Adulthood and postmodern confusion

[Hitto]

In defense of the postmodern badge of fashionable ennui, let me explain one thing.

Whether you are "for" or "against" any kind of cause; You will always be part of a flock. And what do masses do? They are allowed to feel, but they are never able to think. You honestly think the day the green party / libertarians / choose your outsider political party wins, things will change?

Yeah, maybe on societal issues. Gay rights, black rights, all of these HAD to be officialized after a huge throng of people asked for it. Also, it made economical sense to stop discriminating people in a meritocracy-based country. But on economical issues, it's been proven by the last fifty fucking years that politicians have no power whatsoever to stop the inflation or any kind of crashes.

I'm not supposed to depress you or anything; On the contrary, the fact that now, businesses run the world means YOU have the power!

Just never be someone else's sheep. Let the others work for you.

 

[pootman]

the fact that now, businesses run the world means YOU have the power!

Economically, whoever has the money has the power.

You call your bank. It's a call centre in India. The bank lowered their costs. Where did the extra money go?
Did they decrease their charges to you? Did they increase the interest rate on your savings? Or decrease the interest rate on your borrowings?

You don't have the money. And you don't have the power.

QUOTE(Hitto @ Aug 27 2007, 08:53 AM)You honestly think the day the green party / libertarians / choose your outsider political party wins, things will change?

Yes. They will. This is where you have the power. Look at Fox-hunting here in the UK. Banned at the behest of a very vocal minority, who managed to shout up enough support from people who wouldn't know the countryside if they fell in it.

The government has no mandate from the masses, it has to listen to whoever gives it power. Sit back and polish your badge.

 

[Hitto]

Economically, whoever has the money has the power.

You call your bank. It's a call centre in India. The bank lowered their costs. Where did the extra money go?
Did they decrease their charges to you? Did they increase the interest rate on your savings? Or decrease the interest rate on your borrowings?

You don't have the money. And you don't have the power.


Your bank sucks. Not my problem. I visit my banker in person. Now, what did this have to do with my point? Oh yeah. Big companies run the show.

You honestly think the day the green party / libertarians / choose your outsider political party wins, things will change?

Yes. They will. This is where you have the power. Look at Fox-hunting here in the UK. Banned at the behest of a very vocal minority, who managed to shout up enough support from people who wouldn't know the countryside if they fell in it.

The government has no mandate from the masses, it has to listen to whoever gives it power. Sit back and polish your badge.

Yes. That's a social issue, not an economical one. You just proved my point, I don't see where we disagree.
Ideologists...

 

[pootman]

In defense of the postmodern badge of fashionable ennui

That's where we disagreed.
Vote!

(Or, if you're in the USA, stockpile a wide assortment of firearms, ostensibly for pest control, and wait...)

 

[Bowser128]

Look at Fox-hunting here in the UK. Banned at the behest of a very vocal minority, who managed to shout up enough support from people who wouldn't know the countryside if they fell in it.

Not to change the direction of the thread, but whenever I see this little argument I always wonder; what is it about living in the countryside that makes you want to rip foxes apart for lulz?

 

[pootman]

Personally, I could take or leave the ripping apart of the foxes and smearing bits of what's left on your kids. But maybe that's because I live in the Highlands, where a fox would simply outrun a horse by running uphill for two hours. Up here they use a landrover, a big torch, and a shotgun.

What I object to is the house-squatting state-smashing hippies that rest0re mentions, hopping on the train to spend a weekend in the countryside, pissing off the locals by contesting their right to do what they've done for generations. And the absolute worst of it is they bloody well won.

Stirring up the Daily Mail readership with doe-eyed images of Mr Fox, in his smoking-jacket, off to Toad Hall, and suddenly beset by the horse and hound set.
BOLLOCKS.
They're vermin, just like rats, mice, rabbits, hares, and bloody pigeons. Who gives a damn about how they're killed? Where's the campaign to ban lethal mouse-traps? When did you last see a 'Right-To-Roost' march pulling the anti-bird spikes off our historic monuments?

Anyway, the Anti-hunt party has passed me by up here, and the battle's lost. I'm just waiting for the anti-angling movement to gather enough momentum for the soap-dodgers to come up here and start patrolling our riverbanks. Then I can look forward to idyllic weekends spent wandering up and down the glen, pushing the fuckers in, and then skipping stones at the backs of their heads as they try to reach the opposite bank.

Halcyon days...

(ps Yes you could just throw the stones directly at the backs of their heads, but where's the sport in that?)

 

[Bowser128]

I won't get into the hippies, and I think you've misjudged the Daily Mail set entirely (the lower middle class dipshits don't care about animals or anything else for that matter, they only care about Princess Diana and their Rover 75s).

What I object to is the house-squatting state-smashing hippies that rest0re mentions, hopping on the train to spend a weekend in the countryside, pissing off the locals by contesting their right to do what they've done for generations. So because they have been brutally murdering animals for a long time it's their right to continue? In that case, why did Shipman get put away, I mean he'd been killing grannies for years, surely it was his right to carry on?

They're vermin, just like rats, mice, rabbits, hares, and bloody pigeons. Who gives a damn about how they're killed? Ah, this makes it okay, because those species had the cheek to prosper in spite of our destructive influence, we should kill all of the little fuckers. So what if they're just going about their lives, they managed to survive our indirect actions, so we should feel free to subject them to painful gruesome deaths.

QUOTE(pootman @ Aug 27 2007, 07:58 PM)

Where's the campaign to ban lethal mouse-traps? When did you last see a 'Right-To-Roost' march pulling the anti-bird spikes off our historic monuments?

Fortunately for foxes, they're considered 'cute' by more people than your average mouse, and as the majority that don't give a fuck about the cause are more easily swayed by the mention of murder when they have a cute face to attach it to, their plight was more media friendly.

 

[pootman]

I think you've misjudged the Daily Mail set entirely (the lower middle class dipshits don't care about animals or anything else for that matter, they only care about Princess Diana and their Rover 75s).
They vote. You can see their Rover 75s like flies round the polling stations on Election day, ferrying in their elderly neighbours and relatives to make sure they win.

So because they have been brutally murdering animals for a long time it's their right to continue? In that case, why did Shipman get put away, I mean he'd been killing grannies for years, surely it was his right to carry on?
My local butcher has been murdering animals on my behalf for many years, and I've paid him to do it. But if I found out he'd been murdering grannies too for all those years, I'd start getting my meat somewhere else.

we should feel free to subject them to painful gruesome deaths.

If I clip a grouse or a pheasant with a car wheel on my way home, I don't stop and back over it for a mercy-killing. I leave that job to the wildcats (and foxes). That's nature for you. Animals kill other animals, without stopping to wonder if their methods are humane enough.

QUOTE(Bowser128 @ Aug 27 2007, 08:54 PM)

their plight was more media friendly.

And there you have it. It's all Kenneth Grahame's fault.

 

[Bowser128]

So because they have been brutally murdering animals for a long time it's their right to continue? In that case, why did Shipman get put away, I mean he'd been killing grannies for years, surely it was his right to carry on?
My local butcher has been murdering animals on my behalf for many years, and I've paid him to do it. But if I found out he'd been murdering grannies too for all those years, I'd start getting my meat somewhere else. Please, your earlier point was that because it was an established tradition it should be allowed to continue indefinitely. Your argument now is based on the notion of absolute human superiority; an idea as flawed as the organisations it has spawned, but once someone has bought into it, it's impossible to convince them otherwise.

QUOTE(pootman @ Aug 27 2007, 09:26 PM)

If I clip a grouse or a pheasant with a car wheel on my way home, I don't stop and back over it for a mercy-killing. I leave that job to the wildcats (and foxes). That's nature for you. Animals kill other animals, without stopping to wonder if their methods are humane enough.

The difference being that they will kill for necessary food, not for the sake of ceremony or the because they considered their victim a 'nuisance'.

 

[pootman]

So because they have been brutally murdering animals for a long time it's their right to continue? In that case, why did Shipman get put away, I mean he'd been killing grannies for years, surely it was his right to carry on?
My local butcher has been murdering animals on my behalf for many years, and I've paid him to do it. But if I found out he'd been murdering grannies too for all those years, I'd start getting my meat somewhere else. Please, your earlier point was that because it was an established tradition it should be allowed to continue indefinitely. Your argument now is based on the notion of absolute human superiority; an idea as flawed as the organisations it has spawned, but once someone has bought into it, it's impossible to convince them otherwise.

Where in my response did I say he should stop. I said I'd find a new meat supplier.

QUOTE(pootman @ Aug 27 2007, 09:26 PM)

If I clip a grouse or a pheasant with a car wheel on my way home, I don't stop and back over it for a mercy-killing. I leave that job to the wildcats (and foxes). That's nature for you. Animals kill other animals, without stopping to wonder if their methods are humane enough.

The difference being that they will kill for necessary food, not for the sake of ceremony or the because they considered their victim a 'nuisance'.

Absolutely. That's human nature for you.

 

[Heran Bago]

I'm really impressed with some of these posts. I know gbatemp's deeper than HAY CAN R4 PLAY GBA ROM??????? but it's always nice to see.
circlejerking aside...

It's better to question and consider things. The fact that you (the OP) can and do question your own beliefs goes to show your not a huge self-righteous asshole. Now you know the hypocrisy of thinking you're 100% correct.

I hate to sound like a huge capitalist but we only get one run here, let's enjoy the ride.

 

[pootman]

let's enjoy the ride.

Woohoo!