Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    Jul 29, 2016
    Oh look at our virtue signaling we are so great at doing NOTHING. Idiots.

    Seizure of property. That's commie talk. Damn Commie's.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  2. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Na na na! The means or production doesn't mean you have no ownership or property rights or possibility as individual to make a profit. It's simply the question if natural resources, like land, coal, rivers etc. can be actually owned by someone or if they are a public good, like a national park to give some example and thus what ever profit is created trough it should also be to the benefit of the people. That doesn't mean a man or company who harvests crops trough his own labour or who's fishing in a river isn't entitled to the fruits of his labour or that he isn't allowed to own his own company/business.
    But should for example one person have the right to own whole rivers or coal mines and get access to the profits from it simply due to this ownership while other people work on that land or in those coal mines? Natural resources are well, simply there no human placed them there or did anything to create those natural resources. We merely harvest them and make use of them trough our labour which then gives them some form of value be it in the form of food or resources we gain for our lives like burning coal to generate heat during the winter or as product for our industrial process.

    And yes this is commie talk. I am more of a commie then conservative that much for sure. So when I say, you do not have a commie as democrat you can believe me. Or well don't, because I am a "commie" and we always lie. I mean that's common knowledge, right?
     
  3. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    Jul 29, 2016
    Yeah but you were talking about nationalizing facebook, etc. That's out right property seizure as they are not natural resources. And yes I believe that people can own natural resources. The farmer should own the food he grows and harvests, a lumberjack should own the trees he cuts on his property, and yes the owner of a coal mine has put extensive capital investment in to be able to mine those resources. Plus almost everything the government touches they fuck up so the less they have to do with stuff the better! I mean I work for the government I know how much they fuck up...….
     
  4. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Data and information is becoming like a resources at this point. Billions of dollars are generated each year. But even more importantly social networks, not necessarily Facebook alone, are becoming an increasing factor in our societies.

    I don't believe we will really see a nationalisation of Facebook any time but we have to kinda talk about the influence companies like Facebook have on the people as Facebook has somewhat of a monopoly here. And they are a company lead by a relatively small number of people. There is no elected leadership here or any democratic structure. But It's not my intention to start a discussion. It's somewhat philosophical anyway.

    And they do. The moment the famer harvests his food and the moment the lumberjack cuts down the tree, it's theirs. See this concept of "ownership" is actually relatively new. For the longest part of our human history we didn't really have a sense of owning anything that was around us. Humans have been around for more than 30.000 years and I doubt the prehistoric human had a sense of "their" land. People would hunt, eat, sleep where very they wanted. And if someone else was around they would either share their turfs or beat each other to death.

    Anyway my intention isn't to say no one should own land or what ever I hope you understand I was only outlying a sort of basis and general question here. That's unrealistic in our modern societies which do require the ownership of those things or we would get all sorts of problems. I mean what you do is to apply a strictly capitalist thinking where private ownership of everything should be possible, which is fine I guess.

    But with saying that I do believe that it shouldn't stop us from coming up with alternatives, different ways of thinking and also handling things. Take Sweden for example. I know, I know it's a socialist dictatorship lead by stalinist women working in the background destroying the viking society by introducing male muslims. But consider this, in Sweden no company owns their oil fields. They only have the licence to actually mine it. The state, represented by the people in this case, is the owner. Hence they have a large leverage here.

    In Germany we have historical examples of companies and institutions which do not fall either under state ownership nor strictly private ownership. The idea of cooperative business. We have it for Banks (Raiffeisen), very often for housing and even one large company that's working as cooperative.

    All I am saying is, there isn't just one model how things can work.

    So what do you think about the industrial owner of the coal factory who says, workers shouldn't be even paid the minimum living wage because this would only spoil the workers as they are not entitled to anything they do since they are not the owners of anything.
     
  5. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    Jul 29, 2016
    Well I would agree that facebook is shit.


    Well that is what happens when you infringe on someone elses ownership of there turf.

    We do much the same for our oil fields in Canada. And it seems fine when the government owns the land above the resources. But when it is on private land there are always arbitration processes going on due to the confusion of 2 people having a right to the land now. As an ex-oilfield surveyor its even gotten me shot at by land owners so yeah, not such a great system for those that own the land.

    Just saying it sounds like the economic system that historically ended in 1945, where private owners may have owned the companies, but the state (and not a very good one) dictated to the owners what and how much they could produce.

    Your right its just that capitalism has worked better and produced more wealth and a higher standard of living for individuals over any other system that has been created yet. Including you quasi comusocialism thingy.


    Easy watch there company fail and the owner go bankrupt as all the workers refuse to work there any longer. The market will correct it, if the government did not intervene.
     
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    There is a history for it in Germany though which goes as far back as the 18th century. So cooperatives are pretty normal around here.

    I tend to agree. It actually did.

    The important aspects are as often is in the details. It generated wealth and increased the standard for living. But for whom exactly? Everyone? Or just a few? And at which point did actually increase the wealth? The moment it was established? Or only after massive protests and times of civil unrest. As we've seen plenty of them during the industrial revolution where people demanded a sort of redistribution trough social reforms, worker unions and so on. Yes capitalism can generate a lot of wealth. But there is no natural law which says that it has to benefit everyone.

    It's easy to look at those that are successful in a capitalist environment throw your hands in the air and declare a victory of the systems. However we can not ignore the flaws which do exist in every system. Because if we recognise those flaws we can look at them and try to find out if there might not be ways to actually improve on it so that more people can benefit and less people fail. The point is not throw out the baby with the bath water and install some kind of socialist dictatorship here which simply combines the worst of capitalism and state authority. However I would say this capitalism if we only look at the raw numbers is at the moment failing a lot of Americans and also parts of Europe right now which face increasing prices and stagnating incomes while we're looking at a growing GDP and stock market - which is by the way a terrible way to measure public wealth. The so called middle class is disappearing.

    I say on a macroeconomic scope capitalism is a wonderful thing! But on the microscopic scale terrible and only somewhat useful with strong governments which actually do the redistribution of the generated profits. I mean even if you follow Adam Smith you will find him arguing in favour of a government which keeps everything somewhat in check. Because he knew the merchant or trader couldn't be trusted to make decisions in the interest of society which isn't his task as his task is to make a profit which is as large as possible. But this can often happen at the expenses of others. Be it workers or other merchants which are now exploited.

    Besides another point we have to consider is what we actually see as worthwhile wealth and standard of living as it's becoming awfully clear that if every person would right now enjoy the wealth the average American has this planet would be fucked by tomorrow.

    That's not what happend during the industrial revolution though. Not the market corrected it, governments did under the pressure of the workers. We had famines and riots in Germany with weavers, coal and iron workers during the 18th century because of it many of them died. Didn't really change much. The companies continued with their practises till the government actually stepped in said at some point you know you should do something here and forced business to stop with the worst practises paying their workers somewhat fair wages while giving also lowering the hours they work. Not unlike what we see in some countries today where union leaders are killed like in South America or India.
     
  7. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 26, 2007
    Why should it do that for everyone?
    ...as opposed to just those who go to work and sell their skills, or vend products?
    IE. those people who work, rather than expect a free meal.
     
  8. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    Raving commie on the loose, somebody toss a net at him!
     
  9. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I find this question somewhat confusing to be honest. I have difficulties to understand what you're trying to tell me. So I am afraid that I can not give a short answer really - well since when did I ever?

    It's in my opinion a somewhat ideological question which depends on your outlook on life in general - which is neither a god nor bad thing really just saying. You could as well ask why we don't euthanise handicapped people or why we don't abort every child with a defect like autism or down syndrome or why we don't put simply everyone to sleep who's to old to generate his own income or can't do it due to some accident. One could argue many of those people have no hope of ever achieving any wealth in a capitalist society and are actually only a strain for others even if they see them as their loved ones.


    ^
    American way of life?

    You could certainly build a society on the principle that only those that can actually generate their own income have a right to existence. And many societies did work based on that principle even in America if only for a short period. >ou can find excavations today where early settlers used to eat their own relatives because of a harsh winter. Or the Spartan society a warrior society which used to kill their infants with birth defects for example. I am not saying this is what you're intending or what you try to tell me here with your question. But I personally believe that we should not only aim to better our selfs with everything we do but also make a better society for everyone or at the very least try to achieve it a society which truly uplifts people.

    But sorry to say it that way I simply find your question to simplistic when it comes to such a complex issue that's touching so many lives. I could as well ask why should it not? But then we wouldn't move in any direction really and honestly I find that boring. And I would say it doesn't necessarily matter in the end. I mean if we simply look at the current situation which is the important part here we see right now that more and more people are actually failing in this current system. At which point do we decide if the issue is in the system and less the individuals? Do 50% of the population have to live in poverty? Or 70% or 90% before we actually recognize that maybe something is not working right here and we should find ways to fix it.

    If you ask me this reflex to find the issue with the individual first before asking other questions is a perspective which is somewhat unique to the American society which I guess has historic reasons from a time when most American communities have been for the most part survivalists. You are a culture which has their roots in colonisation a culture of 'doers' and 'inventors'. The people of the 17th century simply had to be. But the negative side is that you are today so focused on the achievements of the individual and so quick to blame your self that you have millions of Americans which can't even admit that a middle class where people need two jobs just to come by isn't really a middle class anymore. The federal reserve household economic survey asked the question if you had a 400$ emergency could you meet that emergency. And 47% of the respondeds said no without either borrowing the money or to sell something. Hell I would consider my self poor but even I could meet an emergency of 400$. How comes the 'lower class' in Germany has still more financial stability compared to maybe half of Americans?

    Poverty is increasing and American households are seeing their incomes declining for decades now while the GDP and economy is growing.

    Quote :
    America is declining, in large and important measures, yet policymakers aren’t paying attention. So argues a new academic paper, pulling together previously published data.

    Consider this:

    • America’s child poverty levels are worse than in any developed country anywhere, including Greece, devastated by a euro crisis, and eastern European nations such as Poland, Lithuania and Estonia.
    • Median adult wealth in the US ($39,000) is 27th globally, putting it behind Cyprus, Taiwan, and Ireland.
    • Even when “life satisfaction” is measured, America ranks #12, behind Israel, Sweden and Australia.
    Who says hard work and wealth are related in a capitalist system? Not every profession or even intensive labour grants you a good or high income nor does it mean you have to become wealthy. Besides our societies have a very narrow definition when it comes to labour. I would make the argument there are a lot of skill sets out there which make it very difficult if not outright impossible to make a decent income. Simply because it is not what the society, what we deem as worthwhile enough to pay some 'income' so to speak. Like a mother staying at home raising her child for example. Or someone who's taking care of their sick parents.

    Correct me if I am wrong but you see it like a market where people sell their skills and labour right? You might be surprised that Marx described the situation he observed in the 18th century in a very similar manner. If we really want to see what a completely free and unregulated market looks like for the majority of people we simply have to take a look the industrial revolution with it's workforce slaving away in steel mills, coal mines and weaving mills at wages that allow barely any survival.

    This is what it would look if it was truly a free market where people sell their skills. It lead to people forming unions which have been crushed by the business and only once the governments steped in to avoid any civil unrest and even possible revolutions did things improve. Like the modern well fare state implemented by Otto von Bismarck during the 1880s. The dire situation of the working force couldn't be simply ignored anymore. It was not the business owners who granted social improvements it was the state with laws.

    I quote :
    Bismarck worked closely with large industry and aimed to stimulate German economic growth by giving workers greater security.[95] A secondary concern was trumping the Socialists, who had no welfare proposals of their own and opposed Bismarck's. Bismarck especially listened to Hermann Wagener and Theodor Lohmann, advisers who persuaded him to give workers a corporate status in the legal and political structures of the new German state.[96] In March 1884, Bismarck declared:
    The real grievance of the worker is the insecurity of his existence; he is not sure that he will always have work, he is not sure that he will always be healthy, and he foresees that he will one day be old and unfit to work. If he falls into poverty, even if only through a prolonged illness, he is then completely helpless, left to his own devices, and society does not currently recognize any real obligation towards him beyond the usual help for the poor, even if he has been working all the time ever so faithfully and diligently. The usual help for the poor, however, leaves a lot to be desired, especially in large cities, where it is very much worse than in the country


    Any moral argument aside on why we should not let people starve we should maybe support them unconditionally because it is the cheapest and safest option to keep people from becoming criminals. You get less riots, less lootings, less violence and so on. I would even make the argument that it will lower the number of school shootings if people have less existential fear.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  10. Squadcar

    Squadcar Vault Senior Citizen

    Jun 1, 2018
    Shit on communism all you want but none of these systems are perfect on their own. Capitalism has plenty of its own flaws. And you can't really flaunt that a system all about selling your skills and hard work is great when families have inherited wealth for generations without doing much themselves besides making sure those who they hire don't cause them to lose money.

    "If hard work pays, show me a rich donkey."

    I'm all for learning trades, skills, professions and working hard. But what's that worth when you aren't rewarded appropriately? Is it really so bad that people want to work hard for 40 hours a week and live comfortably when they're in a first world nation?

    A completely free market wouldn't be something I can see most people actually wanting. I tend to think that laws preventing monopolies, enforcing minimum wages, overtime laws, etc. are kinda against letting the market figure things out for themselves. A freer market is good, just like an open mind. But too much open mindness and your brain might fall out.
     
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I really urge everyone to read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith on this subject and the free market. I think he was a very intelligent thinker when it comes to such economic questions - albeit a bit dated of course.
     
  12. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 26, 2007
    That's not man-made—that is fundamentally how the world works from the [microbes in the] ground upwards.

    Is it the important part? At which point do we decide that success by a certain means is unacceptable? You can have a colony that feeds itself as cannibals rather than as farmers—or even game hunters; it's quite obviously less work. Or they could be a bandit camp; robbing anyone unlucky enough to encounter them—that's a path to success, and easy wealth; technically. They could even offer the neighboring settlements a payment plan, that they don't resort to robbing them so long as they pay tribute every week.

    Or they could develop a product (or service) to become indispensable, and thus funded for life; so long as their services are preferred. In this case 'services' could be as simple as dishwashing, or as complex as AI development; with hip replacements, and pop-song writing somewhere in between.

    But not professional (and/or aggressive) loitering...aka: pan-handling.


    There is no negative side to that. Can you express a positive side to a culture of 'non-doers' and 'non-inventors'?
    (Of course not)

    This is all true, and it's the problem of those who want to eat. What this means is that one cannot frivolously endeavor to be a fulltime buggy whip maker, a fletcher, or a professional yodeler unless they can find a market that pays them for it—or it won't pay their bills; and until it does, it has to be a hobby. Yes this means a medical doctor in Cuba might have to pay their rent as a cab driver, or that a PHD in Liberal Studies would likely need to develop a more practical/ marketable skill set unless their family can (and is willing to) support them—until someone else does.


    Life is not free; everything comes at a cost. When a society unwisely allows a loafing culture, it is what leads to useless tent cities and streets littered with human feces. Look at San Francisco & California—hell... I don't have to look beyond the New Orleans' own Central Business District; we have had tent cities entrenched there for fifteen years! It's pathetic, and makes one ashamed to share a common species with a mentality like that. They choose that life. They want nothing but creature comforts—at another's expense.

    I quote : After the return of John Smith to Jamestown [him finding it full of layabouts and louts]:
    Jamestown.png

    That's not good enough; and is no excuse. That is paying to live under threat; amidst people who are already criminal.

     
  13. TorontRayne

    TorontRayne Super Eye Patch Man Staff Member Moderator Orderite

    Apr 1, 2005




    If you are a gun lover, you are obviously a moron that should not be listened to. Sitting behind the computer screen is the true test of knowledge.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  14. Squadcar

    Squadcar Vault Senior Citizen

    Jun 1, 2018
    Shouldn't that also include arguing with people online who will never change their minds as well?

    Kinda curious if anyone has ever changed someone's mind when it comes to anything considered political on any online forum, board, social media, etc.
     
  15. TorontRayne

    TorontRayne Super Eye Patch Man Staff Member Moderator Orderite

    Apr 1, 2005
    That is why you never seek to change their mind. You say what you want to say and move on. That other person is ultimately pointless when others can learn from you due to not having their minds made up yet.







    Transparent.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  16. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    There is difference though. We kinda are not microbes.

    Apparantly so. When I talk with people about my delusional commie dreams they often enough remind me that we're not living in this reality of mine that is our current present. I mean we can talk all day long about what an ideal society should look like or what you or I personally see as a good one. I mean everyone is a philosopher till shit hits the fan. At the end of the day what matters is what happens right now and what will happen in the future.


    we simply don't? If a community lives happily as cannibals for thousands of years which some do that's their thing. But again we do not live in this kind of society. We have only the one we're living in and this is the one we have to work with. It was never a completely free market economy and it most probably never will be. That's my point. But what we can see is a historical evolution of a society with less regulations and less government interference gaining wealthy trough more social regulations.

    Besides you Americans have also this interesting view point where you mostly measure success in terms of money and income. As a society that is. You rarely if ever ask the question what's necessary for living a happy and fulfilling live. Surveys show that money and wealth do not lead necessarily to more happiness in your life this seems only to work to a certain point where you don't have to worry about your basic needs anymore. But above that point? What ever if you own 1 million or 1 billion dollars doesn't seem to have any impact on what ever if you live a good live.

    it wasn't my intention to go about positive or negative traits in that aspects. Just more an observation on my part about the cultural differences. How you approach problems as a society you know. It is really more about consequences. Don't get me wrong the "European" or to be more specific the German way of life isn't necessarily better or worse. It's simply a different approach at things. But if you want a negative effect in my opinion? That you Americans tend to collectively ignore systemic issues which do exist. And you favour personal responsibility over regulations/authority here. We Europeans tend to have an easier time to accept authority in some respects. I mean imagine if the US would get rid of all traffic laws with the argument to boost personal responsibility. People should drive simply more carefully. I mean that would be crazy from a rational stand point. Because there are a ton of people out there which drive only carefully because there are laws that force them to do it and because they have to get a driver licence which they can loose if they are caught. Self regulation doesn't work in every case. That's simply not how modern societies like ours work.

    Cuba is an extreme though at least in my view. Not everything has to be about extremes nor did I say we have to follow a Cuban model of life. Again all I am saying is if I have to chose between someone sitting at his console all day or selling drugs. I would want him to sit at the console. Not because I like him or don't like him. But because we've seen time and time again what happens when you leave to many people starving out there. Homelessness is another example. It costs a community way more to deal with the homeless compared to just giving them homes. Even if you make laws against homelessness because now someone has to get out there, check on them, get them in custody or out of the town and so on and so forth. Do you know why most dictatorships fall apart? They become to expensive at some point.

    Without the intention to attack you but I vaguely remember that you support laws against loitering. But why? In a completely free market economy and without any regulations homeless people should certainly have the right to spend their time where ever they want. I always feel like you simply don't want to see the consequences of the capitalist system around you for the lack of better words. And if someone stands out like a sore thumb in this system it's the homeless people.

    So you do agree that no one should inherit something? Good idea Gizmo! Warren Buffet for example said if I remember correctly that he's not going to hand down his billions to his children.

    Seriously though, yes I agree with you but maybe we should not put this thought to the extremes I do not believe it will lead us in a direction that you will support. Because you get already a lot of things for free you never "deserved" so to speak. Like your citizenship for example or your right to vote or what ever else is written in the constitution. You did absolutely nothing for those privileges except that you had the luck to be born by parents which happend to be in the right country which grants you those privileges which at some point someone in history declared as god given unalterable rights which the founding fathers held as self evident. But in truth they aren't self evident. For a large part of our recorded history humans lived in some sort of hierarchies with kings, nobilities, dictators, tyrants call it what you want. Most of the time only a relatively small group of people actually enjoyed the kind of liberties we see as self evident today. Like the right to vote or even to own land. With a king around? You can't own land. It's his land. All of it. Officially by god. You just have the right to work on it as a peasant. And when your lord, or the king decides you're out then you're out. No court or anything. That's what feudalism was about.

    As our societies progressed those privileges have been expanded to more and more people. From kings to peasants, from slave owners to slaves, from men to women, from heterosexuals to homosexuals and so on. Maybe we simply are near a point where we will expand those privileges again where we say, ok everyone regardless who has a right to a live in dignity which includes food and shelter regardless what profession they follow. Why? Because they are citizens and we see it as self evident. The German constitution contains it. Actually everyone has a right to a live in dignity and to a minimum which allows him to exist in this society.

    Is this the right way for everyone? No I wouldn't say that. Only you Americans can decide if that is something for you. I am not trying to convince you. Just to have an open mind about alternatives.

    Here is I think a good message for you. Humans are by nature not loafers or lazy. We simply tend to hate stuff where we see no meaning in which bores us and then we tend to become lazy. I have yet to meet someone who's not interested in something at the very least. Because honestly if you know someone who's really a loafer - I don't know what that means in detail for you, it could very well be that he has severe psychological issues. If it was really a human trait to be lazy we would have died out already. All lazy species, safe for the sloth which is also not lazy it's just a joke from my part, have actually disappeared from nature. I worked with a lot of troubled teenagers over the years where people would often describe them as "lazy" and "loafers". The trick was to find out what motivates them. And this is simply put for everyone different. Now you can't make a career out of everything but if you really want to teach people copying skills and this is what we're really talking about here actually you have to get them somehow in the hope that this motivation will carry over to other skill sets and areas of interest. But the moment you call someone a loafer or lazy or what ever you loose them. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't be harsh! But if you push people over their braking point things can become ugly. They can become criminals. Bullies. School shooters.

    Everyone human being out there has motivation if they don't then there is most likely something wrong. No child on this planet is born without curiosity which is one of the strongest force for motivation learning new things is exciting. So a child without curiosity? That doesn't exist. A child without curiosity would die because it is such a crucial skill for our survival that it's really a part of our DNA. When 2 year old sits around and constantly throws a cup of the table while it's laughing? It's experimenting, observing and learning. When I used to work in day care it was a clear sign that a child had issues if it wasn't observing one way or another it's surroundings. Do you know when this natural born curiosity stops? The moment children come in to the school. It's crazy. The number of questions children ask drops dramatically. What I am trying to say is that we should maybe try not to see things just from one perspective.

    Not so much a threat as more a fact of live I would say.

    Treat someone like a dog and he will bite one day. History I think is on my side in this one. The French revolution, tsarist Russia hell even the US with their riots for example. They are all manifestations of a larger frustration if we talk about societies now. Remember? If they have no bread, let them eat cake, peace to huts, war to palaces and so on. And suddenly you end up with violent mobs which bash the heads of the nobility against walls or torture them by ripping their nails out etc. Yes this all happend during the French revolution and worse particularly the first days have been exceptional in brutality. What I am talking about is social stability. Sure you can decide to leave everyone who's not willing to work for a living in the gutter. But will it lead to a better outcome for you personally? Unless you propose that we send also everyone who's loafing and not working into a prison or labour camp I don't think there is any realistic way how you will prevent civil unrests on a massive scale when people are meet with existential crises in increasing numbers. My experience is that those people see it just like you do. But from the opposite direction. And here is how. That society is threatening THEM. Either do as we say and adhere to our rules where we define what you have to do and work, or fuck off and live as a bum! It's all your fault. This is another very ugly form of victim mentality. And then people act surprised when such a kid which never learned how to deal with frustration and anger in his live and grew up with the idea of entitlement is lashing out at society and starting to take a hand gun or rifle and fucking everyone and everything up. This is the microscopic effect of a larger issue in our society which gives people conflicting rules to live by where we define success by how much money and wealth we have and where consumerism is the expression of it while at the same time we tell people they have to actually accomplish their life long dreams. But those students are not stupid. They see them self as losers and they believe they will never accomplish anything in life. America my friend is dealing with a major depression and paradox here. And the growing opiate epidemic? Why do you think this happens so often among white supposedly middle class families? We can observe how many of the issues which have been usually unique to poor minorities like drug abuse, increasing violence (particularly gun violence) is now making it's way in the suburbian predominantly white cultures for the lack of better words which have been used in their standards of living to grow since the mid 1950s. But this is now kind of collapsing and people start to feel the cracks everywhere. For the first time a lot of people have the feeling their children will be worse off than they or their parents have been. People loosing their jobs, stagnating wages, whole towns that loose what defined them for decades. I am not saying this is directly comparable but for someone who has been dealing with depressions and anxiety since well I can remember as a child it doesn't surprise me even one bit that a lot of young people and adults take out their guns at the society they feel treats them like shit. Aggression and hate particularly resentment are one way to deal with depressions and anxiety you know - I've been at some very dark places in my mind in the past. And I am afraid Giz you will not solve this issue by simply telling people to shut up and suck it up. It will just make it worse.

    I am not saying my way or the highway or that it's the solution to everything. But seriously we have tried so many stuff in the past. Why not give it a shot? Give people their dignity by not making them worry about if they will have enough on their plate or a full fridge. Where they can make their own decisions without someone telling them what to do.
     
  17. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    Holy shit with the relentless, sanctimonious sermons.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  18. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Truly Disgusting Specimen

    Jun 25, 2018
    @Cimmerian Nights well hey there! Haven’t seen you around in awhile.

    And tbh, I dunno about gun control still. Pro-gungrabbers can try to commit the argumentative fallacy of appeal to emotion all they want, knee jerk reactions don’t solve things. Everyone is “fuck yeah, rarara” until something goes wrong, at which point we all collectively lose our shit and want someone else to take over and solve our problems because we’re too afraid to.

    No one will save you but yourself. And that’s not paranoia, it’s the truth. Because at the end of the day no matter how compassionate a government representative is, they’re still incapable of truly caring about every last citizen; and they thus have their own motivations outside the common good. It’s all a game, and we’re pawns. The problem isn’t pro or anti gun, it’s whether we choose to remain pawns or not.
     
  19. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    You still are.

    That's how you think communism works? One political party in control of natural resources and property seized from general public totally not telling you what to do?
     
  20. Squadcar

    Squadcar Vault Senior Citizen

    Jun 1, 2018
    Why does it have to be strictly communism? That bit at the end doesn't say, "Bring on the communistic state!" Couldn't we possibly have some regulation and some freedoms in the market as workers and businesses? Couldn't there be a healthy balance that still rewards ingenuity and smart, hard work while not leaving people who do labor and skilled labor struggling?

    I'm fine with someone inventing something new, playing the market well, expanding business intelligently, etc. and being rewarded well for it. I'm not fine when it involves people working for wages that cannot support the costs of basic needs and living in that area.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2