INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: P7PSP on July 11, 2010, 11:24:27 PM
-
It appears that Mohammed's faithful have struck again, murdering at least 64 people. Fuck Islam! :finger:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_re_af/af_uganda_explosions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_re_af/af_uganda_explosions)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyKdYTzMqWo&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyKdYTzMqWo&NR=1)
I am quite happy with my Infidel status. Once again - FUCK ISLAM and Islams murderous practices.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/29uvzhy.jpg)
-
That's not Islam, that's clueless morons blaming their murderous habits on religion.
-
That's not Islam, that's clueless morons blaming their murderous habits on religion.
QFT
-
They have to do something about their nutters. I have met plenty of Muslims most that I did were fine but some where fucking nuts. The problem comes down to the fact their nutters have a tendency toward violence. Muslims in a lot of these countries are as a religion in general are more where Christianity was 500 years ago with the burnings and Inquisition, they need to move on
-
If they were a more homogenous group, maybe that would be possible. Problem is, there isn't anything like a pope running things. AFAIK, quite a few of the more modern leaders have condemned this sort of thing.
-
Saw a bit of the Srebrenica meeting and final burial of over 700 people at the graveyard last Sunday. Very impressive. And anything but praising violence. Mostly a Muslim gathering.
Religion is powerful, like water. Depends on who uses it what way. For some it is the language that can help them forgive, and live with respect for people around them, also after disasters of the human kind. Others use it as a tool to heat up hatred. Like water can be used to lessen someone's thirst, or to drown the same person.
-
:plus:
-
That's not Islam, that's clueless morons blaming their murderous habits on religion.
Like the Iranian Government does? al Shabab is fighting for control of Somalia and would likely run it much the same way the Taliban ran Afghanistan. At what point, in your opinion, does a person claiming to be Muslim get to define their own beliefs as Islam odeon? I am not going to presume to tell people what their religious beliefs are and don't know you to when you are not defending Islam from the activities of its most zealous followers. The murders in Mumbai India, the attacks on the London Underground and Spanish Railroad stations, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the call for Salman Rushdie's murder, the shit happening in the Sudan and this latest attack on people watching a sports event together are all crimes committed by Muslims with the stated agenda of acting on behalf of Islam. At what point do people get to define their own beliefs? Cat Stevens publicly stated support for the Fatwa on Rushdie. Did he cease to be a Muslim at that point? Would you have the audacity to tell Yusuf Islam what his beliefs can and can't be?
That's not Islam sounds like a "No true Muslim" fallacy to me.
-
That's not Islam, that's clueless morons blaming their murderous habits on religion.
Like the Iranian Government does? al Shabab is fighting for control of Somalia and would likely run it much the same way the Taliban ran Afghanistan. At what point, in your opinion, does a person claiming to be Muslim get to define their own beliefs as Islam odeon? I am not going to presume to tell people what their religious beliefs are and don't know you to when you are not defending Islam from the activities of its most zealous followers. The murders in Mumbai India, the attacks on the London Underground and Spanish Railroad stations, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the call for Salman Rushdie's murder, the shit happening in the Sudan and this latest attack on people watching a sports event together are all crimes committed by Muslims with the stated agenda of acting on behalf of Islam. At what point do people get to define their own beliefs? Cat Stevens publicly stated support for the Fatwa on Rushdie. Did he cease to be a Muslim at that point? Would you have the audacity to tell Yusuf Islam what his beliefs can and can't be?
That's not Islam sounds like a "No true Muslim" fallacy to me.
No, I disagree with you here.
A fundy Muslim would agree with you.
A few years ago a fundamentalist christian organisation was in the news a lot. Because their way of biblically raising their kids lead to infants dying. They will have thought that all other forms of christianity were no true christianity.
Fundamentalism happens in every religion and philosophy. There are fundamentalistic atheists too. The moment someone claims he, or his group, have got hold of the absolute truth, and all others are following a fallacy, that moment fundamentalism is active. And because of this being sure to have the absolute truth, some think they can treat the people who are not in the truth as dirt. Exploit them, kill them, all for the good of their own truth and self-righteousness. Yes, it does happen amongst some Muslims, but that's no reason to blame all of that. It happens amongst some Christians, but not on all. It happens with some evolutionists, but not in all.
That some governments have combined nationalism with religious fundamentalism, does not make the religion bad in it self.
-
What Hyke said, basically.
We'll have to disagree on this one, PPK. I will tell you this, though: I don't presume to tell anyone what their beliefs can or cannot be, or how they define their religion(s). However, it is my opinion that those killing in the name of religion, whatever that religion is, usually need to blame their actions on something and it is far easier to justify murder if you think God is on your side.
Doesn't make it more right in my eyes, though. I'll put a stop to it once these people start listening to me.
-
That's not Islam, that's clueless morons blaming their murderous habits on religion.
Like the Iranian Government does? al Shabab is fighting for control of Somalia and would likely run it much the same way the Taliban ran Afghanistan. At what point, in your opinion, does a person claiming to be Muslim get to define their own beliefs as Islam odeon? I am not going to presume to tell people what their religious beliefs are and don't know you to when you are not defending Islam from the activities of its most zealous followers. The murders in Mumbai India, the attacks on the London Underground and Spanish Railroad stations, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the call for Salman Rushdie's murder, the shit happening in the Sudan and this latest attack on people watching a sports event together are all crimes committed by Muslims with the stated agenda of acting on behalf of Islam. At what point do people get to define their own beliefs? Cat Stevens publicly stated support for the Fatwa on Rushdie. Did he cease to be a Muslim at that point? Would you have the audacity to tell Yusuf Islam what his beliefs can and can't be?
That's not Islam sounds like a "No true Muslim" fallacy to me.
No, I disagree with you here.
A fundy Muslim would agree with you.
A few years ago a fundamentalist christian organisation was in the news a lot. Because their way of biblically raising their kids lead to infants dying. They will have thought that all other forms of christianity were no true christianity.
None of which made them not real Christians or takes away the religious motivation for what they were doing.
Fundamentalism happens in every religion and philosophy. There are fundamentalistic atheists too. The moment someone claims he, or his group, have got hold of the absolute truth, and all others are following a fallacy, that moment fundamentalism is active. And because of this being sure to have the absolute truth, some think they can treat the people who are not in the truth as dirt. Exploit them, kill them, all for the good of their own truth and self-righteousness. Yes, it does happen amongst some Muslims, but that's no reason to blame all of that. It happens amongst some Christians, but not on all. It happens with some evolutionists, but not in all.
And a gross preponderance of political-religious terrorist attack mass murders that are happening right now come straight out of Islamic fundamentalism.
That some governments have combined nationalism with religious fundamentalism, does not make the religion bad in it self.
The fact that followers of this particular religion (Islam) are engaged in ongoing murderous terrorist attacks on civilian populations (part of a long history of such conduct), and that the founder of this particular religion married a 6 year old girl and fessed up to fucking her at age 9 leads me to believe that this religion is bad in and of itself. Hell in Yemen and Saudi Arabia marrying and fucking little girls is legal and cool because Muhammad did with 'Aisha. How the hell is that not wrong? The bolded part is a question, not an attack on you Hyke.
We'll have to disagree on this one, PPK. I will tell you this, though: I don't presume to tell anyone what their beliefs can or cannot be, or how they define their religion(s). However, it is my opinion that those killing in the name of religion, whatever that religion is, usually need to blame their actions on something and it is far easier to justify murder if you think God is on your side.
Stating it in this manner makes more sense to me than what you initially posted odeon.
Doesn't make it more right in my eyes, though. I'll put a stop to it once these people start listening to me.
I know that. In spite of what my initial response to you may have come off as I don't actually believe that you approve of terrorism.
-
No matter how much wrong you can find in the origins of Islam. Similar wrong can be found in all kinds of cultures and religions.
It would be so convenient if evil was to be so easily pointed out. But it is not.
I do have great problems with fundamentalism, of any kind.
Pinpointing the bad of killing Theo van Gogh on Islam, made that muslim people were not feeling safe anymore. That schools were burned. Where's the good in that?
That's not Islam, that's clueless morons blaming their murderous habits on religion.
Like the Iranian Government does? al Shabab is fighting for control of Somalia and would likely run it much the same way the Taliban ran Afghanistan. At what point, in your opinion, does a person claiming to be Muslim get to define their own beliefs as Islam odeon? I am not going to presume to tell people what their religious beliefs are and don't know you to when you are not defending Islam from the activities of its most zealous followers. The murders in Mumbai India, the attacks on the London Underground and Spanish Railroad stations, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the call for Salman Rushdie's murder, the shit happening in the Sudan and this latest attack on people watching a sports event together are all crimes committed by Muslims with the stated agenda of acting on behalf of Islam. At what point do people get to define their own beliefs? Cat Stevens publicly stated support for the Fatwa on Rushdie. Did he cease to be a Muslim at that point? Would you have the audacity to tell Yusuf Islam what his beliefs can and can't be?
That's not Islam sounds like a "No true Muslim" fallacy to me.
No, I disagree with you here.
A fundy Muslim would agree with you.
A few years ago a fundamentalist christian organisation was in the news a lot. Because their way of biblically raising their kids lead to infants dying. They will have thought that all other forms of christianity were no true christianity.
None of which made them not real Christians or takes away the religious motivation for what they were doing.
The point is that the direct and absolute connection to a religion or a philosophy can not be made.
Fundamentalism happens in every religion and philosophy. There are fundamentalistic atheists too. The moment someone claims he, or his group, have got hold of the absolute truth, and all others are following a fallacy, that moment fundamentalism is active. And because of this being sure to have the absolute truth, some think they can treat the people who are not in the truth as dirt. Exploit them, kill them, all for the good of their own truth and self-righteousness. Yes, it does happen amongst some Muslims, but that's no reason to blame all of that. It happens amongst some Christians, but not on all. It happens with some evolutionists, but not in all.
And a gross preponderance of political-religious terrorist attack mass murders that are happening right now come straight out of Islamic fundamentalism.
True, and a lot of mass murderings in WWII were based on a non-religious philosophy. People were killed, based on religion, offspring, sexual orientation and mental health because of a philosopy of the leader. And most of us still use some good inventions of that very same leader.
That some governments have combined nationalism with religious fundamentalism, does not make the religion bad in it self.
The fact that followers of this particular religion (Islam) are engaged in ongoing murderous terrorist attacks on civilian populations (part of a long history of such conduct), and that the founder of this particular religion married a 6 year old girl and fessed up to fucking her at age 9 leads me to believe that this religion is bad in and of itself. Hell in Yemen and Saudi Arabia marrying and fucking little girls is legal and cool because Muhammad did with 'Aisha. How the hell is that not wrong? The bolded part is a question, not an attack on you Hyke.
It is a horrid thought that a girl had to have sex with an older man so soon. I do strongly agree with you on that.
But, there are historians telling that in the western European Middle-ages, girls could be wed out at the same age. That the Romans had an average age of consent of 12-14, but had put the minimum age at 7. Anything to keep the amount of baby boys high enough to be able to maintain a solid army.
And still, no matter what kind of society, a lot of rape cases will not get acknowledged. Even, or maybe especially, incest, family rape towards young kids, will be ignored a lot. Too horrid to take serious. Better not talk about it, and then it may not exist. And the perpetrators always find a way to make their actions right. Basing it on the purely power of hormones, or the thought that with Eve all woman, from childhood on, are that seductive that it is their own doing, even when they are 6.
We'll have to disagree on this one, PPK. I will tell you this, though: I don't presume to tell anyone what their beliefs can or cannot be, or how they define their religion(s). However, it is my opinion that those killing in the name of religion, whatever that religion is, usually need to blame their actions on something and it is far easier to justify murder if you think God is on your side.
Stating it in this manner makes more sense to me than what you initially posted odeon.
Doesn't make it more right in my eyes, though. I'll put a stop to it once these people start listening to me.
I know that. In spite of what my initial response to you may have come off as I don't actually believe that you approve of terrorism.
-
I know that. In spite of what my initial response to you may have come off as I don't actually believe that you approve of terrorism.
I never will. Killing or harming innocent people for a "cause" is wrong, no matter in whose name they claim to do it. Actually it's just plain wrong, cause or no cause.
-
Killing or harming innocent people for a "cause" is wrong, no matter in whose name they claim to do it. Actually it's just plain wrong, cause or no cause.
What about the guilty ones?
-
No matter how much wrong you can find in the origins of Islam. Similar wrong can be found in all kinds of cultures and religions.
It would be so convenient if evil was to be so easily pointed out. But it is not.
I do have great problems with fundamentalism, of any kind.
How about bombing people who are enjoying watching a sporting event? I have no difficulty calling the Islamic assholes who did that evil.
Pinpointing the bad of killing Theo van Gogh on Islam, made that muslim people were not feeling safe anymore. That schools were burned. Where's the good in that?
Why the hell should they feel safe when they are making the effort to make the survivors/witnesses of their own atrocities unsafe?
The point is that the direct and absolute connection to a religion or a philosophy can not be made.
Then why did you point out that they are Christian?
True, and a lot of mass murderings in WWII were based on a non-religious philosophy. People were killed, based on religion, offspring, sexual orientation and mental health because of a philosopy of the leader. And most of us still use some good inventions of that very same leader.
So exactly how does the history of mass murder by Nazis or Communists justify the terrorist mass murders being committed right now on an ongoing basis by Muslims Hyke? Does the fact that Stalin was an asshole make the Bali Bombings or the more recent bombings in Uganda okay?
But, there are historians telling that in the western European Middle-ages, girls could be wed out at the same age. That the Romans had an average age of consent of 12-14, but had put the minimum age at 7. Anything to keep the amount of baby boys high enough to be able to maintain a solid army.
Gee, I guess that makes it understandable and okay for Muslims to marry and fuck prepubescent girls today. Are you going to be evenhanded about making such practices okay based on historical precedent? Like, for example, is it also okay for a modern day Christian, Agnostic or Atheist people to fuck prepubescent girls, or would you reserve approval of that practice to Muslims only?
-
Killing or harming innocent people for a "cause" is wrong, no matter in whose name they claim to do it. Actually it's just plain wrong, cause or no cause.
What about the guilty ones?
Guilty to what?
-
No matter how much wrong you can find in the origins of Islam. Similar wrong can be found in all kinds of cultures and religions.
It would be so convenient if evil was to be so easily pointed out. But it is not.
I do have great problems with fundamentalism, of any kind.
How about bombing people who are enjoying watching a sporting event? I have no difficulty calling the Islamic assholes who did that evil.
Pinpointing the bad of killing Theo van Gogh on Islam, made that muslim people were not feeling safe anymore. That schools were burned. Where's the good in that?
Why the hell should they feel safe when they are making the effort to make the survivors/witnesses of their own atrocities unsafe?
The point is that the direct and absolute connection to a religion or a philosophy can not be made.
Then why did you point out that they are Christian?
True, and a lot of mass murderings in WWII were based on a non-religious philosophy. People were killed, based on religion, offspring, sexual orientation and mental health because of a philosopy of the leader. And most of us still use some good inventions of that very same leader.
So exactly how does the history of mass murder by Nazis or Communists justify the terrorist mass murders being committed right now on an ongoing basis by Muslims Hyke? Does the fact that Stalin was an asshole make the Bali Bombings or the more recent bombings in Uganda okay?
But, there are historians telling that in the western European Middle-ages, girls could be wed out at the same age. That the Romans had an average age of consent of 12-14, but had put the minimum age at 7. Anything to keep the amount of baby boys high enough to be able to maintain a solid army.
Gee, I guess that makes it understandable and okay for Muslims to marry and fuck prepubescent girls today. Are you going to be evenhanded about making such practices okay based on historical precedent? Like, for example, is it also okay for a modern day Christian, Agnostic or Atheist people to fuck prepubescent girls, or would you reserve approval of that practice to Muslims only?
No, nothing is made right, by pointing out that it is not only Islam that can be used to justify atrocities.
But I refuse to let Muslim terrorist take me with them in their delusion that their deeds are not theirs, but of their god.
I refuse to blame the decent Muslims I know, for the deeds of those morons.
I refuse to get a man away with raping his daughter, because he tells it is the ways of Eve in his daughter that made him do that. And thus blaming is god.
He is the one to blame, not his god.
I refuse to hate a woman who finds solace with the same god her father used to abuse her, because she finds comfort with that god.
Lots of deeds have been done in the name of religions or other aims for 'higher motives'.
It is powerplay. And the people guilty of it need to be punished for it. And not get away with their religion making them, because that is a lie.
-
Killing or harming innocent people for a "cause" is wrong, no matter in whose name they claim to do it. Actually it's just plain wrong, cause or no cause.
What about the guilty ones?
Guilty to what?
Innocent of what?
-
No, nothing is made right, by pointing out that it is not only Islam that can be used to justify atrocities.
But I refuse to let Muslim terrorist take me with them in their delusion that their deeds are not theirs, but of their god.
I refuse to blame the decent Muslims I know, for the deeds of those morons.
I refuse to get a man away with raping his daughter, because he tells it is the ways of Eve in his daughter that made him do that. And thus blaming is god.
He is the one to blame, not his god.
I refuse to hate a woman who finds solace with the same god her father used to abuse her, because she finds comfort with that god.
Lots of deeds have been done in the name of religions or other aims for 'higher motives'.
It is powerplay. And the people guilty of it need to be punished for it. And not get away with their religion making them, because that is a lie.
Nothing I posted lets scumbags off the hook. I don't believe in any god myself so why would I do that? Religions do cause people to behave in what I consider irrational ways though, whether it is thinking their invisible friend in the sky will heal their sick relative, drinking cyanide laced kool aid or considering it okay to blow up infidels because Allah said so. No other major world religion right now can field the amount or percentage of violent scum to kill for their creator/prophet that Islam does or has dictatorial theocratic governments that sign off on the pedophile desires of its most degenerate citizens the way Islam does. It is a particularly detestable belief system.
-
Killing or harming innocent people for a "cause" is wrong, no matter in whose name they claim to do it. Actually it's just plain wrong, cause or no cause.
What about the guilty ones?
Guilty to what?
Innocent of what?
Guilty until proven innocent?
-
No, nothing is made right, by pointing out that it is not only Islam that can be used to justify atrocities.
But I refuse to let Muslim terrorist take me with them in their delusion that their deeds are not theirs, but of their god.
I refuse to blame the decent Muslims I know, for the deeds of those morons.
I refuse to get a man away with raping his daughter, because he tells it is the ways of Eve in his daughter that made him do that. And thus blaming is god.
He is the one to blame, not his god.
I refuse to hate a woman who finds solace with the same god her father used to abuse her, because she finds comfort with that god.
Lots of deeds have been done in the name of religions or other aims for 'higher motives'.
It is powerplay. And the people guilty of it need to be punished for it. And not get away with their religion making them, because that is a lie.
Nothing I posted lets scumbags off the hook. I don't believe in any god myself so why would I do that? Religions do cause people to behave in what I consider irrational ways though, whether it is thinking their invisible friend in the sky will heal their sick relative, drinking cyanide laced kool aid or considering it okay to blow up infidels because Allah said so. No other major world religion right now can field the amount or percentage of violent scum to kill for their creator/prophet that Islam does or has dictatorial theocratic governments that sign off on the pedophile desires of its most degenerate citizens the way Islam does. It is a particularly detestable belief system.
No other belief system is USED like that, right now, but that's exactly how Christianity was used in the past and to some extent still is today.
Religion is by no means the only concept you can blame, though, it's just something that *people* will use when given the chance. Islam as a religion is no worse than Christianity - as a matter of fact they share a common heritage - but in the Western world, few concepts are more suitable for spreading fear and hatred than Islam. It simply fits the bill, just as the Jews and the Bolsheviks fit Hitler's bill.
-
Think of the bigger picture here: people pillage, murder, rape etc. all the time. It isn't a matter of religion here, it's a matter of humanity. Religion is only used as a proxy to do the acts that humans are so dearly used to doing, just as how psychopaths would use video games as a proxy for violence (rather than being the cause of violence, as the media usually blarts out). Wipe out religion and the acts will still go on regardless, the only solution to end all the crap in the world is to end humanity itself.
-
Pretty much.
-
Killing or harming innocent people for a "cause" is wrong, no matter in whose name they claim to do it. Actually it's just plain wrong, cause or no cause.
What about the guilty ones?
Guilty to what?
Innocent of what?
Guilty until proven innocent?
What about the ones proven guilty?
-
No other belief system is USED like that, right now, but that's exactly how Christianity was used in the past and to some extent still is today.
:agreed: that Communism and other fucked up ideologies have been used like that in the past and, to some extent, still are. As I posted earlier none of that lets Islam off the hook.
Religion is by no means the only concept you can blame, though, it's just something that *people* will use when given the chance. Islam as a religion is no worse than Christianity - as a matter of fact they share a common heritage - but in the Western world, few concepts are more suitable for spreading fear and hatred than Islam. It simply fits the bill, just as the Jews and the Bolsheviks fit Hitler's bill.
Right here in this world, right now in the 21st Century that is absolutely not correct. I recall someone saying "An atrocity is an atrocity whether it is one or a million dead"* I do not accept that position on the basis that if, in a country of 50 million, Government goons kill 4 people in one incident, without just cause, it may very well be a localized anomaly, but Joe Stalin levels of murder are always a deliberate matter of policy at the top. Islamic bomb planting, beheadings etc are international in scope involving different groups of believers and therefore not a localized anomaly. Furthermore it is Islamics making their own bad press not irritated people like myself discussing it in unfavorable to Islam light. I know what Friedrich Nietzsche and Ulick Varange AKA Francis Parker Yockey were referring to in Will To Power and I know it has been used with varying degrees of brutality absent any major religious influence i.e. Vikings, British Empire etc. None of that mitigates any of the responsibility that Muslims have for creating their own bad publicity.
*It was on this Geraldo show. http://www.youtube.com/Watch?v=S1KT1QoSCT8 (http://www.youtube.com/Watch?v=S1KT1QoSCT8)
Wipe out religion and the acts will still go on regardless, the only solution to end all the crap in the world is to end humanity itself.
So an effective way to end violence in the world is to use a lot of violence and do away with all people? If I was in favor of such an approach I might just say Allah Akbar and join the festivities.
-
So an effective way to end violence in the world is to use a lot of violence and do away with all people? If I was in favor of such an approach I might just say Allah Akbar and join the festivities.
Pretty much. If it guarantees every single human dead, then all the problems afterwards will be effectively gone. How can wars, terrorism etc. be done if there's no humans? :orly:
I'm no fan of muslims or their annoying whingy bollocks, but I don't see how getting rid of them will solve any problems in the long run.
-
So an effective way to end violence in the world is to use a lot of violence and do away with all people? If I was in favor of such an approach I might just say Allah Akbar and join the festivities.
Pretty much. If it guarantees every single human dead, then all the problems afterwards will be effectively gone. How can wars, terrorism etc. be done if there's no humans? :orly:
I'm no fan of muslims or their annoying whingy bollocks, but I don't see how getting rid of them will solve any problems in the long run.
Ah, something will take our niche in the world, and fill in the empty space of random violence and powerplay that is left when we are all eliminated.
As long as I am not depressed or bitter enough to enjoy things of humans too. And to see that still more goes OK than absolutely wrong, I will vote against the total eradication of humankind. But, Shleed is right, it would be the only effective way of dealing with the nastiness of human nature.
-
Thing is, Islam as a concept should be left off the hook, just like Christianity and whatnot, because it's always the people interpreting the religion who are responsible, not some abstract belief system. They are applying their fucked-up views on the religion and calling it their own, but it isn't. The vast majority of Muslims follow that same religion but have never hurt anyone.
I don't believe in blaming concepts, I believe in blaming people.
-
Thing is, Islam as a concept should be left off the hook, just like Christianity and whatnot, because it's always the people interpreting the religion who are responsible, not some abstract belief system. They are applying their fucked-up views on the religion and calling it their own, but it isn't. The vast majority of Muslims follow that same religion but have never hurt anyone.
I don't believe in blaming concepts, I believe in blaming people.
Yes!, you word it better than I did.
-
Ah, something will take our niche in the world, and fill in the empty space of random violence and powerplay that is left when we are all eliminated.
Then blow up the planet. :laugh:
As long as I am not depressed or bitter enough to enjoy things of humans too. And to see that still more goes OK than absolutely wrong, I will vote against the total eradication of humankind. But, Shleed is right, it would be the only effective way of dealing with the nastiness of human nature.
I wouldn't literally want humanity dead, as they are interesting. But if you really care about stopping all the crap in the world, then the only solution is to get rid of the cause of it: humans. Otherwise it'll keep on going.
-
Ah, something will take our niche in the world, and fill in the empty space of random violence and powerplay that is left when we are all eliminated.
Then blow up the planet. :laugh:
I see you have great confidence in the ethics of the universe. :laugh: