Arrogance

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

It may not be the answer you like but it's certainly an answer. Those who disagree should conjure up the ghosts of the civilisations who did not and for whom the matter was resolved.

can be said both ways. If you think brute force always wins, you're sadly and horribly mistaken

If Nitestryker really was about to launch his genocide campaign are you telling me you'd tolerate him? That, even believing it's wrong, you wouldn't kill him if given the option?

to save the lives of thousands, if not millions? It's a cute childish trick you're trying to pull because you'd no doubt say that violence solved this matter (I hate people who use circular arguments to try to explain themselves. It shows a lack of thought to me.). It's not that simple and you god damned well know it. Acting any other way shows a terrible amount of ignorance on your part.

Our society is fucked up because of this ideology of not fighting for what you believe in. Tolerate everyone, violence never solved anything; the old self-interested clichés. Some things shouldn't be tolerated; some things are worth killing and dying over.

Yes, because those people couldn't possibly view you in the same regard as some arrogant ass who feels they deserve more than that person does. One sided views are fun! Oh wait... they just allow everyone to see who the self-righteous greedy assholes are.

You can be sure if you’re not prepared to do the killing to reach an end you desire someone else, probably someone not as nice as you, will do it to reach the end they desire; either with economics in the case of more developed nations or with physical weapons in the case of internal rivalries; hence the state of Africa today.

So that's somehow a justification for you doing it instead? You can't be serious.

[Adrian Ţepeş]

Originally Posted by NiteStryker

Maybe the fact that we have advanced and adapted and grown, and they have not?

So, because they're not as advanced or "important" as us, they are therefore useless and we should dispose of them like garbage?

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by n0e

can be said both ways. If you think brute force always wins, you're sadly and horribly mistaken

Do I think bombing somewhere always tops another means of violence, for instance starving a nation economically or indoctrinating them with my views through a re-education system? No. Do I think someone who's prepared to use violence or to have others employ it on his behalf will always triumph over someone who is not? Yes. If there was no-one else in the world willing to use force it would be child's play to become the ruler of all nations in the span of a couple of nights.

Originally Posted by n0e

to save the lives of thousands, if not millions? It's a cute childish trick you're trying to pull because you'd no doubt say that violence solved this matter (I hate people who use circular arguments to try to explain themselves. It shows a lack of thought to me.). It's not that simple and you god damned well know it. Acting any other way shows a terrible amount of ignorance on your part.

Violence is simply the eventual outcome of a very long course of social interactions; of course it's more complicated than that. For similar reasons you can't make the claim that violence never solved anything as an arguments against using violence as part of, or even the main component of, a solution. Sure, violence never solved anything by itself, but since that was hardly the subject under discussion I fail to see what relevance it has.

Originally Posted by n0e

Yes, because those people couldn't possibly view you in the same regard as some arrogant ass who feels they deserve more than that person does. One sided views are fun! Oh wait... they just allow everyone to see who the self-righteous greedy assholes are.

Well yeah, they would, assuming I supported Nitestryker's position of, 'Gotta nuke 'em all.' I don't, (mainly because I just don't care enough and if I did would be more likely to support putting something in the water to sterilise swathes of their population,) but just as I feel I should stand up for the things I believe in - a reasonable amount of social order and so on - I believe that others should stand up for the things they believe in. Whether I agree with those things or not being beside the point.

If you seriously think that helping people is the right thing to do you should be out there doing it, if you seriously think that law and order are good you should be out there in some way helping them. And yes, if you seriously think Africa needs nuking you should be out there trying to do it; you shouldn't expect people to let you but you should try. The alternative is this sort of bullshit apathy we get where people sit around following the lead of the rich and powerful who by virtue of being insulated from the commoners by wealthy social circles and hired security have few relationships with the people they govern restraining them.

Originally Posted by n0e

So that's somehow a justification for you doing it instead? You can't be serious.

Why not? My ends can be better for the people involved than his ends. If I have to kill a few hundred thousand people to enforce stability on a region, or come up with a cure to cancer, or protect my way of life; whereas some alternative guy would have killed them and failed to impose any of those things; that seems like a pretty good deal, especially since they were going to die anyway. If I have to kill fewer people than him to get to my ends it's even better. They were going to die anyway, this is about the people left over, someone might as well get something out of it.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by Schofield

Not at all...

Ok I'll explain it to you. Nuke = lots of side affects. Messy. Dirty. Hurts more than the target area.

MOAB: Nice fireball, controlled damage, cleaner weapon.

Originally Posted by Schofield

That's a solution to you. That's mass genocide to the rest of the world.

And your solution is....

Originally Posted by Schofield

I don't have one,

Oh, ok. Well, sit down then.

Originally Posted by Schofield

but not having one is better than MOABING/Nuking/etc a large population of the world.

No its not. Overpopulation is a problem. I am giving you a quick and easy solution. Obliterate the useless continent.

Originally Posted by ShadowSteelDragon

Actually, I'd say having a terrible solution that still fixes the problem is better than still having the problem...

Originally Posted by Schofield

Not really, considering it would effect more than just Africa...

Several thousand MOAB's would be highly beneficial. Give training to US pilots for the eventual war after Iraq, lessen the amount of weapons the US currently has, and reduce the surplus population. Maybe even eradicate Ebola too.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

It's true. The world is a much better place when I just pretend Africa doesn't exist. Though I can't do that for too long, I'm too nice to just ignore it, but not nice enough to do anything about it (yet.)

All Africa has ever done for me is given me a location for the setting of Far Cry 2.

And you all think Im just talking out my ass or for attention, I would love to even be the bombardier to drop a MOAB on Kenya.

Originally Posted by n0e

K. However the radioactive fallout of just one bomb will contaminate at least one continent depending on where it's detonated. Violence is never the answer. You only perpetuate intolerance doing so.

Violence is ALWAYS the answer. Violence is the universal method of communication.

Your dog pees on the carpet. What do you do? Sit down and have a heart to heart talk? No, most people bring the dog over, make him smell it, and swat him on the ass.

Violence is the only language that is trans-species. You cant tell a dog a damn thing, but if you strike it, it knows whats up.

And it has nothing to do with tolerance. The problem is too many people. The solution? Well, we could follow your 20 year plan, and continue to drain resources until then, or we could wipe them out and see immediate results.

1 nuke wouldnt contaminate a "continent". Africa is very large, and a nuke is quite tiny.

Originally Posted by n0e

A better idea, how about we do that right here in the US and try to convince those religious nutjobs that having 20 kids isn't a good thing simply because the vagina can pump them out.

Ok you can start doing that, I'll do something useful, like help load the bombs, and we will see who is more effective after 30 days.

You cant convince religious morons to leave you alone on a Sunday Morning, and you thing you can stop them from fucking? No.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

So use a chemical weapon instead.

There ya go.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

If Nitestryker really was about to launch his genocide campaign are you telling me you'd tolerate him? That, even believing it's wrong, you wouldn't kill him if given the option?

He would. "Well thats just how he is and we need to respect that". Fuck no. Any intelligent-minded individual wouldnt let me get away with that. (But I would still try). Its how Hitler came to power.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

Our society is fucked up because of this ideology of not fighting for what you believe in. Tolerate everyone, violence never solved anything; the old self-interested clichés. Some things shouldn't be tolerated; some things are worth killing and dying over.

Game. Match. Point. Win.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

You can be sure if you’re not prepared to do the killing to reach an end you desire someone else, probably someone not as nice as you, will do it to reach the end they desire; either with economics in the case of more developed nations or with physical weapons in the case of internal rivalries; hence the state of Africa today.

I will get alot farther with killing people than someone will with negotiation.

Originally Posted by computernerd

So, because they're not as advanced or "important" as us, they are therefore useless and we should dispose of them like garbage?

Yes. They dont help anybody or anything. Look at the GDP of Africa.

2,200,100, says WIKI

For the entire continent, 2 million dollars. Seriously.

They are not contributing to the world and I dont have the time or desire to bring them up to speed. So, they can tell us how our MOAB's work.

[Afterburner]

In all seriousness though the entire Earth is biologically and culturally connected. If Africa were leveled you would lose a ridiculous amount of wildlife, plant types, and thousands of years of culture. It's the fucknig cradle of life for Chirst's sake! Drums, guitars, and music in general. Lions, elephants, hippos, and thousands of other species would be wiped out, some of the most beautiful landscape in the world, destroyed. The last vestiges of hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists destroyed.

Actually most of Africa isn't war torn and violent. Toss a dart and it'll probably hit somewhere peaceful. It's mostly the semi-civilized nations that have been entirely forged in warfare. And, to be fair, that is basically Europe and America's fault.

[Schofield]

Well Nitestryker, at least the name of this thread fits you perfectly. You must have been thrown down the stairs at birth or something to be that arrogant.

You might as well nuke your own country as well since it's about as useful as Africa.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

In all seriousness though the entire Earth is biologically and culturally connected.

Each continent is more biologically connected than the entire world, I think. Africa is pretty isolated, and I dont think many creatures naturally interact with Africa from, say, North America.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

It's the fucknig cradle of life for Chirst's sake!

No actually central Iraq is the cradle of life. Around the tigris and euphrates rivers.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Drums, guitars, and music in general. Lions, elephants, hippos, and thousands of other species would be wiped out, some of the most beautiful landscape in the world, destroyed.

Well.....lots of cool splosions.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Toss a dart and it'll probably hit somewhere peaceful.

So you advocate shooting tungsten rods from space then. Ok, noted.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

It's mostly the semi-civilized nations that have been entirely forged in warfare. And, to be fair, that is basically Europe and America's fault.

So its a giant failed simcity. Time to click the "meteor" disaster bomb.

Originally Posted by Schofield

Well Nitestryker, at least the name of this thread fits you perfectly. You must have been thrown down the stairs at birth or something to be that arrogant.

:lol: What is arrogant about it? Really. Tell me. Because I want to bomb a continent to reduce the global population? Lay your years of wisdom and knowledge on me.

Originally Posted by Schofield

You might as well nuke your own country as well since it's about as useful as Africa.

Says the CANADIAN.

Canada — GDP: $1.271 trillion
United States — GDP: 13.84 Trillion
Australia — GDP: $773 billion
Iran — GDP: $294.1 Billion
Iraq — GDP: 102.4 Billion
Germany — GDP: $2.807 trillion
France — GDP: 2.56 Trillion
Russia — GDP: $1.29 Trillion
Syria — GDP: 90.37 Billion

Kenya — GDP: 29.3 Billion
Algeria — GDP: $131.6 Billion
Libya — GDP: $57.06 Billion
South Africa — GDP: 282.6 Billion
Madagascar — GDP: $18.44 billion

All about 2007 numbers, so they are all probably lower right now.

The GDP of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA: The state's GDP is at about $1.7 trillion

My state puts out more than entire countries. My state puts out more than YOUR country.

Recognize your inferiority.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by NiteStryker

Each continent is more biologically connected than the entire world, I think. Africa is pretty isolated, and I dont think many creatures naturally interact with Africa from, say, North America.

The destruction of plant life in Africa would drastically increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as reduce the amount of Oxygen. I don't think I need to go into details about why that is bad. Also, huge amounts of mineral wealth are brought out of Africa every year, and nuking it would make those materials unavailable. Even killing all the people would make it nearly impossible to exploit as no people in their right minds would give up a comfy life in the West to go work a mine in Africa. The West's wealth is essentially built on the work of Africa and Asia. I'm not even trying to be preachy or anything, I'm just pointing out that Africa is a valuable source of material and manpower that is better exploited than destroyed.

No actually central Iraq is the cradle of life. Around the tigris and euphrates rivers.

No, homo sapien likely evolved in Africa. Mesopotamia is the "Cradle of Civilization" not life.

So its a giant failed simcity. Time to click the "meteor" disaster bomb.

Except the people living there are real people, with real problems, living in a world directly connected to us through culture, history, and economics.

[Schofield]

Are you really that dumb? California has a higher population than Canada, I would hope the GDP is greater. I can't recognize my inferiority, because, well only an idiot would say someone, in this case an entire country, is inferior.

Oh, and you do fit the definition of arrogance very nicely,
Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

You are arrogant as fuck.

I've never seen someone act more superior than you, and look like such a hypocrite while doing so.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

The destruction of plant life in Africa would drastically increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as reduce the amount of Oxygen. I don't think I need to go into details about why that is bad.

*sigh* fine.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Also, huge amounts of mineral wealth are brought out of Africa every year, and nuking it would make those materials unavailable. Even killing all the people would make it nearly impossible to exploit as no people in their right minds would give up a comfy life in the West to go work a mine in Africa.

Ok fine, we will let them stay alive, but only to bring me diamonds.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

The West's wealth is essentially built on the work of Africa and Asia. I'm not even trying to be preachy or anything, I'm just pointing out that Africa is a valuable source of material and manpower that is better exploited than destroyed.

Fine, but Im not paying them. And I get to explode any number of MOABS in the Sahara.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

No, homo sapien likely evolved in Africa. Mesopotamia is the "Cradle of Civilization" not life.

Oh ok. I knew it was the cradle of something or another.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Except the people living there are real people, with real problems, living in a world directly connected to us through culture, history, and economics.

Not connected enough to evolve with the rest of the world obviously.