🚀 go-pugleaf

amsler@nevada.edu (JOHN AMSLER) wrote:

>John Fereira (fereira@isis.com) wrote:
>: In article <43lsru$44d@aadt.sdt.com> leb@sdt.com writes:
>: >fereira@isis.com (John Fereira) wrote:
>: >>Stop looking for "solutions" to the dating problem.
>: >>Just get out and meet people.
>: >
>: >I think that's a little easier said than done, in this age
>: >of possible psycopaths around every corner (real or imagined).
>
>: I never said it was easy.  Possible psychopaths around every corner?
>: Isn't that a bit paranoid?  
>
>[snip]
>
>Paranoid?  Hmmm.  You might want to ask the victims of Charles Manson,
>Richard Speck, Albert deSalvo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Henry Lee Lucas & Ottis
>Toole, or Gerald Gallego.  Unfortunately, you can't ... because they're
>all dead, viciously murdered not by ghosts or imaginary goblins, but by
>*real* psychopaths!  (Here's an idea:  Polly Klaas's parents are still
>around;  why don't you ask *them* about "paranoia" and "psychopaths?"  I'm
>sure they would have a unique perspective on the subject at which you seem
>to sneer.) In this corrupted, barbaric, morally rudderless, disintegrating
>"society," people -- especially women -- who don't adopt serious measures
>for their own self-defense and preservation are assuming an unacceptable
>risk ... attested to by the roster of any cemetery, the slabs of any
>morgue, or the blotter of any large-city police department!  For you to
>dismiss the matter as "paranoid" is quite haughty and condescending, at 
>least as I interpret it. 
>
>(No personal offense is intended, of course, I'm merely responding to the
> "Isn't that a bit paranoid?" crack.)
>
>- John J. Amsler
>  OK, very funny, Scotty.  Now beam up my clothes!
>

Let's put those things into perspective, John.  There are over 250 Million people
in this country....the number killed by "psychopaths" like you mentioned, percentage
wise is incredibly low...this not including "normal" murders involving people already
acquainted.  You probably have a better chance of hitting the lottery than to get
involved with a "psychopathic" killer.  The corrupt, moral-less society you talk about
in a sense has always existed, the difference is that we didn't have "yellow journalists"
on the TV, Radio, and Newpapers shouting about all the negative things happening.  It's my
contention that we have been intentionally programmed to be "paranoid."  When people
are afraid of each other, there is no unity, no sense of community.  Without unity, there is
no defense against inequity, violations of personal freedom, and police-state tactics.  It has
been a trick of every totalitarian ruler in the 20th century to erode personal freedoms in the 
name of "law and order."  And if we are made to believe that our society has become 
anarchistic, then we will accept any laws, restrictions and violations of our dearest held rights
if they proport to ensure our security.  As a 44 year old man who has seen this country change,
I can attest that we are much less free than we were 30 years ago.  In fact, in reality, we are 
only as free as the powers that be decide we are.  When they decide, for whatever reason, that 
we have become a threat, watch how fast your freedoms evaporate into thin air...with almost no
one to defend you, as there are few lawyers today willing to buck the system as in the 60's.  
It's time we stop being afraid of each other and start regarding strangers, not as a threat, but as 
a potential friend.  Be cautious, but not paranoid.  Careful, but not cold.  A very wise Man once put
it this way..."Be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves."  This applies to men as well as women,
though it seems to many women we men are the "enemy."  Somehow I don't believe "man-hating"
was one of the goals of the early women's movement.  One of the most disturbing phenomena I have
observed is the complete disrespect for anyone else's viewport but our own.  This "flaming" on the 
net is to me symptomatic of the total alienation from each other that has occurred over the last 20 or 
so years.  I was once under the naive belief that computer users by nature were intelligent and somewhat
educated..but the preponderance of intolerance that I've seen here just proves that many of these so-called
cyber-heads are as ignorant as any bigotted, racist redneck.  (and I'm not referring to Southerners...rednecks 
hail from all areas).  In fact, I've seen a lot of them right here in Boston.  I've strayed from the main subject, but
to return...caution in dealing with strangers is prudent, paranoia is destructive...most of the people you meet are
generally just like you...average folks just trying to get by, with the same concerns and probably similar desires in
life that you and I have.  We're lonely and alienated because we're afraid...and that's not good.  I've seen it in some
of the women I've talked to here.  They'll talk on the phone or.online...but won't meet, even in a public, perfectly safe
place.  And these are local women.  I can't understand it.  Why would someone prefer a relationship via electronic 
media rather than personal contact??  Is that the future of romance in this country??  If this is the "Brave New World"...
thanks but no thanks...this life is short and we all have to go sometime...I'd rather take my chances with the real world
than to sit, alone, bored, and frightened of "imaginary" boogiemen out to get me.  That life isn't worth living in my book.
I say imaginary in the sense that the odds are so against it happening as to be miniscule....life isn't worth living if it becomes
little more than an avoidance of death.  
As one of my favorite "philosophers" puts it...."That's just my opinion......I could be wrong."




"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to 
    live in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden