American National Anti-Gun Association

[Katy]

There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported, and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported, and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.

I have absolutely no idea what this means. Can you clarify what you mean, please?
.

[Katy]

There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported, and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.

I have absolutely no idea what this means. Can you clarify what you mean, please?
.

It means that there is a curriculum that is used in America that teaches small children certain things that are a part of our national psychology. Things such as "America is good" "America must look out for evil people and protect citizens from evil" "The government is good" - they aren't overtly taught, but which things are emphasized (especially from K-3rd grade) are vitally important, and for the most part don't change around the country. This is becoming even more true with legislation like No Child Left Behind which enforces standardized testing.

[sschaula]

Jason,

Actually, Natural rights do exist. It's what we're able to do when other people aren't imposing their will upon us.

I'm sure you've noticed this: nature allows people to impose their will upon others. You are part of the US military aren't you? Might makes right. I like the wording of this quote from Max Stirner "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." Although it probably doesn't match the original meaning, Crowley's Law of Thelema can be re-interpreted in the same spirit "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"

Contrary to popular opinion, might doesn't make right. Nature does allow us to impose our will upon others - at mankind's own demise! It's up to each of us to choose whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing.

Love is the law, love under will.

Leyla,

Of course, the most offensive implication here (underlying your god-given right to bear arms) is that the US has the right to stick their noses into the domestic affairs of other countries, yet when the international eye turns on them, they cry foul with such bone-headed paranoia as this.

Yes, sometimes that is the case. But a lot of the time, it's good that we are "sticking our noses" in the affairs of other countries. It's about doing the right thing.

If you see your neighbor being murdered by someone for no apparent decent reason, are you going to sit back and mind your own business, or are you going to try and save their life?

If you answered mind your own business to that question, skip the rest of my post because you probably are too stupid to understand it.

Now, a second question. Would you go sneaking around your neighbor's house for no apparent good reason? Me either. That would be doing the wrong thing. That's when it's good to respect their privacy and allow them to do whatever they choose.

But when things are getting out of hand and innocent people are getting hurt, then it's only good to step in. It's not "sticking our noses" in another's business, then.

Also, it's not bone headed paranoia to understand that a lot of people unconsciously talk and spread shit about the US...it's how things are!

Naturally, when the US decides that “democracy” is the order of the day in Iraq so much so that military intervention is justified, this comes from a well-informed and educated public who has democratically elected its government to do so; not from any encouragement of WIDESPREAD UNCONSCIOUS HATRED FOR THE MIDDLE EAST. This is not interference in the domestic affairs of one country by another. It must be another one of those god-given American rights.

What are you blathering about? I didn't see a point anywhere in that. Sarcasm doesn't read well over the internet.

We are allowed to condemn religion in the Middle East, ascribing all sorts of crimes against its citizens to it and taking the initiative to bring about order on that basis because “the US” says so, but when we shine that same light on the States’ gun crime and how the right to bear arms might affect it, for example, we’re impinging on someone’s god-given right to bear arms because they might be terrorised and, therefore, need to plan for the worst.

I don't see any comparison between Shizlam and guns in the US. Your argument makes no sense.

How does that Christian god-given, natural right work, again?

Read what I wrote to Jason, and apply it.

Do tell, what exactly are the causes of this widespread, unconscious hatred for America?

Unconsciousness, mass hysteria, and herdlike mentality.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott:

L: Of course, the most offensive implication here (underlying your god-given right to bear arms) is that the US has the right to stick their noses into the domestic affairs of other countries, yet when the international eye turns on them, they cry foul with such bone-headed paranoia as this.

S: Yes, sometimes that is the case. But a lot of the time, it's good that we are "sticking our noses" in the affairs of other countries. It's about doing the right thing.

This is non-sequitur and without the paragraph I wrote after it, makes no sense at all. It is a blatant example of the unconscious, hatred-filled American mind set attempting to justify itself; attempting to redirect an accurate spotlight on it by trying to undermine the accuser. You are a liar (not that you‘d know it), Scott--and not a very good one at that! You know, the kind of liar that’s been reserved for women: the kind of liar who is incapable of lying because the very “truths” they hold are themselves unconscious.

Let me elaborate further, just so its abundantly clear. I speak about the implication in your statement that the US has this unquestionable right to involve themselves in the domestic affairs of other countries but will not afford that same right to any other country or individual (since I know that if an American were to say the same thing as I, you would object with equal stupidity). On that basis, I conclude that the statement was nothing but bone-headed paranoia. And what do you do? Let’s see:

Yes, sometimes that is the case.

Oh, really? Sometimes what is the case? (Given your accusations of my lack of clarity, I have to wonder on what grounds you should be held a shining example of it.) This comment only makes sense when you consider my reply as a whole; it only makes sense when you consider the content of my next two paragraphs and the implication in the (“non-sensical”) sarcasm (that you didn’t understand, apparently) that the US has fucked up. You’re just trying to sound clever, and out of your desperation to justify that which is unconsciously motivated in you, you’re failing. Of course, only those who are conscious will see it.

But a lot of the time, it's good that we are "sticking our noses" in the affairs of other countries.

Irrelevant to the point being made. Not completely useless, however. I may address it later.

It's about doing the right thing.

I hardly think you can accurately determine right from wrong if you can’t even address the point of a simple paragraph correctly. Your emotionalism is what guides you, despite the fact that you try to assume a cool exterior. So, I’m not about to let you decide what’s right or wrong on my behalf, thanks!

The main point of my first paragraph (which you completely ignored due to your stupidity--aka, unconscious reaction) is this: the US has no more grounds to interfere in the internal politics of another country than any other country has to interfere in theirs. Would you care to actually address the point?

And that's only the first few lines of your idiotic post.

I have to prepare for work now. However, since I very much care about others, I will return as soon as I can to address the rest of your post and expose it for the sheer ignorance that it is. But here’s a hint for you, personally, Scott: if you don’t get what I’m saying, it isn’t because I am “probably stupid.” I say, with absolute fucking certainty, that I run rings around you in every intellectual, abstract and applied, endeavour. Don’t you be fooled by your ignorant self that doesn’t exist for one second, mate!

[sschaula]

Leyla,

This is non-sequitur and without the paragraph I wrote after it, makes no sense at all.

Really? I don't see how it makes no sense. You said America is sticking their noses in the domestic affairs of other countries, and I admitted that sometimes that may be true but a lot of the time it's necessary and good. What doesn't make sense about that?

It is a blatant example of the unconscious, hatred-filled American mind set attempting to justify itself; attempting to redirect an accurate spotlight on it by trying to undermine the accuser. You are a liar (not that you‘d know it), Scott--and not a very good one at that! You know, the kind of liar that’s been reserved for women: the kind of liar who is incapable of lying because the very “truths” they hold are themselves unconscious.

Wow, what?

Let me elaborate further, just so its abundantly clear.

Please do.

I speak about the implication in your statement that the US has this unquestionable right to involve themselves in the domestic affairs of other countries but will not afford that same right to any other country or individual (since I know that if an American were to say the same thing as I, you would object with equal stupidity). On that basis, I conclude that the statement was nothing but bone-headed paranoia. And what do you do? Let’s see:

Quote:
Yes, sometimes that is the case.

Oh, really? Sometimes what is the case? (Given your accusations of my lack of clarity, I have to wonder on what grounds you should be held a shining example of it.) This comment only makes sense when you consider my reply as a whole; it only makes sense when you consider the content of my next two paragraphs and the implication in the (“non-sensical”) sarcasm (that you didn’t understand, apparently) that the US has fucked up.

Okay, first of all, if you want to clarify something don't use run on sentences with parenthesis. It's fucking confusing. Your elaboration has not been clear at all for me.

Secondly - what was "sometimes the case" is that America may sometimes interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries for no good reason. The only way I can imagine that was unclear was if your attitude stood in the way of your understanding.

You’re just trying to sound clever, and out of your desperation to justify that which is unconsciously motivated in you, you’re failing. Of course, only those who are conscious will see it.

Okay, whatever. I suppose you also believe anyone that doesn't see it is unconscious, and for some reason, you consider yourself to be right.

Funny what opinions do to our reason.

Irrelevant to the point being made.

Your point was that America isn't questioned when it involves itself in the affairs of other countries. My point was that there's not much to question, because usually when America does involve itself, it's for a good reason.

I hardly think you can accurately determine right from wrong if you can’t even address the point of a simple paragraph correctly.

I hardly think you are capable of determining anything about me, seeing as how you didn't understand what I was talking about in regards to your first paragraph.

Besides, your style of writing makes my brain go numb. Sorry if I find it hard to understand what you're saying. Try to be clearer if you actually want to make any kind of impression on me. Spell it out as if I were an absolute moron.

Your emotionalism is what guides you, despite the fact that you try to assume a cool exterior.

???

It's so funny how women lob these insults around here, as if they had a pair of testicles.

So, I’m not about to let you decide what’s right or wrong on my behalf, thanks!

I wasn't trying to. Australia doesn't concern me, so I don't try to involve myself in the domestic affairs of the country.

The main point of my first paragraph (which you completely ignored due to your stupidity--aka, unconscious reaction) is this: the US has no more grounds to interfere in the internal politics of another country than any other country has to interfere in theirs.

Yeah, I understood that was your point. Do you really need for me to lead you through the thought it takes to get to my point?

Would you care to actually address the point?

I did in my previous reply.

And that's only the first few lines of your idiotic post.

If it's so idiotic, leave it alone. If you choose not to, then be kind. I wasn't calling you a bitch or anything...yet. So what's with this harsh attitude for no reason? Do you actually think that will make an impact? It's like a person shouting in your ear...it's hard to pay attention to what they're actually saying.

So fucking chill out.

I have to prepare for work now. However, since I very much care about others, I will return as soon as I can to address the rest of your post and expose it for the sheer ignorance that it is. But here’s a hint for you, personally, Scott: if you don’t get what I’m saying, it isn’t because I am “probably stupid.” I say, with absolute fucking certainty, that I run rings around you in every intellectual, abstract and applied, endeavour. Don’t you be fooled by your ignorant self that doesn’t exist for one second, mate!

Point out the ignorance. If you find yourself unable to, then you're only acting this way because you disagree strongly with my views.

Hint: what you just wrote exposed no ignorance. You just went "wah wah wah", and that was about it. Get serious.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It's so funny how women lob these insults around here, as if they had a pair of testicles.

What does this mean? Does this mean that one must have testicles to insult someone? I doubt it means that only women without testicles make accusations of emotionalism, or should I dig up some posts by people who one might assume have testicles where they made accusations of emotionalism as well? (Please) pardon the (run-on) sentence.
.

[sschaula]

It just means that the women who frequent this forum are nuts, in my opinion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It just means that the women who frequent this forum are nuts, in my opinion.

Would that include the women with testicles, or just the women without testicles? By David's definition all women are nuts, whether or not they have nuts - and not having nuts does not mean being nuts, but it looks like by Kevin's definition, one either has nuts or is nuts. How are you defining "women" here Scott?
.

[sschaula]

In the scientific sense. Only regarding the women that post here. Both men and women can be nuts. Sorry it includes you...I am not trying to make you feel bad. If you want to discuss it further, please PM me about it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

You already established on another thread that you think I'm nuts, but now you are including passthrough, Pye, and Shardrol - and I don't think they are nuts. What I'm actually hounding you on though is the gender-line blanket statement. I'm done; no need for further discussion on this instance.
.

[Jamesh]

Lets all post our list of the most nutty to the least nutty - Get it out in the open!

Would be a lot of fun for the one's judged least nutty [and probably most depressing for those already a bit unsure of their sanity level]. One of the problems with being a little nutty is that if the herd indicates negativeness to your sanity, then this can induce and promote even more unsurety and low confidence - which leads to even more displays of irrationality and feelings of madness. I'm not game to post a list first for this reason.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Lets all post our list of the most nutty to the least nutty.

Aw, man - the only idea worse than a popularity contest is a pig party.
.

[Jamesh]

You can look at it that way, or you can take the view that complete openess is required of philosophers of reality.

[sschaula]

Elizabeth,

I think it has less to do with gender, than it has to do with who in that gender would be attracted to a forum like this (one which is misogynistic) and end up staying.

[Tomas]

.


dumb & dumber writes:

I've decided that Americans against gun violence should rename themselves explicitly as anti-gun groups.


-tomas-
Still adding gravel to your box of rocks?



-dummy further comments-
This includes renaming the largest membership group as a National Anti-Gun Lobby.


-tomas-
Ho-hum.



-dumbo adds-
This is quite amazing, since the National Rifle Association's "Institute for Legislative Action" already lists all these groups as Anti-Gun Lobbies!


-tomas-
Suicidal alcoholic!!



-dumbest of the dummies drivels-
They should bite the bullet.

You can click [

-hershey hocker spouts-
Until there is a solid, national agreement and determination to make gun ownership highly restrictive, Americans won't be as capable of thinking and speaking truthfully.



-tomas-
god, you are beyond dumb, borderline stupid.





-

[Leyla Shen]

Scott whined:

If it's so idiotic, leave it alone. If you choose not to, then be kind. I wasn't calling you a bitch or anything...yet. So what's with this harsh attitude for no reason? Do you actually think that will make an impact? It's like a person shouting in your ear...it's hard to pay attention to what they're actually saying.

So fucking chill out.

Interesting advice. I guess, as an American, you don’t have to take it, eh?

Kelly’s conclusion in her opening post:

Until there is a solid, national agreement and determination to make gun ownership highly restrictive, Americans won't be as capable of thinking and speaking truthfully.

Your very first reply to Kelly on this thread:

1) You're in Australia. Why are you stepping out of bounds? Stay the fuck out of our politics, please.

2) There's a reason they don't all band together. It's because they're morons.

3) It's funny how you assume that a thinking society should prevent the freedom of thought of its inhabitants. How backwards.

I guess Kelly couldn't possibly have had a "good reason" to question America's right to bear arms.

A further comment by Scott attempting to thoughtfully justify America's right to bear arms coupled with a well thought out cause, followed by my reply to it:

[Scott]…there will be more attacks on US soil in the coming years, all because of this widespread unconscious hatred for America. And who will be there to protect us?

[Leyla] Of course, the most offensive implication here (underlying your god-given right to bear arms) is that the US has the right to stick their noses into the domestic affairs of other countries, yet when the international eye turns on them, they cry foul with such bone-headed paranoia as this.

Do I really have to lead you through every thought it takes to get to my point?

Wow, what?

Yeah, I thought so.

[Leyla Shen]

Katy:

Dan: I feel inclined to question that. I doubt that any individual American without significant practical experience of their own country can sensibly assess the psyche of American people any better than those in nations literally awash with American culture, news and political influence. Australia is such a nation.

Katy: There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported [such as Things such as "America is good" "America must look out for evil people and protect citizens from evil" "The government is good" - they aren't overtly taught, but which things are emphasized (especially from K-3rd grade) are vitally important, and for the most part don't change around the country], and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.

You really think that those things are not “exported” in the manner Dan implies?

Wow. You must be joking.

[Leyla Shen]

PS, Scott:

I don't see any comparison between Shizlam and guns in the US. Your argument makes no sense.

I didn't make a comparison. I commented on a direct connection you made:

But in case you haven't noticed, there's a war with terrorism going on right now, and the US is taking the heat. Just the other day 6 people were arrested in a plot to sneak into a military base and kill as many soldiers as they could. It's much better if people have weapons to be able to stop this kind of thing. If they don't, they stand helpless against these guys. Just wait and see...there will be more attacks on US soil in the coming years, all because of this widespread unconscious hatred for America. And who will be there to protect us? The police, who are busy writing speeding tickets? The National Guard, who is in Iraq or else can't be called up immediately?

Unless, that is, you consider the whole world to be nothing more than unconscious, hateful, anti-American terrorists that have infiltrated your country? Your comment, though insane, would at least make sense in that context.

One out of two ain't bad, I suppose...

[Katy]

You really think that those things are not “exported” in the manner Dan implies?

Wow. You must be joking.

I am not talking about popculture. I'm specifically talking about what do teachers say to 5 year olds. Out loud. Probably never really reproduced consciously because they're repeating what they were told at that age.

One example is that I assume that Australia exists in your curriculum. It doesn't here. Really, other than memorizing the continents as a child, it sorta disappears. I remember a few months back I had a conversation with Sue in which she said something like "well, surely you read about us in WW1?" Nope. The closest I can get to anything is the Coral Sea battle (which we didn't learn about until upper level university classes) - which was "Americans saving those poor defenseless Aussies" Is this the way you think of yourselves?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

One example is that I assume that Australia exists in your curriculum. It doesn't here. Really, other than memorizing the continents as a child, it sorta disappears. I remember a few months back I had a conversation with Sue in which she said something like "well, surely you read about us in WW1?" Nope.

Ditto. All I ever learned about Australia in school was that it was a British penal colony back when Britain ruled the world, but Britain was so spread out that it was not able to keep up with all its territories so it lost control of everything but Britain itself. They kind of made it sound like y'all were just a bunch of criminals anyway, so they gave up on you because you were too much trouble. They kind of made it sound like a third world nation, so I was kind of surprised when I learned Australia had electricity.

World history classes start off teaching about Mesopotamia, and rarely get in depth past the 11th century. What they do hit is basically skimmed over. There are American government/American history classes, but the schools tend to leave out the rest of the world from the Middle Ages to modern times. At least the southern schools (as I've been told - meaning south-east America, but Florida for sure) leave all that out. I understand the northern schools are better, but considering how many Americans can't even find Australia on a map, I'm not sure how much better.

I think that's Dan's point though, that Australia knows more about both America and Australia than Americans do, and therefore are better informed to make comparisons.
.

[DHodges]

Kelly’s conclusion in her opening post:

Until there is a solid, national agreement and determination to make gun ownership highly restrictive, Americans won't be as capable of thinking and speaking truthfully.

Was that a conclusion? I thought it was an assertion, since she hadn't said anything to back it up.

[DHodges]

Ditto. All I ever learned about Australia in school was that it was a British penal colony back when Britain ruled the world, but Britain was so spread out that it was not able to keep up with all its territories so it lost control of everything but Britain itself. They kind of made it sound like y'all were just a bunch of criminals anyway, so they gave up on you because you were too much trouble. They kind of made it sound like a third world nation, so I was kind of surprised when I learned Australia had electricity.

Don't think I was ever told even that much about Australia in school. I might have been able to tell you it was a big island somewhere, and that it had something to do with boomarangs and kangaroos, but that would probably be based on that cartoon involving cats fighting kangaroos, not actual school class time.

I would bet that most Americans would be surprised to learn that Australia is larger than Texas. (It's eleven times as large.)

History as it is taught in the US also pretty much ignores Africa, South America and Asia - at least it did thirty years ago. Europe consists of Britain, France Italy and Germany.

Still, to put this in context, while most Americans are aware that there are fifty states, they might be able to name six or seven, and wouldn't be able to tell you what the US relationship is to Guam, the Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Don't think I was ever told even that much about Australia in school. I might have been able to tell you it was a big island somewhere, and that it had something to do with boomarangs and kangaroos, but that would probably be based on that cartoon involving cats fighting kangaroos, not actual school class time.

Yeah - I learned where Tasmania was because of the Tasmanian devil on Bugs Bunny. I didn't know Tasmania was part of Australia until much later though.

(I started a new thread on internationalism)
.

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs]

Master (in loco parentis) Hodges wrote:

Was that a conclusion? I thought it was an assertion, since she hadn't said anything to back it up.

Right, then. For a personal pardon and absolution for Kelly, I’ll trade you a whole kangaroo, 12 boomerangs and the following rephrase:

“Kelly’s post concluded as follows:”