Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: ]
    #1017684 -

wiseguy.

I totally agree about the ideas on paper thingo though. like using non violence as a method of changing the world....more like the world around you changes as a mere side-effect of non-violence, but the point is not to change the world but rather to not increase your own suffering through violent actions towards yourself or anyone else?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Traveller]
    #1017930 -

I agree with shroomalicious in reality. Non-violence is the way of the future. It's the only future we have. Pinks ideas belong in the dark ages.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1017980 -

Non-violence is the way of the future. It's the only future we have. Pinks ideas belong in the dark ages.

I guess you'll have a better chance to find out than the rest of us, living in a country where peaceful citizens are being systematically disarmed and left at the mercy of predators. It will be interesting to see if the recent (post-disarmament) trend of rapidly increasing violent crime in England will continue to rise indefinitely.

One way or the other, we will have some EMPIRICAL evidence coming out of England to study rather than having to rely on strictly theory.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
    #1017982 -

I certainly understand your position but there is a decided correlation between defending one's position, which is what you have done thoroughout this entire thread, and defending one's self by physical means.  The inconsistency is slight but it is there nonetheless.

I applaud your decision to make the world a better place through non-violence (which is politically correct in case you hadn't heard).

I take it you do not have people under your protection, like children, for instance.  If you adopt that stance and refuse to defend them, violently if necessary, then you would be a poor parent and worthy to be despised, in a nice way of course. :wink:

However lofty your goal or vision is remember this:

Others who do not share your vision are violent and will use it against you to take what you have.  If you don't mind sharing we'll all get along. :smile:


Cheers, 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Traveller]
    #1017987 -

A very good thought Traveler.

You see, on a philosophical/mystical/metaphysical level I totally agree. In fact you will watch me live out that stance of non-defense right here on this forum. If I find a poster is a combative type I simply do not, as a rule, respond to them. I do this for a couple of reasons.

1. I know I cannot help them perceive correctly.

2. I am wasting their time and mine.

3. Who needs bad karma?

When I am silent I do us both a world of good.

cheers,

Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (11/03/02 09:02 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: ]
    #1018035 -

When I am silent I do us both a world of good.

Not to be combative about this, but I must respectfully disagree on your evaluation of your contributions.

Even though you may not be able to change the opinion of the PROPONENT of the bad idea in question, your reasoned response may alter the opinion of the READER of the bad idea.

Ideas have power. Some bad ideas have a superficial appeal, and it is not always easy at first glance for a casual reader to detect their inherent fallacy. Bad ideas accepted uncritically have enormous negative effects -- see Marxism.

Your comment about having children to protect is apropos. Alerting the inexperienced to the dangers of seductively presented faulty reasoning should be a shared responsibility, should it not? Especially so in the case of a philosophically astute MODERATOR, I would say.

Your input is respected and valued. Please don't deprive us of it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1018154 -

living in a country where peaceful citizens are being systematically disarmed and left at the mercy of predators. It will be interesting to see if the recent (post-disarmament) trend of rapidly increasing violent crime in England will continue to rise indefinitely.

Well we havn't had any gun maniacs going into schools and slaughtering kids like you do every week in America for around 5 years (since we banned handguns in fact - concidence?)

I wouldn't run away with the idea of violent crime increasing in England. Statistics are woefully inadequate and any increase in crime is more likely to be related to the policy of the government in systematically widening the gap between rich and poor than anything to do with guns. One thing is for sure - we don't have 30,000 - 40,000 gun deaths every year. I think the last statistic I read was 7 deaths a year. Makes you think doesn't it.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: ]
    #1018183 -

you will watch me live out that stance of non-defense right here on this forum.

That's not quite accurate. Instead of truly being non-defensive you go round the boards finding the threads I am involved in and then making childish and snide remarks to others about me rather than having the courage reply to me directly. That's not quite the same thing as being non-defensive.  Dishonest too.

Not that I'm complaining. Your posts would only waste my time. Please carry on  :laugh: 


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1018222 -

In reply to:
any increase in crime is more likely to be related to the policy of the government in systematically widening the gap between rich and poor than anything to do with guns.


More rationalizations. The overall trends are that crime in England has been increasing while in the U.S. it has been decreasing (additionally, statistics in the U.S. are collected and classified differently which skews the tallies).

Here's a thought, why don't you compare England to Switzerland?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Evolving]
    #1018277 -

The overall trends are that crime in England has been increasing...

But Alex says that the statistics are woefully inadequate and anyways they have to do with economic policies so even if they are not woefully inadequate they are misinterpreted.

For those who may be interested in looking at some woefully inadequate statistics anyway, here's a look at crime rates and victim attitudes for 17 major industrialized countries from (of all places) the United Nations. Note the not-so-surprising revelation that England now has the worst crime rate of all major countries. Following the 1997 ban on civilian ownership of firearms, crime in England began to skyrocket. In the UN study, researchers found that nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people in England and Wales compared with an average of 35 per 100 in other industrialized countries. England and Wales also have the worst record for "very serious" offenses, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16 (yet another country that has all but banned legitimate self-defense, thus creating a lucrative hunting ground for criminals). The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.

http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm

With guns outlawed and crime rates (excepting homicide) far in excess of those in the United States, the Brits have attempted to switch to other forms of self-defense. To no one's surprise, the government has outlawed those as well. Electric stun guns, chemical-defense weapons like Mace, pit bulls, penknives, swordsticks, and blowpipes are all illegal, as are imitation guns. One elderly lady was arrested for trying to frighten off a gang of thugs by firing a blank from her imitation pistol.

It looks like the only option left in England is Shroomalicious's "Option 1". I wish them luck.

Oh... anyone interested in reading about the Swiss and guns might want to check this out:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1018430 -

Oops. I see I have managed to drift off-topic completely now. My apologies.

I promise I'll do my utmost not to be distracted further.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1018881 -

Thanks for the flowers Pinky.

Here's my take on it. As a Moderator if I am to be anything at all I am to be impartial and not use my position to 'guide' others to my Truth whatever I hold it to be.

I see a lot of 'truth' bandied about here and many times I am tempted to respond in order to help someone avoid danger. But at the end of the day everyone is responsible for themselves and to themselves. My readings have led me to conclusions about a variety of things but all things that I know I hold in suspended judgment. If there is any absolute it is that there may not be any absolutes.

However, with all that said, there are times when I will try to explain what I know to the uninitiate. They are free to make up their own minds after I have explained an issue to the best of my ability.

I try to see our time here as a learning experience with each one of us contributing what we have learned. For the most part I feel every bit as much a student as I am a teacher. I have learned after long battles that sometimes the better part of valor is to sit quietly while others make the same mistakes I have and hopefully will come to the same, at times life-saving, conclusions.

Above all I enjoy the sound reasoning whereby you reach your conclusions and normally if we disagree on a point or two it is because our premises are different. We use the same logic and reason and arrive at different conclusions. I am delighted that you post here and enjoy reading most of your posts.

This forum and the Shroomery would be a poorer place without you.

Cheers,

Oh, and at some point, as I offered to Sclorch on the writings of Nietzsche, I would like to you consider holding a discussion over at the Literary forum about a few books by Ayn Rand. I think that the readers of the Shroomery could benefit from some of her ideas.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: ]
    #1019147 -

I certainly understand your position but there is a decided correlation between defending one's position, which is what you have done thoroughout this entire thread, and defending one's self by physical means. The inconsistency is slight but it is there nonetheless.

I never said I was not going to defend my position, I only ever said that I was not going to physically harm anyone. I can defend my opinion without hurting people man, I don't see why that is a problem.

I applaud your decision to make the world a better place through non-violence (which is politically correct in case you hadn't heard).

In my experience, I get crap all the time for it. In speaking publicly about it I have been spit at and have had rocks (one was 3 lbs.) thrown at me and hit me in the head. Maybe in some circles it is politically correct, and I am not just being sarcastic, however, in my experience it is met with venom.

Also, another reason I believe this is because I have made friends with 4-5 of the people who are feircly against my ideas. And I mean friends too, not just on speaking terms. I may not have convinced them, but I HAVE stoped them from hating me and gained new friends.

I take it you do not have people under your protection, like children, for instance.

Why you think there is no way a person who has something to lose could possibly believe what I believe?

Actually I DO have people under my protection, my mother lives with me along with my wife. I believe in locking my doors, but I don't own a gun.

If you adopt that stance and refuse to defend them, violently if necessary, then you would be a poor parent and worthy to be despised, in a nice way of course.

Another big opinion. Calling people who disagree with you "bad parents" who are "worthy" of being "despised"...Wait a second...

As a Moderator if I am to be anything at all I am to be impartial and not use my position to 'guide' others to my Truth whatever I hold it to be.

Doesn't sound like you are being impartial to me. I am not trying to be an ass but I DO find your arguments to be ANYTHING but impartial. Your opinion is just fine with me (although I disagree, it isn't a "bad" opinion at all), however IMO you are not being impartial at all.

ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I DO BELIEVE IN PROTECTION (I.E. LOCKED DOORS AND PRISONS, ETC.), I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IN VIOLENCE AS A GOOD WAY TO A BETTER WORLD.

Sorry if it makes it sound like I am yelling but I have said that half a dozen times now and people are seeing it/hearing it for whatever reason, perhaps my fault.

To me violence is punching and killing and the like, if you imprison someone you won't always get them without a fight of course but I don't think you would have to resort to beating and killings.


--------------------
Shroomalicious - :smile: I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one :smile: - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1019174 -

Ah. So your definition of "violence" is limited strictly to murder, not to beating the crap out of someone.

Please point out where I said that.

Is arresting someone "beating the crap" out of them?

No, it hasn't come even close to being proven.

Another difference of opinion. In my experience it is true. Not only the books I have read but the children I have know. I have not known any serial killers, but I have know killers. I knew a few when I worked in a childrens crime rehab center in the Bay Area, some 12 year olds I knew grew up to kill someone. I found nobody there who had a good childhood. They always killed someone they hated, but IMO the idea of killing was made more "real" to them by the way they grew up. There HAVE been murders who have had (admitedly) great childhood (for instance the "Son of Sam", forget his name now). However, I think they are the overwhelming exception.

This is one reason why pure democracy as a way of running a civilized society is such a disastrous idea.

I don't see the conection. The will of the people can still be cruel, for sure...but I still trust ANY Democracy over ANY Dictatorship, expecially for the long term.

It is a common characteristic of MANY people, the vast majority of whom are not totalitarian dictators.

IMO, a lot of people WOULD be if they knew how. That doesn't mean they are evil, immoral people...but it does mean that we (include me here) are capable of making mistakes and NOT reflecting the will of the people and thus causing social unrest.

Please allow me to offer some advice -- if you accuse everyone you meet who has strongly-held convictions of being a totalitarian dictator, you will have a difficult life. Not all of them will exhibit self restraint.

That why I don't do that. I may disagree with someone's ideas, but that doesn't mean I hate them or can't get along with them.


--------------------
Shroomalicious - :smile: I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one :smile: - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1019808 -

here's a look at crime rates

How about those 30,000 - 40,000 gun deaths every year in the US pink? Or don't you like to talk about those?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Evolving]
    #1020534 -

you cannot compare england to america for crime statistics, its like apples and oranges. i grew up in the ghetto of queens bridge, ny, i lived in england for a year, they are two different mentalities. and thats what i think it all comes down to...the why of what you are doing, the cause. once one knows why they are killing or hurting, then progress can be made if one is willing.


--------------------
if you can't find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?

this is the purpose

Edited by CleverName (11/04/02 10:40 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1020567 -

Following the 1997 ban on civilian ownership of firearms, crime in England began to skyrocket.

It's fascinating how you can be so clueless, so breathtakingly, spectacularly wrong and yet believe so fervently you are right.

Do you have any idea of what the pre-1997 situation of civilian handgun ownership was pink? You seem to think there were millions of us walking round with handguns. The reality is that the massive majority of the British population had no access to firearms and had never touched a handgun in their life. The only time they heard about guns was when a gun nut slaughtered a town or a school.

Pre-1997 a tiny minority of people pursued a hobby of firing handguns in licensed gun clubs. The vast majority of the British population was unarmed. Exactly as they are now.

This simple fact alone completly wrecks your idea that the theoretical rise in violent crime is linked to the 1997 handgun ban.

THE NRA IS LYING TO YOU. WAKE UP.

(btw, when the NRA tells you a figure like "There has been a 50% rise in gun violence since the UK ban". Remember that in Britain that would mean there were 6 deaths instead of 4. A couple of drug gangs have a fight one day and the gun deaths might show a 200% rise. When you have such low rates of gun violence the statistics can be used to make the specious statistical arguments so favoured by the NRA)


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
    #1020574 -

Shroomalicious writes:

Is arresting someone "beating the crap" out of them?

In many cases, yes. This is why there is a criminal charge called "resisting arrest". We have all seen footage of scenes where five or six cops (or more) are required to subdue an offender in order to arrest him. In the case of an ARMED resister, the arrestee is often injured severely, and sometimes even killed. Not everyone agrees to go meekly to prison.

Another difference of opinion. In my experience it is true.

That does not mean it is PROVEN. Look, I choose my words with care, and I have yet to see anywhere from anyone a psychiatric or sociological study that claims to PROVE that all children who were picked on by their peers grow up to be violent criminals.

I don't see the conection. The will of the people can still be cruel, for sure...but I still trust ANY Democracy over ANY Dictatorship, expecially for the long term.

Slavery was once a universally accepted institution -- the MAJORITY of people felt blacks had no rights. There was once a time when women were not allowed to vote. There was once a time when the majority believed it was correct to kill heretics. The Aztecs believed it was correct to sacrifice newborns to the rain god. Muslims to this day believe the penalty for apostasy is death.

All of those injustices were "justified" by the fact that the majority of the people supported them -- Democracy in action.

IMO, a lot of people WOULD be if they knew how.

Perhaps. That still doesn't mean that people with strongly-held opinions are totalitarian. For example, I myself am a Libertarian, or Laissez-Faire Capitalist, or Objectivist, whatever term you feel most comfortable with. The fact that I believe non-violence as a response to violence is a bad idea does not make me a totalitarian.

That why I don't do that.

You did in my case.

It doesn't bother me; I'm used to people not being able to grasp the difference between Hitler's worldview and the worldview of the Founding Fathers. I don't get angry with such people, I feel pity they were so poorly educated that they quite honestly are incapable of grasping the difference. I choose to blame that on the shockingly poor state of today's educational system rather than on any inherent defect in their intelligence.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1020606 -

Slavery was once a universally accepted institution -- the MAJORITY of people felt blacks had no rights All of those injustices were "justified" by the fact that the majority of the people supported them

Horseshit. Slavery meant poor white workers lost jobs and money. The people who supported slavery and pursued the policy were rich white landowners who made massive profits from it. That's like saying everyone today supports current day slavery in south east asian Nike factories. It existed. That is a far cry from everyone supporting it.

There was once a time when the majority believed it was correct to kill heretics.

Horseshit. The church have done a lot of things without consulting the general population.

Muslims to this day believe the penalty for apostasy is death.

Horseshit. I personally know many muslims. Not one of them believes in death for anyone.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1020623 -

It's fascinating how you can be so clueless, so breathtakingly, spectacularly wrong and yet believe so fervently you are right.

*Shrug*. I didn't make up the studies. The United Nations did the studies. I just read them. The disarmament of Britons by their government began in the early Twentieth century, and proceeded in stages. Studies show that after each disarmament, the crime rate rose sharply. Is it POSSIBLE that this is just a coincidence? Yep. Is it PROBABLE? I leave it to the reader to decide.

It is also POSSIBLE that the recent explosion of violent crime in England and Wales will eventually reverse itself. ANYTHING is possible. But numbers are numbers. I suggest all readers with an interest in the topic read the United Nations studies for themselves -- that's why I provided the link.

This simple fact alone completly wrecks your idea that the theoretical rise in violent crime is linked to the 1997 handgun ban.

There is nothing "theoretical" about England's recent abrupt rise in violent crime. It is a fact. It has been well-documented by many sources. MAYBE it has nothing to do with the fact that citizens are no longer allowed to protect themselves from predators. Note that this latest round of English disarmament legislation covered not just guns, but virtually every kind of chemical, electrical, projectile and edged weapon available to the Jane and Joe Bloggs. This is no longer a crusade against GUNS, it is a crusade against all methods of self-defense with the possible exception of Jiu-jitsu.

You may dispute the CONNECTION between increasing disarmament of citizens and the simultaneous increase in crime rates. You may NOT dispute the increase itself.

THE NRA IS LYING TO YOU. WAKE UP.

The UN's ICVS (International Crime Victim Survey) has no connection with the NRA whatsoever.

This is my last response IN THIS FORUM to this topic. There are anti-gun threads aplenty (at least one of which you started) in the Political Discussion forum. That is the proper place in which to continue this.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* nonviolence and its violent consequences NiamhNyx 1,925 9 08/08/04 11:59 PM
by Mushmonkey
* the need for violence spewed 4th 1,027 6 11/08/02 11:08 PM
by Zero7a1
* Why is the world a violent place?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Droz 2,607 43 12/06/03 03:56 PM
by Shizpow
* Tell-a-vision Programming!
( 1 2 3 all )		 Adamist 3,990 57 03/02/06 09:15 PM
by Ravus
* violence or non-violence that is the question... Anonymous 1,216 12 02/14/03 12:18 AM
by Anonymous
* Jealous Rage - Pathology or Primal Programming? Swami 1,197 8 01/28/04 06:51 PM
by silversoul7
* Sex, Violence and the search for Intimacy NiamhNyx 1,173 9 01/30/04 12:56 AM
by NiamhNyx
* So Much Violence
( 1 2 all )		 Kiafi 3,182 22 11/10/03 02:05 PM
by Ped

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
12,141 topic views. 0 members, 174 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.