I’d argue it’s a good move, and they tried to do some cool things with it, and the visuals are delightful.

It’s absolute crap Star Wars, though.

It is always easier to destroy than to build, or to protect.

Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.

I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?

You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.

And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.

Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.

And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.

Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!

Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.

Good, good. Let the knowledge flow through you.

The irony is staggering.

But yes, lol, me.

There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence

But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.

nothing will ever make it right.

Strongly disagree. If someone had killed Musk a year ago, the world would be a different place today. A better place, I think.

If someone had killed Trump ten years ago, how many COVID deaths would be avoided? How much damage to our economy would not have happened? How many hungry people across the world would still have food from a USAID shipment?

There are plenty of times it would be right to kill people. But who can we trust to make that decision? I’m confident I’m right, but I would not want to have to do it.

I think they have to be warned that the internet is suddenly recommending their kids do stupid things, and that, because of the way social media has become a ducking nightmare, their kids are more likely to do it then the parents might think.

So you don’t want our opinions, do you? You just want people to agree with you.

His thoughts seem to be that they share almost no characteristics, no philosophical underpinnings, and that there seems to be no direct path from the one to the other.

What do you think a discussing of “proto-X” is going to look like, if not comparing it to other things looking for similarities and possible links?

I adore that last line.

I live it, daily.

Removed by mod

I have several 300 gallon mixers at work, and a QA lab. If the mixer won’t do the job, I’ll just pour acids in until it is reduced to soup.

Then I’m fleeing the country because maintenance will make the eldrich horror look like the easy choice.

We need to get this right.

Step one is going to be working out vocabulary among yourselves before you start trying to teach it to us. I used to try to be correct, but the “correct” tends changed from person to person, group to group, and every six months or so.

Once you’ve figured it out, let us old folks know, and most of us will, I hope, make the adjustment.

Not before time.

His life has been too long, and his reign not short enough.

What I meant was “do we know what Trumps final decisions look like, because all we get is waffling.”

But I can’t disagree with you either.

How would we be able to tell?

Well, I don’t want to be in violation of rule #2.

Talk to you guys later.

Busy being the site of the walls, unless I misunderstand the original statement.