right, exactly. you keep making my argument for insanity
i'm not entirely sure why you think these quotes do anything BUT demonstrate their insanity
we aren't dealing with a shut-in in his mom's basement. we are dealing with what is supposed to be the government of an entire country. there is not even remotely another country in the world that is pledged to such military provocations while it's people can't even get enough food to eat, and plenty other countries were forged in much worse conditions and exist in much more dangerous parts of the world
i do not understand why you labor so hard to describe something that walks like a duck, talks like a duck, yet you insist is somehow not a duck
their game is to provoke, shovel rhetoric, even attack, right up until the very point of open hostilities. their game is to create animosity just shy of action
you do understand how dangerous a game that is, right?
Most people who say things like you did don't understand that NK considers itself to still be at war...
i stopped reading there
you're not doing a good job of convincing people of sanity when you start with a premise that is obviously insane
the korean war ended 60 years ago. no one wants to fight this battle again. except one regime, the insane thugocracy of north korea
why is it so important to you to find sanity in the motivations of a regime that forces its people to eat leaves in order to devote more resources to build nuclear weapons?
your very premise for establishing their sanity is a point of insanity, you moron
that starts with the premise that north korea will only do things that are rational and make sense, and never anything stupid, is a losing argument
citation: the behavior so far of north korea
it's rather weird that anyone is depending upon rationality, common sense and intelligence, in attempting to understand the behavior of north korea
of course they can't win. but they can do a lot of damage on their way out, and this is the problem. to not understand this is to not understand that control is not absolute, and behavior is not perfectly rational. in any country, nevermind the likes of basket case north korea
i think that the solution to this is to go much more proactively against stalkers
you can demonstrate and factually prove a pattern of transgressive behavior. as a matter of evidence, this allows police, courts, and correctional forces to become involved according to how the laws surrounding this behavior are defined
1. it is not right for you to change your life. 2. it is not right for society to change its rules, for all of us to suffer, because of stalkers. 3. and it is not right to tolerate the stalker
therefore, the only remaining option is to perhaps jail the stalker, fine the stalker. in some way punish the stalker severely for the behavior
i think that current stalking laws are too weak. they need to made harsher. but the punishments must be designed carefully, in such a way to reduce the behavior without fostering further psychological attachment issues. it doesn't sound easy. i can't think of an easy fix
it's a difficult subject. but it needs to be taken a lot more seriously
i stopped reading there. to look at the behavior of north korea and see rationality is to be someone not perceptive or intelligent enough to comment with any value on the issue
it's nice to listen to armchair generals on the internet deliver talking points that fit their falsely complacent biases
the truth is, you can't talk about what is stupid/ rational when you are talking about a regime that starves it's people while it builds nukes. rationality and intelligence are not part of the equation. you have to talk about what could happen due to an unstable irrational and bellicose cult of personality
furthermore, i'm absolutely certain an attack by NK will mean instant punishments to NK, perhaps obliteration of the regime, by china and/ or the usa. so what? the damage is already done. the point is to prevent the attack in the first place
the threat of the destruction of the regime in NK only works if you are dealing with a foe that is thinking rationally. a cornered animal will fight irrationally, and this is the current mentality in NK. there are plenty of end game scenarios where the regime in NK could just go "fuck it" and kill tens of thousands, simply out of spite. you say this doesn't fit the scenario? ok, mr. self-appointed expert, what does fit the scenario of a regime where it's people can't feed themselves but is hypermilitarized outside of all proportionality to any other country in the world and engages in constant war preparations and bellicose talk for decades?
it's a huge problem, and a huge worry. we're not dealing with a rational foe, and their firm control of their situation is not guaranteed. there are plenty of scenarios, rogue generals, the collapse of the regime, 20 something hot head kid has to prove his worth as great leader, etc., that can play out with tens of thousands dead in SK, japan, or even the USA occuring. oh most certainly the NK regime ends right then and there. but the point is to avoid the tens of thousands of dead, not count on the automatic reprisal
That said, I can't support breeding a culture in which we think the value of our democratic government is in pushing a few buttons and then wearing an "I voted!" sticker.
actually, they just don't vote
which is good, because in countries with mandatory voting, you get joke candidates getting votes
those that do vote and are not informed are motivated by base emotions: fear mostly
and this is a constant of all human societies
the question is how this uninformed fear manifests itself. it never does so harmlessly, but it has to be allowed to express itself in the least harmful ways possible
free speech helps, by allowing a stress relief valve. same with the vote
where this fear is not allowed to be expressed, society is more unstable. the pressure builds, and you get some sort of rebellion or revolution. this is the road china is on, a future arab spring is coming, could take a year, could take ten, but it will happen. the grumpy old men in beijing can't control this, no matter how much they fool themselves they can
so, i agree completely with the horrible voting motivations of most people. and i agree with you that i wish they were more informed. but, given the other options, i accept this blot on society expressing itself in this way, because they are never going away, and the poison has to be neutralized in some way, and so the vote it is
the problem is the alternative: a world where a self-appointed subclass has deemed that they are more worthy than the people themselves to decide what is good for you. the truth is, complete morons voting and complete morons getting elected is a world far, far better than the alternatives
if you don't believe me, ask the chinese (the people, not their government). they look at the usa, with all of the morons voting and getting elected, with deep envy
you have no idea how good you have it. i'm being 100% serious
caveat: we really need to get the fucking money out of our election process. that's the real evil
i don't know where iran is on it's bomb making or lack thereof, and, outside of a select few in tehran, no one does
but i do know this: i don't trust a theocracy with nukes
saying this does not make me a warmongerer, a zionist, or a neoconservative
i could say "i don't trust a theocracy with nukes" as a citizen of russia, thailand, or even iran. i could say "i don't trust a theocracy with nukes" as a pacifist, a buddhist, or a muslim
i don't trust a theocracy with nukes
i'm sorry, i just don't
and no: neither israel, usa nor pakistan are theocracies
the government of iran is specifically structured such that ultimate power rests with clerics. that's a specific problem for me. and no, it is not about islam. i would have the same problem with a christian theocracy with nukes. it is about being a theocracy that makes it a problem to me. a bunch of grumpy old men who believe they have a monopoly on the word of an omnipotent being, with nuclear weapons? hell no!
i do not trust a theocracy with nukes, and this is a specific problem above and beyond all other declared, undeclared, or potential nuclear powers
if country A declares war on country B, and country A marches robots out for the offense, and country B deploys robots for defense, why is that not a war?
and why can't they settle for peace before people start getting killed?
of course, considering human stubbornness, one side probably won't be saying "mercy" until actual people are being killed
but it is possible to begin and end the war with only robotic combatants
i mean you could also say
"Will never happen. At that point, you may as well settle your differences with a football match. If you're not killing people with swords, and only pointing guns at each other from a distance, it isn't a war. you have to be in the other guy's face and feel his warm blood and his life force ebb in his final breath, for it to be real war"
or
"Will never happen. At that point, you may as well settle your differences with a football match. If you're not killing people on the field of battle with archers, and only lobbing plague victims over city walls, it isn't a war. you have to meet each other on a proper field of battle, and not target civilians in low cowardly ways, for it to be a real war"
you are arguing form a narrow understanding of what "war" means. if history teaches us anything, mankind's parameters for violent warfare are continuously evolving and radically far reaching
but that's not what we're going to do, and that's not what i said
why do you think you win arguments by grossly changing and misrepresenting the subject matter?
if some insane ideology has no problem throwing young men into the maw of war, why can we not respond with robots instead of our own young men?
it's a fair question
now are you going to answer it or are you going to change the subject to matter to a gross distortion that has absolutely nothing to do with what i said?
if someone is going to fight you, and you can afford to put out a robot to fight them instead of your own flesh and blood, are you saying we shouldn't do this?
Slashdot Mirror
appeal to authority is the best you got?
"guy in US administration said so, so it must be true."
are we talking about the same administration that lied to the world into conflict with iraq?
you should be a politician: with a straight face, call insane behavior sane, then deny deny deny your way to accommodation
dear fuckwit: there is no better definition of insanity than the behavior of north korea. their actions are an absurd outlier on the world stage
>They have one significant belief that differs with most of the rest of the world.
that's called insanity you fuckwit!
right, exactly. you keep making my argument for insanity
i'm not entirely sure why you think these quotes do anything BUT demonstrate their insanity
we aren't dealing with a shut-in in his mom's basement. we are dealing with what is supposed to be the government of an entire country. there is not even remotely another country in the world that is pledged to such military provocations while it's people can't even get enough food to eat, and plenty other countries were forged in much worse conditions and exist in much more dangerous parts of the world
i do not understand why you labor so hard to describe something that walks like a duck, talks like a duck, yet you insist is somehow not a duck
their game is to provoke, shovel rhetoric, even attack, right up until the very point of open hostilities. their game is to create animosity just shy of action
you do understand how dangerous a game that is, right?
presenting the opinion of anyone on BUSH's foreign policy team as intelligence is pretty much a loser's game, don't you think?
Most people who say things like you did don't understand that NK considers itself to still be at war...
i stopped reading there
you're not doing a good job of convincing people of sanity when you start with a premise that is obviously insane
the korean war ended 60 years ago. no one wants to fight this battle again. except one regime, the insane thugocracy of north korea
why is it so important to you to find sanity in the motivations of a regime that forces its people to eat leaves in order to devote more resources to build nuclear weapons?
your very premise for establishing their sanity is a point of insanity, you moron
that starts with the premise that north korea will only do things that are rational and make sense, and never anything stupid, is a losing argument
citation: the behavior so far of north korea
it's rather weird that anyone is depending upon rationality, common sense and intelligence, in attempting to understand the behavior of north korea
of course they can't win. but they can do a lot of damage on their way out, and this is the problem. to not understand this is to not understand that control is not absolute, and behavior is not perfectly rational. in any country, nevermind the likes of basket case north korea
a child with nuclear weapons throwing a tantrum is
they are dangerous. and so people are interested, and for good reason, so the press covers them
anyone who doesn't understand that is buried in ignorant false complacency
i think that the solution to this is to go much more proactively against stalkers
you can demonstrate and factually prove a pattern of transgressive behavior. as a matter of evidence, this allows police, courts, and correctional forces to become involved according to how the laws surrounding this behavior are defined
1. it is not right for you to change your life.
2. it is not right for society to change its rules, for all of us to suffer, because of stalkers.
3. and it is not right to tolerate the stalker
therefore, the only remaining option is to perhaps jail the stalker, fine the stalker. in some way punish the stalker severely for the behavior
i think that current stalking laws are too weak. they need to made harsher. but the punishments must be designed carefully, in such a way to reduce the behavior without fostering further psychological attachment issues. it doesn't sound easy. i can't think of an easy fix
it's a difficult subject. but it needs to be taken a lot more seriously
such as places to go, like bars, that ban such surveillance, as an attractive feature
they just yank the glasses off first, then ground them into the dirt with their boot
nothing changes
what a moron
Their behavior is extremely rational.
i stopped reading there. to look at the behavior of north korea and see rationality is to be someone not perceptive or intelligent enough to comment with any value on the issue
it's nice to listen to armchair generals on the internet deliver talking points that fit their falsely complacent biases
the truth is, you can't talk about what is stupid/ rational when you are talking about a regime that starves it's people while it builds nukes. rationality and intelligence are not part of the equation. you have to talk about what could happen due to an unstable irrational and bellicose cult of personality
furthermore, i'm absolutely certain an attack by NK will mean instant punishments to NK, perhaps obliteration of the regime, by china and/ or the usa. so what? the damage is already done. the point is to prevent the attack in the first place
the threat of the destruction of the regime in NK only works if you are dealing with a foe that is thinking rationally. a cornered animal will fight irrationally, and this is the current mentality in NK. there are plenty of end game scenarios where the regime in NK could just go "fuck it" and kill tens of thousands, simply out of spite. you say this doesn't fit the scenario? ok, mr. self-appointed expert, what does fit the scenario of a regime where it's people can't feed themselves but is hypermilitarized outside of all proportionality to any other country in the world and engages in constant war preparations and bellicose talk for decades?
it's a huge problem, and a huge worry. we're not dealing with a rational foe, and their firm control of their situation is not guaranteed. there are plenty of scenarios, rogue generals, the collapse of the regime, 20 something hot head kid has to prove his worth as great leader, etc., that can play out with tens of thousands dead in SK, japan, or even the USA occuring. oh most certainly the NK regime ends right then and there. but the point is to avoid the tens of thousands of dead, not count on the automatic reprisal
do not underestimate the motivation, determination and creativity of those who intend you harm
false alarmism is a well understood concept here on slashdot
unfortunately, false complacency, equally dangerous, is not
That said, I can't support breeding a culture in which we think the value of our democratic government is in pushing a few buttons and then wearing an "I voted!" sticker.
actually, they just don't vote
which is good, because in countries with mandatory voting, you get joke candidates getting votes
those that do vote and are not informed are motivated by base emotions: fear mostly
and this is a constant of all human societies
the question is how this uninformed fear manifests itself. it never does so harmlessly, but it has to be allowed to express itself in the least harmful ways possible
free speech helps, by allowing a stress relief valve. same with the vote
where this fear is not allowed to be expressed, society is more unstable. the pressure builds, and you get some sort of rebellion or revolution. this is the road china is on, a future arab spring is coming, could take a year, could take ten, but it will happen. the grumpy old men in beijing can't control this, no matter how much they fool themselves they can
so, i agree completely with the horrible voting motivations of most people. and i agree with you that i wish they were more informed. but, given the other options, i accept this blot on society expressing itself in this way, because they are never going away, and the poison has to be neutralized in some way, and so the vote it is
the problem is the alternative: a world where a self-appointed subclass has deemed that they are more worthy than the people themselves to decide what is good for you. the truth is, complete morons voting and complete morons getting elected is a world far, far better than the alternatives
if you don't believe me, ask the chinese (the people, not their government). they look at the usa, with all of the morons voting and getting elected, with deep envy
you have no idea how good you have it. i'm being 100% serious
caveat: we really need to get the fucking money out of our election process. that's the real evil
the actual line is Resistance is futile!
but considering the makeup of this material, perhaps the line should be Resistance is ductile!
everyone needs to jump ship at the same time
i didn't say that was easy, but it will get the job done quite well
a slow bleed will, indeed, not confer the same prestige, but only for a short period
which is small comfort for the guy whose career collided with that short period
so it's a problem
no, you can't breed humanity into a race of slaves
simply because those doing the slave making are also human, and have the most offfspring
only if it were aliens doing the violent subjugation for centuries, then you can say that human behavior and genetics is being warped
i don't know where iran is on it's bomb making or lack thereof, and, outside of a select few in tehran, no one does
but i do know this: i don't trust a theocracy with nukes
saying this does not make me a warmongerer, a zionist, or a neoconservative
i could say "i don't trust a theocracy with nukes" as a citizen of russia, thailand, or even iran. i could say "i don't trust a theocracy with nukes" as a pacifist, a buddhist, or a muslim
i don't trust a theocracy with nukes
i'm sorry, i just don't
and no: neither israel, usa nor pakistan are theocracies
the government of iran is specifically structured such that ultimate power rests with clerics. that's a specific problem for me. and no, it is not about islam. i would have the same problem with a christian theocracy with nukes. it is about being a theocracy that makes it a problem to me. a bunch of grumpy old men who believe they have a monopoly on the word of an omnipotent being, with nuclear weapons? hell no!
i do not trust a theocracy with nukes, and this is a specific problem above and beyond all other declared, undeclared, or potential nuclear powers
if country A declares war on country B, and country A marches robots out for the offense, and country B deploys robots for defense, why is that not a war?
and why can't they settle for peace before people start getting killed?
of course, considering human stubbornness, one side probably won't be saying "mercy" until actual people are being killed
but it is possible to begin and end the war with only robotic combatants
i mean you could also say
"Will never happen. At that point, you may as well settle your differences with a football match. If you're not killing people with swords, and only pointing guns at each other from a distance, it isn't a war. you have to be in the other guy's face and feel his warm blood and his life force ebb in his final breath, for it to be real war"
or
"Will never happen. At that point, you may as well settle your differences with a football match. If you're not killing people on the field of battle with archers, and only lobbing plague victims over city walls, it isn't a war. you have to meet each other on a proper field of battle, and not target civilians in low cowardly ways, for it to be a real war"
you are arguing form a narrow understanding of what "war" means. if history teaches us anything, mankind's parameters for violent warfare are continuously evolving and radically far reaching
it depends upon the programming
if the robot is out to target only certain behavior, certain combatants, and only them, then we can say two things:
1. this is obviously superior to carpet bombing, and your comparison to that is obviously wrong
2. this is perhaps even superior to human behavior, whose judgments are not always sound, and commit atrocities and mass murder themselves
it might be MORE moral to use robots
if we did that, we'd be fucking evil
but that's not what we're going to do, and that's not what i said
why do you think you win arguments by grossly changing and misrepresenting the subject matter?
if some insane ideology has no problem throwing young men into the maw of war, why can we not respond with robots instead of our own young men?
it's a fair question
now are you going to answer it or are you going to change the subject to matter to a gross distortion that has absolutely nothing to do with what i said?
so, what's your point?
if someone is going to fight you, and you can afford to put out a robot to fight them instead of your own flesh and blood, are you saying we shouldn't do this?