l0rd

It doesn't need to be illegal, the damage/death you cause with it will put you away for life/death penalty. But apart from that, yes, it should I guess be considered illegal, so some idiots don't think and go, "Well nuclear warfare isn't illegal, lets try that!" I mean it should be illegal on a global sense. Comparable to the ban on satellite missiles (or w/e, don't correct me on what they're called cause i don't give a [bleep]) And your logic is flawed because no "idiots" could obtain nuclear technology let alone have such of a whimsical of a motive for using it.

nuclear warfare

I've read this liek 20 times :?

lol@the 4chan symbol in the final scene

I read that and my mind took out the word "done" the first time I read it so I was like XD. But then I re-read it to confirm the XD. But the XD wasn't appropriate when reading it correctly, it was more like =] worthy.

If you "knew" me, you'd be the first.

What? A New years celebratory beep-box of course, let us not fray from this threads discourse Although my beats may be sluggish and coarse it sure beats the 1930's telegraphic Morse Of course envisioning me singing is not such a pretty sight But why beat the dead horse, when you've just lost the fight I am not singing relevant lyrics Bork, bork, bork, bork, bork.

2009 doot-doot-bum-bum-bum-de-do-dap-shigglybeep-dum-dummm-dum-di-di-di-di-di-dum-dowm-dowm-dowm-di-di-di-di-di-dum-dowm-dowm-dowm-dowm-dum-bum I celebrated by cooking myself a pound of bacon and consuming it at midnight.

... how big your DECK was. :lol: :P (I'm so immature.) It's been done, bro. Twice. ....How big your DECK was. HAHAHAHAHA MR. GREEN GET@@@ :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

No, that goes against the very definition of the word "species". Look it up.

Oh and by the way, I don't think apathy is bad in the slightest.

Ignorance is so much worse, and all who think otherwise are IGNORANT!

In 5th grade I used to make little Molotov cocktails, and other bomb type things with gasoline and compressed CO2 with my friend. Our parents didn't know, but one day we were making a bomb-type thing and there was a cup of clear liquid on the ground that I thought was water. I drank it and it turned out to be gasoline. Called poison control etc, I spit it out immediately, but the little amount that I got in my stomach made me throw up. So: making explosives, and drinking gasoline as some stupid things right there.

My whole life is obsession after obsession. I just got done with the Runescape obsession, lasted 5 years.

Correction, Israel has been given bigger guns. Correction, Israel has been given the threat of bigger guns.

It was obviously a rhetorical question asked to stress my point. Anyways, the Gaza Strip is in no way relevant to my life, don't make accusations that you don't know. Not knowing what the Gaza Strip is after supposedly "listening to conflict after conflict in the middle-east until so much repetitiveness induces tiredness of the subject" then I believe one should know what the Gaza Strip is. The only people I look down upon in this case are the people who claim to be so tired from so much news about Conflict in the middle-east, when really they don't know what the Gaza Strip is. I really don't care about Roman culture or history, and it is not in new-sources that I read, watch or hear. So obviously I am not tired from it. Given that, I don't know the answer to your question. Is this ignorance? No. Is it ignorance when someone claims to be "tired" of so many newstories about conflicts in the middle-east and they don't even know what the Gaza Strip is? Yes.

Do you know how many Americans don't know what the Gaza Strip is? That's my last argument, and I'm ending it at that to avoid further off-topicness.

I never said people don't tire of conflicts in the middle-east, read my whole post. * * Even in a given fictional circumstance where 100% of the population "tires" of hearing about conflict. I wouldn't want my news sources to cease providing me with information of such conflict. The options are: 1. live in a fake-peaceful world or 2. live in an informative, cruel world. I'll choose option 2. No ones arguing ignorance for bliss, just stating that the conflict is tiring and frustrating. That's why I'm confused as to what you're arguing about. Oh yeah, edit in red. OT: I think Israel is looking for an excuse to take the Gaza Strip. Hamas knew the attacks would create retaliation (Israel has attacked for less) and was already hiding. At this point, I guess we should hope surrounding countries continue to allow aid to get to Gaza. Nothing that I said contradicts myself. When I said "I never said people don't tire of conflicts in the middle-east, read my whole post." I meant I know there are some people that tire of it and some people don't. In this statement I was saying that I know there is a segment of the population that does tire of it. And I know no one wants ignorance or is arguing for bliss, I am saying it is the by-product of that kind of attitude towards things.

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state? Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong" That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^ Yes. (I agree with assasin that "Libertarian socialism" is a paradox) Agreeing that socialism is a paradox doesn't answer my question lawl. I'll ask it again: Are you trying to say instituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "intrusive"(strange word choice) state?

I never said people don't tire of conflicts in the middle-east, read my whole post. Even in a given fictional circumstance where 100% of the population "tires" of hearing about conflict. I wouldn't want my news sources to cease providing me with information of such conflict. The options are: 1. live in a fake-peaceful world or 2. live in an informative, cruel world. I'll choose option 2.

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state? Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong" That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^

What you are doing is still generalizing people. You're now saying people tire of conflicts in the Middle-East etc. I get it, I know what your trying to get across, and I think you wrong. Obviously people do care about conflicts, it never ceases to be broadcast on new shows, radio shows where people do listen and do not grow tired of reports of such conflict. Actually, you're saying "but people are tired of hearing about conflict", and from what you conveyed, I can come to conclusion that you yourself do not like hearing about conflict. Of course hearing about peoples lives being taken isn't beneficial to your life in the long-run. But what is the point of living on the earth, in civilization if you mask yourself to its downsides and clashes? I do not want to be sheltered from bad, nor does "tiredness" or "repetitiveness" have any relevance to it.

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state?

Probably no counter-attack, and everyone will go about in a few months forgetting it ever happened. Or maybe Hamas will lose governance and be attacked while their down. Don't generalize "people" as apathetic to world-events. Heck, there are some Israeli's and Arabs OT'ers probably.