Amended: All those who would "kill" others for any extreme purpose, should be found..

[Sparky Kronkite]

Amended: All those who would "kill" others for any extreme purpose, should be found..

and killed, "before they can kill," any good people.

All "bad people," should die before "any" good people die.

And.....

The "good people" killing "bad people" would never be assumed to also be bad, simply "because of sematical loopholes."

Bad is bad - killing to further a specific, narrow, exclusive agenda.

Good is good - killing only the bad (as defined above) and only for the reason of protecting the "attempted," social atmosphere of diverse, communal living.

Good intent is after all good intent.

Bad intent, especailly when violent to the point of taking innocent lives - is bad intent.

And bad intent should always be erradicated before "the good" suffer.

 

[Mellon Collie]

That's quite the brain teaser you posted there.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

only if.....

Your brain needs teasing.

Apparently all who've read this - have brains enough to completely understand the obvious logic posted.

"The bad" are essentially a social disease - a deadly social disease for "the good," and the bad need to be treated as such.

Study, understanding (all in order to efficiantly destroy the bad) surgery, provention, detection, vacination and eventual radication.

All these for a "complete cure."

All of this, a complete approach - "must be done" for the safety and continuation of the good.

The bad must be made extinct.

 

[Mellon Collie]

But if the good killed the bad wouldn't that in turn make them bad also? And not just the people who physically kill the bad but then people who help them and the people who know it happens and just turn the other cheek or people who are against it but do nothing about it. Everyone is bad if you think about it. So I guess I need a little bit more than "because of sematical loopholes".

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

No dumbass! I said, "no semantical loopholes!"

I fully explained what is bad and what is good.

Good can kill bad.

Bad? They are narrow, they wish harm on "everyone but themselves."

Good? They only wish - yet with concern, much trepidation - to kill "the bad" in order to protect themselves - the majority.

Killing a disease, killing food, killing for the advancement of humanity in a majoritive sense - is never, ever bad.

It's killing for "small, narrow agendas" that is bad.

And - if the bad threatens the good - then the good has a duty to kill the bad. Otherwise they (those good who will not kill the bad) are worthless to the good - they actually help the bad to survive. They in essence become bad - even though they don't kill themselves - they turn their cheeks and walk away from their brothers as they die.

They then are the enemy.

Turning you back on the good - not helping the good - is in fact bad.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The bad part about Sparky being out of work is that he now has all day to come up with his evil plots...LOL

 

[Mellon Collie]

Re: No dumbass! I said, "no semantical loopholes!"

And - if the bad threatens the good - then the good has a duty to kill the bad. Otherwise they (those good who will not kill the bad) are worthless to the good - they actually help the bad to survive. They in essence become bad - even though they don't kill themselves - they turn their cheeks and walk away from their brothers as they die.

They then are the enemy.

Turning you back on the good - not helping the good - is in fact bad.

You cannot compare killing a human life to killing disease and killing food even if both are for survival. That disease is killing for survival also yet you call that bad? That disease is doing exactly what you propose is good.

Who would judge what was good and what was not, what's good for you certainly would not be what's good for another person. It's also kind of narrow minded to assume doing what the majority wants will always be good.

You sound like you are sprouting something from the guide to being a good democrat minus the fact that they always said they would respect what the minority had to say, not just killing them off. And what happens when one of the good guys questions what is going on, are they assumed to be bad and killed off with the rest?

I suppose I'm just passive on top of being a dumbass.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

You are fucking dumb! Amazing!

First off - "the good" are not killing "humans" - no human would kill another for a narrow philosophical agenda. Only a sub-human would do that. An abortion of a human. A non-human. A "bad" human.

Kill all those. Kill "that bad" disease.

And!?! You are "for" disease? You're Albert fucking Switzer? You won't kill anything. Cancer is okay because it's only doing what "it's meant to do?"

You are fucked!

Death to cancer! And anyone who thinks differently "is cancer."

You are right about one little thing - good is perception - and if it ain't the perception of the "vast" majority - then what the hell is it? Judgement "is exactly" for the majority to do - to decide and then to punish. Majority rules - because they are always right when it comes to "pure survival."

If that's narrow, for the "majority" - let's have more.

Your last paragraph has nothing to do with "life or death/earth changing" circumstances - and that is the only thing we are talking about here. No "good" human/person - deals with life or death/earth changing circumstances regarding "any minority."

I never said "any minority" is bad. Only the ones who's narrow perspective would "kill all others of different perspective."

Yes, I think you are a passive to the point of ill logic.

You would probably have marched into a gas chamber 60 years ago with a stupid, dumbass grin on your face.

 

[freakygirl]

*shakes her head and leaves this thread* way to deep for this chick lol

 

[Omoron Bin Ladl]

Very very wise one. Yes we get broad from riding camels, but Bologna forgives us! Yes Bologna, we being broken away from the Isalami way.

 

[Mellon Collie]

Re: You are fucking dumb! Amazing!

First off - "the good" are not killing "humans" - no human would kill another for a narrow philosophical agenda. Only a sub-human would do that. An abortion of a human. A non-human. A "bad" human.

Kill all those. Kill "that bad" disease.

And!?! You are "for" disease? You're Albert fucking Switzer? You won't kill anything. Cancer is okay because it's only doing what "it's meant to do?"

You are fucked!

Death to cancer! And anyone who thinks differently "is cancer."

You are right about one little thing - good is perception - and if it ain't the perception of the "vast" majority - then what the hell is it? Judgement "is exactly" for the majority to do - to decide and then to punish. Majority rules - because they are always right when it comes to "pure survival."

If that's narrow, for the "majority" - let's have more.

Your last paragraph has nothing to do with "life or death/earth changing" circumstances - and that is the only thing we are talking about here. No "good" human/person - deals with life or death/earth changing circumstances regarding "any minority."

I never said "any minority" is bad. Only the ones who's narrow perspective would "kill all others of different perspective."

Yes, I think you are a passive to the point of ill logic.

You would probably have marched into a gas chamber 60 years ago with a stupid, dumbass grin on your face.

Name calling huh? Very cute.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Cute?

Yeah sure. That's always my underlying objective.

To be cute.

Cute?

To be cute.

What a waste of time.

While we're exterminating the "human disease of the obsessed, violent, radicals.......

We should take care of all those cute as well.