Victimhood v Genocide

It might be an interesting way to spend some time. I think you'll find, though, that the people who don't understand that they have responsibility for their lives aren't capable of understanding what you're talking about.

Denial is even more powerful an addiction than drugs or alcohol. It's possible to force someone to go cold turkey off drug or alcohol addiction by restraining him or her. But there's no way for anyone to force someone off an addiction to denial. It's the deadliest destroyer of human beings.

There's no harm in trying, though, and I'm not trying to suggest that you don't.

Listen to who this is coming from. Law Enforcement Agencies advocate compliance with an assailant. Why? Well, first of all, less paperwork. If an assailant gets your purse or wallet in a knifepoint robbery, the cops take your statement, advise you to cancel all cards and get replacements, and start shopping for a new purse or wallet. Nobody's hurt, you're only inconvenienced, and the police file it with the rest of the "solve when we have nothing better to do" crimes.

Fight your assailant and the outcome is always bad for someone. You could end up seriously injured, which is assault, or dead, which is felony murder. Not only are both of these only slightly more likely to be solved than a stick-up, you've now become a violent crime statistic, making the police look bad even if they do catch and convict your assailant (they should, after all, have prevented it, right?). Or, you could injure or kill your assailant to stop him. In many cases, that can put YOU in legal trouble. You wouldn't be the first person to go to jail becuase of the circumstances in which you used deadly force to protect property, or to be sued by your attacker or their next of kin for personal injury or wrongful death. A lawsuit is ludicrous, but they have been awarded to assailant plaintiffs, and even if decided in your favor you've spent thousands of dollars defending your actions in court. If you countersue for those legal costs your assailant has every chance of showing empty pockets; why else would they have robbed you?

Now, there are times when fighting an assailant is the only real option. If you have good reason to think you're going to be injured, raped or killed anyway if you comply, you quite simply have nothing to lose by resisting as then you have a chance. But remember the force continuum; your primary objective is your own safety and of those around you. If such safety can be ensured by parting with the twenty bucks in your wallet, for Pete's sake give him the damn cash. If however your safety can only be ensured through force, play for keeps.

If such safety can be ensured by parting with the twenty bucks in your wallet, for Pete's sake give him the damn cash.

Click to expand...

B.S.

Back when I was living in "eastern europe", many roberries looked like this:

1) BG with knife: give me your money, jewelery, etc.
2) GG with nothing: mm'kay, here you go, don't hurt me.
3) BG with knife: stabbing the GG in the eyes, so he/she can't identify the BG.

I can't stand people telling me to just give them $20 and that will make them go away. HOW THE HE** DO YOU KNOW THAT ??? I've seen kids without eyes, because they did just that

Liko81 said:

If such safety can be ensured by parting with the twenty bucks in your wallet, for Pete's sake give him the damn cash. If however your safety can only be ensured through force, play for keeps.

Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that in addition to firearms we should also carry a crystal ball or some other method of predicting our assailants intentions?

I noticed you ignored the entire rest of the paragraph when you set up that quote. Thanks for the out-of-context quote there, buddy; you've got a future in politics and/or news media. That happens to be the only sentence in the paragraph, and indeed in my post, that reads as advocating compliance.

However, let's look at the very next sentence which you omitted from the quote:

If however your safety can only be ensured through force, play for keeps.

Click to expand...

And let's look at the first couple of sentences:

Now, there are times when fighting an assailant is the only real option. If you have good reason to think you're going to be injured, raped or killed anyway if you comply, you quite simply have nothing to lose by resisting as then you have a chance.

Click to expand...

There have been a few threads floating around related to the concept of a "thrower": rubber-band a $10 around a pack of matches, and if you're approached by more than a couple of potential BGs, you toss the thrower to the group (keeping them out of arms' reach) and tell em to buy the guys some smokes and a six-pack. Cheaper than taking on multiple BGs, even armed, and risking a hospital bill and court proceedings. If you think something similar will get you out of harm's way safely, DO IT.

Now, the rest of my post definitely covers your example. If you have a feeling that the BG is not going to just walk away, then fight, and don't pull punches; if you have a gun, use it, and I mean pull the trigger, multiple times.

And next time I would appreciate it if you quoted me accurately and in context.

but I've never seen anyone argue that it was immoral to kill the perpetrators, that their actions were not their own fault but rather that of their culture or society, or that the victims should have just laid there and wait for someone else to help them.

Click to expand...

You should read this book before you talk about the public and government reaction to genocide:
We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch
http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Inform-Tomorrow-Killed-Families/dp/0312243359/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196462542&sr=8-1

You will find that the United Nation, the French, the Belgians, and most of the public in fact argued exactly that we should feed and protect the perpetrators, and ignore the victims. I am not kidding, and I am not exaggerating at all. Read the book. Then look at what has happened in the intervening decade.

All of the "refugee camps" that were fed and protected by the United Nations and other charities were in fact armed militia camps made up of the Hutu tribsemen who had committed the genocide. It was well known, yet nobody would stop feeding and supporting them. They have continued to destabilize the entire region there, performing mass murder in Congo now, and surrounding countries, as they still threaten Rwanda. It is beyond insanity.

Just exactly how do you know if "your safety can only be ensured through force"? Things happen fast. If someone draws a deadly weapon on me and demands my money, my only thought regarding options will be "can I draw and fire in time", not some "did he pull a knife just because he wants some smokes" mind game nonsense. In the real world you don't have time to play such games.

A more chilling possibility is that maybe the elites of this country are actually advocating victimhood to kill off lower-class Americans. It would make sense, I mean when's the last time the federal gov't or a high-ranking politician has done anything about poverty in this country?

It would make sense, I mean when's the last time the federal gov't or a high-ranking politician has done anything about poverty in this country?

Click to expand...

You mean besides "You're doing a great job there, Brownie"?

Like I said in another thread, it's in the best interest of those in power to stay in power, and maintain control. That doesn't mean I believe in conspiracy theory, that "they" are trying to "keep the peasants down" by reinforcing things like "victimhood", but that mindset does play in to the needs of certain political mindsets.

It's interesting, I don't believe for the most part that any one person such a political organization would choose to do this, but merely that because it is of benefit to that organization it "naturally" comes from it. That's an idea that I have that explains why supposedly "opposing" political parties often end up, in practice, doing the same things.

Uh... all conspiracies aside.

I'm not sure you can really make a good argument comparing organized genocide with the idea of not fighting back during a crime.

Pretty HUGE difference between the two there.

I think trying to relate the two will just come off sounding pretty strange.

As far as fighting back.....well ofcouse the idea is in the vast majority of crimes the BG's want just want the money and then they will go away.

So the logic is that the ODDS are one will survive if they do not confront the armed BGs.

However if you don't like playing the ODDS then have what you need to fight back. (mostly what you need is your brain bty but a gun don't hurt. )

Also there seem to be a lot of passive people in our world who would rather play the odds and let some one else take care of the fighting part of things.

Then again.... as far as abduction goes the advice given IS TO FIGHT.

Interesting huh?

The logic there, ofcouse, is if someone is trying to abduct another person the ODDS of that person surviving are very LOW.