Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Super Citizen Test/ License to kill discussion

Super Citizen Test/ License to kill discussion (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 03:36 AM
 
Originally posted by The Jackalope:
<STRONG>


Like the SS did with Jews, Gypsies, etc in Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge against, well, EVERYONE in Cambodia, and the ATF & FBI against the Branch Dividian church in Texas? They all had state sanctioning to do so, after all.

How is this a good idea? Please study some history. I recomend reading about state-sanctioned force against unarmed populaces at www.jpfo.org</STRONG>
And let us not forget the Israeli army against palestine children and civilians.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 03:43 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>I don't buy that one, do you have specific research that verifies your statement? Besides cash is talking about normal people being able to shoot whoever they perceive as "bad" without repercussions</STRONG>
Ok, it doesn't quite work like that, per se. Switzerland has the lowest murder per capita in the world, I believe. EVERY male citizen owns a gun and is given military training for few days a year for 10 years or so. Woman are encouraged to do the same.

The difference between US and the Swiss? The gun law in Switz is MANDATORY. Everyone get's one, and everyone is trained with how to use it.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 08:09 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Hrm. Good point. Perhaps if I had a gun at all times I'd kill meter maids. I think I'd use a whole clip on one of those ****ers.</STRONG>
I'd use it to shoot up the tires of all those ****ers who park illegally in my street, blocking access for firetrucks and stealing parking space from those who live there. *Then* I'd send in the meter maids and have the assholes towed.

But I don't really need the gun, since the meter maid and towing part already works quite well without my interference.

-spheric*
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 08:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Metzen:
<STRONG>

Ok, it doesn't quite work like that, per se. Switzerland has the lowest murder per capita in the world, I believe. EVERY male citizen owns a gun and is given military training for few days a year for 10 years or so. Woman are encouraged to do the same.

The difference between US and the Swiss? The gun law in Switz is MANDATORY. Everyone get's one, and everyone is trained with how to use it.</STRONG>
Another big difference
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.
This kind of system would never ever work in the US people (like cash) would be shooting at who ever pissed them off. Just look at his comments towards meter maids.
     
Occasionally Useful
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Liverpool, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 09:03 AM
 
"my name is shmerek, and i'm... addicted to Ca$h's threads..."
"Have sharp knives. Be creative. Cook to music" ~ maxelson
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 09:46 AM
 
Originally posted by philzilla:
<STRONG>"my name is shmerek, and i'm... addicted to Ca$h's threads..."</STRONG>
LOL naaa I just like opposing his retarded views.

Cash how would your form of justice dispense with this case?

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 02:24 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>You misunderstood.
</STRONG>
Incorrect, you misunderstood and again, neglected to address my example.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Some guy who rapes and kills little girls= bad kind of murder
</STRONG>
Oh... So there is a bad kind of murder now a days. I'm with the assumption that all murder is bad, but, some states feel murder is good, thus those state sanctioned murder's are fine. If those states all of a sudden decided rape was OK, then I'd have to be fine with that too. Whatever.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Some dude who kills the guy above= good kind of murder, and nothing should be done to punish him.

Dig?

- Ca$h
</STRONG>
Again, state sanctioned murder's are fine. People want that person dead, they get it. It's whatever the people want. If those same states decided it would be in there best interests to raise the population and state sanctioned rape, well then, they'd get it.

But(!) if people took the law into there own hands, and decided to rape just cause the state can do it, you have a contradiction, and those problems people are seeing today.

It's almost as funny as a "good murder". Funny oxymoron that is!
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 02:26 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>LOL naaa I just like opposing his retarded views.

Cash how would your form of justice dispense with this case?

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]</STRONG>
Get them before they start procreating!!!
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 11:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Metzen:
<STRONG>
But(!) if people took the law into there own hands, and decided to rape just cause the state can do it, you have a contradiction, and those problems people are seeing today.

It's almost as funny as a "good murder". Funny oxymoron that is!</STRONG>
Um. Yeah, like anyone would EVER decide raping someone was ok. Tell ya what, when you come up with a good REALISTIC point, post. But if you keep talking out of your ass like "Oh well what if Rape was illegal for some reason and I raped someone" I'm not going to bother replying.

- Ca$h
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 11:47 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>

LOL naaa I just like opposing his retarded views.

Cash how would your form of justice dispense with this case?

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]</STRONG>

Chop her head off and leave it on a stick to warn any other child abusing bitches.

- Ca$h
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In support of our troops
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 12:22 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>

I don't buy that one, do you have specific research that verifies your statement? Besides cash is talking about normal people being able to shoot whoever they perceive as "bad" without repercussions</STRONG>
No, you misunderstand a bit. My theory doesn't give just ANYONE a licence to shoot Anyone. But consider the theory, your allowed to CARRY the weapon. So, a couple of guys go to rob the local McDonalds, and three of the customers happen to be carrying concealed weapons. What chances do you think the robbers have of coming out of that alive? I'm not talking about just shooting someone because someone told you they raped someone. It's been proven (I think the example was two small towns, somewhere in Georga, but I'm not sure) that when you arm the majority of your citizens, crime goes way down. The example went something like this, one town they took all guns away, the second town anyone who wanted to carry and gun, was given the proper training and so authorized. All the criminals then went to the first town and had a field day.

Once the Police get to your Micky Dees and get control of the situation, they collect names and phone numbers of witnesses and setup a hearing to ensure that it was legit. Once proven case over...

I think it's an excellent idea in theory, I'm pretty sure it could be made to work, but it would take alot to convince the liberal Democrats, Gun haters, and (not going any farther)...

Case in point Austraila, since most (if not all) gun ownership was outlawed, crime (especially murder) rose dramtically...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 06:00 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Um. Yeah, like anyone would EVER decide raping someone was ok. Tell ya what, when you come up with a good REALISTIC point, post. But if you keep talking out of your ass like "Oh well what if Rape was illegal for some reason and I raped someone" I'm not going to bother replying.</STRONG>
You're not very good with argumentation skills, are you?

If you're going to convince anyone who doesn't agree with you (yet), the most important thing is to go through all the "what-if" loopholes.

So what if child molestation became legal all of a sudden? And don't keep talking out of your ass, becaus IT HAS HAPPENED. What if moral values change? Who decides whether Ca$h's little killing spree was good murder or bad murder?

btw - the expression "good murder" really is utterly perverse, but I'll admit it makes sense coming from a land endorsing the death penalty.

-spheric*
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 10:33 AM
 
Originally posted by x user:
<STRONG>

No, you misunderstand a bit. My theory doesn't give just ANYONE a licence to shoot Anyone. But consider the theory, your allowed to CARRY the weapon. So, a couple of guys go to rob the local McDonalds, and three of the customers happen to be carrying concealed weapons. What chances do you think the robbers have of coming out of that alive? I'm not talking about just shooting someone because someone told you they raped someone. It's been proven (I think the example was two small towns, somewhere in Georga, but I'm not sure) that when you arm the majority of your citizens, crime goes way down. The example went something like this, one town they took all guns away, the second town anyone who wanted to carry and gun, was given the proper training and so authorized. All the criminals then went to the first town and had a field day.

Once the Police get to your Micky Dees and get control of the situation, they collect names and phone numbers of witnesses and setup a hearing to ensure that it was legit. Once proven case over...

I think it's an excellent idea in theory, I'm pretty sure it could be made to work, but it would take alot to convince the liberal Democrats, Gun haters, and (not going any farther)...

Case in point Austraila, since most (if not all) gun ownership was outlawed, crime (especially murder) rose dramtically...</STRONG>
As for your Mickey Dees senerio what happens if all these bozo gun slingers started shooting and innocent bystanders got wacked by their over zealous bullets? Perhaps the robbers had no intention of harming anyone just money and out the door so instead of a robbery you have a bunch of dead people. This point is irrelevant though because I am arguing against cash's stupid theory. This isn't a gun control thread this is a I should be able to kill whoever I perceive as bad thread.

And Cash your assesment of that women who killed her kids is a bit ridiculous did you even read the article? It may not be true in this case but are you advocating people that who have actual serious metal problems and commit crimes should be killed? Why don't you just stop it before it starts and start killing anyone who has a metal disability or psychosis? You could set up your own panel of experts and then they could assess who should be killed or who should live.
It blows my mind that you are still trying to defend your retarded idea

you misunderstood completely. I dont want cops doing that. I want average citizens (who are GOOD PEOPLE) to become vigilantes and eliminate criminal threats. Mafia people? Dead. evil drug dealers? Dead. Rapists? Dead. Murderers? Dead. Child Molestors? dead.

If common citizens would just put their foot down and have the balls to bust a few rounds into street scum I don't think we'd have as big of a problem, however, our laws prevent that from happening. Perhaps if they had some super citizen test, or perhaps if it was just legal to kill bad people.

- Ca$h
How stupid are you? You fail to see that not everything is as black and white as you think. Grow up and get out of your comicbook I wanna be a Boondcok Saint world. I would feel so safe if I knew a person like this had a license to kill
Hrm. Good point. Perhaps if I had a gun at all times I'd kill meter maids. I think I'd use a whole clip on one of those ****ers

YOU ARE RETARDED.
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 05:18 PM
 
Yes, mentally ill people who commit murder should be killed. I dont care if its because their daddy beat them or their childhood sucked or whatever the reason. If you murder someone UNJUSTLY you should die.

And your 'what if' arguements are the pinnacle of retardation. I got through the 'what if' questions when I was in 2nd grade; I hope you do that some day.

Actually. To show you how retarded your 'what if' argument is, lets take something universally accepted like "Killing people is bad".

Well what if suddenly killing people was good?

bah. ****ing moron. WHAT if you died. And what if you bought a gun and shot yourself in the face? That'd be cool

- Ca$h
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 06:30 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Yes, mentally ill people who commit murder should be killed. I dont care if its because their daddy beat them or their childhood sucked or whatever the reason. If you murder someone UNJUSTLY you should die.

And your 'what if' arguements are the pinnacle of retardation. I got through the 'what if' questions when I was in 2nd grade; I hope you do that some day.

Actually. To show you how retarded your 'what if' argument is, lets take something universally accepted like "Killing people is bad".

Well what if suddenly killing people was good?

bah. ****ing moron. WHAT if you died. And what if you bought a gun and shot yourself in the face? That'd be cool

- Ca$h</STRONG>
"What if" scenarios are perfectly fine if somebody presents one to me I can present one as well. Considering this whole argument is a "what if" I think you should keep your trap shut. You can't defend any of your arguments that is why you come up with such brilliant responses like the one quoted above. Cash you have proven over and over on these boards that you are the moron give it up already you still haven't been able to defend your position with any sort of logic.
Next! You have been dismissed

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In support of our troops
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 08:04 PM
 


Thats why I said they have to go through the TRAINING COURSE!!! And they have to KEEP CURRENT. Anyway, if someone trys a robbery, even if they weren't planning on killing anyone, they should be shot.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 10:29 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Um. Yeah, like anyone would EVER decide raping someone was ok. Tell ya what, when you come up with a good REALISTIC point, post. But if you keep talking out of your ass like "Oh well what if Rape was illegal for some reason and I raped someone" I'm not going to bother replying.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
That's funny coming from someone whose idea of a "realistic point" is to start a topic based off the surreal. Reeeeeal smart you are! Boy, if I had a dime for every smart comment you made... I'd be broke

Them's the breaks!
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 10:36 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Yes, mentally ill people who commit murder should be killed. I dont care if its because their daddy beat them or their childhood sucked or whatever the reason. If you murder someone UNJUSTLY you should die.
</STRONG>
And here's where we have to define "UNJUSTLY". Please do so.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>And your 'what if' arguements are the pinnacle of retardation. I got through the 'what if' questions when I was in 2nd grade; I hope you do that some day.
</STRONG>
Apparently not. This whole topic is "what if our legal system is based off this method" style argument. You lose.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Actually. To show you how retarded your 'what if' argument is, lets take something universally accepted like "Killing people is bad".

Well what if suddenly killing people was good?
</STRONG>
Isn't that what your pursuing here? That killing people is good?

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>bah. ****ing moron. WHAT if you died. And what if you bought a gun and shot yourself in the face? That'd be cool

- Ca$h</STRONG>
Yeah... Almost as cool as someone calling the Fed's for something an idiot said on internet forums...
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 01:14 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>

"What if" scenarios are perfectly fine if somebody presents one to me I can present one as well. Considering this whole argument is a "what if" I think you should keep your trap shut. You can't defend any of your arguments that is why you come up with such brilliant responses like the one quoted above. Cash you have proven over and over on these boards that you are the moron give it up already you still haven't been able to defend your position with any sort of logic.
Next! You have been dismissed

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]</STRONG>
Exactly my point nimrod. This entire topic is a 'what if' situation. You're supposed to discuss it.

- Ca$h
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 01:22 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>And your 'what if' arguements are the pinnacle of retardation. I got through the 'what if' questions when I was in 2nd grade; I hope you do that some day.
</STRONG>
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Exactly my point nimrod. This entire topic is a 'what if' situation. You're supposed to discuss it.

- Ca$h
</STRONG>
I love hypocrites! They are *SO* funny!
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 01:24 AM
 
Originally posted by Metzen:
<STRONG>a bunch of shit</STRONG>
Unjustly? How about where an innocent person gets hurt/damaged without reason? Like rape, cold blooded murder, mugging, or child molesting. These are rules which every man of every faith can agree on. (well... any civilized man in a civilized country). I don't quite get how you guys are going about arguing with me. I'm saying that rapists, murderers and child molesters should be killed because what they do is wrong; and you're countering that 'well what if our laws and morals changed so it was legal and ok then what huh?' That is the stupidest ****ing arguement. And in case you haven't noticed, laws do NOT dictate morals, as I've proven in this subject. Clearly it is ILLEGAL to kill bad people without being threatened yourself, yet I feel that it wouldn't be wrong to do so. The idea of America suddenly endorsing rape, unjust murder, and child molestation is ****ing retarded; killing people who commit such crimes is NOT retarded, as our justice system DOES punish and occasionally KILL people who commit these crimes. Being able to catch somebody yourself and put a bullet in their ****ing head would save the court system a lot of money and keep an extra space in jail.

- Ca$h

PS: I didn't call the 'feds' anything. I threatened the vice prez. Try it. Its really cool, especially when ****ing loser morons like yourself are jealous of people like me so much they report a posting to the secret service. Completely pathetic.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 08:46 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>

Exactly my point nimrod. This entire topic is a 'what if' situation. You're supposed to discuss it.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
? You are the one claiming what ifs are grade 2. ?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 09:58 AM
 
I don't quite get how you guys are going about arguing with me. I'm saying that rapists, murderers and child molesters should be killed because what they do is wrong; and you're countering that 'well what if our laws and morals changed so it was legal and ok then what huh?' That is the stupidest ****ing arguement.
Sorry pal I have never said this what I am arguing against is your assertion that we should be able to kill whoever we perceive as bad without a trial or any form of legal discourse, this is what you have been advocating. If your friend tells you that she was raped by Mr.X you feel it should be your right to shoot Mr.X based on her accusation. Don't try to back out of your original arguments now. You want vigilante justice.

And in case you haven't noticed, laws do NOT dictate morals, as I've proven in this subject
Not that this matters but I would love to see where you have clearly pointed this out, that will be good for a laugh.
The idea of America suddenly endorsing rape, unjust murder, and child molestation is ****ing retarded
Never said that.
Being able to catch somebody yourself and put a bullet in their ****ing head would save the court system a lot of money and keep an extra space in jail.
What are you freaking Batman? How often are rapists, child molesters and murderers caught red handed at the scene? You want to kill people who you perceive as bad regardless of evidence.

You claim to care about innocent people but with this stupid idea of yours many innocent people would be killed based on false accusations but you are too freaking retarded to be able to see that. You keep going on and on about "bad" people but you still have to prove they are "bad" people. There are tons of innocent people who are in jail or that have been falsely accused of crimes and under your system these people would be dead how JUST is that?

No matter who you think is "bad" it still has to be proven you keep saying rapists, child molesters and murders are bad but you still have to prove that that is what they are you stupid ****ing retard! Do they wear signs or do you have some ESP that can point them out?!?! This is why your argument is so ****ed up you want random killing without proof, without legal recourse. We are not arguing about the death penalty nor are we arguing that rape, murder and molestation are abhorrent behaviors you do realize that don't you?

God damn you are thick! In order to kill "bad" people you have to prove it which you don't feel there is a need to do. You advocated the development of a test in which ordinary citizens would be given a license to become Super Citizens and kill whoever they perceived as bad. You fail to see the flaws in this system. If you had been able to defend this position with any form of logic or reason I would of conceited and this argument would be over but you have completely failed to do so, moreover you are too arrogant, ignorant, proud or stupid to do the same. Not being able to admit you have made a mistake is a major character flaw.

In conclusion your system would result in many more innocent people being UNJUSTLY murdered than "bad" people. You were wrong, you are an idiot just admit it and shut the hell up.

PS
PS: .... especially when ****ing loser morons like yourself are jealous of people like me so much they report a posting to the secret service. Completely pathetic.
HA HA HA HA HA HA jealous or people like you (idiots) who makes public threats against the then vice president?!?!.. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA You should be a comedian!

[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 11:20 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>These are rules which every man of every faith can agree on. (well... any civilized man in a civilized country).</STRONG>
Ironically, the United States are widely regarded as barbaric - by civilized men in civilized countries - for their endorsement of "good" murder (a.k.a. Death Penalty).

But really, this is getting pointless, as you've clarified beyond any doubt whatsoever by the "what-if" sidetrack that you are utterly incapable of any sort of reasonable discussion.

Ah, everybody loves a ****ing troll.

-spheric*
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 05:16 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Unjustly? How about where an innocent person gets hurt/damaged without reason? Like rape, cold blooded murder, mugging, or child molesting. These are rules which every man of every faith can agree on. (well... any civilized man in a civilized country). I don't quite get how you guys are going about arguing with me. I'm saying that rapists, murderers and child molesters should be killed because what they do is wrong; and you're countering that 'well what if our laws and morals changed so it was legal and ok then what huh?' That is the stupidest ****ing arguement. And in case you haven't noticed, laws do NOT dictate morals, as I've proven in this subject. Clearly it is ILLEGAL to kill bad people without being threatened yourself, yet I feel that it wouldn't be wrong to do so. The idea of America suddenly endorsing rape, unjust murder, and child molestation is ****ing retarded; killing people who commit such crimes is NOT retarded, as our justice system DOES punish and occasionally KILL people who commit these crimes.
</STRONG>
Read: Justice System. Not individuals. If an individual has a motive to kill another human being, it is called...

Hold on for it...

MURDER.

*GASP!*

Irregardless what the motive is, it is still called *GASP* MURDER *GASP*

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Being able to catch somebody yourself and put a bullet in their ****ing head would save the court system a lot of money and keep an extra space in jail.

- Ca$h
</STRONG>
Dude, feel free to kill whomever you feel like, OJ Simpson, Jon Benet Ramsey's parents, etc. Again, I *suspect* that the courts will see your views fairly, and try you accordingly. If you plead insanity, you may even get life as opposed to the death sentence. Good luck!

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>PS: I didn't call the 'feds' anything. I threatened the vice prez. Try it. Its really cool, especially when ****ing loser morons like yourself are jealous of people like me so much they report a posting to the secret service. Completely pathetic.</STRONG>
Jealous? Haha!! That's funny! Oh, you flatter yourself so. Tell me, was talking to Mr. FBI fun? Completely pathetic is when someone feels the need to threaten a figurehead based on a rather pathetic point of view.

Sorry dude. You lose.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 06:52 PM
 
     
Occasionally Useful
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Liverpool, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 07:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG> </STRONG>
hey, is that Ca$h's chick?

sorry, i had to go for that one
"Have sharp knives. Be creative. Cook to music" ~ maxelson
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 12:45 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>Sorry pal I have never said this what I am arguing against is your assertion that we should be able to kill whoever we perceive as bad without a trial or any form of legal discourse, this is what you have been advocating. If your friend tells you that she was raped by Mr.X you feel it should be your right to shoot Mr.X based on her accusation. Don't try to back out of your original arguments now. You want vigilante justice.</STRONG>
I never said that. I said we should be able to kill BAD people, not people we PERCIEVE as bad. I wouldn't kill a guy based PURELY on someone's word or claim. There'd have to be more than someone just accusing someone of rape (more to follow), but yes, I do want vigilante justice.
<STRONG>
Not that this matters but I would love to see where you have clearly pointed this out, that will be good for a laugh.</STRONG>
The above is in reference to me claiming that laws do not dictate morals. Why? Example you ask? ME. I don't think it's WRONG to kill bad people; you apparently do. I believe that killing rapists vigilante style is a great idea, that marijuana is harmless and fun and should be legal, that having sex with someone 17 is ok, and countless other things I disagree with our government on. Their LAWS did not dictate MY beliefs. Everyone disagrees with the government somewhere; each one is an example of this.


<STRONG>What are you freaking Batman? How often are rapists, child molesters and murderers caught red handed at the scene? You want to kill people who you perceive as bad regardless of evidence. </STRONG>
Yet ANOTHER thing I did not say. Not regardless of evidence, but WITH evidence. People admit to all sorts of crazy things, and once they do, I'd label that a 'confession'. Once you have a confession you have evidence. And with that.... BAM. Dead. Problem solved.

<STRONG>You claim to care about innocent people but with this stupid idea of yours many innocent people would be killed based on false accusations but you are too freaking retarded to be able to see that. You keep going on and on about "bad" people but you still have to prove they are "bad" people. There are tons of innocent people who are in jail or that have been falsely accused of crimes and under your system these people would be dead how JUST is that? </STRONG>
You claim to care about innocent people but with these stupid laws of ours many innocent people are being killed and raped and molested but youa re too freaking retarded to be able to see that. You keep going on about how its "Bad" to kill bad people. There are TONS of bad people who are on the streets freely and have squirmed their way outta our legal system, and because of OUR laws innocent people are dying; how JUST is that?

<STRONG>No matter who you think is "bad" it still has to be proven you keep saying rapists, child molesters and murders are bad but you still have to prove that that is what they are you stupid ****ing retard! Do they wear signs or do you have some ESP that can point them out?!?! This is why your argument is so ****ed up you want random killing without proof, without legal recourse. We are not arguing about the death penalty nor are we arguing that rape, murder and molestation are abhorrent behaviors you do realize that don't you?</STRONG>
See, I never said without proof. Confessions are enough proof for me. Question: When are you going to quit sticking words in my mouth? When you pull your head outta your ass? Or sooner? Just wondering.

<STRONG>
God damn you are thick!
</STRONG>
Thank you. Length is nothing without some girth.

<STRONG>In order to kill "bad" people you have to prove it which you don't feel there is a need to do. You advocated the development of a test in which ordinary citizens would be given a license to become Super Citizens and kill whoever they perceived as bad. You fail to see the flaws in this system. If you had been able to defend this position with any form of logic or reason I would of conceited and this argument would be over but you have completely failed to do so, moreover you are too arrogant, ignorant, proud or stupid to do the same. Not being able to admit you have made a mistake is a major character flaw.</STRONG>
And not being able to admit I have a point is another major flaw. I DO admit that this 'theory' has many holes in it, mainly the fact that there are a lot of corrupt people who I would not want with this license, however, you completley fail to acknowledge of the sheer number of serious crimes that go unpunished and just how many criminals are walking around living their lives without ever paying for what they've done..

- Ca$h
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 12:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Metzen:
<STRONG>

Jealous? Haha!! That's funny! Oh, you flatter yourself so. Tell me, was talking to Mr. FBI fun? Completely pathetic is when someone feels the need to threaten a figurehead based on a rather pathetic point of view.

Sorry dude. You lose.</STRONG>
yeah I was really THREATENING him. I was actually considering doing him physical harm, thats DEFINITELY it. It couldn't have been sarcasm or an extreme viewpoint to describe my distaste for the man or anything.

But now that you mention it... I wish you'd be sniper rifle meat as well.

- Ca$h
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 01:32 AM
 
i got no dog in this hunt... but I have to ask a question.

it seems everybody is fairly passionate about this dialog, but it's sunk to the level of actual threats. wow.

let's forget for a minute that some people don't know how to have a civil argument. let's forget for a minute that some people aren't constrained by the laws of a polite society.

ask yourself this question... do you really *know* who you're talking to on the internet?

ask yourself what you think would happen if you, ah, say, accidentally told a former mafia don or a guy recovering from agent orange that he was "sniper meat."

wouldn't that worry you?

i mean, i suppose you could take it two ways. the guy that is the target of the threat could be worried that the guy who said it was serious and is in that parked van across the street.

or... the guy making the threat could be blissfully unaware that he's just lit the fuse of some guy with an AK47 and one hell of an attitude.

i mean, really, do you *know* who you're talking to online? shit, i'd say that you don't know who you're talking to when you're at work!

the last thing i would ever do is threaten to kill someone on a public forum. what, btw, do you think would happen if a third party had something against the guy you threatened? damn, what if *he* killed that guy. wouldn't everybody wonder where you were at 12:34a on Feb 21st? I know I sure would.

and if you've ever wondered why you have a problem making friends, you could ask yourself if it was because you threaten to kill people? and you talk non-stop about busting a cap in somebody?

shoot - people get shot in this country every day. you want to go shoot somebody, go ahead. but don't be surprised when he <font color = red> shoots back </font> or you get your ass locked up for a good long time.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 02:14 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>But now that you mention it... I wish you'd be sniper rifle meat as well.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
Oooo I'm so scared! Big Ole' Ca$h trying to put on the big man's shoes! Haha! What a laugh! "sniper rifle meat"?!?! Welcome to Grade 2 Ca$h, I'm your teacher, Metzen, we do not use terms like "sniper rifle meat" in this class. If you must insist on smoking I'm afraid I'm going to have to inform your parents! Better watch yourself! Your parent's are going to be *SO* mad at you!!! Haha!

Oh boy.

Time to grow up.

Speaking of which, I'm sure if you did use those terms in Columbine, you'd be locked up and thrown in jail, no questions asked.

Oh well. Can't get them all. If Ca$h's "Super Citizen's" test was pasted, I'd probably shoot all people who insisted on calling others "sniper rifle meat"!

haha! That's great! Oh you crack me up!
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: one of those norse worlds whose name I forgot...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 03:30 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>
I never said that. I said we should be able to kill BAD people, not people we PERCIEVE as bad. I wouldn't kill a guy based PURELY on someone's word or claim. There'd have to be more than someone just accusing someone of rape (more to follow), but yes, I do want vigilante justice.
</STRONG>
Ca$h, there is no difference between what is bad and what we percieve is bad. If you don't believe me, then ask an atom if Osama Bin Laden is evil. Now, assuming evil is a universal concept, the atom could answer that question for you. But it can't. It doesn't know what good or evil is, and if it were capable of knowing I bet it wouldn't care. Yeah, a bizarre example, but it makes sense if you take the time to think about it. I would think more about it myself but I'm very tired right now.

Yet ANOTHER thing I did not say. Not regardless of evidence, but WITH evidence. People admit to all sorts of crazy things, and once they do, I'd label that a 'confession'. Once you have a confession you have evidence. And with that.... BAM. Dead. Problem solved.
I hope you have very stringent guidelines for a 'confession'. Someone may 'confess' to a crime out of fear, because they're drunk or stoned, or some other reason. Of course, this sort of thing happens in courts too, however in a court it's a lot easier to sort out that kind of error. In the courts, cases can be reviewed. With your system, it's far more likely they'd be dead, regardless of actual guilt. In short, a vigilante system provides an uncomfortably large margin of error. The law may require evidence, but that doesn't mean activists will necessarily seek it as diligently as normal investigation. Furthermore, such burdens would be more easily dealt with by organizations designed to handle criminal cases. Such as the police, FBI, courts, etc. I'll talk about this more later if I remember/am less tired.
[CENSORED]

Newbies generally fulfil one of two functions: being a pain in the ass or fodder for the vets. If they survive to Senoir Membership, then their role undergoes a little change...

shanraghan: self-appointed French-speaking Chef de MacNN! Serving gourmet newbie-yaki to vets since the demise of the Drunken Circle Tool!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 05:42 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>I DO admit that this 'theory' has many holes in it, mainly the fact that there are a lot of corrupt people who I would not want with this license, however, you completley fail to acknowledge of the sheer number of serious crimes that go unpunished and just how many criminals are walking around living their lives without ever paying for what they've done..</STRONG>
Of course, punishing those people is *well* worth the large number of innocent citizens killed by mistake or by criminals who finally have the perfect method of getting off the hook for murder: "Er, no, officer - he was a *bad* person! I seen him kill this girl 'ere! So I shot'em."

Brilliant! I'm all for it!

Blunderhead, your theory *is* a hole.

-s*
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 05:52 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG> Ex: I kill some bad guy in broad daylight, go to court, they find out he's bad, I get let off.
</STRONG>
Okay. Let's say you kill somebody who you think is a "bad" guy in broad daylight, go to court, they find out he was actually "good", what happens to you? Does another "good" guy get to shoot you? Because after all, you did commit a murder. State executions are VERY expensive...

How often have you actually seen somebody getting raped, murdered, seriously abused other than on TV...? Not a lot, huh? Yet, that could be the only way you can be 100% sure that that is what REALLY happened. Even if people do confess, there is always a slight chance, that the truth isn't out yet.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem with the police force already. But just imagine if there were thousands of "debuty sherrifs" walking around with a license to kill? Scary, - very scary!

...by any means necessary
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 09:23 AM
 
Does somebody else want to pick up the ball here cash doesn't seem to be able to understand ordinary english? Does anyone speaks his native language of retardese?

Cash nothing you said in your reponses refutes any of the arguements I have put forward. You have admitted your theory has flaws which is the first step in admitting your idea is retarded.

Your idea would not work because of "corrupt" people but because it is stupid and illogical

I never said that. I said we should be able to kill BAD people, not people we PERCIEVE as bad. I wouldn't kill a guy based PURELY on someone's word or claim. There'd have to be more than someone just accusing someone of rape (more to follow), but yes, I do want vigilante justice.
"Bad" is a perception. You are an idiot.

I don't think it's WRONG to kill bad people; you apparently do. I believe that killing rapists vigilante style is a great idea
We are not arguing the death penalty I never made any claims about that. I am saying it is wrong to be able to kill whoever you think is "bad" and as I said before "bad" is a perception.

Yet ANOTHER thing I did not say. Not regardless of evidence, but WITH evidence. People admit to all sorts of crazy things, and once they do, I'd label that a 'confession'. Once you have a confession you have evidence. And with that.... BAM. Dead. Problem solved.
You have never mention the word evidence in any of your posts. All you have said is Rapist Bam! Dead. Dealers Ban Dead etc.

You claim to care about innocent people but with these stupid laws of ours many innocent people are being killed and raped and molested but youa re too freaking retarded to be able to see that. You keep going on about how its "Bad" to kill bad people. There are TONS of bad people who are on the streets freely and have squirmed their way outta our legal system, and because of OUR laws innocent people are dying; how JUST is that?
Sorry wrong! Far more innocent people would die under your system. case in point

See, I never said without proof. Confessions are enough proof for me. Question: When are you going to quit sticking words in my mouth? When you pull your head outta your ass? Or sooner? Just wondering.
HA HA HA! Never have you mentioned proof either. just "DUH ME KILL BAD PEOPLE" My head out of my ass?!?!

And not being able to admit I have a point is another major flaw. I DO admit that this 'theory' has many holes in it
You don't have a point when you do I will admit it but until then sorry no dice. Not many holes just one endless abyss of ignorance and retardation.

however, you completley fail to acknowledge of the sheer number of serious crimes that go unpunished and just how many criminals are walking around living their lives without ever paying for what they've done..
Wrong again I never said anything about how many criminals are free. I am not arguing about crime. I am talking about your ****ed up juvenille vision of how you think things should work.

Unless you have something useful to say like "I am an idiot and this would never work because too many innocent people would be killed" don't bother responding.
Super Citizen test
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 05:35 PM
 
Originally posted by danbrew:
<STRONG>i got no dog in this hunt... but I have to ask a question.

it seems everybody is fairly passionate about this dialog, but it's sunk to the level of actual threats. wow..</STRONG>
Thats cool, but I never threatened anyone. I said I hope you he becomes sniper rifle meat. Nowhere did I say I'd have anything to do with it. Nice try though.

- Ca$h
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 05:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Metzen:
<STRONG>

Oooo I'm so scared! Big Ole' Ca$h trying to put on the big man's shoes! Haha! What a laugh! "sniper rifle meat"?!?! Welcome to Grade 2 Ca$h, I'm your teacher, Metzen, we do not use terms like "sniper rifle meat" in this class. If you must insist on smoking I'm afraid I'm going to have to inform your parents! Better watch yourself! Your parent's are going to be *SO* mad at you!!! Haha!

Oh boy.

Time to grow up.

Speaking of which, I'm sure if you did use those terms in Columbine, you'd be locked up and thrown in jail, no questions asked.

Oh well. Can't get them all. If Ca$h's "Super Citizen's" test was pasted, I'd probably shoot all people who insisted on calling others "sniper rifle meat"!

haha! That's great! Oh you crack me up!</STRONG>
&gt;sigh&lt; Sorry I have to point out how stupid you are, but the 'sniper rifle meat' comment was in reference to my original Al Gore post, but you're too ****ing stupid to know about the topic at hand, so now you look stupid. And its pretty sad that you believe people in Columbine should have their free speech censored for WISHING someone would be sniper rifle meat. Talk about justice! Being able to not speak your mind would be a scary thing indeed, and even more frightening is how you endorse LIMITED speech.

Run along lemming, and pretend you know what I'm talking about again. Trust me, it makes you look cool.

- Ca$h
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 05:46 PM
 
Originally posted by shanraghan:
<STRONG>

I hope you have very stringent guidelines for a 'confession'. Someone may 'confess' to a crime out of fear, because they're drunk or stoned, or some other reason. Of course, this sort of thing happens in courts too, however in a court it's a lot easier to sort out that kind of error. In the courts, cases can be reviewed. With your system, it's far more likely they'd be dead, regardless of actual guilt. In short, a vigilante system provides an uncomfortably large margin of error. The law may require evidence, but that doesn't mean activists will necessarily seek it as diligently as normal investigation. Furthermore, such burdens would be more easily dealt with by organizations designed to handle criminal cases. Such as the police, FBI, courts, etc. I'll talk about this more later if I remember/am less tired.</STRONG>
K. Evil. Osama= evil. Anyone who plots to kill a large number of innocent civilians is evil. I think 99% of us would agree. Rapists= evil. Child molesters. You politically correct tree huggers are just too afraid of having an opinion and calling someone EVIL. OSAMA IS EVIL. Why?! Because he killed a shitload of people. THAT IS WRONG. But now some of you will say "But we kill people too our government killed their civilians!"

Yeah. That is wrong. There's a LOT of shit about our government that I don't agree with.....

And confessions? Even if it is just some lazy eyed freak who likes confessing to crimes he didnt commit, who cares. One less person to pay taxes for, one less person to feed, one less person to cause a traffic jam.

- Ca$h
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 05:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

Of course, punishing those people is *well* worth the large number of innocent citizens killed by mistake or by criminals who finally have the perfect method of getting off the hook for murder: "Er, no, officer - he was a *bad* person! I seen him kill this girl 'ere! So I shot'em."

Brilliant! I'm all for it!

Blunderhead, your theory *is* a hole.

-s*</STRONG>
Thats my point. We'd need people of good character to become super citizens. The action of killing someone and 'claiming' they were bad is something an evil person would do. So in MY theory, it could not happen. I'm talking about armed GOOD people with a license to kill. You changed the subject to bad people with guns. Bad people already have guns. Your example already exists.

Anyway.

- Ca$h
     
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 09:30 PM
 
apparently no one saw my troll graphic.

lay off the threats, direct or otherwise.
stop calling each other names.

have a damn civilized discussion for a change. ca$h likes to "stir things up". so either don't let him get to you, don't reply to his threads, or tell me when he does something in violation of our rules. simple.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 11:39 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>&gt;sigh&lt; Sorry I have to point out how stupid you are, but the 'sniper rifle meat' comment was in reference to my original Al Gore post, but you're too ****ing stupid to know about the topic at hand, so now you look stupid.
</STRONG>
Actually, I could care less about your dealing with the FBI. I brought it up to stir your emotions. Apparently I did so quite effectively. Man, I sold you rotten fish, you ate it, then told me it tastes great! Haha! Your funny!

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>And its pretty sad that you believe people in Columbine should have their free speech censored for WISHING someone would be sniper rifle meat. Talk about justice! Being able to not speak your mind would be a scary thing indeed, and even more frightening is how you endorse LIMITED speech.
</STRONG>
Please show me where I endorsed limited speech. Please show me where I specifically said I believe people in Columbine should have there free speech censored. What? Can't do it? My, my. It's pretty impressive that you insist on showing stupidity in light of trying to prove intelligence. It's rather humorous, actually. Please, continue to do so, I love to laugh at morons like yourself!

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Run along lemming, and pretend you know what I'm talking about again. Trust me, it makes you look cool.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
So... Your "uncool"? Well... That explains A LOT! Tell me, does it suck being so "uncool"? Do you enjoy being uncool? Do you even know what uncool means?

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>apparently no one saw my troll graphic.
</STRONG>
OmniWeb blocked it.

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>lay off the threats, direct or otherwise.
stop calling each other names.
</STRONG>
Yes dad.

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>have a damn civilized discussion for a change. ca$h likes to "stir things up". so either don't let him get to you, don't reply to his threads, or tell me when he does something in violation of our rules. simple.</STRONG>
Why? Your going to punish him how? What rule(s) did he break? Threatening people? That's grounds for a lawsuit, whether implied or otherwise you know.

[ 02-21-2002: Message edited by: Metzen ]
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 11:50 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>

Thats cool, but I never threatened anyone. I said I hope you he becomes sniper rifle meat. Nowhere did I say I'd have anything to do with it. Nice try though.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
Same sht different pile. You still lose dude.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: one of those norse worlds whose name I forgot...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2002, 12:48 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>
You politically correct tree huggers are just too afraid of having an opinion and calling someone EVIL.</STRONG>
Ca$h, I might as well say that unlike the majority of the people here, I have stayed calm, collected, and have made damn sure not to insult you during the course of this thread. Your defensiveness is unwarranted. If my position annoys you, that's just too bad.

OSAMA IS EVIL. Why?! Because he killed a shitload of people. THAT IS WRONG. But now some of you will say "But we kill people too our government killed their civilians!"

Yeah. That is wrong. There's a LOT of shit about our government that I don't agree with.....

And confessions? Even if it is just some lazy eyed freak who likes confessing to crimes he didnt commit, who cares. One less person to pay taxes for, one less person to feed, one less person to cause a traffic jam.

- Ca$h
Pretty stubborn, you are. In that case, I have nothing more to say. Whatever any of us say won't convince you, and needless to say you won't convince us. I see no more point to this thread, unless you wish to continue arguing pointlessly, and that, naturally, would be pointless.

[ 02-22-2002: Message edited by: shanraghan ]

[ 02-22-2002: Message edited by: shanraghan ]
[CENSORED]

Newbies generally fulfil one of two functions: being a pain in the ass or fodder for the vets. If they survive to Senoir Membership, then their role undergoes a little change...

shanraghan: self-appointed French-speaking Chef de MacNN! Serving gourmet newbie-yaki to vets since the demise of the Drunken Circle Tool!
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2002, 01:51 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>Does somebody else want to pick up the ball here cash doesn't seem to be able to understand ordinary english? Does anyone speaks his native language of retardese? </STRONG>
Its called "not brainwashed by politically correct tree huggers if you must know.

<STRONG>
Cash nothing you said in your reponses refutes any of the arguements I have put forward. You have admitted your theory has flaws which is the first step in admitting your idea is retarded. </STRONG>
Just because its idealistic doesnt mean its retarded.

<STRONG>Your idea would not work because of "corrupt" people but because it is stupid and illogical</STRONG>
Not true. If I had a gun I would only kill bad people. I know of a few. They'd die, the world would be better off.

<STRONG>Wrong again I never said anything about how many criminals are free. I am not arguing about crime. I am talking about your ****ed up juvenille vision of how you think things should work.</STRONG>
And I'm talking about the fact that you wont come out and say anyone is bad/evil. You're too politically correct. I can name EVIL people, and you'll just say "Oh but from THEIR perspective they aren't evil!" **** their perspective. I'm talking about normal rational civilized humans here, not ****ing lunatics. McVeigh= EVIL. Rapists= EVIL. Disagree? No. You don't. And if you knew, FOR sure, that some dude raped some girl, why not kill the ****er?

- Ca$h
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2002, 02:09 AM
 
Metzen Metzen Metzen. How art thou retarded, let me count the ways....
Originally posted by Metzen:
<STRONG>Actually, I could care less about your dealing with the FBI. I brought it up to stir your emotions. Apparently I did so quite effectively. Man, I sold you rotten fish, you ate it, then told me it tastes great! Haha! Your funny</STRONG>
Uh. Yeah, I'm SURE that was just a ploy to piss me off, and you really knew all about the sniper rifle comment reference. Boy, you sure tricked me. pfft. Riiiight.

<STRONG>
Please show me where I endorsed limited speech. Please show me where I specifically said I believe people in Columbine should have there free speech censored. What? Can't do it? </STRONG>
Sure can, right here.
Speaking of which, I'm sure if you did use those terms in Columbine, you'd be locked up and thrown in jail, no questions asked.Oh well. Can't get them all. If Ca$h's "Super Citizen's" test was pasted, I'd probably shoot all people who insisted on calling others "sniper rifle meat"!

First you said people who used that type of language should be thrown in jail, and after that you said that if a super citizen test was PASSED (not pasted- whatever the hell you wrote), you'd shoot people who used 'sniper rifle meat' effectively silencing someone for using a phrase. Killing people for using a phrase? You're endorsing that, but NOT killing rapists and murders? Check into a mental hospital pal.

<STRONG>
So... Your "uncool"? Well... That explains A LOT! Tell me, does it suck being so "uncool"? Do you enjoy being uncool? Do you even know what uncool means?</STRONG>
This is funny, because its proof of how stupid you are. I told you to PRETEND to know what you're talking about, and said that doing so would make you look cool. So then you call me UNCOOL, which means I DO know what I'm talking about. Cool= pretend Uncool=not pretending. So by your own insult you've actually admitted that I know more than you.

<STRONG>
Why? Your going to punish him how? What rule(s) did he break? Threatening people? That's grounds for a lawsuit, whether implied or otherwise you know.</STRONG>
I never threatened you. Go ahead if you'd like. Email me and we'll setup a meeting, I'd LOVE to see a lawyer tell you how ****ing stupid you are. See, I said I &gt;WISH&lt; or &gt;HOPE&lt; you become sniper rifle meat. Here's another example:

I hope a gang breaks into your house and ravages your anus and then holds you down and mushroom stamps your head, cuts off your nuts with a butterfly knife, and shoot you in the face with a .45.

I am WISHING you harm. That isn't a threat moron.

- Ca$h

PS: I hope someone sticks a cactus up your ass. NYAR GEE GOLLY THATS A THREAT CASH! NYAR! I CAN TAKE YOU TO COURT! ****ing dumbass.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2002, 02:37 AM
 
that's enough.



<font color = red>reason: there is no new ground to cover here. it's a loop of "i disagree" & "you're a moron" again and again. we're better off without it.</font>
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2