Trolling (split from Quick Forum Questions)

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"God of our fathers, known of old,
  Lord of our far-flung battle line,
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
  Dominion over palm and pine —
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
  The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
  An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
  On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
  Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
  Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
  Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
  In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
  And, guarding, calls not Thee to guard;
For frantic boast and foolish word—
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!"

- Rudyard Kipling

The boy stood on the burning deck:                                                                             The Deck was made of brass:                                                                                      He did a double somersault                                                                                          And landed on his arse:

unknown:

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Where does it say that?

In your own country, a bad aboriginal would've been banished from the tribe.

It implies that. Like I said, good and bad exist in every society. Going back on your little ditty, tell me why would no jails equate to no criminals? If of course we had no criminals, then obviously we would not need jails. Instead we have jails, because we have criminals.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You are unclear on the concept, yet presume to speak for everyone; your 'reasonable' values authorize you to be the sole spokesman for the social norms of the entire 'westernized world. 

(Which has cast up some real doozies in bossmanship lately.)

No, I'm speaking as any normal person would in any reasonable society and even unreasonable. We all have Bosses and obey necessary authoritive figures every day of our lives.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You interpret 'criminal' as 'bad' and run with your own misconception.  Sentence by sentence, you can twist another person's words --- and if the other person disagrees, they are the ones being dishonest.

  I interpret criminals as those that do what is against the law, or against the morals of that society. If we talk about twisting words, then you need to look into a mirror. But you already know that I suggest. 

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The point of that piece is that the Indians, by sharing, removed a problem, which was poverty.  It doesn't solve all forms of crime but it sorts a big one. The other point was that materialism wasn't held to such a high regard, like other cultures do.

That's essentially the way I saw it also. My points were that no jails does not mean no criminals or wrong doers; And because you have no locks or keys, does not mean you have no thieves. And thirdly just because a man is given a horse and blanket, (an admirable plus of course in any society) does not mean that he is a law abiding, morally correct person within that society.                                                          

 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

The boy stood on the burning deck:                                                                             The Deck was made of brass:                                                                                      He did a double somersault                                                                                          And landed on his arse:

unknown:

Is that your attempt to dismantle Kipling's poem, line by line? (very grown up)...

15 hours ago, beecee said:

It implies that. Like I said, good and bad exist in every society. Going back on your little ditty, tell me why would no jails equate to no criminals?

To you maybe, but then you're not of that culture, so how do you know what they mean by the word criminal?

If they had no jails, they had no prisoners ergo no criminal's, just banished people i.e. no bad Indian's, in their society. 

15 hours ago, beecee said:

If of course we had no criminals, then obviously we would not need jails. Instead we have jails, because we have criminals.

We have thieves because we have poverty and we have jail's because we have thieves.

As you said in your Anzac thread "Lest we forget"...

If a culture makes a business out of prisons, they'll need an excuse to populate them.

[Peterkin]

19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Back when there were no horses in North America any male without one was given one...good times...

Maybe the old guy was talking about time within his own memory, which didn't go back before 1560.

He doesn't look a day over 100.

Then again, maybe what everybody [in modern westernized society] knows isn't true .... https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came

Edited April 27, 2022 by Peterkin
add more information

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Is that your attempt to dismantle Kipling's poem, line by line? (very grown up)...

them.

Not at all. It was just as relevant though.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To you maybe, but then you're not of that culture, so how do you know what they mean by the word criminal?

I really don't care what word you chose to use. You claiming that there was nothing but good and perfection in any American Indian tribe, is nonsense. There is good and bad in any society. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some of those American Indian tribes constantly fight each other? That was certainly the case with our indigenous Australians. Isn't that evil? or wrong? or have you got some philsophical exemption for that?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If they had no jails, they had no prisoners ergo no criminal's, just banished people i.e. no bad Indian's, in their society. 

 Whether they banish all the criminals and bad people, does not detract from the fact that there is good and bad in any and every society. And again having no jails does not mean no criminals or bad people. In essesnce you seem to be saying...perhaps if we banish all the criminals and wrong-doers in our society to an isolated landmass or Island, never to be seen or heard from again, with no chance of rehabilitation. So this is what you are suggesting dimreeper? 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We have thieves because we have poverty and we have jail's because we have thieves.

No, not necessarily and certainly not exclusively. And we certainly have a greater range of criminals then just thieves. But yes, we have jails because we have thieves and other criminals to punish them, protect society and hopefully show them the error of their ways. Alternatively and obviously, having no jails does not mean we have no thieves. Think about it.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As you said in your Anzac thread "Lest we forget"...

How does punishing/banishing criminals and wrong doers, and whether we have jails or not and the necessity of them, equate to solemnly remembering our war dead, and all those that have given up their lives so that you can live in peace and security and practise your philsophical preference? 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If a culture makes a business out of prisons, they'll need an excuse to populate them.

Your whole questionable philosophy only stands if everything is arse up...you know, like sympathy for the criminal instead of the victim. We have prisons and jails as I have told you in a couple of other threads, to rightly punish them for their misdeamenor, to protect society from their evil, and possibly to rehabilitate them. No culture or society benefits from evil criminals and wrong doers. One can be thankfull thankfully, that such philsophy as you seem to be pushing at every opportunity is in the minority.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by beecee

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Your whole questionable philosophy only stands if everything is arse up...you know, like sympathy for the criminal instead of the victim. We have prisons and jails as I have told you in a couple of other threads, to rightly punish them for their misdeamenor, to protect society from their evil, and possibly to rehabilitate them. No culture or society benefits from evil criminals and wrong doers. One can be thankfull thankfully, that such philsophy as you seem to be pushing at every opportunity is in the minority

I want to highlight that as a society we do decide what is evil and how harsh we want to punish someone. The US has demonstrated that we can racialize these decisions, e.g. by punishing crack harsher than cocaine or investigate and jail black drug users more frequently than white. In fact, certain behaviours (such as drug addiction) might be treated better with health intervention strategies than criminalization. I suspect that this is not actually the direction of your argument, but I thought I might want to bring that up, if only to illustrate that things are tricky.

[MigL]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We have thieves because we have poverty and we have jail's because we have thieves.

So Jeffrey Epstein wasn't criminal for molesting young girls, because he certainly wasn't poor. And Donald Trump shouldn't be considered a criminal for his part in the Jan 6 insurrection, or all the people he has taken advantage of ?

Not all criminals are thieves because of poverty, Dim.
Very few steal simply because they are hungry, otherwise bakeries and delis would be getting robbed as often as banks.
Some steal because they are greedy.
 
You're making less sense than usual; but I did not downvote you ...

Edited April 27, 2022 by MigL

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

So Jeffrey Epstein wasn't criminal for molesting young girls, because he certainly wasn't poor. And Donald Trump shouldn't be considered a criminal for his part in the Jan 6 insurrection, or all the people he has taken advantage of ?

Not all criminals are thieves because of poverty, Dim.
Very few steal simply because they are hungry, otherwise bakeries and delis would be getting robbed as often as banks.
Some steal because they are greedy.
 
You're making less sense than usual; but I did not downvote you ...

But to be fair, the Trumps and Epsteins are not the folks who are more likely to end up in jail. Also the link between crime and poverty is quite strong.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some of those American Indian tribes constantly fight each other?

If the fact of war is relevant to the fact of crime, should not the proportions of war casualty and criminality be compared between civilized and uncivilized peoples?

When the man says they didn't have criminals, he does not say there was no bad in people; he does not say there was no aggression in people; he does not say there were no conflicts between people. He says they viewed persons as persons, not classes or categories. That is a distinction many civilized people are unable to perceive. 

 

40 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But to be fair, the Trumps and Epsteins are not the folks who are more likely to end up in jail. Also the link between crime and poverty is quite strong.

Then there is also the question of who makes and enforces what laws for what reasons. But as far as the Indian goes, he was referring specifically to property crime, which occurs in a propertied and property-oriented societies. And there are plenty of grocery thefts motivated by hunger; they just don't make it into the headlines the way sex scandals do.  

Edited April 28, 2022 by Peterkin
need to repaint keyboard

[MigL]

So why make the claim that if there were no jails, there would be no criminals ?

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

they had no jails, they had no prisoners ergo no criminal's

and

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We have thieves because we have poverty

Bad choice of wording ?
Or inability to distinguish between cause and consequence ?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Bad choice of wording ?
Or inability to distinguish between cause and consequence ?

Do you disagree that increases in poverty relates strongly to increases in thefts, that the two are linked across multiple dimensions and for obvious reasons?

[MigL]

Sure; but thieves are not the only criminals.
And despite the fact that they can afford good lawyers to get them off, a large number of thieves are actually wealthy.

I'm of the opinion that without jails there may be no prisoners, but that does not mean there are no criminals.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm of the opinion that without jails there may be no prisoners, but that does not mean there are no criminals.

I don’t disagree with you, which is why I didn’t comment on that part. 

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

a large number of thieves are actually wealthy.

Again, no disagreement here. 

Still unsure why you pushed back originally on the poverty and theft connection, though. You’ve just acknowledged it in our follow up. 

[MigL]

Because he said

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If they had no jails, they had no prisoners ergo no criminal's

Did you miss that in my previous post ?

[iNow]

Just now, MigL said:

Did you miss that in my previous post ?

No, but isn’t it obvious that I quoted the other part of your previous post and asked specifically about that? Are you making this difficult intentionally? 

[MigL]

The other part was

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We have thieves because we have poverty

And of course we have thieves for many reasons other than poverty.
I even gave one; greed ( 2 hrs ago ).

So please explain your objection.

Edited April 28, 2022 by MigL

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

And of course we have thieves for many reasons other than poverty.
I even gave one; greed ( 2 hrs ago ).

So please explain your objection.

I wasn’t objecting. I was asking you to explain. 

Which you just did. Thank you. 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

I want to highlight that as a society we do decide what is evil and how harsh we want to punish someone. The US has demonstrated that we can racialize these decisions, e.g. by punishing crack harsher than cocaine or investigate and jail black drug users more frequently than white. In fact, certain behaviours (such as drug addiction) might be treated better with health intervention strategies than criminalization. I suspect that this is not actually the direction of your argument, but I thought I might want to bring that up, if only to illustrate that things are tricky.

I would add that the important rehabilitation factor, and alternatives such as suspended sentences, parole and such, are now being looked at much more critically at least where I am, due to the numbers of criminals on parole, bail, or suspended sentences, that have literally thrown it back into the faces of the authoriries, by reoffending, many in short spaces of time. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Sure; but thieves are not the only criminals.
And despite the fact that they can afford good lawyers to get them off, a large number of thieves are actually wealthy.

I'm of the opinion that without jails there may be no prisoners, but that does not mean there are no criminals.

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

So Jeffrey Epstein wasn't criminal for molesting young girls, because he certainly wasn't poor. And Donald Trump shouldn't be considered a criminal for his part in the Jan 6 insurrection, or all the people he has taken advantage of ?

Not all criminals are thieves because of poverty, Dim.
Very few steal simply because they are hungry, otherwise bakeries and delis would be getting robbed as often as banks.
Some steal because they are greedy.
 
You're making less sense than usual; but I did not downvote you ...

These are the points I'm having great difficulty in getting dimreeper to accept. That would obviously mean accepting he was wrong.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If the fact of war is relevant to the fact of crime, should not the proportions of war casualty and criminality be compared between civilized and uncivilized peoples?

I'm not going to argue with your's and dimreeper's ideal heart warming desired society's, other then they are unworkable due to the fact that there is good and evil in all of every society, including American Indian, Australian indigenous people, any democratic western society, Russia, Ukraine. That is an indisputable fact that only a fool, drunk or sober, would deny.

You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

But to be fair, the Trumps and Epsteins are not the folks who are more likely to end up in jail. Also the link between crime and poverty is quite strong.

While you are correct on both counts, it certainly is not exclusive to both counts as dimreeper claiming.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If the fact of war is relevant to the fact of crime, should not the proportions of war casualty and criminality be compared between civilized and uncivilized peoples?

When the man says they didn't have criminals, he does not say there was no bad in people; he does not say there was no aggression in people; he does not say there were no conflicts between people. He says they viewed persons as persons, not classes or categories. That is a distinction many civilized people are unable to perceive. 

Firstly again, my full statement was "Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some of those American Indian tribes constantly fight each other? That was certainly the case with our indigenous Australians. Isn't that evil? or wrong? or have you got some philsophical exemption for that?"

Without delving into any of your deeeeeep philsophical type thinking, the facts are war, crime and all actions against just, reasonable laws of the land are wrong...some more then others...some unforgivable, (as per war, Hitler and Putin) other's certainly forgivable, (but we can't forgive them if they are banished from society)  if and when the wrong doer feels remorse and/or apologises for his/her actions and possibly makes recompense. But hey!! don't let that concern you too much. I'm only a simple old bastard, that trys to see things as they are, and as simple as possible, (punishment, protection of society, and rehabilitation if possible) and without any unneccesary philosphical complications. Occam's razor I think. 😉

Edited April 28, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one.

I did not and will not ask it.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

These are the points I'm having great difficulty in getting dimreeper to accept. That would obviously mean accepting he was wrong.

Maybe when you do. Unlikely. You don't even speak the same language.  

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Isn't that [war] evil? or wrong?

I think so. But it is not criminal, according to the law of any country in the world. You alone equate evil = bad = criminal. The laws of civilization do not; the religions and moral codes of civilization do not. War-mongers are not put into jails - draft-dodgers are.

 

 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I did not and will not ask it.

Who said you had asked it? Is this a comprehension problem? I asked....

3 hours ago, beecee said:

You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one.

OK?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Maybe when you do. Unlikely. You don't even speak the same language.  

Are you speaking for dimreeper? On the same language, you are probably correct. Unlike dimreeper and yourself, I'm not out canvassing or promoting some passive totally unworkable philosophy that we have discussed amply in at least two other threads.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I think so. But it is not criminal, according to the law of any country in the world. You alone equate evil = bad = criminal. The laws of civilization do not; the religions and moral codes of civilization do not. War-mongers are not put into jails - draft-dodgers are.

I equate all as undesirable but unevitable due to human nature. I certainly am not detracting from that, and I'm pretty certain the laws of civilisation you speak of, also push them as undesirable, including religion, and basic moral codes of reasonable westernised society. Which war mongers are you on about? Hitler?? there were about six attempts on his life, sadly all failed until he took the coward's way out. Putin? How can the west put him in jail? Or are you suggesting we risk a nuclear war, or even another conventional war? Draft dodgers...who are you referring to? I remember a movie starring Garry Cooper about an American bloke named Calvin York from memory, a passivist and anti war, but he upon being conscripted went anyway and obeyed the laws of the land. He ended up an American hero and won its top medals of valor.

I suggest if you have a problem with your society (as it appears you do with any debate) then do something about it. I'm concerned about global warming, and I'm also doing at some initial outlay, things to reduce my carbon footprint. Action my friend is more imporatnt then words!!!

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Unlike dimreeper and yourself, I'm not out canvassing or promoting some passive totally unworkable philosophy that we have discussed amply in at least two other threads.

You should explian to the Dutch the futility of their approach.

Quote

About 5 years ago, Netherlands had 19 prisoners only and now in 2018, the country doesn't have any criminals. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-13/the-netherlands-is-closing-its-prisons

16 hours ago, beecee said:

You claiming that there was nothing but good and perfection in any American Indian tribe, is nonsense.

That's not a claim I've made about any society, in any thread, nor have I claimed that 'a form' of incarceration (to protect society and themselves) is unnecessary, in any thread, ever; my only claim is, the vast (by which I mean vastly vast) majority of prisoner's in our civilised western society, is due to our governments (and by extention us) view of what civilised means.

Edited April 28, 2022 by dimreepr

[MigL]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You should explian to the Dutch the futility of their approach.

"There's only two thisngs I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."

Austin Powers

[dimreepr]

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

"There's only two thisngs I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."

Austin Powers

 

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Who said you had asked it? Is this a comprehension problem? I asked....

11 hours ago, beecee said:

You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one.

OK?

To which I responded: I did not and will no ask it.

OK?

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Are you speaking for dimreeper?

No; I am speaking of him, as are you.

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Which war mongers are you on about?

Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, Alexander the Great, Hammurabi, Maratha, Pachacútec, Joshua,  Charlemagne, Sundiata Keita, Napoleon, Cortez, Churchill, LBJ... etc. (I do not use the H word except in strict factual historical context.) 

 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

I remember a movie starring Garry Cooper about an American bloke named Calvin York from memory, a passivist and anti war, but he upon being conscripted went anyway and obeyed the laws of the land. He ended up an American hero and won its top medals of valor.

Exactly. The Law requires peaceable men to turn killer on command. Others fared less heroically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/a-responsibility-to-fight-why-a-ww-ii-era-judge-jailed-mennonite-pacifists-1.5084337

The Law does not equate war with crime.

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

About 5 years ago, Netherlands had 19 prisoners only and now in 2018, the country doesn't have any criminals. 

You should explian to the Dutch the futility of their approach.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-13/the-netherlands-is-closing-its-prisons

Nonsense to the first statement highlighted, and from your link.....

"A drop in the country's crime rate in part explains why the Netherlands' prisons are emptying. A 2016 government study on capacity also noted that a focus on sentencing, with both an increase in shorter sentences and examining how crimes impact society, have helped reduce the prison population, says Wiebe Alkema, spokesperson at the Ministry of Justice and Security.

The Netherlands now has just 61 prisoners per 100,000 people in the general population, ranking among the lowest in Europe. In comparison, the United States has more than 10 times that figure (655 per 100,000), the highest in the world, according to data from the World Prison Brief, an online database hosted by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at the University of London. The Dutch justice department predicts that by 2023, the total prison population will drop to just 9,810 people".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Yep there doing OK compared to other societies and I congratulate them, even for a 2022 estimate population of 17,714,900. Still though the fact remains that even if they close all their prisons, does not mean that thieves, etc and other wrong doers do not exist. And their attitude towards social tolerence while to be commended mostly, is still controversial, particularly on drugs.

Still, you need to remove your rose coloured glasses, as things are not as perfect as you want them to be......"The country has Europe's third-lowest incarceration rate, at 54.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. According to the justice ministry's WODC Research and Documentation Centre, the number of prison sentences imposed fell from 42,000 in 2008 to 31,000 in 2018 – along with a two-thirds drop in jail terms for young offenders." So quite good, but not perfect as I keep telling you. and of course......"Willem van Eijk (13 August 1941 – 19 June 2019) was a convicted Dutch serial killer known as "Het Beest van Harkstede" (The Beast of Harkstede). He was convicted twice for a total of five murders"https://www.google.com/search?q=the+netherlands+and+criminals&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=the+netherlands+and+criminals&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2j33i22i29i30.9639j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Anyway thanks for highlighting exactly what I have been telling you. 😉

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's not a claim I've made about any society, in any thread, nor have I claimed that 'a form' of incarceration (to protect society and themselves) is unnecessary, in any thread, ever; my only claim is, the vast (by which I mean vastly vast) majority of prisoner's in our civilised western society, is due to our governments (and by extention us) view of what civilised means.

I don't believe that. You need to live by what you have posted dimreeper, or cease making statements that can be interpreted in many ways, similar to that ancient obscure book they call the bible.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

To which I responded: I did not and will no ask it.

OK?

And I didn't say you did or had responded. I said......"You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one". 🙄

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, Alexander the Great, Hammurabi, Maratha, Pachacútec, Joshua,  Charlemagne, Sundiata Keita, Napoleon, Cortez, Churchill, LBJ... etc. (I do not use the H word except in strict factual historical context.) 

Sorry, I didn't know this was a history lesson, otherwise I would have named many more...Idi Amin of course is another. There have been and still are war mongers, and Putin is obviously one as well as a war criminal, as of course was Hitler. Are you casting some doubt on Hitler and what history tells us? I mean I remember this phyco nut on another forum, trying to convince the members that the holocaust didn't happen. 🤮 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly. The Law requires peaceable men to turn killer on command. Others fared less heroically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/a-responsibility-to-fight-why-a-ww-ii-era-judge-jailed-mennonite-pacifists-1.5084337

No, the law requires peaceable men and woman to do their duty in times of conflict. If they have a genuine conscientious objection to fighting, there is always other non combatant regions to do their duty.eg: paramedics/catering/ chaplins/ etc etc......"Non-combatant is a term of art in the law of war and international humanitarian law to refer to civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities;^[1] persons, such as combat medics and military chaplains, who are members of the belligerent armed forces but are protected because of their specific duties (as currently described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977); combatants who are placed hors de combat; and neutral persons, such as peacekeepers, who are not involved in fighting for one of the belligerents involved in a war. This particular status was first recognized under the Geneva Conventions with the First Geneva Convention of 1864."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The Law does not equate war with crime.

I didn't actually say that. I said words to the effect that war is/was  wrong and evil, as are individual wrong doers and criminals in a society.

Edited April 28, 2022 by beecee

[Kittenpuncher]

On 4/24/2022 at 8:29 AM, dimreepr said:

Lest we forget

God's hand is not an awful one