lcorbin at rawbw.com
Wed Mar 25 06:02:41 UTC 2009
> The problem with the Oakland guy isn't all that he's violent. He had an
> antagonistic relationship with the police.
My god. I suppose that you'd claim wolves aren't
violent towards cattle, it's just that they have
a natural antagonistic relationship with them.
This is a tendentious use of language if I ever
Next will you say that Exxon executives don't steal,
they just have an acquisitive nature towards their
> Many do. If you think cops
> will imprison or kill you or your friends, you may feel morally
> obligated to dole out the fifteen cent bullets.
Somehow, I simply doubt that this guy was just
trying to make a statement. He was trying to get
away, and these cops were in his way. You're very
likely an enemy of our whole society if you think
that he was morally obligated to start shooting.
Is that what you would have done? Is that what you
will do the next time you see a cop car trying to
pull you over? No? Why not?
> Same with tribes committing genocide over limited space and resources.
Actually, I like that. Here, you are quite right, in
my opinion. The gangs are trying to take over from us,
and they don't see anything wrong with genocide. As for
me, I too see nothing wrong with *our* perpetrating
genocide against them. So---here is the big question
for you: if people like me want to eliminate the gangs,
and the gangs want to eliminate people like me who
abide under our laws, whose side are you on?
> The problem would go unsolved if one simply prescribes Oxy-Happynol to
> the deranged and aggressive.
> To say someone is bad is usually indicating a poor set of strategies for
> solving problems and an unhealthy fixation on vengeance.
Well, merely saying someone is "bad" is not very informative, true.
But it does go part way towards expressing an attitude. I
think murderous dangerous animals like that Oakland
shooter need to be hunted down and slaughtered. Somehow,
I gather that you have more sympathy for the Oakland killer
who slaughtered the police officers than you would have if
the tables were turned, and some police officer had killed
four gang members. Am I right?
> I think until we can redesign society,
Of course, nobody can redesign society without making a
total mess. Or do you think that someone can come along
who is way, way smarter than Lenin, Pot Pol, Hitler, or
Mao? Is it a case that redesigning societies has always
failed, but only because the right guy didn't do it?
> mind control is the best we can
> do to keep our uncivilized billions from obliterating one another.
> Unfortunately, the puppet masters are also uncivilized.
Mind control is also mere science fiction.
More information about the extropy-chat