WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?

Posts

CashmereCat
Self-proclaimed Puzzle Snob
11638
Here's a bunch of replies to pianotm from someone who: a) does not live in the USA; b) is a Christian and thus has some things to say about the verification of some of the quotes you said, and would like clarity on that; c) legitimately wants to know more from someone who does seem very knowledgeable about the state of the US. Maybe this merits a different topic, but it's strange, I'm not usually interested in the fate of the USA because I keep figuring I'm dumb to understand it all, but I think I'm actually smart enough, I just need to do the research.

Of course, what nobody touches on, are either too afraid, or too indoctrinated to mention, is that this was all based upon Christian values. Our U. S. ancestors believed that the word of god entitled them to take slaves, steal land, and slaughter anyone who got in their ways. You can open the Bible at random and 9 of 10 times, you'll find a passage justifying slavery, genocide, rape (because women are described in the Bible as being subhuman), and homophobia. Christ describes how a slave that does not obey his master sins in the eyes of god.

My argument would be that if they did not have Christian values they would have used some other excuse to enslave others. Women are not described in the Bible as being subhuman, and homophobia has nothing to do with this topic. Firstly, it was not Christ who described that a slave that does not obey his master sins. It was Peter, and he used not the usual word for slave, but a broader word for something like a civil servant. Jesus in fact said “And whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all”, which uses the same word, meaning that you should serve all with dignity and love. This was not referring to the slave in the traditional sense.

Besides, that is one verse taken out of context. Indeed, the atrocities that men have committed have not just been committed in the name of the Christian God, but in every other religion and every other belief system.

The NSA has become so obsessed with knowing every detail of our lives, that if a regular person acted like them, he or she would be permanently committed as criminally insane.

I get the feeling this is like asking why the nation spends so much money on the military, and not enough on the poor. The behaviour that a nation presents can very rarely be analogized to that of a normal human, saying "if a regular person spied on people's activities, that would be insane" because the nation is not a person, it is a group of a great many people, and that's a different beast altogether.

<the part about the 2nd amendment>

I'd like to learn more about this, I don't live in the US, I live in New Zealand where I'm pretty sure we aren't allowed to own arms (I think). Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm legitimately curious, I have very little knowledge in this area and would like to know more.

Yes, going to a U. S. public school will make you more stupid.

I think that's a global thing. I think we just underrate our schools. Because to be honest, put a man through the US education system and through the NZ education system and the US boy will probably learn more. That's just my experience, our education system is behind because we don't have the facilities you guys have. So I wouldn't discount your education system entirely.

Go here for an example of the true face of the U. S. government. A doctor can be imprisoned for informing patients of the actual medical consequences of exposure to oil, its fumes, and the contaminants that come from fracking.

OK what the heck, that is truly creepy. I don't even understand why that would happen. That is pretty screwed up. I feel like there's some corporate interest in that one.

<The article you linked> to third-world dictatorships like China and others... ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

Doesn't he think those two might be linked? That the rise of third-world dictatorships like China will fuel the militarization and perhaps necessary surveillance of the state? But yes, I get the point that the article is making. Did the government wildly oppose the Baltimore riot?

Also, I thought Pocahontas was just a Disney cartoon, I didn't think it actually happened.
@Ratty: Greed. The reason they take soldiers is because they're strong and can work. They make the slave owner look good when they can supply stronger slaves than other slavers and repeat customers was a big thing with slavery - if you sold someone a good slave they were willing to suggest you to other people who wanted slaves and come back when their slave was no longer of use - or to offload their own slaves for better ones.

Of course, the idea was to not let a bunch of slaves with specialist training get together or at least to see them broken as much as possible. Seems someone dropped the ball.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
author=CashmereCat
Here's a bunch of replies to pianotm from someone who: a) does not live in the USA; b) is a Christian and thus has some things to say about the verification of some of the quotes you said, and would like clarity on that; c) legitimately wants to know more from someone who does seem very knowledgeable about the state of the US. Maybe this merits a different topic, but it's strange, I'm not usually interested in the fate of the USA because I keep figuring I'm dumb to understand it all, but I think I'm actually smart enough, I just need to do the research.

You're not too dumb to understand U. S. history. If you understand Roman history, you'll understand U. S. history.



My argument would be that if they did not have Christian values they would have used some other excuse to enslave others. Women are not described in the Bible as being subhuman, and homophobia has nothing to do with this topic. Firstly, it was not Christ who described that a slave that does not obey his master sins. It was Peter, and he used not the usual word for slave, but a broader word for something like a civil servant. Jesus in fact said “And whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all”, which uses the same word, meaning that you should serve all with dignity and love. This was not referring to the slave in the traditional sense.

Besides, that is one verse taken out of context. Indeed, the atrocities that men have committed have not just been committed in the name of the Christian God, but in every other religion and every other belief system.


This is not a "let's bash on Christianity" fest. The sad fact is that United States culture was built upon Puritan principles, extremely conservative views of the Bible. That's not an attack on religion, it's the simple truth, and your reaction is exactly why nobody wants to discuss the Christian role in U. S. imperialism. The fact is, it plays the largest role, and is responsible for the most reprehensible behavior. The same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, (yes, even Buddhism and Hinduism though those two don't engage in that anymore) and any other religion that isn't afraid to come out of the shadows for fear of the oppression that the big three readily dish out. Religion is a tool of the powers that be. It's how they enslave their people.

Likewise, I'm not going to spend several hours refuting quotes from a book that anyone can look up in it's entirety on Google. The simple fact is, the Bible contains an excess of passages detailing the purchase, sale, treatment, punishment, and description of slaves. During the Hebrew's flight from Egypt, there are several number of passages encouraging the slaughter of foreign cities with very specific instructions to kill all men, married women, their children, and to take the unwed women as slaves and wives. "Salem witch trials", "Puritans", "Shakers", "Quakers", or any other several hundred search parameters can be entered for a thorough rundown of U. S. Christian fundamentalism. It's probably the greatest saving grace that our Founding Fathers were Deist and insisted upon removing religion from the word of law. Obviously, the issue here is not spirituality, but an organization that indoctrinates and manipulates a wide population for its own purposes.

I get the feeling this is like asking why the nation spends so much money on the military, and not enough on the poor. The behaviour that a nation presents can very rarely be analogized to that of a normal human, saying "if a regular person spied on people's activities, that would be insane" because the nation is not a person, it is a group of a great many people, and that's a different beast altogether.

No, spying isn't what's insane. The NSA wants full transcripts of every conversation that every individual person has ever had through telephone, internet, or radio and they actively are trying to acquire full nude photographs from everyone on the planet. Yes, this is actually what Snowden revealed. They don't care if you are a U. S. citizen or not. They don't care what country you're in. The NSA insists upon seeing your genitals. Yes, this is the actual policy of our spy agency. No, it's not a joke. This was not found in a copy of MAD magazine. This is the actual content of the documents Edward Snowden has thus far released to the public.

<the part about the 2nd amendment>

I'd like to learn more about this, I don't live in the US, I live in New Zealand where I'm pretty sure we aren't allowed to own arms (I think). Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm legitimately curious, I have very little knowledge in this area and would like to know more.


Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing depends on a number of factors that I'm not broadly versed enough to comment on. In the case of the U. S., I think it would be a very bad thing. Our nation is obsessed with military might and with police authority. In the U. S., if they were to ban guns, you can be sure the police and military would be exempt. A similar situation occurred in Germany during the 1930s. The German government banned guns, went around collecting them...except German nationalists, known party members, were allowed to have guns. The next thing that happened, Germany began rounding up everyone they considered undesirable. Generally, if you're living in a condition in which your government is telling you that you don't need guns because they will take care of you, a gun ban would be a bad thing.

In the case of the U. S., you have to understand; we were under the oppression of a thousand year old empire that was accustomed to rule by intimidation. They created an economy of artificial poverty enforced by over-taxation and regulation, a very similar situation to what the U. S. is experiencing now. The British had the might and the fire-power, and they were behaving quite brutally towards citizens. There were constant murders by British troops, torture was common (and I'm talking about the medieval torture chambers you see in the movies), and people were generally in a condition in which they were forced into poverty while being poor was essentially outlawed. Of course, they blamed the primary problem on taxation. As the colonies became more downtrodden, the troops became more sadistic. They really stopped thinking of people as human, and the colonies had no voice. Nobody cared. Eventually, it exploded. A British soldier opened fire on a crowd of protesters and killed a young child. Riots and looting broke out, but instead of acknowledging that the colonies had been abused, they sent troops to put down the uprising and invested in wholesale slaughter, and that's when full, organized revolution broke out. The British had long enforced a ban on weapons. Colonists were allowed rifles for hunting, but pistols and anything larger was prohibited except for certain individuals, and there were strict regulations on how many rifles were permitted among colonists.

Upon drafting our laws, the Founders recognized that the primary reason that the British were able to treat the colonies so badly was because the people at large could not stand up for themselves. Upon forming the U. S., they resolved that no U. S. citizen should ever be in that position again. What good are rocks against cannons, and what kind of monster would use cannons against defenseless people? The Bill of Rights was very unpopular, and still is. Politicians want it to disappear. Religious leaders would like to see it burn. Most fundamentalist Christians, in particular extremist Southern Baptists such as Westboro Baptist Church, and Creationists feel that the Bill of Rights is a work of evil that must be destroyed. Thomas Jefferson realized that no amount of laws or political idealists would be able to protect the Bill of Rights. There was only one thing that could keep the future congressmen and presidents from abolishing it. Jefferson wrote the amendments in the order of what he felt was their importance. He wrote the freedom of speech, petition, assembly, religion and press first because he felt that these were divine rights and that from these rights, all other rights would proceed. He then wrote the second amendment because he felt only when the common man was armed would his rights be safe from the people in power. He, along with the other Federalists proceeded to create a government, that by design would have to be preserved by periodic rebellion. That's right, Jefferson actually put on paper that the we, the people of the United States, in order to preserve the government our Founders created, would have to rise up and bear arms against the authoritarians that would be in control once every 2 or 300 years.

I think that's a global thing. I think we just underrate our schools. Because to be honest, put a man through the US education system and through the NZ education system and the US boy will probably learn more. That's just my experience, our education system is behind because we don't have the facilities you guys have. So I wouldn't discount your education system entirely.

Afraid not. Our government policy favors testing over teaching. Art and music is generally shunned, and China, Japan, Australia, and 27 European countries actually lead the U. S. in education. No critical thinking is taught in U. S. schools, and educational standards have been steadily falling for the past 30 years.

OK what the heck, that is truly creepy. I don't even understand why that would happen. That is pretty screwed up. I feel like there's some corporate interest in that one.

Did you actually read any of these? The love of money drives this. Fracking is part of the oil industry and the U. S. is not above tormenting their citizens to make sure the rich oil barons are happy. Don't even get me started on our medical programs.

<The article you linked> to third-world dictatorships like China and others... ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

Doesn't he think those two might be linked? That the rise of third-world dictatorships like China will fuel the militarization and perhaps necessary surveillance of the state? But yes, I get the point that the article is making. Did the government wildly oppose the Baltimore riot?


Link? 90 percent of our goods come from China. There's a lot of fear mongering about China preparing to go to war with the U. S. People tell me I should be afraid of China and I just laugh in their faces. I tell them "That's FOX bullshit. China gets half of their income from us. They're not about to attack us." You can go back forty years and find newspapers warning of impending war with China. It's fearmongering that is intended to convince us how badly our nation needs to be a warmonger.

Also, I thought Pocahontas was just a Disney cartoon, I didn't think it actually happened.

Yep, John Smith and Pocahontas were real people, but they never met. The Virginia Company was led by John Wolfe, who met Pocahontas. The men of the company attacked the local tribes and took the women as slaves. Wolfe married Pocahontas when she was 12. At 19, she died of smallpox. John Smith led another expedition of the Virginia Company to the historic Roanoke settlement. It wasn't until years after the Wolfe expedition that Smith even talked about Pocahontas. He spun the tale that is told in schoolbooks today. It's possible he met her, but highly unlikely.


author=Cap_H
There were clan wars in Africa. They could easily buy strong warriors as they were hold hostages by another clan. But I don't think its clear one way or other. Any past (and most of the current ones) western interaction with Africa was a dirty mass filling ocean with loathe and blood. I don't have to remind you about colonization taking place in nineteenth century and its result which stays till nowadays.
If Slavers did trade with Chiefs it was for the reason they felt too superior to natives, that they refused to hunt them down personally.
If I were living in past centuries I would always advise to let Africa live its way (It's not possible anymore as we damaged it far beyond regrets).

No. The typical slave ship had about 50 crewmen and they were armed with repeaters. They fired a single shot and on the fast side, took about 30 seconds to reload. That versus 5000 tribesmen with spears and bows. No, they weren't kidnapping anyone. Just because they were despicable doesn't mean they were stupid.
@Ratty: I...don't know? I'm largely ignorant of Canadian history. I knew parts of what piano talked about (such as Lincoln actually not wanting to repeal slavery), and other things like it was the Bubonic plague that made it possible for Europeans to even move in and start colonizing North America (they didn't bring it, but over 90% of Native Americans there prior ended up dying from it--and then those that did survive faced the smallpox from the Europeans...)

As far as the Bill of Rights, I find it amusing how often people misinterpret the first two amendments:

Freedom of Speech: This says that the GOVERNMENT cannot do anything to you for what you're saying. Your job can still fire you. Your neighbors can take offense and kick your ass. Also it does NOT implicitly imply (redundancy ftw) a separation of church and state, Jefferson (I think) used that phrase in a letter to someone. Which is just as well, theocracy gtfo.

Second Amendment: The one almost EVERYONE gets wrong. It's "The right to bear arms in a well regulated militia". Since, you know, Britain didn't recognize the Declaration of Independence right when it was signed (plus no standing army back then), and as piano said, gotta try to keep dictators in check somehow.
Ebeth
always up for cute art and spicy gay romance
4390
Completely unrelated but I'm thinking its been way to long since the last mafia game.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
The actual wording of the second amendment cites a well regulated militia as the reason why the amendment exists, but does not list membership as a requirement for an individual to bear arms. This interpretation was held up in court in the most recent related case.
author=LockeZ
The actual wording of the second amendment cites a well regulated militia as the reason why the amendment exists, but does not list membership as a requirement for an individual to bear arms. This interpretation was held up in court in the most recent related case.


So when does Oprah hand out AK-47s to everybody?

"You get an assault rifle, YOU get an assault rifle! EVERYBODY GETS AN ASSAULT RIFLEEEEEE♪♫"

(I'm joking)
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
author=Gleason
Also it does NOT implicitly imply (redundancy ftw) a separation of church and state, Jefferson (I think) used that phrase in a letter to someone. Which is just as well, theocracy gtfo.


I despise this argument. Thomas Jefferson, when asked by the Danbury Baptists, specifically wrote that when he drafted the Bill of Rights, the freedom of religion clause was specifically intended to create the "Separation of Church and State". His letter to the Danbury Baptists is specifically where we get this term.

Second Amendment: The one almost EVERYONE gets wrong.
Including you. You've misquoted it.

It's "The right to bear arms in a well regulated militia".


No it's not. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

@LockeZ: Not arguing with you, just bringing some context. Here's a quote from that link: "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

Earlier in this ruling, it says, "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
Damn it now I have to go and reread the whole damn thing to make sure I'm still capable of reading comprehension
I'm thinking breakfast (oatmeal,) then grading.
GET HYPE

I can't wait for the Kickstarter to go online tomorrow. It will hurt my wallet badly but... It's so worth it. I am still in a waking dream state about this game's existence.

Also, the name came out fucking perfectly. I am impressed.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
Now, that's funny!
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Pizza
GET HYPEI can't wait for the Kickstarter to go online tomorrow. It will hurt my wallet badly but... It's so worth it. I am still in a waking dream state about this game's existence.

Also, the name came out fucking perfectly. I am impressed.


The pun hurts so much.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
It's over. Finals are finally over....


....


....

*dies*
Seiromem
I would have more makerscore If I did things.
6375
I was about to ask you guys how to not procrastinate ahahaha what a stupid idea.

But really how do you not procrastinate.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Ask me again in a few days and I'll tell you
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
author=Seiromem
I was about to ask you guys how to not procrastinate ahahaha what a stupid idea.

But really how do you not procrastinate.


By getting up and doing it right now.
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
author=pianotm
author=Seiromem
I was about to ask you guys how to not procrastinate ahahaha what a stupid idea.

But really how do you not procrastinate.
By getting up and doing it right now.


Motivation begets motivation, and momentum begets momentum, right? Getting started is, like, by far the hardest part, but after you make some progress, you get inspired to keep going and try harder :D

It's like when you get invited to a party or something, and you don't wanna put forth the effort to getting dressed, driving over, and going out - but you force yourself to do it and end up having a good time! It's work, but it ends up being worth it.