That only works if the guard accepts his orders. Legally, they have no choice. But in practical terms, large groups of heavy armed men get to make their own decisions.

They did make a medical, in very limited numbers, but I’m using the TNG Science/Engineering tricorder.

If I was her, I’d publish the threat and result in the place I hosted the mod, then nuke my own mod.

But I’m a spiteful little shit.

Very nice.

I have one of the TNG versions, and I am partway through refitting it work lights and electronics. I may even finish, someday.

Put me down as a 16. Moderately disgusted, attempting to withdraw.

Huh. Never realized chromebooks were priced that low.

Thanks for the correction.

when you’re exiled alone on an island…

50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.

Desks are cheaper, and the hole only slightly impairs functionality.

It is always easier to destroy than to build, or to protect.

Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.

I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?

You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.

And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.

Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.

And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.

Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!

Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.

There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence

But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.

nothing will ever make it right.

Strongly disagree. If someone had killed Musk a year ago, the world would be a different place today. A better place, I think.

If someone had killed Trump ten years ago, how many COVID deaths would be avoided? How much damage to our economy would not have happened? How many hungry people across the world would still have food from a USAID shipment?

There are plenty of times it would be right to kill people. But who can we trust to make that decision? I’m confident I’m right, but I would not want to have to do it.

So you don’t want our opinions, do you? You just want people to agree with you.

His thoughts seem to be that they share almost no characteristics, no philosophical underpinnings, and that there seems to be no direct path from the one to the other.

What do you think a discussing of “proto-X” is going to look like, if not comparing it to other things looking for similarities and possible links?

I adore that last line.

I live it, daily.

I have several 300 gallon mixers at work, and a QA lab. If the mixer won’t do the job, I’ll just pour acids in until it is reduced to soup.

Then I’m fleeing the country because maintenance will make the eldrich horror look like the easy choice.

Not before time.

His life has been too long, and his reign not short enough.

Well, I don’t want to be in violation of rule #2.

Talk to you guys later.

Busy being the site of the walls, unless I misunderstand the original statement.

Better than me.