Quake3World

Memphis wrote:
Besides, being dumb enough to have kids doesn't grant free pass to daddy-emo brain function backfiring instead of rational thinking.
'Oh, if you had kids...' and all that shit. Go throw on a skirt.

But really, if you had kids, or really anything in your life that made you happy, for that matter, you probably wouldn't hold such an ignorant and palpably stupid view.

Eraser wrote:I like how GKY's solution to senseless violence is blowing up 25 million people with a nuclear bomb

They're going to end up killing each other off anyways so why wait. It's inefficient to watch them randomly widdle down their numbers one by one year after year, when you could just do it in one big pay-per-view event spectacular and profit.

Nightshade wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote: I completely agree with you regarding ped0s, bankers and hell...throw in anyone who aspires to be a reality tv star. I'd love to round them all up and slowly, painfully kill them all in one satisfying swoop as it would do humanity and the gene pool alot of good.

The problem is that isn't the way civilized societies are supposed to work.

Right, but since we don't live in one...

You sound exactly like an anti-government, pro-violence gun-nut that I used to be friends with. Give your head a shake.

0psys wrote:

Memphis wrote:
Besides, being dumb enough to have kids doesn't grant free pass to daddy-emo brain function backfiring instead of rational thinking.
'Oh, if you had kids...' and all that shit. Go throw on a skirt.

But really, if you had kids, or really anything in your life that made you happy, for that matter, you probably wouldn't hold such an ignorant and palpably stupid view.

How many kids do you have that would make you take this position by default? I could be a total asshole and point out that the only people defending an obvious nutter who beat another person to death already enjoy not just watching other people beat the shit out of each other (UFC) but also have violent tendencies themselves. Go ahead and say that you "enjoy MMA to stay in shape" but you can also go ahead and admit you like violence...just like 1% of the people who join the military like violence.

You don't think that yours (and Nightshade's) pre-conceived notions towards violence has skewed your opinion on this in any way?

0psys wrote:I think most of the people really against this probably don't have kids. If you don't, you can't possibly relate to the concept of something happening to them and the levels you're willing to go to to protect them. It's not comparable to any other protective instinct you'll ever experience. People calling this guy crazy is probably accurate, but that is what this level of love does. It makes you crazy, where you'd take a life or give your own in order to ensure the safety of your child. It's quite a stressful level of love to have for something.

People who have kids and still aren't able to relate to this guy are likely intrinsically weak individuals who would kill or die for their children, were they able to rid themselves of the selfishness that gives them enough pause to stop and think.

Basically, there's places in the world where you can get away with things, and places where you can't. Obviously, at this guys address, you can't get away with trying to rape his kids. Maybe at Shaft's place your odds of walking away with just a stern telling off are much higher.

For a guy who beats a man half to death for putting a boot on his tire I can see how its impossible for you to grasp any concept of rational thought or self control in any situation.

Memphis wrote:
Oh, please wigga. Counting on the biological hardwiring of loving thine own offspring to be happy in life is one of the simplest of tickets to ride, right up there with praising jeebus.

Because a simple route to happiness is bad. For some reason.

shaft wrote: For a guy who beats a man half to death for putting a boot on his tire I can see how its impossible for you to grasp any concept of rational thought or self control in any situation.

You really do seem to be in a constant rage.

Chill bro. That's coming from me, a violent sociopath.

Memphis wrote:
Oh, please wigga. Counting on the biological hardwiring of loving thine own offspring to be happy in life is one of the simplest of tickets to ride, right up there with praising jeebus.

I know right? Ridiculous concept, loving your kids.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-upgrades

(maybe not Memphis because painfully opinionated pastly rejects find it hard to meet people)

Memphis is right though, it is too easy. I admire him in a way; attempting the impossible task of finding happiness in being a miserable, petulant little twat. He's a real trouper.

You should check some of his other posts. I doubt you'll find a post where he thinks his point of view isn't the correct way to live life. I don't know where he finds the time to gain all this life experience with all the games he posts about.

This is a fascinating discussion and while I have nothing to contribute to it directly, I want to quote a passage from a book I read recently, in which the author argues that pacifism in the face of violence is inherently immoral. I think there is some merit to the idea.

Pacifism is generally considered to be a morally unassailable position to take with respect to human violence. The worst that is said of it, generally, is that it is a difficult position to maintain in practice. It is almost never branded as flagrantly immoral, which I believe it is. While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world's thugs. It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists. There is no doubt that such sociopaths exist, and they are generally better armed.

GONNAFISTYA wrote: You sound exactly like an anti-government, pro-violence gun-nut that I used to be friends with. Give your head a shake.

I am anti-government, I am pro-violence (in the right circumstances), and I'm pro-gun (just not for retards) so I don't see anything to shake my head about.

The truth of the matter is that we live in a world that really, REALLY wants to believe that it's civilized, but it's not. Some put on a better show than others, some like to trot out their ideals and practices as a shining example of enlightenment and culture. Some countries actually have a great handle on dealing with some nasty situations, i.e. I've seen a lot of European jails that do what they do very well and as a result produce very low recidivism rates.

We're animals. Period. When it comes right down to it, our entire lives are ruled by force or the threat of force. Even those lovely societies that do a great job of rehabilitating prisoners have all aspects of their existence governed by force. You obey laws because you fear the use of force, at least in the abstract. You know that if you break the law, someone with a big stick is going to come around and make you do things you may not want to do. If you don't, he's going to hit you in the head with that stick. So, you don't punch the douche in the t-shirt that says GO FUCK YOURSELF that cuts you off in the grocery store while calling his toddlers rotten little motherfuckers. You want to, you know you should be able to, but you don't.

There are people out there that need a sound shitkicking, people that need to be shot in the head and tossed in the dump, people that just completely and utterly fucking FAIL as humans. I acknowledge this and acknowledge my desire to mete out such rewards as these diseased sphincters richly deserve. I can't, because I fear the big stick, just like everyone else. I'm just not a hypocrite about wanting to unleash my inner caveman.

Do I look forward to the day when this world is no longer the way it is? Absolutely. I can't wait for the time when we again value intellect, reason, science, art, and truth above FUCKING FOOTBALL, huge plastic tits, Jersey Shore, and MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. OK, some of those things are uniquely American, but not all of them. At any rate, until that happens, I'm not giving up my stinky animal hides and my club.

U4EA wrote:This is a fascinating discussion and while I have nothing to contribute to it directly, I want to quote a passage from a book I read recently, in which the author argues that pacifism in the face of violence is inherently immoral. I think there is some merit to the idea.

Pacifism is generally considered to be a morally unassailable position to take with respect to human violence. The worst that is said of it, generally, is that it is a difficult position to maintain in practice. It is almost never branded as flagrantly immoral, which I believe it is. While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world's thugs. It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists. There is no doubt that such sociopaths exist, and they are generally better armed.

DING DING DING! WINNER!

Nightshade wrote:

Pacifism is generally considered to be a morally unassailable position to take with respect to human violence. The worst that is said of it, generally, is that it is a difficult position to maintain in practice. It is almost never branded as flagrantly immoral, which I believe it is. While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world's thugs. It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists. There is no doubt that such sociopaths exist, and they are generally better armed.

DING DING DING! WINNER!

WTF? Now you're completely ignoring everyone's point: nobody here is saying violence isn't sometimes necessary and yes, sometimes it's deserved. What you seem to gleefully ignore is the point at which the violence becomes excessive. I'd hazard a guess that probably 100% of the world's population would agree that, unless death is the intended result, that beating someone close to death is acceptable given the right circumstances.

And I'm sorry...but ffs...the example quoted above from U4EA is utterly retarded. Why? Because I'd guess that the single sociopath with a knife would eventually run into someone like me: someone who doesn't think violence is the first and only response, but will not shy away from violence if pressed. I've clearly stated in the past my beliefs that if someone fully intends to kill you and there's no reasoning with them, then violence to the point of their death is acceptable. Beating someone to death in a fit of rage is not.

You talk about "living in a world that really, REALLY wants to believe that it's civilized, but it's not" and then you point out the fact that you'd love to punch the douche in the assholish t-shirt but don't. I'm sorry, but ffs man...that's exactly what "civilized" means: having violent impulses - because we are animals - but not always acting on them. Nobody is that fucking stupid as to deny humanity's origins and violent tendancies. The ones that DO act on them have something called "antisocial personality disorder" and tend to be uncivilized pretty much every day. You know full-well as anyone here that nearly all laws in every aspect try to mitigate the damage done by psychopaths, to varying success. But if you think that western culture is uncivilized and is not even trying to be then you haven't seen what being uncivilzed means.

And seriously...be anti-government, pro-violence (in the right circumstances) and pro-gun all you want (aim at targets and not people) but if you join a militia and practice shooting FBI agents in the bush then you're probably a fucking nutter. And because I'm sure you aren't a fucking idiot I'm confident you already know this.

It says in a "city full of pacifists", not a "city full of pacifists and one guy who's not". In order to negate it, you've had to modify it, which means you don't have a point.

You say "beating someone close to death", as if everyone is an expert at taking someone to the brink of their life. It's pretty hard to determine how badly someone is injured. Add the blinker-effect of walking into a room and catching a stranger trying to fuck your kid, and I'd imagine his ability to judge that exact point where someone is near-death would be slightly off.

Beating someone to death in a fit of rage is acceptable. By definition, being in a state of irrational psychopathy is probably more of an excuse to kill someone than the justifications you're presenting, whereby you calmly rationalise murder as if there's some angle where you can actually take someone's life while being sane of mind.

There's no difference between the animal instinct of protecting those you love, and the animal instinct of protecting yourself.

Memphis wrote:

0psys wrote: Because a simple route to happiness is bad. For some reason.

Not necessarily. But people counting on having a kid to bring them happiness rather than being in a position to bring happiness to their children is all too common. I thought this was mainly with women though tbh. From 17 to 30 year olds, I've heard the line 'I just want kids' dropped when the prospective parents haven't even lived together yet, or even been together for a year. And most blokes I know that did end up with a sprog, didn't plan it and proceed to not seem to give a fuck about really looking after either the mother, or the kid. 'Course I live in what's probably the single mum capital of Crapland, but that's nevertheless what I've seen happen, over and over and over again.

But now I'm to assume that you think people only have children to be happy. Most people who have children do so because they're in a loving relationship. Most people were already happy, only to be made even happier by the arrival of children.

At least that's how it is for me.

Memphis wrote:

0psys wrote:Memphis is right though, it is too easy. I admire him in a way; attempting the impossible task of finding happiness in being a miserable, petulant little twat. He's a real trouper.

Ooh, tangy
How many bastards do you have running about then? 'Cos apparently my point of view really tipped your goat over.

Well, you were being petulant and a bit twatty, man, I had to call you on it. I doubt you're that much of a prick in real life, you're probably completely sound. Just sometimes you write very opinionated things and it makes you sound a bit cynical. I know that when you have kids, you'll say "shit he was right, this is AWESOME!".

I will say "I told you so", and I will be smug about it.

0psys wrote:It says in a "city full of pacifists", not a "city full of pacifists and one guy who's not". In order to negate it, you've had to modify it, which means you don't have a point.

You say "beating someone close to death", as if everyone is an expert at taking someone to the brink of their life. It's pretty hard to determine how badly someone is injured. Add the blinker-effect of walking into a room and catching a stranger trying to fuck your kid, and I'd imagine his ability to judge that exact point where someone is near-death would be slightly off.

Beating someone to death in a fit of rage is acceptable. By definition, being in a state of irrational psychopathy is probably more of an excuse to kill someone than the justifications you're presenting, whereby you calmly rationalise murder as if there's some angle where you can actually take someone's life while being sane of mind.

There's no difference between the animal instinct of protecting those you love, and the animal instinct of protecting yourself.

Jesus...where to start with this mess.

First off, "pacifist" is what you and other chest-pounders have been calling anyone who didn't agree with you, so your interpretation of what "a city full of pacifists" is seems a bit fucked. I'm a pacifist right up to the point where I'm not. I didn't modify anything I simply stated that "pacifist" doesn't mean what you think it does when you and NS have made a clear stance on that. Nice attempt at shifting the goal posts.

And ffs you don't need to be an expert as to when your opponent has had a fair bit of beating when they're out cold and making gurgling sounds breathing through a destroyed nose. If you wish to keep bashing skull fragments and bits of brain matter into the pavement be my guest, just don't expect to get invited to christmas dinner. Your casual dismissal of people's innate ability to show self-control isn't surprising but I'll still attempt to show why you're so full of shit about animal instinct blah blah blah:

- Let's get the technical shit out of the way...as well as a biological desire for violence, dominating others, etc that is true for most species, 99% of it is survival-based from millions of years evolution with no thought process happening whatsoever. However, so is the concept of altruism...which is inherent in many species, not just humans and occurs with no thought process happening whatsoever. So yeah...the whole "were violent due to nature blah blah" can please stfu since you only seem to focus on those tendancies towards anti-social behaviours in human nature and ignore the equal amount of social behaviours that have been ingrained in us by evolution since before we were even human.

- To negate your assertion that someone in a fit of rage has their "ability to judge that exact point where someone is near-death would be slightly off" I again call bullshit first off from the countless fist fights that occur in western-Canadian bars. It was my job to stop them but a few times I let them run their course, especially if they happened in the parking lot. And guess what? Nobody died. The guys who pounded someone because they found out their wife was cheating still stopped short of killing anyone. Sure some people lose it and kill someone, but most don't. That's just general everyday shit. People can control themselves. One specific example was a family member of mine walked in on his girlfriend fucking some guy and he laid a fierce beating on him, kicks to the face, stomping, you name it. He told me it was the most uncontrolled blind rage he's ever experienced. And he told me that he stopped because he realized if he didn't he'd kill the guy. Again, self-control is a normal, natural thing.

Since you insist that "beating someone to death in a fit of rage is acceptable" I'd have to say that you need to accept the fact that normal people don't kill other people and I hope you find professional help so that the dark thoughts go away.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I'm a pacifist right up to the point where I'm not.

You realize, I hope, that you are by definition not a pacifist at all. A pacifist being “a believer in or advocate or practitioner of pacifism” and pacifism being “the belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes”. If at some stage you feel that violence becomes acceptable, then you are not a pacifist. This isn't just a random word or a label, it has meaning behind it.

Also, nobody has called anyone else a pacifist in this thread. I think my quote is the first instance it was brought up.

Memphis wrote:Ha, that's fair enough. Over-zealous cynicism is my thing, albeit meant in jest. Mostly.
Honestly though, with that aside, landing a sprog would scare me shitless and I have no intention of ever having it happen. I'd be an awful dad because I know damn well what a massive mind-bending, back-breaking responsibility it is, emotionally, physically, financially and frankly, I can't be arsed. That and there's way too many people on this sodding planet as it is.

It sounds like you have nothing to offer a woman, so in addition to your lack of education, financial stability or emotional maturity, you're physically incapable of ever fathering a son. You're doing the world a favour though, so kudos to that.

U4EA wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I'm a pacifist right up to the point where I'm not.

You realize, I hope, that you are by definition not a pacifist at all. A pacifist being “a believer in or advocate or practitioner of pacifism” and pacifism being “the belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes”. If at some stage you feel that violence becomes acceptable, then you are not a pacifist. This isn't just a random word or a label, it has meaning behind it.

Also, nobody has called anyone else a pacifist in this thread. I think my quote is the first instance it was brought up.

Sorry no. I believe that killing should only be done in self-defense when no other option exists. It is innate: your life is in danger...fight or flight. Beating someone to death because he looked at your kid with a sick smirk just isn't the same thing.

Your description of a pacifist as “the belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes” is competely true for me. But even Ghandi said that sometimes you need to be violent in the face of violence. That's that whole "defending yourself" thing that even pacifists will accept. Yes there are nutters on this planet and everybody knows it, so it's something that should be expected from time to time. On the other side of that coin, the way your quote describes those who shun violence as simply bending over and dieing without resistance isn't about being a pacifist but about submitting to hopelessness. Ask those who quietly walked in front of the firing squads in whatever hell whole you care to mention if they were pacifists. Most probably weren't. At least some of them weren't. But they stood there and died because they couldn't do anything else. Only someone with no empathy would have trouble understanding. In short, your quote is bullshit.

And to clear the air, I firmly got the impression that anyone who disagreed with beating the guy to death was a "spineless pansy with no kids" or "depending on other people to right the wrongs in the world and fight your battles for you" or sumat along those lines and the guy flinging those lines saying your comment about "pacifists" was a ding ding ding winner. So...I think you could understand why I took offense to both the pacifist term and its position towards violence.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:
Jesus...where to start with this mess.

First off, "pacifist" is what you and other chest-pounders have been calling anyone who didn't agree with you, so your interpretation of what "a city full of pacifists" is seems a bit fucked. I'm a pacifist right up to the point where I'm not. I didn't modify anything I simply stated that "pacifist" doesn't mean what you think it does when you and NS have made a clear stance on that. Nice attempt at shifting the goal posts.

And ffs you don't need to be an expert as to when your opponent has had a fair bit of beating when they're out cold and making gurgling sounds breathing through a destroyed nose. If you wish to keep bashing skull fragments and bits of brain matter into the pavement be my guest, just don't expect to get invited to christmas dinner. Your casual dismissal of people's innate ability to show self-control isn't surprising but I'll still attempt to show why you're so full of shit about animal instinct blah blah blah:

- Let's get the technical shit out of the way...as well as a biological desire for violence, dominating others, etc that is true for most species, 99% of it is survival-based from millions of years evolution with no thought process happening whatsoever. However, so is the concept of altruism...which is inherent in many species, not just humans and occurs with no thought process happening whatsoever. So yeah...the whole "were violent due to nature blah blah" can please stfu since you only seem to focus on those tendancies towards anti-social behaviours in human nature and ignore the equal amount of social behaviours that have been ingrained in us by evolution since before we were even human.

- To negate your assertion that someone in a fit of rage has their "ability to judge that exact point where someone is near-death would be slightly off" I again call bullshit first off from the countless fist fights that occur in western-Canadian bars. It was my job to stop them but a few times I let them run their course, especially if they happened in the parking lot. And guess what? Nobody died. The guys who pounded someone because they found out their wife was cheating still stopped short of killing anyone. Sure some people lose it and kill someone, but most don't. That's just general everyday shit. People can control themselves. One specific example was a family member of mine walked in on his girlfriend fucking some guy and he laid a fierce beating on him, kicks to the face, stomping, you name it. He told me it was the most uncontrolled blind rage he's ever experienced. And he told me that he stopped because he realized if he didn't he'd kill the guy. Again, self-control is a normal, natural thing.

Since you insist that "beating someone to death in a fit of rage is acceptable" I'd have to say that you need to accept the fact that normal people don't kill other people and I hope you find professional help so that the dark thoughts go away.

Why do you always pretend an opposing viewpoint is some crazy mish-mash that simply must be "dealt with"? It's just an alternate point of view. You should stop treating people like they're morons. You aren't smarter than anyone here, not by a long shot.

I never suggested for one minute that you were a pacifist. My post specifically stated that you weren't. I've mostly skimmed the rest of your post, because I saw "you're so full of shit", and remembered that I'm not speaking with someone who is capable of conceding that he is either partially wrong, or possibly completely misinterpreting what people are saying to him.

Honestly, I read your posts when you get going and all I see is paragraph after paragraph of "RAH RAH RAH RAH RAH".

It's funny that the people in the thread denouncing violence seem to be the most aggressive in asserting their viewpoints.

Holy crap talk about projecting.

Yes...of course. I'm angry. Or raging. Or whatever else you claim of those you disagree with.

Funny how you seem to always choose that route rather than honestly defending the shit you post. I actually attempted to address your idiocy and this is your response? "I got you to respond so I pwned you?"

GONNAFISTYA wrote: Sorry no. I believe that killing should only be done in self-defense when no other option exists. It is innate: your life is in danger...fight or flight. Beating someone to death because he looked at your kid with a sick smirk just isn't the same thing.

This is what I mean by modifying the scenario. It's gone from a guy being apparently caught red-handed molesting a little girl, to a guy getting beaten to death for flashing a smile. Where in the thread has anyone said that a particular kind of smile should cost a guy his life? Are you insane?

Seriously, when you have to alter something so drastically in order to assert your point, then you have no point. That's all there is to it.

Much like me, according to Shaft, "beating a guy half to death", when it was in fact just a single punch, and the guy was back on his feet minutes later.

If you have to invent or distort the facts to suit your theory, then your theory fails.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Holy crap talk about projecting.

Yes...of course. I'm angry. Or raging. Or whatever else you claim of those you disagree with.

Funny how you seem to always choose that route rather than honestly defending the shit you post. I actually attempted to address your idiocy and this is your response? "I got you to respond so I pwned you?"

I don't think you're raging or angry, I just think you have problems expressing yourself socially. It's always on the other person. Everyone's a moron, everyone's wrong, oh my God, you have to explain to yet another simpleton why they're so stupid. Everyone in the world is completely wrong about everything and they should take five while GONNAFISTYA reminds them why they're retarded.

Jeeeeeeeeeesus it's grating...

Wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't on a fucking computer game forum.. You act like this place is some major political platform.

Honestly.. Where did I say or imply that "I got you to respond so I pwned you?" as you say? Fuck, what does that even mean?