Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/25/2015 2:24:26 PM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		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 . . .

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/25/2015 4:45:14 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
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 ?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/25/2015 7:12:03 PM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 4:52:28 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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 ?

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.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 1/26/2015 5:15:36 AM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 5:00:56 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 6:35:18 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 6:56:00 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 7:32:02 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 7:38:21 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 10:39:00 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/26/2015 10:51:43 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
~ 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.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 1/27/2015 12:03:30 AM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 12:12:04 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 1/27/2015 1:01:37 AM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 7:16:20 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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) ?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 9:10:37 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 11:24:46 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 11:38:23 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
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..

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 11:40:21 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you?



Is it because he obfuscates ?

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 1:05:33 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

You would do better than stop playing with you coloured crayons and Font size...

Could you put that in English?

K.






< Message edited by Kirata -- 1/27/2015 1:09:43 PM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 1:11:04 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? - 1/27/2015 1:14:05 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125