Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Tecumsehsbones]

Winston Smith is my fictional hero.

By "hero," do you mean someone you admire and try to model yourself after?

What do you find so heroic about Winston Smith. That he faithfully performed his propaganda job for years, knowing that he was lying, that he was led into dissent by his cock, or that he broke and betrayed his lover?

Yep, my hero.

Sitting on my bookshelf is 1984, Animal Farm, Essays, Down and Out in Paris and London, just off the top of my head....I believe I have other Orwell.....and yes, I have read them.

What Orwell predicted is a surveillance society.

Oh? Where does one find that term in Orwell? What Orwell predicted was government (not society) surveillance of all spaces, including the interior of one's home.

I know where Barcelona is, so go fvck yourself.

100,000 cameras in downtown London.

Have you been having sex with Waldo, you can't understand the irony in the picture?

****, I'm not in the mood for stupidity.

Simple solution, quit talking stupid.

 

[Cliffy]

With bill C-51 Canada is closing the gap on 1984. Not quite Orwellian but movin' on up. Me thinks Harpo has ambitions of being Big Brother.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

With bill C-51 Canada is closing the gap on 1984. Not quite Orwellian but movin' on up. Me thinks Harpo has ambitions of being Big Brother.

Not Orwellian at all, but it's a rare day when you're the voice of moderation and reason and Colpy and petros are the arm-waving hysterics.

 

[petros]

IF you were a Rezneck.....

 

[DaSleeper]

Not Orwellian at all, but it's a rare day when you're the voice of moderation and reason and Colpy and petros are the arm-waving hysterics.

A conspiracy theorist the voice of reason......now that was funny!

 

[Colpy]

By "hero," do you mean someone you admire and try to model yourself after?

What do you find so heroic about Winston Smith. That he faithfully performed his propaganda job for years, knowing that he was lying, that he was led into dissent by his cock, or that he broke and betrayed his lover?

Yep, my hero.


.

What, you think we all do not spend an inordinate amount of time and energy supporting a system that in ways oppresses us? That we do not habitually turn a blind eye to things that are the antitheses of what we believe to be true and right?

Then you are blinder than Winston Smith.

People are, by nature sheep. They will take the easiest road, the vast majority will never question, they simply accept.

I don't think Smith was led into rebellion by his *****, I think he was already in rebellion, and rejoiced at the recognition of a fellow rebel.

In his condition, in that society, rebellion itself is the act of a hero. Any rebellion. No matter how tiny, how genital-centric, how futile.

That the overwhelming power of the state eventually turns him inside out is irrelevant, except as a warning.

 

[petros]

In his condition, in that society, rebellion itself is the act of a hero. Any rebellion. No matter how tiny, how genital-centric, how futile.

Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont. Heroes.

 

[Colpy]

Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont. Heroes.

Well, Riel was whacked, but yeah, some heroes are.

Dumont is by far the more interesting character.

 

[waldo]

Idiot.

I keep forgetting your complete lack of reading comprehension ability.

and there it is again! You simply can't respond, even to the most innocuous comments, without adding insult... apparently, you're not capable of doing so! You fly off the handle over... nothing more than words that show disagreement with your statements... a differing opinion!

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would realize that the answer "I'm not expecting a fire in my house, but I keep a fire extinguisher" would indicate that I do not expect anything from Harper and/or the military and police. I mean, I can't remember when the Conservatives pronounced martial law. Wish I could say the same about the Liberals.........

perfect! Thanks for confirming you're NOT EXPECTING anything. You're simply PARANOID!

now, for you to highlight the "October Crisis/War Measures Act", a temporary act intended to restore order in Quebec, it begs the question how you manage to deal with and accept the habitual initiatives put forward by Harper Conservatives to erode Canadian's civil liberties... not as a temporary measure; rather, as permanent legislated law. How do you cope with that, hey Colpy?

 

[petros]

Well, Riel was whacked, but yeah, some heroes are.

Dumont is by far the more interesting character.

He was a lawyer. What more needs to be said? Regardless he was a voice that gave the Metis an existence.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What, you think we all do not spend an inordinate amount of time and energy supporting a system that in ways oppresses us? That we do not habitually turn a blind eye to things that are the antitheses of what we believe to be true and right?

Boy howdy, your characterisation of the ordinary U.S./Canadian "going along to get along" that we all do as being the same as Winston Smith's position in the Ministry of Truth is pretty much the poster child for false equivalency. About like Cliffy saying that Canada is no different from ISIS.

Then you are blinder than Winston Smith.

OK, I had a killer comeback, but I'm gonna keep it reasonably civil.

People are, by nature sheep. They will take the easiest road, the vast majority will never question, they simply accept.

Bull. I didn't take the easiest road, and I don't think you did either. That was a categorical statement and unworthy of your intellect. (There was a compliment buried in that criticism, in case you missed it.)

I don't think Smith was led into rebellion by his *****, I think he was already in rebellion, and rejoiced at the recognition of a fellow rebel.

In his condition, in that society, rebellion itself is the act of a hero. Any rebellion. No matter how tiny, how genital-centric, how futile.

That the overwhelming power of the state eventually turns him inside out is irrelevant, except as a warning.

You do understand that Orwell was writing about the kind of authoritarian quasi-socialist fascism that went by the name of "communism" among the ignorant and sloppy-thinking of the latter half of the 20th century, right?

Here's a newsflash, Colpy. "Communism" fell. Pretty damn hard. And equating early 21st-century Europe or North America to the Oceania of 1984 is just plain silly. We aren't there, we aren't going there. The system was only possible for certain cultures anyway, typically those who had been kicked in the face by their rulers from time immemorial. The Russians and Chinese spring to mind. The Balkans could have gone either way, and went both ways. Ditto India. South America is a mixed bag, as are Africa and the Middle East.

Either way, cherry-picking 1984 for this feature or that feature is silly, when 1984 was ALL ABOUT the system, whole and integrated. And it's a system that survived 1984 by six years.

We have plenty of threats, but authoritarian quasi-socialist fascism ain't high on the list.

 

[Colpy]

Boy howdy, your characterisation of the ordinary U.S./Canadian "going along to get along" that we all do as being the same as Winston Smith's position in the Ministry of Truth is pretty much the poster child for false equivalency. About like Cliffy saying that Canada is no different from ISIS.

Talk about miss the point! If we play "get along to get along" in this relatively free society, how much more would one play it in the most horrific of societies, when "getting along" is not simply the easier path, but a survival strategy? I was not treating our society and that of 1984 as equivalent, I was contrasting them.

Bull. I didn't take the easiest road, and I don't think you did either. That was a categorical statement and unworthy of your intellect. (There was a compliment buried in that criticism, in case you missed it.)

It was a generalization, OK, I'll accept your criticism, and the compliment.

You do understand that Orwell was writing about the kind of authoritarian quasi-socialist fascism that went by the name of "communism" among the ignorant and sloppy-thinking of the latter half of the 20th century, right?

Here's a newsflash, Colpy. "Communism" fell. Pretty damn hard. And equating early 21st-century Europe or North America to the Oceania of 1984 is just plain silly. We aren't there, we aren't going there. The system was only possible for certain cultures anyway, typically those who had been kicked in the face by their rulers from time immemorial. The Russians and Chinese spring to mind. The Balkans could have gone either way, and went both ways. Ditto India. South America is a mixed bag, as are Africa and the Middle East.

Either way, cherry-picking 1984 for this feature or that feature is silly, when 1984 was ALL ABOUT the system, whole and integrated. And it's a system that survived 1984 by six years.

We have plenty of threats, but authoritarian quasi-socialist fascism ain't high on the list.

I do understand that Orwell was writing as a socialist completely disenchanted with the communist Stalinist USSR. But he was writing about the totalitarian state, the particular ideology of which is irrelevant, as in the end, all totalitarian states are identical. So, arguing that Orwell's warnings are irrelevant because communism is dead (don't tell goreobsessed!) also misses the point.

So, we'll have to disagree on the essential point of 1984.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Talk about miss the point! If we play "get along to get along" in this relatively free society, how much more would one play it in the most horrific of societies, when "getting along" is not simply the easier path, but a survival strategy? I was not treating our society and that of 1984 as equivalent, I was contrasting them.



It was a generalization, OK, I'll accept your criticism, and the compliment.



I do understand that Orwell was writing as a socialist completely disenchanted with the communist Stalinist USSR. But he was writing about the totalitarian state, the particular ideology of which is irrelevant, as in the end, all totalitarian states are identical. So, arguing that Orwell's warnings are irrelevant because communism is dead (don't tell goreobsessed!) also misses the point.

So, we'll have to disagree on the essential point of 1984.

I got no problem disagreeing when you're rational about it.

Turns out Marx was right. Folks want stuff. He was just wrong about the part where he said communism could give people more stuff.

 

[Colpy]

 

[waldo]

Colpy, as you've been shown, per the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadians do not have a constitutional right to "bear arms". In that regard, I once again note your U.S. wannabe-self has percolated forward.

 

[Colpy]

Colpy, as you've been shown, per the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadians do not have a constitutional right to "bear arms". In that regard, I once again note your U.S. wannabe-self has percolated forward.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (useless as it is), Section 26......which guarantees all rights that existed for Canadians before the 1982 Charter came into force.

The Bill of Rights of 1689, which recognizes the "ancient right" (allbeit limited) of subjects of the Crown to keep arms for their defense.

I do not give a rat's patootie what the d1ckheads on the Supreme Court think.

They have decided we have no right to freedom of conscience and speech, even to speak the truth.

I can read, I do not need some elitist political hack to tell me what my rights are........they do not depend on the opinion of ar$eholes.

Oh, and I do not believe the Court has actually even taken on a right to keep arms case........although I may be wrong on that.

 

[waldo]

I do not give a rat's patootie what the d1ckheads on the Supreme Court think.

you wouldn't answer when I asked you previously if you held a position that the Supreme Court of Canada... was not "supreme". Thanks for finally answering as it puts much of what you put forward in perspective.

 

[JamesBondo]

Colpy, as you've been shown, per the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadians do not have a constitutional right to "bear arms". In that regard, I once again note your U.S. wannabe-self has percolated forward.

do you believe that we have no rights unless the constitution specifically grants them to you?

 

[petros]

Do you believe Rights come without duties and responsibilities?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Do you believe Rights come without duties and responsibilities?

I do. The right of free speech is not accompanied by, nor limited by, the duty to be reasonable or temperate in your speech. The right to be secure from unreasonable searches as seizures is not accompanied by, nor limited by, a duty to commit no crime. The right to property is neither accompanied nor limited by the duty to come by that property by one's own labour.

Certainly there are responsibilities and duties in society, both by law and by custom. But rights are not contingent upon fulfilling those duties and responsibilities.

By the way, you're doing that whole improper capitalisation of common nouns thing again, farmboy.