Ladies and gentlemen, we've got him!

[Atomic Mitten]

Libraries are used by people to read books and to learn.I know they have CD's too, some game CD's too.

So you don't like small children, and you only help someone if you stand to gain something from it.

You wish America would not have such strong relations with the UK, it's oldest ally.

You want a united Europe, maybe you should live in mainland Europe,hopefully near the Russian border.

Your real name isn't Adolf is it ? by any chance.?

[nampigai]

The closer we get to America, the further we get from Europe. And I would like a united Europe. Thus this policy does affect me.

but what does it benefit you personally, what do you get out of it? From what I've read of your post you really don't give a shit unless you gain something out of it personally??? I have a VERY hard time seeing your motives, hopefully you'll grow up one day.

[Wolf]

I have to stop making inoffensive posts, no one responds to those :)

[Dante]

True.

I know what a library is for. What-is-your-point?

No, I don't like small children. Whining, smelly, demanding, noisy brats. And like I said, I'm closer to being one of them than a lot of people here.

And ironically France is an older ally to America than Britain due to shared hatred of the British by both nations. Too bad that went away...

And have I not already said that racist crimes are one of the worst there possibly is? My name is not Adolf and I resent the implication that I could in any way be like that little sh*t HITLER! Also I resent the implication that there's something undesirable about the Russian border and therefore Russia. There's nothing wrong with Russia. Not comparitively anyway.

Closer relations with France = greater influence of Europe on British politics = Euro = possible cheap stuff. Also = avoiding Bush and thus by default better foriegn policy. This benifits me because it means my country (which I do care about) is better off.

[TMA_1]

the funny thing is you were a kid once, and you judge kids based on what they cant change. you sound like an old crone with absolutely no priorities in life.lol If that suits you fine though, nothing any of us can do about it.

[Dante]

Though if you want to try go ahead. Perhaps you'll logically prove me wrong; in which case I should change my view.

Crone indeed, I'm only 16... Priority: Look out for number 1.

[Atomic Mitten]

I wasn't insulting Russia at all, you obviously read things without understanding what is meant.

I suggest you read your last 50 posts, think about how others interpret your opinions and comments.

To make it simple, You have said you don't care about others, you have said that mass murder is just a statistic, you have said you hate children.

So my comparison of your views is not dissimilar to Adolf, the point being about the Russian border was that Hitler invaded Russia,you also have said your an autocrat, and you would like a united Europe, I can imagine you would like to be the ruler of Europe, I hope to God that you never get to be in a position of power.

Ref Libraries read some books is what I thought you would understand, so that you might know what the hell your talking about.

In fact all the others that have replied to your posts have tried in subtle ways to make you see the errors of your ways, obviously you only understand plain English.

So IMHO it is better not to keep showing your ignorance by keep posting such rubbish !

Maybe you understand that ! ?

[Edric O]

Do not confuse ignorance with evil, Atomic Mitten.

Anything can be logical if you start from the right axioms. Dust Scout isn't ignorant. He is just plain evil. ;)

[Atomic Mitten]

Well I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he's somewhat misguided.

Basing opinions with out all the facts is something many people do, everyday.

I'm afraid I have the habit of listening to both sides of a so called true assumption before I weigh up the evidence, before I decide on something.

I don't blindly believe someone out of loyalty alone.

Ask my ex-wife lol, she knows that only too well.lol ;)

[Wolf]

I think we should lighten up on Dust Scout, I mean, he's just clarified what motivates him for us, that will make it easier to understand what he's saying. He is a teenager who believes in looking out for number one. There is nothing wrong with this, unless it takes on an insane Ayn Rand-flavor to it. Then I would be scared.

[Atomic Mitten]

So you think It's ok for someone of any age, not to care about other people ? :O

[Wolf]

Sarcasm is so very hard to detect in text, is it not?

[Atomic Mitten]

Very ! ;)

[Wolf]

Actually, sometimes I say things so radically insane to make a point -- it's sarcasm. Like, "what, you didn't know that war is the best way to keep peace!!!??". The funny thing is, sometimes people take me seriously. And then, I have a LOT of explaning to do.

[Dante]

Do not confuse ignorance with evil, Atomic Mitten.

Anything can be logical if you start from the right axioms. Dust Scout isn't ignorant. He is just plain evil. ;)

Thank you Edric; I couldn't have said it better myself.

You have said you don't care about others, you have said that mass murder is just a statistic, you have said you hate children.

1) Few others care about me; why should I care about them? Those that care for me (and I mean seriously, none of that "I care for everyone" crap), I care about. Oligarchy.

2) Mass murder is a statistic. Once more than a few people die at once they cease to have names, ages, identities. They are often buried together and usually have a monument without their name on it. They stop being people and become numbers. Heartless that may seem but it's true.

3) What's so special about children? I mean think about it. They demand everything. They whine, they get underfoot, they appreciate nothing and few have any desire to learn anything. Eventually they'll be adults and they'll have to be treated normally so why give them the idea that they're special while they're young? They're not.

That and the fact that everyone thinks children are in some way special. Example: "Women and children first!" Come to that, why should women be special? That's not an insult, btw, just the opposite. I've always believed that women are just as capable as men (more so in many cases), and thus shouldn't really be treated any differently. Except in cases that would specifically be influenced by gender.

But children now, what's so special about them? They're not innocent or special in any way. They're vindictive little sods. They single out the weakest or different members of their group and expell them. They kill things for fun (a bit like some adults really...). Children are just more vicious adults. They're nothing special.

Hmm, I seem to have wandered offtopic a bit in an effort to justify myself...

BIG difference between me and Hitler. He hated people discriminantly. I hate people indiscriminantly. I don't mind being called heartless or autocratic because that's more or less what I am. But compare me to Hitler and you are going seriously wrong, because there's more than one way to go against the norm.

And now we come back to Saddam, veering back towards the proper topic. He's in the minority. And, for some reason I do not know, I have an innate tendancy to empathise with minorities. Maybe because I am one.

Everyone (or nearly everyone) is working against him. And so my natural thoughts go "Many vs few, support the few." Might be why I'm autocratic too. "Few vs many, support the few." It's not always the case, but a lot of the time it is. That's probably why I don't want to see Saddam dead.

[DukeLeto]

The best way to put it? Here:

"The United States Army made a great advancement in the War on Terror today: They've finally captured the #1 man who had nothing to do with 9-11." -Jon Stewert, The Daily Show

[Dante]

Smart man.

[Edric O]

I won't argue with you, Dust Scout, because there's nothing to argue about: We simply hold diametrically opposite moral values. My definition of "good" and "moral" involves altruism, compassion, love for my fellow man, etc. Your definition involves doing whatever you want and to hell with everyone else.

Now, imagine a society based on my moral values and a society based on yours. In my society, people would live in peace and harmony, and care for each other. Your society would probably last a few minutes, before everyone started fighting each other with swords and knives. (I know those are your favourite weapons ;) )

Now, getting back on topic... well, I think Duke put it best.

[Atomic Mitten]

I agree totally with what Edric O said.Very well put too.

Also back on topic, I think Saddam had his fingers in many pies.Syria is known to be training and giving shelter to terrorists.

The links between Al queda and Iraq/Syria have yet to be proved, this is an almost impossible task for a western government anyway.

But if and when they do, then told you so is probably an expression we'll here alot.

[TMA_1]

but edric, from my knowledge, and dust if I make a mistake with this please correct me, but he seems to not believe in any concrete spiritual or metaphyiscal existance that goes beyond our mortal bounds. Because of this, it is most logical to assume that we all have our own ideals of morals, and that since there is no higher authority to judge, who can say one persons idea of morals is greater or more correct than another persons morals? and who says morality has purpose if one man's morals are no better than another mans?

[Dude_Doc]

Okay, DustScout, then I have a question for you. You say you won't do anything that won't give you anything back, then why do you post on this forum?

[Dante]

Because it does give me something back. :)

I know more now than I did. I know more people than I did. I understand more viewpoints and I have refined my argumentative skills.

I have met interesting people; some of whom I may be so impressed by I try to imitate them. I could go on, but in short I know that being here has been... very benificial.

Not to mention quite enjoyable.

TMA-1: I believe what is proven to me. There may or may not be a higher judge. Simply because I do not believe in one does not mean that one does not exist. We did a short project in philosophy class on moral philosophy once. There were two basic divisions; Objective and Subjective.

Objectivists believe that there is a definate moral code which can be applied to all people and all situations. It is their purpose through whatever means they can to find it. It surpasses all other morals and is universally justifiable.

Subjectivists on the other hand believe that morals are relitive to the situation they are used in. A different situation will adapt to different morals and thus something so inflexable as a universal code has no place. Thus, morals are a matter of opinion.

I am, as those of you who are mor astute will have guessed by now, a subjectivist. I see no evidence that one moral code is in any way superior to another. Yes, some cause more pain than others, but why is that universally a bad thing? 'Bad' and 'Good' are relitive concepts, subjective. They depend on opinion. And thus any moral perspective based on them (all objective ones) are flawed at the most basic level.

Consequentially, subjective morals are the only logical choice.

Sheesh, why do I keep writing too much?

Edric: Yes, your society is indeed a (slightly nauseating) perfection of harmony and peace on earth. It is also completely fictional, no offence. You know as well as I do (hmm, more agreement...) that humans are selfish, egotistical, self-centred, foul, jumped-up monkeys. As a society anyway. Individuals are another matter. And power to the people will never work because the people all want the same thing, to be number 1. The difference is that some of them admit it, and others don't.

Your society is perfect but unachievable. Mine is not perfect, but it is all too easy to achieve. And it gives us freedom to do what we really want to do. None of this stuffy modern government watching stuff. People would fight with knives (or in my case a makeshift trident) because the vast majority of them want to. The reason blood sports existed is because people enjoyed them. And people haven't changed since roman gladitorial combat, they just think they have. If people didn't want to hurt each other, or didn't think it necessary, then your society would exist. The very fact that it doesn't proves that it can't because humans have always wanted or needed to hurt each other and always will.

The difference is that I know this, while you still have hope for this sad, suicidal little species.

[Anathema]

Dust Scout: you remind me of Thomas Hobbes, one of the philosophers who believed in a contrat social, except quite differently from everyone else- humans are inherently wicked, when in their natural state they rob, steal and rape eachother. They form a covenant (Rousseau would say contract social) in order to escape this state of nature. A man pleases himself with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. He doesn't believe that state authority should be judged by rightousness or divine justification, the effectiveness of it's power is the only way to measure.

Needless to say he wasn't liked.

[Dante]

By the looks of things neither am I... ;)

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[Anathema]

Though I don't particularly like the way he thought, he did have a point.