Propaganda plays on emotions to get you to short circuit your intellect. And what better emotion to use than fear to keep you in line:
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Words to Ponder
I normally dislike Memes, but this seems appropriate. even more appropriate when you have people like Wayne LaPierre saying "the only thing we have to fear is an absence of fear."
Propaganda plays on emotions to get you to short circuit your intellect. And what better emotion to use than fear to keep you in line:
Propaganda plays on emotions to get you to short circuit your intellect. And what better emotion to use than fear to keep you in line:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You live in Fear if you are afraid of neighbors being armed.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
How cute that the side whose argument depends on promoting fear and other faulty uses of emotion is accusing the gun-rights advocates of that. Emotionalism and control are all you have, but that doesn't mean that others suffer the same weakness.
ReplyDeleteBogus argument rule number 1: accuse the opponents of that which you yourself are guilty of. You're the one who won't leave home without a gun on your person. And you accuse us of fear, hahahahahahahahaha.
DeleteThank you for giving us the first rule of your argument style. That helps us understand how you can practice psychology without a license.
Delete"Propaganda plays on emotions to get you to short circuit your intellect. And what better emotion to use than fear to keep you in line"
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to get into a meme war here, but let me put it this way. If I decide I want to legally carry a firearm, pepper spray, take martial arts, or just pray the police are around, that is my decision. If I improperly use any of these against someone, then I will receive consequences.
I don't make any demands on others that would interfere with their individual choices in this area. However, as was pointed out in an earlier posting:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/10/colion-noir-lying-con-artist-says-gun.html
Gun control advocates are quite ready to use fear to advocate for limitations on the individual choices I feel I am entitled to. So which is worse? Me making a choice that affects only me? Or someone who wants to control others' choices because of their fear?
Yours is worse because it gets people killed unnecessarily.
Delete"If I improperly use any of these against someone, then I will receive consequences." I know you've been paying attention, so I don't understand how you can say something like that. I don't think I've felt the need to call you a liar, like I so often have the others. So, please explain how you can say that when you know from my daily posts that very often those who misuse guns don't face ANY consequences.
"So, please explain how you can say that when you know from my daily posts that very often those who misuse guns don't face ANY consequences."
DeleteBecause my expectation is that if I misuse my firearms I should receive consequences. That is my personal belief. On a more nuts and bolts level, for those who don't have any feelings regarding what is right or wrong, there is the motivation to obey the law in order to avoid the consequences of getting caught.
I believe in the past you have said that when someone, perhaps even myself has commented that requiring background checks on private sales would have no effect on two individuals deciding to forgo going to an FFL.
Your comment does spark an interest in me though to see if anyone has collected any data in regards to misuse of guns versus receiving consequences. On the criminal side, that would be called the clearance rate I believe. By the criminal side, I mean aggravated assault, murder, etc.
The big question would be whether there has been any attempt to quantify similar statistics in regards to accidental/negligent shootings.
First you said "I will receive consequences." Now you saying your belief is that if you fuck-up, you SHOULD. That's better as long as you admit that too often people don't.
DeleteGunsucks are cowards. Instead of rationally considering the world, they carry a gun. I am a man, not a gunsuck. I do not need artificial aids for my safety. I can go to the bathroom without a gun and be perfectly safe. I do not need a weapon to go to the store, to the bank, anywhere. If you do, you are a cowardly paranoid loser.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteMikeb, when you agree with comments like that, you lose all credibility in your claim that you don't want to ban all firearms. But also, you put yourself in opposition to Jim and Dog Gone, both of whom have identified themselves as people with a carry license who have carried.
DeleteGreg: You are a paranoid loser who also has reading comprehension problems. I do not want to ban all guns. I want their to be universal background checks, I want the gunsuck gun show loophole closed, I want to stop gunsucks from selling guns to criminals and lunatics, but I am not in favor of banning guns. Learn to read, and stop posting idiotic shit.
DeleteGreg, agreeing that gun owners are paranoid and cowardly is not the same as wanting to ban all guns. I believe in a free country you have the right to be as cowardly and paranoid as you want.
DeleteMikeb, consider your stated position for a moment. You believe us to be cowards and paranoid, but you don't want to disarm all of us. That means one of the following:
Delete1. You don't really believe that we're dangerous.
2. You don't really believe that we're suffering from the named conditions.
3. You're too weak to try to save society from a genuine danger.
I reject your assertion about gun owners, since it, like many of your beliefs, is based on no evidence. How you resolve the contradictions in your positions is your problem, though I'm interested in the quirks of your mind.
Greg, I believe a balance needs to be struck between strict gun control and the desire of responsible people to own guns. Disarming about half of you, the worst half, would do the trick.
DeleteAs always, Mikeb, you inhabit a fantasy world where you think people believe what you say.
DeleteIf society did not have fear, there would be no need for police, emergency rooms, firefighters, or a military armed with weapons designed for the sole purpose of ending the world as we know it.
ReplyDeleteFear is rational. Fear to some specific degree is instilled in every living human from the time of birth. It is only the irrational who have no fear.
There is a difference between rational systems for public safety (police, military) and cowardly losers who use their own stupidity to act in a vigilante manner. The police provide order and appropriate response to disorderly persons. There are dangerous people out there. That is not the question. The question is how to respond to these dangerous persons, and the amount of danger that exists. The gunsuck believes that every situation is dangerous, and that you are always in danger. The normal rational person knows that this is paranoid loser thinking. There are dangerous places and non-dangerous places. Stay out of the dangerous places, and most of the time you are fine. Gunsucks are too stupid to know this. They are unable to distinguish between non-dangerous and dangerous locales, and worse than that, they are armed with weapons that they do not understand. Terrible situation. More problems in this country are caused by weapons than any other thing.
DeleteA case of Jadegold asking and answering his own question?
Delete"The police provide order and appropriate response to disorderly persons. There are dangerous people out there. That is not the question."
DeleteBut that is the question Anon. You admit that there are dangerous people out there, yet you try to shame people from deciding to use defensive options to protect themselves. And for some reason after you admit that there are dangerous people out there, you refer to citizens who lawfully carry firearms as paranoid.
"There are dangerous places and non-dangerous places. Stay out of the dangerous places, and most of the time you are fine. Gunsucks are too stupid to know this. They are unable to distinguish between non-dangerous and dangerous locales,"
For the most part, people who carry firearms stay out of dangerous places if they can avoid it. However there are those that don't have that option either due to work obligations, or where they happen to reside. (all of Chicago comes to mind) And if the police aren't providing order to the point where it is a dangerous place, then who but ourselves to be responsible for our own safety?
"There is a difference between rational systems for public safety (police, military) and cowardly losers who use their own stupidity to act in a vigilante manner."
First, the military isn't responsible for public safety. There is a big difference between self defense and vigilantism. The police operate under the same limitations regarding deadly force as citizens for the most part. To protect themselves or others from death or great bodily harm.
When people with carry permits defend themselves, most encounters result in the assailant making a decision to go elsewhere and perhaps contemplate another line of work. That is the best of all possible outcomes because no one is injured or killed.
I am not Jade Gold. I have decided to come in out of the shadows.
DeleteThanks for naming yourself, Nick. That makes things easier.
Deletess, there are dangerous people out there but it is an irrational and paranoid response to arm yourself. That's how I see it.
Mikeb, don't you remember when "Nick Danger" identified himself before?
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/01/where-do-chicago-crime-guns-come-from.html
Greg, what are you like the hall monitor in middle school? You get all upset when Dog Gone does a "hit and run" and you watch carefully when Nick Danger names himself.
DeleteYou thanked "Nick" for naming himself. I just reminded you that he's been here before. He pops up periodically with his "gunsuck" nonsense. Regarding Dog Gone, my point is that she's too much of a coward to carry on the debate.
DeleteIt becomes most irritating when your posts are attributed to Jadegold.
DeleteIt is about as true as the guy who insisted that Greg is Ted Nudgent, and just as original.
Fear belongs to those who have to carry a gun anywhere they go. Crime is lower in America than ever before, which proves fear is why they HAVE to carry a gun all the time.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps it marks causation?
DeleteI recall that a fellow by the name of John Lott happened upon such a conclusion.
I do not have to have my gun, any more than I have to wear a seatbelt or have to read a book. I choose to have a gun in the same way that I choose to use safety devices and to exercise my other rights.
DeleteThe choice of whether, or not to carry a deadly weapon, is not the same choice as wearing a seat belt. You obviously feel threatened, or why would you carry. And why feel threatened in a country where the crime level is at historic lows? You have the right, what's/where's the reason?
Delete