Print

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

[kaijyuu]

Which of course will be responded to with the question, "why do we have people walking into IEDs in the first place?"


All the arguments for "needing" a military boil down to "the other guy has a military." And why do they have one? Because we do.

A more cynical, realistic view of course would be that militaries give you sway far beyond diplomacy or logical arguments ever would. So, the point and purpose isn't so much to "protect," but to promote a state's "interests," whatever said interests may be.

Still worth the money? Perhaps if you agree with the state interests being promoted, I suppose.

[Sirus]

Narp. It was the firefly field or the gater swamp, they made their choice.
NASA has really suffered from funding cuts.

as for the US army that gets SO much more money than NASA...

yeah... humans are idiots.

Y'know, quite a bit of that money goes towards keeping our boys and girls alive.
In my mind, I'd rather a robot that cost $20 million to develop gets blown up by an IED than an actual person. Robots are fixable and replaceable.

Yeah, well all that will amount to jack shit if we don't get off the planet eventually. Eggs and baskets, people, eggs and baskets.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get off this planet at some point. I'm just saying that we lose far fewer people nowadays than we did in WWII or whatever, and part of that is due to using technology in dangerous situations.
Now, if only we could stop killing foreign civilians by accident (or otherwise), I'd sound less like some sort of apologist.

[Kogut]

I don't think so..there was a record-breaking Kickstarter just to reprint the old books is what it was, I believe.

EDIT:  $1,254,120  was the total

Yes. Over one million!

Link: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/599092525/the-order-of-the-stick-reprint-drive

[Flying Dice]

Which of course will be responded to with the question, "why do we have people walking into IEDs in the first place?"


All the arguments for "needing" a military boil down to "the other guy has a military." And why do they have one? Because we do.

A more cynical, realistic view of course would be that militaries give you sway far beyond diplomacy or logical arguments ever would. So, the point and purpose isn't so much to "protect," but to promote a state's "interests," whatever said interests may be.

Still worth the money? Perhaps if you agree with the state interests being promoted, I suppose.

I'm normally the last one you'll find arguing on the side of military force, but it and war are important tools in international relations. War provides a way for intergroup grievances to be aired when normal channels have failed, which is a crucial function. Military force also serves as an effective deterrant, alongside economic and political tools (sanctions, embargoes, etc.), not least by adding the extra push to prevent actors from acting out of pure self-interest in Prisoner's Dilemmaesque situations. I'm not about to deny that military force is used far too often, and for insufficient reason, but neither will I agree that it is a useless tool. Any rhetoric about the purpose of a military being used to protect is essentially true: one of a state's interests is security, and military force helps ensure that, and by extension the security of the citizens of the state. I would disagree with the Realist doctrine of security being the only, or the first and foremost interest of a state, but it certainly plays a part, and military force exists not least because of it. I'm perfectly willing to argue with the necessity of any given action on the part of a state using military force, but not the basic necessity of some sort of military force, as there are a number of reasonable applications of it.

[kaijyuu]

The only point of contention I have with anything you said would be this:

War provides a way for intergroup grievances to be aired when normal channels have failed, which is a crucial function.

For the vast, vast majority of intergroup grievances, I do not see war as an acceptable solution. The aggressor is almost always not justified.



Past that yep. I'd file it all under the "interests being promoted." Safety is certainly one; I didn't say just economic interests after all, though that's a big one.

[jetex1911]

I was playing TTT this morning, on TTT_Croft_Mansion (At least, I think it was called that), and me and another player called SayNay was playing.  we were looking at the freezer, and suddenly we get a message from the server: Laura croft joined the game. We were to busy to notice, as we were hunting traitors. Next thing we know, we turn at the same time, and there she is, player model, name, all Laura Croft. His reaction to it was funny, especially with the fact that he sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  We both teamed up, me and laura, the traitors never stood a chance. Next round, she kills me.  The timing of her appearance was priceless.

[Fenrir]

This simply must be a joke.

[NobodyPro]

Sometimes people want to keep certain aspects of their personal life, well personal and private.  The one way to do this is to hire a fake internet girlfriend for appearances sake.  It avoids all the pesky little questions about why you’ve never been seen dating a girl before.

"See, I'm not lonely! I pay people to pretend to be other people!" _{foreveralone.png}

[Sirus]

...I have been single all my life, and I've never been that desperate 

[Flying Dice]

The only point of contention I have with anything you said would be this:

War provides a way for intergroup grievances to be aired when normal channels have failed, which is a crucial function.

For the vast, vast majority of intergroup grievances, I do not see war as an acceptable solution. The aggressor is almost always not justified.

Thing is, there is a difference between what can be justified to an individual or international group with a strong sense of ethics, and what can be justified as the needs of the state. Personally, I agree with you in that war is almost never used because all other options have been exhausted, but for an actor on the international stage, going to war is perfectly justifiable if you first accept that actors have no goals greater than their own benefit and betterment, and that there is nothing to deter actors from taking the actions which most greatly benefit them. A resource war may be utterly abhorrent to you or me, but to a state seeking to advance its own interests, it is a perfectly reasonable action, because it provides a benefit (resources gained, potentially new territory and tax income). This is why we have organizations like the UN (flawed bureaucratic monstrosity though it may be), laws of war, national restrictions on declaring war, etc. Obviously, states in reality aren't unilateral actors, but in theory a unilateral state would do much better to simply take what it wants by force than to accept a compromise or lesser gain, so long as there was no serious threat to its existence involved in the conflict.

IOW, just because I argue that something is a certain way in a given set of circumstances doesn't mean I agree with or approve of it.



Re: Fakeinternetgirlfriend: Looks like another version of that fake cellphone girlfriend thing that existed a while ago, except without microtransactions(?).

[NobodyPro]

We charge a flat fee of $250 per month, for your basic girlfriend package, which includes setting up a profile ...

Don't search "holy shit coach" in google images. Safesearch will not save you

[GaxkangtheUnbound]

This.

[Sirus]

This.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Scelly9]

This.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Its pitiful. Absolutely hilarious pitiful.

[Flying Dice]

This.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Its pitiful. Absolutely hilarious pitiful.

Yep. He was saving the his children for later. I guess he got the exposure he was looking for.