213374U

You tell that to the Nazi officials that survived the war and were executed for committing war crimes such as the one you are proposing (V-2 attacks on London, for instance). But still, if you don't want to accept the moral or legal considerations of this, I expect you to at least acknowledge the fact that from an efficiency standpoint, it's not an extremely useful tactic. Unless you want to mass murder just for kicks. Given your apparent low regard for human life in general, I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually the case, anyway. You have a strange notion of fun. Again, you fail to grasp the difference between abstract thinking and guessing your intentions. Judging from what you write, you probably don't even know what "abstract thinking" means. Most likely you just heard it from Papa, and you thought you would look cool and smart if you used it. Failed. Nah, you do that. You're the one using moral relativism to justify your stance. Boy, do I have to hold your hand every freaking step of the way? If you paid attention, you would have realized that sentence was part of a paragraph built around something called moral minimums. According to those minimums (which are easy to dismiss thanks to your wonderful relativism), a mass murderer can't be a hero of the people. And you are the one accusing me of not reading? You question my capacity of deductive reasoning? The irony is gleaming. Again, there is nothing wrong with the expression "legitimate target". There must be a way to differentiate targets that are valid from a legal or moral standpoint, from those that are not. You are wrong, once again. As for the "hahaha's", "ha" is an interjection meant to symbolize laughter, in this case. For someone so bent on dissecting the language, your ignorance of it is quite painful. Quite ironic, too. There's a huge difference between the terms bombs and weapons. Trying to put (moronic) words into someone else's mouth (post?) is pretty low, even coming from you. You will pardon me if I didn't search the exact quote. It wasn't my intention to twist your meaning (not that I could do a better job at making a fool of yourself than you do). I was just trying to save me the excruciating pain of going through that sad example of idiocy and ignorance you call a "post" again. 0 substance in your "post", as per usual. Try again.

Yes, that was the idea behind the strategic bombings that reduced the main cities of Germany to rubble in WWII. There were many factors that contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Third Reich (fuel draught, damage to industrial infrastructures, inadequacy of blitzkrieg for defensive purposes), but the massive civilian casualties caused by the constant bombing of the cities was most certainly not one of them. So, no. It's another idea that theoretically might work, but in practice doesn't. And even if it did, it's not a legitimate strategy. Legitimate, as in morally justifiable by today's moral or legal standards, anyway.

If you knew you were going to have to explain it, why didn't you make it clear the first time? Sounds to me like you are trying to look smart, and failing miserably, as per usual. Now you are going off on a tangent, trying to defend the laughably unrealistic statements that you seem to think that pass for arguments. It's not a matter of perspective. Civilians are not dependent on perspective. Targeting them is not a legitimate strategy, unjustifiable under any circumstances. Of course US soldiers are fair game. They know what they are getting into when they sign the form. Militias, on the other hand, are legitimate targets, even if they use civilians as cover. It's as much their fault as it's the civilians, as they play along most of the time. Yes, one man's hero is another's villain. A fallacious statement if there was ever one. Relativism is wonderful, isn't it? However, there is something you are deliberately missing. There is something called moral minimums, that place restrictions even on that kind of statements. People who lack those minimums may consider Hitler, Ben Laden, or Pol Pot heroes, but that does not make them so. Making blanket statements such as "there are no legitimate targets" or "there are no precise weapons" is not only inaccurate, it's nonsensical. It's the kind of pretty demagogy that is only good to help you sleep at night. Don't get all defensive when you're called on the BS you think is so deep. I will, for as long as you keep going on your kindergarten nap room rants.

Hades' specialty isn't making sense.

Did I mention that autarchy doesn't work?

I ain't telling you all my trade secrets, man!

Incidentally, I think you would make a fine mod... But whoever listens to me anyway.

Not sure. I think there should be, because "grammar" is the noun and it needs the article. If I'm wrong, then it's a prime example of what I was saying. :">

Nope. I never post when I'm angry. It prevents me from thinking clearly... I make enough mistakes (such as the whole deal with the Danish and the Dutch) when I'm cool, thank you. Yeah, I was thinking of changing it for Will Ferrell, but Vash beat me to it.

I know. I frequently mutilate the English grammar and possibly spelling too, so I never comment on that.

I guess the sarcasm was lost on you. No sense in trying to explain it now.

I expect you to hold to your word. It's hilarious how you fly off the handle when the mods hide your craptastic sniper thread, and then you come to other much less innocuous threads to push the newbs around. You go man, fight the good fight.

Woohoo! I was already craving this week's "let us bash Amerika" thread. Thanks Hilde for the fix. Man, that was lame. Throwing stereotypes around is the best way to prove you have nothing solid to attack someone with. Hahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA That was a good one. I guess the real world is too ugly for some people to accept. I envy you, though. Not everyone is so lucky to keep their innocence after they've grown pubic hair. Perhaps I'm assuming too much... It's unlikely you'll live to see that day, however. ) Right. We all know what a great business partner Nazi Germany would have been.

Aw man. Just when we're starting to get along, you go and quit on me. You know we've had our disagreements, but I was beginning to think you were one of the most equitable mods around here. A shame. Oh well. GL & HF As for the rest of you guys, if you can nominate, then I'm going to veto your nominations. Save for Eldar maybe, you'd all make horrible mods, and you know it. )

How 'bout you stop metaspamming, Hilde? )

Looking good.

My vacuum? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we finally scattered that scruffy, unscientific crowd.

If the costumes used in that game aren't reason enough as to why you shouldn't mess with the past, then nothing is.

Well, I think I broke my brain. Thanks for nothing!

Wow. Just wow. Right. I know what you mean. Taking equations literally isn't a very good way of explaining things, though. You don't really have "infinite" mass, as it's not exactly infinite, but a constant number divided by an amount that approaches zero. And while in calculus a constant divided by zero is considered "infinite", infinite is not a number, and in this case "infinite" mass just makes no sense. And, as I explained in my previous post, the energy considerations would prevent the equation from reaching the limit anyway. No. Photons have a speed of c, regardless of the speed of the observer. You just can't "catch up" to photons, but it's not because you can't reach their speed (which you can't, but for other reasons), but because of relativity. Applying your logic, you wouldn't be able to reach any speed greater than zero, because your relative speed in relation to the photon would be less than c, and that contradicts the postulate. You are applying an euclidean interpretation to a relativistic effect. Those two don't work well together. What that postulate does imply, however, is that c is the maximum observable speed in the universe. Did you? Well, we agree on that, then. That last statement wasn't aimed at you in particular, anyway.

Uh, even if I was enough of a nerd to actually read binary, I doubt I would anyway. It's just too much work.

oloolollol? I don't get it.

"Infinite" is simply the limit of the equation which expresses mass as a function of speed, when speed approaches c. It's not a real world value. What is an impossibility is to accelerate something that has a mass approaching infinite, to the speed of light, as according to Newtonian physics, at a certain point that would require more energy than there is in the universe, when the mass was close enough to c. All of that, again, from a classic physics and thermodynamics standpoint. The effects of time dilation can be experienced at speeds much more reasonable than c, though. Er, no. That postulate in particular doesn't imply that you can't reach the speed of light. At any rate, to say that relativistic time dilation qualifies as time travel is misleading at best, and inaccurate at worst. It does only work one way, for starters.

It's stupid alright. As things are right now, it's just a matter of qualification for the job. If I'm not mistaken, women usually earn less than men, in the same job. Which is another reason companies have to hire women instead of men, provided the qualification is the same. Not that I approve, but that's the way it is. Yeah. I felt so... so excluded. :'(