Author Topic: Oh hell...  (Read 11304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
But the human society works over somewhat discrete quantites as far as politics goes, and so if we keep following this trend into the future, we can see that the group will eventually compose of just one "group." ;) We have not changed in the respect of fighting because it is commonly considered to also be a very discrete true/false quantity, but if it is taken to be a continuous system instead (closer to the real thing for computational purposes), the rate of change is seen to be positive. ;)

Quote
But yes... It'll happen one day. When people discover the therapeutic properties of Freespace... :D


The whole world playing FS, and the PXO lobbies constantly full, and an FS3 in sight due to popularity; that would indeed be a great experience. :D
« Last Edit: May 31, 2002, 04:45:47 pm by 296 »

 

Offline Dark_4ce

  • GTVA comedy relief
  • 27
Hopefully... :)

But right now, it aint looking like it.
I have returned... Again...

 

Offline Razor

  • 210
Oh come on guys tell me about it. WAR sucks! :no:

I felt it on my own skin. :(

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
It is just another component of human affairs as far as the entire system of civilization goes, though. ;) (very undesirable for individuals of course, but that can vary for the system)

  

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670


Doesn't mean much when you think of the human social machine as a whole. :p Besides, these are older and more primitive nukes that don't have the power to affect anything outside the immediate area. (there are many kinds of nukes)



up until september 11 last year, you could have said the same thing about terrorism.... but the impact of that has shaken the very foundation of the western world.

And that was 3000 dead - what would over 17 million do?

Quote

I would not put it past them, but it is not very likely either, as the outsider countries do not have all that much to gain by sacrificing men for this. The only reason that India is going for this is due to a number of terrorist attacks in recent years, which is similar to the US policy; the poverty ratings in Pakistan are higher than even that of India, the land is useless for agriculture, and the only reason that there is any order is because of the military rule, so a conquest would not yield much.


Outsider countries?  China actually holds a portion of Kashmir currently, even if the world is focused on the India - Pakistan line of control.

The reason for this stand is solely to distract attention of the public from the crippling poverty of both countries.  It's exactly the same as Hitler - for example - starting World War 2 because his economic policy was unsustainable without taking the resource - and slave labour of - other nations.  not as blatantly evil, but still god-damn wrong.

Kashmir was always supposed to be  - based on a referendum - and independent nation when the British Empire withdrew from India.  This crisis could be settled in a heartbeat if that were allowed to happen.



Quote

That would become an issue if a couple hundred of the newer kinds were used simultaneously, which is not really the case here. Also, the Pakistani nukes are thought to be conventional bombs rather than ICBMs, making them harder to use directly, while the Indians have that no-strike policy.
 


You need an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to hit your neighbours.  Pakistan has already proven it has nuclear missiles capable of being fired into India with the recent tests.

Also, a first strike policy is no guarentee.... how many of those nukes are under total control of the Government?  There was already worries during the height of the Afghan war, that rouge fanatcial elements of the Pakistan army could easily secure and use nuclear missiles.

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Quote
up until september 11 last year, you could have said the same thing about terrorism.... but the impact of that has shaken the very foundation of the western world.

And that was 3000 dead - what would over 17 million do?


Actually, it shook the world much more because people were unprepared for it rather than it actually damaging the infrastructure a lot. The civilized world had not yet seen such an event on a large scale. And 3000 is again a vanishingly small number compared to entire world population, as is 17 million. (btw, WW2 casualities exceeded this by a considerable amount) And the recent rise of terrorism is probably the main reason this war is being fought in the first place.

Quote
Outsider countries? China actually holds a portion of Kashmir currently, even if the world is focused on the India - Pakistan line of control.

The reason for this stand is solely to distract attention of the public from the crippling poverty of both countries. It's exactly the same as Hitler - for example - starting World War 2 because his economic policy was unsustainable without taking the resource - and slave labour of - other nations. not as blatantly evil, but still god-damn wrong.


That is quite an uninformed statement, if I must say so. As I said earlier, India has nothing to gain in terms of resources or material from such an effort; I suppose Pakistan does, but the chances of them being victorious in such a war are not worth it. The objective is basically the same as that of the US: to take revenge for terrorist activities, especially since a good portion of the Pakistani government is directly funding and supplying the terrorist groups that operate out of the nation. (it is hard to tell what Musharraf's motives are, but he definitely does not have the government entirely, or even mostly, under his control) Most of the world's terrorist groups are based in Pakistan and the main reason that they are able to carry out violent acts is that they recieve lots of government support.

Quote
Kashmir was always supposed to be - based on a referendum - and independent nation when the British Empire withdrew from India. This crisis could be settled in a heartbeat if that were allowed to happen.


These national boundaries change over time; if you want to follow the path back far enough, Pakistan was a section of India, along with some of the other surrounding countries. You cannot really rely on that type of thing. :p

Quote

You need an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to hit your neighbours. Pakistan has already proven it has nuclear missiles capable of being fired into India with the recent tests.


I'm not sure about that, but you could be right. Still, as I said before, India will probably attempt to secretly disarm the weapons first using commando teams due to their generally cautious nature.

Quote
Also, a first strike policy is no guarentee.... how many of those nukes are under total control of the Government? There was already worries during the height of the Afghan war, that rouge fanatcial elements of the Pakistan army could easily secure and use nuclear missiles.


Actually, I meant the Indians there; Pakistan has no first-strike policy, and in fact they have officially stated that if their country is on the verge of collapse they will attempt to take down as many people with them as they can. However, as you said, there is a big threat, especially now more than ever, that the terrorist groups (which have many links in the government) will be able to grab a nuke or two regardless of any war, which would be a dream come true for them, and launch it on some place like Washington.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2002, 05:16:23 pm by 296 »

 

Offline Zeronet

  • Hanger Man
  • 29
The Fallout would be less than the Russian disaster, well for those in Europe and the Americas. Also its India who have the policy that they wont strike first, not Pakistan. This means that nukes probably wont be used, as if Pakistan did use them, the rest of the world would hate them. Here a series of quotes i know somewhat. Also Commando units couldnt just walk into a launch facility and disable thermies, they'd use airstrikes.

Quote
War is Hell


Quote
You cannot win a war, only survive it


Quote
It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it
Got Ether?

 

Offline phreak

  • Gun Phreak
  • 211
  • -1
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
And 3000 is again a vanishingly small number compared to entire world population, as is 17 million. (btw, WW2 casualities exceeded this by a considerable amount)


hmm.. 9/1/39 to 9/2/45 50-70 million dead over 6 years
or 17 million in about an hour.
Offically approved by Ebola Virus Man :wtf:
phreakscp - gtalk
phreak317#7583 - discord

 

Offline Dark_4ce

  • GTVA comedy relief
  • 27
Quote
Originally posted by PhReAk


hmm.. 9/1/39 to 9/2/45 50-70 million dead over 6 years
or 17 million in about an hour.


Good point dude.
I have returned... Again...

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670


Actually, it shook the world much more because people were unprepared for it rather than it actually damaging the infrastructure a lot. The civilized world had not yet seen such an event on a large scale. And 3000 is again a vanishingly small number compared to entire world population, as is 17 million. (btw, WW2 casualities exceeded this by a considerable amount) And the recent rise of terrorism is probably the main reason this war is being fought in the first place.


I'm sorry, but I don't get your point.  you say the world has never seen a major terrorist attack.  True.  But it has never seen a nuclear war exterminate half a subcontinent - 17 million dead in one hour (or less), not to mention the fallout, and the destruction of the ecosystem.

Quote

That is quite an uninformed statement, if I must say so. As I said earlier, India has nothing to gain in terms of resources or material from such an effort; I suppose Pakistan does, but the chances of them being victorious in such a war are not worth it. The objective is basically the same as that of the US: to take revenge for terrorist activities, especially since a good portion of the Pakistani government is directly funding and supplying the terrorist groups that operate out of the nation. (it is hard to tell what Musharraf's motives are, but he definitely does not have the government entirely, or even mostly, under his control) Most of the world's terrorist groups are based in Pakistan and the main reason that they are able to carry out violent acts is that they recieve lots of government support.


Uninformed?  i suppose your infromation is direct from the Un, or the state department.  correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in the Us - half a world away.  You know as much as I do.... you say you are of Indian descent (IIRC).  fair enough....  but how does that make you in any way more informed.

Also, the objective of a war would not be to take revenge.... bpth sides have been on tenterhooks for decades.  this is simply a justifciation for war, nothing more.  Regardless of any tenous excuse of 'terrorism' - this would not justify massacaring a civillian population with nuclear arms, or even killing soldiers.

Quote



These national boundaries change over time; if you want to follow the path back far enough, Pakistan was a section of India, along with some of the other surrounding countries. You cannot really rely on that type of thing. :p

[/b]

It's an easy (easier than war) solution.  give the people what they want, and neither side can argue.

Quote


I'm not sure about that, but you could be right. Still, as I said before, India will probably attempt to secretly disarm the weapons first using commando teams due to their generally cautious nature.
[/b]

It's unlikely India even know the locations of all the silos....

Quote

Actually, I meant the Indians there; Pakistan has no first-strike policy, and in fact they have officially stated that if their country is on the verge of collapse they will attempt to take down as many people with them as they can.  [/B]



Granted, it's an ugly statement - but it's true for everyone.

In WW2, churchill planned the use of mustard gas if the Germans invaded.  I'd feel it was justified, so it's not as condemable as you think.... it's certainly a deterrent, is it not?

Quote

John Lennon

"Give peace a chance"


 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Quote

hmm.. 9/1/39 to 9/2/45 50-70 million dead over 6 years
or 17 million in about an hour.


Still, the rate of change is itself variable, and the total is all that counts really. It's like comparing the integrals of 1/Ö|x| and Ö|x| from -10 to 10. ;)

Quote
I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. you say the world has never seen a major terrorist attack. True. But it has never seen a nuclear war exterminate half a subcontinent - 17 million dead in one hour (or less), not to mention the fallout, and the destruction of the ecosystem.


Yes, the world has never seen any of that, but that does not mean that it will have any major effect of things. Also, the ecosystem will be of no importance in about a century at the latest with the exponential advance of technology, as we will have to begin living on our own creations regardless of whether there is any war or not.

Quote

Uninformed? i suppose your infromation is direct from the Un, or the state department. correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in the Us - half a world away. You know as much as I do.... you say you are of Indian descent (IIRC). fair enough.... but how does that make you in any way more informed.


Well, your argument is that the countries are doing this simply to "get attention" and to gain more territory, so yeah, I can safely say that my thing is a bit better than that, even if it is not wholly accurate. :p :D

Quote
Also, the objective of a war would not be to take revenge.... bpth sides have been on tenterhooks for decades. this is simply a justifciation for war, nothing more. Regardless of any tenous excuse of 'terrorism' - this would not justify massacaring a civillian population with nuclear arms, or even killing soldiers.


Yes but the same could be said of the histories of any nations in the world, including the ones involved in the US/Afghanistan and Israel/Paestine conflicts today, so that would not be saying much. Also everything is justified and not justified when it comes to international politics. I said this before: nations have their own interests, and the justification thing is of no importance outside these interests. I agree that it would not benefit the world much to use a bunch of nukes, but staging a conventional battle is definitely worth it in the interests of the social machine.

Time for me to go again, but I will be back in six hours to continue with this. :D ;7
« Last Edit: May 31, 2002, 05:55:41 pm by 296 »

 

Offline Dark_4ce

  • GTVA comedy relief
  • 27
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670


Still, the rate of change is itself variable, and the total is all that counts really. It's like comparing the integrals of 1/Ö|x| and Ö|x from -10 to 10. ;)


Dude, were talking about PEOPLE here, not numbers! That sounds like something Stalin would say. Like his infamous quote "Kill one person, you're a murderer, kill a million its a statistic." Or something like that. Its still wrong. Who cares about rates of change and such? Be it 17 million or 17 thousand, what difference does it make? Its still people, and people should'nt be killed just like that.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2002, 05:48:50 pm by 357 »
I have returned... Again...

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Quote
Dude, were talking about PEOPLE here, not numbers! That sounds like something Stalin would say. Like his infamous quote "Kill one person, you're a murderer, kill a million its a statistic." Or something like that. Its still wrong. Who cares about rates of change and such? Be it 17 million or 17 thousand, what difference does it make? Its still people, and people should'nt be killed just like that.


People are equal to numbers as far as the social machine goes. :p (people are just as abundant as nonliving materials, making them similar economically) Remember: don't think with the human instincts you were brought up with, but rather with logic.

 

Offline Thorn

  • Drunk on the east coast.
  • 210
  • What is this? I don't even...
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
"Make love, not war..."

Goddamn straight....
*puts on hemp clothes, rolls a joint*
:thepimp:

 

Offline Dark_4ce

  • GTVA comedy relief
  • 27
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670


People are equal to numbers as far as the social machine goes. :p (people are just as abundant as nonliving materials, making them similar economically) Remember: don't think with the human instincts you were brought up with, but rather with logic.


Uh-huh. Sure. :rolleyes:

Dude, stop watching Star Trek, and look at the world as a person for once. We aren't Vulcans, come on. What will it accomplish, looking at the world with logic? Its not even possible. There's nothing logical about the world.  Logic can even be considered a mental phenomenon in which the brain tries put non coherent events into some sort of perspective, trying to make sense out of it. But in the end its just the brains way of fooling itself, so that it doesen't have to worry so much.

And people ARE NOT equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are numbers is just a way to dissasociate oneself from the truth. Basically thinking so is like saying, "Oh, well, if 17 million people will be killed, if they're equal to numbers, thats not to bad. See I don't really care about numbers, and if people are like numbers, I don't really care out them either." Now how does that sound? Some one thinking with logic, or someone trying to just close their eyes to the horrors of the world?

!7 million deaths is a horrible thing. 1 death is a horrible thing. And trying to trivialize it by turning it into math equasions, isn't a good way of handling it. Try going outside and look at people. Look at how they live. They are living people, with lives and families. Can you really look at them as just a number? A part of a social machine? Not as an individual? Can you really just shrug off 17 million deaths as just a statistic? I know I can't.    

I'm my humble oppinion, we should look at the world with that "human instinct", becasue its there for a reason.
I have returned... Again...

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Okay, I thought you were quite a reasonable guy until that last post, and even people that do not have the same viewpoint as I do will agree that the post was completely illogical and therefore unsuited for any sort of argument. :rolleyes:

Quote


Uh-huh. Sure. :rolleyes:

Dude, stop watching Star Trek, and look at the world as a person for once. We aren't Vulcans, come on. What will it accomplish, looking at the world with logic? Its not even possible. There's nothing logical about the world.  Logic can even be considered a mental phenomenon in which the brain tries put non coherent events into some sort of perspective, trying to make sense out of it. But in the end its just the brains way of fooling itself, so that it doesen't have to worry so much.


I haven't seen a single episode of Star Trek in my life. :D And looking at the world as individual people is exactly what has kept us down for so long. Almost every stupid action of human experience can be explained by this lack of a universal perspective and going by the foolish common sense instead. And there is nothing logical about the world? Where did that statement come from? If that is true, why do the laws of science work with such accuracy today?

In fact, intuition is the brain's way of fooling itself and limiting itself to an extremely narrow perspective, because while logic is something that all humans can agree on, intuition is completely dependent on life conditions and therefore varies from person to person.

Also, we not only think by logic, but also argue by logic, so in other words, you are essentially trying to mask the fact that your stance cannot stand up to an argument. :p

Quote
And people ARE NOT equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are numbers is just a way to dissasociate oneself from the truth. Basically thinking so is like saying, "Oh, well, if 17 million people will be killed, if they're equal to numbers, thats not to bad. See I don't really care about numbers, and if people are like numbers, I don't really care out them either." Now how does that sound? Some one thinking with logic, or someone trying to just close their eyes to the horrors of the world?


The first part of that is just silly; it is just like something from the religion thread. :p People ARE equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are anything but numbers is just a way to disassociate oneself from the truth. :D

And the entire concept of "horror" has no meaning outside the individual. :p Bin Laden did not find his recent act horrifying at all - in fact, he said that it was the work of god - while most of the world despised it. Therefore, this is concept is to subjective at least to some extent. The universe can be said to operate on indifference.

Quote
!7 million deaths is a horrible thing. 1 death is a horrible thing. And trying to trivialize it by turning it into math equasions, isn't a good way of handling it. Try going outside and look at people. Look at how they live. They are living people, with lives and families. Can you really look at them as just a number? A part of a social machine? Not as an individual? Can you really just shrug off 17 million deaths as just a statistic? I know I can't.    


I can look at them as sentient individuals for the purposes of daily life, but when dealing with higher issues that require logical thought, they certainly are just parts of a much larger machine, and since there are so many of them, they can be numbered for easier computations. You need to carefully observe them and look much more deeply at how they live, and then you too will be able to form a set of logical rules for explaining their affairs. And why is one death so horrible anyway, considering that people are dying every second? (and others are being born to take their place)

Think of the cells in your body, for example. Each cell obviously has some level of sentience, but it cannot quite match the capabilities of the body as a whole. Similarly, the entire human civilization can be thought of as a great organism in itself of which humans form the constituent parts, and one that is much more powerful than the individuals.

Quote
I'm my humble oppinion, we should look at the world with that "human instinct", becasue its there for a reason.


That is really nonsense; just ask anyone who is in the field of science or math right now. :p Instinct is exactly what people should avoid at all costs, as it frequently turns out to be wrong, and people can base just about any crazy actions on this "instinct." The reason that this intuition exists is that every human grows up under different conditions and has a different perspective of his or her surroundings, and the system of knowledge assimilation has its subtle effect on the thinking processes. Where do you think Hitler came up with some of his ideas?

One counterintuitive thing I can think of is that it can be proved that all geometric lines, regardless of their length, have the same number of points on them. Not only that, but all 2D planes, 3D cubes and nD objects in general of any size all have equally as many points as a short line. This sounds kind of strange going by our common sense, but it is mathematically and logically sound. Also, if we go by our intuition alone (which by the way is formed by our life experiences, and not anything that we are born with), both the quantum physics and the general relativity theory would be really nonsensical. Are you telling me that you contest both of these theories simply because they do not fit with your "intuition?" :rolleyes:
« Last Edit: May 31, 2002, 09:41:02 pm by 296 »

 

Offline Galemp

  • Actual father of Samus
  • 212
  • Ask me about GORT!
    • Steam
    • User page on the FreeSpace Wiki
Mmm... the sweet smell of biocide. :drevil:
There was an article in the newspaper today that the government (U.S.) is warning all Americans to leave India... immediately. Same thing happened in Cambodia in the late '70s...

An while we're handing out quotes:
Quote
There is no "winning" in wars. There are only degrees of losing.
"Anyone can do any amount of work, provided it isn't the work he's supposed to be doing at that moment." -- Robert Benchley

Members I've personally met: RedStreblo, Goober5000, Sandwich, Splinter, Su-tehp, Hippo, CP5670, Terran Emperor, Karajorma, Dekker, McCall, Admiral Wolf, mxlm, RedSniper, Stealth, Black Wolf...

 

Offline WMCoolmon

  • Purveyor of space crack
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
That is really nonsense; just ask anyone who is in the field of science or math right now. :p Instinct is exactly what people should avoid at all costs, as it frequently turns out to be wrong, and people can base just about any crazy actions on this "instinct." The reason that this intuition exists is that every human grows up under different conditions and has a different perspective of his or her surroundings, and the system of knowledge assimilation has its subtle effect on the thinking processes. Where do you think Hitler came up with some of his ideas?

Easy. What's going to make the economy go up? Giving people a cause or a reason to work. Where do you get that reason? By tapping into people's hatreds, fears, or passions. How do you do that? Giving them something to hate, fear, or be passionate about. Very logical reasoning there.
I doubt Hitler just one day decided "I don't like Jews. I think I'll massacre all the Jews because I don't like them."
Logic is not a way of life, but a tool. Look at a computer; it is incredibly good at logic, but without a goal it has no purpose.

The point people are trying to make is that you can't just say "17 million people" as a statistic. You can have two groups of 17 million numbers that are the same, but you can't have two groups of 17 million people who are the same within a reasonable margin. One of those 17 million people might turn out to be a skillful diplomat who stops a nuclear war from taking place. One of those 17 million people could be a mass murderer. Until you've gotten to know every last detail about every one of those people, you can't just sum the whole situation up with "17 million people"
-C

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Quote

Easy. What's going to make the economy go up? Giving people a cause or a reason to work. Where do you get that reason? By tapping into people's hatreds, fears, or passions. How do you do that? Giving them something to hate, fear, or be passionate about. Very logical reasoning there.
I doubt Hitler just one day decided "I don't like Jews. I think I'll massacre all the Jews because I don't like them."
Logic is not a way of life, but a tool. Look at a computer; it is incredibly good at logic, but without a goal it has no purpose.


First part sounds fine to me, but I never really disputed it. :p :D And regarding Hitler, that is precisely what he did: "I see that everything that is bad in the world is linked to Jews, and I see these Jews everywhere. The first time I saw one, I thought 'Is this a Jew?' and was immediately filled with disgust. I can always tell a Jew from anyone else, and so they must be an inferior race." :p These ideas arose in his mind through basically the same instinct principle we are talking of here during his days as a tramp in Vienna. The massacre part came later on as part of his "final solution," but the the racial hatred all started as an impulsive motivation for the most part.

Logic can indeed not be not only a way of life, but a whole philosophical system of thought as well if the other assumptions are kept to a minimum, and it can be thought of as life itself as far as the absolute perception goes, as all phenomena in that realm can be described as sets of logical constructs. And regarding final objectives, the goal of anything that can be considered as "intelligence" must be the analysis of all knowledge and a general progression of science and technology (the exact reasoning is pretty long and I won't state it here); the end is basically to become the gods we speak of in terms of knowledge.

Quote
The point people are trying to make is that you can't just say "17 million people" as a statistic. You can have two groups of 17 million numbers that are the same, but you can't have two groups of 17 million people who are the same within a reasonable margin. One of those 17 million people might turn out to be a skillful diplomat who stops a nuclear war from taking place. One of those 17 million people could be a mass murderer. Until you've gotten to know every last detail about every one of those people, you can't just sum the whole situation up with "17 million people"


Yes, you can. Remember that we are talking about averages here. Some of those men may be the next great scientists, political leaders, criminals, whatever, but the thing is that 99.9999% of the people will be just more of the usual masses that constitute most of humanity. So yeah, one group of 17 million is indeed roughly equal to another. We cannot say with any certainty that one man is equal to another, but that is no longer the case for large groups. (heck, that's how sociology works)

Hey, if you want to argue with me, come on over to the religion thread! I want to see if we can get it pass 1000 posts. We can continue this over there. :D :D ;7
« Last Edit: June 01, 2002, 12:19:18 am by 296 »

 
all i know is if the pakistani leader feels hes gonna be overwhelmed, ur gonna threaten to use whatever weapons u have that can killl off ur enemy in one blow rather then seven. i think if "push came to run-over", he might just deploy a small amount against an attacking indian battlegroup or army. otherwise, pakistan is outnumbered PERIOD. i think in a one on one battle, india has a numbers advantage with everything but its nuclear capabilities.