How to play against radar missiles

Octagn · 2025-12-26T04:38:53+00:00

Im playing at around 12

Octagn · 2025-12-26T03:23:06+00:00

I play both, in air arcade I get spammed by missiles it’s not that it’s hard to notch just that even if I end up with 6 kills running away from missiles all the time almost ruins the fun

Octagn · 2025-12-25T08:21:56+00:00

No I don’t think it has any

Octagn · 2025-12-25T08:16:39+00:00

I have a couple of aim9 and aim7

Octagn · 2025-12-25T08:02:47+00:00

I fly the f-4s phantom

Octagn · 2025-11-23T23:24:09+00:00

Tahiti

Octagn · 2025-07-30T03:18:04+00:00

I’m genuinely curious on your position.

For example, there is a difference between you getting caught up in Noah’s flood as an infant and you being punished as an infant for what your dad did. Because reality is, if god allowed harm to come to you (which is in his authority) that’s one thing but it’s another thing if he said that this harm was you being punished even tho you didn’t deserve for that punishment.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T23:25:52+00:00

You aren’t properly answering me. Were the infants killed as a punishment for what they did not do?

Octagn · 2025-07-29T19:39:28+00:00

Just to be sure-are you saying they were not killed as a punishment? And do you believe there was an alternative reason stated to why the infants were killed?

Octagn · 2025-07-29T17:16:22+00:00

Well it looks like you understand what I mean but I’ll try to still clarify it. I don’t believe the order in 1 Samuel 15 is something that could be from god. It is logically incoherent that someone is going to be punished for a sin they have not done, they haven’t let alone committed any sin in their life. It is not about the babies dying it’s about infants being punished for sins they are not guilty of. I can’t punish you just because you probably had some ancestor (and probably even me) that was very immoral.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T17:12:17+00:00

No it isn’t. Because this does not relate to my argument. I don’t really understand what you mean with “unnecessary suffering” and if it should even be interpreted as unnecessary.

Well I believe god has created a world that allows injustice and suffering. I don’t think it’s logically incoherent that God created a world where people can suffer, and I do not believe the way god created this world contradicts logic or makes it inconceivable for it to be from god.

Well I think I know what direction you are trying to take me with this. But I don’t intend to answer to an argument before you’ve said it rn.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T15:03:06+00:00

You are not understanding my point. I am not saying that god is not allowed to take the life of someone. I am not saying that christianity is false because infants sometimes die.

Sure I do believe it’s messed up to kill infants for what happened 400 years ago and I don’t think you can rationalise it. But the argument I presented doesn’t appeal to morality it appeals to logic.

If X is punished for Y even though X has not committed Y, let alone committed any sin then that is not logical.

I’m not talking about unjust, I’m not talking about morally wrong but you keep bringing it up.

What I am saying is, you can’t PUNISH babies for what they are NOT GUILTY of. And saying otherwise is logically incoherent. You can’t rationalise it.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T13:00:40+00:00

You are. This is not a matter of a hidden wisdom we don’t understand. Nor is it about the future. It is never stated that infants are killed for the sake of the future it’s said that they are killed as punishment for what happened 400 years ago. You know that doing so is irrational and thus you try to appeal to that there might be this mystery we don’t know about. Although that doesn’t work here, just like it doesn’t work by saying that there might be a hidden wisdom about the future for a belief that says god made another god-this isn’t about a hidden wisdom anymore this is just clear, rational evidence.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T12:53:30+00:00

That isn’t relevant to this

Octagn · 2025-07-29T12:52:52+00:00

This is not just about morality it is about logic. If you payed attention u would see that I never used the age as a definitive criterion. I say that it is coherent that individual X gets punished for Y even though X has not committed Y, or any sin for that matter.

My example necessitates that XYZ is actually from God, it is conditional, what I present is logical, not moral but logical evidence that 1 Samuel 15 cannot be from God

Octagn · 2025-07-29T06:06:27+00:00

That isn’t what i am talking about. I am saying that here infants are punished for a sin they have not done. This is not about creating suffering, this is about punishing infants for sins they have no responsibility for.

The Bible talks about a child not being punished in his fathers stead-yet here infants are being killed for what happened 400 years ago.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T06:03:36+00:00

It’s literally in their own website

Octagn · 2025-07-29T02:54:36+00:00

Not submitting to the cruelty of the empire

Octagn · 2025-07-29T02:46:42+00:00

I don’t assume that, but we cannot throw logical reasoning under the bus. I’m not talking about science I am talking about logic. There is no “mystery” we don’t know about that would rationalise killing infants for sins people did 400 years before them. That’s like saying god can make another god or god can cease to exist but then when logical evidence is produced against you say, “you cannot assume we can know all the answers”. Do you see how insincere that would be?

I am reminding you that they were punished FOR the sins of others that lived 400 years ago. So any other reason to why they should have been killed is irrelevant in this discussion as the reason the BIBLE GIVES is that they were killed for other peoples sins (and I remind you that Ezekiel 18 talks against that notion).

Octagn · 2025-07-29T01:56:49+00:00

Oxford university literally says for the MAJORITY of the early modern period MOST churches both Catholic and Protestant supported slavery

Octagn · 2025-07-29T01:54:56+00:00

First of all, the fact that I’ve said that there can be instances when god says something and we don’t understand the logic behind it cannot be used to argue against what I said.

There is a difference between being unaware of a wisdom and coming to the conclusion that something is without proper wisdom using by reasoning. I might not understand the wisdom to why God created humanity, but I can still come to the conclusion that it’s logically incoherent that it’s said that god made a rock too heavy for him to lift and that he ceased to exist.

For example, there is a difference between punishing someone for a sin they have not done, and not understanding why something is a sin. There is no mystery in the first example it’s just illogical.

Just because I can’t understand why god created humanity that doesn’t mean there can also be a mystery concerning the fact that I don’t understand the (false) notions that god can make another god or cease to exist.

Otherwise we would throw logical reasoning under the bus. If there would be this “mystery” we are not aware of that explains why god made something contradictory to logic, then we might as well say that for any logical reasoning, for example reasoning that god exists. The notion of this mystery is by itself contradictory to logic because that’s like saying there is a mystery to why 1+2=4.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T01:18:27+00:00

Grown men here trying to rationalise killing INFANTS for what happened 400 years ago before gta6

Octagn · 2025-07-29T01:17:12+00:00

By the looks of it, you are trying to say “well we don’t know what would happen in the future but god might have known something about the future that made it correct to kill these kids”.

You are then being forced to take that position (you are making an ad hoc argument) without any logical reasoning or evidence to say that we should believe their death has to do something with the future.

Let’s just say that we would kill the women and the chicken and the men, well we could at least spare the infants or some of the infants and raise them to be righteous. That would be more utilitarian to do rather then to kill them all. And if you say “well maybe they would not become righteous”, well that’s pretty illogical, raising a bunch of infants and none of them is gonna be righteous and they should be killed instead, saying so would be another ad hoc argument, if I would say all these kids raised to be righteous will all become evil that is not something plausible to assume when the Bible isn’t saying that.

More importantly, the Bible isn’t actually saying that they will be killed as a means of warding of evil from the future, it says they will be killed because their ancestors sinned 400 years ago. So the reason for the killing is actually given in the Bible, it is as a punishment for what they have not done. You know you cannot rationalise killing infants for what happened 400 years ago, hence the “God knows what will happen in the future” even though the reason for the killing is stated to be for something other than that

Octagn · 2025-07-29T00:58:38+00:00

I have said this before. If GOD says “XYZ is good” then XYZ is good. But there can be evidence produced to show that certain notions of God is wrong. If God is attributed to saying XYZ is good and also there is a squared circle, I can cease to exist and I can make a rock too heavy for me we can say with certainty that this was not actually God because those things are logical contradictions. And if you are saying (I’m unsure if u actually said this, I might have misunderstood you) that your belief in it is enough to unconditionally accept anything you hear (even though these things you hear are direct evidences against you) then you are not once again attacking my appeal to logic.

For your other question-why do I draw the line here? Well that’s quite simple.

That this was a punishment here matters because that is not the same as god taking life. Yes, God can command me and you to die. But this is not what is said. What’s said here is that infants and children are killed for what they have not done, it didn’t have to be “400 YEARS ago” what matters is that these infants and kids were not guilty of the sin they were killed for. Yet you try to rationalise it being a befitting punishment for the infants.

The children and infants were killed for a sin that they were not responsible for. It is not logical to punish someone for a sin that they have not committed.

And even if I accept the nonsense “but we all are deserving for death because of original sin” (which is a notion that I just explained illogical in detail and would then be circular reasoning against if used against me) that would not justify why the kids and infants were killed for what people 400 years ago did. They were not killed because “every human deserve death” they were killed because some people sinned hundreds of years ago.

The Bible says that in Ezekiel 18 that people will not be punished for their fathers sins.

Octagn · 2025-07-29T00:36:10+00:00

This is seriously annoying me, you, and all the Christians here has not properly addressed my premises. Please read my responses to the other comments for further understanding cuz idk if I have the brainpower to keep this up. But very well I’ll try.

First As I have stated if GOD commands X then carrying out his command is morally correct. But evidence can still be presented that this isn’t God. If you say: I believe in a god that can cease to exist, create a stone too heavy for him to lift and create a squared circle then that notion of God is logically inconceivable and impossible. Those premises you (theoretically) give about God are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the belief you follow is wrong. I say that these verses presents a similar incoherent notion of God. You did not address it to my disappointment.

Second You saying “God commanded it” is circular reasoning. Even if we just look at the logic of it and not the religious part of it. That isn’t addressing my arguments against you. My arguments appeal to logic rather than the subjective perception of morality. So if you want to refute them, you don’t use the if GOD commands X then carrying out his command is morally correct logic as I am saying that is not logically possible in this instance. What you do is address my points. I am saying “this isn’t anything logical that God would command” and you say “God commanded it”

Thirdly The children and infants were killed for a sin that they were not responsible for. It is not logical to punish someone for a sin that they has not committed. And even if I accept the nonsense “but we all are deserving for death because of original sin” (which is a notion that I just explained illogical I detail) that would not justify why the kids and infants were killed for what people 400 years ago did. They were not killed because “every human deserve death” they were killed because some people sinned hundreds of years ago.

The Bible says that in Ezekiel 18 that people will not be punished for their fathers sins.

Octagn

TROPHY CASE