A Ninja Ex-Marine Captain Speaks: What It Means to Be a Warrior

[ChuckWepner]

These threads turn into whiny pissing contests entirely too often and too quickly....As for what it means to be a warrior--- All of those things, Warrior's creeds, cool uniforms, brotherhood etc is just a way that it can be ensured that a soldier will run at bullets and kill other people. They are cultish and simple. Important because we do need people to run into battle, but we shouldn't pretend.

If you had only made your profound contribution earlier, we would all have known that all those things is just a way to get soldiers to run at bullets and we would have had a really cool, deep discussion about that, man-------- Especially about how they is important cuz we need people to run into battle but we should stop pretending that they are anything but a way of brainwashing.....jk, you in charge of working out how we tell everyone those things is just propaganda and to stop pretending but still make them motivate them dumb soldiers to run at bullets?

[ChenPengFi]

OK, Chen, here we go. I'm going to lay this out, step by boring step.

In his first paragraph about Hitler, itwasntme claimed that Hitler should be commended for many of his actions AND that Hitler actually cared about what was best for the German people.

There was no chronological break in the thread between these issues. They were in the same post.

There's this thing called a "period" at the end of that sentence, and yes, it's pretty safe to assume he typed the first one, well first.
That's chronological order genius.

The fact that you read "should be commended" in some non-moral sense despite the fact that the next sentence was about Hitler's supposedly altruistic motivation and that therefore you have decided that the moral issue "came up later" doesn't make you right. It means that you are insisting on a very debatable reading of itwasntme's original post as if it were the only possible reading when most other people didn't read it that way (with good reason).

No, because again, you've been hoodwinked by itwasn'tme.

Here's the whole original paragraph, not just the part that you quoted. "Should be commended" by itself can reasonably be taken as moral; "should be commended" AND "he actually cared about the welfare of his people; a trait few leaders possess" together sound a hell of a lot like moral admiration to me.

There is no "and", but there is a "for starters".
Stop paraphrasing.
It's the first of a list of examples.

I haven't been his champion at all. You are the one fucktardedly denying that he praised Hitler's moral motivation in his original paragraph, when he did.

I did no such thing.
Stop lying.
Learn the definitions of; "first" and "everything else".

To say that someone should be commended because he cares about the well-being of his people is to make a claim about his morality, specifically about his moral character.

He also said "he invented the highway", AFTER he said he should be commended.

Wow. No wonder you are so confused. You don't know what morality is.

I guess it is an introduction to ethics that you need most urgently.

Says the liar.
You just quoted me mentioning the morality argument, while typing this ****:

You are the one fucktardedly denying that he praised Hitler's moral motivation in his original paragraph

I just said he did it afterwards dumbass.

No. Once again, you have only quoted one sentence and left off the relevant part. In this case, though, it looks like an intentional attempt to avoid showing how garbled your attempt to state it was. So, you are the only one lying here, lying by omission. Your moral issues aren't just theoretical.

No that last part is a response to "Hitler should be commended", and it's my own.
I realize this reading comprehension thing is tough on you, so i'll try to be more clear. <snicker>

That was your fucktarded attempt to summarize Azatdawn. And it was followed by the idiotic comment you deny making equating my position with his, liar.

Nope, that's you projecting and having reading comprehension issues.

So, one of us has lied in this thread, but it was you, Chen.


One of us has misrepresented the views of multiple other posters, but it was you, Chen.

The only things you have "corrected" are the facts, which you have freely altered in your bullshit posts to cover your mistakes.

You have contributed nothing to the thread. Zero information, zero analysis.
You weren't able to understand my argument apparently, since every time you've tried to comment on it, you have totally misdescribed it.

You are the senile drunk in the corner, belching out the occasional curse or ill-informed stock opinion when he hears a familiar name or phrase without having followed most of conversation for hours.

Hahaha, try again.
I love how quickly you jump in the gutter with me.
The high horse bucked you off pretty quick it seems.

[ChuckWepner]

There's this thing called a "period" at the end of that sentence, and yes, it's pretty safe to assume he typed the first one, well first.
That's chronological order genius.

No. This is you showing your character and intellectual level. We were talking about changes between posts, you lying simpleton.

You just quoted me mentioning the morality argument, while typing this ****: ... I just said he did it afterwards dumbass.

You claimed he did it IN A LATER POST you lying son of a whore. And claimed that I was discussing Azatdawn's argument, not itwasntme's when I discussed morality, you open sewer drain of fucktarded bullshit.

No that last part is a response to "Hitler should be commended", and it's my own.

Oh, OK, then it was your own argument that was childishly simplistic and irrelevant to the discussion, and your comment as a whole that was incoherent.

I love how quickly you jump in the gutter with me.
The high horse bucked you off pretty quick it seems.

The high horse is in your imagination. You however have made it extremely clear that you have the moral standards of a guy running a Tijuana donkey show. Your lies are blatant and stupid. I can only assume that you are drunk or high, because the new lies are so obvious that when you sober up, even you will be embarrassed by them.

[Permalost]

So what's the cash prize for winning this tedious argument? Must be pretty high.

[It is Fake]

Oh and you 2012 noobs, Permalost's join date is a LIE!

[ChenPengFi]

No. This is you showing your character and intellectual level. We were talking about changes between posts, you lying simpleton.

I have no idea what you're on about.
The order in which the sentences appeared is not up for debate, nor is the content.
How about you stfu already?

You claimed he did it IN A LATER POST you lying son of a whore.

Quote or stfu.

And claimed that I was discussing Azatdawn's argument, not itwasntme's when I discussed morality, you open sewer drain of fucktarded bullshit.

You were addressing Azatdawn's argument here:

Did Hitler do some things for the welfare of the German people that weren't really motivated by his own selfish purposes?

Hint: One could conceivably be commended for having "invented the highway", "in spite of" one's own selfish or even immoral purposes.

Oh, OK, then it was your own argument that was childishly simplistic and irrelevant to the discussion, and your comment as a whole that was incoherent.

Your name is irony, liar.

The high horse is in your imagination. You however have made it extremely clear that you have the moral standards of a guy running a Tijuana donkey show. Your lies are blatant and stupid. I can only assume that you are drunk or high, because the new lies are so obvious that when you sober up, even you will be embarrassed by them.

I see you don't read sarcasm well, either.

[ChuckWepner]

Various bullshit

Fixed

You claimed that the argument about morality was introduced by Azatdawn, and mocked my claim that it was introduced in itwasntme's second sentence. You said that by discussing morality I was addressing Azatdawn, rather than itwasntme.

*I* pointed out to you that your attempt to separate the sentence about whether Hitler should be commended from morality and to separate that sentence and the next sentence was misguided. I then pointed out that itwasntme was introducing moral issues in his first Hitler post. Now you are hypocritically pretending that you held my position while pretending that the chronology you referred to earlier as one of a hundred posts over several days meant "chronology" within a paragraph within a single post.

This is obvious, hypocritical, bald-faced bullshit. You know it is. I know it is. Everyone reading this knows. No one believes that the "chronology" of the debate you claimed to explain was that there was no moral issue in itwasntme's first sentence but there was one in itwasntme's second sentence.

That isn't how you were using "chronology" and it isn't how any sane speaker of English would discuss the chronology of a debate consisting of posts. (For all we know, itwasntme changed the first sentence after he wrote the rest.) Regardless, the chronology has to do with what was *posted* when.

So, you are obviously being a lying, hypocritical sack of ****. You shut the **** up.

[bobyclumsyninja]

Ok I kind of skimmed through this tiff that you gals are in but if you are having to provide sources to show that hitler was awful, then the person you are arguing with its either 1) an evil piece of **** 2) trolling you or 3) retarded....None of those are worth arguing with....

He does appear to be an evil troll, but is most likely a dippy small town ignoramus.

I asked him to provide links in the hope that in searching for them, he'd realize what kind of company he's in. I want the man to learn something. There's always hope.

I'm an entertainer. When on Bullshido, I'm being entertained. Don't like the discussions...**** off to a serious section of the site, where this stuff isn't tolerated.

P.s. Gals isn't much of an insult these days. Essentially the most famous fighter on the planet is female.

[itwasntme]

...

I went ahead and deleted that bit out of my rebuttal. I'm sure after having time to review your post, you are thanking me right now.

As I said, not talking about the plans of producing the car but then... you are wrong... let me drive that home further....

You won't get so lucky twice. I mean, come on... Wikipedia??? Hold on a few minutes and you can quote the part I'm about to add about Hitler being half Japanese, and WW2 started over Stalin breaking the treaty with Hitler by fucking his wife.

Back to the topic at hand.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-637368.html

But a true automobile for the masses was not produced in Wolfsburg during the war. Only 630 Beetles were made there during World War II -- and distributed to the privileged.

Instead, the factories were used in weapons production, to manufacture tank chains, mines and an all-terrain vehicle that came to be known as the Kübelwagen ("bucket-seat car"). Thousands of forced laborers were later used, including Jews from concentration camps and prisoners of war, mostly from the Soviet Union and Poland.

'Cheap Eastern Workers'

Porsche's son-in-law, Anton Piëch, began managing the plant in 1941. In his study "The Volkswagen Plant and Its Workers in the Third Reich," the German historian Hans Mommsen writes: "In the summer of 1943, Anton Piëch bluntly declared that he had to use cheap Eastern workers in order to fulfill the Führer's wish that the Volkswagen be produced for 990 Reichsmark."

I added the last part since it seems I forced myself into a debate on morality as well. Hitler clearly wanted this to be made available to German citizens at a cheap rate.

Before you mention that only the privileged received their cars, I would just like to point out how that was the obvious conclusion when the cars were in limited numbers. The privileged had likely put in more money than the rest, and in the highly unlikely circumstance that this was not the case, that still does not refute the fact that he tried.

[Mister]

Holy **** you guys.

Hitler is dead.