Atomic Bomb!!

Wr1tt3n by International, 18.01.2015 at 07:13

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 18.01.2015 at 07:10

I think RaulPB gave up trying to debate with me.

Ofc I didn't, I still believe you're being quite... innocent XD but... do you know how much time took me to write my previous message?? I need a bit of time pls

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 18.01.2015 at 07:28

he called me albanian anti-semite whore

In case you liked that, we could always call you that

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 18.01.2015 at 09:44

Interesting... I'd actually argue that you're being naive and innocent here.
Believing that your enemies in war needs to actually care about what happens to you...

Wr1tt3n by International, 18.01.2015 at 23:57

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 18.01.2015 at 09:44

Interesting... I'd actually argue that you're being naive and innocent here.
Believing that your enemies in war needs to actually care about what happens to you...

Oh come on... we're AW buddies, just arguing about something you don't really understand XDD

But that still doesn't make us enemies nor this is war, or else you'd be dead by now

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 19.01.2015 at 04:02

Oh come on... we're AW buddies, just arguing about something you don't really understand XDD
But that still doesn't make us enemies nor this is war, or else you'd be dead by now

I don't doubt it.

Wr1tt3n by International, 18.01.2015 at 23:57

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 18.01.2015 at 09:44

Interesting... I'd actually argue that you're being naive and innocent here.
Believing that your enemies in war needs to actually care about what happens to you...

You are very irritating and ignorant, for someone so young.Need is not the actual word here, "should" is.And the answer is YES.They should actually care what happen to innocent civilians.And how does that makes him naive?Naive means 1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding. Our main argument was that civilian casualties in our experience and as shown on the atomic bombing of Japan, are not kept at a minimum and not taken into account at all, when military leadership , take tactical decisions in times of war.How does that makes us naive.Since when not being a misanthropistic, criminal, egoistical, tratorous, murderous subhuman scum makes you naive.Since when caring about the innocent, makes you naive.If we are naive you should become naive too.Unless you hate your kind and want to see innocent lives suffer and die, just because of the bankers and politicians interests.You are either dumb, naive, a kid or member of the army or a sellout wanna be politician.And now you pissed me off, so ill find time to go back and adress your previous points one by one and bring back those which you ignored also.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 19.01.2015 at 09:43

Oh, hey, look! Another person calling me names! Where have I seen that before?

Yeah, yeah. Address my points. Hopefully you'll do something more substantial than call me names when you do that.

I think you can learn a thing or two from RaulPB about civil behavior in a rational argument. But eh. What do I know, I'm only a student.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 19.01.2015 at 09:43

You are very irritating and ignorant, for someone so young.Need is not the actual word here, "should" is.And the answer is YES.They should actually care what happen to innocent civilians.And how does that makes him naive?Naive means 1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding. Our main argument was that civilian casualties in our experience and as shown on the atomic bombing of Japan, are not kept at a minimum and not taken into account at all, when military leadership , take tactical decisions in times of war.How does that makes us naive.Since when not being a misanthropistic, criminal, egoistical, tratorous, murderous subhuman scum makes you naive.Since when caring about the innocent, makes you naive.If we are naive you should become naive too.Unless you hate your kind and want to see innocent lives suffer and die, just because of the bankers and politicians interests.You are either dumb, naive, a kid or member of the army or a sellout wanna be politician.And now you pissed me off, so ill find time to go back and adress your previous points one by one and bring back those which you ignored also.

Alright. Since I like debating anyways, I shall respond to that crazy mass of text to the best of my ability.

"You are very irritating and ignorant, for someone so young"
Provide evidence. So far, neither you nor RaulPB has managed to decisively defeat my arguments. If you cannot prove the superiority of your opinion, I think it's very ignorant of you to look down upon other opinions.

"Need is not the actual word here, 'should' is. And the answer is YES. They should actually care what happen to innocent civilians."
Read my entire argument above. Until you guys demonstrate my incorrectness, this cannot be asserted.

"Naive means 1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding. Our main argument was that civilian casualties in our experience and as shown on the atomic bombing of Japan, are not taken into account at all, when military leadership take tactical decisions in times of war. how does that makes us naive."
Because you seem to fail to understand the demands of war? The military's task is to bring victory to one's country in war. Therefore, if they expend resources to save enemy civilian lives, they're not doing their jobs properly.

"Since when not being a misanthropistic, criminal, egoistical, traitorous, murderous subhuman scum makes you naive. Since when caring about the innocent makes you naive. If we are naive you should become naive too."
That implies that not caring about the enemy is being a criminal, traitorous, subhuman scum. I would argue otherwise. No laws or agreements bind me to respect enemy civilians' lives. Thus, I am not being criminal, should I choose to not respect them. By not expending resources on the enemy state, I am helping the prospects of my own state. Thus, not traitorous. Subhuman scum? Define "human." I am of the Homo Sapiens species, which is the traditional definition of "human". Besides, every species on this planet, ours included, has secured its survival by endangering some other species'. It's nothing new.
As for being misanthropistic and murderous, "misanthropic" indicates that I dislike humanity. That is not the case. I like other people. I simply don't like them enough to place their interests ahead of my own. Murderous? I am willing to kill people if that would secure my interests. Why is that a bad thing? It is the natural thing.
So. That boils down to "egoistical." Yes, I do care very much about myself. I am more selfish, arguably, than the normal person, and I have strong survival instincts. Again, why is that bad? It is highly natural.
No, I'm not becoming as naive as you are, because I have an inherent vested interest in securing my (and my immediate associates') survival and my prosperity (not anyone else's). Something which, as far as I can tell, you seem to lack.

"Unless you hate your kind and want to see innocent lives suffer and die, just because of the bankers and politicians interests."
False dichotomies? Just because I do not want to save innocent lives does not necessarily mean I do not want to see them killed. There is such thing called a neutral position, where you are indifferent on an issue. I also do not care whether bankers and politicians benefit from my actions.
As I said, I care about my and my immediate associates' survival and prosperity. I will take whatever actions are necessary to achieve that. If that means adding to the suffering of some stranger, so be it. If some banker or some politician gets richer from those actions, then so be it also.

"You are either dumb, naive, a kid, or a member of the army or a sellout wanna be politician."
If you wish to call me "dumb" or "naive" based on what you think of my arguments, then first you need to demonstrate their incorrectness.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why being a kid is a bad thing. I believe I've already said that I'm a student. That kind of implies that I'm a kid.
Hmm... I also cannot see why you can assert that I'm a member of the army or some wanna be politician based on my viewpoints. Merely because my viewpoints coincide with those in the military or those that wish to become politicians, that does not mean I am one of them.

This line makes as much sense as Republicans calling Democrats "socialists," or the Democrats calling Republicans "fascists." Agreements with a certain group does not indicate belonging within that group.

"And now you pissed me off, so ill find time to go back and adress your previous points one by one and bring back those which you ignored also"
Oh, yay. I look forward to it. Come back with more sensible arguments.

Wr1tt3n by International, 20.01.2015 at 02:25

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 19.01.2015 at 09:43

Oh, hey, look! Another person calling me names! Where have I seen that before?

Yeah, yeah. Address my points. Hopefully you'll do something more substantial than call me names when you do that.

I think you can learn a thing or two from RaulPB about civil behavior in a rational argument. But eh. What do I know, I'm only a student.

are you gonna cry now, because i called you ignorant?The truth is the truth, i like to call apples apples and oranges, oranges.Keep in mind that when you have criminal ideas you might get judged for them.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 06:58

are you gonna cry now, because i called you ignorant?The truth is the truth, i like to call apples apples and oranges, oranges.Keep in mind that when you have criminal ideas you might get judged for them.

I might be ignorant. I dunno.

Support your arguments, though. There's nothing I hate as much as unsubstantiated claims.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 06:58

The truth is the truth, i like to call apples apples and oranges, oranges.

Its all fruit bro. <-------- deep comment!

The only reason they did it is because invading mainland japan wouldve taken a lot more lives from both sides

Wr1tt3n by Goblin, 20.01.2015 at 07:23

Deep comment, indeed. Who knows? In the alternate universe where humans have six arms and politicians are honest, Alizee and I might actually agree to a compromise on this issue!
After all, we're both people.

Wr1tt3n by International, 20.01.2015 at 03:31

"You are very irritating and ignorant, for someone so young"
Provide evidence. So far, neither you nor RaulPB has managed to decisively defeat my arguments. If you cannot prove the superiority of your opinion, I think it's very ignorant of you to look down upon other opinions.

irritating : causing irritation; annoying; provoking
You want evidence for your blabbering having the effect of annoyance on me?what do you want a picture showing my facial expression?this makes no sense.As for ignorance, it will come up as a conclusion after the whole of my post.

Wr1tt3n by International, 20.01.2015 at 03:31

So far, neither you nor RaulPB has managed to decisively defeat my arguments. If you cannot prove the superiority of your opinion, I think it's very ignorant of you to look down upon other opinions.

First of all it was your counter- arguments.I provided you with all that was needed to safely reach the conclusion, about how being egoistic,egocentric and greedy to the level that you hurt others for your own benefit, has destoyed our lifes, our planet and our advancement, as a species.Your counter arguments, were poor, sloppy,fallacious and not valid.

Wr1tt3n by International, 13.01.2015 at 21:46

I would argue that many states are doing their job reasonably well. The state is there to enforce the law. Laws which make it in my, and everyone else's, interest to actually care about strangers. So no, they haven't failed. Because states enforce the law, I am assured that as long as I don't murder, I won't be murdered (not likely, anyways). This make it possible for me to act in the common good (lawful activities) without fearing everyone else taking advantage of my niceties. There is no such thing as "responsibility" in a society without order. It is the state that holds me responsible for my actions. It is the state that defines morality and responsibility.

You would argue how?where is your data?With the exceptions of not many, but few, countries like Canada, Sweden and Denmark and a few others are doing indeed reasonably well.The vast majority of governments have failed each in several different areas.The state is not there to just enforce the law.The state is there to protect its citizens, educate them, provide them a safe future and economic stability.How are the states doing their job well, when they are plagued by corruption in government, police and judicial system?How are they doing their job well when their is no freedom of spech in 2015?And im not talking about islamic countries, im talking about the media control by corporations that have ties with the government.How are they doing well, when most countries debts are rising, poverty is rising, income inequality is rising and so on.Just take a look at the superpower that is ruling the world, USA.Biggest foreign policy fail ever, economy in the gutter -> 18 trillion debt, income inequality gap rise, cancer and diabetes rising and bla bla bla..You said states are about the collective interests of the citizens, but you cannot prove that, thats just in theory.In seven to ten generations, with the same pace, banks will own most of the planet, excuse me if i fail to see how is this on the peoples interests and not on the few.How is this not happening because of the 1% greed and selfishnesh and the rest of the government officials allowing them to do so, because they get paid.I also fail to see how Usa foreign policy helped its citizens, when the data shows us that debt rose, american human lifes were lost, people actually got poorer and the usa spent more natural resources namely oil, than it actually got from the wars.Oil is getting depleted if you didnt know.Every military action Usa or another country takes,that you graciously support, is bad for humanity, if only for the fact that we are loosing oil and coal.
Also i fail to see how the rise on cancer and diabetes is on the citizens best interest.Its on the states responsibilities to protect its citizens through regulations in the food sector and educate the citizens at staying healthy.But as we can clearly see, governments are doing the opposite.They help monsanto and the big corporations in food and dairy sector, bully everyone and make billions, while the population is ravaged with diseases, diabetes, cancer and nutricional inneficiencies.
So yes i agree, states are doing a great job.A great job...at destroying all of us at a quick pace.Now i await your response, about how all these are a result of...the free market and free economy and how the only other alternative would be living in the stone age.

Wr1tt3n by International, 13.01.2015 at 21:46

Because you seem to fail to understand the demands of war? The military's task is to bring victory to one's country in war. Therefore, if they expend resources to save enemy civilian lives, they're not doing their jobs properly.

And thats why im saying you are dangerous.I dont have to make an argument, your above comment is my argument in this case.You are dangerous, facist, misantrhope with no regard for human life.Go look up what is facism and under what ideals it was created, you will see the similarities there.Admitting you are a facist will help this conversation alot, as we will skip through all the moral issues.In real life, humans have rights, individuality and freedom, its only under facist ideology where citizens do not exist as an individual entity but only as in relation to the great state.Only there, their lifes are worth nothing, but only the strenth of the state and nation and the military results it brings.

Wr1tt3n by International, 13.01.2015 at 21:46

"Since when not being a misanthropistic, criminal, egoistical, traitorous, murderous subhuman scum makes you naive. Since when caring about the innocent makes you naive. If we are naive you should become naive too."
That implies that not caring about the enemy is being a criminal, traitorous, subhuman scum. I would argue otherwise. No laws or agreements bind me to respect enemy civilians' lives. Thus, I am not being criminal, should I choose to not respect them. By not expending resources on the enemy state, I am helping the prospects of my own state. Thus, not traitorous. Subhuman scum? Define "human." I am of the Homo Sapiens species, which is the traditional definition of "human". Besides, every species on this planet, ours included, has secured its survival by endangering some other species'. It's nothing new.
As for being misanthropistic and murderous, "misanthropic" indicates that I dislike humanity. That is not the case. I like other people. I simply don't like them enough to place their interests ahead of my own. Murderous? I am willing to kill people if that would secure my interests. Why is that a bad thing? It is the natural thing.
So. That boils down to "egoistical." Yes, I do care very much about myself. I am more selfish, arguably, than the normal person, and I have strong survival instincts. Again, why is that bad? It is highly natural.
No, I'm not becoming as naive as you are, because I have an inherent vested interest in securing my (and my immediate associates') survival and my prosperity (not anyone else's). Something which, as far as I can tell, you seem to lack.
"Unless you hate your kind and want to see innocent lives suffer and die, just because of the bankers and politicians interests."
False dichotomies? Just because I do not want to save innocent lives does not necessarily mean I do not want to see them killed. There is such thing called a neutral position, where you are indifferent on an issue. I also do not care whether bankers and politicians benefit from my actions.
As I said, I care about my and my immediate associates' survival and prosperity. I will take whatever actions are necessary to achieve that. If that means adding to the suffering of some stranger, so be it. If some banker or some politician gets richer from those actions, then so be it also.
You are either dumb, naive, a kid, or a member of the army or a sellout wanna be politician."
If you wish to call me "dumb" or "naive" based on what you think of my arguments, then first you need to demonstrate their incorrectness.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why being a kid is a bad thing. I believe I've already said that I'm a student. That kind of implies that I'm a kid.
Hmm... I also cannot see why you can assert that I'm a member of the army or some wanna be politician based on my viewpoints. Merely because my viewpoints coincide with those in the military or those that wish to become politicians, that does not mean I am one of them.

That is the most shitty, juvenile argument i have ever read.This, only this, this is all i need to prove you are ignorant.
a. wars your country wage are not necessarily on your interest.In fact in most of the cases it is not and the evidence can be found in a. corruption rates among government officials b. big corporations,weapon industry and banks a* motives for war b*evidence of increased revenue after-during wars c*ties to the government c. analysing history, where if you study how most modern wars started, why they started, who paid the price and who actually won from them.
After doing this, you will have enough proof and evidence to realize, that the money your father provided for your education are going down the drain, since you cant even comprehend how you are being used and manipulated to work, kill and die for other persons interests.
Now i await your reply with examples of a few wars, where they were in the peoples best interests.

That being said, you are born human.Wanting to hurt and kill other innocent humans that never threatened your existance, or never plan to, like innocent women and children, psychologists around the world, will certainly agree with me, that this will safely categorize you as misanthropistic, criminal, traitor (to your species).I will add subhuman scum that deserves to die, as you aare an indirect and in times of war, direct, threat to the lives of my fellow humans, no matter their nationality.

Lastly, yes you are selfish and have strong survival instict, but only as far as your mental and intellectual capabilities are able to make you comprehend those simple terms.Since we have proven that a.wars are not on peoples interests but on the few that are actually gaining something after/during them and taking into account that b. you place complete trust in your government to engage in these wars and c.support the mass murder, of the oppositions innocent population, we can safely reach the conclusion that a.you are stupid b.you dont respect and value your own and other peoples life and liberties -> therefore making you to actually not be selfish and with no real survival instict.Since you are bound to fail to comprehend my perfectly valid argument, i will also give you an example.You are lost in the woods and you see a grizzly bear.Its coming at you at a fast pace and it looks agressive.After thinking about it, you decide the best course of action is to get your knife out and attack it, because clearly its going to attack you.So you, valuing your life and having your strong survival instict kick in, attack it, with best case scenario you killing it and worst case scenario you dying, or you both dying.Your limited intellectual capabilities, hindered you from finding the real best solution to your situation though, which would be to actually run and either outrun the bear, hide or climb a tree, thus avoiding all contact with the bear and thus minimizing the chances of any one of you dying, thus making this the best course of action that serves your interests.Food for thought.

Wr1tt3n by Goblin, 20.01.2015 at 07:23

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 06:58

The truth is the truth, i like to call apples apples and oranges, oranges.

Its all fruit bro. <-------- deep comment!

actually it is deep.from my perspective, the hidden meaning of your comment, is that no matter where we were born, no matter our colour, our flavour and our differences, we are all equal.
deep indeed

Wr1tt3n by International, 20.01.2015 at 07:44

Wr1tt3n by Goblin, 20.01.2015 at 07:23

Deep comment, indeed. Who knows? In the alternate universe where humans have six arms and politicians are honest, Alizee and I might actually agree to a compromise on this issue!
After all, we're both people.

we are both people but we couldnt be more different.in fact, i take insult from your point of view and reasoning, as i believe its threatening my kind.I believe its everything thats bad and rotten in todays world.You are everything the corrupted government and big corporations want out of citizens.Obedient, kill-ready, robots.I dont mean to offend you, thats just how i see you.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

irritating : causing irritation; annoying; provoking
You want evidence for your blabbering having the effect of annoyance on me?what do you want a picture showing my facial expression?this makes no sense.As for ignorance, it will come up as a conclusion after the whole of my post.

Meh. I concede the point. I guess I really am that annoying.
As for your conclusion... we'll see...

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

First of all it was your counter- arguments.I provided you with all that was needed to safely reach the conclusion, about how being egoistic,egocentric and greedy to the level that you hurt others for your own benefit, has destoyed our lifes, our planet and our advancement, as a species.Your counter arguments, were poor, sloppy,fallacious and not valid.

You're backing up your unfounded arguments... with more unfounded arguments? Keep this up and I'm going to stop being rational as well.
If my counterarguments are poor, sloppy, fallacious and not valid, I'm sure you'll have no problem demonstrating it as such, right?

Right?

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

You would argue how?where is your data?

According to the History of Homicide database, the homicide rate in Europe has dropped to roughly one-twentieth of what it was in the 1200's.
According to the Library of Economics and Liberty, the homicide rate in the United States is roughly one-seventh of what it was in the early 1700's.
Industrialization, the result of greedy capitalists, allowed governments more resources with which to police, the results of which is clearly visible in declining homicide rates all across the industrialized world.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

With the exceptions of not many, but few, countries like Canada, Sweden and Denmark and a few others are doing indeed reasonably well.The vast majority of governments have failed each in several different areas.The state is not there to just enforce the law.The state is there to protect its citizens, educate them, provide them a safe future and economic stability.How are the states doing their job well, when they are plagued by corruption in government, police and judicial system?

There are some exceptions, of course, the prime example being the "republics" of Central Africa.
But by and large, states have done well.
In China, where ridiculous corruption regularly makes scandals, basic education is still paid by the government, for just about everyone.
In Thailand, that had a coup not two years ago, the economy has stabilized.

You talk about economic stability and a safe future, but think about it. The most critical thing required for economic stability and prosperity is the assurance that if a citizen makes money by being smart, they'll be free to enjoy most of it. Which, by and large, states have managed to provide, by stopping crime.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

How are they doing their job well when their is no freedom of spech in 2015?

In 1815, "freedom of speech" was a joke, in all except a select few countries. Most people were censored, and those few that weren't usually were too busy with other problems (like, feeding themselves) to be able to actually use that freedom.

In 2015, one billion people are prosperous enough and live in free enough countries that enable them to voice their opinions as they please.

Nation-states, just like children, progress, provided that their existence isn't threatened and they are stable.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

And im not talking about islamic countries, im talking about the media control by corporations that have ties with the government.

Evidence?

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

How are they doing well, when most countries debts are rising, poverty is rising, income inequality is rising and so on.Just take a look at the superpower that is ruling the world, USA.Biggest foreign policy fail ever, economy in the gutter -> 18 trillion debt, income inequality gap rise, cancer and diabetes rising and bla bla bla..

I think I've already responded to this in an earlier post. But I'll respond to it again.

1. "most countries debts are rising" Well, if tax revenue, that nobody likes paying, is lower than government spending, that everybody seems to love, then someone's got to make up for the difference, no?

2. "income inequality gap rise" This indicates a failure of the state because... why? There's more wealth to spread around, of course there's more inequality.

3. "cancer and diabetes rising" This is... a good sign, actually. Rising cancer rates mean that people don't die from infectious diseases anymore. People are living long enough to get old-age diseases like cancer. Diabetes? Sure as heck sign there's more than enough food to go around.

4. "poverty is rising" Well, that's because the poverty line rises as well. In absolute terms, you'll see that poverty has decreased.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

You said states are about the collective interests of the citizens, but you cannot prove that, thats just in theory.In seven to ten generations, with the same pace, banks will own most of the planet, excuse me if i fail to see how is this on the peoples interests and not on the few.

In the 1923~1928 period, the U.S. income inequality was roughly equal to and rising at a rate similar to the U.S. income inequality now. By your logic, the United States should be bank-owned by now.

Look! No bank-owned United States!

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

How is this not happening because of the 1% greed and selfishnesh and the rest of the government officials allowing them to do so, because they get paid.I also fail to see how Usa foreign policy helped its citizens, when the data shows us that debt rose, american human lifes were lost, people actually got poorer and the usa spent more natural resources namely oil, than it actually got from the wars.

Getting one wrong question does not fail you the test. By and large, the United States government has done extraordinarily well.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

Oil is getting depleted if you didnt know.

I do know. That's why oil prices are rising. If something is in shortage, price will rise and push demand down. Where, exactly, is the problem?

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

Every military action Usa or another country takes,that you graciously support, is bad for humanity, if only for the fact that we are loosing oil and coal.

Assumption? Give me one quote where I said I support war. I definitely do not.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

Also i fail to see how the rise on cancer and diabetes is on the citizens best interest.

See above. The rise of cancer and diabetes indicate that several more basic problems, like infectious diseases, have had great progress made.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

Its on the states responsibilities to protect its citizens through regulations in the food sector and educate the citizens at staying healthy.But as we can clearly see, governments are doing the opposite.They help monsanto and the big corporations in food and dairy sector, bully everyone and make billions, while the population is ravaged with diseases, diabetes, cancer and nutricional inefficiencies.

Corporations can't make money unless consumers buy their stuff. Don't like Monsanto? Don't buy their products. People demand Monsanto products, therefore, Monsanto exists. What part of "capitalist economy" eludes you so much?
By the way, regulations in the U.S. food sector may not be spectacular, but they exist. That's a heck of a lot more than you could have said if the U.S. government didn't exist.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

So yes i agree, states are doing a great job.A great job...at destroying all of us at a quick pace.Now i await your response, about how all these are a result of...the free market and free economy and how the only other alternative would be living in the stone age.

What I see, is you complaining about things that shouldn't be deep complaints in the first place. Sure, 90% isn't the top score you can get on tests, but I'd like to see someone call that a bad score.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

And thats why im saying you are dangerous.I dont have to make an argument, your above comment is my argument in this case.You are dangerous, facist, misantrhope with no regard for human life.

I seem to recall I've already responded to this. Last post, as I seem to recall.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

Go look up what is facism and under what ideals it was created, you will see the similarities there.

Fascism (n): an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of social and government organization.
"Authoritarian" no, because I believe in the power of the free market and of republican democracy, not "right wing" because I believe in the power of social spending and progressive taxation, both concepts related to left-wing politics. "Nationalistic," I will partially admit, but only so in times of war. Which, as it happens, isn't now, because my country is at peace.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

Humans have rights, individuality and freedom, its only under facist ideology where citizens do not exist as an individual entity but only as in relation to the great state.Only there, their lifes are worth nothing, but only the strenth of the state and nation and the military results it brings.

Natural rights. They exist, I agree. But what use are natural rights if nobody is willing to respect them?
There are such thing as "crime," you know.
Who stops crime? The police, in most countries.
Who pays and feeds said police? The same state you seem to hate so much.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

That is the most shitty, juvenile argument i have ever read.This, only this, this is all i need to prove you are ignorant.
a. wars your country wage are not necessarily on your interest.In fact in most of the cases it is not and the evidence can be found in a. corruption rates among government officials b. big corporations,weapon industry and banks a* motives for war b*evidence of increased revenue after-during wars

So would the people of the United States have been better off if they lost the war to Iraq and Afghanistan? Just because wars were started for nonsense reasons does not mean I don't have a vested interest in seeing my country win them. Spreading the blame can be done separately. When I'm in a war, first, I (try to) win the war.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

After doing this, you will have enough proof and evidence to realize, that the money your father provided for your education are going down the drain, since you cant even comprehend how you are being used and manipulated to work, kill and die for other persons interests.
Now i await your reply with examples of a few wars, where they were in the peoples best interests.

Welcome to modern capitalism. If I don't have some brilliant idea to sell, then I sell my labor. After all, I have to pay for my lifestyle. My very rich lifestyle. If I do not work, or at least try to work, then I obviously don't deserve to enjoy a lifestyle. Where's the manipulation in that?

By "kill and die," I assume you mean military service. I would like to see my country become more powerful and richer. Why? Because if the pie gets bigger, then my share of the pie, in absolute terms, also gets bigger. If the pie gets bigger and my share doesn't, I protest. Very simple logic, I thought that was.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

That being said, you are born human.Wanting to hurt and kill other innocent humans that never threatened your existance, or never plan to, like innocent women and children,

Do you think it is efficient to merely kill select, economically productive members of an enemy country? If so, how would you do it? If not, then the act of saving "innocent women and children" are threatening my existence, because it stops me from killing those that do threaten my existence.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

psychologists around the world, will certainly agree with me, that this will safely categorize you as misanthropistic, criminal, traitor (to your species).I will add subhuman scum that deserves to die, as you aare an indirect and in times of war, direct, threat to the lives of my fellow humans, no matter their nationality.

Evidence? Let's see how your psychologist came to this brilliant conclusion that I am inclined to dispute.

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

Lastly, yes you are selfish and have strong survival instict, but only as far as your mental and intellectual capabilities are able to make you comprehend those simple terms.Since we have proven that a.wars are not on peoples interests but on the few that are actually gaining something after/during them and taking into account that b. you place complete trust in your government to engage in these wars and c.support the mass murder, of the oppositions innocent population,

a, Once wars are started, it is in my interest to see my country win them,
b. exactly what did I say that led you to this brilliant conclusion, and
c. what do you find horribly bad about pragmatism?

Wr1tt3n by Khal.eesi, 20.01.2015 at 09:05

You are lost in the woods and you see a grizzly bear.Its coming at you at a fast pace and it looks agressive.After thinking about it, you decide the best course of action is to get your knife out and attack it, because clearly its going to attack you.So you, valuing your life and having your strong survival instict kick in, attack it, with best case scenario you killing it and worst case scenario you dying, or you both dying.Your limited intellectual capabilities, hindered you from finding the real best solution to your situation though, which would be to actually run and either outrun the bear, hide or climb a tree, thus avoiding all contact with the bear and thus minimizing the chances of any one of you dying, thus making this the best course of action that serves your interests.Food for thought.

This does not parallel the situation of war. I cannot simply "run away." In my home country, I am a citizen and am valued as such. If I run away, I will be a refugee and will be treated as such. Unless staying is going to immediately and surely threaten my life or other such important matters, I have good reason to stay and fight. If I do stay, which I have good reason to, then I'll be subject to enemy attacks, militarily and economically, for the entire duration of the war - which is an extraordinarily good reason to defeat the enemy, never mind the costs to him/her.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Sweet goodness... that's a serious block of text.

Ikr… took me a whole day to write it… fuck me…

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

I have succeeding in living 15 years without getting murdered, robbed either directly or through frauds, am receiving a free education and subsidized healthcare. If I live a few more years, I can expect the state to pay my college tuition (some of it, anyways), and can conduct purchases and sales with easy-to-carry currency, the value of which is fairly stable.
That is far, far better than what I would be able to expect without my state. They are doing their job, alright. Some room for improvement, of course, but unless they seriously fail in their purpose (fail to maintain order), I'm quite willing to live with its flaws.

You start by saying "I"? So you're not looking at the rest of the population, only yourself? And how in the ***** are you so sure that you haven't suffered from frauds? Free education? Excuse me; it's being PAID with YOUR taxes. Healthcare which is slowly being privatized and dismantled in favour of private healthcare, which of course is far more expensive for you and everyone else. Again, don't you get that the state isn't paying you anything? It's yourself with your own money spent on taxes!!
What is this easy to carry currency you're talking about?
Ofc, if there were no "states" and companies governed we would be far worse. But still, we're not that far from being under companies' government (at least, indirectly, thanks to our politicians…). States have much more to improve than what you really know. Btw, maintain order isn't its main purpose, but to give people the power to govern themselves (democracy), in which they're failing badly lately.
You can live wherever you want and under what circumstances you want, that's your choice. But that's just an opinion which doesn't mean that they actually do it well enough and lacks criticism.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

At our expense? Being a slave? What joke.
The unemployment subsidies in most developed countries support a richer lifestyle than a 16th Century peasant, working full time on the fields, had. What brought about this miraculous change? Economic growth. Driven by whom? Industrialists who invested their time into various money-making schemes that also usually happens to benefit society.

Yes, at our expenses and if you still don't see my point from all that I've told you (absolutely everything is true), then you've got a problem which involves your capability of being critic.
If you were a bit more critic you'd understand why these subsidies exist… but since you're not I'll have to explain… WE, the poor people, with our money from taxes, are paying those subsides. So it's basically taking money from barely poor people to even poorer people. What does the state get with this exchange of money? They enable poor people to keep buying, consuming and giving money to big companies, which are the ones able to make things at lower prices than little companies. Don't you get it? Everything is thought so that it benefits the rich ones, even if they make it appear as if it was doing us some good (which indirectly may be doing). Stop supporting yourself by thinking economic growth is something positive pls, I've already explained you why.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

My home country used to be one of those poor countries who paid its employers miserable wages. Just 40 years ago, in fact. But now, thanks to the capitalists who invested their small fortunes into industry, small business owners who cut down on their food to start their own business, and also as important, the globalized economy that was willing to buy, even if it was at low prices, any of our surplus good, we are, a mere 40 years later, a country well on our way to prosperity, European-style. Globalization has suited us perfectly fine, thank you very much. In fact, was it not for globalization, my countrymen will probably still be working the fields.
Globalization can pave a poor country's way to prosperity. In any reasonably democratic country (think India, Thailand, etc.), or any reasonably forward-thinking country (think China), they should be able to make use of it in not more than 50 years.

Besides, even if their country is too autocratic and reactionary to make use of this wonderful new opportunity, globalization isn't bad. How can you take something away from a worker who's barely feeding his family to start with?

They invested little money just to take even larger profits. They invested cause you may have had little privileges or rights as workers. This enables them to pay miserable wages but then sell this items at overexpensive prices in the market to get themselves a huge benefit. Same happens with your goods, they pay little to then sell them more expensive wherever they want. Do you even know what globalized economy really means?? Why do you even compare prosperity to Europe…? You really don't realize what's behind all these rainbows that governments expect us to believe because we're ignorant.
HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN INDIA AND CHINA IS GOOD!? HOW!? Also calling "forward thinking" to china… and "democratic" to india… You need to inform yourself better… I beg you…

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

If water is really in short supply, its price will go up, making it impractical for factories to use that method. Supply and demand.
Similarly, as I said previously, consumers drive corporations with our money. You don't like polluting brands? Organize a boycott.

Dude, it doesn't matter. You can't compare they money spent on water with the money spent on a chemical treatment! Stop relying so much on that stupid supply and demand sentence, that doesn't explain anything. Try to be more critic or don't try to discuss about things you don't fully understand. Btw, do you imagine what will happen if water prices rise? Not everyone is rich you know? And water is essential for living remember?
That's another stupid statement of yours. Have you got any proof that supports what you say? Has it ever worked? Do you even know of a brand that doesn't polute? No. There aren't any. So you can't choose. But since you must keep consuming, you need to pay these kind of polluting companies. Stop thinking people drive anything, we're super manipulated. And you're the perfect example. You're not being critic, you're not even paying attention to my points.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

See above. There are plenty of brands that sell paper made from farmed trees. The fact that great masses of people still buy paper made from Amazon trees tells me that people don't really care.

Farmed trees? Okey then, give me their names, their production and then give me the quantity of paper consumed in the whole world. Then tell me, is their production enough? Of course it's not. People consume way too much paper (supported by all the paper manufacturing companies). There is no other option and companies know it, so they take advantage of this, pay little money for being able to take all the trees from amazon and then sell it here at the normal price (which is still way more expensive than what they claim to be).

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

"Everyone or at least a part of a community wants something." So, by your definition, the "common interest" is the sum of private interests. Therefore, by your definition, if there is no private interest, then since nobody wants anything, there is no common interest.

Oh come on, what's your point with that?? Are you saying that the private interest of a single person can be compared to the interest of a whole group of people? Pls try to explain yourself harder because all I see is some words trying to say something beautiful but without any deep meaning. I never claimed to not be any private interest. But democracy is (or should be) about the common interest, this meaning what most people want. Even if it's based on "private" interests, once it reaches a large amount of people it loses its "private" meaning since it's actually seeking the improvement of the community as a whole and not just benefit one single person (private means for you and no one else).

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Organize. Last year, our town's people got together and demanded that the local store stop giving out plastic bags. Their offer? A few hundred new customers for the store, who would gladly take higher prices in exchange for environmental friendliness.
It worked excellently well.

Your example doesn't have anything to do with what you quoted there. I'm talking about consuming, about the products that aren't in the market (environmentally friendly bags have existed for decades in case you didn't know). You can ask them to remove a product, of course, but you will never be able to ask them for a new product which is not in the market of your own needs or that follows your own criteria of what is ethical. If this has ever happened it's because the whole world asked for it and they had no other option because of all the pressure but these are really really really REALLY odd cases. So please, find a better example or just agree with what I stated.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

It is very clear that you believe that more energy for cheap is better than less expensive energy. Well, that's a private interest. Without private interests, such as your clear interest in seeing the energy production go up and price go down, energy production wouldn't change. My point still stands.

Your point doesn't even make sense… wtf… They produce more cause it's necessary, not cause they want to lower the price! They rise their production cause population is also increasing and there is more need for energy (more products that require energy). Energy costs are actually increasing! You clearly didn't get my point, which actually still stands. Get better informed about energy. And in my opinion about energy, we're over exploiting natural resources so we better develop an alternative renewable energy which is economically viable and efficient quick before we run out of petroleum or we're doomed. Literally.

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 14.01.2015 at 14:07

"[Corporations] blackmail [the little company] or whatever" is so wonderfully vague. It reminds me of the various insults thrown by Soviet propaganda to the capitalist classes. Provide substantial evidence, here.
Also, you're accusing the medical corporations of a lot, without any kind of real evidence. If you or your medical doctorate friend has a theory on how to cure common diseases cheaper and faster, post it up. That'll be evidence enough. If you don't have a medical doctorate friend, then exactly on whose expert opinion are your accusations coming from?
I don't know what crazy legislative system Spain has, but here in my country, price fixing is illegal, and this state enforces its laws reasonably well. Although scandals do pop up time to time, there's no real way around that.

LOL really? From all my text, you only payed attention to that little sentence? Is that the most important for you? Am I gonna have to state every single strategy they develop in order to preassure little companies until they accept to sell their discoveries? Is that really what most matters to you?
Real evidence? Lol anyone who took the time to investigate knows about that. See why I think you're innocent? You still don't understand the world, which isn't innocent. Look, I've already told you, if there's some way, big companies buy the patent and then erase it, so it's never made public. If the big companies are the ones to develop it, they just keep it secret and never sell the cure. Why? Because they won't win money on the short term as fast as they'd like. It's not my problem if you're not aware of this truth, if you don't want to pay attention to it or if you're not critic enough yet.
Do you really think companies are gonna make public that they fix prices???? XDDDDDD LOL!!!! HAHAHAHA SO INNOCENT! XDD Most or all big companies fix their prices so that they make the lowest competitiveness possible in between XD that's a really well known fact around the fucking world! But why would they make this public? Of course it's illegal but what stops them from making deals in private?? XD You're laughably innocent XDD And all the scandals that still aren't popping up… there are so many… XD

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Read Adam Smith. If supply is short, compared to demand, price rises, removing from demand the consumers who only want it marginally, and incentivizing producers who marginally want to not sell, sell.

Who is this Adam Smith? Theory is never the same as in practice, not even in science.
Look, people is educated, supported and encouraged to consume from everywhere (government, companies, medias, day life, etc.). Market products usually are monopolized or only a few big companies own the whole market of a product. These hide part of the products, thus rising its price in market but people still NEED to consume this! Sometimes they just buy themselves their own product, this way it's hidden… They free some of that product once they see all the other production is being consumed but without lowering its price at all, sometimes even rising it more "cause they lack it". That's just despicable. Then, prices reaches top values which people start to not be able to pay anymore. This is when crisis starts… They state they start to "make less money" and all crap starts.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Well, if the public don't want to pay higher prices for organic food, organic food will gradually disappear. What do you expect?
Besides, organic food hasn't really disappeared. If you want to buy them, there are plenty of options still, preventing non-organic food from having its price rise. People simply don't buy the organic food that line some grocery stores.
Classic, completely classic supply and demand. The public has stated with their money that they'd rather have lower prices than have organic. What is not bought, will gradually stop being produced. What's wrong with that?

I expected you to be smarter, that's what I expected. I already told you, people CAN'T AFFORD!! It's not that they don't want, they CAN'T. Get it??
Of course it hasn't disappeared, because even now some people are ABLE/CAN AFFORD to pay them. But non organic food has the monopolism of the food market, only some little organic food companies survive and can't be compared to non organic ones.
THAT'S NOT SUPPLY AND DEMAND YOU LITTLE INNOCENT KID. That's called playing dirty. You really don't seem to understand anything I say. The only thing wrong here seems to be your eyes, which don't pay attention to my points.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Easy. The total amount of money/wealth grows. $1,000 is as finite as $10, but it's a hundred times larger.
Your reasoning is absurd. Sure. I enjoy a smaller piece of the economic pie than my ancestor 400 years ago did.
The economic pie also happens to be a few hundred times larger. In the end, I get more pie. I find this result utterly satisfying. Percentages mean nothing. As long as my share of the pie, measured in terms of absolute value, keeps growing, I honestly couldn't care less where the rest of the pie goes. If the 1% has a bigger share of the pie, let them have it. After all, it is thanks to them (and perhaps the rest of the top 5%) the economic pie is big in the first place.

Again, you don't fucking think. You're absolutely annoying. In a debate you should at least pay attention to the important matters: "And can you explain how is it that rich people get richer but poor people don't get poorer if there's a finite amount of money in this world? Don't worry, I'll do that for you. As you know, wealth is something material."

DON'T YOU FREAKING UNDERSTAND THE PIE CAN'T GROW ON FOR EVER?? Resources are limited in this freaking world and pie won't grow on for much longer! Resources are reaching its peaks! And petroleum is one of them who has already reached it a few years ago! Once every single material reaches its peak and the pie doesn't grow anymore, your wealth will all disappear in few seconds! In the end you're not gonna have any pie at all. And not far from now, your absolute value of pie will start to decrease! No criticism in you at all, it's exasperating!

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Healthcare is not being dismantled all over. What you are thinking of is the public subsidy for it. Perhaps it is time to put healthcare into the laissez-fair market? I personally disagree with that decision, but I can see the validity of the other side's argument.
Better informed, yes. Your average 9th Century peasant would be lucky if he ever got to know what happened more than a day's walk from his village without relying on vague rumors. Now, welcome to the era of the internet. You're debating, right now, with some student a continent and a half away.
If you don't see the value of the freedom of religion, for example, the freedom to move to another village any time you can afford it, and the freedom to sign up for whatever jobs are available, and see the value of those things yourself, nobody will be able to explain it to you. I guess I'll have to concede this point.

Healtcare is already being put on the market, which is destroying it and its quality. Public healthcare is supposed to pay attention to the client, private only seeks benefit. This makes healthcare be dismantled. And healthcare is starting to be privatized in Europe, where we have fought so much for this right…
NO NO NO!! YOU FREAKING INNOCENT KID! You're mixing up quality with quantity! You're far much MORE informed, but the quality is in certain times worse than not being informed at all since they are LYING at the population! Internet can be manipulated, media can be manipulated, newspapers can be manipulated, radio can be manipulated, etc. And everything IS manipulated! If you can't see this there's no reason to keep debating with you. I'm a student as well, a chemistry student, and as student that we both are I was hoping you'd be BETTER informed.
Freedom of religion? Depends on where you live. Depends on your family and community values, sometimes they come imposed; sometimes they just won't let you change. For example, a Christian family will teach you that their religion is the only one and that all the others are wrong, is that freedom to you? Freedom would be telling your kids what are all the religions about, explaining everything in an unbiased way and letting him chose without any pressure nor any consequences as result of his choice.
Freedom to move IF you have a mean of transportation, money to pay it, and time to do that trip. You may also need a passport. In the end you always have conditions so it's not that much of a freedom.
LOL Saying that there is freedom to sign up for any job is like saying that you're free to knock on any house you want XD You can sign up even for astronaut, a different matter is that you have the right qualifications and that the employee wants you to work for him and that he pays you a fair wage!

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Alright. Let's say my village produces oranges. Tasty and delicious. The next village over produces apples. Also tasty and delicious, but alas, out of our reach. I get paid ten oranges a day for my work at the orange farm.
Some random man decides that my village will love apples, collects his ten apple wage, and carries them over. I like apples, and decide to buy 4 of them. Since the man has done the work of laboriously carrying the apples over, he charges 5 oranges for just 4 apples. So, now I can choose, if I want, to have 5 oranges and 4 apples instead of 10 oranges. A new option has just been added to my daily menu. I think 5 oranges and 4 applies is more valuable to me than the monotonous 10 oranges, so I buy it. He carries my 5 oranges back to his village, then sells them for 6 apples.

So, net result, I gain some diversity in my menu, and he gains two new apples.

The beautiful thing is this: if I don't like apples, I don't have to buy them. So the man will only earn if he brings something we actually want.

Value has been generated, and that's from just carrying stuff around. If you factor in innovation in production (think new person who opens a factory), value will be generated even faster.

Yeah, you gain diversity in your menu, but you don't gain any wealth. It's like saying that now you will have € and $, but it sums up to the same amount of money you had at the beginning. On the other hand, this seller will get money from his own village and amass it, which will make his village poorer.
Even if you don't like it, other people will. People is obsessed with consumption and you should have already noticed that.
If that seller opens a factory, his village will get even poorer because he supposedly will have more apples to sell at your village and then more oranges to sell on his own village.
Conclusion, no wealth has been generated in your village. On the other hand, the other village is poorer at the expenses of the seller. In the future this guy will have money enough to open an orange factory at your village and so your village will become poorer at the expenses of the same seller.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

"At our expense" I've already given my viewpoint on this absurd claim. As I said, my share, in terms of absolutely value, of the economic pie is a lot larger thanks to various corporations and small business owners. That's a lot more useful to me than the knowledge that somewhere, some tree will be surviving thanks to my poverty.

Yes, your answer was an absurd "What a joke". That still makes my claim stand. And you still keep not paying attention at all, congratulations. I hope you will realize what you're saying once the Amazon is nearly destroyed and Earth starts to warm even more than it already is and once the pie can no longer grow.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Marshall Plan? How much money did the US have to spend to bail Western Europe out of their war-caused destruction?

And how much did they make by selling weapons and those loans I was talking about during all WWI and WWII? They made enough to be able to pay all their debts. On the other hand, Europe got debts all over. And here they are, strong once again, without making money from some war in USA that affected only America.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Alright. The people of France didn't really benefit in WWI. The Battle of Britain tore the victorious UK apart economically.

But UK didn't start the battle, did he? Their only interest was defending themselves, which they luckily achieved. The ones that have some interest are the ones starting the war!

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Sometimes, this sort of nastiness happens, but by and large, greed is good, and states have done their job if not well, then at least properly.

Dude… Really? Sometimes? Most times! This isn't even close to a good defence of what you're supposed to think. In all wars, winner takes spoils from the loser… an sometimes wars are started for this spoils, such as this Irak war we were talking about. USA knew they would win and easily so… why not taking a nice spoil from Irak?

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Here's an example of moral wrongdoing and condemnation:
If I see a destitute, crippled beggar on the street, it is morally right to donate to him/her.
However, I have every right to do the morally wrong thing, and not provide for him/her.

Here's an example of direct and indirect responsibility:
A man notes a plate hanging precariously on a shelf. Because he is lazy, he does nothing about it.
A woman lets a bunch of kids loose in the room.
Said bunch of kids playing around bumps into said shelf, and shatters the plate.
The bunch of kids are directly responsible, as it was their action (or, in some cases, lack of action) that caused the disastrous result. The man and the woman are indirectly responsible, as the woman made the action possible, and the man's inaction (or, is some cases, action) created a circumstance in which the kids' action would cause the disastrous result.

You haven't answered the main question in my post…
Even if you have the "right" to not give the poor man some money, does that mean people should encourage you to keep doing what EVEN YOU know is morally wrong?
And even if it's not the woman's nor the man's direct responsibility, does it mean we should just congratulate them? Should we be happy that they didn't do it on purpose? Should we just avoid thinking of the indirect consequences of our actions?? Should we keep acting like if nothing was our fault and blame our neighbour? Snap out of it! Indirect responsibility is just as important as direct responsibility! We're all in this together!
Your examples are of no use, I wanted answers for this. Even I could give you tons of examples.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 14.01.2015 at 14:07

Great, let me get the popcorn, WWIII is about to start! Let's all use our atomic bombs, since we've got them, we rather use them for something right?

You have summed up the correct action remarkably well.

I was being extremely sarcastic…
As Khal says, you're way of thinking is dangerous. In any case, if this is up to happen any time, I wish it happens as soon as possible before they discover even worse bombs.

Wr1tt3n by International, 15.01.2015 at 01:53

Remember, the purpose of a state is for the benefit of the people it represents. So no state except my own are obligated to consider my well-being.
Thus, I trust my state to do well for me, but I do not trust states in general.

Omg, do I really have to explain you…
Purposes are merely theoretical. On the practice, this doesn't always happen! Sometimes, even your own government sells you to big companies, banks, foreigners with money, etc. You live in some fantasy world… Snap out of it. I don't know if you're still too young to see all of this but it's time to snap out of it.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 23.01.2015 at 16:23

Good point