Recent posts by petesahooligan on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / [Request] Img to Vector

Vectorizing raster images is not easy if you want it done right. It’s best to start with the largest possible raster file. Wait, strike that. It’s best to start with the original artist as they probably have vector source material used to create it in the first place.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

I’m happy to yield this awesome forum to Karma. Have fun, y’all.


Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

Although I maintain my personal dislike for KarmaKoolKid’s hyperbolic assault on ideas he doesn’t agree with, I fully support his position in this matter.

It’s surprising to me that a violent physical response to an inter-personal problem might be appropriate. The threat of physical pain is certainly a powerful negative reinforcement… a microcosmic reflection of death and our desire to avoid it… but corporal punishment can have the effect of associating physical violence to the solution to behavioral conflicts exhibited by the people around you.

There are lots of countries where it is illegal to spank your child, (much less allowing someone else to spank your child, like a teacher). There are even a few surprises in that list… countries with a history of brutal violence; Republic of Congo, Germany, Bolivia, Honduras, Albania, Israel, and Croatia (among others). Not spanking children is normalized in lots of these places.

Spanking is also shown to be more common in lower socio-economic classes. Tulane did a study and concluded that spanking was ultimately detrimental to a child’s long-term well-being. However, some research shows that spanking and increase short-term compliance in a child. So… the kid may clean their room at the expense of alcoholism later (for example).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

You equate pacifism with weakness.

When you’ve killed, how many lives did you save as a result? When and if you kill again, Captain America, how many lives will you save then?

You have demonstrated a pattern of telling the people around you that are trying to discuss things rationally exactly how you see the world in massive, rambling manifestos. Then you insult them when they disagree with you. Your tone is dismissive and dripping with contempt.

I like nearly everyone I meet, and in my lifetime I’ve been blessed to encounter the most incredible people making profound positive change in the world and around the world. I’ve traveled the world and seen places that are incredible and awful. It’s very rare to find people that I simply don’t like, and I don’t like you.

You know why? Because you’re an asshole. You deserve to live with violence… you reap what you sow.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

It’s a good point, Implosion of Doom. Whether society considers an act bad or good is often irrelevant to how the individual responsible for those acts consider them. People do “socially” bad things all the time under the pretense that the ends justify the means.

This moral relativism is exactly what Karma is relying on to define his willingness to kill as “pacifism.” He did it before and he’d consider doing it again, if he “had” to.

It’s an odd position because on one hand he accepts a greater degree of responsibility. Now he is in a position where he is not just protecting himself but those around him, and making life-or-death value judgments on the situations that those people may find themselves in. This accepts more responsibility than an ordinary, untrained person should probably have.

On the other hand he excuses those possible situations as “last resorts.” In other words, he had no other choice… he HAD to kill someone in order to prevent someone else from being killed. Not only is there a fundamental dichotomy at work, “I murder to prevent murder,” but by claiming there is “no other option” it removes any personal responsibility from the equation. “I had no choice.” It is highly irresponsible and, dare I say, dangerously reckless. A person ALWAYS has a choice to kill or not to kill… and by NOT killing it does not necessarily mean that you “allow” something else to happen. It merely means that you are not intervening using that particular option.

I’m through talking to you, Karma. You’re an idiot.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

First, I’m not super keen on your definition of essential parenting. “…the very essence of being a parent is to place the welfare of the child above all else.”

I don’t know if you have kids but I kind of doubt it. I have two grown sons, both raised under the tenets of pacifism and neither of them have ever been in a fight, and both of them are brilliant and well-liked by the people that meet them. That’s not to brag but rather to illustrate that I didn’t exactly fuck them up as a bad parent.

There are a LOT of things I would NOT do “above all else” on behalf of their welfare. I would not kill someone to feed them. I would not kill someone to house them. And, among other things, I would not kill to reduce their exposure to risk. Under your ill-thought definition, a person would be morally justified in eradicating a whole race of people or country if it improved their child’s welfare. Oh, but wait… you probably meant something a little more nuanced. I’m sure you’ll clarify.

I know you’re very fond of your “degrees of pacifism” typology. I’ll entertain that idea for a moment (even though I think it’s dumb).

If I am to assume that there are varying degrees of pacifism. If you can use a looser definition that permits some forms of lethal intervention, you can use the same logic to permit lethal aggression. This is more central objection to anything but the strictest definition of nonviolence.

Some “choices” are extremely clear.
You are in the middle of the ocean.
You are the only person on the boat.
The boat is the only flotation device.
The boat loses it floatability…is gone.
It is just you and the sea.
Your “choices” are swim or drown.
Do you have so little love of life for yourself that you will just roll over and sink?

Do you have so little love for your child that you would allow it to be killed right before your eyes when you could have ensured its life by simply ending that of the would be killer’s?

That’s NOT pacifism to me.

I think you’re drunk. This story doesn’t even make sense. Is the boat a metaphor for something? I’m sorry I’m so dense. It’s not pacifism to me either… it’s like weird hipster poetry or something.

I’m stoked you brought up causation. I didn’t want to try to introduce any more layers to this clusterfuck of a conversation, but since you started it!

Anticipating causation depends on the veracity of the rules being applied and the number of factors at stake. That’s not new… but rapidly anticipating a highly complex and interpretive model is very difficult. We know this because people have accidents all the time. They were not able to anticipate the event in spite of the fact that they were right in the middle of it.

Now, ratchet up the scale of the impact you intend to intervene with. You are essentially banking on someone else’s life that your ability to rapidly assess the complex situation and interpret it in a way that will either suggest that lethal force is an option or that it’s not an option.

We’re still on the same page, right?

If you are wrong and that there were other non-lethal options still available, what actually occurred in that situation? In my mind, you just killed someone that you may not have needed to kill. That’s not cool, dude.

Or, maybe you killed someone that you needed to kill and there were no other options. But I kinda find that hard to believe. And, you know, that’s not cool, dude.

Paint me a moron for saying it again, but the sanctity of life is so simple that I just won’t kill. You’ve heard me say it a zillion times and you have called it naive and immature, but it has worked for a couple of influential leaders you may have heard of… and it certainly reflects an ideal that is arguably more valuable than the antithesis; that person that believes the world can be made better by adding MORE lethal violence. I believe that this is an ideal WORTH following the strictest definition of. Anything less and you get into the land of “shades of gray.”

If you’re cool with shades of gray when it comes to killing, cool for you. Enjoy. It’s not for me.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

That I opt to use violence to achieve that peace doesn’t make that peace any less important to me…

This is the most idiotic thing I’ve read all month.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I don’t understand how you can disagree that these situations would require precognition then to follow that up with the caveat that there exists a “high degree of certainty” that a certain outcome will occur.

Can you provide an example of what you mean? What is a situation where there is a “high degree of certainty” that would preclude all but lethal interventions?


This is the same simple question I’ve been asking for way too long. It certainly reinforces my position that the situation simply does not exist.

How is it morally ethical to let someone be a victim of another’s violence when you have the ability to stop them?

There are lots of ways to intervene in a situation that do not require lethal actions. I’ll leave that up to your capable imagination.

Understand this: The determination NOT to use lethal force is not synonymous with doing nothing or “letting” an assailant conduct acts of carnage unchecked. C’mon.

Incidentally, people point loaded weapons at other people all the time and do not kill them, and sometimes even AFTER they say they are going to do exactly that. I do not see how that example reinforces an idea that lethal intervention is required.

People also don’t stop at red lights sometimes. Again, precognition fail.

You are absolutely correct, Kasic, that I would (as you obtusely put it) “let” an innocent person die while non-lethal interventions were conducted. As a matter of fact that happens ALL THE TIME.

As much as I appreciate the tactful way that you claim my views are stupid unrealistic, I would like to counter that making decisions where life and death hang on the balance by using conjecture is not only unrealistic but very dangerous.

The only time where the use of lethal violence would be appropriate is in the case of suicide. That is the only way that a person can be sure of an outcome. For example, “I am going to kill an innocent person tomorrow, so in order to prevent that from happening I am going to kill myself today.”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Yeah, I wouldn’t shoot the assailant in a hostage situation. That would be against my personal ethics. I would not train to be a sniper because it would conflict with my unwillingness to kill.

I would not think that it is right for a person to shoot an assailant in a hostage situation due to the unknown factors.

Namely, killing someone in order to “save” someone else requires precognition. The situation described does not account for the other options available… it simply presumes that this is the only available option. I don’t believe that it is morally ethical to justify killing in situations at all… but particularly when other options are available. By your story, kasic, I see a clear opportunity to kill but not a situation where that is the ONLY available option. As in most situations, snipers are used as an expedient and practical option.

I can imagine scenarios where non-lethal options are expended and yet I still cannot reasonably conclude that killing the assailant is simply the only available option remaining.

I appreciate the attempt, Kasic. I sincerely do. However, you say things like “the criminal… is about to kill one of (the hostages).” You are relying on an overlay of precognition. It projects the story into the realm of fantasy, kind of like the “go back in time to kill Hitler” scenario.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Okay, suit yourself.

You are a fervent pacifist except when you choose to kill.


I don’t know what you mean by “trance.” I take full responsibility for my actions. I recognize that I am never “forced” to do anything. Maybe that’s where you and I differ.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Kasic I guess I missed it. The noise-to-signal ratio in this joint is off the charts.

What was your example of a “last resort” situation?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

biguglyorc Read Karma’s story again. He didn’t kill. It was irrelevant. We are discussing when it is appropriate to kill.

To reflect that story, I might tell you about a time when my friend and I were walking to 7-11 for some milk and I decide NOT to shoot him in the face. That does not further my claim to pacifist ideals nor is it particularly relevant. Karma’s story, like so many of the things he says, was equally tangential. He simply opted not to kill… as we all do on a day-to-day basis. Dude, I’m opting not to kill AS I WRITE THIS! Karma and I have so much in common.

My example of using force to protect the innocent, (i.e., grabbing my child as he runs into traffic), was a direct answer to a question that asked when it might be right to “use force” to protect the innocent. I thought it was a pretty good example, actually.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?


When I called KarmaKoolKid a mercenary, I meant that he had CHOSEN to put himself in a position where he would kill. The fact that he was drafted (“no choice”) or guided by a political ideal (“choice”) is essentially irrelevant. It is his CHOICE TO KILL that is relevant and central to my opposition to his claim of being a “fervent pacifist.”

The fact that he trots out the myriad definitions of pacifism to find one that is mild enough to afford his actions is laughable. It’s like saying, “I’m a vegetarian except when I choose to eat meat” or “I don’t smoke except when I am smoking.”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Tenco1 you’re putting words in my mouth.

A mercenary is a professional soldier, incidentally. It’s not an insult. It’s just a simple word. I’m not sure why you’re interested in isolating it.

Yes, a severe alcoholic CHOOSES to drink. The same is true of your other examples, too. The fact that their choice is driven by patterns of behavior only substantiates that choice. It does not remove the central fact that lifting a drink to one’s lips is a choice. What brings a person to decide to do that is unique to that person.

Most of the other stuff you bring up is irrelevant to the topic so I’m going to pass on responding. I’m happy to discuss the definition of naivete, idioms, similes, metaphors, and anything else in a different thread.

Karma’s real-life example is irrelevant because we are discussing when it is appropriate to use lethal force to protect the lives of innocent people. Karma’s story was a situation where he did not use lethal force. It was irrelevant and didn’t reveal anything appropriate to the topic.

Karma are you asking me to speak on your behalf?

Why don’t YOU do some coming close to answering very explicit explanations of why I hold that position?

Frankly, I don’t even understand that sentence. Is it a question? Throw me a bone here.

I recognize that there are degrees of pacifism. Brilliant. Established! Happy? That’s NOT the topic.

You called yourself a “fervent pacifist” and I merely pointed out that it’s difficult for me to identify your “fervency” when you:

• Have (presumably) killed in the past
• Are willing to kill in the future

Sure, it’s a last resort. Everyone in the universe has heard you. What you CANNOT SEEM TO DO is to provide an example the illustrates a “last resort situation.” I challenge anyone here to do that.

EDIT/SIDEBAR: I’m calling myself a millionaire! Unfortunately that does not make it so.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

The “use of force” should not be confused with the “use of lethal force.”

I have used force to protect the innocent. I’ve physically grabbed my child to prevent him from running into the street, for example. Police physically apprehend and detain people intent on doing harm to others all the time and I have no problem with that.

Kasic, I think you may have failed to understand what I was trying to say. I’ll clarify. The inherent right of someone to determine whether or not to use force (lethal or otherwise) is an inalienable right that nobody is trying to revise. We all agree that it’s a matter of personal decision. What is being discussed is the appropriateness and morality of the use of lethal force. (We can expand the discussion to include non-lethal force and the threat of physical pain but, frankly, the topic is unwieldy enough as it is.)

Like Karmakoolkid, you (Kasic) state that you would kill if you had “no other choice.” This is the central flaw that I’m trying to suss out. Can you provide an example where you might have no other choice but to kill?

I believe that everyone present that has advocated for the appropriateness of lethal force is unanimous in that it would be a last resort. Makes sense to me. The problem, however, is that “last resort” is highly subjective.

“I will not kill for any reason” is not subjective. That is why I believe it is a more defensible position.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Karma, you write enough stuff without riffing on responses to other people. I’m not going to address everything you wrote because most of it is redundant. Plus, you never even come close to answering the very explicit questions. (It’s like trying to agree on where to eat with a goldfish.)

You are a hypocrite in that you call yourself a “fervent pacifist” until such a point when you have no other choice but to kill.

When asked to supply a scenario when that might be possible, you describe a man running down the beach beheading children.

Incidentally, saying that you lack principles is not an insult, it’s an observation. You are not a “fervent pacifist.” I’m sorry to break it to you but you’re really just a “fervent asshole.” Yeah, that’s an insult but you’re a big boy. Hollering to the peanut gallery that I insulted you is beneath you.

I will chalk up my brand of pacifism as “immature.” I’m cool with that. I yield to you and tenco1 that excellent point. My views on lethal force are childlike and naive… got it. Yours, by comparison, are fully loaded with post-pubescent wisdom. How very manly.

Have a sunshiney day!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I said that ONE belief of yours was naïve because it, AS I EXPLAINED, foolishly believes that all who would do great harm are some kind of deranged bogyman.

I never said this and I certainly never meant to infer it.

There’s a little “too much” in all these challenges above. Claims that I sound immature are not worth addressing (irrelevant to the topic), for example. But I’ll try:

tenco1 I understand he was in the military, and I was almost certain it was Vietnam… but in order to address it, I had to have him say it. I’m not going to presume these important things. It’s an act of responsible discussion.

But, tenco1, what you failed to grasp is my point that at no point EVER is someone FORCED to kill someone. Period. Therefore, killing is always a choice. That is all I was establishing. It was not intended, as you may have taken it, to be the basis of an entire platform.

Also, “dude, seriously” it’s not a figure of speech. Karma outright admits that in his youth he was led by different values and priorities than he is now, and that in his youth he may have been led to believe that his actions were more vital to the well-being of American lives than they actually were. Yet, Karma also (in practically the same passage) accuses my viewpoints—WHICH HAVE NEVER WAVERED—as being naive. That doesn’t square up. Maybe you can understand that (bravo) and maybe you can’t (dummy).

Kasic Defending oneself has nothing to do with the tenets of pacifism. The two are unrelated. It is the NATURE of that defense that is relevant.

To say that pacifism is closely related to a “moral failure” is ridiculous… it literally makes me laugh (and a little sad). Does this mean then that the antithesis of pacifism is the moral high-road? You might want to check that, or at least distill the premise down to its simplest declaration.

And no, I never said it was a bad thing. I said that a person that is constantly prepared to exert lethal force should probably also not call themselves a “fervent pacifist.” I have lived for nearly 50 decades on this planet without ever having to kill someone. Go figure! And yet there are thousands of people that feel naked without their personal death machines. (What else is a handgun if it’s not that?)

I agree that how someone responds to threats (lethal or otherwise) is their choice. Unfortunately that was never part of the discussion. I am not trying to exert my principles upon anyone else… but I do find it reprehensible that a person would try to find some kind of “character flaw” in a devout practice of peace. Carrying around handguns does NOT advance the peace. We know that and there is ample data to support it.

For the sake of clarity, I’ve tried to limit my model of pacifism only to lethal force (rather than also including physical harm).

Bottom line for Kasic: When exactly do non-lethal methods end and lethal methods begin? That’s a subjective line, as you clearly stated, and is up to each of us individually to determine. For me, I draw the line over here. Karma draws it over there.

Finally (I’m so fucking exhausted), it is only those that answer “yes” to the case of killing a burglar that I find surprising and it’s a FINE place to start a personal assessment of one’s point on a scale of pacifism.

Pacifism is an imperfect principle, but it’s more perfect than the others.

Karma I’m not even sure how to respond. The 7-11 scenario was offered as an easy example. If you didn’t want to use it, fine… but you really didn’t have to preface your rambling indictment of my premise. You can just tell me to “shut up.” I’d prefer it… it’s way shorter.

What part of “whatsoever” do I have a problem with? Well, genius, all of it. What part of “whatsoever” means “all other options are unavailable?” Enlighten me.

Describe for me that scenario where you are…

…backed into a corner with no escape WHATSOEVER

You cannot. I know you can’t.

I’m not going to touch the other stuff because it’s dumb.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I’m not quite sure how you square up that my personal beliefs are naive while yours are realistic when it is you that claim you have been different people throughout your life.

But, it’s a fair point.

There are platitudes that leaders use to manipulate their young warriors. Whenever I hear that someone is willing to kill for “freedom,” I cringe. Earlier in this thread someone claimed that they would kill a home intruder trying to make off with their television. While I find this kind of property-protectionism profoundly disturbing, I appreciate the easy candor of the admission.

The question “would you kill someone that was in the act of burglarizing your home” is a pretty good litmus test for the pacifist or non-pacifist. There are people that consider themselves kind and “good” that would entertain a yes answer to that question… and I find that… sad. (In a cultural sense.)

I’m not very fond of the framework you proffer that puts you “backed into a corner with no escape whatsover.” What kind of situation might that be? I’ll take anything… you’re picking up milk at the 7-11 and in comes a guy to rob the place, then he starts capping people. Good thing you brought your gun to make a milk run, right!? It is in the very willingness to bring a gun on their milk run that essentially qualifies them as not a pacifist. Dig?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Karmakool, you don’t understand my confusion because you cannot see the dichotomy that you yourself put forth above.

You consider yourself a fervent pacifist in that you will ONLY engage or endorse the use of lethal force when it protects innocent lives. For no other reason would you engage in or endorse the use of force.

Then you go on to state that you’ve killed people for nonsensical reasons. Was that a different you?

I’ve killed ppl … for reasons that ended up making no sense at all.

But, of course, you go on to say that the situation was out of your control. Someone created the circumstances by which you were forced to engage in irrational killing.

I’m surprised that you can’t see what a hypocrisy you’ve made for yourself.

Everybody wants peace. I agree with that. Nobody wants anyone to die. I don’t even want “Jihadist terrorists” to die… I think a lot of them are impressionable youth that feel trapped and beguiled into these despicable acts. There are ways of preventing those terrorists acts through strategic interventions that don’t necessarily require lethal engagement. Like almost every sane person on the planet, I think those means should be fully exhausted before any thought turns to lethal force.

As a pacifist and conscientious objector, I was twice denied entrance into the armed forced. (Thought you might find that amusing.)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I beg to differ, Jantonaitis. I believe it’s apropos to the original post.

To wit, we have presently…

… an individual that is representing a moderate view that there are few instances where lethal violence is absolutely necessary. (It is not generally okay to kill one to save many.)

… an individual that is self-identified as a staunch pacifist. (It is never okay to kill for any reason.)

… an individual that claims that lethal force is sometimes necessary. (It is okay to kill one to save many, as well as for other reasons.)

All of this feeds into the central premise that it is either right or not right to kill one person to save several. It is a good and spirited discussion, I think. With all due respect, Jantonaitis, I believe that finding a conclusion is much less entertaining than the act of seeking one.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

…I waded ever-deeply into the waters of socialism, this concept of fairness yielded by a more rational distribution of wealth/power goes back a lot further than one would immediately imagine.


Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I’ve consistently held your feet to the fire in hopes of getting a better understanding of your ideology.

No, actually you haven’t.

Karma, you make so many wild, tangential leaps of logic that I can’t really follow… so I’ll just take what I can.

I happen to spend a significant portion of my time working with young people in Compton, Inglewood, East Los Angeles, Watts. For folks out in places like Wichita, these are communities that have serious problems with gangs, drugs, and economic disadvantage. As a result, their schools suck, there are few good jobs in the area, and most young people find themselves facing a massive system of indifference to whether they succeed or fail. Here’s the punchline for you: I’m not afraid to be directly involved with making change.

Karma, you are sadly wrong about one significant thing. VitaKae keeps trying to have you answer to it but you’re a slippery one. Nearly all change—be it social, governmental, economic, legal compliance or otherwise—is the result of NONVIOLENT impact. Can you wrap your head around that?

(Sidebar: I don’t really understand what you mean when you keep referring to “strawmen.” Could you please rephrase those ideas so that they make sense to dummies like me?)

Pacifism DOES cut it. A vast majority of humans on this marble are pacifists by “profession” or by practice. The violent among us are the outliers. While humanity has always had a warrior class that we continue to celebrate as heroes, I personally believe this cultural model will ultimately fade away and we will join an intergalactic community as beings of peace. Or we will die.

But, karmakool, you never really answered my question. The draft was eliminated in the early ‘70s, so if you’re an American that means you probably fought in Vietnam. You’ve characterized your time in the Service (whichever service that was… you haven’t said) as a role that kept us from chains. Is that really what you think you did in Vietnam? Were our freedoms really being threatened?

Here’s what I find sickening. I find it despicable that humans might be so unresolved in their capacity for violence that they would kill in order to “protect” things as abstract as “freedom.” What was the specific freedom you were protecting that you were willing to kill another living being over?

I’m not saying you’re a psychopath. I’m saying that you’re malleable… you lack principles. I (and others) have unequivocally stated our personal philosophies in what I hope appear to be absolute terms. (Id est, I will not kill for any reason.) Your view on lethal force is as clear as mud… yet you complain when you’re characterized as a psychopath (which you totally sound like, by the way). So, karmakook, what IS your bottom line? Do you have one, or do you just follow some kind of “know it when I see it” credo?

Implosion of Doom, the OP premise asks when it may be culturally acceptable to sacrifice one life to save several. Ultimately this is a moral quandary that investigates the conceits of Pacifism. It’s a classic morality puzzle.

Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Cyberpunk game map

Well, it’s hard to find a specific example, but the rooftops don’t provide any useful information. They are just flavor, so you can tone them way down and reduce their value. (Make them darker.) That way the player’s eyes are fixed on the walkable spaces… and that’s very important.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Dude, seriously. Protip… if you want me to read “the good stuff” at the end, dispense with all the line-by-line barbs. They make you look pathetic. You don’t NEED to insult me. You can just way what you need to say and be done with it. Your insults don’t hurt me… they don’t sting at all and, unfortunately, they’re not very creative. So… bag it.

Okay, so you established that you are a fervent pacifist. Oh wait… except when your “freedom” is at stake. How very noble! The pussies of the world applaud you for protecting such noble values! So… what freedoms were you protecting again when you killed? Provide me with the context that you so chivalrously took the life of another human being that was threatening to take your freedom?

So you’ve killed in the name of protecting the peace. Okay, cool! I can dig that. And you’ve gone and kept good, decent, innocent people (like me) “out of chains.”

Like, there are strong psychoactive drugs for people that exert lethal force based on such ethereal platitudes. As far as I’m concerned that’s very dangerous thinking and it makes me physically uncomfortable to think that there may be people in my sphere that harbor such delusions of grandeur.

So, why did you really join the Army?