|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 17, 2007 20:11:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Apr 18, 2007 9:06:08 GMT -5
Suppression, depression, desensitization and can't see the light at the end of the tunnel.
example: 9/11 trumps middle east casualties and media leads us to believe incident at virginia tech trumps 9/11, katrina,middle east, tsunamis and even its equivilent, columbine. we've got to get our priorities straight when it comes to humanitarianisms face to face with death. you tell me is this not distraction at its worse. oh what time does the game come on? the actual game hasn't reached half time yet and Da Man is runnin' so many plays. immigration again! turn the station to "the lessor death"
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 18, 2007 10:41:16 GMT -5
Stefan's commentary/rant is fantastic. Listened to it while cleaning last night; had to stop 4 separate times to rewind and re-listen to certain parts.  |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 18, 2007 14:08:40 GMT -5
"This was not a terrorist attack."
--one of the talking-head MSM reporters on the first day of the terror on the VT campus  Of course its not a "terrorist" when its "a U.S. Citizen" (Submitizen)!! Let alone when its on a college campus that has a military corps*.  Where the VT Corps of Cadets webpage has for its signature: "" Developing Leaders For The Future"" "Not a terrorist attack"? Tell that to the students involved. (and wonder where a guy/citizen would get the idea that the way to deal with your "enemies" is to mount a violent attack?! Developed leader for the future/plan?) * [how ironic that "military corps" with one simple "end" letter is "military corpse"...]** ~ heartfelt sympathies for the VT students' friends & loved ones ~ ** |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 18, 2007 14:15:52 GMT -5
Boy, I am sure pleased as punch that the "second amendment" allows the state to maintain a "militia" in order to exercise the individual citizens of same to defend themselves against life-threatening violent incidents such as this one... I can't imagine how anyone after this kind of tragedy could justify an alleged "individual right to bear arms" since isn't that what the lone gunman was doing? [/sarcasm] |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 24, 2007 17:19:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Apr 24, 2007 18:26:33 GMT -5
Keep in mind Stefan is a "cheese eating surrender monkey", so what credibility does he really have anyway? ;D ;D ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 24, 2007 19:52:05 GMT -5
I just liked his casual insert of that daffynition into his anti-violence monologue ... musta used that in previous rants? (I have not kept up with the 500+ podcasts of Mr. M.)
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 25, 2007 11:07:09 GMT -5
Keep in mind Stefan is a "cheese eating surrender monkey", so what credibility does he really have anyway? ;D ;D ;D  - Abby |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 25, 2007 11:22:21 GMT -5
Keep in mind Stefan is a "cheese eating surrender monkey", so what credibility does he really have anyway? ;D ;D ;D - Abby Abby Again? |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 25, 2007 11:46:13 GMT -5
Perhaps the "nations" (the individuals that make them up) are violent because they believe they are defending themselves or their ideals? George Jackson on the pacifism of Martin Luther King, Jr. : - - - While I'm certainly not endorsing the aggressive violence that the Black Panthers seem to be known for, some of the "Ten Point Program" is at its base quite reasonable and rational and individualism-honouring (ironically, once you put aside the clear socialistic "solutions" demanded) and I think Mr. Jackson was very observant about the pacifist's dillemma when defending oneself against an "adversary" who has no motivation to respond peacefully... Food for thought for anti-statists. :-\ |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 25, 2007 11:55:47 GMT -5
I always thought the goal of pacifism was to make your adversary look like exactly what he is. (At least as far as a tool for political change goes.)
That is, you WANT his negative reaction, it removes the base his power rests upon, and removes the illusion that he has spun in the minds of those who support him.
Pacifism while being mugged is a seriously daft idea, if the opportunity for defence arises.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 25, 2007 12:10:53 GMT -5
I always thought the goal of pacifism was to make your adversary look like exactly what he is. (At least as far as a tool for political change goes.) That is, you WANT his negative reaction, it removes the base his power rests upon, and removes the illusion that he has spun in the minds of those who support him. That has always been my view as well. The idea is not to enjoy being a victim, but rather to educate others by revealing the craven nature of the aggressors and thereby remove the support they might have in the minds of the witnesses to the violence. I'm thinking that the idea of pacifism does not apply (as I've defined its benefit above) in the case where there are no witnesses. The only benefit is the educational one. But I could be wrong. Perhaps the idea is that by putting up no resistance, the one(s) perpetrating the violence will have a harder time in his own mind justifying his action and this in itself will be educational. Of course for a sociopath there is no learning possible as there is no empathy. - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 25, 2007 12:18:20 GMT -5
lummox, NonE, good contributions to this discussion. I guess what is interesting to me is how the Black Panthers saw their violent actions as defensive, not aggressive, and how "getting the public to be horrified by the violence inherent in the system" is almost IMPOSSIBLE today due to the increasing "cocooning", the uber-busyness and electronic/information addiction/overstimulation, the ubiquitous violence in the media and the news... Like ya said, that's IF there are even "witnesses" to be horrified. But most folks today seem unwilling to stop and help a stranger on the highway, or even on a downtown street, for fear of their safety, or perhaps just out of anti-social apathy; their consciences are on life support, if not completely dead. Germany in the 1930s, all over again -- "disappeared" people, no questions asked or you're next... around the corner unless something drastic happens to change this culture.  |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 25, 2007 13:00:51 GMT -5
Oooh no.
The majority of people are still decent. I know for a fact I could walk out of this house in the morning and have another roof over my head by nightfall.
But then, I have faith, so that might be part of it.
Never forget "they" can do what they do BECAUSE people are decent. If everyone was like "they" are then we would be still living in caves and beating each other over the head for scraps of food.
|
|
