Questions for survivalists

[apple0154]

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.

But much better off than an unemployed father or some of the elderly on pension.

 

[Good Luck]

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?

No you stupid twit. Dodos are EXTINCT. They are no more. The cause is not the matter - the result is.

However, recent theories suggest that dinosaurs went extinct NOT because of some major disaster, or climate change, or what not, but rather because their BEHAVIOR changed to cause anti-survival traits, such as not caring properly for offspring.

If you have food for 3 people for 100 days, and 300 people come along, sharing will end up with 303 people dying of starvation. That is anti-survival. Spread that kind of behavior through the human race, and within a few generations there will be no more human race.

 

[Jarlaxle]

To be honest... I'd rather be mocked by an idiot than unprepared when the massive blizzard stops movement in my rural area. I prepare because it is smart and would in the city too, just differently.

Tell me I'm paranoid when my house is the only one in my area with electricity when the wires fall... I call it prepared. Tell me how "stupid" I am to store food, when the next door neighbors are hoping the melt comes soon because the milk went bad and all the meat went bad when the electricity went out...

ANyone that has food spoil from a power failure in the WINTER should not be allowed to breed! Fill a cooler with snow, put it inside, close the lid...PRESTO! It will stay cold for days!

 

[Good Luck]

And how long would someone be a member of the settler's community if they refused to share? Would they not be driven out?

Same as a member who did not work - in fact anyone who did not do their share of work were far more likely to receive community penalty than those who horded more than others, especially if they had more because they went out and got it, while still providing their share of labor to the community.

As WinterBorn pointed out, if you bring nothing but empty bowls to the table, why should we fill them for you?

 

[apple0154]

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.

And therein lies the problem. Six months. Six years. Sixty years? Why should a 25 year old help anyone? Statistically speaking, he/she has a good chance of living past 85. Probably have great grandchildren, as well.

The unhuman or inhuman bullshit is the garbage you spout and is no different from the guy who has millions.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And how long would someone be a member of the settler's community if they refused to share? Would they not be driven out?

again you're comparing apples to oranges. In the 'settlers' community, everyone provided equal shares. You are not.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But much better off than an unemployed father or some of the elderly on pension.

and had that unemployed father stocked his larder before he got laid off, he wouldn't have to worry about food for a bit, would he?

 

[apple0154]

No you stupid twit. Dodos are EXTINCT. They are no more. The cause is not the matter - the result is.

However, recent theories suggest that dinosaurs went extinct NOT because of some major disaster, or climate change, or what not, but rather because their BEHAVIOR changed to cause anti-survival traits, such as not caring properly for offspring.

You're joking, right? Animals have been found in the ice with undigested food in their stomach. Rather than a sudden catastrophe are you suggesting eating too much or heartburn were anti-survival traits which lead to their demise?

If you have food for 3 people for 100 days, and 300 people come along, sharing will end up with 303 people dying of starvation. That is anti-survival. Spread that kind of behavior through the human race, and within a few generations there will be no more human race.

I suppose if they all came for dinner the same night but that's not likely. A more plausible scenario would be people grouping together after a few days bringing various supplies. An individual with a store of vitamins, while not being able to subsist on them alone, would supplement the foods others bring.

Sugar and powdered milk and powdered eggs will stretch a bag of flour considerably not to mention adding necessary nutrients.

The kind of behavior you denigrate is precisely the behavior displayed by the first settlers and allowed them to survive.

Storing for a certain period assumes things will return to normal after that period of time and it's just a matter of holding on. If everything shuts down for a period longer than a few weeks things will not return to normal for a very long time and an individual will never survive on their own. If a solitary existence was shown to be preferable to survival humans would have never come together. Tribes, communities, states, countries....there is a progression.

Just look at the current world. Countries consisting mainly of tribes do not offer a very good lifestyle. Countries with social policies, greater adhesion, offer superior living conditions, as well as longer life.

And talking about progression, after countries come one planet.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It's a good thing these wannabe killers won't ever get the chance to murder defenseless, starving people.

 

[apple0154]

Same as a member who did not work - in fact anyone who did not do their share of work were far more likely to receive community penalty than those who horded more than others, especially if they had more because they went out and got it, while still providing their share of labor to the community.

As WinterBorn pointed out, if you bring nothing but empty bowls to the table, why should we fill them for you?

Because maybe the people with empty bowls had nothing to bring but can offer something in return. A doctor? A nurse? A mechanic to keep the generator going? A cook who can rustle up a dinner from next to nothing?

 

[apple0154]

again you're comparing apples to oranges. In the 'settlers' community, everyone provided equal shares. You are not.

Who offered the first house? The first barn? They worked together.

When the first baby was born to the settlers I wonder if they treated the mother and child the way Conservatives/Repubs treat them today? "The baby/family aren't getting any of my supplies. It's not my kid, my responsibility."

 

[apple0154]

and had that unemployed father stocked his larder before he got laid off, he wouldn't have to worry about food for a bit, would he?

Yes, for a bit. "Bit" being the key word.

 

[Good Luck]

And therein lies the problem. Six months. Six years. Sixty years? Why should a 25 year old help anyone? Statistically speaking, he/she has a good chance of living past 85. Probably have great grandchildren, as well.

The unhuman or inhuman bullshit is the garbage you spout and is no different from the guy who has millions.

You forget the supposition that this is a crisis in which it is unlikely we can add to our food stores for that 6 month period or longer. There fore the concern of whether we can continue to feed our offspring in 6 months is a very real question.

Or did you forget? Do you even understand the concept of anticipating events 6 months in the future, and acting on what one anticipates? You still seem to claim it is better to starve as a group than for a some to survive. That is beyond stupid, especially if one is responsible (there is that word that is beyond your ability to comprehend again!) for their children.

Besides, you are the one who claims there is actually plenty of food, and therefore there is no need to store for long term disaster. If you are so sure of this, how do my few stores alter the ability of thousands of others to survive on this plenty you mentioned several posts back? If you have plenty from the warehouses and granaries, why do you even need to consider my stores in your equation of survival? Supposing there is this plenty you spoke of, what difference is there if I take my family's share now, or after the disaster strikes? If I do not need to scrounge from the warehouses and granaries because I stored ahead of time, does that not leave more for your roving bands of murdering savages to share among themselves? Therefore, by providing my stores in advance of disaster, I am actually helping those who need to get theirs from the warehouses by not needing/demanding a share of them. LOL Your arguments bite themselves in the tail, which is not unusual when one tries to defend your political philosophy.

Hopefully, the need to put our opposing opinions to practice will never come. Hopefully my family will simply continue to buy new cases of beans, soup, stew, tuna, rice, flour etc. as we use them, and giving a share to the food bank every month, as we have for the majority of our lives. I truly hope this, though I do not believe we will escape a major disaster in the coming decades.

Thankfully, if a real long-term disaster ever does come along, I will never have to deal with you, because your asinine stupidity will get you and most of those like you killed long before you manage to wander anywhere close to me. And, undoubtedly, those who actually do survive the cities and the long trek into the rural areas will do so by learning what utter bullshit your entitlement crap really is, because they will not survive if they do not learn. For the majority, the fact that they did survive to reach the rural areas means they will have learned that survival comes from EFFORT and RESPONSIBILITY, not from demanding (stealing) the results of the efforts of others. MOST people are human enough they will not consider murder and pillaging a proper means of survival. Only subhuman pustule headed drones like you believe taking from others is your natural right.

And, when the disaster ebbs away, and civilization begins to pull itself back together, those few still alive who managed to survive by preying on others will receive justice from the newly reformed civilization - probably in the form of mass hangings by local tribunals. (New civilizations can be a bit on the primitive side, yet quite effective, when dealing out justice to the murdering savages you so admire.) As I said, getting rid of the criminal element that tends to crop up in the absence of organized law is a major part of rebuilding civilization. As such, you won't have to worry about turning away us "selfish" survivalists, because we will not WANT to "join" your criminal bands. Quite the opposite, the return of civilization will kill the fucking bunch of you without shedding a tear.

 

[DrIsIn]

you had your chance at self preservation before the emergency/crisis, yet all you could do was make fun of survivalists. where's your humor now?

The "bury their heads in the sand" bunch.

 

[DrIsIn]

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?

You're sounding a little Clintonesque.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You forget the supposition that this is a crisis in which it is unlikely we can add to our food stores for that 6 month period or longer. There fore the concern of whether we can continue to feed our offspring in 6 months is a very real question.

Or did you forget? Do you even understand the concept of anticipating events 6 months in the future, and acting on what one anticipates? You still seem to claim it is better to starve as a group than for a some to survive. That is beyond stupid, especially if one is responsible (there is that word that is beyond your ability to comprehend again!) for their children.

Besides, you are the one who claims there is actually plenty of food, and therefore there is no need to store for long term disaster. If you are so sure of this, how do my few stores alter the ability of thousands of others to survive on this plenty you mentioned several posts back? If you have plenty from the warehouses and granaries, why do you even need to consider my stores in your equation of survival? Supposing there is this plenty you spoke of, what difference is there if I take my family's share now, or after the disaster strikes? If I do not need to scrounge from the warehouses and granaries because I stored ahead of time, does that not leave more for your roving bands of murdering savages to share among themselves? Therefore, by providing my stores in advance of disaster, I am actually helping those who need to get theirs from the warehouses by not needing/demanding a share of them. LOL Your arguments bite themselves in the tail, which is not unusual when one tries to defend your political philosophy.

Hopefully, the need to put our opposing opinions to practice will never come. Hopefully my family will simply continue to buy new cases of beans, soup, stew, tuna, rice, flour etc. as we use them, and giving a share to the food bank every month, as we have for the majority of our lives. I truly hope this, though I do not believe we will escape a major disaster in the coming decades.

Thankfully, if a real long-term disaster ever does come along, I will never have to deal with you, because your asinine stupidity will get you and most of those like you killed long before you manage to wander anywhere close to me. And, undoubtedly, those who actually do survive the cities and the long trek into the rural areas will do so by learning what utter bullshit your entitlement crap really is, because they will not survive if they do not learn. For the majority, the fact that they did survive to reach the rural areas means they will have learned that survival comes from EFFORT and RESPONSIBILITY, not from demanding (stealing) the results of the efforts of others. MOST people are human enough they will not consider murder and pillaging a proper means of survival. Only subhuman pustule headed drones like you believe taking from others is your natural right.

And, when the disaster ebbs away, and civilization begins to pull itself back together, those few still alive who managed to survive by preying on others will receive justice from the newly reformed civilization - probably in the form of mass hangings by local tribunals. (New civilizations can be a bit on the primitive side, yet quite effective, when dealing out justice to the murdering savages you so admire.) As I said, getting rid of the criminal element that tends to crop up in the absence of organized law is a major part of rebuilding civilization. As such, you won't have to worry about turning away us "selfish" survivalists, because we will not WANT to "join" your criminal bands. Quite the opposite, the return of civilization will kill the fucking bunch of you without shedding a tear.

Repeat after me: Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie.Mad Max was just a movie.Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie. Mad Max was just a movie.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

This is a far cry from the dire predictions and threats you have posted prior to this. At the beginning pages ofthe thread you posted:

“Survivalists in a remote location may have a chance to deal with the odd straggler and even end up with a pot of homo sapien goulash but in an urban/suburban area, not a chance. If there is a situation like you describe, a duration of weeks or months, people are going to come a-callin'. I suggest a concrete panic room otherwise you'll either have house guests or no house.”
“Taking into account mob mentality you best take into account that once you fire that first shot you're a marked man.”
“Just look at the recent mob riots. Even the Police, which greatly out number the few survivalists, have difficulty with crowd control. It's wishful thinking a survivalist would survive unless they have a bunker of some sort. The mob will also have guns and access to things like construction equipment. Raise the blade in the bulldozer and CHARGE! Come out and share or be buried in the rubble that was once your home.”
“Survivalists in urban and suburban areas won't have a chance. To paraphrase George-the Wild West cowboy-Bush, "We'll smoke 'em out.”
“One or two people will not hold off a crowd of 50 or 100 hungry folks especially if they have young children. People will try to get in 24 hours a day or set the house on fire. They have nothing to lose and there's no one more dangerous than a person who has nothing to lose.”





Now it is "share two dinner rations"? And after that? What will those people do tomorrow and the next day and the next?

 

[apple0154]

You forget the supposition that this is a crisis in which it is unlikely we can add to our food stores for that 6 month period or longer. There fore the concern of whether we can continue to feed our offspring in 6 months is a very real question.

Or did you forget? Do you even understand the concept of anticipating events 6 months in the future, and acting on what one anticipates? You still seem to claim it is better to starve as a group than for some to survive. That is beyond stupid, especially if one is responsible (there is that word that is beyond your ability to comprehend again!) for their children.

You have that backwards. It’s because one has to look past the six months that make it necessary to be part of a group. When the food runs out in six months, then what? The neighbourhood will have been picked clean. You come out of your basement to nothing.

Stockpiling is fine to enable survival for a finite period of time assuming things will return to normal. If the crisis is of such magnitude no help arrives within a few weeks or a month then things won’t be returning to normal any time soon. People will have formed a support group, a community. When a lone survivor shows up relatively well fed what are the members of the community going to think?

Besides, you are the one who claims there is actually plenty of food, and therefore there is no need to store for long term disaster. If you are so sure of this, how do my few stores alter the ability of thousands of others to survive on this plenty you mentioned several posts back? If you have plenty from the warehouses and granaries, why do you even need to consider my stores in your equation of survival? Supposing there is this plenty you spoke of, what difference is there if I take my family's share now, or after the disaster strikes? If I do not need to scrounge from the warehouses and granaries because I stored ahead of time, does that not leave more for your roving bands of murdering savages to share among themselves? Therefore, by providing my stores in advance of disaster, I am actually helping those who need to get theirs from the warehouses by not needing/demanding a share of them. LOL Your arguments bite themselves in the tail, which is not unusual when one tries to defend your political philosophy.

They have to get to the distribution centers. They will need food along the way to reach the grain storage and canning companies and orchards, etc. Again, a financial collapse does not mean there’s no food. There’s only a shortage of money to buy it.

Thankfully, if a real long-term disaster ever does come along, I will never have to deal with you, because your asinine stupidity will get you and most of those like you killed long before you manage to wander anywhere close to me. And, undoubtedly, those who actually do survive the cities and the long trek into the rural areas will do so by learning what utter bullshit your entitlement crap really is, because they will not survive if they do not learn. For the majority, the fact that they did survive to reach the rural areas means they will have learned that survival comes from EFFORT and RESPONSIBILITY, not from demanding (stealing) the results of the efforts of others. MOST people are human enough they will not consider murder and pillaging a proper means of survival. Only subhuman pustule headed drones like you believe taking from others is your natural right.

Whether it was the first settlers or wagon trains going across the country people combined their resources. You think you can take on the world all by yourself. You’re delusional.

And, when the disaster ebbs away, and civilization begins to pull itself back together, those few still alive who managed to survive by preying on others will receive justice from the newly reformed civilization - probably in the form of mass hangings by local tribunals. (New civilizations can be a bit on the primitive side, yet quite effective, when dealing out justice to the murdering savages you so admire.) As I said, getting rid of the criminal element that tends to crop up in the absence of organized law is a major part of rebuilding civilization. As such, you won't have to worry about turning away us "selfish" survivalists, because we will not WANT to "join" your criminal bands. Quite the opposite, the return of civilization will kill the fucking bunch of you without shedding a tear.

That’s another thing you have backwards. When the community finds out that you and a few others hid food from them, squirreled it away for your own use, took “responsibility” to look after yourselves rather than share you’ll learn first hand just how murderous a mob can be.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have that backwards. It’s because one has to look past the six months that make it necessary to be part of a group. When the food runs out in six months, then what? The neighbourhood will have been picked clean. You come out of your basement to nothing.

Except that those who prepared for a long term situation will have prepared for growing their own and hunting their own. Those who didn't prepare will likely not be there.

Stockpiling is fine to enable survival for a finite period of time assuming things will return to normal. If the crisis is of such magnitude no help arrives within a few weeks or a month then things won’t be returning to normal any time soon. People will have formed a support group, a community. When a lone survivor shows up relatively well fed what are the members of the community going to think?

What will they think? How about "Hey, those folks look like they have done well, maybe we should listen to them.".

That’s another thing you have backwards. When the community finds out that you and a few others hid food from them, squirreled it away for your own use, took “responsibility” to look after yourselves rather than share you’ll learn first hand just how murderous a mob can be.

Its funny that the accusations aimed at the survivalists is that they are murderers, but atthe same time the threat is that the mobs will murder them for what they have. Pick one.

 

[apple0154]

You're sounding a little Clintonesque.

Well, it does depend on ones definition.

If a person touches a lady's breast they can be charged with sexual assault. Where do people get the idea a breast has any more to do with sex than long, smooth legs, for example? Long, silky flowing hair can be considered sexy but touching a person's head is not considered sexual assault.

I suppose we could include a woman's butt. If touching a woman's butt can be considered sexual assault does that mean they're into sodomy?

Points to ponder on this overcast Friday as we patiently wait for Irene to touch land and reach climax with a gush soaking everything beneath her.