A distinction should be made between officers and enlisted as they take a different oath. Officers are more 'culpable' and hence more 'blameworthy' for wrong doing in an unjust war than are the enlisted soldiers.Smackie Chan wrote: But I don't lay blame at the feet of those doing the fighting, and consider them, for the most part, to be far more noble and worthy of praise than, say, you, who does nothing of any discernible value for me or anyone else in this country.
How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
Were you commissioned?Kierland wrote:A distinction should be made between officers and enlisted as they take a different oath. Officers are more 'culpable' and hence more 'blameworthy' for wrong doing in an unjust war than are the enlisted soldiers.Smackie Chan wrote: But I don't lay blame at the feet of those doing the fighting, and consider them, for the most part, to be far more noble and worthy of praise than, say, you, who does nothing of any discernible value for me or anyone else in this country.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
- Shlomart Ben Yisrael
- Insha'Allah
- Posts: 19031
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
- Location: filling molotovs
Uh oh...
AP WAR STORY ALERT! AP WAR STORY ALERT!
You gonna tell us all about your test trials of the Navy's underwater flying tank again?
I'm all ears, Flop Gun.
AP WAR STORY ALERT! AP WAR STORY ALERT!
You gonna tell us all about your test trials of the Navy's underwater flying tank again?
I'm all ears, Flop Gun.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
- Shlomart Ben Yisrael
- Insha'Allah
- Posts: 19031
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
- Location: filling molotovs
You only wish you were Canadian.
Come on up to Canada, AP. There's plenty of women here that can shoot you down. Don't let the American ladies have all the fun.
Come on up to Canada, AP. There's plenty of women here that can shoot you down. Don't let the American ladies have all the fun.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
Velocet,
I thought Vic was joking around when he was writing the things he wrote to Trev and of Trev, all these years. When someone is hitting on you, but the hitting takes the form of increasingly ludicrous forms of abuse and disrespect presented as if such behavior were the height of chilvary -- that isn't serious, that's some Smiling Man action; or movie critic Mr. Cranky's rarely employed happy pill rating system. To give it, is to caress someone with kid gloves studded with goat'sheads. To receive it, is to inhale and choke on those goat'sheads. To accept it, is to choose whether the leather or the sting is more enjoyable. It's a special kind of cruelty to give it; and a special kind of iron to tolerate it, let alone encourage it.
But are you really stating that he hasn't been? joking around with trev, I mean.
It is flattery to be compared to Vic. He's a good guy. But what you wrote was so incrementally and increasingly disrespectful, I thought, 'ah, Velocet is stealing from Vic.' You stole his style of smack, not his reason. If the Smackbat existed, I'd show you some examples -- and a specific conversation -- not because I assume you have missed them, but to offer an official comparison. The pickings here are rather slim, in the 'Vic wooing Trev with a baseball bat at the Overlook Hotel' department.
Am I reading you wrong, or have I read Vic and Trev wrong?
I thought Vic was joking around when he was writing the things he wrote to Trev and of Trev, all these years. When someone is hitting on you, but the hitting takes the form of increasingly ludicrous forms of abuse and disrespect presented as if such behavior were the height of chilvary -- that isn't serious, that's some Smiling Man action; or movie critic Mr. Cranky's rarely employed happy pill rating system. To give it, is to caress someone with kid gloves studded with goat'sheads. To receive it, is to inhale and choke on those goat'sheads. To accept it, is to choose whether the leather or the sting is more enjoyable. It's a special kind of cruelty to give it; and a special kind of iron to tolerate it, let alone encourage it.
But are you really stating that he hasn't been? joking around with trev, I mean.
It is flattery to be compared to Vic. He's a good guy. But what you wrote was so incrementally and increasingly disrespectful, I thought, 'ah, Velocet is stealing from Vic.' You stole his style of smack, not his reason. If the Smackbat existed, I'd show you some examples -- and a specific conversation -- not because I assume you have missed them, but to offer an official comparison. The pickings here are rather slim, in the 'Vic wooing Trev with a baseball bat at the Overlook Hotel' department.
Am I reading you wrong, or have I read Vic and Trev wrong?
Whatever happened with that?Martyred wrote:Uh oh...
AP WAR STORY ALERT! AP WAR STORY ALERT!
You gonna tell us all about your test trials of the Navy's underwater flying tank again?
I'm all ears, Flop Gun.
I thought there was no contradiction between 'All Statements of Belief/Opinion are Equal' and 'Not All Statements of Belief/Opinion are Equal' (and you can even add 'No Statements of Belief/Opinion are Equal') because you haven't defined what being equal means.velocet wrote: Smackie,
That was funny. I've never seen anyone attempt an argument against arguing. There is a little problem involving contradiction there, which is no surprise considering that such an "argument" has as its foundation relativism, which sports a self-contradictory nature: if one says "all statements of belief/opinion are equal" then that includes the statement "not all statements of belief/opinion are equal."
P and not-P?
To take a bad example:
All whole numbers are natural numbers.
Not all whole numbers are natural numbers.
Are these two statements equal?
It's fucked up when you can be punished for calling something exactly what it is; and rewarded by pretending it is something it is not.When the opposing counsel states his case, just flash a grin and say to the judge and jury "that's just his opinion. Mine is no better or worse. There is no truth we can know, no you, no one. We're just gonna decide this by who has the better courtroom style."
And I still want to know exactly when I fought you. Bad form to pretend a fight, for peanut gallery points. Velo falls off.
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
Yeah, I haven't had pussy since pussy's had me. I wonder what it feels like. I have a repressed memory of getting molested by Canadian girls with HUGE tits at Comox AB on British Columbia. All a dream too. I remember in that dream how they dissed Canadian males.Martyred wrote:You only wish you were Canadian.
Come on up to Canada, AP. There's plenty of women here that can shoot you down. Don't let the American ladies have all the fun.
To this day due to that dream I laugh at the Canatard short dicks that like hockey.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
- Shlomart Ben Yisrael
- Insha'Allah
- Posts: 19031
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
- Location: filling molotovs
:( weren't you the one who dissed virgin squids for falling in love with the first flippos who spread their legs for them, many years ago?Atomic Punk wrote:Yeah, I haven't had pussy since pussy's had me. I wonder what it feels like. I have a repressed memory of getting molested by Canadian girls with HUGE tits at Comox AB on British Columbia. All a dream too. I remember in that dream how they dissed Canadian males.Martyred wrote:You only wish you were Canadian.
Come on up to Canada, AP. There's plenty of women here that can shoot you down. Don't let the American ladies have all the fun.
To this day due to that dream I laugh at the Canatard short dicks that like hockey.
hoes always diss the 'men at home', because the men at home know exactly what their game is and ain't falling for it. or they don't have the discretionary funds to pretend to fall for it. this isn't the path to victory, man. i'm just saying.
- Smackie Chan
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 7309
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Inside Your Speakers
You seem to have misinterpreted the point. I was not presenting an argument against arguing - I'm a big fan of the art - nor was I saying that all opinions are equal (a word I never used when stating my position). I merely drew a distinction between that which can be proven with certainty (a fact) and that which cannot (an opinion). You made the inference that the interpretation of this is that all opinions are equal - a statement unsupported by evidence in anything I posted.velocet wrote:Smackie,
That was funny. I've never seen anyone attempt an argument against arguing. There is a little problem involving contradiction there, which is no surprise considering that such an "argument" has as its foundation relativism, which sports a self-contradictory nature: if one says "all statements of belief/opinion are equal" then that includes the statement "not all statements of belief/opinion are equal."
P and not-P?
The tardliest of tards can state a fact, and be rebutted by the most brilliant genius. The genius may win the debate based on argumentative skill, but the fact still stands on its own as having the quality of being right, irrespective of its messenger. Right and wrong can be established with certainty based on either definition or evidence, or both. An opinion, on the other hand, is more dependent on its messenger and the skill with which it can be defended, but on its own, cannot be verified as being right. Does this mean every opinion is equal? Of course not. Some opinions (or theories) are thisclose to being facts, yet not enough evidence exists to push them over the edge and make them facts. Evolution is a prime example. The counterargument of evolution is not creation, btw - both may be true. The proper argument, rather, is living beings evolve versus living beings do not evolve. This argument can be settled with certainty, and has been in laboratories, using subjects such as fruitflies and bacteria. What has not been settled with certainty is whether humans evolved from lower life forms. Despite having not been settled, the opinions that "Man evolved from apes" and "Man did not evolve from apes" are not equal. (And to support your "P and not-P" example, an individual cannot believe both.) An overwhelming preponderance of evidence exists to support only one of these positions, yet it is still not enough to make it a fact. So while there is inequality between these two positions, and one is far closer to being right than the other, certainty cannot be (or, more accurately, has not yet been) established. It is incorrect to equate arguments of right and wrong with winning and losing, which appears to be what you have done.
You're right - that is a bad example. Whole and natural numbers are defined, with right and wrong, therefore, easy to establish. Only one can be, and in fact is, correct. This is not a question of belief/opinion.Risa wrote:I thought there was no contradiction between 'All Statements of Belief/Opinion are Equal' and 'Not All Statements of Belief/Opinion are Equal' (and you can even add 'No Statements of Belief/Opinion are Equal') because you haven't defined what being equal means.
To take a bad example:
All whole numbers are natural numbers.
Not all whole numbers are natural numbers.
Are these two statements equal?
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
Risa has a strap on for you to take up your pooper. You KNOW you want it. Imagine a gorilla with a strap-on fucking you up the ass and you claiming 'BODE after you heal from the wounds. You sick fucker.Martyred wrote:Big fat liar.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
Let's just turn this into a stockade for those who fail to render English in any recognizable form.
Right trev? That's what you and Annie are trying to do here, correct?
Whoever handed you your HS diploma should be thrashed with extreme prejudice. Skulls are anxious to give you a wide berth - fearful of retracing some evolutionary steps.
Right trev? That's what you and Annie are trying to do here, correct?
Were you absent during the entire 6th grade? Did they ask you to mouthbreathe in the hallway, rather than suffer through your incessant bubble-flecked rasping?Risa, I don't get what you're eluding to
Whoever handed you your HS diploma should be thrashed with extreme prejudice. Skulls are anxious to give you a wide berth - fearful of retracing some evolutionary steps.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
I was gonna google up something semi-appropriate, but the gays scared me away. Gays are serious about their restraints. Good lord.PSUFAN wrote:Let's just turn this into a stockade for those who fail to render English in any recognizable form.
No.Right trev? That's what you and Annie are trying to do here, correct?
Context is your friend. Typos are irrelevant.Were you absent during the entire 6th grade?Risa, I don't get what you're eluding to
It was just after-school role-play........Whoever handed you your HS diploma should be thrashed with extreme prejudice.
![Image](http://www.mannatahiti.com/images/model/modelcufflinks_330h.jpg)
and we've seen the pictures. I really don't think you can take on Vic,
Blondie. But you can try. What's your reach?
To those who may be following what has transpired between Smackie and I (all 2 of you, if that), your attention to the proceedings has not been in vain. The exchange should tell the story, if you didn't already know it, of Smackie's rackable, mad prowess. If one were to consider doing battle with S. Chan, take him lightly at your peril, and bring a lunch. Anyone who has read the prior posts and knows the score in smack should be able to recognize that he is no pushover. One thing that should be noted particularly well is that he's no coward: he doesn't need the absolute assurance that he's arguing for the most popular answer. Of controversy, he's not afraid. And of effort, well, if you can match his, you a bad muthafucka yourself.
Indeed, there's no denying that the amount of effort he's dedicated far exceeds the effort I've committed. All that he's written versus my few spare lines should bear that out. To the point of my failing in the effort department... eh, you know how it is when confronted with having to put up a fight for something that is utterly rudimentary in your experience. Something you'd reasonably expect a sophomore to know. It's not as fun advocating well established SOP, so the resulting lack of motivation puts the kibosh on extended effort.
Rack Smackie! Go to battle with him with your house in order or not at all.
velocet
Indeed, there's no denying that the amount of effort he's dedicated far exceeds the effort I've committed. All that he's written versus my few spare lines should bear that out. To the point of my failing in the effort department... eh, you know how it is when confronted with having to put up a fight for something that is utterly rudimentary in your experience. Something you'd reasonably expect a sophomore to know. It's not as fun advocating well established SOP, so the resulting lack of motivation puts the kibosh on extended effort.
Rack Smackie! Go to battle with him with your house in order or not at all.
velocet
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
If that was even close to being relevant I would answer, but it is not so I won't.Atomic Punk wrote:Were you commissioned?
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
Kierland wrote:A distinction should be made between officers and enlisted as they take a different oath. Officers are more 'culpable' and hence more 'blameworthy' for wrong doing in an unjust war than are the enlisted soldiers.
You are a fucking tard you goddamn fucked up shit troll.Kierland wrote:If that was even close to being relevant I would answer, but it is not so I won't.Atomic Punk wrote:Were you commissioned?
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
- Smackie Chan
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 7309
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Inside Your Speakers
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
There are lots of ex-military here. It's no big deal.Kierland wrote:If that was even close to being relevant I would answer, but it is not so I won't.Atomic Punk wrote:Were you commissioned?
You served?
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
How the fuck would you know?Risa wrote:There are lots of ex-military here. It's no big deal.
Aunt Tardamima strikes yet another 17-stroke gem of idiocy.
-
- World Renowned Last Word Whore
- Posts: 25891
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm
Get a room.Smackie Chan wrote:The level of effort expended is in direct proportion to the respect afforded the opponent.velocet wrote:And of effort, well, if you can match his, you a bad muthafucka yourself.
I'd rather be your ally than your adversary.
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
Why would it be a big deal? it's just commissioned versus non-commissioned. so what.RadioFan wrote:How the fuck would you know?Risa wrote:There are lots of ex-military here. It's no big deal.
Aunt Tardamima strikes yet another 17-stroke gem of idiocy.
You're right, I don't know. But folks have given their military information before without it being a big deal. So I assumed it wasn't a big deal........ kind of like dogs sniffing each other's ass, or pissing on each other's corners. You establish who you are and where you're coming from, and then you either snap to, beat your chest, or act like you've been best friends since college.
But fill me in, Radio.
yeah, but can you do that using only your third leg?PSUFAN wrote:What exactly are you eluding to, trev?trev wrote:
Translation to PSU:
You're no Vic.
:logout:
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
How is my military status relevant on a board where people are bashing a General over militray issues?Atomic Punk wrote:You are a fucking tard you goddamn fucked up shit troll.
That there are two oaths is easily verifiable on google by either yourself or Mr. Punk.mvscal wrote:Guess again, dipshit.
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
I asked you if you were commissioned, you fucking side stepping piece of shit. Yeah, and challenge mvscal at the same time too you fucking tard, while you're at it.
Where the fuck does a bitch like you get a link to post here anyway. Trying to bring it down to KC standards? New blood here is fine but goddamn... how many fucking losers have access to computers nowdays?
Where the fuck does a bitch like you get a link to post here anyway. Trying to bring it down to KC standards? New blood here is fine but goddamn... how many fucking losers have access to computers nowdays?
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
I've sworn in enlisted personnel in the past for re-enlistments. Maybe it changed over the years? mvscal... thoughts on this dumb fuck's ducking and dodging? Now I MAY be wrong but the oaths at least sounded the same. The Clinton era... whew. Now Bush v2. It'll attract worse tards than you for sure.Queerland wrote:And I told you I was not going to tell you.Atomic Punk wrote:I asked you if you were commissioned, you fucking side stepping piece of shit.
Officers and Enlisted take two different oaths and my military status won't change that.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
- smackaholic
- Walrus Team 6
- Posts: 21748
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: upside it
So, a kid serving in the armed forces during wartime is just "receiving a gubmint check". No different than a welfare recipient, I guess.
Bri, you are putting on a KYOA demo the likes of which I have never seen before. Please continue.
Bri, you are putting on a KYOA demo the likes of which I have never seen before. Please continue.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
- Smackie Chan
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 7309
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Inside Your Speakers
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air), the Oath of Enlistment is:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Army Officers' Oath:
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
It does change but the two oaths that I am talking about (the ones Smackie Chan posted) have been around for a while.Atomic Punk wrote: Maybe it changed over the years?
There are two oaths and one puts more pressure on the individual oath taker to not just take orders but to have 'some' independent thought. That was my point. I am not sure why you thought it was pertinent to check my dog tags before believed me.
- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
Because this is a smack board? Everyone here is full of shit.Kierland wrote:It does change but the two oaths that I am talking about (the ones Smackie Chan posted) have been around for a while.Atomic Punk wrote: Maybe it changed over the years?
There are two oaths and one puts more pressure on the individual oath taker to not just take orders but to have 'some' independent thought. That was my point. I am not sure why you thought it was pertinent to check my dog tags before believed me.
Tell me you knew.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint
Exactly.Risa wrote:You're right, I don't know.