Thought crimes?

[ChesusRice]

Well to be honest the opinion of somebody that supports killing babies isn't a real high priority thing for me either. Hey, thought you'd be packing for the hot war zones by now, what are you still doing hanging around arguing with old pot heads like me?

Yes that is exactly what I said
I am all for killing babies
That's what i am all about
Killing the babies

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes that is exactly what I said
I am all for killing babies
That's what i am all about
Killing the babies

I apologize. You only support killing BAD babies that are dumb enough to live in a war zone. Or a "good war" zone. He he you got me.

 

[ChesusRice]

I apologize. You only support killing BAD babies that are dumb enough to live in a war zone. Or a "good war" zone. He he you got me.

No i support killing all babies
warzone or not
I'm working on a baby cannon right now that will launch a infant 4000 yards fully swaddled

 

[Dr Kynes]

Hey i got a great Idea
if we adopt the poilcy that no child will ever be killed in a war

Do you think our enemies will strap little kids on for bady armor?

they already did that in syria. turns out toddlers dont absorb much kinetic energy. the whole experiment is still being evaluated by the iranians, the chechnyans, hamas and hezzbollah. i think they might be able to work the kinks out soon.

i suspect its all about how thickly you layer the children.

 

[ChesusRice]

they already did that in syria. turns out toddlers dont absorb much kinetic energy. the whole experiment is still being evaluated by the iranians, the chechnyans, hamas and hezzbollah. i think they might be able to work the kinks out soon.

i suspect its all about how thickly you layer the children.

What about air dropping infants and toddlers
Do they have the kinetic energy to destroy hardened installations?

 

[Rob Roy]

No i support killing all babies
warzone or not
I'm working on a baby cannon right now that will launch a infant 4000 yards fully swaddled

Sounds like you've lost your ability to coherently discuss things. I accept your surrender. Go in peace.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I try not to have enemies, especially children. Perhaps a better policy would be to end state sponsored violence and the foolish nationalistic concept of "our enemies" .

not more of this anarcho-fill-in-the-blankism!

nation states exist for the purpose of mutual defense against the roving bands of raiders that would otherwise prey upon all agricultural and industrialized peoples. without a nation state for common defense aganst the savages there can be no society outside roving bands of savages.

catch a clue from history. the dark ages werent dark because christianity made it so, they were dark because the only light of civilization in the western hemisphere was extinguished.

psst... i mean the nation state of Rome and it's legions.

 

[ChesusRice]

Sounds like you've lost your ability to coherently discuss things. I accept your surrender. Go in peace.

Congradulations on winning the debate
On the way out of the discussion
please post evidence our goverment regardless of chief of command targets children in a warzone

 

[ChesusRice]

not more of this anarcho-fill-in-the-blankism!

nation states exist for the purpose of mutual defense against the roving bands of raiders that would otherwise prey upon all agricultural and industrialized peoples. without a nation state for common defense aganst the savages there can be no society outside roving bands of savages.

catch a clue from history. the dark ages werent dark because christianity made it so, they were dark because the only light of civilization in the western hemisphere was extinguished.

psst... i mean the nation state of Rome and it's legions.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr Kynes again.

 

[Dr Kynes]

What about air dropping infants and toddlers
Do they have the kinetic energy to destroy hardened installations?

only if you make sure they drink plenty of milk for strong bones and flouride for strong teeth.

Milk. It does a projectile good.

Got Ordinance?

Babies. The Other White Phosphorous

Infants. It's whats Incoming.

Preschoolers. Once they drop, your bunkers pop!

im wracking my brains trying to work in the teletubbies, the wiggles, barney the dinosaur or dora the explorer

 

[Rob Roy]

not more of this anarcho-fill-in-the-blankism!

nation states exist for the purpose of mutual defense against the roving bands of raiders that would otherwise prey upon all agricultural and industrialized peoples. without a nation state for common defense aganst the savages there can be no society outside roving bands of savages.

catch a clue from history. the dark ages werent dark because christianity made it so, they were dark because the only light of civilization in the western hemisphere was extinguished.

psst... i mean the nation state of Rome and it's legions.

I'm not against building mutual defense alliances that support a peaceful society or self defense. It seems that much HARM has been delivered under the banner of many nation states. For instance the concept "collateral damage" is a rationalization to defend murder wouldn't you agree? As far as catching a clue from history, okay...how many people have died at the hands of nation states that have initiated aggression?

 

[Rob Roy]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr Kynes again.

Okay, I see the mental midget wrestler has tagged out and brought in his champion. This should be interesting.

 

[Rob Roy]

Congradulations on winning the debate
On the way out of the discussion
please post evidence our goverment regardless of chief of command targets children in a warzone

Do I still "win" if I don't? I don't recall making that claim or why you cling to it as a relevant point so much.. When you say "our government" who do you mean? I don't support governments that kill bad babies, so please count me out of that. I don't have a Commander, I'm an individual that never consented to being lead by a jackass.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Do I still "win" if I don't? I don't recall making that claim or why you cling to it as a relevant point so much.. When you say "our government" who do you mean? I don't support governments that kill bad babies, so please count me out of that. I don't have a Commander, I'm an individual that never consented to being lead by a jackass.

your premise to all this cheesus is a child hater shit was from, a loaded question that required a yes or no answer to a very complex subject, you are an idiot, if you dont understand that yes if you engage in war children will die and that that is a known and excepted risk to any military or government engaged in a war, your as obtuse as your are ignorant, so just pay attention

so shut the fuck up you PC thug

 

[Dr Kynes]

I'm not against building mutual defense alliances that support a peaceful society or self defense. It seems that much HARM has been delivered under the banner of many nation states. For instance the concept "collateral damage" is a rationalization to defend murder wouldn't you agree? As far as catching a clue from history, okay...how many people have died at the hands of nation states that have initiated aggression?

and many people, including children have died from snake bites

should we abandon the pretense of snakes?

when two groups do battle those who get in the way get hit. it's the same in bar brawls, gangland shootings, border disputes, and full fledged wars.

if a nation (or any group) commits itself to a proposition of peace at any cost, total nonviolence, passive resistance, or refusal to engage in violence in any instance where an innocent might be harmed that nation group or village would save themselves a lot of trouble by simply surrendering to every passing asshole with a pistol.

such a policy would assure victory to the aggressor, by the simple act of capturing one sheepherder, or a single farmer coming in to the market.

your irrational insistence on zero civilian casualties is not only unworkable, but in the end it will enslave and butcher more children at the hands of barbarians than it could ever save through refusal to fight.

you logic is flawed. aggression must be fought with violence and a promise of greater aggression in return.

you may have noticed that somali pirates are not nearly as brazen as they were before a few of them discovered that their skulls were frangible under Navy SEAL sniper fire. (for a moment i actually almost shouted Go Navy but then the moment passed)

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

great post, but i dont think it will get through to Rob, you dont speak monosyllabicly enough for him to understand

 

[Rob Roy]

your premise to all this cheesus is a child hater shit was from, a loaded question that required a yes or no answer to a very complex subject, you are an idiot, if you dont understand that yes if you engage in war children will die and that that is a known and excepted risk to any military or government engaged in a war, your as obtuse as your are ignorant, so just pay attention

so shut the fuck up you PC thug

For a moment I'll pretend your demeanor wasn't insulting and impolite and offer an answer. It's not complex at all, if you believe it is okay to initiate aggression and that concepts such as "collateral damage" remove personal responsibility that's your business. As far as your shut the fuck up thing. Now that's no way to present a point of view now is it?

 

[Rob Roy]

and many people, including children have died from snake bites

should we abandon the pretense of snakes?

when two groups do battle those who get in the way get hit. it's the same in bar brawls, gangland shootings, border disputes, and full fledged wars.

if a nation (or any group) commits itself to a proposition of peace at any cost, total nonviolence, passive resistance, or refusal to engage in violence in any instance where an innocent might be harmed that nation group or village would save themselves a lot of trouble by simply surrendering to every passing asshole with a pistol.

such a policy would assure victory to the aggressor, by the simple act of capturing one sheepherder, or a single farmer coming in to the market.

your irrational insistence on zero civilian casualties is not only unworkable, but in the end it will enslave and butcher more children at the hands of barbarians than it could ever save through refusal to fight.

you logic is flawed. aggression must be fought with violence and a promise of greater aggression in return.

you may have noticed that somali pirates are not nearly as brazen as they were before a few of them discovered that their skulls were frangible under Navy SEAL sniper fire. (for a moment i actually almost shouted Go Navy but then the moment passed)

I'm not sure you are in the right context here. You assume that a civilian living in their home is "in the way" . That's interesting. Just because something happens on a frequent basis, wars and killing of innocents , it doesn't mean it is justified does it? Your reference to Somali pirates...hmm...how is that relevant to a discussion of whether it is just to kill innocent people?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

For a moment I'll pretend your demeanor wasn't insulting and impolite and offer an answer. It's not complex at all, if you believe it is okay to initiate aggression and that concepts such as "collateral damage" remove personal responsibility that's your business. As far as your shut the fuck up thing. Now that's no way to present a point of view now is it?

asking a loaded question is no way to prove the invalidity of someones view, it just shows you know how to illicit a response, that does nothing to prove your point other than discredit another person, i see how you work and you get what you deserve

and i stand by my generalization of you, your a Politically Correct Thug


and war is not simple, i have many friends dead and alive that would attest to that

 

[Rob Roy]

asking a loaded question is no way to prove the invalidity of someones view, it just shows you know how to illicit a response, that does nothing to prove your point other than discredit another person, i see how you work and you get what you deserve


and war is not simple, i have many friends dead and alive that would attest to that

Ahh...you're "on to me" darn and I thought I was stealthily covering my tracks.

I think the idea of whether or not you choose to be a person that initiates aggresion or not is pretty simple. You either believe it is acceptable to be the one to initiate aggression or you don't.

I assume your dead friends will not be attesting to anything, but hey what do I know?