Vater Araignee

How about a classic. en den

First, I suggest you take another look at the Oath of Enlistment and understand why it is ordered they way it is. Second, read the Geneva Convention. Third, understand International Human Rights law. Fourth understand we are suppose to be better than what we are fighting against. And last but most important, remember "The most American action you can take is to be CRITICAL of the government." The only way this man effected national security is by show an atrocity committed by American, supposedly the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place. He didn't release the footage live, so he didn't endanger those solders. Unlike the conservative darling Geraldo Rivera. He didn't release a technological type of footage that hasn't been seen hundreds if not thousands of times on our own airwaves, handed over to the media by our government for your viewing pleasure, so he didn't compromise "secret tech". What this man did was the equivalent of when my buddy reported Metaldyne to OSHA for a policy of safety violation to save money or when I ratted out my union local to the main for cooking the books. Without whistle blowers, those in charge degenerate, and the more they get away with it the more they degenerate. I site the executive branch and congress as prime examples. I'll go on record right here by saying I use to be one of the biggest defenders of "Soft Torture" and "Any Means Necessary Military Tactics" DGN had, I condone neither now.

you miss the 2 key points of the statement. The first and most obvious being our media loves nothing better than tragedy. The second being get info from more than one source because they make "facts" up. Then here you are posting 1 story from the second most mistrusted circus in town. If NBC or FOX said they where reporting on a mass suicide in front of my house I wouldn't believe the death tool it till I went outside and counted the bodies. I also wouldn't leave the TV till after they started quoting from my eyewitness report that I would have never given them in the first place. See what I'm saying? Then you have the fact that you posted almost 3 days after me, giving time for realistic assessments to be reported. I have been paying attention to the BBC, CBC, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, and Notizie una just to name a few. The (for lack of a better term) running tally is still being reported lower in the rest of the world than it is here. Kind of makes ya wonder. But screw all that, the worse has yet to come. Till they defuse those ticking time bombs over there I really can't care about how many the earthquake and tsunami killed.

If you don't know why you should then research Bradley Manning. I suggest a Google search, but you can always go directly to BradleyManning.org. I want to but and I hope I will but have to come up with gas housing and food for 4.

I must whole hardheartedly disagree. It isn't until one is forcing another to listen that they are infringing. You can always choose to not listen, go away, never associate with that person. In this maxim you have the liberty to say anything you wish that wouldn't violate the maxim but you don't have the right to be heard by those that don't want to listen. It wouldn't remove hording, but it would remove hording beyond need. It wouldn't stop starvation but it would stop starvation prevention for profit. The maxim would not stop death but it would stop the for profit prevention of death. Welders would weld because they like welding, not because they are trapped into keep a well paying job they hate. Doctors would be doctors because they want to help people, not because it was expected of them or looked like a path to riches. Farmers would farm because they like feeding others, not because someone has to do it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Who wants that gone? Reps (national security is the guise) Dems (anti inciting violence is the guise) In both cases it will end in not allowing you to speak out against the atrocities of the government. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Who wants that gone? Reps unreasonable search(under the guise of getting the bad guy) Dems unreasonable seizure (under the guise of helping others) In both cases your mental security is eroded. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Who wants that gone? Reps (more national security) Dems (more money) Frightened yet? Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Who wants that gone? Both, bail. (money) Dems, excessive fines (can you say drivers responsibility fee?) Reps, cruel and unusual punishments (need it really be pointed out?) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Who wants that gone? Both. (you are too stupid to know whats good for all) After all you think that the greater good represents the majority when the think it is the minority. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Who wants that gone? Reps (they just wont admit it) Dems (claiming safety) Truth: You wont be able to rebel against the severe rape that's coming.

And what a shock that what he ended up doing only helped them in a different way.

I have the solution. I say fuck me and my comfort now, I'm looking for a better place for those that haven't been born yet. Instead of slowing the problems down lets speed them up, the sooner it comes to a head, the sooner we can pop it. So encourage the corporate sponsored politicians to fuck shit up worse so that eventually the people will...

STOP! I have a pulled groin muscle and every time I laugh it makes my nads hurt. Everyone hates the Democrats when they are being puppeted and the same holds true for the Republicans. Nobody seems to want to admit that a puppeteer has two hands.

Apply it as a maxim "Everybody always has the same." play the concept out to it's bitter end and then answer. I'm completely capably of admitting if something is right or wrong based in it becoming a maxim yet insisting that it be done on smaller scale. Changing the question so that you can justify wrong doing doesn't negate the outcome of original question. Not true. The maxim "All humans prevent themselves from depriving others of their liberty." always ends in a utopia. Here is another one that doesn't end in the death of all humans. Is it evil to commit suicide because of extreme suffering? MAXIM: All humans kill themselves when they can stand living anymore. Answer: NO. Reasoning: Not all humans will achieve that level of suffering. Of course I apply that maxim without me being included in it because as we all know, if I kill myself then you all stop existing and that would be mass murder suicide. *weg*

Ah but Phee, the whole point of the exorcise is to determine if something is good for all or bad for all. BTW there is no gray area in an absolute. "Cake... is it good to eat yes or no?" with the qualifies you add is not by any stretch of the imagination, an absolute and is there for an extremely flawed representation of the point you are failing to make with me. Now just taking it as an absolute. "Cake... is it good to eat yes or no?" Maxim: Humans start making cakes and consuming cakes. Answer: No. Reasoning: Type not defined. The following is only 1 scenario that results in NO. In some areas people can't afford to make "Food Cakes" so people start eating cakes made from what ever materials they can find and dieing for various materiel choice related reasons. Gradually destroying the labor chain causing "Food Cake" supply shortages creating a feed back loop that can only end with the death of the last human. The above played up with many many other factors but all they did was hasten demise so I truncated.

Sorry Phee, someone didn't like ya hot linking.

I'll use this one as a complete example. Before I do allow me to state,I am perfectly capable of killing for a plethora of reasons. However absolutely zero reasons could be considered non-selfish. Is it moral for humans to kill their enemies? MAXIM: all humans attempt to kill all of their enemies. Answer: No it is not moral. Reason: Everybody antagonizes intentional or not so the human population would eventually be reduced to a point where it could no longer reproduce rendering the maxim against the greater good or immoral. Killing to save my own life is selfish. Killing to save a loved ones life is selfish. Killing because your government orders you to is selfish. All are justifiable by the doctrine most of us are raised with but it doesn't negate the selfishness of the act.

simply take the thought process from beginning to end and use zero emotion to determine the logical outcome. example: is it right to imprison bigots just because they are? Apply imprisoning bigots as a universal law. Answer: No. Reasoning: Imprisoning a bigot is a bigoted motivation itself so under universal law everyone would have to be imprisoned and because everyone is imprisoned everyone dies.

Netflix says that the best guess for my opinion of 8 mile is 0.5 Now I cant rate it because I cant give it less than 1.0

"Ever Since the World Ended" 2001 I don't mind the fictitious documentary, when done well. This movie just comes off like an attempt at making a home movie into a documentary.

Are you talking about "The Thing from Another World" 1951 that supposedly "The Thing" 1982 was a remake of? It wasn't a remake It was a readaption of the novel "Who Goes There?" and both versions have their merits. As for The Fly 1958 vs. 1986, I sought out a copy of "The Fly" 1958 and "Return of the Fly" 1959. It never occurred to me to get a copy of 86. The mutinogenic concept was an interesting take but it cant compare to the 1 2 punch of a split. I like a lot of Pink Cinema witch can be just as gratuitous as Grind House, but GH comes of as being written by perma hard on 14 year olds with a weak grasp at character and plot development where as PC comes off as being written by horny 30 year olds who do understand development.

Budweiser = piss Bud Light = watered down piss. Budweiser Select = piss from discriminating bums Budweiser Select 55 = see Budweiser Select but they must be 55 years old Budweiser Chelada = piss and vomit mixed.

I don't even have to see if experience is an indicator. I have not seen a single remake that is as good or better then the original (barring the actual cinematography). Now considering what a turd the original was I'm afraid to see the remake. Why? I spit on your grave is the second worse movie I can remember so If I see the remake then I'll end up watching something as bad or worse than Dracula 3K.

reports differ but I have heard that 10k to 80k are missing. It is probably sensationalist code so drop a zero and 100 to 800 are missing.

Definition of ENEMY one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent something harmful or deadly a military adversary a hostile unit or force Using the human portions of the definition. Is it moral for humans to kill their enemies? Take the phrase/statement and assume it is a maxim. Set up a mental scenario that applies the maxim as a universal law. So this would be set up as all humans attempt to kill all of their enemies. It will either have an ending or will be infinite baring external factors. A proper answer will be a yes or no answer followed by justification. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To show that I'm not setting up loaded exorcises. Those of you who have been around DGN a long time know my opinions about killing. For those of you that don't I can give you a hint. KILL THAT FUCTARDED SON OF A BITCH. I can stand beside myself and admit what parts of me are moral and moral or "I know when I'm wrong."

You only gave a partial answer then described how you perceive what the concept is. Justify the reasoning, why is it not moral? And I completely understand where Torn is coming from. Intrigued by the concept of the experiment yet fears it is trap and will try to poke and prod in hopes of springing it without actuly being caught.

So eat doughnuts? Isn't that what people do now to get through lent supposedly pure, just swap an superficial addiction for another? I'm sorry if I seem callous but I have never heard of someone actually sacrificing something for Lent. It is always something petty or simple. Hell I'm not even Cristian let alone Catholic, but for my grandmother I gave up drinking for lent. I thought I would go nuts but I did it and now I might drink the equivalent of a case of beer a year. Yet I'm not impressed with myself. Considering lent is basically marked by penance, it would have more meaning if someone gave up things like: toilet paper and used a washcloth instead. gasoline. everything with processed sugar in it. (in today's society this will cause a major sacrifice because of unprocessed food) watching anything on a screen. any shopping that isn't exclusively about need. Convenience, Convenience, Convenience. Convenience. Fasting without fasting isn't fasting. Penance isn't penance without penance.

It is experiment to see if people can work out if something is right or wrong buy working out the ramifications of action. It took me less than 2 minutes to understand how this particular scenario would play out to the end of recorded time and caused me to rethink.