[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Theosophical Aggression?

Jun 17, 1997 08:20 PM
by Jaqtarin Samantha Triele

When I first started going through the digests yesterday, I had to laugh a
little due to the large amount of sarcasm and finger-pointing, especially
with regards to the thread belonging largely to Lynn and Kym.  However, as
I read on, the thread seemed to turn into some kind of word-war.(Word War
I?)  Ouch.  Bad pun.  My spleen twitched a little.

Anyhow, let me see if I a) understand the thread, and b) have a few cents
to throw in to put us back on common ground.

It seems that this began due to a comparison of the Nazi gun-control and
U.S. gun-control.  IMHO, this is a well-founded argument with regards to
the steps that are being taken now compared to the steps that were taken
then.  However, I cannot agree that the circumstances are the same, and
perhaps not even the reason behind the action taken.

Paranoia in the United States is well-founded, for we have all seen the
injustices done to us by our government(s).  (I say governments(plural)
because of the different responsibilities that local, state, and federal
governments have with respect to each other.)  It is hard for U.S.
citizens to believe that the system is working FOR them, when history has
shown many acts against them.  However, to be fair, IMHO, the people
should give attention to all aspects of their proposed actions.

If what the government (and/or media) is telling us is true with regards
to their intent, then I can't argue with their ideas on the future results
of gun-control.  I have to admit that they probably know a lot more about
how societies react to change than I do.  If they have good intent, then
they probably have well-founded theories that prove gun-control to be
beneficial to society.  I once heard that the greatest enemy of truth is
consensus, but the source came from the "Church of the Subgenius" which,
despite their intelligence and ...interesting... views, is not a very
reliable source, IMO.  I believe that three heads are better than one, and
I'm sure that there are quite a few heads that get together to make
decisions on things that affect nations.  However, like I said, I can only
agree with myself on the above if the action is made with good intentions
and if the whole truth behind the action made is being given to the

On the other hand, paranoid as we are, we have to look at the flip side of
the coin.  What if we aren't being told the whole truth?  What if the
government IS trying to disarm us to make us vulnerable to an even greater
plan?  This is a definite possibility, and it deserves just as much
attention.  This, I think, is where the comparison arose regarding Nazi
and U.S. tactics.  The Nazis probably disarmed the German populous for one
reason.  They wanted to make them vulnerable.  Note that I said
"probably".  They may have had good reasons behind their gun control, and
when Hitler began his rise to leadership, the former reasons were lost and
the disarmed populous simply became a "Wow.  I'm glad we did that."

I think that Lynn and ...Paul?... are expressing two fears.  1) Even if
the U.S. has good intentions with gun control, what is to keep something
else from happening, for instance, another Hitler rising to power in the
American government, for which disarmament would only be the destruction
of the people.  Gun control might be fine with an honest government,
which we "kinda" have now, but governments can change overnight.  For
better or for worse.  Germany changed from a democracy to a dictatorship
because of the tactical genius of two or three men.  The former Soviet
Union changed from communism to democracy in less than a week(I
think), (and we still don't really know if the rebellion was such a great
idea...:-).)  Anyhow, if the former were to happen to us, and we were
unarmed, we would be lost, unable to defend ourselves.  And in a country
with so much cultural and racial diversity, a reoccurance of the Holocaust
would be the worst massacre the world has ever seen.

2)  The government may not even have good intentions.  Well, they are
probably good to them, but to us it may be different.  I guess what I am
trying to say is, the goverment may be hiding a lot from us regarding
their intent behind gun control.  It just might be that they are planning
something that they KNOW will be resisteed by the people, and they are
trying to lessen the potential threat of resistance by taking the guns
away.  If so, then we may have something to worry about.

With regards to the banter between Kym and Lynn, there really is no need
for it.  If you both enjoy the argument, then go ahead and argue, but
please make sure that you let each other know that there are no hard
feelings.  Lynn, I think you made it very clear in recent posts that you
aren't enjoying it too much *laugh*.  Back when I was a man, (hehe), I had
many conversations with both Kym and Leisel on sexism, and was rewarded
with responses very similar to the ones you are receiving from Kym.  I
took them in stride for everyone has their own ways of expressing their
opinions.  Some people have expressed themselves in a "debate format".  In
other words, they provided contradictory information in exchange for more
information.  Others don't provide much information, preferring to ask
questions in order to further understand their "opponent's" position
before taking a position themselves.  There are other forms, some just as
effective in approaching a conclusion and some not.  But the two I
described seem to be most efficient, despite the drawbacks of each one.
With regards to the former, two people could argue on and on about
something they both "essentially" agree with and the exchange of
information often leads away from the original argument.  The latter has a
drawback as well, which can often be worse than the former.  When a person
only asks questions, they are looked at as if they shouldn't be arguing
about it, because the opponent gets the feeling that the inquirer doesn't
know what (s)he is talking about.  Also, the opponent often feels that
they are being attacked rather than questioned.  This sometimes leads to
aggression between the two parties, and finger-pointing insues.  This is
very "Ick", IMHO (to use Kym's term).  However, if no one gets insulted,
which is usually the case as long as the inquirer is understood, the
inquirer will eventually have enough knowledge of her/his opponents stance
to make their own.  Both Kym and Liesel used the above format with me, and
I tried my best to state my views.  Unfortunately, I had to leave the list
for a while, and the thread never had the chance to conclude.  And now
that my views have changed, somewhat, on the subject, there really hasn't
been much of a need to bring it up again.

There is another drawback to the questioning format.  Because Kym and
Liesel's replies had been so blunt when they stated their contradiction, I
felt as though they just had an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude, and
that they didn't feel as if they had to explain themselves.  When I
started looking at other threads which they were involved in, I noticed
that eventually they DID give a farily detailed description of their
views, and provided some of the best arguments, IMHO, I've seen on the

One last thing, and I apologize for this post being so long.  All of us
have our moments when our posts give the impression that we live in our
own little world.  The limits of written correspondance are to blame for
that.  Sarcasm is hard to detect.  Not everyone can remember to add the
":)" at the end of a joke all the time.  Even the most open-minded person
in the world will be looked upon as a pompous ass if their written
expression isn't perfect.  If we keep these limits in mind, I think that
we will find a lot less aggression on the list.

With love,


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application