President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
It does mean that. Saying "conventional weapons" or bombing campaign" would be the language to make it seem like they doing something else other than that. The person burning up won't feel more assured in their death because it's a strategic fire.
Ok, so are you against WW2 because we killed the children of nazis too? It’s a dumb and indefensible viewpoint you just put forward. People dying in war isn’t a holocaust, it’s what happens when a terrorist group attacks a much stronger military power.
No. Clever and talented. If there is a psychological reason why your brain short circuits your ability to apply your reasoning ability to a certain subject (as opposed to not having the reasoning ability) you don't deserve to call yourself smart. 85 year old Linus Pauling was not smart for this reason. But most people who believe crackpot theories are not in this category. Rather they are in what I think is the Lee Strobel category.
I went backed and looked, and I understand the source of the confusion now.
Your original post on this topic was so garbled that the only thing I took from it was that you didn't think The Republic was just about a city. That was the notion with which I was agreeing.
"I think Plato Republic is one the great works but I read it as about mind far more than about city."
"about A far more than about B."
You somehow read "It's not just about B."
I'm afraid I doubt I could be clearer than that was so if that's not clear enough then it's always going to be a problem. I'm not sure clarity is the issue.
Any way the conversation has since move in a better direction. My only real concern is with the attacks on Republic idea of a city while ignoring the stuff on morality. Whatever people think of the city, the morality/mind stuff is important (imo) and no-one should be put off reading Republic by anything said about Plato's political views (imo)
Ok, so are you against WW2 because we killed the children of nazis too? It’s a dumb and indefensible viewpoint you just put forward. People dying in war isn’t a holocaust, it’s what happens when a terrorist group attacks a much stronger military power.
I could be, yes, because killing kids in war would have to produce a better outcome to justify it. But the kids still get burned to death whether someone else determines it to be justified or not.
In Gaza, the justification is nowhere near comparable, and the outcomes are far more questionable. Equating the two doesn't strengthen the point, it just highlights that the end goal is what's supposed to matter.
Basically, if you want to argue that it's worth it to do what they are doing then go ahead. But the kids are still getting set on fire.
I could be, yes, because killing kids in war would have to produce a better outcome to justify it. But the kids still get burned to death whether someone else determines it to be justified or not. In Gaza, the justification is nowhere near comparable, and the outcomes are far more questionable. Equating the two doesn't strengthen the point, it just highlights that the end goal
so just to be clear, you think it’s an accurate description that the allies set kids on fire during WW2? and you would endorse such descriptions as being completely value neutral?
come off it bro we all know it’s bs.
Wasn't Fischer basically Playbig with a decent chess game? If there is anything this forum has proved, it's that you don't need to be particularly smart to be good at chess.
pb2k had amazing live poker advice as well
so just to be clear, you think it’s an accurate description that the allies set kids on fire during WW2? and you would endorse such descriptions as being completely value neutral?
come off it bro we all know it’s bs.
They firebombed Japanese cities with the specific intention to burn as many civilians alive as possible. Also, you know, atomic bombs.
No. Clever and talented. If there is a psychological reason why your brain short circuits your ability to apply your reasoning ability to a certain subject (as opposed to not having the reasoning ability) you don't deserve to call yourself smart. 85 year old Linus Pauling was not smart for this reason. But most people who believe crackpot theories are not in this category. Rath
I thought you were a proponent of things like IQ tests and SAT scores as a measure of whether someone was smart. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Bobby Fischer would have aced those sorts of tests at the same time in his life that he was a raging antisemite.
Is it possible to not be a "raging" or "rabid" antisemite and just be a little antisemtic? Bc judging from no less than 4 different posters the last few days, it seems that antisemitism is the only form of bigotry where even hinting at the slightest trope gets one labeled as such.
It's like, no one would equate Fuzzy Zoeller with a KKK grand wizard or plantation owner after his racist comments about Tiger Woods. But if he made similar comments about Jews, you guys would surely equate him with Nazis.
so just to be clear, you think it’s an accurate description that the allies set kids on fire during WW2? and you would endorse such descriptions as being completely value neutral?
come off it bro we all know it’s bs.
I'm not sure how you're confused with what I am saying. You said this...
the language he is using implies that Israel is setting children on fire, which they aren’t.
Israel is setting children on fire, which was my point. If you want to argue that it's for the greater good then that is fine, but it doesn't negate what has happened, it's just an argument to deem those killings necessary. The language and the descriptions really doesn't matter.
so just to be clear, you think it’s an accurate description that the allies set kids on fire during WW2?
Yeah? The **** do you think happens when you firebomb a city?
and you would endorse such descriptions as being completely value neutral?
idk what to tell you here man. War is unfathomably horrific, read a book about it or something.
John Nash was widely known to be schizophrenic and admitted as much. Fischer probably was not schizophrenic, and although he likely met the criteria for some sort of mental illness, it isn't obvious that his profound antisemitism was the product of mental illness. He was antisemitic long before he dropped off the competitive chess circuit.
Nah you probably wrong here .
Fischer was vastly different when he was young compare when he got old .
With very hard followed train of thought and saw many conspiracies about many things .
Felt persecuted everywhere he went .
Like believe Karpov and Kasparov match being fixed ,etc.
It became evident during his world championship match , with stress level at its highest ,he suffered mentally about many insignificant things which got way worse later on in his life and being untreated for it .
Fisher was a genius, just badly educated since he went 110% in chess after quitting school early .
Like many genius, he became bit crazyÂ….
Not an unusual thing in chess -> morphy ,Rubinstein to name a few .
What fisher accomplished is just unheard of still to this day .
FWIW fisher reported to be 180 IQ at 15 years old .
I'm not sure how you're confused with what I am saying. You said this...
Israel is setting children on fire, which was my point. If you want to argue that it's for the greater good then that is fine, but it doesn't negate what has happened, it's just an argument to deem those killings necessary. The language and the descriptions really doesn't matter.
Yeah? The **** do you think happens when you firebomb a city?
idk what to tell you here man. War is unfathomably horrific, read a book about it or something.
So I could say that you both endorse burning kids alive, in certain circumstances.
Then it just seems that burning kids alive is just trivially something everyone should support in certain circumstances. Therefore it’s just rhetoric to say that “Israel is burning kids alive” and “raping people to death”.
Remember this is in context of what would happen to Jesus. That he would be raped to death and any kids he knows would be burned alive.
I guess you guys endorse such language being used because technically bombing people could be considered burning children alive. Seems kind of silly to use that as a knock against Israel since you both support burning children alive, right?
its weird that the Soviets were able to beat the Nazis and win multiple battles against the Japanese without resorting to mass murdering 100s of thousands of civilians at a time.
its weird that the Soviets were able to beat the Nazis and win multiple battles against the Japanese without resorting to mass murdering 100s of thousands of civilians at a time.
You mean like how Stalin used his own people as human shields and threw millions of them with no equipment into a woodchipper? Or are you talking about the time Stalin made a deal with Hitler to split up Poland, effectively condemning Jews to annihilation? Or you mean when Soviets went gallivanting across germany raping everything that moved?
Superior Soviet morality innit
its weird that the Soviets were able to beat the Nazis and win multiple battles against the Japanese without resorting to mass murdering 100s of thousands of civilians at a time.
You mean like how Stalin used his own people as human shields and threw millions of them with no equipment into a woodchipper?
lol fake news
Or are you talking about the time Stalin made a deal with Hitler to split up Poland
after begging the West to make a security pact for years and being rebuffed? (shoutout to the genocidal Churchill who did actually support allying with the Soviets fwiw.) instead, they used those few years to move all of their industry and were able to stave off the onslaught.
its especially ironic to mention the Jews, who the Soviets obv protected and saved while French and Europeans aided in the Holocaust.
Or you mean when Soviets went gallivanting across germany raping everything that moved?
kinda like Hamas amirite? fool me once...
Superior Soviet morality innit
yes, by any metric.
lol fake newsafter begging the West to make a security pact for years and being rebuffed? (shoutout to the genocidal Churchill who did actually support allying with the Soviets fwiw.) instead, they used those few years to move all of their industry and were able to stave off the onslaught.its especially ironic to mention the Jews, who the Soviets obv protected and saved whil
Awwww the poor soviets having to make a deal with nazis to take over another country and let the Jews be liquidated. Just a smol bean Stalin, he had no choice but to ally with Hitler 🤐
How many people died in Poland at the hand of the USSR and Nazis versus how many people died in Japan at the hands of the US?
Around six million Polish citizens died between 1939 and 1945; an estimated 4,900,000 to 5,700,000 were murdered by German forces and 150,000 to one million by Soviet forces.[1][4][66][238]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes...
You are a sick freak bro, don’t pretend to have any moral highground against anyone. Thanks for going mask off with WW2 revisionism lol
Burning children alive and raping people to death is bad bro! That’s why I support the Soviets lmao
How ironic victor defending a genocide maker like Stalin and taking the moral high ground at the same time ….
Awwww the poor soviets having to make a deal with nazis to take over another country and let the Jews be liquidated. Just a smol bean Stalin, he had no choice but to ally with Hitler 🤐How many people died in Poland at the hand of the USSR and Nazis versus how many people died in Japan at the hands of the US?
oh wow 150k? brb, looking up the firebombingss and nuclear bombs from the Americans.
Minimum 150k up to 1 million and did you see the over 5 million killed by Nazis (who the soviets were on the side of bruv).
Let me guess, you believe the Nazi propaganda numbers about the firebombings of Dresden that are a complete fabrication?
