I say nuke the hell out of Syriania!
Furthermore will someone please explain to me why Assad or the Syrian military would authorise the use of chemical weapons a matter of days after allowing UN arms inspectors into the country to investigate? Bearing in mind that the forces fighting Assad have direct ties to Hezbollah and terrorist organisations which our governments tell us could detonate dirty bombs in our cities if they don't 'protect' us. It makes absolutely no sense.
(read this as neutrally as possible, im not yelling, im not angry, im just speaking, i dont apologize if you decide to read this like some sort of angry person)
In the end, through all the bitching in this thread about how we are this or that, you still know the United States is going to handle it. Why? because nobody else will, once i see your backwards country send its so special of forces into the country and handle it then ill take the plugs out of my ears to listen to what foreign countries have to say about our policy. And to say we shouldnt get involved in it is pointless, because the world is small, and what effects them effects us, and if we dont control the infection before it spreads we will have Kim Jong Un sending us nuclear missiles, or Iraq walking into Kuwait again to pillage it, or more pirating off the cape of horn, or what ever other nonsense. Just think about it, something as simple to a european country which shouldnt affect them as our world trade centers falling was strong enough to have a ripple effect through out the whole world, just look at poor Greece, poor Panos(lol im sure this wasnt Greece's downfall, but when a large empire takes a hit, think about how this same hit affects a small one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks
Also, i doubt our country wants much to do with Russia anyways seeing as they arent any better then the Syrians anyways, with all the persecution of gays, hell, president Obama cancelled a very important meeting with Putin just to shove it up his ass about how poorly he is handling that whole issue. But thats a whole other issue......good topic Christo, it brings out all the Conspirists<---dont think thats a word.
Edit: Just thought about this, whens the last fucking time you heard of Russia doing anything to help this world, like fucking really......Russian policy.....fuck you must be blind. Hell China does more than Russia, China told North Korea to knock it the fuck off or they were going to ruin their day when they decided to artillery that island in South Korea. What about Russia, they made a failed invasion on a desert country for nothing...
Double Edit: Russian policy below:
Obama: hey Putin lets put this cold war stuff behind us, what do you say about dismantling those nuclear missiles with us, they are bad anyways.
Putin: ok, how many?
Obama: 2,000 missiles.
Putin: fuck 2,000!!! ok you do 2,000, ill do 30. Deal?
Obama: ............
Putin: okay, okay, ill do 2,000, but you better not build that European missile defense system because that wouldnt be fair....
Nothing good ever comes of getting involved with these Muslim countries. You fight em, they fight back and keep fighting with cowardly guerrilla tactics. You try to make negotiations they either spit in your face or agree and just keep doing what they're doing.
Ignore them, or better yet nuke them off the map like they deserve. Well actually just somehow assassinate every single bad guy in any Muslim country since there are a lot of innocent good people in there. Damn, if only.
Also the US policeman thing is a good thing, maybe not for the US but for everyone else it is. Without it North Korea's threats would be Korea's threats so maybe a little more intimidating and there would be a lot more countries with less freedom.
You fuckers are closer, you do something about it.
Hopefully Assad will teach USA and Israel a good lesson.
Launching a few cruise missiles won't do shit and it's just asking to get deeper and deeper involved.
Lel, whole chemical weapon thing was an american plan to get "real reason" to get their hands in the oils
I doubt Assad alone can do much, let alone teach a lesson to a superpower that just bombs/ launches missiles all over the place.
A member of the Syrian Ba'ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister's aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as "behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire" should Syria be attacked by the United States.
In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad's fellow party member said: "We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel."
Al-Muftah stressed that the US's threats will not influence the Syrain regime and added that "If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the region will go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area's security, but the world's."
We are not a party to this civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt to attack us we will respond and we will respond forcefully
Lel, whole chemical weapon thing was an american plan to get "real reason" to get their hands in the oils
You forget the fact that Russia will actually back up Assad if needed, Russians have tons of missiles in Syria, so actually he`s not alone, he has the bear behind him lurking in the dark for the right moment to attack.
Can you atleast think from our point of view and stop trying the really original, "must have oil" thing, because its Syria, and they dont. On top of that, even if we were giving the rebels weapons to fight the Syrian government, which im under the impression we arent, as we just loaded ourselves with a 3 trillion dollar debt from Iraq, and Afghanistan, i dont think we need to be wasting our time on what seemed like a petty revolt in a backwater country. I think what everyone wants to happen is just make sure that they arent dragging the civilians into the mess and especially arent going to release any more chemicals.
"Russia has dismissed U.S. accusations that Syrian forces used chemical weapons, calling the charge "utter nonsense," and warned that a military intervention without United Nations authorization would be a violation of international law."
and who the fuck made the USA police of the world??
Who the fuck are you, to invade a country, anytime when something that you people don`t like happens??
I really hope Asad kicks some American asses, just because I despise that kind of attitude.
Going hungry makes you angry. Maybe the Germans can lend you some food. :P
(click to show/hide)
Also you coverage of FSA rebels is completely one sided. If you really want to get close to the truth, it's best to include multiple news sources and new sources which disagree and show conflicting reports.
Here is some footage of the opposite side of the bias spectrum:(click to show/hide)
and who the fuck made the USA police of the world??
Who the fuck are you, to invade a country, anytime when something that you people don`t like happens??
I really hope Asad kicks some American asses, just because I despise that kind of attitude.
You forget the fact that Russia will actually back up Assad if needed,
What would this militarized action be ? Just bomb Assad's army with planes and warships ? I can't really believe the US is ready to send foot soldiers.
Either way, a FSA victory isn't going to transform Syria into heaven. An american occupation won't either, and Assad's regime was, well, your usual dictatorship.
I didn't.
That would mean Russia would come out of the closet, open conflict and all that.
and who the fuck made the USA police of the world??
Who the fuck are you, to invade a country, anytime when something that you people don`t like happens??
I really hope Asad kicks some American asses, just because I despise that kind of attitude.
Maybe it's about time that we turn it around and the world groups up and invades the US to stop that madness. After all they enjoyed all the wars, didn't they. Maybe wars would stop in general then without the US having any power. :P
Let's all just commit mass global suicide instead then.
You don't really need to put infantry to the ground to be honest, this is not 1940s.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Maybe it's about time that we turn it around and the world groups up and invades the US to stop that madness. After all they enjoyed all the wars, didn't they. Maybe wars would stop in general then without the US having any power. :P
(click to show/hide)
After reading this thread im happy for humanitys sake, that you guys chose to spend your time in crpg instead of pursuing a career in politics.
well I only read a little bit about the conflict but I see some big misconceptions in this thread, syria doesn't actually produce very much crude oil at all. if "gas" prices go up its simply because of the location of syria and fear/speculation the conflict could spread to countries which are big crude oil producers.
so people playing the "doing it for oil" card are simply uninformed.
I give this thread 3/10. It did t make me rage quit yet.
So why is discussion like this so repressed.
It is so good to see other peoples views on such an interesting issue.
War drives innovation, peace makes stagnation. We don't want stagnation!Not true. Most scientific progress was done during times of peace. Most scientific progress was abused for military use.
Not true. Most scientific progress was done during times of peace. Most scientific progress was used for military use.FTFY.
War drives innovation, peace makes stagnation. We don't want stagnation!
yes because unmanned aircraft, non-lethal weapons, better satellite coverage, anti-nuclear missile defense systems, body armor, life saving intervention equipment, GPS, and many other things that come of war innovation are such a detriment to our society and only fuel the weapons industry........Woah is me, fuck war is such a bad thing, dont forget better weapons protect you from people willing to do bad things with shittier weapons.There is so much redneck in this, ain't even funny, it is that stupid.
yes because unmanned aircraft, non-lethal weapons, better satellite coverage, anti-nuclear missile defense systems, body armor, life saving intervention equipment, GPS, and many other things that come of war innovation are such a detriment to our society and only fuel the weapons industry........Woah is me, fuck war is such a bad thing, dont forget better weapons protect you from people willing to do bad things with shittier weapons.
yes because unmanned aircraft, non-lethal weapons, better satellite coverage, anti-nuclear missile defense systems, body armor, life saving intervention equipment, GPS, and many other things that come of war innovation are such a detriment to our society and only fuel the weapons industry........Woah is me, fuck war is such a bad thing, dont forget better weapons protect you from people willing to do bad things with shittier weapons.
As an American [...]
Not true. Most scientific progress was done during times of peace. Most scientific progress was abused for military use.
Firstly; there is no non-lethal weapons. It is called less-then-lethal; as tasers and bean-bang shotguns does cause lethal damage, even if the user is a trained professional. Taking into account that the need of anti-nuclear missile defense systems is due to Manhattan Project and the first body-armor prototypes being designed for small-arms, which, is a weapon of lethal means; saying the War actually helped the man-kind in our short to middle term past, is just stupendously funny.
Yes, you can keep arming and militarizing yourself. Have nukes, small-arms, APCs and Tanks, fighter jets and et cetera. Sure, why not? Because that worked during Cold War. Oh wait. It didn't. (And whoever is to call that the Cold War ended, Soviets dissolved, please, don't, as it had nothing to do with militarizing) But sure. We should have an another Cold War where if one side fucks up this time, we may have an awesome CoD/BF/ArmA experience.
Perhaps someone should teach me to quickscope before that happens.
Absolutely not true. We wouldn't even be communicating with computers, you wouldn't have a cell phone, or be heating your hot pocket in a microwave without the wars that drove the underlying technology. Every innovation that came from the Apollo project would not exist as the Apollo missions would never have occurred without the Cold War. Without wars, it is very likely that we would still be flying across the ocean in planes driven by propellers. It is sad, but it is a fact that it usually takes war to get politicians to devote the money and the manpower to create the projects that led to those technical innovations.
While some civilian scientific advancements have been modified for war purposes, the opposite has been proven to be true in far more applications. War technology has been adopted for civilian purpose far more often, and you only need to look at nearly every device and material in your home to see the truth of that. It just isn't obvious to you because it isn't the form of a bullet or gun.
lol where do you all get this knowledge its as if you knew about anything you were attempting to explain yet you dont, because you not only cannot own these things within your country but i myself was issued these items. Oh and i apologize we dont use the terms "lethal" anymore, its deadly force.
a taser is by all means not deadly, pepper spray is not deadly, getting struck with a baton is not deadly, a sound frequency device is not deadly, a "bean bag" as you called it is not deadly, none of those things will kill you, they may cause harm, but not kill you. If it was the case then why would they give us any of those tools to use???
With the creation of Flak jackets for airplane crewman down to the first body armor being used in the United States to save the lives of law enforcement, it would not have been created if not for the need in wartime.
its not stupendously funny, its fact. The only thing funny is how all the europeans quote me like they have some sort of formal knowledge or training of what they speak of, please go back to being a student in your school, because you clearly need to learn more.
Just to add more, even medical equipment has been advanced due to war, if not for war we wouldnt have nearly the same technology to deal with amputees or gun shot wounds etc. But then again what do i know, i was never trained to know any of this, some "scholar" in europe with a art degree would know all this though.
ANYWAYS THREADS DERAILED BACK ON TOPIC: yep Syria bad news, think euro's should handle it. Will cost us too much, but then again we are goin to do it anyways im sure, so why are we discussing again?
Absolutely not true. We wouldn't even be communicating with computers, you wouldn't have a cell phone, or be heating your hot pocket in a microwave without the wars that drove the underlying technology. Every innovation that came from the Apollo project would not exist as the Apollo missions would never have occurred without the Cold War. Without wars, it is very likely that we would still be flying across the ocean in planes driven by propellers. It is sad, but it is a fact that it usually takes war to get politicians to devote the money and the manpower to create the projects that led to those technical innovations.That is just utter bullshit. Guess that's the kind of answers one gets when discussing things with people from a country where teacher start their working day with the gun handout...
While some civilian scientific advancements have been modified for war purposes, the opposite has been proven to be true in far more applications. War technology has been adopted for civilian purpose far more often, and you only need to look at nearly every device and material in your home to see the truth of that. It just isn't obvious to you because it isn't the form of a bullet or gun.
The person in the chair shouldn't be a civilian though, they should be our politicians/military leaders calling for bombing Syria. Most American's have no idea what's going on in Syria. Our media are selling a product, and people have showed with their money, they want to be entertained, not informed when they watch the news or go online. So we are insulated and coddled in this country, with most Americans having no clue what's happening in their own cities, let alone in the next state. So how do you expect them to know what's happening in the middle east?
I think that's a big problem here in this country, is that people are so "well off" that they feel they can tune out to politics and current events. They don't see any real pressing need to get better politicians in our government. They feel no real need to know what's happening in Egypt or Syria because it's not going to personally affect them. I think that's a by product of being so "well off" that people don't even know what's going on in their own cities or states, let alone half-way across the world. And that ignorance results in the politicians and corporations being able to essentially do whatever they want to consolidate their power and protect their interests.
Reading what most NA`s have to say regarding the Syria matter, makes me wish more and more for a US failure.
Muricans really believe that they live at the greatest nation of the whole world..I guess too much McDonalds and too many Pay per views had their toll.
Have fun at being the muppets of the jews, once again.
Reading what most NA`s have to say regarding the Syria matter, makes me wish more and more for a US failure.
Muricans really believe that they live at the greatest nation of the whole world..I guess too much McDonalds and too many Pay per views had their toll.
Have fun at being the muppets of the jews, once again.
That is just utter bullshit. Guess that's the kind of answers one gets when discussing things with people from a country where teacher start their working day with the gun handout...
Not even gonna try to argue with you about this. I decided I just gonna ignore you.
Moving on.
Taser, by all local, state and federal United States law enforcement agencies, is defined by other-then-lethal OR less-then-lethal equipment. As it can be lethal, in some cases. According to Russia Today and infowars, more then five hundred people died in the last 12 years, due to being shot by taser. Furthermore, WikiPedia, on taser safety, with citations, provide the information on the taser; and the death and permanent injuries caused by it. Also, a quick fun fact: November 2003 Las Vegas, Nevada, police officer Lisa Peterson is severely injured (including traumatic internal disc disruption and persistent dizziness) during a training exercise under controlled conditions. Under. Controlled. Conditions. During a training exercise. Yup, it is totally, hundred percent safe. (Again: I am not against the use of taser, but defining it as non-lethal is stupid and wrong)
Granted, I am amazed by the medical technology and equipment created specially for the battle injuries. Especially QuikClot, it amazes me, as well as saddens me at the same time. As we have an industry that doesn't care about saving civilian life, as it is not profitable, but get contracted by government and create such technology.
its sad that a nation that has the potential to literally change the face of the world, is filled with nothing but corporate greed, political corruption and the sheeple that so blindly follow it.
That is just utter bullshit. Guess that's the kind of answers one gets when discussing things with people from a country where teacher start their working day with the gun handout...
Not even gonna try to argue with you about this. I decided I just gonna ignore you.
Just to note on this, idk how one could have any harm done to them by a taser, i have been trained with it, shot people with it, and have myself been shot with it. There is no harm that can be caused by it, anything you hear about it is little more then civilian propaganda for its removal since it seems nearly unethical in use. The taser causes no harm to a persons heart or brain whatsoever. The only harm that could be caused is done by you falling the hell over, which happens id say 9/10 times.
And yes quikclot is great, though expensive at nearly $50 a packet law enforcement and emergency services around the country use quikclot and other products that are similar on the public which most people do not know.
On another note,
im glad we could deepen the void between EU and NA, this was a great discussion.
Reading what most NA`s have to say regarding the Syria matter, makes me wish more and more for a US failure.Reading what you have to say regarding anything, makes me wish for the good old days when the Ottomans kept Greeks in line.
Muricans really believe that they live at the greatest nation of the whole world..I guess too much McDonalds and too many Pay per views had their toll.
Have fun at being the muppets of the jews, once again.
Just to note on this, idk how one could have any harm done to them by a taser, i have been trained with it, shot people with it, and have myself been shot with it. There is no harm that can be caused by it, anything you hear about it is little more then civilian propaganda for its removal since it seems nearly unethical in use. The taser causes no harm to a persons heart or brain whatsoever. The only harm that could be caused is done by you falling the hell over, which happens id say 9/10 times.
And yes quikclot is great, though expensive at nearly $50 a packet law enforcement and emergency services around the country use quikclot and other products that are similar on the public which most people do not know.
On another note,
im glad we could deepen the void between EU and NA, this was a great discussion.
I stand my grounds. Yes, military / war industry creates so much that, what we use now directly or indirectly connected to its military use. However, if the Governments were sane (and not dependent on corporations) enough, we could also achieve the same thing, by investing R&Ds that are not related to arms manufacturing.
Yes, a great source of frustration for me. Governments are really only useful for large projects like the Interstate system or the Apollo project. Only unless there is some visionary in the White House (rarely), or an external threat (war), it usually doesn't happen. Or when it does, it gets killed later by lack of vision. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is awesome at 14 TeV of energy, but one in Texas that would have produced 20 TeV was canceled back in the 80's after boring 14 miles of tunnel that is still there. Don't even get me started on the fact that we need to hitch a ride to the ISS (which is what they killed the collider in favor of). I'm pissed at Bush for his failure there when coming from Texas he should have been the President to PUSH the space agency even further, not driving us backwards. Ceding the moon to other countries, which actually has a valuable energy resource there that could destroy big oil forever, in favor of a grander scheme mission to Mars is another sore point I ahve with Obama. Yes, sometimes you have to look long range, but skipping steps in between can be more costly than not looking to the distant future. We need to establish a self-sustaining colony for mining Helium 3 where it is close enough to support if anything goes wrong, and not so far that we can only watch them die. We need that source of energy for supporting future long term colonies on other celestial bodies and the best place to start that is the Moon. And yes, we don't need a war for all that to happen, until someone sells the idea that letting China get it first would be a colossal security issue.
But if it's not a TV, it's a book. Or gossiping with the neighbors. Or running around chasing a ball outside. Or watching your kids and hanging out with family.
I think the problem isn't the TV, I think the "problem" is that we're so successful, there's no need for people to stay up to date on what's happening in their own country or the rest of the world. People are either too lazy or too exhausted at the end of the day, to give up their own free time, in order to stay informed about the world around them. And those of us who are paying attention, have no ability to inflict real change on the system. Corporations and people in power, want to maintain that power and the status quo no matter what the costs.
Just talking about current events (not even talking science or other intellectual pursuits) is something a lot of modern civilization thinks is boring or not relevant. Which is sad indeed. But you reap what you sow (collectively) so we all get the grab our ankles at the whims of our overlords. If we want war or not, is irrelevant to the outcome.
USA did it better? German Rocket technology. German/Austrian nuclear science... yea, GO USA! :lol:
USA did it better? German Rocket technology. German/Austrian nuclear science... yea, GO USA! :lol:
Just to clarify;
[...] what United States does, it does to be better than China and Russia.
better than
(fixed the typo in the original post, however I don't think anyone mistaken than with then)
You can add to that list the Germany. France. UK. Indonesia. Iran. Syria. Not claiming nor stating that the United States is superior or not; but merely saying, United States does what he does to be better than other countries. Not for anything else.
Well, you know, people in other countries read the newspaper and watch the daily news, and they get informed, because in those countries, not all media is run by big corporations aiming for total control over their consumers. The real problem in USA is that you glorify business. Every last pizza baker thinks he's a god damn businessman. And this glorification of greed made it possible that huge conglomerates formed with the power to dominate politics and more or less take direct influence on the daily life of the population. You are all so fucking focused on your right to bear arms that you don't notice that weapons don't help you if you have nothing left to defend. Who are you going to shoot? Your neighbours? Yourself?
That is just utter bullshit. Guess that's the kind of answers one gets when discussing things with people from a country where teacher start their working day with the gun handout...This... this post... :lol:
Not even gonna try to argue with you about this. I decided I just gonna ignore you.
I stand my grounds. Yes, military / war industry creates so much that, what we use now directly or indirectly connected to its military use. However, if the Governments were sane (and not dependent on corporations) enough, we could also achieve the same thing, by investing R&Ds that are not related to arms manufacturing.And if we had a bag of infinite food, things would be so much better, too. It's a shame that we live in reality.
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhc0AjZXejOY0aIIBg
So you support a mass murderer tyrant?
Hookay then.
Would you say the same thing if it happened in your country, and the Greek leadership would gun down your kin?
3. Because no one, has the right to invade another country when a civil war wages, I strongly believe that the Syrians should end this dispute all by themselves.Yeah, Hutu and the Tutsi, so glad that went down the way it did right?
So you support a mass murderer tyrant?If its a choice between living in a fucked up country where everything modern is banned and which is ruled by al-qaeda nutjobs who want to live in middleages or a secular modern authoritarian state ruled by mad eccentric dictator who will do anything to stay in power, yeah id stick with living under assad..
Hookay then.
Would you say the same thing if it happened in your country, and the Greek leadership would gun down your kin?
Teeth, you fail miserably.I am aware of this, what is your point? Doesn't change anything to it being a civil war with genocide committed with support from the functioning government.
Hutu were supported by French, and Tutsi were supported by Uganda.
Instead of watching bullshit movies, I highly suggest reading a couple of books before posting.
Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in revolt now thunders,
and at last ends the age of cant!
Away with all your superstitions,
Servile masses, arise, arise!
We'll change henceforth the old tradition,
And spurn the dust to win the prize!
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
No more deluded by reaction,
On tyrants only we'll make war!
The soldiers too will take strike action,
They'll break ranks and fight no more!
And if those cannibals keep trying,
To sacrifice us to their pride,
They soon shall hear the bullets flying,
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
No saviour from on high delivers,
No faith have we in prince or peer.
Our own right hand the chains must shiver,
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
E'er the thieves will out with their booty,
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do their duty,
And we'll strike the iron while it's hot.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
Went down town on a saturday
A few commie vermin got in our way
We steamed into them, we had real fun
Seeing the red scum on the run
Kick the reds in kick the reds in
All we could do was kick the reds in
Off to a pub for a few
There was more vermin in there too
Some commie bastard playing a guitar
So we decided to smash up the bar
Kick the reds in kick the reds in
All we could do was kick the reds in
A nightclub was our next port of call
There was more vermin on the dance floor
Bottles started flying tables and chairs
Coz all we could do was kick the reds in
Kick the reds in kick the reds in
All we could do was kick the reds in
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginvisitors can't see pics , please register or login
God, I hate communists..
for you EU bums here's one of my favorite simpsons quote "American tax dollars will help our allies who fought so poorly and surrendered so readily. "http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.usdebtclock.org/rofl was a quote in regards to WWII. Doubted you got it but there is hope for others.
for you EU bums here's one of my favorite simpsons quote "American tax dollars will help our allies who fought so poorly and surrendered so readily. "In a hypothetical scenario where the US and Nazi Germany are neighbours without an ocean in 1940, I would put my money on Nazi Germany shitkicking the US.
God, I hate communists..
What I love about muricans and their shitty comments about EU, is that their shithole country was discovered, by Europeans, so actually, muricans are part *bastard* europeans.lol Panos... complaining about being called fascist but you don't seem to bother about being called antisemitic... gf
:lol:
Oh look! I dared to say a couple of truths about jews, and I`m a fascist.
rofl.
Oh look! I dared to say a couple of truths about jews, and I`m a fascist.
2. Because the Jews sold weapons to the so called "Freedom" fighters
If a civil war was to happen in Greece, I would want it to be solved by Greeks, and not by some zionist muppets.
What I love about muricans and their shitty comments about EU, is that their shithole country was discovered, by Europeans, so actually, muricans are part *bastard* europeans.No, you dared to say a couple of "truths" about jews and for thinking those "truths" you're antisemitic, saying you support Assad is what makes you a fascist...
:lol:
Oh look! I dared to say a couple of truths about jews, and I`m a fascist.
rofl.
In a hypothetical scenario where the US and Nazi Germany are neighbours without an ocean in 1940, I would put my money on Nazi Germany shitkicking the US.chocolate chip cookie Germsmany would probably have won any war against anyone they neighbored besides Russia without water blocking their way in 1940, besides ofc the mighty Greek people who had gained independence through mightily defeating the foul Turks by totally not relying on stronger Euro nations to sink Muhammad Alis fleet or anything...
rofl was a quote in regards to WWII. Doubted you got it but there is hope for others.Genital was the thunderstorm; all mimsy were the borogroves.
chocolate chip cookie Germsmany would probably have won any war against anyone they neighbored besides Russia without water blocking their way in 1940, besides ofc the mighty Greek people who had gained independence through mightily defeating the foul Turks by totally not relying on stronger Euro nations to sink Muhammad Alis fleet or anything...I think they would probably have won a war against Soviet Union as well, if it were a 1v1. They were more than a bit mean.
lol Panos... complaining about being called fascist but you don't seem to bother about being called antisemitic... gf
A fascist, I don't know. Maybe. I don't really have the quotes here. Antisemite, why yes absolutely.
Why would you consider that a reason to back Assad otherwise ?
Again, if you had a real problem, you wouldn't care about who solves it. In this context I don't really understand why you don't shun Assad because he is getting his weapons from Russia, unless...
No, you dared to say a couple of "truths" about jews and for thinking those "truths" you're antisemitic, saying you support Assad is what makes you a fascist...
chocolate chip cookie Germsmany would probably have won any war against anyone they neighbored besides Russia without water blocking their way in 1940, besides ofc the mighty Greek people who had gained independence through mightily defeating the foul Turks by totally not relying on stronger Euro nations to sink Muhammad Alis fleet or anything...
And this confirms that you don`t have a clue about history, Greek independence war started at 1821, the battle of Navarinno happened in 1827, for 6 years the Greeks fought alone, the Brits along with the French and the Russians, were against this revolution from the beggining, they changed their minds only when they realized that the Greeks were winning, and they wanted to have a piece from the pie.I never stated you weren't able to hold back limited amounts of Ottoman forces, for a limited amount of time, however, without the ultimate massive amounts of help you received the Turks would've completely crushed your silly little rebellion.
Zlisch, do yourself a favour, and before you start writing another historical post, read a book please.
Oh and let me tell you, that if it werent the Greeks to hold back the Germans, after defeating the Italians, chances are that whole europe would speak German now.
lol you wish
Read some history please :wink:
Looking back near the end of the war, as Germany's inevitable and impending defeat loomed ever closer, einstein attributed great blame to Mussolini's Greek fiasco as the cause of his own subsequent catastrophe. As an explanation of Germany's calamitous defeat in the Soviet Union
The Greek War of Independence, also known as the Greek Revolution (Greek: Ελληνική Επανάσταση, Elliniki Epanastasi; Ottoman: يونان عصياني Yunan İsyanı "Greek Uprising"), was a successful war of independence waged by the Greek revolutionaries between 1821 and 1832, with later assistance from Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and several other European powers against the Ottoman Empire, who were assisted by their vassals, the Eyalet of Egypt, and partly by the Vilayet of Tunisia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_GreeceMaking WITH LATER insanely big somewhat implies the westerners+Russia didn't win you the war, oh and cuz quotes are fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Revolution
No need to be mad, thats Ok, there are a lot of people out there who don`t have a clue about history. :wink:
Later, however, as Greece became embroiled in a civil war, the Sultan called upon his strongest subject, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, for aid. Plagued by internal strife and financial difficulties in keeping the fleet in constant readiness, the Greeks failed to prevent the capture and destruction of Kasos and Psara in 1824, or the landing of the Egyptian army at Methoni. Despite victories at Samos and Gerontas, the Revolution was threatened with collapse until the intervention of the Great Powers in the Battle of Navarino in 1827
In a world of almost 8 bil people, you can`t like everyone, you have to deal with it, some don`t like Greeks, some don`t like Germans, I don`t like jews, Does this make me a nazee or a fascist?? I highly doubt it.
Yes, because all those big corporations at the States aren`t owned by Jews, bitch please I highly doubt that you know history, next thing you will tell me is that the jew Rockefellers never sold weapons and oil to nazee`s.. :lol:
I wonder why people are so proud about their countries. Well, no, I don't. But I wonder how people can be so dumb that they don't realize they're just trying to claim some sort of credit for deeds done in the past by "their" countries. Just because you were born in the same approximate geographic area as the people who did indeed do those deeds doesn't mean it reflects well on you or that you can "be proud" about them -- you had nothing to do with any of it.
Making WITH LATER insanely big somewhat implies the westerners+Russia didn't win you the war, oh and cuz quotes are fun:
Huge letters win arguments, right?
Disliking people on basis of their ethnicity/race/religion/culture/whatever is racist, and in the case of Jews it's called antisemitism. Some don't like Greeks is no better, mind you. Now, you manage to achieve even better than this with shit coming straight from neochocolate chip cookie propaganda 101
The Rockefellers also ate potatoes and lived in a house.
Watch this too : http://youtu.be/gW4NzVxhnUg, plenty of truth
Oh, Panos... I didn't quite meet you in Athens, but what i would've said to you
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Oh, Panos... I didn't quite meet you in Athens, but what i would've said to you
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Wrong thread, Gnjus :lol: (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/hottest-player-in-c-rpg/msg853697/#msg853697)
Read again what I wrote, I never denied that the Greeks didnt get aid by other European countries, but telling that they WON the war for US, is just retarded.But they DID in the end win the war for you, not saying you never fought or did well, or that holding off the Ottomans even though they weren't nearly as strong as they used to be isn't an amazing feet, but claiming the Turks would've ever accepted anything than complete Greek submission if not for the Russian war with Turkey at the end of the Greek independence war is silly. The sinking of Egypts fleet also helped you heavily against Muhammad Ali, if that hadn't happened there is a large chance the revolution would've been crushed or heavily weakened by Ibrahim and the Egyptian forces, ofc if that happened there would still be a nice chance of an independent Greek state sparking up in the aftermath of European intervention in some inevitable conflict between Muhammad Ali and whoever happens to be Ottoman sultan at the time.
nuke anyone who doesnt live in North america or western Europe
solved most of the worlds probelms
thank me later, bitches
eh we need china for producing cheap stuff.
and rice!
eh we need china for producing cheap stuff.
[@original topic]
Furthermore, reading some of the comments here, some people may think that military intervention "HAS to be done" "because we have all these missiles" "and we are the ONLY one who can HELP", and "EU won't do anything" -- come on! when has bombing ever fed hungry people and provided medical and moral aid? fuck, what has this world come to. haven't you/we learned from the last war(s) for "humanitarian causes"?
the only sensible thing would be to stop sending weapons and financial to those "rebels" (who ever those traders are, all this reeks of some 3-letter intel agency) and start aiding those people, and I mean everyone, not just one side. all their infrastructure is gone, what do you expect them to do? eat rubble? honestly, I can see how people get mad at each other, over the most ridiculous stuff, be it religion or funny hats (nationalities) IF they are hungry, cold, without a bed or roof, and being shot at. not to mention the fear of gas ofc., but that came afterwards. without this practical help, the whole situation will get out of control, which it already is, but you know what I mean. more people dying and fleeing and such. our lousy German officials want to close the gates already, because of all the refugees -- not that I support rejecting them, but that's just one of the effects of a failing country.
but I'm not delusional, mark my words, we will see worse shit than that when some side down there, or somewhere, not mentioning names, finally gets shaky hands and the whole situation escalates. I'm still wondering though what's the point of all of this. is it just irans oil? or is it fear and shock therapy for the world to cry for another strong führer? I guess I'm giving you too many hints now, but yeah, that's what I think.
Panos feeels the same as i do. a civil war is only ever corrupted by foreign intervention. If another country becomes involved no-body 'wins'.
The United States "won" rather soundly when the French helped escort and deport the English gentlemen out of the country.
Cant feed anyone when they are all dead........you must be one of those euro "scholars", wants peace and the whole likes. Hey hows about this, ill myself pay for a round trip to Syria, ill even give you a few loaves of bread, i want you to feed as many of them as you can. Dont worry about the massive fuel bombs, the gas, or the tanks or rockets rolling through the streets. Just keep handing out those bread loaves.
You do know we attempted to send relief aid to civilians in Afghanistan by air crates and trucks which ended up being stolen by the insurgents......repeatedly, but hey then again, like i said, ill ship you over no problem.
Evidence:
http://www.irinnews.org/report/72450/afghanistan-food-aid-trucks-come-under-increasing-attacks
Proof of why im not supplying you with a truck, and only arm fulls of bread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMX3BicGcGc
I don't understand how you cannot see that one side must always win in a revolution, there will not be a "hey lets call it even and we will just go back to our homes like nothing ever happened". And in this case if we can make it easier for one side to win, to remove someone who is causing harm to the public, who aren't fighting, then why not.
In a hypothetical scenario where the US and Nazi Germany are neighbours without an ocean in 1940, I would put my money on Nazi Germany shitkicking the US.
lmaoPopulation of USA 1940: 132,164,569, spread out over the large territory of US, a lot in small, rural communities
You realize France isn't even the size of fucking Texas? On top of producing more war material (once they got going, and it wouldn't take long in case of invasion) than basically the entire Allied forces combined over all of WW2. The GDP of USA was also more than all of the Axis and Allied powers combined during the era.
I know that Russia basically solo'd Germany in WW2 (with lend-lease, a MASSIVE help, only reason they had mechanized infantry at all for their famous offensives), but America was just as much of a juggernaut as Soviet Russia, and much stronger in many ways. Shit on USA all you want (its a pretty awful country as far as international policy goes) but when we aren't completely dysfunctional like we are now, its projected power due to our population, land, economy, navy, army, air force, and cutting-edge technology (even back then) basically shits on all of the world.
for reference:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
lol, like a ferocious Nebraska "shitkicking" the rest of the Union.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
you must be one of those euro "scholars", wants peace and the whole likes.euro what? is that supposed to be an insult? you guys have funny customs. but surely I would rather have peace, ain't that what we all want or else we wouldn't have these conversations.
Cant feed anyone when they are all dead........you must be one of those euro "scholars", wants peace and the whole likes. Hey hows about this, ill myself pay for a round trip to Syria, ill even give you a few loaves of bread, i want you to feed as many of them as you can. Dont worry about the massive fuel bombs, the gas, or the tanks or rockets rolling through the streets. Just keep handing out those bread loaves.Aight, let me rephrase my point for you: a people whose basic needs are not met, will go nuts. (needs are: food, shelter, healthcare, as well as social and cultural/religious freedom) this counts for people living in a dictatorship, as well as democratic countries or any other. BUT once they go nuts, you do NOT introduce weapons and other equipment to either side, because that is creating a terrible outcome, that no-one can predict and will probably be terrorism and chaos and slaughter of innocent people. this is all I wanted to imply.
As for the whole no ocean thing, all of europe doesnt have firearms, nearly every american in the country owns atleast one, myself owning nearly 40. I in my own respect can field a small army with the amount of firearms and ammunition, and there are many like me. So not only do we have an army to fight back but the minutemen rising from the homes to fight for FREEDOM, AMERICA FUCK YAAA! This is evident on why countries like France could not fight back after occupation, having to resort to scavenging and looting firearms to make uprisings.
As for the whole no ocean thing, all of europe doesnt have firearms, nearly every american in the country owns atleast one, myself owning nearly 40. I in my own respect can field a small army with the amount of firearms and ammunition, and there are many like me. So not only do we have an army to fight back but the minutemen rising from the homes to fight for FREEDOM, AMERICA FUCK YAAA! This is evident on why countries like France could not fight back after occupation, having to resort to scavenging and looting firearms to make uprisings.
wow didnt you reach 19th century yet? still in middle ages where you needed to defend your own house yourself? How stupid that is.
I hope you enjoy your monthly school shootings then.
Castle Doctrine
But if no one has a gun, wouldn't that be far better 'cause there wouldn't be any need to defend yourself actually?
In Germany we have rather rarely some kind of "massacre" where guns are used compared to the US. And if, the guy did not buy the weapon in some random shop but rather got it by his father who maybe is a hunter in his free time. I actually never saw a gun myself in real life and I'm 23 years old.
So i think im about done with this thread, was a good run, near 14 pages. Its quite clear, that our views in the United States, and your views in Europe are near Extremist in proportion and we will not see "eye to eye", and this is evident from every post made.lol you actually are some inbred redneck :D
The only thing that can be said is whats obvious; We will continue doing what we need to do for our country for the benefit of ourselves, if you dont like it well too fucking bad, because America dont give two shits about your 2nd rate countries opinion and we are doing it anyway.
As for the whole no ocean thing, all of europe doesnt have firearms, nearly every american in the country owns atleast one, myself owning nearly 40. I in my own respect can field a small army with the amount of firearms and ammunition, and there are many like me. So not only do we have an army to fight back but the minutemen rising from the homes to fight for FREEDOM, AMERICA FUCK YAAA! This is evident on why countries like France could not fight back after occupation, having to resort to scavenging and looting firearms to make uprisings.
oh boy, this thread is turning into a gun control debate, but with added europeans most of whom have never seen a firearm in their lives.Everyone has seen a firearm and what they can do. Maybe for most it was just the evening news. That's actually the scary part.
im just gonna back up now, and keep myself from going into rant mode.
oh boy, this thread is turning into a gun control debate, but with added europeans most of whom have never seen a firearm in their lives.
im just gonna back up now, and keep myself from going into rant mode.
oh boy, this thread is turning into a gun control debate, but with added europeans most of whom have never seen a firearm in their lives.And how is that bad exactly? This just proves that we arent so retarded and careless.
im just gonna back up now, and keep myself from going into rant mode.
And how is that bad exactly? This just proves that we arent so retarded and careless.
What does this have to do with anything? What does your country not holding faith in you have anything to do with carelessness?
Some guy just gloted here how awesome he is for owning fuckton of firearms. Thats nice. The shit part is that if you can own a arsenal of firearms, so can your neibhours. You may never know when one of them might loose wife or job or something and turn temporarly insane and shoot the entire neibhourhood.
There is nothing wrong with owning weapons when people are safe with them. Adding extreme situations of "what if" is not a way to win arguments...
And before you say its superrare, id like to tell you its really not.
It really is
One of the few things Panos and I have in common is probably that we both can disassemble and put back together a G3 with eyes closed. Oh well, at least I got out before I became an ideological total. But man, 5 years . No chance.
Its not about not having faith. Its common sense. Why would you premit your citizens things which generally only purpose is to kill another man. Why not just go ahead and legalize meth. Same logic isnt it. There is nothing wrong with snorting a lot of crack up your nose as long as you are careful with it isnt it? What ifs is not proper form of argumentation.
welp if this is your argument then take all the kitchen utensils out of your house, turn in your car, oh and any household cleaners you may own. The government stated these arent safe and are known to harm people.
And its really not rare. You have an insano shooting someone every week not to mention the deathtoll in those "bad neibhourhoods" that dont even reach the news. And you really are sounding like a redneck. And I think its not even the "what ifs..." that are the argument winners anymore good sir. Its already the what has'sssss..... :rolleyes:
Yes it is quite rare, welcome to what the news does, when do you see the news reporting on how the local law enforcement agency responded to 200 calls for service that day, which 200 of them were not shootings. Yet one shooting occurs out of the 320 million people in the U.S creating (guessing) 100,000 calls for service (just life or property damage) and all of a sudden that is the main problem, the guns, not the thefts or drugs, Yep was the guns fault.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
Basically, thread exhausted, derailed into boring trash topics.
Sadly I never touched a G3, special units use M16`s here.
I stayed on the military for 5 years because of the free education and the benefits, ex military men, get a 50% discount on all Greek private universities, also while I was serving, I got my english diploma, my pc diploma (ECDL) , professional driver's licence, bike licence and a lot more things.
And besides, when I joined I was 17, and at that time I had a lot of troubles at home, and the military was the only solution for me.
Had fun to be honest, made good solid friends and gained a lot of experience that made me thick to difficulties.
Joining army as 17 year old?.. Damn! That does sound tough!
wow didnt you reach 19th century yet? still in middle ages where you needed to defend your own house yourself? How stupid that is.
But if no one has a gun, wouldn't that be far better 'cause there wouldn't be any need to defend yourself actually?Yeah, except the bad guys didn't get the "no gun" memo. It won't help you to say "b-b-b-but this is statistically unlikely" when you have a gun in your face.
In Germany we have rather rarely some kind of "massacre" where guns are used compared to the US. And if, the guy did not buy the weapon in some random shop but rather got it by his father who maybe is a hunter in his free time. I actually never saw a gun myself in real life and I'm 23 years old.
Just to play devil's advocate here, what is having a firearm yourself going to do when someone has a gun in your face?You can draw it and use it before they have it in your face...
I don`t like jews not because they are jews, I don`t like them because of their past and present actions, simple as that.
If I told you that I don`t like french, you wouldn`t give a fuck and I`m 100% sure that you wouldn`t make a fuss about it, even if you are a french.
The only one being stupid here is you. You're saying you don't want to be capable of defending your own home? It surprises me how sheep-like some people are. When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. But then again, religions wouldn't exist either if people weren't just fucking dying for some patriarchal figure to take care of business for them. I'll never understand that mindset.
Yeah, except the bad guys didn't get the "no gun" memo. It won't help you to say "b-b-b-but this is statistically unlikely" when you have a gun in your face.
Someone that really wants to kill you will kill you, how it's done doesn't really matter.
Speak for yourself.
The only one being stupid here is you. You're saying you don't want to be capable of defending your own home? It surprises me how sheep-like some people are. When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. But then again, religions wouldn't exist either if people weren't just fucking dying for some patriarchal figure to take care of business for them. I'll never understand that mindset.
Yeah, except the bad guys didn't get the "no gun" memo. It won't help you to say "b-b-b-but this is statistically unlikely" when you have a gun in your face.
A gun will not help me defending myself. Not if the other guy has one as well. That's not changing anything.Then you need to man up, unless you're a woman, in which case you need a man.
Unless you want to live the rest of you life in a panic room, no.Some of us are actually capable of defending ourselves.
Anyways done with this thread, added more folks to the list of "bad at arguing", feel free to continue commenting, im no longer taking part as the thread derailed into a who is better U.S.A or Europe thread in which we are out numbered.Then you should add yourself in the list. The keyword in my post was "usefulness". My kitchen utensils, car and household cleaners are useful and bought for entirely different things then harming or threatening a person, if your tiny mind can comprehend such a thing. A gun is useful for nothing but harming or threatening a person. Well exept hunting. But you sure as hell dont need an entire basement full of assaultrifles to do your huntinghobby.
welp if this is your argument then take all the kitchen utensils out of your house, turn in your car, oh and any household cleaners you may own. The government stated these arent safe and are known to harm people.
Then you need to man up, unless you're a woman, in which case you need a man.
Some of us are actually capable of defending ourselves.
Xant is such a tough and manly finn <3Now, now, ptx, you can't be coming onto me like that in public.
You can draw it and use it before they have it in your face...
But since you asked, the technical answer is:
Even though i don't know much about situation in Greece, i presume that if every Greek would show the same level of determination, there would be no crisis. I imagine some will rather make "shortcuts" in life, instead of going the hard way... Joining army as 17 year old?.. Damn! That does sound tough!
Wat?
:rolleyes:
Great movie, but your conceal and carry hero fantasy is just that, a fantasy. You don't allow any people to get within 10 feet of you?
This topic wins the cesspit of the year award
The United States "won" rather soundly when the French helped escort and deport the English gentlemen out of the country.
Tears, DONT YOU DARE BRING HISTORY INTO THIS THREAD, THESE SO CALLED "SCHOLARS" ARE ART MAJORS, NOT HISTORY.........THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT THOUGHT AND HOW INTELLECTUAL ONE CAN BE, NOT HOW ACCURATE HISTORY IS AND HOW IT REPEATS ITSELF!
You're a moron, it's not worth discussing with you as you will never understand. Im a fucking history student so you clearly don't know what you're fucking talking about you prick.
Besides one example does not disprove the point i made, look at any other civil war (espcially one you're country has gotten involved in) it has ended badly for all.
Its not about not having faith. Its common sense. Why would you premit your citizens things which generally only purpose is to kill another man. Why not just go ahead and legalize meth. Same logic isnt it. There is nothing wrong with snorting a lot of crack up your nose as long as you are careful with it isnt it? What ifs is not proper form of argumentation.
history student... Who would want to study history in the age of Wikipedia and the internet?
Why do you think people in other countries are not afraid of home invasions and don't want guns to protect themselves during one?
... Who would want to study history in the age of Wikipedia and the internet?
Because people don't think about unpleasant things. Also, the populace owning firearms in the US is the best way for the citizenry to protect themselves from tyrants. In most countries, the government owns almost all of the firearms.
Xant is such a tough and manly finn <3
Huh I don't know, about every single one of the last revolutions in (mostly western) Europe lead to what we have now ? The French Revolution was arguably the most horrible civil war ever, yet it started a chain of events on the old continent that lead to more democratic powers.
The French Revolution was the most horrible civil war ever? Bath salts are bad for you.
Such a decent looking English lad, almost as if you're of royal blood, with that honest haircut and dressed "properly" and yet - such a foul language........
If you can teach me a better way to deal with such people then please do
Yes well there is a reason foul language exists, it is to speak to morons in words that they will understand. People who are ignorant will only ever understand if you speak with them in an ignorant way. It is not good but I'm sure that you know that sometimes it must be done. If you can teach me a better way to deal with such people then please do, but for now i will simply say to them 'fuck you'.Do it like Gnjus which is probably more funny anway. Mock them in a way they don't understand.
For now what you have said is worth of my signature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange)
i fail to understand... why are they so aggressive in the mid east region?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange)
In context, it actually was. It sparked off a decades long internal struggle followed by some 6-10 years of war in Continental Europe.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Maybe then iPhones will finally be manufactured in the states. Oh the joy!
Listen to the lyrics:(click to show/hide)
I'm scared to ask what would he do with all the blacks living in the south.
I recon he'd give 'em some work to do as a measure of cutting down unemployment. :wink:
The internal struggle was largely bloodless. Sure, there were small scale conflicts between militias and aristocratic fixtures, but to say that it was a civil war is a stretch. Day to day life was not shattered as it was in the Former Yugoslavia, or Syria right now. If anything, it was civil war lite. The wars of the French Revolutions were successive invasions by foreign powers bent on reinstalling the French aristocracy, because they realized that if the French Republic stood it would foster similar anti-aristocratic movements in their own lands (the if-they-can-do-it-we-can-do-it syndrome). I wouldn't call that a civil war either.
Furthermore, the aftermath of the French revolution led to the eventual demise of European aristocracy, which would make this so-called civil war the best civil war that happened in history; hardly the most horrible.
To call the French Revolution the most horrible civil war is such an extreme exaggeration, especially if one considers that in Rwanda up to 1,000,000 civilians were slaughtered in a matter of just over 3 months. But I suppose those dark skinned folks don't matter as much as the enlightened French of the late 18th century did.
Considering the total population of France at the time, "La Terreur" was something quite horrible, yes.
"Revolution" is kind of a tricky term here, depending on how you mean it. In no way was it the first civil war (and it was a civil war, depending on region the feeling could run from republican to royalist extremes) in which the goal was change of government or government policies. The ensuing chaos and abuses is not rare either . Have you ever heard the expression "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss"? Duci novo, similis duci seneci. There are examples of many greek city-states mobs advocating a republic/democracy that ended up as a despotic tyranate or ruled by an oligarchic elite, not to mention the many upheavals of the roman empire. Probably tons of examples in other cultures as well.Every previous revolutionary movement in human history has made the same basic mistake. They’ve all seen power as a static apparatus, as a structure. And it’s not. It’s a dynamic, a flow system with two possible tendencies. Power either accumulates, or it diffuses through the system. In most societies, it’s in accumulative mode, and most revolutionary movements are only really interested in reconstituting the accumulation in a new location. A genuine revolution has to reverse the flow. And no one ever does that, because they’re all too fucking scared of losing their conning tower moment in the historical process. If you tear down one agglutinative power dynamic and put another one in its place, you’ve changed nothing. You’re not going to solve any of that society’s problems, they’ll just reemerge at a new angle. You’ve got to set up the nanotech that will deal with the problems on its own. You’ve got to build the structures that allow for diffusion of power, not re-grouping. Accountability, demodynamic access, systems of constituted rights, education in the use of political infrastructure.
I think you're all just jelly of my awesome new fleshlight!yeah bro we totally are! good for you, +1!
Debate about the French revolution, although interesting, is not what the topic is about. I think most Europeans (and other nationalities) think that US military action, without a UN mandate, is unacceptable.I don't support intervention in Syria against Assad, but I'm just gonna go ahead and state that the UN is a shit organisation and can go fuck itself.
Debate about the French revolution, although interesting, is not what the topic is about. I think most Europeans (and other nationalities) think that US military action, without a UN mandate, is unacceptable.Hahah, what does "unacceptable" even mean in this context? What a pompous word to use when the only thing you're going to do is whine on forums if US does this "unacceptable" thing without a UN mandate. Newsflash, might makes right.
Hahah, what does "unacceptable" even mean in this context? What a pompous word to use when the only thing you're going to do is whine on forums if US does this "unacceptable" thing without a UN mandate. Newsflash, might makes right.
Might doesn't change opinionsYes, I'm sure the US is real concerned over a couple nerds thinking them attacking Syria is unacceptable.
Yes, I'm sure the US is real concerned over a couple nerds thinking them attacking Syria is unacceptable.
See, might doesn't change opinions. But might means those opinions don't mean shit.
It's >hundreds of billions of dollars in military assets and technology. Unfortunately predator drones and aircraft and missiles and aircraft carriers and military bases all over the world and power projection aren't "illusions", as much as you'd like to think they are.Not to mention that it's not just their technology that's superior, it's their personnel as well. War experience and best training - other Western countries can have as sensible training, but they don't have anywhere near the same amount of troops - and less warfighting experience - whereas countries like China, North Korea and Russia have some fucked up 18th century training that creates awful soldiers on average.
Well I guess it's true worse things have happened more recently. It's one of the first cases of massive and systematic executions based on denunciation, for the sake of the revolution, hence why it was called terror.
I think most Europeans (and other nationalities) think that US military action, without a UN mandate, is unacceptable.
So you are saying you support the unchecked use of chemical weapons against civilian population centers? You are disgusting. Hopefully someone sarin gasses your neighborhood next, see if you still call any sort of help unacceptable then.
Interestingly the death of about 100.000 syrian people by guns and explosives didn't trigger even a thought of an armed response.Wait, what? How does that make them hypocrites?
This gives the message of: As long it's not chemical, it's ok
Bunch of hypocrites.
For one, Agent Orange is a defoliant. And you do know the difference between a war and a civil war, right?
People die and lives get ruined, what's the use of calling out differences?Uh, the use of calling out differences is that it's different. Y'know, as in... different.
Would you stop your needless, endless nitpicking for once?
Uh, the use of calling out differences is that it's different. Y'know, as in... different.
You are hopeless in this regard.Yes, when it comes to logic, I'm hopeless in trying to suppress it. Of course you'd call it nitpicking when it undermines your entire retarded statement.
See the first possible occasion, then start nitpicking like it's fuel for your living or something. yawn.
The point in hypocrite was, that they clearly endorse and use weaponry that causes harm in ways like chemical warfare, yet they point fingers at others doing it and make them look like "war criminals". Is it hard to understand or what.
Oh, here it goes again.You couldn't find any counter-arguments so you accuse me of "defending the US leadership"? Er, what? How is that even relevant? Say I did defend the US leadership, that wouldn't make what I said any more or less true. Incidentally, I'm not the eternal white knight of the US government, and think they shouldn't get involved in Syria. But that doesn't mean I endorse any and all accusations made against them that make zero sense.
So you defend the US leadership now, that's what your so called "logic" dictates?
Entertain me some more with your retarded statements, please.
Why is anyone even still bothering with Xant.If by devil's advocate you mean I don't blindly support all the arguments that back up "my side", then quite.
All he does is being the Devils advocat when ever he sees fit. I wonder if he even has an own opinion.
Trolls never have an own opinion.You know what they say the modern version of Pascal's Wager is? Sucking up to as many Transhumanists as possible, just in case one of them turns into God.
If by devil's advocate you mean I don't blindly support all the arguments that back up "my side", then quite.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers
Preach on Xant. We know a fellow Redneck when we see one :wink:Will do, cap'n. You must understand that there is more than one path to the top of the mountain.
It's >hundreds of billions of dollars in military assets and technology. Unfortunately predator drones and aircraft and missiles and aircraft carriers and military bases all over the world and power projection aren't "illusions", as much as you'd like to think they are.
Btw Xant likes to take potshots at arguments, but not really to formulate new ones. Also he does make a point about the US government not being the same, although the people that elected them is more or less the same as a whole.1) Since US government is not the same, how is it hypocrisy from them to be shocked an appalled at chemical warfare, even if a previous government had done it?
1) Since US government is not the same, how is it hypocrisy from them to be shocked an appalled at chemical warfare, even if a previous government had done it?
2) You're saying the voters are "more or less the same as a whole" as almost fifty years ago? Let's see some evidence, then.
3) Americans are against military intervention in Syria according to pretty much all the polls.
What, how dare you telling me representative democracies are dysfunctional. I don't think the voters back then were very happy about the agent orange, you know.So I guess I'll take that as "yes, you're right, and now I'm switching the subject to talk about representative democracies," because I certainly haven't said they're functional.
Agent Orange killed my fuking Godfather cause he was a US marine.
http://youtu.be/vNV54fciNPU?t=2m9s
Figured this was a good spot for this video, this is how we Americans fictitiously made Hitlah as well, we just cant keep our hands out of anything.
This is how i read all the posts of Benkei, since this is what i believe his voice would sound like. All the jew stuff being thrown around reminded me of Panos, so the video made me lol. I Hope it makes you all as well since this topic is nothing but annoying, Hopefully this will put a chipper end to this topic.
Had to edit it since our lovely forums doesnt allow his name to be spoken, and instead changed it to Einstein which made my comment make no fucking sense.
Voldemort
Although the use of it is close to 0
VoldemortDonkeycrew trying to change the internet! Good effort, but the inhabitants of the internetnation will forever call eachother na zis and hit lers.
I demand a forum censor on this name pls
Although the use of it is close to 0, anyway the sudden appearance of cutie puppies and einstein chocolate chip cookies was hilarious :mrgreen:
Are you sure? :D
[...]my comments make no fucking sense.FTFY
FTFY
y/n? hmm
Actual on topic stuff
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/)
http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/)
fixt
y/n? hmmLol, Russia Today is the complete opposite of neutral media, its a barking dog for kreml, much like fox news is to neocons in USA, if those inbred islamist retards would be even close to mounting such an attack against israel mossad would have taken care of them by now.
Actual on topic stuff
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/)
http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/)
Oh Benkei's back to start flame wars again, i was being playful, you are being annoying. At every turn throughout this whole thread you have made discussion like 2 times, and then for the rest of it you make it your job to just poke and prod and annoy everyone within the thread for its duration. your participation in this thread is essentially being a child for 24 pages.
Same about Al Jazeera btw. which among the general Western population (western politicians rather) seems to have received a bad reputation but is well-acclaimed in (serious) journalistic and political science circles.
I considered watching Al Jazeera, but then the NSA would break into my house to steal my very expensive PC along with all of my expensive devices and smash everything else because they like to steal and smash stuff because they can. I like my stuff and prefer to keep it in my home and unsmashed.if it's that bad already over where you live, you should consider killing yourself.
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/)I found this recent one interesting:
http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/)
BBC is the World seen from an Anglo-Saxon/European viewpoint, Al Jazeera from the Middle-East and RT from Russia/old Soviet Bloc.agreed.
in that sense it's not as much about who speaks the truth as no-one actually knows 'the truth' (if someone says otherwise, he's lying)Uh, what?
Haven't watched above videos, but unlike Fox RT actually (mostly) adheres to European journalistic standards, as much as everyone else.
I've watched a decent amount of RT and its journalism is closer to CNN and even BBC (both of whom are of course highly politicized) than Fox, which is globally comparable only to the worst propaganda stations in history.
Same as BBC and CNN it is a certain viewpoint, but it is usually not outright lying and distortion of truth, as Fox has made its profile.
Same about Al Jazeera btw. which among the general Western population (western politicians rather) seems to have received a bad reputation but is well-acclaimed in (serious) journalistic and political science circles.
BBC is the World seen from an Anglo-Saxon/European viewpoint, Al Jazeera from the Middle-East and RT from Russia/old Soviet Bloc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
Uh, what?
Most news are borderline wrong. You realize this when they treat a matter you have been personally involved in. A large part is over-generalization, mixed in with some convenient blindness in different areas and a small part that is just plain wrong. There are many reasons for this, and one of the most important ones is that it's impossible for most matters to reduce them to an article of a few hundred words without losing relevance.
it's impossible for most matters to reduce them to an article of a few hundred words without losing relevance.
The only "worthy" journalism is investigations, really.this, and this exactly.
I think what is meant is that any convenient way to gather and aggregate news cannot guarantee its audience to be flawless in accuracy even if genuinely trying. Pushing that to the extreme, you sometimes must have a high degree of confidence in some people in order to have a nice live. The way I formulated this makes it evident to me that I'm turning into a full-blown Bayesian. And that was an attempt at thread derailing.According to legend, one who fully grasped Bayes' Theorem would gain the ability to create and physically enter an alternate universe using only off-the-shelf equipment and a short computer program. One who fully grasps Bayes' Theorem, yet remains in our universe to aid others, is known as a Bayesattva.
Also, the news are obviously mistaken a lot of the time, if not most of the time. But saying, because of that, that no one knows the truth is, shall we say, slightly exaggerating it.well, it would be useful to know how you define truth for yourself?
well, it would be useful to know how you define truth for yourself?
as I'd like to understand it, truth is a word and words are never the worldly things they point to. the map is not the territory.
surely there are some more accurate descriptions and models of the worldly things, but there is no such thing as truth, or ultimate facts, when you're communicating in everyday language. every phrase is subject to interpretation, therefore you cannot transmit reality, not even into your own brain, which thinks in language.
surely you'd counter that we then have to look for those more accurate descriptions with all the proof we can get. yes, sure, but I'd rather not look for the truth. "knowing stuff" is not linear.
So 2+2 is not 4? That is not true?How do you know 2 is actually 2, maybe 2 is actually 3 in disguise...
It is true, but it is not real, and thus not interesting. Are 2 potatoes plus 2 potatoes really 4 potatoes? Yes, but it doesn't matter, because only morons count single potatoes. And even when you weigh them, you have to use real scales, which might be tampered with or simply badly calibrated, which means your 4 kg of potatoes might actually not be 4 kg. So you see, in reality, it is never as easy as it is in the world of concepts.
How do you know 2 is actually 2, maybe 2 is actually 3 in disguise...I hope you're joking.
Of course it gets harder, 2+2=4 is the very simplest truth there is. But just because it gets more difficult doesn't mean the truth does not exist.
I hope you're joking.
Go read Descartes. In some of his treatises(?) he specifically mentions how numbers could be "wrong." Though, he uses it in the reference to define a greater mandate(IE GOD), his points are interesting.Why would I read a 17th century philosopher who knew nothing about modern cognitive sciences?
"The sentence 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white."Nice supporting the argument against you.
—Alfred Tarski
"To say of what is, that it is, or of what is not, that it is not, is true."
—Aristotle, Metaphysics IV
Nice supporting the argument against you.It went that much over your head?
Why would I read a 17th century philosopher who knew nothing about modern cognitive sciences?
"To say of what is, that it is, or of what is not, that it is not, is true."then why would you cite Aristotle?
—Aristotle, Metaphysics IV
then why would you cite Aristotle?Because he is right? I don't judge sentences as true or false based on the reputation or general authority of the author, I judge them based on what they say.
in that sense (back to topic), sanity is consciousness of abstraction. when we mention Syria and bombing it, do we talk about the geographic Syria (land)? the anthropology of Syria (culture)? the Syrian people? their government? when I say Syrian people, do I mean the people living there? what about their lifestock? houses? family graves? sacred sites? what about the people just staying there? do I think of the refugees in other countries aswell? we should ask ourselves that when we speak and think.When people talk about bombing Syria, they talk about bombing Syria. All of those things fall under that umbrella word. And that's obvious. Nobody is talking about bombing family graves to save the civilians from getting sarin'd to death. Needlessly complicating things doesn't make you Deep.
in that sense (back to topic), sanity is consciousness of abstraction. when we mention Syria and bombing it, do we talk about the geographic Syria (land)? the anthropology of Syria (culture)? the Syrian people? their government? when I say Syrian people, do I mean the people living there? what about their lifestock? houses? family graves? sacred sites? what about the people just staying there? do I think of the refugees in other countries aswell? we should ask ourselves that when we speak and think.
This is exactly why I never bothered to even consider studying philosophy. Sounds like people wasting time thinking about bullshit 0.005% of the population cares about. If I say Syrian people, why would anyone think of livestock? Last time I checked people is a word assigned to humans not animals. Anyone questioning that definition of people is a complete fucking tool.
The thing about philosophers is that their work has some relevance in the world they currently inhabit. A couple of generations later and their work is either irrelevant or outdated.
You never leave the comfortable world of concepts, do you? In the real world, there are no truths, only observations.Yes, observations about truths.... if I observe that my shoelaces are tied, I update my belief that my shoelaces are tied, and then shoelaces=tied is the Truth. There are truths in the real world and we learn them by observation.
This is exactly why I never bothered to even consider studying philosophy. Sounds like people wasting time thinking about bullshit 0.005% of the population cares about. If I say Syrian people, why would anyone think of livestock? Last time I checked people is a word assigned to humans not animals. Anyone questioning that definition of people is a complete fucking tool.
The thing about philosophers is that their work has some relevance in the world they currently inhabit. A couple of generations later and their work is either irrelevant or outdated.
"The sentence 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white."
This sentence (and the others like it) defines a property of true statements. It does however not prove that there are true statements. Lets make a list of all true statements using the sentence you just quoted (and others like it) as a criterion. Let's say every sentence that the quote applies to is true (*). So we get: snow is white, snow is black ... and everything else. This makes no sense. Let's do the opposite and only accept sentences are true for which the quote doesn't work. We find that there isn't a single true statement.
That's basically just a complicated way of saying statements like these are completely useless outside of their specific context. It's perhaps useful to differentiate from other theories of linguistics that would say "the sentence 'I am hungry' is true if someone makes me a sandwhich whenever I say it" or something else) but that's that.
In any case, assuming that there are true statements, how'd you actually know which ones are? Since if you can't find a rock solid criterion even if there is "a truth" still noone would actually know. They'd believe in something which is coincidentally true.
(*) But is the quote itself really true?(click to show/hide)
http://lesswrong.com/lw/rs/created_already_in_motion/
Dynamic: When the belief pool contains "X is fuzzle", send X to the action system.
Everything else is getting outdated even sooner. If you read a 2500 year old works of Plato, and do not find any wisdom i them, it is you, who are going to be "a complete fucking tool".
“Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.”
As for Syria, I don't really want to share my opinions, as they will probably be unpopular - listen to BBC world radio, they have a good coverage, and they seem to let both sides of Syrian civil war speak.
Is this your reply to the spoiler or to the nonspoilered text?Spoiler, obviously.
Just pointing out I pray we (the US) goes to war. Because war is profitable for me personally, I don't care abut the reasons behind it at all. This is not to be edgy or bad ass but there are many vested interests in any war and to ignore them is foolish. Wars now are fought to make people money not to free or enslave anyone. The US goes to war I make 500$ USD a day for doing what I do best. And if some no name slob makes that kind of money what do you think the people that hire me make, or the people that hire my company?
War is about money, simple fact. If the US goes to war, people get paid. If the US doesn't invade different people get paid. It's stupid to think it is anything more than money and who gets the most.
Just pointing out I pray we (the US) goes to war. Because war is profitable for me personally, I don't care abut the reasons behind it at all. This is not to be edgy or bad ass but there are many vested interests in any war and to ignore them is foolish. Wars now are fought to make people money not to free or enslave anyone. The US goes to war I make 500$ USD a day for doing what I do best. And if some no name slob makes that kind of money what do you think the people that hire me make, or the people that hire my company?
War is about money, simple fact. If the US goes to war, people get paid. If the US doesn't invade different people get paid. It's stupid to think it is anything more than money and who gets the most.
You are so detatched from reality of being a human being I really feel sorry for you.
Yes, observations about truths.... if I observe that my shoelaces are tied, I update my belief that my shoelaces are tied, and then shoelaces=tied is the Truth. There are truths in the real world and we learn them by observation.
Nobody thinks about it like that, but it doesn't change how you write about this topic like a cyborg and vulture, which is just outright spineless and disgusting
It is YOUR truth, yes. A subjective truth, also known as an opinion.It's just your opinion that it's my opinion and a subjective truth. And your opinion is wrong.
I don't think it's spineless, at all. If it is offensive to you then that is your issue.
Is my view base profiteering? Sure. Is it wrong? no I don't think so. If you think differently then that is your right as human. As it is my right to think you live without seeing what is infront of you. If someone is going to profit from something why not you? or Me? Are your morals so strong that you would turn down 500$ for 8 hours of work checking ID cards? What about 1500$ for just driving a guy in a buisness suit to the diner and back? If so good for you but I live in teh real world where money walks, talks, and tells people what to do.
It's just your opinion that it's my opinion and a subjective truth. And your opinion is wrong.
Now you are starting to get it.No, no. I got that you're wrong (p)ages ago.
It's just your opinion that it's my opinion and a subjective truth. And your opinion is wrong.funny.
All of those things fall under that umbrella word. And that's obvious.so "Syria" is (let me rephrase that stuff from page 25) an abstraction. it is an umbrella term. true.
If I say Syrian people, why would anyone think of livestock? Last time I checked people is a word assigned to humans not animals. Anyone questioning that definition of people is a complete fucking tool.I admit, it was badly phrased. the question about livestock was not meant to point to the people like that. still, when I hear "X people" I also associate their living conditions and cultural habitat. for me it was close too to think of livestock, because if you kill it while leaving people unhurt they would still suffer. anyway, thanks for pointing that out so charmingly.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/rs/created_already_in_motion/sounds a lot like desperately fighting the shortcomings of formal logic, but I'll look into it to find out.
I don't think it's spineless, at all. If it is offensive to you then that is your issue.man, why so cynical? you don't sound as if you like to live in a world that works this way. so why talk as if no one should want it to change for the better?
Is my view base profiteering? Sure. Is it wrong? no I don't think so. If you think differently then that is your right as human. As it is my right to think you live without seeing what is infront of you. If someone is going to profit from something why not you? or Me? Are your morals so strong that you would turn down 500$ for 8 hours of work checking ID cards? What about 1500$ for just driving a guy in a buisness suit to the diner and back? If so good for you but I live in teh real world where money walks, talks, and tells people what to do.
funny.Yes, opinions are subjective truths. Strawberry ice cream being the best ice cream is true subjectively. Saying it rains outside when it isn't raining is not subjectively false, it's objectively false. You will not get wet, nor will anyone else.
let me explain what I think Zagibu meant by saying that you're starting to get it:
your opinion is as true as his, and mine for that matter, because everybody says his own opinion is true, and no one can prove it. therefore you will hopefully agree that an opinion being true is not relevant as long as it can only be backed verbally. the same will apply to all things verbal, opinions are (subjective) truths, truths do exist (in your words), and we can savely rest on the realisation that pointing out a truth is not getting us anywhere. but there you go. have your simple truths, to me it's just a word, but if you want to use it, do it. just admit that you can't have them without a lot of abstraction.
actually this small conversation about truths started for me to understand how you think about truth, so that someone could speak to you in your words. not sure if we're here yet, but I'm gonna take a step forward anyway.No, I'm not saying an umbrella term transfers all the same information to everyone that hears "Syria." But anyone with higher than 80 IQ and who has been raised in a civilized country will understand what is meant by "bombing Syria." They will not need to be explained that no, the plan is not to bomb livestock or the desert. Indeed, it is useful to define what people mean by "bombing Syria" when discussing it; but you will be talking about things that make more sense, such as asking them which military targets would be bombed and how effective they think it would be and what the civilian casualties would be. You would not be discussing whether or not they mean bombing the Syrian culture.
so "Syria" is (let me rephrase that stuff from page 25) an abstraction. it is an umbrella term. true.
but you basically say an umbrella term can give all the people who hear it and use it all the information they need to grasp its meaning. false.
it can not transport all the links to the general knowledge of a whole country, all it's inhabitants, their ancestors, their history, etc. etc.
to us it's just a term to adress either the government or representatives, or its people, or the country itself.
to someone who lives there or has ever travelled there, it will be a whole lot more than these meanings. and in the other extreme, to someone who can't read a map for example, it won't even be a spacial reference.
actually this is kind of how our brain works. you have tons of tiny bits of information, and words to access them via associations. without associations and implications (like 'lily' being a name aswell as a flower f.i.) language would be void and meaningless. more abstract terms will speak to more potentially useful information, and that is good for creativity and speed of communication, but it certainly has nothing to do with being precise, as it always highly depends on the context in which a word is used. rip it out and the thing loses it's fucking meaning.How is this relevant? Obviously your average American won't know much about Syrian culture, if that's what you're getting at (your text is very, ah, wandering to say the least and it's hard to follow what your bottom line is at times...) - but so what? What relevance does that have with them talking about bombing "Syria"?
my point is, umbrella terms may cover some basic meanings, but whether or not a receiver is familiar with them is another story.
sounds a lot like desperately fighting the shortcomings of formal logic, but I'll look into it to find out.I'm unsure where you get "desperately fighting" from.
you should read up on general semantics all the same. it's highly relevant.Doesn't look very interesting, and certainly less so than the other things on my to-read list. But convince me, give me some sort of a demonstration of its power. A practical application.
Yes you can find wisdom in Plato's books. Then again, you can also find wisdom in Mein Kampf.
Also, quoting other people is a sign that one can't conceive intellectual though of their own.
I think it's just your opinion that they're in Russian.
I admit, it was badly phrased. the question about livestock was not meant to point to the people like that. still, when I hear "X people" I also associate their living conditions and cultural habitat. for me it was close too to think of livestock, because if you kill it while leaving people unhurt they would still suffer. anyway, thanks for pointing that out so charmingly.
Just like Vietnam was lost because the American military was kept on a leash the whole time.
You are probably very young or don't read books, if you still think that you have a single thought, that haven't been said before :) As for Mein Kampf, I have it in my bookcase, next to the works of Suetonius and biography of B. Montgomery - and they were all worth reading.
You still didn't address my question, asking you what is the point of reading books that were written thousands of years ago if everything since has been built on those previous works.
And if you think the ravings of a lunatic is worthy reading then you should check out Manson's and the Unabomber's manifestos. I bet you'll find some wisdom in there too. But your arrogance due to reading obscure books, quite frankly, the vast majority of society doesn't give two shits about, and holding it as some sort of sign of superiority, is hilarious.
PS, I've read plenty of books in my lifetime, just not philosophy because I couldn't care less about it.
The thing about philosophers is that their work has some relevance in the world they currently inhabit. A couple of generations later and their work is either irrelevant or outdated.
... what is the point of reading books that were written thousands of years ago if everything since has been built on those previous works.
Establishing a good and stable situation in Iraq/Astan would be easy too, but Western governments aren't capable of any kind of decisive military action when they have to balance effectiveness with political backlash and moodswings of the President/Congress.
Just like Vietnam was lost because the American military was kept on a leash the whole time.
I was talking about building a healthy economic, social and educational situation that stays stable when you pull out. Which I don't think is easy at all. That they didn't even get to that point because they failed to take their situation at home/the amount of resistance they'll face into account the last three times does not at all speak in favour of invading Syria.Who's the "they" that failed to take "their" situation at home/the amount of resistance into account? The military doesn't decide to go to war, they get sent to war and then they make do with the tools they're given by the government. If you're saying that Bush didn't think it through, then yes, I agree. I agree with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, but not with the way it was carried out.
"Vast majority of society" only gives two shits about what they are going to eat for dinner, and Miley Cyrus's ass. Being ignorant of history and philosophy, and "holding it as some sort of sign of superiority, is hilarious" too. As to reading obscure books - I have lots of other literature, but these were semi-related.
So here is my answer to your question: You need to read Plato, because you will not understand Nietzsche. When you understand the basics - you move to something more complicated. You don't build a rocket, before understanding Newton's 500 year old theory of gravitation. And to have just a little bit wider view on Syria, it would help to read about other civil wars - it might not be relevant, but it will not hurt, even if it is 2000 year old Roman civil war.
I haven't even a clue as to how you can say that Muslim sectarian violence related to today's geopolitical situation has anything even remotely to do with Rome, or even anything that occurred 2000 years ago as Islam wasn't even conceived of then.
Philosophy and history are two entirely separate matters. I've read heavily of the latter, couldn't give two shits about the former. And no, I'm not pretending to have some sort of superiority, only you did by claiming that I'm young (even though I'm not) and that I haven't read many books (even though I have) simply because I dismiss philosophy.
Also, quoting other people is a sign that one can't conceive intellectual though of their own.
simply because I dismiss philosophy.Define 'philosophy'.
Who's the "they" that failed to take "their" situation at home/the amount of resistance into account? The military doesn't decide to go to war, they get sent to war and then they make do with the tools they're given by the government. If you're saying that Bush didn't think it through, then yes, I agree. I agree with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, but not with the way it was carried out.
Define 'philosophy'.
Define "define"Alright.
Syria's situation doesn't start and end with islam. Revolutions and civil wars remain revolutions and civil wars even centuries apart.
Everyone responding to this thread, define "Pretentious."
Strawberry ice cream being the best ice cream is true subjectively. Saying it rains outside when it isn't raining is not subjectively false, it's objectively false.you want a practical application?
Indeed, it is useful to define what people mean by "bombing Syria" when discussing it; but you will be talking about things that make more sense, such as asking them which military targets would be bombed and how effective they think it would be and what the civilian casualties would be.well, fine. to you bombing Syria means different things than to me, which still proves my point that we all have different associations. I hope you see that now.
You would not be discussing whether or not they mean bombing the Syrian culture.but somehow we do have a discussion about Syrian culture, right? I know it was me who brought it up, and it is relevant, because same as with Iraq, Vietnam, even Germany in two world wars, war in any country will result in losses you can hardly measure in human lives. things can not be understood seperate from another: history and culture and the ground people live on influence how they behave and react. if you attack it or disrespect it, people will hate you for it. it will (and it happens all over the place, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) create terrorism. the mere presence of the US troops and military bases in the middle east is an affront to Islamic people, because of their believes. we are unbelievers in holy lands.
How is this relevant? Obviously your average American won't know much about Syrian culture, if that's what you're getting at (your text is very, ah, wandering to say the least and it's hard to follow what your bottom line is at times...) - but so what? What relevance does that have with them talking about bombing "Syria"?
Syria's situation doesn't start and end with islam. Revolutions and civil wars remain revolutions and civil wars even centuries apart.this too. surely the whole middle east has some religious problems, but we often forget the economic forces and the social structures that make up dictatorships and opposing groups. reoccurring patterns can be studied and applied to guess what's coming.
Define Xant:it could be worse.
a) Troll
So here is my answer to your question: You need to read Plato, because you will not understand Nietzsche. When you understand the basics - you move to something more complicated. You don't build a rocket, before understanding Newton's 500 year old theory of gravitation. And to have just a little bit wider view on Syria, it would help to read about other civil wars - it might not be relevant, but it will not hurt, even if it is 2000 year old Roman civil war.this.
you want a practical application?That is not a good practical application, because terms like "truth" are useful and good. Things being true can also be verified with your senses. And "best" makes sense in a lot more contexts than when giving an opinion. If two people run a race and the other one always wins, he's best at running.
best ice cream - best is an abstract term that only really makes sense when giving an opinion. I can not see why and how your ice cream should be the best, I can not smell or taste best. you can't argue for the bestness of your ice cream, because that is sense-less
rain outside - rain refers to some worldy happening. it has a place and a time, you can examine it. I could verify if it is actually real, with my senses.
notice how the semantic meaning of sense-less actually makes sense? because you can tell if your senses aren't being used.
one practical application is to avoid such terms. "truth" is such a term.
well, fine. to you bombing Syria means different things than to me, which still proves my point that we all have different associations. I hope you see that now.Of course we all have different 'associations', but the differences are usually so small it really isn't worth it to make a 25-word sentence to describe bombing Syria when "bombing Syria" gets more or less the same point across. Unless you're having a metaconversation about "bombing Syria."
but somehow we do have a discussion about Syrian culture, right? I know it was me who brought it up, and it is relevant, because same as with Iraq, Vietnam, even Germany in two world wars, war in any country will result in losses you can hardly measure in human lives. things can not be understood seperate from another: history and culture and the ground people live on influence how they behave and react. if you attack it or disrespect it, people will hate you for it. it will (and it happens all over the place, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) create terrorism. the mere presence of the US troops and military bases in the middle east is an affront to Islamic people, because of their believes. we are unbelievers in holy lands.You said this: "when we mention Syria and bombing it, do we talk about the geographic Syria (land)? the anthropology of Syria (culture)? the Syrian people? their government?"
of course it is also stimulated through secret weapon exports, but you probably know that yourself.
I'm getting a litte impatient too, for all this derogatory and misleading talk about peoples you seem to have no respect for and interest in. frankly, I don't believe Iraq or Afghanistan invasions were in good intentions at all. and based on lies too. they were fought for oil and poppies, with the poor or desperate people dying on both sides.Violence only breeds more violence if not applied properly, so no, not a truth.
violence breeds more violence.
there is a simple truth for you.
Xant, your derailing is noticeable though. I only keep replying because I felt you mean what you say at least half of the time.Then you're noticing things that do not exist, because I haven't derailed anything.
do you even logic?Quoteone practical application is to avoid such terms [for stated reasons]. "truth" is such a term.That is not a good practical application, because terms like "truth" are useful and good.
I haven't derailed anything.don't like the word? we managed to sidetrack with the truth issue. k, thx.
Violence only breeds more violence if not applied properly, ...tell me how you properly "apply violence" without causing some sort of backlash.
That is not a good practical application, because terms like "truth" are useful and good.Just because you make argument-by-assertion logical fallacies doesn't mean what you say is true.
do you even logic?
it's like:
"avoid to throw furniture at people"
"but furniture is still useful and good!"
arguing with you about truth just became a waste of time.
don't like the word? we managed to sidetrack with the truth issue. k, thx.Yes, we, not I.
tell me how you properly "apply violence" without causing some sort of backlash.Alright. Random guy pushes you. You punch him, knocking him out, and then walk away.
and also tell me what problems the precise bombing of targets in Syria is supposed to solve, if done right.I never said precise bombing of targets in Syria was supposed to solve any problems.
yet another question: after your concept of universal morality (where there is objective things (like killing people) that are either wrong or right), and using the Categorical imperative, when US forces have the right to attack Syrian ground, Syrian forces and allied ones are allowed the right to defend the country, right?
Just because you point out my argument-by-assertion logical fallacies doesn't mean what you say is true.FTFY
So indeed, a better analogy would be:
X: "There is an invisible pink dragon in my garage."
K: "There is no invisible pink dragon in your garage."
X: "There is an invisible pink dragon in my garage."
K: "OMG DO U EVEN LOGIC"
Alright. Random guy pushes you. You punch him, knocking him out, and then walk away.three fucking lines.
I never said precise bombing of targets in Syria was supposed to solve any problems.
Of course the Syrian forces and allied ones are allowed to defend their country.
FTFY
you think this is about being right? dude, I don't need to have an argument, with you of all people, to feel better about myself. if that were the case I wouldn't even try and explain my position in all reasonable detail. I could just as well say you're 'wrong' and what you say is 'false' and avoid any more thinking. but damn, I'm weird that way.
three fucking lines.I didn't say I said "nothing" about the bombing. I said I never said it'd solve any problems. Reading comprehension is important.
so you basically never said something about the bombing, voiced no opinion. and when asked you can't even form some more sentences than that ^ but you come here to throw shit at people who don't support an aggressive war, or think differently about gun posession, and whatnot. you come here and fart and "then walk away". and I try to understand why your fart is pink and not green.
congratz, I very much hope you feel good about yourself, you asshat.
you're a troll, maybe not intentionally, but I don't care.
hm, now that I think about it, I'd say Zlisch is a better troll AND is better at arguing at the same time.
Xant, Shut up. Talk more about syria, and less about shit that you get high off of. Go get your homogenous cup of milk and drink it.Yeah? Well, I strongly advise you to go and get a caustic soda enema. Let's see which of us takes direction best, shall we.
FTFY
you think this is about being right? dude, I don't need to have an argument, with you of all people, to feel better about myself. if that were the case I wouldn't even try and explain my position in all reasonable detail. I could just as well say you're 'wrong' and what you say is 'false' and avoid any more thinking. but damn, I'm weird that way.
three fucking lines.
so you basically never said something about the bombing, voiced no opinion. and when asked you can't even form some more sentences than that ^ but you come here to throw shit at people who don't support an aggressive war, or think differently about gun posession, and whatnot. you come here and fart and "then walk away". and I try to understand why your fart is pink and not green.
congratz, I very much hope you feel good about yourself, you asshat.
you're a troll, maybe not intentionally, but I don't care.
hm, now that I think about it, I'd say Zlisch is a better troll AND is better at arguing at the same time.
Why is anyone even still bothering with Xant.Already said that way shorter on page 13 of this thread :P
All he does is being the Devils advocat when ever he sees fit. I wonder if he even has an own opinion.
Already said that way shorter on page 13 of this thread :Pheh.
Took you a while :lol:
heh.Ah, so you admit your defeat then? Fair enough, I won't even ask what "b.s" you're talking about in that case.
well, it's at least good practice staying aware of b.s. -- and for my english.
also I haven't talked to Xant before that much, I was honestly curious about how he ticks. I came to agreement with Zlisch on a different complicated matter too, and it was surprisingly enjoyable.
Wow, 9 pages, this is literally 1/20th of a choas threadYep, Christo has opened a thread full of hate, nonsense and most importantly loads of drama, that drags along endless amount of pages, thanks to many fine citizens. Cant really blame him for it. Him defying the chance for free drama, is him defying his very exsistance. :mrgreen:
Yep, Christo has opened a thread full of hate, nonsense and most importantly loads of drama, that drags along endless amount of pages, thanks to many fine citizens. Cant really blame him for it. Him defying the chance for free drama, is him defying his very exsistance. :mrgreen:visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Calling "troll" is kind of a cute defense mechanism, though, when you're about to lose an argument badly. But I don't mind.
Ah, so you admit your defeat then? Fair enough, I won't even ask what "b.s" you're talking about in that case.winning and losing? man, even if winning or losing were of any relevancy, your much-quoted source (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers) says: "They [arguments] are no longer instruments of the truth", as soon as you argue to defeat an opponent. but you can rest assured, it is not, relevant that is.
ITT: Kajia accusing me of saying something and 'walking away' and doing it himself two posts later when he notices how badly he's losing an argument.
IT'S NOT TO LATE TO POST BOOB PICStrue that!
winning and losing? man, even if winning or losing were of any relevancy, your much-quoted source (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers) says: "They [arguments] are no longer instruments of the truth", as soon as you argue to defeat an opponent. but you can rest assured, it is not, relevant that is.That is what that LessWrong article says, yes. As always, you quote something that has no relevance to the argument you're trying to make. Of course arguments are no longer the instruments of truth when you argue to defeat an opponent. Common sense. And the relevance of this was....
a debate is to look at problems that occur to find solutions, questioning and re-evaluating worldviews, while respecting each other (avoiding ad hominem). the initial disagreement was interesting to me, but you ruined it by nitpicking and using to your two-valued logic, where no one can beat you as it's mathematically impossible: you say A and you repeat it until your opponent loses any motivation to point out how B, C and D are also valuable thoughts. then you declare yourself the winner or the opponent a loser. that is b.s., bad science.
Wait, a LessWrong article being quoted here ? My respect for whoever did this just increasedhttp://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/to-our-fellow-muricans/msg858215/#msg858215
I wish I could tell you to ignore it, it'll pass... but, well...
winning and losing? man, even if winning or losing were of any relevancy, your much-quoted source (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers) says: "They [arguments] are no longer instruments of the truth", as soon as you argue to defeat an opponent. but you can rest assured, it is not, relevant that is.
That is what that LessWrong article says, yes. As always, you quote something that has no relevance to the argument you're trying to make. Of course arguments are no longer the instruments of truth when you argue to defeat an opponent. Common sense. And the relevance of this was....my point was that winning or losing (aka. defeating an opponent) are not relevant for having a good debate. YOU show ME how exactly the quoting of lesswrong was irrelvant.
a debate is to look at problems that occur to find solutions, questioning and re-evaluating worldviews, while respecting each other (avoiding ad hominem). the initial disagreement was interesting to me, but you ruined it by nitpicking and using to your two-valued logic, where no one can beat you as it's mathematically impossible: you say A and you repeat it until your opponent loses any motivation to point out how B, C and D are also valuable thoughts. then you declare yourself the winner or the opponent a loser. * that is b.s., bad science.
You will find that you started the ad hominem attacks, not I ("he's wrong because he's a troll"). There have been no ad hominems from me (try to prove me wrong, find an ad hominem). You nitpicked, not me. You used two-valued logic, not me. See how that works when you don't provide any evidence? ** It just turns into "no u." But then again, every time I ask you to answer something you ignore it, so no surprise there. I declare myself the winner when you quit the argument by declaring me a troll (defense mechanism) after I ask you questions that we both know you can't answer, because you made your accusations up.again, you avoid the actual point by taking some word out of context (=nitpick). the word is ad hominem, and I did NOT accuse you of using it. you made that up.
The New York Times: A Plea for Caution From Russia -
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=2&)
I found that pretty interesting. any thoughts?
my point was that winning or losing (aka. defeating an opponent) are not relevant for having a good debate. YOU show ME how exactly the quoting of lesswrong was irrelvant.Yes, I didn't think you'd be able to see the difference yourself.
again, you avoid the actual point by taking some word out of context (=nitpick). the word is ad hominem, and I did NOT accuse you of using it. you made that up.No, I'm not avoiding any actual points. You're simply claiming something that isn't true. The burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) is on you to prove that I "say A and you repeat it until your opponent loses any motivation to point out how B, C and D are also valuable thought." Otherwise there is simply nothing I can say to that except "no, I don't." Which is pointless, hence I ignored it. I don't even know where I'm supposedly doing this unless you point it out.
* my actual point, which you avoided entirely.
** you speak of evidence, and where is yours?
you're full of shit, and of course I am pulling out of this pointless endeavour. you probably laugh your ass off at how easy you can pull this conversation out of the important issues. congratz bro, you win the pile-of-rubble-price of successfully hijacking a conversation on syria. your loved ones would be so proud of you.Of course you're pulling out, because I call you on your bullshit (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ex_culo). Not easy to debate when bullshit is all your argument's based on and your mean opponent just keeps calling you on it, eh?
Stop derailing this topic out of the solar system, please?visitors can't see pics , please register or login
If you guys want to talk about your argumentational yadda-yadda, make a topic about it.
Funny how this topic is 90% Euros now
It has too many sentences that don't start with the word McDonalds for Americans.
He pretty much sums it up, i have it marked at which point he starts talking about Syria and Russia.yeah, I guess I can agree on the general thought.
http://youtu.be/HuNbfmegu0Y?t=8m14s
Stop derailing this topic out of the solar system, please?our little social experiment certainly went out of hand, especially notable because it was public. I apologize for my part in it.
yeah, I guess I can agree on the general thought.Very few things in Russia are out of his control, public opinion and the direction their society is taking is not one of them.
while I'm amused how spot on Putin is, I'm very much aware he is not the hero one might think. still, I can't make him responsible for the issues the Russian society has with gays, that's out of his control really.
It has too many sentences that don't start with the word McDonalds for Americans.
Very few things in Russia are out of his control, public opinion and the direction their society is taking is not one of them.well, he could try and speak for them. but from all I've heard being gay is much more of an issue in Russia than in other places, because of certain aspects of the culture of which we westerners are not aware of. for instance gay implies taking it up the butt, and taking it up the butt implies weakness - therefore somehow even association with gay people undermines the strong men role of the Russian father figure. and as the Russians are pretty traditional in their family structures, I can easily imagine how this would be a huge beehive where even big bear Putin will not slide his dick in.
I mean Jesus, he just declared the U.S. not exceptional, quoting their presidentHow is this respectable or impressive? Obviously Russia would say US is not exceptional...
How is this respectable or impressive? Obviously Russia would say US is not exceptional..."Russia" doesn't say anything, Putin did. You're getting entangled in generalisations (again). and it is not obvious to me, I don't know of many leaders who'd dare to say it straight to the American people. he said it by pointing out how people all around this world are to be treated equally, which is more constructive than warmongering, and therefore respectable in my book. you don't have to agree.
hm, now that I think about it, I'd say Zlisch is a better troll AND is better at arguing at the same time.<3
The problem is, he is being a typical Kremlin hypocrite. Research how immigrants are treated in Russia (by the government, no need to even mention the violent neo-chocolate chip cookie groups harrassing them) or what his foreign policy is like to countries bordering Russia and others.
It is rather typical of Kremlin to point out faults in others, whilst bluntly ignoring the fact that they are far worse at most of them.
Well exactly, but sadly it takes an hypocrite leading one of the biggest nations in the world to say to the US what everybody else thinks. In factFixedfewall peoplewith power and a significant audiencearenothypocrits to some degree.
"Russia" doesn't say anything, Putin did. You're getting entangled in generalisations (again). and it is not obvious to me, I don't know of many leaders who'd dare to say it straight to the American people. he said it by pointing out how people all around this world are to be treated equally, which is more constructive than warmongering, and therefore respectable in my book. you don't have to agree.Putin represents Russia, so Russia did say something. Haha, why wouldn't Putin dare to say it? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain why he'd say it.
Fixed
FixedThe Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
I never claimed there aren't different "levels" of hypocracy in different people, I merely somewhatishly stated that Kafeins statement wasn't really stating much as everyone are hypocrites to some degree, Kafein even included "to some degree" in his initial statement which makes it even sillier.http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence
Also, until someone I trust to actually know it tells me what life's "main objective" is I'm not gonna go ahead and label someone evil and someone good for reasons that may or may not mean anything, and besides that, I believe the vast majority of people will generally convince themselves that what they're doing (even if it's purely for their personal gain) is either fair, for a greater good, or pleasing the great almighty creator, therefore pretty much everyone including various terrorist groups and einstein would be attempting to do good, and if good and bad isn't about attempting to be good/evil but is about the end result being good/bad according to common modern morality we'd be calling a bunch of very wellintentioned people, who today are considered great and good, horrible evil pieces of shit.
Most people try to be good within their own value system. This value system relies on what they know, and have been teached.
[citation needed]
One day in the far far future, a black man can safely fuck the white in ass right on the street, calling him sweetty and together admire the rainbow. Lesbian party will fight for mandates with the party of pedophiles and decide in which country it is time to change the cultural values of the people... I am glad that we have Putin ^^
One day in the far far future, a black man can safely fuck the white in ass right on the street, calling him sweetty and together admire the rainbow. Lesbian party will fight for mandates with the party of pedophiles and decide in which country it is time to change the cultural values of the people... I am glad that we have Putin ^^
So wait, do you genuinely believe homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand ?No :P just blabbaling cos of bored :(
I'm not a walking encyclopedia :DHumanity in general has a pretty damn common, evolved, value system. Altruism was a fitness advantage.
What if what I said wasn't true ? All navisitors can't see pics , please register or login
zis in camps were conscious of doing evil stuff ?
Humanity in general has a pretty damn common, evolved, value system. Altruism was a fitness advantage.Brainwashed is such a negative word... also, the only reason people do "good" shit is that they were taught, coerced, or brainwashed into doing it.
When people do "evil" shit, that is because they're taught, coerced and brainwashed to do it. Or they're just sociopaths.
Humanity in general has a pretty damn common, evolved, value system. Altruism was a fitness advantage.
When people do "evil" shit, that is because they're taught, coerced and brainwashed to do it. Or they're just sociopaths.
and one can very well manipulate people into changing their idea of what an human is, or who isn't actually human.Yes, well, is that not exactly what I said?
When people do "evil" shit, that is because they're taught, coerced and brainwashed to do it.
Fair enough, but I think "evil" would exist even without such things. In some cases altruism is a fitness advantage, and sometimes it is not. Plenty of species do horrible things even to members of the same species, I don't see why humans would be any different.Same reason plenty of species have wings and humans do not, why plenty of species have gills and humans do not... few fitness advantages are ubiquitous. Altruism, however, is relatively so.
Same reason plenty of species have wings and humans do not, why plenty of species have gills and humans do not... few fitness advantages are ubiquitous. Altruism, however, is relatively so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals#Implications_in_evolutionary_theory
That is not to say that "evil" wouldn't exist without manipulation of some kind, only that humanity has basic core values that are encountered universally and don't only exist because of current culture.
Yes, some animals help each other. But is that actually what we call altruism ? Some ants bodyguard other, smaller insects because those produce flavorous food which ant literally milk from them. That and even in cases of truly selfless altruism, there is still a difference between acting altruistic and understanding the concept of altruism and applying it because it is intellectually pleasing.Wikipedia - and with that, all the sources cited as well as many others - certainly seems to think so. I'd say it depends on the animal: I wouldn't directly compare the "altruism" of ants to the altruism of humans, if the former even deserves the term. Insects are a long way from humans, though, so it's more useful to look at closer relatives, such as apes, where the whole affair is more tortuous than is the case with ants (and other insects, for that matter).
Yes, but my point was that those core values can be "easily" tricked into doing something a majority of humans from a neutral perspective would call evil.We are not in disagreement here. Certainly, it can be enough to simply convince someone that another person is an Enemy to get their empathy to switch off.
Most people try to be good within their own value system. This value system relies on what they know, and have been teached.Rather, what they know and have been taught is built upon a foundation of core values, or natural inclinations, if you will. Those values can be corrupted and twisted, but that is more unusual than not: in general you will find that humanity as a whole follows a very similar set of "base rules" of morality.
In a sense, culture by its mere existence determines what is good and what is evil because as far as I know, cultures aren't morality-neutral, there's always a part of our core values that are manipulated by culture.Morality is not arbitrary. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/t3/the_bedrock_of_morality_arbitrary/) A culture/religion/sect can corrupt an individuals view of "good" and "evil", but it'll only be a corruption. And always, to my knowledge, a hypocritical one, when it happens ("it is Good to do this to others, but Evil when done to me/us"). That shows there is an inherent, underlying understanding of Right and Wrong and the justification is tacked on superficially, a belief in belief. (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm)
Other things can also trick a human into doing evil things while thinking they are good, like mistakes in reasoning
Morality is not arbitrary. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/t3/the_bedrock_of_morality_arbitrary/) A culture/religion/sect can corrupt an individuals view of "good" and "evil", but it'll only be a corruption. And always, to my knowledge, a hypocritical one, when it happens ("it is Good to do this to others, but Evil when done to me/us"). That shows there is an inherent, underlying understanding of Right and Wrong and the justification is tacked on superficially, a belief in belief. (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm)
And yes, yes they can. A mistake in reasoning or, more commonly, religion (though one could argue those are one and the same - it is much more often a question of intellectual honesty than intellectual capacity). But as already established, I don't disagree with you about that.
Even so! Eliezer is not an anthropologist or psychologist, he is working on creating self-learning AI it seems.You do not think one has to more than dabble in both of the former to work on the latter? He's very well read in psychology. Maybe you could link to the articles you read, it could be that you started from the middle of a sequence and therefore didn't quite catch the references. He tends to write them in episodes.
You do not think one has to more than dabble in both of the former to work on the latter? He's very well read in psychology. Maybe you could link to the articles you read, it could be that you started from the middle of a sequence and therefore didn't quite catch the references. He tends to write them in episodes.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence
The articles on morality/ethics.
I'd say the country being weary of "war" is a lot smaller problem in this case for intervention, than let's say Iranian, or Russian interests in that region.
Just my 2 cents thou
Also would Obama and co. really give two fucks about the chem attack, if Syria wouldn't have any natural resources?
(click to show/hide)
What resources do they have? That's such a hackneyed, easy, thoughtless, cynical cliche. Syria's oil production peaked in 1996 and as of 2011 it was below it's 1989 level. There is probably more oil in Montana shale than in all of Syria. Governments and politicians, especially in democracies, always react to public sentiment driven by news reports. There is always public pressure to "do something" whenever there is video of nerve gassing or starving children. Why else did we intervene in Somalia or in the Balkans? It certainly was not for resources.
Besides that consideration, there are very good reasons to sanction or punish the use of chemical weapons. Humanitarian reasons and the need to discourage future use of these weapons are important also and I'm sure that entered into Obama's opposition to Assad.
Good job, you are only 5 months late
Syria has strategic importance being 'close to' ressources. 'One of the greatest material prizes in world history', to quote the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S State Department, Gordon Merriam's 1945 memorandum to President Truman, and something that would lend 'substantial control of the world' according to Albert A. Berle, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s closest advisers in relation to the construction of the post-War world. The nature of US strategic interest in the region has never been a secret. Even if the US do not need the oil (and currently it doesn't), it gives great diplomatic leverage.
The stance of US policy makers on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict is an interesting one for a country with such a rich history of everything from abstaining from laws against chemical, nuclear and biological weapons (including the Geneve convention) to using chemical weapons on civilians in countries such as Vietnam and Iraq, helping wonderful allies like Saddam Hussein build up his chemical and biological weapons arsenal, to openly supporting him gassing Iranians, to the support of the close US ally; Israel, Syria's neighbour, sitting on the Middle-East's largest stockpile of chemical weapons.
Well I get to the trash late.
Specify what chemical weapons were used against civilians in Viet Nam and Iraq.
There is a huge difference between denying food from people in certain areas and using the real chemical weapons, like Syria has done. One is a WMD, one is a defoliant. I know that I'd rather have the forest next to me sprayed with Agent Orange than be gassed with sarin.
And this is all disregarding the fact that US Government1970 is not US Government2013.
:rolleyes:
And what does "that's a little bit easy" mean?
Face it Kafein, you didn't back up your claim that the US used chemical weapons in Viet Nam or in Iraq. The purpose for Agent Orange was to take away cover and hiding places for the NVA and Viet Cong. As Xant has pointed out, it is in no way comparable to sarin.
It's not at all surprising considering only a handful of corporations own our media outlets in this country. They are there to first and foremost make as much money as possible. They do this by entertaining people, not informing them. And it's a bonus for them to keep the plebs as ignorant as possible, or the plebs may start raising their concerns about practices that help these same corporations make windfall profits (such as basically running the government and getting sweet tax breaks/loopholes, and getting around regulations).
And we may not use chemical weapons (debate it all you want, but it's a moot point), but we certainly kill a lot of people in the name of "security". Even though Iraq never posed a threat to our own country, and was in fact propped up by our country in the 1980s. So we make our country less secure (by destabilizing Iraq) and we kill and displace millions because of a war of choice. Mission Accomplished!
Our military industrial complex in America is terrible, and our prison industrial complex (including the War on Drugs) is a close second.
While different people were in office, you can't deny the link between the government and the American people. Each US government in history had some legitimacy in its actions with respect to the population. On top of that, people in high places don't always change when the government changes, and some of the most powerful official institutions of the US cultivated very strong ideological bias at the top for a very long time. Saying that the government of 1970 is not the one of 2013 is true, but that doesn't mean everything changed either.
What does a link between the government "and the American people" have to do with anything?
It doesn't mean anything has changed, but it doesn't mean anything has NOT changed either...
They were different people in 1970 than they are now. What US did then has nothing to do with what US is doing now. Or should the US forever be in favor of dropping atom bombs on cities everywhere because they did so in WW2? No, of course. You are committing the basic fallacy of not being able to separate an organization from the people who run it.
While different people were in office, you can't deny the link between the government and the American people. Each US government in history had some legitimacy in its actions with respect to the population. On top of that, people in high places don't always change when the government changes, and some of the most powerful official institutions of the US cultivated very strong ideological bias at the top for a very long time. Saying that the government of 1970 is not the one of 2013 is true, but that doesn't mean everything changed either.
I can easily deny that the 100 richest people in America represent the ideology or interests of 313 million people. There is a reason that we generally don't get to vote on topics except at the local level and only get to vote on people, and there is a reason that only 2 parties exist with any chance at gaining that office, and there is a reason that generally the people who arrive at that final election for the office raised more money than the other guy in primaries.
I can easily deny that the 100 richest people in America represent the ideology or interests of 313 million people. There is a reason that we generally don't get to vote on topics except at the local level and only get to vote on people, and there is a reason that only 2 parties exist with any chance at gaining that office, and there is a reason that generally the people who arrive at that final election for the office raised more money than the other guy in primaries.
"Some continuity" means nothing. For all you know the current administration has completely different views on the use of chemical weapons than the Nixon administration.
The reason is that the American people are too dumb to set a new system up.
More like you are too dumb to understand what that would take.
Until the American people are so dissatisfied with the current government that we are ready and willing to engage in a bloody revolution that would result in the deaths of at least 100 million people and destroy our country, that isn't going to happen. So long as the majority of the middle class feels better off under this government rather than a country in ruins with half of them dead, that isn't going to happen.
Unless we suddenly turn into Russia or Greece or any number of African countries overnight, that isn't going to happen.
More like you are too dumb to understand what that would take.
Until the American people are so dissatisfied with the current government that we are ready and willing to engage in a bloody revolution that would result in the deaths of at least 100 million people and destroy our country, that isn't going to happen. So long as the majority of the middle class feels better off under this government rather than a country in ruins with half of them dead, that isn't going to happen.
Unless we suddenly turn into Russia or Greece or any number of African countries overnight, that isn't going to happen.
It's funny that you muricans are sometimes so full of pride about your wonderful economics, and at other times seem to not grasp the first thing about it.
Really? Where's the proof, then? It isn't just a "new government", it's multiple new governments between then and now. Forty years. Completely different people. So unless you have some kind of proof for saying this, you're talking out of your ass.
When the administration of some important organisations such as various Intelligence Community agencies is held by (in this case) neocons for so long, their influence does not vanish instantly with a new government.
It's funny that you muricans are sometimes so full of pride about your wonderful economics, and at other times seem to not grasp the first thing about it.
Really? Where's the proof, then? It isn't just a "new government", it's multiple new governments between then and now. Forty years. Completely different people. So unless you have some kind of proof for saying this, you're talking out of your ass.
Proof would be hard to come by, although it seems to me understandable that the people present in an organisation tend to influence the progress of those that just start out, being more inclined to give important positions to the similar minded rather than the meritorious.Yes, of course they "influence" those that come after, but the amount of the influence varies person to person, and after 40 years it's ridiculous to assume you are still practically dealing with the same people when the "influence" has been watered down by many generations, and there are individual personalities to take into account as well.
Show us your spot in the Forbes top 500 listing, because an economic genius such as yourself must surely have a place there :lol:
(BTW, I work for a Wall Street company and while I'm not a 1%er, I'm a 5%'er.)
Alright. Maybe you can help me, then. Do you see an easy solution for this problem: http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2013/05/28/how-does-apple-avoid-taxes/ ? Because I see one, and it has to do with business 101.
There are numerous ways to deal with the Apple problem, however the first thing that must be addressed is whether the philosophical stance on corporations is a valid and sustainable one. What you are seeing there is the evolution that I began talking about over 20 years ago. The time is approaching when governments are no longer the most important force in the world, corporations will be the actual ruling hand and governments merely the tongue that licks the corporate hand with a primary responsibility of keeping a stable workforce, stable currency, and an environment suitable for the corporations themselves. The actual form of government or citizen freedoms will not matter, so long as there is stability. You can look at the Citizens United ruling to see that this is coming to fruition in Federal Law now. You can view Apple as either a sliver in that transformation, or the lead dog in the new world order.
Sound like an awful vision of the future, even though it's actually reality in some terms already.
I wasn't able to extract an answer to my question, so I tell you about my idea. Maybe it is too naive and simple and only works in cloud-dreamland. But how about you stop buying products from such companies?
I wasn't able to extract an answer to my question, so I tell you about my idea. Maybe it is too naive and simple and only works in cloud-dreamland. But how about you stop buying products from such companies?
Sen. Paul demanded that the subcommittee apologize to Apple for hassling it about taxes because it is a job creator. His argument is that if big companies are indulged on tax, regulation and other matters they will provide jobs and growth. Belief in this syllogism is not uncommon among legislators of both parties.And hey, status isn't about money in the end. It is about what you can buy. So what if most of the jobs created are shipped over to China when the majority of Americans can own the product itself? You see, in the long run, being able to possess the product and finding a different job than manual labor is far more important that making the product, but only a minority being able to own it. Why on Earth would we not purchase that product from that company when the end goal is to own the product for its use and status? Where is the problem? You are seeing one where the psyche of the consumer sees none. It isn't as though those taxes are being missed by the consumer. They only miss money when the taxes come out of their pockets.
It's funny that you muricans are sometimes so full of pride about your wonderful economics, and at other times seem to not grasp the first thing about it.