Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ToonyMan]

Why do you want to be killed then?

[Criptfeind]

I was pretty sure your post

I have to kill you Criptfeind no hard feelings.

was a joke.

If it is not can you PM me where you live?

[SalmonGod]

The question is which do you value more?  Your integrity or your safety?

Um... Safety.

Yeah, reading this again, I worded it badly.  Safety is a misleading term in this context, considering the majority of bullies threaten nothing more than bruises, damaged pride, and lost lunch money.  Trust me, I definitely don't belittle the effect that has on a person over long periods of time, but it's usually not a matter of serious injury or death, which is what "safety" would imply.  When faced with serious personal threats, I don't think much less of a person for not being too self-critical.  With your typical bullying, however, I don't think it's wrong to encourage people to be more creative, strong-willed, and productive in facing the issue.

[Criptfeind]

You know, I might be the wrong person to talk about this then, because I have never be subject to the lesser class of bullies that only take your milk money and pride.

[ArKFallen]

I have no idea what you just said.

but not bad enough to leave off the poetic, romanticizing language.

So that's how I've been talking? No wonder I need a translator when with strangers.

[Vector]

So that's how I've been talking? No wonder I need a translator when with strangers.

I recommend this path for none, for the trials are many and the rewards are few. I frankly don't know why I chose it...

... You can't smell it?  It's dripping...

[Cthulhu]

Violence only begets more violence.  If he's not trying to put you in the hospital, don't make things worse.  Even if he is, get away if you can.

[ToonyMan]

I was pretty sure your post

I have to kill you Criptfeind no hard feelings.

was a joke.
If it is not can you PM me where you live?

This is all theoretical.  I don't ever plan to kill you.  However, you stated:

Does it make me a bad person if I believe in preemptive retaliatory strikes in a position with bullies or whatever? Strikes meant to be so disproportional that they are unable to strike me back?

If you believe this statement then that means I can strike you to death and you shouldn't have any complaints.

You even accept the fact here:

I have to kill you Criptfeind no hard feelings.

No. No, I understand. According to my view of taking out threats before they threaten you that makes perfect sense to me.

Which means I'm allowed to kill you.

Which means you're allowing yourself to be killed since I wouldn't kill you without your permission.

You're killing yourself, why do you believe this view when it could mean the end of your life?

[Leafsnail]

So, Criptfeind: let's imagine someone reads about your philosophy of "preemptive retaliation".  They realise that, when they meet you, there's every chance you'll randomly punch them in the face to prevent them from attacking you.  Therefore, the person meeting you realizes he'll have to strike first.  Would he be justified in doing so?

Really, you sound waaaaaaay more dangerous than any of these bullies you talk about.  At least the bullies limit themselves to targets they think they might actually get something from.  Although I guess "Become the biggest bully in your school" is quite a good way to avoid bullying if you're so inclined.

I do not see the issue with something being both preemptive and retaliatory. If they are going to strike me, and I strike them first, is that not both preemptive and retaliatory?

Because they haven't done anything to you.  Retaliation is something you do in return for someone else having done something to you (still dubious if you're massively escalating it, but whatever).  It's a nonsensical oxymoron - you do one or the other, not both.

Yeah. That is just craziness. I would hit much harder. I think if I got in a gang war I would gather my gang and kill them all or be killed in the first attack.

Please, please, PLEASE tell me you're joking about this.

Violence only begets more violence.  If he's not trying to put you in the hospital, don't make things worse.  Even if he is, get away if you can.

I think this is the most sensible thing said on this thread so far.

[SalmonGod]

You know, I might be the wrong person to talk about this then, because I have never be subject to the lesser class of bullies that only take your milk money and pride.

I've been hurt worse.  I've had my head slammed into a brick wall, gouged in the arm with a pen, shoved into a rusty nail that cut my leg, hit in the back of the neck unexpectedly by someone running past who just kept running... but every time it was something that happened and then it was over.  There was no continued threat and if there had been, I would have been ready to defend myself proportionately.

[Criptfeind]

Violence only begets more violence.  If he's not trying to put you in the hospital, don't make things worse.  Even if he is, get away if you can.

Running away makes it so your vulnerable back is facing them, but if they have broken legs they can not chase you.

If you believe this statement then that means I can strike you to death and you shouldn't have any complaints.

It means if you have a good reason to think I am a threat to you or I think you are a threat to me then I would understand if you tried to kill me. But, see I am not stupid (thus I do not think you are a threat to me) and not a psychopath (thus I am not a threat to you) there is nothing to set of the chain of instant pre-retaliation ending in a deadly game of who can kill whom first.

I have to kill you Criptfeind no hard feelings.

No. No, I understand. According to my view of taking out threats before they threaten you that makes perfect sense to me.

Which means I'm allowed to kill you.

Which means you're allowing yourself to be killed since I wouldn't kill you without your permission.

Well, there are two things here.

1: That was a joking response to what I thought was a joking post.

2: That is not permission to kill me, that is me saying I would understand if you did. I would still try my hardest to kill or incapacitate you first.

Leafsnail: You are both assuming I am a psychopath, and that there is nothing needed to start it.

Please, please, PLEASE tell me you're joking about this.

Toooo... A certain extent. If I thought it was needed for safety, and I could not do it another way, then yes I would.


Edit: Let my try to put this down a better way here.

1: I do believe in escalation of violence so a person can not respond to it.
2: I do believe in a preemptive attack to prevent any violence against me.

[ChairmanPoo]

or be killed in the first attack.

[ToonyMan]

I'll kill you first then with a very good reason that only I can understand.  Is that okay with your criteria?

[Criptfeind]

Not if I can not understand it.

I would be greatly confused.

Also, I can not read your body language over the internet, so I would assume you are joking if you said that.

or be killed in the first attack.

Not a optimal outcome. But a possible one.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

or be killed in the first attack.

Don't take this as a statement of support for Criptfeind's argument, but everyone dies eventually. If someone were die trying to make a life worth living, I'd say that it'd be worth it.