Leave it to idiots to attack the first

[redroosters]

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for your freedoms.

lol

Considering the fact that your rational is that a society can't be free unless there are no laws I'd have to say perhaps you should shy away from fighting.


Anarchy has a tendency to be very destructive.

Quit putting words in my mouth, you subversive counterrevolutionary ********]

lol

I'm not the one who said that "Either you live in a free society, a "free country" as some like to put it, or you don't." and then agreed that having laws means that you are not completely free and therefore the only way to truly be free would be to have no laws and government and therefore Anarchy.


It's possible that you need to reanalyze your method of thinking or except that you are an Anarchist.

Either that or you're a hypocrite.

Nah, you're taking what I had said and

I don't like government, but I could be okay with a fresh, brand-new, relatively-uncorrupt libertarian-socialist government. Until the old order is destroyed, though, anarchy is my flag. Surely you will use this to scare and frighten the others into ignoring me.

lol

"The others?"


Well if you seek the destruction of mankind in some kind of mindless attempt at violence and anarchy which would destroy much than yes.

The old order is destroyed?


You mean the Illuminati?

Kay, well, there is no reason for destruction, only change- but you do not desire that, you simply desire destruction, as you have stated, as you will not be happy until it is done. Yes, that makes you evil. You seek out destruction even if change would get results, that just means you wish harm on others. And even so they would have rules and a government. So you would not be completely free, so therefore not free at all, so your new form of government by your definition would be just as bad as your last, so you'd be a hypocrite.

Fool. I don't seek that and you know it.

Funny you should mention the Illuminati before anyone else.

Destruction is not evil in itself. It depends what's being destroyed.

Complete freedom would be a situation somewhat akin to Fist of the North Star's post-nuclear setting, e.g. the strongest fighters decide everything, often unjustly in their favor. Obviously that is not a favorable situation for everyone. What I want is an end to government AS WE KNOW IT.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Quit putting words in my mouth, you subversive counterrevolutionary ********]

lol

I'm not the one who said that "Either you live in a free society, a "free country" as some like to put it, or you don't." and then agreed that having laws means that you are not completely free and therefore the only way to truly be free would be to have no laws and government and therefore Anarchy.


It's possible that you need to reanalyze your method of thinking or except that you are an Anarchist.

Either that or you're a hypocrite.

Nah, you're taking what I had said and

I don't like government, but I could be okay with a fresh, brand-new, relatively-uncorrupt libertarian-socialist government. Until the old order is destroyed, though, anarchy is my flag. Surely you will use this to scare and frighten the others into ignoring me.

lol

"The others?"


Well if you seek the destruction of mankind in some kind of mindless attempt at violence and anarchy which would destroy much than yes.

The old order is destroyed?


You mean the Illuminati?

Kay, well, there is no reason for destruction, only change- but you do not desire that, you simply desire destruction, as you have stated, as you will not be happy until it is done. Yes, that makes you evil. You seek out destruction even if change would get results, that just means you wish harm on others. And even so they would have rules and a government. So you would not be completely free, so therefore not free at all, so your new form of government by your definition would be just as bad as your last, so you'd be a hypocrite.

Fool. I don't seek that and you know it.

Funny you should mention the Illuminati before anyone else.

Destruction is not evil in itself. It depends what's being destroyed.

Complete freedom would be a situation somewhat akin to Fist of the North Star's post-nuclear setting, e.g. the strongest fighters decide everything, often unjustly in their favor. Obviously that is not a favorable situation for everyone. What I want is an end to government AS WE KNOW IT.

Destruction is always bad.

And to wish it when it is not necessary only serves to make you evil.


Ending government as we know it to what, change the name?

You want to destroy everything as we know it to "rebuild" a society that would be exactly the same, the only difference being a name.


If slow subtle changed occurred over time what difference would there be?

Nothing, but you're not interested in what makes sense, or what problems arise or what would happen during the events of chaos, again, all you want is destruction.

[redroosters]

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Quit putting words in my mouth, you subversive counterrevolutionary ********]

lol

I'm not the one who said that "Either you live in a free society, a "free country" as some like to put it, or you don't." and then agreed that having laws means that you are not completely free and therefore the only way to truly be free would be to have no laws and government and therefore Anarchy.


It's possible that you need to reanalyze your method of thinking or except that you are an Anarchist.

Either that or you're a hypocrite.

Nah, you're taking what I had said and

I don't like government, but I could be okay with a fresh, brand-new, relatively-uncorrupt libertarian-socialist government. Until the old order is destroyed, though, anarchy is my flag. Surely you will use this to scare and frighten the others into ignoring me.

lol

"The others?"


Well if you seek the destruction of mankind in some kind of mindless attempt at violence and anarchy which would destroy much than yes.

The old order is destroyed?


You mean the Illuminati?

Kay, well, there is no reason for destruction, only change- but you do not desire that, you simply desire destruction, as you have stated, as you will not be happy until it is done. Yes, that makes you evil. You seek out destruction even if change would get results, that just means you wish harm on others. And even so they would have rules and a government. So you would not be completely free, so therefore not free at all, so your new form of government by your definition would be just as bad as your last, so you'd be a hypocrite.

Fool. I don't seek that and you know it.

Funny you should mention the Illuminati before anyone else.

Destruction is not evil in itself. It depends what's being destroyed.

Complete freedom would be a situation somewhat akin to Fist of the North Star's post-nuclear setting, e.g. the strongest fighters decide everything, often unjustly in their favor. Obviously that is not a favorable situation for everyone. What I want is an end to government AS WE KNOW IT.

Destruction is always bad.

And to wish it when it is not necessary only serves to make you evil.


Ending government as we know it to what, change the name?

You want to destroy everything as we know it to "rebuild" a society that would be exactly the same, the only difference being a name.


If slow subtle changed occurred over time what difference would there be?

Nothing, but you're not interested in what makes sense, or what problems arise or what would happen during the events of chaos, again, all you want is destruction.

Really? My friend's in the demo business, he gets paid to destroy things. Is that bad? What about when chemotherapy destroys cancer cells? Is that bad too?

It's necessary. You exist to convince the people otherwise, possibly because I showed up.

No, that would be a tactic of the old order. I would prefer to actually change the substance, spirit, goals, and methods of government, preferably in a lasting way.

I can't forsee events that arise from chaos, so planning for that sort of thing is futile.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

redroosters

Old Blue Collar Joe

redroosters

Jorgunmandr

Doofi3

I'm amazed at this too. Its fairly pathetic how few Americans really understand our own Constitution. At the VERY LEAST study your rights people, come on. I don't think its really all that complicated though, or at least it is needlessley so. The Amendment says quite plainly that the government "shall make NO LAW...abridging the freedom of speech..." That's damn simple if you ask me.


That's because it simply isn't constitutional.

What I enjoy about American Law is that the American people don't understand what any given phrase means. "Freedom of Speech" is not equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded building. Well that falls under public endangerment you fool!, yes it does, and swearing falls under obscenity. It is what you are being punished for not what you are actually doing that matters in law. For instance public intoxication isn't barring your right to drink if you are legally capable at all.

Silly Americans.

Freedom of speech means that anything that comes out of your mouth, they can't arrest you for. Freedom to drink means you can drink anywhere, anytime, and not get arrested for it.


Now, DUI, that's a combination of activities, but still, freedom is either all or nothing.

The laws that people claim are against freedom of speech? They're not charged with a first amendment violation. They're charged with endangerment and inciting a panic.
As for the booze comment? You really aren't 'free to drink' as you wish, as that isn't a constitutional guarantee. It's a privilege given by the government.

No, they wouldn't cite the document that supposedly protects them from such prosecution in the prosecution itself. That would be silly.


The constitution won't protect your freedoms for you.

Are you going to actually make a valid point or just constantly run in circles making comments that make no sense? Inciting a panic has nothing to do with 'peaceably assemble', as the constitution states.

[redroosters]

Old Blue Collar Joe

redroosters

Old Blue Collar Joe

redroosters

Jorgunmandr

Doofi3

I'm amazed at this too. Its fairly pathetic how few Americans really understand our own Constitution. At the VERY LEAST study your rights people, come on. I don't think its really all that complicated though, or at least it is needlessley so. The Amendment says quite plainly that the government "shall make NO LAW...abridging the freedom of speech..." That's damn simple if you ask me.


That's because it simply isn't constitutional.

What I enjoy about American Law is that the American people don't understand what any given phrase means. "Freedom of Speech" is not equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded building. Well that falls under public endangerment you fool!, yes it does, and swearing falls under obscenity. It is what you are being punished for not what you are actually doing that matters in law. For instance public intoxication isn't barring your right to drink if you are legally capable at all.

Silly Americans.

Freedom of speech means that anything that comes out of your mouth, they can't arrest you for. Freedom to drink means you can drink anywhere, anytime, and not get arrested for it.


Now, DUI, that's a combination of activities, but still, freedom is either all or nothing.

The laws that people claim are against freedom of speech? They're not charged with a first amendment violation. They're charged with endangerment and inciting a panic.
As for the booze comment? You really aren't 'free to drink' as you wish, as that isn't a constitutional guarantee. It's a privilege given by the government.

No, they wouldn't cite the document that supposedly protects them from such prosecution in the prosecution itself. That would be silly.


The constitution won't protect your freedoms for you.

Are you going to actually make a valid point or just constantly run in circles making comments that make no sense? Inciting a panic has nothing to do with 'peaceably assemble', as the constitution states.

You should be able to scare people and make them panic if you want to. That's just my opinion.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

redroosters

Old Blue Collar Joe

redroosters

Old Blue Collar Joe

redroosters

Freedom of speech means that anything that comes out of your mouth, they can't arrest you for. Freedom to drink means you can drink anywhere, anytime, and not get arrested for it.


Now, DUI, that's a combination of activities, but still, freedom is either all or nothing.

The laws that people claim are against freedom of speech? They're not charged with a first amendment violation. They're charged with endangerment and inciting a panic.
As for the booze comment? You really aren't 'free to drink' as you wish, as that isn't a constitutional guarantee. It's a privilege given by the government.

No, they wouldn't cite the document that supposedly protects them from such prosecution in the prosecution itself. That would be silly.


The constitution won't protect your freedoms for you.

Are you going to actually make a valid point or just constantly run in circles making comments that make no sense? Inciting a panic has nothing to do with 'peaceably assemble', as the constitution states.

You should be able to scare people and make them panic if you want to. That's just my opinion.

o___o

Right.


And the damage caused as a result of this, just fine and dandy right?

Yeah, you really are a horrible person, with an apparently false hypocritical moral code nonetheless.

[redroosters]

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Old Blue Collar Joe

redroosters

Old Blue Collar Joe

redroosters

Freedom of speech means that anything that comes out of your mouth, they can't arrest you for. Freedom to drink means you can drink anywhere, anytime, and not get arrested for it.


Now, DUI, that's a combination of activities, but still, freedom is either all or nothing.

The laws that people claim are against freedom of speech? They're not charged with a first amendment violation. They're charged with endangerment and inciting a panic.
As for the booze comment? You really aren't 'free to drink' as you wish, as that isn't a constitutional guarantee. It's a privilege given by the government.

No, they wouldn't cite the document that supposedly protects them from such prosecution in the prosecution itself. That would be silly.


The constitution won't protect your freedoms for you.

Are you going to actually make a valid point or just constantly run in circles making comments that make no sense? Inciting a panic has nothing to do with 'peaceably assemble', as the constitution states.

You should be able to scare people and make them panic if you want to. That's just my opinion.

o___o

Right.


And the damage caused as a result of this, just fine and dandy right?

Yeah, you really are a horrible person, with an apparently false hypocritical moral code nonetheless.

People really shouldn't panic. They tend to cause damage when they do.


You don't seem to have any moral code aside from "trust and support your local, state, and federal governments".

[Suicidesoldier#1]

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Nah, you're taking what I had said and

I don't like government, but I could be okay with a fresh, brand-new, relatively-uncorrupt libertarian-socialist government. Until the old order is destroyed, though, anarchy is my flag. Surely you will use this to scare and frighten the others into ignoring me.

lol

"The others?"


Well if you seek the destruction of mankind in some kind of mindless attempt at violence and anarchy which would destroy much than yes.

The old order is destroyed?


You mean the Illuminati?

Kay, well, there is no reason for destruction, only change- but you do not desire that, you simply desire destruction, as you have stated, as you will not be happy until it is done. Yes, that makes you evil. You seek out destruction even if change would get results, that just means you wish harm on others. And even so they would have rules and a government. So you would not be completely free, so therefore not free at all, so your new form of government by your definition would be just as bad as your last, so you'd be a hypocrite.

Fool. I don't seek that and you know it.

Funny you should mention the Illuminati before anyone else.

Destruction is not evil in itself. It depends what's being destroyed.

Complete freedom would be a situation somewhat akin to Fist of the North Star's post-nuclear setting, e.g. the strongest fighters decide everything, often unjustly in their favor. Obviously that is not a favorable situation for everyone. What I want is an end to government AS WE KNOW IT.

Destruction is always bad.

And to wish it when it is not necessary only serves to make you evil.


Ending government as we know it to what, change the name?

You want to destroy everything as we know it to "rebuild" a society that would be exactly the same, the only difference being a name.


If slow subtle changed occurred over time what difference would there be?

Nothing, but you're not interested in what makes sense, or what problems arise or what would happen during the events of chaos, again, all you want is destruction.

Really? My friend's in the demo business, he gets paid to destroy things. Is that bad? What about when chemotherapy destroys cancer cells? Is that bad too?

It's necessary. You exist to convince the people otherwise, possibly because I showed up.

No, that would be a tactic of the old order. I would prefer to actually change the substance, spirit, goals, and methods of government, preferably in a lasting way.

I can't forsee events that arise from chaos, so planning for that sort of thing is futile.

It is better to prevent than to cure- it would be better if cancer never existed at all, and for the building to be already in good standing.

Right, you believe we should have the right to incite panic and cause destruction regardless of the consequences, but you think you would be better than this evil so called "old order"? Yeah, you can't foresee events arising from Chaos yet you support Anarchy yet you wish for something else- lol, kay.

[redroosters]

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Nah, you're taking what I had said and

I don't like government, but I could be okay with a fresh, brand-new, relatively-uncorrupt libertarian-socialist government. Until the old order is destroyed, though, anarchy is my flag. Surely you will use this to scare and frighten the others into ignoring me.

lol

"The others?"


Well if you seek the destruction of mankind in some kind of mindless attempt at violence and anarchy which would destroy much than yes.

The old order is destroyed?


You mean the Illuminati?

Kay, well, there is no reason for destruction, only change- but you do not desire that, you simply desire destruction, as you have stated, as you will not be happy until it is done. Yes, that makes you evil. You seek out destruction even if change would get results, that just means you wish harm on others. And even so they would have rules and a government. So you would not be completely free, so therefore not free at all, so your new form of government by your definition would be just as bad as your last, so you'd be a hypocrite.

Fool. I don't seek that and you know it.

Funny you should mention the Illuminati before anyone else.

Destruction is not evil in itself. It depends what's being destroyed.

Complete freedom would be a situation somewhat akin to Fist of the North Star's post-nuclear setting, e.g. the strongest fighters decide everything, often unjustly in their favor. Obviously that is not a favorable situation for everyone. What I want is an end to government AS WE KNOW IT.

Destruction is always bad.

And to wish it when it is not necessary only serves to make you evil.


Ending government as we know it to what, change the name?

You want to destroy everything as we know it to "rebuild" a society that would be exactly the same, the only difference being a name.


If slow subtle changed occurred over time what difference would there be?

Nothing, but you're not interested in what makes sense, or what problems arise or what would happen during the events of chaos, again, all you want is destruction.

Really? My friend's in the demo business, he gets paid to destroy things. Is that bad? What about when chemotherapy destroys cancer cells? Is that bad too?

It's necessary. You exist to convince the people otherwise, possibly because I showed up.

No, that would be a tactic of the old order. I would prefer to actually change the substance, spirit, goals, and methods of government, preferably in a lasting way.

I can't forsee events that arise from chaos, so planning for that sort of thing is futile.

It is better to prevent than to cure- it would be better if cancer never existed at all, and for the building to be already in good standing.

Right, you believe we should have the right to incite panic and cause destruction regardless of the consequences, but you think you would be better than this evil so called "old order"? Yeah, you can't foresee events arising from Chaos yet you support Anarchy yet you wish for something else- lol, kay.

That would be nice, but you can't always have things all perfect and nice from the start to the end. Sometimes, to make a bad thing better, you have to destroy what's there.

My personal opinion is that I don't think you should be responsible for the feebleminded actions of others, regardless of how scared they were of you, or because of you, at the time. That, however, is neither here nor there.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Fool. I don't seek that and you know it.

Funny you should mention the Illuminati before anyone else.

Destruction is not evil in itself. It depends what's being destroyed.

Complete freedom would be a situation somewhat akin to Fist of the North Star's post-nuclear setting, e.g. the strongest fighters decide everything, often unjustly in their favor. Obviously that is not a favorable situation for everyone. What I want is an end to government AS WE KNOW IT.

Destruction is always bad.

And to wish it when it is not necessary only serves to make you evil.


Ending government as we know it to what, change the name?

You want to destroy everything as we know it to "rebuild" a society that would be exactly the same, the only difference being a name.


If slow subtle changed occurred over time what difference would there be?

Nothing, but you're not interested in what makes sense, or what problems arise or what would happen during the events of chaos, again, all you want is destruction.

Really? My friend's in the demo business, he gets paid to destroy things. Is that bad? What about when chemotherapy destroys cancer cells? Is that bad too?

It's necessary. You exist to convince the people otherwise, possibly because I showed up.

No, that would be a tactic of the old order. I would prefer to actually change the substance, spirit, goals, and methods of government, preferably in a lasting way.

I can't forsee events that arise from chaos, so planning for that sort of thing is futile.

It is better to prevent than to cure- it would be better if cancer never existed at all, and for the building to be already in good standing.

Right, you believe we should have the right to incite panic and cause destruction regardless of the consequences, but you think you would be better than this evil so called "old order"? Yeah, you can't foresee events arising from Chaos yet you support Anarchy yet you wish for something else- lol, kay.

That would be nice, but you can't always have things all perfect and nice from the start to the end. Sometimes, to make a bad thing better, you have to destroy what's there.

My personal opinion is that I don't think you should be responsible for the feebleminded actions of others, regardless of how scared they were of you, or because of you, at the time. That, however, is neither here nor there.

Right, feebleminded, becuase yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't a result of the feeble minded.

What would be nice is to prevent cancer not to destroy it- the issue would be to get to a state of not being diseased, not create a cancer to destroy.

[redroosters]

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Fool. I don't seek that and you know it.

Funny you should mention the Illuminati before anyone else.

Destruction is not evil in itself. It depends what's being destroyed.

Complete freedom would be a situation somewhat akin to Fist of the North Star's post-nuclear setting, e.g. the strongest fighters decide everything, often unjustly in their favor. Obviously that is not a favorable situation for everyone. What I want is an end to government AS WE KNOW IT.

Destruction is always bad.

And to wish it when it is not necessary only serves to make you evil.


Ending government as we know it to what, change the name?

You want to destroy everything as we know it to "rebuild" a society that would be exactly the same, the only difference being a name.


If slow subtle changed occurred over time what difference would there be?

Nothing, but you're not interested in what makes sense, or what problems arise or what would happen during the events of chaos, again, all you want is destruction.

Really? My friend's in the demo business, he gets paid to destroy things. Is that bad? What about when chemotherapy destroys cancer cells? Is that bad too?

It's necessary. You exist to convince the people otherwise, possibly because I showed up.

No, that would be a tactic of the old order. I would prefer to actually change the substance, spirit, goals, and methods of government, preferably in a lasting way.

I can't forsee events that arise from chaos, so planning for that sort of thing is futile.

It is better to prevent than to cure- it would be better if cancer never existed at all, and for the building to be already in good standing.

Right, you believe we should have the right to incite panic and cause destruction regardless of the consequences, but you think you would be better than this evil so called "old order"? Yeah, you can't foresee events arising from Chaos yet you support Anarchy yet you wish for something else- lol, kay.

That would be nice, but you can't always have things all perfect and nice from the start to the end. Sometimes, to make a bad thing better, you have to destroy what's there.

My personal opinion is that I don't think you should be responsible for the feebleminded actions of others, regardless of how scared they were of you, or because of you, at the time. That, however, is neither here nor there.

Right, feebleminded, becuase yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't a result of the feeble minded.

What would be nice is to prevent cancer not to destroy it- the issue would be to get to a state of not being diseased, not create a cancer to destroy.

Yes, if you hear someone shout the word "fire" in a crowded theater, take that person's word for it that there is a fire, and trample someone on your way out, that's your fault for being a ******** moron. Personal opinion, though. It's probably not the best for official adaptation.

The cancer is already there. You will deny the existence of the cancer, because you do not want to suffer the kemo.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Really? My friend's in the demo business, he gets paid to destroy things. Is that bad? What about when chemotherapy destroys cancer cells? Is that bad too?

It's necessary. You exist to convince the people otherwise, possibly because I showed up.

No, that would be a tactic of the old order. I would prefer to actually change the substance, spirit, goals, and methods of government, preferably in a lasting way.

I can't forsee events that arise from chaos, so planning for that sort of thing is futile.

It is better to prevent than to cure- it would be better if cancer never existed at all, and for the building to be already in good standing.

Right, you believe we should have the right to incite panic and cause destruction regardless of the consequences, but you think you would be better than this evil so called "old order"? Yeah, you can't foresee events arising from Chaos yet you support Anarchy yet you wish for something else- lol, kay.

That would be nice, but you can't always have things all perfect and nice from the start to the end. Sometimes, to make a bad thing better, you have to destroy what's there.

My personal opinion is that I don't think you should be responsible for the feebleminded actions of others, regardless of how scared they were of you, or because of you, at the time. That, however, is neither here nor there.

Right, feebleminded, becuase yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't a result of the feeble minded.

What would be nice is to prevent cancer not to destroy it- the issue would be to get to a state of not being diseased, not create a cancer to destroy.

Yes, if you hear someone shout the word "fire" in a crowded theater, take that person's word for it that there is a fire, and trample someone on your way out, that's your fault for being a ******** moron. Personal opinion, though. It's probably not the best for official adaptation.

The cancer is already there. You will deny the existence of the cancer, because you do not want to suffer the kemo.

Because Chemo is destructive, and there are better options to avoid getting a cancer, yes.

[redroosters]

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Really? My friend's in the demo business, he gets paid to destroy things. Is that bad? What about when chemotherapy destroys cancer cells? Is that bad too?

It's necessary. You exist to convince the people otherwise, possibly because I showed up.

No, that would be a tactic of the old order. I would prefer to actually change the substance, spirit, goals, and methods of government, preferably in a lasting way.

I can't forsee events that arise from chaos, so planning for that sort of thing is futile.

It is better to prevent than to cure- it would be better if cancer never existed at all, and for the building to be already in good standing.

Right, you believe we should have the right to incite panic and cause destruction regardless of the consequences, but you think you would be better than this evil so called "old order"? Yeah, you can't foresee events arising from Chaos yet you support Anarchy yet you wish for something else- lol, kay.

That would be nice, but you can't always have things all perfect and nice from the start to the end. Sometimes, to make a bad thing better, you have to destroy what's there.

My personal opinion is that I don't think you should be responsible for the feebleminded actions of others, regardless of how scared they were of you, or because of you, at the time. That, however, is neither here nor there.

Right, feebleminded, becuase yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't a result of the feeble minded.

What would be nice is to prevent cancer not to destroy it- the issue would be to get to a state of not being diseased, not create a cancer to destroy.

Yes, if you hear someone shout the word "fire" in a crowded theater, take that person's word for it that there is a fire, and trample someone on your way out, that's your fault for being a ******** moron. Personal opinion, though. It's probably not the best for official adaptation.

The cancer is already there. You will deny the existence of the cancer, because you do not want to suffer the kemo.

Because Chemo is destructive, and there are better options to avoid getting a cancer, yes.

You should have thought about avoiding cancer back during the Industrial Revolution. Now it's spread all over the body and we have ten years, a few months in human lifespan equivalence, to live UNLESS we operate.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

That would be nice, but you can't always have things all perfect and nice from the start to the end. Sometimes, to make a bad thing better, you have to destroy what's there.

My personal opinion is that I don't think you should be responsible for the feebleminded actions of others, regardless of how scared they were of you, or because of you, at the time. That, however, is neither here nor there.

Right, feebleminded, becuase yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't a result of the feeble minded.

What would be nice is to prevent cancer not to destroy it- the issue would be to get to a state of not being diseased, not create a cancer to destroy.

Yes, if you hear someone shout the word "fire" in a crowded theater, take that person's word for it that there is a fire, and trample someone on your way out, that's your fault for being a ******** moron. Personal opinion, though. It's probably not the best for official adaptation.

The cancer is already there. You will deny the existence of the cancer, because you do not want to suffer the kemo.

Because Chemo is destructive, and there are better options to avoid getting a cancer, yes.

You should have thought about avoiding cancer back during the Industrial Revolution. Now it's spread all over the body and we have ten years, a few months in human lifespan equivalence, to live UNLESS we operate.

lol

It's really not that bad.


And your view would be to kill then burn and cremate their bodies.

I can tell you that, that won't bring a person to a healthier state.