Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

What to do about North Korea?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 6
 [ 112 posts ] 
What to do about North Korea?
Author Message
Tree
Online
Posts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

It's not about precision, he literally can't hit the US yet. Didn't you listen to what the general I quoted said?

Sparhafoc wrote:Fuck the rest of the world, I'm all right Jack.


He can't hit most places either.

Collecemall wrote:So nuclear war is ok as long as it's not you getting blown up. Maybe you need to say that out loud.


I really hope it doesn't come to that, but even a small nuclear exchange with the end of the Kims as the outcome is preferable to a world where the Kims can literally end the world any time they chose.

That's a last resort though in case they keep refusing to back down.
Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:32 am
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:It's not about precision, he literally can't hit the US yet. Didn't you listen to what the general I quoted said?


I didn't bother reading your last post after it looked from the first few sentences like another case of extended intellectual flatulence on your part. Bored of that, won't move my eyes along lines of idiocy for your pleasure.

Regardless:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... SKBN1AG2J4

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea’s latest test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) has shown that Pyongyang now may be able to reach most of the continental United States, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday.

The assessment, which the officials discussed on condition of anonymity, underscored the growing threat posed by Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs, and could add pressure on President Donald Trump’s administration to respond.


Even with all the shit slung at the international press of late, Reuters is still held up as a sound source by all parties.

Notice what else was reported?

The secretive North’s leader, Kim Jong Un, supervised the midnight launch of the missile on Friday night and called it a “stern warning” to the United States that it would not be safe from destruction if it tried to attack, the official KCNA news agency said.

However, two U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Monday Kim wants to develop a nuclear-capable ICBM to deter any attack on his country and gain international legitimacy, not to launch an attack on the United States or its allies that he knows would be suicidal.


Again, as you've ignored half a dozen times already, the justification for possessing nuclear weaponry today is for defensive purposes.

This then makes it highly bizarre to see a supposedly series line of reasoning that suggests that because no one wants nuclear bombs to be thrown, we should therefore attack them as if that doesn't provoke the exact response we supposedly wish to avoid?


Tree wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Fuck the rest of the world, I'm all right Jack.


He can't hit most places either.


And with no irony, my response is exactly the same: fuck the rest of the world, I'm all right Jack!

Hundreds of millions of people live well within a range short of the US mainland.

Don't worry about us though, we're probably only worth 1/5 of a good American in your ideologically utilitarian analysis.


Tree wrote:
Collecemall wrote:So nuclear war is ok as long as it's not you getting blown up. Maybe you need to say that out loud.


I really hope it doesn't come to that, but even a small nuclear exchange with the end of the Kims as the outcome is preferable to a world where the Kims can literally end the world any time they chose.


You clearly have no fucking comprehension of that which you speak, and because of your drastic ignorance on the devastation that a nuclear conflict would have, you cheerily apologize for nuclear conflict to resolve a problem you've been spoonfed by your preferred media.

No, chap. That's not remotely desirable, and you cannot profess to be giving two flying fucks about the poor downtrodden people of North Korea while advocating they be nuked.

This isn't belligerent neoconservatism, it's sociopathy.



Tree wrote:That's a last resort though in case they keep refusing to back down.


And to think that there's someone who perfectly represents you sitting in the Whitehouse with his hands on the largest collection of nuclear armaments in the world.

These are dangerous days, and it's not just because of the foreign loons.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:10 am
Tree
Online
Posts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea’s latest test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) has shown that Pyongyang now may be able to reach most of the continental United States, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday.

The assessment, which the officials discussed on condition of anonymity, underscored the growing threat posed by Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs, and could add pressure on President Donald Trump’s administration to respond.


That doesn't mean the missile is capable of being fitted with nukes or to be accurate. The process is not so simple. General Selva explained why. You'd need guiding mechanisms, you'd need a way to ensure re-entry of the warhead into the atmosphere intact.

Now, since Reuters is your favorite source:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1A31JK
"North Korea lacks capacity to hit U.S. with accuracy: U.S. general"

That's from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force General Paul Selva AND South Korean intelligence.

The secretive North’s leader, Kim Jong Un, supervised the midnight launch of the missile on Friday night and called it a “stern warning” to the United States that it would not be safe from destruction if it tried to attack, the official KCNA news agency said.


Paper tiger. His technology hasn't been demonstrated to be advanced enough for that.

Let's hope it never will be.

However, two U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Monday Kim wants to develop a nuclear-capable ICBM


WANTS to develop nuclear-capable ICBMs implies he doesn't have any yet.

to deter any attack on his country and gain international legitimacy, not to launch an attack on the United States or its allies that he knows would be suicidal.


Again, as you've ignored half a dozen times already, the justification for possessing nuclear weaponry today is for defensive purposes.


I don't take anything that NK says at face value. They are not a trustworthy source in the slightest and also don't believe they can even secure their own arsenal enough to be trusted with it even if they told the truth. Tell me, what's going to happen to those nukes in more unstable times?

Speaking of which can you guarantee that Kim Jong Un will not change his mind later even IF he's telling the truth now? What happens if his people revolt and he feels he's got nothing to lose? Are we (and by we I mean US/NATO) going to be blackmailed into helping KJU overthrow an anti-communist anti-Juche rebellion in NK?

Technically, they are also still at war with South Korea in a prolonged decades long armistice. The first thing that NK could do to gain some trust is make a formal peace with SK and relinquish all claims on SK territory. Not just an armistice they can break any time.


This then makes it highly bizarre to see a supposedly series line of reasoning that suggests that because no one wants nuclear bombs to be thrown, we should therefore attack them as if that doesn't provoke the exact response we supposedly wish to avoid?


First of all, a short nuclear exchange now wouldn't be anywhere near as devastating as what they can do in 10 years at this rate. In a few years they will be able to hit anywhere on Earth and in about a decade they will have enough nukes to end civilization as we know it if they chose so.

Second of all, it's NOT guaranteed that he'd be able to fire even a single nuke successfully even if attacked. The US has vastly superior technology and South Korea has anti-missile defenses. Or he may just chicken out and plead for asylum instead to save his life in exchange for stepping down. As I said, find ways to disable his arsenal.

I may be wrong, but you keep forgetting, I don't make the decisions.


And with no irony, my response is exactly the same: fuck the rest of the world, I'm all right Jack!

Hundreds of millions of people live well within a range short of the US mainland.

Don't worry about us though, we're probably only worth 1/5 of a good American in your ideologically utilitarian analysis.


"Hundreds of millions" is an exaggeration. He can't hit anywhere near that many people and his nukes are far inferior to US nukes.

Everyone cares about their own first, it's nothing new or morally wrong. I wouldn't fucking save 100 people if it meant losing my son. It's not utilitarian, I just have a fucking duty to protect my son first. I don't have a duty to protect random people I've never met.

Similarly, the US government was created to safeguards the rights and interests of Americans first and arguably allies second through agreements like NATO. Everyone else, you have your own governments to cry to. Don't like it? Then start filing motions to become the 51st state and start paying taxes to the US. Then you might have a point.


You clearly have no fucking comprehension of that which you speak, and because of your drastic ignorance on the devastation that a nuclear conflict would have, you cheerily apologize for nuclear conflict to resolve a problem you've been spoonfed by your preferred media.


You mean a problem that's actually a problem.

Tell me, are you okay with the Italian mafia having nukes? For "defensive purposes" of course.

How about just Bob? Bob wants one for defensive purposes too.

No, chap. That's not remotely desirable, and you cannot profess to be giving two flying fucks about the poor downtrodden people of North Korea while advocating they be nuked.


In the first instance, I'd settle for just obliterating every single military objective with conventional weapons such as MOABs and reducing all industry to ash. We don't really need nukes to destroy NK nor we do we need to hit residential areas.

That said, if they even attempt to fire their nukes or anyone, then what do you expect the US to do? Nuclear deterrent doesn't work if the nuclear option is never on the table.

This isn't belligerent neoconservatism, it's sociopathy.


Tell that to Kim Jong Un. You can't fight a sociopath with kindness, that has never won any war.


And to think that there's someone who perfectly represents you sitting in the Whitehouse with his hands on the largest collection of nuclear armaments in the world.

These are dangerous days, and it's not just because of the foreign loons.


Again, why are you blaming Trump and not the psychopath in North Korea? Kim Jong Un could end this TODAY by announcing his resignation and immediately relinquishing control to the South Korean government, which has infinitely more legitimacy to govern the greater Korea. And the Kims started the whole mess in Korea. They're the aggressors, none of this would have happened without Soviet subversion. Maybe you should start being anti-Kim and anti-communism instead of the useful idiot anti-anti-Kim and anti-anti-communism and pushing your "fuck America" narrative.

And how do you know Trump will in fact attack? Did you forget he has advisors with 40 years of experiences and access to classified info that could totally be a game changer?

Maybe there's an alternative to everything I have said so far that still ensures Kim won't have nuclear ICBMs.

Hell, maybe there's a secret plan to get China to just annex NK and deal with it instead as an autonomous but nuclear free region of China where Kim would have no access to nukes or ICBMs.

Maybe they'll just kill the guy and they have an inside man that will sabotage a retaliation, who the fuck knows.
Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:06 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3339Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I wonder if Tree and dandan/leroy took mind reading classes from the same place.



I would like to respond in greater detail, but there's just so much paperwork when it comes to sedition and subversion.

But you know how we radical regressive racist communist fascist Muslim lefties are... all work, no play!

Back to the Death to the Free World grindstone!


:lol:

The screeching about regressives did start up again. It is just hilarious to see Trump supporters/voters call others regressive. How Orwellian.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:30 pm
YIM WWW
Tree
Online
Posts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

The screeching about regressives did start up again. It is just hilarious to see Trump supporters/voters call others regressive. How Orwellian.


We use it as we don't believe a lot of the progressive politics actually help to achieve the progress of society.

Progressives can also be major hypocrites e.g. supporting gun control/ban but defending an outcome that allows the most unhinged family on Earth to have strong potentionally world ending nuclear capabilities, supporting the environment but allowing Kim to do nuclear tests over the Pacific and spread radioactive fallout worldwide due to the wind patterns. That's just the latest... We've seen hypocrisy on issues of sexism and racism as well where you can't be racist or sexist against white males cause "privilege".

He excuses this by saying: well America has nukes too and used it so it's all morally equal. He still won't address the fact that America has checks and balances that NK does not, hence why America can have nukes and NK not. Typical lack of nuance of American-bashing, west-bashing regressives.

Sparhafoc has sadly gone out of his way to defend THE most brutal regime in the world while slandering America or exaggerating its flaws and paint North Korea as just another nation rather than the brutal regime it is.
Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:46 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:The screeching about regressives did start up again. It is just hilarious to see Trump supporters/voters call others regressive. How Orwellian.

Tribalism exemplified.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:32 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3339Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:
The screeching about regressives did start up again. It is just hilarious to see Trump supporters/voters call others regressive. How Orwellian.


We use it as we don't believe a lot of the progressive politics actually help to achieve the progress of society.


Yet, you voted for the Lame Donald Duck, who ran on some pretty regressive things. Oh, and who is this we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or are you speaking on behalf of all Trump voters?

Tree wrote:Progressives can also be major hypocrites e.g. supporting gun control/ban but defending an outcome that allows the most unhinged family on Earth to have strong potentionally world ending nuclear capabilities, supporting the environment but allowing Kim to do nuclear tests over the Pacific and spread radioactive fallout worldwide due to the wind patterns. That's just the latest... We've seen hypocrisy on issues of sexism and racism as well where you can't be racist or sexist against white males cause "privilege".


More of that screeching. Perhaps if you started to provide examples instead of just proclaiming things, you might have a point. Beyond that, it is hilarious for someone that voted for the Lame Donald Duck to first call someone regressive, than turn around and claim they are hypocrites. The irony is just rich.

Tree wrote:He excuses this by saying: well America has nukes too and used it so it's all morally equal. He still won't address the fact that America has checks and balances that NK does not, hence why America can have nukes and NK not. Typical lack of nuance of American-bashing, west-bashing regressives.


That is not Sparhafoc's argument. Would you like me to explain it to you? However, I am not sure how much clearer to make:

Sparhafoc wrote:Again, as you've ignored half a dozen times already, the justification for possessing nuclear weaponry today is for defensive purposes.

This then makes it highly bizarre to see a supposedly series line of reasoning that suggests that because no one wants nuclear bombs to be thrown, we should therefore attack them as if that doesn't provoke the exact response we supposedly wish to avoid?


Beyond that, your point about checks and balances is as relevant to Sparhafoc's point as the price of tea in China.

Tree wrote:Sparhafoc has sadly gone out of his way to defend THE most brutal regime in the world while slandering America or exaggerating its flaws and paint North Korea as just another nation rather than the brutal regime it is.


I have read every post in this thread so far, and I have not seen that once. Care to cite?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:55 pm
YIM WWW
Tree
Online
Posts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

I'm just going to remind you of one of his earliest posts in the thread:

Right. Only one nation has dropped nuclear weapons, and that nation also happens to have targeted civilians.

For all its human rights abuses against its own people - NK is nowhere near morally comparable to that.


This is pro-NK propaganda that serve no other purpose but to provide legitimacy to the idea of NK getting nukes. It's not a fair or accurate or constructive criticism of American policies, it's shit slinging using selective information to negatively influence one's perception of the US and undermine NK atrocities.

Think for a moment about the implications of this statement. If you go by the premise that the US is actually a more immoral nation than NK, and US is allowed to have nukes, then it's easy to make the case NK should also be allowed to have nukes.

A shame for him it's a lie. Even if you accept the nuking of Japan as immoral, that only caused 200k deaths and there are mitigating circumstances such as the US actually calculating to minimize casualties by ending the war sooner, the fact that it was done during war time and the fact that Japan was the aggressor in the war. Also the fact that the 1945 administration is dead. The US government today is literally made up entirely of different people several generations apart too.

But it's not even true that NK never did anything comparable. NK first of all, aided by China and the Soviet Union, launched a war of aggression in order to impose communism on all of Korea and the war resulted in over 1 million deaths.

NK economic policies have strangled growth and resulted in millions of deaths by starvation and much of the population continues to be malnourished. Unlike the US, they do not have the mitigating circumstance of war, at least not an active war. For all intents and purposes these crimes were done under peace time (technically decade long armistice which is almost the same thing.)

NK has human right abuses against its citizens so severe that one can argue it's actually a fate worse than death, especially if you happen to be a dissident or the family member of one. NK people are the least free people on Earth. Even in a country like Saudi Arabia you would have significantly more freedom than in NK.

And you still wonder why I accused him of playing into ideological subversion tactics developed by Soviet propagandists and their useful idiot allies?


Beyond that, your point about checks and balances is as relevant to Sparhafoc's point as the price of tea in China.


I understood the point, I just don't care.

I literally do not care if Kim Jong Un cannot defend his regime. He can't? Good. His regime doesn't have the basic legitimacy to even exist. Nor do I trust him to use it purely for defensive purposes.

The only defense Kim should expect is to step down and beg for mercy not to be tried in the Hague and be allowed to live out his miserable days with all his blood money.

This guy having the capacity to literally end civilization as we know it is a risk I'm not willing to accept, same as I wouldn't want a neighbor that plays with volatile chemicals in his backyard. We can more or less agree that's an act of aggression even if those chemicals don't kill or injure anyone because they put me at a risk I did not consent to.

Moral clarity on Kim... not so much it seems.
Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:37 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:That's very funny, accusing me of propaganda while pushing propaganda that only benefits Kim Jong Un.... It is by definition pro-NK propaganda to characterize my statements as propaganda.



Tree's 'reasoning' for why I am engaging in propaganda.... because defining Tree's statements as propaganda is itself propaganda.... definitionally no less! :lol:
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:40 am
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:I'm just going to remind you of one of his earliest posts in the thread:


You are going to remind me of one of his posts?

:lol:

Or do you think you are talking to other people here about me?

Tree, just for a moment, take a step back.

Some of the people here I've known for 15 years.

Others for 5 or 6.

A few for less than a year, but I think they know who I am pretty well.

So do you really think you are going to get some purchase by trying to claim that I am some kind of North Korean stooge?

For clarity - you are coming across as a complete fucking tinfoil-hatted crackpot in doing so. Doubling down on it by writing an entire post on in this thread, and in another thread is really very odd behavior.

If you wish to engage in reasoned debate, one of the most elementary components you need to employ is not basing all your arguments on emotion and trying to paint your interlocutor as some evil being whose words must therefore be suspect.

But sure. Want to talk about me in the third person? I'll join ya....


Tree wrote:
Right. Only one nation has dropped nuclear weapons, and that nation also happens to have targeted civilians.

For all its human rights abuses against its own people - NK is nowhere near morally comparable to that.


And now let me expose how Tree has quote-mined this in a display of discoursive mendacity.

The conversation, clearly, was about nuclear weaponry...


Sparhafoc wrote:Nuclear weapons are a big stick.

How do we tell a nation we threaten all the time and sanction to murderous levels not to find itself a comparably big stick?

Do we wander round destroying utterly nations who develop nuclear weapons because only we are allowed them?

Why are we worried about rogue nations getting hold of tiny quantities of nukes when nations like the US have enough to level every capital city in the world and are currently run by numpties as unhinged as North Korea?

We've lost the moral high-ground. All that's left is bigger stickery.



Tree wrote:Not when it comes to NK. Literally anyone besides ISIS is on a higher moral ground.


Tree wrote:That is not going to happen so long as several other nations have nukes.

Also there's no moral comparison between US and NK.



Sparhafoc wrote:Right. Only one nation has dropped nuclear weapons, and that nation also happens to have targeted civilians.

For all its human rights abuses against its own people - NK is nowhere near morally comparable to that.



So, we're very clearly talking about the morality of using nuclear weapons to kill civilians and only about that - not every single action, or behavior, just those relevant to using nuclear weapons on civlians. North Korea has not used a nuclear weapon to kill civilians. The USA has used nuclear weapons to kill civilians. Ergo, when we're talking about the morality of using nuclear weapons against civilians, North Korea (for all its moral failings in many other areas) is not comparable to the USA.

Of course, for all his handwringing about the terrible things North Korea COULD do, he's got a pocket full of explanations for why the USA did actually do this, and why when we do it, it's perfectly justified.

Further, I've explained why nations feel the need to possess nuclear weapons today - to protect themselves from nuclear-armed nations who seek to overturn their sovereignty.

So how does Tree confuse this with me being pro-North Korea, let alone me being a North Korean stooge?

Whatever it is, it ain't reason.


Tree wrote:This is pro-NK propaganda that serve no other purpose but to provide legitimacy to the idea of NK getting nukes. It's not a fair or accurate or constructive criticism of American policies, it's shit slinging using selective information to negatively influence one's perception of the US and undermine NK atrocities.


In reality, it's not remotely anything like North Korean propaganda, doesn't provide a jot of legitimacy to the idea of NK getting nukes (considering the half dozen times I've explained that my position is anti-nuke, this is clearly a lie on Tree's part), is not actually remotely about criticism of US policies, and is not employing selecting information to achieve any end other than to show the perspective of the Fox News style propaganda being pushed at people to get them to support military action in North Korea.

It's exactly what was happening just a few years ago before we invaded Iraq.


Tree wrote:Think for a moment about the implications of this statement. If you go by the premise that the US is actually a more immoral nation than NK, and US is allowed to have nukes, then it's easy to make the case NK should also be allowed to have nukes.


You are distorting the conversation either because you lack the capacity to reason, or because you are discoursively mendacious.

When we judge the moral value of an act, we are not making generalized statements about absolutes. We are not talking about whether North Korea as an entity is moral, but whether the act of dropping nuclear bombs on civilians in moral.

I would suggest that this is a nice attempt on your part to muddy the waters, but you clearly believe your own inanity.


Tree wrote:A shame for him it's a lie. Even if you accept the nuking of Japan as immoral, that only caused 200k deaths and there are mitigating circumstances such as the US actually calculating to minimize casualties by ending the war sooner, the fact that it was done during war time and the fact that Japan was the aggressor in the war. Also the fact that the 1945 administration is dead. The US government today is literally made up entirely of different people several generations apart too.


And here we see, yet again, the notion that it's actually fine to nuke civilians, genetically undermining any opposition to North Korea using nuclear weaponry so long as North Korea can justify it as minimizing casualties. I explained this to Tree already, but he doesn't grasp it - assuming that I am justifying NK getting nukes rather than deriding utilitarian apologetics that genetically contradict the supposed threat being discussed. I submit that Tree is unable to engage in a conversation about the morality of an act because it's all ignorant special pleading.

When 'we' do it, it's just. If 'they' did it in the future, they'd be terrible human beings.

Given how many times Tree has repeated this, and given how many times it's been rebutted, and given that he's been provided ample evidence which contradicts his faith statements.... one starts to get a picture of how Tree engages the world.


Tree wrote:But it's not even true that NK never did anything comparable. NK first of all, aided by China and the Soviet Union, launched a war of aggression in order to impose communism on all of Korea and the war resulted in over 1 million deaths.


More red herrings. Did they drop nukes on civilians? If not, irrelevant.


Tree wrote:NK economic policies have strangled growth and resulted in millions of deaths by starvation and much of the population continues to be malnourished. Unlike the US, they do not have the mitigating circumstance of war, at least not an active war. For all intents and purposes these crimes were done under peace time (technically decade long armistice which is almost the same thing.)


More red herrings. Did they drop nukes on civilians? If not, irrelevant.


Tree wrote:NK has human right abuses against its citizens so severe that one can argue it's actually a fate worse than death, especially if you happen to be a dissident or the family member of one. NK people are the least free people on Earth. Even in a country like Saudi Arabia you would have significantly more freedom than in NK.


More red herrings. Did they drop nukes on civilians? If not, irrelevant.


Tree wrote:And you still wonder why I accused him of playing into ideological subversion tactics developed by Soviet propagandists and their useful idiot allies?


No, one one wonders why. No one else has shown the least interest in your repeated delusional well-poisonings except than to dismiss them.

Further, it's not like anyone really needs to wonder about it - it's perfectly clear why you are doing it, because you fail at reason, and you emote your way through discourse.


Tree wrote:
Beyond that, your point about checks and balances is as relevant to Sparhafoc's point as the price of tea in China.


I understood the point, I just don't care.


Perhaps you should put a little more effort in then, because you are spouting nonsensical crap while showing that you don't understand a damn thing said.



Tree wrote:I literally do not care if Kim Jong Un cannot defend his regime. He can't? Good. His regime doesn't have the basic legitimacy to even exist. Nor do I trust him to use it purely for defensive purposes.


It's emote reality time again.


Tree wrote:The only defense Kim should expect is to step down and beg for mercy not to be tried in the Hague and be allowed to live out his miserable days with all his blood money.


It's amazing how much antipathy Fox can generate in their viewers while sounding the drum of war.


Tree wrote:This guy having the capacity to literally end civilization as we know it is a risk I'm not willing to accept,...


And we're back to delusions of grandeur.


Tree wrote: same as I wouldn't want a neighbor that plays with volatile chemicals in his backyard. We can more or less agree that's an act of aggression even if those chemicals don't kill or injure anyone because they put me at a risk I did not consent to.

Moral clarity on Kim... not so much it seems.


Unfortunately for you, Kim's not here to defend his morality. You are, however, and you're exhibiting none while calling for a conflict between two nuclear armed nations under the guise of 'well, it's over there so it won't hurt me'. I remind you again, chap, there are hundreds of millions of innocent people living within the range of North Korea's nukes, and tens of millions of innocent people living within range of the damage a US attack on North Korea would provoke.

Of course, you are utterly disinterested in the well-being of people who aren't you or yours, but given that I live around 2000 miles away, I've definitely got a vested interest in NEITHER North Korea NOR the USA engaging in fucking nuclear warfare on my doorstep.

North Korea may well be run by a deluded asshat, but so is the USA. For all the supposed safe-guards against a crackpot President, the reality is that a military conflict could easily be triggered by these two loons chest-beating at each other, and that nukes could soon follow.

As literally everyone in this thread except Tree no doubt has seen me say many times: I am anti-nuclear weaponry. I am cognizant of the lasting damage they can cause, not just to a nation, not just to its people, but to the ground, the waters, the plants and animals, and to the already precarious thin blue line of atmosphere that separates us from obliteration.

Killing people is bad enough, but using weapons that cause lasting damage to the environment should be automatically considered a war-crime. We ban chemical weapons because they can cause horrific suffering, so it makes no sense that we don't ban nukes that can cause horrific suffering for multiple generations over decades or even centuries.

Tree hasn't bothered to find out my position because Tree's more interested in telling me what I think and painting me as a North Korean stooge.

I submit that Tree's comments are better suited for Youtube comments sections - the asspit of the internet - than they are suited here in a forum dedicated to reason.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:18 am
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:
The screeching about regressives did start up again. It is just hilarious to see Trump supporters/voters call others regressive. How Orwellian.


We use it as we don't believe a lot of the progressive politics actually help to achieve the progress of society.

Progressives can also be major hypocrites e.g. supporting gun control/ban but defending an outcome that allows the most unhinged family on Earth to have strong potentionally world ending nuclear capabilities, supporting the environment but allowing Kim to do nuclear tests over the Pacific and spread radioactive fallout worldwide due to the wind patterns. That's just the latest... We've seen hypocrisy on issues of sexism and racism as well where you can't be racist or sexist against white males cause "privilege".


Hypocrisy according to you, but then aside from you, no one considers you an arbiter of anything. Given your incompetence at reason, it's doubtful anyone here will ever lend you any credence at all when it comes to judgment calls.

What is being noted is that you are vacuously trotting out your silly little prejudices in a forum dedicated to reason. This just makes you look like a plum. It's genetically contradictory to reason.



Tree wrote:He excuses this by saying: well America has nukes too and used it so it's all morally equal.


Liar. The written record is there. This may well represent a stunted comprehension of the exchange, but it is assuredly not the exchange at all.

Not least because I don't think one can judge the morality of an entire nation, and would consider that numptyism.

The act of dropping nuclear weapons on civilians, though - that's a very different kettle of fish, and one can assuredly (supposing one uses reason) judge the morality of that act, as I did.

You might think you can just make it all up as you go along, but we have higher standards here, Tree.



Tree wrote:He still won't address the fact that America has checks and balances that NK does not, hence why America can have nukes and NK not. Typical lack of nuance of American-bashing, west-bashing regressives.


1) I have, in fact, addressed the illusion of checks and balances
2) I laugh at the latest contrivance Tree manufactures about who's allowed what according to Tree, and suggest he spends a little more time getting over himself.
3) No American bashing has occurred here, but it clear that your entire paradigm is tribalistic wet wankery.


Tree wrote:Sparhafoc has sadly gone out of his way to defend THE most brutal regime in the world while slandering America or exaggerating its flaws and paint North Korea as just another nation rather than the brutal regime it is.


Liar.

Sparhafoc hasn't defended North Korea in the slightest

Why do you think you can lie to people here?

Obviously, it's fucking moronic to lie to me about my position, but after I cited your moronic contentions about me being a propagandist for North Korea, anyone remotely interested would have gone and looked back through the thread and noted you were talking out of your chuff.

So who are you going to fool lying like that?

I tell you what - you have one opportunity here to cite or retract.

Show a single instance of where I have defended North Korea.

But if you don't and you continue to make this claim, I will alert the moderation to the fact that you are abusing people here and engaging in specious bullshit more suited to Youtube comments section.

Is that clear enough for you?
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:31 am
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:As I expect literally everyone else here can see... my position is actually predicated on never, never, never having a nuclear war between elements of our species.

In such a war, every human being loses, present and future.

We cannot allow a small group of egotistical men lead us into such an outcome.



LOOK! Sparhafoc says this, but everyone can read between the lines!

Clearly, this is a coded message about how Sparhafoc loves North Korea and wants them to nuke everyone in the world because he hates America so much!
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:02 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3339Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:
Beyond that, your point about checks and balances is as relevant to Sparhafoc's point as the price of tea in China.


I understood the point, I just don't care.


You do not care to actually address the point (i.e. tacitly admitting to straw-manning Sparhafoc)? If you are not going to engage Sparhafoc's actual point, what is the point in having a discussion with him?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:55 pm
YIM WWW
Tree
Online
Posts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Do we yet again have to go over the blatantly bad faith statements like:

3) No American bashing has occurred here, but it clear that your entire paradigm is tribalistic wet wankery.


Yet also...

We've lost the moral high-ground. All that's left is bigger stickery.


For all its human rights abuses against its own people - NK is nowhere near morally comparable to that.


You can claim all you want that I'm unfairly misrepresenting your position because you're only talking about the morality of using nuclear weapons against civilians, not about morality in general. But even that is doubtful.

So, we're very clearly talking about the morality of using nuclear weapons to kill civilians and only about that


No, that is not true because you included "all its human rights abuses" in your assessment of NK's morality. And concluded those human rights abuses all pale in comparison to what US did during WW2. (I think I already made a compelling case why that's bullshit.)

A person reading your statements who knew nothing about NK and nothing about the US would conclude that, overall, US is the worse country. This is why I called it propaganda.

Besides, what exactly is your point anyway? Say I grant you that the US committed a war crime 70+ years ago, well guess what, it hasn't since then, that administration is long dead, and it's been a key player in ensuring these kinds of weapons don't just spread to every nation with things like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Furthermore, just because NK hasn't used nukes against civilians doesn't give it a moral high ground anyway. You know why? Because it's never been put in a position to do that. NK has never faced a threat comparable to Shinto Japan. When was the last time NK was ever attacked unfairly by an even worse totalitarian force? It's ALWAYS been the aggressor. The country itself was founded as an aggressive attempt to impose communism on all of Korea. Hell, I'll even grant you, if somehow aliens worse than Kim Jong Un invade Earth and Kim nukes their mothership along with any alien civilians on board, that's not something I'll lose any sleep over it. And don't believe for one second it's something he would hesitate to do.

By your reasoning (which isn't anywhere as great as you think it is), Richard Reid, the shoe bomber AQ-aligned terrorist has a moral high ground over any random person guilty of one murder just because his plot utterly failed and killed nobody.

And this is all utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not NK should be allowed to develop nuclear technology strong enough to hit any place on Earth. Say the US is the devil. So what? So fucking what? Say Trump is this evil madman with a nuke, well, do you want ANOTHER madman with a nuke?

You're a simpleton (masquerading as this great person of reason), I retract nothing and trust has to be earned.
Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:23 pm
Tree
Online
Posts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

North Korea may well be run by a deluded asshat, but so is the USA.


Once again showing your true colors that you are simply incapable of any kind of accurate thinking. This is another propaganda piece, I wonder what you will say to weasel your way out of this one.

Trump is not Kim Jong Un. He is not any of the three Kims and even if you think he's a "deluded asshat" your statement implies he's an equally deluded asshat to Kim which isn't true. None of Trump's flaws come even close. Are we talking jaywalking levels of asshatery or dictatorial asshatery or something in between? Be more specific.

Where are Trump's political prison camps? Where are the violent purges of the antifa protestors? Why hasn't he attempted to abolish the rest of the federal government and make himself a king? This is a ridiculous statement that once again serves no possible purpose other than subversion to make less informed people think they're equivalent. There are ways to criticize Trump far more credibly than "well he's a deluded asshat like Kim and/or [insert random dictator]".

What do you possibly hope to achieve by making these wildly inaccurate statements?
Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:51 pm
Tree
Online
Posts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You do not care to actually address the point (i.e. tacitly admitting to straw-manning Sparhafoc)? If you are not going to engage Sparhafoc's actual point, what is the point in having a discussion with him?


I don't think there's much hope for a productive conversation with him, I'm just exposing his bullshit now.

He derailed the conversation long ago with the American bashing that's ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not Kim should be allowed to pursue (more) nuclear tech. Let's be clear. The Japan thing is ultimately irrelevant. It does not follow that if the US is a bad actor with nukes then further bad actors should be allowed to have nukes. So even if I grant all his premises, it's still crap.

I'd be much more interested in hearing an alternative strategy that ensures both no war and no more nukes in NK.

I'd like to hear a compelling argument also for why the Kim family can be trusted to only use it for defensive purposes. There are some who want to go down that route. I think that's Chamberlain levels of naivety.

I'm not interested in regressive style west/America bashing. Heard enough of it from college SJWs.
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:07 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:I don't think there's much hope for a productive conversation with him, I'm just exposing his bullshit now.


:lol:

Is that what you think you're doing?


Tree wrote:He derailed the conversation long ago with the American bashing...


1) Cite it - in reality, no American bashing exists in this thread or any other you've posted in. You're playing the 'anti-Semite' card to avoid addressing arguments.
2) You're still just trotting out red herrings and ad hominem arguments - this is a forum for REASON - try and display some.


Tree wrote:... that's ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not Kim should be allowed to pursue (more) nuclear tech.


The written record is still there and the context in which the criticism of the usage of nukes is valid is still there for all to see, so your smokescreens are going to run face first into reality.


Tree wrote: Let's be clear. The Japan thing is ultimately irrelevant. It does not follow that if the US is a bad actor with nukes then further bad actors should be allowed to have nukes. So even if I grant all his premises, it's still crap.


Let's be clear, when you are touting pre-emptive non-aggression against a nuclear armed nation, you're a fucking aggressive loon who needs to shut his flapping trap and listen to reason. We've been here before, and we've watched people like you bang drums for wars that cost everyone involved dramatically.

You don't get to call for war without having your pathetic justifications challenged.

Is that perfectly fucking clear for you?



Tree wrote:I'd be much more interested in hearing an alternative strategy that ensures both no war and no more nukes in NK.


So interested you ignored the 3 iterations of me explaining what we can't do, and consequently what we must do. But do carry on pretending I'm stonewalling you. Everyone here's adept enough at reason to see it's not the case.



Tree wrote:I'd like to hear a compelling argument also for why the Kim family can be trusted to only use it for defensive purposes.


They can't be, but we can't punish them in advance. Of course, in reality, no fucking nation can be trusted only to use nuclear weapons for defensive purposes - they're too fucking obscenely dangerous to the world. All it takes is a bombastic loon to take over the nation, and we're straight to the fucking precipice, which is, whether you fucking like it or not, exactly why discussing American policy is valid.



Tree wrote:There are some who want to go down that route. I think that's Chamberlain levels of naivety.


You just don't grasp the context of nuclear weapons at all, do you?



Tree wrote:I'm not interested in regressive style west/America bashing. Heard enough of it from college SJWs.


Considering there has literally been zero bashing of any nations aside from North Korea, perhaps you want to pull your head out of your butt and stop enumerating the shit you see up there.

When you remove your head from your arse, leave the vapid ideological hate-group bashing up there too.

This is a forum for reason - try using it.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:49 am
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:We've lost the moral high-ground


somehow is supposed to equate to

Tree wrote:America bashing


You're welcome to your own opinion, Tree, but you're not permitted to have your own facts.

The fact is that you need to stop with this snowflakery. If any member here wanted to criticise America or American policy, they are perfectly entitled to and don't need your permission.

Of course, no such occurrence has happened, you're are just trying to deflect from reasoned arguments you can't defeat and don't want to be discussed.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:53 am
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:
North Korea may well be run by a deluded asshat, but so is the USA.


Once again showing your true colors that you are simply incapable of any kind of accurate thinking.


Says who?

You?

Given your track record so far, the notion that you are an arbiter of what constitutes reasonable thought is ludicrous. If you cut out all the logical fallacies like well-poisoning and red herrings from your posts, there'd be about 30 words leftover.


Tree wrote: This is another propaganda piece, I wonder what you will say to weasel your way out of this one.


I will say 'what a load of hot cock' and perhaps 'wave your hands around some more, there might be a moron out there who hasn't noticed how hard you're trying to divert everyone's attention' or I could simply point out that, once again, you're just engaging in the same old well-poisoning which characterizes the majority of your arguments.

The USA is run by a deluded asshat. Trump is a deluded asshat. He is also dragging the knuckle-draggers in your society to the bring of nuclear war, which also makes him a vicious cunt.

Don't like me saying it? Then fuck off back to Stormfront or wherever it is that everyone toots the same trumpet and you feel all warm and snuggly with your carbon-copy ideological kin.

There is no obligation for me to conform to your opinion, snowflake.


Tree wrote:Trump is not Kim Jong Un.



Guhh huhh, what a stunning observation on your part.


Tree wrote: He is not any of the three Kims and even if you think he's a "deluded asshat" your statement implies he's an equally deluded asshat to Kim which isn't true.


1) If I wanted to say he was 'equally deluded' I would have written 'equally deluded' - stop the transparent strawman arguments and respond to what I say, rather than what you want me to say. Having read ahead, it's pretty fucking brazen how you manufacture this strawman and then proceed to hang heaps of bollocks onto it.

2) Your notion of 'truth' is completely irrational and uninspected. You think there's actually an established metric of asshattery with which we can compare them? You show again your miscomprehension of the nature of opinion and fact.

3) Given Trump's chest-beating, calling for the complete destruction of North Korea, talking about fire and fury, then more decent people should be standing up and calling him an asshat. If we don't, then he's going to convince numpties like you that we need to engage in a war that will involve nuclear weapons, and that's bad for everyone.


Tree wrote:None of Trump's flaws come even close.


Says you and meanwhile I give not a fuck what assertion you want to toss out. To me, he's a fucking dangerous loon that's dividing the USA, undermining international law, actively harming our future well-being, and dragging us towards a nuclear conflict. In my book, that's asshattery. I'm sorry if in your book such a person also needs to be a foreigner, but I am more disposed to holding 'our' side to the highest standards because those high standards are what's supposed to make 'us' and 'them' different.


Tree wrote:Are we talking jaywalking levels of asshatery or dictatorial asshatery or something in between? Be more specific.


If you want me to answer a question, then you will show me so basic some fucking respect by formulating it as a question, rather than as a command.

I don't perform tricks on command, especially not for aggressive little clowns on the internet.


Tree wrote:Where are Trump's political prison camps?


Umm? How about calling for a domestic terrorist to be sent to Guantanamo? You mean like that?

Yeah, exactly.


Trump wrote:We’re going to keep, as you know, Gitmo, we’re keeping that open. And we’re gonna load it up with a lot of bad dudes out there.


How about the notion of keeping open an internationally controversial political prison camp outside the judicial process, then 'filling it up' with undisclosed people? How about when he called for waterboarding and worse to be brought back to Guantanamo?

Go on - bleat mindlessly about how we're totally justified to do all this, to act in these ways because our motives are pure, and those bad guys are like super evil and shit...

Go on, then everyone can see how I pegged you accurately pages ago.



Tree wrote:Where are the violent purges of the antifa protestors? Why hasn't he attempted to abolish the rest of the federal government and make himself a king? This is a ridiculous statement that once again serves no possible purpose other than subversion to make less informed people think they're equivalent.


And you're doing it again.

It's now well over a dozen times you've demanded that I answer fantasy constructs that you've made up and which I haven't actually said.

Stop trying to put words into my mouth chap, not least because you lack the intelligence to speak for me, but also because I am more than competent at telling you what I think.

If you want a conversation with yourself, go get a fucking blog.

In the meantime, show me the basic fucking modicum of respect of letting me formulate my positions - I assure you, I absolutely do not need your pitiful help.

Incidentally, when you were bleating about how I am a liar and that I am debating in bad faith - everyone looked at you sideways because they've already seen a dozen incidences of you trying to pull this shit.



Tree wrote:There are ways to criticize Trump far more credibly than "well he's a deluded asshat like Kim and/or [insert random dictator]".


Fuck off Tree. You are not the fucking judge, jury and executioner. Get over yourself and do it rapidly. The credibility of my arguments does not hinge on your agreement with them. Learn now, learn well.


Tree wrote:What do you possibly hope to achieve by making these wildly inaccurate statements?


Wildly inaccurate? How would you even know what I wrote when you just turned a 5 word sentence I actually wrote into half a dozen formulations of dozens of words I didn't write?

You are going to learn what reason is and how to use it while you're here, or you're going to storm off in a tantrum complaining about boogeymen.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:17 am
SparhafocPosts: 1543Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Quick note about the factual progress of ideas in this thread....


Steelmage notes that Tree's criticisms of North Korea possessing nukes are just as easily applied to the USA.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Tree wrote:
I don't know, how do we tell a convicted violent felon he's not allowed to have weapons despite a 2nd amendment? Very simple, because he's proven to be too irresponsible to own a weapon and he lost that right. Rights don't come without responsibilities. You abuse them, you lose them. Either temporarily or permanently.

We don't sanction them without good reason. NK has expansionist ambitions towards SK and does a lot of criminal things around the world, not just to their own people. They've been behind several cyber attacks intended to extort money, they've been known to kidnap foreign Japanese citizens for social experiments and such.



You seem to present a series of arguments why the United States shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons.


Cue Tree immediately justifying the USA possessing nukes (ergo, unwittingly providing justification for North Korea to possess nukes) and then claiming that there's some kind of moral component to the possession of nukes.


Tree wrote:That is not going to happen so long as several other nations have nukes.

Also there's no moral comparison between US and NK.



So now we can see in context - the very thing that Tree works so hard to remove from his forays into dismissing my arguments by calling me a foreign stooge - that I was responding to this moral components of nuclear possession Tree himself had raised.


Sparhafoc wrote:Further, if we're going to talk about a nation abusing nukes; there's only one nation that's used nuclear weapons in a war, and they used them against civilian targets. Do they then lose them?



Sparhafoc wrote:Only one nation has dropped nuclear weapons, and that nation also happens to have targeted civilians.

For all its human rights abuses against its own people - NK is nowhere near morally comparable to that.


Of course, Tree's only interested in heaping criticism on North Korea (and Japan), and any criticism - even that wholly factually based - of the USA's policies with regards to the use of nuclear weapons is caricatured as 'America-bashing'.

As mentioned before, this is precisely how tribalism works - justify our actions regardless, and call the enemy evil - this is precisely what has allowed our species to engage in truly deplorable acts of barbarity against other groups throughout our history.

What's most depressing is how quickly some of us forget the stupidity of these actions. Iraq definitely, certainly, assuredly had weapons of mass destruction and were a real and present threat. So we storm through their country, killing tens of thousands, breeding hatred against the invaders, destablizing the region, ultimately creating political vacuums that lead to the rise of groups like IS, and there never were any fucking weapons of mass destruction.

This time it's the notion that North Korea's going to bomb the US mainland, and what's the way of resolving this horrifying potential act on their part? Doing the same to them before they do it to us.

It's very hard to know who the good guy is when it always seems to be the good guy who's firing the first shots.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:29 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 6
 [ 112 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests