[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
If you ever said such bullshit in my presence, then you could count on tryin to defend yourself “face-to-face like men”.
Then you admit you are nothing more than a common thug who uses violence against people whose ideas you do not agree with. Your kind is easily dealt with.
You would be handled like a gnat buzzing about my ear – swiftly and with no emotion.
Threatening violence against someone who has done none to you is the stupidest thing you can do.
Yet, you also threatened violence against him. You speak as to point out all the irony in everyone’s posts, but at this moment, your post is just screaming irony. I find it funny that you spend so much time and effort on constructing arguments by so closely analyzing all the posts that disagree with YOU but don’t bother to realize that YOUR OWN post disagrees with you.
provide an example
[/quote]
All his posts leading up to the one I quoted are the example. I’m not hear to discuss politics as NO ONE to is going to change sides. There is no point. I just thought I would make an observation.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
HangerBaby wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
If you ever said such bullshit in my presence, then you could count on tryin to defend yourself “face-to-face like men”.
Then you admit you are nothing more than a common thug who uses violence against people whose ideas you do not agree with. Your kind is easily dealt with.
You would be handled like a gnat buzzing about my ear – swiftly and with no emotion.
Threatening violence against someone who has done none to you is the stupidest thing you can do.
Yet, you also threatened violence against him. You speak as to point out all the irony in everyone’s posts, but at this moment, your post is just screaming irony. I find it funny that you spend so much time and effort on constructing arguments by so closely analyzing all the posts that disagree with YOU but don’t bother to realize that YOUR OWN post disagrees with you.
provide an example
All his posts leading up to the one I quoted are the example. I’m not hear to discuss politics as NO ONE to is going to change sides. There is no point. I just thought I would make an observation. [/quote]
You observed him taking a position of self defense. There is nothing threatening about self defense, however it may be intimidating and taken that way if you are going to play the attacking game
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
But there is irony about saying to defend against thuggery and criticizing soldiers. Your political views differ greatly, but you both want to do the same thing. Maybe your definitions on thuggery differ, but essentially, the soldiers, the real soldiers, are doing the same thing that you are saying should be done: defending against thuggery.[/quote]
That’s what the soldiers and marines and bomber pilots are being told they are doing and no doubt they believe it to be true…
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Yet, you also threatened violence against him. You speak as to point out all the irony in everyone’s posts, but at this moment, your post is just screaming irony. I find it funny that you spend so much time and effort on constructing arguments by so closely analyzing all the posts that disagree with YOU but don’t bother to realize that YOUR OWN post disagrees with you.
There is nothing ironic about defending against thuggery.
But there is irony about saying to defend against thuggery and criticizing soldiers. Your political views differ greatly, but you both want to do the same thing. Maybe your definitions on thuggery differ, but essentially, the soldiers, the real soldiers, are doing the same thing that you are saying should be done: defending against thuggery.[/quote]
You need to learn to distinguish between aggression and self-defense.
[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
HangerBaby wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
If you ever said such bullshit in my presence, then you could count on tryin to defend yourself “face-to-face like men”.
Then you admit you are nothing more than a common thug who uses violence against people whose ideas you do not agree with. Your kind is easily dealt with.
You would be handled like a gnat buzzing about my ear – swiftly and with no emotion.
Threatening violence against someone who has done none to you is the stupidest thing you can do.
Yet, you also threatened violence against him. You speak as to point out all the irony in everyone’s posts, but at this moment, your post is just screaming irony. I find it funny that you spend so much time and effort on constructing arguments by so closely analyzing all the posts that disagree with YOU but don’t bother to realize that YOUR OWN post disagrees with you.
provide an example
All his posts leading up to the one I quoted are the example. I’m not hear to discuss politics as NO ONE to is going to change sides. There is no point. I just thought I would make an observation.
You observed him taking a position of self defense. There is nothing threatening about self defense, however it may be intimidating and taken that way if you are going to play the attacking game
[/quote]
I’m not playing the attacking game. I just used the same technique he used against everyone else. I thought he would appreciate the irony. I come from a country where my people have been getting attacked for centuries, so I have a high value on military strength in order to protect my neighbors. My family also personally knows and has explained to me what happens when soldiers turn against the people. This is obviously not happening in the US.
I am not attacking anyone. I do not enjoy discussions where people attack each other. If you saw my post as an attack, well, I apologize for the lack of clarity about the irony I was using, but I still stand by my original post. I would have posted my opinions, but as a 16 year-old, I doubt anyone would actually care and take them into consideration.
Lixy…yes terrorists aim to cause fear, HOWEVER, to be a terrorist you need to have political aims, period. It’s not debatable its a definition. A high school bully who steals someone’s lunch money isn’t a terrorist even though he may have put fear into someone…he’s just a thug.
And did I stand by CASH who voiced his feelings about a worm who seems to enjoy nothing more than trashing the men and women who signed up to fight and maybe even die to protect his right to sit on his fat ass and disparage them all day? you’re damn right I did.
Anyway, this is my final post…not because I haven’t enjoyed verbally castrating Lift…but mainly because this thread is distorting my T-Nation experience into something I’m not happy about. I shouldv’e known that mixing lifting, politics, and testosterone wasn’t a good idea. So back to the lifting side of the house for me.
Peace
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
If only Morality was as black and white as some believe it to be…
But it can be.
Ethical reciprocity. None should take any more or less than they give.
Those that do are easy to deal with.
“A sadist is just a masochist who follows the golden rule.” That ring a bell??
This is not the golden rule. This is the idea that people are to be treated how they want to be treated; however, none have the right to better treatment than they give others.
If you go around looking for fights and you are constantly getting your ass kicked it is because you deserve it. That is ethical reciprocity and it is as basic as breathing.[/quote]
Actually,that isn’t the golden rule either. In fact this goes back to what That One Guy stated about morality not being as black and white as people like to think. You’re exemplifying how a persons morals and personal beliefs can override…or butcher the intentions of the Golden Rule.
Your morals say that the guy deserves to get beaten because he is looking for fights. This is an instance of karma. BUT,wishing bad karma on someone is not the golden rule. I think that maybe your views of government,law enforcement,and “heroes” influence how you view and twist the meanings of ethical reciprocity. Its definitely not the opposite.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Your morals say that the guy deserves to get beaten because he is looking for fights. This is an instance of karma. BUT,wishing bad karma on someone is not the golden rule.
[/quote]
But this isn’t what I am saying. I am not trying to give credence to the “golden rule” even.
I do not wish bad karma on anyone. I am saying you have no one to blame but yourself if you go looking for trouble all the time and you get into it – don’t expect any more or less than you give.
You cannot expect to be given respect if you do not give any yourself. That is ethical reciprocity.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Your morals say that the guy deserves to get beaten because he is looking for fights. This is an instance of karma. BUT,wishing bad karma on someone is not the golden rule.
But this isn’t what I am saying. I am not trying to give credence to the “golden rule” even.
I do not wish bad karma on anyone. I am saying you have no one to blame but yourself if you go looking for trouble all the time and you get into it – don’t expect any more or less than you give.
You cannot expect to be given respect if you do not give any yourself. That is ethical reciprocity.
[/quote]
Fair enough. BUT how does what you’re saying now mesh with your usual comments and views about police officers,government,etc?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Fair enough. BUT how does what you’re saying now mesh with your usual comments and views about police officers,government,etc?[/quote]
Well, ethical reciprocity does not make any distinctions between someone who gets paid to do immoral act on someone else’s behalf and someone who does them on his own.
Just because someone is hired by his government to enforce immoral legislation, for example, does not relieve him of culpability of those immoral acts.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Fair enough. BUT how does what you’re saying now mesh with your usual comments and views about police officers,government,etc?
Well, ethical reciprocity does not make any distinctions between someone who gets paid to do immoral act on someone else’s behalf and someone who does them on his own.
Just because someone is hired by his government to enforce immoral legislation, for example, does not relieve him of culpability of those immoral acts.[/quote]
When you say “enforce immoral legislation” you’re saying that laws are immoral?? And by default this makes the people that enforce these laws immoral??
edit
What authority makes the laws and its “enforcers” immoral??
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Fair enough. BUT how does what you’re saying now mesh with your usual comments and views about police officers,government,etc?
Well, ethical reciprocity does not make any distinctions between someone who gets paid to do immoral act on someone else’s behalf and someone who does them on his own.
Just because someone is hired by his government to enforce immoral legislation, for example, does not relieve him of culpability of those immoral acts.
When you say “enforce immoral legislation” you’re saying that laws are immoral?? And by default this makes the people that enforce these laws immoral??
edit
What authority makes the laws and its “enforcers” immoral??[/quote]
Ethical reciprocity. You have no right to tell me what I can or can not put in my body.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Fair enough. BUT how does what you’re saying now mesh with your usual comments and views about police officers,government,etc?
Well, ethical reciprocity does not make any distinctions between someone who gets paid to do immoral act on someone else’s behalf and someone who does them on his own.
Just because someone is hired by his government to enforce immoral legislation, for example, does not relieve him of culpability of those immoral acts.
When you say “enforce immoral legislation” you’re saying that laws are immoral?? And by default this makes the people that enforce these laws immoral??
edit
What authority makes the laws and its “enforcers” immoral??
Ethical reciprocity. You have no right to tell me what I can or can not put in my body.[/quote]
You turning this in a different direction that what I’m asking.
But to address what you responded with:
You do have a right to put what you want in your body…but in this light,your rights end where others begins…there is a reason drinking while intoxicated is against the law…where does karma come into play when someone is killed by a drunk driver??
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
If you ever said such bullshit in my presence, then you could count on tryin to defend yourself “face-to-face like men”.
Then you admit you are nothing more than a common thug who uses violence against people whose ideas you do not agree with. Your kind is easily dealt with.
You would be handled like a gnat buzzing about my ear – swiftly and with no emotion.
Threatening violence against someone who has done none to you is the stupidest thing you can do.[/quote]
Yes of course. You and your lawyer would swiftly take care of me, the gnat, or the common thug, or the bully. Wait, why dont you just call me the guy who has some respect for the people who defend this country. I’ll just call you the guy who hides behind his computer spewing bullshit when in reality he would never EVER have the balls to say something so disrespectful to the face of a soldier.
[quote]TxCASH wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
If you ever said such bullshit in my presence, then you could count on tryin to defend yourself “face-to-face like men”.
Then you admit you are nothing more than a common thug who uses violence against people whose ideas you do not agree with. Your kind is easily dealt with.
You would be handled like a gnat buzzing about my ear – swiftly and with no emotion.
Threatening violence against someone who has done none to you is the stupidest thing you can do.
Yes of course. You and your lawyer would swiftly take care of me, the gnat, or the common thug, or the bully. Wait, why dont you just call me the guy who has some respect for the people who defend this country. I’ll just call you the guy who hides behind his computer spewing bullshit when in reality he would never EVER have the balls to say something so disrespectful to the face of a soldier.[/quote]
Its not like soldiers are any tougher than the common man
hell, 80% of my good friends are in the USMC. They’re the weakest guys I know!
Go be blind elsewheres
[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
If you ever said such bullshit in my presence, then you could count on tryin to defend yourself “face-to-face like men”.
Then you admit you are nothing more than a common thug who uses violence against people whose ideas you do not agree with. Your kind is easily dealt with.
You would be handled like a gnat buzzing about my ear – swiftly and with no emotion.
Threatening violence against someone who has done none to you is the stupidest thing you can do.
Yes of course. You and your lawyer would swiftly take care of me, the gnat, or the common thug, or the bully. Wait, why dont you just call me the guy who has some respect for the people who defend this country. I’ll just call you the guy who hides behind his computer spewing bullshit when in reality he would never EVER have the balls to say something so disrespectful to the face of a soldier.
Its not like soldiers are any tougher than the common man
hell, 80% of my good friends are in the USMC. They’re the weakest guys I know!
Go be blind elsewheres
[/quote]
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Fair enough. BUT how does what you’re saying now mesh with your usual comments and views about police officers,government,etc?
Well, ethical reciprocity does not make any distinctions between someone who gets paid to do immoral act on someone else’s behalf and someone who does them on his own.
Just because someone is hired by his government to enforce immoral legislation, for example, does not relieve him of culpability of those immoral acts.
When you say “enforce immoral legislation” you’re saying that laws are immoral?? And by default this makes the people that enforce these laws immoral??
edit
What authority makes the laws and its “enforcers” immoral??[/quote]
Wrong question.
What moral authority do they have to make and enforce laws?