(OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....

[Squire James]

As the post about the WTC aftermath chaos implies, I think the caveman is a little closer to the surface than many people think! Just about every culture over here in the U.S. has a berserk warrior not terribly far up their family tree, and I doubt it is much different elsewhere.

Some will live. Some will die. I haven't had a job in over a year now (and for a single man who makes house and car payments, that sort of thing really hurts). Excuse me if my priorities are a wee bit on the "short term" side right now!

 

[alsih2o]

Those deer are not likely to drop easily unless you are using a high-powered rifle.

nah, i hunt with a 4 inch barrel .357, and have only had 1 deer get more than 50 yards....long trails are usually bad shots

 

[Zappo]

I'm back. I'll explain tomorrow the reason for my interest in this thread. So don't get it closed while I'm sleeping, or you'll never know.

I understand that fights erupted on 9/11 and all, but how many people were actually killed in those fights? The number is zero, I suppose. Discard mass hysteria, simply because there's no longer any mass to speak of, at least until the survivors gather, and the number will tend to stay zero. Count in that if it's me and ten other people (or 100) in the supermarket, we can all clearly see that there's more stuff than we can carry, and the number will stay zero.

Suppose you're walking down the main street, wrecked buildings all around, a car somehow landed on a rooftop, scorched corpses everywhere, deadly silence all around. On some walls, there are human-shaped shadows. Everything that's left of their vaporized owners. You are still dizzy from the adrenaline rush - you were standing in front of a pottery store and you could see the clay pots melting bare meters from you (actual recount from a survivor from Hiroshima). Another survivor comes out from behind a cement slab.

How many people here would immediately shoot him?

 

[Telor]

Wounded deer running for a time is expected with archery. Best shot is behind the shoulderblade, through the heart... the deer will run for a time.

With rifles the only reason I would allow a deer the ability to run is if I wanted to mount the head and therefore I would aim for the same target as above.

If the rack isn't worth talking about or the deer is a doe I aim for the neck. Of all the deer I hit in the neck, not a single one ran. Of all the deer I missed my target (the neck) all ran a distance up to a mile. Yes, following a wounded deer is the dumbest thing you could do, in most circumstances.

Archery is by far more difficult and therefore more sportsmanlike, however I found quite a few deer with shafts and arrowheads still lodged in their bodies which is cruel by my definition.

-Telor

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: (OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....

All i could think was "were they just watching what I was watching. Evil? Certainly. Despicable? No question. Cowardly?

Nuh uh.

I can't imagine how a suicide pilot could fit into a cockpit with (metaphorically) balls that big.

I have to disagree with you on that one... but then, it comes in how I define cowardice.

Cowardice is the opposite of courage.

Courage is the quality that makes a man do - or omit - that which he does not wish to do (or omit) ... because he knows the consequences of the course of action he would prefer to do are much less desirable than the consequences of the course of action he does not prefer to do.

You can be scared and still have courage. A man stranded in the wilderness and struggling to survive is not courageous - he is a survivor. A man overcoming cancer is not courageous - he is a survivor. The man who leaps in front of a car to scoop up a child IS courageous - because odds are good that his preferred course of action is not to put himself in front of a speeding car.

On the other hand, you can commit an act that most of us would be afraid to do and NOT have courage (you could have stupidity, for instance).

I can't get inside the mind of a suicide pilot, but I'm guessing that they WANTED to be suicide pilots. To them, suicide was the preferred course of action. Therefore, committing suicide was NOT courageous.

Contrast this with the passengers in Flight 91 (IIRC). I am guessing that suicide (attacking the hijackers and possibly crashing the plane) was NOT their preferred course of action. OTOH, they realized that the consequences of inaction would be worse (not necessarily to themselves, but to others). This makes them courageous.

Perhaps that is not as eloquent as I would have liked, but there it is. Courage is not "doing something most people wouldn't want to do." Courage is "choosing to do something you yourself don't want to do." And I don't mean you're wishy-washy about not wanting to do it - that's indifference, not "not wanting to" - I mean you're scared stiff about doing it.

Applicable here is the quote, "The courageous soldier does not fight out of a hatred for what lies before him, but out of a love for what lies behind him." (or something to that effect)

This makes cowardice, by definition, "choosing only to do those things that you prefer to do." Some may argue that such a definition ought to belong to "rugged individualist." But when you never think to do something that would take you out of your comfort zone, especially if you know what you are about to do is wrong, that makes you a coward. Succumbing to peer pressure is cowardly. You may be uncomfortable doing something, but you would feel more uncomfortable NOT doing it in this case. Cowardice.

Above all, courage means being responsible. True courage is measured not in what you do, but in your willingness to face the consequences. IMO the hijackers were cowards - they were willing to attack defenseless innocents, but not willing to confront armed men. They were willing to die so they would not have to be punished by men, believing that though men might punish them, God (or Allah or <insert name here>) would reward them. That, in my book, is cowardice.

True courage is not the brutal force of vulgar heroes, but the firm resolve of virtue and reason.
--Alfred Lord Whitehead

Think on that one good and hard. It best describes my view of courage. The Bridge at Andau (James Michener) is another good read.

--The Sigil

 

[Sulimo]

Personally, I'd be going after seafood rather than mammals. But then I'm on the coast and a fair way from typical land animals you hunt. Well, aside from some nature reserves which house your typical range of Marsupials.

Hmm...I dont know if I could eat say a Koala. Of course if I was hungry enough.

And I have enough of a green thumb to grow stuff in the medium term.

 

[Desdichado]

SHARK, you're descended from Texans? I knew I liked you!

Anyway, what's the big deal about killing something big? Ever heard of jerky, anyone? Smoked meat?

Geez! Some survivalists y'all'd make! I used to have a bunch of friends that were big time survivalists. Used to go out in the desert of southern Utah with nothing but a pocketknife for weeks at a time (ran those "tough love" youth camps too, IIRC.) They knew how to make a whole sheep last, let me tell you!

 

[Mark]

Specialization is a part of advanced civilzation. Without it, no one could afford to know as much about any single subject on which they are expert. I wouldn't trade it for the world.

A fellow I consider quite wise once told me, "Get the best person you can for the job (sometimes that's you or I) and let them do it!"

There's nothing scary, to my mind, of being part of a really big team. It requires some trust and a willingness to cooperate with others. That, in turn, helps propel us even further along toward individual enlightenment. I'm not talking about some mystical, spiritual concept, either. Just an awakening and awareness to oneself and others, as well as recognizing that the world is a big place but ultimately finite.

That's my couple of coins...

 

[LostSoul]

I think Monte was ranting about his dependance on society. He probably feels emasculated because he can't get his car, TV, or PC to work without somebody else's help. That's just modern life.

People adapt to their conditions. Most cavemen wouldn't last very long in the modern urban world. There are a lot of "survival" skills you learn living in the city.

 

[Green Knight]

Re: Re: Re: (OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....

I have to disagree with you on that one... but then, it comes in how I define cowardice.

Cowardice is the opposite of courage.

Courage is the quality that makes a man do - or omit - that which he does not wish to do (or omit) ... because he knows the consequences of the course of action he would prefer to do are much less desirable than the consequences of the course of action he does not prefer to do.

You can be scared and still have courage. A man stranded in the wilderness and struggling to survive is not courageous - he is a survivor. A man overcoming cancer is not courageous - he is a survivor. The man who leaps in front of a car to scoop up a child IS courageous - because odds are good that his preferred course of action is not to put himself in front of a speeding car.

On the other hand, you can commit an act that most of us would be afraid to do and NOT have courage (you could have stupidity, for instance).

I can't get inside the mind of a suicide pilot, but I'm guessing that they WANTED to be suicide pilots. To them, suicide was the preferred course of action. Therefore, committing suicide was NOT courageous.

Contrast this with the passengers in Flight 91 (IIRC). I am guessing that suicide (attacking the hijackers and possibly crashing the plane) was NOT their preferred course of action. OTOH, they realized that the consequences of inaction would be worse (not necessarily to themselves, but to others). This makes them courageous.

Perhaps that is not as eloquent as I would have liked, but there it is. Courage is not "doing something most people wouldn't want to do." Courage is "choosing to do something you yourself don't want to do." And I don't mean you're wishy-washy about not wanting to do it - that's indifference, not "not wanting to" - I mean you're scared stiff about doing it.

Applicable here is the quote, "The courageous soldier does not fight out of a hatred for what lies before him, but out of a love for what lies behind him." (or something to that effect)

This makes cowardice, by definition, "choosing only to do those things that you prefer to do." Some may argue that such a definition ought to belong to "rugged individualist." But when you never think to do something that would take you out of your comfort zone, especially if you know what you are about to do is wrong, that makes you a coward. Succumbing to peer pressure is cowardly. You may be uncomfortable doing something, but you would feel more uncomfortable NOT doing it in this case. Cowardice.

Above all, courage means being responsible. True courage is measured not in what you do, but in your willingness to face the consequences. IMO the hijackers were cowards - they were willing to attack defenseless innocents, but not willing to confront armed men. They were willing to die so they would not have to be punished by men, believing that though men might punish them, God (or Allah or <insert name here>) would reward them. That, in my book, is cowardice.



Think on that one good and hard. It best describes my view of courage. The Bridge at Andau (James Michener) is another good read.

--The Sigil

I totally agree with you, Sigil. There's nothing inherently courageous about suicide, nevermind someone who kills innocent people before killing himself. Is the guy who kills his wife and then kills himself courageous? No, he's a coward. He killed himself to avoid responsibility for his actions. Same with the terrorists. Not only did they choose a course of action which would guarantee they'd never have to face justice for it in life, but they chose a course of action which they believed they'd be REWARDED for in the afterlife. That's makes them cowardly and selfish.