|
fishmech posted:it is exactly what I was talking about and saying at the time, try your disingenuous bullshit in defense of the crazy man somewhere else, thanks. Sorry but I don't buy it, this whole thing started over you bringing up the internet as a development of military research, and your last comment is you talking about what you think the role of the military in society is. Those aren't the same things at all, and if you meant them to be the same you didn't do a very good job. Or say so at the start. And you can keep calling me incoherent all you want, I haven't deviated from my original point, so if your being serious it doesn't speak well for your own reading comprehension.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Sorry but I don't buy it, this whole thing started over you bringing up the internet as a development of military research, and your last comment is you talking about what you think the role of the military in society is. Those aren't the same things at all, and if you meant them to be the same you didn't do a very good job. Or say so at the start. They are completely the same thing, one is an expansion of why the other is true. I'm sorry you want to defend the crazy dude, but you're bending over backwards to do it and still aren't managing it. I haven't deviated from my original point, and none of your points have been true. You just seem to want to cal everything contributing to mass-murder, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They are completely the same thing, one is an expansion of why the other is true. I'm sorry you want to defend the crazy dude, but you're bending over backwards to do it and still aren't managing it. See this what I'm talking about with you being dishonest and changing what you say. If I'm being as incoherent as you occasionally claim then how could you possibly know everything I say is wrong? Depending on the comment you either act like you know exactly what I'm talking about or claiming you can't make head nor tail of it. I've already explicitly told you what my point of view is and that was in comment you replied to claiming to know I was wrong, so I'm not going down this road with you again since its become clear to me that you're being deliberately dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Would it be a conspiracy theory to believe that this is just fishmech arguing with himself?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:See this what I'm talking about with you being dishonest and changing what you say. If I'm being as incoherent as you occasionally claim then how could you possibly know everything I say is wrong? Depending on the comment you either act like you know exactly what I'm talking about or claiming you can't make head nor tail of it. I've already explicitly told you what my point of view is and that was in comment you replied to claiming to know I was wrong, so I'm not going down this road with you again since its become clear to me that you're being deliberately dishonest. See this is what I'm talking about with you blatantly being incapable of reading. I'm sorry you really want to defend the crazy dude's statement, but you've just making things up repeatedly. It's pretty easy to know that various disconnected things are wrong. For example, when the guy you're defending was ranting about this: Quift posted:This isn't what I originally intended to argue. Not to mention how you almost deliberately seem to miscontrue my words. It's full of incoherence and many of the incoherent things are also outright wrong! You'd think someone who read a conspiracy theory thread would understand this, but I guess that's expecting too much?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:See this is what I'm talking about with you blatantly being incapable of reading. I'm sorry you really want to defend the crazy dude's statement, but you've just making things up repeatedly. So I guess you've decided in this comment you can understand me hey? Seriously this is really sad, right now what your doing is saying someone who is mentally ill is incapable of having even a partially correct or sensible thought, and anyone who concurs with them on any level is the same. That's pretty disgusting behaviour. If I knew you'd have such a meltdown you'd stoop to a guilt by association fallacy, while insulting those with mental problems, I'd just ignore you completely. Baka-nin fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
This is a false flag argument, can't anyone else see that fishmech and Baka-nin's avatars are the same? Just take away the anime and add 50 years! Edit: I can MSpaint circle the eyebrows if that will help you see the truth
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:So I guess you've decided in this comment you can understand me hey? Seriously this is really sad, right now what your doing is saying someone who is mentally ill is incapable of having even a partially correct or sensible thought, and anyone who concurs with them on any level is the same. That's pretty disgusting behavior. If I knew you'd have such a meltdown you'd stoop to a guilt by association fallacy, while insulting those with mental problems, I'd just ignore you completely. Buddy I understand your rambling, it's still wrong and incoherent. Do you need a refresher course on English (and history, and technology and...) maybe? Perhaps you should stop melting down in defense of the claim that the internet makes mass-murder easily, unless you truly believe video games are real life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Buddy I understand your rambling, it's still wrong and incoherent. Do you need a refresher course on English (and history, and technology and...) maybe? Perhaps you should stop melting down in defense of the claim that the internet makes mass-murder easily, unless you truly believe video games are real life. Yeah, your concern trolling probably shouldn't come straight after you try to write of the mentally ill and anyone who disagrees with you because it just doesn't fool anyone. I know I called you on a meltdown which means you have to pretend to be chill to save face but you got to be more subtle with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Wow this sure is an interesting slap fight but maybe we can get back on track by just agreeing that Quift is kind of an idiot for suggesting that military-funded research is meritless?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Yeah, your concern trolling probably shouldn't come straight after you try to write of the mentally ill and anyone who disagrees with you because it just doesn't fool anyone. I know I called you on a meltdown which means you have to pretend to be chill to save face but you got to be more subtle with it. Looks like we can add "concern trolling" to the list of things you apparently don't understand, because pointing out that someone's arguments are bunk isn't concern trolling. QuarkJets posted:Wow this sure is an interesting slap fight but maybe we can get back on track by just agreeing that Quift is kind of an idiot for suggesting that military-funded research is meritless? Man Quift didn't even say anything so close to defensible as that, he straight up said it was all to further "mass-murder". Even someone really ignorant would know that say, a sniper rifle doesn't do much for "mass-murder".
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
If Obama doesn't call out this page as terrorism it's just further proof of Benghazi
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
This is only interesting to you two. Can you take it to PMs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
I didn't say any of this. This is what i said in context.fishmech posted:Military research is not inherently opposed to peace. QuarkJets posted:That's true, but in many cases it is, so my point still stands. Peaceful benefits can be derived from non-peaceful intentions. Quift posted:I would argue that researching new and exciting ways to commit mass-murder is in effect inherently opposed to peace. My phrasing is a bit tongue in cheek and was meant to convey my pacifist ideology. Stated differently: Military research is done with the goal of finding military advantage. It is thus inherently non-peaceful. Contrary to Quarkjet in the post I quoted above I argue that the peaceful benefits that can be derived from non-peaceful intentions is irrelevant to the moral argument. From a pacifist POV the military is a living "War-Machine" and the efforts of scientists in making the war machine more efficient are inherently opposed to peace. But from here the discussion has gone to discuss a separate question, regarding the "merit" of military research. This "merit" is very easy to question with the most fundemental of economic arguments. Resources invested into military research are not invested into civil research. The violent aims of military research have a social as well as economic cost to the society that funds it. It is rather easy to to argue that society would benefit more if Government funded research was directed towards finding means of improving the lives of the citizenry rather than searching for novel ways to murder the citizenry of geo-political rivals or other political opponents. When discussing the merits of "military research" this substantial cost has to taken into account. So to discuss the economic and social merits of military research we must compare our current situation with a hypothetical scenario where equal government resources would instead have been invested into civil research. I get the impression that in the long run a society would probably be better off if it invested it's resources into civil rather than military research. Thus I question the relative merit of military research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Quift posted:I didn't say any of this. This is what i said in context. That's false though. We've already established that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Even if it were true the differing needs, goals, and focuses would still lead to a broadening of knowledge and resources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
This is getting close counterfactual speculation along the lines of, "What would research look like if there were no wars?" Modal realism teaches us that a proposition is possible if and only if it is true at one of the concrete possible worlds. Given what we know about the Lumerian Tree of Life, I do not believe that there is a possible world where the Hebrons wouldn't have invaded from Sirius and introduced war to humanity. Would we even be human without our (((ancient alien))) overlords?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's false though. We've already established that. I don't think your argument has refuted this at all. The only thing you have proven is that we cannot say that all research done by DARPA was military. You have yourself said that the military aspect of is was a cover to get funds for research through congress. Which makes it non-military research. 1. Military research is done with the goal of finding military advantage. 2. Offensive military action is the pursuit of political goals through violent ends 3. Once a side sees a clear military advantage the there is a significant increase in the likelihood of military action. Conclusion: Military research increases the risk of violence. The only thing your incoherent rambling about pants ha achieved is making me doubt whether you wear any in your day to day life. Warbadger posted:Even if it were true the differing needs, goals, and focuses would still lead to a broadening of knowledge and resources. While this would be an argument for a mixed investment by the state it doesn't bear water if one takes efficiency into account. Since the benefits you are mentioning would be accidental it's hard to imagine that they would be achieved with great efficiency. It's doubtful that these would be as beneficial as equal resources invested into a civilian effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Quift posted:I don't think your argument has refuted this at all. It has. For literally thousands of years, militaries and research funded by/for them have not just been for military purposes, they have also served as a pillar of civilian life, who are tasked with various projects and their associated research that has nothing to do with fighting wars. You want to pretend this isn't true, but it's, say, the US military who's in the majority of American flood control efforts. Or once again, the internet. Quift posted:You have yourself said that the military aspect of is was a cover to get funds for research through congress. Which makes it non-military research. It's military research, done by military control. The only way you can say it's not military research is to randomly declare the military to not be the military, which is completely indefensible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:This is getting close counterfactual speculation along the lines of, "What would research look like if there were no wars?" Modal realism teaches us that a proposition is possible if and only if it is true at one of the concrete possible worlds. Given what we know about the Lumerian Tree of Life, I do not believe that there is a possible world where the Hebrons wouldn't have invaded from Sirius and introduced war to humanity. Would we even be human without our (((ancient alien))) overlords? I disagree, war, which is just a form of organized murder, which has been with us since the first generation of humans born with sin in their hearts-- the very first to be born. The wicked and jealous Cain, who murdered his brother, and then became the father of vampires some 6500 years ago brought us murder and war. The Hebrons is just another name for the first children, jealous of our place as the favorite creation, and while they rebelled and were cast out, they are not responsible for our atrocities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:I disagree, war, which is just a form of organized murder, which has been with us since the first generation of humans born with sin in their hearts-- the very first to be born. The wicked and jealous Cain, who murdered his brother, and then became the father of vampires some 6500 years ago brought us murder and war. The Hebrons is just another name for the first children, jealous of our place as the favorite creation, and while they rebelled and were cast out, they are not responsible for our atrocities. what the hell
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:what the hell Yes, hell is where the rebellious Hebrons were cast. Thank you for clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It has. For literally thousands of years, militaries and research funded by/for them have not just been for military purposes, they have also served as a pillar of civilian life, who are tasked with various projects and their associated research that has nothing to do with fighting wars. You want to pretend this isn't true, but it's, say, the US military who's in the majority of American flood control efforts. Or once again, the internet. If everything done by the military is a military endeavour then everything done by a criminal would be a crime. I would argue that a crime is defined by the law, and what is "military" is defined by the state-given right to exercise violence on behalf of the state towards external threat as well as the organization of resources towards that goal. Any other responsabilites a military apparatus might have (such as oppression the populace, disaster control, tax collcetion) are state functions that might as well be handled by the civil service. The amount of non-military responsabilites given to the military is a measure of the militarization of a society. Without a clear definition of "military" it beccomes very hard to argue for what limits to impose on the military and the entire society would run the risk of being run by a military industrial complex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:I disagree, war, which is just a form of organized murder, which has been with us since the first generation of humans born with sin in their hearts-- the very first to be born. The wicked and jealous Cain, who murdered his brother, and then became the father of vampires some 6500 years ago brought us murder and war. The Hebrons is just another name for the first children, jealous of our place as the favorite creation, and while they rebelled and were cast out, they are not responsible for our atrocities. LOL you believe in time. Learn to swim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
how do I delete a post?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
By deleting your account
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Quift posted:If everything done by the military is a military endeavour then everything done by a criminal would be a crime. So then, you don't believe a geolocation system to guide nuclear missiles accurately to their targets falls within the "military" category? What about a system developed specifically to detect and track hostile aircraft? How about an extremely long range reliable rocket booster developed to lob 1 ton bombs at cities? Preserved food used to allow longer supply chains for armies roaming abroad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:LOL you believe in time. Learn to swim. While I don't blame you for stopping your thought with the eternity and oneness of the creator, I still disagree. You're not seeing that the forest is still made of trees. While the week and the year are creations of the mind of man, ultimately illusory, it is a fact that days are real, as the Earth and all things on it were created in six days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:While I don't blame you for stopping your thought with the eternity and oneness of the creator, I still disagree. You're not seeing that the forest is still made of trees. While the week and the year are creations of the mind of man, ultimately illusory, it is a fact that days are real, as the Earth and all things on it were created in six days. earth has 4 corner simultaneous 4-day TIME CUBE in only 24 hour rotation
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:So then, you don't believe a geolocation system to guide nuclear missiles accurately to their targets falls within the "military" category? What about a system developed specifically to detect and track hostile aircraft? How about an extremely long range reliable rocket booster developed to lob 1 ton bombs at cities? Preserved food used to allow longer supply chains for armies roaming abroad? What? on the contrary all of those would quite clearly be military. In some cases they would be military applications of civilian research, in other they would be military application of military research. The question was whether research was "military" if financed through a military. I would argue that it wasn't neccesarily the case. This point is however very minor since almost all military research is military in nature. An exampe of research that might be funnneled through the military without being classified as "military research" would be for instance related to natural disasters. If the military in a given country is given the civil responsability of handling the catastrophic effects of vulcanic eruptions they might hire geologists to predict volcanic activity. This research would not be "military" yet handled by the military of that country. But this is be a very minor point. I'm just trying to clarify my definitions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Quift posted:If everything done by the military is a military endeavour then everything done by a criminal would be a crime. Nope. Perhaps if "criminal" was a state-created and funded form of job, which would be what you'd need to do to get even close. Research done by and for the military is military research, not all military research is for Make Fight Good. Specifically, again, due to the fact that there is longstanding history of the military not being just about fighting or even preparing to fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Quift posted:What? on the contrary all of those would quite clearly be military. In some cases they would be military applications of civilian research, in other they would be military application of military research. The first is GPS, the second is RADAR, the third is space rocketry, the last is canned food. All of these are used predominantly in civilian capacity, but only after extensive military funding and development matured them to the point it was attractive to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Quift posted:What? on the contrary all of those would quite clearly be military. In some cases they would be military applications of civilian research, in other they would be military application of military research. The point is that there are civilian applications of military research, and we can realize peaceful benefits from non-peaceful research. Quift posted:My phrasing is a bit tongue in cheek and was meant to convey my pacifist ideology. Stated differently: I'd like to start by pointing out that your argument is seriously weakened because it rests on the assumption that you can easily classify any research effort as either peaceful or non-peaceful. The world isn't black and white like that. Declaring something irrelevant doesn't make it so; you still need to back up your position with a well-reasoned argument, but you haven't done that here. Say that the military, in an attempt to maintain a stronger, healthier fighting force, creates an injection that essentially cures obesity. The purpose of this research was inherently non-peaceful; the scientists working on this research were trying to make the "War-Machine" more efficient, basically everything that you say you dislike about military research still applies here. But surely we can both agree that such an invention would have staggeringly positive peaceful benefits despite the intentions of everyone involved. I don't believe that these benefits are diminished due to the intentions of the scientists or the people funding the research. Would you also argue that a piece of military technology that can only be used in self-defense is inherently opposed to peace? For instance, is body armor opposed to peace? What about helmets? How does your argument apply to research that has obvious civilian and military benefits? Do you just brush the military benefit under the rug? Does the funding agency determine the moral goodness of the research despite the potential benefits to the military or to the civilian population? quote:Resources invested into military research are not invested into civil research. That's a false dichotomy. If you cut all military-related research, not all of that money wouldn't get funneled back into civilian research (realistically, maybe up to a tiny fraction of it would be). Civilian applications of military research are an undeniable tangential benefit of having military research. That's the crux of my argument, and you seem to disagree but you don't have good reasoning to support your position, so I'm accusing you of making a flimsy morality argument. quote:So to discuss the economic and social merits of military research we must compare our current situation with a hypothetical scenario where equal government resources would instead have been invested into civil research. I get the impression that in the long run a society would probably be better off if it invested it's resources into civil rather than military research. Thus I question the relative merit of military research. I don't see much value in comparing reality to fantasy, as you've done here. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Right, so, anyway. Watching some X-Files lately and I'm really nostalgic for the conspiracy theories of the 90's. UFO stuff, specifically. I don't think any of the modern online CT circles talk about that much these days. It's all new world order, questionable trade agreements, all the presidential candidates descending from the same evil bloodline, and rampant antisemitism. Did people lose their fascination with extraterrestrial life? Did the eminently real threat of terrorism take peoples' eyes off the skies? Maybe people just don't give a poo poo now that grainy footage doesn't impress everybody with a high def camera in their pocket. But really, if the government was covering up contact with aliens 20 years ago, wouldn't they still be doing it now? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:While I don't blame you for stopping your thought with the eternity and oneness of the creator, I still disagree. You're not seeing that the forest is still made of trees. While the week and the year are creations of the mind of man, ultimately illusory, it is a fact that days are real, as the Earth and all things on it were created in six days. The nice thing about Lewis Davis, is that through Modal Realism, we can all embrace a radical Humean truth were all things are permitted and nothing is forbidden. So may it always be, Inshallah Senor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Right, so, anyway. Watching some X-Files lately and I'm really nostalgic for the conspiracy theories of the 90's. UFO stuff, specifically. I don't think any of the modern online CT circles talk about that much these days. It's all new world order, questionable trade agreements, all the presidential candidates descending from the same evil bloodline, and rampant antisemitism. Did people lose their fascination with extraterrestrial life? Did the eminently real threat of terrorism take peoples' eyes off the skies? Maybe people just don't give a poo poo now that grainy footage doesn't impress everybody with a high def camera in their pocket. But really, if the government was covering up contact with aliens 20 years ago, wouldn't they still be doing it now? People that claim they have been abducted are lying. Now they can be asked for proof and no one believes them when they all claim they just happened to have been abducted the ONE time they left their cell, ipod, and tablet at home. This is the thing that bugged me most about this crap. Anyone telling a story about being abducted is telling the truth, no matter how stupid the story or bad the witness, but anything the government (or someone that does not believe in UFOS) says is absolutely a lie. FAKE EDIT: Ever notice that the moment any of this mumbo jumbo is comprehensively proven to be fake it is INSTANTLY dropped by the theorists and never mentioned again? 504 fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Plenty of CTs still believe in alien abductions, you might feel like it's mentioned less because people in general talk about it less. Something being implausibly stupid has never been a good enough reason for a conspiracy theorist to express skepticism. And yeah, I have also noticed how CTs always believe that the government is lying, but Joe Shmoe on YouTube is definitely an expert and a trustworthy source
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:And yeah, I have also noticed how CTs always believe that the government is lying, but Joe Shmoe on YouTube is definitely an expert and a trustworthy source Those dumb fuckers that believe the whole "Buy gold, paper money is gonna fail!!!" line almost cause me to stroke out. Don't ANY of them notice the helpful advice filled website is willing to take their useless paper and give them valuable valuable gold?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
I never bought into alien abductions myself, mostly since I don't see why a spacecraft with Star Trek level technology would need to physically examine a specimen onboard, but the allegedly true story behind Fire In The Sky is.... intriguing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Right, so, anyway. Watching some X-Files lately and I'm really nostalgic for the conspiracy theories of the 90's. UFO stuff, specifically. I don't think any of the modern online CT circles talk about that much these days. It's all new world order, questionable trade agreements, all the presidential candidates descending from the same evil bloodline, and rampant antisemitism. Did people lose their fascination with extraterrestrial life? Did the eminently real threat of terrorism take peoples' eyes off the skies? Maybe people just don't give a poo poo now that grainy footage doesn't impress everybody with a high def camera in their pocket. But really, if the government was covering up contact with aliens 20 years ago, wouldn't they still be doing it now? On the contrary there is plenty of UFO stuff. if you wish to delve deeper into the the subjct you can google some of these keywords Anunaki Archonts Archturians Galactic federation of light alien moonbase mars colony secret space program these sites and channles have plenty of "information" youtube"]user/ExoNewsTV https://secretspaceprogram.org/
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 09:38
|
|