Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[wierd]

I am against war in general, because it is ultimately far more wasteful of resources than mutual cooperation.

The desire to always try to deal oneself an advantage, instead of working toward a mutually, and equally beneficial partnership, has always struck me as one of the most illogical things humans seem wired to undertake.

The prisoner's dilemma can kiss my ass. I am a rational actor, and will seek the ideal solution. What is most beneficial to me is not necessarily the ideal solution. It simply floors me that people even CONSIDER the selfish choice.

(and the argument that choosing the selfish choice is the rational answer, because the other side will choose the selfish answer, is not rational. It is a tautology, predicated on irrational choice making.)

[Tomasque]

That, and they are often used as a justification for a war. Franz Ferdinand, anyone?

Much agreement.

We'd be better off settling it with some non-lethal competition.

Who wants to have a thumb war over Ukraine! Anyone?

A chess match would be so much cooler.

[wierd]

That, and they are often used as a justification for a war. Franz Ferdinand, anyone?

Much agreement.

We'd be better off settling it with some non-lethal competition.

Who wants to have a thumb war over Ukraine! Anyone?

A chess match would be so much cooler.

And a child shall lead them?

[Teneb]

What we need to do is have non-lethal duels between world leaders/champions instead of wars. As a bonus, people can make money out of it.

[Bohandas]

Are you one of those people who thinks that assassinating Hitler would have stopped WW2? Because it wouldn't. He didn't get elected because his ideas were outliers. Being upset with the rest of the world, desiring more national power, and hating Jews were all the prevailing opinions.

Killing Hitler preemptively might not have somne much good, but killing him af5er he established his cult of personality might have wrecked Nazi morale. Also, killing Mussolini would definitely have done some good, as his administration was not very popular. Besides, I'm not necessarily talking about individual assassinations; in the WWII example, the aim from the beginning would be to also kill Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels as well; preferably simultaneously if possible (maybe also set some fires in administrative buildings important to infrastructure as well).

EDIT:
The ideal situation would be to if all the enemy leaders were conferring with each other in a single place; you could then drop a blockbuster on that place.

[wierd]

"And in today's world conflict resolution spectacular-- Vladimir Putin challenges Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to bear wrestling competition!  Later-- US president Barak Obama is challened by South Korean president Park Geun-hye to a game of Starcraft, amid controversy over new verbiage in the controversial trans pacific partnership!"

[wierd]

Are you one of those people who thinks that assassinating Hitler would have stopped WW2? Because it wouldn't. He didn't get elected because his ideas were outliers. Being upset with the rest of the world, desiring more national power, and hating Jews were all the prevailing opinions.

Killing Hitler preemptively might not have somne much good, but killing him af5er he established his cult of personality might have wrecked Nazi morale. Also, killing Mussolini would definitely have done some good, as his administration was not very popular. Besides, I'm not necessarily talking about individual assassinations; in the WWII example, the aim from the beginning would be to also kill Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels as well; preferably simultaneously if possible (maybe also set some fires in administrative buildings important to infrastructure as well).

With a headquarters that look like this--

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

how can you possibly think it would EVER be popular?

That edifice just screams "OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!" (even though it actually says Yes Yes Yes instead) what with that giant stone face with its glaring expression and all.  All it needs are giant clenched fists in red, and guards with tanks out front.

[Conradine]

Theistic satanism ( chaos magick custom belief system ).

[Arx]

Theistic satanism ( chaos magick custom belief system ).

How do you view Satan?

[Orange Wizard]

how can you possibly think it would EVER be popular?

It'd be popular among people who look like Mussolini.

[MonkeyHead]

Are you one of those people who thinks that assassinating Hitler would have stopped WW2? Because it wouldn't. He didn't get elected because his ideas were outliers. Being upset with the rest of the world, desiring more national power, and hating Jews were all the prevailing opinions.

Killing Hitler preemptively might not have somne much good, but killing him af5er he established his cult of personality might have wrecked Nazi morale. Also, killing Mussolini would definitely have done some good, as his administration was not very popular. Besides, I'm not necessarily talking about individual assassinations; in the WWII example, the aim from the beginning would be to also kill Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels as well; preferably simultaneously if possible (maybe also set some fires in administrative buildings important to infrastructure as well).

EDIT:
The ideal situation would be to if all the enemy leaders were conferring with each other in a single place; you could then drop a blockbuster on that place.

IIRC, when it became apparent to the Allies that Hitler had a tendency to overrule his skilled generals with massive tactical and strategic blunders, they chose to leave him alive lest someone more militarily competent took the reigns.

The trouble with such acts as you propose is in actually pulling them off. You could take down one high profile figure, maybe 2 if you were lucky, then security apparatus would go into panic mode and you would have little to no chance of getting subsequent hits. Doubly so if you rolled some sabotage into the mix. If they go wrong (as attempts did for Hitler, and notably Castro), it provides much propaganda to further reinforce a cult of personality.

Let us also not forget that the victims of assassination turn into martyrs for a cause, and it often is only good for their image, or cause they stood for. Look at the example set by Lincoln or JFK, for example.

[Helgoland]

Also he's implicitly calling drone strikes the only acceptable method of applying political violence. Not a popular opinion these days.

[TD1]

Theistic satanism ( chaos magick custom belief system ).

How do you view Satan?

Through a looking glass

[Bohandas]

Also he's implicitly calling drone strikes the only acceptable method of applying political violence. Not a popular opinion these days.

I also support ICBMs, cruise missiles, snipers, stealth bombers, poison, sabotage, submarine warfare, time bombs, car bombs, and the atomic bomb. I just don't like needless risk, or reckless valor, or any aspect whatsoever of martial culture. If it were possible I would like to see the military completely automated; we don't have everything we need to do that yet but we're slowly getting there.

[i2amroy]

Technically we actually do have the technology to completely automate it already, it's just we don't have the technology that is cheap enough yet to do it at a cost that the government is willing to pay.