|[IRL] Didn't we already win this fight?

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:14:34 -0800, Stanley Rexwinkle wrote:

> "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:gjkf3j1225j@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:48:20 -0800, Stanley Rexwinkle wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:gjf3dt0qi@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>> Now, do you have anything to back up your claim that David lied? or was
>>>> it
>>>> just an empty assertion that you had no reason to believe yourself?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> (Answer to a different question deleted.)
>>
>> The question at hand is what evidence you have that David lied, arguments
>> based simply on your belief that he is wrong do not provide such evidence.
>>
>> Now: Are you going to answer the question, or are you, by your refusal to
>> do so, going to admit that you were blowing smoke when you made the claim?
>
> He lies when he says forgiving enemies is a virtue. It is an abomination.
> Anyone trying to put such an obscene notion as forgiving enemies as a virtue
> is lying. He teaches said lie to kids miseducating them into a false
> teaching and making a group of young chumps.

You have still done nothing to show that what he said was a lie, thus I
accept you concession that you are just blowing smoke when you claim he had.

That you are of the opinion that what he said was false does not in any
way support the claim that he had lied. In order to lie one must make a
statement that the speaker believes to be false.


(I suggest you take some time to read the posts you reply to, it will stop
you from making foolish errors like asserting X while quoting an article
pointing out that X does not support your position.)


While we're at it, you never did answer the question of how a city can
have daily homicides while only having 100 homicides a year. So, you have
any way to resolve this glaring conflict?

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

"Stanley Rexwinkle" wrote:
> "David Klassen" wrote
>
> >Oh, and how do you know I *don't* have military training....?
>
> Coast Guard mop duty counts for squat.  You're a wimp with no ability to
> kill an enemy.

Tell us about your vast military background Stan.


John

On Jan 2, 9:02 pm, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt... DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I can abandon them to die though. If they have wronged me then they can be
> allowed to perish. I have no obligation to save my enemies. I am not created
> help any enemies. Forgiveness of enemies is always an abomination. Take turn
> the other cheek and stick up your butt.

The wise speak only of what they know, Stanley son of Rexwinkle. A
witless worm you have become. Therefore be silent, and keep your
forked tongue behind your teeth.

On Jan 2, 8:07 am, David Klassen <klas....DeleteThis@rowan.edu> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 7:30 pm, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We need the death penalty for burglary. The thieves need to be punished..
>
> No, we don't.  Do you realize that death isn't really "punishment"?
> It also appears to not serve as a deterrent.  Keeping someone on
> death row, however, can be called a kind of torture.  Thus, at best,
> the death penalty is mere vengeance.
>
> > Don't expect to police to help you either.  They don't want idiots
> > taking the law into their own hands.
>
> Huh?!

That was from my post. He does not know how to post a follow up
properly.

Stanley Rexwinkle wrote on [Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:57:47 -0800]:
>
> "Justin" <nospam RemoveThis @insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnglqpic.ps6.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>> Stanley Rexwinkle wrote on [Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:28:04 -0800]:
>>>
>>> "David Klassen" <klassen RemoveThis @rowan.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1822ab9a-8197-47fb-a981-b9bca0787ffe@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 30 2008, 7:13 am, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt... RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to die, then perhaps you should not STEAL.
>>>
>>>>What about the people who would die if they didn't steal?
>>>
>>> That's not my problem, nor should it be.
>>
>> If they're forced to steal from you then it IS your problem.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> They can just die off and not bother me with it.

Do you even understand the sentence?

John wrote on [Sat, 3 Jan 2009 10:55:34 -0800 (PST)]:
> "Stanley Rexwinkle" wrote:
>> "David Klassen" wrote
>>
>> >Oh, and how do you know I *don't* have military training....?
>>
>> Coast Guard mop duty counts for squat.  You're a wimp with no ability to
>> kill an enemy.
>
> Tell us about your vast military background Stan.

It's don't ask don't tell...

Tetsubo wrote:
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

>> Yes indeed. Now let's determine what "human" is.
>
> OK. You brought it up, give me your definition.
>

Those sapient beings who have not deliberately and actively chosen to
significantly violate my rights or those of the people under my
protection. (i.e., they can THINK about it all they want, and even TALK
about it all they want, but they'd better not DO anything.) Once they
step over that line (initiating violence being the most common and
obvious method), they have forfeited their expectation for consideration
on MY side. If I happen to be in a very strong position, I may be
magnanimous. But they'd better not count on it.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

David Klassen wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:23 pm, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> They could have overrun them even if they didn't. We could have nuked japan
>> more. We chose not to.
>
> Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
>
> You, sir, are raving lunatic. We *did* nuke Japan. We used *every*
> nuke we had on them.

There were two others either completed or on the way. He didn't say "we
could have nuked them more on the same day". We could have bombed Japan
to glass over the next several months to a year.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>
>>> Yes indeed. Now let's determine what "human" is.
>>
>>
>> OK. You brought it up, give me your definition.
>>
>
> Those sapient beings who have not deliberately and actively chosen
> to significantly violate my rights or those of the people under my
> protection. (i.e., they can THINK about it all they want, and even TALK
> about it all they want, but they'd better not DO anything.) Once they
> step over that line (initiating violence being the most common and
> obvious method), they have forfeited their expectation for consideration
> on MY side. If I happen to be in a very strong position, I may be
> magnanimous. But they'd better not count on it.
>
>

The being you just described would still be a human. They seem to be
someone that you consider undeserving of human rights. As I said before,
down that path leads madness. You need a broad, inclusive definition of
human being. So that those in power don't decide that *you* don't make
the cut.
I'm not saying such a person should receive the same freedoms as a law
abiding citizen does. I have no issue with jailing a person that has
been convicted of a crime. Even jailing them for life. But they do
deserve to receive basic human rights. To be treated as a human.
Especially if they will some day be released back into society. I want
them chastised, not traumatized.
And if that jail time doesn't work and they re-offend, back they go. As
many times as it takes or until they finally receive a life sentence.
Please note that I am opposed to execution and see it as a mark of a
barbaric society.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

David Klassen wrote:
> On Dec 30 2008, 7:30 am, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> "David Klassen" <klas....DeleteThis@rowan.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:14204dee-0ae3-4cfc-a34a-4e674a238e52@m4g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 27, 9:29 pm, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Because forgiveness of enemies is always an abomination. No exceptions.
>>> Turn
>>> the other cheek is surrender. You are just a deluded fool.
>>> Circular reasoning---but then I expected nothing else.
>>> Care to try again?
>> This whole christian notion of loving enemies is WRONG! It is a doormat
>> philosophy and and the folks spreading it are quick to throw in the towel.
>> They mistakenly assume all life to be somehow sacred. It isn't.
>
> Now your reasoning is more spiral than circular---like a toilet flush.
>
> But there is a *nugget* of logic here---you assume that Christianity
> is
> based on the idea that all (human) life is sacred. Correct. But
> that's
> only *part* of the reasoning behind Jesus' teachings.
>
> Of course, you lose style points by your bald assertions that his
> teachings imply being a "doormat" and "throwing in the towel".
> So, back up your assertions. Let's see the logical reasoning.

Good luck with that.

--

"I assure you, I AM NO LAUGHING MATTER TO THE STATE OF OREGON AND COUNTY
OF JOSEPHINE."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"He who laughs last, laughs loudest! I already feel the giggles coming on."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"So who is better equiped to talk about paranoia but paranoids
themselves? Hell, isn't it?"

(Raymond Karczewski)


"Killing a retarded family member is simply a retroactive abortion."

(Gunner)

Stanley Rexwinkle wrote:
>
> "David Klassen" <klassen.RemoveThis@rowan.edu> wrote in message
> news:1886afcb-7c86-4164-ae8d-cc396c9f4c16@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30 2008, 7:38 am, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt....RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> When you teach a lie like "forgiving enemies being a virtue", you lie.
>> Forgiving enemies has never and will never be any virtue rather an
>> obscene
>> abomination. You're training wimps like yourself. It makes a weaker
>> America
>> that is quick to throw in the towel and surrender.
>
>> Do you really lack such a fundamental knowledge of history? Of
>> basic ethical tenets? Go look at the epic of Gilgamesh and then
>> tell me the ancient Babylonians thought forgiveness was an
>> abomination. Well, you will because you don't understand
>> anything outside your Rush O'Reily bubble.
>
> You are a wimp and should try military training. Try giving your wussy
> christian values the boot as they aren't worth bothering with.
>
>

And what military training did you have? Outside of obedience school, I
mean.

--

"I assure you, I AM NO LAUGHING MATTER TO THE STATE OF OREGON AND COUNTY
OF JOSEPHINE."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"He who laughs last, laughs loudest! I already feel the giggles coming on."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"So who is better equiped to talk about paranoia but paranoids
themselves? Hell, isn't it?"

(Raymond Karczewski)


"Killing a retarded family member is simply a retroactive abortion."

(Gunner)

decalod85 wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:30 pm, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt... DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> We need the death penalty for burglary. The thieves need to be punished.
>
> Many who live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you
> give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the
> name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot
> see all ends.

"Man is a noble animal, splendid in ashes and pompous in the grave."
(Sir Thomas Browne)

--

"I assure you, I AM NO LAUGHING MATTER TO THE STATE OF OREGON AND COUNTY
OF JOSEPHINE."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"He who laughs last, laughs loudest! I already feel the giggles coming on."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"So who is better equiped to talk about paranoia but paranoids
themselves? Hell, isn't it?"

(Raymond Karczewski)


"Killing a retarded family member is simply a retroactive abortion."

(Gunner)

Rick Pikul wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:48:20 -0800, Stanley Rexwinkle wrote:
>
>> "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:gjf3dt0qi@news4.newsguy.com...
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:31:18 -0800, Stanley Rexwinkle wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:gj95e811uh5@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>>>>> Remember that dictionary people are telling you to get?
>>>>>
>>>>> Add lie to the words you need to look up.
>>>> Add working testicles to the list of things you don't have.
>>> Using insult instead of argument is a good way of making people think that
>>> you know your position is unsupportable.
>>>
>>> Now, do you have anything to back up your claim that David lied? or was it
>>> just an empty assertion that you had no reason to believe yourself?
>>>
>
> (Answer to a different question deleted.)
>
> The question at hand is what evidence you have that David lied, arguments
> based simply on your belief that he is wrong do not provide such evidence.
>
> Now: Are you going to answer the question, or are you, by your refusal to
> do so, going to admit that you were blowing smoke when you made the claim?
>

<waves hand>

I know the answer to this one. Pick me!

--

"I assure you, I AM NO LAUGHING MATTER TO THE STATE OF OREGON AND COUNTY
OF JOSEPHINE."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"He who laughs last, laughs loudest! I already feel the giggles coming on."

(Raymond Karczewski)


"So who is better equiped to talk about paranoia but paranoids
themselves? Hell, isn't it?"

(Raymond Karczewski)


"Killing a retarded family member is simply a retroactive abortion."

(Gunner)