|
Post by lexikon on Nov 17, 2011 20:32:44 GMT -5
Shell Shock isn't listed in the DRM anymore. It's called Combat Stress Reaction now. Or just labled PSTD. Ironbite-seriously, where are you getting your information? It means the same thing, there's no use calling it comething else. but I'm nt too sure what aniety attacks are. Is that when you lose controll, fall on the floor and start shaking & screaming? No. That's called "having a seizure." Or in old-timey language, "speaking in tongues." Oh. What causes those?
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 17, 2011 22:26:01 GMT -5
Actually, there is a difference between CSR and PTSD. CSR is short-term, and PTSD's effects last much longer. PTSD is also more severe than CSR.
It means the same thing, there's no use calling it comething else.
During a seizure, there is a neurological shockwave sent through the brain, which makes the body overreact.
"Speaking in tongues" and other so-called "spiritual experiences" are caused by crowd mentality and emotional manipulation. Activity in the language centers of the brain decreases, while activity in the emotional centers increases. Other studies suggest that glossolalia is a learned behavior, and anyone can pick it up after listening to a tape for a bit. In fact, after congregations see a certain pastor speaking in tongues, they are more likely to repeat his style and sounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_in_tongues)
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 17, 2011 22:34:02 GMT -5
I have the little pocket version of that on my nightstand-dresser thingy behind me I read it because I need a primary source to analyze for Japanclass (as I call it) & the author fucking brought an OAR to a sword fight & WON. I am SO working that story into the analysis. Actually, I'd have just done that if there were any first hand accounts. Though I'm actually only doing 1 of the 5.
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Nov 18, 2011 14:54:47 GMT -5
As someone versed in melee combat... I'm not surprised. If you can deal with the oar's weight and balance, you have the range and power advantage, and range can wear out speed any time.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Nov 18, 2011 16:48:19 GMT -5
...shell shock? What an anachronistic term. It's better understood as PTSD now. Also, you don't want to shoot yourself. Not only is it dangerous (even if you happen to know the safest places on the body to shoot), but after you've been healed up they'll only give you a medical discharge if you are significantly impaired from the after effects (like not having a foot any more or something); otherwise it's right back to where you had been. It's also generally quite easy to see if a wound was self inflicted, or likely to be self inflicted, cause most people are also stupid about where and how they do it. You know, such as shooting the easy target (for them) of the foot at an angle easily achieved, instead of shooting the side of their gut while holding the gun backwards (so they pull the trigger with their thumb). Oh, and being discharged for being crazy is challenging at best. First they have to recognise what the behaviour indicates. Then you have to talk with their therapists, generally multiple times over the course of months. They will also pay attention to your records made by your superiors as a way to verify the reported conditions. Then it has to be considered bad enough that their therapy will not be able to cut it at all; basically, it has to have good potential to cost lives. Such as having multiple anxiety attacks that leave you withdrawn and crumpled on the floor, either where people witness and report it, or where you're taken into the clinic on base. Then they might discharge you, though they will do what they can to absolve themselves from any responsibility for causing or worsening those conditions (which if you just want -out- isn't a problem, but if you need help because of it then you have to fight the discharge reason which is a fucking pain). www.youtube.com/watch?v=KITIt2O3Z8QShell Shock is for wartime, PSTD can be from a variety of causes. I'm never becoming a soldier, so I'm not getting too concerned over this, but I'm nt too sure what aniety attacks are. Is that when you lose controll, fall on the floor and start shaking & screaming? An anxiety attack is marked by a strong sense of dread, racing heart rate, cold-sweats, rapid respiration and other reactions that occur during the fight or flight instinct being triggered.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 18, 2011 21:15:33 GMT -5
As someone versed in melee combat... I'm not surprised. If you can deal with the oar's weight and balance, you have the range and power advantage, and range can wear out speed any time. Technically, the story is that he carved a wooden sword out of it that was a few inches longer than the weapon of the guy he was fighting, who pretty much exclusively used a singe long sword. What's odd is that there are a lot of references in his book about "not relying on having a longer reach." Though it's anyone's guess whether or not he'd consider that "relying" on it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 18, 2011 21:36:37 GMT -5
Well, just because you are using something to your advantage doesn't mean you are relying upon it.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 18, 2011 22:40:35 GMT -5
Fuck, the thread has derailed completely.
Can we go back to listing unpopular political opinions, please? Some of us really don't give a damn about military protocol or the semantics of post-traumatic stress disorder.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 19, 2011 0:29:11 GMT -5
It's funny, because most of us don't give a damn about your political opinions.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 19, 2011 0:56:02 GMT -5
We're still talking about executing deserters, and how it would cause morale to derail.
Of course, since some political oppinions have been completely ignored, it would be great to repost some of them.
I think that the Civil War was the war America could have done without. Killed more people than any other war. Florida is cool, but other than that, I think those states should have stayed succeded.
Not to mention that their economy was ruined, since they had different currency
Sure, slavery would have eixsted, but once it was abolished, they passed a bunch of laws worsening the African Americans' lives. If they abolished slavery when they were ready, it is possible that very little would have slowed progression.
They probably would have been happier too. Republicans are usually for smaller government and state control over federal, and what gets more than that than a Confederacy.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 19, 2011 1:02:32 GMT -5
Seceded.
This goes back to the argument I had with Fred: It is so hard to predict what will happen just a few years down the road. No one really knows what the Confederacy would have done had they been allowed to stay.
Also, farms, the North didn't have so many of them.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 19, 2011 20:15:25 GMT -5
We're still talking about executing deserters, and how it would cause morale to derail. I don't think there's an example of this happening. I'm not saying that that's an unreasonable belief, obiously opinions differ. But this is my opinion. Southern society was probably the most tyrannical of North American history. In some states, more than 50% of the population was totally excluded from any rights, including that of life. Murder was extremely commonplace. An entire class of people were systematically organised as a working class, used as nothing more than pack animals, while the wealthiest were idle. During the war, Southern armies would actually enslave Northern free blacks- people who had never been enslaved before. This was not an institution they'd give up easily. Slavery was definately the worst crime of Southern society, but it was just a symptom of a broader sickness. Southerners thought themselves the 'real' Americans, better than not only blacks or immigrants but white Northerners. They had no respect for democracy- that's what 'state's rights' means, we have no respect for the votes of Northerners, if a vote goes against us we don't recognise it. They had no respect for the right of Northerners to ban slavery in their states. The North spent forty years doing nothing but compromise, the South did nothing but increase it's demands. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, the South would be happy with nothing but the North changing it's minds and agreeing with the South on everything. And even then the South would feel persecuted- this is where the crazy fundie faux-persecution comes from- in 40 years, every important political figure had come from the South, and yet the South still claimed to be put-down-upon by bureacrats from the North! The South was a deranged society, bigoted, tyrannical, violent, aggressive, self-impoverished, lazy, stupid, ignorant, inequal, paranoid. Compare the North and the South in economic terms. The North was just by far the better society. And it wasn't the average Southerner's fault. Of course, the average Southerner was black. But even the white minority were mostly without effective voice, constantly propagandised to, denied choice in the direction of policy, denied the education required to make those choices. The southern aristocracy cemented slavery as a Southern institution, forced an economic system that impoverished even white Southerners, aggravated the Northern industrialists who might have reduced that poverty. And then the Southern aristocracy finally destroyed the lives of a million innocents by needlessly declaring war on a far more powerful North. The war ought to have been fought for something bigger than slavery, and it ought to have been continued after the major shooting stopped. The war ought to have been fought to make the South a civilised society, to end the aristocracy and allow the majority (and Northerners, of course) a voice in the direction of national, state and local policy. This didn't happen. The reconstruction of the South was a failure, largely because too many Southern elites were involved. In my opinion, far more people should have been executed at the end of the war. People like Bedford Forrest were, uncontroversially, traitors. Without question. The reason they ought to have been executed is because their treason did not cease in 1865- Forrest founded the KKK which essentially refought the civil war. It was in that terrorist war that slavery was reborn, it was that terrorist war that reestablished racism and the dominance of the Southern aristocracy (even over the North) as American norms. Hence Jim Crow, hence continued poverty of the South, hence silly modern conservatism. The North should have fought the civil war, and it should have won it properly. If it had, the nation- even the South- would be a better place. The South should have been put in it's place until it could learn to play with the big boys. The North lost a perfect chance to destroy conservatism- that worst enemy of humanity- and to establish civilisation, it's opposite. For that the whole world lost. As an addendum- the average Southerner is still without a voice, because the average Southerner is a teapartier, a Dittohead, a randroid. These people are incapable of thought, systematically denied the abillity to reason. They're propagandised to every day, just as their forefathers were. These people have no voice, because their voice is that of someone else.
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Nov 19, 2011 20:21:09 GMT -5
I think that the Civil War was the war America could have done without. I agree. If only Iron Man hadn't been such a dick about the registration act, Cap wouldn't've gotten killed, One More Day would never have happened, and Norman Osborn would never have taken over S.H.I.E.L.D. We could've skipped the last four or so events entirely~ =3
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 19, 2011 22:12:12 GMT -5
Exactly Itfred. We should have just cut them loose and keep their bile out of the Northern States. And it would attract conservatives to go there.
Although another big reason why reconstruction didn't work was because Lincoln died and was replaced by an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 20, 2011 10:01:56 GMT -5
Fred, you have hit the nail on the head here. You have said everything that I've wanted to say about the South, but was unable to articulate. One could portray the whole of American history as the reasonably-liberal North capitulating--not compromising with, capitulating--to the ultraconservative South. I say the Civil War didn't go far enough. Saying that it shouldn't have been fought is like saying that the Second World War shouldn't have been fought. What the North should have done was crank Reconstruction efforts up to eleven, by which I mean "dedixification". After all, the Allies, having learned from the total failure of the North to civilize the South after the Civil War, pulled out all the stops and showed no mercy to German culture with their denazification. After World War II, the allies would even show in movie theaters graphic footage of the horrors of the concentration camps with captions saying to the audience "These atrocities were YOUR fault!" We didn't have movies during the Civil War, but the North should have done something similar to South at least, probably with things like posters. But as Fred said, we missed our chance, and American conservatism is probably here to stay, which is why we Americans will forever be behind Europe, and it's all the South's fault. Northern Americans were never too keen on the whole "racism" or "economic exploitation" things. Had the South never existed, the United States would probably be as liberal as places like Scandinavia are now. The North's (and Europe's) philosophy is much closer to that of the Founders and the Framers than anything of the South. So I think that I would not be inaccurate to say that Southerners are not "real Americans". After all, they've been shitting on the ideals of this country literally since it was founded.
|
|