Am I the ONLY One Here Who Feels This Way ?

@firefly,

David wrote:

Am I the ONLY One Here Who Feels This Way ?

When I see a movie wherein the bad guy
is slaughtering the teenagers, or the pretty girls (or ANY innocent victims),

I wish that the victim pulled out a large calibered gun with hollowpointed loads
and BLASTED the predator where it COUNTS ???

I root for the VICTIM!

firefly wrote:

So, how did you feel when Bambi gets shot? Conflicted?

I guess I probably saw that movie
some time in the 1940s; not clear in my memory.

R u sure that he got shot in the movie ?

Anyway, I 've never been a hunter
(except 1ce when I was 9 when we hunted snakes on the desert, unsuccessfully).
That was a stupid thing to do.

The deer n the elk r safe from me.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Another hilarioius post . . . who knew David's obsession would be so entertaining?

How do YOU feel about it, Setanta ?

When u see a movie depicting depredations,
do u wish that the victims coud defend themselves,
or are u impartial ?

May we have your contribution ?

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

We're talking movies, David, make believe . . . you're obsessed. Get yourself a non-lethal hobby, or, better yet, a girl friend . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I can 't deny that; I 've been obsessed for quite a long, long time.

David

0 Replies

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

No. When I watch a film, I don't usually watch it wishing it was something other than what it is, unless its a rubbish film.

Part of what makes films good is, sometimes, when innocent victims are killed, it adds to the drama etc.

however, a simple bad guy predator on innocent victim movie, like "Predator" for example, is tat anyway, but in this example the good guys are well armed.

Also, it depends how emotionally involved I am with the characters on screen-if the film is not effective in that sense, then I don't really care what happens to anyone, but if a film can draw me in and make me feel concerned about the fate of the characters, then maybe I will hope they don't die, or hope they can fend off their attacker.

You have to suspend belief to enjoy fiction of any sort, and to see it 'as if' true... Some times when you watch some girl in a cut-up trying to escape some killer in her cmfm's you have to wonder about the price of shoes on that side of reality, and why she would value her pumps more than her life...

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Another hilarioius post . . . who knew David's obsession would be so entertaining?
How do YOU feel about it, Setanta ?

When u see a movie depicting depredations,
do u wish that the victims coud defend themselves,
or are u impartial ?

May we have your contribution ?

David

There is not a great distance between the sublime and the ridiculous, but there is even less distance between fiction and farce... The fact that you can give yourself to emotional involment with fiction that is designed to manipulate the simple minded reveals more about you than you would ever willingly tell, and it explains why you can be so easily taken in by the republican spin masters... It is always possible to lead people where you can convince them they want to go... You are gullible... Admit it...

1 Reply

@Fido,

I REJECT it.

I am anti-collectivist, anti-communitarian.

I worked AGAINST the New York Republican Party
in the early 1960s, to pull it to the right,
by our creation of a NY Conservative Party.

I was its very first volunteer, to put the new party on the ballot.
We opposed the leftist Nelson Rockefeller and Sen. Jacob Javits.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I REJECT it.

I am anti-collectivist, anti-communitarian.

I worked AGAINST the New York Republican Party
in the early 1960s, to pull it to the right,
by our creation of a NY Conservative Party.

I was its very first volunteer, to put the new party on the ballot.
We opposed the leftist Nelson Rockefeller and Sen. Jacob Javits.

David

Isn't "WE" sort of a dirty word with you??? How do you do anything without cooperation, without shared common goals and common effort... The right sells the idea of the individuals to idiots, but they will form corporations in a heartbeat that are no more than unions designed to empower and enrich a certain group at the expense of the nation... They just do all within their power to keep other people from combining against them like they do against others, and you are but a tool in their hands, too foolish to sacrifice a wee bit of your individuality to have survival and success...

1 Reply

@Fido,

YES. I promote hedonistic Individualism
and I degrade communitarianism, as well as possible, within reason.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

YES. I promote hedonistic Individualism
and I degrade communitarianism, as well as possible, within reason.

David

Within reason is exactly the point old Dave... It is not because of the way people felt that they could combine to achieve larger and more difficult goals... They bought survival with thought, reason to you, and this often involved a lot of self sacrifice... But people endured highly controlled societies not to lose freedom, but to enjoy freedom, and the behavior of the individual was of necessity controlled outside of his community, to avoid international conflict so that freedom within ones community could be complete... When we must endure the socialism of poverty only so rich people cas piss it all away, that is not within reason.... We sacrifice, and do without, and everytime we start to get ahead the rich want to start another war... How many times has capitalism been on life support in some fashion in your life time, and why is it that the people have to work to support an economy that is supposed to support us???? We give to them when they go to the government and say they cannot do without help, and that the whole teetering tottering system may fall like a house of cards... Who cares??? We are not getting what we want out of the economy, and if it will fall we can build better... Now we are living like the third world, paying for top shelf government and getting a fraud.... You tell me, that if we were united that we could not prevail upon government to first give us democracy, and then to support education, health care, fair wages and protection from the international competition with slaves that can only result in our reduction to slavery... The object of democratic government should be the liberation of all people from slavery, and it is a result of our want of democracy that we must so fear slavery, because as people before the civil war realized, to work in competition with slaves makes all people slaves... We do not combine to resist injustice because of the way we feel in the face of injustice... We act within reason because that is exactly the most efficient means of problem solving we have... Quit being a knee jerk reactionary, and start thinking how you can work with others to fix this society..

1 Reply

@Fido,

Some of your values are not legitimate ones for the extant government,
because lovers of personal freedom (like me) were intentionally very stingy
with the amount of domestic jurisdiction that was granted to government.

Hence, government cannot exercize any such domestic jurisdiction
unless by USURPATION of ultra vires power,
with as much authority as a schoolyard bully.

Your name to the contrary notwithstanding,
u do not bear true faith to the Social-Political Contract.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Some of your values are not legitimate ones for the extant government,
because lovers of personal freedom (like me) were intentionally very stingy
with the amount of domestic jurisdiction that was granted to government.

Hence, government cannot exercize any such domestic jurisdiction
unless by USURPATION of ultra vires power,
with as much authority as a schoolyard bully.

Your name to the contrary notwithstanding,
u do not bear true faith to the Social-Political Contract.
If you do not mind my agreeing with you on one point, then it is this: The goals clearly stated for which the constitution was written are absolute and unlimited... The Preamble does not state: Half the blessing of liberty, for example; but the means are sadly lacking for achieving goals which may require a strong government... In addition, as a matter of ideology, it was thought that if property was protected, the property owners would be protected, and England had long built up elaborate protections for property against the rapacity of their kings... But protections of property owners from government in no sense protect property owners from the avarice of other property owners... Property rights are not equal, and in fact, property makes all people unequal... The civil rights all people share protect property owners, but property rights only protect property owners, and the more property one has, the more protection one receives, and this was fine when property taxes actually supported the government...So, essentially, property has the protection of government, but because of the rights government is bound to protect property owners have a great deal of influence in government and this has resulted in great tracts of the commonwealth being put in private hands... Look at all the lands granted to the railroads that the government could have built as well, and though many of the rail lines have vanished the fortunes built up at the public expense remain... So, again, while the goal of government is good, and just; the government in the constitution was denied the power to reach those goals by those with the desire to protect their property because they believed the were the most able and worthy of leadership in the society...

In fact, I am totally faithful to the social contract... In the examples we have in law, people agree to give up their weapons, and their immediate claim to instant justice for the promise of justice through society... But without that justice for all, there is no contract, and each is entitled to law as the see it, and that is no law at all...

What you need to remember is that we have a legal document called the Declaration of Independence which contains a certain legal argument... What it amounts to, and is said in so many words, even using the word form, is that people have the right to change their forms, meaning the social form of their government.... The people are the law, but as Jefferson said: people do not change their forms for light and transient causes... This fact works against them because so many of them can be destroyed while the minds of the rest are about changing, and societies can be so weakened that they cannot resist even light pressure from without... We are being invaded from every point of the compass, and we cannot protect ourselves from it because property demands it... Our republic was built on the model of the Roman Republic as it was just before it fell into tyranny... You have to remember that just as then, so many on the street, with nominal rights, but driven from their property became putty in the hands of tyrants who promised them justice... The people are the law, and it is the people who write the law, but when the law is written, it is those with the power who seek to protect their power over the demands of the people for justice, and in protecting power those people sow the seeds of destruction far and wide in their societies...

1 Reply

@Fido,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Some of your values are not legitimate ones for the extant government,
because lovers of personal freedom (like me) were intentionally very stingy
with the amount of domestic jurisdiction that was granted to government.

Hence, government cannot exercize any such domestic jurisdiction
unless by USURPATION of ultra vires power,
with as much authority as a schoolyard bully.

Your name to the contrary notwithstanding,
u do not bear true faith to the Social-Political Contract.

Fido wrote:

If you do not mind my agreeing with you on one point,

I 'd rather that u don 't.

Fido wrote:

then it is this: The goals clearly stated for which the constitution was written are absolute and unlimited...

Thay are LIMITED by the jurisdiction that was WITHHELD from the damned thing.
As ice is made out of water,
so freedom is made out of government INCAPACITY.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Some of your values are not legitimate ones for the extant government,
because lovers of personal freedom (like me) were intentionally very stingy
with the amount of domestic jurisdiction that was granted to government.

Hence, government cannot exercize any such domestic jurisdiction
unless by USURPATION of ultra vires power,
with as much authority as a schoolyard bully.

Your name to the contrary notwithstanding,
u do not bear true faith to the Social-Political Contract.
Fido wrote:
If you do not mind my agreeing with you on one point,
I 'd rather that u don 't.

Fido wrote:
then it is this: The goals clearly stated for which the constitution was written are absolute and unlimited...
Thay are LIMITED by the jurisdiction that was WITHHELD from the damned thing.
As ice is made out of water,
so freedom is made out of government INCAPACITY.

Seriously??? If, as Aristotle said, that Governments are formed for good, and there is a positive evil in the exploitation of one part of society by another, then where is the good in leaving the government powerless to prevent that exploitation when only weakness for the country, and injury for its citizens can result??? The goals of this government are first class, but the means were not given to government to reach those goals because the will was not there, so the government was born burdened with contradictions that parties have only made worse... If we had representation grow with the country then the house of reps could be the people's army... Instead it is another lap dog for the rich when they already had one in the Senate... What the founding fathers gave us was designed to work better than what we have now, but rich were not contented with getting it all sooner or later when they could get it all right away... Parties have divided this land and this people between themselves, but in the process, to have all the wealth they have divided the people against themselves... We are a house divided... It is the fact we have still from Lincoln's time, so that issues that would have resolved themselves by accord have been left to fester with no accord possible between the parties... And parties are not constitutional... We may have acted as though the king were our enemy in our rebellion, but it was parties Parlement united against us that was our true enemy... The parties are still our enemy...

1 Reply

@Fido,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Some of your values are not legitimate ones for the extant government,
because lovers of personal freedom (like me) were intentionally very stingy
with the amount of domestic jurisdiction that was granted to government.

Hence, government cannot exercize any such domestic jurisdiction
unless by USURPATION of ultra vires power,
with as much authority as a schoolyard bully.

Your name to the contrary notwithstanding,
u do not bear true faith to the Social-Political Contract.

Fido wrote:

If you do not mind my agreeing with you on one point,

I 'd rather that u don 't.

Fido wrote:

then it is this: The goals clearly stated for which the constitution was written are absolute and unlimited...

Thay are LIMITED by the jurisdiction that was WITHHELD from the damned thing.
As ice is made out of water,
so freedom is made out of government INCAPACITY.

Fido wrote:

Seriously???

Very seriously and most earnestly.

Fido wrote:

If, as Aristotle said, that Governments are formed for good, and there is a positive evil in the exploitation
of one part of society by another, then where is the good in leaving the government powerless

The GOOD is in living in personal liberty.

America is supposed to be the Land of the Free
and the Home of the Brave.
Those who don 't like it, can go elsewhere.

The Founders of this Republic knew
that personal freedom and domestic jurisdiction of government
are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David; liberty, which you cannot define is experienced subjectively and individually, but has always been defended socially... You cannot expect that others will trouble to defend a freedom for you that they do not enjoy themselves, and that is the way it is with the rich, that they enjoy freedoms most of us can only imagine for which they pay none of the cost... Let me give you an example... When the Manhatten district project was going on full speed, and the government was throwing billions of WWII dollars into the effort to win the war with nuclear weapons, and save millions of lives in the process, and many industries were giving their best minds, and even their facilities over to the government for a single dollar, the only serious obsticle to building some of the facilites for the refining of radioactive material came from southern landowners who found themselves dispossessed... No one likes to be dispossessed, but considering the 60 million people dispossessed of their lives in that war, don't you think some of those people could have taken their fair market value and departed the scene without a fight??? What they realized is that the fair market value does not at all reflect the true value of the commonwealth in anyone's possession, and that is is valued cheaply to maximize the value of wealth to the rich while denying the support of it to society... We hold this land in common when it comes to dying for it; but when it comes to the enjoyment of it, the freedom to tell others to get the hell off is reserved only for a few who refuse to pay for it at the going rate... And if the rich to do not pay for what they enjoy at our expense then we all must pay... Consider what a world it would be if each of us had to defend on our own what we have like some bag lady in an alley, because that is about what all of us could afford in doing so... It is only in a common defense can the commonwealth be protected, but why should anyone denied freedom go to the aid of another's freedom for which they receive no benefit but the honor of doing so???

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

David; liberty, which you cannot define

I have defined liberty as the incapacity of government.

The more crippled a government is in its domestic jurisdiction,
the more personal freedom we citizens, the creators of government, have to enjoy.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Fido wrote:
David; liberty, which you cannot define
I have defined liberty as the incapacity of government.

The more crippled a government is in its domestic jurisdiction,
the more personal freedom we citizens, the creators of government, have to enjoy.

David

You have not defined it; but you have given an example of it from your perspective... I trust that if you were caught in a flood, though you may be too smart to ever let that happen, that you would not want a government without the capacity or the ability or the intelligence to pull you out of your quagmire... Even primitive peoples did not live without social organization, and they may look at us as retarded for trying... They would not tolerate crime, though it may well be the criminals definition of freedom to have a world without cops... We each may have a definiton of freedom to suit our particular aim and purpose, but we do not all live as individuals... Some two people some where had to reach some sort of agreement which limited individual freedom for both for any of us to have been born, and no individual anywhere is capable alone of having a child... The individual perspective, which is the same as the criminal perspective is not always the best from which to judge freedom... In fact it is a false perspective, and unreal... History has many examples just from the time of Rome, of individuals who stood alone and died alone for freedom against armies who cared notihing for individualism and everything for victory... So what if you know freedom as an individual??? You must still defend it socially, and if you cannot govern yourself, or be governed you are not good for yourself, or good for anything...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

David; liberty, which you cannot define

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have defined liberty as the incapacity of government.

The more crippled a government is in its domestic jurisdiction,
the more personal freedom we citizens, the creators of government, have to enjoy.

David

Fido wrote:

You have not defined it; but you have given an example of it from your perspective... I trust that if you were caught in a flood, though you may be too smart to ever let that happen, that you would not want a government without the capacity or the ability or the intelligence to pull you out of your quagmire... Even primitive peoples did not live without social organization, and they may look at us as retarded for trying... They would not tolerate crime, though it may well be the criminals definition of freedom to have a world without cops... We each may have a definiton of freedom to suit our particular aim and purpose, but we do not all live as individuals... Some two people some where had to reach some sort of agreement which limited individual freedom for both for any of us to have been born, and no individual anywhere is capable alone of having a child...

Well, as an Individual,
I have been fully successful in AVOIDING having any child, and that 's what I care about.

David

0 Replies

Am I the ONLY One Here Who Feels This Way ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know