logo Sign In

Jagdlieter

User Group
Members
Join date
5-Apr-2006
Last activity
16-Jul-2006
Posts
861

Post History

Post
#198686
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198686/action/topic#198686
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter

We cannot see air but is is there! We cannot see an end to violence but maybe IT IS THERE!!!


and maybe it is not. Do you agree with even that? You know its one thing to go after Bush for sending our troops to war, but it is another thing to call them murderers. That really offends me. I wonder what the friends and family members of the soldiers that have died in war would have to say to you about that.


I never called them murderers (or meant to), if it came off that way I take that back then. And yes I agree with you, some questions have no answers; and it drives thinkers like me MAD!
Post
#198685
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198685/action/topic#198685
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler

And are you willing to give up to avoid violence? Your life? Your rights? Your way of life? Your religious beliefs? Your freedom? If the choice is to give up the things that I have meantioned or resort to violence what do you do? At what price nonviolence Jag?


It seems I have a weak spot! The human in me says that if someone even puts one finger on a loved one, I will kill them(not literally, but I will make things even that's for sure). I almost have two halves; one instinct, and one logic. All of us do.

So, yes I agree that your scenario is correct, if someone else's life was at risk I would do what it would take to save them, even if it meant I had to kill. If my life was on the line, and I had a choice to kill or die; I do not know what I would do, because I have never been put in the situation.

I can only assume that self-preservation would take over, unfortunately, which basically nullifies my previous arguments.

So the real question, what would YOU do? I can easily say that someone else should do this or that but do I believe it of myself? I don't know! And it's plain frustrating! Ok, fine.....

I'm comfortable in accepting defeat. I accept that self-defense is a justifiable reason for killing someone. I agree that Hitler deserved death after what he had done(though I will never truly be able to draw a line to seperate "deserving" and "undeserving"). I agree that sometimes primal instincts are MUCH more powerful than logical ones and result in the 'changing of sides' in terms of morals. And for Chaltab, I accept that not all who enter war on their own terms do it for bloodshed.
Post
#198657
Topic
Ask the All-Knowing Jagdlieter
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198657/action/topic#198657
Time
Originally posted by: sybeman
Ok, one comment, one question.

First, the Immaculate Conception refers not to Mary being impregnated by God, but that Mary was born immaculate (without original sin).

Second, the question. Do you really need seperate posts to answer each question? Boosting your post count is one thing. Posting three or four times in a row in your own thread is another.


First of all, sorry I'm not very knowledgeable on those terms (my BS is not at its prime in other words).

Second of all, I made two posts because I thought 1 big one would be too overwhelming. I mean, c'mon, my post count per day is high enough anyway lol, I don't need it any higher I just want to answer questions in the best way I can.
Post
#198655
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198655/action/topic#198655
Time
Originally posted by: sybeman
The thing is, Jag, as Chaltab points out, people join the army and go to war to defend their nation, to defend innocent people. That doesn't mean they want to kill. And while you're right that, if everyone decided that violence wasn't necessary, then war could be averted, there will always be someone who solves their problems with violence. If someone starts the violence, you're already in a defensive position.

Nobody "deserves" to die. But violence is a part of human nature. A part of our heritage. A part of our culture. You're a little misgiven if you think you can convince everyone to stop fighting by saying "Violence is wrong, guys, see?"



Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't, you shouldn't be so pessimistic.


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Post
#198653
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198653/action/topic#198653
Time
I'm not going to quote because this is getting complicated. First of all, yes; I agree with your statement about self defense.

Secondly, you said that the people who went to war were defending the people who died in 9/11, but wasn't the word you meant to use REVENGE??? Because that's what it was! We didn't sail over to the Middle East out of self-defense, so don't lecture me on naivety (although I may be it at times).

Thirdly, I'm surprised about the Christmans thing(frightening images popped into my head portraying soldiers as pawns, controlled by the gov. in a gigantic game of chess; the chess board, EARTH). Not that I don't believe you, but, well--frankly I almost don't. And the word DUTY is not by any means in the same category as SELF DEFENSE, it was a word created to make the violence of war more tolerable by reminding us that what we were doing was "right". Whether we personally believed this or not wasn't relevant, the fact that our government believed it was enough to make us fight again. Trust me when I say I think before I speak, we just think differently(why debates exist right? ).

Fourthly, I WILL read Lord of the Flies because it sounds interesting.

Finally, Your last (relevant) statement regarding 'going to war against the monsters that hate mankind'; Doesn't it sound kind of bad, when you practically say: the solution to these monsters is killing them so we don't have to deal with them anymore? I mean, this kind of thing has been done before and it wasn't really justified if you ask me, like governments killing their own citizens out of fear of revolution.
Post
#198646
Topic
Ask the All-Knowing Jagdlieter
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198646/action/topic#198646
Time
Originally posted by: ricardo
when cutting onions, how do you prevent your eyes from watering?


There are a number of ways of doing this; one is to breathe through your mouth (your eyes water because of the strength of the odor entering your nose, this can be confirmed when smelling spicy food; the same reaction occurs).

Another popular way is using a food processor to do the work for you. It minimalizes risk of tearing but does not fully get rid of it.
Post
#198644
Topic
Ask the All-Knowing Jagdlieter
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198644/action/topic#198644
Time
The other theory is that the egg came first and somehow survived on its own (yeah right! how could it stay warm!). This type of chicken was born asexual. When it became old enough it began to reproduce on its own.

And again until around 178 generations (the reason for difference is very complicated) it was asexual so there was no need to inbreed. When inbreeding was 'safe' they evolved (pff evolution...) and began reproducing normally (to human standars). According to some, this all began much earlier than the "Chicken theory" and so these chickens had to go through a semi-ice age (they burrowed into the ground to hibernate; some died, some lived).


Other theorizers believe that both the Chicken Theory and the Egg Theory are co-existent, that all the chickens died in the ice age and The Chicken God made his/her first appearance some time after. This hypothesis isn't very popular though, because neither side wants to have anything to do with the other.
Post
#198640
Topic
Ask the All-Knowing Jagdlieter
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198640/action/topic#198640
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Did the chicken or the egg come first?
\

Unfortunately either side is about as provable as the existence of God is provable. NO ONE (not even me!) knows 100% for sure which came first. Of course there are theories...

The chicken came first (theorizers have no explanations as to how it was created though, so some are skeptical); which then had an emaculate conception caused by the Chicken God. The chicken laid the egg and raised it. The next 240 (or somewhere around that) generations of chickens each had emaculate conceptions so not to inbreed too much. After this many miracles though, the Chicken God was so weakened that he died of accelerated old age (caused by miracles). This is why there are no more chicken-related miracles.

Unfortunately when the chickens lost their God and leader, they also lost their will to do much of anything except eat and breed. Soon after all of this humans came around, and began eating the chickens because they were fairly easy to catch. Later on, they began using the laid (laiden?) eggs as food also, and for more controlled chicken growth much later on.

And the rest is history. A time frame cannot be properly made for this theory either, because well, no one can talk to chickens yet.
Post
#198634
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198634/action/topic#198634
Time
Not to disagree, but the definitions of 1nd 2nd degree murders don't include a line between heartless killing and justified killing. You can still go to jail for killing someone that "deserved it". It's all perspective.

Personally, I don't think killing in war is justified because unless your drafted (and have no choice but to defend yourself), you choose to go to war and you choose to kill someone. Someone that you do not even know and may be there because THEY were drafted (*ahem* what I said above) and must defend themself from you! Which brings me to this;

Not all enemy soldiers "deserve it".

They're just trying to do the same thing you are, fight for their country. And if both sides were to decide that violence wasn't necessary (it's been done before!), then killing wouldn't HAVE to be justified in the way you described it. And I include this quote:

"Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country;
let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind."

-Baha'u'llah (current leader of the Bahai faith)
Post
#198629
Topic
Twist Ending
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198629/action/topic#198629
Time
Wow, Fight Club had the biggest twist I've ever seen in a movie for sure!

If it hasn't been mentioned The Italian Job had a twist in the beginning/middle sorta.

The president being elected twice was a twist; the sudden realization that I had to feel ashamed for another 4 years was almost too much.