Stop the ******* school shootings!

Just another sad chapter in the excelating violence between the Amish and Mennonites. Last week it was a buggy by cow pie throwing. Now it's shootings. Next week? Suicide cow bombs?

I already have a reserve window seat to hell. Prepaid tickets. All aboard!
 

Quietus

Diabloii.Net Member
Plaguebearer said:
I suppose I really shouldn't be saying what I'm saying; we're designed to not recognise our leaders as different from ourselves, when in reality our leaders are cast into their roles from birth. We (you) recognise them without realising it. The idea that you were born to be a follower is offensive to you because the illusion of free will is very important.
No, the idea that we’re born into particular roles is offensive because that suggests that some individuals are somehow less important than others. I’ve seen people evolve from being followers into being leaders, and vice versa. Thus, free will. Or perhaps you’re arguing that everything we do is scripted all the way until the end of time, and we have no choice in our actions? That’s a sad, sad world that you live in.

You must have missed the part where I said that too much religion is as bad as too little.
No, I didn’t. However, your arguments suggest that without religion, we will either go “rogueâ€, whatever you mean by that, or we will go insane. By completely religious, I meant that you seem to believe that as a society, we should all attend religious practices, or at the very least seek some sort of divinity.

There are winners and losers in life. "Bullying" is a winning tactic at all ages, though the subtleties begin to develop as we become adults. If bullying is somehow unfair, I wonder what is a fair way to determine who is dominant over whom?
I disagree with this. First of all, bullying is not a winning tactic, unless you’re dealing with spineless people. Anyone capable of standing up for themselves knows this. If you want to bully your way into being a leader, you can only lead as many people as you can bully at one time. Any more than that, and those following you will realize that you’re just annoying, and will overcome you. Bully gone, society better. So much for that bully’s dominance, I guess.
And for the record, I don’t think that we need people who are dominant over others. That’s the idea behind democracy, is it not? We elect those we think will best represent our views, rather than those who will just crush their opponents and make us all follow their will?

No, some do. Most do not. The "rogue state" is a natural state which developed to help us while operation while tribeless. For most people, this just turns into crankyness and irritability.
So we’ll either be cranky and irritable, or insane, if we don’t have religion? Fascinating. I was cranky and irritable when I was following religion. Now that I’ve let it go, I’m a much happier man. I can name a number of people who feel much the same way.
This is correct. Leaders are born. You know who is a leader and who is not on a subconcious level.
And I suppose that you fancy yourself a leader, with all of this tripe that you’re throwing at us? Trying to lecture us in the importance of faith? As … interesting, as your ideas are, I still say that you’re wrong. Our experiences as we go through life build us into the people we are. When I was a child I was the meek, frightened kid that everyone picked on. In my adult life, I’ve grown, developed into a man fully capable of supporting himself, no matter what happens. I’m no longer bullied – I carve my own path, make my own decisions, based on the experiences that I have had. And those that try to bully me get pushed to the side.
I am primarily discussing children. Since they operate less on learned behavior and more on instict, bullying is an unavoidable consequence. As they grow into adults, they learn that proper bullying is a mental and social excercise, not a physical one.
So only children should be excused for physical bullying? It’s okay for a child who has a larger body thanks to genetics to push around those less physically gifted, just because of their size? I hope you never have children, because they’re either going to be terrible kids who bully everyone, or will get mental complexes when they come home crying about how they got bullied, and you have to explain that it’s okay, it’s just the natural order of things.
I really find it very interesting that you are as offended as you say you are. I apolagise for offending you, but ask that you ask yourself; why are you so offended by what I have said in this thread?
My comments were a crude joke referencing your apparent stance, not my actual stance. I have no desire to kill anyone, I assure you, not even people who present ideas so horridly wrong and offensive as some that you’ve put forward. I know full well why I find your ideas so offensive – because I’ve been through life, I’ve experienced religion, and I’ve found myself repulsed by it. I’m a better, happier person without it, and you claim that without it, at best, I’ll be cranky and irritable… at worst, I’ll go insane. Plus, I’m bored, and I enjoy arguing. Even if I know (or at least heavily suspect) that I won’t win an argument against you because you seem like the type to be stubborn and unable to admit when you’re wrong, it makes for mental exercise.
Again, most rogues are sane. Going rogue is a totally natural state, it is simply not optimal for mental health. Without a doubt you would be in better mental health, and more importantly a better servant to society, if you had faith.
This is a good example of why I find your posts offensive. You comment about my mental health as though you know me, which you don’t, and you comment about my service to society, which you know nothing about. I am in wonderful mental health, better than some churchgoers that I’ve met, and I have the advantage that I can reason out which path is the best option without having to ask myself some trite question like “What would Jesus do?†– a good many churchgoers relate to someone else for their sense of morals. I relate to myself, and consider my moral sense to be stronger for it. And perhaps surprisingly, I do more good for my community than the majority of religious people that I know. Go figure.

It's also possible that you are a Leader. However, based on how upset my posts have made you I doubt that.
Awe, that’s almost sweet. I do consider myself to have a few leadership qualities, in fact, though there are certain circumstances under which I would want to lead, and other circumstances where I know I would be inadequate. However, that’s the result of my upbringing, not the result of some random chance lottery that was rolled when I was born. As for upset, well… no, I’m not upset. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but it takes a lot more than some words on a screen to upset me.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Module88 said:
I'm not implying non sequiturs- my responses directly reflect what you say. You mention something about knives, I respond with a post about knives, simply put. If in fact, this whole time, you've agreed with me, then why have you been arguing against what I've been saying? I'm not arguing anything in particular- I'm only refuting yours.
No, you were refuting points you thought I was making but wasn't.

Module88 said:
So were you disagreeing or agreeing? Make up your mind already.
I'm happy to agree with you since none of your points were pertinent to the debate I thought we were having.

Module88 said:
Then you continued because.....?
Continued what? Trying to get a coherent argument out of you?

Module88 said:
So, are you opposed to banning guns based on cosmetic features? I'm curious.
I've never stated my opinion on the banning of guns, all I've done is illustrate to you why your arguments are irrelevant to the debate over which weapons should and should not be banned. Except for the one about knives being equally lethal in a rampage situation, that is demonstrably false. But you seem to agree with me on that one after all.

Module88 said:
Does this count? "Special forces and police train to deal with armed attackers or for crowd control, not innocent bystanders."
Oh, I see. What I was saying is that special forces and police are trained to deal with hostile mobs attacking them, not scared people fleeing them. And they fight in teams.

There's a big difference between police crowd control and a lone gunman on a rampage. The latter does not take skill and training. Anyway, those people who go on gun killing sprees don't expect to survive or escape, they just try to kill as many as they can before being taken down.

Module88 said:
I wasn't blunt with the points. I was just refuting yours. I'd assume you could figure out I'm arguing the opposite of what you are. Though you can't seem to figure out if you agree or disagree, so, maybe you're just confused.
Feel free to go ahead refuting points I'm not making and then looking surprised when I tell you I agree with you.

Module88 said:
Knife killing sprees? You argued that they were asleep. Do you think the same thing would have occured if a firearm was used? I believe in an earlier thread, someone said something about "knife rampages can't occur." I disagree. Where do you stand on the issue?

Knives are deadly. They're more accessible. And they're being used in about 1/3 of the crimes in Britain. If 99% of murders occur with, say, chainsaws, would banning chainsaws from public purchase have an effect? Maybe. Maybe they'll switch to a different weapon. Who knows. But the fact is, it's relevant.
All irrelevant, the critical matter in gun control is how lethal the weapon is, not how available it is. End of story.

And lethality to children or sleeping people doesn't count either, the reason for that is obvious.
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
dondrei said:
No, you were refuting points you thought I was making but wasn't.

I'm happy to agree with you since none of your points were pertinent to the debate I thought we were having.
So what was your point?

Continued what? Trying to get a coherent argument out of you?
Disagreeing.

I've never stated my opinion on the banning of guns, all I've done is illustrate to you why your arguments are irrelevant to the debate over which weapons should and should not be banned. Except for the one about knives being equally lethal in a rampage situation, that is demonstrably false. But you seem to agree with me on that one after all.
Well, all things considered, I think it's pretty safe to say you're anti-gun. You are anti-military and anything related to it in general AFAIK. Furthermore, I've never suggested that knives are equally lethal in killing sprees, rather, that such information can hardly be determined by a few cases. Ultimately none of us have the time or the sources to find out exactly how many people died in x number of attacks and so on. Even if you can come up with 50 cases where guns were more lethal (in a civilian context), that wouldn't be sufficient to prove guns are more lethal definitively. It would certainly suggest they are, but even strong suggestion and theory isn't definitive proof. As such, I pointed out that even if they are less lethal, if more knife attacks occur because they're more common, you have a moot point. You might be in a better position, however, if you argued that guns and knives should be banned because they are involved in 3/4 of murders (or whatever the statistic may be). But to say guns should be banned if they're involved in far fewer crimes and deaths, and knives shouldn't be, seems quite odd to me.

Oh, I see. What I was saying is that special forces and police are trained to deal with hostile mobs attacking them, not scared people fleeing them. And they fight in teams.
First of all, both groups are trained to deal with much more than that. As I mentioned, take hostage rescue. Scared people fleeing away is an issue, as are innocent bystanders. Gunmen or a high value target could EASILY be the ones running with the crowd, trying to seek cover within a mass of people.

Obviously, our guys aren't just going to mow all of them down. If police have an area cordoned off, pretty much everyone will be arrested and questioned, if possible. Most will be set free, others might not be. But police and special units are trained to deal with fleeing people. That person may very well be the gunman who tried to get away or just another guy who bought a donut. You just don't know, which is why everyone is arrested. Even more, such units often don't deal with the large mob attacking them scenario. If anything, they'd be supplementary forces to normal, larger, units taking on that role.

There's a big difference between police crowd control and a lone gunman on a rampage. The latter does not take skill and training. Anyway, those people who go on gun killing sprees don't expect to survive or escape, they just try to kill as many as they can before being taken down.
Believe it or not, some people actually try to commit crimes and get away with them.

All irrelevant, the critical matter in gun control is how lethal the weapon is, not how available it is. End of story.
Gun control where? Australia? Many anti-gun control people don't know the first thing about guns. A gun is no more dangerous than a hammer. Put it in the wrong hands, however, changes that. Banning guns is useless- it doesn't address the reason why people commit crimes in the first place. If everyone could have what they wanted, and everyone had a gun, do you think murders would happen the way they do now? Of course not. Gun control attempts to control the effect of underlying societal factors that result in crime. It doesn't solve the problem.

And lethality to children or sleeping people doesn't count either, the reason for that is obvious.
In that scenario, the knife would have been more lethal than the gun. But that's beside the point. Now we're actually getting somewhere. Don't ruin it.
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
Sokar Rostau said:
Another school shooting today and still you're all going on about gun control not being the answer. Wake up.
Because guns are clearly the cause of crime, and eliminating guns by law will eliminate guns and crime. Wake up.
 

Ikeren

Diabloii.Net Member
I apologize for Inturrupting Dondrei and Module's argument about guns versus knives to look at one of the other ideas put in this thread:

Plaguebearer said:
I suppose I really shouldn't be saying what I'm saying; we're designed to not recognise our leaders as different from ourselves, when in reality our leaders are cast into their roles from birth. We (you) recognise them without realising it. The idea that you were born to be a follower is offensive to you because the illusion of free will is very important.
I am just curious to garner a bit more information regarding your thesis. How are leaders cast in their roles from birth? Is it genetics? Fate? Destiny? How do we recognise leaders, andwhy don't we realize it?

I think you might have something here, but I'd like to see an explanation of why you make these arguments.
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
Ikeren said:
How are leaders cast in their roles from birth?

Because they are part of the bourgeoisie and we are the proletariat and this is typically a birthright not an earned position?
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
Ikeren said:
I am just curious to garner a bit more information regarding your thesis. How are leaders cast in their roles from birth? Is it genetics? Fate? Destiny? How do we recognise leaders, andwhy don't we realize it?
.
I am not sure if it is what he means but it sounds like he is talking about a certain psychological type.
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
HAMC8112 said:
I am not sure if it is what he means but it sounds like he is talking about a certain psychological type.
I'd have to agree. When you meet people, at least, I can tell whether they can lead or not. Some of the characteristics of leadership are just built in. It doesn't mean that people without such attributes can't learn, though.
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
Module88 said:
I'd have to agree. When you meet people, at least, I can tell whether they can lead or not. Some of the characteristics of leadership are just built in. It doesn't mean that people without such attributes can't learn, though.
Jung said in one of his books that most long term succesfull politicians seem to be of the extravert intuitive type. If that was true in his time i'd say the same for 'our' time.
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
HAMC8112 said:
Jung said in one of his books that most long term succesfull politicians seem to be of the extravert intuitive type. If that was true in his time i'd say the same for 'our' time.
Are you saying politicians make great leaders? :shocked:
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
Module88 said:
Are you saying politicians make great leaders? :shocked:
Not really, i just mean to say that politicians that are succesfull in the long term mostly seem to be of the extravert intuitive type. Now people in that position, long term succesfull, they have an ability to play the masses, to fool the people long term. That can not be said about your run of the mill politician.

Also, do not confuse leading people with actually doing good for the masses, most politicians are not in the game for the people.
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
HAMC8112 said:
Not really, i just mean to say that politicians that are succesfull in the long term mostly seem to be of the extravert intuitive type. Now people in that position, long term succesfull, they have an ability to play the masses, to fool the people long term. That can not be said about your run of the mill politician.

Also, do not confuse leading people with actually doing good for the masses, most politicians are not in the game for the people.
I believe we were talking about actual leadership here, not just fooling a a bunch of ignorant people into doing your bidding. What's the relevance if you're not talking about that?
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
Module88 said:
I believe we were talking about actual leadership here, not just fooling a a bunch of ignorant people into doing your bidding. What's the relevance if you're not talking about that?
Do you mean to tell me that leading is unbreakably connected to moral high grounds? Would you conclude than that Hitler was not a leader?

To avoid confusion here, can you name me a couple of leaders that exelled in leadership as you mean it to be? Because i am not sure what that leadership would mean if it is not the kind i speak off.
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
HAMC8112 said:
Do you mean to tell me that leading is unbreakably connected to moral high grounds? Would you conclude than that Hitler was not a leader?
Huh. Where the hell did that come from?

But to answer your question, Hitler was indeed a leader.

To avoid confusion here, can you name me a couple of leaders that exelled in leadership as you mean it to be? Because i am not sure what that leadership would mean if it is not the kind i speak off.
Well, I'm sure the military guys can come up with better examples, but probably the biggest thing outside of that are CEO's (not all of them, obviously) and people like Kennedy, Reagan. Ghandi, King, Mandela. In fact, I think the best leaders are the ones who still lead people even after their passing. Wouldn't you agree?
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
Module88 said:
Well, I'm sure the military guys can come up with better examples, but probably the biggest thing outside of that are CEO's (not all of them, obviously) and people like Kennedy, Reagan. Ghandi, King, Mandela. In fact, I think the best leaders are the ones who still lead people even after their passing. Wouldn't you agree?
To a degree yes.

Would you agree that all the people you mentiion were masters when it came to fooling people?

Take Mandela for example, the man was convicted for hundreds of murders and attempted murders and yet he fooled enough people over time to get the Nobel peace prize.

I am not claiming that fooling people = leading. It is however part of it and more to the point, of all the "great" leaders we have had in history, a lot of them were indeed masters in fooling people. This is not restricted to politicians, great painters and architects, artists are included when i say leaders. People that lead the way in every field thinkable.
 

Ikeren

Diabloii.Net Member
In that case, I would argue that some traits of leadership can be learned, and some traits can be inherent, and that these is some crossover. For example, public speaking is important to leadership - logical argument, sounding reasonable, forming coherent sentences that don't cause you to put your foot in your mouth and have you mocked on an international scale. Some people can do it from birth. Some people have to learn. I would argue most traits are like this in life - the difference between a talent and a skill.
 
Top