BionicReaper

For a second, I thought it had metaphorical menaing

I hate anti-watermelon groups, I fear........... not really sure I used to be afraid of dogs but not anymore. Heights? I guess?

Extreme =/= Fanatical Didnt I? Remember that?

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 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. 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?

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.

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? I don't really get what you mean here. 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.

Im a frigging masta melon!

Thank you

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 fcked 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

And who might this be?

@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.

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.

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. 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

Don't worry I think they are not flaming you Best friends

Looks really nice! But maybe the units are trademarks .

How dare you dont you like lol! (For the lolz If you get the lol im refering to )