As per usual I'm gonna leave an unrelated comment and a video to lighten the mood and look at things from different perspective. 
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQUr2RkjykU
General / Off-Topic ......and down we go, into the rabbit hole!
- Thread starter lysan
- Start date
No it's not because that's fascism.
What about these guys:
Nonviolent resistance - Wikipedia
All violence proves is that humankind has not really progressed beyond our animal nature (my opinion).
Sure, I absolutely agree with this which is why I helpfully narrowed the conversation focus. The interesting part is how many people support Antifa (looks like @Robin of Spiritwood was earlier on this thread) proudly proclaiming their stance against facism, but when you look at video of how that groups operate they come off like a bunch of jack booted thugs using violence to suppress speech. Interestingly in America, the left still desperately clings to the myth that these are the "good guys" and seemingly supports the idea that some speech is hateful enough to warrant the use of violence to shut it down.
Left or right, suppression of speech and the use of violence is in my world a line one should not cross.
In the US all the amendments ensure a life in freedom and pursuit of liberty.
However these same amendments has been eroded during the last 4 decades and they are now under constant attack.
Hong Kong is another example, peaceful demonstration are suppressed by a system that in its core is an authoritarian system, and we see the escalation of violence, it will in both cases not end well as it’s a pressure cook where the valve is stuck.
If I'm honest. I have sometimes wondered how a democratic government is supposed to bring about the kind of changes that some people say is necessary to prevent a climate disaster. It seems to me that if you want to take away everyone's cars, foreign holidays, central heating, convenient packaging and so on and so forth you're going to need to convince everyone that this is for the best, against someone else who's simply telling people what they want to hear & that it isn't necessary. Arguably democracy and freedom will lead us to self-indulgence and diluted responsibility and from there to disaster.
I think it's ironic that the political left - traditionally all about liberalism and democracy - is also concerned about the environment that might only be preserved by becoming illiberal, prescriptive and controlling. It's a fundamental dichotomy. I can see this, but I absolutely don't have an answer for it.
I think it's ironic that the political left - traditionally all about liberalism and democracy - is also concerned about the environment that might only be preserved by becoming illiberal, prescriptive and controlling. It's a fundamental dichotomy. I can see this, but I absolutely don't have an answer for it.
Maybe do a global survey of people in all countries ?
1) Do you want to continue with the current system and sacrifice the life of your descendants until the extinction ?
2) Are you ready to make sacrifices in your present life to perpetuate the existence of your descendants in a tolerable life ?
luckily we don’t have a world government .... yet.Maybe do a global survey of people in all countries ?
1) Do you want to continue with the current system and sacrifice the life of your descendants until the extinction ?
2) Are you ready to make sacrifices in your present life to perpetuate the existence of your descendants in a tolerable life ?
And suppression, restrictions and everything that’s comes with it will only lead to, resistance rebellion and war.
USSR, Hong Kong, Venezuela just to name a few, all tried to change people using force, it won’t work. We haven been down this road so manny times and it ALWAYS ends in a violent conflict.
Well...…… it'll solve the over-population issues. As long as they use lead-free bullets and hybrid tanks it should be fine.
Joking asside. I actually suspect this to be the likely future of the human race. When resources get too low we'll start to fight, when we've culled enough of ourselves that we can live within our means (or rather the means of our planet) we will return to peace. Unless we manage to totally screw the environment with the fighting.
Given that the friendship drive breaks several known, immutable laws of physics it's doubtful it would ever become real. But even if we assume it can, at current use and expansion rates the timeline for getting away from here and colonising space to find additional resources for our species is measured in decades, whereas the development of anything like it is probably measured in centuries. So we can't run away from this one. Machine guns, tanks and tactical nukes are all too real, though.
Violence is a last resort. If people have to use it, society has failed long before.
For my part, in my post, I did not talk about a world government.
I do not see the relationship between a world government and a survey conducted in each nation.
I think I can.
Where I live, the self defense is described as a use of an amount of physical force against other person necessary and sufficient to avert, avoid or prevent an assault on yourself or another person.
Violence on the other hand is described as a use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.
So there is a line between the self defense and violence defined by the amount of force and the intent and they ARE defined as two separate things. Naturally there is a grey area between them and you can easily turn your self defense into an assault by using unreasonable amount of force (Which in our law system is loosely defined as using an attack that causes more harm than it potentially prevents (i.e. don't bring a gun into a knife fight))
So on purely personal level, you actually CAN distinguish between the two.
That reasoning though is pretty much false. Meaning knife is as much deadly as firearm. Both can kill you equally dead. Only reasoning needed in such situations is that if original attack was unlawfull. Meaning for example that you were trying to rob or beat someone, that someone pulled a knife, and you pulled the gun.
There is reason to fear that the restrictions will be imposed by the nature itself.
Currently, I believe that in August 2019 the humanity consumed all the resources that the nature is capable to generate in one year.
And the time is reduced each year.
First of all - any use of a weapon against another person (I'd include animals as well, but to my understanding the kind of an agreement among humans is that it's "kind of okay")
is unlawful by definition.
It's then up the the judge or a jury to decide whether it was justified.
From experience, a knife is actually deadlier than a firearm (meaning a sidearm of reasonable calibre meant for self defense, for example). But "deadlier" isn't the same as "easy to kill with". You can prevent being stabbed relatively easily, while you cannot really prevent being shot.
Point being - using a gun is almost always judged as excessive force, which means self-defense case is off the table. (I know it's different in US, but I was talking about Europe)
Well that depends on whether the user is the aggressor, or the target. Believe me, shouting "I'm a pacifist, it wouldn't be fair to attack me" is not a sound defensive strategy....
That is something we don’t know for sure, however with the current grows in human
population I agree that we will hit the sealing soon, China and India leads in population expansion, they will need to adapt quickly or face the music, however I don’t see why that is my problem?
Yes I'm an European and I know most judicial systems of European countries use that kind of braindead reasoning. Kind of work safety act for criminals. Modern idea of "socialist justice". Old time version was that while one was doing violent crime one was outlaw, meaning out of legal protection. If one got hurt or killed while committing crime, well that was one's own problem.
For deadliness argument even in US your rights for self-defence end when attack ends. So shooting fleeing assailant in back is big no-no. That kind of negates argument of getting shot is way harder to avoid. And as handgun shooting hobbyist I say using a handgun in fast situation is not particularly easy. Especially if you mean to hit with it.
Last edited:
It still works that way. Only there are finer details to consider. If you break an arm of somebody who was trying to mug you, it's self defense. If you shoot a guy who stole a carton of vodka, it's murder.
Be serious. It is directly your problem because you are a part of the community of the humanity.
You cannot escape the fact that you are in the same room as the rest of your species.
In the same boat, whether you like it or not .
In fact in old times it worked kind of that way. In Finland there is saying, "Naurisvarasta ei hirtetä", meaning "you don't hang a beetroot thief.". But when it came to violent attacks, well grandpa of friend of mine shot with rifle (non-lethally) guy who attacked him with ax. Shot to leg deprived attacker from his wants for attack...my friend's grandpa never went to court, police determined that there was no reason to subject him to criminal investigation.
Do such thing nowadays, and even if you get acquitted it is major legal battle....