Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[colby556]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBbujPeg6no

He seems to have found peace, and is bravely standing up in the face of certain death.

[Adventurer, Explorer, Inquiring Mind.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBbujPeg6no

He seems to have found peace, and is bravely standing up in the face of certain death.

That's neither peace, nor bravely standing up or jack shit.  This is more religious nonsense.  If he were intending to fight AND WIN, he would do so.  These people can't find your fancy government ID without help.  If it weren't for movies and other hollyweirdisms preaching about the unbeatability of centralized government control and super duper government databases, most people would realize that government is nothing more than a bunch of gansters, liars, thugs, rapists and murderers who pretend they're skilled and talented at keeping the peace and promoting business.  When you step back and realize government is made up of some of the most incompetent, egomaniacal dimwits, you realize every good thing they are ever accused of accomplishing is done by some talented individual who was desperate for work or brainwashed into emotionally linking him or herself with the government's identity... and then fell through the cracks.  Government tends to wash out individuals and people who actually mean and can do well.  Then again, without misguided GOOD people of talent and skill, the government wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.  The mafia wouldn't last very long if the majority of its employees didn't have honor and a good work ethic.  Contrary to the movies, the mafia is a well oiled business machine.  Movies drive themselves on "conflict" to present a heroic type overcoming, or a tragic type being overcome.  That's about it.  There are very few movies about ANYTHING but those two overarching theme/tropes.  Hero's journey or tragic fall.  Pick one, that's all you can get for your money.  That's why every hollywood story about the west involved guns.  It was exciting.  Nobody really cares about a village of people who got killed by small pox.  That's horrifying, and happened often.  That's realism.  Now, bad guys murdering women and children with evil black guns?  Now THAT sells newspapers, its shocking, everyone imagines how they'd "prevent it" and it never happened more than once or twice.  Small pox, bubonic plague, ebola?  Now those are horrifying and realistic.  Huge gunfight at the OK Corral?  What... ONCE?!  Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid... ONCE.  Village or tribe of natives wiped out by smallpox?  LOTS.  Yet nobody tried to ban smallbox.  They helped develop a scientific method for wiping it out and building immunities to it to prevent it from ever getting a foothold again.  Also why hollywood didn't make a great living out of making movies about curing smallpox.

So back to the point.  If this guy was intending to "fight and win" he'd make sure his family was well off, arm up, go on the hunt and vanish.  Look at how scared cops and government people were in "disarmed" California when ONE DAMN COP WENT ROGUE!!  ONE!!!  They were shooting up vehicles at random and excusing themselves saying they might have seen a black guy with a threatening look who might have been their guy ... then each time it was proven it was all white people in the truck, sometimes women.  And the moron taxpayers bobble headed their way into yet another blunder of approving these cowardly incompetent jackasses and paying for their mistakes.  But it illustrated how incompetent these idiots actually are.  It takes a legion of them to kill a half sleeping man whose gun was halfway across a room.  For all their effort and jack boot thug issue military grade hardware, he hits several, they all miss, he surrenders (that's restraint, on several instances though, we can guarantee people surrendered and were gunned down anyways.)  Several cases of this crap last year alone, which made the news.

Point is, if this guy wanted to fight and didn't want to take shit, he'd do it.  Say fuck it, go train, and then be the asshole these copscum say they're training to fight.  I'd be curious to see how many innocents the cops would shoot looking for this guy... he's white.  If they can't tell the difference between white and black people at the wheel of a car... just imagine the havok cops will wreak while "fearing for their *saftey*" if this guy goes off the reservation and effectively resists them and goes on the lam afterwards?  And knowing how competent all these government guys actually are... you figure they'll find him working at a burger king in Chicago, 12 years later, telling stories about how he did it.  Probably get a book deal after the next intranational war in the USA, and laugh all the way to the bank how the SWAT guys overreacted and kept shooting up innocents of the wrong skin color while hunting for him, and he worked in a burger king full of security cameras filming his face every day...

I bet that would make for a pretty good hollyweird movie script.  I claim copyright on my idea.   Unless Luc Besson got to it last year, after that california rogue cop debacle.

[colby556]

I agree with much of what you say. It is refreshing to see someone willing to at least meet them with arms when they come. People won't even do that, let alone go all DORNER on em".

[RVM45]

Point taken, but it cannot be stressed often enough:

Misdeeds committed in Ignorance or worse yet, because one "Meant Them for The Best" is a far blacker Evil than serving Evil for Gain or for the sake of Evil.


…..RVM45

[MamaLiberty]

Point taken, but it cannot be stressed often enough:

Misdeeds committed in Ignorance or worse yet, because one "Meant Them for The Best" is a far blacker Evil than serving Evil for Gain or for the sake of Evil.

I sure don't see it that way myself... we're both entitled to our opinion. Evil is just evil... don't see any as better or worse. It's like being dead... you either are or you aren't.

[RVM45]

What I'm saying is that people who think they're they're working for the greater good are far worse than people who know damned well that what they're doing is wrong but persist because of the perceived benefits to themselves.

Not that I have any love for the second group either.

…..RVM45

[Adventurer, Explorer, Inquiring Mind.]

Point taken, but it cannot be stressed often enough:

Misdeeds committed in Ignorance or worse yet, because one "Meant Them for The Best" is a far blacker Evil than serving Evil for Gain or for the sake of Evil.

I sure don't see it that way myself... we're both entitled to our opinion. Evil is just evil... don't see any as better or worse. It's like being dead... you either are or you aren't.

I'm with RVM45 on this one, darlin'.  Pretend or even worse, fully believed "good intentions" are an aggravating factor as to the DEGREE of evil. 
A simpler set of cases::
Case 1:
Someone runs over my dog by accident, he's a reckless jerk.  People will frown on this guy.  Or see it as an accident if he appologizes.
Case 2:
Someone sees my dog near the edge of the street or maybe the dog broke the chain and got free somehow, and runs him over just for shits and giggles, he's a real sack of crap and pretty evil.  Everyone will HATE such a jerk, and nobody will want to excuse him.
Case 3:
Someone comes to my yard and KILLS my dog because my dog is a dog and might harm someone else's kid... that's by far the greatest evil of the two.  Most of the people will say "well, I have kids, this must be for the children!!  Or they'll say "its public *saftey* we better ban those evil dogs too!!!"  They'll stand behind the scumbag like the stupid bobbleheads they are, and very few like you or me will even think about it, fewer so, like you or me, would raise hell about it.  In a way, pretend or "true believer" bad guys will genuinely hijack the foolhardy and ignorant (a vast majority) with their pretenses or genuinely held "true beliefs" that what they do is good, and then your enemy is no longer ONE bad guy... its a LEGION, driven by emotion.


Its also a proactive evil.  They don't commit evil because of the opportunity to commit evil, but rather they go and CREATE the opportunity, they SEEK places to do their evil, and excuse it, fully believing its good.  Like terrorists, serial killers and other government like people, you have to realize that their values are logical only in so far as they have been taught that their god (the government) supersedes all existence and takes precedence over all.  As long as they have the mob rule behind them, they don't care about reason, or life or logic or freedom or responsibility or dignity or anything of value.  (Unless someone infringes on theirs.)  These people are TRUE BELIEVERS.  If you want to see the end result, observe terrorists on any news network.  THEY are ALSO "TRUE BELIEVERS."  Governmentalists and Terrorists are both evil "ists" who are also true believers in their cause, regardless how odious it might be to those of us who aren't brainwashed.

So true believers are indeed a far more aggravated form of evil.  You aren't taking on a single bad guy at that point.  Bad guys are single units, they're SELFISH... True Believers are a HIVE MIND.  You're fighting the swarm, the Zerg, the Bug War.  You squash one, and a million attack you, unthinkingly, because they've been wired to do so from birth and its reflex.  Logic?  Nowhere to be found.

Edited for structure and clarification.

[colby556]

Point taken, but it cannot be stressed often enough:

Misdeeds committed in Ignorance or worse yet, because one "Meant Them for The Best" is a far blacker Evil than serving Evil for Gain or for the sake of Evil.


…..RVM45

Who is acting in ignorance ? You mean a man defending himself against a group of people initiating violence against him is the darker evil ?

[RVM45]

I did say "Misdeeds". Self-Defense isn't a Misdeed.

Politician #1 wants to ban Guns because he hates happy People and Guns make many folks happy.

Politician #2 wants to ban Guns because he perceives them as an obstacle on the way top establishing a totalitarian state.

Politician #3 wants to ban Guns because he believes that the citizens of his nation will be safer and happier without them.

I loathe all three, but the hottest dustiest and most unpleasant corner of Hell is reserved for #3.



…..RVM45

 

[Tahn L.]

I did say "Misdeeds". Self-Defense isn't a Misdeed.

 


I certainly agree there.


However, I believe that the person who "believes" incorrectly, can be shown the error of their ways, through truth, while the person who "Knows" that they are wrong but continues their action for personal gain are "locked into" their actions and are generally unchangeable.

I have more personal animosity for those who "know" they are wrong and continue, than for the misguided that believe they are correct, even though wrong.

All below from Wikipedia.

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"[1]) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.[2]
It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."[3] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[4] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics


Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, "the ends justify the means",[1] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.[2]
Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also contrasted with virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

The above two links provide some insight on this and the accompanying articles and other links are interesting to follow. There are many philosophies which combine several.

[colby556]

I did say "Misdeeds". Self-Defense isn't a Misdeed.

Politician #1 wants to ban Guns because he hates happy People and Guns make many folks happy.

Politician #2 wants to ban Guns because he perceives them as an obstacle on the way top establishing a totalitarian state.

Politician #3 wants to ban Guns because he believes that the citizens of his nation will be safer and happier without them.

I loathe all three, but the hottest dustiest and most unpleasant corner of Hell is reserved for #3.



…..RVM45

This seems to fall into the whole schtick, if your motivation for committing this crime is this then your punishment is lesser or more compared to a different motivation for committing the exact same crime with the same end results. Giving yourself the right to take away peoples guns, no matter the motivation, is all the same to me. This is the same non sense that goes with hate crime non sense. Your motivation was race based, to the gallows with you. Oh, same crime, but your motivation was simply monetary in nature, 6 months probation. HUH ?

[colby556]

When you violate a person or their property, and you initiate the violation, fuck you, end of conversation. Of course that is not the end of the conversation, and people and government will continue to initiate violence for no reason greater than, because I give myself the authority to. I need a palate cleanse.


 Holy Crap. What I thought was a cute picture, in reality is the initiation of violence against an unarmed suspect on his own property,His property includes this stump.

[Bill St. Clair]

Yep. Motivation for a crime is between you and your god. Aggression against person or property is crime. You may be compelled to make your victim whole. If that isn't possible, there's room for disagreement on how to handle it. I think murderers should become the property of the dead guy's survivors, to do with as they will.

[Adventurer, Explorer, Inquiring Mind.]

Wow, and this is why LIbertarianism as a movement is doomed from the start.  People are ARGUING over bullshit comments and purposefully misunderstanding what I said, or skipping it altogether to nitpick on RVM45.  WTF?

You guys need to argue and fight with each other for lack of enemies?  I CLEARLY explained what RVM didn't.  A crime committed for the betterment of mankind or some stated good intentions is worse because the criminal WILL draw the rest of the morons around you into it and destroy you by mob rule.  America is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of mob rule.  More so than Europe, where cops will overlook crimes against prohibitum.

A guy who runs over your dog is an inconsiderate asshole.  If he kills your dog in your yard because he was annoyed by the dog, he's a criminal whom everyone will likely agree needs punishment.  If he kills your snarling dog inside your property for "ossifer saftey" or because he thought it would keep the "chillun saif"... then your idiot neighbors will be delighted to screw you over... just cause they're idiots and "for da chillunz" or "ossifer saftey" are their idiot mantras.  Therein lies what bugs me about people nitpicking about shit without noticing WHY "crimes for the good of the people" are evil of a degree which we cannot quite perceive.

The PEOPLE... will punish you for stopping that third kind of criminal.

[RVM45]

I Don't advocate greater sentences for different motivations…

Except that I would expect a Judge to tack a little extra onto the sentence of anyone who claimed good intentions or remorse at the sentencing to try to get a bit less time. You do not have to open your mouth and bray that you are sorry or that you meant well at your sentencing. If you insist on braying like a Jackass then you should get a sentence that reflects your remorse and/or good intentions.

What I am talking about is my own criteria for just how much I will resent you as a person for interfering with my life.

You are right—since only God knows a person's true motivation, and because it is largely irrelevant—people should not receive stiffer sentences for "Hate Crimes".

The true purpose of  "Hate Crime" laws is to put a Damper on Free Speech.

If I go around talking freely about how I hate Slans _{(an imaginary race)} and then I must hurt, restrain or kill a Slan in self-defense, or if we engage in mutually agreed combat, my previous remarks will both make me more likely to be found guilty and to get me a longer sentence. A prudent racist then has a built-in motivation to shut up.

As far as Racism—
 
Once again, those who truly believe that certain races must be restrained lest they destroy civilization are worse people than those who simply use the Racist Agenda as a means to power or simply as an excuse to practice brutality or sadism.

I am a sort of Anti-Consequentialist I suppose. (never heard the term before).

Using Bad Means to attain a Good End is Far more blameworthy than using Bad Means for Bad Ends.

{And if you mistakenly believe that some Bad End is actually Good, you are worse than the man who pursues Bad Ends with eyes wide open.}



…..RVM45