Gutless
- Thread starter OddBall1st
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
So are Clinton and Bernie
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he sounds gutless to me.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Flight ?? I`d have to swim, got no $$$$$ and nobody would, $$$$ OddBall........ellipses more.
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
Are you a veteran?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I`m twice your age and will do twice what you could.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
sanders was a conscientious objector, trump got school/medical deferments. i bet his bone spurs really hurt bad.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
You`ll step on one on the way in and on the way out, then sit in it when you get in your car.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Some things never get old.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Good point. Conflicts on the scale of wars are chess games and the pawns are dispensable.
If a person you are assigned to kill and who is assigned to kill you doesn't even know you and you don't even know them....it seems obvious that both parties are being used as pawns.
Elwood Diggler
Well-Known Member
land of the free and home of the brave......
thankfully america's chickenhawks have been reduced to bitching about it on the internet and taking over wilderness refuge areas.
thankfully america's chickenhawks have been reduced to bitching about it on the internet and taking over wilderness refuge areas.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
However, if a person assigned to kill you does not know you and you are just sitting around, you become a victim real quick... One is a pawn, one is dead... Which one do you want to be again?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Neither.
The options you presented do not offer ALL of the options, hence it is a false dichotomy.
The problem with your example is it presumes somebody else has the legitimate authority to point to somebody and say "kill them" and the pawn has no recourse to ask why or disobey.
I want to be the person that says no to the person "assigning" me how I will live my life. Don't you?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You dont get to choose the conditions. Just because you want to live in some alternate reality does not mean the rest of the world will.
There will be plenty of people willing to be pawns just like now.
To change that you would have to alter nature and the human race.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think we agree that under most kinds of human conditions there will always be people that try to manipulate others or build systems designed to enslave them to some degree or another. Certainly that is the status quo on earth now for nearly everyone.
However it should be obvious if human interactions are built on a set of "rules" where one set of humans can legally manipulate others, (involuntary participation in a given system as a standard) occurrences of forcible manipulation will happen. That is self evident, since they are baked in as a primary assumption of said system.
If the individual is to be free, he must be free to accept or reject any kind of system others place him in. Thus, Panarchy as a standard which rejects systemic manipulation of individuals has a better chance of increasing the freedom of an individual. It at least has the possibility of freedom for an individual.
In other words if the individual can't choose whether or not to belong to something, he has already lost his freedom. Any choices of who will lead a system a person is forced into without their express individual consent is really just a choice of who or what will be his master.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Most people choose to give up their freedom for relative safety. You said they have the choice and I am telling you they have made it. You should not infringe upon their rights to choose as they see fit.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's true...I have no right to make a person reject their enslavement, nor do they have any right to impose it on me.
Panarchy and free markets solve that problem.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Until a group of willing slaves show up and kill you. The end...