Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

A place for regulars and new visitors to talk about whatever comes to mind. An opportunity to share your 'non-surf' wisdom with the rest of us.

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:27 am

Sorry about the typos.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Poo Stance » Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:56 am

Roy Stuart wrote:
Poo Stance wrote:Do you honestly think the defence mechanisms of any country would function if the soldiers were responsible for participating in any war?
Roy Stuart wrote:
Yes, if used only for legitimate defence.


So who decides the legitimacy? You? Me? The soldiers? An elected group? A dictator? Entering whole other realms of politica now surely?



It's up to the individual to decide whether or not to join the military.


That's not what I was getting at. I meant - who would decide what form of defence is legitimate?

Roy Stuart wrote:I agree that the legal protection given allows the military system to function as it does, but the result is so bad that it would be better if it didn't function as it does.
Poo Stance wrote:So I assume you have come to a conclusion on how the world would better function sans a military system.

Peaceful.


That sounds all well ideologically but really? You think all of man's individual greeds will just disappear along with the deconstruction of militaries? Bearing in mind the logistical complexities of getting every country to deconstruct their militaries the same at the same time. I'm of the opinion that nature through evolution dictated that humans formed their defence mechanisms out of necessity. Which would lead me to believe that in the times before militaries the world wasn't a peaceful place. Again, I could be wrong. You care to elaborate on how you came to this conclusion of peace through de-militarisation?

Roy Stuart wrote:So you believe that there is no moral responsibility for actions beyond that which is enforced by governments.


No, but I fail to see who else there is to enforce these moral responsibilities. Maybe I'm being dumb. Governments (current system)? Vigilantes (clearly not a good system)? God (we'll find out later again)?

Roy Stuart wrote:Clearly there are many counter examples which wreck that theory.

Again, forgive my naivety, care to elaborate for me? Examples?

Roy Stuart wrote:Perhaps not, but I do not have the resources to leave the country and go to another whose government I approve of... if there is such a government.

At least unlike Harry I am doing something to stop it, it rather than delibertaley supporting it.


So you advocate that a policeman should leave his job if he disagrees with the law of the land, at a personal cost to himself and his family. Yet you are happy to fund the war through your taxes because you don't have the resources to find an alternative? hmmmmm.

Some would argue Harry IS doing something to stop the war. He's killing the other side. When they are all dead the war will be over and maybe there will be peace again (unlikely I know, just saying). Sorry, what was it you were doing again? Other than berating people on the internet?

It's good to discuss. But, to me it sounds like your ideals will never meet reality. Unless you are willing to give away all that you own to anyone that asks, ultimately you will be required to defend yourself. It all starts from there.
User avatar
Poo Stance
 
Posts: 3831
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:07 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:14 am


That sounds all well ideologically but really? You think all of man's individual greeds will just disappear along with the deconstruction of militaries? Bearing in mind the logistical complexities of getting every country to deconstruct their militaries the same at the same time. I'm of the opinion that nature through evolution dictated that humans formed their defence mechanisms out of necessity. Which would lead me to believe that in the times before militaries the world wasn't a peaceful place. Again, I could be wrong. You care to elaborate on how you came to this conclusion of peace through de-militarisation?




When people are more morally advanced there will be the situation where simultaneously no one will be prepared to participate in military organisations which act immorally and those same institutions will cease to act immorally.

No doubt it will be a long time coming, hopefully after WW3 it will happen... a shift in consciousness.




Roy Stuart wrote:So you believe that there is no moral responsibility for actions beyond that which is enforced by governments.


No, but I fail to see who else there is to enforce these moral responsibilities. Maybe I'm being dumb. Governments (current system)? Vigilantes (clearly not a good system)? God (we'll find out later again)?





Ultimately the conscience of the individual and karma.


Roy Stuart wrote:Clearly there are many counter examples which wreck that theory.


Again, forgive my naivety, care to elaborate for me? Examples?




Stalin's forces committing mass murder, Mao's forces, the Khmer Rouge, Hitler's gestapo and SS.

Roy Stuart wrote:Perhaps not, but I do not have the resources to leave the country and go to another whose government I approve of... if there is such a government.

At least unlike Harry I am doing something to stop it, it rather than delibertaley supporting it.


So you advocate that a policeman should leave his job if he disagrees with the law of the land, at a personal cost to himself and his family. Yet you are happy to fund the war through your taxes because you don't have the resources to find an alternative? hmmmmm.



Perhaps not at a personal cost, that's an assumption. The individual might seek to object or resist in other ways, it's up to the individual to examine his own conscience.

I did not say that I am happy to fund war through my taxes, in fact I said that I am not happy to do so and I object at every opportunity. Hardly the same as joining up to blast the Taliban.


Some would argue Harry IS doing something to stop the war. He's killing the other side.




Invading other countries and killing the inhabitants does not stop war it perpetuates it.



When they are all dead the war will be over and maybe there will be peace again



You'll never get peace that way. Even if you killed everyone except the UK military.



It's good to discuss. But, to me it sounds like your ideals will never meet reality.




Never is a long time, I'm in for the long haul, as is the human race.



Unless you are willing to give away all that you own to anyone that asks, ultimately you will be required to defend yourself. It all starts from there.

[/quote]


I am prepared to defend myself, but won't be going to the other side of the world to do it.


.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby defever » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:51 am

Roy Stuart wrote:The video game is irrelevant


AHA! So THE VIDEO GAME IS IRRELEVANT

Looking back on the article you posted...

"The dashing young grandson of the aging monarch Queen Elizabeth and the second son of heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles has since compared killing Afghan insurgents to playing video games"

"To describe the war in Afghanistan as a game demeans anyone – especially a prince, who is supposed to be made of better things."

but THE VIDEO GAME IS IRRELEVANT, you say.

So what were you "Booooooooo!"ing Prince Harry for? I lost you there. hehe
defever
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:03 am

If you don't get it yet I can't help you.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby waxer00 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:32 am

the raf see gaming skills as a positive when taking on recruits for their top gun programmes.apparently the skills involved in both are interchangable.particularly when using the new crop of unmanned drone warplanes,which are guided back at base by.....well ,top gun gamers!
the morality of this type of warfare is highly questionable and something that could fill a tome or two.it`s a kind of capitalist war that is high on gain but low on morals,honour,courage and respect for a brave foe.
User avatar
waxer00
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:32 pm
Location: little donkwhey

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby defever » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:39 am

Roy Stuart wrote:If you don't get it yet I can't help you.


I wasn't asking for your help, but thank you for considering. I just wanted to play catch with you.

An individual like you who is clearly intelligent/clever/knowledgeable (and often “thought provoking”), I was slightly disappointed that you chose to specifically target your "Booo!"ing to Harry, just with a reference from a tabloid article by Alex Jones. I thought you were a lot higher up on your high horse of righteousness.

Thank you for the entertainment, Roy.
defever
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby WP101 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:46 pm

waxer00 wrote:the raf see gaming skills as a positive when taking on recruits for their top gun programmes.apparently the skills involved in both are interchangable..


so do oil companies, the best ROV pilots are the gamers
WP101
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Chris F » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:19 pm

Roy Stuart wrote:If you don't get it yet I can't help you.


Roy, you don't get it. Defever has just demonstrated your quotes are taken out of context, either by you or by your sources, either way it's irrelevant.

So is it Prince Harry you have the problem with or war in general, and you are just choosing this current issue to be your little soapbox? And don't say both.
Chris F
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Yabberdabberdeen

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Poo Stance » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:47 pm

Roy Stuart wrote:
Prince Harry wrote:joy for me because I’m one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox. So with my thumbs I like to think that I’m probably quite useful.

he expresses joy at the way in which he does this 'job'.


Really does he? Or could it be, he expressed joy at the ease of transition from gameplaying extraordinaire into his job as top gun gunner? I don't know and I don't really care. Only he will know what he meant by that statement. It's not beyond the realm of reason that people don't choose the correct arrangement of words to correctly express their meaning. Have you never had to re-phrase something in order to correctly convey information, or to ensure the listener comprehends what you are trying to convey?

Anyway, we (or at least I) seem to be digressing from what ever point you were trying to make. I'm interested in the broader issues you've raised though. I don't know Alex Jones much. This isn't the first time you've linked to him and lets not go there again. Although I think the man is crazy it doesn't mean I'm adverse to the same topics he covers. However, he also comes across as someone who is so convinced by his convictions (if that even makes sense) that he's unable to consider alternatives. Much like your good self I'd say? There's no judgement though. I've learned the world needs diversity, it's essential, without it we get stagnation. If everyone was unsure of their convictions we'd all be deferring to everyone else. We need stubborn mules to balance.

So can we digress?

Take moral responsibility. What does this actually mean? What is a moral and what is a responsibility?
Who are you responsible to? Yourself, or 3rd parties?

If you are only responsible to yourself then surely you are free to choose your morals as you see fit. Killing could easily be excused for self survival.
So what if you're responsible to 3rd parties. Would they judge whether your morals would be acceptable? Because if you continue down that route you end up where we are now, governance.

Roy Stuart wrote:Ultimately the conscience of the individual and karma.

Roy Stuart wrote:Stalin's forces committing mass murder, Mao's forces, the Khmer Rouge, Hitler's gestapo and SS.


So who held these morally fucked groups of individuals to account? I have no idea. ICC? :?

Roy Stuart wrote:When people are more morally advanced there will be the situation where simultaneously no one will be prepared to participate in military organisations which act immorally and those same institutions will cease to act immorally.

No doubt it will be a long time coming, hopefully after WW3 it will happen... a shift in consciousness.


You speak with certainty ('when', 'there will') in the 1st sentence and then of 'hopefully... IT will happen... a shift in consciousness' in the second. I'm not doubting the possibility of what you say occurring, but the probability of any timeline of events which would lead to a morally advanced (~subjective?) group of people spontaneously co-existing somewhere and conquering the world with their ideologies (heard this story before?), or the whole world suddenly making this moral shift at a specified moment in time... it's highly unlikely. Even if you do factor in a 3rd WW, an event that hasn't occurred so the outcome can't possibly be accurately predicted.

Essentially the way I see it is that random events and small individual contributions have changed the course of man's history more than any conscious collective decision by the masses has. So which sequence of events would need to occur for all of humanity to suddenly become essentially altruistic? (which I think you've already stated that you would be "prepared to defend myself").

Going back to Harry then...

Roy Stuart wrote:The individual might seek to object or resist in other ways, it's up to the individual to examine his own conscience.


Which says to me that you accept people have a right to behave in ways that they so choose and they must do so according to their own circumstance. You would move and not pay taxes that fund war if you so could. I would fly over 'there' and talk 'them' all out of it if I could, starting at the top on all sides. But even that would do no good because at the end of the day, war is our ancestral heritage. The battle for resources starts small and ends big as you consume more resources to defend and gain more. Whether the military budget and industry is still solely geared towards resources and territorial gain is not so certain.

waxer00 wrote:particularly when using the new crop of unmanned drone warplanes
indeed. And when being used by the CIA.
http://www.cfr.org/international-law/un ... ons/p11485 - 2006 +
http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-us-public-safety-019/ 2012 +
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ybook.html - 4 days ago
= :?
User avatar
Poo Stance
 
Posts: 3831
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:07 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:58 pm

The argument that leaving one's job causes hardship doesn't apply to Harry, he's doing it purely by choice, which is quite sufficient to show that he is misguided, deluded and/or morally retarded.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby WP101 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:13 pm

please dont think that because no ones challenged you further, that makes you right.
WP101
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby defever » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:24 pm

There's nothing to challenge, WP101.

Roy entertained us by being Alex Jones in here. He dances around the topic dodging our challenges with his invalid and often irrelevant comments; his come backs are as funny as those ASBO superstars in Jeremy Kyle.

Roy Stuart wrote:The argument that leaving one's job causes hardship doesn't apply to Harry, he's doing it purely by choice, which is quite sufficient to show that he is misguided, deluded and/or morally retarded.


Nothing to challenge here. Let him conquer the universe in his mind, as long as he's taking his medications he's as happy as we are.
defever
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:42 am

What nonsense... and which part of 'it is immoral to express joy at killing people as part of one's job' don't you get?

It's VERY simple.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby WP101 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:25 am

Image
WP101
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:53 pm

True, but pathetic and immoral.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Poo Stance » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:34 pm

Poo Stance wrote:
waxer00 wrote:waxer00
particularly when using the new crop of unmanned drone warplanes

indeed. And when being used by the CIA.
http://www.cfr.org/international-law/un ... ons/p11485 - 2006 +
http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-us-public-safety-019/ 2012 +
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ybook.html - 4 days ago


More dronishiousness

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... eview=true

totalitarianism coming to a country near you soon.

Nothing more to add on Prince Harry other than Roy, you're more deluded than me. :lol:
User avatar
Poo Stance
 
Posts: 3831
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:07 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Kamikaze » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:43 pm

Roy Stuart wrote:What nonsense... and which part of 'it is immoral to express joy at killing people as part of one's job' don't you get?

It's VERY simple.



I can't believe I'm joining in with any of roy's twaddle. but:- some people enjoy combat and killing people, some people don't. Which is the best to send to a war zone.
Image
User avatar
Kamikaze
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:51 pm
Location: Sunny, yet normally flat Bournemouth

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby WP101 » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:49 pm

hes not listening, never does
WP101
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Kamikaze » Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:10 pm

After him admitting to being a Nazi anti-Semitic racist, I was kind of hoping we'd heard the last of him.
Image
User avatar
Kamikaze
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:51 pm
Location: Sunny, yet normally flat Bournemouth

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby defever » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:01 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw7MvYFsQNY

Now he's after Obama. Well, he says he speaks for the people of America. People of America kept Obama in his office TWICE.

Alex Jones Boooooooo! hehe.

I like him, I don't believe anything he says but he definitely entertains me.

Bet his shrink uses NLP on him (see ref: http://community.magicseaweed.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37256).
defever
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Kamikaze » Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:10 am

I have never ever turned the sound on for that blokes clips. I can tell just by looking at him that he's a nob end.

I find nob ends easy to identify, the insane hairstyle is a big give away, It looks like his mum's just smarmed it down before he went on.
Image
User avatar
Kamikaze
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:51 pm
Location: Sunny, yet normally flat Bournemouth

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby WP101 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:05 pm

send in Django..you can tell he's desperately trying to hold back the N word, what a complete C!
WP101
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:47 pm

Kamikaze wrote:

some people enjoy combat and killing people, some people don't.





Right, psychopaths enjoy killing people... Harry enjoys killing people.



Which is the best to send to a war zone.



Certainly it isn't best to send those who enjoy killing people... you were going to say that they are the best kind to send weren't you?

Also, these war zones are only war zones because armed forces have been sent there in the first place sending no one is obviously a better option.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:51 pm

Kamikaze wrote:
After him admitting to being a Nazi anti-Semitic racist, I was kind of hoping we'd heard the last of him.



I've never been anything of the sort, and have always been against oppressive regimes of any kind whether they be Fascist, Communist, or Zionist.

I also believe in equal rights, which should not be confused with overall equality.

Of course many people think that being pro equal rights makes one racist.
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby Roy Stuart » Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:52 pm

Kamikaze wrote:I have never ever turned the sound on for that blokes clips. I can tell just by looking at him that he's a nob end.

I find nob ends easy to identify, the insane hairstyle is a big give away, It looks like his mum's just smarmed it down before he went on.


Idiot.

:roll:
www.roystuart.biz
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby defever » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:57 pm

Roy Stuart wrote:Right, psychopaths enjoy killing people... Harry enjoys killing people.


Quote from the infamous Wkipedia:

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) is a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle.


But Roy, you never killed anyone, and never will. Then not all psychopaths are killers... hehe, just joking.
defever
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby roberdy » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:16 am

alright boys, getting a bit off topic (as bloody ever)....
-------------------------------------------------------
The Janitor
User avatar
roberdy
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: Bris-vegas

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby WP101 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:34 am

dude. roy is reviling anyone who fights or has fought in a war, that includes my grandad and great uncle, he should be banned as this is a personal attack..and because hes a grade A FRUITCAKE!!
WP101
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Prince Harry Booooooooooo!

Postby waxer00 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:51 am

Roy Stuart wrote:
I also believe in equal rights, which should not be confused with overall equality.
.

roy,can you tell me the difference between the two please.
User avatar
waxer00
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:32 pm
Location: little donkwhey

PreviousNext

Return to Chat (Non-Surf Related)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests