Happy Easter.

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well isnt that ironic then??That the nations that have high tech,high industriousness,and a serious work ethic have serious superirority complexes,[somthing we Irish tried to grow here in the Celtic tiger time]
are the least helpful to each other as individuals.

Er that's not what the report said at all. It said that Japan and only Japan has traditionally low levels of volunteerism. Despite which the Japanese acted the exact same way as everyone else in an emergency and helped one another. I've no idea where you're getting the rest from.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You can say it as much as you like ,post reams of reports and whatever.It wont change my mind..Sorry!:D

Well that's your decision.

It will significantly lower your chances of surviving in a serious emergency mind you, which is what I've been trying to get across since probably day one, but its entirely up to yourself, as long as others are aware what you're saying is wrong.

bonniebede

Well gentlemen, that was all very interesting, thank you fo taking the trouble to post.

Let me take this inquiry onto a different tack.

If one presumes that something dire will happen, like the potato famine, for example, but that it may not happen to every generation, what essential skills do you make sure your kids have, (or your friends kids) and how do you go about teaching them?

Seems to me one should have a list, just like a bob, of essential skills for my descendants to have just in case....

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

[will significantly lower your chances of surviving in a serious emergency mind you, which is what I've been trying to get across since probably day one, but its entirely up to yourself, as long as others are aware what you're saying is wrong.

Just so long as they understand too,that what you are claiming to the contary,mightnt happen to them either,and that there are no God given 100% certentaties in a survival situation either.

Anyways moving on...
skills and teaching your kids.Well TBH,not having any kids,or wanting any for that matter and seeing that most of my friends kids have about as much intrest in the outdoors as Kim Jong has in our household tax....
I'm out of this one!:pac:

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just so long as they understand too,that what you are claiming to the contary,mightnt happen

Its not just me claiming it, it's professionals whose job it is to know and study over many years how populations react in large scale emergencies, and it seems pretty clear to me what their conclusions are, even if they might never have watched the Simpsons.

Even if you don't manage to antagonise the people nearby into violent action against you sooner or later, the bottom line is that you're deliberately cutting yourself off from the greatest resource anyone has - the people around them, which is what I've been saying from the start. That was more my gut feeling but now I've put the effort in and researched it I'm encouraged to find I was correct.

You can make your own decisions on what you want to do of course but its not right that you broadcast ideas which will put others at risk if they try and follow them, especially those who come here to learn. These ideas have more foundation in entertainment media and the kind of paranoid delusion the US survivalist scene is rife with than reality.

I respect your skills and knowledge a lot Grizz but not accepting the realities of the world is a shortcut to becoming a statistic, we both know that, so maybe an adjustment in your plans and outlook might be in order.

bonniebede wrote: »

Well gentlemen, that was all very interesting, thank you fo taking the trouble to post.

Nice try!

bonniebede wrote: »

If one presumes that something dire will happen, like the potato famine, for example, but that it may not happen to every generation, what essential skills do you make sure your kids have, (or your friends kids) and how do you go about teaching them?

I'd say being able to live with the land and more importantly being comfortable with that is important. Planning, foresight, basic rules, it doesn't take much really. Swimming, number one with a bullet. Self defence, like Judo ground fighting combined with a more contact related sport is always a good investment. Social skills, vital, first aid, its not a long list. If you want a holiday in Eastern Europe you can always schedule some firearms training as well. How to drive everything would also be handy.

bonniebede

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

not having any kids,or wanting any for that matter and seeing that most of my friends kids have about as much intrest in the outdoors as Kim Jong has in our household tax....
I'm out of this one!:pac:

I don't have any myself, and think from a preppers point of view that is fairly disastrous, except that i have good bonds with families with, so see myself as contributing to their preparedness and survival potential, and look to reap some benefits from doing so.

You gotta love kids, they learn fast, adapt even faster, look after you in your old age, and do great on with a barbecue:D

Grizzly 45

Doc,
With all due respects ,I think you have belaboured your point now to the a point of obsession to win the arguement!!You are not 100%right either in this situation.

Quite frankly,I think it is also very dangerous for you and all these experts to suggest that from "studying" these disasters by whatever methods,proably by sitting behind a desk in a university somplace that people who come here to learn will be left with an impression that somone in authorithy or out of charity or human goodwill will help them if things go badly wrong..Unless you are in a survival situation that NONE of us can predict we might end up in be they an expert with a load of letters behind their names or humble ol me.

You will have to go with whatever happens.And to assure everyone that dont worry you can rely on your fellow mans charity and all will be well is in my humble opinion very naive.One of the rules and attributes of a survivalist is to be able to absorb information from all sides and then make an informed and if need be very tough decisions to ensure thewir own and fammlies survival.
Trying to bludegon down a differing POV by demeaning it or belittling it or your opponent is not doing the opposing POV any favours.

You are coming across that only YOUR POV on this issue is the genuine 100% correct in all situations and you boke no contradictions.That Doc is not how things work in this life!Least of all in a democracy.

.Sorry,I'm going on what I have, and my family have experianced in their history in survival situations and it contradicts 100% everything you and these reports have espoused!That is the "realities" as I see them,good bad or indifferent.
Sorry if you disagree but those are the FACTS as I see them!!Now you can try and put my POV down by belittling it and me, and going off on a tangent or being demeaning with the usual anti US survivalist smart arse comments but it doesnt change my mind or what I have experianced.

So lets just give it a rest OK?I think we have both made our points and this is not going any further,and I'm sure we are starting to bore the **** out of everyone here,again!

I don't have any myself, and think from a preppers point of view that is fairly disastrous

Why do you think that Bonnie??

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

With all due respects ,I think you have belaboured your point now to the a point of obsession to win the arguement!!

The argument was only going round in circles till I came across that report, at which point the argument was over.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Quite frankly,I think it is also very dangerous for you and all these experts to suggest that from "studying" these disasters by whatever methods,proably by sitting behind a desk in a university somplace that people who come here to learn will be left with an impression that somone in authorithy or out of charity or human goodwill will help them if things go badly wrong..Unless you are in a survival situation that NONE of us can predict we might end up in be they an expert with a load of letters behind their names or humble ol me.

Yeah that works great if you're talking about the finer manual points of carpentry or plumbing, not so much if you're talking about demonstrably observed social trends from reputable sources. It doesn't matter if researchers weren't in the riots themselves (and they may have been), they have vast quantities of reliable eyewitness accounts on hand among many other sources. There's nothing subtle about disasters, so the suede-elbowed-tweed-jacketed guy thing doesn't really fly here.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You will have to go with whatever happens.And to assure everyone that dont worry you can rely on your fellow mans charity and all will be well is in my humble opinion very naive.One of the rules and attributes of a survivalist is to be able to absorb information from all sides and then make an informed and if need be very tough decisions to ensure thewir own and fammlies survival.

But sure the report even covered that. Basically the upshot was that if you're in a severely economically deprived or normally dangerous area, it will probably get worse for a short while, in limited ways. Otherwise, people stand up and look after one another.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Trying to bludegon down a differing POV by demeaning it or belittling it or your opponent is not doing the opposing POV any favours.

See here's why we have disagreements. My preference is to work from the best available information, and when that goes contrary to the received wisdom from people like US survivalists, you take it as a personal affront. Its not. Admittedly I do shoot from the hip at times but I'm often as near the mark as makes no difference even then. There comes a point when you have to realise its not about you, but about the reality.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.Sorry,I'm going on what I have, and my family have experianced in their history in survival situations and it contradicts 100% everything you and these reports have espoused!That is the "realities" as I see them,good bad or indifferent.

You don't have the right to completely discard good solid research in favour of your opinion when peoples' lives might be on the line over it some day. Well you can, but if you start broadcasting it its only responsible to pull you up on it.

You have got bad information. My recommendation is to update your strategy based on new and better information. Do it or not, no skin off my nose.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So lets just give it a rest OK?I think we have both made our points and this is not going any further,and I'm sure we are starting to bore the **** out of everyone here,again!

Nobody's being forced to read this thread, which to my mind at least has brought us to a useful conclusion.

FrostyJack

This thread has become confusing. From my interputation of what has been said (I could be wrong), if you have a stock pile (or supply of food) it is unlikely people will take it if you look hard or because people in a crisis they stick together, Grizzly is saying you may have to use force to defend your supplies and it is better to be the grey man and stay out of the lime light (again I could be wrong). The looking hard part may do well dealing with scobes and people looking for an easy fight, but in reality a pack of hungry dogs can take down a lion, and in dire situations you will be best not to have to prove yourself. As for people coming together in tough times this is mainly true but as stated even in said reports they say "violence will be rare, looting will appear only under exceptional circumstances". This means it does happen, and to play the percentages you should expect the worst. It doesn't mean you set claymores around your house or shoot anyone who looks sideways at you but you should be aware that it is a risk.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

This thread has become confusing. From my interputation of what has been said (I could be wrong), if you have a stock pile (or supply of food) it is unlikely people will take it if you look hard or because people in a crisis they stick together, Grizzly is saying you may have to use force to defend your supplies and it is better to be the grey man and stay out of the lime light (again I could be wrong). The looking hard part may do well dealing with scobes and people looking for an easy fight, but in reality a pack of hungry dogs can take down a lion, and in dire situations you will be best not to have to prove yourself. As for people coming together in tough times this is mainly true but as stated even in said reports they say "violence will be rare, looting will appear only under exceptional circumstances". This means it does happen, and to play the percentages you should expect the worst. It doesn't mean you set claymores around your house or shoot anyone who looks sideways at you but you should be aware that it is a risk.

To boil it down Grizz believes everyone will turn on one another and resort to biblical scale murder and violence in the event of a major catastrophe, cats and dogs living together, every man for himself, the devil take the hindmost, and has formed his philosophy on that basis.

My perspective is that people will by and large help one another and support each other almost immediately, which as it turns out is the reality as supported by the research linked earlier. This then should inform one's post-cataclysm strategy, ie not sitting in a bunker.

Turns out the woolly headed optimistic view is actually right here after all. So that's why I'd advocate altruism, which was the original question.

Although of course wear a seatbelt while driving.

baords dyslexic

Me, I think altruism is great - provided my stash of food is well hidden.

Doc Ruby

baords dyslexic wrote: »

Me, I think altruism is great - provided my stash of food is well hidden.

Sure, you're not helping anyone if you starve to death yourself. Its a wider philosophical issue though that I think the stateside survivalist movement has gotten backwards.

Just on the initimidating look thing again, to illustrate what I mean, I recall reading about a well known bodybuilder who when asked why he got into bodybuilding as a skinny, lanky youth, said "I had a choice between weightlifting and learning martial arts - the difference was that while you can look after yourself with martial arts, as a weightlifter nobody comes near you in the first place". An ounce of prevention and all that. Not to say you should have the mad max outfit shrink wrapped in the boot of your 1973 XB GT Ford Falcon Coupe as part of your bug out kit, but subtle cues go a long way.

Still, no reason you can't learn martial arts too.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

To boil it down Grizz believes everyone will turn on one another and resort to biblical scale murder and violence in the event of a major catastrophe, cats and dogs living together, every man for himself, the devil take the hindmost, and has formed his philosophy on that basis.

Again I could be wrong but I don't think that is what he is trying to say.

While compassion is laudable,you are going to have to ask yourself where does it stop before it starts taking you and yours over??The best scenario I ever saw of this was on the Simpsons[You can learn alot about life from them!] in an episode called "Barts comet"
Ned Flanders in good christian tradition allows all of Springfield into his bunker to survive an oncoming comet,in the end the place is overrun,and Ned and family are booted out of their own bunker!!
Simply put if it is a serious TEOTWAWKI situation, all bets will be off,and even if you have enough supplies to share for a limited time,whats to say somone doesnt demand and take by force ALL of your stuff.People will start acting very weird when they are under stress,and I'd be reluctant to let anyone know I have more than enough of anything to share.Its too risky.

He is saying don't let everyone know you have it or eventually lose it like Ned did. This is a very real scenerio (and a good episode ), rule number 1 is not to reveal what you have, the green monster will put a bulls eye on your back and decrease your survial. He did say in a "serious TEOTWAWKI" also not the lights going out for a week. I won't put any more words in his mouth.

If you see a starving kid outside your house of course you should do what you can, but don't go out with a sack of food and give him some, he now knows you have extra food, what will do when the rest of his family come back with their hands out? You can be altruistic as long as you use your head. One answer I just thought of while typing this is to stash some supplies somewhere and leave a note where the kid can find it. This way you are not exposed and the kid is fed

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

I won't put any more words in his mouth.

Its not the first time myself and Grizz have had this discussion, but I'd say the matter is fairly settled at this stage. Without looking at the context of the discussion its pointless picking out individual sentences. I have said several times that you do need to be reasonable with your altruism though.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Just on the initimidating look thing again, to illustrate what I mean, I recall reading about a well known bodybuilder who when asked why he got into bodybuilding as a skinny, lanky youth, said "I had a choice between weightlifting and learning martial arts - the difference was that while you can look after yourself with martial arts, as a weightlifter nobody comes near you in the first place". An ounce of prevention and all that. Not to say you should have the mad max outfit shrink wrapped in the boot of your 1973 XB GT Ford Falcon Coupe as part of your bug out kit, but subtle cues go a long way.

I almost totally disagree with this, this is all show and no go. In a nice healthy Western society, body building is all well and good, but when food is short how do you keep up all that extra muscle. Secondly you may have to travel great distances, that is more muscle to carry and f all cardio to carry you. You rarely see body builder bodies in the likes of the special forces. Thirdly you are setting yourself up to fail, being built like Arnie means nothing if someone has a weapon of some kind, you are basically bluffing. Learning to fight is more important, even some crappy martial art like Taekwando will give you some grounding should the worst happen, but it is better again not to be in the situation were you could have to fight. Rarely anyone bothers the grey man but the poser strutting himself up the street draws attention.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

The looking hard part may do well dealing with scobes and people looking for an easy fight, but in reality a pack of hungry dogs can take down a lion, and in dire situations you will be best not to have to prove yourself.

Just a valuable resource on that topic I may start a new thread on:

At the extreme end of our jockeying for social dominance is the threat display. To inexperienced or emotionally insecure the threat display looks like the fast lane to violence. As far as they are concerned, once you get into the threat display murder and mayhem is just around the corner. Their panicked monkey brain is convinced the end of the world is near.

When in fact, threat displays are how we AVOID engaging in violence. Both within our group and with other groups.

It is only when the threat displays fail that things can become violent. Not will, but can. Threat display is a very complex subject. One that is utterly ignored by martial arts training and turned into a macho parody by most reality based self-defense groups.

I'd recommend everyone take a weekend and read that whole site top to bottom. It's chilling in many places but if you want the real inside track on violence away from fantastical movie nonsense look no further.

FrostyJack wrote: »

I almost totally disagree with this, this is all show and no go. In a nice healthy Western society, body building is all well and good, but when food is short how do you keep up all that extra muscle. Secondly you may have to travel great distances, that is more muscle to carry and f all cardio to carry you. You rarely see body builder bodies in the likes of the special forces. Thirdly you are setting yourself up to fail, being built like Arnie means nothing if someone has a weapon of some kind, you are basically bluffing. Learning to fight is more important, even some crappy martial art like Taekwando will give you some grounding should the worst happen, but it is better again not to be in the situation were you could have to fight. Rarely anyone bothers the grey man but the poser strutting himself up the street draws attention.

Tis an example to illustrate the point.

Bit more here.

Let's take this from a general idea and get more specific. No one would deny that the President of the United States is a powerful man. But, in a dark alley, a street thug would rob the President just as fast as anyone else. Whereas, a member of a motorcycle gang could walk through that same alley with impunity. The reason for this is that in the world of the mugger, the power and status signals of the biker are recognizable, the President would just be another guy in a suit.

FrostyJack

I will have a look at the site when I get a chance. Do you dress like a biker when going to the shops? Or in a suit when going up dark laneways? It is a kind of a strawman argument. What could you dress up as in Ireland that would invoke respect/fear from someone? Anyone dressed as a biker in Ireland would not invoke fear, they one look like a village people member. wear full combat bdu ? The best way to dress is like a hoodie and blend in, not stand out.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

I will have a look at the site when I get a chance. Do you dress like a biker when going to the shops? Or in a suit when going up dark laneways? It is a kind of a strawman argument. What could you dress up as in Ireland that would invoke respect/fear from someone? Anyone dressed as a biker in Ireland would not invoke fear, they one look like a village people member. wear full combat bdu ? The best way to dress is like a hoodie and blend in, not stand out.

I already mentioned clearly that I would reserve this approach for serious emergency situations, and that you wouldn't remark on me if you passed me in the street normally. Also on a side note, if you had much experience with Irish bikers you'd know they are not the people with whom to fuck. Do read up on that site though, its quite illuminating in many ways.

FrostyJack

I am only taking about in a serious situation too. I cannot think of anything someone could dress up as to intimidate a group in Ireland. I have lots of experience with bikers in Ireland, the vast majority are just a social group not Sons Of Anarchy. there are more badasses playing league of Ireland football than bikers yet someone in a Bohs jersey wouldn't intimidate me (except the fact they could be a northsider). If I a scumbag and I was in a gang and I saw someone dressed up like Mr T, with tons of jewelry and a tank top, I would go "don't go near that guy he looks like Mr T and he was a badass". Where as a guy going by looking like me I probably wouldnt notice. another thought to consider while dressing up, what happens if you bump into say a real biker gang. Your odds of getting hurt go up a million percent were as a civilian just could walk by.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

I am only taking about in a serious situation too. I cannot think of anything someone could dress up as to intimidate a group in Ireland. I have lots of experience with bikers in Ireland, the vast majority are just a social group not Sons Of Anarchy. there are more badasses playing league of Ireland football than bikers yet someone in a Bohs jersey wouldn't intimidate me (except the fact they could be a northsider). If I a scumbag and I was in a gang and I saw someone dressed up like Mr T, with tons of jewelry and a tank top, I would go "don't go near that guy he looks like Mr T and he was a badass". Where as a guy going by looking like me I probably wouldnt notice. another thought to consider while dressing up, what happens if you bump into say a real biker gang. Your odds of getting hurt go up a million percent were as a civilian just could walk by.

Okay, go ahead and read that website and get back to me. Keep in mind that at no point did I advise dressing up as a biker, on the contrary I made fun of the idea. Although if you got on the wrong side of the likes of the Border Lords, who you aren't likely to find on google, you'd be singing a different tune, believe me, which to my mind means you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I'm referring to a purely psychological gambit which has consistently proven effective, as supported by that website you have yet to read.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

FrostyJack wrote: »

I am only taking about in a serious situation too. I cannot think of anything someone could dress up as to intimidate a group in Ireland. I have lots of experience with bikers in Ireland, the vast majority are just a social group not Sons Of Anarchy. there are more badasses playing league of Ireland football than bikers yet someone in a Bohs jersey wouldn't intimidate me (except the fact they could be a northsider). If I a scumbag and I was in a gang and I saw someone dressed up like Mr T, with tons of jewelry and a tank top, I would go "don't go near that guy he looks like Mr T and he was a badass". Where as a guy going by looking like me I probably wouldnt notice. another thought to consider while dressing up, what happens if you bump into say a real biker gang. Your odds of getting hurt go up a million percent were as a civilian just could walk by.

Okay, go ahead and read that website and get back to me. Keep in mind that at no point did I advise dressing up as a biker, on the contrary I made fun of the idea. Although if you got on the wrong side of the likes of the Border Lords, who you aren't likely to find on google, you'd be singing a different tune, believe me, which to my mind means you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I'm referring to a purely psychological gambit which has consistently proven effective, as supported by that website you have yet to read.

I you read my post you would see I said the vast majority not there were none. Supported by a website? Im convinced. I read the home page and it read like American infomercial for an instructional self defence series. Will read further.

bonniebede

THanks,Gris,DOc, Frosty, for something interesting to read over breakfast.

i can't be sure of course, from a boards posting, but y'all read very male to me.
I would suggest that the gender differences between men and women come into this quite a bit.

As I read it, men are more given to power/threat displays which don't lead to violence for the simple reason that there is a purpose to it... to impress the ladies, or to settle differences about which ladies they have access to. For that reason young men mock-fight much more than young women, because mock-fighting is part of the skills they need as an adult, where questions of dominance need to be settled, hopefully without full scale bloodshed which leaves the whole group a man down.

Hence men will have more elaborate and ritualistic methods of posing, for want of a better word.

Women have a different approach. We concentrate on attracting the right man and then make sure he puts himself between us and our children and whatever looming danger there is. Women will fight of course, but our instinct is that when we are fighting it is absolutely scorched earth time because we are fighting for the survival of our children. the female of the species is more deadlier than the male.:D

So here is the summary of my policy.
1. Be as helpful to everyone as possible. This means learning as many skills and as much useful knowledge as possible, becasue when it all goes down, I will be able to give this away in unlimited amounts without in anyway diminishing my store of it.
2. Learn from everyone I can. For example I think both griz and Doc have valid points, but also i expect to meet people with both points of view. Seeing them spelled out here helps me think about approaches i might adopt to different types of people on the day. Not to mention all the people on this board who just know gazillions more than me about, well just about everything.
3. Stockpile enough food to get me and mine through to first harvest in the event of an event which throws us back on our own resources. THe mine bit of that includes everyone in my circle, some family and some not, whom I would willingly starve to death for. I'd love to say that was everyone in the world, but its not, and I know if I was really sarving it would be a very small group indeed. Sheesh, I find it hard to fast on a friday, for goodness sake.
4. Accumulate resouces to get me to first harvest. That includes seed, knowledge,skills and land. Also resources for food preservation. And seed saving and other methods of cultivation. Throw in wild food foraging,hunting and fishing. And somewhere I would even like to do a bit of small animal husbandry.
5. Security. This is now, and always will be, my responsibility. While I appreciate that at the moment the resources of a forensic pathologist are available to me, or rather my family, to help catch the culprit in the event of my murder, I would still much rather be skilled at self defence and not be dead. My go to upskill list is a)get fitter (run, forest run) b)learn something like krav maga c)learn how not to make myself a target (there are useful ways for women to behave at night etc which reduces their risks d) pay attention to home security without paranoia, and getting equipped for self defence.
6. Security changes after the day, if it all broke down, would involve...first hide... yourself, your stuff, your group. Some of the nastiness will burn itself out. After ninety days in a massive die off situation most people will have, well, died off. Hence planning should allow a period of time when hiding not planting is the main activity, which increases ones estimated time to harvest.
Second be ready to defend. I am willing to help where I can, as above, but where someone is ready to attack (loot steal whatever my stuff) then I would be willing to defend with extreme prejudice. But only that stuff which is truly indispensable. And I would make sure all the women in our group had read and understood the story of Judith.
7. One has to estimate the type of disaster one is prepping for.
In a plague situation, the survivors have an abundance of resources because of the reduction of population, hence there will be no murderous competition, and a very strong drive to bond and build communities again.
In a situation which suddenly has a reduction in resources (I find that harder to imagine) one knows there will be a nasty die off period, so the hide strategy comes to the fore. But eventually the survivors will be of two types... others who like you hunkered down , got through and are now busy planting. THey shouldn't present any threat to a reasonable and willing to be friendly group. Or the roving predatory types who survived. I can think of only one reasonable response to them.But I might be prejudiced.Extremely.
Or possibly a group where the predatory types have acquired themselves a slave or feudal group, with themselves at the top. and with an expansionary mindset. Once you encounter that, you know civilisation has returned to business as usual. I might go into business as an herbal apothecary. Yew tea, anyone?
8. A more grim and unfortunately reaslistc scenario is one where resouce shortage comes on more slowly, and things decay more gradually, as has happened in many places around the world. Violence goes up, available resources go down. To my mind the response is twofold, learn how to live as a self sufficient farmer and beef up your self defence and security measures.
9. Be smart about surviving the sort of thing that happens all the time. House fires. Car accidents. Food poisoning. Heart attack. Ready for them?

Have a nice day:)

bonniebede

From a personal point of view:
People get old.
Well trained children take care of their old folks.
Not having children means you don't get cared for.

From a societal point of view:
Single men without children are more likely than any other category of people to be violent.
Civilisation passes by way of the family.

Doc Ruby

bonniebede wrote: »

As I read it, men are more given to power/threat displays which don't lead to violence for the simple reason that there is a purpose to it... to impress the ladies, or to settle differences about which ladies they have access to. For that reason young men mock-fight much more than young women, because mock-fighting is part of the skills they need as an adult, where questions of dominance need to be settled, hopefully without full scale bloodshed which leaves the whole group a man down.

While Marc does go over the various kinds of threat display on his site, he wasn't specific as the gender, being mainly gender neutral in his text, although fact he has a few words to say about violence from women as well!

bonniebede wrote: »

Women have a different approach. We concentrate on attracting the right man and then make sure he puts himself between us and our children and whatever looming danger there is. Women will fight of course, but our instinct is that when we are fighting it is absolutely scorched earth time because we are fighting for the survival of our children. the female of the species is more deadlier than the male.:D

A century and a half of suffragettes wince. Do you think that modern technology has levelled out the differences in western gender roles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mmKDQKjNCA

I say western because eastern roles while superficially similar are quite a bit different, with women working on construction sites and as warriors for quite a while. I'd be wary of generalisations that involve half the species, as a rule. My own opinion is that gender/breeding mean much less than training and environment - a dog will act the same way instinctively whether trained or not, breeding matters for dogs. A human raised by wild animals will be a very different creature to one raised by the best minds on earth, and I'd extend that concept to gender unless you're talking about actual wrestling matches.

I think gender roles might reverse to the earlier western standard. They might not however, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. It all depends on a wide variety of factors, I don't think such behaviour is hardwired though.

bonniebede wrote: »

Well trained children take care of their old folks.
Not having children means you don't get cared for.

Basically this is the exact same pension plan as used by many, many people in developing countries whogo through survival situations every day. And it works! So definetely.

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

To boil it down Grizz believes everyone will turn on one another and resort to biblical scale murder and violence in the event of a major catastrophe, cats and dogs living together, every man for himself, the devil take the hindmost, and has formed his philosophy on that basis.

No he doesnt and thats an ASSumption on your part Doc.

Second ASSumption is that I am a "Burt Gummer" type survivalist sitting in a bunker locked and loaded ready to fight it out or start gunning down people like its open season on ducks.

Third ASSumption is that you are relying on academic study wether from real world experiance or table top exercises from reports on or whatever by academics ,that your view is wholly,utterlly and totally right and that in any given survival situation with X to the power of ten variations a certain response is to be expected by a given group of people.
CERTAINLY there will be individual acts of altruisim,but dont expect it as a whole and to base an entire strategy on it is I think foolish.

Fourth ASSumption and proably your most fatal Doc if you dont mind me saying so.. is the ASSumption that you are always right!!:)

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

.Also on a side note, if you had much experience with Irish bikers you'd know they are not the people with whom to fuck.

Hmmm,I know four lads from the Road Tramps in Limerick [one of the 1% "nasty" groups in Ireland] and half of a local normal bike club
The normal club hold down better paying jobs than I do and are about as scary as my local doctor,accountant,or plumber.Of which all three professions are in the membership

The Road Tramps ,one of them is a well known local shooter and gun range operator.So to get to that privilige of both with firearms would require a large amout of law abidingness.As knowing our local law enforcement they can refuse you a liscense on any grounds..Like associating with a criminal/subversive gang.

By and large we dont have the Hells Angles,Banditos,or any international biker groups with criminal pasts operating in the South...Yet.

Those are the kind you dont **** with,but then again unless you are buying dope or meth and try and burn them on the deal.Or you are a patched club having abit of turf war with another group about somthing
Or are DISSING their bike or lifestyle as an idiot at a rally or their clubhouse.Which is just plain bad manners...Why would you need to fear bikers here in Ireland??

Grizzly 45

Single men without children are more likely than any other category of people to be violent.

OMG...Bonnie I wouldnt have put you in the female chauvinist[or whatever the female word is] sow category.You dissapoint me on both that untrue statement and on evidence in society.

Well thats me screwed then!!:D
I have NIL intrest in children in any shape or form and prefer them in the extreme abstract.Nor any intrest in producing any offspring either..

When I get too old and not much use to myself or others..Well,that what 9mms are for!!:D:D

Doc Ruby

Ah now you're getting rowdy at this stage Grizz, its your threat display that would participate in escalating an otherwise cordial discussion into a flamewar, all because something you believe in fundamentally has been proven wrong.

Lets look at this for a moment:

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Second ASSumption is that I am a "Burt Gummer" type survivalist sitting in a bunker locked and loaded ready to fight it out or start gunning down people like its open season on ducks.

On the contrary, I said you had probably been fed lots of delusional information by these types, not that you were one.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

No he doesnt and thats an ASSumption on your part Doc.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Third ASSumption is that you are relying on academic study wether from real world experiance or table top exercises from reports on or whatever by academics ,that your view is wholly,utterlly and totally right and that in any given survival situation with X to the power of ten variations a certain response is to be expected by a given group of people.
CERTAINLY there will be individual acts of altruisim,but dont expect it as a whole and to base an entire strategy on it is I think foolish.

Now these two statements contradict one another. You either think people will mostly help one another, or you don't. You don't, but unfortunately for your worldview, you're quite wrong.

And just to go into the latter comment, if you don't like the products of academic work you may as well turn off the internet, hand in the keys to your car, and go live with the Amish, because that's all the product of academic work as well. It beats me how someone can sneer at academia when it doesn't suit them, while enjoying the results of academic work. The subtext that a "real man" would have no truck with such doings is particularly funny.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Fourth ASSumption and proably your most fatal Doc if you dont mind me saying so.. is the ASSumption that you are always right!!:)

Like most people Grizz, of course I assume I am right, up until I am proven wrong. Maybe you could take a lesson or two from that point of view.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

On the contrary, I said you had probably been fed lots of delusional information by these types, not that you were one.

No you didn't, you said:

To boil it down Grizz believes everyone will turn on one another and resort to biblical scale murder and violence in the event of a major catastrophe, cats and dogs living together, every man for himself, the devil take the hindmost, and has formed his philosophy on that basis.

Like most people Grizz, of course I assume I am right, up until I am proven wrong. Maybe you could take a lesson or two from that point of view.

You have proved nothing, you have only shown one or 2 reports and even they say it could happen. "The civic breakdown we've seen in New Orleans is extremely atypical", atypical not cannot happen. Look at the London and LA riots recently? Lot's of aulturism there. I was only watching a program about China the other day from Niall Ferguson, he was talking about the famine during the "Great Leap forward" in the 60's and how, as an example, one couple boiled their 8 year old son and ate him. These things happen, I don't expect the gangs from Mad Max going around but I will bet anything on if the shtf and your next door neighbours 6 year daughter is about to die of starvation and he knows you have food, you are going down.

There was a tread a while ago you should read (if you haven't all ready) it deals with realities from people on the ground not sound bites. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75435943

Also I read some of that website, most of the stuff is common sense but I gave up after every 3 sentences he says he is a badass or he would normally kill someone in that situation or people coward from him as he walked into a room. People like that are normally full of crap, there are enough things out there from people who can actually fight and don't have to tell you every 3 minutes. An other example of a guy like that is Ken Shamrock, he went on the exact same way and everytime he got his ass handed to him he would say "the rules were changed the last minute", "the weather was too cold" or "the crowd was too loud" etc etc The moral of the story is don't believe everything you read and try to talk to actual people who have experienced stuff without bravado or ego.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

No you didn't, you said:

Seriously, don't take my words out of context again and let myself and Grizz have our discussion. Also don't waste my time arguing for the sake of arguing, especially if you obviously haven't bothered to give any of the participants in the thread the basic respect of actually reading the thread.

FrostyJack wrote: »

You have proved nothing, you have only shown one or 2 reports and even they say it could happen. "The civic breakdown we've seen in New Orleans is extremely atypical", atypical not cannot happen.

Which is funnily enough what I've been saying. To you, in fact. And they most certainly do prove my point.

FrostyJack wrote: »

There was a tread a while ago you should read (if you haven't all ready) it deals with realities from people on the ground not sound bites.

Sound bites.

Research.

FrostyJack wrote: »

Also I read some of that website, most of the stuff is common sense but I gave up

You make a bad habit of not reading things don't you. If had bothered to read the site you'd realise that one of his main sources of income is working with the prosecution as an expert witness in cases involving violence. Now maybe that's not official enough (or perhaps too official for you) but its good enough for me.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Seriously, don't take my words out of context again

How is that out of context, I didn't even shrink the sentence, you said it and have implied it throughout the thread. Don't take your anger out on me.

Sound bites.
Research.

Very good, you have abviously never taken part in actual research because then you would know you have to get sound bites from people not sit there for the whole day and listening to everything that they did through out the said event.

if had bothered to read the site you'd realise that one of his main sources of income is working with the prosecution as an expert witness in cases involving violence. Now maybe that's not official enough (or perhaps too official for you) but its good enough for me.

With only a quick search I found this, according to your logic you believe this too, as it is official, and that is your basis of you belief system as it is written on the internet.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/psychicdetectives.html