Unique beliefs debate

Krazy: So if I said I travelled back in time and saw a t-rex, would you believe me?

People have only one thing to defend themselves against and that's people. For so long as militaries exist, people have a means and an incentive to kill each other. I would absolutely rather see myself and others be hurt, than to hurt others. Morally I am only culpable for my own actions.

admin: Sure, but I always was told they are technically present-day dinosaurs, regardless of the selective pressures they faced since the Mesozoic epo­ch.

admin: But now that I think of it, the google definition of dinosaur is:
a fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era, often reaching an enormous size.
So it isn't accurate to call the Alligator or Crocodile a dinosaur after all.

Krazy: It's true that a complete T-Rex skeleton hasn't been found, the closest is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur )

Why think that there is two front legs that haven't been found yet?

Krazy: He believes this:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
-Matthew 5:39 (KJV)

admin: So if I said I travelled back in time and saw a t-rex, would you believe me?
No, because time travel is science fiction. Now, if you said that you saw a T-Rex today, I would believe you.

People have only one thing to defend themselves against and that's people.
Well...and animals. But okay, sure.

For so long as militaries exist, people have a means and an incentive to kill each other
No, killings and murders have been going on since the beginning of time. Cain killed Abel 6,000 years ago. And there were only 4 people on the Earth at that time; no military or established government.

I would absolutely rather see myself and others be hurt, than to hurt others.
That's selfish. You see a 4 year old child being helplessly beaten and pulped and nearly killed by a grown man, and you would just watch him? How about save him and tear the shreds out of that guy like a wild beast; that's what I would do. Kill him if necessary if thats what it takes to protect the child.

Morally I am only culpable for my own actions.
And inaction. If you walked in and saw your wife being raped you wouldn't do anything? The way you answer that will tell me how much you love her.

Bi0Hazard: Why think that there is two front legs that haven't been found yet?
Because the whole skeleton hasn't been found yet. It could be that those tiny bones are part of something bigger. But most creatures walk on all fours anyway and that's what I think the T-Rex was like. And it just doesn't seem right that such a big creature would have wimpy arms like that. But I could be wrong. I'm not dogmatic about it.

He believes this...
He doesn't know what it means. As a matter of fact Jesus commanded his disciples to buy a sword.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
-Luke 22:36 KJV

And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
-Luke 22:38 KJV

God commanded his people to fight and go to war in the Old Testament multiple times.

Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
-Psalm 144:1

In Matthew 5:39, Jesus is saying if someone slaps you in mockery and insult, don't insult him back because of your pride. Swallow your pride, and take it. You don't have to "prove" yourself. It's not a personal attack meant to inflict real harm. Self defense is justified everywhere in the Bible. That pacifist interpretation is rediculous.

Bi0Hazard: It's true that a complete T-Rex skeleton hasn't been found, the closest is this:
That's my mom's name. She doesn't look like that though.

Krazy: It's actually Susan, but, you know.

Krazy: Now, if you said that you saw a T-Rex today, I would believe you.
What if I said I see Jesus Christ standing right next to me endorsing everything I'm saying in this thread?

Well...and animals.
Not since humans invented the wall. There's natural disasters too but we can cope with most of those with virtually no loss of life now thanks to scientific progress.

Cain killed Abel 6,000 years ago. And there were only 4 people on the Earth at that time; no military or established government.
I happen to disagree with this interpretation of history, but recognise why people kill. Right now scarcity is hardly an excuse because we could provide for everyone. We choose not to because we're not allocating what we have fairly. In times past that wasn't necessarily true and people sometimes killed to survive. Owing to inequality, in much of the world, they currently still do. Somalia's conflicts are a good example.

you would just watch him?
I'd try to restrain him and/or call for help, but I would never willingly hurt anyone. It would only be selfish if it served my self-interests, which typically, it doesn't.

If you walked in and saw your wife being raped you wouldn't do anything?
I'm not married, but please don't confuse "nonviolence" for "inaction." To cite foundation "violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

Krazy: I don't believe it because Jesus said it. I believe it because it's morally justified. Just because somebody else does something immoral, doesn't logically mean you can do something immoral to stop the immorality. "Turn the other cheek" is, to me, the basic rule of "two wrongs don't make a right."

Krazy: Because the whole skeleton hasn't been found yet.
But that doesn't mean that therefore there is two front legs.
It could be that those tiny bones are part of something bigger.
But there is no evidence of that, so we don't conclude it is simply because it "could" be.
He doesn't know what it means.
Just saying he holds to that reasoning when it comes to states.

admin: Right now scarcity is hardly an excuse because we could provide for everyone. We choose not to because we're not allocating what we have fairly. In times past that wasn't necessarily true and people sometimes killed to survive. Owing to inequality, in much of the world, they currently still do. Somalia's conflicts are a good example.
So, war and conflict exists because of inequality and class?

admin: What if I said I see Jesus Christ standing right next to me endorsing everything I'm saying in this thread?
Then you would be lying because Jesus said to not believe people who say they see Christ.

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Matthew 24:23 KJV

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
Matthew 24:26 KJV

I'd try to restrain him...
You can't restrain him. How would you stop him?

I'm not married...
Answer the question.

Bi0Hazard: But that doesn't mean that therefore there is two front legs
It doesn't mean that there's two tiny arms either.

But there is no evidence of that...
Well of course there's no evidence, a complete skeleton has never been found yet. But why you think it had tiny arms, is what I want to know.

Bi0Hazard: So yeah, you're right. There's no physical evidence that the T. rex had two front legs, because there's not a complete T. rex skeleton.

But that also means that there's no evidence of two tiny arms. Because there's not a complete skeleton of one. Does that make sense?

Krazy: How would you stop him?
Any nonviolent answer works. I'm literally only excluding one option here. If that or doing nothing are my only options for some convoluted contrived reason, then morally I cannot stop the violence which is the real problem. The other person is not at fault, it's their behaviour.

Answer the question.
I did, if you finish reading that sentence. You're confusing nonviolence for inaction.

Krazy: But there are arm bones.

Also, there are arm bones on similar predators that evolved independently.

Also, t-rexes needed them to mate.

Also, their posture would otherwise not have worked.

Also, your theory has no basis.

Krazy: It doesn't mean that there's two tiny arms either.
But the burden of proof would be on you to find the two front walking legs.
Also, there is more to the explanation then simply finding the skeleton, we can examine the two front pieces we have now to see if they are front arms, after all, if there were missing front legs, we would see a larger joint to be more consistent with two front legs, we don't (because their is no two front legs). We have completed the front arms to a point where we can safely conclude that it has no front walking legs.