[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Wordle - daily game - islander - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:53am
 
NYTimes Connections - islander - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:51am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:15am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:11am
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:09am
 
Breaking News - rgio - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:03am
 
Trump - haresfur - Mar 29, 2024 - 5:40am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Mar 29, 2024 - 4:30am
 
Main Mix Playlist - R567 - Mar 29, 2024 - 4:08am
 
Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:51pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:27pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:11pm
 
Uploading Music - macadavy - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:18pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:17pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - johkir - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:07pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 819, 820, 821 ... 1129, 1130, 1131  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 21, 2017 - 6:58am

 miamizsun wrote:
if you open any political toolbox you'll see a giant hammer

and anyone or anything not in agreement looks like a nail

and political leaders want big ol' hammers

it makes coercion and the threat of violence a lot easier when you have a hammer the size of texas

see that flashing sign kim is holding? it says "look at my hammer"

the best way to keep a political hammer in the political toolbox is through economic trade and peaceful negotiation (economic toolbox)

negotiation is the hard work, but it usually produces long lasting sustainable results

history tells us that peace and prosperity go hand in hand

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” â€•  Frédéric Bastiat

long term economic trade is like kryptonite to war

nk's biggest trade partner? currently i think it is china

there's your leverage, your starting point

either work with their trade partners and/or trade directly

war is for people/politicians too stupid to negotiate

whatever

coffee?

Speaking of hammers...

Bastiat was right about many things, but he was wrong about the pacifying power of trade. France's biggest trading partner before WW1? Germany. Before WW2? Germany. Trade is not magic; it won't turn rivals into allies. It will, however, undermine authoritarian regimes.

Look what it has done for China, Vietnam, Malaysia. Look what it could do for Cuba. Look at what it could do for North Korea.
 

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 21, 2017 - 5:55am

if you open any political toolbox you'll see a giant hammer

and anyone or anything not in agreement looks like a nail

and political leaders want big ol' hammers

it makes coercion and the threat of violence a lot easier when you have a hammer the size of texas

see that flashing sign kim is holding? it says "look at my hammer"

the best way to keep a political hammer in the political toolbox is through economic trade and peaceful negotiation (economic toolbox)

negotiation is the hard work, but it usually produces long lasting sustainable results

history tells us that peace and prosperity go hand in hand

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” â€•  Frédéric Bastiat

long term economic trade is like kryptonite to war

nk's biggest trade partner? currently i think it is china

there's your leverage, your starting point

either work with their trade partners and/or trade directly

war is for people/politicians too stupid to negotiate

whatever

coffee?



ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 11:04pm

The pigeon thing would be pretty cool, tho. coooooooooooPOW!
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 6:48pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
kurtster wrote:
Well I'll go out on a limb and call him asocial and amoral.  He feeds his family members to starving dogs, alive.  He runs concentration camps that make Hitler's and Stalin's Gulags look like summer camps.  He is content to let his people eat bark off of trees in order to survive.  He maintains a fantasy that his family has a divine right to rule based upon some event his grandfather had at a magic mountain.  And we negotiate with someone like this ... how ?

We negotiate when there's something to negotiate over. Not seeing that myself, but then I wasn't calling for negotiations. Or even using the word. So I'm kinda at a loss as to why we're discussing it.

Comparisons to the USSR, the Cold War and any other situation are ludicrous.  This is unique and without precedent given the threat of using thermonuclear weapons offensively.   Our little friend, Chubby Cheeks or Rocket Man or whatever you want to call him, now has the capability and the intent to send one third to one half of North America into the stone age with an EMP that does not require accuracy of any kind.  Is not an EMP device a real threat ?  Does this not qualify as casus belli ?

Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning "an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" (literally, "a case of war"). A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact. Either may be considered an act of war.

We are going to contain or prevent this potential EMP how ?  Can you say that we can shoot down an ICBM with 100% certainty to prevent the event right now ?  You are willing to risk a 100 to 300 million people with this certainty ?  If so, then fine, contain the little bastard and wait him out.  I do not share the confidence that we can shoot down an ICBM of this sort with 100% certainty and 99% is not enough.  What if he shoots multiple ICBM's ?  We can get every one of them ?

It is very apparent based upon discussions here over the years that I am about the only one here who even considers an EMP to be a real threat of any kind based upon the remarks I have received over the years when ever I have mentioned it.  Y'all are keeping yourself locked into the box thinking in terms of established conventional war and old paradigms of the past.

How would the survivors of this EMP event judge the leaders who let this happen, when it was preventable ?  People are going to die.  Do we let them die everywhere or in just one place ?  That is the choice.  Diplomacy is at a dead end.  It has done nothing other than take us to this point and decision.

Comparisons to the USSR aren't ludicrous, but they're not completely appropriate either. Kim Jong Un is one man, and as such his regime is quite fragile. He could choke on a chicken bone tonight and it would come to an end. It's not clear if he has even contemplated his own mortality, let alone set up a succession plan. The USSR was a nation with a much more resilient power structure and a lot more firepower.

An EMP is just a high-altitude nuke. Every nation with missile technology and nuclear weapons can build one. I think you're exaggerating the threat they pose but possessing a weapon isn't the same as attacking another country any more than owning a gun is shooting up a post office. Regardless, nine countries (at least) have the capability of using an EMP.

If every nation with nuclear weapons ruled by an unstable leader prone to making rash threats in public is casus belli then we in the US are in deep trouble.
 
But let's see just how deep. What do you propose we do about Kim Jong Un? Invasion? Preemptive nuclear strike? CIA assassin homing pigeons? Mock him on South Park? We've all heard plenty about how every previous US president was weak or stupid or a bad negotiator or whatever, but what do you propose Mango Mussolini do?

Let's hear it. Show us this tough new strategy that's going to make us sick of winning.
 


 
I often disagree with you quite strongly, but I'm with you on your post. 

The USSR was a much greater threat to the US. We and our allies contained the USSR and engaged it in constructive negotiations. The USSR collapsed more or less peacefully, kurtster, so it's not out of the question that NK could as well. 

AFAICT, an EMP is one of the lesser of your worries if you're hit with a nuclear weapon. The radioactive plume, the fireball, the concussive effects of the blast, radiation on the ground and in the water—much more destructive and many of those events longer-lasting. 

As for the imminence of the threat of a nuclear NK—didn't we go through the same issue with Iran? Didn't we and our allies get Iran to slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons and reach binding agreements? 

As you point out, lazy8, our options outside of negotiation and containment are between slim and none. We could point the finger at previous administrations—that seems to be Trump's approach—but that accusation fails to take into account past agreements to slow or limit NK's nuclear technology (Clinton and SoS Albright were temporarily able to limit and monitor Kim Jong Il's efforts—Albright had several friendly face-to-face meetings with KJI)  and secret, successful efforts to damage NK rocket technology and tests. Furthermore, it doesn't seem as if the Trump administration has done much to limit NK's access to and production of UDMH, the fuel its long-range missiles fly on. Do Trump and his subordinates really think NK's missiles are an imminent threat? If so, why haven't they limited its rocket fuel?

kurtster is just repeating Trump's proclamation of a crisis, without considering that 

1. This problem of NK aggressiveness has been going on for decades

2. The US has not been able to solve this problem on its own and will not be able to in the future

3. A full, successful resolution of the problem is not possible in the near future, no matter how many countries are involved

4. There are few if any possible solutions outside of multilateral action, containment and negotiation. War and assassination likely won't work.

It would be great if Trump could do things to help the US today, in ways that help the majority of Americans. But he just wants to distract the US with NK and Venezuela (don't ask me about the rants towards Venezuela. Again, he's just trying to distract, but still. 

Looks to me like kurster's taken Trump's bait. I will not. 


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 6:10pm

kurtster wrote:
Well I'll go out on a limb and call him asocial and amoral.  He feeds his family members to starving dogs, alive.  He runs concentration camps that make Hitler's and Stalin's Gulags look like summer camps.  He is content to let his people eat bark off of trees in order to survive.  He maintains a fantasy that his family has a divine right to rule based upon some event his grandfather had at a magic mountain.  And we negotiate with someone like this ... how ?

We negotiate when there's something to negotiate over. Not seeing that myself, but then I wasn't calling for negotiations. Or even using the word. So I'm kinda at a loss as to why we're discussing it.

Comparisons to the USSR, the Cold War and any other situation are ludicrous.  This is unique and without precedent given the threat of using thermonuclear weapons offensively.   Our little friend, Chubby Cheeks or Rocket Man or whatever you want to call him, now has the capability and the intent to send one third to one half of North America into the stone age with an EMP that does not require accuracy of any kind.  Is not an EMP device a real threat ?  Does this not qualify as casus belli ?

Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning "an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" (literally, "a case of war"). A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact. Either may be considered an act of war.

We are going to contain or prevent this potential EMP how ?  Can you say that we can shoot down an ICBM with 100% certainty to prevent the event right now ?  You are willing to risk a 100 to 300 million people with this certainty ?  If so, then fine, contain the little bastard and wait him out.  I do not share the confidence that we can shoot down an ICBM of this sort with 100% certainty and 99% is not enough.  What if he shoots multiple ICBM's ?  We can get every one of them ?

It is very apparent based upon discussions here over the years that I am about the only one here who even considers an EMP to be a real threat of any kind based upon the remarks I have received over the years when ever I have mentioned it.  Y'all are keeping yourself locked into the box thinking in terms of established conventional war and old paradigms of the past.

How would the survivors of this EMP event judge the leaders who let this happen, when it was preventable ?  People are going to die.  Do we let them die everywhere or in just one place ?  That is the choice.  Diplomacy is at a dead end.  It has done nothing other than take us to this point and decision.

Comparisons to the USSR aren't ludicrous, but they're not completely appropriate either. Kim Jong Un is one man, and as such his regime is quite fragile. He could choke on a chicken bone tonight and it would come to an end. It's not clear if he has even contemplated his own mortality, let alone set up a succession plan. The USSR was a nation with a much more resilient power structure and a lot more firepower.

An EMP is just a high-altitude nuke. Every nation with missile technology and nuclear weapons can build one. I think you're exaggerating the threat they pose but possessing a weapon isn't the same as attacking another country any more than owning a gun is shooting up a post office. Regardless, nine countries (at least) have the capability of using an EMP.

If every nation with nuclear weapons ruled by an unstable leader prone to making rash threats in public is casus belli then we in the US are in deep trouble.
 
But let's see just how deep. What do you propose we do about Kim Jong Un? Invasion? Preemptive nuclear strike? CIA assassin homing pigeons? Mock him on South Park? We've all heard plenty about how every previous US president was weak or stupid or a bad negotiator or whatever, but what do you propose Mango Mussolini do?

Let's hear it. Show us this tough new strategy that's going to make us sick of winning.
 

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 6:09pm

 kcar wrote:


...
North Korea can be dealt with as it has in the past by a community of nations.

The country cannot threaten the world with nuclear weapons in order to forge its way to prosperity.

If it continues along this path, China will slowly stop supplying NK with oil and coal, and NK's economy will collapse.

 
And what do you think Chubby Cheeks will do when his economy collapses ?  Say, shucks fella's you win, I give up ...  ??

NK can be contained and bargained with .....

  

That's just as delusional as Trump saying he was wire tapped. 


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 5:38pm

 kurtster wrote:
Ok, I give.  

Un is a pussycat and we have nothing to fear.  All bark and no bite.  Ignore him and he will go away.

Obama is right.  The greatest immediate threat to our national security is global warming.  Better to worry about something we can do little to change than something we can do a lot to change.

There.

Oh and consistent with the above, always underestimate your opponent.  That way you can act surprised when they do something predictable ... like doing what they said they were going to do.

 
I am really losing interest in your posts, given that so many of them slavishly agree with Trump's uninformed and rash opinions. If you're just trying to pick fights with people and incite arguments, I'm sorry but I have no time for you. If you have good policy ideas based on evidence, logic and reality, then I'm interested in those. The threats to destroy North Korea don't count. Trump's dismissal of global warming as a Chinese hoax to damage our economy doesn't count.

The proposed $1.5 trillion tax cuts and destruction of our current health care system don't count. 

1a. NK at this time would be lucky to hit one of our major cities with a nuclear-tipped missile. The damage to the US, even accounting for nuclear fallout, fireball blast, damage to electronic and electrical systems from an electromagnetic pulse, would pale in comparison to the destruction that NK would suffer. By hitting the US with a nuclear weapon, North Korea would and its leaders would cease to exist. 

1b. NK has been playing a game of aggressive brinksmanship with the US and its allies for years. The game prevents a US-led invasion, creates opportunities for bargaining and concessions, and prevents the global community from slowly squeezing NK's economy to death. 

1c. If anything, nuclear-tipped missiles limit NK's ability to bargain with other countries. It is losing its ability to present itself as a nation that can be relied on to behave with restraint and respect for reasonable limits of action. Nuclear weapons limit the type and severity of threats that NK can make to other countries. 

2. Global warming in contrast threatens to

* destabilize the world's climate,

* drastically increase the size, duration and frequency of damaging storms, 

* raise sea levels so much that major coastal cities such as LA, San Francisco, NYC, Miami, Boston etc. would be inundated or forced to move inland. And that's just in the US. 

*dramatically damage foodstuff production and limit access to potable water

*dramatically decrease the ability of earth to sustain human population at its current level

Honestly, I can't recall Obama saying that global warming is the "greatest immediate threat to our national security." It's quite possible that he did. I would tend to agree with that statement however. 

Global warming is an existential threat to all forms of life on earth, especially our species. We can address and limit global warming; we might with some aggressive geo-engineering halt some of the worst effects. While NK might damage  the US, Japan and/or South Korea, global warming unchecked threatens to devastate all nations. 

North Korea can be dealt with as it has in the past by a community of nations. The country cannot threaten the world with nuclear weapons in order to forge its way to prosperity. If it continues along this path, China will slowly stop supplying NK with oil and coal, and NK's economy will collapse. NK can be contained and bargained with, but not by someone as foolishly dangerous as Trump. 



Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 1:36pm

 kurtster wrote:

I was merely pointing out what our real priorities should be and why.

 
It's hard to tell sometimes when Chief Wahoo is grinning at your post with that sidelong glance.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 1:13pm

 Proclivities wrote:

 Obama?!!  Are you still going on about him?  You know, he's not really the President anymore.  Your man won; you have absolutely nothing to worry about anymore; it's gonna be great!  

 
I was merely pointing out what our real priorities should be and why.
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 1:06pm

 kurtster wrote:
Ok, I give.  

Un is a pussycat and we have nothing to fear.  All bark and no bite.  Ignore him and he will go away.

Obama is right.  The greatest immediate threat to our national security is global warming.  Better to worry about something we can do little to change than something we can do a lot to change.

There.

Oh and consistent with the above, always underestimate your opponent.  That way you can act surprised when they do something predictable ... like doing what they said they were going to do.

 
 Obama?!!  Are you still going on about him?  You know, he's not really the President anymore. (Though I guess some folks here still went on about W. after he left office.)  Still, your man won; you have absolutely nothing to worry about anymore; it's gonna be great!  
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 1:04pm

 VV wrote:

Sorry, that is not dispensable. Kim is certainly a madman not because of any one thing that he does but for the sum total of all his actions. Brutality is just one of those things that, taken with the rest, certainly paints him as a madman IMO. The brutal and senseless killing of his brother & uncle... when he could have just as easily locked them up... is madness. 

If Kim isn't a madman... then I don't know who is. 

 
But the point is: what options does he have? That irritating despots without nukes are routinely attacked by the US is clear to him— What should he do? We really don't care if he's despotic, we just want him to keep it in the DPRK. We need to tell him exactly that, and mean it.


meower

meower Avatar

Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe
Gender: Female


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 12:45pm

 maryte wrote:


I find myself becoming concerned that behavior I'm pretty certain qualifies as delusional in a clinical sense (speaking not as doctor or other health professional but as a trained medical librarian and someone who works in the mental health field) has become status quo for a small but vocal percentage of the population.

 
yes. delusions are in the DSM. yes, I fear similarly that there are too many with too big-a-voices
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 12:42pm

Ok, I give.  

Un is a pussycat and we have nothing to fear.  All bark and no bite.  Ignore him and he will go away.

Obama is right.  The greatest immediate threat to our national security is global warming.  Better to worry about something we can do little to change than something we can do a lot to change.

There.

Oh and consistent with the above, always underestimate your opponent.  That way you can act surprised when they do something predictable ... like doing what they said they were going to do.


maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 12:34pm

 meower wrote:

I wonder what you guy's definition of a madman is. Seems to be a matter of opinion.

Madness isn't in the DSM anymore.



 

I find myself becoming concerned that behavior I'm pretty certain qualifies as delusional in a clinical sense (speaking not as doctor or other health professional but as a trained medical librarian and someone who works in the mental health field) has become status quo for a small but vocal percentage of the population.
ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 12:23pm

 meower wrote:

I wonder what you guy's definition of a madman is. Seems to be a matter of opinion.

Madness isn't in the DSM anymore. 


Doesn't much matter to me what distinctions, or shades of psychosis, constitute madness.

What we are witnessing and many people experiencing, is horrifying, imo.  In far too many places and far too often.
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 11:57am

Something that's obvious, but when I saw this the other day it was a little bell of "pay attention. this is the point."

Just as fear (of weapons or annihilation) doesn't bring real faith, it also doesn't bring real peace.
meower

meower Avatar

Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe
Gender: Female


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 11:50am

I wonder what you guy's definition of a madman is. Seems to be a matter of opinion.

Madness isn't in the DSM anymore.


VV

VV Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 11:43am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Thanks.

Let us dispense, once and for all, with the idea that Kim is a madman. Brutality is not madness, and a madman wouldn’t be expected to capitulate to economic pressure. He shows every sign of wanting his regime to endure, which means he would not want the US military or nuclear arsenal to pulverize it. Assuming rationality in this context asserts only that Kim’s means are reasonably related to his ends. For example, Kim shows every sign of having learned the lesson of recent US regime-change policies toward Iraq and Libya, neither of which were nuclear states. Same with Syria, whose regime has been targeted by the US government. The lesson is: if you want to deter a US attack, get yourself some nukes.


 
Sorry, that is not dispensable. Kim is certainly a madman not because of any one thing that he does but for the sum total of all his actions. Brutality is just one of those things that, taken with the rest, certainly paints him as a madman IMO. The brutal and senseless killing of his brother & uncle... when he could have just as easily locked them up... is madness. 

If Kim isn't a madman... then I don't know who is. 
maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 10:53am

 cc_rider wrote:

Let us dispense, once and for all, with the idea that Kim is a madman. Brutality is not madness, and a madman wouldn’t be expected to capitulate to economic pressure. He shows every sign of wanting his regime to endure, which means he would not want the US military or nuclear arsenal to pulverize it. Assuming rationality in this context asserts only that Kim’s means are reasonably related to his ends. For example, Kim shows every sign of having learned the lesson of recent US regime-change policies toward Iraq and Libya, neither of which were nuclear states. Same with Syria, whose regime has been targeted by the US government. The lesson is: if you want to deter a US attack, get yourself some nukes.
 
I meant to imply there is plenty of crazy to go around. Kim's actions seem rather more reasonable (see above) than that of, uh, another world leader.

 

And, if not reasonable, then at least predictable.
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2017 - 10:43am


Let us dispense, once and for all, with the idea that Kim is a madman. Brutality is not madness, and a madman wouldn’t be expected to capitulate to economic pressure. He shows every sign of wanting his regime to endure, which means he would not want the US military or nuclear arsenal to pulverize it. Assuming rationality in this context asserts only that Kim’s means are reasonably related to his ends. For example, Kim shows every sign of having learned the lesson of recent US regime-change policies toward Iraq and Libya, neither of which were nuclear states. Same with Syria, whose regime has been targeted by the US government. The lesson is: if you want to deter a US attack, get yourself some nukes.
 
I meant to imply there is plenty of crazy to go around. Kim's actions seem rather more reasonable (see above) than that of, uh, another world leader.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 819, 820, 821 ... 1129, 1130, 1131  Next