Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:25 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:27 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:15 pm

False.

PhilX

Stop stalking me.

Not stalking you. Just making corrections (btw you do stalk me). Why don't you add me to your foe list to make it impossible to stalk you?

PhilX

Just writing 'false' is not a correction. And the 'foe' list has to be the most pathetically inadequate function imaginable. I understand you get a message that says something like '_____ has posted a comment. This comment is invisible to you because ____ is on your foe list. To see currently invisible comment just click here___'

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:02 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:26 pm Have you always been a vile little warmonger? And what business is it of yours how NK is run? So it's rich in resources? That explains the US 'concern' for it then.

Clearly I'm not. It's a very strict and nuanced contingency, and I absolutely do not want to see any preemptive attack made on North Korea should that contingency not be there. In fact, if we went ahead with a preemptive strike regardless of china's dismay, that would go against the very motive why I think an attack should even be considered, and an unbelievably stupid move.

Well, no. The US clearly has no plan on converting primarily to nuclear fission power anytime soon, and even if we did we can obtain the resources needed from Europe.

Clearly you are. Is 'contingency' your new favourite word? ''a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.''
It doesn't even make sense where you have used it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:11 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:25 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:27 pm

Stop stalking me.

Not stalking you. Just making corrections (btw you do stalk me). Why don't you add me to your foe list to make it impossible to stalk you?

PhilX

Just writing 'false' is not a correction. And the 'foe' list has to be the most pathetically inadequate function imaginable. I understand you get a message that says something like '_____ has posted a comment. This comment is invisible to you because ____ is on your foe list. To see currently invisible comment just click here___'

False is a correction. As far as the foe function goes, complaining to me won't do you any good. Take it up with the mods.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:17 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:11 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:25 pm

Not stalking you. Just making corrections (btw you do stalk me). Why don't you add me to your foe list to make it impossible to stalk you?

PhilX

Just writing 'false' is not a correction. And the 'foe' list has to be the most pathetically inadequate function imaginable. I understand you get a message that says something like '_____ has posted a comment. This comment is invisible to you because ____ is on your foe list. To see currently invisible comment just click here___'

False is a correction. As far as the foe function goes, complaining to me won't do you any good. Take it up with the mods.

PhilX

I'm not complaining to you. Yuk. That makes it sound as if we are confidantes or something. Don't make me vomit. You were the one suggesting I use it. 'False' is not a correction.

Btw. I know you copy and save my comments. There's no point in denying it. Weird old senile freak.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:21 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:17 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:11 pm
Just writing 'false' is not a correction. And the 'foe' list has to be the most pathetically inadequate function imaginable. I understand you get a message that says something like '_____ has posted a comment. This comment is invisible to you because ____ is on your foe list. To see currently invisible comment just click here___'

False is a correction. As far as the foe function goes, complaining to me won't do you any good. Take it up with the mods.

PhilX

I'm not complaining to you. Yuk. That makes it sound as if we are confidantes or something. Don't make me vomit. You were the one suggesting I use it. 'False' is not a correction.

False is a correction.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:38 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:21 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:17 pm

False is a correction. As far as the foe function goes, complaining to me won't do you any good. Take it up with the mods.

PhilX

I'm not complaining to you. Yuk. That makes it sound as if we are confidantes or something. Don't make me vomit. You were the one suggesting I use it. 'False' is not a correction.

False is a correction.

PhilX

False is your 'opinion'. You haven't corrected anything.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:03 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:38 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:21 pm

I'm not complaining to you. Yuk. That makes it sound as if we are confidantes or something. Don't make me vomit. You were the one suggesting I use it. 'False' is not a correction.

False is a correction.

PhilX

False is your 'opinion'. You haven't corrected anything.

Then you're just offering your opinion. I can say though for myself that false is the truth.

PhilX

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:16 pm Clearly you are

I'm just trying to get you to understand that there's a lot more to my position than 'war for the sake of war'. 'Warmonger' is a term that actually has relevance and meaning to me as well, and I use it fittingly to describe the neo-conservative efforts we see in parts of the middle east, like trump's recent Syrian airstrike. You should be careful who you write off with that term, because you're writing off one of your own allies, here.

''a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.''
It doesn't even make sense where you have used it.

The 'contingency' that china would not back them, and allow us to make a strike.

I think I understand the word, I just don't think you understand the nuance of my position.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:25 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:16 pm Clearly you are

I'm just trying to get you to understand that there's a lot more to my position than 'war for the sake of war'. 'Warmonger' is a term that actually has relevance and meaning to me as well, and I use it fittingly to describe the neo-conservative efforts we see in parts of the middle east, like trump's recent Syrian airstrike. You should be careful who you write off with that term, because you're writing off one of your own allies, here.

''a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.''
It doesn't even make sense where you have used it.

The 'contingency' that china would not back them, and allow us to make a strike.

I think I understand the word, I just don't think you understand the nuance of my position.

Still doesn't make any sense, although it all makes me feel a bit nauseous for some reason.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:22 pm Btw. I know you copy and save my comments. There's no point in denying it. Weird old senile freak.

Funny. Senile is in your secret files.

PhilX

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:31 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:25 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:16 pm Clearly you are

I'm just trying to get you to understand that there's a lot more to my position than 'war for the sake of war'. 'Warmonger' is a term that actually has relevance and meaning to me as well, and I use it fittingly to describe the neo-conservative efforts we see in parts of the middle east, like trump's recent Syrian airstrike. You should be careful who you write off with that term, because you're writing off one of your own allies, here.

''a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.''
It doesn't even make sense where you have used it.

The 'contingency' that china would not back them, and allow us to make a strike.

I think I understand the word, I just don't think you understand the nuance of my position.

Still doesn't make any sense, although it all makes me feel a bit nauseous for some reason.

That's because you're a sicko.

PhilX

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:31 am Still doesn't make any sense, although it all makes me feel a bit nauseous for some reason.

I guess use of the word by its actual definition entails a permanent "unpredictability" and just not a current one, but if you still don't understand, than replace that word with "condition" and I think we can move on from this. I think you're nitpicking as you'd rather just not have the discussion, because you have the perception that it hits too close to other failed wars that you've already made your mind up about, like Iraq and Afghanistan, even though I specifically tailored my response to address how it's not at all like that.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:02 pm

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:54 pm
It all depends on your nationality, if you were American, a vegetable state might happen to you

I don't know what you mean by that, do you know what you mean? Anyway, I'm not American.

I'm refering to this

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/19 ... as-22.html

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:14 pm Uhhhhhh what. I mean, the constitution of North Korea describes itself as a Social-communism. I can see why you don't think it's a socialist state, although from what I understand it's a nation with social policies that are just very poor, but let's just be clear that authoritarianism doesn't have anything to do with left or right, it has to do with up and down.

If you check the the constitution of North Korea, you will not find the word communism or marxism. North Korea currently is a right wing militarism dictatorship because the ideology that sustain that state is not socialism, it is Juche idea

It is a very righ-wing chauvinist ideology, let me have a try to sum it up: Juche idea says the common individuals is 0, and the leader is 1, if you put individuals before the leader, you will get 0.1 to 0.000000...0001, however, if you as a ordinary person accepts the mighty leader and allow the leader to control you totally, you will get 10 to 100...00000.

Based on this ideology, every individual has an unwritten social contract with the state, the state provides all the necessities you need to live, in return, you devote your loyalty to the state

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:14 pm Well, they have very mineral-rich mountains and a steady plutonium source, which is what they often trade and gives them the leverage with China.

Anyway, their current military capabilities don't concern me at all. As I've had to bring up a few times before, NK is operating on soviet union 1960-80 ICBM technology, except they have even less of a power grid. Even back then, America could successfully shoot down the soviet ICBMs.

My main concern lies on china backing them, or if a potential leadership in china ever does. We would be in very big trouble if that ever happens. Should the opportunity arise that we can take care of this problem state without invoking a war with china as well, it's an opportunity we should seriously consider taking.

North Korea only exports those minerals in exchange for foreign currency, but the North Korean domestic economy has little dependency on that, because first they don't sell those minerals directly to the global free market, therefore the ups and downs in the price of minerals have much less impact upon them, second, the global mineral market is more stable than the oil market, the mineral price does not go ups and downs that much as oil price.

Also, lots of those deals were done secrectly.