logo Sign In

Warbler

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
7-May-2003
Last activity
28-May-2021
Posts
18,708

Post History

Post
#199649
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199649/action/topic#199649
Time
Originally posted by: Billy Mahoney
Actually no. Picking the weapon and using violence is considered in Ghandi's eyes an act of cowardice anyway..


Then how come he encouraged the Indians the join the Army and fight with Britain in WWI?

And if is a choice between cowardice or violence, he advised to chose violence. Well, if he believes that one can chose between the two, then they must be different. Therefore violence does not equal cowardice. Atleast, in the eyes of Ghandi.
Post
#199638
Topic
MLB
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199638/action/topic#199638
Time
No, because he gambling never affected the outcome of a game. He gambling never affected his stats. He didn't break Ty Cobb's hitting record because of his gambling. Bonds can't say the same about his use of steroids. Also no one ever proved Rose ever bet against his team. No one ever proved Rose did anything to throw a game.

And yes, I agree the before anything can be done to Bonds or the others that are suspected of using steroids, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. Of course I would not want an innocent man punished.
Post
#199636
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199636/action/topic#199636
Time
I won't call him a moron but I found this on the Wikipedia page Sage pointed to:

As he had done in the South African War, Gandhi urged support of the British in World War I and was active in encouraging Indians to join the army. His rationale, opposed by many others, was that if he desired the full citizenship, freedoms and rights in the Empire, it would be wrong not to help in its defence. He spoke at the conventions of the Indian National Congress, but was primarily introduced to Indian issues, politics and the Indian people by Gopal Krishna Gokhale, at the time the one of most respected leaders of the Congress Party."

So, Gandhi encouraged people to go join the army and fight in WWI. It would seem at times that Gandhi was not a total pasifist.

lets look at a few quotes on that page:

this is from a letter he wrote Britain advising them on what to do about Hitler
I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

This is advice he gave to the Jews
The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.


I don't know about you but if I were the Bitish or the Jews, I don't think I'd follow that advice.

Now lets look at this quote from the same page:

Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'


So that are times when Gandhi would advise violence.
Post
#199433
Topic
MLB
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199433/action/topic#199433
Time
No one here said what they think of Bonds situation.

I say he cheated. He and anyone else who used steroids should be thown out of the game and their stats shoud an asterisk placed next to them. It needs to done for the integrity of the game, and also to teach a lesson to kids might be thinking about using steroids.

btw: the Phils are now 1-5. They played a doubleheader with the Dodgers. They won the 1st game 6-3, but lost the 2nd game 6-2.
Post
#199429
Topic
'Star Wars Kid' cuts a deal with his tormentors
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199429/action/topic#199429
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Originally posted by: Warbler
He shouldn't have to embrace that kind of humiliation.

But he's saying it wouldn't have been humiliation if he had been proud of it. If he hadn't let himself be humiliated. I really think if he had completed the talk show circuit, his schoolmates would have been more in awe than tormenting.


This does not justify what these kids did to him. He should not have to go on talk shows just to avoid being tormented.

Originally posted by: theredbaron


Dude, the Teen Titans have been around for decades!


In the comics, yes. On tv, no.
Post
#199425
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199425/action/topic#199425
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite

What world would he rule, apart from his own? And what if the Gandhis made sure no Hitler would be born? That's what I have in mind.


He would rule the world. Making sure that a Hitler is not born is beyond our powers.

Originally posted by: ricarleite

Now you propose a better scenario for discussion, although still a bit too drastic. My point of view is only valid when I stress out that not letting these 10001 murders to get into their murdering minds is the way. I mean, think about it. Would you be one of the SS officers? Or Hitler? I know you wouldn't. I know you wouldn't do any harm to anyone. So why can't we all think alike? Besides, my point is, when you resort to violence, you are always wrong. What if the Gandhis got pissed and started to kill the SS officers? They have families who would see this and say "Hey, the Gandhis are evil!", don't you agree? And which side is "correct", on the actually sense of the word "correct"? If a bottle of coke falls from the sky and two tribes start to fight and make a war to get hold of it, which one is correct? Both are wrong, right? As violence is not the way. So what makes the bottle of coke or a pseudo-world domination to be different? You might say that world domination leads to people losing their freedom, but I am not discussion the ends, but the means to it.

I would have to say the families of the SS members are wrong. The Gandhis only killed the SS officers because the SS officer were killing the Gandhis. It all comes down to who started it. In this case, the SS started it, so they are in the wrong.

As for the coke bottle obviously it would be stupid to fight a war over a worthless coke bottle. But I value freedom, rights, and life much more highly than I do a coke bottle. I will fight a war over those.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


I don't refuse to answer any questions. I just thought you did not correctly undertood what I was talking about and was posing a question on something outside my point. But anyway, let's see if I understand what you are asking me... You ask, what if people's life and freedom depended on my fighting. The answer would be NO. I would not, as it would bring to someone else something I don't desire do inflict. I do not wish to kill anyone (unless that person requested me to perform an euthanasia, on certain conditions). I would go on and fight to make it stop on other ways. Let's give a face to your question and assemble a scenario on it, let's say it's a war between my country and some other country. I would try to 1- assist the injured, 2- speak with my leaders to see if we can avoid this situation, 3- see if there is a way to get in touch with the other side and propose the same. I have no idea why would anyone invade my country, let's asume Brazil had a lot of gold and there was no gold anywhere else. I would propose selling it. I would propose using silver instead. Or using some other material. I would do my best not to let the situation get into a war, and if it got it that way, do my best to make it stop.


So, you would let people (your countrymen, your family) be enslaved rather than fight. I would not. As for the Brazil situation I believe I had stated that peace talks had failed.

Originally posted by: [b[ricarleite

I don't want any nails to grow in the first place.


I don't either. But as I said before, that is beyond our powers.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


Well I guess I am insane, then. Peace is truly uthopic.


No, but to think that Pasifism can work against the likes of Hitler is uthopic.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


All avoidable causes. It is ridiculous to think that all those issues can be solved like that, but changing the focus on solving problems through violence into something else would do the trick.



Ric you keep talking about what to do before the violence starts. I am all for trying to prevent violence, but what I have been trying to talk about are situations where it is too late for that I am trying to discuss situations where violence is going to occur and the only way to stop it is to react violently. Take Hitler for example, sure there many things we should have done to prevent him from coming to power and to prevent WWII. But tell me what we should have done after he took Poland and France and was trying to take Britain and Russia and after he started to murder Jews? Well?

Originally posted by: ricarleite


LOL Brazille? You mean Brazil right?

See my answer above, I think I've used the same example above.



1. Yes, I meant Brazil. I apologize for that stupid mistake.

2. My example was I little different than the one you gave. In yours the attackers were after Gold, in mine the attackers simply wanted to kill all your people for the fun of it.

3. You did not answer my question one wheither or not you want our laws against Murder, Rape, Assault, and theft enforced.
Post
#199395
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199395/action/topic#199395
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite


To quote Gandhi, if you kill me you'll have my corpse and nothing more. Not my obedience.



Well, I take it then that Gandhi would be against using a full nelson to stop Hitler. So Ric agrees 1 Hitler 4 billion Gandhis: Hitler rules the world. He might be lonely, but he will rule the world.

Originally posted by: ricarleite

First, it's a silly and completely stupid scenario with no pratical reasons. OK let's just proceed with this Monty Python sketch of a hypothetical situation, and asume we have a world in which we have 4 billion Gandhis - and I don't mean 4 billion people looking like a thin Ben Kingsley in underpants, I mean 4 billion people who wouldn't resort to violence. Then we have a Hitler being born, and by Hitler I mean someone who thins differently and see force as an ally. Then, answer me, why would he think differently? Mutation? Not being educated by the Gandhis surrounding him? What would he gain by resorting to violence? Power to do WHAT? To rule WHO? To rule WHAT? Who would follow him? Obey him? And no, he wouldn't have access to cloning devices, time machines, or flying killing robots.


In my scenario, I wasn't worried about how Hitler came to be Hitler, he just came to be that way. It is possible for that to happned even with 4 billion Gandis in the world. Remember some people argue you are born the person you are and environment has nothing to do with it. As far as what he would gain from using violence? He would gain control of the world. You right, he couldn't clone himself. So what if the world consisted of only Hitler, 10,000 SS officers, and 4 Billion Gandis. Now what?


Originally posted by: ricarleite

I didn't answer your question because I am not talking about MYSELF. I am talking about the whole world here. If I only thought about myself, then I would agree that violence is great. Screw the rest of the world, I earn enough to buy guns, who cares if they are at peace or not? Who cares about all the rest of the world? In such a situation, would I kill myself to protect the other? Hell no! BUT I try to think of others, and considering the well-care of the rest of the world, my life is insignificant. I would die or lose my freedom if that meant what I dream for coming true.

Well, if you refuse to answer my questions, then there no point to continueing this debate. When I asked my question, I wasn't trying to refer to senarios where your not fighting could free others. I was thinking about situations where fighting and killing would be the only way to obtain freedom for yourself and for others. Of course I would agree if dying and or giving up freedom would free others and save lives, then thats what I would do. But what if that is not the case? What if other peoples lives and their freedoms, and rights depended on you fighting for them?

Originally posted by: ricarleite


Feels like we are looking at both sides of the same coin.

yep


Originally posted by: ricarleite


Why not? Just because you are suggesting someone will always resort to tyrany? Then what is the porpouse of locking Saddam out, or killing him? He will be replaced by others. Reminds me of a quote from "Munich", ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!*** in which Eric Bana's character says "All the people I've killed were replaced by worse people, what was the reason?", and Geoffrey Rush's character replies to something like "My nails will keep growing, why cutting then?", only that the nails won't hurt anyone, but the bad people will. So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?



yep. that why. If we don't fight the Hitlers, The Stalins, The Sadams, the Nazis, The KKK, they will grow too long and powerful and take over the world. I am not willing to let that happen. Are you?

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape


The way you talk about it, the US handled the Civil Rights Movement in a completely civil way that did not involve individuals bombing churches and committing grotesque acts of murder, only to have the local authorities, i.e. the police, whose job is to serve and protect the people, not do their jobs by never pressing charges, sometimes silently supporting acts or murder and barbarism, and sometimes actively attacking marches with high pressure water hoses and brutal arrests, sometimes for no reason at all. And that makes those police officers any better than Nazis or terrorists how? And remember that the Civil War was not fought for the express purpose of freeing the slaves. It was only done during the war to undermine the Confederacy's sovereignty. And afterwards, black people weren't much better off than they were before in many places.


I never said the U.S. handled the Civil Rights movement perfectly. I am saying that they handled it better than the Nazis would have. The Nazis would have mowed the peaceful protestors down with machine guns, end of the Civil Rights movement.

before Civil War: black people were in chains

after Civil War black people were freed. Case closed

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

Now, I'm not saying at all that certain important things aren't worth fighting for. I'm simply saying that, just because they are worth fighting for, running off to die and kill shouldn't be the obvious solution but rather the final one.


That is all I have been trying to say.

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape


T
EDIT: And I hope, ric, that your above "I will" isn't serious.


I do too.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
[quote]So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?[/quote]

YES! If we cut the 'nails' before they can get 'too long' we save the world MORE violence and grief.

Ric, listen to yourself. How can you possibly, logically believe your own arguments. You can't possibly think pure, blind pacificsm would work against people who HATE YOU, and WANT YOU BEHEADED, and want to see the streets of our cities run with the blood of our children, who DESPISE freedom in any form...

My brain cannot understand how you can possibly even begin to believe that pacifism will work against such a foe. You're acting like a mindless brainwashed idiot, Ric. You're supposed to be smarter than that!


I don't know that I'd put it the way Chaltab did, but I too wonder how one can possibly think that total and absolute pasifism will work against people who are willing to shoot unarmed nonviolent people to obtain what they want.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab, I'll take your comments as a constructive critic and as a complement. I do have a radical and small-voiced point of view, but those are not based really on 100% logic, but in my principles and ethics. If everyone had a small amount of this sort of principles, as we all do (no one here is a criminal or a murder), and having it this way is indeed possible (maybe only theorically), then why should I give up? I know you guys don't agree with me, I know I'm alone here, but these are my principles, this is how I have conducted my life, or at least tried to. I'm no Gandhi, I might be wrong and hypocritical and babbling something that is not correct, but still I'm following what I feel is right. You guys are doing the same,a dn i understand that! I totally understand your point of view, I just think there is another way!


I understand and respect the fact that you have a different view. You have every right to your opinion. I just don't understand it. But please understand that I'd rather have 10 billion Gandis on the earth, than 1 Hitler.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


And let me get this straight. Jagdlieter, please do avoid trolling as you've been doing so far. Trolls usually (and thankfully) have a short life-span on this forum. Please don't be next, and if you feel such an urge to call attention to yourself, I recommend you to find other ways. I don't disagree or disaprove your needs, I just think it isn't fair to ruin a good, clean and moderated debate forum just because of that. OK?


I believe he did apologize to you.

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Well, I'm not quite fighting against you here, ric. I agree that pacifism is by far the best way to deal with things. However, in a real world situation, it doesn't always work, so I condone violence only as a last resort, because, at some point, it's the only thing people will listen to. And it's sad, but it appears to be true. But in terms of theory, I agree with what you're saying.


Again, I agree with Gaffer here.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
And by the way, while the whole point has been to resort to violence to defend yourself from an outside violence, what I am asking is for neither violence to take place. Why? Because, that outside violence is always a response to another kind of violence, be it directly or indirectly. Someone atacks you because you have either atacked someone first, or someone else has done it. Violence does not come out of nowhere. And if we stop this circle of perpetuating, by stopping BOTH sides, we'll then achieve peace.


You can ask for neither violence to take place, but it is not going to happen. Not everyone would listen to you. If the side that wants to defend itself decides not to defend itself and instead lays down its arms, the side that is attacking wins.

I for one do not believe that every act violence is a response to another act violence. Somtimes the first act of violence comes out greed, insanity, selfishness, religous fanaticism, or simply not caring.

Originally posted by: Nanner Split


That's not completely true, Ric. Have you ever read Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood"? Perry Smith and Dick Hickock murdered a family of four just because of a rumor that there was a safe containing ten thousand dollars in the family's house. The family didn't use the least bit of resistance, and they all wound up dead. Now I ask you: how can you ask for neither violence to take place, when you have no control over the other side?


good point.

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?

Tell me, if an enemy army surrounded Brazille and then annouced they intended to kill every person in Brazille just for the fun it, and peace talk were tried and failed. What would you advise your nation and other nations to do? Just stand there, do nothing, and let it happen?
Post
#199282
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199282/action/topic#199282
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Welll, I suppose it depends on your definition of violence. I wouldn't call two puppies playfully wrestling on the ground to be violence, even if they get mildly hurt in the process. To put a Hitler in a full-nelson would, most likely, not injure him at all, but just keep him from moving. But if one Hitler's staring down even 100 Gandhis, it would be very easy to be able to incapacitate him, even if he was carrying a gun.


again that calls for an act of violence. Ric, you are the Gandhi expert, would Gandhi be against using a full-nelson to take down Hitler?

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape


Hehe, I must admit this hypothetical situation is starting to sound rather silly, like one of those geek conversations about pitting two unrelated superheroes or supervillains together to see who'd win in a fight.


see my answer to Ric on this below.

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape


But to get it a bit more serious, how about the Civil Rights movement? Sure, there was a lot of violence involved on both sides, but some of the most famous examples and imagery in the movement were peaceful protests and marches led by people like Martin Luther King against violent police forces, yet the Civil Rights Movement was regarded as successfuly eventually. Their peaceful methods overcame the violence of their opposition.

But look at what country it worked in. The U.S.A. Do you really King's methods would have worked in Nazi Germany? In the Middle East? Against Stalin? Against Bin Ladin? Sadam? I doubt it. Also, what ended Slavery in the U.S.? The American Civil War.

Originally posted by: ricarleite

First, as for the whole Hitler vs Gandhi discussion, it is a silly and ridiculous scenario and has no porpouse on our current discussion.


bullsh__, it goes to prove that total and complete pasifism doesn't work against people who care nothing for human life. Hitler would rule the world in my scenario because Gandhis refuse to fight him. That's the point.


Originally posted by: ricarleite

I didn't mention ANY of the possibilities. If there was a way people could live freely and in peace, and I belive we CAN (all we have to do is stop being such mean sons of bithces), and if to acomplish that I would have to give my my own freedom or life, but making sure the rest of the world is free and at peace, I would give up my life in a second.


you didn't answer my question. And in my question, I never said that you're dying would give other people peace and freedom. My question is solely about just you, your life, your rights, and your freedom.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


If a man is not at peace, is he really free?




If a man is not free, can he really be at peace? Ric, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brought up in a nation where freedom, justice, and peace are worth fighting for, dying for, and yes even killing for.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


I am still alive because I belive we can acomplish what I wish for, a peaceful and free world.


without resorting to violence? I doubt it. You may achieve peace, but not freedom.

Originally posted by: ricarleite<brIf we can't, if what you guys are saying is right, and if there isn't any hopes, well, give me that gun, I'll be the first to blow my brains out.


fine *gives Ric the WarbSP™* Just so you I have no intention of killing myself afterward. Just becaue we can't achieve peace and freedom without resorting to violence every once is a while, doesn't mean there is no hope. But if you feel that way, go ahead.
Post
#199188
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199188/action/topic#199188
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Just have to have one of them get behind him and put him in a full nelson, as an example..

but, is that not an act of violence? And in my example Hitler had gun. I don't think a full nelson work, whoever tried it would get shot. I thought the only thing Ghandi would do is peacefully protest.

For the sake of argument, lets take Hitler and clone him 99 times so now there will be 100 Hitlers. Let us also give all the Hitlers machine guns. Now what do the Ghandis do?

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Pacifism isn't the same thing as apathy.


Ric's version seems to come close. (no offence)
Post
#199187
Topic
The Things We Hate And Love Thread .
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199187/action/topic#199187
Time
sorry

Originally posted by: ricarleite


It sucks when work is not going well... Do not mention the company you work for, but could you tell us what business it operates, what you do, and why are things not going well?

perhaps later, but I right now I don't feel like talking about it.

Originally posted by: Nanner Split


By the way: Warbler! Hurry the hell up and knock You-Know-Who off the Top 10 already!!


that is beyond my power. I can pass him and put him last on the list, but someone else *cough*Sessler*cough* will have to join the top ten to finish the job.
Post
#199183
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199183/action/topic#199183
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite

This is a ridiculous and silly example. Why would Hitler kill 4 billion Gandhis? How would he kill the 4 billion Gandhis, kung fu?? And why?? Why would Hitler go postal and kill everyone, if he had no one to support him?! He would have no army! Nothing to conquer! Just peaceful people to kill, and he would have their corpse and nothing more! See?


Why did he kill 6 million Jews? As to why would kill them: Hitler being who he is would try to inforce his will on all the Ghandis. The Ghandis being who they are would of course peacefully resist Hitler. Hitler would not like that one bit and would react violently and kill them. As to how, remember Ghandis do not fight back so assuming Hitler had a gun with enough bullets he could easily shoot them one by one. It might take 10 or 20 years but he could do it.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


Yes it is. Besides, it would not be for myself, but for the future generations. As I've said, if it was to secure a safe and peaceful future for the rest of mankind and the following generations, yes I would give up my life.

So, you're telling me that you'd give up your life secure a way of life that was safe,peaceful, and without freedom? A life where future generations are enslaved? peace isn't worth that kind of future for mankind.


Originally posted by: ricarleite
Wouldn't you? No? Hmn so why are soldiers dying anyway? Isn't that the porpouse of why THEY die? Only problem with their deaths is, violence will continue. No peace. Oh well.


The soldiers are trying to achieve freedom not just peace.

Ric, make a choice:
A)fight and die a free man, or
B)live peacefully as a slave
which will it be? I chose A.


Originally posted by: ricarleite


Was that a question? I don't know which one is worth. Depends on how you see things being worse. You could count the weekly average body count of innocent civillians and see which one is higher. I have no idea right now, but I could look for the numbers and see.


true but as I said, the goal wasn't civil war, it was freedom. I was never crazy about the Iraq war, it is just that I'd like to see them and all people free.


Originally posted by: ricarleite


Well, I've been saying that peace is achieavable and all we gotta do is stop resorting to violence, .


but what kind of peace will it be? The kind where likes of Hitler and Stalin rule the world? That is not the kind of peace that I want.


Originally posted by: ricarleite
So, if that point of view is correct, than yes, there is no point of having the human kind on this planet and we should all die. That might sound a bit drastic, but, makes sense to me.


fine, you first. no? I didn't so. I don't know whatt the point of having humans on this earth is, but I don't believe that we are here to surrend our freedoms, rights, beliefs, and liberty to evil bullies. I think we should fight as little as we have and still maintain our freedoms and rights, and enjoy whatever little peace that comes along. Not much, but it is better than suicide or surrender.


Originally posted by: Arnie.d

No he wouldn't. Hitler never killed someone himself. He got others to do that. I don't think he could achieve that in a world with only Gandis. Hitler never even saw the death camps.


that is because he had others he could get to do his bidding. But, being that there was no one else other than the Ghandis, he would have to do it himself.

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Hitler's biggest skill was that of being a wonderful orator who was able to convince others to do his bidding. Would he be able to convert 4 billion Gandhi clones into doing his bidding? Most likely not.


that is exactly why he would kill them, because they would refuse to do his bidding. That's the kind of guy he was.
Post
#199155
Topic
Superman Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199155/action/topic#199155
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
But Batman is smart. Would he even allow Superman to get close enough to lay that one punch on him? I'm pretty sure that before any face-off, Batman would be well prepared. The example of him planting a bomb on himself and then telling Superman that he has planted a bomb on a citizen of Gothem and if Superman lays a finger on him the bomb will explode shows how smart batman is. I'm also pretty sure Bats would arm himself with some kryptinite if he knew a fight with Superman was imminetn, and I'm sure with Bruce Wayne's contacts, intelligence and finances he would have no trouble getting hold of kryptonite. But yeah Warbs, no doubt about it that in a straight man on man fight, Supes would kill bats in half a second.


As I previously said unless Batman had some kryptinite, Superman would kick his butt. As for wheither or not Superman would be able to get close enough to land the one punsh. If I am not mistaken, Superman is not only superstrong, but also superfast. Batman would not be able to avoid him for long.
Post
#199141
Topic
'Star Wars Kid' cuts a deal with his tormentors
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199141/action/topic#199141
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
THE "KID" SHOULD BE THANKING THE BULLIES FOR MAKING HIM POPULAR.

popular!?!?!! you actually think they made him popular!!??!! You have got to be kidding me. They totally humiliated him! They made him the butt of every joke in that school. He is going to be laughed at and made fun of for years to come. They have taken away this kid's dignity. If you were the kid, would you thank the bullies for that? I wonder how you would react if some bullies did this to your child.

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I'd say he's more "infamous" than "popular".


exactly.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

Peers, Warbler.


you are correct

I have corrected my previous post.
Post
#199136
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199136/action/topic#199136
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite


If there was 1 Hitler and 4 billion Ghandis, he wouldn't be able to do much.

Yes he would. The Ghandis would peacefully protest Hitler and Hitler would kill them one by one.


Originally posted by: ricarleite


To avoid violence? Yes, I am willing to give up a lot of things. If giving up my life, rights, way of life, religious beliefs and freedom IS going to help in achieving a non-violent future for our world, I would give up those things right now.

Well, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brough up to believe it just to fight for our rights, life, and liberty. Sure, you could give up your freedom, way of life, your rights and live at peace. But what kind of life will you have? You'll be a slave. Will you have any joy in your life? Any happiness? Is peace really worth that?

Thomas Jefferson didn't seem to think so. Read this quote made by him in 1775:
Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we have received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable.

We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before god and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficient Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.


I agree with him. As said in Braveheart: "They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom"

I like peace. But there are somethings that I am not willing to give up to obtain it.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
A crude, ridiculous example: if invading Iraq brings the country into a civil war that kills many civillians and soldiers, and not invading it will mantain Saddam as to perform tortures, and violence will remain on the world, why bother in the first place? Why invade Iraq? .


I was hoping it wasn't going to end in civil war. I was hoping the people of Iraq end up and at peace, and that they would have a democratic government.

Is Civil war really worse than the torture Sadam was putting his country through.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
If the world is beyond any redemption and peace is an uthopic lie, why bring more pain and hatred into this doomned world anyway?


Your right, lets just kill ourselves now and get it over with. We're doomed anyway right?
Post
#198945
Topic
'Star Wars Kid' cuts a deal with his tormentors
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198945/action/topic#198945
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
NEVER RECORD SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO SEE. THE "BULLIES" DESERVE WHAT THEY GET, BUT I REALLY DON'T FELL SORRY FOR THE KID. HE LEFT THE TAPE WHERE "ANYBODY" COULD FIND IT, AND "ANYBODY" DID. THAT MAKES HIM AN IDIOT. IDIOTS ALSO GET WHAT THEY DESERVE.



I do feel sorry for the kid. Maybe he was stupid, maybe he was an idiot. But that doesn't mean he deserved the terrible treatment he got from his peers. How can you say that the bulllies deserve what they get yet also say the kid deserved what they did to him? Leaving the tape where anybody could find it is a mistake, not a crime.

.
Post
#198941
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/198941/action/topic#198941
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Have you guys ever realized that all justification for violence is to stop violence?
well, that is the only justification I would accept.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


So I guess that killing someone who has break into your house is justifiable. And, for most people, that's the end of the story. "If someone breaks into my home I'll shoot that person and that's it!", but, what caused that man to break into your home? Is it for the money? But why? Is that person on drugs? What was the cause of that personal degradation that lead it to commit acts of violence in the first place?

unfortunatly, if someone breaks into your house, and points a gun at a family member, you usually to don't have time to go back and solve those problems before the criminal shoots your family member.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
degradation that lead it to commit acts of violence in the first place? Is the only alternative to fight it with violence, or can we prevent it?


in the long term maybe, but in the immediate situation, no.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Instead of focusing on grabbing more guns, why don;t we focus on how to avoid violence to begin in first place?.


How bout we do both?

Originally posted by: ricarleite


All I was saying on that sentence you've quoted, is how the ONLY real reason someone would call up for a justifiable violence act is to END another violence act. Would you use violence to anything else, and being justifiable and have you violence act as morally acceptable?


huh? I think you may have commited typos here. Could you make this more clear?

Originally posted by: ricarleite


So please do explain why "democracy" is the one with justifiable means to resort to violence. ?


Well I don't know that I'd put it exactly that way, but what kind of government would you prefer to live under? Democracy, Facism, Communism, A Monarchy, A Dictatorship? I'll pick the one where the people decide who the leader will be. I'll pick type the government that believes in equality, freedom and justice for all.

you never answered my earlier question:

Originally posted by: Warbler

And what 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?
At what price Ric?

As for Gandhi

think about this:

If the world consisted of 4 billion Gandhis and 1 Hitler, Hitler would rule the world.