h a l f b a k e r yBaker Street Irregulars
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A one-off contest (for reasons that will later become obvious) between followers of two diametrically-opposed lifestyles.
On one side, the massed ranks of petrolheads, bikers, NRA members, climate sceptics, Japanese harpooners, and the generally politically incorrect. This side would have a rigidly
heirarchical and disciplined structure, and lead by a loud-mouthed opinionated bigot (Jeremy Clarkson is the current nominee) driving a huge, noisy, smelly motor vehicle towing a fracking drill . They would be dressed in leather, wear huge boots, drink copious amounts of beer, munch pies, and be armed with ... well, pretty much anything; swords, machine guns, tanks, flamethrowers, close air support, pointed sticks, curare-tipped crossbow bolts and intermediate range ballistic missiles.
Opposing them are the environmentalists and vegetarians, dressed in linen trousers and wearing sandals made from organic hemp, carrying pails of their own home-knitted goats-milk yoghurt, copies of the Guardian, and wielding hand-woven flax banners with "Peace" and "Love" and "No Nukes" finger-painted on to them in organic woad dye by physically challenged deaf autistic chimpanzees rescued from vivisection labs. They would be accompanied by numerous dirty, grizzling barefoot snot-streaked children and a variety of domestic and domesticated animals.
They have a non-heirarchical consensus leadership with no one individual in control, essentially an anarchosyndicalist commune where the members take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting - by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of external issues.
The contest consists of two thirty-minute sessions with a ten minute break between. The contest is over when either (a) the two thirty minute periods have expired, at which time the judges will decide on a "points" basis, or (b) one side or the other has expended all their fuel and ammunition, or (c) all the competitors on one side are either incapable of further voluntary movement or are dead.
The winning side is the one with the most players still able to stand upright without hanging on to something.
Let the entertainment commence !
[link]
|
| |
I figured this was you by the middle of the third
paragraph. |
|
| |
I have a problem, though. On the one hand, I like
pies and
alcohol, think fracking is probably a sensible idea
and would
like to see more nuclear reactors. I also think
climate change
is basically a huge load of bollocks which arose by
posing the
question "What do you think is the most important
field of
study in terms of the survival of the human race"
to a bunch of
weather forecasters. No doubt if we had asked a
group of
mycologists the same question, we would now be
spending
trillions on protecting the planet from killer
moulds. |
|
| |
However, I am strongly opposed to Japanese
harpooning. Yes,
they were pretty nasty in the 1940s, but
harpooning is a
barbaric way to get revenge, and they do make
nice sushi. I
also quite like linen, particularly for sheets,
pillow-covers and
summer lounge suits. |
|
| |
// harpooning is a barbaric way to get revenge, // |
|
| |
No ptoblem. just net them, then shut them up in a room, and make them watch end-to-end re-runs of The X Factor. |
|
| |
// I also quite like linen // |
|
| |
The winning side gets to strip the corpses. |
|
| |
I ran some numbers the other day: the average person consumes 20-30kcal of energy per day: that's about 12MJ. A gallon of gas is about 36MJ. So, if everybody in the world drives 30-40 miles a day, the effective population, CO2-wise isn't 7billion, it's more like 30 billion. |
|
| |
Anyways, I like beer, blowing things up and solid boots as well as the next guy. But the "other side" supplies my camomile tea, and I rather like domestic animals... some preferably accompanied by charcoal, of course. |
|
| |
Can't we just pit the harpooners against the anti-nukes and deniers ? |
|
| |
I would pay a dollar to see that, and I might even buy
the harpooners a drink afterwards. |
|
| |
The problem with killing those who disagree with you is
that, per the Golden Rule, you essentially say it is OK for
you to be killed by others who disagree with you. You may
now examine the broad sweep of History to see the
consequences of that attitude. |
|
| |
//The problem with killing those who disagree
with you is that, per the Golden Rule, you
essentially say it is OK for you to be killed by
others who disagree with you.// |
|
| |
That's a prime example of the logical error known
in law as 'rete inter omines ad arvicolinae'. Killing
someone else does not imply that you are equally
happy for them to kill you. Often the contrary is
true. |
|
| |
The trick is to do your killing before they do theirs. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], I specified the Golden Rule for a
reason. It specifically encourages you to treat others as
you want to be treated. So, if you kill others, you must
want to be killed, right? |
|
| |
I object. Being science-deniers, the first group only
gets to use weapons and modes of transport that
haven't been the result of some level of scientific
study, ie. blunt objects. |
|
| |
They don't deny the science; they just don't care what it says. |
|
| |
//So, if you kill others, you must want to be killed,
right?// I'm pretty sure that is not the case. Most
people who kill others have no real intention of being
killed themselves. |
|
| |
// //So, if you kill others, you must want to be killed, right?//
I'm pretty sure that is not the case. Most people who kill others have no real intention of being killed themselves.// |
|
| |
"Oooh - you hipocrite!"
One side's going to scorn the other to death. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], obviously there are folks who are
not interested in paying attention to the Golden Rule
(or who are hypocrites about it). Nevertheless, there is
plenty of Precedent, regarding the Law and the
punishment-killing of killers. All to encourage folks to
think that, most of the time, the Golden Rule is a quite-
reasonable guideline for social interactions. |
|
| |
Are you aware that most things labeled "crimes" are
directly the result of selfish behavior? The criminal in-
essence acts as if thinking, "What **I** want is more
important than what anyone else wants!" When the
tendency for toddlers to think that is not discouraged,
the results are spoiled brats, juvenile delinquents,
hardened criminals, and terrorists. |
|
| |
[Vernon], I shall henceforth be relying on you for all
philosophical advice. |
|
| |
The discussion's going the right way ... a couple more annotations and someone's going to bring in Hitler. |
|
| |
[8th of 7], please accept my apologies for leaving
"megalomaniacal dictators" off the list I presented in
another annotation. |
|
| |
You are forgiven. But only this one time, mind ... we don't want to set any dangerous precedents ... |
|
| |
// "Oooh - you hipocrite!" // |
|
| |
Hipocracy is only a problem when other people do it. |
|
| |
The environmentalists can win by convincing the meanies to
calm down, using certain medication in the water, fighting
non-lethal weapons, shooting pain darts and jailing
offenders in non violence classes sometimes accompanied by
biological preventive action. |
|
| |
// The environmentalists can win // |
|
| |
That's good stuff you're smoking there, man, where do yoy get it ? |
|
| |
[8th], could you not harness all that vigorous hate to something a bit more ... *inventive* than "line up a whole lot of people I don't like and kill them"? [-] |
|
| |
Well, possibly ... but it would have to be at least as entertaining and satisfying. |
|
| |