Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.
How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?
People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.
It doesn't imply that at all.
Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.
"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition. Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights". It's only individuals that value "rights". Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.
If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws. I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many. How about Canada?
Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle. Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.
Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
09-06-2017, 07:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2017, 07:58 PM by pbrower2a.)
(09-06-2017, 03:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (09-06-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.
How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?
People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.
To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996. So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.
How hard would it be for Australia to be turned into a fascist state? How many battles would the fascists have to fight and win? How many fascists would be needed? I know one thing, there isn't enough fascists, socialists and communists in America to defeat the 60 plus million Americans who voted for Trump.
Japanese conquest in World War II, something that seemed highly possible at certain times in 1941 and 1942, would have turned Australia into a colony of a brutal fascist state. Thank God and the Allies for victories at Guadalcanal and Midway!
I would guess today that if Australians had to choose between the semi-fascist America of Donald Judas Trump and the conformist, exotic Japan that has a genuine democracy, the Australians would choose Japan as an ally. That is how much the world has changed. Yes, Japan is very repressive -- of crime. Japanese criminals emigrate. Criminals in Japan face mind control techniques similar to those imposed upon political dissidents in China.
As for the Trump supporters -- do you mean the people who voted for the demagogue, or those who still believe in him? With Trump as President I can see more cause to have a gun than under Obama. Civil unrest will become a genuine danger in the next three years.
"DIS" below is disapproval rating in the latest polling data that I have for the states, with "80" as a cautious guess for the District of Columbia.
DEM REP DIS ΔEV STATES
000 538 80 03 DC
003 535 71 58 CA VT
061 477 66 11 MA
072 466 65 14 NJ
086 452 64 10 MD
096 442 62 29 NY
125 413 61 13 VA
138 400 59 24 CT HI WA
161 377 58 20 IL
181 357 57 45 CO MI MN WI
222 312 56 15 DE NM OR
241 297 55 32 ME* NH PA RI TIPPING POINT/ZONE
273 265 54 11 AZ
284 254 53 06 NV
290 248 52 53 FL IA OH
343 195 51 36 TX
381 157 50 37 GA NC UT
418 120 48 16 IN WV
434 104 47 06 AR
440 098 46 19 MS MO MT
459 079 44 12 ND SC
471 067 43 16 LA NE* SD
487 051 42 29 ID KS KY TN
516 022 39 22 AL OK WY
538 000
*Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes.
ME-01 is more Democratic than Maine at large, which is more Democratic than ME-02 (which went to Donald Trump in 2016). Maine-01 is somewhat urban southern Maine, including Portland, and ME-02 is very rural, comprising central and northern Maine.
NE-02 (mostly Greater Omaha inside Nebraska) is less Democratic than ME-02, so in a normal election it is more likely that Maine gives an electoral vote for a Republican than that Nebraska gives an electoral vote to a Democrat. But NE-02 went for Barack Obama in 2008. It is much more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-01, eastern Nebraska (including Lincoln and some parts of Greater Omaha) is slightly more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-03, including very rural central and western Nebraska (including Scottsbluff and Grand Island) is one of the most Republican districts in the USA, and is so strongly Republican that
(1) it can easily swing the state at large Republican, and
(2) it could conceivably offer the single electoral vote for a Republican nominee for President.
Descriptions of the states and their districts are
ME-01 -- very strong D
ME at large -- strong D
ME-02 -- very weak D
NE-02 -- weak R
NE-01 -- strong R
NE at large -- very strong R
NE-03 -- almost as reliably R as the District of Columbia is reliably D
Subtract disapproval from '100', and you get my crude estimate of the ceiling for the vote for Donald Trump in 2020 in any state.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2017, 07:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2017, 07:15 AM by Bob Butler 54.)
(09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws. I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many. How about Canada?
Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle. Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.
Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.
Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech. Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech. It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech? Me, I'm in favor of neither. I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.
What does Canada forbid which one wants to see? What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?
Australia? It is easy to anticipate that one's values will triumph. It doesn't always go as dreamed.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws. I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many. How about Canada?
Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle. Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.
Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.
Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech. Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech. It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech? Me, I'm in favor of neither. I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.
Kinser would sing a different tune if the hate speech were "Bring back slavery" or "Kill all f@gs".
Quote:What does Canada forbid which one wants to see? What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?
Australia? It is easy to anticipate that one's values will triumph. It doesn't always go as dreamed.
I'm guessing that one can see Nazi stuff in the appropriate context for education, historical accuracy, and the like.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2017, 09:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws. I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many. How about Canada?
Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle. Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.
Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.
Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech. Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech. It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech? Me, I'm in favor of neither. I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.
Kinser would sing a different tune if the hate speech were "Bring back slavery" or "Kill all f@gs".
That isn't clear. If one claims that any typical adult can shrug off hate speech or cries for genocide, you can live in a society full of cries for genocide mixed with hate speech. Me, that's not the sort of society I'm looking for. Not all of us perceive the world as Kinser does. It seems reasonable for legislatures to feel the same as I and act on it. Canada is quite explicit and rational in banning certain specific things. Under the principle that negative rights do not grant an ability to harm, if you think promoting genocide and hate is harmful, you have a consistent legal position.
The awakening's Civil Rights Act is based more on commerce than free speech. If you are running a business, you can't discriminate. Words while not running a business hits a different legal crack. Me, I'm in favor of free speech, but not hate speech and definitely not genocide. I feel the 'free speech' language is often a cover for those favoring genocide and hate. If the Alt Right weren't acting as a cover for neo Nazi and Neo Confederates, it would be far easier to sympathies with the them on other forms speech. As is, you have to wonder.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2017, 11:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2017, 02:51 PM by pbrower2a.)
(09-07-2017, 09:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: That isn't clear. If one claims that any typical adult can shrug off hate speech or cries for genocide, you can live in a society full of cries for genocide mixed with hate speech. Me, that's not the sort of society I'm looking for. Not all of us perceive the world as Kinser does. It seems reasonable for legislatures to feel the same as I and act on it. Canada is quite explicit and rational in banning certain specific things. Under the principle that negative rights do not grant an ability to harm, if you think promoting genocide and hate is harmful, you have a consistent legal position.
I know enough to not try to form a Nazi group, raise my right arm in a Nazi salute, paint a swastika, or sing the Horst-Wessel-Lied in Germany or Austria. (You know where I stand on that. As a German-American I would choose converting to Judaism over becoming a Nazi -- because Judaism is compatible with my cultural and moral values, and Nazism isn't). But that is not much of a restriction, not much more severe than a prohibition on the use of cocaine. Both countries treat Nazism as something shameful, something that must never happen again. Germans and Austrians hate Nazis as if they were brutal, foreign occupiers.
Maybe it is in part because the Nazis were defeated after being exposed as the genocidal monsters that they were. Had history been inverted and while Nazis faded into near-oblivion in Germany while the Klan prevailed in America, and the international coalition defeated a genocidal KKK, would it be Klan groups, slogans, symbols, and songs that would be illegal in America? I would think so. The Klan has much the same bigotry and much the same objects of hatred as Nazis, and a similar proclivity to violence.
In my experience as a sub school teacher, I have never had a problem with referring a student to the principal's office for racial, sexual, or religious slurs. Do you think that there is freedom of speech in the classroom? Not really. Students can get away with questioning my competence or correcting an error... but that is part of learning. I do not consider bureaucratic toadying a legitimate object of teaching in a K-12 classroom. But use fighting words against a fellow student, and you are out of the classroom.
Quote:The awakening's Civil Rights Act is based more on commerce than free speech. If you are running a business, you can't discriminate. Words while not running a business hits a different legal crack. Me, I'm in favor of free speech, but not hate speech and definitely not genocide. I feel the 'free speech' language is often a cover for those favoring genocide and hate. If the Alt Right weren't acting as a cover for neo Nazi and Neo Confederates, it would be far easier to sympathies with the them on other forms speech. As is, you have to wonder.
With commerce, ethnic equity requires that people get what is generally promised, and that does not mean implicitly 'only for white, straight Christians'. A business owner has a right to refuse to promote something disgusting that is not protected by the Constitution. As far as that goes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitutes the legislation necessary to enforce the provisions of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (among others) to the Constitution.
So we can discuss the "frosting of the cake". If I own the bakery, can I refuse to bake a cake for someone protected against discrimination? No -- so I had better offer a cake to the black family if it is willing to pay for it. Or if it is for a Bar Mitzvah? No.
So a wedding cake -- if it is for an interfaith, same-sex, or interracial marriage? If I can squeeze "Adam and Genevieve" on a cake, I can also frost "Adam and Steve". Even should I find a marriage between a black man and a pretty white girl disgusting, I had better put the statuette of such a couple on the cake if such is appropriate. Putting a cross and a Mogen David on the cake? I will do it.
So what can I refuse? Something disgusting for which there is no obvious protection. If it is a satanic curse or an underworld threat (a cake made to look like a tombstone with the threat "Pay up or die!"... well, I say no. Something praising pedophilia or Nazi ideology? Certainly I wouldn't do it. Obscenity, as a depiction of a sex act? Heh, heh -- no way will I do that. "Donald Duck" on a birthday cake (when I do not have the rights) instead of "Daffy Duck" (for which I have the rights)? I will not do trademark or copyright violations. As a practical matter, I will make a cake celebrating a win for Senator Snake on the opposite side of my partisan affiliation.
Humiliation of people on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is not a right. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience and does not deny one the right to avoid speaking.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2017, 01:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2017, 03:37 PM by Bob Butler 54.)
(09-07-2017, 11:48 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Humiliation of people on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is not a right. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience and does not deny one the right to avoid speaking.
Yep. Pretty much with you there.
I also spent a bit of time looking up things like Massachusetts hate crimes and harassment in general. Let's just say the idea that free speech blocks hate crimes is not a basic principle of US law.
The Ma Legislature, Section 43A. Wrote:(a) Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The conduct or acts described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device or electronic communication device including, but not limited to, any device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications, instant messages or facsimile communications.
(b) Whoever, after having been convicted of the crime of criminal harassment, commits a second or subsequent such crime, or whoever commits the crime of criminal harassment having previously been convicted of a violation of section 43, shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years.
While cakes may not be expressly mentioned, I think they are covered... 
Also, just the inclusion of "substantial emotional distress" is at odds with some of the Alt Right's arguments. If one accepts that substantial emotional distress can be inflicted with words, and such is harmful, and negative rights do not guarantee a right to inflict harm, a lot of 'free speech' arguments that supposedly protect verbal harm go away.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 128
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
As a Canadian I can't say that I have ever encountered anyone on my side of the border who feels that our rights are somehow inhibited or encumbered as a result of the "reasonable limit" clause within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To the contrary, I feel that it protects the rights of the majority of the citizenry.
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-05-2017, 04:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-05-2017, 10:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: (09-05-2017, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow.
One could reword that. "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."
If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious. If one does, you get to a different place.
If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.
The question seems to be who is the pope.
Words are not violence, Bob. And no amount of sophistry will change that fact.
Some feel controlling violence is not the only thing the government should do. No confusing of your opinion with universal fact will change that.
The main purpose of government is to ensure that my neighbor neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. And most of the time they can't even do that adequately so why would I want them to do other things?
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What does Canada forbid which one wants to see? What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?
How about calling men in dresses he and women wearing trousers and attempting to pretend to be guys she. In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns". Of course their government also buys into the notion that there is more than three different genders: Male, Female, freak of nature.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2017, 09:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Kinser would sing a different tune if the hate speech were "Bring back slavery" or "Kill all f@gs".
No, actually, I wouldn't. Unlike you PBR I have principles, which of course is why I'm not a "progressive". Freedom of speech means I have to allow reprehensible speech. It does not, however, require me to like that speech. It also doesn't mean that I can't react negatively to that speech either.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2017, 07:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2017, 07:38 PM by Kinser79.)
(09-07-2017, 09:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-07-2017, 09:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws. I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many. How about Canada?
Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle. Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.
Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.
Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech. Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech. It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech? Me, I'm in favor of neither. I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.
Kinser would sing a different tune if the hate speech were "Bring back slavery" or "Kill all f@gs".
That isn't clear. If one claims that any typical adult can shrug off hate speech or cries for genocide, you can live in a society full of cries for genocide mixed with hate speech. Me, that's not the sort of society I'm looking for. Not all of us perceive the world as Kinser does. It seems reasonable for legislatures to feel the same as I and act on it. Canada is quite explicit and rational in banning certain specific things. Under the principle that negative rights do not grant an ability to harm, if you think promoting genocide and hate is harmful, you have a consistent legal position.
The awakening's Civil Rights Act is based more on commerce than free speech. If you are running a business, you can't discriminate. Words while not running a business hits a different legal crack. Me, I'm in favor of free speech, but not hate speech and definitely not genocide. I feel the 'free speech' language is often a cover for those favoring genocide and hate. If the Alt Right weren't acting as a cover for neo Nazi and Neo Confederates, it would be far easier to sympathies with the them on other forms speech. As is, you have to wonder.
So-called hate speech is not recognized as a different category under US law. The SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter and it is unlikely for it to change its mind in the near future. As such so-called hate speech is protected as all other political speech.
https://www.thefire.org/there-is-no-such...te-speech/
Oh and Bob, Federal Law and judicial rulings supersede Massachusetts law. Though I do think that there is room to sue the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the basis of that statue if one were so inclined. But equally it could be ruled constitutional since is mentions ACTS and not speech and only applies to ACTS and not speech thereby. Suffice it to say that attempts to limit so-called hate speech has a poor record in Federal Court.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2017, 07:41 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2017, 07:42 PM by Kinser79.)
(09-07-2017, 04:23 PM)tg63 Wrote: As a Canadian I can't say that I have ever encountered anyone on my side of the border who feels that our rights are somehow inhibited or encumbered as a result of the "reasonable limit" clause within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To the contrary, I feel that it protects the rights of the majority of the citizenry.
Wait until you're jailed for calling a person in a dress with hair on his knuckles sir.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-04-2017, 03:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (09-04-2017, 01:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Valid points. Their scientists also got training from the Soviet Union way back when.
That said, Russia and China were much larger economies with much larger populations from which to draw talented people. They didn't start from scratch, either; the Soviet Union got help from spies in the US like Klaus Fuchs and others, and China got a lot of open help from the Soviet Union.
If you consider sending a few scientists to "not be starting from scratch" then not even the US did that. The British essentially sent over their entire "Tube Alloys" program to the US in 1942ish.
It's not the scientists that are relevant; it's the results from the Manhattan Project that Fuchs gave the Soviets that are relevant.
Quote:Quote:North Korea has kindly provided photographs of the warhead, just like they did with last September's test. It took the better part of a year for the US government to admit what Kim had last time around, but it should have been obvious from the beginning. Because of the classified nature of the Teller-Ulam geometry, it's not as obvious this time, but those of us who have independently figured out the Teller-Ulam geometry can figure it out.
What North Korea has is a two stage thermonuclear device. It does not have the proper Teller-Ulam geometry, which is why the yield was only about 100kt rather than closer to the 1Mt range. That said, most of its energy does come from fusion.
I'm not sure what this means, but I do have a very generic idea of what a two stage thermonuclear device is. Are you saying that the test yielded a 100kt result because they got their maths wrong or because their design is not maximally efficient?
Because their design is not maximally efficient, and quite far from maximally efficient.
Quote:Quote:How do you think the path to war will proceed?
I would imagine that Kim would likely launch an attack on ROK and/or Japan first. Both having a formal treaty of alliance with the US would drag us in--unless of course an alliance with the US isn't worth the paper it is written on. Remember this is someone who threatens the world with nukes at least once a week.
Quote:My concern is that war with North Korea isn't inevitable, and the McMasters of the world manage to convince Trump to accept North Korea as a nuclear power.
North Korea doesn't act like any other nuclear power so there is no reason to delay. Russia doesn't threaten to nuke its neighbors once a week. Neither does China, India, Pakistan, Israel, or for that matter Iran or Saudi Arabia (as it is assumed that both have some nukes already). They would be a nuclear power of a completely different sort. Also you can call McMaster many things but pacifist isn't one of them.
Quote:and Turkey,
Is a NATO power so they already have our arsenal to protect them, they don't need to waste money on their own. Unless of course you're saying that an alliance with the US isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Quote:and Myanmar
Would be invaded by India PDQ. Burma (because I refuse to call that country by that ridiculous and unpronounceable name) is not as advanced as India or Pakistan and India can take them out as there is little reason to accept a nuclear power at their back door. Also there is no indication that the Burmese government is even interested as that would almost certainly get the attention of India.
Quote:and a bunch of others, and sooner or later someone uses one, and then people start using them regularly. Eventually some regional nuclear war escalates into a global one, and whoever has the last nuke wins. And I'm far from certain that will be us, since we have too many interests that will require our using them earlier than, say, Russia will have to.
That sounds like an argument for nipping a problem in the bud if I ever heard one.
Agreed with your bottom line.
I actually wrote "Burma" at first. I think India's ruling BJP would have trouble invading Burma because both governments are aligned against Islam.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ing-white/
I think I'll leave this here for those who think I'm exaggerating about the whole "acting white" issue among blacks
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
If one is black and one wants to 'act white', then that is a right. Just don't expect bigoted white people to recognize your effort.
Of course there are white people to imitate and white people to avoid imitating at all costs. But you should know that. White people do not form a monolith, which may explain why I hate being called "The Man"!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-08-2017, 08:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: If one is black and one wants to 'act white', then that is a right. Just don't expect bigoted white people to recognize your effort.
Of course there are white people to imitate and white people to avoid imitating at all costs. But you should know that. White people do not form a monolith, which may explain why I hate being called "The Man"!
I don't think you understand what "acting white" means. "Acting white" means things like studying and speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades. I think it's seen as caving in to the culture that values those things, which is considered to be "white"; "acting white" is perhaps seen as making blacks who don't bother with those things look bad.
So, if you value correct grammar enough to use it in your writing, you are validly referred to as "The Man", because you're part of the "white" culture that "imposes" those values as societal values.
Posts: 128
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
09-08-2017, 11:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2017, 11:09 AM by tg63.)
(09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ...In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns"...
source please? strangely, the local media hasn't picked up on this ... I'd like to assess the veracity of this claim to determine if I have to change how I speak.
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-08-2017, 11:08 AM)tg63 Wrote: (09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ...In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns"...
source please? strangely, the local media hasn't picked up on this ... I'd like to assess the veracity of this claim to determine if I have to change how I speak.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada...-pronouns/
If you're relying on the lamestream media they likely wouldn't want to to cover it. I strongly advise people to turn off the tee-vee and to turn on to alternative media.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-08-2017, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-08-2017, 08:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: If one is black and one wants to 'act white', then that is a right. Just don't expect bigoted white people to recognize your effort.
Of course there are white people to imitate and white people to avoid imitating at all costs. But you should know that. White people do not form a monolith, which may explain why I hate being called "The Man"!
I don't think you understand what "acting white" means. "Acting white" means things like studying and speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades. I think it's seen as caving in to the culture that values those things, which is considered to be "white"; "acting white" is perhaps seen as making blacks who don't bother with those things look bad.
So, if you value correct grammar enough to use it in your writing, you are validly referred to as "The Man", because you're part of the "white" culture that "imposes" those values as societal values.
PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it. After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.
In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind. Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.
That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed. That more than anything else agrivates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".
|
