Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#28 Dec 05 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?


There's a big difference between a suggestion(which, to be perfectly honest, I would make myself to a deadbeat parent, because seriously, someone who's not fit to raise a child, should really not be breeding in the first place), and a court order. A judge can make what comments they see fit, it doesn't mean that those comments constitute an order.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#29 Dec 05 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Christians are about to face genocide in syria.


No they aren't.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#30 Dec 05 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,938 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Christians are about to face genocide in syria.


Hey, wanna make a trip to Syria? I'll pay.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#32 Dec 05 2012 at 10:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,464 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?


There's a big difference between a suggestion(which, to be perfectly honest, I would make myself to a deadbeat parent, because seriously, someone who's not fit to raise a child, should really not be breeding in the first place), and a court order. A judge can make what comments they see fit, it doesn't mean that those comments constitute an order.

Apparently you think "told" and "order" are synonymous. That's to bad.



Yes, he was told to stop procreating as temporary terms of probation, so that he could continue to work to pay back the child support, rather then be sent to jail for the felony bail jumping, and being unable to procreate OR pay back child support.

Smart judge, dumb poster.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#33 Dec 06 2012 at 12:37 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
I'll tell you what's going on in Syria Christians are being slaughtered by the ruling muslims. But because Christians are being mass murdered you aren't hearing about it. We're living out 1984. Whats next do judge's start controlling reproductive rights? Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that. Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.

When was Roe vs. Wade overturned?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#34 Dec 06 2012 at 12:42 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Elinda wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.
Thanks to the more liberal portion of your political system, judges can NOT decide who has to have babies.

Quote:
Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.
You sure?

Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?

Considering your views on the welfare status of the nation, do you really see this as a bad thing? It's not that far of a stretch for the far right to consider sterilizing the lower class. Keep that grubby liberal voter population in check.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#35 Dec 06 2012 at 12:43 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I appear to be a day or two behind in this thread. I'm going to borrow gbaji's claim of being too overworked to post on an hourly basis.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#36 Dec 06 2012 at 2:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"
#37 Dec 06 2012 at 5:27 AM Rating: Good
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?


There's a big difference between a suggestion(which, to be perfectly honest, I would make myself to a deadbeat parent, because seriously, someone who's not fit to raise a child, should really not be breeding in the first place), and a court order. A judge can make what comments they see fit, it doesn't mean that those comments constitute an order.

Apparently you think "told" and "order" are synonymous. That's to bad.


Actually, you're the one who insisted that this judge telling the man to stop breeding was evidence of judges trying to control our reproductive rights, which, unless it was an actual order(which it was not), is absolutely not the case. You're arguing against your own post, which is ridiculous.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#38 Dec 06 2012 at 6:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"

New to the interwebs, are we?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#39 Dec 06 2012 at 6:36 AM Rating: Good
xantav wrote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"


This is correct, and it's one of few good decisions he made. It stemmed from his having been gassed during WW1. Even Hitler felt that enemy soldiers(even the Russians...while on the battlefield at least) didn't deserve that.


To add my opinion to the conversation, rather than just replying to Crazy for something to do, I'm a fan of conventional weapons. I'm pro-gun, although I don't see any reason why anyone outside of a soldier during a war, would ever need an automatic weapon. I feel there is a huge difference between the conventional weaponry(firearms, artillery, etc.) and chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. With the former, unless you're specifically out to do it, you aren't going to end up killing a large quantity of innocent civilians(accidents notwithstanding) and with the latter, you could wipe out an entire city full of civilians if you so desired. I'm a supporter of the ban on these weapons, although I feel that every individual nation has the right to look into them as it's not right for a few countries to have a monopoly on them.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#40 Dec 06 2012 at 6:42 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"
This is correct... Even Hitler felt that enemy soldiers(even the Russians...while on the battlefield at least) didn't deserve that.


Right. Only the jews and their cohorts.

Quote:
On September 3, 1941, around 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 sick Polish prisoners were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp.


If you're going to pick up someone else's comment and run with it, at least know what you're talking about. The reason most players in the second war didn't use chemical weapons was because they were unpredictable and would often (depending on the weather) have substantial negative impact on friendly troops just as much as the enemy. Hitler's aversion to chemical weapon use was absolutely not a result of compassion for his fellow man.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 6:46am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#41 Dec 06 2012 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
With the former, unless you're specifically out to do it, you aren't going to end up killing a large quantity of innocent civilians

Dresden.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Dec 06 2012 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
xantav wrote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"


Nah, they can go ahead. It's fine. If they use them we'll just launch a nuclear warhead in their direction.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#43 Dec 06 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
xantav wrote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"


Nah, they can go ahead. It's fine. If they use them we'll just launch a nuclear warhead in their direction.
Chemical weapons can have pretty significant environmental effects. Nucs and rads can affect the next generation of people.

These are the differences I see.

You kill someone with a gun or inject them with a drug the end result is the same.

Hitler had no qualms about gassing jews. Perhaps he was a staunch environmentalist.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#44 Dec 06 2012 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Elinda wrote:
Chemical weapons can have pretty significant environmental effects.
So can depleted uranium munitions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Dec 06 2012 at 1:22 PM Rating: Decent
BrownDuck wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"
This is correct... Even Hitler felt that enemy soldiers(even the Russians...while on the battlefield at least) didn't deserve that.


Right. Only the jews and their cohorts.

Quote:
On September 3, 1941, around 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 sick Polish prisoners were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp.


If you're going to pick up someone else's comment and run with it, at least know what you're talking about. The reason most players in the second war didn't use chemical weapons was because they were unpredictable and would often (depending on the weather) have substantial negative impact on friendly troops just as much as the enemy. Hitler's aversion to chemical weapon use was absolutely not a result of compassion for his fellow man.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 6:46am by BrownDuck


You posted info backing up my statement to argue against it? BD, I was specific about enemy soldiers on the battlefield for that reason. Also, I do know what I'm talking about, I never said it was compassion for his fellow man, what I did say is that he felt that it shouldn't be used on the battlefield(for the sakes of enemy soldiers, but, mostly his own, as the moment he would have used chemical weapons, the allies would have responded in kind). I was specific about the battlefield because the ***** very obviously used it on a large number of POWs(mostly Russians and Poles, they tended to treat the Western Alllied POWs a little more like they were supposed to until the later days of the war), Jews, and others that were seen as "undesirable".


Smasharoo wrote:
With the former, unless you're specifically out to do it, you aren't going to end up killing a large quantity of innocent civilians

Dresden.


That was done purposefully, and hence falls in line with what I said. It's kind of hard to accidentally carpet bomb a city into ash and rubble.

If you two want to make a point about debating the history of the Second World War, I'm fine with that, since it's one of few topics that I'll actually say I'm knowledgeable about without talking out of my ***.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#46 Dec 06 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
That was done purposefully

Arguable, but probably not. It's fairly unlikely Curtis Lemay said "let's kill 25,000 civilians". Possible, sure, he was a crazy *******. Far more likely is he said "let's destroy that" and waved in a general direction at a map. Which is what happens in war. No one really gives a **** about civilians during war. During target assassination attempts launched by our flying robots, probably slightly more so, but still a few innocent deaths never stand in the way of political goals. Who has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological agents at present? Oh, that's right, but you know, white mans burden and all that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Dec 06 2012 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:
That was done purposefully

Arguable, but probably not. It's fairly unlikely Curtis Lemay said "let's kill 25,000 civilians". Possible, sure, he was a crazy @#%^. Far more likely is he said "let's destroy that" and waved in a general direction at a map. Which is what happens in war. No one really gives a @#%^ about civilians during war. During target assassination attempts launched by our flying robots, probably slightly more so, but still a few innocent deaths never stand in the way of political goals. Who has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological agents at present? Oh, that's right, but you know, white mans burden and all that.


It was done quite purposefully. The official record states that it was done to cause confusion in the movement of German troops from one front, to the other, as well, IIRC, to interfere in civilian movements, as well as disruption of a sizeable amount of important infrastructure. It was most definitely done as ordered.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#48 Dec 06 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That was done purposefully

Arguable, but probably not. It's fairly unlikely Curtis Lemay said "let's kill 25,000 civilians". Possible, sure, he was a crazy @#%^. Far more likely is he said "let's destroy that" and waved in a general direction at a map. Which is what happens in war. No one really gives a @#%^ about civilians during war. During target assassination attempts launched by our flying robots, probably slightly more so, but still a few innocent deaths never stand in the way of political goals. Who has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological agents at present? Oh, that's right, but you know, white mans burden and all that.


Only bad guys are affected in war. True story.
#49 Dec 06 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,580 posts
Most people keep a handgun in their nightstand to defend against intruders. I keep a vial of anthrax.

Your move, burglars.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#50 Dec 06 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
It was done quite purposefully. The official record states that it was done to cause confusion in the movement of German troops from one front, to the other, as well, IIRC, to interfere in civilian movements, as well as disruption of a sizeable amount of important infrastructure. It was most definitely done as ordered.

I'm extensively familiar with the history. There's no clear evidence that the intent was to slaughter civilians. I understand the argument that there is and disagree. Regardless, it's barely relevant to the point. If you have some burning (see what I did there) desire to discuss the morality of warfare, or WW 2 bombings specifically, start a new thread. I spent years studying it, literally, and will be happy to let you know what I think.

The idea that chemical weapons are uncontrollable chaotic weapons whose only purpose is to indiscriminately kill and that conventional weapons are a scalpel like surgical tool to remove military targets selectively is false on almost every level. The same argument has been made about new technology forever. Machine guns, TNT, cannons, nuclear weapons, etc. I imagine the first human to hit another with a stick had someone saying the equivalent of "dude, a stick? Who knows what you'll hit swinging that thing at someone."

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#51 Dec 06 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The idea that chemical weapons are uncontrollable chaotic weapons whose only purpose is to indiscriminately kill and that conventional weapons are a scalpel like surgical tool to remove military targets selectively is false on almost every level.


********* A smart bomb is a thousand times more lilkely to eliminate only its target when compared to say, releasing a cloud of sarin gas into the open air. Even a lowly machine gun is dramatically less indiscriminate than an artillary shell laced with mustard gas or an airborne agent orange delivery. Any argument to the contrary is born of self-delusion.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CST
Allegory, Anonymous Guests (32)