Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of Lothar
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lothar

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]
152
General / Re: Clothing idea for those practicing civil disobedience.
« on: October 21, 2008, 03:57:06 PM »


It's our job to show them why the should care.

When I thought of this later, it bothered me that I worded it this way.  No one owes any debt, or service, or social contract, or any obligation to anyone else simply because they demand it.  If you haven't voluntarily obligated yourself, there is no obligation.  What I should have said is that I assume it's the goal of those practicing civil disobedience to show human beings why humanity is relevant.

This brings me back to another reason I like the idea of having an obvious message such as this.  I don't want to have any interaction with these people at all. Sometimes I'm forced to settle for as little as possible in order to keep from being imprisoned, or otherwise harmed.

I could ask, hypothetically, should you get involved with civil disobedience, might something like this interest you, however it doesn't seem like this is the place for civil disobedience discussion.

153
General / Re: Clothing idea for those practicing civil disobedience.
« on: October 21, 2008, 03:02:56 AM »
Here's the thing: they don't care whether or not you consent.

It's our job to show them why the should care.

I'd rather not discuss the value of civil disobedience. I do believe some of "they" might care, even though it's a long shot. In Lauren Canario's case, they did stop roughing her up when someone explained that she was a peaceful, non-cooperative, person.  In Ian's case in the court room, they didn't want to let him speak long enough to say that he didn't recognize their authority. They simply demanded "guilty", or "not guilty", and threatened to harm him if he tried to say anything else.  It may not matter to some of them, but Ian's point of saying that he was there under duress, and that his being there was in no way consent, or accepting, of their demands, was very important to have been said.
There are going to be plenty of times when those practicing civil disobedience don't have a voice, and are portrayed incorrectly because they're wearing a vest, and carrying a firearm, etc.

Civil disobedience isn't easy.  There isn't going to be a lot of cooperation from the "establishment" for those trying to change things. Having a voice, and being represented accurately is difficult.  The statists use propaganda amongst themselves to keep morale high, and humanity irrelevant.  Civil disobedience, though, is all about reaching human beings.  As much as I hate to admit it, even the beaurucrats are human.

After 9/11, GB basically told the nation that those responsible for the attacks were not human.  They were inhuman, evil, monsters.  There is no reason to try to understand their motives, because clearly, they are evil creatures attacking the good.  No need to investigate any further.  This type of propaganda/terrorism (I'm referring to GW's, not the hijackers, and their associates) is used all the time by the state, and it keeps their minions from thinking, or understanding, what is truly going on.

Perhaps a well thought out, self evident message wouldn't help, but I think it might.  I thought I'd suggest it in case there were others out there who might also like the option of not speaking, and possibly still being understood.  I also think one good photo of someone being lead away in cuffs, or being tortured with a tazer, while displaying a message like the one I described, would not sit well with anyone upon seeing it, and would likely end up on the front page of digg.

154
General / Clothing idea for those practicing civil disobedience.
« on: October 20, 2008, 03:36:25 PM »
Every time I hear about someone getting arrested, detained, ticketed, harassed, etc., by the state for victimless "crimes", the part that bothers me the most is the point in the story when the police get sick of you passively resisting, and decide to torture you, or use the threat of it, until you comply.  Whether it be coercing a signature out of someone, or forcing them to walk in some direction, or demanding that you shut up or will face some sort of harm.

I've considered the idea of having a card that states a message w/o attitude, or any threat, just to get a point across, but I don't think it would be accepted, & therefore ever be noticed, or accounted for.  However, if one were wearing a hat, or shirt, or had a tattoo, that said something like "I don't consent.", at the very least it would show up in a picture, or a video, of you being harassed, and you can't be told to shut up, at least in regards to this particular message.

I googled "custom t-shirt" and used the first link that popped up to create this;

http://www.customink.com/designs/noconsent/9673918-2014423?cm_ven=hotlink&cm_cat=1&cm_pla=Body_txt&cm_ite=designto

I am certainly no artist, nor a lawyer, so I'm certain the content, and presentation can be greatly approved upon..  However, I just wanted to create the visual, and see what you all think.

Maybe one could have a henna tattoo put on their chest, and back, just to say "fuck you" when the cops start removing your clothes.  :D

155
General / Re: The Definitive "Free Island Project" Thread !!!
« on: April 21, 2008, 04:34:19 AM »
Regarding distance..  If Virgin Galactic, and others, are successful, you might be able to take a .5 hour flight from New York to New Zealand soon enough.  Earth is getting smaller.

The best place for free people in the not too distant future could be the moon.

In my opinion, an island would be simple do deal with, if a government wanted to.  Especially if there would be no fallout to any of its subjects.

I am of the opinion that perhaps the only potential territory on the planet that could be free is someplace that has no other qualities, other then that it would be free.  People who don't give a damn about freedom will always flock to a free state once the power of the free market, and production, starts influencing the quality of life.  Any place easy, or desirable, to live will be taken advantage of by those who don't care about freedom, at some point.  Any place with many natural resources would be desired by one of the world's superpowers.

Perhaps if it were arctic, desert, or possibly manufactured floating on, or beneath, the ocean, it would be less likely to be coveted by someone willing to try and take it.  A free market would provide for whatever was necessary for people to adapt to any environment.

Free people need frontiers to flee to from the state.  Colonizing in some government's established territory will likely not work.  This is why I am so interested in the private space industry.  It is likely the only hope for non-slave, human kind.  If the governments of the world continue allow commercial space ventures, real people could possibly beat the government agencies to the moon, but they almost certainly will to the asteroid belt.

Having said all that...  Maybe Cuba?  :)  Maybe they're ready to both give capitalism a try, and give the finger to the US by making it obvious how free we're not (I can see our presidents now talking about Cuba, the haven of terrorism).

156
The Polling Pit / Re: TEH BESTESTESTS FOODS!
« on: April 17, 2007, 05:22:14 PM »
For me, a tie between Mexican & Chinese (Though, Chinese got my vote.  I couldn't understand the ballot!).  I might have to open a Tijuana Flats in New Hampshire when I get there.

157
The Show / Re: Shop Amazon, Help FTL!
« on: April 17, 2007, 05:18:22 PM »
Bought another item on amazon.freetalklive.com today...

  As did I.  Purchased the Lanague Chronicles, and The Tomb.

  I'd like to suggest some reading material for everyone to purchase through amazon.freetalklive.com;

http://www.lfs.org/awards.htm

158
The Polling Pit / Re: Sadness and Grief
« on: April 04, 2007, 09:58:43 AM »
If a loved one dies, it's reasonable to be saddened by the event.

What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.

  It's reasonable that people are helped, hindered, or otherwise effected by their emotions, as human beings are emotional creatures capable of reason.  I think I agree with what I presume the point of the previous poster who asked if emotions are irrational behavior by definition.  I guess it depends on what you're talking about specifically.

  To answer your question, imho, what sadness might accomplish wouldn't be for the dead.  I don't want to step on anyone's spiritual toes here, but these feelings are a natural response to a loss.  The sadness, or any other emotion, is for the person feeling it.  Perhaps it's so that we remember a defining, meaningful, influence in our life. 

  I read somewhere that women take in 7 times the emotional data that men do.  If it's true, it makes sense to me because someone has to deal with a being that hasn't been taught anything, and empathy seems an efficient means to an end.  We're capable of reason, but it's our cultural bank of knowledge that allows us to be as reasonable as we are.  There's a good distance between 1 + 1 = 2, and spoken, and written language.  In the time being, we only have our instincts, and our caregiver/s, to help us survive long enough to reason our way through some things, and we're capable enough to take care of ourselves.  Perceivable emotional state would be a good asset for an infant.  Though it's communication that doesn't require reason by the individual feeling it, it seems a reasonable evolutionary strength.  An infant may cry the moment it feels hungry, or an object it was focused on falls out of sight.  We, hopefully, don't cry when we feel hungry, because we know how to solve it ourselves.  We also don't cry, again hopefully, when we lose our keys, but when we lose something that nothing else could prepare us for, like a parent, or sibling, or child, we're not quite as capable of staying rational.  Perhaps it's just familiarity..  Maybe if one had a dozen kids, and lost ten of them, the tenth one lost wouldn't result in as much sadness.
  We're social creatures.  Even as adults, there are times when we rely on others.  I imagine there is benefit there also for a perceivable sad state.  We are capable of what we are capable of.  Once we hit that stress threshhold, perhaps instead of failing, we invoke sympathy for assistance.

  More specifically then "sadness", there are obvious benefits for fear, or regret, or shame, to a point.  These emotions can keep you alive.  They can severely limit you, too.  With our reason, we can overcome any need for those feelings.

  I'd like to pose a couple questions..  Would you think emotionless reason would be an advancement in evolution for human beings specifically?  Wouldn't something like cancer, or intelligence on a computer, be the most reasonable, and efficient, form of life?  If so, what would the point of that sort of life be?  How much ambition would we have without emotion, and again, how valueable would that sort of life be?

  Please excuse the rambling..   I started out thinking I was going to respond with about three sentences.  :D

159
The Show / Re: Shop Amazon, Help FTL!
« on: March 20, 2007, 03:51:50 PM »
Anyone know if there is a "Don't shoot/Lite Brite" t-shirt, or some other relevant, & mocking merchandise, for sale out there?  I have a buddy in Boston with a birthday coming up.  Nothing with actual lights, as I don't want him to get reported, and detonated.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 30 queries.