ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

1453R wrote:

'Violence enacted is not a deterrent. Not against whatever has been violence'd. Violence threatened is a deterrent. 'Trespassers will be shot' is a deterrent - shooting trespassers is not.

To clarify, violence can itself be a component to threat if, and only if, it was threatened beforehand. To continue the "trespassers will be shot" example, let's say landowner has such a sign, but when people trespass anyway the landowner smiles and waves at themas they steal his television; this reduces the credibility of future threats the landowner makes. In other words, threats are promises and the power of a threat is based in part upon credibility - specifically, credibility in regards to promises of future behavior, as opposed to credibility of past facts.

In regards to North Korea, part of what makes Trump effective in international diplomacy is his unusually high future-credibility. While the media enjoys picking apart Trump's casual relationship with the facts of what happened (something Scott Adams would tell you isn't very relevant in the first place), Trump keeps campaign promises much better than most Presidents do - his behavior in office so far is very predictable to his base that voted for him, as he said well in advance he'd kill TPP, create a travel ban, end DACA, repeal the Obamacare mandate, cut taxes, and pull out of the Iran deal. He even keeps promises when his base hoped he was joking - for example, killing not just terrorists but also the families of terrorists with drone strikes. All this plus "time traveler" tweets like predicting the fall of A.G. Schneiderman back in 2013.

Although I hate to admit it, it's the crazier, sometimes bloodier promises he has kept that have made Trump so brutally effective at bringing North Korea to the negotiations table - when Trump threatens to nuke you, you seriously consider for far too long a moment whether he's crazy enough to actually do it.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

The Russian conquest of Europe has already begun. Crimea was a test.

:D lol...

I'm sorry but you probably know nothing about Russia, the history of the region or the people there. Crimea is to Russia as Texas is to USA.

wtf I love Crimeans now

"

morbo wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

The Russian conquest of Europe has already begun. Crimea was a test.

:D lol...

I'm sorry but you probably know nothing about Russia, the history of the region or the people there. Crimea is to Russia as Texas is to USA.

So Crimea is the best state(territory) in Russia, and they lost it?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

They are, but I'm not getting them wrong - there you go flexing again, while presumably you're not typing from jail as a result of actually doing what you say you'd do.*

Last time I ended up in a fight was in elementary school. I'm, you know, not stupid or incapable enough to not solve situations peacefully.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It depends what you meanby "fuck with me." If you mean you cripple them because they flexed on you, then you're claiming a right to escalate a verbal/body-language conflict into a physical one. If you mean you cripple them after they attack you first, then it seems you either don't understand how ambushes work or have delusions of invulnerability.

Its got nothing to do with rights. If someone's dumb enough to push me past the line, they deserve the consequences. If you go and kick a bear and get mauled by it, it wasn't the bear's fault either.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

*Not that I'm anti-flexing; you're the one who denounced it, not me. I think there's a lot less robberies when gunowners let would-be criminals know they're packing, and a lot less dead trespassers when there's a "trespassers will be shot" sign versus shooting trespassers with no warning whatsoever. Indeed, I'd say there's zero justification ever for any violence that was not clearly threatened first; at best, violence divorced from ultimatum is naked revenge with no power as a deterrent.

I see. You are in favor of everyone waving their guns on each others' face. That'll ensure total safety as no one will pull the trigger when everyone's being threatened.

You for one shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, that's for damn sure.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In conclusion, I've established that:
- the moral is the opposite of what you preach
- you practice the opposite of what you preach
Therefore, this is for you. (Disclaimer: I'm not an ancap.)

Incorrect. Violence used as a retaliation to prevent escalation is completely fine.

The reason you view retaliatory violence as an issue is because you're gun-crazed lunatics. Civvies using guns against other people shouldn't be considered violence but terrorism. Whipping a gun out in any situation is an amazing way to escalate it through the roof, not the other way around. In fact, anyone who thinks that a civvie pulling a gun out can pacify a situation has one or more screws loose.

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

The Russian conquest of Europe has already begun. Crimea was a test.

:D lol...

I'm sorry but you probably know nothing about Russia, the history of the region or the people there. Crimea is to Russia as Texas is to USA.

So Crimea is the best state(territory) in Russia, and they lost it?

Crimea is NOT like Texas to them haha.

It has a much longer Russian history, than it does Ukraine history though.

Why Russia took it back, was because it was stripped from Russia as a gift to Ukraine for the evil things Russian soviet commies did to Ukraine. Given BY soviet communists. Most Russians did not want that to happen but had no way of stopping the transfer.

It never should have been given away.

I like Ukraine and Russia both, but the land stripped away like that, was pathetic.

Sadly it'll be decades before Ukraine can politically admit it should have been given back. So more political hate will happen between them.

Comparing it to Texas though? haha

More like what we'd feel about half of rhode island.

Not much.

But Ukraine decided to spit in Russia's direction and go West politically. Russia IMO had every right to take back that "gift".

Never should have been gifted away in the first place.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In conclusion, I've established that:
- the moral is the opposite of what you preach
- you practice the opposite of what you preach
Therefore, this is for you. (Disclaimer: I'm not an ancap.)

Incorrect. Violence used as a retaliation to prevent escalation is completely fine.

So 'flexing' in a language of words is for hormonal idiots, but threats made in the language of violence are fine and dandy? Also, if the retaliation is not an escalation, explain to me how it would be sufficient deterrent to prevent future attacks.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

The reason you view retaliatory violence as an issue is because you're gun-crazed lunatics. Civvies using guns against other people shouldn't be considered violence but terrorism. Whipping a gun out in any situation is an amazing way to escalate it through the roof, not the other way around. In fact, anyone who thinks that a civvie pulling a gun out can pacify a situation has one or more screws loose.

I think it's interesting how you suddenly shifted from people in general to civilians. Do you think an officer of government pulling out a firearm has the same inability to pacify a situation?

Well I support giving away California, but definitely not Texas.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think it's interesting how you suddenly shifted from people in general to civilians. Do you think an officer of government pulling out a firearm has the same inability to pacify a situation?

They probably have government officials like Judge Dread where he is from.

"

Khoranth wrote:

So Crimea is the best state(territory) in Russia, and they lost it?

Crimea is extremely important to Russia in strategic and historical terms. It was russian longer than Texas was american. They didn't lost it, the soviet communists in their infinite wisdom ("communism will last forever") gave it to Ukraine. In 2014 Russia simiply used the (western instigated) coup in Kiev, to take the land back.

I compared it to Texas because of the huge national meaning that land has for Russia. Especially the city of Sevastopol.

Calling the annexation of Crimea some sort of "attack on Europe", is ludicrous.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

So Crimea is the best state(territory) in Russia, and they lost it?

Crimea is extremely important to Russia in strategic and historical terms. It was russian longer than Texas was american. They didn't lost it, the soviet communists in their infinite wisdom ("communism will last forever") gave it to Ukraine. In 2014 Russia simiply used the (western instigated) coup in Kiev, to take the land back.

I compared it to Texas because of the huge national meaning that land has for Russia. Especially the city of Sevastopol.

Calling the annexation of Crimea some sort of "attack on Europe", is ludicrous.

Calling unlawful stealing of land an attack is not ludicrous. Now dont get me wrong, I support Russia's right to annex land from Neville Chamberlain Europe, it's their fault for laying down and allowing it.

lol dumb civvies and their guns, btw im tough