LoneWolf16

Moderation is the key. Or just not doing any of it in the first place.

I knew my Dpm intake was too high! Why!? Why didn't I consult a doctor before ingesting so much of that horrible...actor? Wait a second here...

That happens after age 21 too. Frequently.

We're going over this sort of thing in psychology...amazing stuff.

" Fine after the first few times...but then I start getting a strong urge to beat Tom Hanks to death with a box of chocolates.

Forrest!? FORREST!? You, sir, have insulted me. I demand satisfaction! *Produces a small white glove and proceeds to slap Meta with it......several times....slowly.* Seriously though, I'd rather not end up in a position where I actually am tested in that way. I'd like to think I wouldn't stand idly by and watch somebody get killed or something...

I give up. Back to random porn related comments and bad jokes I guess.

(Not exactly, but...) Bingo #1 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't want to put yourself in harm's way (it's "crazy" man). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Note the bolded parts. Not condescending (I can tell that is your New Favourite Word), simply using laconic humour to point out the hypocrisy latent in his post. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How am I being hypocritical? If I want to avoid death for what I deem to be a pointless war, why am I the bad guy when somebody else decides they want to go fight in my place? Good on them. They see a reason, so let them fight for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bingo #2 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yet you are happy for others to do so on your behalf, so that you might enjoy their sacrifices. (Hint: that's the hypocrisy.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm happy for them they've made their decision. I meant "Good on them for having their ideals and fighting for them in the manner they see fit." I need to elaborate quite a bit more, I see. Maybe word things better before I post so I don't have moderators jumping down my throat. All right, I think there's been a misunderstanding. Again. Once more, my fault. I think you may be taking that line "You do, however, need a degree in idiocy." as an insult. It's an insult...but towards myself. I was calling myself an idiot for voluntarily charging into a burning building to save a child without proper protection or precautionary measures. Noble, but foolish. ...I would prefer to die that way. That's all I said, for crying out loud! You know why I'm not volunteering to be a firefighter? #1. I'm not too strong. #2. Death frightens me. #3. I'm deathly afraid that incompetence on my part may cause the death of a compatriot or a victim. I'd die to protect my family. I'd die to protect some stranger who gets jumped on a damned bus. I'd die defending the rights of my people. If a dictator came up, I'd be one of the people fighting back. Of course it's all me talking! I have no desire, at all, to go searching for ways to prove myself by dying! You want me to go looking for trouble? If it's happening around me, I'll react accordingly, but I will not seek it out.

I need to learn how to be more clear on here...it's causing way too many problems.

Very well said, all of it in fact, but just to be clear here, in case that particular paragraph was entirely directed at me, I have nothing but respect for the men and women in uniform. I've got family in the military, and honestly, everyone brave enough to sign up in the first place deserves more than their fair share of respect. After all, they've obviously got more cojones than I can muster. Edit: No, Alan. It'd be idiotic of me to run into a burning building without the necessary equipment to protect myself. Firemen don't charge in there wearing jeans and a T-shirt, do they?

Such positivity about people, lol.

Which is exactly what Mr. 1337 is asking. I said I'd like to die in that way, not that I'd like to die any time soon, or rush out looking for ways to die nobly. Simply meant that, when the time comes, this would be a preferred way of going about it. And really now, why do so many people resort to being a p***k when they don't like something they see on here? If I'm a jerk, by all means, feel free to string me up by the balls, but when I do nothing...it's a little immature.

^---Blind.

Are you considering a future in firefighting? If not, that's hypocritical of you to say. I have no problem with people saying there's absolutely nothing in the world that they find worth dying for, mind you. As a matter of fact, I'm one of them, and I'm joining the military after summer. I do find it funny when people delude themselves, though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to be a firefighter to run into a burning building when a woman's screaming about her baby still being inside? Don't need a uniform for that. You do, however, need a degree in idiocy. And there's a lot I'd die for, just not this particular thing.

No. But I'd like to think that certain things are in the category of "right" and "wrong". Like bombing civilians is "wrong". Tactically, it could be the best option, and the most likely to yield results...but it's not "right". Note the frequent use of quotes.

Well, of course it's more demoralizing. It'd be like bombing a children's hospital. You get attention that way. Sure as hell doesn't make it "right" though, regardless of how effective it is.

'Cause that would make sense...

Film it? And show it how? This was 1945: no satellite, no tv, and even in Wesern countries news was delivered weekly, via cinema ... oh, I know they could use their broadband! Your grip on geopolitics and historical perpective is very tenuous. Answer me this: what good would a delay do? It's not like the Japanese Imperial government held a referendum! It was still the decision of one man (Emperor Hirohito), possibly after convincing his war cabinet (<10 men), to surrender. That takes three minutes, not three days. Wait for the farmers to attempt a coup? Because that would result in less civilian casualties? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All righty. You could film it, then send it to the Emperor, along with the necessary equipment, with one of the diplomats. I knew that. All of that, in fact. Thank you for telling me something I already know, then being mean about it. Look at Kirottu's post. That sizes it up pretty nicely. As was said earlier, it took our country most of the day to get their act together after the WTC incident in 2001. There's a big time difference there...but a same guiding principle. It takes a while to make important decisions regarding one's country.

(Not exactly, but...) Bingo #1 Bingo #2 How am I being hypocritical? If I want to avoid death for what I deem to be a pointless war, why am I the bad guy when somebody else decides they want to go fight in my place? Good on them. They see a reason, so let them fight for it. Were it something I believed in, a war with actual meaning behind it, or those I cared for were threatened, I'd be on the front lines in a heart beat. Truly sorry I'd rather not throw my life away for some jackass in a suit and tie with about as much sense as a rabid chimp, and the looks of one too...thought I have to admit, creative use of Nicholson's famous speech. Oh, and @Numbers - Note the word "want". Indicates a preference, right? If I had my way, I'd die at middle age, saving a baby from a house fire. Or at least before all that...*shudder* I'd rather die before then.

Actually, a better analogy would be to lose a major city within a single night, then be given three days to assess the damage, try to figure out what the hell happened, and bring all your people to the conclusion that surrender is inevitable...then lose another city after that third day. Wait...

Really is a beautiful game.

No ****. In a time of war, were I in charge, if it came down to it, I'd have made the call too. But only if there were no other alternative.

A better question would be why not surrender after the first bomb ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, that is a much better question. No arguments here. I look the part, shaggy hair and all...and the desire to see things end without unnecessary death. Those people didn't deserve it. If it's a group, or person who does, on the other hand...let the annihilation begin!

That may work today. But your talking about a time when few even knew what the bomb was. Never said it was. I see no need to excuse their actions. It is however a reason. No one wanted to ship to Japan for the next phase when there was an alternative.Although a lot of people died. It was still comparitively few to the predicted worst case scenerio. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So why not film a test? And I know it must have seemed like a quick, easy solution...but...damn it, why couldn't they have been patient a few weeks longer, then there's a huge chance it would have ended peacefully?