Yakamaru
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yakamaru
-
-
12 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:
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.
Going by your wording, I assumed you were. You not taking action when you should've taken action says a whole lot more about you than it does me, mate.
I am not going to spare someone sympathy when they quite literally blew someone up. That is NOT how sympathy work.
-
40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:
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?
A terrorist is a terrorist for a reason. Sympathy/empathy have nothing to do with it. They are defined as an extremely dangerous individual, and in the vast majority of cases, as this increase in terrorism across Europe is clearly showing, is justified. You either kill, or be killed.
If I wouldn't be able to kill him/her in time before launching those nukes, I would have killed those civilians alongside the President. Morally and ethically it's wrong to murder. Morally and ethically it's right to save millions over a thousand people. Again, it's a matter of numbers. It's a choice you're going to have to live with your entire life. Or you can just sit on your ass, and let millions die, going by how you word your shit.
40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:I don't really get what you mean here.
Terrorists don't follow the laws in the first place. Why should you bind yourself by the laws, when they don't? Their principles are per definition, "by any means necessary".
40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said: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.
Are you implying something here? Inaction makes you indirectly an accomplice, assisting a terrorist. According to the law, if you do not take action, you are aiding a criminal. And according to the law, letting the terrorist escape, despite you having the ability to stop him/her, makes you an accomplice, applicable to be thrown in jail.
40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said: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.
Murder in self-defense. Murder to prevent other murders. Context is important, which you seem to ignore. If you had the power to prevent further murders, by killing someone, would you take that step? Sane people would do that, despite their beliefs. Being a fanatical pacifist is not going to make the problems go away.
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. Committing atrocities, genocide, mass murder, bombings, suicide bombings, etc.
Again, I give zero fucks about their actual beliefs. Their actions speak a million times more than their words/beliefs.
11 minutes ago, sylvix95 said:
Also, never said I disliked the topic, you got TRIGUURUURD over a joke, that's childlish.
And i'm not breaking any forum rules
Nothing I ever said here is breaking the rule 1 or rule 2, if you think so, you should learn sarcasms.
I'm not trying to "derail" anything. If you wan't a serious opinion from me about this topic, I'd say that I'm really asking myself why there's a thread like this on a gaming community for the making of a server for a RTS game LOL, but i ain't stopping anyone from posting it in, RELAX DUDE xD, at least you made my day
I made it in Off-Topic because we don't have a subforum for non-game debates/discussion. Several people have already shown their interest in talking about politics, which you clearly are not. I do not go into threads you have created, attempting to derail them into off-topic crap according to the posts' intent.
Yes, this is an RTS forum. Yes, this is posted in Off-Topic. Off-Topic, as in non-game related.
-
2 hours ago, bobfrog said:
At worst he will fuck up climate change projects. rip netherlands.
America only sits on 14.5% of the total emissions. If you intend to blame anyone, blame the world. If you want to blame a country, blame China, who are sitting at over 2x that of America. If you had been paying attention, aka, watched some of his speeches, press conferences by Sean Spicer, etc, you'd know that climate change is no longer on the list of top priorities.
American electricity companies are currently not able to provide cheap electricity to their citizens, because of the moronic policies put in place by the previous administration. Some areas are seeing $.20, even $.25 per kW. How is that acceptable for the sake of a tiny reduction in emissions?
Also. The Netherlands have NOTHING to do with America. America does not control your country's economy, nor what you are to fund.
2 hours ago, bobfrog said:Or make prejudice socially acceptable. bad mexicans. cya muslims, we dont want you.
Huh?
1. Make prejudice socially acceptable? Going to have to ask for some actual evidence of that shit, mate. And don't bother citing CNN, BBC, MSNBC, etc. They are full of shit, and have been full of shit since the start
2. He is talking about illegal aliens from Mexico. They shouldn't be in America in the first place
3. Only 7 countries are on that list. And it's a temporary TRAVEL ban. If you had bothered to look it up, it's not a Muslim ban. The majority of Muslims do NOT come from those countries
QuoteOr make the rich richer and destroy the poor. obamacare? nah.. and since we allready allow people to play with their lifes, we also can allow russian roulett in casinos.
I am pretty sure I've said previously in this thread, that implementing things takes time. The Trump administration is currently leaving it as it is, so they can formulate a good plan for repealing ACA.
They are not interested in rushing things, as it will often end up in a catastrophe. Trump and his administration want to avoid that, which is why they are not touching it yet. They are looking at it.
The tax reforms are going to take place later this year.
Here are some facts that Trump and his staff have done since his inauguration on the 20th of January:
So far, Trump's administration have helped create, either directly and/or indirectly through actions/legislations/bills, about 240,000 jobs. So far. This number is going to rise as the months go by, deals are made, and reforms are taking place.
http://bb4sp.com/trump-reduced-debt-100-billion/
^ $100 BILLON reduction to the total national debt. In only 2 months. Imagine what he's going to be able to do in the 4-year minimum. At this rate, 8 years of a Trump Presidency is guaranteed.
^ Not accepting the salary of $400k. A month. I'd say that's a pretty damn good boost to the economy. He's also offered to give that money to anything the Congress/Senate wants him to give to. Win for Congress/Senate, win for whatever they want to fund it with.
^ List over shit. Completed, in the works, stalled, and compromised. And yes, I am actually linking Politifact..
QuoteWell, for a politic thread, the fact that you "don't allow me" to do what the hell I want isn't really democratic, heh.
also, don't tell me what to do, thank you, @Yakamaru.
This is a political thread, not a "do whatever the fuck I want, try to derail the thread because I personally don't like the topic/subject" thread. If you have no intention of joining the conversation, and only try to derail the thread, I am going to have to ask you to stay away from it, or I will report you for breaking the forum rules.
QuoteOne last thing, we are litterally in the off-topic zone.
No, we are not. Politics is a very broad subject.
-
2380.
May your enemies encounter a hostile cactus, and force some hugs.
-
2378. Someone mentioned counting?
Deer God, please refrain from shitting in my yard.
-
@Asraiel I did? Holy shit, I did. My bad.
-
Dancing God Emperor Trump. Love it!
-
-
God Emperor smiling. How cute!
-
7/10 my sense of humor.
-
2375, on the road to some real good shit, coming up!
My favorite gif of all time..
-
On the highway to 2373 counts, and still counting.
-
1 hour ago, sylvix95 said:
Whatever you guys opinions is, I'll let you know that I disagree.
Murder should be illegal.
Rape is not ok.
Mass murder shouldn't be a national sport.
The Holocaust happened.
The Armenian Genocide obviously happened.
Islam is a peaceful religion.
The Caliphate before the 1st Crusades were peaceful expansions.
Hitler was a bad boy.
Stalin was also a bad boy.
If you have no intention of adding anything to the debate//discussion/thread, please stay away from the thread, as you are NOT contributing. Trolling won't get you anywhere, nor will I allow you to steer the thread offtopic.
-
2300+71.
'tis even a number Samurai Jack can jack off to.
-
Wew, lad. I fucking hate deer.
-
2 hours ago, BionicReaper said:
@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.
The question should've been kinda simple to answer..
What is right and wrong are subjective up to a certain point for the majority of people. Moral and ethical relativism is a fact up until a certain point. And that point is the law, and the majority decide those laws, and empathy/sympathy, and putting yourself in someone elses shoes. If you do not follow the laws, you are, per definition, a criminal. In some cases, depending on what you do, you are a terrorist. "Treat others as you want them to treat you". If someone intends to bomb the everliving shit out of you, your job is not to sit still and let it happen. If you even remotely like living, take action and stop the terrorist, by any means necessary.
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.
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. If you manage to give the terrorist the slip, then you are responsible for any action they may do afterwards. You could have prevented further deaths by taking someone out, who does not value the lives of others in the first place.
And yes, I would've shot that terrorist. I do not give a single fuck if he's "good", when his ACTIONS, by bombing and killing people, say the complete opposite. If your beliefs/thoughts are not in sync with your actions, you have some serious problems. Actions speak a million times louder than words.
As far as terrorists and violent criminals are concerned, if you think twice about shooting you may end up dead yourself the next moment. A moment's hesitation can and will kill you, as seen too often by videos all over, especially police videos. I will not think twice about shooting someone who is about to attack me. That clearly goes for terrorists, as well.
You cannot have tolerance over the intolerant. That is only going to cause problems, as the repeated terrorist attacks keep showing.
-
Me whenever I am getting insults thrown at me from the Left.
-
Hmm.. 5/10.
-
9/10, because Imagine Dragons. Song itself is 8/10.
-
2369.
When you're trying to be angry, but you're only a small doggirl.
-
32/150.
Love me some Allahu Trapbar.
-
Definitely one of my favorites.
-
2367. Our God Emperor Donald Trump will #MAGA.
Pic is unrelated.
-
What the actual fuck? His balls isn't even censored. 0/100.
Ken Ashcorp.
The Political Thread
in Off-Topic
Posted
"Terrorism will go away if we ignore it". How is that working so far? Good, no? Of course not. Only a moron thinks that NOT fighting something will make the problems go away.
People dying to terrorism? Lets just ignore it, it will hopefully go away at some point.
"If we kill the terrorists, they win". Yes, lets just fucking bury our heads in the sand like an ostrich. See if the problems just go away.
Insult? Extreme pacifism isn't an insult.
It's a paradox with only one outcome that any sane person would choose: At best, shoot the fuck in the kneecap, or kill the fuck. At worst, the fucker gets away to do more terrorism, bomb more people. At that point, if you allow them to escape, any action that terrorist does after that is on your hands.
Then write THAT then, instead of longass paragraphs about sympathy and other crap that could EASILY have been reduced to 2-3 sentences.