Originally posted by Positional PlayerThen the definition that you used in your writing MUST be wrong. Nowhere did that definition say that a LAWFUL government could be equated to a TERRORIST organization. It was just a big generality that took no note of the rights of nations. That is the point.
Why is it my duty to destroy the notion of democracy?
I do not oppose democracy as it is currently the best system we have available. However, just becase it is "the best" does not mean that it is infallible. The actions of the democracy are not always correct.
I'd like to say I'm sorry about that the ridiculous amount of typoes. I'm writi ...[text shortened]... war poetry coursework.
Also, I shouldn't have made the remark about joining up. Sorry.
Originally posted by jammerHey Jammer,
........................................................................................
It has taken me YEARS to discover the meaning of being a pseudo liberal, but I have finally dont it. This is amazing. I guarantee that this thread will blow your mind because it is so unbelievable!
...................................................................... ...[text shortened]... killing, They are morally equivalent .. afterall, their is no evil, only choices (see #5 above)
Thanks for the post.
It may have been easy for you, but I never in the world realized that people could be born too stupid to not know good from bad... evil from innocent. It is a real mind stopper to me. Maybe i'm too innocent to ever go to college. I would have the relativists so blubbery as to be worthless in about ten minutes. Of course, I might have to kill a few innocent prof's to make the point, but a good demonstration can be a good thing. 😛😉🙄
This is a joy to read.
My side in this war has killed the killers. Abu Mamzas side kills innocents.
Two to three weeks ago American bombers killed eighteen innocent Pakistanis. The moral differences between the sides are no so clear-cut as you would like to believe.
Whether you recognize it or not, you just equated killing evil as being evil.
All killing of sentient life-forms is evil. When have I stated otherwise?
Quite simple I will sum it up as "He is evil for killing innocent people who don't want his vision of facist government. I am not evil for opposing him."
This doesn't even make sense. What are you talking about?
You try to again equate "israel" to "munich terrorists" by an invalid assertion. Would Israel ever have "revenged" anything without the CAUSAL action of the terrorists? How could they? But to the point... this is not a related response and you are commiting a "red herring" mistake in logic.
I do not equate Israel to Black September. Black September committed evil actions. Mossad committed evil actions. That does not mean that the two entities are one and the same. 😕
See my previous posts about facing a benevolent enemy. The IRA did negotiate. Will Al Queda? Not to date. Who would you send to negotiate and how long would they remain alive and free?
Well, we wouldn't HAVE that problem if it weren't for actions of certain governments in the first place. We won't know until we try.
This is another short-coming of pseudo libs. They fail to even read the literature and determine the motivations and goals of their sworn enemies.
Who are my sworn enemies? Evidently you know more about me than I do.
I know this is not so. You have already stated that WWII was a good war. And you failed to tell me how Hitler is more evil than Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri.
Last time I checked, neither of those people resides in Iraq. Neither of these people has invaded another country. Neither of these people has gassed thousands of Jews. A war on terror is impossible by the very fact that terror is, as I wrote earlier, an abstraction.
I say you are dead wrong. It is about the nation of Iraq having the same freedoms that you poo poo and I cherish. Thanks for proving my point about Libs equating killing evil to evil.
Yea, I sure do that, being a member of Liberty and all. Once again you seem to show alarming psychic powers of insight into my mind.
I'll take it as another Freudian slip. Don't you mean that "we" have failed? You don't support terrorists. Remember?
Do you even READ what I write? AS I SAID BEFORE, VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION. I do not support terrorism, but that does not mean I advocate war.
Cripes!
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNeither did it say that the definition could not apply to said institution.
Then the definition that you used in your writing MUST be wrong. Nowhere did that definition say that a LAWFUL government could be equated to a TERRORIST organization. It was just a big generality that took no note of the rights of nations. That is the point.
Originally posted by Positional PlayerYou don't have the ability to write out [1a], [1b] and [1c] and tell me why 1c killing 1b is wrong. Does not a human being (a sentient, by the way) have the right of self-protection? Why allow the terrorist to kill with immunity as you support and are so passionate here in defending? Can't you see how silly it is to take the side of terrorists?
This is a joy to read.
[b]My side in this war has killed the killers. Abu Mamzas side kills innocents. [/b]
Two to three weeks ago American bombers killed eighteen innocent Pakistanis. The moral differences between the sides are no so clear-cut as you would like to believe.
Whether you recognize it or not, you just equated killing ev do not support terrorism, but that does not mean I advocate war.
Cripes!
As to innocents being killed by honorable soldiers... War is hell. Blame those who won't negotiate and insist on killing the INNOCENT to make a point. Do you have a better explanation of WHY terrorists kill INNOCENT people? You support them. Explain them to us.
Originally posted by Positional PlayerYou were very lazy not to think of the obvious. Were you not? You would receive a failing grade for such a stupid, lazy mistake in any course worth it's salt.
Neither did it say that the definition could not apply to said institution.
Read a bit on the reasoning of "Anarchy' for arguments against what they call the corruption of true democracy. They should be your sort of people. They welcome people too stupid to know right from wrong. That is their only strength as a group.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou are beginning to anger me.
You don't have the ability to write out [1a], [1b] and [1c] and tell me why 1c killing 1b is wrong. Does not a human being (a sentient, by the way) have the right of self-protection? Why allow the terrorist to kill with immunity as you support and are so passionate here in defending? Can't you see how silly it is to take the side of terrorists?
As to ...[text shortened]... ter explanation of WHY terrorists kill INNOCENT people? You support them. Explain them to us.
I am sorry I do not have a picture book illustrating this for you.
I DO NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE FAILED TO READ WHAT I WROTE IN REPLY TO YOUR POST.
NEVER ONCE HAVE I SAID THAT I DEFEND MURDER.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI received 60/60. Also had a comment on "good professional writing" and "well researched".
You were very lazy not to think of the obvious. Were you not? You would receive a failing grade for such a stupid, lazy mistake in any course worth it's salt.
Read a bit on the reasoning of "Anarchy' for arguments against what they call the corruption of true democracy. They should be your sort of people. They welcome people too stupid to know right from wrong. That is their only strength as a group.
Why do you think that you know what people want or how they should act? What justification have you in labelling me as an anarchist.
Originally posted by Positional PlayerOh gee! That is truly frightening. What the hell do you think your insipid insistence on supporting terrorist does to me?
You are beginning to anger me.
I am sorry I do not have a picture book illustrating this for you.
I DO NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE FAILED TO READ WHAT I WROTE IN REPLY TO YOUR POST.
NEVER ONCE HAVE I SAID THAT I DEFEND MURDER.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
All you have to do is dispute WITH LOGIC the opening post in this thread. Show me where that logic fails. Then I might not anger you so much.
I insist on putting words in your mouth because there is no force of intellect in your fingers. You just keep typing without thinking about the opening thesis of this thread.
You have never said that you defend murder. You just equate the killing of terrorists to murder and say that it is as wrong as what they do to innocent victims. Wow. Such an intellect.
Originally posted by Positional PlayerSee my previous posts about the commies taking over the western worlds education system 30 years ago. I did say "in a course worth it's salt", and there is not a commie teacher that has any devotion to anything but the central committee. You again are invaluable. Thanks for proving my ideas on the modern cess pool called "education" and confirming that the teachers are incapable of recognizing a specious argument even as blatant as equating a lawfull nation to a terrorist organization. Sigh. Not a lot of hope for "civilization". Is there.
I received 60/60. Also had a comment on "good professional writing" and "well researched".
Why do you think that you know what people want or how they should act? What justification have you in labelling me as an anarchist.
You may not "BE"... be an archist. But what you say and your lack of understanding of government shows that you have been well indoctrinated into it by the afore mentioned commies, no doubt.
Originally posted by Positional PlayerGood. So go join up, go to Iraq and KILL TERRORISTS like your betters in the infantry and royal marines. Ok?
My God. I give up. It is impossible to reason with one so intellectually stunted.
One: That sentence you have written doesn't make any sense.
Two: I DO NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM!
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThis post is so idiotic I don't even know why I am bothering to respond.
See my previous posts about the commies taking over the western worlds education system 30 years ago. I did say "in a course worth it's salt", and there is not a commie teacher that has any devotion to anything but the central committee. You again are invaluable. Thanks for proving my ideas on the modern cess pool called "education" and confirming that that you have been well indoctrinated into it by the afore mentioned commies, no doubt.
What does this mean: "there is not a commie teacher that has any devotion to anything but the central committee"?
What are you ideas on "the modern cess pool called education".
Who is making the logical flaw here?
What is wrong with equating a government to a terrorist organisation? A government uses terror therefore it is a terrorist organisation.
Edit: Once again, there is a difference between opposition and violent opposition.
What is an "archist"?
Furthermore, I'm not even a communist. Get your facts straight rather than assuming that you know about everything.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyPeople aren't "born too stupid", they are taught to be stupid .. in school, in Church, and at home. If you're in College surely you must be aware of that. "Higher Education" is the main source of the teachings of Secularism. Professors .. men and women, spend their entire lives studying/teaching this philosophy. They don't actually build or create anything, yet they know better than us what is and isn't right.
Hey Jammer,
Thanks for the post.
It may have been easy for you, but I never in the world realized that people could be born too stupid to not know good from bad... evil from innocent. It is a real mind stopper to me. Maybe i'm too innocent to ever go to college. I would have the relativists so blubbery as to be worthless in about ten minutes. Of c ...[text shortened]... a few innocent prof's to make the point, but a good demonstration can be a good thing. 😛😉🙄
Thinkers, not doers.
Critics, not creators.
Right and wrong are relative terms. Their is no Absolute Truth .. it depends on how they "feel" Feelings are more important than anything. It's all about you .. the individual, and how you feel relative to any issue at hand.
I think it started in the 60's .. the mantra was .. "If it feels good, do it." followed by "God is dead.". Western Culture 2006 is the end result of that philosophy.
The Moral Equivalence argument was/is a big seller. Very popular. Makes it quite easy to justify just about any type of behovour you can concieve ... Heaven for these is in "knowing" it doesn't really matter what they do. Their is no God, just this one way ticket .. destination .. nothingness.
But they get to feel good about themselves while they live because .. they're more educated, thus smarter than we are. They KNOW .. life has no meaning other than selfgratification in the here and now.