Ehm... exactly how are they going to doxx me if I don't disclose my personal information anywhere?
To doxx me, you'd have to get my IP address, then cross reference that with the ISPs accounts.
Good luck.
And even so, when you say "terrorist" what does that mean?
Well, first you're likely talking about Swatting. I would LOVE to be swatted by some trolls. Because increasingly they're going to pound you in the ass prison.
So the cost to me is that I get scared for about 5 minutes as dudes with machine guns kick my door in.
And you go to jail for ten years?
Deal. In fact, could we please just have all the trolls SWAT me at once? It will save time. I'll literally accept a bullet wound to send a fair number of those idiots to some prison we keep all the pedophiles in... I'll sit there on a light morphine drip giggling and clouds while they're getting touched in all the wrong places by slimy bald dudes in their 50s.
Seriously. Who wins there?
Who dies from Swatting also? I mean... it is scary and has the potential for someone to get shot. But since they tend to barge in on guys in their boxers eating cherrios... I don't think anyone has actually been shot yet?
And again. I would take a bullet if it led to about ten of them going to prison. Totally worth it.
Dream on. A country that nukes the US is going to get abandoned.
The squeamish countries will close their eyes and count to ten... at which point it will be all over. If they're stupid they'll complain about it after the fact. If they are a bit more clever they'll know to keep their mouths shut.
Shows what you know. I would have. And anyone that understands US culture would know that was coming.
It was actually pretty funny watching experts in US foreign policy from Australia, the UK, and even China explain to their colleagues what was going on.
Non-experts didn't see it coming. The experts all did.
Here is an example you personally will probably be aware of... remember Isoroku Yamamoto?
His buddies in the Japanese imperial military didn't think the US would respond strongly to having its fleet sunk in Pearl Harbor. They thought the US would continue to do what it was doing before which was trying to stay out of the war... and responding to various attacks against its interests with strong words.
Yamamoto told them that the US would shift radically if they did that and switch from a passive footing to a very aggressive footing.
He knew this because he studied in the US and was something of an expert on American culture at least for an imperial Japanese admiral.
what happened? The Japanese hit Pearl harbor and America switched over night to not wanting to being involved to wanting nothing less than the unconditional surrender of the Japanese empire... crushed beneath the American heel.
It changed like that *snaps fingers*. And the thing is that you're only caught off guard by this is if you don't understand our culture.
The way we work is that we are very much a live and let live people most of the time. We just want peace and trade.
Cross certain lines with us though and... everything changes.
The dynamics of this are complicated but well understood by people that understand US culture and politics. I'd explain it to you but I don't want to go to the effort if you're not listening which I expect is what is going on.
You don't seem to appreciate that I am a lot better educated than you are... especially on this subject. Unless you're able to appreciate that, then I'd just be wasting my time trying to correct your many errors.
I know you think you're clever when you conflate unrelated things but it isn't clever. It shows a lack of awareness about the distinctions. And wisdom is largely a matter of perceiving the distinctions between things.
If you can't... you're blind... and the blind do not give directions to those with eyes.
Oh look, another stupid comment from an AC... how fucking original.
When someone runs away when their arguments are systematically disproven... you want to call that anything other than running away? Okay. Yawn.
As to misogyny... what about what I said showed a hatred of women in general?
This is one of those terms which has been so abused it doesn't mean anything any more.
Its like if you started referring to people that ate all their peas and carrots as genociding their peas and carrots. At a certain point, when you come upon actual genocide, you have to use a different word because you're completely burned out the impact of the original term.
Misogyny doesn't mean anything anymore. You've over used it and used it in totally fucking stupid contexts.
Rape is another one. I saw a feminist video the other day where a woman said she was "raped" when her mother called another girl a slut. Raped when her brother made fun of another girl. Raped when someone didn't give a woman a job.
None of these things are rape. And when you call them rape, it confuses people that have heard you do that and heard the original meaning as well. People stop and think "when you say rape, do you mean ACTUAL rape or bullshit rape?"
And that effectively hurts rape victims because you're basically doing a boy that cried wolf type thing.
And you just did that by calling me a misogynist. I'm not... and because you're too stupid to realize that mislabeling me as such is a mistake, you're probably too stupid to realize that you're giving cover for actual woman haters because no one takes the claim of misogyny seriously anymore. Its known to be frequently misused.
So which of us is the real woman hater? Me or you? You're objectively hurting woman more than I am because you're making it harder for them to get help when facing actual discrimination. I"m not doing that. That's YOU.
That might not be your intention. But your general stupidity is not really relevant here either. That is the effect of your actions.
Orwell didn't have a problem with people disclosing their records to general audit. He was more concerned with an authoritarian state dominating society through a mixture of censorship and propaganda.
Disclosing your history to the general public doesn't really touch on anything Orwell had a problem with unless the only people that could see it would be the authorities. If everyone can see it then he wouldn't have a problem with it.
I don't think you are especially familiar with Orwell.
And here we get why ACs are generally regarded to be automatic fucktards.
Your first mistake was strawmanning me... or goalpost moving. I'm not quite sure technically what happened there. But what you did was change the context of my comment so that it meant something else.
The fellow I was commenting against was bitching about APK who can be annoying at times but the guy isn't mean spirited. He's clearly some kind of autistic and he's very focused on his software. I'll also point out that he actually created something that actually works.
Where as the piece of shit that was criticizing him doesn't log in, likely never created anything of value, and given his lack of self awareness is probably not one to provide any input of value.
Here you then say I'm engaging against ad hominem forgetting that the previous person was doing the same thing.
Are you then agreeing with me that the likes of APK etc shouldn't be censored? If so, we agree.
If you think they should be censored then on what basis? And how do you not fall into the same ad hominem charge you leveled at me?
See?
Now, I don't get comments this stupid with any consistently from people that log in. I just don't. Maybe that's a just a coincidence. But at this point, I associate ACs with fucktards.
They tried to downvote me actually but I got more upvotes than downvotes. I was pleasantly surprised.
I also made a post close to that where I basically laughed at the idea that Russia could be a real threat to the US... and I did something similar for China. All backed up with "facts" about how the Russian economy is lower than Slovaka per capita and China's export economy can't actually grow more than it has... and little things about how various bits of hardware and tech don't actually compete with the US version.
I mean... I really buck the trend all the time. I'm just going through your list... I do all those things.
And I do get karmabombed now and again. But I'm Excellent again in a couple days worst case.
I also don't really care. I'm not here to make people like me. I'm here to see what people think about what I think. I also like the articles.
So when someone says they don't like what I said... okay, why? And if they don't have a reason then they don't have a reason. I don't take their opinion seriously. Just as bad is if their opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the facts or general bias. I'm not taking that seriously either.
What I really want is for someone to disagree with me for a good reason. I learn from that. Those are rare... in part because most of my opinions are already backed up by a lot of research and facts. And in part because there are an awful lot of morons on this site.
Anyway, you can't allow yourself to care about the Karambombs. The morons win then. I refuse to let them win. They're entirely too stupid to deserve a win.
I get downvoted pretty hard every so often and then am back up to excellent in a few days.
Say the new apple product is bullshit... get downvoted by apple fanboys saying you're a troll.
Say some science article is leaping to conclusions or needs more evidence? Get hordes of cultists for that issue falling on you saying you're a denier of science.
Say some social issue is dominated by sociopathic con artists preying on the gullible for cash and power... again... labeled troll.
And two or three days later... Excellent.
So who gives a shit? Ignore the fuckwits. Say what you believe and if they can't handle that then fuck em.
The key is to be utterly immune to the opinions of truly stupid people. You have to be. There are too may of them for their opinions to matter. If we weighted each of them as some very low number then multiplied that by how many of them there are... you'd get knocked by consensus every time.
There are a lot of people that think getting people to agree with you means you're right about science or anything factual. They don't grasp that literally one person can contradict an infinite number of people and be right and the infinity can be wrong.
You be confident in yourself and if the twits want to circle jerk each other off that is their loss. They want their echo chambers which means they don't deserve you.
There are better communities. The small ones are often very clicheish. And the big ones have lots of idiots in them. Slashdot for example. But you want a community where you can a moron a moron... and when they get offended you can start pointing and laughing.
Childish? How else are you going to communicate with morons? They don't understand anything else.
Reddit has been a censor's paradise for years. It is why so many companies wanted to move their boards to reddit. Really easy to silence people that say your new product is bullshit/designed by cross eyed kittens. Anywho, the trick is to not take these people more seriously than they deserve to be taken. Which in the case of the truly stupid is not at all.
In all fairness, can an AC really talk crap about someone that actually logs in and has a record? For all anyone knows you're posting things in support of pedophilia in other threads.
ACs really have no moral or ethical right to criticize people that log in and have a history. What would you have us all do? Everyone be AC? Then who would you talk shit about? That other AC?
On the topic of Reddit... I think it is fine so long as they don't abuse the policy. Reddit did delete some stuff that was critical of Pao for example. So that implies that the place is being filtered for self serving purposes which isn't a good sign.
My biggest beef with reddit though is the Shadow Ban. That is some fucking Orwellian shit.
Imagine being censored so completely that you don't even know you were censored. Imagine publishing a book and checking on the book... and thinking it is there for anyone to get. But you're the only one that sees it.
Its fucking creepy.
Now is it a way of dealing with trolls etc? Sure. But only stupid ones. All the smart trolls know about shadow bans and they'll check for it.
The worst trolls in any case are the determined ones. I had one guy on a forum troll the board for about a year. He was banned about twice a week. He'd just change IP addresses and create a new account.
We eventually dealt with him by mocking and showing we didn't care about what he was doing. He got dispirited after about a month of that and went away. But man... he stuck with it for a long time. He must have been banned a couple hundred times.
You'd know this if you ever logged in... the system cuts you off if you make more than 25 posts in a 24 hour period. You get an error and it prevents you from posting again for at least an hour. At which point you can only post until your post count in the last 24 hours reaches 25.
Anyway, bingo... I don't know where you get off judging people that actually HAVE records. You don't. You don't get to judge, shithead.;)
Certain as sunrise. You pull the trigger and we'll pull the trigger. Don't like that? Don't pull the trigger and you won't have to deal with the consequences.
Pull it and the consequences are on you. You knew what we would do. We will do it.
... nuke subs? Cite how many countries have nuclear submarines capable of crossing the ocean without surfacing?
Surface to run your generator and I can see you mother fucker. To attack the US like that, you'd have to run under water the whole way. You can't do that without a nuke sub. And not a lot of countries have those.
Only two countries even build them. The US and Russia. That's it. Anyone else that has one will have ultimately bought it from the US or Russia... I think only Russia since I don't think we sell our nuke subs. Not sure if the Russians do either. But they might have sold some to China and India. Those would be the only other powers to possibly have that kind of capability.
So... no... your theoretical piss pot dictatorship is not firing nukes at the US from a nuclear submarine.
Russia could do that. But then conventional MAD applies to Russia.
How would you have enough nukes do that if you're just some nut?
There are only two countries in the world capable of waging MAD... The US and Russia. No other power has the numbers of ICBMs to wipe out any significant fraction of the planet.
Having "A" nuke or two doesn't mean you can trigger a MAD response.
Lets say your little shit hole country fires a nuke at the US and it blows up a city or something. Okay... then the US responds by glassing your whole country.
Now exactly how does that end the world? Total losses would be a single US City and some shit hole country. That's it.
Your assumption is what... that some other country will step up and say "if you nuke that shit hole country we'll nuke you in response"? who is going to step up for that country? No one. If North Korea did that do you think that China would step in and say "if you nuke north korea we'll nuke you?"... they're not going to do it. And more to the point, our deterrance via MAD requires that we follow through. If we don't nuke that little country then the bigger countries might think "hmm... they're apparently pansies so we can get away with nuking them."... which is why you MUST follow through.
If you don't like that... then don't nuke a super power. Really simple. If you do... then enjoy life on fire.
Sure, lets conflate all corporations as equally needing of security.
That's a good place to start an argument if you want it to get ripped to fucking shreds.
If your company makes baby bottles than you don't need the same security as if you make ICBMs or manage accounts that total into the TRILLIONS of dollars.
We can assume that some organizations are in need of more security than others.
And as to the consequences... you're basically just using Sony's justification for having shit security. They literally said in the memos "we're not spending 10 million to avoid 1 million in damages"...
well, it doesn't cost 10 million to secure these systems and the damages have well exceeded 1 million dollars.
As to no one sane doubting NK's nukes... actually most countries doubt it. I've read reports from many countries and they all put question marks on the NK nukes.
As to torturing people... we're talking about people that nuked a city. If you're such a gelded farm animal that the mere idea of putting someone to the question causes you to go pearl clutching then so be it. That is YOUR culture. I don't have to respect it or consider your moral views as valid. I do not worship your gods or your religion or especially consider your moral system to be rational or legitimate. So your moral judgements of me are irrelevant to me.
As to tech signitures... and you call me ignorant. Every country builds its bombs a little differently. They're not all equally effiiceint, they draw on different sources of fuel, they have varying degrees of purity... you can tell who made it by taking samples from the crater.
The could intentionally obscure the origin but that rules out terrorists. That would be a nation state obscuring the origin.
A big part of the investigation would be ruling out parties that either are responsible enough to keep track of their nukes or are not hostile to us.
That is going to give you a much smaller set of options. Then you'll know which group did it if it were terrorists because they always claim responsibility. Tracking it back is unlikely to be that complicated especially if you just want to know which country did it. Tracking it back to personally who ordered it or where the bomb was exactly made might be tricky. But tracking it to the country? Not that hard.
Anyway... hate on... your presumption of moral judgement in strategic issues beyond your intellect and too extreme for your philosophy to comprehend merely makes you an object of pity. You're limited. You can't even presume to have an opinion.
0. Unless it is a massive strike you'll have time to investigate after the bomb kills whomever. If it takes you months to figure that out... so be it. Once you know... you take whatever steps seem appropriate to resolve the situation.
1. MAD also assumed that both powers could annihilate each other. There are really only two nations on earth with that power. The US and Russia. And the Russian claim is increasingly dubious. The Russians and Americans have large ICBM submarine fleets. If you don't have one of those then you're not capable of carrying out your end of the MUTUAL DESTRUCTION.
Lets say Iran gets nukes. How many nukes will Iran have? 1... 10? And how will they deliver them? One US ICBM sub could annihilate Iran all by itself. The Iranians wouldn't even see it coming.
A requirement for MAD is that first strikes don't work. That is the whole point of it. Both the US and Russia were getting paranoid about either power conducting a nuclear first strike. MAD meant that even if either power got a first strike in, it wouldn't stop the response. The subs would head for your country rise to launch depth, and fire on your cities.
Iran or north korea or even China can't do that. China could fire on the western US. That would be bad. But they couldn't get much deeper than that. Which means a US first strike on China would actually work if we wanted to do that.
Any power large enough to carry out their end of MAD is going to be very well known to us and is going to require an economic base large enough that it is unlikely they'll be irrational. North Korea will never be able to threaten the US with mutually assured destruction. They could take one of our cities perhaps. But even that is unlikely.
2. As to limited retaliation options... actually we have no limits of retaliation options. Nuking a city is an act of war. We invaded Afghanistan simply because they wouldn't hand us Osama when we asked really nicely.
Do you have any concept of what we'd do if someone nuked a city? Take what happened after 9/11 and multiply it by a million. That takes you directly to total war. You know the war were you don't even try to avoid killing civilians. You just blow up as much shit as possible... then roll in troops who have basically the same orders. If you genocided a country that nuked one of your cities... who is going to try and stop you?
We're assuming the US is retaliating in this case... who is stopping us? No one.
People get soft and assume that because things work a certain way in peace time that they can't work another way in war. Cross all the lines with the US... and yeah... we'll light them up.
No they didn't. They wanted to make the US look weak. Osama said the US was a paper tiger. he made the argument before the war that if they struck the US, the US would do noting more than fume and stamp its feet.
He used as his basis for that, that the US had responded to previous attacks by firing some cruise missiles and doing nothing else. Had Osama known the US was going to go for a full invasion of Afghanistan, he probably wouldn't have done it. And the local taliban wouldn't have supported it.
Did he claim he wanted the US to invade AFTER the US had invaded? Yes. But that's about as credible as the guy that trips and falls saying "I meant to do that." He was saving face. He did not think the US would invade.
That example aside, lets go with your argument of "what if they want us to nuke them"... well, why would any power want to be nuked? And why is that a problem for me if they do?
The terrorists like to say things like "you want to live but we want to die". That's a literal quote from them. And I've never found that very menacing because I'm very happy to kill them. Show of hands for anyone that is going to lose any sleep over whacking some terrorists? Yeah... no one cares.
If they want to die and they've detonated a nuke or something in the US to provoke that. Then Mission Accomplished. Prepare to glow in the dark roughly 45 minutes after we learn where it came from. If we know at launch because it is an ICBM... then you can expect to get nuked seconds after we are nuked.
Where did I say I was offended? Oh that's right... I didn't... I said I couldn't be offended.
Learn to read, fuckwit.
As to your threats... Oh yeah? Well if you do that, my dad will beat up your dad. what do you think about that? Twit.
The funniest thing about your childish, threat laden, incoherent ramble... is that it is quite obvious you're upset. And that's funny because you accused me of being offended first.
The amount of projection from morons is pretty consistent. Pretty much anything they accuse someone else of being is actually more applicable to themselves. I was accused of not reading something the other day by some moron that clearly hadn't read it himself. I quoted the relevant portion and he basically stopped talking because it was obvious he was busted.
Anywho, rage on, hater. Your hatred gives me wood.
Ad hominem means "against the person". It refers to arguments where the argument not talking about the issue but rather saying "this right/wrong/etc because dave likes to grease his body and then slip into really tiny pink leotards, break into nearest women's clothing store at midnight, and dance around in the Bra section."
Now, the problem is that lets say Dave is telling you that it is going to rain tomorrow. Whilst Dave might be a freak, is he wrong about it raining tomorrow just because he's dancing in a pink leotard in the bra section?
No. What Dave does in his free time doesn't really factor into the issue. Dave could have a rape dungeon full of sex slaves. Dave could never leave home without jamming at least three gerbals up his ass. But it doesn't mean anything Dave says is inherently wrong or right.
Do you see?
That is what ad hominem refers to... not whether or not I call someone a fucking retard. But rather whether my point on their argument was based entirely on my judgement that they are fucking retards.
I don't do that. I just don't. I'm better educated than that thanks.
What I do is say "this argument is stupid for reasons"... and then I might say "because you didn't realize the argument was stupid for the cited reasons, you're also stupid."
See? That isn't ad hominem because the validity of the argument itself is not based on whether or not you're stupid. See?
That's the trick.
When someone says "ad hominem"... with validity... they're not saying "oh guys don't say mean things you might hurt someone's feeling, don't ya know?"
Instead what they're saying is "you have made a logically fallacious statement."
Do you see?
My statement was not ad hominem. The comment I labeled ad hominem was ad hominem.
Now you know what ad hominem means. Use it correctly in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
They're cargo. They need a passport the same way a box electronic components needs a passport.
aka... no. A bill of lading is sufficient.
Ehm... exactly how are they going to doxx me if I don't disclose my personal information anywhere?
To doxx me, you'd have to get my IP address, then cross reference that with the ISPs accounts.
Good luck.
And even so, when you say "terrorist" what does that mean?
Well, first you're likely talking about Swatting. I would LOVE to be swatted by some trolls. Because increasingly they're going to pound you in the ass prison.
So the cost to me is that I get scared for about 5 minutes as dudes with machine guns kick my door in.
And you go to jail for ten years?
Deal. In fact, could we please just have all the trolls SWAT me at once? It will save time. I'll literally accept a bullet wound to send a fair number of those idiots to some prison we keep all the pedophiles in... I'll sit there on a light morphine drip giggling and clouds while they're getting touched in all the wrong places by slimy bald dudes in their 50s.
Seriously. Who wins there?
Who dies from Swatting also? I mean... it is scary and has the potential for someone to get shot. But since they tend to barge in on guys in their boxers eating cherrios... I don't think anyone has actually been shot yet?
And again. I would take a bullet if it led to about ten of them going to prison. Totally worth it.
Dream on. A country that nukes the US is going to get abandoned.
The squeamish countries will close their eyes and count to ten... at which point it will be all over. If they're stupid they'll complain about it after the fact. If they are a bit more clever they'll know to keep their mouths shut.
The ones with some moral character will grant approval and watch with open eyes.
https://youtu.be/PTzbOA6cTYM?t...
Here I disagree. You can't ignore the trolls. You have to destroy them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You have to charge like a space marine into the green tide.
You don't give ground to the Trolls. You break them.
Shows what you know. I would have. And anyone that understands US culture would know that was coming.
It was actually pretty funny watching experts in US foreign policy from Australia, the UK, and even China explain to their colleagues what was going on.
Non-experts didn't see it coming. The experts all did.
Here is an example you personally will probably be aware of... remember Isoroku Yamamoto?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
His buddies in the Japanese imperial military didn't think the US would respond strongly to having its fleet sunk in Pearl Harbor. They thought the US would continue to do what it was doing before which was trying to stay out of the war... and responding to various attacks against its interests with strong words.
Yamamoto told them that the US would shift radically if they did that and switch from a passive footing to a very aggressive footing.
He knew this because he studied in the US and was something of an expert on American culture at least for an imperial Japanese admiral.
what happened? The Japanese hit Pearl harbor and America switched over night to not wanting to being involved to wanting nothing less than the unconditional surrender of the Japanese empire... crushed beneath the American heel.
It changed like that *snaps fingers*. And the thing is that you're only caught off guard by this is if you don't understand our culture.
The way we work is that we are very much a live and let live people most of the time. We just want peace and trade.
Cross certain lines with us though and... everything changes.
The dynamics of this are complicated but well understood by people that understand US culture and politics. I'd explain it to you but I don't want to go to the effort if you're not listening which I expect is what is going on.
You don't seem to appreciate that I am a lot better educated than you are... especially on this subject. Unless you're able to appreciate that, then I'd just be wasting my time trying to correct your many errors.
Neither power nuked the US.
I know you think you're clever when you conflate unrelated things but it isn't clever. It shows a lack of awareness about the distinctions. And wisdom is largely a matter of perceiving the distinctions between things.
If you can't... you're blind... and the blind do not give directions to those with eyes.
Oh look, another stupid comment from an AC... how fucking original.
When someone runs away when their arguments are systematically disproven... you want to call that anything other than running away? Okay. Yawn.
As to misogyny... what about what I said showed a hatred of women in general?
This is one of those terms which has been so abused it doesn't mean anything any more.
Its like if you started referring to people that ate all their peas and carrots as genociding their peas and carrots. At a certain point, when you come upon actual genocide, you have to use a different word because you're completely burned out the impact of the original term.
Misogyny doesn't mean anything anymore. You've over used it and used it in totally fucking stupid contexts.
Rape is another one. I saw a feminist video the other day where a woman said she was "raped" when her mother called another girl a slut. Raped when her brother made fun of another girl. Raped when someone didn't give a woman a job.
None of these things are rape. And when you call them rape, it confuses people that have heard you do that and heard the original meaning as well. People stop and think "when you say rape, do you mean ACTUAL rape or bullshit rape?"
And that effectively hurts rape victims because you're basically doing a boy that cried wolf type thing.
And you just did that by calling me a misogynist. I'm not... and because you're too stupid to realize that mislabeling me as such is a mistake, you're probably too stupid to realize that you're giving cover for actual woman haters because no one takes the claim of misogyny seriously anymore. Its known to be frequently misused.
So which of us is the real woman hater? Me or you? You're objectively hurting woman more than I am because you're making it harder for them to get help when facing actual discrimination. I"m not doing that. That's YOU.
That might not be your intention. But your general stupidity is not really relevant here either. That is the effect of your actions.
Orwell didn't have a problem with people disclosing their records to general audit. He was more concerned with an authoritarian state dominating society through a mixture of censorship and propaganda.
Disclosing your history to the general public doesn't really touch on anything Orwell had a problem with unless the only people that could see it would be the authorities. If everyone can see it then he wouldn't have a problem with it.
I don't think you are especially familiar with Orwell.
And here we get why ACs are generally regarded to be automatic fucktards.
Your first mistake was strawmanning me... or goalpost moving. I'm not quite sure technically what happened there. But what you did was change the context of my comment so that it meant something else.
The fellow I was commenting against was bitching about APK who can be annoying at times but the guy isn't mean spirited. He's clearly some kind of autistic and he's very focused on his software. I'll also point out that he actually created something that actually works.
Where as the piece of shit that was criticizing him doesn't log in, likely never created anything of value, and given his lack of self awareness is probably not one to provide any input of value.
Here you then say I'm engaging against ad hominem forgetting that the previous person was doing the same thing.
Are you then agreeing with me that the likes of APK etc shouldn't be censored? If so, we agree.
If you think they should be censored then on what basis? And how do you not fall into the same ad hominem charge you leveled at me?
See?
Now, I don't get comments this stupid with any consistently from people that log in. I just don't. Maybe that's a just a coincidence. But at this point, I associate ACs with fucktards.
Just how it is.
I defended imperial.
Rating: Excellent.
They tried to downvote me actually but I got more upvotes than downvotes. I was pleasantly surprised.
I also made a post close to that where I basically laughed at the idea that Russia could be a real threat to the US... and I did something similar for China. All backed up with "facts" about how the Russian economy is lower than Slovaka per capita and China's export economy can't actually grow more than it has... and little things about how various bits of hardware and tech don't actually compete with the US version.
I mean... I really buck the trend all the time. I'm just going through your list... I do all those things.
And I do get karmabombed now and again. But I'm Excellent again in a couple days worst case.
I also don't really care. I'm not here to make people like me. I'm here to see what people think about what I think. I also like the articles.
So when someone says they don't like what I said... okay, why? And if they don't have a reason then they don't have a reason. I don't take their opinion seriously. Just as bad is if their opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the facts or general bias. I'm not taking that seriously either.
What I really want is for someone to disagree with me for a good reason. I learn from that. Those are rare... in part because most of my opinions are already backed up by a lot of research and facts. And in part because there are an awful lot of morons on this site.
Anyway, you can't allow yourself to care about the Karambombs. The morons win then. I refuse to let them win. They're entirely too stupid to deserve a win.
I ignore that.
I get downvoted pretty hard every so often and then am back up to excellent in a few days.
Say the new apple product is bullshit... get downvoted by apple fanboys saying you're a troll.
Say some science article is leaping to conclusions or needs more evidence? Get hordes of cultists for that issue falling on you saying you're a denier of science.
Say some social issue is dominated by sociopathic con artists preying on the gullible for cash and power... again... labeled troll.
And two or three days later... Excellent.
So who gives a shit? Ignore the fuckwits. Say what you believe and if they can't handle that then fuck em.
The key is to be utterly immune to the opinions of truly stupid people. You have to be. There are too may of them for their opinions to matter. If we weighted each of them as some very low number then multiplied that by how many of them there are... you'd get knocked by consensus every time.
There are a lot of people that think getting people to agree with you means you're right about science or anything factual. They don't grasp that literally one person can contradict an infinite number of people and be right and the infinity can be wrong.
You be confident in yourself and if the twits want to circle jerk each other off that is their loss. They want their echo chambers which means they don't deserve you.
There are better communities. The small ones are often very clicheish. And the big ones have lots of idiots in them. Slashdot for example. But you want a community where you can a moron a moron... and when they get offended you can start pointing and laughing.
Childish? How else are you going to communicate with morons? They don't understand anything else.
Reddit has been a censor's paradise for years. It is why so many companies wanted to move their boards to reddit. Really easy to silence people that say your new product is bullshit/designed by cross eyed kittens. Anywho, the trick is to not take these people more seriously than they deserve to be taken. Which in the case of the truly stupid is not at all.
In all fairness, can an AC really talk crap about someone that actually logs in and has a record? For all anyone knows you're posting things in support of pedophilia in other threads.
ACs really have no moral or ethical right to criticize people that log in and have a history. What would you have us all do? Everyone be AC? Then who would you talk shit about? That other AC?
On the topic of Reddit... I think it is fine so long as they don't abuse the policy. Reddit did delete some stuff that was critical of Pao for example. So that implies that the place is being filtered for self serving purposes which isn't a good sign.
My biggest beef with reddit though is the Shadow Ban. That is some fucking Orwellian shit.
Imagine being censored so completely that you don't even know you were censored. Imagine publishing a book and checking on the book... and thinking it is there for anyone to get. But you're the only one that sees it.
Its fucking creepy.
Now is it a way of dealing with trolls etc? Sure. But only stupid ones. All the smart trolls know about shadow bans and they'll check for it.
The worst trolls in any case are the determined ones. I had one guy on a forum troll the board for about a year. He was banned about twice a week. He'd just change IP addresses and create a new account.
We eventually dealt with him by mocking and showing we didn't care about what he was doing. He got dispirited after about a month of that and went away. But man... he stuck with it for a long time. He must have been banned a couple hundred times.
So on top of being a troll, obsessed with me, a hypocrite, a coward, and a liar... you're also unable to count?
That link you showed me doesn't show more than 25 posts. That's all it permits per page.
So what is it like being such a failure of a human being?
I mean... what are you good at?... besides failure of course. You're amazing at failure.
I'm just going to give you a little golf clap for the unbroken track record of failure so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You'd know this if you ever logged in... the system cuts you off if you make more than 25 posts in a 24 hour period. You get an error and it prevents you from posting again for at least an hour. At which point you can only post until your post count in the last 24 hours reaches 25.
Anyway, bingo... I don't know where you get off judging people that actually HAVE records. You don't. You don't get to judge, shithead. ;)
Wrong.
Will retaliate.
Certain as sunrise. You pull the trigger and we'll pull the trigger. Don't like that? Don't pull the trigger and you won't have to deal with the consequences.
Pull it and the consequences are on you. You knew what we would do. We will do it.
Wait wait. So... when the UK was bombed from the air by the Nazis, your response would be to do nothing?
When the US was bombed at pearl harbor, you'd do nothing? When the Soviets were invaded by the germans, you'd have them do nothing?
Or would you have every power in every case retaliate?
You're a retard. Fuck off.
... nuke subs? Cite how many countries have nuclear submarines capable of crossing the ocean without surfacing?
Surface to run your generator and I can see you mother fucker. To attack the US like that, you'd have to run under water the whole way. You can't do that without a nuke sub. And not a lot of countries have those.
Only two countries even build them. The US and Russia. That's it. Anyone else that has one will have ultimately bought it from the US or Russia... I think only Russia since I don't think we sell our nuke subs. Not sure if the Russians do either. But they might have sold some to China and India. Those would be the only other powers to possibly have that kind of capability.
So... no... your theoretical piss pot dictatorship is not firing nukes at the US from a nuclear submarine.
Russia could do that. But then conventional MAD applies to Russia.
How would you have enough nukes do that if you're just some nut?
There are only two countries in the world capable of waging MAD... The US and Russia. No other power has the numbers of ICBMs to wipe out any significant fraction of the planet.
Having "A" nuke or two doesn't mean you can trigger a MAD response.
Lets say your little shit hole country fires a nuke at the US and it blows up a city or something. Okay... then the US responds by glassing your whole country.
Now exactly how does that end the world? Total losses would be a single US City and some shit hole country. That's it.
Your assumption is what... that some other country will step up and say "if you nuke that shit hole country we'll nuke you in response"? who is going to step up for that country? No one. If North Korea did that do you think that China would step in and say "if you nuke north korea we'll nuke you?"... they're not going to do it. And more to the point, our deterrance via MAD requires that we follow through. If we don't nuke that little country then the bigger countries might think "hmm... they're apparently pansies so we can get away with nuking them."... which is why you MUST follow through.
If you don't like that... then don't nuke a super power. Really simple. If you do... then enjoy life on fire.
Sure, lets conflate all corporations as equally needing of security.
That's a good place to start an argument if you want it to get ripped to fucking shreds.
If your company makes baby bottles than you don't need the same security as if you make ICBMs or manage accounts that total into the TRILLIONS of dollars.
We can assume that some organizations are in need of more security than others.
And as to the consequences... you're basically just using Sony's justification for having shit security. They literally said in the memos "we're not spending 10 million to avoid 1 million in damages"...
well, it doesn't cost 10 million to secure these systems and the damages have well exceeded 1 million dollars.
Your risk assumptions are flawed.
As to no one sane doubting NK's nukes... actually most countries doubt it. I've read reports from many countries and they all put question marks on the NK nukes.
As to torturing people... we're talking about people that nuked a city. If you're such a gelded farm animal that the mere idea of putting someone to the question causes you to go pearl clutching then so be it. That is YOUR culture. I don't have to respect it or consider your moral views as valid. I do not worship your gods or your religion or especially consider your moral system to be rational or legitimate. So your moral judgements of me are irrelevant to me.
As to tech signitures... and you call me ignorant. Every country builds its bombs a little differently. They're not all equally effiiceint, they draw on different sources of fuel, they have varying degrees of purity... you can tell who made it by taking samples from the crater.
The could intentionally obscure the origin but that rules out terrorists. That would be a nation state obscuring the origin.
A big part of the investigation would be ruling out parties that either are responsible enough to keep track of their nukes or are not hostile to us.
That is going to give you a much smaller set of options. Then you'll know which group did it if it were terrorists because they always claim responsibility. Tracking it back is unlikely to be that complicated especially if you just want to know which country did it. Tracking it back to personally who ordered it or where the bomb was exactly made might be tricky. But tracking it to the country? Not that hard.
Anyway... hate on... your presumption of moral judgement in strategic issues beyond your intellect and too extreme for your philosophy to comprehend merely makes you an object of pity. You're limited. You can't even presume to have an opinion.
0. Unless it is a massive strike you'll have time to investigate after the bomb kills whomever. If it takes you months to figure that out... so be it. Once you know... you take whatever steps seem appropriate to resolve the situation.
1. MAD also assumed that both powers could annihilate each other. There are really only two nations on earth with that power. The US and Russia. And the Russian claim is increasingly dubious. The Russians and Americans have large ICBM submarine fleets. If you don't have one of those then you're not capable of carrying out your end of the MUTUAL DESTRUCTION.
Lets say Iran gets nukes. How many nukes will Iran have? 1... 10? And how will they deliver them? One US ICBM sub could annihilate Iran all by itself. The Iranians wouldn't even see it coming.
A requirement for MAD is that first strikes don't work. That is the whole point of it. Both the US and Russia were getting paranoid about either power conducting a nuclear first strike. MAD meant that even if either power got a first strike in, it wouldn't stop the response. The subs would head for your country rise to launch depth, and fire on your cities.
Iran or north korea or even China can't do that. China could fire on the western US. That would be bad. But they couldn't get much deeper than that. Which means a US first strike on China would actually work if we wanted to do that.
Any power large enough to carry out their end of MAD is going to be very well known to us and is going to require an economic base large enough that it is unlikely they'll be irrational. North Korea will never be able to threaten the US with mutually assured destruction. They could take one of our cities perhaps. But even that is unlikely.
2. As to limited retaliation options... actually we have no limits of retaliation options. Nuking a city is an act of war. We invaded Afghanistan simply because they wouldn't hand us Osama when we asked really nicely.
Do you have any concept of what we'd do if someone nuked a city? Take what happened after 9/11 and multiply it by a million. That takes you directly to total war. You know the war were you don't even try to avoid killing civilians. You just blow up as much shit as possible... then roll in troops who have basically the same orders. If you genocided a country that nuked one of your cities... who is going to try and stop you?
We're assuming the US is retaliating in this case... who is stopping us? No one.
People get soft and assume that because things work a certain way in peace time that they can't work another way in war. Cross all the lines with the US... and yeah... we'll light them up.
No they didn't. They wanted to make the US look weak. Osama said the US was a paper tiger. he made the argument before the war that if they struck the US, the US would do noting more than fume and stamp its feet.
He used as his basis for that, that the US had responded to previous attacks by firing some cruise missiles and doing nothing else. Had Osama known the US was going to go for a full invasion of Afghanistan, he probably wouldn't have done it. And the local taliban wouldn't have supported it.
Did he claim he wanted the US to invade AFTER the US had invaded? Yes. But that's about as credible as the guy that trips and falls saying "I meant to do that." He was saving face. He did not think the US would invade.
That example aside, lets go with your argument of "what if they want us to nuke them"... well, why would any power want to be nuked? And why is that a problem for me if they do?
The terrorists like to say things like "you want to live but we want to die". That's a literal quote from them. And I've never found that very menacing because I'm very happy to kill them. Show of hands for anyone that is going to lose any sleep over whacking some terrorists? Yeah... no one cares.
If they want to die and they've detonated a nuke or something in the US to provoke that. Then Mission Accomplished. Prepare to glow in the dark roughly 45 minutes after we learn where it came from. If we know at launch because it is an ICBM... then you can expect to get nuked seconds after we are nuked.
So... where is the problem?
Where did I say I was offended? Oh that's right... I didn't... I said I couldn't be offended.
Learn to read, fuckwit.
As to your threats... Oh yeah? Well if you do that, my dad will beat up your dad. what do you think about that? Twit.
The funniest thing about your childish, threat laden, incoherent ramble... is that it is quite obvious you're upset. And that's funny because you accused me of being offended first.
The amount of projection from morons is pretty consistent. Pretty much anything they accuse someone else of being is actually more applicable to themselves. I was accused of not reading something the other day by some moron that clearly hadn't read it himself. I quoted the relevant portion and he basically stopped talking because it was obvious he was busted.
Anywho, rage on, hater. Your hatred gives me wood.
Calling someone a fucktard =/= Ad hominem.
Ad hominem means "against the person". It refers to arguments where the argument not talking about the issue but rather saying "this right/wrong/etc because dave likes to grease his body and then slip into really tiny pink leotards, break into nearest women's clothing store at midnight, and dance around in the Bra section."
Now, the problem is that lets say Dave is telling you that it is going to rain tomorrow. Whilst Dave might be a freak, is he wrong about it raining tomorrow just because he's dancing in a pink leotard in the bra section?
No. What Dave does in his free time doesn't really factor into the issue. Dave could have a rape dungeon full of sex slaves. Dave could never leave home without jamming at least three gerbals up his ass. But it doesn't mean anything Dave says is inherently wrong or right.
Do you see?
That is what ad hominem refers to... not whether or not I call someone a fucking retard. But rather whether my point on their argument was based entirely on my judgement that they are fucking retards.
I don't do that. I just don't. I'm better educated than that thanks.
What I do is say "this argument is stupid for reasons"... and then I might say "because you didn't realize the argument was stupid for the cited reasons, you're also stupid."
See? That isn't ad hominem because the validity of the argument itself is not based on whether or not you're stupid. See?
That's the trick.
When someone says "ad hominem"... with validity... they're not saying "oh guys don't say mean things you might hurt someone's feeling, don't ya know?"
Instead what they're saying is "you have made a logically fallacious statement."
Do you see?
My statement was not ad hominem. The comment I labeled ad hominem was ad hominem.
Now you know what ad hominem means. Use it correctly in the future.