- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
Originally Posted by dmbrhs
It's a cultural thing. Can't judge. Piracy is fine. We're encroaching on their territory.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by dmbrhs
It's a cultural thing. Can't judge. Piracy is fine. We're encroaching on their territory.
I love how you and everyone else who criticized this example left out the second part which is an explanation. Yes, it's not the most accurate analogy, but obviously you can understand the point (or if not, you could have read the 2nd part of my post).Originally Posted by KayGeeDaGr8
No but because he is comparing a group of terrorist/pirates to a a species of fish who do not intent to attack every person that either comes through the area or falls in the water. The pirates intentions is to attack and hi-jack.. unlike a shark they might attack if hungry but is not their job or focus.. plus couple 100 pirates.. vs couple million sharks. Do the mathOriginally Posted by Tego Calderon El Abayarde
Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES
Originally Posted by scshift
If sharks attacked a swimmer in the open ocean, would all of you condemning the pirates justify killing every shark in those waters?
Please don't take this the wrong way....But you're an idiot.
So he's an idiot because you can't respond to his comment in an intelligent manner and have to resort to name calling?
I love how you and everyone else who criticized this example left out the second part which is an explanation. Yes, it's not the most accurate analogy, but obviously you can understand the point (or if not, you could have read the 2nd part of my post).Originally Posted by KayGeeDaGr8
No but because he is comparing a group of terrorist/pirates to a a species of fish who do not intent to attack every person that either comes through the area or falls in the water. The pirates intentions is to attack and hi-jack.. unlike a shark they might attack if hungry but is not their job or focus.. plus couple 100 pirates.. vs couple million sharks. Do the mathOriginally Posted by Tego Calderon El Abayarde
Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES
Originally Posted by scshift
If sharks attacked a swimmer in the open ocean, would all of you condemning the pirates justify killing every shark in those waters?
Please don't take this the wrong way....But you're an idiot.
So he's an idiot because you can't respond to his comment in an intelligent manner and have to resort to name calling?
scshift wrote:
No but because he is comparing a group of terrorist/pirates to a a species of fish who do not intent to attack every person that either comes through the area or falls in the water. The pirates intentions is to attack and hi-jack.. unlike a shark they might attack if hungry but is not their job or focus.. plus couple 100 pirates.. vs couple million sharks. Do the mathOriginally Posted by KayGeeDaGr8
Originally Posted by Tego Calderon El Abayarde
Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES
scshift wrote:
If sharks attacked a swimmer in the open ocean, would all of you condemning the pirates justify killing every shark in those waters?
Please don't take this the wrong way....But you're an idiot.
So he's an idiot because you can't respond to his comment in an intelligent manner and have to resort to name calling?
I love how you and everyone else who criticized this example left out the second part which is an explanation. Yes, it's not the most accurate analogy, but obviously you can understand the point (or if not, you could have read the 2nd part of my post).
Pirates attack ships. That's what pirates do. They don't just float around and smoke pipes like you saw in Pirates of the Caribbean. Everyone with any sense knows that they're aggressive and dangerous. They see a potential target, they attack. How is this different from sharks? A shark in need will attack a potential target. You think if the pirates already looted fifty ships in one night and they were just chilling that they'd still waste energy on another ship? Highly unlikely. Just like how a shark might not attack any person on sight, but if they need to, you bet they will.
The number is irrelevant. That is not even close to the point. The point is that everyone knows the Somali waters are dangerous. Yet, tourists like these ones go there, so arrogant in thinking the rules of death don't apply to them, then all of a sudden you get knocked off your high horse and start crying foul. It's one thing if those waters were peaceful and there was no pirate threat, but it's a fact accepted world wide that you don't go into those waters, much less for a vacation.
If you think the pirates are the only ones in the wrong, then educate yourself. You're probably the same kind of person who'd walk into Compton flossing your G-Shock and Bapes and when you get robbed, you run back to the suburbs and complain about how "the gangsters did you dirty". Next time you try interpreting a quote, how about you try reading it in it's entirety?
So if a women dresses provocatively and gets raped, it's their fault?
scshift wrote:
No but because he is comparing a group of terrorist/pirates to a a species of fish who do not intent to attack every person that either comes through the area or falls in the water. The pirates intentions is to attack and hi-jack.. unlike a shark they might attack if hungry but is not their job or focus.. plus couple 100 pirates.. vs couple million sharks. Do the mathOriginally Posted by KayGeeDaGr8
Originally Posted by Tego Calderon El Abayarde
Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES
scshift wrote:
If sharks attacked a swimmer in the open ocean, would all of you condemning the pirates justify killing every shark in those waters?
Please don't take this the wrong way....But you're an idiot.
So he's an idiot because you can't respond to his comment in an intelligent manner and have to resort to name calling?
I love how you and everyone else who criticized this example left out the second part which is an explanation. Yes, it's not the most accurate analogy, but obviously you can understand the point (or if not, you could have read the 2nd part of my post).
Pirates attack ships. That's what pirates do. They don't just float around and smoke pipes like you saw in Pirates of the Caribbean. Everyone with any sense knows that they're aggressive and dangerous. They see a potential target, they attack. How is this different from sharks? A shark in need will attack a potential target. You think if the pirates already looted fifty ships in one night and they were just chilling that they'd still waste energy on another ship? Highly unlikely. Just like how a shark might not attack any person on sight, but if they need to, you bet they will.
The number is irrelevant. That is not even close to the point. The point is that everyone knows the Somali waters are dangerous. Yet, tourists like these ones go there, so arrogant in thinking the rules of death don't apply to them, then all of a sudden you get knocked off your high horse and start crying foul. It's one thing if those waters were peaceful and there was no pirate threat, but it's a fact accepted world wide that you don't go into those waters, much less for a vacation.
If you think the pirates are the only ones in the wrong, then educate yourself. You're probably the same kind of person who'd walk into Compton flossing your G-Shock and Bapes and when you get robbed, you run back to the suburbs and complain about how "the gangsters did you dirty". Next time you try interpreting a quote, how about you try reading it in it's entirety?
So if a women dresses provocatively and gets raped, it's their fault?
So if a women dresses provocatively and gets raped, it's their fault?Originally Posted by juggy4805
So if a women dresses provocatively and gets raped, it's their fault?Originally Posted by juggy4805
if she knew she was in a place with high rape rates, then yesOriginally Posted by ThunderChunk69
So if a women dresses provocatively and gets raped, it's their fault?Originally Posted by juggy4805
if she knew she was in a place with high rape rates, then yesOriginally Posted by ThunderChunk69
So if a women dresses provocatively and gets raped, it's their fault?Originally Posted by juggy4805
Very well said.Originally Posted by scshift
I love how you and everyone else who criticized this example left out the second part which is an explanation. Yes, it's not the most accurate analogy, but obviously you can understand the point (or if not, you could have read the 2nd part of my post).Originally Posted by KayGeeDaGr8
No but because he is comparing a group of terrorist/pirates to a a species of fish who do not intent to attack every person that either comes through the area or falls in the water. The pirates intentions is to attack and hi-jack.. unlike a shark they might attack if hungry but is not their job or focus.. plus couple 100 pirates.. vs couple million sharks. Do the mathOriginally Posted by Tego Calderon El Abayarde
Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES
Originally Posted by scshift
If sharks attacked a swimmer in the open ocean, would all of you condemning the pirates justify killing every shark in those waters?
Please don't take this the wrong way....But you're an idiot.
So he's an idiot because you can't respond to his comment in an intelligent manner and have to resort to name calling?
Pirates attack ships. That's what pirates do. They don't just float around and smoke pipes like you saw in Pirates of the Caribbean. Everyone with any sense knows that they're aggressive and dangerous. They see a potential target, they attack. How is this different from sharks? A shark in need will attack a potential target. You think if the pirates already looted fifty ships in one night and they were just chilling that they'd still waste energy on another ship? Highly unlikely. Just like how a shark might not attack any person on sight, but if they need to, you bet they will.
The number is irrelevant. That is not even close to the point. The point is that everyone knows the Somali waters are dangerous. Yet, tourists like these ones go there, so arrogant in thinking the rules of death don't apply to them, then all of a sudden you get knocked off your high horse and start crying foul. It's one thing if those waters were peaceful and there was no pirate threat, but it's a fact accepted world wide that you don't go into those waters, much less for a vacation.
If you think the pirates are the only ones in the wrong, then educate yourself. You're probably the same kind of person who'd walk into Compton flossing your G-Shock and Bapes and when you get robbed, you run back to the suburbs and complain about how "the gangsters did you dirty". Next time you try interpreting a quote, how about you try reading it in it's entirety?
Very well said.Originally Posted by scshift
I love how you and everyone else who criticized this example left out the second part which is an explanation. Yes, it's not the most accurate analogy, but obviously you can understand the point (or if not, you could have read the 2nd part of my post).Originally Posted by KayGeeDaGr8
No but because he is comparing a group of terrorist/pirates to a a species of fish who do not intent to attack every person that either comes through the area or falls in the water. The pirates intentions is to attack and hi-jack.. unlike a shark they might attack if hungry but is not their job or focus.. plus couple 100 pirates.. vs couple million sharks. Do the mathOriginally Posted by Tego Calderon El Abayarde
Originally Posted by 36 OUNCES
Originally Posted by scshift
If sharks attacked a swimmer in the open ocean, would all of you condemning the pirates justify killing every shark in those waters?
Please don't take this the wrong way....But you're an idiot.
So he's an idiot because you can't respond to his comment in an intelligent manner and have to resort to name calling?
Pirates attack ships. That's what pirates do. They don't just float around and smoke pipes like you saw in Pirates of the Caribbean. Everyone with any sense knows that they're aggressive and dangerous. They see a potential target, they attack. How is this different from sharks? A shark in need will attack a potential target. You think if the pirates already looted fifty ships in one night and they were just chilling that they'd still waste energy on another ship? Highly unlikely. Just like how a shark might not attack any person on sight, but if they need to, you bet they will.
The number is irrelevant. That is not even close to the point. The point is that everyone knows the Somali waters are dangerous. Yet, tourists like these ones go there, so arrogant in thinking the rules of death don't apply to them, then all of a sudden you get knocked off your high horse and start crying foul. It's one thing if those waters were peaceful and there was no pirate threat, but it's a fact accepted world wide that you don't go into those waters, much less for a vacation.
If you think the pirates are the only ones in the wrong, then educate yourself. You're probably the same kind of person who'd walk into Compton flossing your G-Shock and Bapes and when you get robbed, you run back to the suburbs and complain about how "the gangsters did you dirty". Next time you try interpreting a quote, how about you try reading it in it's entirety?
Originally Posted by DunkNForce
if you guys pay for the trip and ammo i will go on that cruise
Originally Posted by DunkNForce
if you guys pay for the trip and ammo i will go on that cruise
Originally Posted by DunkNForce
if you guys pay for the trip and ammo i will go on that cruise
Originally Posted by DunkNForce
if you guys pay for the trip and ammo i will go on that cruise
Originally Posted by DunkNForce
if you guys pay for the trip and ammo i will go on that cruise
Originally Posted by DunkNForce
if you guys pay for the trip and ammo i will go on that cruise