logo Sign In

Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate — Page 7

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter

It definitely could be, I used the words 'doesn't HAVE to' so I wouldn't be debating this point though. There are times when it's necessary, and times when it's not.

huh? your reply did not make sense. And you orginally said:

Originally posted by: Jagdlieter

You don't have to FIGHT in order to fight for what is good and decent.


You also never answered this question:

Originally posted by: Warbler
I saw a trailer for a new tonight, it is about flight 93. That is the fourth plane that was taken over by terrorists on 911. That plane was headed most probably for the White House. The only reason the White House stands today and 100's more didn't die on 911 is because the people on that plane fought back. Were they wrong?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
I saw a trailer for a new tonight, it is about flight 93. That is the fourth plane that was taken over by terrorists on 911. That plane was headed most probably for the White House. The only reason the White House stands today and 100's more didn't die on 911 is because the people on that plane fought back. Were they wrong?


This is a very simple question when your life is in danger it's okay to fight.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Warbler
I saw a trailer for a new tonight, it is about flight 93. That is the fourth plane that was taken over by terrorists on 911. That plane was headed most probably for the White House. The only reason the White House stands today and 100's more didn't die on 911 is because the people on that plane fought back. Were they wrong?


This is a very simple question when your life is in danger it's okay to fight.


OK first, let me say that the idea of doing such a film is quite tasteless, and I could not belive they were doing it when I saw the previews.

Regarding this example, it made me think for a while. It's hard to say how justifiable it would be, as they were clearly fighting to save their own lifes. I belive that, on this case, the whole action was beyond the violence/non-violence issue. Imagine that the pilots were unconscious, wouldn't the passengers do something as well? Regardless of what is imposing the threat, they did the one action they had in mind, stopping the plane from crashing.

Now, we have come across a line that divides the violence and non-violence, what we have been arguing about. First, what I have been claiming all this time, that violence should never be used, should be valid for BOTH sides, and if one of those breaks this "rule", no matter which one, it becomes the wrong side. Now, you guys have claimed that it is impossible to prevent the others from doing harm, and when they do harm, we should reply with a greater harm to stop it. Is it really impossible to stop it?

Think for a while. Imagine an hypothetic country that never, ever atacks any country, unless it is being atacked (and NO this country does NOT exist in real world). It is not too hard to imagine why would a country have such a policy, right? I mean, most of us here would actually have that policy. We would rule our own countries this way, right? And yet, why dosen't every country do that? Mind their own business, being friendly with other nations, getting busy with their own things instead of trying to overcome the world and do harmful things to its own people or any other people? Why would anyone be a tyrant, a blood-shedding ruler?

Peace is teorically possible, there is nothing forcing us to be violent. What is it then? Money? Quest for power? And for what? Don't you guys agree that it is possible to make sure we have countries that only do good? How do we acomplish that? One way could be by killing all the evil doers who are currently in power. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Idi Amin Dada (which was ignored by the world but oh well) all those bad guys. Kill em all. Get an army, move into the country, depose the tyrant and install a democratic regime.

Oh but wait. You guys said that there will always be a Hitler being born in a sea of Gandhis. The human kind will never be pure. So, by killing those, you are only bringing violence into the world, but making these "nails" shorter, not ever completely cut. It's a strategy, and a valid one if you think about it. But not 100% effective, and guaranteed to bring death and pain to the whole world.

My idea is to focus on peace. That's why I always speak against companies that profit from war, countries and leaders who do the same, and fundamentalist leaders who use religion in order to get their personal agenda done (which is, mostly, ALSO war profit related, but I rather not go into that now). My idea is to BELIVE we can achieve the hypothetical country, and prevent the evil doers from getting into power in first place, by making sure its people is educated and independent enough to diplomatic fight those.

Take the rise of the nazi germany. Most Germans back then were iliterate and starving, with their own pride hurt by a previous violence act, which, to THEM, would justify their war. We can avoid this kind of situations we we FOCUS our minds on peace.

Taking the analogy of countries and leaders, the same can be done to people. We can prevent violence on tough neighborhoods on our cities, can't we? And some had some progress, take New York City as an example. Isn't it possible to build a better world, no matter how big or small this "world" is? FOCUS on peace.

So, back to the example you gave, of that 9-11 flight. Could it be justifiable, under those circustances? Maybe. Hard to think of what Gandhi or Jesus would do in such situation. Probably try to negociate or reason. Could they be successful? Maybe, maybe not. Was violence successful on that case? Partially, but they were not able to save their own lifes. But what I want to focus is not on that particular moment in history, but on ALL the moments that culminated on that morning of september 11, 2001. On why the situation escalated into that, and how can we focus on PEACE from now on, so things like that don't happen in the future. And I'm sorry to say that by making wars we will NEVER achieve success.

We might as well be doomned, and frankly, the whole situation bring me to consider that a worldwide suicide is the solution, but since I have hope on what I belive is right, I'll keep fighting for it. Not with my fists, but with my words and acts.

And that is all I have to say about it at this moment.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
It's pretty much impossible to be either black or white. I know my opinion at first was that violence is NEVER justifiable. But thinking about all we've talked about, I really can't say that truthfully. It's more like I wish I was like that, but I know I'm not.

So Warbler; in response to you, yeah basically what sean said. My feelings right about now are as follows:

  • No it is not ok to kill when you have the choice not to and can still complete your goal. (then again if someone killed my mom, would I follow this? I don't know...)

  • Yes it is ok to kill when your life is threatened, directly or indirectly.

  • Yes it is ok to kill to withhold the rights of all humans beings, ie. freedom

    I know I changed sides on some of these, but then again who doesn't at times. And who knows, I may change again but I think I'm pretty sturdy on these ones.
  • http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
    Author
    Time
    Ric, I think this is the reason that there are no countries like the hypothetical one you mentioned...

    First of all; there are so many members of congress, and the vice president, and the sec. of state, and etc etc all those guys. This makes it so that even if the President is a guy like us, his advisors may still disagree or congress may still vote against his peaceful ideas.

    My point, there is so many guys in higher powers that it is basically IMPOSSIBLE for them to all be "nice".

    Now, under a dictatorship: If Saddam was "nice", AND he had 100% control of his country, then THAT would be your hypothetical country.

    EDIT: I double posted because while I was writing mine he had posted his.
    http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
    Author
    Time
    Originally posted by: ricarleite
    So, back to the example you gave, of that 9-11 flight. Could it be justifiable, under those circustances? Maybe. Hard to think of what Gandhi or Jesus would do in such situation. Probably try to negociate or reason. Could they be successful? Maybe, maybe not. Was violence successful on that case? Partially, but they were not able to save their own lifes.


    Maybe I'm playing the numbers game here, but by sacrificing their lives, the passengers on that flight potentially saved many more lives. Their action was an overwhelming success. Faced with that situation, I think Ghandi or Jesus would have done exactly the same. They believed in non-violence, yes, but they wouldn't just roll over and die. The passengers on that flight likely would have died either way. I'd rather have them take action and die as heroes knowing they might have saved hundreds more, than have them try to negotiate with terrorists who were already dead-set on taking that plane who knows where.

    This wasn't a situation of violence. It was a situation of heroic sacrifice.
    Author
    Time
    Originally posted by: ricarleite



    Regarding this example, it made me think for a while. It's hard to say how justifiable it would be, as they were clearly fighting to save their own lifes. I belive that, on this case, the whole action was beyond the violence/non-violence issue. Imagine that the pilots were unconscious, wouldn't the passengers do something as well? Regardless of what is imposing the threat, they did the one action they had in mind, stopping the plane from crashing.

    Wait a minute. They may have originally been fighting to save their own lives, but eventually there is the point where all they can do is prevent the plane from killing anyone else, which is what they did. Transcripts of some of the phone calls showed they had no illusions they were going to survive.

    Think for a while. Imagine an hypothetic country that never, ever atacks any country, unless it is being atacked (and NO this country does NOT exist in real world). It is not too hard to imagine why would a country have such a policy, right? I mean, most of us here would actually have that policy. We would rule our own countries this way, right? And yet, why dosen't every country do that? Mind their own business, being friendly with other nations, getting busy with their own things instead of trying to overcome the world and do harmful things to its own people or any other people? Why would anyone be a tyrant, a blood-shedding ruler?

    There are evil people in the world Ric. And I believe that it is more noble to fight for others than for oneself. America was not being attacked by Germany, so would you by this standard condemn their involvement in WW2 in Europe? After all, only Japan directly attacked us.

    Peace is teorically possible, there is nothing forcing us to be violent. What is it then? Money? Quest for power? And for what? Don't you guys agree that it is possible to make sure we have countries that only do good? How do we acomplish that? One way could be by killing all the evil doers who are currently in power. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Idi Amin Dada (which was ignored by the world but oh well) all those bad guys. Kill em all. Get an army, move into the country, depose the tyrant and install a democratic regime.

    Realisticially this isn't possible. Military resources spread too thin are doomed to failure too.


    Oh but wait. You guys said that there will always be a Hitler being born in a sea of Gandhis. The human kind will never be pure. So, by killing those, you are only bringing violence into the world, but making these "nails" shorter, not ever completely cut. It's a strategy, and a valid one if you think about it. But not 100% effective, and guaranteed to bring death and pain to the whole world.

    What's your point. All this hypothetical nonsense has nothing to do with the real world we live in where most of the UN nations on the human rights commisssion are nations with horrible track records in human rights. THAT is the kind of world we live in Ric. We need solutions that work HERE, not in a hypothetical world.

    My idea is to focus on peace. That's why I always speak against companies that profit from war, countries and leaders who do the same, and fundamentalist leaders who use religion in order to get their personal agenda done

    Hence, the Islamofacisists united against America.

    My idea is to BELIVE we can achieve the hypothetical country, and prevent the evil doers from getting into power in first place, by making sure its people is educated and independent enough to diplomatic fight those.

    But how do we prevent this? No one man controls the political system of the world, Ric, and God help us if one ever did! Your system would essentially require a set of Dragon Balls or a nifty genie.

    Take the rise of the nazi germany. Most Germans back then were iliterate and starving, with their own pride hurt by a previous violence act, which, to THEM, would justify their war. We can avoid this kind of situations we we FOCUS our minds on peace.

    Excactly. World War I and it's aftermath is the object lesson in how NOT to treat a country after defeating it in a War. I agree with this part of your argument.

    Taking the analogy of countries and leaders, the same can be done to people. We can prevent violence on tough neighborhoods on our cities, can't we? And some had some progress, take New York City as an example. Isn't it possible to build a better world, no matter how big or small this "world" is? FOCUS on peace.


    Again, the only control we have over OTHER nations is either through the worthless and innefectual UN, or through diplomatic or military action. And "Peace" is a non word in places like North Korea and Iran.

    So, back to the example you gave, of that 9-11 flight. Could it be justifiable, under those circustances? Maybe. Hard to think of what Gandhi or Jesus would do in such situation. Probably try to negociate or reason.


    Gandhi would tell everyone that they should just allow themselves to die. I can't speak for what Jesus would do, but his options are pretty much infinite. If he wanted them all to live, he could just teleport them off the plain.

    Could they be successful? Maybe, maybe not.


    Definitely not. Negotiation with people who want to kill you and as many others as possible isn't possible.

    Was violence successful on that case? Partially, but they were not able to save their own lifes.


    Hey, they did the best they could with what they had, and they are remembered as heroes. Everyone else on all the other plains are victims. If I had to choose, I'd prefer to be remembered a hero.

    But what I want to focus is not on that particular moment in history, but on ALL the moments that culminated on that morning of september 11, 2001. On why the situation escalated into that, and how can we focus on PEACE from now on, so things like that don't happen in the future. And I'm sorry to say that by making wars we will NEVER achieve success.


    Yes, Ric. Let's give the terrorists what they want. Let's let them drive America out of the Middle East when our intentions there are purely commercial and not in any way malevolent. Let us stand by as they bomb, shell, and shoot Israeli's until they flee their ancestral homeland or die. Let's let them treat their women like slaves and their children like weapons.

    On second thought, no. Let's not. You think I'm being extreme? Well think about it. Negotiation is giving them some of what they want. But what they want is the DESTRUCTION of people, property, and a way of life. Those things are NOT on my bargaining table, and I think most sane people would agree!

    We might as well be doomned, and frankly, the whole situation bring me to consider that a worldwide suicide is the solution


    Well, great, Ric. Let's all go cry about it and pop some cyanide pills. Ugh. Give me a break and either get over it, or stop thinking about it.

    But since I have hope on what I belive is right, I'll keep fighting for it. Not with my fists, but with my words and acts.


    Ric, as a friend, I must say this: please, get off your high moral horse and come back to reality.



    4

    Author
    Time
    I actually believe that Flight 93 was shot down by the US airforce in order to stop it reaching it's target. The good ol' American passengers fighting back is a much more palatable story though (although if I am right and the plane was shot down, I can see the governments reasons. If they had managed to shoot down the 2 planes heading for the trade center, forcing them to crash land in a field outside of New York City, world history would be very different).

    This has little to do with the 'is violence justified' discussion, but it does relate to the 'greater good' sub-discussion.

    War does not make one great.

    Author
    Time
    It wasn't shot down. The passengers actually reclaimed control and tried to land in a field but failed.
    http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
    Author
    Time
    So says the government and media, and as a result so says the history books. I would actually be shocked if the government didn't try to protect the lives of many by shooting down the lives of the 'few'.

    War does not make one great.

    Author
    Time
    I dunno, your theory is realistic but I doubt no one would have noticed evidence of a missle striking a plane. It would have been in the debris.

    That's what experts are for!

    Then again........what if the government sent the experts.....?
    http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
    Author
    Time
    Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
    Then again........what if the government sent the experts.....?
    Exactly. You think the government's never done a cover-up? And in this case a cover-up it would be justified - They wouldn't want to disgust and divide the country in a time when everybody needs to pull together, so their motives for covering it up would be in the interests of the nation rather than just to protect themselves.

    Anyway, we're going off topic, but those are my beliefs, based on actions by governments (not just the US government) in the past.

    War does not make one great.

    Author
    Time
    Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
    Originally posted by: ricarleite
    Regarding this example, it made me think for a while. It's hard to say how justifiable it would be, as they were clearly fighting to save their own lifes. I belive that, on this case, the whole action was beyond the violence/non-violence issue. Imagine that the pilots were unconscious, wouldn't the passengers do something as well? Regardless of what is imposing the threat, they did the one action they had in mind, stopping the plane from crashing.

    Wait a minute. They may have originally been fighting to save their own lives, but eventually there is the point where all they can do is prevent the plane from killing anyone else, which is what they did. Transcripts of some of the phone calls showed they had no illusions they were going to survive.


    But they weren't willing to let themselves die either. I am not sure about the whole sequence of events, but I hardly think they crashed the plane, they were trying to make it land.


    Think for a while. Imagine an hypothetic country that never, ever atacks any country, unless it is being atacked (and NO this country does NOT exist in real world). It is not too hard to imagine why would a country have such a policy, right? I mean, most of us here would actually have that policy. We would rule our own countries this way, right? And yet, why dosen't every country do that? Mind their own business, being friendly with other nations, getting busy with their own things instead of trying to overcome the world and do harmful things to its own people or any other people? Why would anyone be a tyrant, a blood-shedding ruler?

    There are evil people in the world Ric. And I believe that it is more noble to fight for others than for oneself. America was not being attacked by Germany, so would you by this standard condemn their involvement in WW2 in Europe? After all, only Japan directly attacked us.

    Ah yes, there are evil people. They are born evil. Out of nowhere. And we all know how evil people get the means to cause violence easily. Try to think a little bit of why these evil people exist. And if only Japan attacked America, why did Hirohito lived until 1989? Why didn't the US or Britain remove Idi Amin Dada out of office?


    Peace is teorically possible, there is nothing forcing us to be violent. What is it then? Money? Quest for power? And for what? Don't you guys agree that it is possible to make sure we have countries that only do good? How do we acomplish that? One way could be by killing all the evil doers who are currently in power. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Idi Amin Dada (which was ignored by the world but oh well) all those bad guys. Kill em all. Get an army, move into the country, depose the tyrant and install a democratic regime.

    Realisticially this isn't possible. Military resources spread too thin are doomed to failure too.


    Agree. But I wasn't really proposing such action.


    Oh but wait. You guys said that there will always be a Hitler being born in a sea of Gandhis. The human kind will never be pure. So, by killing those, you are only bringing violence into the world, but making these "nails" shorter, not ever completely cut. It's a strategy, and a valid one if you think about it. But not 100% effective, and guaranteed to bring death and pain to the whole world.

    What's your point. All this hypothetical nonsense has nothing to do with the real world we live in where most of the UN nations on the human rights commisssion are nations with horrible track records in human rights. THAT is the kind of world we live in Ric. We need solutions that work HERE, not in a hypothetical world.


    I am not sure why you have chosen this part of my quotes to reply, as I was not mentioning any hypothetical nonsense at this part of the text. What I was saying is that in your real world, there is no way a complete victory can be achieved, so violence must be used constatly and forever. Keeping your own "freedom", which is highly debatable, by mantaining an army powerful enough to secure your own way of life. So let's keep it simple, the REAL world: Evil people come out of nowhere. They want to end our freedom and way of life due to some unknown reason (well actually we don't care, they are evil doers!). We destroy his army, or his country, or himself, whatever is posing the threat. We keep our secure lifes in our own homes. The rest of the world has to live the consequences. Oh well better luck next time, try to be BORN at a safe, democratic country, being rich if possible. Complete peace is an insane uthopic babbling spilled out by moronic liberals. We cannot even think of peace, as such act would envolve abandoning our violent means, and if we do that, the evil doers will come and slit our throats and slave us. They will NEVER abandon their violent ways. Never. Why? Because they are, uh... evil people. Evil people are born out of nowhere and are not, in any way, created by their environment. There will always be someone who wants to punch me, and the only way to win, is to punch back harder. That's pretty much the real world, right?


    My idea is to focus on peace. That's why I always speak against companies that profit from war, countries and leaders who do the same, and fundamentalist leaders who use religion in order to get their personal agenda done

    Hence, the Islamofacisists united against America.


    And why? So far, no one was able to answer me. You really don't care to know why? Wouldn't that be useful so other countries don't do the same?


    My idea is to BELIVE we can achieve the hypothetical country, and prevent the evil doers from getting into power in first place, by making sure its people is educated and independent enough to diplomatic fight those.

    But how do we prevent this? No one man controls the political system of the world, Ric, and God help us if one ever did! Your system would essentially require a set of Dragon Balls or a nifty genie.


    It may sound insane, and you will NEVER understand or agree, but... what about not resorting to violence in the first place? Think about it.


    Taking the analogy of countries and leaders, the same can be done to people. We can prevent violence on tough neighborhoods on our cities, can't we? And some had some progress, take New York City as an example. Isn't it possible to build a better world, no matter how big or small this "world" is? FOCUS on peace.


    Again, the only control we have over OTHER nations is either through the worthless and innefectual UN, or through diplomatic or military action. And "Peace" is a non word in places like North Korea and Iran.


    Analyze their history and see why is that. Due to a violence imposed into them earlier.


    So, back to the example you gave, of that 9-11 flight. Could it be justifiable, under those circustances? Maybe. Hard to think of what Gandhi or Jesus would do in such situation. Probably try to negociate or reason.


    Gandhi would tell everyone that they should just allow themselves to die. I can't speak for what Jesus would do, but his options are pretty much infinite. If he wanted them all to live, he could just teleport them off the plain.


    I just hope you are kidding about the "teleport".

    Makes me think, Jesus is not really the person to follow. His words are uthopic liberal propaganda in an old book no one reads anymore, that... uh... Bible thing.


    Could they be successful? Maybe, maybe not.


    Definitely not. Negotiation with people who want to kill you and as many others as possible isn't possible.


    Read about Ytzak Rabin, Chaltab, and the deal he orchestrated. And while you are at it, read about Gandhi and Lech Walesa (but only up until 1990 lol).


    Was violence successful on that case? Partially, but they were not able to save their own lifes.


    Hey, they did the best they could with what they had, and they are remembered as heroes. Everyone else on all the other plains are victims. If I had to choose, I'd prefer to be remembered a hero.


    I agree on the hero part. But I hardly think they were crashing it deliberatedly to the ground.

    But what I want to focus is not on that particular moment in history, but on ALL the moments that culminated on that morning of september 11, 2001. On why the situation escalated into that, and how can we focus on PEACE from now on, so things like that don't happen in the future. And I'm sorry to say that by making wars we will NEVER achieve success.


    Yes, Ric. Let's give the terrorists what they want. Let's let them drive America out of the Middle East when our intentions there are purely commercial and not in any way malevolent. Let us stand by as they bomb, shell, and shoot Israeli's until they flee their ancestral homeland or die. Let's let them treat their women like slaves and their children like weapons.

    On second thought, no. Let's not. You think I'm being extreme? Well think about it. Negotiation is giving them some of what they want. But what they want is the DESTRUCTION of people, property, and a way of life. Those things are NOT on my bargaining table, and I think most sane people would agree!


    I'll agree with you, if you propose me a plan to make sure these evil doers never atack again. I guess there aren't any big plans. We'll keep bombing foreign countries and killing people to prevail our safety and freedom.

    We might as well be doomned, and frankly, the whole situation bring me to consider that a worldwide suicide is the solution


    Well, great, Ric. Let's all go cry about it and pop some cyanide pills. Ugh. Give me a break and either get over it, or stop thinking about it.


    Don't take everything I say regarding this literally.


    But since I have hope on what I belive is right, I'll keep fighting for it. Not with my fists, but with my words and acts.


    Ric, as a friend, I must say this: please, get off your high moral horse and come back to reality.


    I'll not change the way you think. I cannot do this. But you can. Try to consider facts that you belive could be reasonable on this discussion, and while I cannot ask you to stop thinking the way you do, try to add some new values to your thought and consider other options whenever you are facing a situation in which violence could be one of the ways out. I am focusing on this line of thought because I wish the best I can for the next generations and the world, and that is the way I belive we can achieve it.

    LOL I said I wouldn't talk about it anymore, but you guys just drag me into the discussion again, eh? Hey, someone wants to take my place here, I need a rest from typing.

    Regardless of what you read above, Chaltab, do NOT take it personally. Please, don't mix up my opinions and views of something, into something else. While we disagree on a number of things, we agree on others, and share the same interests in others. I have nothing against anyone here personally, quite the opposite! So if you feel I've said something that personally offends you, please say it, let's talk about it and not let it be this way. OK?

    Chaltab no more excuses of your wi-fi houter being broken, we gotta do our Mario Kart DS challenge
    “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
    Author
    Time
    Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
    I actually believe that Flight 93 was shot down by the US airforce in order to stop it reaching it's target. .

    Do you have any proof?

    Also if they did shoot it down, how is it that no one saw the plane being fired upon?

    Originally posted by: ricarleite
    [
    Regarding this example, it made me think for a while. It's hard to say how justifiable it would be, as they were clearly fighting to save their own lifes. I belive that, on this case, the whole action was beyond the violence/non-violence issue. Imagine that the pilots were unconscious, wouldn't the passengers do something as well? Regardless of what is imposing the threat, they did the one action they had in mind, stopping the plane from crashing.

    What difference does it make wheither they were trying to save their own lives? The point is, the only chance they had to save their lives, the lives of people on ground in the target area, even the lives of the terrorists was to use violence against the terrorists. And Ric, I think the terrorist had already made up their minds before boarding the planes, negotiating with them was out of the question.

    Ric, you keep talking about what to do to prevent the Hitlers from coming to power? My question what do you do when he has already come to power and has taken France, Poland, and is trying to take Russia and Britain? You talk about what do to prevent the bullets from flying, but what do you do when they are already flying at you?

    Tell me, how did using violence against Hitler create Sadam? Name one evil dictator that was created as a direct result of our using violence against Hitler, and would not have been created and could not have been had violence not been used on Hitler? You can't really think the world would be a better place place if we had just let Hitler take over the world, can you?

    You still havent answered this question:

    Originally posted by: Warbler

    Tell me Ric, would you be for getting rid of our police forces? When criminal resist, the police resort to violence to stop them. Would you be against that? Do want choas and anarchy to rein supreme? Do you want laws against murder, assult, rape, and theft inforced?


    Now, on the Jagdlieter:

    Originally posted by: Jagdlieter


    Killing someone in self-defense isn't moral by my standards. Killing *anyone* for whatever reason isn't moral--ever.


    Originally posted by: Jagdlieter

  • Yes it is ok to kill when your life is threatened, directly or indirectly.

  • Yes it is ok to kill to withhold the rights of all humans beings, ie. freedom


  • Jag, what are you trying to do? these two posts are in direct contrast to each other. Is this some kind of joke? Are you doing this for your own amusement? To make fools of us? I'm not laughing. We are tring to have a serious discussion here. So unless you actually change your way of thinging on the subject, don't post the way you just did. And if you don't want to have a serious discussion on this issue (or any other issue), go post somewhere else. OK? This sort of posting makes my troll detector go off.


    Originally posted by: Jagdlieter


    Um, ok sure. Btw, what's trolling? I think I get the idea but what is it EXACTLY?


    don't insult our intelligence, I'm sure you know what trolling is. This is meant to accuse of you of trolling in the past or present, but I have my eye on you . . . .
    Author
    Time
    Originally posted by: ricarleite

    Chaltab no more excuses of your wi-fi houter being broken, we gotta do our Mario Kart DS challenge


    Not fair! It's not my fault technology doesn't like me!

    4

    Author
    Time
    don't insult our intelligence, I'm sure you know what trolling is. This is meant to accuse of you of trolling in the past or present, but I have my eye on you . . . .


    Well, all I know is that he said this is the first message board he's ever posted on. Assuming that that's true, then he very well likely wouldn't know what a troll is.

    There is no lingerie in space…

    C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

    Author
    Time
    I've already had a good long PM discussion with him. He knows now what he's done wrong. Hopefully he'll start reading his posts before he posts them.
    Author
    Time
    I did not see his post where he said this is the first message board he's ever posted on. If that is true, I apologize.
    Author
    Time
    No need to apologize, afterall I should be the one apologizing. I think my problem is my online gaming backround. Quick, one-word responses are VERY different from posts on a forum.

    And the post where I changed sides about violence; I actually explained why I said two different things on that, in the very same post.
    http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
    Author
    Time
    Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
    Originally posted by: ricarleite

    Chaltab no more excuses of your wi-fi houter being broken, we gotta do our Mario Kart DS challenge


    Not fair! It's not my fault technology doesn't like me!


    Well, technology hates me too! And I work with it for a living! It's like an undertaker being constatly attacked by zombies coming out of the graves he dig!

    Come to think of it, most things/people/animals hate me for no reason. I guess God has me on Earth for people's amusement.
    “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering