[@Scrub Mage]@HachiRoku ya know, I wanna like it - I liked it on yt so it only seems fair - but since ya both posted it...
Ignore this my rpg is losing its mind lol, likes all around!
- Last Seen: 6 yrs ago
- Joined: 7 yrs ago
- Posts: 734 (0.28 / day)
- VMs: 8
-
Username history
- Sanctus Spooki 7 yrs ago
Status
Recent Statuses
6 yrs ago
Current
You bastards killed Momu194!
6 yrs ago
Holy Cow, guys I think the bot might actually be sentient. I might actually cry at this beautiful sight... all it needed was a friend! Really though I'm amazed it actually shut up...
1
like
6 yrs ago
You can try all you want. I know I am far too biased to ever believe otherwise.
6 yrs ago
If you are concerned with power, popularity or control, yes your reputation matters. Regarding truth, morality, and such, less so. Off topic, but CREED II is gonna be awesome.
2
likes
6 yrs ago
Well, that depends on what you are concerned with.
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
[@Scrub Mage]@HachiRoku ya know, I wanna like it - I liked it on yt so it only seems fair - but since ya both posted it...
Ignore this my rpg is losing its mind lol, likes all around!
And we are right back to the old thread, back to lurking and laughing.
I enjoyed the brief intermission of rational discourse. Oh well. Tolerance will always breed insolence.
I enjoyed the brief intermission of rational discourse. Oh well. Tolerance will always breed insolence.
Okay, all joking aside, you seriously should, they got some good ones.
Are you saying that the British Broadcasting Channel's documentaries do not blow your mind?
... Look, I just got back from work, and I have Rp's to respond to. Dissembling that post is honestly too much effort though. (Easy one here.)
I'll say now that your post is filled with sophistry, and multiple fallacies, as well as, ironically enough cognitive dissonance. (I anxiously await your response that I am abusing fallacies, aka fallacy fallacy) You misquote me, ignore half of what I say, and clearly did not even explore any of the links I provided. You are welcome to consider this post as your 'victory' since you clearly are more interested in attaining that, than an actual truth. (go on, tell me the fallacy here, It's an easy one.).
Honestly though, I've made the conscious decision to no longer have discussions with people who are unwilling or unable to receive information. The fact is it accomplishes nothing but to allow the two who are arguing to stroke their own ego.
If you wish to engage in an honest, intellectual discussion, rather than engaging in a debate, I would be happy to entertain you. As hard as the two are to distinguish, a debate and a discussion are not one and the same. However, I will honestly applaud you for your debating skills. Bravo.
I'll say now that your post is filled with sophistry, and multiple fallacies, as well as, ironically enough cognitive dissonance. (I anxiously await your response that I am abusing fallacies, aka fallacy fallacy) You misquote me, ignore half of what I say, and clearly did not even explore any of the links I provided. You are welcome to consider this post as your 'victory' since you clearly are more interested in attaining that, than an actual truth. (go on, tell me the fallacy here, It's an easy one.).
Honestly though, I've made the conscious decision to no longer have discussions with people who are unwilling or unable to receive information. The fact is it accomplishes nothing but to allow the two who are arguing to stroke their own ego.
If you wish to engage in an honest, intellectual discussion, rather than engaging in a debate, I would be happy to entertain you. As hard as the two are to distinguish, a debate and a discussion are not one and the same. However, I will honestly applaud you for your debating skills. Bravo.
dialmformusicology.com/2017/02/15/tru… regarding the handshake. Quite a bit of planning, and forethought. I don't feel sorry for Trump, I disapprove of Trudeau's actions. Great fun, tells us quite a bit about our PM. (still voted for him, who wants a pushover PM?)
Even with those stipulations, the Iran deal was considered largely impotent by many analysts and politicians alike. The stipulations did not actually prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, merely throw a temporary halt, extending the time before they became nuclear capable.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_…
investors.com/politics/editorials/the…
nationalreview.com/2015/10/why-iran-d…
So while the deal was working as intended, the deal was never truly effective in the first place.
As for the deal with NK, the easiest way to sum it up is: NK is already a nuclear power, and has ICBMs. A pinkie promise is essentially all that has kept the world from MAD in the first place. By getting North Korea to say they will (whether or not they choose to follow it) denuclearize fully, Trump has achieved more than Obama ever did with either North Korea - under the exact same leadership - or Iran.
Compare: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Compreh…
With: nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/full… (sadly Wikipedia seems to be slacking)
While one uses much more technical language, and is 109 pages long - the JCPA - it does not prevent nuclear development in anyway. In fact at the conclusion of this treaty, Iran, if they had not already become nuclear, would be closer than before. In fact the confiscating of their uranium stockpiles would leave them with a significant enough stockpile to become nuclear in months, if not weeks.
The shorter, simpler document, makes clear and with no room for maneuvering, that to abide by the agreement they strive towards complete denuclearization, as well as other agreements that seem to be ignored in favor of the hot button issue.
Arguing as to whether they will abide by this, while worthwhile to some extent considering their past, is ultimately pointless. As certain parties argued as Trump declared the Iran deal a failure "Any deal is better than no deal!" Following that logic, the true value of this deal will be determined by the actions of the DPRK that follows. Should it succeed, the deal will have ended one threat to global security, permanently. Had the JCPA succeeded, it merely would have postponed a global security threat.
Edit: Finally both matters are exceedingly complex and attempting to compare the two, while they appear similar, is comparing apple's and oranges (HA!) Both can be broken down with much more detail without attempting to connect the two.
Ain't it funny how Obama's Iran deal was "bad" even though it was an actual deal with binding stipulations that Iran was proven, internationally, to have been complying with, but Donald Trump gets Kim to pinkie promise him and all of a sudden that's considered a historic deal?
Even with those stipulations, the Iran deal was considered largely impotent by many analysts and politicians alike. The stipulations did not actually prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, merely throw a temporary halt, extending the time before they became nuclear capable.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_…
investors.com/politics/editorials/the…
nationalreview.com/2015/10/why-iran-d…
So while the deal was working as intended, the deal was never truly effective in the first place.
As for the deal with NK, the easiest way to sum it up is: NK is already a nuclear power, and has ICBMs. A pinkie promise is essentially all that has kept the world from MAD in the first place. By getting North Korea to say they will (whether or not they choose to follow it) denuclearize fully, Trump has achieved more than Obama ever did with either North Korea - under the exact same leadership - or Iran.
Compare: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Compreh…
With: nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/full… (sadly Wikipedia seems to be slacking)
While one uses much more technical language, and is 109 pages long - the JCPA - it does not prevent nuclear development in anyway. In fact at the conclusion of this treaty, Iran, if they had not already become nuclear, would be closer than before. In fact the confiscating of their uranium stockpiles would leave them with a significant enough stockpile to become nuclear in months, if not weeks.
The shorter, simpler document, makes clear and with no room for maneuvering, that to abide by the agreement they strive towards complete denuclearization, as well as other agreements that seem to be ignored in favor of the hot button issue.
Arguing as to whether they will abide by this, while worthwhile to some extent considering their past, is ultimately pointless. As certain parties argued as Trump declared the Iran deal a failure "Any deal is better than no deal!" Following that logic, the true value of this deal will be determined by the actions of the DPRK that follows. Should it succeed, the deal will have ended one threat to global security, permanently. Had the JCPA succeeded, it merely would have postponed a global security threat.
Edit: Finally both matters are exceedingly complex and attempting to compare the two, while they appear similar, is comparing apple's and oranges (HA!) Both can be broken down with much more detail without attempting to connect the two.
Admittedly Trump needed to get his handshaking under control.
The point is, I refuse to believe that a guy who can do this, needed to go to the lengths he did. A firm handshake and setting his stance properly would have been more than enough. Notice his grin. Trudeau is very petty.
Also your link appears to be dead but I'm sure it's one of the many gems we were presented by Trump acting as if the political stage was the same as business dealings behind closed doors, and attempting petty psychological tricks to gain an edge. I'd rather avoid talking about his handshakes, since it is a dead horse. I only brought it up to illustrate Trudeau can be equally belligerent.
@mdk
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, what tariffs are we talking about here? The recent tariffs being implemented by Canada (100's of US products), by my understanding, were already retaliatory in nature, and were calculated to be as close to the net loss Canada would suffer from the aluminium and steel tariffs imposed by America.
As for negotiating tactics, yeah, I pretty much think it's all a strategy to try and put Trudeau in a weaker position. I think that what Trump is forgetting, is that Trudeau, for all his sunshine politics, is still relatively rather... aggressively petty? As well as insecure in his own right.
The Handshake, if anyone remembers it, portrays this quite well. All hilarity aside, what we are looking at is a man in his 40's and by all appearances and evidence, fit and healthy, manhandling a 70+ year old man. Admittedly Trump needed to get his handshaking under control.
I'm just worried this will escalate too far, and that neither will be able to step away from their rhetoric, leading to an actual trade war, which would be catastrophic for both sides.
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, what tariffs are we talking about here? The recent tariffs being implemented by Canada (100's of US products), by my understanding, were already retaliatory in nature, and were calculated to be as close to the net loss Canada would suffer from the aluminium and steel tariffs imposed by America.
As for negotiating tactics, yeah, I pretty much think it's all a strategy to try and put Trudeau in a weaker position. I think that what Trump is forgetting, is that Trudeau, for all his sunshine politics, is still relatively rather... aggressively petty? As well as insecure in his own right.
The Handshake, if anyone remembers it, portrays this quite well. All hilarity aside, what we are looking at is a man in his 40's and by all appearances and evidence, fit and healthy, manhandling a 70+ year old man. Admittedly Trump needed to get his handshaking under control.
I'm just worried this will escalate too far, and that neither will be able to step away from their rhetoric, leading to an actual trade war, which would be catastrophic for both sides.
© 2007-2024