International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Weapons, poll (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357725)

Gaetan 8th May 2022 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13801111)
It's hard to miss the fact that not having weapons didn't help the people in Bucha, the ones with their hands tied behind their backs and then shot in the back of the head. Those people tried it your way Gaetan. They didn't have weapons. Look what it got them. The 60 people sheltering in the school yesterday didn't have weapons either. Why didn't the Russians leave those people alone? You said the Russians would if the Ukrainians gave up their weapons.

The million Iraqis who died weren't very lucky either.

Craig4 8th May 2022 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801123)
The million Iraqis who died weren't very lucky either.

Why didn't not having weapons help the people the Russians murdered with their hands tied behind their backs?

Gaetan 8th May 2022 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13801124)
Why didn't not having weapons help the people the Russians murdered with their hands tied behind their backs?

Russians say the cia did that, if there were crimes committed there should be an independant investigation.

Craig4 8th May 2022 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801128)
Russians say the cia did that, if there were crimes committed there should be an independant investigation.

The bodies were there, on the street, photographed prior to the Russians leaving. I'll ask again, why didn't the Russians leave the people alone?

JoeMorgue 8th May 2022 05:24 PM

This whole discussion is like some kind of skit Socrates would do if he were arguing against pacifism, make up an opponent so over the top he can't help but win against him.

Little 10 Toes 8th May 2022 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801128)
Russians say the cia did that, if there were crimes committed there should be an independant investigation.

Great. Can you provide a link stating that “Russians say the cia did that [sic]”. We both are referring to the executions in Bucha.

Gaetan 8th May 2022 08:15 PM

You member of the cia complain that there are people death and are against to get rid of weapons, find the error.

Sideroxylon 8th May 2022 08:37 PM

Struggling finding the coherent.

trustbutverify 8th May 2022 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801203)
You member of the cia complain that there are people death and are against to get rid of weapons, find the error.

Stop panicking and produce your evidence that the CIA committed the atrocities in Bucha. Now.

trustbutverify 8th May 2022 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13801139)
This whole discussion is like some kind of skit Socrates would do if he were arguing against pacifism, make up an opponent so over the top he can't help but win against him.

Gaetan is no pacifist; that's just a smokescreen.

Craig4 8th May 2022 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801203)
You member of the cia complain that there are people death and are against to get rid of weapons, find the error.

Why didn't the Russians leave the people in Bucha alone? Why did the Russians tie their hands and shoot them in the back of the head? The Russians controlled the town. The bodies were photographed in the street before the Russians retreated. They had no weapons. According to you Gaetan the Russians would have left them alone. Why didn't they?

Little 10 Toes 8th May 2022 10:09 PM

Gaetan, I can only assume you tell lies. I asked you to provide proof and you cannot provide any.

You ask to find the error. It is you.

bruto 8th May 2022 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801203)
You member of the cia complain that there are people death and are against to get rid of weapons, find the error.

You member of the cia complain that there are people death and are against to get rid of weapons, find the error. Found it!

Jack by the hedge 9th May 2022 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801128)
Russians say the cia did that

Some big boys did it and ran away. Or maybe the fairies did it. Or the Loch Ness monster.

When you tell people monstrous lies about other people for long enough you can convince them to do monstrous things in "retaliation" for stuff that simply never happened. The murderous Russian rampage in Ukraine is an obscenity and useful idiots who parrot their crazy propaganda should be deeply ashamed.

JoeMorgue 9th May 2022 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 13801211)
Gaetan is no pacifist; that's just a smokescreen.

All pacifism is just "Let the evil people do what they want."

Craig4 9th May 2022 04:26 PM

Come on Gaetan, answer the question. The Russians still held the town when the bodies were photographed in the street. No one else could have done it. How could the CIA or anyone else plant bodies in plain site on a main street in a town that was still occupied by Russian forces? The Russians did it.

The bodies had their hands tied behind their backs and were shot in the head. Why didn't not having weapons save those people? You said the Russians would leave them alone. Instead the Russians murdered them. Why? Why can't you answer this question?

trustbutverify 10th May 2022 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801123)
The million Iraqis who died weren't very lucky either.

Your dexterity with the English language varies wildly... for some reason.

arthwollipot 10th May 2022 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13801128)
Russians say the cia did that, if there were crimes committed there should be an independant investigation.

There is.

Gaetan 14th May 2022 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13802985)

Soldiers are trained to kill people and you complain about their crimes, Ukrainians committed crimes as well but the media focus on the war crimes of russians. These crimes are just the consequence of your behiaviors, you are for weapons and soldiers.

bruto 14th May 2022 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806013)
Soldiers are trained to kill people and you complain about their crimes, Ukrainians committed crimes as well but the media focus on the war crimes of russians. These crimes are just the consequence of your behiaviors, you are for weapons and soldiers.

Sure, what soldiers do is nasty and wrong, but it is quite certain that no Ukrainian soldiers committed crimes until the Russians invaded their country. If there's a solution to the problem that solution is very simple. Don't invade other countries. No argument you can make that isn't utter disinformation and ******** can sidestep the basic fact that this is a Russian war of invasion, their doing.

Little 10 Toes 14th May 2022 09:45 AM

I notice that you do not dispute that there are independent reports of war crimes. Why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806013)
Soldiers are trained to kill people and you complain about their crimes, Ukrainians committed crimes as well but the media focus on the war crimes of russians. These crimes are just the consequence of your behiaviors, you are for weapons and soldiers.

No, soldiers are trained to kill other soldiers. We complain about their crimes when they attack and kill non-combantants. We focus on the Russians because they invaded the Ukraine.

These crimes are a consequence of Russia invading Ukraine because of the Russian orders of Putin.

Gaetan 14th May 2022 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes (Post 13806089)
I notice that you do not dispute that there are independent reports of war crimes. Why is that?



No, soldiers are trained to kill other soldiers. We complain about their crimes when they attack and kill non-combantants. We focus on the Russians because they invaded the Ukraine.

These crimes are a consequence of Russia invading Ukraine because of the Russian orders of Putin.

You blame another country for doing what you did yourself, the invasion of vietnam, iraq and afganistan, the invasion of ukraine is the automatic result of a conspiracy against russia and it was predicted by NATO, nothing else could happen after what they did.

trustbutverify 14th May 2022 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806150)
You blame another country for doing what you did yourself, the invasion of vietnam, iraq and afganistan, the invasion of ukraine is the automatic result of a conspiracy against russia and it was predicted by NATO, nothing else could happen after what they did.

The desperate drivel of a Putin apologist.

Craig4 14th May 2022 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806150)
You blame another country for doing what you did yourself, the invasion of vietnam, iraq and afganistan, the invasion of ukraine is the automatic result of a conspiracy against russia and it was predicted by NATO, nothing else could happen after what they did.

Why did Russian soldiers kill people with no weapons? The people with their arms tied behind their backs obviously had no weapons. Yet Russian soldiers killed them. The town was controlled by Russian soldiers when the bodies were photographed in the streets. No one else could have done it. Theses people had no arms and yet Russian soldiers killed them. Why?

Gaetan 14th May 2022 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13801111)
Come on Gaetan, answer the question. The Russians still held the town when the bodies were photographed in the street. No one else could have done it. How could the CIA or anyone else plant bodies in plain site on a main street in a town that was still occupied by Russian forces? The Russians did it.

The bodies had their hands tied behind their backs and were shot in the head. Why didn't not having weapons save those people? You said the Russians would leave them alone. Instead the Russians murdered them. Why? Why can't you answer this question?

Because you voted i disagree

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to make clear which post is being quoted, and also to restore the content of the quoted post. Do not edit a quote to change its meaning unless you make it clear what you have changed.

Little 10 Toes 14th May 2022 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806374)
Because you voted i disagree


Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan first? Why did the Soviets and Chinese arm the Viet Cong? Why did the Taliban support Bin Ladin? Why didn't the Taliban shut down terrorist camps? Why didn't Iraq let in the UN inspectors?

Why did you allow all of this to happen? Why did you support these actions? Why did you support Iraq to invade Kuwait?

Why do you support soldiers killing unarmed civilians?

Why do you lie to defect the truth?

Craig4 14th May 2022 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806374)
Because you voted i disagree

That's not the question I asked (and I didn't vote in your stupid ass poll).

Are you a coward as well as a liar? Answer my question.

Craig4 14th May 2022 11:28 PM

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...talion-failed/

Look, the Ukrainians and Russians are getting rid of more of their weapons. The Ukrainians got rid of a few artillery rounds and the Russians got rid of nearly an entire battalion of tanks and fighting vehicles. Plenty of Russian gangsters died too which is also terrific.

Gaetan 15th May 2022 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13806446)
That's not the question I asked (and I didn't vote in your stupid ass poll).

This not a stupid poll if you want to save the life of people you have to get rid of what makes it easy to kill: Fire arms and money. There should be a treaty among the countries of the UN to get rid of all that. Whom profit the crimes? In this case: Petrolium companies, weapon industries, cereal companies, mineral industries. If you get rid of weapons and money, you'll save a lot of life then vote logicly and in consequence.

Jack by the hedge 15th May 2022 05:27 AM

All you have to do is get everyone to agree not to kill each other. It's really simple.

You don't need to get rid of weapons. It's enough that everyone just agrees never to use them.

If you do get rid of weapons but not everyone agrees not to kill anyone then that's no good because they can improvise weapons out of all sorts of stuff and killing will continue.

Similarly you don't need to get rid of money. You just have to get everyone to agree not to use it and to share everything equally.

If you got rid of money but people didn't agree to share then people would just hoard stuff and steal stuff and probably use weapons to protect their own stuff and grab other's stuff. And they'd trade stuff for other stuff and you'd quickly be back to money world again.


So you've been going at this from the wrong angle. You can't get to the world you want by banning things. You need to get everyone to agree to do things your way, forever. That's the only way it can work.

So, how are you going to do that?

Gaetan 15th May 2022 06:56 AM

It was easy for the guy in Buffalo he had a fire arm, what makes crimes easy, more people are going to die, then vote the right way.

Little 10 Toes 15th May 2022 07:07 AM

I notice that you did not attempt to answer any of my questions. I will assume that you agree with everything I said then.

Gaetan 15th May 2022 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13806589)
All you have to do is get everyone to agree not to kill each other. It's really simple.

It is easier to shut dowm the arm industries than to to tell 7 billions of people to not use their products, when you have a poison that kill people you have to not produce it.

Jack by the hedge 15th May 2022 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806646)
It is easier to shut dowm the arm industries than to to tell 7 billions of people to not use their products, when you have a poison that kill people you have to not produce it.

Both would be impossible. The former might seem at least hypothetically achievable but making it happen would still require everyone to agree to do it without cheating. So it's still dependent on your somehow being able to get everyone to agree and you have no way to do that.

You're straying toward a less absolutist argument about reducing opportunity leading to fewer cases of people killing themselves or others in the heat of the moment, whether that's gun control or restriction of medications people can overdose on. I'm not going to argue against that; it's simply true. If a desperate person doesn't have a gun or a bottle of pills they are less likely to do something rash before their crisis passes. But this looks like what I believe is called a motte and bailey argument. The truth at the core of the ease of opportunity argument does not make "let's just get rid of all weapons" a rational suggestion.

Ziggurat 15th May 2022 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 13806154)
The desperate drivel of a Putin apologist.

I don't think you actually understand who you're dealing with. Gaetan is not merely a Putin apologist. It runs so much deeper than that. Here's a thread he started:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=136045

That wasn't posted as a joke.

The Man 15th May 2022 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806646)
It is easier to shut dowm the arm industries than to to tell 7 billions of people to not use their products, when you have a poison that kill people you have to not produce it.

No, it it's not. With "7 billions of people" wanting to use such products, they or someone else will always make them. Heck, even in your no money world, weapons and "poison" will still be produced, as force of might will still be collateral in acquiring or defending valued resources.

Gaetan 15th May 2022 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Man (Post 13806693)
No, it it's not. With "7 billions of people" wanting to use such products, they or someone else will always make them. Heck, even in your no money world, weapons and "poison" will still be produced, as force of might will still be collateral in acquiring or defending valued resources.

If you have a poison that kill people you can't put it on the market.

The Man 15th May 2022 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806706)
If you have a poison that kill people you can't put it on the market.

There is always a 'market' for the things people want.

Who's going to stop you? Remember, by your own assertions, there are no controls or oversight in your no money world?

Since everything is free that would include the factory to make said "poison".

Gaetan 15th May 2022 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Man (Post 13806712)

Since everything is free that would include the factory to make said "poison".

Why a sane person would make poison if there is no profit to make with it

The Man 15th May 2022 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806720)
Why a sane person would make poison if there is no profit to make with it

Of course you can make profit with it, you can take the resources that others have. You continue to fail to understand that getting rid of money does not and can not get rid of profit. As long as people value things one can always profit through such valuations.

So again, Who's going to stop you? Remember, by your own assertions, there are no controls or oversight in your no money world?

Since everything is free that would include the factory to make said "poison".


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.