CapeXit 2

[lexity]

 

[Cray]

Why, so you can be spared the scrutiny of your ideas?

So you admit that if you said all of those words to people out in the world they would consider it insulting? Seems to me that you are the one's whose ideas require scrutiny.

 

[lexity]

So you admit that if you said all of those words to people out in the world they would consider it insulting?

No. I don't.

 

[Cray]

No. I don't.

So then go and do it if think that the average person would have no issue with you calling them a knuckle dragger.

This is crux of who you are Lexity, you have all these wild theories and ideas but you are petrified of actually testing them in the real world.

Here is a perfect opportunity, you think those words aren't insulting, now you have an actual, real world situation where you can prove your hypothesis. If you are so sure you are right, what's the issue?

 

[Brian_G]

Thread has turned into a primary school playground

Laters....

 

[vigras rojara]

Thread's poll has an additional 4 voters.

Current tallies suggest the majority still favor outright Cape independence.

(none of the questions mention / are about a referendum, would would be the easier YES vote).

That means that mybb forumites, from all over SA, actually support CI more strongly than the official 2025 polling figures, which are specific to WC voters.

Good lordie.

Poll architects, have I got that right?

@Brian_G, @Grant

MyBB polls - seriously?

If they were an accurate reflection of the real world, the VF+ would be in power and we'd have a President Groenewald.

Lol.

 

[Brian_G]

Rooster pudding?

 

[Brian_G]

Has @Splinter been been thread-banned???

He's being unusually un-harrassing, over the last few days.

Occasionally, the hall-monitors get it right, I guess.

Probably an act, waiting for the right moment - he's still able to give smiley reactions here. Could you? Never saw one from you.


Let me know when you're running an honest (SA) behaviour exercise again , far more interesting

 

[vigras rojara]

Probably an act, waiting for the right moment - he's still able to give smiley reactions here. Could you? Never saw one from you.


Let me know when you're running an honest (SA) behaviour exercise again , far more interesting

I heard @Splinter has been made a mod.

You guys could be in a spot of bother!!

 

[Brian_G]

MyBB polls - seriously?

If they were an accurate reflection of the real world, the VF+ would be in power and we'd have a President Groenewald.

Lol.

What's interesting is that most sentiment seen on the forum reflects a liking for the DA in WC. So says something in that regard - not sure what, but maybe that people don't speak up openly enough due to peer pressure.

This would mean you're in hostile territory

 

[vigras rojara]

What's interesting is that most sentiment seen on the forum reflects a liking for the DA in WC. So says something in that regard - not sure what, but maybe that people don't speak up openly enough due to peer pressure.

This would mean you're in hostile territory

Who knows what it says, but regarding MyBB polls as some sort of will of the people, is hilarious.

I mean, as lex said, four more people voted!!!! That's around the number of people who voted RP in the last election - huge!

 

[Grant]

well fark me dead twice

"the cape independent" - still processing my order - an order placed and paid for at 6am.
they were quick to take the money, and have yet to deliver - 12 hrs later

 

[lexity]

I heard @Splinter has been made a mod.

You guys could be in a spot of bother!!

Only if I had reported him, would they make him a mod.

 

[Grant]

Ok.

At least you had the balls to call his bluff.

So, State 1:0 Citizen.

Anyone else?

so now, allow me to add the twist.
i'll see your murder capital and raise you with my ecg.

going back the the original scenario - man wants my wallet, i tell him he can have it if i can have his clothes.
two things to note:
1) all he wanted was the wallet and contents.
2) he would be left stark naked but holding a wallet - a scene sure to attract attention to himself.
more importantly, were violence and threats using a weapon his modus operandi, he would have done so from the outset

so then the gun is pulled - my response "pull the trigger".
given he never brandished his weapon from the get go, one can reasonably assume he is not particularly partial to violence, rather a snatch and run kind of person - all he really wanted was money, not blood.

but now we are standing face to face - a mexican standoff of sorts.
he is holding a gun, i am holding a piece of paper.
i hand him the piece of paper, he looks at it and sees scribbles and lines.
i ask him if he knows what he is looking at, he just stares at me with a blank expression.
i tell him it is called an ecg, a printout from an ecg machine indicating what your heart is doing, in this case, my heart.
he looks at it again.
i tell him to ignore all the lines on the paper, look at the red rectangle. he is now curious as to what this is all about.
he looks, i explain it shows 2 recent heart attacks, each at a different place in the heart.
he now understands, but remains unmoved.
i go on, and tell him to think a little, he can pull the trigger and kill me, then quite possibly spend the rest of his life alone in prison.
i explain a little further, "imagine going to prison for life for killing someone, who was going to die anyway - with or without you".
and with that a reality dawns upon him - "jou ma se ****" he responds - and runs away.

lesson here for you lexy - you took a binary approach to a situation that could suddenly become a little complex, binary in that you relied on clinical murder stats, but never factored in human circumstances and their often unpredictable outcomes .

 

[lexity]

so now, allow me to add the twist.
i'll see your murder capital and raise you with my ecg.

going back the the original scenario - man wants my wallet, i tell him he can have it if i can have his clothes.
two things to note:
1) all he wanted was the wallet and contents.
2) he would be left stark naked but holding a wallet - a scene sure to attract attention to himself.
more importantly, were violence and threats using a weapon his modus operandi, he would have done so from the outset

so then the gun is pulled - my response "pull the trigger".
given he never brandished his weapon from the get go, one can reasonably assume he is not particularly partial to violence, rather a snatch and run kind of person - all he really wanted was money, not blood.

but now we are standing face to face - a mexican standoff of sorts.
he is holding a gun, i am holding a piece of paper.
i hand him the piece of paper, he looks at it and sees scribbles and lines.
i ask him if he knows what he is looking at, he just stares at me with a blank expression.
i tell him it is called an ecg, a printout from an ecg machine indicating what your heart is doing, in this case, my heart.
he looks at it again.
i tell him to ignore all the lines on the paper, look at the red rectangle. he is now curious as to what this is all about.
he looks, i explain it shows 2 recent heart attacks, each at a different place in the heart.
he now understands, but remains unmoved.
i go on, and tell him to think a little, he can pull the trigger and kill me, then quite possibly spend the rest of his life alone in prison.
i explain a little further, "imagine going to prison for life for killing someone, who was going to die anyway - with or without you".
and with that a reality dawns upon him - "jou ma se ****" he responds - and runs away.

lesson here for you lexy - you took a binary approach to a situation that could suddenly become a little complex, binary in that you relied on clinical murder stats, but never factored in human circumstances and their often unpredictable outcomes .

View attachment 1893969

Perhaps 1 in a hundred criminals.

And perhaps that increases in your favor the longer there is a 2-tier system of justice.Because good people are forced into crime, due to legal privilege, all the time.

The average criminal is looking for reasons why it's okay to take your money. Not for reasons why you are the exception. He didn't have long to live, anyway.... here's the proof.

He may very well, then, look upon your inevitable shortened lifespan as an excuse for why he has to feed his family, or even why he has simply gotten a raw deal in trying to make a go of life. All hist attempts were met with barriers that had an artificial feel about them.... and he sensed it was not right.

Point being, it's a gamble.... and SA is the (2nd)last place you want to do that.

After all..... how much is in your wallet?

I was robbed at knife-point, and I called his bluff. I survived, but there were other considerations, that in the moment flash before your eyes.

The point, which your willingness to engage is bringing out, is that even if you give the criminal permission to take your wallet, it can never be used as an excuse, in a court of law, once he is caught.

Everyone would dismiss the criminal's appeal with contempt. There is no Western court that would excuse someone for armed robbery because the victim gave permission when he had a gun to his head.

Once there is a threat of credible imminent aggression....whatever you say cannot be used in defense of the criminal.

So it is with a government agent, who relies on the threat of force if you do not comply with his choice of supplier. That supplier who knows his customers are better off, will be targeted by the State's use of violence.

 

[Brian_G]

Everyone would dismiss the criminal's appeal with contempt. There is no Western court that would excuse someone for armed robbery because the victim gave permission when he had a gun to his head.

Once there is a threat of credible imminent aggression....whatever you say cannot be used in defense of the criminal.

So it is with a government agent, who relies on the threat of force if you do not comply with his choice of supplier. That supplier who knows his customers are better off, will be targeted by the State's use of violence.

Nobody said they liked that part of the system. Everyone (at some point) said they know it's inherent. Nobody minds the idea of improving the system. Everyone (at some point) disagrees that Libert. concepts can change that for society.

Why are we bouncing back and forth between this and forum rules anyway?

Flawed from the start, then manipulated (like a common govt. involved thief), now conclusions drawn like a lecturer which are supposed to... lead to what?

 

[Brian_G]

What do the majority Cape Coloureds want from (new country) politics on the whole?

 

[lexity]

What do the majority Cape Coloureds want from (new country) politics on the whole?

Let them vote on it in a referendum. As long as they are prepared to accommodate a subset of voters that vote against them.

 

[lexity]

Everyone (at some point) disagrees that Libert. concepts can change that for society.

Whut?

 

[Grant]

Perhaps 1 in a hundred criminals.

And perhaps that increases in your favor the longer there is a 2-tier system of justice.Because good people are forced into crime, due to legal privilege, all the time.

The average criminal is looking for reasons why it's okay to take your money. Not for reasons why you are the exception. He didn't have long to live, anyway.... here's the proof.

He may very well, then, look upon your inevitable shortened lifespan as an excuse for why he has to feed his family, or even why he has simply gotten a raw deal in trying to make a go of life. All hist attempts were met with barriers that had an artificial feel about them.... and he sensed it was not right.

Point being, it's a gamble.... and SA is the (2nd)last place you want to do that.

After all..... how much is in your wallet?

probably nothing - its very rare for me to carry cash (as in a wallet / pocket etc)

I was robbed at knife-point, and I called his bluff. I survived, but there were other considerations, that in the moment flash before your eyes.

The point, which your willingness to engage is bringing out, is that even if you give the criminal permission to take your wallet, it can never be used as an excuse, in a court of law, once he is caught.

Everyone would dismiss the criminal's appeal with contempt. There is no Western court that would excuse someone for armed robbery because the victim gave permission when he had a gun to his head.

giving consent under duress - well, there is no such thing as consent under those circumstances

Once there is a threat of credible imminent aggression....whatever you say cannot be used in defense of the criminal.

i doubt many would say anything in defence of someone who had a gun to their head

So it is with a government agent, who relies on the threat of force if you do not comply with his choice of supplier. That supplier who knows his customers are better off, will be targeted by the State's use of violence.

ok, you are fond of trotting this line out - lets dissect it:

govt agent - we all know what that typically is
threat of force - what type of force are you alluding to ?
his choice of supplier - provide a little clarity
state's use of violence - what violence does the state employ in terms of suppliers ?