kill em all

[INTPINFP]

kill em all shootem up blowup a school

[Fukyo]

*Fukyo shoots INIFENISENESTJNJFPFJTPFJ in the head,grabs a bat and smashes his skull,sets off explosives and makes her exit*

*Cackles*

[Claverhouse]

That seems normal when one is at school.

Once one leaves one puts aside childish things and starts thinking of ways to destroy all one's neighbours within a 15 mile radius.



Claverhouse :phear:

[INTPINFP]

na i hate nukes too much collateral damage (well i was skared of them as a kid so i vowed never to use em):p

[Eljua]

Is it wrong of me to admit that I keep thinking that the current branch of terrorists are "doing it wrong™"? I can come up with an infinite number of greater plans than blow oneself up, do very little real damage. For example, ever hear of the Channel Tunnel?

[INTPINFP]

yeah I like playing both sides, i have elaborate schemes in my head on how to defeat each other :borg0:

What is the channel Tunnel?

[Cogwulf]

Is it wrong of me to admit that I keep thinking that the current branch of terrorists are "doing it wrong™"? I can come up with an infinite number of greater plans than blow oneself up, do very little real damage. For example, ever hear of the Channel Tunnel?

I have the same thoughts. When I'm out and about I look at things and wonder how they could be utilised for killing people. Like I might see a railway bridge and think "I could put a small explosive there, there and there and time them to explode right before a train goes over"

[mfratt]

http://www.whokilledbambi.co.uk/public/2007/07/kill-em-all.jpg

?

[INTPINFP]

why do I feel comfortable around you guys :)

[Claverhouse]

Is it wrong of me to admit that I keep thinking that the current branch of terrorists are "doing it wrong™"? I can come up with an infinite number of greater plans than blow oneself up, do very little real damage. For example, ever hear of the Channel Tunnel?

Indeed, one of my favourite dissertations is that terrorists, being damned fools from long before Nachaev's time, or indeed Maximilian's, are so enamoured of the Theatre of Blood it works to their own total disadvantage. F'rinstance, those idiots who committed 9/11 could have instead paralysed Wall Street by destroying --- without killing one soul --- if only for one day, all wired telecommunications and electric substations within the vicinity. It would certainly be difficult, but with the resources available to terrorists either from wealthy Americans or wealthy Saudis --- depending on the cause --- such things are not impossible. Stock market losses have a greater impact upon the governing classes than any amount of deaths. ( Which is reasonable, since we cannot care about every other person in this world. )

The latest American president has however found a weapon to counter the loss of money, namely the sturdy printing press; but the principle's the same. As Saki says somewhere, people will forgive anything except the ruining of a good night's sleep.


Claverhouse :phear:





:smiley_emoticons_mr

[Eljua]

yeah I like playing both sides, i have elaborate schemes in my head on how to defeat each other :borg0:

What is the channel Tunnel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel

It's not that I ultimately want to kill people, it leaves a right mess, it's just if people are going to do it anyway, it's better that it's efficient than not.

[Artifice Orisit]

Has anyone else considered mass psychological experimentation?

I was thinking about the nature of motivation, competitiveness, and how people can be driven to extreme lengths if they perceive their actions socially acceptable under the proviso that it's all part of a game. Perhaps if someone cleverly designed a large scale LARPG that gradually pitted people against each other as more and more people get "eliminated" for failing to "defeat" the other player. Have an initial sign-up fee for individual players which is advertised as the prize for final player in this compedative-tasks-tournemnet and already the potential to make people go beyond they're normally accepted limits is clearly apparent.

The tasks will start out simply enough, e.g. "be the first to photograph your opponent"
then, next round, something harder, e.g. "discover your opponent's game ID"
next round, harder still, e.g. "retrieve your opponents proof-of-entry letter"
next round, it gets serious, e.g. "convince your opponent to willingly submit"
And so forth, perhaps just using this last task, and so with each passing level the players become more determined, more willing to bend rules, break minor laws, harass people, etc.

With 200-300 people there will be many rounds, and just how far will people go for the prize money and the perceived glory of having won such a tournament?

Bad Coggy! Don't think such thoughts!

[Eljua]

That actually sounds quite interesting. The number of rounds could be flexible based on the ruthlessness of the participants, for example, if one of the rounds was to discover your opponents game ID, a person would make it to the next round after discovering one ID, and anyone who's ID is discovered is removed from the "game". I'd offer the hypothesis that there may be at least a few people willing to gather a multiple number of ID's in order to lower the potential number of competitors.

[Artifice Orisit]

Well yeah, but the point is to have many consecutive rounds and each round is a very personal one-to-one duel of will & willingness.
The overall idea is to psyche people up for attacking or even killing each other.

After all, why kill people when you can make them kill each other?

[INTPINFP]

Has anyone else considered mass psychological experimentation?

I was thinking about the nature of motivation, competitiveness, and how people can be driven to extreme lengths if they perceive their actions socially acceptable under the proviso that it's all part of a game. Perhaps if someone cleverly designed a large scale LARPG that gradually pitted people against each other as more and more people get "eliminated" for failing to "defeat" the other player. Have an initial sign-up fee for individual players which is advertised as the prize for final player in this compedative-tasks-tournemnet and already the potential to make people go beyond they're normally accepted limits is clearly apparent.

The tasks will start out simply enough, e.g. "be the first to photograph your opponent"
then, next round, something harder, e.g. "discover your opponent's game ID"
next round, harder still, e.g. "retrieve your opponents proof-of-entry letter"
next round, it gets serious, e.g. "convince your opponent to willingly submit"
And so forth, perhaps just using this last task, and so with each passing level the players become more determined, more willing to bend rules, break minor laws, harass people, etc.

With 200-300 people there will be many rounds, and just how far will people go for the prize money and the perceived glory of having won such a tournament?

Bad Coggy! Don't think such thoughts!

Myself, as a participant, would be turned off by the social challenges (like convincing them to "submit") and would want to get right to the killing. I don't know about everyone else though.

[Claverhouse]

I'd offer the hypothesis that there may be at least a few people willing to gather a multiple number of ID's in order to lower the potential number of competitors.

I can think of 13.


Claverhouse :phear:

[Toad]

I feel sad and extremely disturbed that many of you guys agree and tolerate his views...

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I feel sad and extremely disturbed that many of you guys agree and tolerate his views...

Some people will debate anything. Others will ignore. Find your inner zen my man ;)

[Claverhouse]

Tolerance is a two-way street.


Then again, you're from Canada, home of the Hate Thoughts Police...

Although the laughable Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has just ruled that it's own powers to pursue (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/03/national-post-editorial-board-end-the-human-rights-witch-hunts-for-good.aspx) internet miscreants is unconstitutional. Which is intensely self-sacrificing in the name of legality.


Claverhouse :phear:

[Kuu]

Has anyone else considered mass psychological experimentation?

I was thinking about the nature of motivation, competitiveness, and how people can be driven to extreme lengths if they perceive their actions socially acceptable under the proviso that it's all part of a game. Perhaps if someone cleverly designed a large scale LARPG that gradually pitted people against each other as more and more people get "eliminated" for failing to "defeat" the other player. Have an initial sign-up fee for individual players which is advertised as the prize for final player in this compedative-tasks-tournemnet and already the potential to make people go beyond they're normally accepted limits is clearly apparent.

The tasks will start out simply enough, e.g. "be the first to photograph your opponent"
then, next round, something harder, e.g. "discover your opponent's game ID"
next round, harder still, e.g. "retrieve your opponents proof-of-entry letter"
next round, it gets serious, e.g. "convince your opponent to willingly submit"
And so forth, perhaps just using this last task, and so with each passing level the players become more determined, more willing to bend rules, break minor laws, harass people, etc.

With 200-300 people there will be many rounds, and just how far will people go for the prize money and the perceived glory of having won such a tournament?

Bad Coggy! Don't think such thoughts!


Yes, I believe they're calling them "reality shows". They also record them and making tons of money off it by broadcasting them on television. They just haven't gotten to the killing people part, but it's getting there.

BTW this reminds me of "the cube". That was a weird movie.


In my most paranoid moments, I think this whole "western civilization" deal with its wars and economic crisis is a massive psychological experiment run by a cabal of mysteriously powerful individuals or a mischievous deity.

[Claverhouse]

In my most paranoid moments, I think this whole "western civilization" deal with its wars and economic crisis is a massive psychological experiment run by a cabal of mysteriously powerful individuals or a mischievous deity.

You can name any 'civilization' or society that was not based on wars and economic pressures ?


Claverhouse :phear:

[echoplex]

Don't worry, they'll all be dead soon enough. Killing is just for those incapable of actually humiliating people. The look on the face of a humiliated stupid person is far more precious than a dead body.

And who else would like to see Toad vs. INIFENIS...? I say duke it out! We can all make bets or something.

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

humiliating and demoralizing an opponent is far superior to killing....much more fun too.....awww screw it this smiley is way too fun to pass up:D:hoplit02:

[Kuu]

You can name any 'civilization' or society that was not based on wars and economic pressures ?


Claverhouse :phear:

I know, I know, what I mean is they do it "for the lulz"

[INTPINFP]

Don't worry, they'll all be dead soon enough. Killing is just for those incapable of actually humiliating people. The look on the face of a humiliated stupid person is far more precious than a dead body.

And who else would like to see Toad vs. INIFENIS...? I say duke it out! We can all make bets or something.

Haha would it be a street fight or a debate :aufsmaul:

[LogicalInsanity]

http://www.whokilledbambi.co.uk/public/2007/07/kill-em-all.jpg

?

Exactly what came to mind when I saw the title.

[loveofreason]

Five Ways To Kill A Man
Edwin Brock

There are many cumbersome ways to kill a man.
You can make him carry a plank of wood
to the top of a hill and nail him to it. To do this
properly you require a crowd of people
wearing sandals, a cock that crows, a cloak
to dissect, a sponge, some vinegar and one
man to hammer the nails home.

Or you can take a length of steel,
shaped and chased in a traditional way,
and attempt to pierce the metal cage he wears.
But for this you need white horses,
English trees, men with bows and arrows,
at least two flags, a prince and a
castle to hold your banquet in.

Dispensing with nobility, you may, if the wind
allows, blow gas at him. But then you need
a mile of mud sliced through with ditches,
not to mention black boots, bomb craters,
more mud, a plague of rats, a dozen songs
and some round hats made of steel.

In an age of aeroplanes, you may fly
miles above your victim and dispose of him by
pressing one small switch. All you then
require is an ocean to separate you, two
systems of government, a nation's scientists,
several factories, a psychopath and
land that no-one needs for several years.

These are, as I began, cumbersome ways
to kill a man. Simpler, direct, and much more neat
is to see that he is living somewhere in the middle
of the twentieth century, and leave him there.





Because I'm in a strange mood... and despite the passage of time, it seemed ever so vaguely relevant.