Questions for survivalists

Good Luck said:
Of course. Because they exist, and we exist to support them. We're supposed to let our own children starve so the "hungry hordes" can eat off our stores for a single day. Doing otherwise is selfishness. If ANY species acted the way this idiot demands, they would be placed along side the dodo within a few generations. They can't seem to grasp the basic reality that a parent's first responsibility is to the survival of their children. Nothing can be allowed to threaten that. Of course, considering the difficulty liberals like Apple and \\(\(\/)/)// have with the entire concept of personal responsibility, I guess it is small wonder they haven't a clue about the responsibility that comes with parenting.
Click to expand...



I'm not a liberal, and you have no idea whether or not I have children.


Are you a Christian, or not?
 
WinterBorn said:
I don't know and I am not doing your research for you. The fact that there was trade means the pilgrims had something to offer. I am sure metalworking or metal products were valued, as were firearms.
Click to expand...

You haven't presented any facts. You made the claim.
 
dazie said:
I signed up just so I could post a reply. I have been following the argument between apple and good luck.
Both of you have valid points. However, apple, I strongly disagree that those who have stockpiles should share it out of the goodness of their heart. I wouldn't.

I wonder has anyone on here been through any type of a disaster?

After katrina, we were out of power for 11 days, businesses were damaged, destroyed, or shut down. There was no way to get supplies. I live in a rural area in Mississippi, about 30 miles north of the gulf. Apparently, many people do not realize that we actually got hit harder here in MS than they did in New Orleans, but anyway. After a few days some gas stations opened up. Let me remind you that I live in a rural area - pretty much everyone knows everyone, we grew up together, people are friendly here and watch out for each other. Once word of mouth about gas traveled, the lines started forming - long lines. There was a limit on how much gas you could get. People were mad, people were not talking to each other. People were mumbling about them running out of gas. Nothing in the air but tension - people had wild animal looks in their eyes. It was very, very, very creepy. I am not exxagerating. We went back home and stayed.

Good Luck is right, get your supplies so you can stay in your house if something happens, you are not going to want to be going anywhere. I believe (at least where I live) it would take at least a few weeks for people to start trying to obtain food forcefully. And probably even more to do it door to door. They are going to go to businesses first. If something happened bad enough for the whole country to shut down for more than a few weeks, then I think apple is right, people are going to try to get food and supplies in any way they can. (probably not as dramatically as apple pointed out but they will)
so you have 2 choices, do you want to be the one inside with the food or the one outside trying to get the food? I'd rather be the one inside.
for those of you who live in big cities, god help ya if anything happens.
Click to expand...

Well... Welcome to the board. Stay, say more than one thing.
 
\\(\(\/)/)// said:
Try again.
Click to expand...

No need to try again. My claim was that there was trade between the pilgrims and the indians. That defeats your claim that the pilgrims had nothing to offer. If there was trade, they obviously had something to offer. The details of what was traded is irrelevant to my argument.
 
WinterBorn said:
No need to try again. My claim was that there was trade between the pilgrims and the indians. That defeats your claim that the pilgrims had nothing to offer. If there was trade, they obviously had something to offer. The details of what was traded is irrelevant to my argument.
Click to expand...

What did they trade? Does your link specify anything?
 
Good Luck said:
Yes or no: should a parent risk the lives of their children in order to help strangers?
Click to expand...

It all depends on what one considers "risk". If an elderly lady collapses on the sidewalk immediately in front of you would you momentarily take your eyes off your 4 year old to help her risking your child being abducted/led away by a stranger?

Would you refuse to share two dinner rations knowing your remaining 150 day inventory would decrease to 148 days? Would that be considered risking the life of your child?
 
apple0154 said:
As I've stated before history is replete with people "who actually had the foresight to provide for themselves". People like Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette who told the folks where to go when it came time to share. Of course, there are lessor figures throughout history and there are folks, today, who believe they had the foresight when they signed contracts that offered millions of dollars in bonuses while poor saps lost their retirement funds.

And then there's the "little businessman" who sold crap or did shoddy work and then declared bankruptcy and because of "LLC" and other laws written up by thieves were allowed to keep the ill-gotten gains which permitted them to "provide for themselves" while preventing or hampering others from doing so.

The single moms, the unemployed fathers, the teenagers who never had a chance to prepare, the elderly having had to depend on the disgusting pittance they received....just lazy bums who didn't have "the foresight to provide for themselves". (It's nobody's fault but Grandma's that she didn't cut back on her dog food consumption.)

History will keep repeating itself until the greedy and the selfish and the sociopaths are forever extinguished. It's happened many times before and it will happen again and it always, always ends up the same way. I have to conclude those with that mindset are unable to learn from the past. Most unfortunate for them.
Click to expand...

what a complete crock of shit. I'm not wealthy be any means, don't even make a great yearly salary. the wifes medical bills eat up nearly all thats left and I still am able to put something aside every week. that does not put me in the same class as your louis and marie, nor any ceo's.
 
Good Luck said:
Of course. Because they exist, and we exist to support them. We're supposed to let our own children starve so the "hungry hordes" can eat off our stores for a single day. Doing otherwise is selfishness.

If ANY species acted the way this idiot demands, they would be placed along side the dodo within a few generations. They can't seem to grasp the basic reality that a parent's first responsibility is to the survival of their children. Nothing can be allowed to threaten that.

Of course, considering the difficulty liberals like Apple and \\(\(\/)/)// have with the entire concept of personal responsibility, I guess it is small wonder they haven't a clue about the responsibility that comes with parenting.
Click to expand...

The dodo went extinct because they helped each other? Do you think that may be the cause of all those species going extinct in the Amazon and other places on earth?

Now that you mention it don't the Repubs tell us that dinosaurs and humans lived together? Knowing the nature of humans do you think the dinosaurs were social creatures and died out due to socialist policies?
 
apple0154 said:
It all depends on what one considers "risk". If an elderly lady collapses on the sidewalk immediately in front of you would you momentarily take your eyes off your 4 year old to help her risking your child being abducted/led away by a stranger?

Would you refuse to share two dinner rations knowing your remaining 150 day inventory would decrease to 148 days? Would that be considered risking the life of your child?
Click to expand...
Well, I THOUGHT it would be obvious the question is in relation to the central topic of this thread.

I would have no problem giving a few cans of soup, stew, or whatnot if someone (post disaster) came looking - especially if they had children. Most others I know who stock food for long term emergencies would do the same.

But what of these hungry hordes you keep on about? If it becomes a matter of 20 or 30, or 60 cans of food, then yes, that presents a potential threat to my ability to continue to feed my family in a long term emergency. If you and a large group (because you will have a better chance to survive in a group of murderous thugs. LOL) come along, I cannot in good conscience try to feed you all. That is counter survival, which is one step away from suicide. You want me to feed your hungry hordes, I may as well kill my family directly and quickly to save them the pains of starvation.

I seriously doubt you know what it is like to be truly poor, or to be truly hungry. You have no idea what it is like to have a single meal a day, and if you are lucky, you have a small piece of greasy gopher haunch to go with your wheat and barley gruel - gruel often so thin you could drink it like tea rather than eat it. I WILL NOT, sit by and allow my grandchildren to EVER get to that point if I can possibly help it. And my children know this, and when they show up after a wide spread disaster with long term effects, they will come with their own supplies to augment what I and my wife have stored. We will feed our own first, with the children coming first, younger adults next, and us old farts last. If that means turning away others so I can be sure of feeding my family an extra day or two 6 months down the road, so be it. You want to consider that being "selfish", it just shows you to be so involved in your own concepts of pure communism that you have lost all bits of genuine humanity that were ever part of you. You want to be an ant, or termite, that is up to you. But don't expect me and mine to risk starvation for your unhuman bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top