Seems somebody at the Miami Herald wants you dead

theirontower · 11-03-2006, 08:37 PM

Werent there some studies done in the 70s or 80s by KGB or some other Russian organization stating that while they felt they could handle the US military if they wanted to attack America, the population was to well armed to hold the territory they could take?

I don't know if having a gun or not having a gun makes a difference when it comes to crime, Ive never been a criminal or the victim of a violent or gun based crime myself. But from a criminals perspective wouldn't the throught process between "Should I" and "I will" be a bit longer and more involved if the threat of return violence is immediate?

IE if as a criminal I was looking for a place to setup shop for say, burglery, would I consider a place like Texas where its more likely Ill run into an armed citizen willing to fight, or would I rather go somewhere its not as likely? Just the fact that they would have to walk that line of thought through would hopefully persaude a few of them its not worth it.

One thing I noticed in the thread, just as an FYI, as a national champion debater, when your opponent sinks to verbal attacks and name calling, you've won. Most people with any brain will stop paying attention to someone who stoops to that, so beware your own arrogance. Be open the to the thought process's and idea's of others.

" The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about non-essentials. This is sound law and custom. It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity-one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it." Aristotle's Rhetoric

How about some reference to Logical Fallacies, which abound in this thread.

Steve

theirontower · 11-03-2006, 08:41 PM

"Most of our energy goes into upholding our importance...

If we were capable of losing some of that importance, two extraordinary things would happen to us. One, we would free our energy from trying to maintain the illusory idea of our grandeur; and two, we would provide ourselves with enough energy to...catch a glimpse of the actual grandeur of the universe." Carlos Castaneda

--to me this is the answer to the koan about a tree falling in the woods with no one around. The sheer arrogance of the question points to the answer--

"Self-righteous morality is jealousy with a halo" HG Wells

"Self righteousness is a mask for hypocrisy and self importance." Carlos Castaneda

11-03-2006, 08:37 PM	#1
theirontower Fellow-Commoner Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10	Werent there some studies done in the 70s or 80s by KGB or some other Russian organization stating that while they felt they could handle the US military if they wanted to attack America, the population was to well armed to hold the territory they could take? I don't know if having a gun or not having a gun makes a difference when it comes to crime, Ive never been a criminal or the victim of a violent or gun based crime myself. But from a criminals perspective wouldn't the throught process between "Should I" and "I will" be a bit longer and more involved if the threat of return violence is immediate? IE if as a criminal I was looking for a place to setup shop for say, burglery, would I consider a place like Texas where its more likely Ill run into an armed citizen willing to fight, or would I rather go somewhere its not as likely? Just the fact that they would have to walk that line of thought through would hopefully persaude a few of them its not worth it. One thing I noticed in the thread, just as an FYI, as a national champion debater, when your opponent sinks to verbal attacks and name calling, you've won. Most people with any brain will stop paying attention to someone who stoops to that, so beware your own arrogance. Be open the to the thought process's and idea's of others. " The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about non-essentials. This is sound law and custom. It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity-one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it." Aristotle's Rhetoric How about some reference to Logical Fallacies, which abound in this thread. Steve

11-03-2006, 08:41 PM	#2
theirontower Fellow-Commoner Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10	"Most of our energy goes into upholding our importance... If we were capable of losing some of that importance, two extraordinary things would happen to us. One, we would free our energy from trying to maintain the illusory idea of our grandeur; and two, we would provide ourselves with enough energy to...catch a glimpse of the actual grandeur of the universe." Carlos Castaneda --to me this is the answer to the koan about a tree falling in the woods with no one around. The sheer arrogance of the question points to the answer-- "Self-righteous morality is jealousy with a halo" HG Wells "Self righteousness is a mask for hypocrisy and self importance." Carlos Castaneda

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)