The Gun Counter

Link

What's the betting their children will be taken into care when they get back to the US?

And The Darwin Awards is cheated out of another prizewinning family-pack.

Aesop wrote:And The Darwin Awards is cheated out of another prizewinning family-pack.

yup. their gene pool needs chlorine at a minimum.

Precision wrote:

Aesop wrote:And The Darwin Awards is cheated out of another prizewinning family-pack.

yup. their gene pool needs chlorine at a minimum.

Don't worry, I'm sure they're resourceful and will find a way to win their well-deserved award.

Very special people. Not actually members of any church, yet they know all churches are gov't controlled. I won't comment on the rest.

Heard this on the radio this morning.

Personally, I give them an A for having American ideals, but F for competence in carrying out their plans.

You don't like where you're living, MOVE. I wish more celebrities and politicians would carry out their threats to do so and leave the place I want to live alone. Had they actually acquired, say, navigation and seamanship skills before embarking on their journey they may have been the new Pilgrims. Lacking either, they nearly wound up as fish food. Of course the media has to paint them as all sorts of crazy for believing the government is over-reaching its authority.

MarkD wrote:Heard this on the radio this morning.

Personally, I give them an A for having American ideals, but F for competence in carrying out their plans.

You don't like where you're living, MOVE. I wish more celebrities and politicians would carry out their threats to do so and leave the place I want to live alone. Had they actually acquired, say, navigation and seamanship skills before embarking on their journey they may have been the new Pilgrims. Lacking either, they nearly wound up as fish food. Of course the media has to paint them as all sorts of crazy for believing the government is over-reaching its authority.

Or maybe you want to find out a few things about where you're headed before you hop in a boat. What is it with all the dissatisfied idiots and their third-world obsessions? What in the hell makes you think the third world is *better*? That it's *free*?

Personally I blame the pernicious influence of Rousseau (in this as in so many other things where people violently cling to beliefs that just are absolutely 180' fatally fucking WRONG) that seems to lead these people to think 'primitive' means 'good'.

Ooops, I wasn't going to comment.

MarkD wrote:... Of course the media has to paint them as all sorts of crazy for believing the government is over-reaching its authority.

I already thought they were sufficiently crazy for trying to go trans-Pacific in a small craft with zero know-how. Loons.

The book to read on sailing to Polyesia / Micronesia is "The voyage of the seven little sisters" by William Willis. Fantastic.

What is it with all the dissatisfied idiots and their third-world obsessions? What in the hell makes you think the third world is *better*? That it's *free*?

Personally I blame the pernicious influence of Rousseau (in this as in so many other things where people violently cling to beliefs that just are absolutely 180' fatally fucking WRONG) that seems to lead these people to think 'primitive' means 'good'.

Oh, absolutely agreed, the whole Noble Savage (although IIRC the concept didn't originate with Rousseau) bullshit is just that. "Natural man" lives a life that is "Solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short".

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment: For four centuries America was a place you could go to to be free, even now with all our problems we're probably the free-est place on earth. What was America like from the Pilgrims until the early 1800's? It met the definition of what we call "Third World", an undeveloped place inhabited mostly by savages who hadn't even invented the WHEEL. So what do civilized people do when they want to go live free? Do they try to find another civilized land and conquer it? Too hard and expensive, in both money and blood. They find a "third world" place, move in, and take over. There aren't any more "big" such places now.

I'm not at ALL saying that's how it would have worked with these people, but if, say, a dozen families taken from TGC's membership were to move to Kiribati in six hours there would be a rifle range, in six days there would be clean running water, in six weeks there would be a working harbor, in six months a railroad and road network and in six years an international airport.

MarkD wrote:

What is it with all the dissatisfied idiots and their third-world obsessions? What in the hell makes you think the third world is *better*? That it's *free*?

Personally I blame the pernicious influence of Rousseau (in this as in so many other things where people violently cling to beliefs that just are absolutely 180' fatally fucking WRONG) that seems to lead these people to think 'primitive' means 'good'.

Oh, absolutely agreed, the whole Noble Savage (although IIRC the concept didn't originate with Rousseau) bullshit is just that. "Natural man" lives a life that is "Solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short".

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment: For four centuries America was a place you could go to to be free, even now with all our problems we're probably the free-est place on earth. What was America like from the Pilgrims until the early 1800's? It met the definition of what we call "Third World", an undeveloped place inhabited mostly by savages who hadn't even invented the WHEEL. So what do civilized people do when they want to go live free? Do they try to find another civilized land and conquer it? Too hard and expensive, in both money and blood. They find a "third world" place, move in, and take over. There aren't any more "big" such places now.

I'm not at ALL saying that's how it would have worked with these people, but if, say, a dozen families taken from TGC's membership were to move to Kiribati in six hours there would be a rifle range, in six days there would be clean running water, in six weeks there would be a working harbor, in six months a railroad and road network and in six years an international airport.

You're not being consistent and it's leading you to miss something important. In both cases you listed, the civilized people looking to live free would have to conquer any new place they go to. The ONLY advantage of going to someplace primitive is that it's easier to conquer. That was certainly the way colonizers thought of the New World- real estate much easier to conquer than real estate back home. They certainly weren't coming in order to embrace the lifestyles of the indigs.

Whereas the problem I am talking about, is with people going to an undeveloped location with the assumption that its lack of development is an inherent virtue, that they're going there precisely because they *won't* have to take over the place and remake it into something worthy, that it's good as-is.

The difference between TGC going to Kiribati, and these idiots, is that TGC people would come heavy and the rifle range would be established as a firepower demonstration as part of the takeover. Whereas the idiots would be just passively expecting to find move-in-ready paradise on earth.

MarkD wrote: I'm not at ALL saying that's how it would have worked with these people, but if, say, a dozen families taken from TGC's membership were to move to Kiribati in six hours there would be a rifle range, in six days there would be clean running water, in six weeks there would be a working harbor, in six months a railroad and road network and in six years an international airport.

Count me in.