If I google will ufos take over the us in 2019
I get 108,000,000 hits. I am not sure what this demonstrates.
Right, a war. Civil unrest is not a war. 1968 had no civil war in the US, for example.
Sure, for those shot at. The difference, however between the civil war in the 1860s and what people, for example those living in the south towards the end of the war, and people in the late 60s, even those in cities during the most heated parts of the rioting/anti-Vietnam cultural and civil unrest, is radically different. Different strategies, orders of magnitude differences in the per capita death rates, different cultural and infrastructure changes, different smart strategies for survival and riding out the problems and so on.
Not difference in semantics, radical difference in the effects and good strategies. You are making it sound like I am quibbling over words.
NO. I am pointing out that the range of possible situations makes any answers ridiculous becase of the down to earth physical differences between the threats and scenarios. It’s panic talk without any possible focus.
Yes, all the guns could lead to all sorts of different scenarios. For anyone to speak about what they will do, without knowing which of an incredibly wide range of different degrees on intensity or types of scenios, how local or regional or general, how much military involvement, how widespread, etc. is just to talk out of the ass.
So what might we do in all the various possible scenarios where our lives might be on the line, now without the words ‘civil war’ even on the list of options…Please.
I don’t think I suggested, or even thought you did.
If what shit goes down? As if it doesn’t matter what the scale or intensity it. Again, as if I saying, hey, let’s get the words right. When I am saying, you are talking about such a wide range of possible scenarios, any of us telling you what we would do, is making shit up.
I think what you are doing is finding a way to make the people on the right seem like a core threat to everything. Fine. That’s a position and one can enter polemics and arguments about that. But you are couching in the form of practical questions to us about what we will do, in a vast range of potential futures, so vast we cannot answer in any real way. We could respond to your concerns that something bad is coming or might come. But that’s not the discussion, it’s focused on how we are or would plan as if the vast range of possibilities have not the slightest influence on how we would need to react in those very different scenarios.
And paint me as if I am focused on words, when I am focused on the ludicousness of saying here’s what I would do, when I don’t even know the situation.
It’s like asking a surgeon…how would you operated if a patient had an illness?
Well, it depends.
That answer is not understanding the point I was making. I was not arguing that no one should prepare or think practically about the issue. I was pointing out that how else can we answer? This is a philosphy discussion forum, you raise an issue for discussion, and we are going to discuss it.
that
must
be
armchair
like
discussion
You want to invite us to your place to start drawing up plans for self-defense, choosing areas of nature to retreat to, and other physical planning and preparation, and we came over and started doing that stuff, well, that wouldn’t be armchair.
But, jeez, you raise and issue in a philosophy forum and then complain that we are, basically, discussing the issue, that’s a confusion about what you are doing yourself.
Then you end with, you being glad if it turns out you are wrong. Which confirms for me that the issue is you see a threat, and you want a discussion of that threat. You are asserting there is a likelihood of something very bad coming down the pike.
That issue can be discussed and we can weigh in on our sense of the liklihood and what likely scopes of that threat are, etc. That is a discussion one could have.
To say what we as individuals will do, w hen we do not know which of the various possible outcomes you have suggested might come to happen, is a discussion that leads to a bunch of meaningless prat and people presenting themselves in lights their egos are happy with. But it is a discussion with no substrance.
It’s a rhetorical trick and I think a poor one. Get us to imagine we are in some catastrophic scenario and babble about what we would do… The horrible thing about that is not that it leads to a bunch of wasted speculation, but it feeds the us them hatred, gets more people into a panic without anything concrete. Rigth wing people and left wing people will posture about how they will be ready to be violent and there will be more paranoia, because they are being asked about how violent and with what weapons and strategies they will deal with their hated enemies.
To talk about a threat you see does not make everyone posture and threaten. It would be a discussion of a possible threat. That’s a potentially useful discussion.