Mr. Krebbs, I Pit You

[Mr.Krebbs]

@Michael Ellis

The atomic bombings weren’t terrorism, you nitwit, they were the ultimate expression of the strategy of “total war”, which was universally applied by all sides in the Second World War and held that there was little distinction between direct engagement between armed forces and attacks on civilian targets that were seen as contributing to an enemy’s military machine.

Then you admit that the only difference between terrorist action and the killing of civilians in WWII and elsewhere is that legitimate governments perpetrated the latter actions. So the killing of civilians to meet specific terrorist goals is immoral why?

Before you respond, remember that all US taxpayers contribute to the efforts of the US military.

[Czarcasm]

@Mr.Krebbs

Then you admit that the only difference between terrorist action and the killing of civilians in WWII and elsewhere is that legitimate governments perpetrated the latter actions. So the killing of civilians to meet specific terrorist goals is immoral why?

Before you respond, remember that all US taxpayers contribute to the efforts of the US military.

Clouds are in the sky.
The moon is in the sky.
Admit it-the moon is a cloud!

[Michael_Ellis]

@Mr.Krebbs

Then you admit that the only difference between terrorist action and the killing of civilians in WWII and elsewhere is that legitimate governments perpetrated the latter actions. So the killing of civilians to meet specific terrorist goals is immoral why?

Before you respond, remember that all US taxpayers contribute to the efforts of the US military.

I admit nothing of the sort. You’re an idiot.

[Mr.Krebbs]

@Michael_Ellis

I admit nothing of the sort. You’re an idiot.

Prove me wrong, imbecile.

And you can respond to my PMs before I’ll consider responding to you, Czarcasm.

[Czarcasm]

@Mr.Krebbs

Prove me wrong, imbecile.

And you can respond to my PMs before I’ll consider responding to you, Czarcasm.

The answer is no.

[Mr.Krebbs]

Not good enough, buddy. Explain your reasoning.

I certainly don’t expect you can do it, however, because there was no reasoning involved in your decision.

[Czarcasm]

@Mr.Krebbs

Not good enough, buddy. Explain your reasoning.

I certainly don’t expect you can do it, however, because there was no reasoning involved in your decision.

The answer is no.

[Mr.Krebbs]

@Czarcasm

The answer is no.

Doesn’t bother me much, just expect me to ignore you. You’re not on my ignore list, I just consider you and all your opinions laughable.

[Czarcasm]

@Mr.Krebbs

Doesn’t bother me much, just expect me to ignore you. You’re not on my ignore list, I just consider you and all your opinions laughable.

sob

[Mr.Krebbs]

@Czarcasm

sob

Oh, come on - that didn’t even elicit a chuckle. You’re not living up to your full potential, boy.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Czarcasm

Clouds are in the sky.
The moon is in the sky.
Admit it-the moon is a cloud!

Isn’t this supposed to be 5 / 7 / 5 ? I suggest:

Clouds are in the sky
Silver moon floats in the sky
The moon is a cloud

for a proper haiku. Oh, and Krebbs - you’re an idiot. This pit would have been better defended by Maynard.

[Mr.Krebbs]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

Oh, and Krebbs - you’re an idiot. This pit would have been better defended by Maynard.

It seems that my detractors’ arguments are exhausted; congratulations on (another) original ad hominem thrust. You are truly a paragon of reason.

However, your attempts at humor are still very poor specimens.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Mr.Krebbs

It seems that my detractors’ arguments are exhausted; congratulations on (another) original ad hominem thrust. You are truly a paragon of reason.

[/SIZE]

Your use of ‘imbecile’ in a previous post demonstrates that you function at this level.

However, I take your point. The idiot comment was uncalled for. You are obviously not an idiot. I think you have a focal defect your logic, in that you equate things which are not in fact equal in order to construct an flawed argument, however, this does not make you an idiot. My apologies for this lapse in civility.

[Mr.Krebbs]

Go ahead and point out the flaws in my argument. No one else has been able to do so, but it sounds like it should be easy for you.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Mr.Krebbs

Go ahead and point out the flaws in my argument. No one else has been able to do so, but it sounds like it should be easy for you.

I went through the thread. The flaws have already been pointed out. The problem is that you are either unable or unwilling to actually acknowledge or perhaps understand this fact.

The real question is why am I here? Wait, I ca

[Mr.Krebbs]

Well, getting out before further making a fool of oneself could be considered a worthy skill in debate. golf clap

[BigT]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

I went through the thread. The flaws have already been pointed out. The problem is that you are either unable or unwilling to actually acknowledge or perhaps understand this fact.

The real question is why am I here? Wait, I ca

If you actually expect someone to admit their own flaws when they don’t think they were wrong, you’re living in a fantasy world.

Oh, and I have no idea whether the Mr Krebbs is right or wrong. Life is full of these little things that don’t really matter. If I read this thread, then I’ll form an opinion, and feel an obligation to argue one side or the other. And whether I “win” or “lose”, the result is going to be the exact same. Some people on a message board will agree with me, and some won’t. And I’m gonna feel bad towards some of the participants. I choose not to play.

I wish more people would do this, but, then we’re back to that fantasy world I mentioned.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

[RIGHT]n always drop back in if anyone says anything sensible. Whoo. That was fun.[/RIGHT]

BigT you make a good point. It’s th’ internet, and it is full of people who only listen to their side of the argument. I should stop poking it.

[Robot_Arm]

@Mr.Krebbs

Go ahead and point out the flaws in my argument. No one else has been able to do so, but it sounds like it should be easy for you.

The flaws are twofold.

You say the the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing were not “responsible” but were “held accountable”. You slice that bread any thinner and it’s only gonna have one side.

You also say that McVeigh wanted his “message to be heard nationwide”. People with a real message to deliver will stand behind that message, claim credit for it, and accept the consequences. Here’s an excerpt written by someone who had a lot more to fear from the government than Tim McVeigh: (bolding mine)

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

…

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”
McVeigh killed innocent people and only sowed fear. People with a message sign their names.

[Mr.Krebbs]

@Robot_Arm

The flaws are twofold.

You say the the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing were not “responsible” but were “held accountable”. You slice that bread any thinner and it’s only gonna have one side.

Held responsible works, too. Accountable and responsible do not, however. As stated before, people are held accountable (or held responsible, whichever you prefer) for things they did not personally do all the time.

You also say that McVeigh wanted his “message to be heard nationwide”. People with a real message to deliver will stand behind that message, claim credit for it, and accept the consequences. Here’s an excerpt written by someone who had a lot more to fear from the government than Tim McVeigh: (bolding mine)The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”
McVeigh killed innocent people and only sowed fear. People with a message sign their names.

That’s a reasonable point. I don’t agree that this always occurs in reality: sometimes people sending messages don’t think that message is worth their freedom.

Authors don’t always disseminate works under their own name, for instance.