When does pacifism become cowardice?

>>33916261
I'm worried myself to tell my parents I didn't apply for co status, interested to hear /k/'s opinions on this

>>33916261
Conscientious Objectors usually have deep devotional beliefs that prohibit them from taking up arms or even uniformed service. The ones that take uniformed jobs in the military such as medics, stretcher bearers, cameramen, and reporters were generally treated well. The men who refused to accept any form of military or uniformed service were assigned hard labor for a length of time equal to military service. Men who refused all work were imprisoned.

Andy Rooney was a conscientious objector in WWII and accepted a job as a field reporter for Stars and Stripes, it's how he got started in journalism.

>>33916356
I think OP is also trying to talk about pacifism in general, I knew a guy who said he wouldn't kill, even to protect himself or his family. To me it seemed like being a pussy, but trying to put a positive spin on it.

>>33916261
>>33916315

Your parents sound like faggots. Either you live in some do nothing Europoor country where you'll just get to shoot guns or you're Israeli and actually serving your race's interests that's pathetic.

>>33916261

If you're not being those people that run away of their own country, you're not as bad as those people.

>>33916397
Nope, we're American.

>>33916595

Have your parents spent forty years on a hippie commune? Registering for the draft means jack shit.

>>33916397

t. basement dwelling NEET who would wash out his first day of basic.

>>33916315
>I'm worried myself to tell my parents I didn't apply for co status, interested to hear /k/'s opinions on this

Nothing wrong with it if you sincerely are of the conviction that killing another human is morally unacceptable. The fact you have that conviction makes you inherently useless as a combat asset and it would be a waste of resources if you were rafted into that role and at the critical moment did not kill.

>>33916395
>I think OP is also trying to talk about pacifism in general, I knew a guy who said he wouldn't kill, even to protect himself or his family. To me it seemed like being a pussy, but trying to put a positive spin on it.

I can see how someone could feel that way, they are not necessarily wrong either, freedom of conscience.

Normally when fresh troops are facing their first scenario when they may have to kill a good officer will ensure that they are all comfortable with doing so and move the ones he feels are not to supporting positions. Forcing someone who has reservations about killing into a combat role via legal or societal pressure does not help combat effectiveness of the unit that they join.

>>33916261
conscientious objectors are fine.

The ones who get on camera, get on youtube, or twitter etc and talk shit about people who go to war. They should be culled.

>>33916261
>>33916315
Wait, there isn't a draft at the moment. How the fuck can you sign up for the military then say you wont fight?

>>33916710
>The ones who get on camera, get on youtube, or twitter etc and talk shit about people who go to war. They should be culled.

I bet he doesn't even see the irony...

>>33916727
They typically won't do combat jobs

Unpopular opinion: I can think of very few American wars I think were worth serving in.

The Revolution? Nope. Whiners who didn't want to pay the taxes that came of driving the French and Indians away from the colonists' lands - something that was to their direct benefit - don't impress me, as neither do people who write inspiring books about liberty and the rights of man and then go home to whip their slaves.

The Mexican War? Nope. If Texans want more land, let them bleed for it. Not my problem.

The War Between the States? Nope. I'm not going to kill my fellow man either to defend the rights of the southerners to keep slaves on their plantation or the right of northerners to make the entire south into a slave plantation that they are the masters of and that no one - white or black - can escape from.

The Indian Wars? Nope. Take what I said about Texas and apply it to the rest of the west.

The Spanish-American War? Nope. I'm not going to die in a Cuban swamp to help William Randolph Hearst sell newspapers.

WWI/WWII? Nope. A huge intra-European civil war lasting two generations ended up helping nobody but communists and non-whites.

Korea and Vietnam? Nope. These come the closest, as communists are filth who must be eradicated completely before decent people can live in peace. But the one time we have a decent cause, the politicians back home puss out, betray our troops, and leave the job undone. If they can't be bothered to finish the job, then neither can I.

Gulf War I? Nope. Crushing one sandnigger dictator for the benefit of another gains me nothing.

Afghanistan? Nope. This is almost the flip side of Korea and Vietnam. A short punitive expedition to kill Bin Laden and make an example of all who would do anything like 9/11 to us would have been worthwhile. Instead, we got an endless crusade to make Afghanistan into Connecticut with more dust. I don't like lost causes.

Iraq? Nope. No WMD. No plan. No victory. No bueno.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss


/thread

>>33916806
Oh, and WWII in the Pacific? Nope. FDR goaded Japan into Pearl Harbor because he wanted war so bad he could taste it. So we defeated Japan, and stuck East Asia with Chairman Mao, Kim Il-sung, and Ho Chi Minh instead - all of whom were worse than the Japanese (and that's really saying something).

>>33916806
>>33916815
I'm sure your mom thinks you are edgy.

>>33916806
>War Between the States

Found the hick

>>33916376
is this meant to be a cuck joke?

>>33916261
Pacifism is acceptable, laudable in some cases even. Cowardice is not. It's one thing to think you shouldn't hurt another human. It's entirely another to be unwilling to put your life on the line for your fellow man. If you want to be respected as a CO just pull your weight without bitching. Truthfully medics like Doss are well liked anyway, it would take an incredibly shitty doc to make troops hate them.

>>33916376
Please tell me this isn't an edit.

>>33916806

Eh, I enlisted because of the opposite of this. I give zero fucks what the reason is behind a war or who benefits, but I was so tired of a safe, peaceful life that felt akin to death that I signed up. Man was meant for war, it is the greatest pursuit our species has, and the stagnation of peace was chafing for me. I'm older now and out of the service, but all I really cared about was that a war was happening. Jay Z could be the one who started it and made millions, I didn't give a fuck if it meant I got to take part in severe human conflict.

>>33916806
>What is Pearl Harbor
>What is the Lusitania
>What is the Zimmerman Telegram

File: 1435531252090.jpg (17KB, 300x331px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x331px

>>33916806
>>33916815
>>33916906
To men, both so different, both so edgy, born of controversial ideas but similar purposes . What would happen if a confluence of such edginess were to occur, before you know it you see it with your own eyes, you're about to enter... the /k/ommando Zone.

>>33916915
FALSE

FLAGS

>>33916937
wow this rings REAL fucking true to some of the people around today

>>33916806
>helping nobody but communists and non-whites
>helping non-whites
>WWII helped non-whites

Explain

>>33916806

Just unpopular amongst the retard crowd. The militarist cult distorts justice and morality.

File: 1359924521406.jpg (119KB, 610x479px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 610x479px

I would have been a consci in about 99.5% of wars ever fought. I will willingly risk my life for my own freedom and that of my family and friends, as well as for their saftey, but if I could just turn the other cheek or run and come away from it with the situation being agreeable to me then I wouldn't fight. I firmly believe that there are things worth fighting and killing and possibly dying for but you need to be very smart about when you do it and why, fighting for honor (read: pride) and shit like nationalism is full retard, especially when you live in a country whose values an way of life, and those of the majority of its people, are the antithesis of your own.

tl;dr statists get fucked

>>33916806
>Revolution
I agree with you about the whole "people who write inspiring books about liberty and the rights of man and then go home to whip their slaves" part, but the nationalist in me swells with pride at the thought of kicking British ass. You're probably right, though.
>Mexican War
Damn straight.
>War Between the States
Eh... Sherman's march didn't do enough.
>Indian Wars
All about the resources and bridging strategic points on our coasts. Totally worth it.
>Spanish-American War
The common man didn't know about how bullshit the war was. You wouldn't have known either. Doesn't mean it was right, though.
>WWI
Lusitania was some real shit, man.
>WWII
Japanese attacked us and the Germans declared war on us soon after. We didn't have a choice. Self-defense.
>Korea/Vietnam
Domino theory, man. We screwed the pooch in Korea, but if Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Soviet relations weren't screwed by the end of Vietnam, we would have had a huge bloc of socialist states more or less touching India. They wanted Vietnam to secure China's borders and because in the long term socialist plan it was the route to India (given that the Himalayas were more or less impassible and the western routes in were blocked off by capitalist third worlders, superstitious tribals, and Islamic monarchies at the time).
>Gulf War I
Oil, man. All about the oil. We needed to get some leverage with the Gulf states.
>Afghan/Iraq
You're right.
>>33916815
Kiss my ass. My waifu wouldn't exist if we hadn't nuked them.

>>33916634
>Civilian

Basic is fucking easy nowadays only the most spineless of retards can't make it through basic nowadays

>>33916261
>When does pacifism become cowardice?

Pacifism only counts if you're actually capable of committing violence successfully.

>>33916968
An enormous European civil war will of course weaken the white race as a whole. It was Darwinism in reverse - the best men went off to fight and die; socialist pipsqueaks remained to rebuild. How did that work out for us?

It broke Europe's will to fight; really, its will to live. All that Europe (or at least, the western part of it) wants now is to die. Don't think so? I point you to this weekend's French election.

This coincided with the destruction of all of Europe's overseas empires. Even the "winners" were too broke and had been bled too much to continue them. India was gone almost as soon as the war ended. Just about everything was gone by the time twenty years had passed. And then began the inevitable process by which the colonized colonize the colonizers. Don't think so? Take a walk around Brixton and tell me what you see. We could have survived not sinking the Yamato; we are much less likely to survive not having sunk the Empire Windrush.

>>33916987
>Lusitania was some real shit, man.
You do know that the Lusitania was carrying munitions, which forfeited its neutrality, right? It had over four million rounds of .303 British that had been manufactured under contract by Remington on board. And that's just the stuff that the ship's cargo manifest admits to. The secondary explosion that sunk her in a few minutes remains a very interesting mystery.

>Japanese attacked us and the Germans declared war on us soon after. We didn't have a choice. Self-defense.
Sure we did - don't cut off Japan's oil supply so they feel backed into a corner, and don't send advisers thinly disguised as mercenaries (which is exactly what the Flying Tigers were) to kill their sons in China. I bet if we hadn't done that, Pearl Harbor would have never happened.

>>33917054
>You do know that the Lusitania was carrying munitions, which forfeited its neutrality, right?
>Sure we did - don't cut off Japan's oil supply so they feel backed into a corner
These contradict you stupid idiot. We cut off their oil supply so we didn't fuel their wars of aggression in indochina.

Is it okay to fuel other peoples war machine or not? If we continued to sell oil to the Japanese, would that not give the Allies reason to bomb our tankers because we are supplying the enemy?

>>33917095
>These contradict you stupid idiot. We cut off their oil supply so we didn't fuel their wars of aggression in indochina.
Lusitania was a British ship - a ship belonging to a combatant nation in that war. The *only* thing that made it not a target was it having no military value. The British using it as a munitions transport ship and using its civilian passengers as human shields was a violation of the rules of war, was ethically awful, and ended predictably.

The USA was not a combatant nation in the Japan-China war, which left us free to trade with both sides perfectly legally, especially when it comes to oil, which is not a munition. Also, a war between Japan and China is really none of our business.

>>33916261
Tim O'Brien wrote about this. He said that he was a coward for not being a conscientious objector and doing what he wanted, rather doing his service for social acceptance.

>>33916815
Well know you're just being retarded.

>>33916261
Pacifism becomes cowardice when you use it as an excuse for inaction

>>33916395
>I think OP is also trying to talk about pacifism in general, I knew a guy who said he wouldn't kill, even to protect himself or his family. To me it seemed like being a pussy, but trying to put a positive spin on it.

>Willing to die for his beliefs
>Pussy

>Willing to kill other people for his belief
>Brave

I mean

I mean I'm not a pacifist, but it seems like your definition of pussy needs work man.

File: 1493009807631.jpg (16KB, 474x306px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 474x306px

>>33916943

>>33917400
>willing to let his family, such as his WIFE AND CHILD die for his beliefs as well.
It's one thing if you take the risk upon yourself, but if any man refuses to stand up for his wife and child because of his beliefs, to the point that he is willing to let them come to harm just so he doesn't have to fight someone, I think that woman and child deserve a better husband and father.

>>33917461

So don't marry a pacifist.

It's still not cowardice.

>>33917481
not that other anon, but i feel like its cowardice, but ALLOWED. your free to practice your beliefs, even if they seem to be pretty shitty. we do need to work on this whole tolerance and acceptance, but hey, no actual soldier wants a pacifist who wont take the shot behind him or the spine to do whats needed, and forcing him there just puts said men with spines and balls at risk.. let them be a pussy faggot, dont have to respect them completely. fight for freedom, and let people, uh, practice said freedom

>When does pacifism become cowardice?
When you do it out of fear instead of conviction.

>>33916261
>Cranky old veteran

Basically, some people can pull the trigger and end someone else's life, a huge amount of people can't. So those people have their other roles where they can do something to help- there's a 100 other jobs in a military where they can do something else rather than just being line infantry. Line infantry doesn't last very long in the shit without transport drivers, medical teams, logistics and all the way down to the cook who makes the meals.
A lot of people historically took that role with dedication, because they basically aren't killers and I respect that a lot. Because no one wants to find out once you're in the shit, that the guy next to you who you're relying on to cover his sector and your arse, isn't capable of doing it.

So if you haven't had to make that decision yourself in your life where your conscience is now between you, god and the dead- don't make it for other people, because its a very heavy burden

>>33916806
You're pretty much right revolution especially

>>33916261
always

>>33916987
He's entirely right, brought into a war by the idea of liberty when you're basically fighting for a tax dodging rich as fuck group of plantation owners who give no fucking shits about you, it's the working class being used by what is basically an oligarchy to get them into power rather than another rich guy
Also the whole idea that their taxes were wholly evil while the soldiers that protected them and the money being invested back into the colonies was plain as day, it was going back to helping the colonists anyway

>>33917542
But 95% of no taxation without representation is still better than 100% of no taxation without representation, r- right?

>>33917580
Sure, and stopping all those outrageous taxes going to military spending, glad we overthrew the British so we don't have to spend shitloads of money funding some military for the protection of our nation
Oh wait no hold on, the navy needs a new camo to blend them into their ships or the ocean, best take in another tax load

>>33917591
Actually, I was making a joke that only about 5% of Americans were eligible to vote after independence.

>>33917601
Yeah I got it, rich white landowners and what not, was just also bringing up the idea of hating all those taxes being spent on the 13 colonies and the forces their back pre revolution to the fact we spend shitloads on ours today even on the most inane shit we don't need, which seemingly no one gives a fuck about
It's also funny that the British freed a bunch of wogs during and we were still the slaveowning land of liberty

File: 05a5b5ea26bb58b965e6ad15811a353d4be68dc0.jpg (375KB, 2308x2988px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 2308x2988px

>>33916915
>Zimmerman telegram
>Be German in WWI
>British Navy is starving you with blockade
>Disguising their ships as neutral vessels and shooting your subs when they surface
>Tell every neutral vessel it is a sub area and not to enter if neutral
>Americans enter and get shot anyway
>Fuck
>Try to reason with Woodrow, we'll stop sub warfare but we need some fucking food
>He says no
>He arms merchant vessels with US Navy and sends them directly into submarine zones that have to shoot neutral vessels
>WHAT THE FUCK
>After you're forced to shoot down four more, he's satisfied with the American lives he sacrificed
>Declares war
>He goes on to have people with anti-war opinions arrested en mass for disagreeing with him, with the American Protective League acting as the Gestapo

>>33918120
go back to facebook. the US had acquiesced to germany many times and the germans continued to stab the US in the back.

>>33916806
kill yourself please

File: Wilson.png (150KB, 500x1944px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 500x1944px

>>33918151
Yes, by fucking supporting and giving supplies to the British and refusing to the the starvation blockade we acquiesced.

Woodrow was a fascist, an Authoritarian cocksucker. He was akin to Stalin and Mao. He sent Americans to die in order to be able to send Americans to die so he could get the money Britain and France owed America. 12,000 men sacrificed exclusively for money and fascist power.

Eat shit. You are no Libertarian, you are no /k/ommando.

>>33916806
Fact: if America didn't win the war, the whole world wouldn't be the PMC of Israel today.

>>33918166
Holy shit anon

>>33916806
Just wars:
Revolutionary War
Mexican War
Civil War
WWII
Korean War

Questionable Wars:
Indian Wars
Afghanistan
Spanish-American War

Pointless American bloodshed to give minor pointless benefits to greedy politicians:
WWI
Vietnam
Gulf War
Iraq

>>33918229
Mark off WWII.

Who cares? We live in a free society and a man should not be forced to perform service for the state. In fact "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Stop acting like throwing your life away in service to the state is some kind of noble act.

File: 1492636714497.png (156KB, 547x412px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 547x412px

>>33918229
>vietnam

Underage kid detected.

Protip: fighting the spread of communism was as good a cause as fighting the nazis.
Millions of South vietnamese supported the US and begged us to stay and fight to prevent the communists from taking over and doing what communists regime did in Cambodia and other places. Abandoning them after years of fighting was a cowardly act and the war was very much winnable.

It was the politicians who wanted to stop the war to appease communist agitators and hippies and who prevented US military from doing more to win - majority of American soldiers in vietnam were volunteers and proud of what they were doing.

>>33916261
I don't mind the ones that went out to help in non-combat roles.

Most of the issues with the Vietnam War came from bureaucratic incompetence and our complete lack of readiness for such combat conditions. A lot of dumb people blamed the individual soldiers for that.

It was a war that we didn't need to fight but if we are going to fight a war we should at least fight it like we're going to win it. America hasn't wanted to win a war its entered since Vietnam.

>>33918307
>Fighting the spread of communism
You know nothing of the Vietnam war.

We were in their to gain money off the drugs in 'Nam. Almost all North Vietnamese were not communists, and simply fighting the corrupt South.

If the war was like Korea, wherein we were defending innocents from the horrors of communism, I would be in, but it wasn't. It was akin to WWI, just the Government getting money through American blood.

We supported the Khmer Rouge because they were enemies of the NVA, despite being communists as well.
Read a book.

>>33918261
I disagree. Retaliation after an all out attack on the US Navy is different to some fascist fucktard sending Americans into sub zones to die so he can declare war and secure money.

File: O+C-173_Ho-Chi-Minh+OSS_19451.jpg (92KB, 900x531px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 900x531px

>>33918307
>Protip
You know the entire theory of the "domino effect" was completely retarded, right? Half of South-East Asia had already had communist insurgencies, and either had already defeated them, or were well on the way to doing so.

Also don't forget that although Ho Chi Minh was a commie, he was an extremely thirsty Ameriboo. If at the conclusion of World War 2, America had just said, "okay, you filthy commies can stay, but under a multiparty democracy" he would've probably been fine with that.

But nooooo. Just like everywhere else, America supports some dictator from a minority group that everybody hates. In this case, a Catholicuck in a fucking Buddhist country.

Also, it was the Vietnamese who defeated the Khmer Rouge, and there's even legitimate allegations that the CIA funded and armed the Khmer Rouge, because although communist, they were anti-Vietnamese.

Seriously, when it comes to setting up and supporting stable, democratic regimes, you were almost better off with the fucking Soviets than America during the Cold War.

File: C.S. LOLis.jpg (268KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 2000x1333px

>>33916806
>The only just wars are the ones I benefit from

Didn’t think selfishness was the standard of morality to most people. Are you an Objectivist?

>>33918166
>ITT: Why I gave up libertarianism

File: 1434094540971.jpg (119KB, 1024x1514px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x1514px

>>33916261
>When does pacifism become cowardice?

Immediately.

>>33916975
that's not how it works though. you have to convince a draft board not that you find the current conflict morally objectionable, but you find any military conflict morally objectionable and you would not fight in any capacity under any circumstances

>>33916595
there's no such thing as CO status unless there's an actual draft. Registering for Selective Service is non-optional. If they're getting pissy, just tell them that what they wanted you to do is impossible.

I know a bunch of guys that vehemently hate weapons of any kind and would refuse to use them under any circumstances, claiming themselves to be pacifists as justification. This shits me to tears because, by my own definition, a pacifist is somebody who has the capability to do great violence but chooses not to out of conviction or principle. To me, being armed and therefore having the agency to choose is key, because a disarmed "pacifist" is just a victim by any other name. On the other hand, conscientious objectors in my country often had the shit kicked out of them and were pariahs for decades after the wars, so its not like they won anything by objecting and they were knowingly committing to second class citizen status for the rest of their lives for not wanting to kill Germans. So I guess whether pacifism is faggotry or not is to be judged entirely on a case by case basis.

>>33916937
hahahahaha

>>33918453
People do everything to make themselves happy in different ways, even if they don't acknowledge it. A mother wouldn't protect her child if it wasn't for hormons. Humans would nver fuck in the first place, if they don't enjoy it. Even patriots who die for their country wouldn't do that if they would think it was without purpose. They do it because dying makes them happy.

>>33917119
The Things They Carried, right? Good fucking book.

>>33918324
>Read a book.
Hey, why don't you try reading a book that *wasn't* written by (((Noam Chomsky))) or (((Howard Zinn))).

>>33918445
>You know the entire theory of the "domino effect" was completely retarded, right?
No, seriously, it was Nixon's detente with China - probably the most daring and successful piece of diplomacy in American history - that neutralized that threat, and it was damn near unthinkable when the war started in earnest during 1965.

>>33918307

A rather well stated point I never considered properly for the Vietnam war was, from someone who was a kid whose family fled after the fall of saigon: " Well, it was a revolutionary war. It was a civil war, depending on how you look at it. And what that means is that Vietnamese people were already hurting each other in Vietnam. They'd had a long tradition of doing that even before the french came".

On the face of it that is obvious but it's so often lost in the narrative where we think the South Vietnamese had no agency or were just stooges or patsies of us. Sure they hated the Catholic idiot of a president they had, but they weren't fans of gommunism either. Post tet there were no more South Vietnamese collaborators, they had all gotten wiped out the cong were just NVA regulars stationed in the south.

Not saying it was good or bad to get involved in a civil war, just that we fail to respect the fact that for the Vietnamese it was a true civil war. Not like Indo-China where it was a war between the nation and the French + their minions, it was between Viet and Viet.

>>33918453
As Fred Reed (a man with some experience in such matters) put it, it doesn't make a damn bit of sense for me to kill my fellow man just because some pipsqueak in Washington who I wouldn't talk to over a back fence told me to. I don't like the feddie gubmit, and if it has a problem with somebody in a distant country I've never been within 1000 miles of, that's their problem, not mine.

When all the Senators and Congressmen and Presidents who like starting wars start leading them from the front of talk columns instead of from the safety of desks in Washington, I'll consider the idea of personal loyalty. And why shouldn't they? That's what Roman emperors did, and were they any less important to their societies? There were emperors who died in battle. Or worse - Valerian the Elder was taken prisoner by the Persians, and, legend has it, spent the next couple of decades being used as the Persian king's living footstool. When any of the assholes in Washington start taking risks like that in the name of honor, then they can ask me to. Until then, they can fuck right off.

File: 495451.png (84KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 700x700px

>>33918453

>>33916806
After taking a few minutes to read your post, and then reread it for safety's sake, I am inclined to agree with you on most of the topics... Only one I would have to disagree with is WWII, as we should've allied with the axis powers and cut off any aid to Britain and the USSR because those were the ones who were fighting for the commies and nonwhites. But other than that you are 100% right

>>33920035
This guy gets it.

>>33920035
It's hard to lead from the front when the front is a cruise missile.

>>33916261
>When does pacifism become cowardice?
When your dedication to pacifism is based upon force disparity with your opponent.

Cowards are pacifists when they're about to get their ass beat, but not when they're opponents are about to get the same.

>>33921526
Best explanation I've heard yet.

>>33916261
My dad was a CO in Korea. Served as a company medic, honorably discharged on medical (hep-c).

I have no problems with that. I'd be too much of a pussy to go through the shit he did in basic as an avowed CO, especially as he was a tall,skinny jewish kid from Brooklyn.

>>33917481
maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but if you marry a woman, have a kid with her, then refuse to protect that woman and kid and let them come to harm, pacifist or not, you are a piece of shit.

>>33916727
He may just be talking about registering with the selective service act.

>>33916806
>Whiners who didn't want to pay the taxes
The British did a bunch of other things. For example they forced Americans to let British soldiers take their beds and food.
>WWII? Nope. A huge intra-European civil war
Pearl harbor happened.

>>33923980
>Replying to the obvious bait

>>33920035
>there aren't large numbers of congressmen who saw combat as soldiers
You're fucking stupid. But then, you already know that, don't you?

>>33916647
Read his post again