[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 28 December 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

Do you not realize that this is a forum, where all of your comments are archived? Jordan never argued that assault rifles were needed to kill hordes of crack head zombies wielding assault rifles in CQB. Surely you are aware that, in fact, you made that argument, or one indistinguishable from it. Surely you are also aware that it would only take an hour at best to scan the thread and discover the veracity (or lack thereof) of your previous statement. So why even say it? Also, why would the police have batons if all Americans, Canadians and, for some reason, quasi-Americans, were unarmed? Are the swat teams coming here from other countries?

UNIONS? We need assault rifles to defend against UNIONS? Are you batshit insane? Do you not know what a union is? Do you wake up every day and make up definitions for words and groups simply for the purposes of trolling?

No, I don't think you should be armed with anything. Weren't you listening? And why would the police have batons if everybody else is unarmed? WHAT? Dare I ask how you came to that conclusion?

J m HofMarN, on 28 December 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

By the way, since youre likely to keep arguing this point, here's your post http://www.chefelf.c...ndpost&p=187338 wherein you claim that assault rifles are needed to prevent criminals from attacking American homes.

Anybody who commits a crime is a criminal. If they break into your home, they're a criminal. Technically. I actually don't care that America is amongst the leading nations of police corruption or police brutality, that's not the issue because Americas are nothing more than mindless human resources. But in areas all over the world where the government (or quasi-governments) send thugs to people's homes, it's best to be armed with an assault rifle. Like in your precious Palestine. If the Arabs there all had "second amendment rights" (or whatever you thick Yanks call not being fucked over by your government) then I'm pretty sure the IDF would be less likely to storm people's homes in the middle of the night. What am I saying? I bet you don't understand the concept that people are autonomous entities and different from the government.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

No, I don't think you should be armed with anything. Weren't you listening? And why would the police have batons if everybody else is unarmed? WHAT? Dare I ask how you came to that conclusion?

By your lack of reply here I'll assume that your post has a subtext of "It was wrong of me to ascribe my ridiculous views on gun control and crime to someone else, I apologize to Jordan" As for the actual post, you suggested that all quasi-americans needed to be anally violated by the police, who I assume would have to be armed in order to enforce this sodomy, yes?

Quote

Anybody who commits a crime is a criminal. If they break into your home, they're a criminal. Technically. I actually don't care that America is amongst the leading nations of police corruption or police brutality, that's not the issue because Americas are nothing more than mindless human resources. But in areas all over the world where the government (or quasi-governments) send thugs to people's homes, it's best to be armed with an assault rifle. Like in your precious Palestine. If the Arabs there all had "second amendment rights" (or whatever you thick Yanks call not being fucked over by your government) then I'm pretty sure the IDF would be less likely to storm people's homes in the middle of the night. What am I saying? I bet you don't understand the concept that people are autonomous entities and different from the government.

I'm honestly crushed under the weight of your logic here. I cannot argue with your assertion that anyone who commits a crime is a criminal (though I would question just how you determine who has committed crimes. Torture people til they confess?) The rest of the post is very silly. That is all.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 28 December 2010 - 11:42 PM

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 29 December 2010 - 02:41 PM, said:

By your lack of reply here I'll assume that your post has a subtext of "It was wrong of me to ascribe my ridiculous views on gun control and crime to someone else, I apologize to Jordan" As for the actual post, you suggested that all quasi-americans needed to be anally violated by the police, who I assume would have to be armed in order to enforce this sodomy, yes?




I'm honestly crushed under the weight of your logic here. I cannot argue with your assertion that anyone who commits a crime is a criminal (though I would question just how you determine who has committed crimes. Torture people til they confess?) The rest of the post is very silly. That is all.

I can't really explain to you (a "person" who sees governments and people as inseparable) that people are autonomous from governments. I mean how can you tell somebody that people don't need governments in order to think or use weapons in order to defend themselves against foreign governments? Maybe include examples like Iraq? Nah, forget it. You still wouldn't understand.

[J m HofMarN]

And we've moved from "Jordan's argument" which you defended incase it was actually something you said, back to this sillyness that an armed populace can replace government and protect against foreign invasion or localized exploitation. The answer to that is still no.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 29 December 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

And we've moved from "Jordan's argument" which you defended incase it was actually something you said, back to this sillyness that an armed populace can replace government and protect against foreign invasion or localized exploitation. The answer to that is still no.

Yeah, you're right. There has never ever been a revolt, rebellion, coup or insurgency throughout all of history. Nor has there ever been a mass movement. Nor neighbourhood watch programs. Nor vigilantes. Nor militias.

[J m HofMarN]

Why would you prefer an armed mob without any accountability to higher ups or law, to a paid professional military with better training and (ideally) set moral standards for conduct? Also, survivor's benefits wuldnt exist for the neighborhood watch or vigilantes. Also, who watches the watchmen?

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 09 January 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

Why would you prefer an armed mob without any accountability to higher ups or law, to a paid professional military with better training and (ideally) set moral standards for conduct? Also, survivor's benefits wuldnt exist for the neighborhood watch or vigilantes. Also, who watches the watchmen?

(1) Because the former is defensive while the latter is offensive.
(2) Private charities and community do exist, actually. People come together when they need to. They're not mindless robots looking to their supposed betters for guidance. Well maybe Americans are.
(3) The same people who police the police. But seriously, nobody's going to do anything because a mob is a temporary collection of individuals rather than a permanent organization which employs individuals. What's going to corrupt them? No single individual has enough power to be corrupted. Nor could they seek it since doing so puts them at odds with every other individual in the mob. The only time a militia/mob/whatever became "corrupt" was when they stopped being volunteers and became mercenaries. Usually in the form of working for a government.

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, on 12 January 2011 - 05:07 PM, said:

(1) Because the former is defensive while the latter is offensive.
(2) Private charities and community do exist, actually. People come together when they need to. They're not mindless robots looking to their supposed betters for guidance. Well maybe Americans are.
(3) The same people who police the police. But seriously, nobody's going to do anything because a mob is a temporary collection of individuals rather than a permanent organization which employs individuals. What's going to corrupt them? No single individual has enough power to be corrupted. Nor could they seek it since doing so puts them at odds with every other individual in the mob. The only time a militia/mob/whatever became "corrupt" was when they stopped being volunteers and became mercenaries. Usually in the form of working for a government.

1) Not necessarily. Mobs attack as well. The nature of the mob does not dictate its use.
2) ... ? ...
3) I refer you to the history of Italy, re: Tyrant-making. Well-ordered mobs become powerful organizations, and then they become the sole protector of an area, and then they become a power of their own, demanding a piece of the action (eg taxation). Why you prefer a mafia to a government is your own business, but you're victim to the oldest, dumbest anarchist argument there is, the one that says that without a central government, people would just take care of themselves, their families, and their friends, and that all commerce would run smoothly, no one would gain or take power, communities would take care of their own poor, etc etc. The argument always imagines a small community of people, all known to one another and working together toward some common goal or industry. It does not hold up to a large-scale society, and most importantly it does not pass the test of history.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

(1) Because the former is defensive while the latter is offensive.

Much as with a regular army, you can make nay action look defensive. Smashing the windows of a Jewish store front was supposedly defending people from Jews using their children's blood to make matzo balls.

So a community charity or what have you would be able to pay the tens of thousands of dollars in insurance and social security payments that the government would?

Quote

The same people who police the police.

By this I assume you mean IA, FBI, ATF, and the elected police officials? See, Who Watches The Watchmen applies to your mob a lot better than "who polices the police" but then the phrase is from a book, and we know you don't like those. Mainly because the mob wouldnt have any permanent oversight or accountability as I've mentioned.

Finally, to this anarchist jargon, even if this anarcho-city state argument was possible, which I've debated from time to time, you fail to take into account your other conflicting ideals. To wit; how would this anarchist community militia function with their pitch forks and shot guns when just down the road the local corporate militia (note: you have consistently supported leaving massive corporations intact) is larger, better armed, better trained and better paid? Also, how would anything the workers did be organized when you've made clear your desire to see unions abolished as unions (unlike corporations) encourage monopoly. Think very carefully about your ridiculous anarcho-capitalist system before you respond.