Travel to hostile countries.

rutger5000

New member
Oct 19, 2010
1,052
0
0
DjinnFor said:
rutger5000 said:
But there's a huge difference in people being able to attack you because they went through years of disiplined training to learn an art that requires a calm mind and self control, and people people being to attack you because they've got a tool that any drunken/deranged/psychotic/etc etc etc fool could use.
People are able to attack you at any time for any reason with anything.

rutger5000 said:
One can actual pose a danger to you without being provoked, and the other is much more likely to leave you alone.
The point is, both are equally likely to happen in their respective countries. Compare statistics of Triad violence on tourists in China to instances of Bloods/Crips violence on tourists in America.
But that's not really the topic I was discussing. Someone else claimed America was a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. Someone replied to that saying that that was flawed logic as that would make China a dangerous nation as most people study Kung fu there. I replied to that statement by trying to explain why people trained in martial arts shouldn't be considered to be as dangerous as people armed with fire-arms.
I know little of crime statistics, so I wouldn't be able to tell you where you're more likely to get mugged or killed. But do you really think that the Triad uses Kung Fu when they're mugging and killing people?
 

ThrobbingEgo

New member
Nov 17, 2008
2,765
0
0
Boris Goodenough said:
Nightfall2021 said:
It is nice to not have people trying to convert you all the time though. No flyers, people on street corners or knocking at your door to spread the word.
When I was in Israel I saw a fair few Hasidic jews trying to convert non-Hasidic looking jews, they completely avoided my family and I lol.
I don't know if you're jewish or not, but proselytizing to gentiles is usually discouraged in judaism.

As an atheist of jewish background who loves freedom of speech and thought (and has a couple non-quite-yet-mainstream beliefs himself), I'm not against proselytizers so long as they get off my property when I ask politely. I don't think we're 'done' as a society--there's plenty more conversation to have, going forward.
 

DjinnFor

New member
Nov 20, 2009
281
0
0
rutger5000 said:
But that's not really the topic I was discussing. Someone else claimed America was a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. Someone replied to that saying that that was flawed logic as that would make China a dangerous nation as most people study Kung fu there.
Claimed it "was a dangerous nation"? That's so broad you could attach any meaning to that sentence, which is why you can bring completely irrelevant things in like the dispositions of random subgroups (in your case, lunatics in America compared to fine, upstanding Chinese citizens) and how that might factor in to how "dangerous" a nation is.

What they actually said was, they were worried that coming to America would increase their likelihood of being killed because of gun laws. Which is an invalid argument if (say for example), statistically, they aren't any more likely to be killed. Or, it could be an unsound argument, like if the gun laws don't actually make the country more dangerous to live in than it would be otherwise.

The argument was basically "I'm scared of guns, they could hurt people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to America". Which is equivalent to "I'm scared of fighting, it hurts people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to China". Using vague terms like "dangerous" in place of factual claims like "more likely to get hurt or die" is disingenuous and adds nothing to the discussion.

rutger5000 said:
I replied to that statement by trying to explain why people trained in martial arts shouldn't be considered to be as dangerous as people armed with fire-arms.
Which is irrelevant, and the argument was absurd anyhow. You can say that they shouldn't be considered as dangerous as people armed with firearms all you want; the only relevant concern is whether they are actually as dangerous as people armed with firearms.

rutger5000 said:
I know little of crime statistics, so I wouldn't be able to tell you where you're more likely to get mugged or killed. But do you really think that the Triad uses Kung Fu when they're mugging and killing people?
What I do know is that comparing apples to oranges is meaningless. At least compare criminals to criminals, or death rates to death rates. Assuming that Chinese martial artists are less dangerous than American gun owners, especially when you imply that American gun owners are all dangerous lunatics or criminals, just assumes is true what you are supposed to prove.
 

bananafishtoday

New member
Nov 30, 2012
312
0
0
DjinnFor said:
rutger5000 said:
But that's not really the topic I was discussing. Someone else claimed America was a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. Someone replied to that saying that that was flawed logic as that would make China a dangerous nation as most people study Kung fu there.
Claimed it "was a dangerous nation"? That's so broad you could attach any meaning to that sentence, which is why you can bring completely irrelevant things in like the dispositions of random subgroups (in your case, lunatics in America compared to fine, upstanding Chinese citizens) and how that might factor in to how "dangerous" a nation is.

What they actually said was, they were worried that coming to America would increase their likelihood of being killed because of gun laws. Which is an invalid argument if (say for example), statistically, they aren't any more likely to be killed. Or, it could be an unsound argument, like if the gun laws don't actually make the country more dangerous to live in than it would be otherwise.

The argument was basically "I'm scared of guns, they could hurt people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to America". Which is equivalent to "I'm scared of fighting, it hurts people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to China". Using vague terms like "dangerous" in place of factual claims like "more likely to get hurt or die" is disingenuous and adds nothing to the discussion.

rutger5000 said:
I replied to that statement by trying to explain why people trained in martial arts shouldn't be considered to be as dangerous as people armed with fire-arms.
Which is irrelevant, and the argument was absurd anyhow. You can say that they shouldn't be considered as dangerous as people armed with firearms all you want; the only relevant concern is whether they are actually as dangerous as people armed with firearms.

rutger5000 said:
I know little of crime statistics, so I wouldn't be able to tell you where you're more likely to get mugged or killed. But do you really think that the Triad uses Kung Fu when they're mugging and killing people?
What I do know is that comparing apples to oranges is meaningless. At least compare criminals to criminals, or death rates to death rates. Assuming that Chinese martial artists are less dangerous than American gun owners, especially when you imply that American gun owners are all dangerous lunatics or criminals, just assumes is true what you are supposed to prove.
Alright, death rates to death rates. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's 2012 numbers, China has a per capita murder rate comparable to that of France, Sweden, and Australia. The United States' per capita murder rate is nearly five times theirs, comparable to Cuba, Belarus, and Thailand. The total number of murders committed in the US was higher than in China in 2012 despite our having like a quarter their population.

I'm not commenting on the reasons why this might be. But your rampant kung fu homicide crisis in China doesn't make much sense because a) come on srsly, and b) you are far more likely to be murdered in the US than China.

Edit: Also the list of the top 50 cities in the world by per capita murder rate is mostly Brazil, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, South Africa, and the US. Not a single European or Asian city makes the cut.
 

rutger5000

New member
Oct 19, 2010
1,052
0
0
DjinnFor said:
rutger5000 said:
But that's not really the topic I was discussing. Someone else claimed America was a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. Someone replied to that saying that that was flawed logic as that would make China a dangerous nation as most people study Kung fu there.
Claimed it "was a dangerous nation"? That's so broad you could attach any meaning to that sentence, which is why you can bring completely irrelevant things in like the dispositions of random subgroups (in your case, lunatics in America compared to fine, upstanding Chinese citizens) and how that might factor in to how "dangerous" a nation is.

What they actually said was, they were worried that coming to America would increase their likelihood of being killed because of gun laws. Which is an invalid argument if (say for example), statistically, they aren't any more likely to be killed. Or, it could be an unsound argument, like if the gun laws don't actually make the country more dangerous to live in than it would be otherwise.

The argument was basically "I'm scared of guns, they could hurt people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to America". Which is equivalent to "I'm scared of fighting, it hurts people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to China". Using vague terms like "dangerous" in place of factual claims like "more likely to get hurt or die" is disingenuous and adds nothing to the discussion.

rutger5000 said:
I replied to that statement by trying to explain why people trained in martial arts shouldn't be considered to be as dangerous as people armed with fire-arms.
Which is irrelevant, and the argument was absurd anyhow. You can say that they shouldn't be considered as dangerous as people armed with firearms all you want; the only relevant concern is whether they are actually as dangerous as people armed with firearms.

rutger5000 said:
I know little of crime statistics, so I wouldn't be able to tell you where you're more likely to get mugged or killed. But do you really think that the Triad uses Kung Fu when they're mugging and killing people?
What I do know is that comparing apples to oranges is meaningless. At least compare criminals to criminals, or death rates to death rates. Assuming that Chinese martial artists are less dangerous than American gun owners, especially when you imply that American gun owners are all dangerous lunatics or criminals, just assumes is true what you are supposed to prove.
You missed the point again, but granted that could have been my fault. I wrote yesterdays reply rather late in the evening.
I wasn't trying to say that American gun owners are more dangerous then Chinese martial artists. I was trying to say that random people with guns are more dangerous than random people who know martial arts. I wasn't defending the guy who said that America is a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. But I was debating with the guy who said that if you feared guns you should also fear martial arts.
 

Meihua

New member
May 6, 2013
6
0
0
Some people already mentioned the whole risk-taking thing.

But maybe it's also ignorance on some people's part? I dunno. In my country, some areas are tourist hotspots but hte further you go south, the more dangerous it becomes. It's where the Muslim communist rebels are and they're notorious for kidnapping foreigners and demanding ransom from the government.

Maybe they had no idea. Maybe they're missionaries or activists or reporters? Jobs that can be dangerous.
 

RhombusHatesYou

New member
Mar 21, 2010
5,800
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Where in the country were you when that happened? You must have been in some pretty seriously shitty corner of a major city for that to be an issue, one crawling with gangs.
Couple of mates of mine got lost driving around Chicago, ended in some rough part of town and ended up getting directions from a street gang. They even convinced the gang members to pose with them for pictures as proof it happened. Yes, apparently even 'hardened street thugs' are susceptible to the Aussie accent.

That or it's a bunch of bullshit and they paid a bunch of black guys all wearing lots of the same colour to pose in pics to add authenticity to it... never know with those two.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
RhombusHatesYou said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Where in the country were you when that happened? You must have been in some pretty seriously shitty corner of a major city for that to be an issue, one crawling with gangs.
Couple of mates of mine got lost driving around Chicago, ended in some rough part of town and ended up getting directions from a street gang. They even convinced the gang members to pose with them for pictures as proof it happened. Yes, apparently even 'hardened street thugs' are susceptible to the Aussie accent.

That or it's a bunch of bullshit and they paid a bunch of black guys all wearing lots of the same colour to pose in pics to add authenticity to it... never know with those two.
It could be true. Street gangs make most of their money in drug trafficking these days. Since your friends were obviously neither cops, part of a rival gang, or customers, they didn't exactly have a reason to do anything untoward to them.
 

RhombusHatesYou

New member
Mar 21, 2010
5,800
0
0
Remus said:
I do live by a lake, and a huge forest, with a deer overpopulation problem, so vacationing in cities would not only end up with me getting utterly lost on the wrong side of town, but I'd miss seeing the stars and smelling the air. I'd really like to see New Zealand, for obvious reasons beyond what I just mentioned.
Word of warning, once you leave their tiny cities the landscape in New Zealand quickly goes all Majestic and Awe-Inspiring. NZ will give you all the nature you want and more (unless you're a weirdo like me who prefers deserts).

As for getting lost on the 'wrong side of town'... Kiwis are a pretty friendly mob, so you'll get the directions or help you need. The only worry you'll really have is how to turn down the offer of a few beers without being seen as rude (this is a problem also faced by tourists in Australia).
 

RhombusHatesYou

New member
Mar 21, 2010
5,800
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
It could be true. Street gangs make most of their money in drug trafficking these days. Since your friends were obviously neither cops, part of a rival gang, or customers, they didn't exactly have a reason to do anything untoward to them.
Knowing some of the shit these blokes got up to in the Army, I'm pretty sure it is true... but they're big enough bullshitters for anything they claim to be in doubt to some degree.
 

Platypus540

New member
May 11, 2011
312
0
0
StBishop said:
As far as travel to hostile countries, it applies to anywhere dangerous. I am genuinely too afraid for my safety to travel to the US. The idea that random [footnote]see: untrained, who don't require it to protect me ie. military/law-enforcement/security personnel.[/footnote] people can have guns terrifies me.
That's... a little ridiculous and slightly offensive. I've been to Berlin, and it's basically the same city as New York, but in German (Edit: Berlin is actually a little more like Boston than NY, now that I think about it). All Americans aren't lunatic rednecks/crackhead gangstas. I've lived in the US my entire life, and I've only ever seen guns on policemen-- don't base your opinion of a country on the media hype or stereotype (Except Switzerland. Everything there really is super clean and organized, the chocolate really is that good, and all the people really are super nice.) It's like if I said that I'd never want to go to Italy, because I'm terrified of the Mafia.

OT: It's a combination of the adrenaline rush and just wanting to experience something truly unique. You can read about North Korea or Somalia in the news, you can watch documentaries, but it's not the same as actually seeing it, and for a lot of people that's just not enough to satisfy their curiosity. Incidentally, I would like to go to North Korea someday, for that exact reason.
 

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
Sometimes depends on your race, sexuality, gender, etc. Many cultures can be potentially lethal to foreigners who don't know the customs. If you're prepared to adapt to local culture, it should not be so much of a problem. For example, Women must wear hijab, and modest clothing in devout Muslim countries, and don't travel unaccompanied if local culture frowns upon it. If you don't pay attention to customs, tradition, and etiquette as any good guest should, then you are partly to blame if harm should befall you because of your carelessness and disrespect. Sounds harsh, but you can't suddenly go to a foreign country and do as you like, that's a good way to alienate locals - infringing upon customs is one of the biggest preventable sources of crime against tourists. Most foreign cultures won't be so hostile if you try to blend in somewhat, act street smart, and don't wear your own culture on your shoulder.

Though it will always be dangerous to go to countries where your nationality/race is regarded as the arch-enemy. For example, Japanese in China, or Jewish Israelis across much of the Middle East. And of course those with Anti-Western governments such as Iran or North Korea. The people might not be that bad if you respect their customs, but the government could take you as a hostage for "spying".

Also, you definitely don't want to travel alone or unescorted to countries with a high reputation for mugging, abduction, and rape against foreigners. Locals can and will take advantage of you.

But then, some people enjoy the risk and adventure, it gives them an adrenaline rush.
 

StBishop

New member
Sep 22, 2009
3,251
0
0
Platypus540 said:
StBishop said:
As far as travel to hostile countries, it applies to anywhere dangerous. I am genuinely too afraid for my safety to travel to the US. The idea that random [footnote]see: untrained, who don't require it to protect me ie. military/law-enforcement/security personnel.[/footnote] people can have guns terrifies me.
That's... a little ridiculous and slightly offensive. I've been to Berlin, and it's basically the same city as New York, but in German (Edit: Berlin is actually a little more like Boston than NY, now that I think about it). All Americans aren't lunatic rednecks/crackhead gangstas. I've lived in the US my entire life, and I've only ever seen guns on policemen-- don't base your opinion of a country on the media hype or stereotype (Except Switzerland. Everything there really is super clean and organized, the chocolate really is that good, and all the people really are super nice.) It's like if I said that I'd never want to go to Italy, because I'm terrified of the Mafia.

OT: It's a combination of the adrenaline rush and just wanting to experience something truly unique. You can read about North Korea or Somalia in the news, you can watch documentaries, but it's not the same as actually seeing it, and for a lot of people that's just not enough to satisfy their curiosity. Incidentally, I would like to go to North Korea someday, for that exact reason.
How is it offensive. Untrained people can have guns in some parts of the country. From what I've heard from US citizens I've met, that's most of the country.

I'm not saying "All Americans have guns." nor am I saying "People with guns are lunatics.". I'm merely stating that I find the gun control laws in the US terrifyingly lax in comparison to other countries. I'm not saying they (the gun control laws) are bad, just that I am afraid of them.

I don't expect to be mugged and shot if I visit the US, but I do wish to avoid the risk.

Quick note. I don't think guns are bad, I don't think people shouldn't be allowed them. I think people should be trained to care for and respect their gun before being given a licence to own one.
I take it as a given that licencing for a gun makes as much sense as licensing for a car, or high powered tools, or the ability to operate any dangerous machinery. If people disagree, that's ok, I don't think they're wrong for disagreeing with me.