Post: #151

I have no idea what this nutbag was or wasn't on, so I'm not speaking to this particular event.

But the points being made in this thread about giving brain-altering chemicals to children, for years and years at a time, are very valid.

We have no real idea of what changes these drugs may be having on these kids, their brains, their chemical makeup, etc. These kids are still in the developmental stage of life, where their bodies, and minds, are growing and developing. Arbitrarily dosing them with mans-made chemicals to alter their behavior has to be as close to modern day Trephination as you can get.

If you really want to get into a discussion about the future of human evolution, start with the effects that decades of brain-altering chemicals on generations of kids will have on our evolutionary future.

Post: #152

(06-19-2015 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 11:55 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  @Samseau

You seem to be a race war fetishist. What's up with that? I hear a lot of doomsayer talk from you on many threads.

It is especially strange considering he is mixed. I would be praying a race war never happened because you will be left high and dry and not have a team to get on.

Sorry, don't know what you guys are talking about. Nowhere have I fetishized violence. I'm making predictions based on my understanding of history and human nature, not prescriptions.

The fact you guys disingenuously try to paint me as a "race war fetishist" is pretty telling for the other forum posters here. Watch out everyone - if you make a prediction on American politics you'll be called out for being a race troll or doomsayer. God forbid if you're just trying to tell the truth.

FYI - me making predictions isn't going to change the outcome of anything. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make the world go away.

Samseau, the problem with all you Doomsdayers on the internet is how on earth can we prove you wrong?

What are we to do, pm you in 50 years to say "You were wrong, race war didn't happen, how do I claim my prize"?

You could go to your grave prepping for a zombie attack that never materialises and yet you believed it would happen until your last day.

Fuck predictions, dude: They are too easy to make and no-one can ever disprove you. I'm talking strictly from a rational point of view.

Predictions are just another form of belief, religion or whatever else -- Impossible to verify.

Post: #153

(06-19-2015 09:25 AM)space Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 11:55 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  @Samseau

You seem to be a race war fetishist. What's up with that? I hear a lot of doomsayer talk from you on many threads.

It is especially strange considering he is mixed. I would be praying a race war never happened because you will be left high and dry and not have a team to get on.

Sorry, don't know what you guys are talking about. Nowhere have I fetishized violence. I'm making predictions based on my understanding of history and human nature, not prescriptions.

The fact you guys disingenuously try to paint me as a "race war fetishist" is pretty telling for the other forum posters here. Watch out everyone - if you make a prediction on American politics you'll be called out for being a race troll or doomsayer. God forbid if you're just trying to tell the truth.

FYI - me making predictions isn't going to change the outcome of anything. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make the world go away.

Samseau, the problem with all you Doomsdayers on the internet is how on earth can we prove you wrong?

What are we to do, pm you in 50 years to say "You were wrong, race war didn't happen, how do I claim my prize"?

You could go to your grave prepping for a zombie attack that never materialises and yet you believed it would happen until your last day.

Fuck predictions, dude: They are too easy to make and no-one can ever disprove you. I'm talking strictly from a rational point of view.

Predictions are just another form of belief, religion or whatever else -- Impossible to verify.

I think the real question is: in 50 years, will you be PM'ing him here or on the Naughty Nomad forum?

Post: #154

(06-19-2015 09:25 AM)space Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 11:55 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  @Samseau

You seem to be a race war fetishist. What's up with that? I hear a lot of doomsayer talk from you on many threads.

It is especially strange considering he is mixed. I would be praying a race war never happened because you will be left high and dry and not have a team to get on.

Sorry, don't know what you guys are talking about. Nowhere have I fetishized violence. I'm making predictions based on my understanding of history and human nature, not prescriptions.

The fact you guys disingenuously try to paint me as a "race war fetishist" is pretty telling for the other forum posters here. Watch out everyone - if you make a prediction on American politics you'll be called out for being a race troll or doomsayer. God forbid if you're just trying to tell the truth.

FYI - me making predictions isn't going to change the outcome of anything. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make the world go away.

Samseau, the problem with all you Doomsdayers on the internet is how on earth can we prove you wrong?

What are we to do, pm you in 50 years to say "You were wrong, race war didn't happen, how do I claim my prize"?

You could go to your grave prepping for a zombie attack that never materialises and yet you believed it would happen until your last day.

Fuck predictions, dude: They are too easy to make and no-one can ever disprove you. I'm talking strictly from a rational point of view.

Predictions are just another form of belief, religion or whatever else -- Impossible to verify.

But that's not true at all. You can easily disprove me by citing where and why you think things will improve by offering counter-evidence. Others have attempted to do so:

/thread-38587-...#pid791284

It was a pretty good thread and I even made some concessions to him. It was Scorpion who came out hardest against him.

By the way - the reason us "doomsday sayers" exist on the internet is because we have more visability here. In the real world, I have these discussions with people all the time and it's funny to see them get scared shitless. I also have real world discussions of game all the time as well.

Most guys would never do that, however, so I understand why you seem to think these discussions only exist on the internet. But if you actually met a man with a pair of balls he would have no trouble talking IRL about these things.

Post: #155

(06-19-2015 10:12 AM)Samseau Wrote:  But if you actually met a man with a pair of balls he would have no trouble talking IRL about these things.

Samseau, since your balls are so big, could you answer the simple question I asked you several days ago?

Looking forward to it.

Post: #156

(06-19-2015 10:20 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 10:12 AM)Samseau Wrote:  But if you actually met a man with a pair of balls he would have no trouble talking IRL about these things.

Samseau, since your balls are so big, could you answer the simple question I asked you several days ago?

Looking forward to it.

Derailing? I already answered you in that thread.

Post: #157

(06-19-2015 10:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 10:20 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 10:12 AM)Samseau Wrote:  But if you actually met a man with a pair of balls he would have no trouble talking IRL about these things.

Samseau, since your balls are so big, could you answer the simple question I asked you several days ago?

Looking forward to it.

Derailing? I already answered you in that thread.

I've gone through that thread several times and looked at all of your posts that follow the question I asked and I haven't been able to find any posts where you've answered that question.

Feel free to PM me.

Post: #158

(06-18-2015 11:33 AM)Sudden Wrote:  I generally define terrorism as an act of violence against a civilian target done for political motives. Given that, Adam Lanza and James Holmes were not terrorists, Anders Breveiks and Dylann Roof are.

What a senseless waste.

My facebook is lighting up with SJWs commenting that they don't use 'terrorist' to describe a white guy. Like 'rape' and 'WMD' this is a word that has become all but meaningless.

Terrorism is merely a tactic, the end goal of which is to instill fear and paranoia in the public for whatever reason(generally political). That said it's harder for an individual to be a terrorist, because once they're caught, the threat is gone. The KKK burning crosses on lawns would be closer to terrorism since the goal is to intimidate; than a lone nut shooting up a church where the goal seemed to be just to kill because he doesn't like blacks. The target is not the people who die, it's those left behind.

If he was part of an organization, and as a group they were saying "this is just the start", trying to get blacks to go back to Africa, then it would be terrorism. But to call everyone who offs a few people a terrorist completely misses the point. Blown up buildings and dead people are a by product of terrorism, not the primary goal.

I'm paraphrasing a bit Bruce Schneier who has a lot of excellent commentary on it, he wrote an article here: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2...error.html

Despite there not being another big attack from Al-Qaeda since 2001 and Bin Laden being killed, as terrorists they have been supremely successful and get more and more so with each passing year. Rights are squandered, people are afraid of anyone brown, and citizens are turning on their neighbours.

Post: #159

(06-19-2015 10:54 AM)Seadog Wrote:  Terrorism is merely a tactic, the end goal of which is to instill fear and paranoia in the public for whatever reason(generally political).

This is a good point. I think "terrorism" is kind of the societal boogeyman right now, so anything that is really heinous, the sheeple tend to label as "terrorism." Because this psycho did something that terrorized people, they want to call him a "terrorist."

But words means things. A lone nutbag who kills a group of black people cause he hates them is a sick mass murderer who committed a horrible atrocity, but his actions are not "terrorism," strictly speaking.

I haven't seen many people refer to the mob actions in Baltimore as "terrorism," when arguably those actions more closely fit the definition than this mass murderer.

Of course, I have to admit that, even in writing this post, I struggled with finding the right descriptor for this psycho, because terms like "mass murderer" and "sick fuck" don't quite convey the disgust and antipathy I feel for someone who would do something this despicable.

Post: #160

Word choice is just a reflection on society as a whole. Words use to have meaning and people chose them carefully to convert how they felt. Now it is just a constant need to make everything exciting whether it is a good or bad event. Even words like love have been watered down. Don't get me started on the meaning of friend. Someone you met a day ago cannot be your friend.

Post: #161

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...?CMP=fb_gu

And somehow this writer has managed to use feminist ideology to spin it so that women are the primary victims in this horrfic, deplorable tragedy. They will do anything to usurp and make sure that females are the number 1 victim.

Just read it man. This is a tragedy yet some people still can't resist trying to get their one ups.

This sick motherfucker killed 9 people in cold blood. Just because it came out as 6 women and 3 men doesn't mean anything. If he wanted to target 'black women' he would have killed 9 black women.

This is bullshit.

Post: #162

From the Intercept https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/...-interest/

Quote:Roof, who identified himself as Dylann Roof’s cousin, told me over the telephone that “Dylann was normal until he started listening to that white power music stuff.” He also claimed that “he kind of went over the edge when a girl he liked starting dating a black guy two years back.”

This scenario recalls a manifesto written by Elliot Rodger, who on May 23, 2014 gunned down six people in Isla Vista, California: “How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me?"

“Dylann liked her,” Scott Roof said. “The black guy got her. He changed. I don’t know if we would be here if not …” Roof then abruptly hung up the phone.

This seems kind of sketchy. This "Scott Roof" guy might be a troll.

Post: #163

Jon Stewart is one of the first to start the media race baiting after this event. I can't stand this guy.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18...18110.html

Quote:Stewart ripped those who suggest this is one person who lost his mind rather than the product of that “gaping racial wound.”

"In South Carolina, the roads that black people drive on are named for Confederate generals who fought to keep black people from being able to drive freely on that road," he said. "The Confederate flag flies over South Carolina, and the roads are named for Confederate generals. And the white guy’s the one who feels like his country’s being taken away from him.”

Right, this wasn't a crime committed by a mentally ill white supremacist who represents maybe .0001% of the American population. It's somehow the fault of us all for not healing this "gaping racial wound" because we've actually still been fighting the civil war this whole time... or something. That makes a lot of sense.

Post: #164

Have I somehow missed Jon Stewart's multiple decade, nonstop crusade protesting the rampant racism of South Carolina's use of street names and the confederate flag? The guy just never shuts up about it, you know? I heard when he took over the Daily Show he wanted to change the name to the Daily Protest South Carolina Show. Or one suggestion he had was the Daily Demand to Dig up Robert E. Lee's Bones And Shoot Them Into The Sun Show. And Maybe Piss On Them First Too. Show.

There may be a gaping racial wound, but the media is exacerbating it with all their histrionics. Hey, look at that wound! *Tugs on the edges with a scalpel*

Post: #165

So if I have this right

-Racist white kills black people.
-The media jizzes their pants because is perfect timing to fit their current narrative of white on black crime
-The media sets this guy up as the WHITE product of the climate of WHITE violence on BLACKS. They blame lack of gun control and the Confederate flag that WHITES fly.
-The media attacks the media for not talking about how white the killer is.

What kind of kafkaesque Twilight Zone shit is this?

Post: #166

(06-19-2015 01:30 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  Jon Stewart is one of the first to start the media race baiting after this event. I can't stand this guy.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18...18110.html

Quote:Stewart ripped those who suggest this is one person who lost his mind rather than the product of that “gaping racial wound.”

"In South Carolina, the roads that black people drive on are named for Confederate generals who fought to keep black people from being able to drive freely on that road," he said. "The Confederate flag flies over South Carolina, and the roads are named for Confederate generals. And the white guy’s the one who feels like his country’s being taken away from him.”

Right, this wasn't a crime committed by a mentally ill white supremacist who represents maybe .0001% of the American population. It's somehow the fault of us all for not healing this "gaping racial wound" because we've actually still been fighting the civil war this whole time... or something. That makes a lot of sense.

If there exists a "gaping racial wound" wherein The Man is keeping darky down blah blah, WTF does that have to do with a white guy going out and shooting black people?
He was mad they're so oppressed...? Uh?

What a verbose idiot Stewart is these days.

This is one person who lost his mind. The end.
People will go to absolutely any lengths to avoid talking about mental illness and the surplus of disillusioned young males with zero life opportunities in this country.
Late teenage years to middle 20s is prime real estate for the onset of mental illness, and while it obviously can't be guaranteed this lunatic wouldn't have still done this or something similar if he had worthwhile career opportunities or a reasonable dating market to navigate, it certainly wouldn't have hurt matters.

Post: #167

Since it seems like ordinary procedure to take tragedies and exploit them for political ends: What are the odds that a candid and fact based discussion of interracial victimization will come out of this? Zero?

Post: #168

Depending on the reports somewhere between 32 and 88 people die each day from guns in America.

Wouldn't some adjustment in gun ownership laws that saved even a few lives a day be worth it? Or because most of us don't know people who were killed by guns, we don't care about people we don't know? Yes, I get multiple drivers of these shootings taking place, mental illness, race, blah blah. But also, in America it doesn't seem hard to get a gun. What is wrong with regulating a deadly weapon? Why not a multiple prong solution to gun deaths?

Also, if I recall right the 2nd Amendment spoke about a well regulated militia while discussing guns. Doesn't that mean every gun owner should be part of a militia, that is regulated? I can't see the founding fathers who had some pretty good wisdom, just thought people should have guns and do whatever you want with them.

I don't have a gun, didn't grow up in an environment where people all around me had guns. Didn't grow up to generalize about people. So all I have to go with is some logic.

If you are good gun owner and enjoy shooting guns, why not for the sake of society go through a little tougher scrutiny to make sure you are not batshit crazy?

I know some people will scream about being over regulated and don't step on me. But lax regulation has created a lot of disasters in this country. Look at Duke Energy handling coal ash and poisoning waters. Or the WV company that leaked chemicals into the river and no one could drink it, files for bk, and the owner formed another company to buy the bk'd assets but without the liabilities. Regulation isn't evil, useless regulation is.

Anyway, back to race stuff.

Post: #169

(06-19-2015 06:41 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  Depending on the reports somewhere between 32 and 88 people die each day from guns in America.

Wouldn't some adjustment in gun ownership laws that saved even a few lives a day be worth it? Or because most of us don't know people who were killed by guns, we don't care about people we don't know? Yes, I get multiple drivers of these shootings taking place, mental illness, race, blah blah. But also, in America it doesn't seem hard to get a gun. What is wrong with regulating a deadly weapon? Why not a multiple prong solution to gun deaths?

Also, if I recall right the 2nd Amendment spoke about a well regulated militia while discussing guns. Doesn't that mean every gun owner should be part of a militia, that is regulated? I can't see the founding fathers who had some pretty good wisdom, just thought people should have guns and do whatever you want with them.

I don't have a gun, didn't grow up in an environment where people all around me had guns. Didn't grow up to generalize about people. So all I have to go with is some logic.

If you are good gun owner and enjoy shooting guns, why not for the sake of society go through a little tougher scrutiny to make sure you are not batshit crazy?

I know some people will scream about being over regulated and don't step on me. But lax regulation has created a lot of disasters in this country. Look at Duke Energy handling coal ash and poisoning waters. Or the WV company that leaked chemicals into the river and no one could drink it, files for bk, and the owner formed another company to buy the bk'd assets but without the liabilities. Regulation isn't evil, useless regulation is.

Anyway, back to race stuff.

So we have an extremely feminist govt., that gave drug lords in Mexico guns (a nation with a complete gun ban) that was used to kill a border agent, even more power over our lives to dictate who can and cannot buy a gun? All the while, what % of gun homicides are caused by guns purchased illegally or are stolen? I bet it is in the 80%+ range.

The problem is not freedom to buy guns. If a criminal wants a gun and wants to shoot a place up, no law will stop it. The problem is...

#1) No dads in the household thanks to feminism.
#2) The drugs being pumped into boys to make them docile from age 5 to 18+ all so pharmaceutical companies can make more money.
#3) Gun safe zones making law abiding citizens sitting ducks.
#4) A terrible economy causing more strife and unhappiness than has been seen in generations.

The only thing that still stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. And that is either an armed law abiding citizen or a police officer who is 10 to 15 minutes away on average in the USA.

Post: #170

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Isoroku Yamamoto

Post: #171

Samsamsam, refer to my earlier post:

Quote:Illegal to carry a concealed gun without a permit in SC
Illegal to carry a gun into a church in SC
Illegal to possess a gun as a felon
Illegal to obtain a gun via a straw purchase

So this kid already broke basically every law on the books.
Can't wait to hear how the left argues more laws would have stopped this.

What laws, in addition to the ones he already broke, do you feel would have prevented this kid from getting a gun if he set his mind to it?

Quote:Depending on the reports somewhere between 32 and 88 people die each day from guns in America.

Depending on the source something like 60%-80% of all annual gun deaths are gang relate (read: black on black).
Do you believe the Bloods and Crips are horribly concerned about following whatever anti-gun laws get enacted?

Post: #172

THE BIG LIST OF DRUG INDUCED KILLERS:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/big-list-of-d...d-killers/

Man this list is insane. Big pharma should be forced to pay for the loss of life these shooters cause.

Post: #173

Correlation is not causation.
Mentally unstable people, especially of the sort to eventually start killing people, are more likely to be taking psychiatric drugs to begin with.

My opinion is that they (drugs) are vastly over-prescribed and aren't helping much, possibly harming to a degree, but to solely blame Prozac for all such acts is kind of ridiculous.

Post: #174

(06-19-2015 07:00 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Quote:Depending on the reports somewhere between 32 and 88 people die each day from guns in America.

Depending on the source something like 60%-80% of all annual gun deaths are gang relate (read: black on black).
Do you believe the Bloods and Crips are horribly concerned about following whatever anti-gun laws get enacted?

So the other 20 to 40% are just rounding errors?

This debate will never get resolved sadly. I am not some crying liberal but surely responsible gun owners see some of the dangers of gun ownership. If they are responsible and mentally healthy they will get their guns, but if you can filter down those who might not be desirable to own a gun that helps.

And here is the thing, in my total noob opinion only people who have served in the military have truly earned all their rights and privileges. A lot of people these days abuse the fuck out of their rights without ever once having earned it. But they act like they have and think they are entitled to it. For example, I am sure those who grew up in a time when they couldn't vote that when they got the opportunity to vote, they cherished it, they treasured it and they exercised their right to vote.

Most people these days don't give a shit about voting but cry about the governments they get.

Sure it is your right, but are you acting responsibly about it?

Just stay away from large gatherings, you'll all be fine.

Post: #175

(06-19-2015 07:18 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 07:00 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Quote:Depending on the reports somewhere between 32 and 88 people die each day from guns in America.

Depending on the source something like 60%-80% of all annual gun deaths are gang relate (read: black on black).
Do you believe the Bloods and Crips are horribly concerned about following whatever anti-gun laws get enacted?

So the other 20 to 40% are just rounding errors?

You seem to think those 20-40% will disappear when the guns are banned or "controlled" more effectively?

Tell me, how hard is to get weed? Or any other controlled drug?

How are gun control laws working in South America, home to the strictest gun control laws in the world? Is there any gun violence there?