Happiness is a Warm Gun: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Happiness is a Warm Gun » Happiness is a Warm Gun

Happiness is a Warm Gun

Page: 1 2 3

Happiness is a Warm Gun

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/19/08 - 12:52 PM: Subject: Happiness is a Warm Gun	#1
In today's Wall Street Journal is an article , "Trigger Happy", by Arthur C. Brooks which uses Barak Obama's recent ill-chosen words about bitter people clinging to guns and religion as a launch point into the psychology of gun owners. Among the statistics that Brooks cites is that: 34% of American homes have a gun in them. By 36% to 30%, gun owners are happier than non-gun owners. Gun owners spend 15% less of their time feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." Gun owners are equally educated as non-gun owners but earn 32% more income. Gun owners are happier even holding income equal. While these statistics are interesting if unsurprising, Brooks goes further to speculate why this is so. Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner. Many studies over the years have shown that a belief in one's control over the environment dramatically adds to happiness. This really is the issue. Guns, for all their utility, are but one among many means to a common end: personal control over one's life. I have found this to be true in many ways. I find great joy, for example, in liberating myself from some prior constraint whether the constraint was from the environment or in my own mind. Seeing new possibilities and acting on them is a powerful experience. Indeed, I can remember more than once having to stifle a big grin when firing someone. Law and social protocol demands that we put up with incompetence far longer than we ought. So when the moment finally arrives when we can fire the SOB without legal entanglement, the experience can be extraordinarily cathartic. (There was one instance where I thought I had managed my emotions only to be told afterwards by my attorney that I had had the biggest shit-eating grin he had ever seen.) Now it is important to remember that happiness can come in other ways too. Sometimes we cannot control some aspect of our circumstances but we can achieve happiness by accepting that circumstance. But even here it is possible that we are simply taking control in another way: taking control of what we think and how we feel about a situation we cannot change. Maybe I can't stop Barak Obama from saying stupid things but I can easily choose to be amused instead of outraged by what he says.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 04/22/08 - 02:50 AM:	#2
36 to 30 percent is an irrelevant statistical difference, apart from other problems of such studies. There can be many different factors compounding to happyness. That said, your thesis is interesting guns equal self reliance, equals happynes. One problem I find with it it is completely irrational. We can't hunt for food in the city. We have no more personal control over our lives with a gun. It is a subjective feeling of safety and security. I think it has to do with the profiles of gun owners. My guess would be that they are self relying types who are confident in the ways of violence and competition to solve conflicts. Nothing wrong with that, just a type. I for instance am a different type. I am not very big or skilled in the ways of violence. For types such as Brack Obama and myself ( ) gun control makes sense. We like to promote argument as a way of conflict resolution. Lawyers you see. The tide is turning in our favour luckily. Since self reliance is totally impossible in city life, deals have to be made and argument is the only way to survive the war of all against all. That means curtailing the ones who like to employ 'self reliant' tactics, because their physical superiority tends to disbalance the process of argumentation. Argument only makes sense if people have equal recourse to other means such as violence. You never win an argument for a gun. Ergo we argumenters don't want guns. We can't control them and we fear they will use physical or supremacy to win the day. We can't have that. Conquistadores are an annoying breed because they seem to idolise violence and a general macho culture. This runs against our intellectual grain. So it makes sense, from a conflict perspective that we try to curtail you. We do that by promoting gun control and other measure to create a level playing field. Since lawyers make law we will win. A gun had a function in a past society, it is a relic, though a deadly one. So we ban it. The macho gun owners we have a purpose for. We enlist them and let them play games like America's Army. Than we send them to countries far away to do our bidding. Actually it went like that from the time of the crusades. When the pope managed to convince the entire population of knights to pack its bags and get slaughtered in Palestine. The control of the gu owner is a fable, self delusion, but dagerous self delusion which we will control. Now only to curtail the ruthless managers. They wear suits, I wish they would wear lances, it would make our job so much easier.
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/22/08 - 11:54 AM:	#3
Tobias wrote: 36 to 30 percent is an irrelevant statistical difference, apart from other problems of such studies. There can be many different factors compounding to happyness. That said, your thesis is interesting guns equal self reliance, equals happynes. Although this is not a new idea, in this context I have to say that it is not my idea but that of Arthur Brooks. And it was speculation at that. Nevertheless, I"m perfectly willing to defend it as a reasonable hypothesis. (He pointed to other studies which suggest the same thing at work.) Tobias wrote: One problem I find with it it is completely irrational. We can't hunt for food in the city. We have no more personal control over our lives with a gun. It is a subjective feeling of safety and security. I think it has to do with the profiles of gun owners. My guess would be that they are self relying types who are confident in the ways of violence and competition to solve conflicts. Nothing wrong with that, just a type. I for instance am a different type. I am not very big or skilled in the ways of violence. I don't want to start a debate about gun control here. That's tangential at best. But I would be very surprised if you were smaller than my daughter who has become quite handy with her HK. That said, with regard to Brooks' theory about happiness, it is perception that is key. Even if a gun owner never has to use his gun to hunt or in self defense, the simple fact that he has that capability is enough to confer the happiness bonus that Brooks' cited. It's like the peace of mind that comes from having home insurance. Tobias wrote: For types such as Brack Obama and myself ( ) gun control makes sense. We like to promote argument as a way of conflict resolution. Lawyers you see. The tide is turning in our favour luckily. Since self reliance is totally impossible in city life, deals have to be made and argument is the only way to survive the war of all against all. That means curtailing the ones who like to employ 'self reliant' tactics, because their physical superiority tends to disbalance the process of argumentation. Argument only makes sense if people have equal recourse to other means such as violence. You never win an argument for a gun. Ergo we argumenters don't want guns. We can't control them and we fear they will use physical or supremacy to win the day. We can't have that. Yeah, any day now violence will be a thing of the past and lawyers will rule the world. Just look at all the progress of the last century. (How many millions did the Europeans murder in last century?)
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 04/22/08 - 11:01 PM:	#4
That said, with regard to Brooks' theory about happiness, it is perception that is key. Even if a gun owner never has to use his gun to hunt or in self defense, the simple fact that he has that capability is enough to confer the happiness bonus that Brooks' cited. It's like the peace of mind that comes from having home insurance. Yes, but it is a rather primitive form of 'home insurance', one that doesn't insure anything but can get you in a lot of trouble. Perception is the key, but in city life it means as much as superstition does. Yeah, any day now violence will be a thing of the past and lawyers will rule the world. Just look at all the progress of the last century. (How many millions did the Europeans murder in last century?) The last century saw the longest period without armed conflicts in Western Europe. The millions killed are an act of genocide and prove that men can be very dangerous to men. All the more reason to give them guns. But since you named yourself after someone who didn't have much qualms about robbing and genocide, this point coming from you is a bit funny. The Nazis killed who they perceived weaker, with shit eating grins on their faces. Of course I know this conquistador creed of yours and the Nazi ideology are completely different in that you hold fast to individualism, so it is no where near a comparison and it is not intended as suich.
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 04/23/08 - 12:45 AM:	#5
Tobias wrote: The millions killed are an act of genocide and prove that men can be very dangerous to men. The number one killer of human beings are people.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 04/23/08 - 03:37 AM:	#6
I'm relieved that gun owners spend less time feeling outraged at other people's behaviour. I hope a gun owner never picks on my behaviour to feel outraged at. If I knew somebody who owned a gun I think I'd be particularly careful to try not to outrage them. I'd do whatever I reasonably could to make them happy and keep them sweet. I might even be prepared to give them 32% more money to keep their resentment down. Well, if most people are cowards like me, it seems to be working. But it's no way to make friends.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:40 AM:	#7
Tobias wrote: Yes, but it is a rather primitive form of 'home insurance', one that doesn't insure anything but can get you in a lot of trouble. Perception is the key, but in city life it means as much as superstition does. You seem determined to debate the efficacay of gun ownership which I would be happy to debate but not here. Suffice it to say that while hunting is impractical in the city, the vast preponderance of self defense cases occur where people are more densly populated. Thus the happiness bonus is probably greater among city gun owners than rural gun owners. Tobias wrote: The last century saw the longest period without armed conflicts in Western Europe...All the more reason [not?] to give them guns. The last century was the bloodiest in European history and the bloodletting was only halted when America occupied Europe with its guns. But now Europe is has swung to the opposite extreme, a continent of girly men. It will be interesting to see what the next century brings there but the current trends are not very encouraging..
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:19 AM:	#8
Perhaps current trends will continue over the next century and European men will get even girlier. Then there would be hardly any bloodletting at all. I hope that's not too discouraging.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:48 AM:	#9
Cuthbert wrote: Perhaps current trends will continue over the next century and European men will get even girlier. Then there would be hardly any bloodletting at all. I hope that's not too discouraging. Unfortunately for Europe, the world around them is not populated by girly men.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

alliop
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 24

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:18 PM:	#10
The gun is the greater equalizer. An eighty year old woman with a firearm could easily win against an unarmed twenty year old body building male.

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:54 PM:	#11
Following that analogy, a 90 year old woman with an AK could easily win against a group of unarmed twenty year olds. Until that 80, or 90, year old woman falls asleep. Need I remind everyone that they are ALWAYS vulnerable to being killed? With a gun, you just up the chances of killing, and have the ability to kill more things quicker. The best way to stay protected is to buy an assault rifle that never runs out bullets and No-Doze anti-sleeping pills. That way, you can kill EVERYTHING AROUND YOU ALL THE TIME!

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:07 PM:	#12
Archibald Hobbes wrote: Following that analogy, a 90 year old woman with an AK could easily win against a group of unarmed twenty year olds. Until that 80, or 90, year old woman falls asleep. Need I remind everyone that they are ALWAYS vulnerable to being killed? With a gun, you just up the chances of killing, and have the ability to kill more things quicker. The best way to stay protected is to buy an assault rifle that never runs out bullets and No-Doze anti-sleeping pills. That way, you can kill EVERYTHING AROUND YOU ALL THE TIME! Actually, a dog is great. We don't even use our home alarm anymore. Dogs love to bark at strangers, that's really all the warning you need at home.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

CypressMoon
growth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me
Total Topics: 71
Total Posts: 753

Posted 04/23/08 - 09:01 PM:	#13
Ownin' a gun makes other people scared. So, if other people were to try to upset me, I'd give them a little taste of this emotion (ahhh, a sweet emotion, it is) that I take with me to the firein' range. It's that emotion called "rage" that compresses my finger into the trigger. I give them just a snippet of this emotion, or whathaveyou, while knowin' there's a rifle in ma truck that could blow a hole in your skull so big, I could watch nascar (with ma Dale Earndhart tattoo a 'flarin') through your skull. Just as long, as everyone onder God's green beautiful green earth that I pray for everay day in hopes that I will go to heaven with ma wife who's scared shitless of betrayin' me, is underneath ma dominance, or whathaveyou. Raght to bear arms muther fucker!
_____________________ "We stand before the world, not in it." - Rilke "MAD, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence; not conforming to standards of thought, speech and action derived by the conformants from study of themselves; at odds with the majority; in short, unusual." - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary) If you have a small child, gently pull the mask over them first, and pull at the ends to tighten the straps.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 04/24/08 - 01:06 AM:	#14
Well said, Cypress Moon. Now calm down and have a pay rise.

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 04/24/08 - 03:37 AM:	#15
Suffice it to say that while hunting is impractical in the city, the vast preponderance of self defense cases occur where people are more densly populated. Thus the happiness bonus is probably greater among city gun owners than rural gun owners. You would be right if you could show that gun owning leads to less bloodshed and not more. Otherwise gun owning as a self defense tactic does not work because it invites the opposition to bring their guns as well. A subjective sense of safety doesn't tell me much. Show me that the streets in US cities are significantly safer than in European cities. Otherwise gun owning is indeed no more than superstition and a dangerous one at that. The gun is the greater equalizer. An eighty year old woman with a firearm could easily win against an unarmed twenty year old body building male "Granny's got a gun .... Granny's got a gun" Aerosmith. Honestly, you can't be serious. The last century was the bloodiest in European history and the bloodletting was only halted when America occupied Europe with its guns. And don't forget the Soviet Union. But now Europe is has swung to the opposite extreme, a continent of girly men. It will be interesting to see what the next century brings there but the current trends are not very encouraging. Ahhh there it is, I wonder when it would come up. That is why I identified the gun owner with the macho type. Well wanabe macho type I have to say. So we Europeans are girly men because we don't own guns. That is interesting and again superstition. A gun nowadays doesn't win in the arena where people want to get things done. In civilised city life that is quite obvious. You don't get your rights by touting a gun, but by argumentation, by verbalisation. Even in an uncivilised theatre such as war you see the same tendency. On a grand scale you see it in the armed conflicts that get fought nowadays. The US is losing in IRaq, ISrael lost to Hizbollah in Lebanon. It is not asymetry in fire power that counts, but in rhetoric. No wonder the new creed is 'winning hearts and minds'. That is different than shooting at hearts and minds Cortes. I have qualms about Dutch men, not because theu are 'girly', but because they lose civility, it is the code of honour of men that is quaking in Europe. But owning a gun doesn't stop that, that is merely a childish compensation strategy. A man needs to be forceful strong and reasonable as far as I am concerned. Carrying a piece of heavy, but essentially useless equipment wouldn't be my ideal of manliness, but hey suit yourself.
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 04/24/08 - 04:03 AM:	#16
As someone riposted to Stalin: When I hear the word 'gun' I reach for my civilisation. When I say 'riposted' I don't think they actually said it to his face.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/24/08 - 09:28 AM:	#17
Tobias wrote: You would be right if you could show that gun owning leads to less bloodshed and not more. Otherwise gun owning as a self defense tactic does not work because it invites the opposition to bring their guns as well. A subjective sense of safety doesn't tell me much. Just a little common sense will go a long way here. Aside from gang wars (I'm assuming here you are not a gang member), assailants don't generally know the armed condition of their victims. They bring what they choose to the crime irrespective of what the victim actually has. Given that, being armed is clearly advantageous. Given that it is advantageous, a reson able person would conclude that owning a gun enhances his safety. This is why gun owners are happier and why I am certain that a more detailed study would show that city gun owners are happier than rural gun owners. Tobias wrote: Ahhh there it is, I wonder when it would come up. That is why I identified the gun owner with the macho type. Well wanabe macho type I have to say. So we Europeans are girly men because we don't own guns. That is interesting and again superstition. A gun nowadays doesn't win in the arena where people want to get things done. In civilised city life that is quite obvious. You don't get your rights by touting a gun, but by argumentation, by verbalisation. The question is not whether a gun is a hammer for all nails, the question is whether gun owners have good rason to be happier than non gun-owners. Gun ownes are not inhibited by their gun ownership from any activity that non-gun owners perform. They simply have another option available to them. Guns win in the situations they are designed for. Cities are the most dangerous places on the earth. Tobias wrote: Even in an uncivilised theatre such as war you see the same tendency. On a grand scale you see it in the armed conflicts that get fought nowadays. The US is losing in IRaq, ISrael lost to Hizbollah in Lebanon. It is not asymetry in fire power that counts, but in rhetoric. No wonder the new creed is 'winning hearts and minds'. That is different than shooting at hearts and minds Cortes. A good general understands all interplay of political and military factors. Only a fool would disarm himself. Tobias wrote: I have qualms about Dutch men, not because theu are 'girly', but because they lose civility, it is the code of honour of men that is quaking in Europe. But owning a gun doesn't stop that, that is merely a childish compensation strategy. A man needs to be forceful strong and reasonable as far as I am concerned. Carrying a piece of heavy, but essentially useless equipment wouldn't be my ideal of manliness, but hey suit yourself. Why is it that Europe is becoming less civilized? We are all wondering about that. It seems to be falling apart at the seams before our very eyes. Yeah, happiness is a warm gun. I don't plan to part with mine. If I'm lucky, I will never need it. If I'm unlucky, I will be glad I had it.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

son of Thanatos
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 30, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:07 AM:	#18
I have owned a gun but currently do not own a gun. I feel that I am more secure without having a gun. Perhaps it is silly, but when I owned a gun I would imagine scenario's in which I would actually need my gun, especially at night when I was trying to sleep which had the tendency to make me more paranoid. This was a temporary and infrequent happening, but disconcerting at the time. Owning a gun didn't make me any more happy, the times that I went shooting with it was great, but I'm not sure I need to own a gun for that, I can rent them at a shooting range or go out with a group of my friends who own guns and have the same rage releasing effect. I would question whether owning a gun has any true effect on ones happiness more so than any other object. A gun is a toy, a trifle, an object. perhaps in the sense that there is an inherent feeling of danger or risk, but that is the same with bungee jumping and riding a motorcycle.

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:21 AM:	#19
This doesn't surprise me at all. Having a gun, I imagine, would make one feel more secure about life and the various dangerous situations which may occur. Thus, one would be happier with a gun than without one. I am a bit disappointed, however, to see that some people don't quite appreciate the right to bear arms.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 04/28/08 - 06:41 AM:	#20
Maybe carrying a gun makes JAC happy. Maybe shoplifting makes me happy. Being made happy by something doesn't give either of us the right to do it. cortes wrote: Just a little common sense will go a long way here. Aside from gang wars (I'm assuming here you are not a gang member), assailants don't generally know the armed condition of their victims. They bring what they choose to the crime irrespective of what the victim actually has. Given that, being armed is clearly advantageous. Given that it is advantageous, a reson able person would conclude that owning a gun enhances his safety. This is why gun owners are happier and why I am certain that a more detailed study would show that city gun owners are happier than rural gun owners Like cortes, I've got good reason to feel happy. Just a little common nonsense goes a long way here. I've got all the stuff I lift from shops. For free. Only a fool pays for his shopping. Any reasonable person would conclude that shop-lifting will promote his economic welfare - as long as nobody takes stuff from him of course. Same with owning a gun: it's clearly advantageous, as long as you don't get shot by someone who thinks the same way. Why is Europe becoming less civilised and falling apart at the seams? Ninety years ago millions were dying in a pointless war. Seventy years ago there was the worst genocide the world has known. Even fifteen years ago you could still get a decent bit of genocide if you went to the Balkans. But now? Hardly a civilised country left in the whole continent.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/28/08 - 08:35 AM:	#21
How about this for a tourist slogan: "Visit Europe: It's been a good decade since our last genocide."
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:52 AM:	#22
Common propaganda about Serbia and the alleged genocide. It never happened. The whole thing was one big orchestrated farce.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 04/29/08 - 01:08 AM:	#23
cortes wrote: How about this for a tourist slogan: "Visit Europe: It's been a good decade since our last genocide." ha ha! Yes, Europe can be as brutal as ever, given the chance. That's why it's so absurd to muse: cortes wrote: Why is it that Europe is becoming less civilized?...... Yeah, happiness is a warm gun. I don't plan to part with mine. To be unwilling to part with one's gun is not an outstanding mark of civilisation.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 04/29/08 - 05:24 AM:	#24
It's also an inherent double standard. Apparently, all the various nations in Europe are responsible for the wars other nations start within Europe. That's like saying Canada and Mexico are responsible for the wars the US starts.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:00 PM:	#25
Cuthbert wrote: ha ha! Yes, Europe can be as brutal as ever, given the chance. Historically, European violence has tended to take a particular form, namely violence by the state against its citizens. (I'm not even counting the inter-state wars here.) Europeans prefer to act through the state. Americans prefer to act independently of the state. Interestingly, modern research on happiness is showing that the American approach leads to greater happiness. Not just gun ownership but in every area of life. Independence and self-reliance is a source of happiness. Cuthbert wrote: To be unwilling to part with one's gun is not an outstanding mark of civilisation. Ah, but that is not what I said. What I said what that only a fool disarms himself. However, it is certainly the case that being well armed is a civilized choice. Put simply, to the extent that a society is civilized, guns are a tool for sport only. But to the extent that crime is a threat, they are a tool for self-defense. A gentleman always goes armed. Benkei wrote: It's also an inherent double standard. Apparently, all the various nations in Europe are responsible for the wars other nations start within Europe. Really, I'm not interested in whipping Europeans for "past sins". That's not my game, though the numbers are staggering (one European murder spree alone, the attempt to wipe out the Jews, equals 500 years of American murders). The more important question is whether modern Europe is prepared to meet the challenges ahead. Many Americans like me have given up on Europe and would be very disinclined to save Europe for a third time. I think America at least shares some of the blame for this. Keeping American troops in Germany just encouraged Europeans to indulge pacifism. Forget getting out of Iraq, get America the fuck out of Europe! Edited by cortes on 04/30/08 - 07:48 PM
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.