Klokinator Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 well good, that's a start i am exercising my innate ability as a bayesian statistician; given that person has posted shit before, what is the probability of subsequent posts being shit? answer: very high. You're really something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 There isn't much point in having an actual discussion about this, since you're just going to make claims like 10,000 unreported cases of police brutality each day which of course cannot be verified because the government is covering it up or whatever (not that an increase in police brutality indicates a police state regardless). Youtube videos have almost no standards to being posted and cannot be seen as a credible source. And right on cue, here comes Cynthia with the sources arguments. Except this time, there's plenty of sources. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2014/07/02/seven-reasons-police-brutality-is-systematic-not-anecdotal/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374908/-American-police-killed-more-people-in-March-111-than-in-the-entire-United-Kingdom-since-1900 http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/ Police are so great though. Welp, debate over! Klok mentioned corruption in the police and we all know in our white neighborhoods nobody gets beat to death (except when they do) so clearly every other point he's made has been wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 The citizenry having the ability to mount armed resistance against a government that goes corrupt seems like a perfectly fine point to put forth. You can argue about plausibility and effectiveness until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't negate the right to have that option. Also, please, everyone take some deep breaths, and make sure you're calm before posting. I don't want to name any names, but if you're getting too attached to the topic, it's not entirely healthy and I recommend a break. It'll still be here tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 it's fallacious to stop taking klok seriously when he cries wolf, but the fable illustrates man's innate ability at bayesian statistics. so fallacies be damned, i am right - at least moreso than your low-effort copypastas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) The citizenry having the ability to mount armed resistance against a government that goes corrupt seems like a perfectly fine point to put forth. You can argue about plausibility and effectiveness until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't negate the right to have that option. Also, please, everyone take some deep breaths, and make sure you're calm before posting. I don't want to name any names, but if you're getting too attached to the topic, it's not entirely healthy and I recommend a break. It'll still be here tomorrow. One would think that a section titled 'Serious Discussion' would actually be about y'know serious discussions rather than conspiracy theories. Should we also entertain topics like aliens and how the government is secretly poisoning our water? @Klok Yeah, police kill more people than in other countries, it's almost like the high number of gun related homicide means that police have to use lethal force more often. How does this support your police takeover theory? Edited June 22, 2015 by -Cynthia- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) The citizenry having the ability to mount armed resistance against a government that goes corrupt seems like a perfectly fine point to put forth. You can argue about plausibility and effectiveness until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't negate the right to have that option. i don't agree with this for two reasons. first, frequency of a phenomenon is definitely a worthwhile consideration. i don't particularly care about having the right to do something that i will never exercise. second, armed resistance is less effective than nonviolent resistance at effecting change: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/ if you disagree with this source, google the claim yourself. if it came to the point where the citizenry wanted to fight against the government, guns aren't going to help them very much. if you're suggesting that latin america (where non-government entities frequently own and utilize guns) has been doing it right all these years, then you should revisit the data. Edited June 22, 2015 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Local police in small towns with populations under 10000 can get tanks in the US. I'm pretty sure that if the police (let alone the military) decided to start seriously attacking people, civilians having access to guns wouldn't mean jack shit. One of the purposes of a government is to protect its citizens. If you don't believe that your government ultimately has your best interests at heart, I would question why you're still there. It doesn't seem as if you believe the government is going to get any better either, or that things can be improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Local police in small towns with populations under 10000 can get tanks in the US. I'm pretty sure that if the police (let alone the military) decided to start seriously attacking people, civilians having access to guns wouldn't mean jack shit.Pretty much. Your little dinky gun is not going to do anything if the state genuinely has it out for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 It's funny how a topic that started about racism and the shooting of a bunch of black people by a white guy becomes completely different when the saintly police are involved. Now it's just "Yeah but that one black dude getting the shit beaten out of him and choked/assaulted is not a common occurrence! Lol move to Mexico!" Look, I know your dad hits you and he cut off one of your fingers, but kids in India are living in slavery! Get over yourself! Oh, and also. Just because you don't see it happening,doesn't mean it's not happening. For a topic full of people who love picking out data and saying "You don't have to see it to believe the statistics!" it's sure funny how suddenly when it comes to governmental overreach/violence against citizenry, suddenly anyone questioning them is a crazy lunatic LOL! dondon posts in all lower case clearly he doesn't take anything seriously Look mom, I can ad hominem and strawman too! I'm such a great debater! EDit: Actually, the statement you posted about little kids and gun rights is correct. My bad. Still a strawman and ad hominem though. The problem with "America is this or that" is that it attempts to cover a gigantic pile of territory with wildly varying trends. . .and once you deal in absolutes, a single anecdote stating otherwise breaks it apart. Your hyperbole counts as "dealing in absolutes". Oh, and this is now a mod warning: Cut the pictures out. They don't help your case at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Just a reminder for everyone: Serious Discussion is not the section you go to make joke posts. You're not here to tell jokes, insult eachother or try to make witty comments. We should ban heart disease. That will surely reduce the number of people dying to it, if not eliminate it completely! ^ Posts like this are crap. Stop it. I strongly suggest you guys read the sticky Bal has in this section http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47988 - Serious Discussion is not your personal soap-box to come to for validation, do not hope nor expect to "preach to the choir". You will be interacting with others, many of whom may not share your viewpoint. If you cannot handle disagreement in a respectful and mature fashion, this is not the place for your post. - There is an important difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person. Everyone posting here is a human being and worthy of being treated as such. Do not lose yourself in the heat of a disagreement and cross over that line. Nor should you automatically assume that when someone is arguing against you―in some cases forcefully, emphatically, and with strong language―that they are disrespecting you and not your position. How about we all smarten up? Edited June 23, 2015 by Tangerine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Local police in small towns with populations under 10000 can get tanks in the US. I'm pretty sure that if the police (let alone the military) decided to start seriously attacking people, civilians having access to guns wouldn't mean jack shit. One of the purposes of a government is to protect its citizens. If you don't believe that your government ultimately has your best interests at heart, I would question why you're still there. It doesn't seem as if you believe the government is going to get any better either, or that things can be improved. Pretty much. Your little dinky gun is not going to do anything if the state genuinely has it out for you. Implying that the people are going to arrange like a standing army and attack tanks in plain sight. Are you people ignoring the logistical ridiculousness that has been the occupation in the middle east? All governments abuse their power. The United States is no different. Pretending that the government is ultimately altruistic is brazenly naive. The people don't need to possess an equivalent force to that of the military, but pretending that any form of armed resistance is pointless in the event of a movement towards totalitarianism is ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Implying that the people are going to arrange like a standing army and attack tanks in plain sight. Are you people ignoring the logistical ridiculousness that has been the occupation in the middle east? right and what's the casualty ratio between US combatants and islamist combatants All governments abuse their power. The United States is no different. Pretending that the government is ultimately altruistic is brazenly naive. The people don't need to possess an equivalent force to that of the military, but pretending that any form of armed resistance is pointless in the event of a movement towards totalitarianism is ludicrous. it is pointless. it's actually more likely to lead to a worse outcome. there's a great irony that americans fear an imaginary totalitarian government when people who live under substantially more totalitarian regimes (and are aware of it) generally do not care at all. Edited June 23, 2015 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 So I'd like to point out that if you're some black kid and the police attack you and you pull out a gun to shoot them, you probably get one and then you get gunned down. So what did you accomplish? You gave the police the argument that "he started it!". Good fucking job. Implying that the people are going to arrange like a standing army and attack tanks in plain sight. Are you people ignoring the logistical ridiculousness that has been the occupation in the middle east? All governments abuse their power. The United States is no different. Pretending that the government is ultimately altruistic is brazenly naive. The people don't need to possess an equivalent force to that of the military, but pretending that any form of armed resistance is pointless in the event of a movement towards totalitarianism is ludicrous. Several problems with this. First, armed resistance in the Middle East would likely be greater than armed resistance in the United States because in the Middle East we are foreign. Second, the government has drones. There is no credible way I see for winning against a drone. @Balcerzak: The issue with this is: who gets to decide what constitutes corruption. The last time people rose against the government it led to the American Civil War, and you'd have to agree with the guy whose actions started this topic in the first place to think the Confederacy was in the right. If you don't like something the government does, try to vote it out. If we enforce change at gunpoint, we may produce tyranny far worse than the government. Remember, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot all came to power in that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/british-police-calling-for-knife-ban/ This literally just popped onto my feed. Gave me a good chuckle. This is what happens. Ban guns, people use knives. Ban knives, what will they use next? Something else. Violent people are just gonna always be violent. Always attacking the weapons, not the source of the issues; bad parenting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) The last time people rose against the government it led to the American Civil War, and you'd have to agree with the guy whose actions started this topic in the first place to think the Confederacy was in the right. If you don't like something the government does, try to vote it out. If we enforce change at gunpoint, we may produce tyranny far worse than the government. Remember, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot all came to power in that way.Absolutely incorrect. The right of the States to secede from the Union was not contingent on racism. While the initial spark of the controversy may have been slavery, the underlying issues of states rights was far broader. It's like the maxim "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it." You don't have to agree with why they tried to secede to agree that they had the right to do so. Edit: Just so we're absolutely clear, voting with the ballot box is certainly to be preferred to voting with the ammo box. Don't mistake me there. Edited June 23, 2015 by Balcerzak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Nothing wrong with banning knives. A call from the British Medical Journal was published several years ago, arguing that “many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon,” according to the BBC.Researchers “consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raguna Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) To be honest, I'm actually more in line with a fusion of what's already been said before. The United States culture and its people have degraded to such a point where people generally become self-centered assholes and special little snowflakes who can't live without people accepting their views as the norm. Although Klok's joking was unnecessary, I agree that bad parenting is a good example as to how people when young and left to their own devices when developing nastier traits is a bad thing when no authority figure is there to reprimand them effectively. Plus, when doing background checks in some cases, the kid might have been a model citizen up to that point. It's an unlikely scenario, but it's plausible. But to counteract my previous statements, bad parenting isn't the only reason people go out and do such horrendous acts such as a church massacre. Also when one is in church, you're there to pray and worship, and guns aren't exactly something you casually bring into a sanctuary. People get messed up by all sort of things from bad friends, bad experiences in life and in the case of the US their own culture. Guns are cool, violence is cool, that's what our millions of action movies every day. I feel that stricter gun control is a good measure because at least background checks can get out violent people and past criminals. Sure, they can get guns illegally but that's the thing, if it's illegal, then it's hard to get normally and at a higher price. I prefer outrunning knives than dodging bullets, the person has to get reasonably close to me for a stab. If we want to solve this problem, then it has to be from the roots and the roots are thousands of feet underground. The country needs to get educated to eliminate it's racism, prejudice and love of violence. Stricter gun control can be a temporary measure but it certainly needs to happen. Edited June 23, 2015 by Raguna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Absolutely incorrect. The right of the States to secede from the Union was not contingent on racism. While the initial spark of the controversy may have been slavery, the underlying issues of states rights was far broader. It's like the maxim "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it." You don't have to agree with why they tried to secede to agree that they had the right to do so. Edit: Just so we're absolutely clear, voting with the ballot box is certainly to be preferred to voting with the ammo box. Don't mistake me there. Yeah, fair enough. Of course, the question as to if the South had the legal right to secede is both complex and off topic, so I'll leave it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) right and what's the casualty ratio between US combatants and islamist combatants If casualty rates mattered then we won the Vietnam war I guess. it is pointless. it's actually more likely to lead to a worse outcome. How is it better to submit to a totalitarian regime than to attempt to fight it? Several problems with this. First, armed resistance in the Middle East would likely be greater than armed resistance in the United States because in the Middle East we are foreign. Second, the government has drones. There is no credible way I see for winning against a drone. 1.) I don't think people view being occupied by any military at all as part of their culture, so that's an irrelevant point. 2.) If drones were so relevant the occupation overseas would be a trivial affair. It is not. Edited June 24, 2015 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The reason the occupation overseas isn't a trivial affair is because the government is trying at least on a surface level to minimize casualties. If it was all-out war against a populace like you guys are suggesting here, trust me, this isn't even a contest. As for "waging smart warfare against a tank"; wtf is smart warfare against a tank? You need bombs or extremely damaging guns to do anything against a tank. Guerrilla warfare doesn't matter if you literally can't break past the armour. The sort of weapons necessary to bring down a tank go far beyond the weapons any civilians should be allowed to carry for self-defence against assaults and the like.. I don't agree with the POV that civilians should be allowed to (or need to) easily buy weapons to protect against other civilians, but at least I can see some merits to it. The idea that civilians need to be able to defend themselves against the most powerful military in the world is both ridiculous and impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) The reason the occupation overseas isn't a trivial affair is because the government is trying at least on a surface level to minimize casualties. If it was all-out war against a populace like you guys are suggesting here, trust me, this isn't even a contest. What are you talking about? The reason that it's not a trivial affair is because it's impossible to distinguish between a civilian and combatant. In an occupational situation there are no centers of industry to bomb, there are no armored columns to target. It's not comparable. As for "waging smart warfare against a tank"; wtf is smart warfare against a tank? You need bombs or extremely damaging guns to do anything against a tank. Guerrilla warfare doesn't matter if you literally can't break past the armour. The sort of weapons necessary to bring down a tank go far beyond the weapons any civilians should be allowed to carry for self-defence against assaults and the like.. Do you think tank crews live in them? IEDs disable armored vehicles all the time, either way. Edited June 24, 2015 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 If casualty rates mattered then we won the Vietnam war I guess. yeah i'm sure that the vietnamese really appreciated having over 1 million of their people dead How is it better to submit to a totalitarian regime than to attempt to fight it? did you like not read the article i linked or even spent an iota of effort trying to not misinterpret my post violent resistance more often leads to negative outcomes than nonviolent resistance, i.e., there are better ways to fight a fictional totalitarian US government born out of paranoid delusions than using guns. 1.) I don't think people view being occupied by any military at all as part of their culture, so that's an irrelevant point. 2.) If drones were so relevant the occupation overseas would be a trivial affair. It is not. in addition to what BBM said, it costs way more money to conduct a military operation overseas than to conduct one within a country in which most of your military bases are located. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 yeah i'm sure that the vietnamese really appreciated having over 1 million of their people dead The point is that the difference in dead combatants was irrelevant. The military doesn't view body count as a view of effectiveness. If it were the state of our occupation overseas would be ringing a very different tune. did you likenot read the article i linked or even spent an iota of effort trying to not misinterpret my post violent resistance more often leads to negative outcomes than nonviolent resistance, i.e., there are better ways to fight a fictional totalitarian US government born out of paranoid delusions than using guns. No I don't read every post you make and worship the ground you walk on. If you want me to read a link you post you should post it in your response. in addition to what BBM said, it costs way more money to conduct a military operation overseas than to conduct one within a country in which most of your military bases are located. Yeah, I'm sure it would be comparatively cheap to occupy the American people lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Incidentally, we are fighting with our hands tied in the ME due to ethics. I doubt a totalitarian government would have that problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The point is that the difference in dead combatants was irrelevant. The military doesn't view body count as a view of effectiveness. If it were the state of our occupation overseas would be ringing a very different tune. but we don't care about what the military thinks. we care about whether throwing dead bodies as a form of armed resistance is effective. No I don't read every post you make and worship the ground you walk on. If you want me to read a link you post you should post it in your response. well that's too bad that you have the habit of jumping into a discussion without reading what has previously been said Yeah, I'm sure it would be comparatively cheap to occupy the American people lol right so why are we comparing fictional paranoid totalitarian occupation to real overseas occupation again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.