Still Having a Bad Day? Exchange Your Rants For Hugs Here!

[nicocoberru she/her]

Upvotes XD

[Silverblade5 he/him]

There's a ton of controversy surrounding the whole gun debate here in the US, but the two main opinions are like this:

Conservative: If gun ownership is made illegal, it will only disarm the responsible gun owners, not the criminals who the gun control thing is intended to disarm, since they can just buy guns on the black market and don't worry about breaking the law. Not only that, but it runs the risk of making police abuse more dangerous, since what's to stop an armed officer with no conscience from trampling all over the rights of an unarmed citizen?

Liberal: Guns are the best weapons for pulling off a mass shooting or something similar. Keeping guns legal makes it easier for the sort of people who pull off mass shootings like the one in Newtown or Umpqua to access those guns, so the best thing to do is just make them illegal. Not only that, but if a child finds a gun and it's loaded, tragedy can result.

I tend more toward the conservative argument, though I know both arguments have good and bad points. The conservative argument doesn't satisfactorily address how to prevent mass shootings, and the liberal argument doesn't take into account areas where the police can't or won't arrive to the scene of a crime in time, so the victims are left to defend themselves. It's a pretty contentious debate over here.

Here's my stance on guns: a gun is a tool, and just like any tool, it can be used to make something better, or to completely destroy it. A stream of water can be used to give a thirsty man a drink, or to drown him. A cane can be used to give a blind or frail person support, or to inflict massive body trauma. A drill can build a house, or rip apart someone's body. I view guns the exact same way.

[Briar King]

I spent my entire childhood out at our hunting lease so have grown up with guns. We ve got over 20 in the house. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns. We have no automatic weapons cause they aren't needed to hunt. Sadly we don't have the lease anymore so I can't take my kids hunting like my old man did with me but my 12 year old daughter has a pink rifle she likes to shoot at the range. There are responsible people out there and they vastly outnumber the others.

[Claincy he/him]

I would love to toss in my two cents, but I can't really do so as thoroughly as I'd like because reasons time. But I can offer a couple views.

 

I believe that yes, a natural human government will inevitably deteriorate towards corruption. My preferred solution would be a... deiarchy? Basically, rule by God. But that won't happen until the Second Coming, and I don't know when that will happen, so for now I'll settle for a republic.... so long as that republic is run by honest, good men. Which leads us back to point one, unfortunately.

My views are pretty close to this. I think most government systems could work fine if the people involved were good enough, unfortunately we're all rather flawed. :/

 

Regarding guns, I'm an Aussie, unsurprisingly I see our gun control, see the effect and think it works pretty good. I can accept that other cultures may have guns too deeply embedded in them and have too many guns already existing for simplifying changing the laws against them to be effective in the short term. I also accept that other solutions could work. But the current situation rather clearly isn't working well.

 

@Chouta Connoisseur, I've been part of the forums for a bit over 2 years now. The site has definitely changed considerably in that time, some changes better than others, and a lot of people have come and gone in that time. However, the core of the site hasn't really changed, that being that it's a welcoming and friendly community of fans of Brandon's books. So long as that stays the same we'll be fine

 

 

Separate note: I've sprained one of the tendons leading to my right thumb. Ow.

Edited October 13, 2015 by lord Claincy Ffnord

[Mistrunner]

Gotta hug em all, gotta hug em all, 17th! (Shard)

And employers gonna bug, bug, bug, bug, bug

And Twi posts pictures of her pug, pug, pug

And I'm just gonna hug, hug, hug, hug, hug

I hug 'em all!

I hug 'em all!

(Whoa-oh-oh-oh)

[Mashadar Mistborn he/him]

And employers gonna bug, bug, bug, bug, bug

And Twi posts pictures of her pug, pug, pug

And I'm just gonna hug, hug, hug, hug, hug

I hug 'em all!

I hug 'em all!

(Whoa-oh-oh-oh)

If I could give this my quota, it would have it, but since I can't, take this singular up vote.

[The Honor Spren she/her]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

But really, I was wondering why no one had posted in 5 hours, every one's over here!

Edited October 13, 2015 by The Honor Spren

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

On top of the worry about the job situation, I feel like crem warmed over and topped with a festering pile of chull dung.

 

And I found a job it looked like I was qualified for in New Orleans. They only wanted one year of full-time library experience, which I totally have….

 

….save for the fact that they said it had to be after getting my degree.

 

I'm never getting a job. I'm going to get fired from this one and then never be able to find one.

[Mistrunner]

On top of the worry about the job situation, I feel like crem warmed over and topped with a festering pile of chull dung.

And I found a job it looked like I was qualified for in New Orleans. They only wanted one year of full-time library experience, which I totally have….

….save for the fact that they said it had to be after getting my degree.

I'm never getting a job. I'm going to get fired from this one and then never be able to find one.

...did you hear me when I gave you all those hugs?

Well have five thousand more.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

...did you hear me when I gave you all those hugs?

Well have five thousand more.

Thanks.

And....thinking about it, I forgot how much about this situation I have to be grateful for. My job wasn't perfect, but it provided what I needed. And my degree might not have come with the experience I need for some jobs, but it put me ahead of where I was when I didn't have one. I got caught up in the bad, and I forgot the good.

[Silverblade5 he/him]

Thing is, guns are tools that are designed for the purpose of increasing a person's destructive potential, unlike the aforementioned items.

And those were first designed for self defense. That's partially why there's a second amendment. Did you know that the first guns were used to fight BACK against the Mongols?

[Delightful]

My two cents about gun laws:

As an Australian, guns just aren't a things that most people have, it's not part of our culture. Most of the time, no one needs a gun for self defence because the attackers don't have guns, the police as far as I know are pretty good, and I've never heard of anyone going hunting. Paint balling is pretty much as far as we go. Since guns were essentially banned here for civilian use, gun violence isn't a thing. There haven't been mass shootings, school shootings etc, and I believe the country is safer without easy access to guns.

That being said, I currently reside in Israel and if you've been following my stressed posts lately, the situation here is very different. There is fairly strict regulations to qualify for a gun license, it's I think harder to get a gun than in the U.S. But easier than in Australia. That I can see there are two main differences.

In Israel, almost everyone is drafted into the army, where they are taught basic gun safety in a professional, military environment. They serve in order to literally protect the country from actual physical threats from our not always so friendly Middle Easter neighbours.

Civilians - many of whom are ex-army or in reserves - carry guns because there is a segment of the Israeli Arab/Palestinian population who hate us and want to kill us and every now and again attempt to do so and sometimes succeed. There've been quite a few situations in which terror attacks were stopped by armed civilians. Guns are I guess the necessary evil we need to protect ourselves and live.

Basically, I don't agree with guns as a natural right of just anybody, and I don't agree or understand why shooting ranges and hunting are legitimate pastimes. Why increase the possibility for violence if you don't have to? Keep potentially lethal weapons to a minimum.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Oh boy, politics! It's a shame I'm so far behind, but I'll just leave pithy quotes from others to catch up!

 

On anarchy:

 

 

 

Not for the last time, the anarchists helped to wreck a system which, for all its faults, was susceptible of peaceful change, and whose successor was one much less to their liking.

-Hugh Thomas

 

 

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

 -WB Yeats

 

These are in reference to events of the later 19th and early 20th century when we had actual anarchists trying to foment social and revolutionary change, often through destruction. Nowadays, being far removed from those tumultuous times, we view anarchy through a more "idealized" lens. It is forgotten that anarchy, at its best, did not do much but destroy property and lives. At its worse, it paved the way for the tyrannical rule of people like Franco and Stalin. 

 

On the subject of governance:

 

 

"With bad people, hating, uncooperative, selfish people, no social system will work. With good people, loving, cooperative, unselfish people, any social system will work."

         -William Golding

 

Not much that has not been said before, I will only add my thoughts on the whole Future Utopia/Theocracy/God Rule thing. The idea that we are moving towards an end goal is, in my most humble (and therefore, most correct) opinion dangerous. This is because the needs and issues of today are ignored and sacrifice for the sake of the indeterminate future. If the End of History^TM ever were to occur, fine, deal with it then. But a future Messianic Rule or Proletariat Paradise does nothing to relieve the suffering going on now. 

Edited October 13, 2015 by Orlion

[Kobold King he/him]

These are in reference to events of the later 19th and early 20th century when we had actual anarchists trying to foment social and revolutionary change, often through destruction. Nowadays, being far removed from those tumultuous times, we view anarchy through a more "idealized" lens. It is forgotten that anarchy, at its best, did not do much but destroy property and lives. At its worse, it paved the way for the tyrannical rule of people like Franco and Stalin. 

 

That is a false analogy. The people you describe were no more true anarchists than the Viet Cong was a people's advocacy group. They were angry people who were lashing out at society through violence and bloodshed.

 

Do not think anarchists of today have forgotten the wrongs of the past! We don't view the world through any "idealized" lens. I myself am often accused of being a cynic of the highest order.

 

 

Anarchy, at its best, can be found in tribes like the San of Africa, who live with rulers who are nothing but symbolic figureheads and have lived in peace with one another for longer than our civilization has smelted steel.

 

Government at its best will imprison or downright murder anyone who doesn't "pay into the system" in the form of taxes.

 

If you can provide an example of a government that does not owe its existence to the goods it seizes from its citizens, then I'll rethink my stance on it. But as I see it, anarchy and government can both be violent, but only one system owes its entire existence to said violence. Honestly, it is government and not anarchy that requires an idealized lens to be seen as anything but a tyrant's scam.

 

 

EDIT: I think I got a bit passionate there again. Hope I didn't sound rude.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Kobold King

[Orlion Blight he/him]

That is a false analogy. The people you describe were no more true anarchists than the Viet Cong was a people's advocacy group. They were angry people who were lashing out at society through violence and bloodshed.

 

Do not think anarchists of today have forgotten the wrongs of the past! We don't view the world through any "idealized" lens. I myself am often accused of being a cynic of the highest order.

 

 

Anarchy, at its best, can be found in tribes like the San of Africa, who live with rulers who are nothing but symbolic figureheads and have lived in peace with one another for longer than our civilization has smelted steel.

 

Government at its best will imprison or downright murder anyone who doesn't "pay into the system" in the form of taxes.

 

If you can provide an example of a government that does not owe its existence to the goods it seizes from its citizens, then I'll rethink my stance on it. But as I see it, anarchy and government can both be violent, but only one system owes its entire existence to said violence. Honestly, it is government and not anarchy that requires an idealized lens to be seen as anything but a tyrant's scam.

 

 

EDIT: I think I got a bit passionate there again. Hope I didn't sound rude.

Don't worry about sounding rude, I can take it

 

On the first point, that is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I'll explain why I feel justified in making the analogy, for I too was young once and believed as you did (wow, that's a bit patronizing, but I'll keep in for humor sake and apologize ), so I'm also probably mostly having a conversation with younger Orlion who advocated "rational anarchy" and the like. 

 

So, let's take your tribe example: how is that relevant to the Western man? How does that take into account the myriad blending of cultures and services and industry that we live with in the US? It's a different world and what works for tribal South African society will doubtful work for us (on the flip-side, we ought not to apply our societal standards whole sale on other cultures. Though I doubt an anarchist system will work in Western society to secure as much rights as possible, that does not mean it does not work for those tribes. It's much like the Amish, I don't envy or want their life, but if it works with them and they don't attack me, I'm not going to compel a change). 

 

So that's where we stand: I believe that if we want to see where anarchy takes us in Western society, there are two groups to consider: those anarchists which were, essentially, communist revolutionaries or libertarians. Essentially, this is anarchy with a left bent and anarchy with a right bent. Judging by your comments on taxes and law enforcement, I would judge you to be more on the libertarian side. Nothing wrong with that, I use to be libertarian myself... then I started reading Ayn Rand and was her brand of libertarianism, but I only tell you that so you won't make the same mistake I did.

 

Libertarianism is a philosophy of expansion. When you had America expanding Westward, libertarianism was the way of life: you had to rely on your hard work and community to establish yourself in the frontier and survive because government help was minimal and far away. Once expansion and settlement turned to community growth and statehood, however, a lot of the tenants of libertarianism become outdated. With a much larger population to sustain, you can no longer rely on techniques tailored to sustain a small population. And never mind the issue of infrastructure (such as power lines and plumbing!)

 

Now, as far as violence in either system... that is a whole topic onto itself. It would seem most people want to avoid violence but agree there are cases when it is necessary. Time is short, so I'll have to return to this topic later, I will only point out that violent crime is at a low in this nation and continuing a downward trend. 

Edited October 13, 2015 by Orlion

[Kobold King he/him]

Would the San system work for Western man? No, not as we live currently. Which is a point in and of itself--if western society literally cannot exist without stealing money and oppressing its citizens, then does that not make western society inherently evil?

 

First of all, I am not a libertarian. I do not come close to embracing pure libertarian ideals. I oppose raw capitalism with the same fervor as I oppose communism. The expansionist nature of the libertarian ideal disgusts me. I am an anarcho-primitivist.

 

The infrastructure of western society is not necessary for survival, or even to good living. A thousand tribal societies across the globe prove that fact indisputably. I will say again, and in bold so that all my recognize this as my core point: If I am not harming any other human being, than no human being has the right to confiscate my resources under the threat of violence.

 

To me, nothing else matters. A tax is nothing more than a robbery, no matter how its phrased or justified. Imprisoning someone for not paying those taxes--as is necessary in any government-driven society--is morally no better than kidnapping a bloke off the street and tying him up in your basement. Saying that our society can't survive without this violent upholding of tax laws is by no means an argument for our society's continued existence! Rather, it is an argument that it needs to change, and to change as fast as it can! If that means throwing away the infrastructure of western civilization, then so be it. Infringing upon the liberties of the people for a supposed greater good is the worst kind of tyranny.

 

Again, I will point to my core argument, with a personal appeal. Do you, Orlion, feel so strongly about having plumbing in your house that you would point a gun at my chest and steal from me to pay for it? Is electricity such a basic human right that you would personally rob me blind, locking me away in a dungeon if I don't comply, just to have wall sockets to plug into your modern conveniences? If society can achieve the technical infrastructure you speak of without stealing, then more power to them. I won't stand in their way. But if these things are the inevitable by-products of armed robbery, then I want no part of them, and no human being has an innate right to them.

 

If you argue, argue not against libertarian ideals I have never embraced, but argue against my core point. Argue why it is acceptable to take my money from the other end of a gun to pay for a society that I want no part of. Argue why western society is so pure, so outstandingly admirable, that locking men away for the crime of not supporting it is an acceptable course of action. Argue that the crimes of a violent government are necessities for the greater good.

 

 

 

As one last note--in the interest of remaining civil and not sinking into private frustration (and inevitable hostility), I ask that you dispense with this notion that I am a younger version of you. When you speak to me as if I were a dewy-eyed student with none of the sage wisdom you possess, you imply that I am your intellectual inferior.

 

Please do not do so. I respect you as my intellectual equal. I ask only that you take my arguments at face value, knocking them down if you can, not leaning upon your superior age and speaking as if my stance were the product of an immature mind.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

• National Security. This is a big deal, and it is the reason the Founding Fathers supported government. In the Federalist Papers they maintained that a strong central government was essential for standing firm against foreign invaders. To me, however, this is much like summoning Cthulhu to fend off Godzilla. There's no point in repelling tyrants from overseas if you're going to surrender to tyrants here at home. I refuse to run into the arms of one evil out of fear of another.

 

Fun fact: Many Godzilla movies feature humans summoning Godzilla from whatever stasis they left him in last so that he can aid them against whatever new kaiju is attacking them.

 

 

I'll chime in quickly and say I'm something akin to a communist and that once again 17th Shard is apparently the only place on the entire internet where things like this can be discussed without starting a flame war.

 

I too am a communist at heart. But, given greed is a thing, I know it'll never work in reality. So I simply call myself a socialist.

 

There's a ton of controversy surrounding the whole gun debate here in the US, but the two main opinions are like this: 

 

Conservative: If gun ownership is made illegal, it will only disarm the responsible gun owners, not the criminals who the gun control thing is intended to disarm, since they can just buy guns on the black market and don't worry about breaking the law. Not only that, but it runs the risk of making police abuse more dangerous, since what's to stop an armed officer with no conscience from trampling all over the rights of an unarmed citizen? 

 

Liberal: Guns are the best weapons for pulling off a mass shooting or something similar. Keeping guns legal makes it easier for the sort of people who pull off mass shootings like the one in Newtown or Umpqua to access those guns, so the best thing to do is just make them illegal. Not only that, but if a child finds a gun and it's loaded, tragedy can result.  

 

I tend more toward the conservative argument, though I know both arguments have good and bad points. The conservative argument doesn't satisfactorily address how to prevent mass shootings, and the liberal argument doesn't take into account areas where the police can't or won't arrive to the scene of a crime in time, so the victims are left to defend themselves. It's a pretty contentious debate over here. 

 

Extra emphasis mine.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but it shows, as you've ignored what is, in my opinion, the most important argument coming from the liberal side: statistics. Statistics taken from various studies, as well as real life cases across the globe, prove that limiting gun ownership greatly decreases the occurrences of gun violence in both micro (household) and macro (massacres) situations. In addition, you've failed to point out that the liberal side of the issue does not want to ban guns completely. Sure, there might be some members of the liberal community who want this (myself included), but the current discussions mostly involve merely making it more difficult for guns to be obtained. Stricter background checks (or in some cases, adding background checks), required schooling, etc. Even though I am someone who wishes gun ownership to be illegal in the States, I know it's too large of a jump, so simply increasing the difficulty of obtaining guns is all I, and the majority of liberals discussing this topic, ask for.

[DreamEternal]

Kobold, I have some questions about your ideology:

First, in your list and your response to my criticism of it, you said some governamental services like public schools and the postal service are unnecessary because private institutions can do it. Later, you gave the impression youbwanted a return to an simplier society of tribal communities. What is it that I am missing?

Second, what about medications, vacines and a health system? Modern medicine prevented(or delayed and made them less painful, since people still die) millions, if not billions of deaths worldwide. And it is fruit of the "modern" society. I would find it hard to sympathise with you philosophy if it did not adress how to maintain or improve it.

Edited October 13, 2015 by CognitivePulsePattern

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

...I'm just going to bow out of the gun argument here. Expect no further comments from me.

[Kobold King he/him]

Kobold, I have some questions about your ideology:

First, in your list and your response to my criticism of it, you said some governamental services like public schools and the postal service are unnecessary because private institutions can do it. Later, you gave the impression youbwanted a return to an simplier society of tribal communities. What is it that I am missing?

Second, what about medications, vacines and a health system? Modern medicine prevented(or delayed and made them less painful, since people still die) millions, if not billions of deaths worldwide. And it is fruit of the "modern" society. I would find it hard to sympathise with you philosophy if it did not adress how to maintain or improve it.

 

I don't like civilization. I would rather have a tribal society in which neither organized education nor a postal system is necessary. However, I was pointing out that a government is not necessary to support either of those institutions.

 

As for medications: what if I told you that most diseases that modern medicines tackle or try to tackle have been historically known as "the diseases of civilization"? Diseases exist in all societies, but the worst of the worst--the black death, smallpox, measles, influenza, cancer--are virtually unknown in tribal societies, and indeed any society that limits the amount of carbohydrates it ingests. Tribal people are, objectively, healthier.

 

As I said, there are some diseases tribal societies can't cure. But then, western society can't exactly cure all ailments either, and half the ailments it's trying to get rid of are a direct result of living in a "civilized" culture.

 

 

Again I will say it: government is a form of banditry. If government is necessary for civilization, than civilization itself is banditry. If you seek to justify banditry against me and all other unwilling members of society, the burden of proof lies with you to prove beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that the barbaric act of stealing from me is better than the consequences of not stealing from me.

 

And since tribal societies have existed happily on this planet for an order of magnitude longer than the oldest civilization, I strongly doubt there's any proof at all that these consequences exist.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Kobold King

[Kaymyth she/her]

I have to say that I myself am unwilling to give up modern medicine.  I'd be in seriously bad shape today if I couldn't have gotten my gallbladder out (and the problem that sent it bad was due to a genetic defect, not diet).

 

But really, when it comes down to it, without the modern medicine that our civilization has produced, my brother would be dead.  Just flat-out dead, do not pass Go, etc.  He broke his neck 12 years ago in a really stupid accident.  I mean, I suppose arguably there might not have been a pool there for him to dive into if we didn't have civilization, but down that rabbit hole lies conjecture and madness.

 

He broke his C-5 vertebra.  Luckily, he didn't break the spinal cord, but still, without medical intervention he could have died (as it was, he almost did die).  He certainly would have been quadriplegic, which in a world without our medical advances would have left him dead before long.

 

Instead, he's alive. He's walking.  I'm willing to pay into a system that allows for things like that.

[Kobold King he/him]

Hey, I wouldn't exactly be perfectly fit myself. Clubfoot, remember? There was no cure for that a thousand years ago. I'd have been a cripple for life, or in the worst case scenario, I'd be dead.

 

 

But again... people have been crushed into poverty by taxes over the decades. People have rotted away in prison for not paying them. All these sick people who might or might not be made healthy by civilization--do they balance out the evil? Weren't we all brought here, at least in part, by the phrase "Journey before destination"?

 

Down the road of civilization lies terrible crimes and atrocities committed for the greater good. You can pay into that system if you want, and were it voluntary, maybe I'd pay in too. But you can't enslave the whole world to save a few.

[RippleGylf she/her]

So today in Creative Writing, we started our horror unit. And... I'm afraid of horror. It sounds a bit paradoxical, but hear me out. I simply dislike the horror genre. It just leaves me with this horrible sinking feeling that I hate. This extends to most murder mysteries, although not Sherlock Holmes. And there was that one time... (spoilered for rant).

So, in 7th grade, we were forced to read And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie. I've already covered that I don't like murder mysteries. However, the thing about murder mysteries is the suspense and gripping quality of it. So, naturally, I started to read ahead one day, fully enveloped in the morbid plot. When I had finally reached the "end," it was 10 o'clock at night. Since my teacher had so helpfully torn out the last few pages in the book explaining what happened, I was half-expecting a crazed serial killer to come out of my closet and murder me. We didn't go over the ending until two weeks later. I fully believed I was going insane. This only expanded my hatred of horror. This is why I question the books they choose for us to read.

And now, I'm probably going to have to write a horror story of my own. Really? This is not what I signed up for.

[Kobold King he/him]

So today in Creative Writing, we started our horror unit. And... I'm afraid of horror. It sounds a bit paradoxical, but hear me out. I simply dislike the horror genre. It just leaves me with this horrible sinking feeling that I hate. This extends to most murder mysteries, although not Sherlock Holmes. And there was that one time... (spoilered for rant).

So, in 7th grade, we were forced to read And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie. I've already covered that I don't like murder mysteries. However, the thing about murder mysteries is the suspense and gripping quality of it. So, naturally, I started to read ahead one day, fully enveloped in the morbid plot. When I had finally reached the "end," it was 10 o'clock at night. Since my teacher had so helpfully torn out the last few pages in the book explaining what happened, I was half-expecting a crazed serial killer to come out of my closet and murder me. We didn't go over the ending until two weeks later. I fully believed I was going insane. This only expanded my hatred of horror. This is why I question the books they choose for us to read.

And now, I'm probably going to have to write a horror story of my own. Really? This is not what I signed up for.

 

 

Have you considered writing it as a satire of horror--a stereotypical serial killer is stalked by a teleporting baby bunny, who's always in the corner of his eye munching a carrot?

[Kaymyth she/her]

I'd like to point out that in our current tax system, people at or below the poverty line don't pay anything in income tax.  And if we didn't have wealthier people paying taxes, we'd have no social safety net for those who are living in poverty.  (The fact that we need a bigger net is a debate for another time.)

 

I know that you've argued before that you don't believe that the development of civilization is a foregone conclusion for an intelligent species.  I think that may be true up to a certain point - but only so long as the population is small enough to allow those smaller tribes to coexist with minimal interaction.

Once population reaches a certain density, though, things change.  People interact and clash, competing for desired resources.  Civilization is a natural development for dealing with large populations.  And honestly, at this point, we have so many people on this planet that bringing us back to those tribal societies would require a massive global catastrophe, be it war or natural disaster.  Billions would die.  Is that less evil than maintaining civilization?  I sure as heck hope not.