T1B

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.

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.

Kierland wrote:

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.

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.

Were you commissioned?

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.

Martard shows up under his tard troll nick once again.

Shocker.

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.

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?

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.

Whatever happened with that?

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?

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?

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."

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.


And I still want to know exactly when I fought you. Bad form to pretend a fight, for peanut gallery points. Velo falls off.

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.

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.

To this day due to that dream I laugh at the Canatard short dicks that like hockey.

Big fat liar.

Atomic Punk wrote:

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.

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.

To this day due to that dream I laugh at the Canatard short dicks that like hockey.

:( 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Martyred wrote:Big fat liar.

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.

You are not Invictus; I am not Trev.

I hope your keyboard is fucking ruined soon.

What, PSU, folks is leaving? :?

Did you get Zyclone to type that for you? What the fuck are you trying to say?

PSUFAN wrote:Did you get Zyclone to type that for you? What the fuck are you trying to say?

Oh now you're joking. That is not that difficult to follow.

Risa, I don't get what you're eluding to but Vic is quite talented and entertaining and I admire his abilities. I'm positive my prince would be quite respectful of me if we were to meet up in person.

:wink:

I read Velocet to mean that Vic means what he writes to you... the meat of it, I mean, not the over the topness.

If I'm prying too much and too deeply into this, then just say 'simmer down', and I'll let this one go.

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?

Risa, I don't get what you're eluding to

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?

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.

PSUFAN wrote:Let's just turn this into a stockade for those who fail to render English in any recognizable form.

I was gonna google up something semi-appropriate, but the gays scared me away. Gays are serious about their restraints. Good lord.

Right trev? That's what you and Annie are trying to do here, correct?

No.

Risa, I don't get what you're eluding to

Were you absent during the entire 6th grade?

Context is your friend. Typos are irrelevant.

Whoever handed you your HS diploma should be thrashed with extreme prejudice.

It was just after-school role-play........



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

Atomic Punk wrote:Were you commissioned?

If that was even close to being relevant I would answer, but it is not so I won't.

Heh, Risa.

Translation to PSU:

You're no Vic.

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.

Kierland wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:Were you commissioned?

If that was even close to being relevant I would answer, but it is not so I won't.

You are a fucking tard you goddamn fucked up shit troll.

velocet wrote:And of effort, well, if you can match his, you a bad muthafucka yourself.

The level of effort expended is in direct proportion to the respect afforded the opponent.

I'd rather be your ally than your adversary.

Kierland wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:Were you commissioned?

If that was even close to being relevant I would answer, but it is not so I won't.

There are lots of ex-military here. It's no big deal.


You served?

Risa wrote:There are lots of ex-military here. It's no big deal.

How the fuck would you know?

Aunt Tardamima strikes yet another 17-stroke gem of idiocy.

Smackie Chan wrote:

velocet wrote:And of effort, well, if you can match his, you a bad muthafucka yourself.

The level of effort expended is in direct proportion to the respect afforded the opponent.

I'd rather be your ally than your adversary.

Get a room.

trev wrote:Heh, Risa.

Translation to PSU:

You're no Vic.

What exactly are you eluding to, trev?

:logout:

RadioFan wrote:

Risa wrote:There are lots of ex-military here. It's no big deal.

How the fuck would you know?

Aunt Tardamima strikes yet another 17-stroke gem of idiocy.

Why would it be a big deal? it's just commissioned versus non-commissioned. so what.

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.

PSUFAN wrote:

trev wrote:
Translation to PSU:

You're no Vic.

What exactly are you eluding to, trev?

:logout:

yeah, but can you do that using only your third leg?

Atomic Punk wrote:You are a fucking tard you goddamn fucked up shit troll.

How is my military status relevant on a board where people are bashing a General over militray issues?

mvscal wrote:Guess again, dipshit.

That there are two oaths is easily verifiable on google by either yourself or Mr. Punk.

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?

Atomic Punk wrote:I asked you if you were commissioned, you fucking side stepping piece of shit.

And I told you I was not going to tell you.

Officers and Enlisted take two different oaths and my military status won't change that.

Queerland wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:I asked you if you were commissioned, you fucking side stepping piece of shit.

And I told you I was not going to tell you.

Officers and Enlisted take two different oaths and my military status won't change that.

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.

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.

The officer oath is distinct from the oath of enlistment in that officers only swear to support and defend the Constitution, while the Army requires enlisted soldiers to make the additional promise to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me." This difference in the oaths implies that military officers are truly guardians of the Constitution, while enlisted service members are concerned mostly with mission accomplishment and following orders. While mission accomplishment is undoubtedly the main concern of officers as well, the oath gives officers the additional responsibility of viewing their actions and orders in light of the Constitution.

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.

Atomic Punk wrote: Maybe it changed over the years?

It does change but the two oaths that I am talking about (the ones Smackie Chan posted) have been around for a while.
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.

Kierland wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote: Maybe it changed over the years?

It does change but the two oaths that I am talking about (the ones Smackie Chan posted) have been around for a while.
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.

Because this is a smack board? Everyone here is full of shit.

Tell me you knew.

Risa wrote:You're right, I don't know.

Exactly.