure the world of genetic malformations here on this forum.

I want to thank you all for a civil discussion on all this stuff. It is subject matter that can get contentious, but everyone stated points without disrespecting another, even if we disagree with a viewpoint.

This thread is the motherload of hot topics... what's next? lol


In Brazil, that would be soccer. Politics, Religion and Soccer are the things you don't debate in Brazil.

something tells me it might not get very heated here...

[burlyman30]

the pyramids,,,, shoot

This thread will never end. LOL

Ok... this is going to be a highly abbreviated version of the research that I did. I spent a lot of time pouring through books, reading theories, even looking at supposed diagrams of how ramps would have been built in order to hoist the huge blocks to their final resting place. After all that, I spent time looking through historical documents, even the Bible, to see if it would shed any more light on matters.

Here are a few interesting facts...

The thing about the pyramids is that they do not all have uniformly sized blocks, but its not their lack of uniformity that is odd, it is their placement. Some weighing as much as 20-30 tons can be found nearer to the top, while some weighing as little as 2 tons can be found lower. This flies in the face of logic, of course. If you were moving blocks (not stones... I'll get to that), you would want to move them as little as possible, right? You would keep them down low, certainly not up to the top.

Why do I call them blocks instead of stones? For years it was assumed that the huge stones were chiseled down and then transported to their final placement. Upon closer research, a couple of things were found. First off, they were placed extremely tight to one another, which would indicate amazing precision in cutting rock. Some of the placement is so close that a human hair cannot fit between them. Some of this precision lent itself to the theory that alien forces (or a superior race, as you mentioned) came to assist in this.

However, both the close placement and the large on top/small on bottom questions were answered upon analyzing a sample of the "stones". They were not stones at all, but a makeshift "concrete". They had high concentrations of natron salt and limestone. Both of those materials are easily sourced in that area. The rock formations are full of limestone. Lime is a major component of concrete products today. Natron salt is easily gotten from the silt of the Nile. Mixed with mud in a slurry, the salt and limestone made excellent concrete.

Being in the construction industry, we have a product that we can put into concrete... it is fiberglass fibers. These fibers hold everything together, like an internal webbing. It makes concrete extremely strong and resistant to cracking. Interestingly, straw was also used in the making of these blocks. It would serve exactly the same function as the fibers we use today. These guys were master builders with their ability to put all those materials to use in proper combination. It is said that our modern concrete has about a 100 year lifespan before it degrades. The pyramids have been there for thousands of years and are still standing.

With the close proximity of the blocks, it is now clear that there were wooden forms built and the blocks were cast in place. This casting is confirmed elsewhere in the pyramids. On the upper walls of the inner chambers of the pyramids, you can clearly see woodgrain patterns embedded in the walls. Anyone who works with concrete is very familiar with this side effect of a casting process.

An interesting thing was noted toward the top of the pyramids... the straw component was less, and the stubble left over from harvesting straw was found as a component. I'll get back to this in a minute.

So... in short, the "mystery" is explained, though it does not take away from the magnitude of the amount of work required to do this. You would need an enormous work force.

Looking at the Bible as a historical document, you will find that the pyramids were built around the same time that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. The workforce was about 1 million strong, which helps answer "who" built them. Certainly a lot of work can get done with that many hands. Some would cast forms, some would mix their concrete, some would harvest materials, some would be cooking and cleaning for all the hungry mouths. Another thing, oddly noted in the Bible, was a reference to running out of straw and being forced to harvest the stubble from the fields to put into the mud bricks they were making. It seems to be an insignificant bit of information when isolated from other things, but added to what is already known is an interesting tidbit of information that answers "why stubble?" as we look at the change in construction to the pyramids.

Ok, there. Now you got your pyramid story, DJ. lol.

[DJM]

THE PEOPLE OF ATLANTIS BUILT THEM

seriously tho, question to get this going........how are the pyramids at gyza aligned with the pyramids built by the mayans? if at that time there was no travel, no communication, ect......both sets also carry identical markings in certain chambers......but were built by two different civilizations in remote parts of the world

[nate3993]

Anyone mention Coral Castle? That shit's pretty amazing too.

[DJM]

and to further the pyramid talk, dont forget about the ones on mars, cydonia, that are eerily similar to the egyptian pyramids.......i highly doubt they sent a million jews into space in the ancient times

[Rulk]

What's with all the flying pyramid sightings and video footage on youtube? It looks like more fake shenanigans on youtube.

[burlyman30]

i highly doubt they sent a million jews into space in the ancient times

Screw you... it definitely happened.

:D

[burlyman30]

THE PEOPLE OF ATLANTIS BUILT THEM

seriously tho, question to get this going........how are the pyramids at gyza aligned with the pyramids built by the mayans? if at that time there was no travel, no communication, ect......both sets also carry identical markings in certain chambers......but were built by two different civilizations in remote parts of the world

I would imagine they are lined up by constellations or with planetary significance which could correlate with each other, even continents away. But, quite honestly, I don't know, as I never researched the Mayan pyramids. I wouldn't put it past the Jews, though. Today they own Hollywood and the profession of law... back then, they were more into the pyramid thing. :D

Edit: A brief search puts the Mayan construction well over 2000 years after the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Timing would allow for someone or someone's message to travel and take ideas from Egypt to another land, though the travel in those days would have obviously been very slow and tedious.

[DJM]

Edit: A brief search puts the Mayan construction well over 2000 years after the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Timing would allow for someone or someone's message to travel and take ideas from Egypt to another land, though the travel in those days would have obviously been very slow and tedious.

i never bought the dates of these periods when they were built

iv been to Teotihuacan, i heard voices, they spoke to me

[Rodja]

The pyramids and similar architecture bring up a nice segue to a point I always make when it comes to evolution, Big Bang, creationism, etc.. Mankind is a particularly arrogant species in that we think far too highly of ourselves. We can't even figure out how civilizations 5000-8000 years ago could build such megalithic structures, yet we expect to know the origins of life? C'mon, man...

[DJM]

The pyramids and similar architecture bring up a nice segue to a point I always make when it comes to evolution, Big Bang, creationism, etc.. Mankind is a particularly arrogant species in that we think far too highly of ourselves. We can't even figure out how civilizations 5000-8000 years ago could build such megalithic structures, yet we expect to know the origins of life? C'mon, man...

really good post

not to say it holds a ton of validity, but just before 12/21 watched a presentation by a true mayan descendant and he among other things brought up the pyramids, and said his ancestors simply carried the blocks, how so, their mind body connection was far more developed .......... i posted earlier, im convinced we are not the most advanced people who've walked earth, be it mayans, ancient egyptians, fabled people of atlantis, ect.....even perhaps 200million yrs ago some being walked this earth and as far more advanced in other ways than us.....yes we have computers and medicine and all that stuff, they understoond the earth, their minds, ect.

the universe is immense, the fkn sun is a blip compared to the largest stars theyve discovered, that theyved discovered, when as kids we were taught it was enormous and the center of things..........no chance in hell we are alone, odds are we are low on the totem pole (a race that can destroy itself all the while doing it knowingly isnt highly evolved), we've been visited many times probably, maybe are being watched through a peep hole even a la horton and his flower

its the above ^^^ that makes me feel, and want to believe, that the explanations for structures like giza and stone henge are not good enough, and i lean towards the above, a more advanced people left them for us, reminder of their existence, a message, who knows

[Rodja]

http://iaincarstairs.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/star-sizes.jpg

[burlyman30]

i never bought the dates of these periods when they were built

iv been to Teotihuacan, i heard voices, they spoke to me

While there is quite a bit of Egyptian history with which to establish some reasonable timelines for their pyramids, I do not know what information is used in guesstimating the Mayan structures. Even so, the stated timeline has a 500 year window of accuracy.

If they spoke to you, I think our members would be interested in hearing what they said. Come on, man! Don't leave us with a cliffhanger like that!

[DJM]

While there is quite a bit of Egyptian history with which to establish some reasonable timelines for their pyramids, I do not know what information is used in guesstimating the Mayan structures. Even so, the stated timeline has a 500 year window of accuracy.

If they spoke to you, I think our members would be interested in hearing what they said. Come on, man! Don't leave us with a cliffhanger like that!

they said ippatsuman should be our world leader
they said test/tren/deca is quite the stack
they said meadows knows his stuff but if you are going back to the grocery store every time he opens his mouth.......well



- the speaker's main message in the conference was how mayan culture was big on their spiritual relationship with the earth they lived in/on, and their is a way to connect and harness energy

[DJM]

back to gun control
69yr old shoots and kills 22yr old cuban who mistakenly drove into old dudes driveway cause of gps

cmon

[longBallLima]

back to gun control
69yr old shoots and kills 22yr old cuban who mistakenly drove into old dudes driveway cause of gps

cmon
he could've butter knifed him to death, its not the obsession with guns....

[burlyman30]

back to gun control
69yr old shoots and kills 22yr old cuban who mistakenly drove into old dudes driveway cause of gps

cmon

But... it was.... a Cuban.

[DJM]

hard to imagine a 69 yr old running out with a knife and killing a 22 yr old whod avoid the attack and yell how he was mistaken

[h2s]

But if the 22 year old had a gun, this could have all been avoided.

-NRA president.

[Coolazice]

back to gun control
69yr old shoots and kills 22yr old cuban who mistakenly drove into old dudes driveway cause of gps

cmon

For those who want to read more about this, here are a couple links:

Georgia man guns down immigrant after GPS sends him to wrong driveway | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/29/georgia-man-guns-down-immigrant-after-gps-sends-him-to-wrong-driveway/)

Phillip Walker Sailers, 69, accused of killing Rodrigo Abad Diaz, 22, after he pulled into driveway at house | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270105/Phillip-Walker-Sailers-69-accused-killing-Rodrigo-Abad-Diaz-22-pulled-driveway-house.html)

I wonder why it took so long (a few minutes) for the kids to realize they made a wrong turn and why they just sat in a driveway that was clearly marked by the name on the mailbox? It looks like a pretty remote place too, so I can see why the old guy got a little nervous. What a shame. I also wonder if his time in Vietnam had anything to do with it? Please don't mistake that as me defending his actions because I do feel they were extreme and unwarranted, but those were just a couple of the things that popped in my head as I read about it.

[longBallLima]

hard to imagine a 69 yr old running out with a knife and killing a 22 yr old whod avoid the attack and yell how he was mistaken
Yeah I was being sarcastic

For those who want to read more about this, here are a couple links:

Georgia man guns down immigrant after GPS sends him to wrong driveway | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/29/georgia-man-guns-down-immigrant-after-gps-sends-him-to-wrong-driveway/)

Phillip Walker Sailers, 69, accused of killing Rodrigo Abad Diaz, 22, after he pulled into driveway at house | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270105/Phillip-Walker-Sailers-69-accused-killing-Rodrigo-Abad-Diaz-22-pulled-driveway-house.html)

I wonder why it took so long (a few minutes) for the kids to realize they made a wrong turn and why they just sat in a driveway that was clearly marked by the name on the mailbox? It looks like a pretty remote place too, so I can see why the old guy got a little nervous. What a shame. I also wonder if his time in Vietnam had anything to do with it? Please don't mistake that as me defending his actions because I do feel they were extreme and unwarranted, but those were just a couple of the things that popped in my head as I read about it.

What popped in my head was "Holy shit, this gun culture is poisonous"

[DJM]

Yeah I was being sarcastic

i know

[DJM]

prince middle school
shooting, school had metal detectors

[h2s]

prince middle school
shooting, school had metal detectors

But the kids didn't have guns. We should arm our children with ak47s to prevent them from being harmed.

[burlyman30]

But the kids didn't have guns. We should arm our children with ak47s to prevent them from being harmed.

A simple handgun would do. Rifles are to bulky to fit at their desk or in backpacks. :)

[DJM]

But the kids didn't have guns. We should arm our children with ak47s to prevent them from being harmed.

"MOTHAFUCKA, ITS ME SOCCER BOLL!!!"

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2012/04/26/267445-picture-of-a-child-soldier.jpg

[h2s]

Danny, WHY did you shoot little Mikey?

He looked at me funny....

[longBallLima]

Danny, WHY did you shoot little Mikey?

He looked at me funny....

That Jonny is such a bully, he shot 3 kids this morning for their lunch money!

[DJM]

That Jonny is such a bully, he shot 3 kids this morning for their lunch money!

johnny has to do 100 lines
'i will not kill others for lunch money' n get parents to sign it

[burlyman30]

johnny has to do 100 lines
'i will not kill others for lunch money' n get parents to sign it

Not too far off, actually. The ability of the school system to discipline students is severely limited. My friend (female) is a highschool teacher who was getting sexually harrassed by a student. Their solution? Put him in a class across the hall from her. She still has to see him daily.

[DJM]

Not too far off, actually. The ability of the school system to discipline students is severely limited. My friend (female) is a highschool teacher who was getting sexually harrassed by a student. Their solution? Put him in a class across the hall from her. She still has to see him daily.
thats in my wheelhouse......my thesis for my BA was on setting limits and expectations for children

[h2s]

Not too far off, actually. The ability of the school system to discipline students is severely limited. My friend (female) is a highschool teacher who was getting sexually harrassed by a student. Their solution? Put him in a class across the hall from her. She still has to see him daily.

My school would have kicked my ass out in a heartbeat, but it was a private school.

[longBallLima]

Not too far off, actually. The ability of the school system to discipline students is severely limited. My friend (female) is a highschool teacher who was getting sexually harrassed by a student. Their solution? Put him in a class across the hall from her. She still has to see him daily.

if that was my wife i would have killed him

with my hands of course. guns are too violent.


but seriously, at what point does one acquire the right to slap an asshole around?

another thing i dont like about this gun culture, people lost appreciation for a good ass whoopin! :D

[DJM]

Not too far off, actually. The ability of the school system to discipline students is severely limited. My friend (female) is a highschool teacher who was getting sexually harrassed by a student. Their solution? Put him in a class across the hall from her. She still has to see him daily.

alot of that at my old office, called it flirting, not sexual harassment
in her case thats pretty unfair, if i was director id be out to protect my teachers

[burlyman30]

alot of that at my old office, called it flirting, not sexual harassment
in her case thats pretty unfair, if i was director id be out to protect my teachers

Telling a teacher she is cute is flirting... describing your organ and how you intend to use it with them is beyond the realm of innocent flirtation.

Thing is, there's a double standard in the schools.... a student can flirt in fun with a teacher and nothing will be done. But a teacher flirting with a student will sound the alarms.

[longBallLima]

Telling a teacher she is cute is flirting... describing your organ and how you intend to use it with them is beyond the realm of innocent flirtation.

Thing is, there's a double standard in the schools.... a student can flirt in fun with a teacher and nothing will be done. But a teacher flirting with a student will sound the alarms.

as much as i understand your point and don't agree to the prevailing premise, the thought is that it is up to the older adult to perform better judgement. a lot of times this is completely stupid

[burlyman30]

as much as i understand your point and don't agree to the prevailing premise, the thought is that it is up to the older adult to perform better judgement. a lot of times this is completely stupid

Leaving it up to someone's judgement isn't an issue if there is an enforced code of conduct. One that would apply to the students as well as the teachers. You would hope and think that things like that would not need to be explained... but apparently they do. Common sense seems to be very uncommon these days.

[longBallLima]

Leaving it up to someone's judgement isn't an issue if there is an enforced code of conduct. One that would apply to the students as well as the teachers. You would hope and think that things like that would not need to be explained... but apparently they do. Common sense seems to be very uncommon these days.

agree with bold.

off topic story: friend of mine and his lady workout at the same gym as me and my lady. last night, his lady goes to a machine, there's a dirty towel hanging there, she pushes it to the side and some asshole kid (fat that thinks they're strong? you know, those fat kids that work out in tops that shows their nipples) starts telling her off, basically yelling at her, because he was working out there. my friend saw it, came to the kid and wanted to destroy the lil prick. people got in the middle to stop a potential fight (which obviously made the kid start to act brave) and they parted ways. what the fuck happened to "oh, sorry, had to walk away, can i finish a set?"?
people don't know how to be courteous anymore and that is, honestly, when i think you should be legally allowed to slap a motherfucker. not kill, break his face, nothing like that. just have the 2 go for a lil bit lol

[h2s]

Lets change the topic for a quick moment. Have you guys heard about the crunk bear twitter account? Shit I wish my teachers new how to party that hard.

[longBallLima]

Lets change the topic for a quick moment. Have you guys heard about the crunk bear twitter account? Shit I wish my teachers new how to party that hard.

shit, thats here in CO haha

[DJM]

Telling a teacher she is cute is flirting... describing your organ and how you intend to use it with them is beyond the realm of innocent flirtation.

Thing is, there's a double standard in the schools.... a student can flirt in fun with a teacher and nothing will be done. But a teacher flirting with a student will sound the alarms.

grade 2, ms costelli, i got the tingles but no erection yet, too young

[longBallLima]

grade 2, ms costelli, i got the tingles but no erection yet, too young

swear, i cannot remember a time when i didnt have erections. i'd get super embarassed when i was a kid

oh, and brazil is a speedo country lol

[markam]

My school would have kicked my ass out in a heartbeat, but it was a private school.

Figures:)

[markam]

Just to point out how different the U.S. culture is compared to the U.K.
If someone owned a gun here, it would be perceived as unusual (to say the least) unless they were in security or a farmer, etc.

[h2s]

Figures:)

Haha, what is that supposed to mean?

[longBallLima]

Just to point out how different the U.S. culture is compared to the U.K.
If someone owned a gun here, it would be perceived as unusual (to say the least) unless they were in security or a farmer, etc.

or an outlaw of some variety, i would guess?

[burlyman30]

Haha, what is that supposed to mean?

Cuz u so smart, h2. :p

[markam]

Haha, what is that supposed to mean?

Hmm, let's see.............

[markam]

or an outlaw of some variety, i would guess?

Yeah, I was just referring to everyday law abiding citizens (that may or may not use roids) Lol.

[markam]

Haha, what is that supposed to mean?

Hope you didn't have to play 'soggy biscuit' (probably wandering into DJM territory here).

BTW Is Jim Beam as good as Jack Daniels?

[h2s]

Cuz u so smart, h2. :p


Hmm, let's see.............


Hope you didn't have to play 'soggy biscuit' (probably wandering into DJM territory here).

BTW Is Jim Beam as good as Jack Daniels?

Ha I was private school all my life because my mom wanted religion to be a part of my education....

Self described athiest was the result.

[DJM]

Hope you didn't have to play 'soggy biscuit' (probably wandering into DJM territory here).

BTW Is Jim Beam as good as Jack Daniels?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jvG6g-1UOpE/SY7wc6bNyVI/AAAAAAAABIA/wRfl1H_PEgI/s400/Soggy+Biscuit+2-7-2009+%28incomplete%29.jpg

[markam]

Ha I was private school all my life because my mom wanted religion to be a part of my education....

Self described athiest was the result.

When asked about God, David Attenborough stated that 'he hadn't really thought about it', (or words to that extent). I really liked that.

I believe that through realisation that there is a human consciousness, and that people can rise to a higher level of spirituality, people can 'attain greatness' for want of better words. Anyway, I'll shoot you if you disagree. I win!

- - - Updated - - -


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jvG6g-1UOpE/SY7wc6bNyVI/AAAAAAAABIA/wRfl1H_PEgI/s400/Soggy+Biscuit+2-7-2009+%28incomplete%29.jpg

Knew you wouldn't disappoint. :)

[longBallLima]

Yeah, I was just referring to everyday law abiding citizens (that may or may not use roids) Lol.

yah, our shooters here break the law by killing a bunch of people. before that some of them were model citizens :)


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jvG6g-1UOpE/SY7wc6bNyVI/AAAAAAAABIA/wRfl1H_PEgI/s400/Soggy+Biscuit+2-7-2009+%28incomplete%29.jpg

2 uncircumcised, how very democratic

[h2s]

I had no idea what a soggy biscuit is. Now that I have seen that response, I have an idea of what it is, and I really fucking wish I didnt.

[longBallLima]

I had no idea what a soggy biscuit is. Now that I have seen that response, I have an idea of what it is, and I really fucking wish I didnt.

LOL

[markam]

I had no idea what a soggy biscuit is. Now that I have seen that response, I have an idea of what it is, and I really fucking wish I didnt.

Why do I find this so funny? No idea* but a thread about guns and soggy biscuits, just about right.

*what do you call a deer with no eyes - no idea.

What do you call a deer with no eyes and legs - Still no idea.

[burlyman30]

Ha I was private school all my life because my mom wanted religion to be a part of my education....

Self described athiest was the result.


I had no idea what a soggy biscuit is. Now that I have seen that response, I have an idea of what it is, and I really fucking wish I didnt.

x2 on the biscuit. Was really hoping DJ had the flu and wouldn't be online to see that cue.

Just curious on the private school... was it a Catholic school? Protestant? I, too, was "forced" to attend a private school for all my school years. I didn't like it, but it had little to do with that particular school... I hated school from the first day of kindergarten on. Once out of high school, it took me a few years to go back to work on a B.A and M.A. Still didn't love it, but at least it felt more like a means to an end at that point.

[burlyman30]

Why do I find this so funny? No idea* but a thread about guns and soggy biscuits, just about right.

*what do you call a deer with no eyes - no idea.

What do you call a deer with no eyes and legs - Still no idea.

lol... funny. But in the states we don't usually put the "r" sound at the end of "idea" they way you do across the pond. I heard it in your accent and it makes the joke work, though.

[markam]

lol... funny. But in the states we don't usually put the "r" sound at the end of "idea" they way you do across the pond. I heard it in your accent and it makes the joke work, though.

Confused. We put the I at the start of idea and a a the end, no?

Anyway, not a bad joke. :)

[burlyman30]

Confused. We put the I at the start of idea and a a the end, no?

Anyway, not a bad joke. :)

It's the difference in it sounding like ideaH and ideaR. I forgot... you can't hear your accent and you think I have one. lol

[markam]

It's the difference in it sounding like ideaH and ideaR. I forgot... you can't hear your accent and you think I have one. lol

Yep, I speak English and you speak.......Engilsh Lol

[burlyman30]

Yep, I speak English and you speak.......American Lol

/fixed

[markam]

/fixed

You wish. Anyway, watching the end of a Howard Marks film, 'Mr Nice', not bad.

Night.

[h2s]

x2 on the biscuit. Was really hoping DJ had the flu and wouldn't be online to see that cue.

Just curious on the private school... was it a Catholic school? Protestant? I, too, was "forced" to attend a private school for all my school years. I didn't like it, but it had little to do with that particular school... I hated school from the first day of kindergarten on. Once out of high school, it took me a few years to go back to work on a B.A and M.A. Still didn't love it, but at least it felt more like a means to an end at that point.

Catholic grammar school and high school, Jesuit college. Although the religion had nothing to do with college choice.

[Cobalt]

Catholic grammar school

477

[Macdon1588]

Yep, I speak English and you speak.......Engilsh Lol

Yet there's a place in Scotland that it is said to speak the purest English, your tea is from India, your government is from Marx, and your Rock music is from America which leads me to ask, "what can you truly call English?" ;-)

(Incredible irony intended)

[markam]

Yet there's a place in Scotland that it is said to speak the purest English, your tea is from India, your government is from Marx, and your Rock music is from America which leads me to ask, "what can you truly call English?" ;-)

(Incredible irony intended)

Chicken Tikka Masala