Why not just abolish nuclear weapons? After all, you can't hug your children with nuclear arms. I am sure that if Obama gets rid of the US nuclear arsenal, countries like China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc. will follow suit.
QuoteThe Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.
Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.
The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.
Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.
A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.
The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.
The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.
Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, "The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security."
Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear "umbrella" that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear forces.
The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.
The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.
Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is "poorly suited" to deal with challenges posed by "unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons" - an apparent reference to Iran.
It's unclear what calculus went into each of the three options now under consideration at the White House.
The notion of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration's review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, wrote that he was not advocating any particular course of action but sought to provide an analytic guide for how policymakers could think about the implications of various levels of nuclear reductions.
Davis wrote that an arsenal of 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions; if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach, and if the U.S. had "hypothetically excellent," if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles.
In 2010, three Air Force analysts wrote in Strategic Studies Quarterly, an Air Force publication, that the U.S. could get by with as few as 311 deployed nuclear weapons, and that it didn't matter whether Russia followed suit with its own cuts.
New U.S. cuts could open the prospect for a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers like the B-52 and the stealthy B-2. The traditional rationale for this "triad" of weaponry is that it is essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.
As recently as last month the administration said it was keeping the triad intact under current plans, while also hinting at future cuts to the force. In the 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress on Monday, the administration proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons. That will save an estimated $4.3 billion over five years.
In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon's point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, declined to say what options for force reductions the administration was considering. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee, unsuccessfully pressed Miller for key details about his policy review. As recently as last month Turner said in an interview that he feared the administration was bent on cutting the force.
In his written testimony at a Nov. 2 hearing chaired by Turner, Miller made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was "what to do" if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack.
"In effect, we are asking: what are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?" he said.
Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most states that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.
Since taking office Obama has put heavy emphasis on reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. That strategy is being put to the test most urgently by Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
If anything, this kind of initiative certainly looks good to the rest of the world when we're conceivably months away from bombing a country attempting to acquire them.
Looking at the lowest possible alternatives, that's still more than enough to glass somebody and a few of their buddies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 11:28:10 AM
Looking at the lowest possible alternatives, that's still more than enough to glass somebody and a few of their buddies.
Indeed. Is there really any comparison in 300 bombs from the 50s and 300 today?
I think this looks like an area that could be relatively easily cut without having any significant effect on US or world security or ability to act. My only qualm would be that I do wonder if it would produce any real savings given the cost of decommissioning the nukes and storing the waste?
Assuming this might actually save us some money, I don't see the problem. :huh:
I'm cool with this.
He wasn't hugged with nuclear arms so he is going to cut his own and deep. :(
This include tactical nukes as well as the big strategic bombs?
I'm neutral on this, I think if it can be used internationally to promote meaningful disarmament then fine.
But I'm in agreement with Shelf, the Russians and Americans need to make greater strides in dismantling and recycling the existing backlog of decommissioned weapons, both from the security and environmental/economic perspective.
Use em up by glassing the towelies.
Quote from: mongers on February 15, 2012, 11:55:27 AM
But I'm in agreement with Shelf, the Russians and Americans need to make greater strides in dismantling and recycling the existing backlog of decommissioned weapons, both from the security and environmental/economic perspective.
I think the EU should do it.
I never understood why the peaceniks were in favour of nuclear disarmament, seeing as if we ever did get rid of the atom bomb, we'd be back to fighting total wars between the Great Powers again.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 12:00:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 15, 2012, 11:55:27 AM
But I'm in agreement with Shelf, the Russians and Americans need to make greater strides in dismantling and recycling the existing backlog of decommissioned weapons, both from the security and environmental/economic perspective.
I think the EU should do it.
Or the UN.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 11:28:10 AM
Looking at the lowest possible alternatives, that's still more than enough to glass somebody and a few of their buddies.
Indeed. Is there really any comparison in 300 bombs from the 50s and 300 today?
Only that 300 bombs in the 1950s weren't enough; maintaining enough weapons to ensure first-strike survivability and maintain a positive retaliatory capability is no longer a strategic concern.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 15, 2012, 11:55:22 AM
This include tactical nukes as well as the big strategic bombs?
The vast, vast majority--if not all, IIRC--of our tactical battlefield weapons were decommissioned a while ago.
You only need 1.
I am shocked that president Hussein disarms America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 12:06:29 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 15, 2012, 11:55:22 AM
This include tactical nukes as well as the big strategic bombs?
The vast, vast majority--if not all, IIRC--of our tactical battlefield weapons were decommissioned a while ago.
Damn. I am: out of date. I was thinking of early Bush Administration consideations about expanding the number of tactical warheads as some sort of plan to make them 'conventional'.
I remember that. They floated that trial balloon. That was the talk of WMDs was still hot and all sorts of dumb ideas were being floated around. There was another one to classify Cuba as terrorist state or something like that.
NOOOOOOO
Romney 2012 everybody. Spread the message. I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in thousands of nuclear warheads.
Quote from: Kleves on February 15, 2012, 11:15:02 AM
Why not just abolish nuclear weapons? After all, you can't hug your children with nuclear arms. I am sure that if Obama gets rid of the US nuclear arsenal, countries like China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc. will follow suit.
And then schools will have all the money they need, while the Air Force has to hold a bake sale in order to buy a bomber!
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 01:08:34 PM
NOOOOOOO
Romney 2012 everybody. Spread the message. I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in thousands of nuclear warheads.
Don't you mean Santorum 2012?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 01:08:34 PM
NOOOOOOO
Romney 2012 everybody. Spread the message. I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in thousands of nuclear warheads.
:weep:
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2012, 01:45:38 PM
And then schools will have all the money they need, while the Air Force has to hold a bake sale in order to buy a bomber!
he he
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2012, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 01:08:34 PM
NOOOOOOO
Romney 2012 everybody. Spread the message. I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in thousands of nuclear warheads.
Don't you mean Santorum 2012?
Too good to be true.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 15, 2012, 11:55:22 AM
This include tactical nukes as well as the big strategic bombs?
There are very few tactical nukes left. All of the ALCMs were converted to conventional payloads, the B-57 depth bomb is gone, the SSM nukes are gone...
Just a few air-droppable bombs, if that, in the US inventory. PGMs have a higher Pk without the storage and admin costs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
Only that 300 bombs in the 1950s weren't enough; maintaining enough weapons to ensure first-strike survivability and maintain a positive retaliatory capability is no longer a strategic concern.
I'm generally the peacenik here, but is that really not a strategic concern anymore? Russia has a lot of weapons, and China could build them. I realize that no one has an incentive to strike us first, but why leave open the possibility?
What about the nuclear AAMs? Those are essential to defending against the threat posed by the VVS' new "Blinder" bombers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2012, 01:45:38 PM
And then schools will have all the money they need, while the Air Force has to hold a bake sale in order to buy a bomber!
he he
I think about half the teachers at my high school had that bumper sticker.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 15, 2012, 11:55:22 AM
This include tactical nukes as well as the big strategic bombs?
There are very few tactical nukes left. All of the ALCMs were converted to conventional payloads, the B-57 depth bomb is gone, the SSM nukes are gone...
Just a few air-droppable bombs, if that, in the US inventory. PGMs have a higher Pk without the storage and admin costs.
I hope they don't get rid of that bunker buster tac nuke....
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:55:18 AM
He wasn't hugged with nuclear arms so he is going to cut his own and deep. :(
:lol: That's a great line!
Quote from: alfred russel on February 15, 2012, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
Only that 300 bombs in the 1950s weren't enough; maintaining enough weapons to ensure first-strike survivability and maintain a positive retaliatory capability is no longer a strategic concern.
I'm generally the peacenik here, but is that really not a strategic concern anymore? Russia has a lot of weapons, and China could build them. I realize that no one has an incentive to strike us first, but why leave open the possibility?
Considering how real-time radar and early-warning detection systems have evolved since the 60s and the 70s, combined with the evolution of SLBM technology (not a word, grumbler!), as well as the reduction in strategic bomber forces in the world, there isn't the margin of error there once was for the old silo farms.
The reduction in force size won't negate a first strike, but the survivability of a first strike is significantly better than it was 30 years ago. In short, we'd be able to launch fewer weapons faster, and with greater early-warning reliability, than when the old Soviet doctrine was to swamp our assets en masse' to reduce the number of second-strike launches.
OK, here's my question: is 300 warheads enough to win a first strike against Russia and PRChina, and if need be, simultaneously?
I don't think so. I think cutting it to 300 is to low. 600 hundred maybe.
This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor. We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that. And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:37:06 PM
OK, here's my question: is 300 warheads enough to win a first strike against Russia and PRChina, and if need be, simultaneously?
Sure.
There's a lot of Chinese. I think we need retain the ability to wipe out a third, just in case. And still have some capability afterwords.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 11:16:05 PM
There's a lot of Chinese. I think we need retain the ability to wipe out a third, just in case. And still have some capability afterwords.
That's not what winning a first strike means. :P
Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes. :ph34r:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 15, 2012, 11:27:02 PM
Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes. :ph34r:
The US will never achieve that level of space tech. You guys have given up, and it will be up to others to decide if mankind ever gets to the stars.
So you guys now trust the Russians this much, ha?
Quote from: Tamas on February 16, 2012, 07:26:52 AM
So you guys now trust the Russians this much, ha?
I trust their shit doesn't work any more.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor. We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that. And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.
It does create some interesting tradeoffs, though. Obviously, you don't want to have 300 warheads on 30 missiles - that's too few baskets for your eggs. OTOH, how do the two sides verify that a lower warhead count per missile has actually been implemented?
Just how many MIRV'd missiles would this result in?
Makes sense. Its not just him promoting world peace and other hippy stuff, the US just doesn't need so many, they can wipe out any enemies well enough with a lot less.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2012, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor. We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that. And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.
It does create some interesting tradeoffs, though. Obviously, you don't want to have 300 warheads on 30 missiles - that's too few baskets for your eggs. OTOH, how do the two sides verify that a lower warhead count per missile has actually been implemented?
The notion that the Russians are not cheating on these easily cheat-able treaties is ridicoulous.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2012, 11:52:53 PM
The US will never achieve that level of space tech. You guys have given up, and it will be up to others to decide if mankind ever gets to the stars.
Nah, we just need some competition. I'm sure NASA will get a shitload of dough when China gets to the moon.
Quote from: Tamas on February 16, 2012, 07:59:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2012, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor. We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that. And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.
It does create some interesting tradeoffs, though. Obviously, you don't want to have 300 warheads on 30 missiles - that's too few baskets for your eggs. OTOH, how do the two sides verify that a lower warhead count per missile has actually been implemented?
The notion that the Russians are not cheating on these easily cheat-able treaties is ridicoulous.
Thats their economic loss
Are we expecting imminent nuclear war to break out with anyone? Worrying if we'd be capable of decapitating China and the Russians in a first strike seems a bit silly.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 16, 2012, 08:41:40 AM
Are we expecting imminent nuclear war to break out with anyone? Worrying if we'd be capable of decapitating China and the Russians in a first strike seems a bit silly.
I take it you weren't a Boy Scout.
Faeelin believes in getting into a nuclear exchange with the nuclear weapons you have, not the nuclear weapons you wish you had.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 16, 2012, 08:41:40 AM
Are we expecting imminent nuclear war to break out with anyone? Worrying if we'd be capable of decapitating China and the Russians in a first strike seems a bit silly.
Agree. A competent leader plans to allow potential enemies to annihilate the leader's nation rather than bother with silly things like winning the war per-emptively.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 15, 2012, 11:27:02 PM
Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes. :ph34r:
An asteroid leaving the belt would take year or so to reach the Earth. That's not much of a deterrent.
Would any other nation in the world survive a nukuler detonation on their capitol? I don't see Russia or China, at least in their present governmental forms.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2012, 12:00:46 PM
I never understood why the peaceniks were in favour of nuclear disarmament, seeing as if we ever did get rid of the atom bomb, we'd be back to fighting total wars between the Great Powers again.
might knock some sense in the peaceniks :p
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 16, 2012, 02:21:11 PM
Would any other nation in the world survive a nukuler detonation on their capitol? I don't see Russia or China, at least in their present governmental forms.
Australia maybe. It's big place and some place might not notice that Canberra is gone.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 16, 2012, 02:21:11 PM
Would any other nation in the world survive a nukuler detonation on their capitol? I don't see Russia or China, at least in their present governmental forms.
Most, unless it's a very small country.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 16, 2012, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 16, 2012, 02:21:11 PM
Would any other nation in the world survive a nukuler detonation on their capitol? I don't see Russia or China, at least in their present governmental forms.
Australia maybe. It's big place and some place might not notice that Canberra is gone.
Belgium :p, We've had practice the last 1.5 years
Quote from: mongers on February 16, 2012, 02:49:22 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 16, 2012, 02:21:11 PM
Would any other nation in the world survive a nukuler detonation on their capitol? I don't see Russia or China, at least in their present governmental forms.
Most, unless it's a very small country.
I do not ean survive in terms of cultural and population extinction. Would American Democracy endure if NYC or washington were nuked tomorrow? Would the PRC suffer severe turmoil if Beijing or a major financial and industrial center like Shanghai were wrecked?
Do you really think Americans are that pathetic ?
Quote from: Faeelin on February 16, 2012, 08:41:40 AM
Are we expecting imminent nuclear war to break out with anyone? Worrying if we'd be capable of decapitating China and the Russians in a first strike seems a bit silly.
Go back to Woodstock.
I don't think our democracy would be the same if someone nuked an American city. I think the people of this country are capable of great cruelty if provoked enough. 9/11 made the US angry and it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. And nobody in Iraq was even invoked. You kill a few hundred thousand Americans and you may scare the US. Something that hasn't really happened since WWII. I think the US is perfectly capable of genocide and if really scared by something, like an existential fear, will got to lengths not considered by other Western Democracies. If Iran somehow nuked Washington, I don't know if there would be many Iranians left in a decade.
Of course we're capable of genocide, or at least mass killing based solely on origin. We've commited at least three (Native Americans, Germans, and Japanese) and spent billions preparing to commit a fourth (Soviet/Warsaw Pact) and have contemplated a fifth (PRChina).
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2012, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 15, 2012, 11:27:02 PM
Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes. :ph34r:
An asteroid leaving the belt would take year or so to reach the Earth. That's not much of a deterrent.
he said in orbit.
Quote from: Tyr on February 16, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
he said in orbit.
Sort of stupid to have the mass drivers in orbit without any asteroids, wouldn't you say?
Why would you need asteroids? Wouldn't you just build the mass driver on the moon? Its escape velocity is pretty minimal.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide
Welcome to the human condition.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:51:25 PM
Why would you need asteroids? Wouldn't you just build the mass driver on the moon? Its escape velocity is pretty minimal.
Because it's impossible for the US to get to the Moon, due to shittiness of space program.
You bring the asteroids from the belt and put them in orbit around Earth.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 16, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
You bring the asteroids from the belt and put them in orbit around Earth.
:rolleyes:
That level of space tech is beyond the US. For-ever.
Why did the early bombers and fighters fly so low?
The B10 Martin flew at 2000m high, the B17 at 7000m.
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:04:48 PM
Why did the early bombers and fighters fly so low?
The B10 Martin flew at 2000m high, the B17 at 7000m.
Neither of those are true.
Yeah, the B-17 had a service ceiling of like 35,000 feet.
The late B-17G.
The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.
The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that. That's how airplanes work.
I thought they also were not as well pressurized/climate-controlled as they are today...being why the aircrew wore lots of heavy clothing to stay warm.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2012, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 16, 2012, 08:41:40 AM
Are we expecting imminent nuclear war to break out with anyone? Worrying if we'd be capable of decapitating China and the Russians in a first strike seems a bit silly.
Agree. A competent leader plans to allow potential enemies to annihilate the leader's nation rather than bother with silly things like winning the war per-emptively.
I mean, if I thought Beijing was going to threaten a nuclear war tomorrow it'd be one thing. But we can always build more of them if international relations change. Would it cost more to do so? Or is there something you know about Red Peking that I don't?
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.
The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that. That's how airplanes work.
Says the guy that listens to Hawthorne Heights.
I got you by the balls, faggot!
Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2012, 12:40:43 AM
I got you by the balls, faggot!
Keep the sex talk to yourselves, plz.
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that. That's how airplanes work.
:D
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide, or at least mass killing based solely on origin. We've commited at least three (Native Americans, Germans, and Japanese) and spent billions preparing to commit a fourth (Soviet/Warsaw Pact) and have contemplated a fifth (PRChina).
Well, now that you have confessed, do you feel better?
I am concerned that you still consider yourself capable of mass killing based on peoples' origin. Have you thought of seeking psychiatric help?
Quote from: fahdiz on February 16, 2012, 09:54:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide
Welcome to the human condition.
Ah, the old "everyone does it" defense of genocide. Haven't heard that one in days.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2012, 07:29:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide, or at least mass killing based solely on origin. We've commited at least three (Native Americans, Germans, and Japanese) and spent billions preparing to commit a fourth (Soviet/Warsaw Pact) and have contemplated a fifth (PRChina).
Well, now that you have confessed, do you feel better?
I am concerned that you still consider yourself capable of mass killing based on peoples' origin. Have you thought of seeking psychiatric help?
There's nothing wrong with glassing the length of the Chinese coast. Mother Earth would be thankful.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 16, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
You bring the asteroids from the belt and put them in orbit around Earth.
:rolleyes:
Someone might notice. I don't think anyone would be keen on letting you do that.
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:04:48 PM
Why did the early bombers and fighters fly so low?
The B10 Martin flew at 2000m high, the B17 at 7000m.
Early bombers flew at different altitudes, depending on the mission and where they were in the mission profile. In general, planes flew as high as they could during transits, to save fuel. They then bombed from a level chosen to balance the need for higher altitude to avoid enemy fire, and lower altitude to improve bombing accuracy.
So, the Martin B-10 may have bombed from 2000m (or less), but it probably cruised at 4000m or more. One couldn't operate at aircraft ceilings because one couldn't keep the crew warm enough.
Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2012, 12:40:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.
The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that. That's how airplanes work.
Says the guy that listens to Hawthorne Heights.
I got you by the balls, faggot!
Is Hawthorne Heights similar to Wuthering Heights?
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2012, 08:43:10 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2012, 12:40:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.
The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that. That's how airplanes work.
Says the guy that listens to Hawthorne Heights.
I got you by the balls, faggot!
Is Hawthorne Heights similar to Wuthering Heights?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fitsnotpossible.typepad.com%2Ftrashfan%2Fkatebush2.jpg&hash=6e32e24c82a8ec6d2d6716a395f6bcda607d36aa)
?
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 16, 2012, 11:17:07 PM
I thought they also were not as well pressurized/climate-controlled as they are today...being why the aircrew wore lots of heavy clothing to stay warm.
That's true, but at least with B-17s in 1942/43, they had O2 and heated suits or compartments for each crewman. Of course, if they lost either due to battle damage, the B-17 may be forced lower.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2012, 07:31:21 AM
Ah, the old "everyone does it" defense of genocide. Haven't heard that one in days.
I think you misunderstand my intent. "Capable of" most certainly does not indicate "should perform".
I would have wagered strongly that if you remembered anything about me, it would not be that I am an advocate of extreme positions.
I would remember that you're a recovering Chick-fil-A addict. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2012, 01:43:55 PM
I would remember that you're a recovering Chick-fil-A addict. :)
All right. Perhaps Chik-Fil-A is an extreme position.
Great head of hair though.
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2012, 01:45:25 PM
Great head of hair though.
It's hair unfettered by itself.
I have the best head of invisible hair you could possibly imagine.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2012, 11:52:53 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 15, 2012, 11:27:02 PM
Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes. :ph34r:
The US will never achieve that level of space tech. You guys have given up, and it will be up to others to decide if mankind ever gets to the stars.
Can't we just wait for Russia to build the mass-driver, and then rent it from them?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 08:44:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2012, 08:43:10 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2012, 12:40:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.
The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that. That's how airplanes work.
Says the guy that listens to Hawthorne Heights.
I got you by the balls, faggot!
Is Hawthorne Heights similar to Wuthering Heights?
Kate Bush?
OK I know you a little. :hug:
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:35:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2012, 07:31:21 AM
Ah, the old "everyone does it" defense of genocide. Haven't heard that one in days.
I think you misunderstand my intent. "Capable of" most certainly does not indicate "should perform".
I would have wagered strongly that if you remembered anything about me, it would not be that I am an advocate of extreme positions.
I know, right? I never said all five were justified or justifiable. Only four, at most.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:35:05 PM
I think you misunderstand my intent. "Capable of" most certainly does not indicate "should perform".
I would have wagered strongly that if you remembered anything about me, it would not be that I am an advocate of extreme positions.
The argument that "the human condition is everyone is capable of genocide" is an extreme position. I doubt that anyone here is capable of genocide, for instance, and think the position that everyone is so capable is ludicrous.
Some people are capable of genocide, to be sure. The argument that they are not the exception is an extreme one, though facile enough to be tempting to the facile mind.
:rolleyes:
I suspect many here are capable of participating in a genocide, especially when the bar is set as low as our efforts in WW2 and the settlement of the US.
I wish I were as confident as grumbler. In the right (or rather very wrong) circumstances, a lot of people can stoop to genocide. The whole Rwanda genocide kicked off when everyone was asked to hack their neighbor of the wrong tribe to pieces, and many obliged.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 11:24:14 PM
I wish I were as confident as grumbler.
I think we all might wish for that level of confidence, misplaced or no.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 11:24:14 PM
I wish I were as confident as grumbler. In the right (or rather very wrong) circumstances, a lot of people can stoop to genocide. The whole Rwanda genocide kicked off when everyone was asked to hack their neighbor of the wrong tribe to pieces, and many obliged.
Well we know Fahdiz would.
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2012, 02:00:38 PM
Well we know Fahdiz would.
I've never seen Fahdiz and al-Bashir in the same place at the same time, come to think of it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 18, 2012, 02:33:56 PM
I've never seen Fahdiz and al-Bashir in the same place at the same time, come to think of it.
:ph34r:
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 11:24:14 PM
I wish I were as confident as grumbler. In the right (or rather very wrong) circumstances, a lot of people can stoop to genocide. The whole Rwanda genocide kicked off when everyone was asked to hack their neighbor of the wrong tribe to pieces, and many obliged.
now, i could be wrong, but i believe grumbler is saying that although acts of genocide occur, only an exceptional few wish to commit them--with everyone else simply following the crowd that forms around the idea. in your example, rwanda, i highly doubt every one of your family men who hacked apart their tutsi neighbors did so out of an innate desire for genocide. they hacked away because they were convinced by their friends and those they listened to that the tutsi were cockroaches, enemies of the state, vile people, etc. etc. who deserved death. the difference is subtle, but it is still there
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 02:51:10 PM
now, i could be wrong, but i believe grumbler is saying that although acts of genocide occur, only an exceptional few wish to commit them--with everyone else simply following the crowd that forms around the idea.
"wish to commit" and "capable of" are not equivalent.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 02:51:10 PM
... in your example, rwanda, i highly doubt ...
Actually his name is LaShonda.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 02:51:10 PM
now, i could be wrong, but i believe grumbler is saying that although acts of genocide occur, only an exceptional few wish to commit them--with everyone else simply following the crowd that forms around the idea. in your example, rwanda, i highly doubt every one of your family men who hacked apart their tutsi neighbors did so out of an innate desire for genocide. they hacked away because they were convinced by their friends and those they listened to that the tutsi were cockroaches, enemies of the state, vile people, etc. etc. who deserved death. the difference is subtle, but it is still there
Moreover, many Hutus who refused to attack their Tutsi neighbors when ordered to do so by the Interahamwe were then killed by the Interahame for "treason." If one kills out of fear of being murdered, one isn't committing genocide.
Of course, this is moot, since the claim was that the capacity to commit genecide was part of the human condition; it is therefor general, and not limited to specific situations. Mere examples cannot demonstrate that such a thing is true, though mere examples can, of course, disprove it. I am unable to commit genocide, so the statement is disproven. My characterization of Fahdiz's claim that the capacity for genocide is present in all human as
extreme is, of course, a matter of opinion.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 18, 2012, 03:56:16 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 02:51:10 PM
now, i could be wrong, but i believe grumbler is saying that although acts of genocide occur, only an exceptional few wish to commit them--with everyone else simply following the crowd that forms around the idea.
"wish to commit" and "capable of" are not equivalent.
No, but they are not unrelated either, since genocide can only be committed by people who want to. Your argument is that all humans are capable of wanting to murder innocent others solely for the purpose of wiping out their ethnic, national, or racial group. I'd call that position not just wrong, but extreme. I'd say that the percentage of humans able to act on that basis was small, myself. In fact, I would argue that acting on that basis was even counter to the human condition, and that for every person who acted against genocide, thousands wished that they dared.
Wait, you are saying "want to" is the same as "capable of" commiting genocide?
I might have had a couple of beers, but that does not seem the same to this foggy brain...
Quote from: fahdiz on February 18, 2012, 03:56:16 PM"wish to commit" and "capable of" are not equivalent.
correct, and that was my mistake in only briefly skimming the posts. consider my original post to now say wish to commit/are capable of. the difference doesn't really refute my point, i don't think. while some may be convinced to kill a man, or get worked up but what everyone around him is saying, fewer can, with a conscious decision, decide to actively participate in genocide
i remember that article posted on languish some months back about how some tribe tortured and killed a monkey that wandered into a village. the man who climbed up the tree to catch the monkey later regretted his actions, as he was under influence of mob mentality at the time and did not really think it through. that's just one example to explain a particular mentality involved
Kids, kids, as far as daddy's concerned your both potential murderers.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 18, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
Kids, kids, as far as daddy's concerned your both potential murderers.
:)
Thanks Wags. I knew you could put it into perspective.
I want to eat oreos cookies in a bowl of cereal and milk topped with condensated milk.
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2012, 11:59:12 PM
I want to eat oreos cookies in a bowl of cereal and milk topped with condensated milk.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2012, 12:00:10 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2012, 11:59:12 PM
I want to eat oreos cookies in a bowl of cereal and milk topped with condensated milk.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Point is, life is not about what we want to do, but about what is right for us to do.
I don't want stupid sugary calories in my body.
Quote from: Siege on February 19, 2012, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2012, 12:00:10 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2012, 11:59:12 PM
I want to eat oreos cookies in a bowl of cereal and milk topped with condensated milk.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Point is, life is not about what we want to do, but about what is right for us to do.
I don't want stupid sugary calories in my body.
I'm sure you'll be fine once a rabbi puts his bare feet in it for you.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2012, 06:07:27 PM
No, but they are not unrelated either, since genocide can only be committed by people who want to.
That is an interesting assumption.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 07:19:24 PM
correct, and that was my mistake in only briefly skimming the posts. consider my original post to now say wish to commit/are capable of. the difference doesn't really refute my point, i don't think.
I disagree, I think the difference is significant.
Quote from: Siege on February 19, 2012, 12:21:03 AM
Point is, life is not about what we want to do, but about what is right for us to do.
I don't want stupid sugary calories in my body.
Hippies don't think that way, see. "Do what feels right, maaaan!"
Quote from: Siege on February 19, 2012, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2012, 12:00:10 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2012, 11:59:12 PM
I want to eat oreos cookies in a bowl of cereal and milk topped with condensated milk.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Point is, life is not about what we want to do, but about what is right for us to do.
I don't want stupid sugary calories in my body.
Well make up your goddamn mind!
Quote from: fahdiz on February 19, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2012, 06:07:27 PM
No, but they are not unrelated either, since genocide can only be committed by people who want to.
That is an interesting assumption.
They're just going to Madagascar, where they'll be happy. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO MADAGASCAR.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 19, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
That is an interesting assumption.
That's an interesting misuse of the word "assumption."
Motive is the distinction between genocide and murder that is not genocide. That's not an "assumption," that's a definition. An assumption would be something alone the lines of "it is part of the human condition to be capable of killing people simply because one wants to eliminate their 'race,' religion, or ethnicity."
Quote from: grumbler on February 20, 2012, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 19, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
That is an interesting assumption.
That's an interesting misuse of the word "assumption."
Motive is the distinction between genocide and murder that is not genocide. That's not an "assumption," that's a definition. An assumption would be something alone the lines of "it is part of the human condition to be capable of killing people simply because one wants to eliminate their 'race,' religion, or ethnicity."
How many people participating in a mass killing that was orchestrated to eliminate a "'race,' religion, or ethnicity" have to not want that goal but a different one (for now let's leave out those who are killing but don't want to) in order to make it not a genocide?
Quote from: grumbler on February 20, 2012, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 19, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
That is an interesting assumption.
That's an interesting misuse of the word "assumption."
Motive is the distinction between genocide and murder that is not genocide. That's not an "assumption," that's a definition. An assumption would be something alone the lines of "it is part of the human condition to be capable of killing people simply because one wants to eliminate their 'race,' religion, or ethnicity."
Humans are capable of murdering. Humans are capable of participating in a genocide. Not all humans involve themselves in either thing. That does not make them incapable of doing so. Is this really a series of statements you have difficulty grasping, or are you just offended that you're being lumped in with the rest of us mortals?
Your style of argument is tiresome, quibbling, and focuses on a few branches on a few trees instead of the forest in order to score your Languish version of debate club points. No thank you. Not interested in continuing.
I guess it isn't genocide if you don't mean it. The government requisitioned all your food and caused a famine. Sorry about that, clerical error.
Another otherwise interesting argument destroyed by a Semantics Death Storm.
We are going to have to write posts with a footnote behind every word linking to a dictionary entry.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 20, 2012, 01:36:07 PM
Humans are capable of murdering. Humans are capable of participating in a genocide. Not all humans involve themselves in either thing. That does not make them incapable of doing so. Is this really a series of statements you have difficulty grasping, or are you just offended that you're being lumped in with the rest of us mortals?
What I don't understand is why you persist in misconstruing my argument. Your argument is that being capable of genocide is a part of "the human condition." Not that there is a small number of humans capable of doing so, but that the capacity to murder innocent people to wipe out their group is inherent in our nature as humans (which is the definition of "the human condition").
I disagree. What about that cannot you understand?
What makes you think you speak for all mortals but me? Why even bring some bogus argument about what I am "just offended" by into this? We are talking about a general rule; the "human condition."
QuoteYour style of argument is tiresome, quibbling, and focuses on a few branches on a few trees instead of the forest in order to score your Languish version of debate club points. No thank you. Not interested in continuing.
When you are down to complaining about
the way I argue rather than
what I argue, you are intellectually bankrupt in the argument, so withdrawal from the debate is wise and logical. That your assertion is untrue is of no consequence, given its complete irrelevance.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
I disagree.
And you are welcome to your disagreement. I don't give a shit.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
I disagree.
And you are welcome to your disagreement. I don't give a shit.
That's rather un-fahdiz of you, man. 'Sup widdat?
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
I don't give a shit.
Thus your argument is intellectually bankrupt and grumbler wins. Sorry. :(
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 20, 2012, 06:36:49 PM
Another otherwise interesting argument destroyed by a Semantics Death Storm.
But always entertaining.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 20, 2012, 06:36:49 PM
a Semantics Death Storm.
It's more like a Semantics EMP Pulse. Immediately burns out every communications transistor and circuit board in the area.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2012, 12:25:45 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
I don't give a shit.
Thus your argument is intellectually bankrupt and grumbler wins. Sorry. :(
:huh: He's not making an argument.
"Intellectually bankrupt" means that one has run out of intellectual arguments and is making arguments that are non-intellectual. Fahdiz started with some intellectual arguments, but continued without them when all of his intellectual arguments were refuted (switching, instead, to the argument that the way I expressed myself was faulty, or something like that). That's intellectual bankruptcy.
Ideas can start out intellectually bankrupt, of course, but that's not what happened here.
Even an AAR too. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 12:10:18 PM
That's rather un-fahdiz of you, man. 'Sup widdat?
Agreed. He normally isn't such a sore loser.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 23, 2012, 12:46:31 PM
Even an AAR too. :lol:
The AAR lasts longer than the war, as we all know. Soon, The Usual Suspects will be chiming in with their psychoanalysis of what some posters post the way they do, or bemoaning that their precious board has been hijacked by off-topic discussion or "semantic" somethingorothers, etc.
That's the best part of any discussion; the dogpile phase. :D
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 12:44:57 PM
"Intellectually bankrupt" means that one has run out of intellectual arguments and is making arguments that are non-intellectual. Fahdiz started with some intellectual arguments, but continued without them when all of his intellectual arguments were refuted (switching, instead, to the argument that the way I expressed myself was faulty, or something like that). That's intellectual bankruptcy.
Ideas can start out intellectually bankrupt, of course, but that's not what happened here.
:rolleyes:
Teach probably could have done without the instruction here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 12:10:18 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
I disagree.
And you are welcome to your disagreement. I don't give a shit.
That's rather un-fahdiz of you, man. 'Sup widdat?
In debates with grumbler, eventually only grumbler still acts in character.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
:rolleyes:
Teach probably could have done without the instruction here.
:lol: :yes:
I was just making a crack about how grumbler used that tirade as an opportunity to declare victory.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
:rolleyes:
Teach probably could have done without the instruction here.
Possibly, but his post indicated otherwise. What he says is the only basis I have to judge what he knows. If his post misleads, I am not the one you should be rolling eyes at.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
:lol: :yes:
I was just making a crack about how grumbler used that tirade as an opportunity to declare victory.
:lmfao: That's always been my standard of victory, barring the occasional poster mature enough to admit that they were wrong. You've been here long enough to know
that.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 08:28:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
:rolleyes:
Teach probably could have done without the instruction here.
Possibly, but his post indicated otherwise. What he says is the only basis I have to judge what he knows. If his post misleads, I am not the one you should be rolling eyes at.
His post wasn't misleading. It was clearly a joke at your posting style that has been identified. (I'm not making assumptions about you as an individual just what others have now coined as "grumbleresque".) Throw away jokes/attacks don't really warrant analysis or commentary....yet here we are. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 12:10:18 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
I disagree.
And you are welcome to your disagreement. I don't give a shit.
That's rather un-fahdiz of you, man. 'Sup widdat?
Fahdiz has been kinda cranky since he came back.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
His post wasn't misleading. It was clearly a joke at your posting style that has been identified. (I'm not making assumptions about you as an individual just what others have now coined as "grumbleresque".) Throw away jokes/attacks don't really warrant analysis or commentary....yet here we are. :D
Some of the most annoying arguments I've been in on Languish started with what I thought were throwaway jokes. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
His post wasn't misleading. It was clearly a joke at your posting style that has been identified. (I'm not making assumptions about you as an individual just what others have now coined as "grumbleresque".) Throw away jokes/attacks don't really warrant analysis or commentary....yet here we are. :D
I think the scientific term for what you are doing here is "beating an expired equine."
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2012, 05:46:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
His post wasn't misleading. It was clearly a joke at your posting style that has been identified. (I'm not making assumptions about you as an individual just what others have now coined as "grumbleresque".) Throw away jokes/attacks don't really warrant analysis or commentary....yet here we are. :D
I think the scientific term for what you are doing here is "beating an expired equine."
No.
Raz is quickly devolving into Grumbler Junior.
Well with grumbler's age increasingly a factor in the quality and quantity of his postings having an understudy is a requirement.
Quote from: Tamas on February 24, 2012, 07:49:17 AM
Raz is quickly devolving into Grumbler Junior.
:pinch: :pinch: :pinch:
Quote from: Tamas on February 24, 2012, 07:49:17 AM
Raz is quickly devolving into Grumbler Junior.
You are so off my Christmas card list.
Sweden could have had 100 nukes by 1965 but the government pussied out. Damn faggots.
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
Sweden could have had 100 nukes by 1965 but the government pussied out. Damn faggots.
All they would have to do is preemptively surrender to the Soviets.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 11:29:27 PM
Fahdiz has been kinda cranky since he came back.
I have less patience than I used to, I think.
What's also kinda weird is the winning/losing rhetoric. The old man sees every conversation as a game to be won, and his SUPER EFFECTIVE TACTIC is to annoy the other participants in the discussion using nitpicking, semantics and obtuseness until they shrug and leave the thread.
I've stopped "debating" stuff with him a long time ago, as have lots of other posters.
And sometimes he really does have a good point, but chooses a deliberately ineffective way of communicating it (such as by insults and/or condescension) to suck his opponent in deeper. Instead of making a clear and concise correction that would be helpful but boring, he creates a nasty debate so that he could enjoy his win (or more likely someone's loss).
I win without playing.
Me vs Guller? I WIN. American beats Slav.
Me vs Zoupa? I WIN. American beats Frog.
Automatic wins baby. :cool:
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2012, 05:09:39 PM
I win without playing.
Me vs Guller? I WIN. American beats Slav.
Me vs Zoupa? I WIN. American beats Frog.
Automatic wins baby. :cool:
You cannot win against the Swede.
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2012, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2012, 05:09:39 PM
I win without playing.
Me vs Guller? I WIN. American beats Slav.
Me vs Zoupa? I WIN. American beats Frog.
Automatic wins baby. :cool:
You cannot win against the Swede.
That is because the Swedes are too busy sucking Nazi cock to show up for the argument in the frist placce.
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2012, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2012, 05:09:39 PM
I win without playing.
Me vs Guller? I WIN. American beats Slav.
Me vs Zoupa? I WIN. American beats Frog.
Automatic wins baby. :cool:
You cannot win against the Swede.
You ain't out of the brig yet.
If you get the reference, you become my favorite European.
Heartbreak Ridge? Europeans suck ass anyways.
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2012, 08:31:40 PM
Heartbreak Ridge? Europeans suck ass anyways.
BRAIN ASCENDS TO THE TOP OF MY LIST.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 24, 2012, 07:24:58 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2012, 05:46:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
His post wasn't misleading. It was clearly a joke at your posting style that has been identified. (I'm not making assumptions about you as an individual just what others have now coined as "grumbleresque".) Throw away jokes/attacks don't really warrant analysis or commentary....yet here we are. :D
I think the scientific term for what you are doing here is "beating an expired equine."
No.
Really? Calling me "grumbleresque" (e.g. "like grumbler") is totally silly, and clearly the result of beating a dead horse until one runs out of non-silly things to say. Of course I am like me! :lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2012, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 24, 2012, 07:24:58 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2012, 05:46:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
His post wasn't misleading. It was clearly a joke at your posting style that has been identified. (I'm not making assumptions about you as an individual just what others have now coined as "grumbleresque".) Throw away jokes/attacks don't really warrant analysis or commentary....yet here we are. :D
I think the scientific term for what you are doing here is "beating an expired equine."
No.
Really? Calling me "grumbleresque" (e.g. "like grumbler") is totally silly, and clearly the result of beating a dead horse until one runs out of non-silly things to say. Of course I am like me! :lmfao:
Sometimes people be someone else. Politicians do it all the time.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2012, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 24, 2012, 07:24:58 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2012, 05:46:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
His post wasn't misleading. It was clearly a joke at your posting style that has been identified. (I'm not making assumptions about you as an individual just what others have now coined as "grumbleresque".) Throw away jokes/attacks don't really warrant analysis or commentary....yet here we are. :D
I think the scientific term for what you are doing here is "beating an expired equine."
No.
Really? Calling me "grumbleresque" (e.g. "like grumbler") is totally silly, and clearly the result of beating a dead horse until one runs out of non-silly things to say. Of course I am like me! :lmfao:
The adjective wasn't used on you but rather on other individuals that have been seen to perform in a like manner. And again, I"m not the one who used it - just observed it around here.