When Monkeys Attack

I'm against guns. period. You're a typical Neanderthal, that believes warfare and violence is the only way to deal with differences. I personally think it's a genetic defect.
And what an absurd notion, to suggest it's "guns' that are assuring our freedoms. That means that you aren't free. LOL.

Maybe you can come talk to the kids in Oakland and get them to give up their guns. Would speak quite highly of your abilities were your attempts to Br successful.
 
LOL. Bigoted, you say? LOL. The fact that the Tea Party is primarily a racist and bigoted organization of misfits, cretins and Neanderthals, is sufficient. Indefensible .

Your mouth and ass have a real nice fit. Say it baby: "Hush Truth".
 
I'm against guns. period. You're a typical Neanderthal, that believes warfare and violence is the only way to deal with differences. I personally think it's a genetic defect.
And what an absurd notion, to suggest it's "guns' that are assuring our freedoms. That means that you aren't free. LOL.
then you have a seriously retarded and irrational, not to mention unrealistic, view of history. More problems and conflicts have been resolved through sheer force and violence than any other method known to man.
 
then you have a seriously retarded and irrational, not to mention unrealistic, view of history. More problems and conflicts have been resolved through sheer force and violence than any other method known to man.

Yeah, might makes right and they also write the history of what happened...
 
then you have a seriously retarded and irrational, not to mention unrealistic, view of history. More problems and conflicts have been resolved through sheer force and violence than any other method known to man.

No...you're just in touch with the animalistic, selfish part of your mortal self. Violence is not honorable nor preferable. It's called being civilized. Of course, it's optional.
 
No...you're just in touch with the animalistic, selfish part of your mortal self. Violence is not honorable nor preferable. It's called being civilized. Of course, it's optional.

Interesting. Do you have the belief that one should not defend against violence?

Basically, are you a pacifist?

I'm not judging here, I am just interested. Some people are, wanderingbear for instance, and would not resort to violence even in the protection of their family. Me, I think being prepared to defend against people who believe they can take from my family is a good idea. Just saying it isn't "preferable" doesn't change that some idiot might resort to it and harm my family.
 
Interesting. Do you have the belief that one should not defend against violence?

Basically, are you a pacifist?

I'm not judging here, I am just interested. Some people are, wanderingbear for instance, and would not resort to violence even in the protection of their family. Me, I think being prepared to defend against people who believe they can take from my family is a good idea. Just saying it isn't "preferable" doesn't change that some idiot might resort to it and harm my family.

Yes. I am a pacifist. And believe that only in self-defense should violence be resorted to. I'm against war, and warfare. But I was for retaliation for the attack on 9/11. The ventures into Iraq and Afghanistan were ill-conceived and counter-productive. A mixed bag.
 
Yes. I am a pacifist. And believe that only in self-defense should violence be resorted to. I'm against war, and warfare. But I was for retaliation for the attack on 9/11. The ventures into Iraq and Afghanistan were ill-conceived and counter-productive. A mixed bag.

So you believe in self defense but do not want people to have proper tools for self defense?
 
So you believe in self defense but do not want people to have proper tools for self defense?

We are equipt with brains and fists and up close and personal fighting was how "men" use to settle things, now they lob things at each other from a great distance! At one time in history if a king did not follow his men into battle he was considered craven, now it is an acceptable practice!
 
So you believe in self defense but do not want people to have proper tools for self defense?

Some people are prone to violence from an early age....don't try to make it palatable, or acceptable as an viable alternative to dialogue. Some people are mentally disturbed...and find ways to exercise their violent tendencies by becoming law enforcement, security guards, wrestlers, fighters, and military. Don't play with me.
 
Some people are prone to violence from an early age....don't try to make it palatable, or acceptable as an viable alternative to dialogue. Some people are mentally disturbed...and find ways to exercise their violent tendencies by becoming law enforcement, security guards, wrestlers, fighters, and military. Don't play with me.

So not only are you against people having proper tools for self defense but you believe military persons are mentally disturbed? Or am I misreading your statements?
 
We are equipt with brains and fists and up close and personal fighting was how "men" use to settle things, now they lob things at each other from a great distance! At one time in history if a king did not follow his men into battle he was considered craven, now it is an acceptable practice!

A: you are suggesting that the physically strong should rule over the weak.

B: no, kings rarely went into battle.
 
So not only are you against people having proper tools for self defense but you believe military persons are mentally disturbed? Or am I misreading your statements?

I think people join the military for various and sundry reasons. Some join to be of service to the country. Some join for the benefits, and or job training. And some few join in hopes of killing people.
And those people are mentally disturbed. Did I stutter?
 
I think people join the military for various and sundry reasons. Some join to be of service to the country. Some join for the benefits, and or job training. And some few join in hopes of killing people.
And those people are mentally disturbed. Did I stutter?

I merely asked for clarification, as your initial statement could be taken in a number of ways. Thank you.

Now, as to your apparant contradiction in terms of self defense, you state that it is viable (though not preferable), yet would deny people the most viable option with which they could defend themselves.
 
I merely asked for clarification, as your initial statement could be taken in a number of ways. Thank you.

Now, as to your apparant contradiction in terms of self defense, you state that it is viable (though not preferable), yet would deny people the most viable option with which they could defend themselves.

Are you trigger happy? Do you shoot first, and ask questions later? Have you ever killed anyone? Would you like to?
 
Are you trigger happy? Do you shoot first, and ask questions later? Have you ever killed anyone? Would you like to?
It's not polite conversation to ask a war veteran, so I'll leave it at that. This isn't about me. Now are you going to answer the question or elaborate on your contradictions?
 
No...you're just in touch with the animalistic, selfish part of your mortal self. Violence is not honorable nor preferable. It's called being civilized. Of course, it's optional.

i didn't say violence was preferable, i simply said it has resolved more conflicts in history than any other method. and if civilized means being a defenseless victim to those who are stronger or better armed, i'll take uncivil. you may prefer being a slave, I do not.
 
Back
Top