“Knockout power” bears much in common with Bill Slim’s one principle of warfare: “hit the other fellow, as quickly as you can, as hard as you can, where it hurts him most, when he ain’t lookin.”
Isn’t it funny that when it’s black teenagers who beat the shit out of unsuspecting homeless people it’s “barbaric”, but when it’s national armies who beat the shit out of unsuspecting countries it’s “preemptive self-defense”?
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
I don’t have knockout power, I think thats why it amazes me so much. I remember being in streetlights on my way home from high school that lasted 30 minutes because we couldn’t knock each other out.
[/quote]
Try this little experiment. Get a friend to punch you in the back while you know it’s coming, and then have them do the same thing when you’re not expecting it at all. You can get punched anywhere, but the back is safer than most places.
Both the amount of pain you register and your reaction will probably differ significantly.
I got thrown once while sparring in judo. Most other times I just say “ow” and bounce back on my feet. This one caught me completely off guard. I literally had the wind knocked out of me, and I literally couldn’t get off the ground for a solid minute or so. For all intents and purposes, I got KOed. I got to experience something similar to what those boxers and MMA fighters experience when they get hit by something and just drop, but they’re fine after a minute or two. Your body just cannot comprehend what happened and it just shuts down for a bit and “resets”.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
If I ever see someone do this, I’ll beat them into a stupor.[/quote]
I gotta call BS. It obviously normally happens some place hard to see (like the alley in the video) or easy to get away.
[/quote]
Not necessarily.
[quote]
You’re telling me you’re in an alley with 6, obviously hostile, guys and you’re going to go pick a fight? I hope you’re packing.
Yeah, they obviously take the cowardly route and go for the most vulnerable (alone, facing opposite direction, occupied), but 1 on 6 also makes you pretty vulnerable.[/quote]
Poor context. I won’t pick anything. I’ll attack.[/quote]
Exactly. In an enclosed space you just need clothing, hair or a belt to grab onto and two hard surfaces.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
It’s the coarsening of the culture, and the guy who burned to death in Los Angeles a few
days ago during a Halloween bash as most watched and a few cheered while he was
dying is another sign of our Barbaric culture…some did help, but it was too late.
So, How can a culture like this survive long term?
It cannot…It’s not enemy at the Door it’s the Termites in the floor.
[/quote]
Im sorry but the whole sign of the times, coarsening of culture thing is such a straw man. People have said that in every generation about the emerging one.
Right now, war is the most civilised it has ever been. wealth is more accessible than it has ever been. people are far less violent than they were.
2013 is the most peaceful, least violent and most altruistic version of earth since its inception.
How does a very fringe subculture of youths equal a coarsening of culture? Sexism is far less rampant today, racism is far less horrific and overt. Culture is flowering, look at the 50s and look at the 200s.
What was perfectly fine then is now seen as horrific, back then you could molest kids as a teacher and just be sacked. Jim isn’t welcome in this establishment anymore kind of deal.
Lets not let the hyperbole and jingoism of the society is falling apart chants remove the memory of the mongols flaying peoples skiin off or the holocaust and the decades of open pedophillia, sexism and spousal abuse from the 1400 to about 1999
[/quote]
And let’s not let unbridled optimism blind us to certain facts.
Aggravated assaults in the US rose 7x between 1957 and 1993. Declines in murder rates during that time were due more to advances in trauma surgery (resulting largely from combat medicine) than to the flowering of culture. Even in kinder, gentler Canada the assault rate has gone up 4x since 1964.
Violent crime rates dropped slightly during the 90’s, due largely to aggressive policing and economic prosperity but they’re still roughly 5x what they were in the 50’s. Assaults on peace officer’s are also on the rise, particularly among youths.
From 1998-2008 in Canada the rate of youths assaulting PO’s increased by 52% to a level 7x that of adults. In 2011 68 Federal, State and Local LEO’s were killed by gunfire. That’s one every 5 days or so. Fatalities for LE would be easily 2-3x higher were it not for the widespread adoption of body armour and superior tactical training.
Rapid mass murder/active shooter statistics tell a similar story. From 1975 until Columbine in 1999 attempted and completed mass shootings in the US averaged about 1 per year. 1999-2010 the average was 4 per year. 2010-2012 the average jumped to 8 per year. I expect we’ll top that in 2013.
So, while we, as a species may be making gains, we here in the West have a few things that need looking at. Humanity may continue to advance, but individual societies rise and fall and I, for one, am not quite ready to see ours slip into decline and barbarism just yet.[/quote]
And i n the 50’s, black people had to sit in special places on the bus, were lynched weekly in numerous parts of the south, the was no such thing as rape between man and wife and your government was installing regimes that were literally wiping out massive numbers of people.
So overall, a lot of the dame shit is going on, but a lot of shit is way, way fucking better. Thus, society is not falling apart, it is getting better. No one is acting like its all good, which makes your initial point mute.[/quote]
Moot … Not “mute”
Sorry, pet peeve … Like “old timers” instead of Alzheimer’s …or “physical” when the proper term is “fiscal”
English class over
[quote]Velvet Elvis wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
It’s the coarsening of the culture, and the guy who burned to death in Los Angeles a few
days ago during a Halloween bash as most watched and a few cheered while he was
dying is another sign of our Barbaric culture…some did help, but it was too late.
So, How can a culture like this survive long term?
It cannot…It’s not enemy at the Door it’s the Termites in the floor.
[/quote]
Im sorry but the whole sign of the times, coarsening of culture thing is such a straw man. People have said that in every generation about the emerging one.
Right now, war is the most civilised it has ever been. wealth is more accessible than it has ever been. people are far less violent than they were.
2013 is the most peaceful, least violent and most altruistic version of earth since its inception.
How does a very fringe subculture of youths equal a coarsening of culture? Sexism is far less rampant today, racism is far less horrific and overt. Culture is flowering, look at the 50s and look at the 200s.
What was perfectly fine then is now seen as horrific, back then you could molest kids as a teacher and just be sacked. Jim isn’t welcome in this establishment anymore kind of deal.
Lets not let the hyperbole and jingoism of the society is falling apart chants remove the memory of the mongols flaying peoples skiin off or the holocaust and the decades of open pedophillia, sexism and spousal abuse from the 1400 to about 1999
[/quote]
And let’s not let unbridled optimism blind us to certain facts.
Aggravated assaults in the US rose 7x between 1957 and 1993. Declines in murder rates during that time were due more to advances in trauma surgery (resulting largely from combat medicine) than to the flowering of culture. Even in kinder, gentler Canada the assault rate has gone up 4x since 1964.
Violent crime rates dropped slightly during the 90’s, due largely to aggressive policing and economic prosperity but they’re still roughly 5x what they were in the 50’s. Assaults on peace officer’s are also on the rise, particularly among youths.
From 1998-2008 in Canada the rate of youths assaulting PO’s increased by 52% to a level 7x that of adults. In 2011 68 Federal, State and Local LEO’s were killed by gunfire. That’s one every 5 days or so. Fatalities for LE would be easily 2-3x higher were it not for the widespread adoption of body armour and superior tactical training.
Rapid mass murder/active shooter statistics tell a similar story. From 1975 until Columbine in 1999 attempted and completed mass shootings in the US averaged about 1 per year. 1999-2010 the average was 4 per year. 2010-2012 the average jumped to 8 per year. I expect we’ll top that in 2013.
So, while we, as a species may be making gains, we here in the West have a few things that need looking at. Humanity may continue to advance, but individual societies rise and fall and I, for one, am not quite ready to see ours slip into decline and barbarism just yet.[/quote]
And i n the 50’s, black people had to sit in special places on the bus, were lynched weekly in numerous parts of the south, the was no such thing as rape between man and wife and your government was installing regimes that were literally wiping out massive numbers of people.
So overall, a lot of the dame shit is going on, but a lot of shit is way, way fucking better. Thus, society is not falling apart, it is getting better. No one is acting like its all good, which makes your initial point mute.[/quote]
Moot … Not “mute”
Sorry, pet peeve … Like “old timers” instead of Alzheimer’s …or “physical” when the proper term is “fiscal”
English class over
[/quote]
Language is constantly evolving, linguistically meaning is all that matters.
Social science class over.
[quote]Velvet Elvis wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
It’s the coarsening of the culture, and the guy who burned to death in Los Angeles a few
days ago during a Halloween bash as most watched and a few cheered while he was
dying is another sign of our Barbaric culture…some did help, but it was too late.
So, How can a culture like this survive long term?
It cannot…It’s not enemy at the Door it’s the Termites in the floor.
[/quote]
Im sorry but the whole sign of the times, coarsening of culture thing is such a straw man. People have said that in every generation about the emerging one.
Right now, war is the most civilised it has ever been. wealth is more accessible than it has ever been. people are far less violent than they were.
2013 is the most peaceful, least violent and most altruistic version of earth since its inception.
How does a very fringe subculture of youths equal a coarsening of culture? Sexism is far less rampant today, racism is far less horrific and overt. Culture is flowering, look at the 50s and look at the 200s.
What was perfectly fine then is now seen as horrific, back then you could molest kids as a teacher and just be sacked. Jim isn’t welcome in this establishment anymore kind of deal.
Lets not let the hyperbole and jingoism of the society is falling apart chants remove the memory of the mongols flaying peoples skiin off or the holocaust and the decades of open pedophillia, sexism and spousal abuse from the 1400 to about 1999
[/quote]
And let’s not let unbridled optimism blind us to certain facts.
Aggravated assaults in the US rose 7x between 1957 and 1993. Declines in murder rates during that time were due more to advances in trauma surgery (resulting largely from combat medicine) than to the flowering of culture. Even in kinder, gentler Canada the assault rate has gone up 4x since 1964.
Violent crime rates dropped slightly during the 90’s, due largely to aggressive policing and economic prosperity but they’re still roughly 5x what they were in the 50’s. Assaults on peace officer’s are also on the rise, particularly among youths.
From 1998-2008 in Canada the rate of youths assaulting PO’s increased by 52% to a level 7x that of adults. In 2011 68 Federal, State and Local LEO’s were killed by gunfire. That’s one every 5 days or so. Fatalities for LE would be easily 2-3x higher were it not for the widespread adoption of body armour and superior tactical training.
Rapid mass murder/active shooter statistics tell a similar story. From 1975 until Columbine in 1999 attempted and completed mass shootings in the US averaged about 1 per year. 1999-2010 the average was 4 per year. 2010-2012 the average jumped to 8 per year. I expect we’ll top that in 2013.
So, while we, as a species may be making gains, we here in the West have a few things that need looking at. Humanity may continue to advance, but individual societies rise and fall and I, for one, am not quite ready to see ours slip into decline and barbarism just yet.[/quote]
And i n the 50’s, black people had to sit in special places on the bus, were lynched weekly in numerous parts of the south, the was no such thing as rape between man and wife and your government was installing regimes that were literally wiping out massive numbers of people.
So overall, a lot of the dame shit is going on, but a lot of shit is way, way fucking better. Thus, society is not falling apart, it is getting better. No one is acting like its all good, which makes your initial point mute.[/quote]
Moot … Not “mute”
Sorry, pet peeve … Like “old timers” instead of Alzheimer’s …or “physical” when the proper term is “fiscal”
English class over
[/quote]
You just tapped out mate.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
For example Slavery started off as being seen as right and the natural state of affairs amongst the European nations, then it softened, [/quote]
This is phrased as if slavery was a European construct and practice. Slavery has been around since the dawn of mankind’s society. It isn’t like the Europeans pioneered anything.
(Not that I’m taking away from your overall point, just this particular wording makes things seem different than they are.)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
For example Slavery started off as being seen as right and the natural state of affairs amongst the European nations, then it softened, [/quote]
This is phrased as if slavery was a European construct and practice. Slavery has been around since the dawn of mankind’s society. It isn’t like the Europeans pioneered anything.
(Not that I’m taking away from your overall point, just this particular wording makes things seem different than they are.)[/quote]
No I agree mate, slavery was universal.
Which is why revisionist history making native Americans out to be innocent hippies when they massacred and enslaved each other is so annoying.
Some woman said I was ignorant and native Americans were nature loving and non patriachal.
When I provided sources showing how natives would cut out the tongues of buffalo and leave them to bleed out or that they had just as rigid patriachal systems in “labour” and relationships and various other social constructs, she resorted to just rambling on about native freedom.
So yeah I’m not trying to say Europe was alone or the first ones to practice slavery.
What i find more troubling than the actual attacks itself is the fact that there seems to be no remorse from those who commit are who just know about it. It is treated casual, as if the teen community as a whole doesnt understand or acknowledge the pain they are inflecting, or even worse, they do understand but dont care.
They are assaulting random strangers without any motive other than entertainment while others do not condemn the behavior. Very disturbing.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Which is why revisionist history making native Americans out to be innocent hippies when they massacred and enslaved each other is so annoying.
[/quote]
Right.
But it’s equally unnecessary to push back against radical claims with ones that sound equally radical.
The above just make the Native Americans sound like ignorant savages again.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
They are assaulting random strangers without any motive other than entertainment while others do not condemn the behavior. Very disturbing. [/quote]
I wouldn’t say there’s absolutely no motive. A lot of these kids look to be around what? 16? That’s old enough to want to be “manly,” but they still have no money, respect, or power in any facet of their lives (this is true for pretty much any 16 year old kid). Girls their age will probably go for older guys, their friends look up to older guys, and they’re perverts if they go for younger girls. In a way, it’s almost saying “try and ignore THIS!” They feel [mistakenly] more like a man because they think they did something tough, they got attention, they got esteem from their peers both by providing a source of humor and by showing how crazy they are (and, hence, not to be messed with), and they got to let out some aggression on those who, rightly or wrongly, they feel are to blame for their situation. I’m not excusing the acts at all, but just saying it’s not without motive.
As far as condemnation… lots of crap goes on in poor areas. Folks are trying to get by and starting beefs doesn’t help that.
They did a study a while back (of course, I can’t cite anything), and they found that teenagers just have less empathy and have a harder time discerning emotions based on facial expressions than adults. It’s interesting to ponder what sort of evolutionary advantage there is in this delayed development (or maybe adults just have more practice).
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Which is why revisionist history making native Americans out to be innocent hippies when they massacred and enslaved each other is so annoying.
[/quote]
Right.
But it’s equally unnecessary to push back against radical claims with ones that sound equally radical.
The above just make the Native Americans sound like ignorant savages again.[/quote]
But they were savage, thats the point. I would call them savage with no prejudice against them, but how else would you describe a culture that routinely practised in cannibalism, sacrificed humans on the regular and were in a never ending state of war.
Why do you think all the tribes called the Navajo’s the Navajo, it means enemy!
North America was so savage and brutal that massive amounts of Natives sided with Cortez, who massacred millions, as the lesser of two evils, compared to the Aztecs.
They were as fucking savage and horrible as my ancestors. But of course no one wants to say it because why follow historical records when you can be a paternalistic racist? (not saying you)
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
But they were savage, thats the point. I would call them savage with no prejudice against them, but how else would you describe a culture that routinely practised in cannibalism, sacrificed humans on the regular and were in a never ending state of war.[/quote]
You refer primarily to the Central American cultures, and particularly the Aztecs here.
The Aztecs are not the entirety of Native Americans.
[quote]
Why do you think all the tribes called the Navajo’s the Navajo, it means enemy![/quote]
…
[quote]
North America was so savage and brutal that massive amounts of Natives sided with Cortez, who massacred millions, as the lesser of two evils, compared to the Aztecs.[/quote]
You show absolutely no understanding of politics here.
[quote]
They were as fucking savage and horrible as my ancestors. But of course no one wants to say it because why follow historical records when you can be a paternalistic racist? (not saying you)[/quote]
Or you could, dare I say it, just say they’re human and leave it at that.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Our future voters, and lowest common denominators that our soctiety will be pandering to…YAY![/quote]
I’m not convinced they will even vote, that requires some effort with no immediate benefit.[/quote]
It also requires no felony convictions.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
But they were savage, thats the point. I would call them savage with no prejudice against them, but how else would you describe a culture that routinely practised in cannibalism, sacrificed humans on the regular and were in a never ending state of war.[/quote]
You refer primarily to the Central American cultures, and particularly the Aztecs here.
The Aztecs are not the entirety of Native Americans.
[quote]
Why do you think all the tribes called the Navajo’s the Navajo, it means enemy![/quote]
…
[quote]
North America was so savage and brutal that massive amounts of Natives sided with Cortez, who massacred millions, as the lesser of two evils, compared to the Aztecs.[/quote]
You show absolutely no understanding of politics here.
[quote]
They were as fucking savage and horrible as my ancestors. But of course no one wants to say it because why follow historical records when you can be a paternalistic racist? (not saying you)[/quote]
Or you could, dare I say it, just say they’re human and leave it at that.[/quote]
So should we call the third reich a human regime and leave it at that?
Why should we not extend rational criticism to native culture and civilisation, just because they lost?
Your argument is, so what if there is tonnes of savage stuff they did, why call them savages.
What historical people do class as savages in your book?
We’re the Mongols savages?
They independently came up with the wheel. I think the native Americans are the only culture that:
A) didn’t invent the wheel
B) didn’t tame and ride horses
C) showed a complete lack of agricultural ingenuity only growing corn in very basic fashion in a minority of places
Do you have some nationalist reason to disagree with this ?
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
So should we call the third reich a human regime and leave it at that?[/quote]
Yes. This is the only way we can admit that humans are both incredibly brutal and incredibly kind-hearted.
To say anything else is to deny what we are and create perception issues that lead to a host of problems.
I find the entire term “savage”, or anything related for that matter, to be nothing more than a way to signify that we are somehow superior.
We are not superior. We can do exactly the same thing they do in the right circumstances.
It is my firm belief that we can avoid doing those acts precisely by keeping this in mind.
A- No pack animals to make the wheel useful. We know that Mesoamericans had the concept, but never had any way to use it in a practical manner.
B- They didn’t have any horses. They went extinct.
C- No. Just. No.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
So should we call the third reich a human regime and leave it at that?[/quote]
Yes. This is the only way we can admit that humans are both incredibly brutal and incredibly kind-hearted.
To say anything else is to deny what we are and create perception issues that lead to a host of problems.
I find the entire term “savage”, or anything related for that matter, to be nothing more than a way to signify that we are somehow superior.
We are not superior. We can do exactly the same thing they do in the right circumstances.
It is my firm belief that we can avoid doing those acts precisely by keeping this in mind.
A- No pack animals to make the wheel useful. We know that Mesoamericans had the concept, but never had any way to use it in a practical manner.
B- They didn’t have any horses. They went extinct.
C- No. Just. No.[/quote]
quus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations. At any rate, the horse was gone from the western hemiphere. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from the Old World or Asia, and the horse was not seen again on its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.
Critics of the idea that the North American wild horse is a native animal, using only paleontological data, assert that the species, E. caballus (or the caballoid horse), which was introduced in 1519, was a different species from that which disappeared 13,000 to 11,000 years before. Herein lies the crux of the debate. However, the relatively new (27-year-old) field of molecular biology, using mitochondrial-DNA analysis, has recently found that the modern or caballine horse, E. caballus, is genetically equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Our future voters, and lowest common denominators that our soctiety will be pandering to…YAY![/quote]
I’m not convinced they will even vote, that requires some effort with no immediate benefit.[/quote]
It also requires no felony convictions. [/quote]
How do you know if they have a felony or not? Asking for I.D. at the voting booth is RAAYYCESSSSS.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
quus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations. At any rate, the horse was gone from the western hemiphere. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from the Old World or Asia, and the horse was not seen again on its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.
Critics of the idea that the North American wild horse is a native animal, using only paleontological data, assert that the species, E. caballus (or the caballoid horse), which was introduced in 1519, was a different species from that which disappeared 13,000 to 11,000 years before. Herein lies the crux of the debate. However, the relatively new (27-year-old) field of molecular biology, using mitochondrial-DNA analysis, has recently found that the modern or caballine horse, E. caballus, is genetically equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America.[/quote]
Yes. My understanding is also that modern horses came from the Americas to Eurasia and beyond, but they then went extinct in the Americas.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. This just makes your claims that the Americans didn’t domesticate horses silly. They didn’t have any horses to domesticate.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
quus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations. At any rate, the horse was gone from the western hemiphere. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from the Old World or Asia, and the horse was not seen again on its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.
Critics of the idea that the North American wild horse is a native animal, using only paleontological data, assert that the species, E. caballus (or the caballoid horse), which was introduced in 1519, was a different species from that which disappeared 13,000 to 11,000 years before. Herein lies the crux of the debate. However, the relatively new (27-year-old) field of molecular biology, using mitochondrial-DNA analysis, has recently found that the modern or caballine horse, E. caballus, is genetically equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America.[/quote]
Yes. My understanding is also that modern horses came from the Americas to Eurasia and beyond, but they then went extinct in the Americas.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. This just makes your claims that the Americans didn’t domesticate horses silly. They didn’t have any horses to domesticate.[/quote]
Im not saying they were too stupid to domesticate horses dude, I am saying they did not have domesticated horses. Savage is not meant as a slur, its describing their conditions, their social constructs and their level of violence.
The natives were savages compared to the Europeans who were very well developed by comparison. Just as my people were savages by comparison to Baghdad and China at that point in history. I am not coming at this from a racist point of view at all. But to deny that the Native Americans were a savage people is rather silly.