Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Suicide's your own choice, but no one vanquished evil by giving it a hug any time recently.

And there's more than one way to combat evil, the pen does indeed remain mightier than the sword... or the gun.

How'd that work out in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and Nazi Germany?
To defeat evil you must crush evil utterly.

I don't know frazzled, ask those that signed into effect the airstrikes, invasions and blockades, or those that then signed in peace treaties and surrender terms.

Either you're being willfully obtuse or you don't understand the meaning of the quote and I'll indulge you on this occasion and explain it means that changing minds and winning hearts is a far more potent weapon than simply being armed or attempting to use force. Actually, the places you quoted above are great examples of this.

Not really... seemed like the force was the decisive factor in most of those lovely hell holes, and still is, which is why most of them are still brutal dictatorships/police states, the government has a monopoly on force, and no outside force has bothered to remove the evil infestation. Some valiant efforts in Libya (mostly resolved), Syria (we'll see), and we're waiting on fumigation results in Iraq.... Vietnam's probably the only pleasant place to live out of all the places on that list still extant. (Germany of course being a lovely place to live and vacation once properly fumigated of Nazi fethheads)

You need to sway people to your side to enable the force.

Hitler's rhetoric and charisma and words caused a nation's insanity and created one of the worst regimes in history, his pen was mighty indeed, as was Pol Pot or Mao.

None of the ones you mentioned ever controlled a majority of anything. They effectively took power.

Hitler was more machiavellian. Pol Pot and Mao took power much more simply at the shooty end of a gun.
BWAP do not pass go. Do not collect $200

 Frazzled wrote:
None of the ones you mentioned ever controlled a majority of anything. They effectively took power.

Hitler was more machiavellian. Pol Pot and Mao took power much more simply at the shooty end of a gun.
BWAP do not pass go. Do not collect $200

Yes or No. The above named monsters needed to gain loyalty and devotion from followers to achieve the positions they rose to?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
None of the ones you mentioned ever controlled a majority of anything. They effectively took power.

Hitler was more machiavellian. Pol Pot and Mao took power much more simply at the shooty end of a gun.
BWAP do not pass go. Do not collect $200

Yes or No. The above named monsters needed to gain loyalty and devotion from followers to achieve the positions they rose to?

And they and their small band took over a much larger group of people mostly by killing bushels of them. That doesn't support your argument, unless Colonel Kurtz is your idea of a living by the pen kind of guy.

First I will kill a whole lot of people and leave their bodies laying around. Then I will quote poetry on the radio. Later a miniature company will rip off my concept and then sue anyone else for trying it...

 Frazzled wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
None of the ones you mentioned ever controlled a majority of anything. They effectively took power.

Hitler was more machiavellian. Pol Pot and Mao took power much more simply at the shooty end of a gun.
BWAP do not pass go. Do not collect $200

Yes or No. The above named monsters needed to gain loyalty and devotion from followers to achieve the positions they rose to?

And they and their small band took over a much larger group of people mostly by killing bushels of them. That doesn't support your argument, unless Colonel Kurtz is your idea of a living by the pen kind of guy.

First I will kill a whole lot of people and leave their bodies laying around. Then I will quote poetry on the radio. Later a miniature company will rip off my concept and then sue anyone else for trying it...

You don't topple a nation by converting 20 people.

It probably depends which 20 people you convert...

 purplefood wrote:
It probably depends which 20 people you convert...

 purplefood wrote:
It probably depends which 20 people you convert...

I think it would be easier to simply clone superman 20 times. And brainwash them.

 LordofHats wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It probably depends which 20 people you convert...

I think it would be easier to simply clone superman 20 times. And brainwash them.

Isn't that what he meant?

You don't convert clones silly

You breed them

 LordofHats wrote:
You don't convert clones silly

You breed them

I thought you bred children? and clones were spawned or do I have it backwards again?

Though to be fair, this thread should probably be closed as we're getting off topic and the case has "ended"

On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence. TV doesnt help. While many grow out of this, many do not. Football(American) culture exemplifys it. They are taught they are better then them(I remember in weights class, while i did goof around, the football coach who taught it only punished me and none of the football player, but he was a jerk so maybe i shouldn't base all coaches on him) No other sport is like this, atleast at my school. Even the boxers where nice to eachother. Football is considered the bread and butter of schools, so they get special treatment.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence.

And we go from this to sexual assault and rape how?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence. TV doesnt help. While many grow out of this, many do not. Football(American) culture exemplifys it. They are taught they are better then them(I remember in weights class, while i did goof around, the football coach who taught it only punished me and none of the football player, but he was a jerk so maybe i shouldn't base all coaches on him) No other sport is like this, atleast at my school. Even the boxers where nice to eachother. Football is considered the bread and butter of schools, so they get special treatment.

At this juncture I think it needs to be pointed out that Britain fought more wars against more countries than anyone in history, with a national game of cricket which involves regular meal breaks and takes up to five days to complete.

I think Cricket is the reason why I'm just as afraid of a British cop with a nightstick as I am of an American cop with a gun...

I've seen that episode of Reno 911 where they had a British Cop spend a week or so with their department.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence.

And we go from this to sexual assault and rape how?

Im not talking specifically rape. Im talking about what gives that attitude in the world.

Boys are raised to be violent traditionally because they needed to be. Either for the good of the family or the good of the larger socio-economic sphere within which they reside. History has pretty much revolved around which societies have the highest output of controlled violence. To get that a society needs both aggression and discipline, both of which sports provide.

But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.

It's not the violence that's important, but the mental toughness. And it does instill discipline. Don't let a few bad apples spoil the barrel, so to speak.

Are you still wanting to be a counselor?

OT; Its up in the air right now. Im kinda going through what my parents are calling a "Quarter Life Crisis" where i decide what i want to do.
But i havent completly ruled that out.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.

Woman love violence too, Sigmund Freud discussed this so if you bring your girlfriend to Django Unchained you're getting laid.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.

Woman love violence too, Sigmund Freud discussed this so if you bring your girlfriend to Django Unchained you're getting laid.

Don't forget the "Fifty Shades of Grey" crowd...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.

Truth there. Read what i said before. As for personal experience, i agree completely.

Those who follow certain paths or train themselves are more disciplined than those who been competitive sports all their lives.

You are never truly unarmed, though. Who's the most powerful; someone who can turn a country to ash or someone who can capture the hearts and minds of said country?

That is not to say that violence never solves anything; there are instances when controlled violence will be a great deal easier than the pacifist way out, but violence is never the only option.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence. TV doesnt help. While many grow out of this, many do not. Football(American) culture exemplifys it. They are taught they are better then them(I remember in weights class, while i did goof around, the football coach who taught it only punished me and none of the football player, but he was a jerk so maybe i shouldn't base all coaches on him) No other sport is like this, atleast at my school. Even the boxers where nice to eachother. Football is considered the bread and butter of schools, so they get special treatment.

At this juncture I think it needs to be pointed out that Britain fought more wars against more countries than anyone in history, with a national game of cricket which involves regular meal breaks and takes up to five days to complete.

Gets them ready for days of monotonous marching with the occasional tea break when th CO is feeling particulary nice

Is there a decent, concise summary of this anywhere? I haven't followed it at all, and the one news report I read on it mentioned only unlawful digital penetration in a car, whereas you guys are talking as though there was a gangbang with the passed-out victim in front of partygoers, so clearly I'm missing a lot.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You are never truly unarmed, though. Who's the most powerful; someone who can turn a country to ash or someone who can capture the hearts and minds of said country?

That is not to say that violence never solves anything; there are instances when controlled violence will be a great deal easier than the pacifist way out, but violence is never the only option.

Actually, I would say that sometimes violence is the only option. Violence isn't always the answer or the best option, but there are times when it becomes the only logical response. Unless you're counting getting killed as an option. If that's the case then I guess you always have at least two options.

 Seaward wrote:
Is there a decent, concise summary of this anywhere? I haven't followed it at all, and the one news report I read on it mentioned only unlawful digital penetration in a car, whereas you guys are talking as though there was a gangbang with the passed-out victim in front of partygoers, so clearly I'm missing a lot.

Look it up on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_rape_case

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper

Utter bollocks. Mr. Tiananmen Square didn't have an anti-tank cannon or something last time I looke, and Gandhi didn't have ancient Hindu doomsday weapons (or did he?). The most valiant action is, in my opinion, to put yourself in harm's way for your fellow human beings despite having no conceivable way of winning. It takes courage of a type I'm sad to say I'll probably never possess.

The gentleman from Tiananmen Square was later arrested and executed. Fat lot of good his bravery did him, and his country hasn't changed all that much.

Gandhi had the advantage of facing the famed British sense of fair play. British soldiers of the time - on the average - would have been no more capable of shooting unarmed, non-violent demonstraters than they would have been capable of shooting the Queen. Gandhi knew this and took ruthless advantage of it. Had he been facing, say, Pol Pot, his tactics would have been VASTLY different out of necessity.

I agree, That in certain situations, such as civil rights. Non-violent confrontation can be used. But it depends on the situation. the police turning fire hoses and dogs on unarmed civilians looks bad. It wouldnt if they wherent unarmed.
Passive aggresivness can work, in context.