OlwenaSedai

What is your most controversial opinion?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, LedZepMan said:

Am I the only person on this planet that sees technology as inherently evil?

 

Does nobody like doing things the satisfying way anymore? Roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty, go to bed tired kinda stuff

Yes. Technology is great, its what allowed us as a species to surpass everything else on this planet. Your gun? Technology. Car? Technology. Wood axe? Technology. Your clothes? Technology. Books? Houses? Roofs? Technology. Medicine? Enjoy your polio and Bubonic Plague.

 

If you dont like technology, go back to living in a cave and banging two rocks together. See how much you enjoy it. And please, leave your gun and any other hunting instruments here. Those haven't been invented yet for you.

 

Technology is not restricted to robots. Those are just its next step.

 

2 minutes ago, LedZepMan said:

the beginning of phasing out jobs that hundreds of thousands of people rely on to keep a roof over their head, and food in their bellies. By all means, let's give jobs to a bunch of pieces of junk

That would be why we need to figure out how to take care of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I.E. Universal Income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LedZepMan said:

To robots. Not people

Robots are owned by Corporations.
Corporations are now People.
Ergo, we are bringing back jobs to american people. :laugh:

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Nah, that's where persistence hunting comes in, and living in a fairly warm climate that you don't even need clothes.

 

3 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

Case you hadnt noticed, im a Technophile. I love technology.

 

If our current technological society grinds to a halt to such an extent as you are predicting, its probably a Great Filter/Extinction Risk level event. I.E. Global Nuclear War or something. Odds are, knowing how to chop wood or lay concrete still wont help you in that event. Nothing will.

 

However if things keep growing as they are, technology is going to boom and replace everything. We will either crash and burn as a society all the way back to the stone age, or we succeed and our standard of living will sky-rocket as machines become capable of doing pretty much anything a human can do for a fraction of a fraction of the cost. This is what is called a 'Great Filter', preventing us from reaching what many have come to call a Type 1 Civilization. 

 

So you will use an old car, with terrible gas mileage, because you dont trust the science behind automatic transmissions? Because you think you as a human are 100% more efficient than a machine built for that singular purpose? Maybe instead of getting salty about people not knowing how to lay concrete or these other out-modded requirements for survival, you should learn the new things and new machines.

 

Side note, shooting isnt hard. Point, pull trigger. Its not difficult. Learning how to hunt and track is far more important to "hunting" than knowing how to shoot is. A monkey can learn how to shoot a gun.

 

Yes, actually. We are working on that.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-robot-could-build-much-of-your-next-house-2016-11-01

You are very wrong about shooting being easy. It takes years to learn how to properly judge wind, bullet drop, how to lead your shot. And why would I want to learn a new system that is doomed to fail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its not doomed to fail? Its succeeding gloriously, why do you think we have made more progress in the last 5-10 years than the last 100?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

Because its not doomed to fail? Its succeeding gloriously, why do you think we have made more progress in the last 5-10 years than the last 100?

I don't see it as progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the future have to be complete utopia or complete dystopia?  Isn't it more likely that it will be what it has always been, something in between?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LedZepMan said:

I don't see it as progress

Then as I said, go back to banging rocks together in a cave and chasing prey down as an Persistence Predator. Because without Technology, that which separates us from animals, that is where you would be.

 

Better yet, go back to millions of people dying because of preventable diseases like Flu and Polio, because once again, without technology and progress that is where you would be.

 

Leave your guns at the door, those are part of "progress"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Nah, that's where persistence hunting comes in, and living in a fairly warm climate that you don't even need clothes.

 

Goal for 2018: Run an ultra 

Goal for later: Sign up for an endurance hunting run. I hear the meat tastes horrible, but the idea of standing over an animal which you have literally run into the ground...

 

1 hour ago, LedZepMan said:

Am I the only person on this planet that sees technology as inherently evil?

 

Does nobody like doing things the satisfying way anymore? Roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty, go to bed tired kinda stuff

 

*looks around* Um, I consider what I do very challenging and very statisfing. The mental tiredness I feel after a long, hard day at work is great. 

 

1 hour ago, WWWwombat said:

Does the future have to be complete utopia or complete dystopia?  Isn't it more likely that it will be what it has always been, something in between?

 

Aim for the utopia, you'll get the in between. 
Accept the dystopia, and, well, you'll get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WWWwombat said:

 

Excuse me for being flippant and using hyperbole.  I don't see the US government using nukes on rebels.  That being said, every single weapon we use in the seemingly perpetual "War on Terror" could be used on the American populace as well.  Our armed forces have spent the last two-and-a-half decades learning how to prosecute asymmetric wars against stubborn insurgencies.  Were our government to become a tyrannical autocracy, a successful revolution would have to rely on far more than just force of arms.

You're excused.

 

That said there is probably no winning a revolution against the government unless it's a mass revolt. I mean like the majority of the military and public all united. I've thought about this subject a lot because it almost always comes up in a discussion of gun control and I've concluded the only way for a revolution to occur in the modern age is to fight the government to a stalemate until it gives up or collapses. Guns will be needed to do that but you're right that it will take more than guns to make a real go of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nolder said:

You're excused.

 

That said there is probably no winning a revolution against the government unless it's a mass revolt. I mean like the majority of the military and public all united. I've thought about this subject a lot because it almost always comes up in a discussion of gun control and I've concluded the only way for a revolution to occur in the modern age is to fight the government to a stalemate until it gives up or collapses. Guns will be needed to do that but you're right that it will take more than guns to make a real go of it.

If you need the military in the first place, then why not just arm that civilian populace from the military supplies? Who do the people need guns to start with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LedZepMan said:

Why is everyone so afraid of Assault Rifles? A gun is a gun is a gun. You have no more reason to fear an AR than a handgun. Both will kill you.

 

I agree with the bold.  The rest is pretty much objectively false.  Whether you're talking about an M16, M4, AK-47, AK-74, FAMAS, SA-80, G36, etc. etc. there's a reason that nearly (and I would guess every) all militaries in the world have a fully automatic rifle, with high capacity magazines, as their standard infantry weapon and not Glock 19's. 

 

I'm not going to argue the potential to kill with a small caliber pistol; if I get into a fight with you and I have 9mm handgun, you're going to have a bad day.  You're going to have a hell of a worse day if I'm holding an F&N F2000, because I'm going to be able to shoot further, more often, and more accurately.  Similarly, you're going to have a worse day against a guy with an AA-12 automatic shotgun with a 32 shell drum over your great grandfather's single action 12 gauge. 

 

This would be like saying a WWI-era Sopwith Camel is equal to an F22 Raptor because both are combat planes.

 

(On a completely unrelated, and not really thread relevant, note, if anybody wants to argue they're a better shot than me, I'll check my PM's)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That said there is probably no winning a revolution against the government unless it's a mass revolt. I mean like the majority of the military and public all united. I've thought about this subject a lot because it almost always comes up in a discussion of gun control and I've concluded the only way for a revolution to occur in the modern age is to fight the government to a stalemate until it gives up or collapses. Guns will be needed to do that but you're right that it will take more than guns to make a real go of it."

 

I think  a scenerio like the Spanish Civil War is much more likely. You do not have a unified government, military or populace, instead different elements of each coalesce during a crisis which leads to several "groups" taking the reigns of power but none being able to claim enough adherence to prevent others from attempting to gain ultimate power.

 

"If you need the military in the first place, then why not just arm that civilian populace from the military supplies? Who do the people need guns to start with?"

 

Again the Spanish Civil War offers a good example of what can be done. At the beginning of the war in 1936 it was believed that the Nationalist forces of Franco would be able to take Madrid. The Leftist government actually abandoned the city and it's defense was left to the "militias" of armed civilians mostly fholding allegience to the Anarcho-Syndicalist cause. Not only was the military unable to take Madrid in 1936 but the armed militias (at the time the Spanish populace was heavily armed and while the militias benefited from guns and ammunitions gained from military bases the vast majority of their arms were those that had been personally owned ) held the City all the way into 1939 by which time the contradictions and shortfalls of the Republican cause (The Communists betrayal of the Syndicalists, The Syndicalists unwillingness to take an active role in the government since they were Anarchists and saw their movements active participation in any government as inconsistent with their core beliefs, the dissatisfaction and abandonment of other leftist groups due to the Communists Parties attempt to take all power onto itself) more then the efforts of the Nationalist army under Franco had sealed the fate of Spain.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Aim for the utopia, you'll get the in between. 
Accept the dystopia, and, well, you'll get it."

 

I would say to neither aim for the Utopia or settle for the dystopia.  Am for the difficult but the possible and you will likely gain it or something close to it. You aim for the Utopian and not only will you never reach it but you will squander your time and resources on the unatainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I agree with the bold.  The rest is pretty much objectively false.  "

 

With respect I think you miss part of the point. "Assault Rifles as used by the military are not legally obtainable by 99% of the population. Still people try to make semi automatic weapons illegal by calling them Assualt Weapons . This is particularly true when the definition includes weapons that physically resemble military grade weapons because to them if it looks like a weapon used by the military that is enough to categorize it as too dangerous for civilian use. 

 

As for who is a better shot. That would of course depend on the weapon and conditions being tested. I think I am likely as good a shot a you with a Colt 1911. Also might question your claim on any pre-1970's 30-06 bolt action rifle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

Goal for 2018: Run an ultra 

Goal for later: Sign up for an endurance hunting run. I hear the meat tastes horrible, but the idea of standing over an animal which you have literally run into the ground...

 

I honestly don't know how meat from an animal run into the ground tastes. But Wild game can taste awesome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lenlo said:

If you need the military in the first place, then why not just arm that civilian populace from the military supplies? Who do the people need guns to start with?

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you rephrase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nolder said:

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you rephrase?

If the prerequisite for a successful revolution in modern America is that a majority of the US military has sided with the civilian populace, why must the civilian populace be armed with personal weapons? Why would the civilians need to already own their own weapons?

 

Why can they not be supplied with weapons and ammunition by the portions of the US military that has sided with the civilians? No doubt the US military supplies will be of higher quality than a majority of civilian firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

If the prerequisite for a successful revolution in modern America is that a majority of the US military has sided with the civilian populace, why must the civilian populace be armed with personal weapons? Why would the civilians need to already own their own weapons?

 

Why can they not be supplied with weapons and ammunition by the portions of the US military that has sided with the civilians? No doubt the US military supplies will be of higher quality than a majority of civilian firearms.

I think you misunderstand me. 

 

In order to "win the war" (please note the emphasis) you would need a majority of the military and public on one side. The other option is to fight the government to a stalemate until it gives concessions or collapses which are also win conditions, just not direct military wins. If you're going for the alternate win conditions you'll need some guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

I honestly don't know how meat from an animal run into the ground tastes. But Wild game can taste awesome.

 

 

I’m going off the saying that meat from an animal which is killed quickly taste better than one which survived for a short while.

 

basically lactic acid doesn’t taste good; if you run an animal to death, I doubt it’s the most tasty version of the meat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the obsession with “what will happen in a war against the government/second civil war?”

 

There. Will. Be. No. Civil. War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyzack said:

What is the obsession with “what will happen in a war against the government/second civil war?”

 

There. Will. Be. No. Civil. War.

It always comes up in a discussion about guns/Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Nolder said:

It always comes up in a discussion about guns/Second Amendment.

Because people always use it as a defense for why they should be allowed to keep all manner of firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lenlo said:

Because people always use it as a defense for why they should be allowed to keep all manner of firearms.

Because other people stupidly make the argument you wouldn't win a fight with the government anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nolder said:

Because other people stupidly make the argument you wouldn't win a fight with the government anyway.

 

You won’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now