Is my sig offensive to anyone?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
I misread you sig, I thought it said:

Fighting for peace is like fighting for virginity.

^ This is offensive.

Your sig is not.
 
I

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Megamorph
Offensive, no.

Stupid, yes.
Click to expand...

superficially I would say yes. On the other hand, it's a very valid point to be made about the "just war" philosophy (which has a lot of present day relevance).

To expand, it's obviously stupid to say that violence can not be utilitarian. On the other hand intuitive "moral" causes that disregard the rule of law can have a tremendous amount of counterintuitive results (like exacerbating the problem). I think that's what the quote is all about-

 
yukichigai

yukichigai

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2003
6,404
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
You can say whatever you want.

But think about that quote at the same time you think about the allied role in World War II.

By that logic, we should have all laid down and taken it up the ass when the Nazis and Japanese were taking over the world and slaughtering millions.
Click to expand...

We weren't fighting for peace; we were fighting for not letting the rest of the world be slaughtered/invaded. There's a distinct difference.
 
Amused

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,111
146
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Originally posted by: Amused
You can say whatever you want.

But think about that quote at the same time you think about the allied role in World War II.

By that logic, we should have all laid down and taken it up the ass when the Nazis and Japanese were taking over the world and slaughtering millions.
Click to expand...

We weren't fighting for peace; we were fighting for not letting the rest of the world be slaughtered/invaded. There's a distinct difference.
Click to expand...

When you stop those doing the invading and slaughtering, what do you have? Peace.
 
F

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: amnesiac
Originally posted by: Amused
You can say whatever you want.

But think about that quote at the same time you think about the allied role in World War II.

By that logic, we should have all laid down and taken it up the ass when the Nazis and Japanese were taking over the world and slaughtering millions.

It is, on it's face, a very stupid and thoughtless bullsh!t line.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that the long term memory of most Americans reaches a maximum of ten years. No one cares to remember our policies from anything predating Desert Storm.
Click to expand...

Unless of course it's something that the U.S. did wrong. People are willing to forget the good things the U.S. has done while villifiying(sp?) things the bad things the U.S. has done.


On the top of the thread, I agree with Offensive: No, Stupid: Yes.
 
yukichigai

yukichigai

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2003
6,404
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Originally posted by: Amused
You can say whatever you want.

But think about that quote at the same time you think about the allied role in World War II.

By that logic, we should have all laid down and taken it up the ass when the Nazis and Japanese were taking over the world and slaughtering millions.
Click to expand...

We weren't fighting for peace; we were fighting for not letting the rest of the world be slaughtered/invaded. There's a distinct difference.
Click to expand...

When you stop those doing the invading and slaughtering, what do you have? Peace.
Click to expand...

That's still not what we were fighting for. We got into the war because we wanted to stop the Japanese and the Nazis from killing people. Nobody came along and said "hey, I think we need to kick the Nazis' asses because the world isn't at peace." The motivation was stopping them; that's not the same as peace. You see the difference?
 
R

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
I don't find it offensive. It helps me to better understand you. Based on your sig I see that your logic skills are flawed and you are an idiot, so I know not to waste my time debating with you about anything since it would be pointless.
 
Amused

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,111
146
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Originally posted by: Amused
You can say whatever you want.

But think about that quote at the same time you think about the allied role in World War II.

By that logic, we should have all laid down and taken it up the ass when the Nazis and Japanese were taking over the world and slaughtering millions.
Click to expand...

We weren't fighting for peace; we were fighting for not letting the rest of the world be slaughtered/invaded. There's a distinct difference.
Click to expand...

When you stop those doing the invading and slaughtering, what do you have? Peace.
Click to expand...

That's still not what we were fighting for. We got into the war because we wanted to stop the Japanese and the Nazis from killing people. Nobody came along and said "hey, I think we need to kick the Nazis' asses because the world isn't at peace." The motivation was stopping them; that's not the same as peace. You see the difference?
Click to expand...

Nope, not really. The ultimate goal of everyone fighting on the allied side was peace.
 
G

geckojohn

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2000
4,679
0
0
Originally posted by: se7enty7
I got a PM from someone who found it so. anyone else agree? When I created it, mods and others didn't really care *too* much about avoiding the cuss lock (or whatever it's called..) if it bothers people I will take it off. If it bothers a person I will leave it on. (depending on the person :p )
Click to expand...

Which member said that to you?
 
T

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
I think it should say, "Violently protesting in the name of peace is like f*cking wildly in the name of virginity"

but you can put whatever you want.....I just stick to Jack Handy and Seinfeld quotes.
 
B

Broohaha

Banned
Jan 4, 2001
3,973
0
0
1. who pmed you
2. ON WHAT GROUNDS did they find it offensive? because of the reference to just war or because of the reference to fscking?
3. was it lordjezo or dangwanduck?
4. this is atot. tubgirl and goatse reign over here. why the fxk would your sig be any more offensive than any of the other mindless drivel that is spewed out in the thousands of other posts?
 

Se7enty7, although I thought you were weird with that thread you started about some druggy (she) and the sub-druggy (you), I have no qualms with you as far as your sig. Well . . . maybe with exception to choosing the f word? :Q I'm kidding. ;) Basically, I'm all for your sig. You're entitled to your opinion. Opinions aren't always meant to be pleasant or politically correct. In fact, slogans are meant to captivate attention and provoke discussions. If anyone is PMing you, then you're achieving your goal. Too bad if the person can't stop crying wolf or throwing a tantrum and discuss the subject of your signature.
 
Miramonti

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
Originally posted by: Megamorph Offensive, no. Stupid, yes.
Click to expand...
superficially I would say yes. On the other hand, it's a very valid point to be made about the "just war" philosophy (which has a lot of present day relevance).
Click to expand...


The bush adminstration very strongly believes in the "just war" philosophy.


as in...it is "just war".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom