Since we hit the maximum number of posts I am starting a new thread.
Sifu wrote:
Europe is headed for big problems and people are in denial. What is worse is liberals here in the US are trying to adopt the same mistakes the Europeans are making.
I agree with your entire post.
I was tremendously fond of moving to America: I just love the spaciousness! And socially it was the best of Brazil and England mixed together, a better balance.
So I guess I need to start searching for an Indian Reserve.
Forget cardio; Alpha F is going to hunt her meals!
In addition to all the things you wrote about America what makes this country truly great is we donât have slavish levels of taxation to pay for lavish social programs like they have in Europe. Here if you want to you can save your money and put to work for you. You can get ahead in life here. You can make your own destiny instead of being a cog in a machine like in Europe.
The problem with Indian reserves is they mere not put on the best land and you do have to be an Indian to live on one. You could do what I do and hang out with the black folk or just move to Mi-yayo there are a lot of latins there.
Cockney, when the law is set up to protect thugs so they can be safe to commit a home invasion where they take people hostage at knife point, tie them up and threaten to kill their children in front their parents that is anarchy.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney, when the law is set up to protect thugs so they can be safe to commit a home invasion where they take people hostage at knife point, tie them up and threaten to kill their children in front their parents that is anarchy. [/quote]
EXACTLY.
The discussion is really really goodâŠbear with me whilst I transfer over some quotes from the other thread:
Cockney wrote:
âAccording to the laws of every modern society on the planet. You choose a lawful society or you choose an Anarchy. If an Anarchy is what you want then fine, it is a valid argument however be honest and admit you want an anarchy with all that it entails.â
No Cockney, I donât want anarchy. Why must it be either black or white, if it is not âyourâ society then it is a ânoâ society? Isnât this the same attitude as: âWe British/Europeans have a culture, Americans donât have a culture.â
By whose standards is your society âmodernâ? Is that a synonym with âproperâ, âorderlyâ, since you then contrast it with anarchy?
Again, I find it interesting, not your arguments but your classification: how you qualify and disqualify human behavior and how you equate free will under extreme duress of a life threatening situation with anarchy and âviolent behaviorâ.
I doubt that in a Latin country this man would have been dealt with as harshly as he was in Britain.
Or are we to say Latin societies are not modern? And I already do know how Anglo-Saxons view Latin people: from a step above.
What exactly is your qualifier for a âmodernâ society?
( I never said the Native Indians were perfect. Yet you came back with something to put them down as less then ideal - of course they are not ideal, otherwise we would have all learned their ways. Why must everything which is not flattering to the English pride be taken as an insult and be met with a retaliating subtle put down? It is like you guys take everything which is not flattery as a personal assault ).
My main points are, and I could have not said better than Sifu above and these points he made on his previous post which I copy below:
âI do understand the law and the point you are trying to make.â Sifu
âIn the same situation I would probably want to do exactly what these guys did. That is exactly the reason why their actions have to be punished.â Cockney
âI wouldnât have ended up in that situation because I have extreme issues with restraints, someone would have had to die when they tried to tie me up.â Sifu
( I, Alpha F, would go for the jugular in this situation, too - self preservation instinct very very dominant in my psyche/gut )
"This was a violent home invasion. This was not a simple burglary. The fact that they tied this man up and then terrorized him with knives and threatened to kill him and his family is exactly the reason why he should not be punished. The law taking the side of the home invaders sends the wrong message to criminals.
The message the law should be sending to criminals is the home invaders crossed a line that they should not have crossed. If you are going to cross the line like that then we are not going to second guess innocent homeowners. If you provoke someone like that till they freak out you are on your own. we are not going to defend scum." Sifu
âEven if the law were changed in the way the Telegraph is asking, these guys would have been prosecuted for assault. They were not in their home, they were not defending anything. They got together a lynch mob, went after the burglar and beat him over the head until he had brain damage breaking a cricket bat they hit him so hard.â Cockney
âNo, that was a singular uninterrupted event that started in their home, where it ended up is irrelevant. How did they gather up a lynch mob? Did they call their cousins, their uncles, their brothers and say âget the Imam, tell him to bring a knife, because we are going to go find these guys, chop their hands off and put them on a stick like they do in the old countryâ? No they didnât! This was heat of the moment. Those home ivaders started some shit they shouldnât have and it followed them. This wasnât a childs game of tag like the law is treating it.â Sifu
I specially want to emphasize this part here:
[b]âThis was a violent home invasion. This was not a simple burglary. The fact that they tied this man up and then terrorized him with knives and threatened to kill him and his family is exactly the reason why he should not be punished. The law taking the side of the home invaders sends the wrong message to criminals.â Sifu
The message the law should be sending to criminals is the home invaders crossed a line that they should not have crossed. If you are going to cross the line like that then we are not going to second guess innocent homeowners. If you provoke someone like that till they freak out you are on your own. we are not going to defend scum."[/b]
Specially the part about crossing a line that they SHOULD HAVE NOT CROSSED. And INNOCENCE does not equate HELPLESS. I may be innocent BUT I shall not be a victim.
Criminalization thrives on victimization.
It is this very helplessness that the government breeds in the collective minds of any âmodernâ society that I am vehemently against.
I do not want anarchy. But my life and my home are sacred and I want the right to defend it with my teeth if necessary.
Mostly, I want the government to stop sending the wrong messages by interfering the wrong way and to stop weakening the strong and strengthening the weak:
Taking the side of a senseless violator is strengthening the hand of a weak, and therefore more dangerous human being. This is basic psychology.
Who do you think is more likely to become a permanent threat to society:
The man who defended his family or the criminal?
How likely is it that this husband and father is going to develop a Batman syndrome and go on âtaking the law in his own handsâ full time?
A wise society should be able to discern the difference.
A modern society? Apparently not.
I am not even questioning right and wrong, reward and punishment. I am full on against the amount of control and power the government has over us. Again is like Sifu said:
âParental Governmentâ
What you said right here:
âIn the same situation I would probably want to do exactly what these guys did. That is exactly the reason why their actions have to be punished.â
This is not your own voice, your own authority. This is your superego speaking.
You see it as human and recognize it as instinctual urges you yourself possess, then immediately you harshly condemn.
I wonât go any further into the psyche aspect of it. But I know exactly what is present and exactly what is missing. Respectively, poor judgement and wisdom.
Modern society lacks discernment and that is why there is miscarriage of justice.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The problem with Indian reserves is they mere not put on the best land and you do have to be an Indian to live on one. You could do what I do and hang out with the black folk or just move to Mi-yayo there are a lot of latins there. [/quote]
On the Xmas party 2 days ago I was talking to one of my colleagues who tells me he is planning to start his own self sufficient community in Brazil. I am curious by this idea. Of course it will be âflawfulâ but it canât be more âawfulâ than this.
I am not looking for a perfect society or even an ideal, just a less harmful one. Or at least one with more psychological freedom. I feel completely smothered by the government here.
Where is Mi-yayo?
The reason why the British government supports criminals victimizing innocent citizens is because the British government has itâs own long sordid history of victimizing innocent citizens. They canât recognize criminals victimizing people as wrong because they do it themselves.
I wouldnât go following idealistic Brits into the Amazon to create a new society I can guarantee it wonât end well. Rio would be my first choice of where I would want to live in Brazil.
Mi-yayo is a nick name for Miami. They started calling it that back in the 80âs because of all the yayo that was coming in from columbia through Miami. It is the US but it is almost like a part of Latin America.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney, when the law is set up to protect thugs so they can be safe to commit a home invasion where they take people hostage at knife point, tie them up and threaten to kill their children in front their parents that is anarchy. [/quote]
The law has to treat everyone equally, that is the point. Both the burglars and the brothers committed crimes and they were both correctly prosecuted, now you can argue about the correctness of the sentences for either and I would happily agree with you however to argue that one or other party should not have been prosecuted is to state that the law is optional and doesnât apply to everyone equally.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney, when the law is set up to protect thugs so they can be safe to commit a home invasion where they take people hostage at knife point, tie them up and threaten to kill their children in front their parents that is anarchy. [/quote]
EXACTLY.
The discussion is really really goodâŠbear with me whilst I transfer over some quotes from the other thread:
Cockney wrote:
âAccording to the laws of every modern society on the planet. You choose a lawful society or you choose an Anarchy. If an Anarchy is what you want then fine, it is a valid argument however be honest and admit you want an anarchy with all that it entails.â
No Cockney, I donât want anarchy. Why must it be either black or white, if it is not âyourâ society then it is a ânoâ society? Isnât this the same attitude as: âWe British/Europeans have a culture, Americans donât have a culture.â
By whose standards is your society âmodernâ? Is that a synonym with âproperâ, âorderlyâ, since you then contrast it with anarchy?
Again, I find it interesting, not your arguments but your classification: how you qualify and disqualify human behavior and how you equate free will under extreme duress of a life threatening situation with anarchy and âviolent behaviorâ.
I doubt that in a Latin country this man would have been dealt with as harshly as he was in Britain.
Or are we to say Latin societies are not modern? And I already do know how Anglo-Saxons view Latin people: from a step above.
What exactly is your qualifier for a âmodernâ society?
( I never said the Native Indians were perfect. Yet you came back with something to put them down as less then ideal - of course they are not ideal, otherwise we would have all learned their ways. Why must everything which is not flattering to the English pride be taken as an insult and be met with a retaliating subtle put down? It is like you guys take everything which is not flattery as a personal assault ).
My main points are, and I could have not said better than Sifu above and these points he made on his previous post which I copy below:
âI do understand the law and the point you are trying to make.â Sifu
âIn the same situation I would probably want to do exactly what these guys did. That is exactly the reason why their actions have to be punished.â Cockney
âI wouldnât have ended up in that situation because I have extreme issues with restraints, someone would have had to die when they tried to tie me up.â Sifu
( I, Alpha F, would go for the jugular in this situation, too - self preservation instinct very very dominant in my psyche/gut )
"This was a violent home invasion. This was not a simple burglary. The fact that they tied this man up and then terrorized him with knives and threatened to kill him and his family is exactly the reason why he should not be punished. The law taking the side of the home invaders sends the wrong message to criminals.
The message the law should be sending to criminals is the home invaders crossed a line that they should not have crossed. If you are going to cross the line like that then we are not going to second guess innocent homeowners. If you provoke someone like that till they freak out you are on your own. we are not going to defend scum." Sifu
âEven if the law were changed in the way the Telegraph is asking, these guys would have been prosecuted for assault. They were not in their home, they were not defending anything. They got together a lynch mob, went after the burglar and beat him over the head until he had brain damage breaking a cricket bat they hit him so hard.â Cockney
âNo, that was a singular uninterrupted event that started in their home, where it ended up is irrelevant. How did they gather up a lynch mob? Did they call their cousins, their uncles, their brothers and say âget the Imam, tell him to bring a knife, because we are going to go find these guys, chop their hands off and put them on a stick like they do in the old countryâ? No they didnât! This was heat of the moment. Those home ivaders started some shit they shouldnât have and it followed them. This wasnât a childs game of tag like the law is treating it.â Sifu
I specially want to emphasize this part here:
[b]âThis was a violent home invasion. This was not a simple burglary. The fact that they tied this man up and then terrorized him with knives and threatened to kill him and his family is exactly the reason why he should not be punished. The law taking the side of the home invaders sends the wrong message to criminals.â Sifu
The message the law should be sending to criminals is the home invaders crossed a line that they should not have crossed. If you are going to cross the line like that then we are not going to second guess innocent homeowners. If you provoke someone like that till they freak out you are on your own. we are not going to defend scum."[/b]
Specially the part about crossing a line that they SHOULD HAVE NOT CROSSED. And INNOCENCE does not equate HELPLESS. I may be innocent BUT I shall not be a victim.
Criminalization thrives on victimization.
It is this very helplessness that the government breeds in the collective minds of any âmodernâ society that I am vehemently against.
I do not want anarchy. But my life and my home are sacred and I want the right to defend it with my teeth if necessary.
Mostly, I want the government to stop sending the wrong messages by interfering the wrong way and to stop weakening the strong and strengthening the weak:
Taking the side of a senseless violator is strengthening the hand of a weak, and therefore more dangerous human being. This is basic psychology.
Who do you think is more likely to become a permanent threat to society:
The man who defended his family or the criminal?
How likely is it that this husband and father is going to develop a Batman syndrome and go on âtaking the law in his own handsâ full time?
A wise society should be able to discern the difference.
A modern society? Apparently not.
I am not even questioning right and wrong, reward and punishment. I am full on against the amount of control and power the government has over us. Again is like Sifu said:
âParental Governmentâ
What you said right here:
âIn the same situation I would probably want to do exactly what these guys did. That is exactly the reason why their actions have to be punished.â
This is not your own voice, your own authority. This is your superego speaking.
You see it as human and recognize it as instinctual urges you yourself possess, then immediately you harshly condemn.
I wonât go any further into the psyche aspect of it. But I know exactly what is present and exactly what is missing. Respectively, poor judgement and wisdom.
Modern society lacks discernment and that is why there is miscarriage of justice.
[/quote]
Holy wall of text Batman!
OK let me try and respond to some of that.
You say that in a Latin country the law would not punish someone for a vicious group assault that left someone brain damaged even with a prior motivation then they would not be charged.
I cannot speak for all Latin countries but certainly here in Mexico you would get charged for any crime you had committed though you might be able to bring up the extenuating circumstances in your defence (same as you can in the UK.)
You and Sifu both seem to be missing the point that beating the guy until he no longer posed a threat in your own home is different to getting a lynch-mob together and chasing after him. It takes things from being self defence into being a pre-meditated attack and is exactly the reason the guy ended up in prison.
Again, you either as a society agree to a rule of law that everyone abides by or you have anarchy where the strongest get to choose the rules for everyone. There are valid arguments for both systems. In the UK, the democratically agreed upon system is the former.
You say that you want the right to defend your home, you already have this. You make assumptions about the burglar without knowing anything about their background or even really the details of the case beyond what you have read in a very badly written biased piece in an extremely poor newspaper.
You ask whether the guy would go on to become a batman figure if unpunished, well no, but acts of vigilantism would likely go up, this is not a good thing as violence escalates and you end up with situations like Northern Ireland where a few powerful gangs take control of large areas of cities handing out punishment beatings to anyone that they consider has crossed them.
Finally you brought up my point about the Native Americans and slightly missed what I was getting at which is that your idea of them is based on a westernized idealisation that has taken place through popular media and is a very long way away from the truth.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The reason why the British government supports criminals victimizing innocent citizens is because the British government has itâs own long sordid history of victimizing innocent citizens. They canât recognize criminals victimizing people as wrong because they do it themselves.
[/quote]
nonsense. And if you want to talk about victimization lets talk about the slave trade in the US. Hardly a golden spot in your history. Perhaps we could extend that into claiming it explained why the US is fervently pushing for control of foreign countries and the servitude of their people.
Of course, Rio, that Utopian paradise of low crime and zero political corruption
[quote]
Mi-yayo is a nick name for Miami. They started calling it that back in the 80âs because of all the yayo that was coming in from Columbia through Miami. It is the US but it is almost like a part of Latin America. [/quote]
Miami is pretty but soulless from my experience. Some great bars and clubs thoughâŠ
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The problem with Indian reserves is they mere not put on the best land and you do have to be an Indian to live on one. You could do what I do and hang out with the black folk or just move to Mi-yayo there are a lot of latins there. [/quote]
On the Xmas party 2 days ago I was talking to one of my colleagues who tells me he is planning to start his own self sufficient community in Brazil. I am curious by this idea. Of course it will be âflawfulâ but it canât be more âawfulâ than this.
I am not looking for a perfect society or even an ideal, just a less harmful one. Or at least one with more psychological freedom. I feel completely smothered by the government here.
Where is Mi-yayo?
[/quote]
A big drawback for me, dropping out and all, is that I like civilisation. I like central air/heating, cars, computers, roads, sewers, water treatment plants, and so on. Life is infinitely better IN civilisation than out.
What would then make a society SO bad that one would consider fleeing? The ultimate answer is TOTALITARIANISM. As such, totalitarianism often arises when a population shifts, usually when an immigrant population of a subserviant nature floods a country. This happened in America when eastern and southern Europeans flooded in a century or so ago; we got Big Daddy government.
Now its happening to Britain, slowly and inexorably. Muslims have a religion that demands subserviance and most of their countries are authoritarian, a holdover from the Ottoman Empire. Most eastern Europeans immigrating to Britain come from very subserviant populations (except the Poles).
This is why, if Britain is to have a GOOD future, it must turn to the BNP. The BNP recognizes the problems I wrote about above. You canât have a free and liberal democracy when the population doesnât understand the concept and is subserviant.
Racism is not the issue. Its what those races EMBRACE as a philosophy when they immigrate.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote :
Holy wall of text Batman! [/quote]
I agree. That ALWAYS happens at the first day of the cycle - at least you know I am truly Alpha F and not Alpha FM, :)[quote]
OK let me try and respond to some of that.
You say that in a Latin country the law would not punish someone for a vicious group assault that left someone brain damaged even with a prior motivation then they would not be charged.[/quote]
He would have probably been hailed as a hero to be honest with you. I am trying to highlight the difference in the psyche of a âhotâ country and a âcoldâ one. The contrast would be Latin societies being classified as more âprimitiveâ and Anglo-Saxon âmodernâ. I would say Latin is primal modern. They are more accepting and understanding of âin the heat of the momentâ actions.[quote]
You and Sifu both seem to be missing the point that beating the guy until he no longer posed a threat in your own home is different to getting a lynch-mob together and chasing after him. It takes things from being self defence into being a pre-meditated attack and is exactly the reason the guy ended up in prison.[/quote] To be honest with you, if I could try and guess what I would do, I would chase him out and beat him with the bat but on his legs and arms breaking all four, then calling the police. I donât know what the burglar said or did that caused this man to go for his head - maybe he touched his wife, or threatened to. I donât know. You donât know what the burglar said to provoke this man. I have never acted on the horrible things I wanted to do to people who have crossed me over minor violations but I simply cannot know what I am capable of if provoked and having to defend children and weaker women. In the heat of the moment I usually walk away but he was not only cornered but HE WAS TIED UP.[quote]
Again, you either as a society agree to a rule of law that everyone abides by or you have anarchy where the strongest get to choose the rules for everyone. There are valid arguments for both systems. In the UK, the democratically agreed upon system is the former.[/quote]
I disagree. The rules of the law arise from principles. If wisdom were not lacking and true discernment were present and exercised by developed individuals handling this sector of society we would have decisions made based on principle. Behind the law are the principles of justice.[quote]
You say that you want the right to defend your home, you already have this. You make assumptions about the burglar without knowing anything about their background or even really the details of the case beyond what you have read in a very badly written biased piece in an extremely poor newspaper.[/quote] Are you showing mercy to an unrepentant violator? Everything is understandable but not everything is excusable. I donât need to know his background to know he should not be terrorizing innocent people.[quote]
You ask whether the guy would go on to become a batman figure if unpunished, well no, but acts of vigilantism would likely go up, this is not a good thing as violence escalates and you end up with situations like Northern Ireland where a few powerful gangs take control of large areas of cities handing out punishment beatings to anyone that they consider has crossed them.
[/quote] I see your point and agree with it. You are correct in that it might lead into âtribesâ, like the good and the bad Native Indians ( I watched Dances with Wolves yesterday, hehe ) [quote]
Finally you brought up my point about the Native Americans and slightly missed what I was getting at which is that your idea of them is based on a westernized idealisation that has taken place through popular media and is a very long way away from the truth.[/quote]
Ok, that is different when you put that way. What is âthe truthâ about them? Who knows that truth? Can you post me a reliable link? I am genuinely interested.
By the way, I like that guts and gore movie also with the Inca/Mayan Indians, Apocalypto.
With every society, good and evil coexist side by side. But I seem to like the values of the Native Indians. Honour, courage, simplicity and greatness of heart. Respect.
If these are not truth I would not mind if you opened my eyes to what ever the truth is about Native Indians.
How do you think this case in Britain would be handled by a Native Indian society, for instance, so we keep on topic and maybe get a nice analogy.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The problem with Indian reserves is they mere not put on the best land and you do have to be an Indian to live on one. You could do what I do and hang out with the black folk or just move to Mi-yayo there are a lot of latins there. [/quote]
On the Xmas party 2 days ago I was talking to one of my colleagues who tells me he is planning to start his own self sufficient community in Brazil. I am curious by this idea. Of course it will be âflawfulâ but it canât be more âawfulâ than this.
I am not looking for a perfect society or even an ideal, just a less harmful one. Or at least one with more psychological freedom. I feel completely smothered by the government here.
Where is Mi-yayo?
[/quote]
A big drawback for me, dropping out and all, is that I like civilisation. I like central air/heating, cars, computers, roads, sewers, water treatment plants, and so on. Life is infinitely better IN civilisation than out.
What would then make a society SO bad that one would consider fleeing? The ultimate answer is TOTALITARIANISM. As such, totalitarianism often arises when a population shifts, usually when an immigrant population of a subserviant nature floods a country. This happened in America when eastern and southern Europeans flooded in a century or so ago; we got Big Daddy government.
Now its happening to Britain, slowly and inexorably. Muslims have a religion that demands subserviance and most of their countries are authoritarian, a holdover from the Ottoman Empire. Most eastern Europeans immigrating to Britain come from very subserviant populations (except the Poles).
This is why, if Britain is to have a GOOD future, it must turn to the BNP. The BNP recognizes the problems I wrote about above. You canât have a free and liberal democracy when the population doesnât understand the concept and is subserviant.
Racism is not the issue. Its what those races EMBRACE as a philosophy when they immigrate.
[/quote]
I would be interested to see some of the BNP candidates pressed and probed on issues other than race. There is so much conversation about race related issues, I disagree with them on a lot of this however I would be very interested to see how much political and philosophical depth there is to the BNP.
A few years ago when the green party started making noise in the UK it was very revealing to watch their candidates struggling any time the conversations moved away from the Environment.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The reason why the British government supports criminals victimizing innocent citizens is because the British government has itâs own long sordid history of victimizing innocent citizens. They canât recognize criminals victimizing people as wrong because they do it themselves.[/quote]
Or it may be that they canât identify with strong innocent, decent people who refuse to be victimized and are of physical action - legal action is OK: it benefits the system, too after all, ; )âŠ
Also, the qualities of honour and dignity for the British is very academic. And defending it also must be via the academic route. It is all very intellectual, conceptual, whereas this manâs actions displayed physical expressions of the same quality and his actions were VISCERAL ( British society tends to encourage suppression of visceral sensations ).
I read a book called âLongitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Timeâ. The intellectual violence committed by the English in that story was EVIL. Also notice how they tear each other apart in political debates: Intellectual violence is ok. They showed a âHouse of Parliamentâ equivalent in Mexico, actually, I think
( Or Argentina, Latin for sure ) where the politicians were beating each other up physically and throwing chairs at each otherâŠlolâŠit is quite a stark contrast from the British!
Here we find really a not physical people and anything related to the body carries a weight. [quote]
I wouldnât go following idealistic Brits into the Amazon to create a new society I can guarantee it wonât end well.[/quote] He is Brazilian. Going back to Sao Paolo, the country side. Precisely to a mountainous region above 600feet ( I think, I was no longer sober at this point ). He believes in the Mayan calender and advised me to, if I can, travel to a location 600feet above sea level in 2012. He was a little bit drunk too but I think that he really believes at least in being among a close knit, strong community.
I want to go to a warmer climate and I want to live in a strong community ( strong enough to exist not too dependent on the government ) - Armageddon or not. [quote]
Rio would be my first choice of where I would want to live in Brazil.
[/quote] You would get SHOT just over a minor traffic aggression! My colleague above, I asked him about the gun law in Brazil. He said we are not allowed to bear arms but everyone has it and people get shot because of traffic offences. In Brazil it is ALWAYS âin the heat of the momentâ. I remember. Fights break out all the time. Physical violence is normal. A crime is still a crime but we do understand the principle of âhe/she asked for itâ. The âevery action creates an equal reactionâ principle of physics is understood and lives in their psyche.
I asked my colleague what happens if you get caught with a gun or shoot someone in traffic. He tells me because the police is so corrupt, if you have money you can buy them and they let you off.
Also, Rio is just really for those born there. As a tourist immigrating you would be a high target - regardless of your skin tone. If your accent betrays you as a âgringoâ, you are a high target. Cockney is right on this one ( lol @ Cockneyâs short review of Rio ).
I am considering Santa Catarina ( Leo de Caprio and Giselle Bundchen have houses there, for example - not that I care. But is just to show that it is still stunning and more exclusive ). [quote]
Mi-yayo is a nick name for Miami. They started calling it that back in the 80âs because of all the yayo that was coming in from columbia through Miami. It is the US but it is almost like a part of Latin America. [/quote]
Florida is my next destination!! I have investigated San Jose, San Francisco, Chicago and Kansas City. I was in Texas for 1 day ( too humid for me ). But because of my love of the motorcycle and sea and sand I initially thought either California or Florida.
Since the collapse âmodernâ society and this âworld governmentâ I am now looking for an alternative.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
He would have probably been hailed as a hero to be honest with you. I am trying to highlight the difference in the psyche of a âhotâ country and a âcoldâ one. The contrast would be Latin societies being classified as more âprimitiveâ and Anglo-Saxon âmodernâ. I would say Latin is primal modern. They are more accepting and understanding of âin the heat of the momentâ actions.[quote]
There definitely is some truth to the âLatin Characterâ stereotype that you refer to. I see that with my friends here that they react in a hot headed way to things that piss me off but not to the point of explosion. On the flip side there are things that drive me crazy that my friends here donât even notice.
Actually a good friend of mine was shot dead a couple of weeks back in an argument over a driving infraction. A couple of my âHot Headedâ friends have admitted that it has really made them re-evaluate their attitude.
[quote]
To be honest with you, if I could try and guess what I would do, I would chase him out and beat him with the bat but on his legs and arms breaking all four, then calling the police. I donât know what the burglar said or did that caused this man to go for his head - maybe he touched his wife, or threatened to. I donât know. You donât know what the burglar said to provoke this man. I have never acted on the horrible things I wanted to do to people who have crossed me over minor violations but I simply cannot know what I am capable of if provoked and having to defend children and weaker women. In the heat of the moment I usually walk away but he was not only cornered but HE WAS TIED UP.[/quote]
I agree that none of us know how we would react unless we are in the situation however I would like to think however that my reaction would be to stay and protect my family instead of running off and leaving them in an attempt to salve my hurt ego.
I guess that is just me being a good Christian I do typically try to understand the reason for peopleâs actions before judging them. The burglar had a path that led him to being there burgling someone and probably there were a number of stages before he was there in the house with a knife that things could have gone differently. That is all totally irrelevant to the argument though. Victims of a crime do not get to be judge, jury and executioner. We have laws, everyone is expected to follow them, of course at times the process breaks down, it is not perfect and it is human we do not however get to randomly suspend the process just because someone lost their temper.
You would have to start off by stating which tribe of Native Americans you are interested in (there are lots of them and the answers would be very different for the different tribes.)
I am by no means an expert though I know enough to know that the popular Hollywood inspired image of a gentle people living in harmony with the land is not necessarily a good description of the majority of Native American civilisations.
You say that you like the values of the Native Americans, what are those values and where does your knowledge of them come from?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
A big drawback for me, dropping out and all, is that I like civilisation. I like central air/heating, cars, computers, roads, sewers, water treatment plants, and so on. Life is infinitely better IN civilisation than out.[/quote]
I did think about that. I can give everything up. I am however, having a problem with having to deal with the real cockroaches and insects. It is a tough choice between invertebrate humans I have to live with in civilization and the real ones from nature.[quote]
What would then make a society SO bad that one would consider fleeing? The ultimate answer is TOTALITARIANISM. [/quote] And mindless materialism, people are just chasing the next vacation, the next car, the next pay rise⊠[quote]
As such, totalitarianism often arises when a population shifts, usually when an immigrant population of a subserviant nature floods a country. This happened in America when eastern and southern Europeans flooded in a century or so ago; we got Big Daddy government.[/quote] I thought it was quite the opposite there, with the Mafia from the south of Italy challenging the US government. They were far from submissive. In fact they ruled America, did they not? [quote]
Now its happening to Britain, slowly and inexorably. Muslims have a religion that demands subserviance and most of their countries are authoritarian, a holdover from the Ottoman Empire. Most eastern Europeans immigrating to Britain come from very subserviant populations (except the Poles).[/quote] The Poles I know here are extremely subservient. In fact the owner of the company I work for, the greatest con artist of all, has built a small empire by exploiting the Poles. [quote]
Racism is not the issue. Its what those races EMBRACE as a philosophy when they immigrate.
[/quote]
I agree with the statement above but I donât see how the BNP is the solution. And what ever the real issue âracismâ will always be the label.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Actually a good friend of mine was shot dead a couple of weeks back in an argument over a driving infraction. A couple of my âHot Headedâ friends have admitted that it has really made them re-evaluate their attitude.[/quote]
I am sorry about that, Cockney. So it is just like my colleague said it is like in Brazil, then? You can get shot over a driving argument, wow. To me that is the other extreme to the British society, and it betrays a complete lack of self regulation and it is pure EGO. Latin societies are reeking with âmachismoâ.
[quote]
I agree that none of us know how we would react unless we are in the situation however I would like to think however that my reaction would be to stay and protect my family instead of running off and leaving them in an attempt to salve my hurt ego.
[/quote] I see where you are coming from. Maybe because you are immersed in a Latin culture and you witness so much display of âprimalâ macho behaviour, you are perceiving this manâs actions as âmachoâ and that is why you thought him selfish in pursuing the burglar. I saw it differently. Asians ( I believe this was his origin, was it not? ) are not known for macho displays of ârespect me or I will kill youâ ( a bit Mafia, as well ). I honestly perceived him as making sure the predator wasnât coming back for more. I thought it was altruistic not selfish. Interesting to see it how you see it, though. I understand now. [quote]
You would have to start off by stating which tribe of Native Americans you are interested in (there are lots of them and the answers would be very different for the different tribes.)[/quote] I know tribes differ but they do have certain characteristic as a people. [quote]
I am by no means an expert though I know enough to know that the popular Hollywood inspired image of a gentle people living in harmony with the land is not necessarily a good description of the majority of Native American civilisations.
You say that you like the values of the Native Americans, what are those values and where does your knowledge of them come from?[/quote]
My knowledge comes from some local tribes on the sea side state I grew up in Brazil. We had school trips to some of them and visited the âcivilizedâ Indians. Also Brazilian history, though I have learnt from your discussions with Sifu here not to trust my history books. American history ( which was even more sugar coated in Brazilian history classes ) and of course, Hollywood.
I never thought of them as âgentle people living in harmonyâ, though.
Take the movie Apocalypto, for example. I see strength, honour, courage, HONESTY, emotional simplicity, dignity, suffering faced straight on, fighting spirit, protective of women and children and women knowing their place and respected for it, a sense of community and communion with one another and nature.
And of course, you get the brutality. But it is all part of human nature.
It is more that these qualities are no longer identifiable except as concepts in âmodernâ society, let alone valued.
I hardly ever find someone who is straight forward and authentic in real life. That is why I end up spending so much time on the internet: Time and again I perceive deceit, not necessarily willfull but people are deceiving themselves and they deceive others.
I donât see deceit as a strong element of Native Indian society, for example. But you can prove me wrong if you know their specific form of deceit. I donât doubt they fail as humans just as we do, I just donât see their form of self deception as a society.
Modern society/civilization, on the other hand, has deceit and corruption running at the thread of their fabric from top to bottom.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney, when the law is set up to protect thugs so they can be safe to commit a home invasion where they take people hostage at knife point, tie them up and threaten to kill their children in front their parents that is anarchy. [/quote]
The law has to treat everyone equally, that is the point. Both the burglars and the brothers committed crimes and they were both correctly prosecuted, now you can argue about the correctness of the sentences for either and I would happily agree with you however to argue that one or other party should not have been prosecuted is to state that the law is optional and doesnât apply to everyone equally.[/quote]
LOL! You donât even realize how off your logic is. lol. Hey here we have a rape victim who somehow shot her rapists and killed them. Well see now as a result, under the "LAW"and so as to prevent anyone from thinking the law favors one side versus the other, she has to be prosecuted. And if applicable, the death penalty MUST be pursued. Remember were trying to be equal here and send the âRIGHTâ type of message.
Do you see where pure logic fails? The law must be flexible and Judges have to be Judges. Otherwise we should all get sentenced by an automated computer system.
Glad my thread took off so well haha.
Just to throw my 2 cents in, I think that Britain is the model for what America should not be like in regards to gun laws and cameras. That was my original intent for starting these threadsâŠ
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Actually a good friend of mine was shot dead a couple of weeks back in an argument over a driving infraction. A couple of my âHot Headedâ friends have admitted that it has really made them re-evaluate their attitude.[/quote]
I am sorry about that, Cockney. So it is just like my colleague said it is like in Brazil, then? You can get shot over a driving argument, wow. To me that is the other extreme to the British society, and it betrays a complete lack of self regulation and it is pure EGO. Latin societies are reeking with âmachismoâ.
[/quote]
I want to be clear, this kind of thing is not common in Mexico but it happens. It also happens in the UK. A boxer was shot in a London bar a couple of years back for asking someone to put out their cigarette in a no smoking area.
If he was Asian surely he should be good at mathsâŠ
I think you are seeing too much in racial stereotypes. Yes there are trends and tendencies that are noticeable as you travel from country to country but you encounter the full range of personality types everywhere.
OK so you were actually talking about Indigenous South American people not what people would refer to as Native Americans or American Indians.
Well even within those peopleâs there is huge variation, I would seriously recommend checking out the BBC series âTribeâ and âAmazonâ with Bruce Parry. He lived with a wide range of different native groups in Brazil and within the groups he meets you can see the whole range of attitudes. I recommend them anyway because they are compelling viewing.
You only have to read the contemporary histories written during the Spanish Conquests to see large amounts of deceit going on within and between the indigenous groups.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney, when the law is set up to protect thugs so they can be safe to commit a home invasion where they take people hostage at knife point, tie them up and threaten to kill their children in front their parents that is anarchy. [/quote]
The law has to treat everyone equally, that is the point. Both the burglars and the brothers committed crimes and they were both correctly prosecuted, now you can argue about the correctness of the sentences for either and I would happily agree with you however to argue that one or other party should not have been prosecuted is to state that the law is optional and doesnât apply to everyone equally.[/quote]
LOL! You donât even realize how off your logic is. lol. Hey here we have a rape victim who somehow shot her rapists and killed them. Well see now as a result, under the "LAW"and so as to prevent anyone from thinking the law favors one side versus the other, she has to be prosecuted. And if applicable, the death penalty MUST be pursued. Remember were trying to be equal here and send the âRIGHTâ type of message.
Do you see where pure logic fails? The law must be flexible and Judges have to be Judges. Otherwise we should all get sentenced by an automated computer system.
[/quote]
Gregus, if she shot them in self defence then it is self defence and she gets off. If she hunted them down and shot them then she is guilty of murder and should be tried for the crime, she might be eligible for a lenient sentence or even an acquittal based on diminished responsibility you wouldnât however say, oh she was raped, that explains it, no need to investigate any possible crime.