kingxsamz:


I did not admit. I told you I wouldn't mind answering you with that particular response if that were to be what I had in mind, because you thought asking me that question would make me deflect or abandon the argument.
I haven't answered your question, remember?

lol, what is this?

kingxsamz:


What if it was necessary for them to satisfy their sexual urges? I mean if they can hold a 5 months old baby and slaughter it into different pieces, then they probably won't have an issue doing other things to it.

There is literally no relationship between the two

jasminer:


Nothing was established anywhere. You weren't there.

A long range attack could have been used. The enemies could have been attacked with poisoned arrows.
The men could have used children as human shields
The city could have been impenetrable and the approaching army could decide to rain down fire on them via burning arrows and trebuchets.
They could even be an infant army
Or suicide bombers.

You haven't established anything

ahn ahn. But the Christian god clearly told them to kill children and infants before the war started nw. No where did it state that they had to it because of the mode of attack.
Suicide bombers? Cmon now, be real.

kingxsamz:

I said show me where I justified it. You don start.

You are trying to distract us from your point

kingxsamz:


What if it was necessary for them to satisfy their sexual urges? I mean if they can hold a 5 months old baby and slaughter it into different pieces, then they probably won't have an issue doing other things to it.

Sex is not necessary, eliminating anything that poses a threat is necessary.

Cut long story short and show me where Jews or christians are encouraged or permitted to rape in any circumstances.

Namdio:


You are trying to distract us from your point

And what point is that?

kingxsamz:


ahn ahn. But the Christian god clearly told them to kill children and infants before the war started nw. No where did it state that they had to it because of the mode of attack.
Suicide bombers? Cmon now, be real.

Which war is this, so we can get our facts straight

Namdio:


Which war is this, so we can get our facts straight

1st Samuel 15:3. I already told her.

kingxsamz:


ahn ahn. But the Christian god clearly told them to kill children and infants before the war started nw. No where did it state that they had to it because of the mode of attack.
Suicide bombers? Cmon now, be real.

And you haven't justified that those children posed no threat.

I only gave you scenarios that any soldier could face and you didn't refute that such cases infanticide was necessary. Scenarios couldn't be limited to those I gave as an example.

kingxsamz:
And what point is that?

That you clearly said you would allow the killing of children (funny how you didn't say you would do so) but we shouldn't because we are Christians

Namdio:


I'll bite. It isn't

Edit: I'd like to say that by adding depending on the scenario you automatically make the question have more than one answer, and that doing so without defining said scenario stops you from streamlining your answer

She understands the scenario, you should ask her.

kingxsamz:

1st Samuel 15:3. I already told her.

Alright cool. So where did rape come from?

kingxsamz:


She understands the scenario, you should ask her.

She didn't ask the question, you're looking for an opportunity to say oh that's not what I meant.

The one who asked the question should clarify the scenario I. which the question takes place

Namdio:


That you clearly said you would allow the killing of children (funny how you didn't say you would do so) but we shouldn't because we are Christians

Yes because what is right and wrong has been established in your religion. You have certain laws to uphold.
And I said that because she thought I was scared of her question or something.

jasminer:


And you haven't justified that those children posed no threat.

I only gave you scenarios that any soldier could face and you didn't refute that such cases infanticide was necessary. Scenarios couldn't be limited to those I gave as an example.

That's why I'm asking you what threat those children posed seeing that they were killed unprovoked. What threat does an infant pose?

Namdio:


Alright cool. So where did rape come from?

If she can justify killing innocent children because of the crimes of their parents, she can justify that too.

kingxsamz:


Yes because what is right and wrong has been established in your religion. You have certain laws to uphold.

Distracting again. Focusing on the wrong part of my reply.

kingxsamz:

And I said that because she thought I was scared of her question or something.

So you didn't answer the question, because it was what you would do in that situation. Answer it directly.

kingxsamz:


If she can justify killing innocent children because of the crimes of their parents, she can justify that too.

I'm sorry, please help me understand where the 2 are connected?

Edit: fallacy of equivalence

Namdio:


She didn't ask the question, you're looking for an opportunity to say oh that's not what I meant.

The one who asked the question should clarify the scenario I. which the question takes place

Can you not involve yourself in this argument because you obviously don't understand what's being discussed?
Thanks

Namdio:


Distracting again. Focusing on the wrong part of my reply.



So you didn't answer the question, because it was what you would do in that situation. Answer it directly.

I didn't answer it because she refused to answer mine the way she should. I will answer hers when she does.
Thanks. You can remove yourself from the convo. I thought you said you were done replying to me.

kingxsamz:


Can you not involve yourself in this argument because you obviously don't understand what's being discussed?
Thanks

lol, I'm just laughing.

Alright, explain. I want to understand

kingxsamz:


I didn't answer it because she refused to answer mine the way she should. I will answer hers when she does.
Thanks. You can remove yourself from the convo. I thought you said you were done replying to me.

I am not God, I can change my mind

kingxsamz:


That's why I'm asking you what threat those children posed seeing that they were killed unprovoked. What threat does an infant pose?

If the children were spared, and they miraculously survived, they'll definitely come back to attack Israel to avenge the death of their parents.
That's enough threat

Wars of today aren't the same as the wars of then, a soldier's son can't go looking for the soldier that killed his father. Then, everyone from that country or tribe old enough to hold a weapon is a soldier and must take part in the war. This means that if they spare anyone from the attacked city, anyone who survived will come after them.

That's enough threat to kill all of them.

Now, this is not necessary because only the military personnel go to war and the winners rarely go to the homes of the defeated to massacre them.

Namdio:


lol, I'm just laughing.

Alright, explain. I want to understand

Great, you can start from here.

jasminer:

jasminer:


Why? Atheists say we're all animals...
Humans cross breed species like the lion+tiger =Liger, goat + spider = spider goats who produce silk from their milk, the wolf dog breeds, zonkeys etc.
So if you truly believe we're all animals, what's wrong in crossbreeding?

Spider goat is killing me, lol

I can't stop laughing

Namdio:


I am not God, I can change my mind

Good for you. I can as well refuse to acknowledge you.
You can go back several posts to understand what's being discussed.

jasminer:


If the children were spared, and they miraculously survived, they'll definitely come back to attack Israel to avenge the death of their parents.
That's enough threat

Wars of today aren't the same as the wars of then, a soldier's son can't go looking for the soldier that killed his father. Then, everyone from that country or tribe old enough to hold a weapon is a soldier and must take part in the war. This means that if they spare anyone from the attacked city, anyone who survived will come after them.

That's enough threat to kill all of them.

Now, this is not necessary because only the military personnel go to war and the winners rarely go to the homes of the defeated to massacre them.

So would it be right for Buhari to hunt and kill every child in igbo land if he happened to kill many men in that rejoin for fear of revenge? Would it be right?

kingxsamz:

Great, you can start from here.

Please link me to the next one, following the thread is difficult

kingxsamz:

So would it be right for Buhari to hunt and kill every child in igbo land if he happened to kill many men in that rejoin for fear of revenge? Would it be right?

Wrong... Like I stated, war then isn't the same with war of now

Every citizen was trained for war, was a soldier or a soldier in training or will soon be a soldier in training. Unlike now we have military and civilians.

kingxsamz:

So would it be right for Buhari to hunt and kill every child in igbo land if he happened to kill many men in that rejoin for fear of revenge? Would it be right?

Is Buhari fighting a war with every Igbo in existence? Is he living in a place where such is the norm and won't have any repercussions, both politically and socially?

it's like asking if it would be right if you uncle starting killing all his family members because he is afraid they will come and steal back his stolen inheritance.

But to directly answer your question. It would not be right.

jasminer:


Wrong... Like I stated, war then isn't the same with war of now

According to who or what?
If it was okay then, why shouldn't it be okay now?

jasminer:


Wrong... Like I stated, war then isn't the same with war of now

Even the context is different. It's like asking if it was right if the children of Judah killed all the children of another tribe of Israel because of some grievances.