I want to wade in some more but you're such a bastard to argue with
on the wagon
I want to wade in some more but you're such a bastard to argue with
Ultimate keyboard Warrior
Someones mum to Hitler?Originally Posted by jrandom
Fuck me, thats the unwarrented leap.
e mare libertas
It's a conscious reductio ad absurdum.
Edit: I'm not claiming equivalence, just using Hitler to illustrate the truth of the fundamental proposition that sometimes, folks need killin'. He's handy like that.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Psyclepath
Yes, but there's always the case of that decendent of an American airman and a British girl that discovers a cure for cancer, isn't there...
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
"channellling the Pleideans"
GODWIN
GODWIN !!!
GODWIN!!!!!
sorry, its the law.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
e mare libertas
I triggered it in, like, the second post, and nobody called it, so I figured I'd just keep on trying.
Actually, I believe Godwin's Law doesn't really apply until we start calling each other Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
"channellling the Pleideans"
my emphasis.
Must it? must it really? because a shitload of buddhists, hindus, and normal people would suggest that in fact, it must not, In fact they would argue that you are just as bad as the murderer morally speaking for saying (or doing) the same thing he did.
GIGO.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
e mare libertas
If a human does more harm in the world than the action of removing them from it would itself constitute, then yes, yes it must.
I argue only for the possibility of that being the case, here, by the way. Not for its applicability in any particular instance.
Are you suggesting that Buddhists and Hindus aren't normal?
And since when have Hindus been pacifists?
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
"channellling the Pleideans"
Oh come on: all you've been doing is applying it to this instance\
You might be right about Hindus: all I know about Hinduism I learned from Apu on the Simpsons.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Forum whore
I like your first statement there Jr, it could easily apply to you, although you did specify human. Ever thought of removing yourself?
Forum whore
One of the constants of human history is that individuals don't matter, at all. They only matter to other individuals. Life rather tends to go on. It's normal to try and imply some meaning in a person's life, otherwise it's all pointless. Unfortunately it is all pointless.
If you really want to kill people but maintain some distance yourself from the daily death of thousands, live in NZ, drive a car, use an iPad, wear a diamond ring, use a cellphone, wear designers trainers.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
"channellling the Pleideans"
will the designer want them back at any point? was it an intelligent designer?
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Forum whore
I have no faith in Intelligent Design.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
e mare libertas
Ah, so you admit its potential validity in the theoretical case?
Any validity to this particular killing would only apply from the perspective of the killer himself, naturally. He killed her in the full knowledge that society would condemn him for it.
The question is, was that the case? The conscious acceptance of risk in return for a perceived benefit? I suspect so.
I wonder if he can get the internets in jail...
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
"channellling the Pleideans"
not necessarily.: in fact, for the purposes of the discussion I will state categorically no. It is the hallmark of a civilised society that no matter how heinous the crime, and even in respect of the crime regarded as most heinous of all, i.e. premeditated murder, that a civilised society does not brutalise itself to the level of the individual who killed. [insert anti-death penalty argument here from the US].Ah, so you admit its potential validity in the theoretical case?
...
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks