BionicReaper
-
Posts
179 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BionicReaper
-
-
1 minute ago, Yakamaru said:
You not taking action when you should've taken action says a whole lot more about you than it does me, mate.
When did I say that? Huh? Do you even remember what I write? I said I wouldn't kill the person, unless I had no other "applicable" choice. To make it clearer since you didn't get it, I wouldn't kill him if I could stop him another way.
-
You can look up terrorist definition up here:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorist?s=t
2 hours ago, Yakamaru said:Being a fanatical pacifist is not going to make the problems go away.
I think this is an insult, Im not a fucking fanatical pacifist, and stop addressing me with things. You don't seem to understand one bit of my ideology, and make me out for something else, quite a few times now.
2 hours ago, Yakamaru said:Murder to prevent other murders. Context is important, which you seem to ignore.
You just said it yourself, so this is paradoxical, since you would kill the one that murder to prevent more murder. Or is it like math and murder to prevent murder which would prevent murder cancels each other out?
-
2 hours ago, Yakamaru said:
From the looks of it, I'd say you're a terrorist sympathiser, going by your careful wording. Either that, or you're a fanatical pacifist, who wouldn't even take up a gun in self-defense if it meant killing someone else.
Bad guy? A terrorist, PER DEFINITION, is bad/evil.
I'm not a terrorist sympathiser. Do you think I sympathise with ISIS and suicidal bombers? I'm just trying to say that I'm still standing on the possibility there might be a good one. In definition, I try to not be preoccupied. And I tried to convince you to not be but it seems I cannot.
-
On 28/3/2017 at 11:01 PM, Yakamaru said:
Terrorists does not deserve any sympathy, as they wouldn't give you any in the first place. They may have done something they believed to be good, but their ACTIONS themselves are atrocities, and are directly contradictory to what they claim to believe. The ends does not justify the means, the same way the thought behind an action does not justify said action.
As for the President question: I'd try and only get the President, leaving the civilians out of it. It's a matter of numbers. It's ethically right to kill one or several people to save millions. Is it morally right? Questionable, at best. You can't come and say, after those nukes have been dropped, that you NOW should kill the President, AFTER the fact, when that atrocity could have been avoided in the first place. The core idea behind countering terrorism is to PREVENT it from happening in the first place. If an atrocity can be avoided by killing one person, you should take that step.
1st: You don't know if they would give you sympathy. That's just an assumption by any means.
2nd: There might have been no other way, than killing him along with the rest, would you let him leave still?
On 28/3/2017 at 11:01 PM, Yakamaru said:A terrorist does not abide by the law, and you should set yourself up to follow those same principles and standards: Which are non-existent to begin with.
I don't really get what you mean here.
On 28/3/2017 at 11:01 PM, Yakamaru said:eliefs/thoughts are not in sync with your actions, you have some serious problems. Actions speak a million times louder than words.
This is paradoxical. So you say that even though killing 10 people would leave a lot more untouched, you would still kill the more? Inaction is action you know. You might as well as have killed them yourself.
In any way should you kill a person you are the same as the terrorist, a killer.
You are just seen diffrently by the society.
Also please dude stop this. When you are reffering to a terrorist you clearly could omit it and add "bad guy". So basically the way your opinion goes even if a terrorist is trying to fix the government (even if it might be a dictatorship), in the way that has the least casualities, you should kill him. If that's your opinion then I can't debate with you anymore. If I haven't understood wrong you say, let the shit happen and if someone tries to prevent it by killing, kill him. Ok I would understand it if it was for selfish goals, but after your last reply I believe this a diffrent thing now.
-
-
-
I don't even remember when I drew this but I think I did a pretty damn good job.
I didn't paint it though because I was afraid it was gonna get f
cked up.
Ik the quality is not really good, Im sorry...
Edit: I don't think I used that image while painting by the way, I just couldn't find it and used this one for a side by side comparison
-
-
On 26/3/2017 at 11:15 AM, Yakamaru said:
I have to apologize if I seemed a bit.. Snarky in my earlier post. I forgot that some people may not be good at explaining their opinion properly the first time around, and calling myself an intellectual, I am ashamed. Good thing that's clearing up.
How would you personally deal with a terrorist, if I may ask? Lets say a terrorist kills 5-10 people in a shopping mall with a small bomb. He run across you, and you had the chance to take him/her out. Would you take them out, or how would you try and deal with him? If the latter, how would you deal with them?
It may sound like a bit of petty justice, but personally, I would kill him. He's already made the lives of at least 10 other people a living hell, having lost loved ones and friends. And as a terrorist, should be dealt with accordingly. If the terrorist were to escape, they would just do the same shit over again.
@Yakamaru Well its based on the situation. Literally who the people were, why he killed them, why he used a bomb in the first place. I really need the details to decide but supposing all I have is that information... I guess I would try to disable him without killing him if I had the chance, but taking no risks, I would kill him if I had no other option. Can't risk anybody's life for my ideals.
I'd like to expand a bit on how I think the only rule that should exist is: "Everyone should be able to do what they want"
You see what keeps spinning on my mind is that there's no "real" reason for anything. I mean yeah humans talk to each other because it makes them feel better, but why really? You say because they have to, but it matters to them, it doesn't really matter, nothing really matters. It's just a feeling I get when I ask why. You might be a mafia leader, you might be a charity supporter, the way the world sees it, you're both worth the same. It's really hard to explain with words but you get my idea. So the only way to decide on a true fair ruleset is to use a moral code EVERYONE agrees on. And what does everyone want to do? Whatever they want, right? Well I guess that's what should happen. Should a group of people agree on forming a society with more rules, so be it, but not affect the ones that don't want the extra rules.
Finally you should think twice before killing most of the time. It's a choice that won't turn left, ever. Maybe you kill someone that actually did the right thing, because you and the world are blinded by anger from whatever ways he utilized, but if one day you understand that, you shouldn't have killed the good guy? You won't be able to say sorry, that's for sure. Maybe a person bombed a public speech of a president killing more than 1000 people, including the president. Well fuck that guy, is what most people would think. But what if that president was planning to secretly nuke another country, potentially starting a war and killing way lots more people? Well if your opinion still hasn't changed, think of it like this: Do you watch out for ants when you are walking? That's surely sounds like you just don't care about the ants, but to be honest, shouldn't the ants know where it is a bad idea to go to? In this occassion I believe it was the people's attending the speech fault for failing to actually read the vibe, or because they simply wouldn't care. And I can't even use ants as an example, because ants always have a way to survive being stepped on. These people would be more like a mouse walking among a crowd.
Edit: I mean that terrorist you mentioned might've been good behind the scenes and the others just got caught up in the mess. In a normal person's eyes he looks like a unjustifiable killer, but there might be some deeper meaning.
Edit 2: Ik its not always but there's that 1% that might actually fuck you up. Chances mean nothing, it's just about discouraging or encouraging people, imo at least.
-
7 hours ago, anonyme0273 said:
No, I am not trying to limit anyone here. I should probably explain who I mean by "terrorist". For example, getting in a car and driving people over, killing them - that for me is terrorism. Blowing yourself up in order to kill people, that for me is terrorism. Kidnapping people and then cutting their throats, that for me is terrorism. These people, that do inhuman things to prove their point, to scare others and whose actions are rejeccted by 99% of sensible people, these people should know that no matter what, even if they die during their crazy spree of idiotism, they will suffer. Not only them, but their families and dear ones, for in my opinion, tougher punishment DOES lower crime like this. Stealing and demonstrating is not a crime in my opinion that would be worthy of death, no way. Jail is not a bad thing. But killing people and then expecting to walk amongst them again in a few years, or being seen as a martyr to boost others into doing so - that is so fundamentaly broken, rotten to the core and disgusting, I would not think a second about making a judgement here. Peoples freedom has limits. It's not other peoples feelings, but lives and well being. What I said can be interpreted in different ways, but I believe you understand now a bit more what I tried to say.
Terrorists are not worthy of a second chance. They took lives and nothing will give these back, and for me, that is a point of no return.
That sounds better, but I was thinking about being in prison until they die. Anyway, I just had a wrong idea of your viewpoint.
-
@Yakamaru I was just replying to that guy on religious side. Also I feel like you should take into consideration all of my perspective. From that idea also comes "Do not kill" because you infringe on that person's right on doing whtever he wants. Truly I think sending them to prison might be the wrong option as you said, but I would like to avoid killing someone unless there really is no other way to prevent affecting the rest of the population that are neutral.
Edit: In the prison they might create radicals but if you just keep them in, no one will get hurt. As long as someone doesn't take action, then you don't really have to kill them. Keeping them in prison therefore is just fine.
-
5 hours ago, anonyme0273 said:
No, terrorists are NOT to be discussed with, but killed and punished more
If I understood that right, I think that's a little bit of twisted justice. So basically your logic is that anyone that goes against the system should be violently shutdown? Against your system to say. I believe that's basically oppressive, denying the person's freedom. It's saying you have autority over all and that if you don't obey, you get erased. I believe putting them in prison is right though, because if they have killed people or disturbed the daily lives of citizens, it will be to prevent the incident from happening again.
1 hour ago, Asraiel said:siuts in there:
I personally don't believe in a god, but I outright disagree with this video's ideas. Let's just assume that there exists a god to have this argument. Personally I believe there a lot of "plot holes" in christian history, which makes me believe they were nothing but a fabricated history about their past. People weren't really bright back then so it would make sense they would buy almost anything. Also if said in a way that could be considered true by the majority of the world, the rest would never convince them of the true facts. So basically I'm driving that history out the window. But I believe, if there exists a god, he is doing good by not messing with our free will. I mean yeah the act of the 2 men in the video is evil, I trully do believe that. But still trampling with free will can't be justified by preventing evil. If you looked at the situation, setting aside your bias for your own beliefs, you would understand that the woman's and the child's free will, ain't worth any more than that of the perpetrators. Surely there will be occassions like these that are prevented and some that are not, but that's it. If we humans can't decide for ourselves then would we really be free. Oppressing what we consider evil, basically eradicating it, will actually also obliterate free will, because, no matter how you look at it, whether you used whatever "authority" or "noble cause" you think you had, doesn't that mean that you forced your moral ideas on these people? Also god has never actually interfered. If you ask for something from god he never interferes. It's just you that will think afterwards "God didn't help me, he must have a reason" or "Thank you god for helping me" based on the outcome of the situation. Everything in this world is decided by things in this world. It's the same as people giving responsibility or praise for things, to a person that was just chilling in his bedroom all the time and watching TV. "You can't appreciate good without evil" or "You can't have one without the other" are ideologies that I believe in. Also if you had a test, I could give you all the answers, but would you be really satisfied with yourself? I have put much thought in why I would believe them but put simply, if all you had known is white you would have only white, if all you had known is black you would only black, but a combination of the two, can form amazing pictures don't you think? Wouldn't you enjoy a picture with many colors more than a plain white picture? Some people never think outside the box, and accept whatever truth they want to be true, but that doesn't mean it is always true.
Basically my ideology is that there should be one rule: "Everyone can do whatever they want"
I know what you're thinking: So Bionic you are an anarchist that doesn't give a s**t about people's rights.
Well truth is that's only scratching the surface of my idea, but there's more to it. If everyone should be able to do whatever they want that means that whatever anyone does shouldn't infringe anyone else's right on doing whatever they want. And yes I can understand there are some flaws like:
1: I want to build a house there.
2: But I want to make a farm there.
I believe most of those matters could be resolved quickly through some discussion, by reaching some kind of win-win agreement, and I have a solution for this argument as well. That basically is all for me ^^.
Edit: On the video I forgot to add the same could be argued in some occassions that god favors good, but really now who gives a shit about that really? Everyone cares about someone NOT SUPPORTING them, but doesn't care about SUPPORTING them
-
On 21/2/2017 at 8:16 PM, Eddio said:
Might as well tell that this forum is English language only.
Don't worry I think they are not flaming you
3 hours ago, Valaraukar said:Hey from Klagenfurt
Best friends
-
Looks really nice! But maybe the units are trademarks
.
-
13 hours ago, Defqon said:
No hard feelings or anything, but I hate LoL, my sincere apologies
How dare you dont you like lol! (For the lolz
If you get the lol im refering to )
-
@Dallarian Dun worry dude, just think that there are people who don't even know english.
Also above average is a good thing.
-
11 minutes ago, SunWu II. said:
I'm, glad there were no questions, about commas.
Well, here, there, are, lots, of, commas, ain't, there? :,Tro,ll,:
#Co,m,ma,dne,s,s
-
I ain't even surprised even though I accidentaly double clicked one answer
-
Hands up!!!!!!!............................................ Oh wait, I'm not Austrian
-
This undead-post...... lel
-
Legends are born in April (The 9th for good reference
)
-
5 hours ago, EonBen said:
I like Samurai but not your Avatar
I bet u trolling
-
If it was ninjaz I would consider
On 8/2/2017 at 11:33 PM, veryhasted said:Samurais are just not as cool.
@veryhasted My avater
-
A: What the community wants?
B: Open Beta.
Link: The contents will be very important! But I don't tell you what it is, apart from it being an IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
.
The Political Thread
in Off-Topic
Posted
Extreme =/= Fanatical
Didnt I?
Remember that?