The End of America (and Western World)

[NOK222]

Changing topics slightly, Obama signed a so called "anti cyberterrosim" executive order. 

[Osvir]

Worst case scenario:
"STAHP! You have to pay 15 dollars to enter this country on this virtual server!" followed by "STAHP! You have to pay 15 dollars to watch this content".

Best case scenario:
Less lag on the internet? Unity? Friendship? One World?

The Government:
Is it under attack by cyberterrorists? What does that have to do with -you-? Are the hackers attacking -your- computer because they are attacking Barack Obama's computer? Or does the Government think that they are America and needs to be protected above all else and especially above you? (*cough* Corporation *cough*) The Government cares about itself, even if it somewhere (hopefully) wants to make stuff better for all of us the priority is to protect itself first and foremost. The Government would separate all of us if it found a way to make more money for itself, oh right! It seems it already is!

"This content is not available in your country" and I can't pay anything to watch it, it's blocked from my European Servers, I am not allowed to watch it at all. Why? What is being protected? Nationality? Pfft what is Nationality in this day and age... the World is the only "Country" there will ever be (Until Ragnarok ofc).

I can envision this message in the future:
"You have reached the edge of your Stockholm Server, here are some payment options if you want to go to the next one"

I believe that the more we get separated into different groups the more powerful the Government become, and the weaker and more easily manipulated the People become. Makes sense?

[NOK222]

Perfect sense actually

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Changing topics slightly, Obama signed a so called "anti cyberterrosim" executive order. 

You know the details? I looked it up and couldn't find anything substantial.

[NOK222]

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity This is the document. 

[Luridis]

 

Defending cold blooded murderers is what brings down the moral fibre of a human being so whya re you defending him?

 

Its unusual but I agree with Volourn on this point, its irrelevant what caused it once he killed the daughter and her fiancé of the guy that failed to get him to keep his job. He lost any sympathy and moral high ground the moment he did this. Its like saying " lets try understand the causes of 9\11 because maybe it  makes the attack okay". We know why 9\11 was perpetuated and  the reasons don't justify what Al-Qaeda did( this is an example, I am not saying you said this). What do you need to understand about  a cowardly murder? His manifesto is clear and there for you to read, so I don't get why you think we need to analyze his reasons anymore than we already do? He was a mentally unbalanced individual who posed a serious threat to society. He needs to be arrested or killed. Its not complicated.

 

And, once again, you only read what's in your head and purport that I wrote something I did not. I never defended his actions, nor did I say those actions were justified in any way.

 

I did say we need to understand why this happens. I did not say he should go free because he's "disturbed". I did not say he should not stand trial and I did not say "he's just misunderstood." What I did say is that we should be a little less gung-ho on the "kill the bad man" and a put more effort into capture, arrest and study of his condition. People don't just go crazy for no reason, there's usually a cause and effect, understanding what takes people from "I'm unhappy and upset with this situation" to "I'm going to kill everyone" is pretty important to society. When we know what causes "going postal" then we can perhaps find some way to prevent it's happening.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Defending cold blooded murderers is what brings down the moral fibre of a human being so whya re you defending him?

 

Its unusual but I agree with Volourn on this point, its irrelevant what caused it once he killed the daughter and her fiancé of the guy that failed to get him to keep his job. He lost any sympathy and moral high ground the moment he did this. Its like saying " lets try understand the causes of 9\11 because maybe it  makes the attack okay". We know why 9\11 was perpetuated and  the reasons don't justify what Al-Qaeda did( this is an example, I am not saying you said this). What do you need to understand about  a cowardly murder? His manifesto is clear and there for you to read, so I don't get why you think we need to analyze his reasons anymore than we already do? He was a mentally unbalanced individual who posed a serious threat to society. He needs to be arrested or killed. Its not complicated.

 

And, once again, you only read what's in your head and purport that I wrote something I did not. I never defended his actions, nor did I say those actions were justified in any way.

 

I did say we need to understand why this happens. I did not say he should go free because he's "disturbed". I did not say he should not stand trial and I did not say "he's just misunderstood." What I did say is that we should be a little less gung-ho on the "kill the bad man" and a put more effort into capture, arrest and study of his condition. People don't just go crazy for no reason, there's usually a cause and effect, understanding what takes people from "I'm unhappy and upset with this situation" to "I'm going to kill everyone" is pretty important to society. When we know what causes "going postal" then we can perhaps find some way to prevent it's happening.

 

 

For someone who claims people only read what they want  I hope you realize you do exactly the same thing. I never said you said

• That you felt his actions were justified
• That you think he should go free
• That  he shouldn't stand trial

Its true, read my post again.

 

My point in summary is  why do you feel the need to understand his motives when its clear from his manifesto. He was a deranged person who chose innocent people to vent his frustration on. Personally I am more concerned with the families of the victims that were killed, but you are welcome to look for additional meaning around why he murdered people that had nothing to do with his actual issue, the LAPD. Please let me know what you discover.

[NOK222]

 

That  he shouldn't stand trial

I think he should have stood trial, since it would have shaken the whole thing up. I'm sure those are Luridis same thoughts, though I'm not going to assume on his part. 

Edited February 13, 2013 by NKKKK

[BruceVC]

 

 

That  he shouldn't stand trial

I think he should have stood trial, since it would have shaken the whole thing up. I'm sure those are Luridis same thoughts, though I'm not going to assume on his part. 

 I am not disagreeing with that view, I did say originally he should be captured or killed. But  IMO he should stand trial to face justice, not because society needs understand why he did it. That has already been documented.

[BruceVC]

 

 

That  he shouldn't stand trial

I think he should have stood trial, since it would have shaken the whole thing up. I'm sure those are Luridis same thoughts, though I'm not going to assume on his part. 

 

Double post

Edited February 13, 2013 by BruceVC

[NOK222]

 

 

 

That  he shouldn't stand trial

I think he should have stood trial, since it would have shaken the whole thing up. I'm sure those are Luridis same thoughts, though I'm not going to assume on his part. 

 I am not disagreeing with that view, I did say originally he should be captured or killed. But  IMO he should stand trial to face justice, not because society needs understand why he did it. That has already been documented.

And because, I reiterate, this would have had the added bonus of people pressuring the LAPD into curbing it's corruption. 

Instead they committed arson. 

[Luridis]

 

 

 

Defending cold blooded murderers is what brings down the moral fibre of a human being so whya re you defending him?

 

Its unusual but I agree with Volourn on this point, its irrelevant what caused it once he killed the daughter and her fiancé of the guy that failed to get him to keep his job. He lost any sympathy and moral high ground the moment he did this. Its like saying " lets try understand the causes of 9\11 because maybe it  makes the attack okay". We know why 9\11 was perpetuated and  the reasons don't justify what Al-Qaeda did( this is an example, I am not saying you said this). What do you need to understand about  a cowardly murder? His manifesto is clear and there for you to read, so I don't get why you think we need to analyze his reasons anymore than we already do? He was a mentally unbalanced individual who posed a serious threat to society. He needs to be arrested or killed. Its not complicated.

 

And, once again, you only read what's in your head and purport that I wrote something I did not. I never defended his actions, nor did I say those actions were justified in any way.

 

I did say we need to understand why this happens. I did not say he should go free because he's "disturbed". I did not say he should not stand trial and I did not say "he's just misunderstood." What I did say is that we should be a little less gung-ho on the "kill the bad man" and a put more effort into capture, arrest and study of his condition. People don't just go crazy for no reason, there's usually a cause and effect, understanding what takes people from "I'm unhappy and upset with this situation" to "I'm going to kill everyone" is pretty important to society. When we know what causes "going postal" then we can perhaps find some way to prevent it's happening.

 

 

For someone who claims people only read what they want  I hope you realize you do exactly the same thing. I never said you said

• That you felt his actions were justified
• That you think he should go free
• That  he shouldn't stand trial

Its true, read my post again.

 

My point in summary is  why do you feel the need to understand his motives when its clear from his manifesto. He was a deranged person who chose innocent people to vent his frustration on. Personally I am more concerned with the families of the victims that were killed, but you are welcome to look for additional meaning around why he murdered people that had nothing to do with his actual issue, the LAPD. Please let me know what you discover.

 

Okay, it's clear that I'm not being understood. I'm aware of the rationalizations he made for his behavior, that is understood. Why those rationalizations suddenly lack enough moral ballast from his conscious is what we do not. For example, when people get angry and might think, I'd like to kill that bastard for a moment. Then, almost as quickly they realize such an outcome is in huge disproportion to how they feel wronged. A person with an ego disorder might not think that, but instead consider the consequences of law or implications of their personal religious doctrine. How that moral off-switch gets flipped is what we really need to understand. He did not kill people at random, but his desire to hurt someone he felt wronged him was so great that he was willing to kill two people who had no direct involvement to exact that revenge. What made them different than the people in the cabin? Both caused him no direct pain but morals were turned on for two of them and turned off for the other two.

 

Now, in response to your post: You didn't say I defended his actions, Volourn appeared to be saying that. The paragraph was indirect and wasn't meant as a tit-for-tat rebuke to specific things. I meant it in spirit as why what I think should be done is not a "moral highground" or an attempt at the "reduction of moral fiber" in society. I wasn't asking for exoneration, which is what some appear to think I was asking for.

 

Edit: I feel for the families of the victims. But, they are gone and can't be brought back. Understanding criminally deranged behavior can and will help potential victims down the road. People lose their jobs all the time, but a very select few go bonkers, what's different? Is it chemical, biological, caused by some similar emotional trauma?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Luridis

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Defending cold blooded murderers is what brings down the moral fibre of a human being so whya re you defending him?

 

Its unusual but I agree with Volourn on this point, its irrelevant what caused it once he killed the daughter and her fiancé of the guy that failed to get him to keep his job. He lost any sympathy and moral high ground the moment he did this. Its like saying " lets try understand the causes of 9\11 because maybe it  makes the attack okay". We know why 9\11 was perpetuated and  the reasons don't justify what Al-Qaeda did( this is an example, I am not saying you said this). What do you need to understand about  a cowardly murder? His manifesto is clear and there for you to read, so I don't get why you think we need to analyze his reasons anymore than we already do? He was a mentally unbalanced individual who posed a serious threat to society. He needs to be arrested or killed. Its not complicated.

 

And, once again, you only read what's in your head and purport that I wrote something I did not. I never defended his actions, nor did I say those actions were justified in any way.

 

I did say we need to understand why this happens. I did not say he should go free because he's "disturbed". I did not say he should not stand trial and I did not say "he's just misunderstood." What I did say is that we should be a little less gung-ho on the "kill the bad man" and a put more effort into capture, arrest and study of his condition. People don't just go crazy for no reason, there's usually a cause and effect, understanding what takes people from "I'm unhappy and upset with this situation" to "I'm going to kill everyone" is pretty important to society. When we know what causes "going postal" then we can perhaps find some way to prevent it's happening.

 

 

For someone who claims people only read what they want  I hope you realize you do exactly the same thing. I never said you said

• That you felt his actions were justified
• That you think he should go free
• That  he shouldn't stand trial

Its true, read my post again.

 

My point in summary is  why do you feel the need to understand his motives when its clear from his manifesto. He was a deranged person who chose innocent people to vent his frustration on. Personally I am more concerned with the families of the victims that were killed, but you are welcome to look for additional meaning around why he murdered people that had nothing to do with his actual issue, the LAPD. Please let me know what you discover.

 

Okay, it's clear that I'm not being understood. I'm aware of the rationalizations he made for his behavior, that is understood. Why those rationalizations suddenly lack enough moral ballast from his conscious is what we do not. For example, when people get angry and might think, I'd like to kill that bastard for a moment. Then, almost as quickly they realize such an outcome is in huge disproportion to how they feel wronged. A person with an ego disorder might not think that, but instead consider the consequences of law or implications of their personal religious doctrine. How that moral off-switch gets flipped is what we really need to understand. He did not kill people at random, but his desire to hurt someone he felt wronged him was so great that he was willing to kill two people who had no direct involvement to exact that revenge. What made them different than the people in the cabin? Both caused him no direct pain but morals were turned on for two of them and turned off for the other two.

 

Now, in response to your post: You didn't say I defended his actions, Volourn appeared to be saying that. The paragraph was indirect and wasn't meant as a tit-for-tat rebuke to specific things. I meant it in spirit as why what I think should be done is not a "moral highground" or an attempt at the "reduction of moral fiber" in society. I wasn't asking for exoneration, which is what some appear to think I was asking for.

 

Edit: I feel for the families of the victims. But, they are gone and can't be brought back. Understanding criminally deranged behavior can and will help potential victims down the road. People lose their jobs all the time, but a very select few go bonkers, what's different? Is it chemical, biological, caused by some similar emotional trauma?

 

 

Okay I think I understand your point, yes we have misunderstood each other

[Nightshape]

Meh, the woman in the bottom picture is still quite attractive, she just looks like she eats food once in a while and doesn't throw it up into the toilet.

 

7/10 Would Bang

Would help ya... For payment naturally - I'll except a cheeseburger.

[obyknven]

 'Murica is land of true freedom. 

 

 

 

 

moar:  

http://asaratov.livejournal.com/3632466.html#cutid1

 

[obyknven]

NY 1969

 

 

http://www.fresher.ru/2013/07/19/nyu-jork-v-1969-godu/#more-69052

 

Meanwhile modern 'Muricans considered own fatness as normal ,as we see in thread about womens. Brainwashing machine work so good.

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/Jrqnu2Jxnec

Even in my Evil Empire government can't do such things.

[HoonDing]

NY 1969

 

 

http://www.fresher.ru/2013/07/19/nyu-jork-v-1969-godu/#more-69052

 

Meanwhile modern 'Muricans considered own fatness as normal ,as we see in thread about womens. Brainwashing machine work so good.

I blame Nixon.

[Walsingham]

Odd coincidence that you mix lurid pictures of women with your equally lurid image of a corrupt and failing United States.

[obyknven]

It's about how healthy,  smart and well educated US citizens transformed into this.

 

 

 

 

\

 

 

Rich people are thin/ well maintained, poor people are fat. This stems from the fact that cheap food is fatty, rich people don't eat cheap food — they tend to eat either home-cooked food which is expensive or eat at expensive / healthy places. Unfortunately, it is expensive to be healthy in America.

 

Fat people are not respected much in society. Being fat often has the same connotations as being irresponsible towards your body. If you're thin (and tall, but not as much), people will respect you a lot more and treat you better. You will also receive better customer service if you're well maintained. This extends my previous point which mentioned that if you're thin, you're statistically likely to be rich. Reason why I know this is that I went down from being 210lbs to 148-150lbs. The way people started treating me when I was thin was generally way better than the way I was treated when I was fat. As a small example, the Starbucks baristas were much nicer to me and made me drinks with more care / love

 

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-weirdest-things-about-america-2013-8#ixzz2e6XzxOFx

Edited September 7, 2013 by LadyCrimson

[Walsingham]

Bored of this now. Why can't we have a thread accusing the French of being lazy? Or the Irish of being drunk?

[Hurlshort]

Or Russians of being melodramatic?

[ShadySands]

Or Russians of being melodramatic?

 

As you saw from the Russian homophobia thread they aren't that good at taking criticism

 

Far easier to look at someone else and point out whats wrong than to look at yourself and do the same

[Hurlshort]

I was referring more to the history of Russian literature being rather melancholy, but your interpretation works too

[Walsingham]

What if they're not even Russian?