Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rules of War

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:09:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no solution to war. So rules are set forth to make it as humane and moral as possible. If that includes the outlaw of torture, then by all means torture should be outlawed. If you're searching for an end to war, you're way off track proposing lawlessness on the battlefield.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:16:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 3:09:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no solution to war. So rules are set forth to make it as humane and moral as possible. If that includes the outlaw of torture, then by all means torture should be outlawed. If you're searching for an end to war, you're way off track proposing lawlessness on the battlefield.

Yes, but why follow these rules? You are anyway breaking all the rules in making a war, it's mind-boggling how the rules of war are followed at all.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:52:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

What if they were drafted, and thus not fighting voluntarily?

What if they're not even foot soldiers who go out and fight? What if they just work on logistics and base support?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:59:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 3:16:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:09:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no solution to war. So rules are set forth to make it as humane and moral as possible. If that includes the outlaw of torture, then by all means torture should be outlawed. If you're searching for an end to war, you're way off track proposing lawlessness on the battlefield.

Yes, but why follow these rules? You are anyway breaking all the rules in making a war, it's mind-boggling how the rules of war are followed at all.

Rules of war tend to go back to the days when commanders had to be in the actual battlefield but didn't want to die, so they told their soldiers "don't shoot the other side's commander, shoot the people he commands." The other commander knows his chances of survival are also better if he follows the pre-established norm since the other guy will probably say the same thing.

In WW1, if you were found by the enemy with a serrated blade, you would be tortured.

Why? Because the implicit "rule of war" was not to use serrated weapons because of the massive damage they do (go figure). This kind of indirect enforcement leads to a norm of "no serrated weapons" backed by both sides.

One reason the Brits had such problems during the revolutionary war was that the European tradition of "rules of war" was to line up your soldiers and have them shoot at each other. Americans in many cases broke that tradition and used guerrilla warfare and other less obvious means.

Whenever a rule of war is "broken" there are consequences. It's like tariffs, it's fine if you raise your tariffs, but the other guy will then raise his tariffs. If you break a rule of war, you practically guarantee the other guy will break a rule of war.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:15:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The rules of war came about mostly belated to regulate the European concept of what war was. A fairly frequent or rather uncommon recourse to the pursuit of state policy, conducted without moral recrimination and a miniumum of bitterness.

To slightly parody the matter, two opposing armies might meet on the field of battle, the commanding officers might parley, they recognised each other as members of the same social class, indeed would often be acquainted or even related to each other. A battle would be fought, a treaty signed, and the following year the two generals might very find themselves on the same side against a common enemy.

Subsequently nationalism and the introduction morality destroyed this old convention, with ironically dire consequences.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 5:22:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?

This logic implies that the average footsoldier is directly responsible for the conflict in it's entirity.

In an age when more and more people are losing their jobs, turning to the military will be a tempting option. You only need to be a native to the respective country, moderately fit and intelligent. The pay is steady and nobody ever heard of a nation without an army.

However, given recent posturing by Iran and Israel, and the uncertainty of the stability of the Arab Spring, not to mention China's willingness to make small but deliberate slights against Western leaders in the G20 summit, conflicts are always going to be on the cards.

You can't blame a 34 year old medic for the bombing of a city anymore than you can blame a 19 year old sniper for the same bombing.

If the capture of Generals and other Senior Commanders was commonplace, then your logic might hold water. However, as it is, all it does is pile needless pressure on the average soldier who may or may not believe in the war he or she is even fighting, assuming they're actually fighting in the first place given that a majority of military personnel are non-combatants.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 5:35:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Solution:

Gives the soldiers a choice.

1. Give information about the enemies' allies and get deported back to their own country (notifying the respective country of what they have done)
2. Kill them.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 5:40:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rules of War exist because torturing people because they torture is an oxymoron. Or as Ghandi once stated, "An eye for eye makes us all blind."

Don't give people quarter, you can expect no quarter. A wise warrior would always have some measure of respect for their opponent, otherwise expect to be pulled from a spider hole, severely beaten, sodomized, and then shot in the head (yes, that was a Qaddafi reference).
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:11:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 5:40:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Rules of War exist because torturing people because they torture is an oxymoron. Or as Ghandi once stated, "An eye for eye makes us all blind."

But it doesn't.

A takes B's eye. B gets C and D together and removes A's eye. E, F and G think... woah this society we are in really means business... best behave ourselves and not take anyone's eyes.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:14:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:11:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 5:40:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Rules of War exist because torturing people because they torture is an oxymoron. Or as Ghandi once stated, "An eye for eye makes us all blind."

But it doesn't.

A takes B's eye. B gets C and D together and removes A's eye. E, F and G think... woah this society we are in really means business... best behave ourselves and not take anyone's eyes.

Person A sleeps with person B's wife. Person B removes person A's eye. Person A's family outcries for prosecution and person B's eye is removed. Person B's family is now angry and removes person B's wife's eye. Person B's wife's family becomes angry and removes the eye of whomever removed person B's wife's eye.

Continue ad infinitum.

Ghandi was a smart man. It'll be a little harder than that to disprove one of his statements.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 9:10:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 5:22:50 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?

This logic implies that the average footsoldier is directly responsible for the conflict in it's entirity.

In an age when more and more people are losing their jobs, turning to the military will be a tempting option. You only need to be a native to the respective country, moderately fit and intelligent. The pay is steady and nobody ever heard of a nation without an army.

However, given recent posturing by Iran and Israel, and the uncertainty of the stability of the Arab Spring, not to mention China's willingness to make small but deliberate slights against Western leaders in the G20 summit, conflicts are always going to be on the cards.

You can't blame a 34 year old medic for the bombing of a city anymore than you can blame a 19 year old sniper for the same bombing.

If the capture of Generals and other Senior Commanders was commonplace, then your logic might hold water. However, as it is, all it does is pile needless pressure on the average soldier who may or may not believe in the war he or she is even fighting, assuming they're actually fighting in the first place given that a majority of military personnel are non-combatants.

Where I was going with this logic was that the foot soldier will damn well make sure that the war he is going to fight is for valid reasons (self-defense), if this punishment was in place.

He won't go fight a war over a country just because it has a dictator, hopefully.

But this is being too ideal, I know, as the generals pretty well make sure that the average foot soldier is as brainwashed as possible and/or not given the correct information and more often than not given highly exaggerated wrong information.

All these rules only ensure that wars become legitimate, somehow, and people will be willing to go to war.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 9:34:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hence the term "police action' A never ending unwinnable war.

There can be no rules if you want to "win" a war. Read a history book. No country has ever won a war that imposed rules of engagement on itself.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 6:14:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:14:17 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:11:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 5:40:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Rules of War exist because torturing people because they torture is an oxymoron. Or as Ghandi once stated, "An eye for eye makes us all blind."

But it doesn't.

A takes B's eye. B gets C and D together and removes A's eye. E, F and G think... woah this society we are in really means business... best behave ourselves and not take anyone's eyes.

Person A sleeps with person B's wife. Person B removes person A's eye. Person A's family outcries for prosecution and person B's eye is removed. Person B's family is now angry and removes person B's wife's eye. Person B's wife's family becomes angry and removes the eye of whomever removed person B's wife's eye.

Continue ad infinitum.

Ghandi was a smart man. It'll be a little harder than that to disprove one of his statements.

Haha... I never realised how funny you were.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 11:35:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:11:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 5:40:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Rules of War exist because torturing people because they torture is an oxymoron. Or as Ghandi once stated, "An eye for eye makes us all blind."

But it doesn't.

A takes B's eye. B gets C and D together and removes A's eye. E, F and G think... woah this society we are in really means business... best behave ourselves and not take anyone's eyes.:

The allusion here is becoming the very thing you hate. As we have historically seen within America's military apparatus is its willingness to do the very things that disgust them in order to stop the very thing that disgusts them.

The concept is succunctly summarized by juxtaposing Jesus and Mosaic law. If we're all sinners, and all sinners are deserving of hell, but no man has never fully abstained from sin, then is it a good thing to be throwing stones in glass houses (or so the expression goes)?

He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

Regardless of the religious connotation, the situation remains the same. I don't think rules of war are merely a relic of the past. I believe it serves an important purpose to a society.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 11:46:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Person A sleeps with person B's wife. Person B removes person A's eye. Person A's family outcries for prosecution and person B's eye is removed. Person B's family is now angry and removes person B's wife's eye. Person B's wife's family becomes angry and removes the eye of whomever removed person B's wife's eye.

Continue ad infinitum.

Ghandi was a smart man. It'll be a little harder than that to disprove one of his statements.

Can't tell if serious. O.o
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 12:09:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?
Yes, stop being such babies and accept that war is part of the human condition. Have countries agree on the rules and fight um to win. It is the human method for cleaning the gene pool.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 1:02:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 11:46:30 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Person A sleeps with person B's wife. Person B removes person A's eye. Person A's family outcries for prosecution and person B's eye is removed. Person B's family is now angry and removes person B's wife's eye. Person B's wife's family becomes angry and removes the eye of whomever removed person B's wife's eye.

Continue ad infinitum.

Ghandi was a smart man. It'll be a little harder than that to disprove one of his statements.

Can't tell if serious. O.o

I assumed not...

But anyway for all those proposing we should have no rules of war, that would mean that there should be no, moral, theoretical or actual distinction between war and terrorism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 1:09:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, stop being such babies and accept that war is part of the human condition. Have countries agree on the rules and fight um to win. It is the human method for cleaning the gene pool.:

No disagreement in broad terms, but this argument alone tends to bolster the legitimacy of the Soviet Unions gulags, or the Nazi's justification for their pogroms, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Serbian conflict, etc, etc.

War is an unfortunate inevitability, but do you disagree that there are sociological repurcussions that come with it? In my mind, there's a right way to do wrong, and a wrong way to do wrong.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 1:48:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 12:09:36 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?
Yes, stop being such babies and accept that war is part of the human condition. Have countries agree on the rules and fight um to win. It is the human method for cleaning the gene pool.

Warfare is a terrible method for natural selection.

If warfare consisted of hand to hand combat between individual soldiers then you would have a point.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 2:39:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 1:48:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:09:36 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?
Yes, stop being such babies and accept that war is part of the human condition. Have countries agree on the rules and fight um to win. It is the human method for cleaning the gene pool.

Warfare is a terrible method for natural selection.

If warfare consisted of hand to hand combat between individual soldiers then you would have a point.

Do you mean only, or have you experience? Suck it up, war is good for humans because it puts things in perspective. The USA hasn't had a good real war since 1046, its time they had one to toughen up a bit.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 2:51:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 1:48:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:09:36 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?
Yes, stop being such babies and accept that war is part of the human condition. Have countries agree on the rules and fight um to win. It is the human method for cleaning the gene pool.

Warfare is a terrible method for natural selection.

If warfare consisted of hand to hand combat between individual soldiers then you would have a point.

natural selection is just what occurs, there's no "correct" way to do natural selection.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 6:31:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 2:39:38 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 11/5/2011 1:48:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:09:36 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?
Yes, stop being such babies and accept that war is part of the human condition. Have countries agree on the rules and fight um to win. It is the human method for cleaning the gene pool.

Warfare is a terrible method for natural selection.

If warfare consisted of hand to hand combat between individual soldiers then you would have a point.


Do you mean only, or have you experience? Suck it up, war is good for humans because it puts things in perspective. The USA hasn't had a good real war since 1046, its time they had one to toughen up a bit.

Well that is a variation on what you previously said. Warfare is not a good method of natural selection, if you get shot you get shot.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 6:32:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 2:51:14 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/5/2011 1:48:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:09:36 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:06:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Isn't this the biggest hypocrisy there is?

Having rules for something adds legibility to it. Why should prisoners of war be treated humanely? Especially the ones from the side who started the war?

I'd think the death penalty for any soldier captured from the side that starts the war should be a good enough deterrent for warmongers, wouldn't it?

Maybe that will backfire in the sense that soldiers will not surrender and will fight to death, thereby taking a few opposite side soldiers with them.

It's somehow like both the sides conspire to keep the enterprise of war going on.

Is there a solution?
Yes, stop being such babies and accept that war is part of the human condition. Have countries agree on the rules and fight um to win. It is the human method for cleaning the gene pool.

Warfare is a terrible method for natural selection.

If warfare consisted of hand to hand combat between individual soldiers then you would have a point.

natural selection is just what occurs, there's no "correct" way to do natural selection.

How is being hit by a tank shell a viable method of natural selection?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:21:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

How is being hit by a tank shell a viable method of natural selection?

If one dies from hitting the selection is accomplished. Some know to duck. Ergo, the duck gene is perpetuated.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:32:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:21:40 AM, logicrules wrote:

How is being hit by a tank shell a viable method of natural selection?

If one dies from hitting the selection is accomplished. Some know to duck. Ergo, the duck gene is perpetuated.

Duck a tank shell... yea okay then...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:57:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:32:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:21:40 AM, logicrules wrote:

How is being hit by a tank shell a viable method of natural selection?

If one dies from hitting the selection is accomplished. Some know to duck. Ergo, the duck gene is perpetuated.

Duck a tank shell... yea okay then...

Sure. I am guessing your military experience is from movies....it it is incoming....you duck, or run and duck. Personally I prefer the attack, screws up the range.