Denying Oneself - by Robert E Lee

Blackflag: #1 - You have dropped my service several times in multiple threads after being asked not too. You have dropped names and attached pejoratives to the position while NOT making any issues of substance against them.

#2 - Taking partial quotes and ignoring context is dishonest and it does not excuse your behavior. Lets examine the FULL context.

a. Should you take someone seriously who is attempting to call both sides of an argument stupid? While flatly refusing to spell out his position? Is it an insult to point that out?

b. Can either you or admin illuminate us on the military targeting process? All the staff sections in involved and how this moves through the joint/coalition military environment to strike with alarming precision? So when you encounter 'opinions' bereft of that knowledge, is it an insult to call that opinion ignorant?

c. Allowing your wife and child to be repeatedly raped is an act of idiocy.

That you left off the context and deliberately lifted out non-contextual quotes is simply and utterly dishonesty stag. Again, why would you think ANYONE would want to have repeatedly correct statements like that, even as you take personal pot shots at them in multiple threads?

Don't make it personal. That allows you to delineate between THAT is stupid or idiotic, and YOU are stupid and idiotic. But when someone is leaving off the main points of not even completely quoted sentences? That is simply low - it offers NOTHING to the discussion stag. Nothing at all.

Word of advice, if someone does something you do not like in a debate, it is best to simply say nothing at all.

We tried that didn't we? What did you do? Why you came back and kept asking the same question over and over again correct? If that is your advice, then when someone skips an inappropriate question, let it be.

First off, you treat your own doctrine as law, which was my entire point to begin with.

No, I treat it like a thesis statement - a proposition to be supported. Do you understand how this works stag? Because you are now attacking the idea of thesis statement ... while you have none.

When you promote violence in a prolonged conflict, you are guaranteeing the death of two when it could of been just one.

Where exactly are you getting this Stag? Who is advocating PROLONGING conflict? Maybe you should go back and read what the Just War Doctrine is - because its PRECISELY the opposite of that. Hence the importance of having a thesis statement.

The first reports of genocide occurred in mid 1944.

The first reports of the intent of genocide are in Mein Kampf. The 'Final Solution'. And this has nothing to do with the debate at hand does it? Its called an irrelevancy that supports ... well, you have no position that you are advocating or defending now do you?

Were we to have not entered the war, would the genocide of even happened?

Yes, it was happening BEFORE we entered the war. Maybe you should bone up on the history of the holocaust. Maybe you should try out that thesis statement concept? These exercises in creative writing are simply not helpful stag.

Of course they did. Everyone who took a stance in WW2 took sides.

No, they did not. Many Nations were simply not involved in the slightest in WWII. Most of Africa ... South and Central America. Again, creative writing is not helpful - nor indeed does this drive us to some coherent point.

Well I did, but you kind of ignored it. Nonetheless, here it is.

That is precisely what you are asking me to do above. I am, however, asking you to spell out a thesis statement on this subject. "Well I did?" No, you clearly did not. "Humanity went to war," says what whether pacifism or limited use of violence is acceptable? Right, absolutely nothing.

It is far more noble, selfless, and just, to accept responsibility for your guilt, and receive the consequences of your actions, than to call in others to take your place.

Have you read anything I wrote? When someone will not accept their guilt, or receive their consequences, and continues to commit acts of great evil .... well, gosh they should not do that - no crap - tat is why honorable men go out and hold them accountable. ????? What part of this have I been unclear about ?????

I've been in numerous fist fights. I was physically submitted more than once. The best solution was not more violence, even as they continued to put others in the same situation I was in. No, what I did was far more humble. I searched for them, and when I found them, I shook their hands and apologized for my role in their anger. I happen to be reasoning friends with three of the people who once engaged me through violence. Take from that what you will.

Suna Awakening. I have walked side by side with men whom, 24 hours earlier were attempting to kill me and whom I was attempting to kill. I have subsequently met their families, etc. Again, its called the Just War doctrine, and fisticuffs and someone attempting to murder you and your family? Again ... feel free to respond to what is being written stag. If not? Well, I will simply stop replying to you brother.

There is, as I say, little point n reasoning with the unreasonable. If you will not take the time to actually respond to what I am writing, then there is little point in writing you. Again, if you wish to discuss, then start by defining a thesis position relevant to the use of violence. Personal anecdotes that both support and fail to support the use of violence are extremely unhelpful. An argument divided against itself cannot stand. Its really that simple.

Don't make it personal.
This would be possible if you did not keep bringing the situation up. I am not by any means the one making this personal.

Let me clarify something. Forums are mostly for discussion, not debate. When I pitch into a forum, there is no expectation for me to take a defined position. I am simply asking questions and trying to establish theory to move the conversation along. Perhaps you can come back and reply to this when you have calmed down. You have obviously became quite heated, so perhaps you just need to sit this one out. There is no reason to be using caps and acting frustrated at someone who is trying to have calm discussion.

Yes, it was happening BEFORE we entered the war.
Were all the jews who didn't move out of the country put into ghettos? Yes. Were there concentration camps burning millions of Jews? No, that happened during the war, not before. I can provide historical sources if you truly require them for this truism.

No, I treat it like a thesis statement - a proposition to be supported. Do you understand how this works stag? Because you are now attacking the idea of thesis statement ... while you have none.
Irrelevant. One of my positions was pointing out how each side of a conflict has their own doctrine. Both sides think they are justified in what they are fighting for.

Where exactly are you getting this Stag? Who is advocating PROLONGING conflict? Maybe you should go back and read what the Just War Doctrine is - because its PRECISELY the opposite of that.

War by definition is a prolonged struggle between two or more opposing forces. Even a hypothetically just one.

No, they did not. Many Nations were simply not involved in the slightest in WWII. Most of Africa ... South and Central America. Again, creative writing is not helpful - nor indeed does this drive us to some coherent point.
There is a difference between taking actions and formulating an opinion. Opinions are dangerous, especially when they are ignorant in nature. Humanity has itself to blame for instigating WW2, because humanity drove its conflicting views into all out warfare, rather than cooperation.

Have you read anything I wrote? When someone will not accept their guilt, or receive their consequences, and continues to commit acts of great evil .... well, gosh they should not do that - no crap - tat is why honorable men go out and hold them accountable. ????? What part of this have I been unclear about ?????
You are not getting it evidently. The people killed, every last one of them, from Germans to Jews, are accountable for their own decisions and deaths. Yes, every single man and woman was a willing participant in the conflict, and every single man and woman is responsible for his or her own death.

It is owning up to reality, and not blaming it all on fate or some villainous man with a gun. But go on believing it is okay to kill five men with a gun for 1 man without one. Five men with families, morals, faith, and ambition, simply fighting for what they believe is right. I guess you cannot win them all

Never would I say it is wrong to defend someones life in the moment, but to pick up a gun and to tell me you are going to find some people to save? Well, that is when you have to be cautious. The vast majority of armed soldiers who have taken a life are murderers, because they made themselves willing participants in the death of another man. Another man with equally good intentions.

Now I will restate my main idea, but this time through a hypothetical question. Answer this and you will get your desired thesis statement (despite this not being a thesis)

You are a young man who is living is in the prime of his life. Other men are out to kill you. They find you, and your servants offer to protect you. There is no way you can fight all of them and live, but if your servants fight on your behalf, there is a strong chance you will survive. What do you tell the servants? Why?

Blackflag: This would be possible if you did not keep bringing the situation up. I am not by any means the one making this personal.

We disagree about that Stag, and when you are cross thread contaminating with speculation about my service ... I think the evidence is self evident.

Let me clarify something. Forums are mostly for discussion, not debate. When I pitch into a forum, there is no expectation for me to take a defined position. I am simply asking questions and trying to establish theory to move the conversation along. Perhaps you can come back and reply to this when you have calmed down. You have obviously became quite heated, so perhaps you just need to sit this one out. There is no reason to be using caps and acting frustrated at someone who is trying to have calm discussion.

That does not change the fact that there are healthy and productive methods of discussion and things that torpedo that discourse. It changes nothing about the criticism that a an argument divided against itself and leading no where is not discussion ... its rambling. If you want to criticize brother, then you have to open to criticism coming right back.

I have repeatedly asked you to spell out your position vice the use of violence, and you continue to stay, effectively, "Both and Neither!"

OK, well, as I have continued to say, and argument divided against itself cannot stand. Neither can an argument that attacks the premise of supporting a thesis statement. What is there to respond to or discuss? Everything and nothing? It unhelpful stag.

Were there concentration camps burning millions of Jews? No,

Yeah. It started happening BEFORE THE USA entered the war.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

The concentration camps began as early as 1933. the violence and repression of the Jews was prominent in the invasion of Poland in 1939. So, you are factually wrong. Enjoy!

Now, what does this have to do with the whether or not it was right to stand up to Hitler with Armies? Absolutely nothing. Hence the criticism, its factually incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion. Everyone knows that the Holocaust happened stag (even Holocaust deniers know it happened). What is being discussed is whether the various countries engaged in WWII were right to violently rise up to stop it. Yes or no.

Your opinion? Both? Neither? Who knows? OK.

Irrelevant. One of my positions was pointing out how each side of a conflict has their own doctrine. Both sides think they are justified in what they are fighting for.

Congrats, you are belatedly acknowledging that there are two competing thesis statements here, pacifism and the Just War Doctrine. When the discussion is about which is a better world view with regard toward violence and the practical realities thereof, the solution is not both and neither.

Do see the problem with the outlay of logic in this statement regarding THIS discussion. "Heh, the Holocaust happened! Therefore both pacifism and the Just War Doctrine and neither!"

War by definition is a prolonged struggle between two or more opposing forces. Even a hypothetically just one.

A war can last a matter of hours.

1war noun, often attributive ˈwȯr
: a state or period of fighting between countries or groups

: a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other

: an organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad

The word prolonged is not in the dictionary definition or the military definition of war - where the aim is to make it as short as possible. Again, where did you come by the idea that someone advocating the Just War Doctrine was seeking to make war a protracted and prolonged event? hence the criticism that you are not really paying attention to what is being discussed.

There is a difference between taking actions and formulating an opinion. Opinions are dangerous, especially when they are ignorant in nature. Humanity has itself to blame for instigating WW2, because humanity drove its conflicting views into all out warfare, rather than cooperation.

Right, ALL the nations that did not participate in WWII are guilty of WWII. Hitler and Tojo are as innocent as all the Nations and people who did not participate in WWII - and opinions, even a forum where they are discussed, are dangerous.

We call this prattle stag.

It is precisely statements like these that lead me to ask you to clarify your thesis statement. Not only does it have no bearing on the discussion, it is not a position tattoos supported by any school of thought whatsoever.

You are not getting it evidently. The people killed, every last one of them, from Germans to Jews, are accountable for their own decisions and deaths. Yes, every single man and woman was a willing participant in the conflict, and every single man and woman is responsible for his or her own death.

Right, the Jews who were lined up and shot in the back of the head or herded into poison gas showers were responsible for their death, the trigger puller and gassers have no blame whatsoever.

Another man with equally good intentions.

No stag, those are NOT equally good intentions.

Now I will restate my main idea, but this time through a hypothetical question. Answer this and you will get your desired thesis statement (despite this not being a thesis)

Your main idea would be a thesis statement. You do not appear to have one.

You are a young man who is living is in the prime of his life. Other men are out to kill you. They find you, and your servants offer to protect you. There is no way you can fight all of them and live, but if your servants fight on your behalf, there is a strong chance you will survive. What do you tell the servants? Why?

Again, its nonsensical. Why are they trying to kill me? What do they want? What lead up to this murderous rampage? Am I a Jew and they Nazi?

Do you understand what the Just War Doctrine is?

Let me quote it for you again:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

So if I am presumably some Lord and peasants show up to murder me for no apparent reason, the first thing I would do (from behind my castle walls no doubt) would be to ask, "WTF are you doing here, and Why TF are you so angry?"

If I'd been raping and pillaging their villages ... I'd probably know that now wouldn't I.

Again stag, are you just making things up? Or are you driving toward some point?

Now, what does this have to do with the whether or not it was right to stand up to Hitler with Armies? Absolutely nothing. Hence the criticism, its factually incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion. Everyone knows that the Holocaust happened stag (even Holocaust deniers know it happened). What is being discussed is whether the various countries engaged in WWII were right to violently rise up to stop it. Yes or no.


When did the Nazis implement the final solution. I guarantee you it wasn't until 1942, and as I said, there wasn't evidence until American troops entered the country near the end of the war. You are beside the point anyways. The idea is that every nation entered the war for reasons not concerning the holocaust. Could a diplomatic solution of even been attempted. Now we'll never know, because people chose to kill rather than talk.

Right, ALL the nations that did not participate in WWII are guilty of WWII. Hitler and Tojo are as innocent as all the Nations and people who did not participate in WWII - and opinions, even a forum where they are discussed, are dangerous.
Again, putting words into my mouth. It does not matter who was more guilty. You simply need to accept that there was more than one guilty party.

No stag, those are NOT equally good intentions.
There is a difference between good and good intentions. The nazis, just like every other group that fought in a war, had good intentions. My case has been trying to point out that appealing to reason is a superior solution to violence. Tell me you understand one important thing, and this time do not simply ignore the question. Do the majority of people who fight and kill have a reason for doing so?

Right, the Jews who were lined up and shot in the back of the head or herded into poison gas showers were responsible for their death, the trigger puller and gassers have no blame whatsoever.
You took what I said and jumped to conclusions. They are not solely responsible for their deaths, but they are in some part to blame. The greatest idea one can hold for spiritual and philosophical growth is that one is responsible for what happens to them. They made decisions, and they lived with the consequences. What happened to Jews was in no way justified, but it still happened because their decisions put them in a place where it was possible. Not everyone gets the chance to see death coming and avoid it.

Why are they trying to kill me?
They do not like your personality.

What do they want?
Your life and nothing less

Am I a Jew and they Nazi?

Besides who you are right now, a young man in his prime.

I'm asking you, for once, to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Obviously you'll never look at something from another perspective, so maybe if I force you too, you might understand. Now I will repeat again. Would you let them kill you, or would you have your servants protect you, even though some of them will die?

After you decide to start sharing some answers, I would like to go back to the faith based argument, since you claim you are a Christian. You say that the lords words "Thou shalt not kill" are metaphorical. Metaphorical for what? Furthermore, do you agree or disagree with the lord when he told his prophets to never resist injustice? If you disagree with the lord, your god, for what reason?

Blackflag: *resist injustice through violence and dissidence

Blackflag: After you decide to start sharing some answers, I would like to go back to the faith based argument, since you claim you are a Christian. You say that the lords words "Thou shalt not kill" are metaphorical. Metaphorical for what? Furthermore, do you agree or disagree with the lord when he told his prophets to never resist injustice? If you disagree with the lord, your god, for what reason?

No I did not. YOU said that stag. I spelled out my position in plain old English - and you so badly screwed it up that you claimed I was saying it was metaphorical.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about, but here you are attacking because someone 'claims' to be Christian and that gives you a special insight ... that just happens to conflict with the words they actually say ... if you have nothing to add ... don't.

Blackflag: *resist injustice through violence and dissidence

*blink* *blink*

No I did not. YOU said that stag. I spelled out my position in plain old English - and you so badly screwed it up that you claimed I was saying it was metaphorical.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about, but here you are attacking because someone 'claims' to be Christian and that gives you a special insight ... that just happens to conflict with the words they actually say ... if you have nothing to add ... don't.
I'm not attacking you. Stop accusing me of that. I am not getting angry, and neither should you. I just have a lot more experience participating in online forum discussions. The pressure may be getting to you, so leave until you can talk rationally. Otherwise you are going to crack and this will become very much uncivil.

Anyways, now you can set the record straight. Do you believe it is okay to kill or not? Furthermore, do you disagree with the lord, your god, that you should not resist injustice with violence? If you disagree with the lord, your god, then how so?

I'm asking you, for once, to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Obviously you'll never look at something from another perspective, so maybe if I force you too, you might understand. Now I will repeat again. Would you let them kill you, or would you have your servants protect you, even though some of them will die?
Answer this as well please.

Blackflag: When did the Nazis implement the final solution. I guarantee you it wasn't until 1942, and as I said, there wasn't evidence until American troops entered the country near the end of the war. You are beside the point anyways. The idea is that every nation entered the war for reasons not concerning the holocaust. Could a diplomatic solution of even been attempted. Now we'll never know, because people chose to kill rather than talk.

The 'Final Solution' was first mentioned in Mein Kampf - and was FULLY implemented in in SEP-OCT 1941 - BEFORE THE US INVASION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

The concentration camps and steadily rising violence toward Jews, was documented in the previous citation. The 'death' camps arose precisely because SHOOTING the Jews proved so inhumane that it was breaking even the sociopaths that the Nazi's chose to carry out he duty. the Gas Chambers were about protecting Nazis from the effects of murder stag.

And again, other than being angry about being wrong, WTF is the point of this? You have a temper? Noted.

Again, putting words into my mouth. It does not matter who was more guilty. You simply need to accept that there was more than one guilty party.

ALL humanity is guilty of WWII? ALL humanity caused WWII? Africa and South America largely not being involved at all is not conceded? Your failure to concede valid points, is people putting words in your mouth?

There is a difference between good and good intentions. The nazis, just like every other group that fought in a war, had good intentions.

Your argument is ridiculous. The idea that Jews who were being murdered had 'good intentions' but he Nazi's, who were rabid racists, bent on enslaving and destroying the USSR ... and the Jews, were motivated by 'good intentions' is just plain silly.

There is little point in pretending that position is rational.

You took what I said and jumped to conclusions.

You have neither a conclusion or a thesis statement. You are rambling around in circles.

They do not like your personality.

What do they want?

Your life and nothing less

Am I a Jew and they Nazi?

Besides who you are right now, a young man in his prime.

None of these are logical reasons for them to be there. So I shut the castle door and tell them to go to school.

WTF does this tell us about violence? That random people are going to show up and attempt to kill us for no reason? In mobs no less? OK. We'll deal with that unlikely scenario when it happens - which is never. In the mean time, we'll make policy based on what DOES actually happen, like societies adopting ideologies of superiority that dehumanize their fellow man and leads them to policies of mass extermination and murder.

THAT I will fight against, and so will most of the world. You? Who knows.

I'm asking you, for once, to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

No, you are not, you are asking me an irrational hypothetical that does nothing to answer the question at hand.

And you are still not spelling out what your thesis OR conclusion is.

BTW - Its precisely because I know what its like to be in the Jewish, of Russian, German, or even American shoes that I am able to say, "Yep, needed violence to bring down the Nazis."

Blackflag: I'm not attacking you. Stop accusing me of that. I am not getting angry, and neither should you. I just have a lot more experience participating in online forum discussions. The pressure may be getting to you, so leave until you can talk rationally. Otherwise you are going to crack and this will become very much uncivil.

Yes you are. And Yes you are. You have misquoted me about my faith, deliberately, in the same manner TWICE - in a manner that adds nothing to the discussion and is very clearly aimed at speculating about me as a person.

Take your own advice kiddo.

Anyways, now you can set the record straight. Do you believe it is okay to kill or not? Furthermore, do you disagree with the lord, your god, that you should not resist injustice with violence? If you disagree with the lord, your god, then how so?

WTF does the Just War Doctrine, that I have quoted for you twice say? Please feel free to refer back to the explanationI gave when I answered this question the first time stag.

In the mean time, please ANSWER A QUESTION - what in God's name is your thesis statement and conclusion about violence and its use.

If all you can do is take pot shots that ignore the responses to questions and attempts to weaponize someone's faith ... then we are done. The question has already been answered. YOU have yet to answer even the most basic question about this issue - discussion involve TWO WAY conversations.

Answer this as well please.

It has also been answered stag. Stop asking questions, and start reading the responses - then try making a response that is relevant.

The 'Final Solution' was first mentioned in Mein Kampf - and was FULLY implemented in in SEP-OCT 1941 - BEFORE THE US INVASION.
False. The order for the final solution came in the form of a German missive in late 1942. There was no evidence until 1944 the final solution was in effect.

ALL humanity is guilty of WWII? ALL humanity caused WWII? Africa and South America largely not being involved at all is not conceded? Your failure to concede valid points, is people putting words in your mouth?
Those who stayed neutral in thought and helped resolve the conflict peacefully are not to blame.

Your argument is ridiculous. The idea that Jews who were being murdered had 'good intentions' but he Nazi's, who were rabid racists, bent on enslaving and destroying the USSR ... and the Jews, were motivated by 'good intentions' is just plain silly.
No, I said the Nazis had good intention. Germans honestly believed that by killing Jews and Slavs they could make the world a better place. However deluded, it shows humanity. This conversation started upon your disagreement that the Germans could not be reasoned with. Maybe, but how hard did we really try?

None of these are logical reasons for them to be there. So I shut the castle door and tell them to go to school.
Why they are there does not matter. They are simply there, and they want to kill you. Do you let them kill you, or do you allow your servants to defend you, although some of them will die? Are you avoiding the question because you do not want to accept the answer?

You have neither a conclusion or a thesis statement
I was adamant that I would only formulate one when my question was answered.

Take your own advice kiddo.

Stop being malicious. That is a warning.
You need to leave. Now. This is a site for friendly debate and discussion. You need to draw the line, or I will for you

Blackflag: False. The order for the final solution came in the form of a German missive in late 1942. There was no evidence until 1944 the final solution was in effect.

I have listed several sources that disagree. Not only that, but as usual, your point adds nothing to the discussion.

Those who stayed neutral in thought and helped resolve the conflict peacefully are not to blame.

So moral relativism and apathy is the solution to extraordinary murder? Gotcha.

Again, this is a fully illogical position.

No, I said the Nazis had good intention.

And you are just flipping wrong. WANTING to murder millions of people, spelling it out in a best seller - issuing that out to Soldiers you are sending into battle - is NOT a good intention. Its called a BAD intention.

Again, your position is not logical.

Why they are there does not matter.

Yes, context does matter - its a basic principle of ethics stag. Maybe you should read that Bible thing you are throwing in my face.

Is there is not logic that defines a situation or otherwise makes it understandable, then it's a pointless and utterly irrational speculation.

If you think there is some grand point to be made here, stop asking absurdities, and simply spell out your point.

I was adamant that I would only formulate one when my question was answered.

So you have no thesis. You are indeed rambling, and somehow me answering an inane question with no logic will lead us to you making sense? I have answered your question, just not in the magic way that will apparently lead to it, and you, making sense.

If you have point in a discussion, then you should not be in the discussion. Period. It what I have said in what? Eight or nine posts to you? Criticism of your position that appears to be fully validated now?

We get a thesis statement that explains YOUR THOUGHTS but only when people answer questions the way YOU want them answered.

Again, a bunch of illogically pissed off people show up my castle where I suddenly have servants and demand my death for no reason, and in which they apparently have no methodology carrying out said threat, and my answer is ... STFU, get out of my castle, and go to school and learn logic. Then you can come back and murder me is you still want to.

Well I guess we are going to have to debate this

We can debate that the nazis had good intentions, or the Jews in the holocaust are partially responsible for their own deaths.

Blackflag: Well, that is reported. Please stop responding to me. I believe you are an irrational troll.

Blackflag: Please stop responding to me. I wil not debate something as irrational as murderers having good intentions.

gree0232: Gree, I'm just going to use this as a chance to give you a warning after re-reading through this thread.

A number of times on this thread you've attacked the site member, as opposed to the argument. That's acceptable in isolated cases, but in this thread it's been something of a pattern. If I see you doing this on other threads, there's a good chance you and I will have to have a discussion about your future on this website. I believe it's more of a defensive response at this point because you can't believe we hold views you consider totally ridiculous, and that's ok. However if at any point I get any reason to think you're harassing, bullying, or trolling another member with personal attacks, then that would not be ok. So try to always be very clear that you don't think the PERSON is "stupid" or whatever, but the ARGUMENT is "stupid", and make a habit out of it.

@Stag! - stop playing the moderator. Gree may have made an out of line statement but the correct response to this is to report it to me, as opposed to telling him to go away. I've warned you about this several times before and you keep doing it, which is super disappointing. Especially when you're in the midst of a heated exchange it can be kind of hard to be objective anyway, which is why I stopped posting on this thread.

I'm actually suprised anyone though what I said was that controversial. I think somewhere along the line my war ethics theory got confused with nazi apologetics