Re: Cryonics propaganda...

dwayne (
Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:58:39 +1000

"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:

> > I'm not into this "eye for an eye" thing, I think you should sort your
> > own shit out, and to that end I think you should avoid killing someone
> > wherever possible, and avoid harming them wherever possible, etc.
> I concur wholly with this. The thing you are overlooking is that it is not always
> possible now, is it?

Sorry, I wasn't aware that we were meant to remain within the bounds of the possible here.

> > I'd rather a population heavily armed with tazers, say, than machine
> > pistols.
> I take the opposite view. Arming everyone with tazers that you know won't kill anyone
> will make people shock happy, preferring to shock first and ask questions later,
> because its easier than dealing with a confrontation and coming to a resolution.

Hey, I'd rather be tazered by a drunk than your alternative.

> Women will shock men at the end of a date cause they don't want to go through the
> unpleasantness of telling the guy to buzz off and risk a bad response to the
> rejection.

  1. your taste in women really sucks, dude.
  2. what a load of shit
  3. beats being machine-gunned.

> Making the consequences of employing force high forces people to deal with a
> situation as well as they can FIRST without resorting to any force, whether it is
> lethal or non-lethal.

This assumes, once again, that people are always rational. When people are prepared to behave like adults, as I said, then sure, give em all tac nukes. But until then, I like the idea of a disarmed populace. It's a nice place to live.



"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and