Trial by combat. . Wed 23 Apr 2014 Updated 4 mins ago Home D News Court refuses trial by combat By David Saposed 12201 AM GMT 16 Dec 2002 A court has rejected a tags tags and ta
x
Click to expand

Trial by combat

Wed 23 Apr 2014 Updated 4 mins ago
Home D News
Court refuses trial by combat
By David Saposed 12201 AM GMT 16 Dec 2002
A court has rejected a man' s attempt to
invoke the ancient right to trial by combat, rather than
pay a fine for a minor motoring offence.
Leon Humphreys remained adamant yesterday that his
right to fight a champion nominated by the Driver and
Vehicle Licensing Agency (DELA) was still valid under
European human rights legislation, He said it would
have been a "reasonable" way to settle the matter.
Magistrates sitting at Bury St Edmunds on Friday had
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1557
Views: 55214
Favorited: 97
Submitted: 04/25/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to PeepinTurtle submit to reddit

Comments(265):

[ 265 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - thegrazel (04/26/2014) [-]
Let there be blood.   
Put me down for $20 on the Old man. I like the cut of his jib.
Let there be blood.
Put me down for $20 on the Old man. I like the cut of his jib.
User avatar #22 to #4 - jibb (04/26/2014) [-]
wat?
User avatar #24 to #22 - hugsta (04/26/2014) [-]
Can I have a cut of you?
I want a section of the clavicle (preferably) for...things.
#25 to #24 - jibb (04/26/2014) [-]
Be my guest
Be my guest
#251 to #22 - thegrazel (04/27/2014) [-]
O, well hi there Jibb. Welcome to the conversation. May we have you for dinner?
#60 - grogovic (04/26/2014) [-]
**grogovic rolled image** Medieval ways.
#7 - mrsnowballs ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
User avatar #6 - Fjcf (04/26/2014) [-]
The rest of the text:
Magistrates sitting at Bury St Edmunds on Friday had disagreed and instead of accepting his offer to take on a clerk from Swansea with "samurai swords, Ghurka knives or heavy hammers", fined him £200 with £100 costs.
Humphreys, an unemployed mechanic, was taken to court after refusing to pay the original £25 fixed penalty for failing to notify the DVLA that his Suzuki motorcycle was off the road.
After entering a not guilty plea, he threw down his unconventional challenge. Humphreys, from Bury St Edmunds, said: "I was willing to fight a champion put up by the DVLA, but it would have been a fight to the death."
#178 to #6 - crackedpepper (04/26/2014) [-]
metal as ****
#23 - badjojobeans (04/26/2014) [-]
Back in the day where you settled beef with fisticuffs.

Pic unrelated.
#26 to #23 - marcx ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
like im wearign nothign at all
#1 - usarmyexplain (04/26/2014) [-]
The lack of honor is one thing that I think is really wrong with the world today.
User avatar #123 to #1 - nought ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Don't know if anyone else knows this, but this was a really big deal. Andrew Jackson stood up to the "oppressive" British soldiers and refused to give in to his demand. He would later use this image of being American and being a "common man" to win presidency.
User avatar #130 to #123 - usarmyexplain (04/26/2014) [-]
He was also like 12 when he joined the army.
#8 to #1 - anon (04/26/2014) [-]
tips fedora
User avatar #21 to #1 - snowshark (04/26/2014) [-]
Honour is pride. It's silly. Rather than honour people just need to value the lives of others a reasonable amount. I don't see other people as just as important as I am, since I am still the main character of my story, but I know they are the main characters of their own stories and I know they would enjoy a little bit of warmth from me as much as I would from them. (Maybe not as much... maybe a little less.)

Honour gets people to do really damned stupid **** and stupid **** is why the world is in the mess it's in right now in the first place. We need less stupid **** and more common sense because by this point in time it's fair to say that common sense simply isn't any more.
#28 to #21 - angelusprimus (04/26/2014) [-]
Honor is not pride. Honor is integrity.
People masquarade a lot as honor, but there is a huge difference between honor, pride and reputation.
Middle eastern people have especially bad case of mixing honor and reputation. Reputation is what others know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.
Common sense is "I'm hungry, food is offered to me, I'll take it." honor is "I'm hungry, but people offering me food can't afford to. I won't take it."
Its people like you, who don't understand what honor is, that messed up the world. Not those who lived honorable lives.
User avatar #66 to #28 - snowshark (04/26/2014) [-]
Honour is not integrity. It is more than that which is why the words are not interchangeable. Honour is living by a certain code or system of rules that you accept and enforce upon yourself out of self-compulsion as opposed to religious or societal compulsions.

Honour is neither a good nor a bad thing. There are people who will claim the honourable act is to allow themselves to live and let five others die because they could possibly save more in the future and there are those who say the opposite. A captain's honour dictates he go down with his ship but is that really a good thing?

No, Honour is a word with a -very- broad spectrum of applications and integrity is about sticking to the rules set forth in your code of conduct that you set for yourself in regards to your personal sense of honour.

So I'm the bad guy because I know how fickle honour is and how it means different things to different people? Because that's not how it is at all. Honour is worthless to me because I don't do things according to any code. I do things that I think are the best course of action and base my life on a highly subjective basis.

I said. " people just need to value the lives of others a reasonable amount. I don't see other people as just as important as I am, since I am still the main character of my story, but I know they are the main characters of their own stories and I know they would enjoy a little bit of warmth from me as much as I would from them."

You could follow me around for months and I bet you would have very little evidence to support any kind of claim that -I- or people like me are the cause of any of the darkness in this world. So **** you for judging me and my worth based upon a single disagreement that we have over the semantic meaning of a single psychological concept.

Because that **** does not sound very honourable to me.
#67 to #66 - angelusprimus (04/26/2014) [-]
Every time I hear someone say "common sense" is a way to go, I know who I am talking with.
Someone who is ignorant enough to not realize that common sense is just a byword with no meaning what so ever.
What is common sense? Is it common sense for 20 people to go in the snow to save one, where they all might die? No. But its a honorable and right thing to do.
And I am judging you.
I am judging you because of that ******** of "value people little less because I am the main character in my story."
Its an old, tired and stupid overused trope that has no real meaning except "I am selfish and care more for myself then anyone else."
And yes, that's the type of people I consider the problem. Those that act with honor, real honor, not the cheap imitation you write about, will never value themselves even "slightly bit more" then others.
User avatar #160 to #67 - snowshark (04/26/2014) [-]
(Cont.)

5) Everyone is selfish. Pretty much everything everyone does is selfish in some manner or another. If you want to eat your lollipop but the kid next to you wants it too and you give it to them that's not being selfless because in return you get the feeling of doing something kind for someone else which goes towards reinforcing one's ego and self-worth, it also avoids damaging one's ego by not sharing with someone else and being troubled by guilt.

Life isn't about not being selfish. Life is about balancing your selfishness with those around you. Taking what you want and what you need without disproportionately depriving other people of their own wants and needs. I don't give everything I own to other people because I like to own everything I own, that's why I own it. But I do not own it because I don't want other people to have it and I don't deprive other people of owning the things 'they' want to own because 'I' want to own them more.

A good life is a balance of altruism and hedonism, or to the laymen, give and take. You talk about honour as though I am dishonourable for not throwing all of my money at the people lying dying on the streets. I help them when I can but for the most part I need that money to survive myself. Why do you even have a computer if you value other people at the same level you value yourself? Sell it. Sell all the things you can live without and go and give the money you make to the people dying cold on the streets.

And if you need your computer for work, why aren't you working? Work and get more money to give to all of those people who you place an equal value upon as you do to yourself. They would want you to do it and their wants are as important as your own are they not?

I'm not evil, I just don't lie to myself. Honour is for people who don't understand how life works. I give and I take. I take enough to survive comfortably and give the surplus I don't need or have no plans for to the people I want to be happy.
#200 to #160 - pariahlol (04/26/2014) [-]
I just feel the need to tell you, that you're awesome. People like the guy you're arguing against are foolish. It takes wisdom and intelligence to make decisions, not honor. Honor is foolish. For example, in the original picture of Jackson that these comments stem from, he could have simply cleaned the dude's shoe at no consequence, rather than take a sword wound to the face. Jackson had no wisdom, and his presidency later on would reflect that.
User avatar #204 to #200 - snowshark (04/26/2014) [-]
Cheers. I try to be wise as best I can and balance wisdom with kindness and all the other altruistic pursuits. It's not easy and I gotta admit I've felt the need to just go ******** on people every now and then but it doesn't serve a higher purpose and is ultimately detrimental and degrading so what's the ******* point?

The problem is cold logic can only get you so far and I'm screwed in the head so logic, i.e. Wisdom, deserts me in regards to social interaction every now and then. I mean, I can read people fairly well but... problems are complicated and highly subjective so I mostly spend my time alone these days. Probably for the best, I've writing to do.
User avatar #217 to #200 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Fools, the lot of you! Do you think Jackson would have been president if he bent over to shine a scoundrel's shoes because he demanded it? Think what you may about his policies, but he wouldn't let his country get walked over if it came to it. You two think you're so smart, but you can't see the outcomes of your young "wisdoms" in the long run. Who will count on your to watch their back when you just curl into a ball? You forsake the traditions of your ancestors at your own peril!
#252 to #217 - pariahlol (04/27/2014) [-]
While it sounds like you're joking, I do feel the need to at least reply to what you said just in case, because you can never tell on FJ
Shining someone's shoes isn't letting the country get walked over. You can still not let your country walked over but be smart about it. By choosing not to shine some dick's shoes, he gained nothing more than a cool story. It's not like the country would have succumbed to the british as a result.

God i hope youre joking, haha
User avatar #253 to #252 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
If you truly believe a man who cowers to others on the street won't cower in leadership, then I can't teach you a thing. This is a wisdom you and snowshark will have to learn on your own as you become men. Good luck.
User avatar #254 to #253 - snowshark (04/27/2014) [-]
You are misunderstanding something very important. It is not weakness to capitulate to your enemies. It is weakness to loose to them. The two things are similar but not synonymous. In WWII France capitulated to the Nazis and in doing so saved countless lives and monuments. However France never gave up fighting. They could not fight the giant at their doorstep so they capitulated and in doing so spread the forces of the Nazis thinner whilst working to undermine them through the rebellion. Sabotage, assassinations, espionage, relaying information to the allies. By capitulating they became a laughing stock to the brainless fools who don't understand warfare but in the end they succeeded. If they had fought, hundreds, probably thousands more people would have just up and died because the heartlands of the Nazi movement was right next to them and they certainly had a score to settle with the French.

In that case, capitulation saved them and allowed them to perform a great service that ultimately allowed the allies to end the second world war.

It is wise to stand up for your principles but not when there is no reason to stand up for them. Jackson was punished because his pride did not allow him to bend-knee to his enemies. His pride cost him. It was his inability to judge the wisest move in the situation that led to him being harmed. He was damned lucky he was not actually killed because of such a stupid move.

So reflect on that, because the wisest move is rarely the easiest. It often requires you to swallow your pride and make the difficult decisions. To stop looking at the world in shades of black and white and see it for the grey that it is. A wise man is humble enough to lick his enemies boots without losing his self-worth, but smart enough to stab them through the back when they no longer consider him a threat.

Jackson was thirteen. He succumbed to immaturity and made a poor decision that happens to make a good story. A story of a boy with more pride than sense.
User avatar #255 to #254 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/28/2014) [-]
Millions of people died while the French were busy capitulating. Maybe if they fought, the war wouldn't have instantly run up to Britain's doorstep, who thank God fought despite the odds, asshole. Jackson was president of the United States of America, and you're an FJ novel-writer. You can criticize his choices all you want, it's easy. Courage is a virtue, cowardice is not, even if you justify it by biting people's ankles. Maybe if you stood up and took a risk sometime, you'd accomplish something and stop getting walked on by people who can smell the "altruistic" weakness on you. And, why do you write ******* novels, are you trying to keep people from reading this!?
User avatar #256 to #255 - snowshark (04/28/2014) [-]
You're really missing the big picture here.

By capitulating France saved many more lives than fighting would have. Yes, a lot of people died but a lot more would have died had they fought. France chose to do the wise thing and cut off an arm to save their body. If they had fought they would have suffered the full brunt of the German assault, something they knew they couldn't withstand and had already suffered through once.

The Nazis skipped over France and began bombing the UK, but that is all they were, bombings. Air-Battles and Sea Battles. The number of people that died in the bombings simply does not stack up against the numbers that suffered wherever the Nazis actually set foot. In France the Nazis would have steamrolled over the weaker French forces and butchered anyone who fought back against them. They did that in every country they invaded. Through capitulation France saved a ******** of lives and their actions in the war were absolutely integral to stopping the Nazis.

And Jackson wasn't President at the age of 13. He was a kid with more balls than brains and nearly died because of it. Courage is a virtue but recklessness and stupidity are not. Courage is overcoming fear but it is not the right thing to do. And bear in mind that you bite someone's ankles hard enough they fall over, maybe get infected and bleed to death in the right circumstances. If bowing stops them from killing you then you can attack them from where they do not expect it. But standing your ground when you don't even have ground to stand on gets stupid people killed.

And what do you know about my life? What do you know about the stuff I've done? Let's keep this an argument about principles and not get personal. Or does insulting the people you disagree with make you feel honourable?

I write a lot because I'm carefully showing you all of the things you're missing. I could write "You are wrong." in so many words but that's a dick move. I explain -why- I think you're wrong. It's polite.
User avatar #260 to #256 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/29/2014) [-]
I know what you're trying to say. Perfect thought is ideal, but if you don't understand why honor exists, how can you cast it aside? Wisdom is the opposite of youthfully casting out your ancestors ways, thinking them old and unnecessary. First, it needs to be clarified that we're not talking about honor itself, but one of many codes of honor that favors someone who fights against the perceived odds rather than cowers.

Perfect untainted thought always reigns, but that's disregarding the human condition. Fear is the greatest enemy of man, and it causes many men to cower before they've even lost. Or, to turn in their brothers to the enemy to save themselves. Dost thou advocate Judice, who secured his life and gained gold? Or, Peter, who renounced his King thrice, for what gain?

Furthermore, even without fear, no one knows a battle before it's over, but history is not on the side of premature runners. They never see all the variables, and here's a lesson in modern warfare for you. Casualties are much smaller for military battles than post-occupation activities. If France resisted, even after their lines broke, they could have discovered guerrilla warfare much sooner, the death toll would have been smaller, and they would have halted the Nazi's long enough for England to launch a more effective war machine.

Jackson proved he was no slave to fear, and no man's fool. He could have become a bitch that day, but he fought instead.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
User avatar #261 to #260 - snowshark (04/29/2014) [-]
Your idea about a French retaliation has merit but it also doesn't factor in a lot of important issues, namely that Italy and the USSR were also on the side of Germany. Whatever retaliation the French could present would either be moot or would quickly become moot as they fought a war on multiple fronts against superior enemies with the looming threat of one of the most powerful military forces in the world (The Soviet Union) bearing down on them should they persist.

I'm not arguing that a lot of people in France didn't die because they did, but I argue their capitulation saved the lives of those who would inevitably have died on the frontlines, men who eventually spearheaded the rebellion which was crucial in the acquisition of intel on the Nazis.

We also need to remember that at this point the US showed no signs of intervention. There was next to no hope left for the people of Europe. Either they allied with the Nazis, surrendered to the Nazis, or were crushed by the Nazis. Even with US intervention were it not for the retarded decision to invade Russia the Nazis would have rolled over Europe completely.

The French took an impossible situation and brought some good from it, helping Britain and the other suffering nations to fight the Nazis, evening the odds that were so unbalanced against themselves in the first place.

Yes, we need to view the decisions they made in regards to the information available to them back then but all I see is a nation that knew it would lose, knew that in losing it would send countless able young men to their deaths, and chose to sacrifice their dignity and keep their young soldiers to fight from the inside, rather than lose them all prolonging the inevitable loss and the massacres that would always have come afterwards.

Jackson was close to dying that day. Either by British anger or by an infected wound. He was in the same position as France, where he could not win the fight. He got lucky by surviving. Wise men doesn't play dice.
User avatar #262 to #261 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/30/2014) [-]
"Whatever retaliation the French could present would either be moot or would quickly become moot"
That's wrong for the reasons I already mentioned. If just 3% of the population resisted, they would never get past France, regardless of the involvement of an extra super power.

"I argue their capitulation saved the lives of those who would inevitably have died on the frontlines"
Review the numbers again. Much fewer would have died if they fought than knelt. It's the same for every country that was invaded.

"Wise men doesn't play dice."
You play dice every day whether you like it or not. By your reasoning, you shouldn't drive a car, because it's the most likely thing to kill you.

"Jackson was close to dying that day."
But he didn't. He lived greater than simple men ever dream.

I understand you have your idea about how things are, but I'm going to break it to you plainly, it's just wrong. I'm not giving you "my meritorious ideas". I'm telling you how it is. I don't know how old you are, but it sounds like you have a lot to learn, and don't like to listen.
User avatar #264 to #262 - snowshark (04/30/2014) [-]
"I understand you have your idea about how things are"

The idea is that Wisdom > Honour. Sun Tzu was wise more than he was honourable and we still keep his teachings round after all this time. Honour is a sentiment that is not necessary for living a good life and is often counter-productive to living a long one.

"but I'm going to break it to you plainly, it's just wrong."

That's not how debate works. You need to present an argument backed up by irrefutable evidence and rational explanation. You can say I am wrong as much as you like but if you want anyone to believe you you need to construct a compelling and sound argument.

"I don't know how old you are"

Nor I you. I'm going off the assumption that you're about 20 or something since I dislike talking either up or down to people and figure treating you like an adult is roughly the most polite course of action here.

"but it sounds like you have a lot to learn"

Everyone will always have a lot to learn but that particular philosophy aside I would like to point out that you have provided no more facts than I have in this debate. I'm not saying you're an idiot, rather I'm saying you have no valid grounds to criticise my learning in this situation nor do I have grounds to return the criticism to you nor would I if I did. Not because that kind of treatment could be seen as dishonourable, but because I just don't like judging people when the situation does not require it.

"and don't like to listen."

Snide though it might be to point out you did construct a post made entirely of you either sarcastically misinterpreting my arguments or making assumptions about me as a person or snidely criticising my moral standpoints on baseless grounds because you disagree with me.

The reason I didn't reply to that post is because I do not think it is worth replying to whilst this one, where you present more rational, if arguably flawed, arguments is a better platform for debate.
User avatar #263 to #262 - snowshark (04/30/2014) [-]
3% of France at the time was roughly 1.245 Million people.

In contrast 15 Million people served in the Nazi Armed Forces across the War with the peaks being at the beginning. This number is bolstered by superior firepower.

In the war both France and the UK lost about half a million people each. The entire war. In contrast, Poland lost about 5,800,000. Both of the countries got off lightly, mostly because the UK had the terrain advantage and there were far less people in France to suffer from the Nazi regime. Those numbers also include civilian casualties throughout the war and the final push by the Allies at the end of the war when they were on the offensive.

France continued to fight on the home-front through the rebellion and their overseas territories continued fighting with the allies.

But even if 50% of France stood up to the Nazis and the Italians France didn't have the supplies to arm them all, they didn't have the technology to repel the enemy, that 50% number doesn't take into account age demographics and people between 16 and 40 are really the only ones you want going to fight in a war, ideally 20-30 year olds who are in their prime but ideals don't count for much in WWII.

Playing Dice is willingly engaging in an avoidable game of chance. The phrase itself has a more complex meaning which can be simplified into 'A wise man does not rely upon chance. If possible he will choose the most assured rout to victory whilst factoring in acceptable losses.' -This- is why I write so much, because Brevity causes misunderstandings.

He lived by chance. Back in those days more people died from infections on the battlefield and poor medical treatment than they did from the wounds alone. If the blade was dirty, he could easily have died. He was 13, his body was weaker than that of a soldier. He lived but he could have avoided his arguably likely dance with death easily with a bit of wisdom.

This is gonna have to go into another comment.
User avatar #265 to #263 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/30/2014) [-]
Wow, what is wrong with you, man? I've never had to type as much you to get a point across, and I still usually use more facts. I'm surprised you used the word 'debate', and irrefutable evidence, since your entire argument is, "This sounds like it should be right."

Your understanding of asymmetric modern warfare is immature, and contradicts documented military conflicts. If you can't keep your comments in one post (or at least succinct), I'm not going to read all that fluff. When you're able to compose concise arguments, I'll be happy to spell out the realities of modern warfare and why your support of the French surrender cost several times more lives than it needed to. Right now, I think I'm talking to a big mouth and deaf ears.
User avatar #266 to #265 - snowshark (04/30/2014) [-]
Sadly I'm getting a similar impression. The first time you used figures in the debate you used a number that did not stand up to scrutiny.

The whole 3% thing that fell apart when analysed.

Could the French halve halted the Blitzkrieg? For a short time, aye, but certainly not in a prolonged engagement. However the Resistance provided intelligence that would otherwise have been impossible to acquire and the attacks on the rail lines led to approximately 1800 demolished within a single two-month period alone. The Germans were spread far thinner and in their reach to attach Britain and reinforce their territories they became more vulnerable to attacks from the inside.

Coordination by the allied forces with French intelligence led to some of the most effective military deployments of the war.

I get the impression your mindset hinges on the belief that if the French had fought they could have, alongside the allies, defeated the Nazis. The numbers simply do not back up that case. With Germany and Italy on their doorstep and strong ties between Germany and Spain due to their aid in their civil war France was flanked on two sides by enemies with a possible foe to their rear.

France was only really a blockade between Germany and the UK. In taking France the Axis powers began to focus more on overseas territories, thus spreading them even thinner.

It feels like whatever seriousness you put into your earlier arguments is long gone now and you're resorting to petty insults far too often for my tastes. What statistics you have given do not support your case and what points you make are baseless as you give no evidence to support the conclusions you are making.

I think this is going to be the end of this discussion if you can't produce a cogent argument if and when you reply to this. I was hoping to hear a different side of events with this discussion but all you ended up doing was drawing baseless conclusions, which is upsetting.

Anyway, suppose I'll see you around.
User avatar #267 to #266 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/30/2014) [-]
Alright. As you can see in the link provided, countries that surrendered without fighting suffered post-occupation casualties several orders higher in the 100's of thousands. Countries that fought, even though they lost, typically only suffered casualties only in the 10's of thousands prior to occupation.

As much as people hate war, combat deaths are usually miniscule compared to post-occupation destruction. This is because engagements are chosen carefully, and soldiers dig-in and are able to disengage when at-risk. Every French man who died on the field, saved 10 back at home, slowed the German advance, spent their supplies, and disorganized their ranks. That's what matters in modern warfare, not numbers nearly at all.

And, that's not mentioning what insurgency could have done. The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars trying to stabilize the Middle East, and what have we accomplished over a decade with only 3% of the population resisting? Not much. In WWII, the resources spent trying to suppress insurgents in conquered territory would have quickly brought their advance to a halt. Fewer executions would likely take place to avoid inciting more rebellion. The execution of unresistant civilians is where the vast majority of casualties in WWII came from.

At the end of the day, concerning honor, it's arrogant and silly to cast aside thousands of years of experience, in one's youth, saying, "My inductive logic is superior to the observation of millions."
User avatar #268 to #267 - snowshark (04/30/2014) [-]
You forgot to provide the link but I am guessing we're both using fairly similar numbers for this debate. You are right about that point in some respects, namely that a number of nations that resisted minimised their casualties.

However that is only true in some cases whilst in others the numbers actually show the complete opposite, namely that in the cases of nations such as Greece and Yugoslavia who both initially fought back against the Axis Powers were crushed in a few months and then proceeded to suffer massive casualties under Axis ruling.

This would indicate that wether a country fought back initially or not was irrelevant to the overall casualties suffered within the country during occupation. In some cases the numbers were comparatively low whilst in others they were catastrophically high.

However you are right about insurgency warfare, it is by far the most effective form of combat when faced with overwhelming odds. It is also exactly what France began to do during the German occupation and then some. They were so famous for their insurgency in WWII that we still use the word 'Sabotage' in the English language, despite it being a French word.

The Middle East is another good example of effective Insurgency warfare. When you said 3% I was under the impression you meant 3% of the people entering the battlefield. As it stands less than 3% took to rebellion but Charles De Gaulle, operating out of the UK, helped to coordinate the French splinter cells. I have already noted how effective these cells were at disrupting German supply lines but they were also effective against the factories as well.

I agree that there would be benefits to a conflict with Germany but I point out the cases of Greece and Yugoslavia as example of how effective the Nazis were in traditional combat, a prowess they demonstrated in the Battle for France where the French lost nearly 14 times as many troops as the Germans. 2,260,000 in just over a month.

The costs outweighed the gains.
0
#259 to #256 - cabbagemayhem has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #257 to #256 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/29/2014) [-]
Yes huh France couldn't win. The Nazi's killed way more on land. They only bombed England.

Jackson was honorable before he was a President, so that doesn't count.

Courage is overcoming fear, and that's not right. Biting people's ankles is my kind of fight! I prefer to stab people in the back when I can't beat them face to face, but I'm just smarter than honorable people.

What do you know about life, after reading only three novels? Don't hurt my feelings, it's not honorable.

I write a lot because I don't have facts, and I figure I can convince you with enough verbosity. It's polite.

Brevity.
0
#258 to #257 - cabbagemayhem has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #150 to #67 - snowshark (04/26/2014) [-]
(Cont.) 20 people that go out searching? How will their lives be impacted when those people die?

Common sense, rational thinking, and a kind heart would all say that you search when it is safe to search, not when the chances of you saving the person are next to nil and not when you are likely to die as a result too. Maybe love would have you go and do something unadvisable like that but if someone is distraught and not thinking rationally is it honourable to let them go out and get themselves killed or is it honourable to at least save their lives? Could the honourable thing be to go out yourself and pretend to look for the missing person but remain safe yourself, thus definitely saving 20 out of 21 lives and keeping everyone from doing anything stupid. Then to search when the conditions are less likely to kill everyone later?

The scenario you created there is far too underdeveloped for anyone to make the right choice. Nobody could tell all of the factors about that situation. Maybe in your mind there was no snowstorm because there was in mine, you didn't specify if there was one or not. Common sense would say if there is no snowstorm that you should go and search whilst taking all necessary precautions.

4) Good for you. Don't do that or I'll have to start returning the favour and I really don't like judging people, especially ones I do not know.

5) I value people less. What, do you expect me to value them more? I'm not a monk or the Pope. I value people less but I never told you how much less and the impression given is that I definitely value them a reasonable amount. Does it mean I would **** on their faces? **** no! I am one of the most generous, kind ******* I know. I'm no Mr. Rogers but I am a heck of a lot nicer to most people than they are to me. But if it is a choice between giving -them- and PS4 and -me- a PS4 I would take the console and let them come over and play on it when they want.

(Cont.) (Well, if you're honourable enough to hear me out.)
User avatar #134 to #67 - snowshark (04/26/2014) [-]
Right, let's deconstruct your comment one line at a time.

1) You're judging someone based upon the fact that they used a phrase you disagree with. A phrase with a highly subjective context used in a single comment meant to initiate conversation and not even the lynchpin phrase of the comment itself.

2) Common-sense has a meaning. It means "Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters." - Google. Basically, a phrase that means not to behave in an insensible manner. It doesn't mean acting like you're smart, rather it means not acting like you're an idiot. It has a meaning. Most people attribute to it a subjective meaning of their own but the core phrase has a meaning.

3) In the event that one person is left in the snow you weigh up your options. What are the chances of them being dead weighed up against the chances of the 20 that go out to find them ending up dying and the chances of finding them in the first place. Do these 20 people have expertise in the area and/or the proper equipment for the pursuit? Is it safe for them to search for a little while before returning back to where they started to recuperate? If they found the lost person what is to stop them from getting lost afterwards?

You have constructed a scenario where you have not paid attention to the factors present. In one instance it may be safe for the people to go out there and search for a little while and in another it may end up leading to 21 people dying horrible, painful, slow deaths.

Life is not like a movie. You don't get to win because you're the good guy. People die and life doesn't give a **** about how well-intentioned you are. The search and rescue don't go out whatever the weather. They go out when they can, when the chances balance up. If there is a blizzard on they don't go out searching in the mountains because they know it is likely they won't find the person in that weather, they wait until it is safer to do so.

And what about the family and friends of those...

(Cont.)
User avatar #269 to #134 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (05/01/2014) [-]
In reply to www.funnyjunk.com/Trial+by+combat/funny-pictures/5114957/268#268

The link is the one I provided earlier:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country

"Greece and Yugoslavia who both initially fought back against the Axis Powers were crushed in a few months and then proceeded to suffer massive casualties"

Yes, two things to note. The casualties taken before defeat were a tenth of what was taken after. Every man lost defending is worth the chance of preventing occupation, delaying occupation, or inhibiting the occupation of others.

"This would indicate that wether a country fought back initially or not was irrelevant to the overall casualties suffered within the country during occupation."

Actually, it's interesting to note that the countries that fought back the hardest did tend to lose fewer before and after occupation, compared to the ones that surrendered quickly or put up little resistance.

Greece fought hard on two fronts until they were eventually forced to surrender. Their refusal to surrender before battle is now a national holiday there. Still casualties were only 20-35k in combat, and only 160k after (+famine and disease).

Yugoslavia, however, had many more casualties than most, but they weren't noted for their honor on the conventional battlefield. They surrendered in 11 days. Their losses were higher than most, but still far lower than what they lost after surrendering.

France only lost 85,000 in the Battle of France, not 2.26M.

What's this? It's almost as if God favors the honorable! No one knows the outcome until it's over, just ask the Mongols. Skirmish the Germans all the way back to Paris, I say!
User avatar #271 to #269 - snowshark (05/01/2014) [-]
(2)

You mentioned Skirmishing the Nazis to Paris. I disagree. Not because Skirmishing is bad, but because at that time the Nazis were operating at the most ruthlessly efficient. I mentioned biting a man's ankles to topple him in my metaphor earlier. Skirmishing with the Blitzkrieg would be like trying to bite their sword-hand with the sword still in it and pointed at you. Best to wait 'til he sheathes the sword.

I would argue that it would be better to save the troops to strike at the Nazi's soft spots post-occupation whilst making the transition to a Nazi government as smooth as possible. France still got a relatively good deal all things considered so having those troops operating out of splinter-cells and harrying the Nazis when they were vulnerable is an easy prospect.

Skirmishing and guerrilla tactics were France's best bet at that point.
User avatar #270 to #269 - snowshark (05/01/2014) [-]
Except France fought back the hardest. Bare in mind they had over three million troops from their various allies on their side with more guns and tanks than the Axis however the battle was still lost swiftly and the Nazis cut so deeply and so quickly into France that Paris was all but defenceless when they arrived.

They threw France into complete disarray and crushed them in a month. France fought back harder than any other country and they still fell in moments. However I would like to know where you got the 85,000 number as the number of captured soldiers was over 2 million and the number of deceased soldiers was around 360,000. (At least according to Wikipedia which we are trusting as our source in this discussion.) Either way the losses were so massive the French had next to no troops left to effectively defend themselves, their command structure was reeling from the speed of the Blitzkrieg, and the Nazis had worked their way to the core of their lands faster than anyone could have predicted.

However you make a point about Yugoslavia. It did certainly surrender. However in those 11 days they lost approximately 400,000 troops from assaults on multiple fronts.

You make a nice theory about God but if we bring him into this then I will have to point out that the vast amount of losses post-occupation happened in the countries with a large population of Jews. If it is the work of god then it is not that he favours honour, but that he decries Judaism. Now we likely have different opinions on faith but I would like to think the massacres of the Jews were the work of the evils of man and not the will of the divine, else we are equating Adolf Hitler to other beacons of faith and I really don't think either of us want in on that argument.

It isn't the work of God. It is the work of Nazi cruelty. It isn't about honour, it is about how many jews the Nazis could get their hands on.

(I'm gonna need a second comment but its about a different discussion so forgive me that.)
User avatar #272 to #270 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (05/01/2014) [-]
In the Battle of France, around 85,000 were killed 1.5M captured [1]. If France fought so hard, then they make a terrible analogy supporting surrender.

To repeat myself again, Yugoslavia wasn't noted for their honor in battle, and regardless of how many they lost defending themselves, they lost so much more after giving up.

Just because WWII happened doesn't mean God had no power, and just because God tends to favor the honorable, doesn't mean he has to strike out all evil in an instant. Is it beyond you to consider that God is who ended the war? And, sometimes bad things happen to good people because evil hates light, but it can never win (because it's not honorable enough).

Hitler didn't just kill Jews. He killed Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma Gypsies, Catholic Priests, Christian Pastors, homosexuals, disabled people, interracial married people, anyone who supported these people, and black people were sterilized [2]. There were plenty of these people in every country, but some were clearly targeted more than others. Probably because lacked honor!

Don't give me analogies about skirmishing. No matter how impervious you think the German's were, the military casualties would have been far less, and far less atrocious than what happened when they threw down arms, with or without insurgency. You can't win an argument against honor, bro.

References
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
2. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/NonJewishVictims.html
#214 to #134 - nought ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
#197 to #67 - pariahlol (04/26/2014) [-]
if people didn't value themselves more than everyone else then we would lose what it is to be human. We would all be working to serve the greater good and serve others, and essentially be a hive-mind. Then you stop caring about individuals because they dont' care about themselves either. Everyone becomes just another cog in the machine. To value your own life is to be human.
#126 to #67 - publicservice (04/26/2014) [-]
You have inspired me outlander! Bravo.
#205 to #21 - thepandaking (04/26/2014) [-]
I'm so happy about how eloquent and explanatory your replies are. Good on you, sir.
I'm so happy about how eloquent and explanatory your replies are. Good on you, sir.
User avatar #85 to #43 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
its an epic quote and an epic pic, but the layout of the text is horrendous
User avatar #34 to #1 - mynameisgeorge (04/26/2014) [-]
Fun fact regarding your picture, Jackson's face was sliced with the sword and he fell to the floor. As the officer looked over him, Jackson said "Your boots are still not shined"
User avatar #37 to #34 - usarmyexplain (04/26/2014) [-]
The point I was trying to make, is that Andrew Jackson was an incredible badass.
User avatar #39 to #37 - mynameisgeorge (04/26/2014) [-]
I know, I was just supplementing your point by showing that he had badass one liners
User avatar #40 to #39 - usarmyexplain (04/26/2014) [-]
The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.
#16 to #1 - osirusrising (04/26/2014) [-]
Don't you know it's more important to have swag nowadays?
#5 to #1 - ncsutroll (04/26/2014) [-]
dis gon' be good
#148 to #5 - dustypengwin (04/26/2014) [-]
I'm not the only one seeing the resemblance right..?
#20 - dirtysneakers (04/26/2014) [-]
******* Orcs. Am I right?
User avatar #46 to #20 - galkawhm (04/26/2014) [-]
I'd love to.
#55 to #20 - hudis (04/26/2014) [-]
Those orcs are one of the things I love about Skyrim. I always make sure to give them a fair battle purely reliant on martial skill and a complete absence of magic or ranged weapons when I face them. Then, once they go down, I lay them beside the beasts they have slain and put their weapon by their side, so that they will be seen for what they are even in death.

That said, the 'noble savage' is probably my favourite fantasy archetype, so I do revere it a bit more than necessary.
User avatar #143 to #55 - alimais (04/26/2014) [-]
I strip them naked and pile them up
#188 - anon (04/26/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolled image** The champion that the old man wanted to fight.
#190 to #188 - jalthelas (04/26/2014) [-]
**jalthelas rolled image**


I'd 'fight' her too.

Those knockers look dangerous if swung at your face.
User avatar #206 to #188 - alcoholicsemen (04/26/2014) [-]
id lose but still commit offences to fight again
#2 - anon (04/26/2014) [-]
Best thing I've seen in a while mate
#45 - ComradeBritish (04/26/2014) [-]
Nothing like Game Of thrones, nothing to the death. But bringing back dueling sabres would be interesting, although a big government agency would probably just hire a professional duelist every time so a lot of people would still pay the fine anyway. At least it'd make court interesting.
User avatar #62 to #45 - thedutchs (04/26/2014) [-]
But then everyone would get into swordfighting and that would honestly be pretty badass
User avatar #99 to #62 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
Pistols were also a way to settle these things.
User avatar #101 to #99 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Yeah but then everyone would then rely on pistols for their duels,
which is why we should go swords
User avatar #103 to #101 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
I'ma shoot you with my sword pistol!
User avatar #104 to #103 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
While that's jamming ill just stab you with my fencing blade.
User avatar #106 to #104 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
Nuh uh, I have a force field.
User avatar #108 to #106 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
This is a fencing blade of true piercing,
it disables force fields and ability's.
Which is why am stabbing you in the face with my Training with a fencing blade.
User avatar #109 to #108 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
Haha Projected image, I'm really behind you.
User avatar #110 to #109 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
And now that your abilitys are off I can smack this blade into your face, which will hurt
then stab you in your unprotected throat.
#111 to #110 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
As my disguise is dispelled you see what I really am!
User avatar #112 to #111 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
And then I stabbed you in your throat repetively.
User avatar #223 to #45 - nightmaren (04/26/2014) [-]
Well I've been fencing for 5-6 years, so that's a change I'd be open to.
User avatar #76 to #45 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
And then our culture became about 250% Awesome.
#81 to #76 - anon (04/26/2014) [-]
Positive x negative only results in a greater negative.
Positive x negative only results in a greater negative.
User avatar #83 to #81 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Well I can tell you from experience being cut by a sword hurts so.
User avatar #113 to #83 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
Can I use a hammer?
User avatar #168 to #113 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
I also could turn into a gelatinous cube.

And also yeah we'd cover up the close fighting pretty well.
User avatar #114 to #113 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Only if you don't mind being stabbed in the throat while you using a weapon that requires a bit of strength
#115 to #114 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
I have prepared for this
User avatar #213 to #115 - heartbleed ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
hammer makes encumbrance 50% GL with fatroll
User avatar #116 to #115 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
and that you'd be a bit slower, could be many cuts until you get a hit
if your standing.
User avatar #117 to #116 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
I would like to think I'd be okay, a good thirty pound hammer isn't much to me and I'm pretty agile. All I'd need is one good blow to take someone down. Hammer's are a beautiful thing.
User avatar #118 to #117 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
The same can be said of a blade to the throat,
Swords are beautiful as well.
#119 to #118 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
If given the opening, with a weapon like a hammer you just gotta land a hit. Bulldoze your way to victory!
If given the opening, with a weapon like a hammer you just gotta land a hit. Bulldoze your way to victory!
User avatar #120 to #119 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Except every attack with a hammer is a opening.

you swing it?

A stab under the armpit will put you down.
You go for a over head swing?

Stab to the neck.
User avatar #122 to #120 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
Why would you swing so sloppy with it like that. Something as big as a hammer or axe requires perfect control, if you're putting too much effort into a swing that it makes you heavily vulnerable you need a lighter weapon. If you're in combat you pick a weapon that doesn't make you weaker. In my case i can swing around a heavy item fine and still keep my awareness up enough to get the **** out of the way of something. My only fault is that I wont be able to keep a long fight up. I may be strong but I can only give the attacks in a short burst.
User avatar #129 to #122 - commontroll (04/26/2014) [-]
You don't know **** man. If it's an unarmored dual, then ******* go with a light blade. I would take a weapon I can quickly recover from a miss with over something that can hit real hard.

Mobility and speed over harder hits man. If I slice somebody's hamstring it's pretty much game over. This is coming from a guy who has fenced for years.
User avatar #139 to #129 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
And this is coming from a guy who's used both brute strength and speed for years. I'm going off what I know, why the hell should I pick up a sword I don't know when i can pick up a hammer or something brutish that I do know. I DO know **** . I know my **** , not yours. It's two worlds colliding.
User avatar #144 to #139 - commontroll (04/26/2014) [-]
Really? Can you swing your hammer at the same speed I could slash with a light saber? Could you deflect a blow that's going to sever the tendons in your thumb so you can't even hold your precious hammer? Or would you be able to react quickly enough to avoid the blade that's heading to your armpit as you take a swing?

A blade has a long reach and a lot of speed. Now, if it was an armored battle, I'd definitely take a blunt weapon, such as a flanged mace. But in an unarmored duel, I'd much rather take a blade, and I would highly suggest that you do the same.
User avatar #149 to #144 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
I'd be in unknown territory. I don't expect you to understand why I pick a heavy encumbering weapons over quick and light ones. I'm used to them, I know how they feel, if i were to just pick up a sword and go into a fight I would swing it like I would a hammer. Which would end up bad.
User avatar #124 to #122 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Right,

So how would you swing it, if you cant swing from left to right?

Because there is always vulnerable hits no matter what your using.
User avatar #133 to #124 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
Short quick bursts, don't drive your weight into a weapon that doesn't need it. I'm not saying I wont be vulnerable, I'm saying I wont be as vulnerable as you seem to want to make me.
User avatar #137 to #133 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
I just want you to get tired so I can stab you in the neck.
User avatar #141 to #137 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
And I want you to get close enough to try and gut me when I smash you anywhere and topple you over, most likely breaking multiple bones, then drag my oh so useless hammer over and finish you off. Its the classic saying, it's not the stick, it's who's holding it. I know what the hell I'm doing with my weapon, that makes me deadly.
User avatar #146 to #141 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Fencing blades, the blades I prefer are generally long.
Besides my weapon is light, I am quick.
That is assuming you go get a hit in while I stand back and relentlessly make small cuts on you if not killing blows.
Did I mentioned I am actually trained in fencing?

And did I also mention I know what it feels like to be stabbed in the neck with a fencing blade?

Not fun stuff of course.
User avatar #155 to #146 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
I see, a rapier would in fact be an upper hand weapon in a fight against someone swinging a hammer around. But, I'm still sticking to what I know. I cant exactly say I'm trained in hammer fighting, but I am trained in Mixed Martial Arts and a small amount of North Korean martial arts. I'm a weight lifter, I played football and I was a shot put thrower throughout high school.

Understand where I'm coming from when I chose a heavy blunt weapon, man?
User avatar #157 to #155 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Yes, you believe firmly that you can get a hit on me.

Id be glad to dissuade that line of thinking,
Although I doubt we'd be the ones fighting.
User avatar #163 to #157 - TopDawg (04/26/2014) [-]
No I can't hurt a changeling, changelings are awesome.
And if anything, I'd want you to be by my side to make up for my lack of speed and defense. And I do not, surprisingly, I'm just stating IF I do manage to get a hit on someone it's practically done. That's the hammers job in a battle, the blow designed to take the target out by either disabling them, or ultimately killing them. That's what I'm relying on.

You're relying on my vulnerabilities to give you a huge upper hand, which indeed they will making me an easy assailant to avoid and counter. I respect your choice, I really do. But, I just prefer my way of fighting.
#91 to #83 - anon (04/26/2014) [-]
If you'd stop kidnapping ******* Princesses then maybe this **** would stop happening!
User avatar #92 to #91 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Well am sorry but when two princesses are scissoring you kinda want to kidnap them.
User avatar #94 to #92 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
......fair point.
User avatar #196 to #94 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Despite your fascination with a volcano you do know in fact we changelings can use magic.
and we aren't limited to lazer.s
User avatar #198 to #196 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
But can you survive in SPACE?
SPAAAAACE VOLCANO ERUPTING TO ADVENTURE!
I lava that song.
User avatar #199 to #198 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Yes.
We don't require oxygen.
User avatar #201 to #199 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
What about the unforgivable exposure to cosmic radiation?
....volcano
User avatar #202 to #201 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
We can survive 25 seconds about 5 inchs away from the sun's surface.
User avatar #215 to #202 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
Hacks, I call hacks.
User avatar #218 to #215 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
We don't need oxygen to survive
and we can shapeshift
we are hacks.
User avatar #221 to #218 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
Yeah well my Volcano knows your one weakness.
FAST FOOD! NOW ERUPT YOUR PROCESSED BOUNTY MY MIGHTY GROUND FISSURE IN SPACE!
FEAR THE MIGHT OF FAST-FOOD HAKUDO # 69, WIENER RAIN!
User avatar #222 to #221 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Fool.
You know not what we eat.
Fear the might of the CHANGELING EMPIRE
THE LOVE OF MANY WILL PIERCE THE HEARTS OF ONE, TRANSLATION OF HEART NUMBER 192! THE LANCE OF MANY!
#224 to #222 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
Volcaaaaanuuuuuuu!
Volcaaaaanuuuuuuu!
User avatar #225 to #224 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Thus the foe has been vanquished.
#226 to #225 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
You win this round, Warzon!   
Some day I'll defeat you and your changeling do-gooders, some daaaaay!
You win this round, Warzon!
Some day I'll defeat you and your changeling do-gooders, some daaaaay!
User avatar #227 to #226 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
Were anti hero's jackass!

Now get out of here.
#228 to #227 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Oh alright, fine.   
But I'm billing you for the volcano.
Oh alright, fine.
But I'm billing you for the volcano.
#159 to #94 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Well thank you but I don't fly.
User avatar #164 to #159 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
Then what, you just commute during your abductions?
User avatar #244 to #164 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
I spiked your robotic vessel a hour ago.
Your transponder will explode.
Well now.
User avatar #245 to #244 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Well poop....
How a conversation about sword dueling spiraled into this is completely beyond me.
Minus is blasting off agaaaiiiin!
User avatar #246 to #245 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
well at least it dint end in sex...
wait damn that's what I wanted.
#247 to #246 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Yep, no sex for you.   
I leave you with an incredibly relevant gif.
Yep, no sex for you.
I leave you with an incredibly relevant gif.
#248 to #247 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
changelings are every gender and no gender
User avatar #249 to #248 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Well then slightly less relevant gif.
User avatar #250 to #249 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
course
User avatar #229 to #164 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
Whats that?

You want me to read you another translation of love?

even after it pierced a space volcano.
Well okay since you asked.
User avatar #230 to #229 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Uh, no, no that's alright, I have important....things to attend to...yeah
User avatar #231 to #230 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
Lance or sword.
User avatar #232 to #231 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Neither, good thing I made an escape Volcano!
User avatar #233 to #232 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
You mean the one I pierced with a lance?
User avatar #235 to #233 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
I'll call a Taxi instead.....
User avatar #236 to #235 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
Yeah no, anti heros
you aren't leaving.
User avatar #237 to #236 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
*Leaves in Taxi
User avatar #239 to #237 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
**warzon lances taxi**
User avatar #241 to #239 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
*Crawls from wreckage
What is this incredible feeling welling up inside me?
oh, that's right...pain.

ooooooo You need to login to view this link
User avatar #242 to #241 - warzon ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
**warzon stands over minus**

Yeah.

here let me end that.
User avatar #243 to #242 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Hahaha, fool!
This was merely a robotic duplicate to distract you while I made a jaunty pose and escaped several comments ago!
Not only is this set to explode, but I'm billing you for the Taxi too!
This isn't the end of our wacky adventures, not by a long shot!
I had a BLAST but this adventure ends with a BANG!
User avatar #234 to #233 - minuszahnrad (04/27/2014) [-]
Yeah that's the ******* !
User avatar #167 to #164 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
I am a lord.
I don't run out and abduct.
User avatar #169 to #167 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
This conversation is incredibly asinine.
#170 to #169 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
And also a distraction from what's happening.
And also a distraction from what's happening.
User avatar #171 to #170 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
I thought that was interactive theater...
User avatar #172 to #171 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
How so?
User avatar #173 to #172 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
I'm an optimist?
User avatar #174 to #173 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Yeah.
Good luck.
User avatar #176 to #174 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
I'll just defeat them with a baking soda volcano or something.
User avatar #180 to #176 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
They can shoot lazers.
User avatar #183 to #180 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
It is a very reflective volcano.
User avatar #192 to #183 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
and can use magic
User avatar #194 to #192 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
No I'm afraid the volcano is not capable of magic.
You are not the first to be fooled, it is merely incredibly shiny.
User avatar #95 to #94 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
And since am a walking tank I can take a few hits
you on the other hand.
#96 to #95 - anon (04/26/2014) [-]
Why would I be on your other hand? This multitasking of your is going too far.
User avatar #97 to #96 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Tis a expression.
User avatar #98 to #97 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Your hand is far too small to me my hand.
#127 to #98 - anon (04/26/2014) [-]
How did finger that one out?


puuuuuuuuun
#128 to #127 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Because you aren't man enough.
User avatar #135 to #132 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Right.
User avatar #140 to #135 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
I'm in private browsing, I get logged out on occasion.
Furthermore I propose I am indeed man enough for any challenge you yourself could possibly hope to face successfully.
User avatar #142 to #140 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Have you jumped off a cliff?

I have.
Am fine thank you for asking.
User avatar #145 to #142 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
You have wings you scaley bastard.
User avatar #147 to #145 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
You assume that this wings are strong enough to fight gravity when its rushing toward you
They aren't.
in fact I think they were ripped off that time.
User avatar #158 to #147 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
I thought you were pretty fly.
User avatar #151 to #147 - minuszahnrad (04/26/2014) [-]
******** , you flew over my house and **** on my car the very next day.
User avatar #152 to #151 - warzon ONLINE (04/26/2014) [-]
Racist bastard.

I don't fly.
User avatar #53 - acheryus (04/26/2014) [-]
bloody pansies refusing a man his only honor given to him by the gods...
#185 - haloforlife (04/26/2014) [-]
Pay him to fight for you, seemed to work for the last guy who needed a champion.
#75 - theseustheminotaur (04/26/2014) [-]
Someone has been watching Game of Thrones
#29 - nuggetry (04/26/2014) [-]
**nuggetry rolled image** My weapon in a Trial by Combat
**nuggetry rolled image** My weapon in a Trial by Combat
#33 to #29 - solarisofcelestia (04/26/2014) [-]
Zimmerman: A crazy ****** ; very dangerous and powerful. Good choice.
User avatar #19 - splendiddust (04/26/2014) [-]
I had a uhh debate we'll call it. With my friends a while back. The topic was would it be morally just if deathrow inmates could opt to battle to the death with eachother in an arena (bare hands, weapons whatever) and be granted a life sentance instead of death if they were to win a certain amount of games. And by win i mean not die.
User avatar #238 to #19 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (04/27/2014) [-]
I prefer the biblical way. Let he who has the blood right hunt the life of the murderer. He is only free if reaches the chosen safe-zone alive.
User avatar #30 to #19 - thesticklebricks (04/26/2014) [-]
sort of like a prison version of the Gladiators then?
User avatar #36 to #30 - splendiddust (04/26/2014) [-]
Exactly like that. I wanted to bring back gladiators and this is the only way i thought possible
User avatar #38 to #36 - thesticklebricks (04/26/2014) [-]
"GLAAAAAADIATOOOOOR!!! RRRRREEEEADYYYYYY!!!

CONTENDERRRRRR!!! RRRREEEEEADDYYYYY!!!"
User avatar #31 to #19 - Rockaman (04/26/2014) [-]
That's kind of the plot to Death Race, save for Death Race has more mini-guns, cars with armour and Jason Statham!
#49 to #19 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
And out the window went the idea of rehabilitating prisoners.
User avatar #70 to #49 - matamune (04/26/2014) [-]
How many on Death Row are ever rehabilitated
Unless of course, you count the fertilization of the ground
User avatar #74 to #70 - kinginyellow (04/26/2014) [-]
Well look at Ted Bundy, was locked up for life and decided to help catch criminals. imagine how many people wouldn't have been caught if they just killed him off.
User avatar #72 to #70 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
I'm against the death penalty.
User avatar #73 to #72 - matamune (04/26/2014) [-]
No worries, me to.
But this might make some entertainment out of the broken system
User avatar #84 to #73 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
I don't think I'd be comfortable living in a society where watching people beating/slashing.. Just people in general murdering each other in real life as prime example of entertainment.
User avatar #86 to #84 - matamune (04/26/2014) [-]
Most of our entertainment is already people fighting in some form or another
User avatar #90 to #86 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
Yeah but it's not to the death, action films and violent video games we know are fiction, we can tell the ******* difference, we can from a VERY early age or any fairy tale would be horribly immoral if the child couldn't differ fiction from reality.

And as for boxing and **** like rugby, we know they're not out to kill each other, we don't want them to die, we may want to see them get hurt, but nothing beyond what they can recover and return from.

But imagine two 80 year old men being up for a fight to the death with bare hands and both of them being in poor physical condition to the point where they're just slapping each other while struggling to stay upright, there would be nothing morally right about any of it, no sport even..

Hell look at magicians, they saw people in half, and modern ones get a giant spinning saw blade with lots of fake blood and guts, but we know it's fake, we know we're being fooled, the fun is trying to figure out HOW, not enjoying watching someone dying a gruesome death and then being disappointed it wasn't real.
User avatar #100 to #90 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
I don't mind watching people fight to the death one bit.
User avatar #105 to #102 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
K ^^
User avatar #69 to #49 - kinginyellow (04/26/2014) [-]
Ya, as cool as this sounds, I'd rather not have blood sports come back. I still agree with death penalty, only because it's quick and designed to just put them down instead of beating them to death, which would be sick. Idk I guess it comes down to asking if you're any better for saying someone should die when they're already locked up for life.
User avatar #71 to #69 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
There is always the risk that an innocent person is executed, which I do not find acceptable under any conditions. Generally I find the concept of an eye for an eye pretty.. Stupid.
User avatar #78 to #71 - kinginyellow (04/26/2014) [-]
Ya I would need 100% certainty before it, but that's also only if someone was too dangerous to be left alive, like he was just ready to murder whoever he could get his hands on.
User avatar #80 to #78 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
I'd mostly go with heavy restraints and isolation if needed, minimum chance of harming others and himself when not working on rehabilitation, although still restrain him during.

And the problem is there isn't a whole lot of "100%", frankly I'd call it a mythical percentage, I also think that killing them achieves NOTHING but to stop costs for resources he needs to sustain his own body.
User avatar #82 to #80 - kinginyellow (04/26/2014) [-]
Have you seen Law Abiding Citizen? Because that's an example of a criminal I would be ok with dying only. He's sad because he was wronged, but the way he goes about wanting revenge is disgusting and brutal.
User avatar #88 to #82 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
I've seen it, I love the film and personally, I think a case like that, yeah you lock them the **** up and try and rehabilitate them and do not even consider releasing them until they've been evaluated by several professionals.

But in such tragic events, the surviving victim/family/friends might also need some psychological assistance in their trying times which I think should be able to be provided by the government, you know, for the well being of it's most traumatized citizens.
User avatar #166 to #88 - vatra (04/26/2014) [-]
I honestly believe with all my heart that even attempting to rehabilitate people like that is a waste of time, money, and resources. Recent studies show that they are usually born sick, and that they just need a trigger to set them off. Once that's done, they're back to normal until something triggers them again. Everyone involved is better off if they just die, including the sick person.
#175 to #166 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
Then try and convince them to help in the research so they can figure out how and why, and no that does not mean that you're going to put them down like some a sick ******* animal to save a few bucks.

To me that notion just sounds sick in it's nature.

I'd more go with making them somewhat comfortable while still keeping them locked up and under control/safe conditions so they can live out the rest of their lives just a little better.

**** the money cost, I am not one to put a price on a human life, just no, a blatant ******* NO.

I don't care what crimes they did, don't ******* kill them, I wouldn't have executed Nazi leaders, not even ******* Hitler nor Stalin. But imprison them for an undetermined amount of time with the possibility for psychological insight and understanding? Heap it on.
User avatar #177 to #175 - vatra (04/26/2014) [-]
It's not about the money. It's about preserving their honor. Personally if I was sick like that and had done horrible things like that and ended up in prison, I'd want to die before I had the chance to do something worse. Granted in prison the only ones they can really hurt is other prisoners and people like that are usually in solitary. But still, there is always a chance and that scares me more than death.
User avatar #179 to #177 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
The chance is extremely small with the right precautions taken, but also, I don't think every murderer out there is just a jolly average joe who blacked out and woke up finding out he had murdered and chopped up four people in his basement.

And that's different from person to person as to what they can live with.
User avatar #186 to #179 - vatra (04/26/2014) [-]
Oh no, most people that kill like one person were just pushed too far or raised horribly. That's completely different. I'm talking about serial killers and the like. Someone killed one person, sure let them live out the rest of their life.

Also I agree with you that chances is miniscule at best, however, no chance versus a small chance would make a world of difference to me.

And to the last point, that's very true, but if they can live just fine after slaughtering a baby, do you really want that person around?
User avatar #189 to #186 - certifiedidiot (04/26/2014) [-]
You would run the chance of killing someone innocent. So the chance is proper safety procedures and the inmate slightly injuring a prison guard versus the risk of executing a innocent person, and personally, I have more faith in the first option.

I just find the scenario of getting sentenced to die for something you didn't do, absolutely horrible, that and you would have to look at all those innocent people who have and gets executed through the ages and say "You were an acceptable loss of life" which I just frankly don't consider.. Anywhere near okay.

And as for serial killers, I'm not sure, I haven't read up on pattern killers and as for what makes them tick, if we 100% know that THIS is what causes them to act like that, then we might be able to make some decisions, but until then I'd go by acceptable living conditions in isolation and proper safety measures.

And them living with slaughtering a baby, no, I wouldn't want them on the streets, thus, lock them up.

Also, in general I am not fond of the idea that we have a government hired murderer to kill other people who killed other people, not the government having the right/power to do so, they're already getting away with some pseudo prison ******** with Guantanamo.. I know it's not entirely the same but my solution to both problems are the same.

DON'T ******* DO IT.

Aaaand sleep time.
User avatar #193 to #189 - vatra (04/26/2014) [-]
I understand your points and your position, but I must say I disagree. Twenty years ago, yes wrongful convictions were a real issue. Now, statistics estimate that it is something like 0.0001 of convictions being unjust. Though I do agree that if their going to execute someone they damn well better be 100% sure that the person is guilty. Also, I think they should add a repercussion that falls back on the judge should the executed person be proven innocent postmortem.
User avatar #154 to #88 - kinginyellow (04/26/2014) [-]
Ya, I guess I'm a little over the place in my view. But ya I love the movie, Butler and Fox made it great.
#14 - eezo (04/26/2014) [-]
My uncle's name is Leon Humphreys   
   
That sounds like something he'd do, too
My uncle's name is Leon Humphreys

That sounds like something he'd do, too
User avatar #17 to #14 - chryssis (04/26/2014) [-]
but is he 60 years old
User avatar #93 to #17 - eezo (04/26/2014) [-]
47
#181 - chiefecho (04/26/2014) [-]
old mans face when
old mans face when
User avatar #57 - kindremind (04/26/2014) [-]
He has been challenged to mortal kombat... how could they refuse him that?
User avatar #52 - steviemo (04/26/2014) [-]
Home town mentioned. Swell with pride
User avatar #9 - theguywhoaskswhy (04/26/2014) [-]
It is my only hope in this life to reach an age where doing wildly eccentric **** like this is socially acceptable.
Just another 40 years to go!
User avatar #10 to #9 - theguywhoaskswhy (04/26/2014) [-]
In 40 years time ama hoover the lawn and walk around shirtless in public wearing a bra made of bacon!
User avatar #11 to #10 - konradkurze (04/26/2014) [-]
why hasnt someone made that official yet

Bracon ftw
User avatar #13 to #11 - solidderking (04/26/2014) [-]
maybe it was already invented, but somebody ate it before it was published
User avatar #15 to #13 - konradkurze (04/26/2014) [-]
the fools

Bracon and Banties (bacon panties) would be best sellers of edible lingerie

and maybe bacondoms to get girls really into going down on guys
User avatar #107 to #15 - satansferret (04/26/2014) [-]
You want to wrap bacon...on someones dick to promote bjs? I can only see that ending horribly.
User avatar #203 to #107 - konradkurze (04/26/2014) [-]
only for the guys who date fat girls,....of course theyd get confused between sucking and eating
[ 265 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)