Actually, they're not. In the case of the monitors, it's an established fact that CRT viewing angles, especially Trinitrons, are better than any flat tech we have today.
Sure. And? You're using 3 CRT's as your computer desktop, ergo you're wasting the viewing-angle advantage anyway. For your chosen usage, they make no difference whatsoever. For all other purposes, just position your damn TV so that you're not trying to watch it from the side. The viewing-angle complaint just sounds like pointless whining.
Also, the orange pigment issue is also a real one, solved only by OLEDs, and you know have much they cost.
Most (99%+) people simply don't care. When the Spartans in my livingroom start decapitating their enemies in 1080p, the blood sure looks red to me, and I don't give a damn if your specialized pigment tester says that my reds are actually orange. If I have to squint to tell the difference, then it's not worth worrying about. Meanwhile my LCD uses less power, takes up less space, and I can take it with me if I need a portable display. Last week I walked out of the house carrying 2 x 28" monitors, one under each arm. Try that with a CRT! That portability means a hell of a lot more to me than some imperceptible difference in pixel colours.
As for the second example, any hifi snob from the 90s is going to agree...
Yeah, snobs are always a pain, no matter what they're talking about. You should watch the Penn and Teller episode on bottled water.
Apples and oranges. Wikipedia has more information than is typically displayed in a museum, and can be accessed more easily. Museums have better accuracy and are more enjoyable. It's as if you're comparing your car to a 747, and concluding that the 747 is superior. Sure, for some things it is, but for going grocery shopping it's pretty much useless.
Microwave vs. home cooked meal -> home cooking (at least in my house)
That's a strange sort of false-dichotomy. You can make a "home cooked meal" with a microwave, or you can throw a can of soup-mix on a stove and a pack of store-bought fries in the oven. The kind of meal you end up with depends more on your own cooking skills than which tools you decide to utilize.
Credit vs. Cash -> depends, I vote Debit Card (best of both worlds)
Credit is superior by far. If I want to use my debit card, I have to pay for the privilege. If I use my credit card, they pay me every time I swipe it. The problem which people have with credit cards (ie. using more than they can pay back) isn't inherent in the cards - it's simply a lack of personal responsibility, or poor financial planning.
Also, when you quote something, don't just quote the parts that you can twist around to back up your argument. The protocol also says "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions [italics mine], to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision..."
Wow. You really are a special case. You accuse me of not quoting the whole thing, and then quote exactly the same passage that I did... except even LESS of it!
What the hell is wrong with you?
The clause you quote is clearly designed to allow laser weapons that are designed to destroy equipment, not people
No, you've just got a comprehension problem. The protocol is designed to stop the development/distribution of weapons whose intended use is to induce blindness. If blindness is an unintended byproduct (or, as the convention puts it, an "incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems"), then the weapon isn't prohibited.
You're talking from a position of ignorance, as someone who's never had to deal with weaponry or with the Geneva Conventions. We saw the same sort of idiocy back when the US was accused of violating the ban on chemical weapons because they were using white phosphorous in Iraq. It's just ignorant, egotistical civilians spouting off on topics they've never researched and know nothing about.
As a matter of fact, though, I just noticed that you are the same... "individual" who was having comprehension problems in a different discussion I was engaged in. Once again - if you can't even parse a dictionary entry, I certainly don't expect you to understand the Geneva Conventions. I'm bowing out of this "conversation", too.
I think it would be pretty hard to argue that a weapon based on intense light is not designed to blind.
No, it would be shit simple.
Hey, here's a fun fact! The full title of the protocol is Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons. Next time, RTFT before correcting somebody about what it says.
Oh REALLY? Wow, thanks! What would I do without twits like you on here to correct me! I mean, without people like you around I might actually have to have a conversation with people who have read the fucking protocol instead of stopping at the title!
Here:
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices....
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
In other words, STFU you ignorant, egotistical jackass.
OK, my bad. When you said "there's nothing cynical about using the beliefs of others as camouflage in order to attain your own goals." I should have pointed you at a dictionary that that clearly contradicts you [merriam-webster.com].
Um... what?
Here's the definitions from your source:
- contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives
- based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest
- implies having a sneering disbelief in sincerity or integrity
How in the world can you possibly look at those, and decide that they contradict me?...
Look, forget it. I don't know if you're currently going through ESL or what, but if you can't even properly parse a dictionary definition then I don't see how we can have an actual discussion. Take care.
You have a very comic book understanding of history. In real life, cynics don't win revolutions.
I'm not sure which comics you've been reading, but they've clearly mislead you about the meaning of the word "cynic". Neither the original meaning nor the modern usage fit the concept which you're trying to describe. You could call ME a cynic (although I do not consider myself one), but there's nothing cynical about using the beliefs of others as camouflage in order to attain your own goals. That's simply called "lying", and it's something which all politicians do.
Which is actually too bad — if Lenin had been more cynical, he wouldn't have been so willing to murder anybody who stood in the way of his dream of a Marxist Utopia.
You could make the argument that Lenin really believed in Marxism - maybe. He went against some of the most important points of Marxism, but you could blame that on his ignorance. There is absolutely no way, however, that you could make a similar argument for Stalin.
None of that, however, changes the fact that Russia was never socialist. It was more of an underground capitalist society based on the barter system, ruled by a tyrannical herd of bureaucrats. If the basic tenet of socialism is equal opportunity and treatment of all, then the US today is more socialist than the USSR ever was.
No, North Korea is still a republic, there is no monarchy in North Korea.
You know, I almost replied with "touche, sir". However, now that you've got me thinking about it... here's the wikipedia definition of a Monarchy:
A 'Monarchy' is a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."
I'd say li'l Kim certainly qualifies for the title of "Monarch". It may not be a traditional European monarchy, but it certainly has it's similarities. Kim Il-sung ruled until he died. Upon his death, Kim Jong Il took over, and will continue to rule until he dies. The Kim's nominally have councils which share power with them but, really, these are little better than the lords and viziers of old.
In fact, the only really weird thing about this particular monarchy is that Kim Il-sung is still considered to be the ruler, despite the slight handicap of being deceased. Would that make it a Necroarchy?
What are you saying? That Russia is still "socialist" even though they dropped the word from their title?
I must admit that I'm more than a little awed by your skill at getting everything back-assward.
Russia was never socialist to begin with. Socialism is an ideology which they hid behind in order to suppress dissent and criticism. Calling Russia socialist is just as silly as calling North Korea a "Democratic People's Republic".
On the other hand, there's no reason to avoid the name just because they've finally given up their pretenses. I think it serves as a useful reminder. If you wanted to drop the "Soviet" from the name in order to make a political statement, the right time to do that would have been while they were still misusing it.
So, really, not only is Christianity not monotheistic, but it's not even a single religion:)
Seriously, this is why I have to laugh when someone tells me that there are 1.2 billion Christians on this planet. With the number of denominations and subdivisions there are, you'd be lucky if you could find 10 or 15 who agree on what they believe.
That's irrelevant. The statement you were responding to was:
Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money?
Therefore your response to him was unrelated at best, and a clear lie at worst.
Well, maybe try the Taize Community in France, which is fairly well known because of its religious music.
They're Christian, and we've already established that Christianity makes money in spades. Once again, the original comment was regarding religion, not small subsets within a religion.
As concerns the tax-exempt status of religions, in a (representative) democracy such as Australia, I find no great objection in the to the idea that the people can decide to grant (or not to grant) tax exemption if they believe religious bodies are a valuable social institution which might not survive but for exemption.
That's simply a tyranny of the majority. You could use the same argument to defend anything from instituting "blue laws" which prevent businesses from operating on certain days, to criminalizing things which a religion opposes (eg. abortion, stem cell research), to instituting a separate police force and legal system to enforce religious law (eg. Sharia). We should strive for a higher standard than just organize mob-rule.
There always has to be the poor in our societies, otherwise the economy as it is setup wouldn't work.
No, it has nothing to do with "our societies", it has to do with the fact that "poor" is a relative measurement.
It's the same as saying "There always have to be shitty baseball players for our system of baseball to work". Well, in a strict sense it's true, but only because "shitty" is a measurement of quality compared to the average. No matter how much all players improve, some of them will always be shitty in comparison to the rest.
Same goes for poverty. Our "poor" today live better than the vast majority of our ancestors who were considered well-off. Yet we still classify these people as "poor" because their standard of living is lower than the mean. 200 years from now when every person has free healthcare, food, water, shelter, education, internet access, a private means of transportation, unlimited fuel, and they all live to be 120+ years old, the "poor" will be the ones who ONLY live to 121 and can't afford to take an annual trip to Mars. And there will still be people like you claiming that we could somehow "eliminate poverty" if we'd only discover a "paradigm shift".
Those that feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless (cf. Matt. 25:35) and that sell their posessions to give to the poor (cf. Luke 18:22).
So you're saying Bill Gates doesn't make money?
They tend to be the ones you've not heard of unless you're in their neighbourhood and in need.
Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic.
So Christianity isn't tax-exempt in the UK?
I mean, ok, you could argue about the three-gods-in-one thing not necessarily making them polytheistic, but when they've got thousands of Saints who are really the equivalent of the lower Greek Gods it kinda kills the idea of Christianity being a monotheistic religion.
The U.S. sold anthrax and bubonic plague to Iraq 1 [cbsnews.com] 2 [timesonline.co.uk] 3 [gulfweb.org].
Seeing as how your sources basically repeat what I said earlier, perhaps you should have tried the "I'm sorry, I was wrong" approach, instead?
It may not be nerve gas itself, but there is plenty of evidence the U.S. supplied Saddam with WMD.
Then let's see your "evidence". So far you've provided nothing of the sort. The most you've been able to show is that the US supplied Iraq with dual-use items.
If you're going to make such ridiculous accusations, expect to be called on it.
Blinding weapons are a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol IV, if I recall correctly - and no, the USA isn't a signatory to Protocol IV last I looked).
And?
Weapons designed for the purpose of blinding people would violate the convention. Weapons designed to kill people which may, on occasion, blind someone, are perfectly legal. Soldiers get blinded by bullet fragments and shrapnel too, you know.
France and the UK wouldn't have spilled many tears but do you really think they would have sat on the sidelines and allowed Germany to conquer Eastern Europe without a fight?
Hard to say, but it would have been worth a shot.
They would have gotten involved for the exact same reason that the US got involved in the world wars -- allowing Germany to absorb Russia would have made her too powerful and upset the geopolitical balance of power.
That's not why the US got involved.
You seem to have extensive knowledge of WW2, yet make some rather silly assumptions. It's rather unusual. Are you a fan of those "alternate history" books?
They ran out of money. Lawyers don't work for sleezebags for free.
That blows. I would have been more than happy to contribute to their defense fund, if I'd known about it. I have no interest in their merchandise, but I absolutely abhor the idea of "obscenity laws".
Yes you do. He cut a deal with enemy #1 (Russia) to give him time to neutralize enemy #2 (France). Then you deal with enemy #1 without having to worry about enemy #2. Divide and conquer, I presume you've heard of it?
Heh. You're saying he didn't want to invade western europe, so, because of that, he invaded western europe. Sure. Makes perfect sense. Reminds me of this one time when I didn't want to get in a fight with a bouncer, so I knocked him out first and then beat the shit out of the bartender.
Seriously, though, I get the gist of what you're saying, but it makes no sense. If Hitler didn't want to fight the East, why sign a pact with Russia? I doubt that France or England would have spilled many tears over Staling getting his ass kicked by Hitler. You figure he'd at least have tried to sign a pack with the western european nations, instead of allying himself with the one nation he actually wanted to conquer and then attacking the ones he supposedly had no problems with. I know he wasn't the most rational individual in the world, but even he wouldn't have been THAT stupid/crazy.
With counterfeit coins, the person who finds out a coin is fake gets hurt in his/her wallot for 2 euros, and the person who made the coin gains some amount of money less than 2 euros (because making the coin wasn't free), and all the other people who owned the fake coin are unaffected.
And with rape, the person who gets raped has a shitty time for 2 minutes, and the person doing the raping has a good time for 2 minutes, and all the other people are unaffected.
If something is wrong, it's wrong regardless of how many people it hurts or how much harm it causes. We can weigh the punishment of perpetrators based on those factors, but they don't make the act any more or any less wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they're not. In the case of the monitors, it's an established fact that CRT viewing angles, especially Trinitrons, are better than any flat tech we have today.
Sure. And? You're using 3 CRT's as your computer desktop, ergo you're wasting the viewing-angle advantage anyway. For your chosen usage, they make no difference whatsoever. For all other purposes, just position your damn TV so that you're not trying to watch it from the side. The viewing-angle complaint just sounds like pointless whining.
Also, the orange pigment issue is also a real one, solved only by OLEDs, and you know have much they cost.
Most (99%+) people simply don't care. When the Spartans in my livingroom start decapitating their enemies in 1080p, the blood sure looks red to me, and I don't give a damn if your specialized pigment tester says that my reds are actually orange. If I have to squint to tell the difference, then it's not worth worrying about. Meanwhile my LCD uses less power, takes up less space, and I can take it with me if I need a portable display. Last week I walked out of the house carrying 2 x 28" monitors, one under each arm. Try that with a CRT! That portability means a hell of a lot more to me than some imperceptible difference in pixel colours.
As for the second example, any hifi snob from the 90s is going to agree ...
Yeah, snobs are always a pain, no matter what they're talking about. You should watch the Penn and Teller episode on bottled water.
Wikipedia vs. walking through a museum -> museum
Apples and oranges. Wikipedia has more information than is typically displayed in a museum, and can be accessed more easily. Museums have better accuracy and are more enjoyable. It's as if you're comparing your car to a 747, and concluding that the 747 is superior. Sure, for some things it is, but for going grocery shopping it's pretty much useless.
Microwave vs. home cooked meal -> home cooking (at least in my house)
That's a strange sort of false-dichotomy. You can make a "home cooked meal" with a microwave, or you can throw a can of soup-mix on a stove and a pack of store-bought fries in the oven. The kind of meal you end up with depends more on your own cooking skills than which tools you decide to utilize.
Credit vs. Cash -> depends, I vote Debit Card (best of both worlds)
Credit is superior by far. If I want to use my debit card, I have to pay for the privilege. If I use my credit card, they pay me every time I swipe it. The problem which people have with credit cards (ie. using more than they can pay back) isn't inherent in the cards - it's simply a lack of personal responsibility, or poor financial planning.
Also, when you quote something, don't just quote the parts that you can twist around to back up your argument. The protocol also says "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions [italics mine], to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision..."
Wow. You really are a special case. You accuse me of not quoting the whole thing, and then quote exactly the same passage that I did ... except even LESS of it!
What the hell is wrong with you?
The clause you quote is clearly designed to allow laser weapons that are designed to destroy equipment, not people
No, you've just got a comprehension problem. The protocol is designed to stop the development/distribution of weapons whose intended use is to induce blindness. If blindness is an unintended byproduct (or, as the convention puts it, an "incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems"), then the weapon isn't prohibited.
You're talking from a position of ignorance, as someone who's never had to deal with weaponry or with the Geneva Conventions. We saw the same sort of idiocy back when the US was accused of violating the ban on chemical weapons because they were using white phosphorous in Iraq. It's just ignorant, egotistical civilians spouting off on topics they've never researched and know nothing about.
As a matter of fact, though, I just noticed that you are the same ... "individual" who was having comprehension problems in a different discussion I was engaged in. Once again - if you can't even parse a dictionary entry, I certainly don't expect you to understand the Geneva Conventions. I'm bowing out of this "conversation", too.
I think it would be pretty hard to argue that a weapon based on intense light is not designed to blind.
No, it would be shit simple.
Hey, here's a fun fact! The full title of the protocol is Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons. Next time, RTFT before correcting somebody about what it says.
Oh REALLY? Wow, thanks! What would I do without twits like you on here to correct me! I mean, without people like you around I might actually have to have a conversation with people who have read the fucking protocol instead of stopping at the title!
Here:
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. ...
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
In other words, STFU you ignorant, egotistical jackass.
OK, my bad. When you said "there's nothing cynical about using the beliefs of others as camouflage in order to attain your own goals." I should have pointed you at a dictionary that that clearly contradicts you [merriam-webster.com].
Um ... what?
Here's the definitions from your source:
- contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives
- based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest
- implies having a sneering disbelief in sincerity or integrity
How in the world can you possibly look at those, and decide that they contradict me? ...
Look, forget it. I don't know if you're currently going through ESL or what, but if you can't even properly parse a dictionary definition then I don't see how we can have an actual discussion. Take care.
I have problems with your semantics (lying and cynicism are not mutually exclusive)
Never said they were.
and there's no real difference between the old USSR and the new Russian Federation.
Never said that, either.
You have a very comic book understanding of history. In real life, cynics don't win revolutions.
I'm not sure which comics you've been reading, but they've clearly mislead you about the meaning of the word "cynic". Neither the original meaning nor the modern usage fit the concept which you're trying to describe. You could call ME a cynic (although I do not consider myself one), but there's nothing cynical about using the beliefs of others as camouflage in order to attain your own goals. That's simply called "lying", and it's something which all politicians do.
Which is actually too bad — if Lenin had been more cynical, he wouldn't have been so willing to murder anybody who stood in the way of his dream of a Marxist Utopia.
You could make the argument that Lenin really believed in Marxism - maybe. He went against some of the most important points of Marxism, but you could blame that on his ignorance. There is absolutely no way, however, that you could make a similar argument for Stalin.
None of that, however, changes the fact that Russia was never socialist. It was more of an underground capitalist society based on the barter system, ruled by a tyrannical herd of bureaucrats. If the basic tenet of socialism is equal opportunity and treatment of all, then the US today is more socialist than the USSR ever was.
No, North Korea is still a republic, there is no monarchy in North Korea.
You know, I almost replied with "touche, sir". However, now that you've got me thinking about it ... here's the wikipedia definition of a Monarchy:
A 'Monarchy' is a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."
I'd say li'l Kim certainly qualifies for the title of "Monarch". It may not be a traditional European monarchy, but it certainly has it's similarities. Kim Il-sung ruled until he died. Upon his death, Kim Jong Il took over, and will continue to rule until he dies. The Kim's nominally have councils which share power with them but, really, these are little better than the lords and viziers of old.
In fact, the only really weird thing about this particular monarchy is that Kim Il-sung is still considered to be the ruler, despite the slight handicap of being deceased. Would that make it a Necroarchy?
What are you saying? That Russia is still "socialist" even though they dropped the word from their title?
I must admit that I'm more than a little awed by your skill at getting everything back-assward.
Russia was never socialist to begin with. Socialism is an ideology which they hid behind in order to suppress dissent and criticism. Calling Russia socialist is just as silly as calling North Korea a "Democratic People's Republic".
On the other hand, there's no reason to avoid the name just because they've finally given up their pretenses. I think it serves as a useful reminder. If you wanted to drop the "Soviet" from the name in order to make a political statement, the right time to do that would have been while they were still misusing it.
So, really, not only is Christianity not monotheistic, but it's not even a single religion :)
Seriously, this is why I have to laugh when someone tells me that there are 1.2 billion Christians on this planet. With the number of denominations and subdivisions there are, you'd be lucky if you could find 10 or 15 who agree on what they believe.
You're saying that because they're still bullies, they're still the Soviet Union? Little things like abandoning socialism don't count?
North Korea is still the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ... and they've abandoned democracy, a republic, and their people ...
Wow, that's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects. Is there anything like that which someone can buy today?
Yeah, here.
Not out of those activities.
That's irrelevant. The statement you were responding to was:
Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money?
Therefore your response to him was unrelated at best, and a clear lie at worst.
Well, maybe try the Taize Community in France, which is fairly well known because of its religious music.
They're Christian, and we've already established that Christianity makes money in spades. Once again, the original comment was regarding religion, not small subsets within a religion.
As concerns the tax-exempt status of religions, in a (representative) democracy such as Australia, I find no great objection in the to the idea that the people can decide to grant (or not to grant) tax exemption if they believe religious bodies are a valuable social institution which might not survive but for exemption.
That's simply a tyranny of the majority. You could use the same argument to defend anything from instituting "blue laws" which prevent businesses from operating on certain days, to criminalizing things which a religion opposes (eg. abortion, stem cell research), to instituting a separate police force and legal system to enforce religious law (eg. Sharia). We should strive for a higher standard than just organize mob-rule.
There always has to be the poor in our societies, otherwise the economy as it is setup wouldn't work.
No, it has nothing to do with "our societies", it has to do with the fact that "poor" is a relative measurement.
It's the same as saying "There always have to be shitty baseball players for our system of baseball to work". Well, in a strict sense it's true, but only because "shitty" is a measurement of quality compared to the average. No matter how much all players improve, some of them will always be shitty in comparison to the rest.
Same goes for poverty. Our "poor" today live better than the vast majority of our ancestors who were considered well-off. Yet we still classify these people as "poor" because their standard of living is lower than the mean. 200 years from now when every person has free healthcare, food, water, shelter, education, internet access, a private means of transportation, unlimited fuel, and they all live to be 120+ years old, the "poor" will be the ones who ONLY live to 121 and can't afford to take an annual trip to Mars. And there will still be people like you claiming that we could somehow "eliminate poverty" if we'd only discover a "paradigm shift".
Those that feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless (cf. Matt. 25:35) and that sell their posessions to give to the poor (cf. Luke 18:22).
So you're saying Bill Gates doesn't make money?
They tend to be the ones you've not heard of unless you're in their neighbourhood and in need.
Right, can you name a few, then?
Ooh, I wish I could smell religion...
Just find the closest farm, and go for a walk through the fields ...
Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic.
So Christianity isn't tax-exempt in the UK?
I mean, ok, you could argue about the three-gods-in-one thing not necessarily making them polytheistic, but when they've got thousands of Saints who are really the equivalent of the lower Greek Gods it kinda kills the idea of Christianity being a monotheistic religion.
The U.S. sold anthrax and bubonic plague to Iraq 1 [cbsnews.com] 2 [timesonline.co.uk] 3 [gulfweb.org].
Seeing as how your sources basically repeat what I said earlier, perhaps you should have tried the "I'm sorry, I was wrong" approach, instead?
It may not be nerve gas itself, but there is plenty of evidence the U.S. supplied Saddam with WMD.
Then let's see your "evidence". So far you've provided nothing of the sort. The most you've been able to show is that the US supplied Iraq with dual-use items.
If you're going to make such ridiculous accusations, expect to be called on it.
Blinding weapons are a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol IV, if I recall correctly - and no, the USA isn't a signatory to Protocol IV last I looked).
And?
Weapons designed for the purpose of blinding people would violate the convention. Weapons designed to kill people which may, on occasion, blind someone, are perfectly legal. Soldiers get blinded by bullet fragments and shrapnel too, you know.
You don't understand geopolitics very well.
Ditto.
France and the UK wouldn't have spilled many tears but do you really think they would have sat on the sidelines and allowed Germany to conquer Eastern Europe without a fight?
Hard to say, but it would have been worth a shot.
They would have gotten involved for the exact same reason that the US got involved in the world wars -- allowing Germany to absorb Russia would have made her too powerful and upset the geopolitical balance of power.
That's not why the US got involved.
You seem to have extensive knowledge of WW2, yet make some rather silly assumptions. It's rather unusual. Are you a fan of those "alternate history" books?
They ran out of money. Lawyers don't work for sleezebags for free.
That blows. I would have been more than happy to contribute to their defense fund, if I'd known about it. I have no interest in their merchandise, but I absolutely abhor the idea of "obscenity laws".
Yes you do. He cut a deal with enemy #1 (Russia) to give him time to neutralize enemy #2 (France). Then you deal with enemy #1 without having to worry about enemy #2. Divide and conquer, I presume you've heard of it?
Heh. You're saying he didn't want to invade western europe, so, because of that, he invaded western europe. Sure. Makes perfect sense. Reminds me of this one time when I didn't want to get in a fight with a bouncer, so I knocked him out first and then beat the shit out of the bartender.
Seriously, though, I get the gist of what you're saying, but it makes no sense. If Hitler didn't want to fight the East, why sign a pact with Russia? I doubt that France or England would have spilled many tears over Staling getting his ass kicked by Hitler. You figure he'd at least have tried to sign a pack with the western european nations, instead of allying himself with the one nation he actually wanted to conquer and then attacking the ones he supposedly had no problems with. I know he wasn't the most rational individual in the world, but even he wouldn't have been THAT stupid/crazy.
With counterfeit coins, the person who finds out a coin is fake gets hurt in his/her wallot for 2 euros, and the person who made the coin gains some amount of money less than 2 euros (because making the coin wasn't free), and all the other people who owned the fake coin are unaffected.
And with rape, the person who gets raped has a shitty time for 2 minutes, and the person doing the raping has a good time for 2 minutes, and all the other people are unaffected.
If something is wrong, it's wrong regardless of how many people it hurts or how much harm it causes. We can weigh the punishment of perpetrators based on those factors, but they don't make the act any more or any less wrong.
It's a retarded analogy.
You haven't made a case to justify that premise.
It's called an "analogy", dimwit. I know that slashdot users aren't exactly renowned for their intellect, but this is just getting silly.