Thank you

You're welcome.

When you actually did homework but left it at home.

with the oven on

^This

And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.

Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.

Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples

You know what, fuck you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.

And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.

Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.

You're avoiding the question. Now who's pathetic?

Look, I was mainly referring to average people, who should show their true colors as opposed to pretending to be a good person because they're threatened by something that may not even exist.
Then you brought up Hitler.

Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples

You know what, fuck you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.

And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.

Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.

Fine then, lets use Joseph Stalin. Surely you know who that is? Surely you must know he was an Atheist? There, religion is no longer an issue.

I ask again, you would rather 20 million (generally accepted figure sent to death by Stalin's hand. All worked to death, executed, killed in battle, starved, much worse than being gassed in my opinion, but I digress...) die in true evil than even one be saved in false good?

Honestly, I think that's beside the point.
If someone is as amoral as Hitler or Stalin, people should realize beforehand and prevent them from taking a position of power.

You're avoiding the question. Now who's pathetic?

Look, I was mainly referring to average people, who should show their true colors as opposed to pretending to be a good person because they're threatened by something that may not even exist.
Then you brought up Hitler.

Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples

You know what, fuck you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.

And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.

Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.

Godwins Law... You're done.

That's not what I'm asking. YOU said you would rather someone be honestly cruel than sweet and fake. Religion has nothing to do with it at this point

Again, I ask you, you would rather have 6 million die in a holocaust than Hitler be the type who walks old ladies across the street because his god demands it?

I just think it's pretty pathetic how the only reason that some people are nice is because they're scared of some imaginary place they go after they die.
That is beside the point.

Fine then, lets use Joseph Stalin. Surely you know who that is? Surely you must know he was an Atheist? There, religion is no longer an issue.

I ask again, you would rather 20 million (generally accepted figure sent to death by Stalin's hand. All worked to death, executed, killed in battle, starved, much worse than being gassed in my opinion, but I digress...) die in true evil than even one be saved in false good?

Honestly, I think that's beside the point.
If someone is as amoral as Hitler or Stalin, people should realize beforehand and prevent them from taking a position of power.

You're avoiding the question. Now who's pathetic?

Look, I was mainly referring to average people, who should show their true colors as opposed to pretending to be a good person because they're threatened by something that may not even exist.
Then you brought up Hitler.

Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples

You know what, fuck you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.

And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.

Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.

So by that logic, you'd rather have 6 million jews die in a holocaust than Hitler be a nice person out of reverence for a god?

Hitler WAS religious.
Didn't change anything.

Godwins Law... You're done.

That's not what I'm asking. YOU said you would rather someone be honestly cruel than sweet and fake. Religion has nothing to do with it at this point

Again, I ask you, you would rather have 6 million die in a holocaust than Hitler be the type who walks old ladies across the street because his god demands it?

I just think it's pretty pathetic how the only reason that some people are nice is because they're scared of some imaginary place they go after they die.
That is beside the point.

Fine then, lets use Joseph Stalin. Surely you know who that is? Surely you must know he was an Atheist? There, religion is no longer an issue.

I ask again, you would rather 20 million (generally accepted figure sent to death by Stalin's hand. All worked to death, executed, killed in battle, starved, much worse than being gassed in my opinion, but I digress...) die in true evil than even one be saved in false good?

Honestly, I think that's beside the point.
If someone is as amoral as Hitler or Stalin, people should realize beforehand and prevent them from taking a position of power.

You're avoiding the question. Now who's pathetic?

Look, I was mainly referring to average people, who should show their true colors as opposed to pretending to be a good person because they're threatened by something that may not even exist.
Then you brought up Hitler.

Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples

You know what, fuck you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.

And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.

Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.

Oh? So you'd rather me be a honest horrible person than an artificial nice one?

At least, yeah.

So by that logic, you'd rather have 6 million jews die in a holocaust than Hitler be a nice person out of reverence for a god?

Hitler WAS religious.
Didn't change anything.

Godwins Law... You're done.

That's not what I'm asking. YOU said you would rather someone be honestly cruel than sweet and fake. Religion has nothing to do with it at this point

Again, I ask you, you would rather have 6 million die in a holocaust than Hitler be the type who walks old ladies across the street because his god demands it?

I just think it's pretty pathetic how the only reason that some people are nice is because they're scared of some imaginary place they go after they die.
That is beside the point.

Fine then, lets use Joseph Stalin. Surely you know who that is? Surely you must know he was an Atheist? There, religion is no longer an issue.

I ask again, you would rather 20 million (generally accepted figure sent to death by Stalin's hand. All worked to death, executed, killed in battle, starved, much worse than being gassed in my opinion, but I digress...) die in true evil than even one be saved in false good?

Honestly, I think that's beside the point.
If someone is as amoral as Hitler or Stalin, people should realize beforehand and prevent them from taking a position of power.

You're avoiding the question. Now who's pathetic?

Look, I was mainly referring to average people, who should show their true colors as opposed to pretending to be a good person because they're threatened by something that may not even exist.
Then you brought up Hitler.

Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples

You know what, fuck you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.

And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.

Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.

My dad is a creative person.

the story behind my name is pretty much the fact that his name is john and he hates it.

Oh.

Yes

I'm sorry, but that legitimately sounds like something out of Final Fantasy.
Is it a family name?

My dad is a creative person.

the story behind my name is pretty much the fact that his name is john and he hates it.

Oh.