161

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia doesn't invade, they recognize Donbass Republics: send in peacekeepers !

« on: June 02, 2022, 04:24:22 PM »

In each of those times we successfully avoided nuclear war.

I dunno, Putin is still saying he'll totally start a nuclear war. Postponing it while giving him time to grow stronger (regardless of whether he squandered it) doesn't seem to have worked out so far.

There is no surviving a nuclear war, how strong (or weak) he grows is irrelevant when just 10% of Russia's nuclear arsenal could render the planet uninhabitable. Letting him take chunks out of his neighbors is a very easy price to pay for not dying in WWIII. He knows this, which is why it's his strategy to just do a bit at a time. If he were truly an unstable madman, he'd be invading all of his neighbors simultaneously while egging NATO. The fact that he has never done that is a great indicator that he hasn't completely lost his sanity just yet.

Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think that giving up chunks of territory to anyone threatening nuclear war is a great foreign policy.

Why? At what point do you say "I'm willing to gamble the entire planet's habitability on this piece of land"? A lot of these arguments sound more like a desire to not "let Putin win" or some other egotistical gibberish versus the actual stakes at hand here. I would let Putin take all of non-nuclear Europe before I gamble a single American getting wiped by a Russian nuke. If Russia nukes us, we have to nuke them back, then the entire planet loses. Yes, the whole planet. A worldwide extinction event that humanity may not survive (and if it does, we lose several thousand years of civilizational progress over the course of a few days).

It doesn't make sense to risk nuclear war over some muddy terrain in Eastern Europe. Quite literally anything we do to Russia ratchets up the chance they end the world. It would be the irrational choice, yes, but massive wars have started over irrational choices that were easily avoided.

So your plan would be let anyone with a nuke take over as much territory as they want and hope that territory doesn't include where you happen to live?

Also, non nuclear?  Wouldn't the same logic hold up if Putin attacks a nuclear power?  By this logic shouldn't the US surrender if Russia threatens to nuke us?

162

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia doesn't invade, they recognize Donbass Republics: send in peacekeepers !

« on: June 02, 2022, 02:38:29 PM »

I was referring to some theoretical line we could cross, arms-wise, where Russia would be justified to strike a NATO aligned country to stop the shipments.  He'll strike if he thinks he can get away with it, not because we sent Ukraine something too dangerous to Russia.

North Korea still exists with as much sanctions as Russia has.  They're too broke to invade anyone.  That's sort of the goal.

Ironically a lot of those nukes were in Ukraine.  They gave them up for Russia's guarantee to not invade them.  Again I seriously doubt that the sanctions we've put on them are likely to cause Russia to collapse.

Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think that giving up chunks of territory to anyone threatening nuclear war is a great foreign policy.

163

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia doesn't invade, they recognize Donbass Republics: send in peacekeepers !

« on: June 02, 2022, 02:12:43 PM »

I think its a mistake to assume that there's some kind of rulebook that Putin is referring to if he's deciding if he's okay with a particular weapon or not.  He's not a statesman.  He's a thug.  The only thing these people understand is power.  Frankly I think it's a mistake not to give Ukraine even more advanced weapons asap.

Also kicking an invading army out of the country is hardly backing them into a corner. 

Russia is nowhere near collapse.  A nation like Russia can take an enormous amount of punishment before it collapses.  In ww2 things were so bad they had to run public service announcements telling starving peasants not to cannibalize their children.  They still held up.

We've tried appeasing Putin many times.  Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Ukraine again, Ukraine for a third time.  I suppose if we appease him this one last time he might stop.  It has to work eventually right?

164

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia doesn't invade, they recognize Donbass Republics: send in peacekeepers !

« on: June 01, 2022, 04:12:20 PM »

It really wouldn't be in their best interest to attack Russia itself as from the occasional ammo or fuel depot.  I'm pretty sure Ukraine knows that.

Also the triple 7's we've been giving them have enough range to attack cities in Russia from Kharkiv so it doesn't add much risk to Russian territory.

165

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: June 01, 2022, 01:21:46 AM »

I'm too lazy to put it on postimage but you can apparently buy a sweatshirt with the image on it.
https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Riding-Lion-American-Sweatshirt/dp/B08HHRFGGX

You can also imagine something like the motorized patriot from Bioshock Infinite except Trump doesn't realize that it's a joke.

166

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: May 31, 2022, 08:34:13 PM »

don't hotlink from Twitter - the image won't show up to anyone that doesn't already have it cached in their browser. Reupload it somewhere before linking.

Sorry about that. I thought that might be the case but I wasn't sure.

167

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: May 31, 2022, 05:56:59 PM »

I feel like I'm cheating by ripping these straight from Trump's twitter truth feed but it's the only way anyone is going to beat Tom.

168

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 29, 2022, 04:46:13 PM »

A terrifying vision of thr rushy regime.

https://www.theonion.com/desire-to-ejaculate-motivates-local-christian-to-wed-1819564595

169

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 24, 2022, 07:36:26 AM »

Will the Huntergate subscribers care about this enough to look deeper?

https://www.businessinsider.com/kusner-mnuchin-raised-combined-3-half-billion-arab-monarchies-report-2022-5?utm_source=reddit.com

I wouldn't worry about it.  We have the top cop Merrick Garland on the case right now.  I'm sure by the time he finishes his 4 year long investigation that he'll write a strongly worded letter to Kusher and Mnuchin.

170

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 19, 2022, 05:30:29 PM »

I don't see why this is so hard to figure out.

What about men?  Could tell them not to have sex too.

Semen is always encouraged to flow freely and abundantly. Shame we still don't have male birth control.

I saw an article talking about male birth control being tested. COMING SOON^TM!

There's a form of male birth control, it's called the backdoor option.

If Tom Bishop really cared about babies then he'd be preaching to the congregation the value of sodomy.

171

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: NATO Shenanigans

« on: May 13, 2022, 04:20:02 PM »

I can't help it.  I'm mourning Bruce Willis's decline in health.

Fine.  Serious stuff.  I think the US committed to a defense pact with Sweden and Finland to bridge the gap between application and approval.  Since the US is like 80% of NATO it's effectively like being in NATO if that news was correct.

But this is the peril in a treaty organization getting too big.  Eventually we get shitheads.  It might be time to create NATO 2.0 and not include countries like Hungary and Turkey.  Maybe a EU 2.0 while they're at it to kick those two countries out also.

172

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: NATO Shenanigans

« on: May 13, 2022, 02:37:30 PM »

Sweden is well known for its terrorists.  There was even a documentary made about it.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/

173

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 11, 2022, 10:52:34 PM »

So therein lies the Premeditated murder as a charge and ensuing penalty - Murder 1, life in prison without parole or death penalty.
Back to the first part of my question, in States that, let's say, ban abortions altogether, would you advocate that all reported miscarriages be vetted by some authority to make sure they weren't induced, that they weren't murder?

It would be incredibly difficult to prove a miscarriage is intentional (the standard of evidence is likewise very high). Investigating every single one would be impossible, investigating a few suspicious ones would be warranted. It would work much the same way deaths do right now. Not all deaths receive the same amount of investigative vigor. Some are obviously accidental or anticipated and some are not. The primary reporting agent would probably be a woman's doctor who would be (in an ideal world) obligated to report wrongful termination of a pregnancy.

That's a tough one.  But we are talking about the lives of innocent children.  Letting this go would effectively nullify any attempt to outlaw abortion as the vast majority of abortions are done with a pill.

I think the only sensible thing to do would be to forcibly collect urine samples of all women of child bearing age to detect any possible abortifacients.  Perhaps a less heavy handed way would be to analyze the sewage for traces of abortifacients and use massive public surveillance to narrow down these murderers.

174

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 10, 2022, 05:12:31 PM »

This thread was a particularly fun read for what pregnancy can do to your body that you don't often hear about.

Are there unofficial Jews?

EDIT: My niece almost died giving birth, while we are here. She was pretty much bleeding out. They manage to stabilise her, thankfully. She has had a second child and the birth was quite traumatic then but because of the first time they knew what to look out for more and it wasn't as bad as the first one. She said to me she's not having more children - she might not have wanted more anyway but she doesn't actually think our body would cope with another pregnancy.

Yeah Mrs. Crutonius says that every time also but then someone brings around their newborn...

The new rule at my house is you can come in but you have to leave your newborn outside lest my wife gets any ideas.

175

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 10, 2022, 02:26:38 PM »

But when does it become human? 

Conception.

Why do you think this is the most reasonable point at which it becomes a human life?

176

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 10, 2022, 02:05:59 AM »

I wouldn't say that's the most extreme position. The most extreme position would probably be the act of conception. But that seems to be up for revision by the Supreme Court as well.

177

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 08, 2022, 03:52:10 PM »

Then why do 60% of adults think that abortion should be legal?  Apparently SCOTUS does not reflect the opinions of the majority.

That number actually seems pretty low for that question if it's supposed to support the leftists. The red states are pushing laws that make abortion legal in the earliest stages. That sounds like 40% of people want more restrictive laws than the reddest states, which is a surprising number to say the least.

Some red states are. Other red states are classifying it as homicide.

Out of curiosity where do you stand on it? Any exceptions or is it murder as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg?

My position is  that existing fetal homicide laws should apply to the mother as well. Existing state fetal homicide laws make termination of almost any stage of pregnancy illegal - https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

In the 1700's and 1800's when abortion was widely illegal and taboo society was built around it. Sex leads to pregnancy, so men and women were taught to carefully select their partners. Ideally it was best to wait until marriage, but usage of early contraceptives were permissible to some degree. If you did get someone pregnant while dating you were expected to marry the woman and raise the child, not abort it. Abortion was not even considered in the event of a pregnancy. Therefore, don't date someone you wouldn't marry. It's pretty simple. It also prevents young adults from wasting their time with incompatible partners. They should only be having sex with someone they are willing to marry in the event of pregnancy.

I would prefer society to return to that type of existence. If people just increased their standards in partner selection again they wouldn't have to kill innocent life.

In regards to rape, only about 1% of abortions occur as a result of rape. This is hardly a factor for keeping mass abortion and allowing people to be so reckless with their lives.

So... IUDs?  Murder or not?

178

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 08, 2022, 07:04:40 AM »

I prefer to refer to all humans  born or unborn as the predeceased.

Much less baggage that way.

179

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 07, 2022, 11:55:59 PM »

Then why do 60% of adults think that abortion should be legal?  Apparently SCOTUS does not reflect the opinions of the majority.

That number actually seems pretty low for that question if it's supposed to support the leftists. The red states are pushing laws that make abortion legal in the earliest stages. That sounds like 40% of people want more restrictive laws than the reddest states, which is a surprising number to say the least.

Some red states are. Other red states are classifying it as homicide.

Out of curiosity where do you stand on it? Any exceptions or is it murder as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg?

180

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 05, 2022, 05:26:15 PM »

Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

Our justice system already has tens of thousands of queued rapekits that have yet to be properly tested. You'd just be piling "DNA evidence" into an already broken system.

So we have the resources to enforce a ban on abortion but not a ban on rapes.

I'm beginning to see why feminists call our society sexist.