113 replies to this topic

[Christron]

Note: gentleman does NOT = pussy. It means he knows when it's appropriate to fight and when not to: Classy. (I hate the testosterone reaction.)

see

Newsflash: Not everything a guy does is to impress women. If you let one guy walk all over you, everyone will. No point in being a doormat.

I wouldn't call anyone who lets everyone shit on his pride a "gentleman"

Why should a 5,000+ year old way of life change? So some metrosexual douchefags can have their way? Eventually we'll all be lovers, not fighters, paving the way for some supreme, dominant species to take us over because we'll be in touch with our feminine side. Sorry, but I'd rather die a man than some metro, in touch with my feelings fag.

In order for there to be (your type) peaceful dosile men, you need alpha males with straight minds that are keeping jackasses from running around throwing wadded shit paper at people. Or if you look at it on a larger scale, trying to keep crime or maintain peace, our government even understands this... we do after all hire police and soldiers.

[AndrAIa]

In order for there to be (your type) peaceful dosile men, you need alpha males with straight minds that are keeping jackasses from running around throwing wadded shit paper at people. Or if you look at it on a larger scale, trying to keep crime or maintain peace, our government even understands this... we do after all hire police and soldiers.

Concession:

It is through reflection, contemplation and good judgement do we advance as a society. If violence is truly called for after having given it substantial consideration then let it be but, if you are getting in a fight with every dude that barks at you then that makes you impulsive and irrational. That is not the kind of person we'd want with their finger on the button (since we are now on the subject of who is to rule the world). I myself would prefer a leader who could discern between a situation in which restraint is called for and a situation in which a hard decision must be made.

Rebuttal:

Police have far less power than we give them credit and must always act within the very strict regulations they are given. Police officers (in most 1st world countries anyways) are hired to keep peace. An officer's first priority is to speak to the subject and if necessary detain them. Violence and weapons are always their LAST resort. Even if you are being arrested in a very hostile situation you'll find a cop will always give you directions as to what they want you to do, long before they force you to do it. I am not speaking of situations in which corruptions occur, however, as most people are unaware police forces are far less tolerant of corruption than sensationalist media would have you know.

As for soldiers: they are a last resort. The armed forces are only called in when it is absolutely necessary, or simply to oversee and ensure peaceful behaviour in a post-war zone. While soldiers are trained to kill, they are in fact trained to follow procedures to ensure that killing is absolutely necessary. Not following these procedures can lead to friendly fire or the death of an innocent. Violence in almost every situation overseen by the government is by a standard.. the LAST resort.

As for

I wouldn't call anyone who lets everyone shit on his pride a "gentleman"

I'd think that if the gentleman believed it was better not to fight, he wouldn't feel as if his pride was being "shit on" simply by ignoring someone.

[AndrAIa]

tl;dr need cliffs.

This is for you. Have a cookie.

[#CaMer0n]

there a group of chavs on my field now, might go fuck them up, show u bitches how its done

Also

CUTE

[cadetduke]

There's too many definitions of a gentleman. James Bond is a gentleman but he wouldn't hesitate to hit someone if they were out of line.

Plus:

In another sense, being a gentleman means treating others, especially women, in a respectful manner, and not taking advantage or pushing others into doing things they choose not to do. The exception, of course, is to push one into something they need to do for their own good, as in a visit to the hospital, or pursuing a dream one has suppressed.

Which could be beating the fuck out of a Chav

The main definition of a gentleman should be...

being a gentleman means treating others, especially women, in a respectful manner,

And that's only because it leads to more ass.

[Christron]

Concession:

Leaders have pride. A leader would have assesed a situation as simple as getting hit with a wad of toilet paper ON THE SPOT in order to maintain his pride.

Rebuttal:

Police have far less power than we give them credit and must always act within the very strict regulations they are given. Police officers (in most 1st world countries anyways) are hired to keep peace. An officer's first priority is to speak to the subject and if necessary detain them. Violence and weapons are always their LAST resort.

I think you're greatly underestimating the power and control the government has over it's people to keep them regulated (not that it's nessicarily a bad thing)

The point being, you can never out-asshole a cop. To whatever level you take it to, there are laws in order to provide reprocussions for anything you're doing out of line.

Even if you are being arrested in a very hostile situation you'll find a cop will always give you directions as to what they want you to do, long before they force you to do it. I am not speaking of situations in which corruptions occur, however, as most people are unaware police forces are far less tolerant of corruption than sensationalist media would have you know.

That's needless to say, I've experienced the wrath first hand of Houston police department. Cops and other civil servants all serve together to become the conglamorate alpha-male that does it's best to keep it's citizens from having to deal with the inconvenience that the "Chavs" of the world produce.

As for soldiers: they are a last resort. The armed forces are only called in when it is absolutely necessary, or simply to oversee and ensure peaceful behaviour in a post-war zone. While soldiers are trained to kill, they are in fact trained to follow procedures to ensure that killing is absolutely necessary. Not following these procedures can lead to friendly fire or the death of an innocent. Violence in almost every situation overseen by the government is by a standard.. the LAST resort.

Using soilders as an example was a bad idea on my part. I'm not much for politics and (even though it's a typical thing to say) wars are all based on hidden agendas... stemming from anything to the drop of a hat. Without question innocent bystandards are stripped of their lives and freedoms, i don't think that's a product of a stable minded alpha male.

I'd think that if the gentleman believed it was better not to fight, he wouldn't feel as if his pride was being "shit on" simply by ignoring someone.

As much as someone may be able to cover up the fact that something bothers them, there is no way a leader wouldn't take a hit to his pride by letting a nobody step on him. You can't be a leader without your people, and nobody is following you if you allow the world to step on you.

[some dude]

there a group of chavs on my field now, might go fuck them up, show u bitches how its done

Also

CUTE

curb stomp em?

[AndrAIa]

Leaders have pride. A leader would have assesed a situation as simple as getting hit with a wad of toilet paper ON THE SPOT in order to maintain his pride.

I won't disagree with you there. A good leader would certainly have assessed the situation but, I doubt "kicking his ass" would have been a proper choice. If these people decided to attack him physically than he would be left no choice but to fight back but, that is very different from being the first to bring violence into a situation where it is not necessary.

I think you're greatly underestimating the power and control the government has over it's people to keep them regulated (not that it's nessicarily a bad thing)

The point being, you can never out-asshole a cop. To whatever level you take it to, there are laws in order to provide reprocussions for anything you're doing out of line.

Before I say anything.. I did in fact note that you said, "not that it's necessarily a bad thing" (in reference to government regulations) so I understand that you aren't anti-government but, I suppose we have different views on the situation because of our experiences and perhaps because we come from two similar but, very different cultures. Canada runs it's people different from the US (especially lately) and there is an even bigger difference (I'd say) between a place like Texas and a place like Ontario.

However, ideally if you have a good cop he won't act on his own. Cops are essentially supposed to be robots of the system/law. They are sent out only to enforce the laws of the country/state/city/province. Cops are pawns and even if they seem like they have power.. they really don't. If they don't follow policy to the tit, a lawyer will eat them alive in court and the cop will probably lose his case and suffer at work for it. When you are dealing with a cop, you're really dealing with your country because cops don't have the choice to decide what's right and wrong: cops have the responsibility to figure out what is falling out of line.

Anyways, I wouldn't say you can't "out-asshole" a cop because if they are doing their job right, you should rarely be seeing their true personality. As before, I'm not speaking of corruption, as those cases are obviously unfair. Although, physically fighting a cop if he's not attacking you (when he is out of line) will only make your case look bad in court. Doing nothing (because you'll most likely lose in the end anyway--weapons, etc) will give you a stronger case.

That's needless to say, I've experienced the wrath first hand of Houston police department. Cops and other civil servants all serve together to become the conglamorate alpha-male that does it's best to keep it's citizens from having to deal with the inconvenience that the "Chavs" of the world produce.

I wouldn't call it so much of an "alpha male" just because it has the power. I'd say it is quite the step-up from having rash decisions controlled by hormones being made on the spot.

Using soilders as an example was a bad idea on my part. I'm not much for politics and (even though it's a typical thing to say) wars are all based on hidden agendas... stemming from anything to the drop of a hat. Without question innocent bystandards are stripped of their lives and freedoms, i don't think that's a product of a stable minded alpha male.

I'll agree with you when it comes to the USA but, I don't really feel as a Canadian that we have entered wars very often for anything very shady. It doesn't sound typical if it's the truth, btw. America is very broken but, I will stop myself there because I'll get in to a whole separate rant about how badly the world needs it to repair.

As much as someone may be able to cover up the fact that something bothers them, there is no way a leader wouldn't take a hit to his pride by letting a nobody step on him. You can't be a leader without your people, and nobody is following you if you allow the world to step on you.

Again, I don't disagree with you but, violence isn't the only way a leader can show that he has the upper-hand. I do believe people should stand up for themselves but, I think their decision to do so should be well thought out and violence shouldn't be considered as their first option.


I think some of you may be misunderstanding my stance. I'm not against doing something; I'm against doing something rash and harmful.

[Plasmic Fury]

Cool animals close up with a wide angel lense! <3

[Christron]

I won't disagree with you there. A good leader would certainly have assessed the situation but, I doubt "kicking his ass" would have been a proper choice. If these people decided to attack him physically than he would be left no choice but to fight back but, that is very different from being the first to bring violence into a situation where it is not necessary.

Unless you can think of a point of which you're going to back down, there's no way you can stand up for yourself without the chav trying to one up you. It would have eventually escalated into a fight. Because after all, that's what the chav was looking for in the first place. The only reason the chav didn't fight him is because he already got the satisfaction of crippling our comrade's self esteem.

Before I say anything.. I did in fact note that you said, "not that it's necessarily a bad thing" (in reference to government regulations) so I understand that you aren't anti-government but, I suppose we have different views on the situation because of our experiences and perhaps because we come from two similar but, very different cultures. Canada runs it's people different from the US (especially lately) and there is an even bigger difference (I'd say) between a place like Texas and a place like Ontario.

Well i'm not all "wwoo anarchy man" because i (thankfully) got past the "teenage angst" stage of my life and understand the reason governments and laws exist. Most people that are screaming for anarchy would be the first ones dead if it ever happened. I put religions and governments in the same light, their hearts started in the right place, but when they surrounded themselves with corrupt people and access to money... they lost sight of what the foundation's intentions were. We could argue either endlessly, but it would be to the enjoyment of our own voices.

However, ideally if you have a good cop he won't act on his own. Cops are essentially supposed to be robots of the system/law. They are sent out only to enforce the laws of the country/state/city/province. Cops are pawns and even if they seem like they have power.. they really don't. If they don't follow policy to the tit, a lawyer will eat them alive in court and the cop will probably lose his case and suffer at work for it. When you are dealing with a cop, you're really dealing with your country because cops don't have the choice to decide what's right and wrong: cops have the responsibility to figure out what is falling out of line.

i was using the cops as more of an analogy, or to say they're just the shoes the giant (government) alpha male. They're disposable and do the dirty work. It's important that we have a system in place to monitor what they do, or they'd be just as corrupt as the church. Then we have lawyers to check lawyers to check lawyers X infinity all the way into politics... all together working to make sure it's people are safe (and maybe a little too safe if you ask me..). It's gotten to a level that it'll be against the law to have your shoes untied.

Anyways, I wouldn't say you can't "out-asshole" a cop because if they are doing their job right, you should rarely be seeing their true personality. As before, I'm not speaking of corruption, as those cases are obviously unfair. Although, physically fighting a cop if he's not attacking you (when he is out of line) will only make your case look bad in court. Doing nothing (because you'll most likely lose in the end anyway--weapons, etc) will give you a stronger case.

By out-assholing a cop, i meant to a point of resisting arrest b/c you don't happen to agree with a simple rule in the system. I've never met a cop in Houston or New Orleans that i couldn't pick up how shitty of a day/life they were having up until the point they ran into me and how it was going to affect my day/life. They still do their jobs, but if they're trying to reach quota at the end of the month.. they'll find something Jesus is doing illegally. They're still people, a percentage of people are assholes, and that percentage of people become American cops.

I'd say it is quite the step-up from having rash decisions controlled by hormones being made on the spot.

You can't look at it operating like a machine when people are behind the wheel. People act based on blind anger. We are, after all, still in the middle of a war.

I'll agree with you when it comes to the USA but, I don't really feel as a Canadian that we have entered wars very often for anything very shady. It doesn't sound typical if it's the truth, btw. America is very broken but, I will stop myself there because I'll get in to a whole separate rant about how badly the world needs it to repair.

I just got back from Canada (where i was born) a few weeks ago. It's mind blowing how secure and safe everything seems up there. I don't know about every area, but after being to Toronto, Alberta, Edmonton, Red Deer, Nanaimo.. pretty much everywhere seems like there's a blanket of security over you, like somewhere you can let your guard down and give your guns a rest

Again, I don't disagree with you but, violence isn't the only way a leader can show that he has the upper-hand. I do believe people should stand up for themselves but, I think their decision to do so should be well thought out and violence shouldn't be considered as their first option.

I think some of you may be misunderstanding my stance. I'm not against doing something; I'm against doing something rash and harmful.

I'm going to group this in with my first statement.

[way2lazy2care]

I didn't read the last page, but if it's like the beginning, there's a disturbing lack of hitler in this thread...

[TheShadowNinja]

I didn't read the last page, but if it's like the beginning, there's a disturbing lack of hitler in this thread...

Fix'd