@reimerhumble Additionally, by "supremist" do you mean that I am a supremacist because won the arguments and you lost? That would make many people who win an argument based on the merit of their reasoning "supremeists". Why don't you be more specific. What exactly did I say that bothered you so much to resort to ad hominimism? And whatever it was that I said that bothered you, why did it bother you? Be specific for me to respond.
@reimerhumble Nothing that I said was supremacist. You are just picking negative adjectives at random to condemn me b/c I have debunked all your evil, foolish, and (so-called) liberal arguments, which would have us be victims or slaves of murderers. "Give me liberty or...death" and "live and let live" are my motto. Everything else was defensive. I would not kill anyone unless others embrace evil and choose thoughts of murder as did Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, etc
@shahriar5252 In an attempt to differentiate between mass murder and mass killing, you used the word 'killing' to describe mass murder. It's not worth picking apart your individual arguments because the bigger issue here is that you value supremist ideals and that's simply not acceptable. You're just a really twisted person, and I sincerely hope that people in general never have to encounter you again.
@RottenScoundrelJeru The Babylonians were mass murdering. That is true. But dropping bombs on the communists of Vietnam or on imperial Japan is mass killing. There is a difference between mass murder vs. mass killing. Murder is the illegal immoral cold-blooded killing of other human beings. But killing can be for either murder or self defense. If the Nazis or communists were not killing or enslaving innocent people, then mass bombing them would have been mass murder.
@RottenScoundrelJeru I did not say whether the use of agent orange was just or not. What i said was that I would not have used agent orange in Vietnam b/c I disagreed with that strategy. U.S. should have simply armed the South Vietnamese to the teeth and had them win their own war as they saw fit. If they didn't want to fight hard, so be it. I would have used atom bombs or agent orange to prevent world domination by Nazi Germany b/c they would have done worse to the earth.
@shahriar5252 One more thing, this began because you condemned mass murder "The Babylonian people and its rulers were evil barbarians who had obtained their wealth by mass murdering countless other peoples." And yet you defend it at the same time. You are no better than 'Babylonian Barbarian's' you attack with your overzealousness. I said this to you from the start and now I actually have you admitting it (which is quite priceless).
@shahriar5252 So the use of nuclear bombs can be just. But the use of Agent Orange is not? You are not making much sense here. Enslaved? Hirohito was a religious figure, revered much like God is. They loved their Emperor and would've died for him, it was the greatest honour. You clearly know nothing of the Japanese mindset during the war. I don't care what Japan would've done. Nuclear war is the closest thing to annihilation we know. The most fucked up thing you could've said, was that its okay.
@reimerhumble The civilian German people fairly and democratically elected Adolf Hitler to power. It was the civilians' wish for Hitler to represent them, so the civilians had every say in it. That makes all the Germans guilty of mass murder. Killing them should be limited to defeating their political state, but if they had chosen not to give up and fight to the last man, as Hitler had commanded them, then only they would have been responsible for the doom of their entire people.
@RottenScoundrelJeru If you know ww2 history you'd know that Hirihoto was being manipulated by his generals and didn't really want to go to war.
rapesauceCF 2 weeks ago
@reimerhumble Additionally, by "supremist" do you mean that I am a supremacist because won the arguments and you lost? That would make many people who win an argument based on the merit of their reasoning "supremeists". Why don't you be more specific. What exactly did I say that bothered you so much to resort to ad hominimism? And whatever it was that I said that bothered you, why did it bother you? Be specific for me to respond.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@reimerhumble Nothing that I said was supremacist. You are just picking negative adjectives at random to condemn me b/c I have debunked all your evil, foolish, and (so-called) liberal arguments, which would have us be victims or slaves of murderers. "Give me liberty or...death" and "live and let live" are my motto. Everything else was defensive. I would not kill anyone unless others embrace evil and choose thoughts of murder as did Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, etc
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 In an attempt to differentiate between mass murder and mass killing, you used the word 'killing' to describe mass murder. It's not worth picking apart your individual arguments because the bigger issue here is that you value supremist ideals and that's simply not acceptable. You're just a really twisted person, and I sincerely hope that people in general never have to encounter you again.
reimerhumble 1 month ago
@RottenScoundrelJeru The Babylonians were mass murdering. That is true. But dropping bombs on the communists of Vietnam or on imperial Japan is mass killing. There is a difference between mass murder vs. mass killing. Murder is the illegal immoral cold-blooded killing of other human beings. But killing can be for either murder or self defense. If the Nazis or communists were not killing or enslaving innocent people, then mass bombing them would have been mass murder.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@RottenScoundrelJeru I did not say whether the use of agent orange was just or not. What i said was that I would not have used agent orange in Vietnam b/c I disagreed with that strategy. U.S. should have simply armed the South Vietnamese to the teeth and had them win their own war as they saw fit. If they didn't want to fight hard, so be it. I would have used atom bombs or agent orange to prevent world domination by Nazi Germany b/c they would have done worse to the earth.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 One more thing, this began because you condemned mass murder "The Babylonian people and its rulers were evil barbarians who had obtained their wealth by mass murdering countless other peoples." And yet you defend it at the same time. You are no better than 'Babylonian Barbarian's' you attack with your overzealousness. I said this to you from the start and now I actually have you admitting it (which is quite priceless).
RottenScoundrelJeru 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 So the use of nuclear bombs can be just. But the use of Agent Orange is not? You are not making much sense here. Enslaved? Hirohito was a religious figure, revered much like God is. They loved their Emperor and would've died for him, it was the greatest honour. You clearly know nothing of the Japanese mindset during the war. I don't care what Japan would've done. Nuclear war is the closest thing to annihilation we know. The most fucked up thing you could've said, was that its okay.
RottenScoundrelJeru 1 month ago
@reimerhumble The civilian German people fairly and democratically elected Adolf Hitler to power. It was the civilians' wish for Hitler to represent them, so the civilians had every say in it. That makes all the Germans guilty of mass murder. Killing them should be limited to defeating their political state, but if they had chosen not to give up and fight to the last man, as Hitler had commanded them, then only they would have been responsible for the doom of their entire people.
shahriar5252 1 month ago
@shahriar5252 Pray for yourself before anything.
reimerhumble 1 month ago