Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Britain leaves the European Union today

Warning!

Do not subscribe to The SoSuave Newsletter unless you are already a chick magnet!

The information in each issue is too powerful for most guys to handle. If you are an ordinary guy, it is not for you. It is meant for the elite few – not the unwashed masses.

image

If you think you can handle it...

If you already have girls calling you at all hours of the day and night, showing up at your door, throwing themselves at you everywhere you go...

Then sign up below.

But if you're just an average Joe, an ordinary guy, no one special – and wish to continue being so – then skip this. It's too much power for you.

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
Consider it as an evolution of the thread.
Well, speaking of evolution, real Men don't depend on and wait for other men to defend them, as if they were helpless women and children.

Your entire argument seems to be that YOU don't require the tools to protect yourself, because other men will protect and rescue you from danger.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
11,257
Reaction score
2,120
None.

The arguments for and against each of the original 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights are contained in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-federalist Papers', but almost no-one bothers to actually read them.

Instead, we are treated to nonsense explanations of the 3/5 compromise, as a supposedly dehumanizing effort by Southern slave-owners, when they actually wanted their slaves to be counted 100% towards representation, instead of 60%, because it would give the South greater representation in Congress and in the electoral college. Heck, the South would have counted their slaves as 5/3, if the North would've let them get away with it. Instead, the North argued that slaves should count as 0% toward representation, and they compromised on 3/5.

We keep hearing stupid s hit, though, because people don't bother to think and read.
The discussion presented by the the anti-White people is always implicitly stating that ALL Whites owned slaves.

This is what they want everyone to believe and it is ridiculous fiction. And even if it were true, the entire planet and every race has enslaved every other race. But Whites and White nations were the first to free them all.
 

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
The discussion presented by the the anti-White people is always implicitly stating that ALL Whites owned slaves.

This is what they want everyone to believe and it is ridiculous fiction. And even if it were true, the entire planet and every race has enslaved every other race. But Whites and White nations were the first to free them all.
Yeah, it's an absurd obsession they have, because everyone alive today is descended from both slave-holders and slaves. So what? Doesn't matter. Obviously, people so psychologically damaged by a past they didn't even experience are frustrating to deal with, but I almost pity people who are so hopelessly trapped in an ancestral mind cage that they can't even fully experience the only life -- probably -- they have to live.

On the other hand, if there's reincarnation, I wonder how many of the people who imagine their biological ancestors' suffering entitles them to cause suffering to people whose only crime is a vague resemblance to their ancestral bogeymen....are themselves the actual reincarnated slave-traders?? Isn't that something to consider?

Still, I doubt the same people who insist on punishing people just for looking like dead people who did something awful would be willing to serve a prison sentence for a provable murder, rape, or robbery committed by their own biological fathers. I suspect they would find the proposal equally absurd and offensive, but are probably too psychologically brain-damaged to comprehend the ridiculousness of their own outrageous behavior.
 
Last edited:

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
2,528
Location
Colorado Panhandle
Well, speaking of evolution, real Men don't depend on and wait for other men to defend them, as if they were helpless women and children.

Your entire argument seems to be that YOU don't require the tools to protect yourself, because other men will protect and rescue you from danger.
Sounds to me like Spaz has the resources to pay for shyt so he doesn't have to do everything himself. Turns out, in Singapore, you get good bang for your buck. Donald Trump doesn't walk around with a gun. Think about it.

If it's about assuming the onus of self-defense, then we don't need immigration laws or police or the military. That's just other men protecting us. I've read enough libertardian literature and I know that it's not practical, though it's an honorable notion.

Crime can't be eliminated 100% but it can be minimized drastically. Right now America sits at the bottom with many third world shytholes in number of gun related deaths per capita. South Africa, Mexico, and Nicaragua have fewer. Meanwhile other countries have far lower violent crime rates without a massively armed public. The tradeoff is they're less free to own a firearm, but more free to walk around day and night, man or woman. Everything has a cost.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have all the answers and I respect you guys who are responsible gun owners. If I lived in in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming I'd probably own a firearm. Too many bears and it takes too long for the cops to respond if you're in the country. In that case I'd bear the cost of owning a weapon, maybe even illegally.

Actually I think in the U.S. this stuff should be decided provincially. For instance New York has a policy that makes sense for New York but not for Wyoming. Most countries aren't as big and diverse as the U.S. This should be a municipal or state decision at most, but the 2nd Amendment exists so there you go.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
If it's about assuming the onus of self-defense, then we don't need immigration laws or police or the military. That's just other men protecting us. I've read enough libertardian literature and I know that it's not practical, though it's an honorable notion.
Jibberish.

I don't know how it is in Italy and Singapore, but in America, SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens, even if they were able; so, it isn't a matter of either take full responsibility for your own defense, or sit passively waiting for the professionals to do it. If you can afford private security to protect your family, that's great, but I bet they're armed. If not, you might as well just bribe corrupt cops and soldiers to watch over your family, for you.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
11,257
Reaction score
2,120
Yeah, it's an absurd obsession they have, because everyone alive today is descended from both slave-holders and slaves. So what? Doesn't matter. Obviously, people so psychologically damaged by a past they didn't even experience are frustrating to deal with, but I almost pity people who are so hopelessly trapped in an ancestral mind cage that they can't even fully experience the only life -- probably -- they have to live.

On the other hand, if there's reincarnation, I wonder how many of the people who imagine their biological ancestors' suffering entitles them to cause suffering to people whose only crime is a vague resemblance to their ancestral bogeymen....are themselves the actual reincarnated slave-traders?? Isn't that something to consider?

Still, I doubt the same people who insist on punishing people just for looking like dead people who did something awful would be willing to serve a prison sentence for a provable murder, rape, or robbery committed by their own biological fathers. I suspect they would find the proposal equally absurd and offensive, but are probably too psychologically brain-damaged to comprehend the ridiculousness of their own outrageous behavior.
Essentially what they are arguing for is a component of religion called "Original Sin", where we are guilty for the sins of our ancestors.

But it is actually FAR MORE insidious than that. Most of us never had ancestors who owned slaves. Only the elite owned them. Therefore we are guilty of Original Sin for our ancestors LOOKING LIKE people who committed those sins.

In the end, this militant leftism is a religion at its core.

Surely if I am guilty of the sins of a small minority of White people 200 years ago then Blacks today are guilty for the crimes of other Blacks today?
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
11,257
Reaction score
2,120
Sounds to me like Spaz has the resources to pay for shyt so he doesn't have to do everything himself. Turns out, in Singapore, you get good bang for your buck. Donald Trump doesn't walk around with a gun. Think about it.

If it's about assuming the onus of self-defense, then we don't need immigration laws or police or the military. That's just other men protecting us. I've read enough libertardian literature and I know that it's not practical, though it's an honorable notion.

Crime can't be eliminated 100% but it can be minimized drastically. Right now America sits at the bottom with many third world shytholes in number of gun related deaths per capita. South Africa, Mexico, and Nicaragua have fewer. Meanwhile other countries have far lower violent crime rates without a massively armed public. The tradeoff is they're less free to own a firearm, but more free to walk around day and night, man or woman. Everything has a cost.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have all the answers and I respect you guys who are responsible gun owners. If I lived in in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming I'd probably own a firearm. Too many bears and it takes too long for the cops to respond if you're in the country. In that case I'd bear the cost of owning a weapon, maybe even illegally.

Actually I think in the U.S. this stuff should be decided provincially. For instance New York has a policy that makes sense for New York but not for Wyoming. Most countries aren't as big and diverse as the U.S. This should be a municipal or state decision at most, but the 2nd Amendment exists so there you go.
Samspade,

What are the conditions for self-defense?

Can it only happen at the individual level?

What about at the family level?

At the tribe or neighborhood level?

At the national level?


Does the existence of self-defense at one level negate it at other levels?

What is the ABSOLUTE right that all individuals have which is god-given? What other rights stem from that absolute right?
 

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
Crime can't be eliminated 100% but it can be minimized drastically. Right now America sits at the bottom with many third world shytholes in number of gun related deaths per capita. South Africa, Mexico, and Nicaragua have fewer. Meanwhile other countries have far lower violent crime rates without a massively armed public. The tradeoff is they're less free to own a firearm, but more free to walk around day and night, man or woman. Everything has a cost.
And, England voted for Brexit, to a large extent, because their country is being overrun by people from violent third-world s hit-hole countries. England was a safe gun-free country, until relatively recently. Knives, acid, rape and grooming gangs...it's easy for a once placid paradise to become a terror-scape for the natives, when the floodgates are open to the barbarian hordes. Ask Sweden. Ask Rome.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
Actually I think in the U.S. this stuff should be decided provincially. For instance New York has a policy that makes sense for New York but not for Wyoming.
Most cities can't afford a police force as big as the NYPD. I had uncles who were cops in NYC, and NYC could never have enforced it's gun and weapon restrictions without its aggressive Stop-n-Frisk policy, which is quite controversial among America's "diverse(as you put it)" population.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
2,528
Location
Colorado Panhandle
Jibberish.

I don't know how it is in Italy and Singapore, but in America, SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens, even if they were able; so, it isn't a matter of either take full responsibility for your own defense, or sit passively waiting for the professionals to do it. If you can afford private security to protect your family, that's great, but I bet they're armed. If not, you might as well just bribe corrupt cops and soldiers to watch over your family, for you.
What SCOTUS case was this? I don't get it. What is the point of police then?

As for Trump, you missed the point. He doesn't carry a gun because he armed men are paid to protect him. What he says is irrelevant. According to you real men don't rely on others for protection. That's what I was getting at.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
2,528
Location
Colorado Panhandle
Samspade,

What are the conditions for self-defense?

Can it only happen at the individual level?

What about at the family level?

At the tribe or neighborhood level?

At the national level?


Does the existence of self-defense at one level negate it at other levels?

What is the ABSOLUTE right that all individuals have which is god-given? What other rights stem from that absolute right?
Fair questions.

It can exist at all levels and simultaneously, for sure.

As for rights, there are no "rights."

Your right to self-defense doesn't help you if someone shoots you in the back. Your right to personal property doesn't save you from being robbed. Your right to free speech won't save you in Iran if you badmouth the regime publicly.

Instead of rights, think about choices. You can choose not to walk down a dark alley at night. You can choose to lock your doors and buy a home security system, or a gun. You can avoid traveling to certain countries, or while there avoid saying things that will land you in jail. Etc.

The US's choice is to keep firearms legal, but it's come at a cost. Other countries pay a different cost for restricting them.
 

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
What SCOTUS case was this? I don't get it. What is the point of police then?

As for Trump, you missed the point. He doesn't carry a gun because he armed men are paid to protect him. What he says is irrelevant. According to you real men don't rely on others for protection. That's what I was getting at.
I got it, and there's nothing wrong with delegating duties to others. That's what free people do, delegate duties to representatives. In fact, soldiers expect other soldiers to watch over them while they sleep, and cops rely on their partners for backup. My point is that Trump isn't a hypocrite. He isn't telling me that I'm screwed, unless I can afford a team of private security, because he's afraid of an armed general populous.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
What SCOTUS case was this? I don't get it. What is the point of police then?
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
11,257
Reaction score
2,120
Fair questions.

It can exist at all levels and simultaneously, for sure.

As for rights, there are no "rights."

Your right to self-defense doesn't help you if someone shoots you in the back. Your right to personal property doesn't save you from being robbed. Your right to free speech won't save you in Iran if you badmouth the regime publicly.

Instead of rights, think about choices. You can choose not to walk down a dark alley at night. You can choose to lock your doors and buy a home security system, or a gun. You can avoid traveling to certain countries, or while there avoid saying things that will land you in jail. Etc.

The US's choice is to keep firearms legal, but it's come at a cost. Other countries pay a different cost for restricting them.
There is an absolute right that every being has the moment it comes into existence. What is that right?

You are speaking of actions of others more than you are speaking of the right of the person in question.

Rights are independent of the actions of others.
 

ShePays

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Southeast USA
Essentially what they are arguing for is a component of religion called "Original Sin", where we are guilty for the sins of our ancestors.

But it is actually FAR MORE insidious than that. Most of us never had ancestors who owned slaves. Only the elite owned them. Therefore we are guilty of Original Sin for our ancestors LOOKING LIKE people who committed those sins.

In the end, this militant leftism is a religion at its core.

Surely if I am guilty of the sins of a small minority of White people 200 years ago then Blacks today are guilty for the crimes of other Blacks today?
Makes sense to me, that if one group of people is guilty for all the sins of dead people who looked like them, then another group of people is guilty of all the sins of living people who look like them...as much as any of it makes sense.
 
Last edited:

Xenom0rph

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
689
Reaction score
836
Location
Los Angeles
The second Amendment was inserted for slave rebellions as a compromise to appease slave states.
You twist every discussion to fit your racism narrative, even discussions that had nothing to do with race.

I think it's safe to assume that most members (and society in general) have developed apathy towards these racism accusations because people on the left keep crying wolf....it's becoming a comedy routine at this point.....
 
Top