3434 réponses à ce sujet

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

The problem is, killing innocent children is wrong.

Well then don't make situations in which it can happen, and everything will be fine. 

So being a slave is in your mind a good reason to kill a child that's played no part in forcing you into slavery.

Yes. 

Is this really your non video game way of thinking?!

Yes.

Think of it what you will. But if everybody thought the same, slavery wouldn't exist EVER because all slaves would just rise up always feeling justified instead of enduring injustice. The analogy works in many other aspects of life. Life would be better if people that treat other people like sh*t would get sh*t at once. Not only that, but they would also get sh*t from OTHER people that got in between because of them.

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So just to be perfectly clear, you're saying that if someone is a enslaved, it's OK for them to murder their "master's" children?  

Bull$#!+.  Complete and total bull$#!+. 

So HOW do you manage to call an opinon bullsh*t? It is clear, that's what I think - slavery is bad. Slaves are free to murder if they are being abused, will teach other slavers a lesson.

Because it's bull$#!+.  Your "opinion" is that it's OK for a slave to kill the slaver's children. 

What on earth gives you the idea that there's any justice, fairness, or morality in children being killed for their parent's wrongdoing? 

If a slave wants to fight back, and he should, the moral act is to direct his actions against the slavers not innocent third parties. 

Your "morality" is the same "morality" that leads to suicide bombers blowing up busses and schools full of children because those children happen to share an ethnic identity with those the bomber feels wronged him.  It's repugnant and vile and wrong at the deepest level. 

OMG listen to what I say more carefully. It is not ok for slaves to kill slavers children, it is not fair, it is not just it is not moral, BUT slaves are not to blame! Blame the slavers! Killing the slaves that killed those children would be as unfair as them killing children. 

If you would treat people fair, there wouldn't be suicide bombers, you are right.!

D. Kain --"Slaves are free to murder if they are being abused, will teach other slavers a lesson."  If you didn't mean it, don't say it, simple as that. 

The slavers are to blame for the slavery and anything that goes with it.

If the slaves kill the children of the slavers, then they alone are to blame for those killings. 

Whatever else the situation is, if someone straps a bomb on and blows himself up in a building or bus full of innocent people, then that person and his associates in the act are to blame, no one else.  Not the "oppressors", not the "enemy", not the "bad people who hurt them". 


The problem is that you think blame is a chain, that blame is fungible and transferable. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:38 .

[FoxHound109]

jreezy wrote...

(Sad tiny violin music being played right now)

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...



D. Kain --"Slaves are free to murder if they are being abused, will teach other slavers a lesson."  If you didn't mean it, don't say it, simple as that. 

The slavers are to blame for the slavery and anything that goes with it.

If the slaves kill the children of the slavers, then they alone are to blame for those killings. 

Whatever else the situation is, if someone straps a bomb on and blows himself up in a building or bus full of innocent people, then that person and his associates in the act are to blame, no one else.  Not the "oppressors", not the "enemy", not the "bad people who hurt them". 


The problem is that you think blame is a chain, that blame is fungible and transferable. 

A slave runs away from the slaver. Has no weapons to fight the slaver, steals a sword from you, you kill the slave. Slaver goes onto the next slave unpunished.

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

The problem is, killing innocent children is wrong.

Well then don't make situations in which it can happen, and everything will be fine. 

So being a slave is in your mind a good reason to kill a child that's played no part in forcing you into slavery.

Yes. 

Is this really your non video game way of thinking?!

Yes.

Think of it what you will. But if everybody thought the same, slavery wouldn't exist EVER because all slaves would just rise up always feeling justified instead of enduring injustice. The analogy works in many other aspects of life. Life would be better if people that treat other people like sh*t would get sh*t at once. Not only that, but they would also get sh*t from OTHER people that got in between because of them.

What you've been saying is that it's OK for anyone who ever gets **** to randomly give **** to everyone else around them, lashing out in a blind act of misdirected retaliation. 

[AnAccountWithNoName]

Dunstan wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So just to be perfectly clear, you're saying that if someone is a enslaved, it's OK for them to murder their "master's" children?  

Bull$#!+.  Complete and total bull$#!+. 

So HOW do you manage to call an opinon bullsh*t? It is clear, that's what I think - slavery is bad. Slaves are free to murder if they are being abused, will teach other slavers a lesson.

But it's not the slaver's childrens fault that they're parents are slavers is it.

No it's not. It's slavers fault, so? It doesn't change the fact that slaves are exused. It will also make other slavers think more about their children

Well I think that since it's the slaver's fault, the slaver should be made to pay for sure, but not by taking life away from innocent children. That's just wrong, the slaver should pay for his own mistakes and the children left out of it.

Agreed, you know what they say.....the son should not be punished for the sins of the father.

[D.Kain]

Dunstan wrote...

And that answer both disturbs and angers me.
I just hope that no man ever does something to hurt you deeply. Because if I understand how you think, then you'd probably find out his address, go inside, and kill his family. Am I correct?

Nobody should hurt anyone deeply, that is already a problem. It depends on how big of damage it is. If a milionare right now pays the police so that they put me into prison because he feels like it, I would be justified to do just that to him if I get out.

[D.Kain]

AnAccountWithNoName wrote...

Agreed, you know what they say.....the son should not be punished for the sins of the father.

The funny things is that in even in the bible it is the other way around.

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What you've been saying is that it's OK for anyone who ever gets **** to randomly give **** to everyone else around them, lashing out in a blind act of misdirected retaliation. 

Which WILL always lead to harmony in the end, because nobody would want to endure it. Yes.

That's how every revolution worked.

Modifié par D.Kain, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:45 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

D. Kain --"Slaves are free to murder if they are being abused, will teach other slavers a lesson."  If you didn't mean it, don't say it, simple as that. 

The slavers are to blame for the slavery and anything that goes with it.

If the slaves kill the children of the slavers, then they alone are to blame for those killings. 

Whatever else the situation is, if someone straps a bomb on and blows himself up in a building or bus full of innocent people, then that person and his associates in the act are to blame, no one else.  Not the "oppressors", not the "enemy", not the "bad people who hurt them". 


The problem is that you think blame is a chain, that blame is fungible and transferable. 

A slave runs away from the slaver. Has no weapons to fight the slaver, steals a sword from you, you kill the slave. Slaver goes onto the next slave unpunished.

If I'm an uninvolved, unrelated third party, once he tries to steal the sword from he, then he has wronged me, in a way that has nothing to do with the people who wronged him. 

If he asks me for a sword, and swears to use it only against those who've actually wronged him, he might very well get one, as I find slavery repugnant and vile...

of course, if he believes he would be justified in murdering the slaver's children, everyone would be safer if I just killed him myself instead.   

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:49 .

[FoxHound109]

D.Kain wrote...

Which WILL always lead to harmony in the end, because nobody would want to endure it. Yes.

That's how every revolution worked.

Actually that's not entirely true. Not all revolutions were successful and most of the ones that were very "eye for an eye" failed miserably. The French Revolution is a perfect example: it snowballed completely and utterly out of control, especially in comparison to the American Revolution, which was much less radical. 

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If I'm an uninvolved, unrelated third party, once he tries to steal the sword from he, then he has wrong me, in a way that has nothing to do with the people who wronged him. 

If he asks me for a sword, and swears to use it only against those who've actually wronged him, he might very well get one, as I find slavery repugnant and vile...

of course, if he believes he would be justified in murdering the slaver's children, everyone would be safer if I just killed him myself instead.   

Do you live in a society or do you live on your own and don't give sh*t about what happens unless it directly involves you? Go live in the woods or something then. Society's health is at stake, you will be involved by that slaver anyway just on a different level. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What you've been saying is that it's OK for anyone who ever gets **** to randomly give **** to everyone else around them, lashing out in a blind act of misdirected retaliation. 

Which WILL always lead to harmony in the end, because nobody would want to endure it. Yes.

That's how every revolution worked.

No, it just leads to more and more killing and injustice and strife, as everyone wronged takes it out on everyone around them.  It's a recipe for chaos, not justice. 

And it's not how revolutions that worked happen.  It's how failed revolutions like French Revolution work, spiraling ever downward in chaos and drenched in an endless torrent of innocent blood. 

[D.Kain]

FoxHound109 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Which WILL always lead to harmony in the end, because nobody would want to endure it. Yes.

That's how every revolution worked.

Actually that's not entirely true. Not all revolutions were successful and most of the ones that were very "eye for an eye" failed miserably. The French Revolution is a perfect example: it snowballed completely and utterly out of control, especially in comparison to the American Revolution, which was much less radical. 

So is France still standing or what?

[AnAccountWithNoName]

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

And that answer both disturbs and angers me.
I just hope that no man ever does something to hurt you deeply. Because if I understand how you think, then you'd probably find out his address, go inside, and kill his family. Am I correct?

Nobody should hurt anyone deeply, that is already a problem. It depends on how big of damage it is. If a milionare right now pays the police so that they put me into prison because he feels like it, I would be justified to do just that to him if I get out.

Dude....just listen, you can't justify killing those who so happen to be related to the one who wronged you, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  You can't kill/punish the son for the sins of the father.

If you think you can, and should, then your a monster.

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What you've been saying is that it's OK for anyone who ever gets **** to randomly give **** to everyone else around them, lashing out in a blind act of misdirected retaliation. 

Which WILL always lead to harmony in the end, because nobody would want to endure it. Yes.

That's how every revolution worked.

No, it just leads to more and more killing and injustice and strife, as everyone wronged takes it out on everyone around them.  It's a recipe for chaos, not justice. 

And it's not how revolutions that worked happen.  It's how failed revolutions like French Revolution work, spiraling ever downward in chaos and drenched in an endless torrent of innocent blood. 

Of course a person can hurt only those that are related to his cause in a way. WOW, you think that people can hurt COMPLETELY random people? For Morinth every person was for her power. For slave it's the children of the slaver not the children of a random person in the street, if it is you it is because of your sword, not because it is random. Lead the chain and deal with the problem. 

[D.Kain]

AnAccountWithNoName wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

And that answer both disturbs and angers me.
I just hope that no man ever does something to hurt you deeply. Because if I understand how you think, then you'd probably find out his address, go inside, and kill his family. Am I correct?

Nobody should hurt anyone deeply, that is already a problem. It depends on how big of damage it is. If a milionare right now pays the police so that they put me into prison because he feels like it, I would be justified to do just that to him if I get out.

Dude....just listen, you can't justify killing those who so happen to be related to the one who wronged you, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  You can't kill/punish the son for the sins of the father.

If you think you can, and should, then your a monster.

Christian God is a monster.  

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If I'm an uninvolved, unrelated third party, once he tries to steal the sword from he, then he has wrong me, in a way that has nothing to do with the people who wronged him. 

If he asks me for a sword, and swears to use it only against those who've actually wronged him, he might very well get one, as I find slavery repugnant and vile...

of course, if he believes he would be justified in murdering the slaver's children, everyone would be safer if I just killed him myself instead.   

Do you live in a society or do you live on your own and don't give sh*t about what happens unless it directly involves you? Go live in the woods or something then. Society's health is at stake, you will be involved by that slaver anyway just on a different level. 

And never mind where I said I'd give a slave striving for actual justice a sword if he asked for it, right? 

If he feels that the wrongs done to him justify wrongs done to anyone he randomly feels the whim to wrong, if he feels that killing the slavers' children is a way to get justice, if he feels that my possessions should be his for the taking, then he's not looking for justice, then arming him would only make things worse.  

Spare us your warped notions of "social justice". 

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Which WILL always lead to harmony in the end, because nobody would want to endure it. Yes.

That's how every revolution worked.

Actually that's not entirely true. Not all revolutions were successful and most of the ones that were very "eye for an eye" failed miserably. The French Revolution is a perfect example: it snowballed completely and utterly out of control, especially in comparison to the American Revolution, which was much less radical. 

So is France still standing or what?

You have absolutely no idea what France went through during and for decades after the Revolution, then.   

Typical. 

Go study the things you're blabbering about, do some reading, do some actual thinking.