RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think?

RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

epiphiny43 -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/25/2015 2:24:26 PM)
Those opposed to the existence of firearms in modern society (OPPS, 3D printing ended that discussion) would have a huge credibility increase if a bit of education led to them actually knowing what they are talking about. Some appreciation of the actual accuracy of hand guns from attempting to Hit a target would be informative. Knowing what 'terminal ballistics' are all about couldn't hurt. You don't have to be an advocate of something to possess actual knowledge, i.e., Cancer, Macular Degeneration, Suicide, Atomic Weapons . . .

Politesub53 -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/25/2015 4:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Nowhere in the Hague Convention of 1899 does it say that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. The two most relevant prohibitions on means of injuring the enemy (note the word injuring) are excerpted below from Article 23: To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp Article 23's prohibitions neither encourage killing, nor limit suffering. K. Yet again you show your ignorance. your own link states the following items among those prohibited. "To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;" I take it you know the meanings of both projectile and prohibited ? [8\|]

stef -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/25/2015 7:12:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Are you so completely unable to handle reality of the discussion here? You're comparing ammunition to a nerve agent and you ask this? Do you have a congenital brain defect that we should know about?

Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 4:52:28 AM)
Let's review (emphasis added)... quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The Hague Convention of 1899 states that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Nowhere in the Hague Convention of 1899 does it say that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. From there we (somehow) get to this: quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Yet again you show your ignorance. your own link states the following items among those prohibited. "To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;" I take it you know the meanings of both projectile and prohibited ? [8\|] Did it escape your notice that there is no mention of suffering anywhere in that quote, or anywhere else in the provisions of the Article? It is a fact of life that war causes untold undue suffering, countless people torn up far beyond what would have been sufficient to cause their removal from the battlefield or kill them. The members of the Convention knew this, of course, because unlike you they were from Earth. The concern of the provisions embodied in this Article is ethical warfare, not kinder gentler warfare. One forbids the use of poison gas, for example, even though nerve agents offer a swift and painless death compared to the mutilations inflicted by our multitude of body-shredding legal arms. The provision you quote is directed toward arms the employment of which is judged to exceed the scope of ethical warfare... Not arms that cause "undue suffering." K.

Politesub53 -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 5:00:56 PM)
Do you not think a gunshot wound is undue suffering, or are you just being your pedantic little self. The international humanitarian law prohibition on the use of means or methods of warfare that are 'of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering' http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/superfluous-injury-or-unnecessary-suffering

CreativeDominant -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 6:35:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Do you not think a gunshot wound is undue suffering, or are you just being your pedantic little self. The international humanitarian law prohibition on the use of means or methods of warfare that are 'of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering' http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/superfluous-injury-or-unnecessary-suffering From your source, apparently they don't either. in certain or all contexts’: lances or spears with a barbed head serrated-edged bayonets expanding bullets explosive bullets poison and poisoned weapons, including projectiles smeared with substances that inflame wounds biological and chemical weapons weapons that primarily injure by fragments not detectable by X-ray, including projectiles filled with broken glass certain booby-traps anti-personnel landmines incendiary weapons blinding laser weapons, and nuclear weapons. The only thing that would be fired from a gun would be explosive bullets or expanding bullets. Are these the gunshot wounds you're referring to? I do notice that weapons that use projectiles such as broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps are illegal. Someone may want to tell those brave jihadist terrorists that.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 6:56:00 PM)
quote: I do notice that weapons that use projectiles such as broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps are illegal. Someone may want to tell those brave jihadist terrorists that. Perhaps messages to that effect could be printed and dropped by the brave operators of drones.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 7:32:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: I do notice that weapons that use projectiles such as broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps are illegal. Someone may want to tell those brave jihadist terrorists that. Perhaps messages to that effect could be printed and dropped by the brave operators of drones. Tell me, peon...under what category in the list above, where do you think drones fit?

PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 7:38:21 PM)
I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 10:39:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly. So, if Obama or any other president sends troops into action...such as sending the SEAL team into action against Bin Laden...from a place where he is safe from harm...like the operators of the drones...he's a coward in your opinion?

Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/26/2015 10:51:43 PM)
~ FR ~ An associated discussion, which may be within the range of thread drift given how far we've come already, involves the observation that a prohibition against causing unnecessary injury and suffering depends on imponderables that can be neither predicted nor defined. A degree of injury more than sufficient to remove some men from the battlefield won't stop others, and individuals in identical circumstances will experience suffering (which is considered the product of both physiological and psychological elements) to different degrees. How can anyone obey such a prohibition? How can its enforcement be anything but arbitrary? K.

Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 12:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The international humanitarian law prohibition on the use of means or methods of warfare that are 'of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering' http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/superfluous-injury-or-unnecessary-suffering Pay attention to the pretty red letters: quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The Hague Convention of 1899 states that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. That claim is false. It was false when you posted it, it is false now, and it will still be false tomorrow. Not until the 1977 Additional Protocol was the prohibition expanded to include unnecessary suffering. K.

BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 7:16:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly. So, if Obama or any other president sends troops into action...such as sending the SEAL team into action against Bin Laden...from a place where he is safe from harm...like the operators of the drones...he's a coward in your opinion? How about the B-52 pilots who bombed the "republican guard" (Peon, don't get excited they were Iraqi soldiers, not American conservatives) ?

Aylee -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 9:10:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Do you not think a gunshot wound is undue suffering, or are you just being your pedantic little self. The international humanitarian law prohibition on the use of means or methods of warfare that are 'of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering' http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/superfluous-injury-or-unnecessary-suffering From your source, apparently they don't either. in certain or all contexts’: lances or spears with a barbed head serrated-edged bayonets expanding bullets explosive bullets poison and poisoned weapons, including projectiles smeared with substances that inflame wounds biological and chemical weapons weapons that primarily injure by fragments not detectable by X-ray, including projectiles filled with broken glass certain booby-traps anti-personnel landmines incendiary weapons blinding laser weapons, and nuclear weapons. The only thing that would be fired from a gun would be explosive bullets or expanding bullets. Are these the gunshot wounds you're referring to? I do notice that weapons that use projectiles such as broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps are illegal. Someone may want to tell those brave jihadist terrorists that. I have, personally, always found it interesting that you can use a laser to try to kill a pilot, but not to blind him.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 11:24:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly. So, if Obama or any other president sends troops into action...such as sending the SEAL team into action against Bin Laden...from a place where he is safe from harm...like the operators of the drones...he's a coward in your opinion? Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you?

Politesub53 -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 11:38:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The international humanitarian law prohibition on the use of means or methods of warfare that are 'of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering' http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/superfluous-injury-or-unnecessary-suffering Pay attention to the pretty red letters: quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The Hague Convention of 1899 states that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. That claim is false. It was false when you posted it, it is false now, and it will still be false tomorrow. Not until the 1977 Additional Protocol was the prohibition expanded to include unnecessary suffering. K. You would do better than stop playing with you coloured crayons and Font size. That way you could actually understand what you are reading, or indeed, posting..

Politesub53 -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 11:40:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you? Is it because he obfuscates ? [;)]

Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 1:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 You would do better than stop playing with you coloured crayons and Font size... Could you put that in English? K.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 1:11:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly. So, if Obama or any other president sends troops into action...such as sending the SEAL team into action against Bin Laden...from a place where he is safe from harm...like the operators of the drones...he's a coward in your opinion? Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you? Because you're the one that brought cowardice into play. I'm just asking you to clarify. If the operators of drones...who are removed from the action...are cowards, then do you hold that same standard to our commander in chief?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 1:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you? Is it because he obfuscates ? [;)] No...actually, it's because peon obfuscates. Diverts. Makes a derogatory comment but when asked about another similar example, avoids answering.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625