USA Goes to War Against Iran

well the thing about a random 200k killing concentration camp is it can kill 200k again the next day. a natural disaster on the scale of that tsunami is a 100 year+ event. so if you divide 200k by 100 years I dont see it as that big of a deal. but this hypothetical concentration camp can kill more again tomorrow

What do you mean? We can just kill the guy that did it and there would be no chance for him to do it again. Or if there’s multiple people we just execute all of them. Still not a disaster?

oh im sure i bet your hoping real hard iran finds him first. I gotta quote this when he's never seen again. Obviously iran getting a pow would be a huge political win. However if he died in the crash or killed by random jihadist when he laned what's their strategic play? Pretend they found him even tho hes never seen again. I think this is a likely outcome

like i said its a disaster for someone just not everyone

So why exactly do you care about winning this war and all your chest thumping?
Why are you involved in the conversation at all?

no but to be clear I’m asking if it’s a disaster from your perspective if 200k people get killed in a concentration camp with the stipulations that it’s not going ro happen again and is just a one off incident that will not effect your life, similar to the tsunami. You would not call that a disaster simpliciter.

Idk why you just did three dodges in a row, although I suspect it’s because you don’t want to say “no a 200k person genocide is not a disaster to me if it doesn’t effect me”

because weakening iran is good for me and the people of iran? its not that complicated. I also kind of hate all religion and I think one of the last holdouts of religious extremism being shutdown is a good thnig

Again you’re introducing another weasel. Just stipulate that it’s a painless death. They get shot in the head, instant death. 200k people 1 day. Your reaction would be “meh, doesn’t bother me”? And this is in virtue of the background deaths that happen every day, right?

Not sure why it's good for you but I understand that only what is directly impacting you is of concern.

um ya more so because of how they would die vs getting instantly crushed by water and a clean death. obviously if i knew none of them or knew no one who knew any of them I would care less. idk death just doesn't really bother me that much. Torture is a different story. like I said 200k people die every 32 hours. im not losing sleep over it. I get super annoyed when people cry about 15 us forces casualties like anyone should care. That's a small price to pay for the potential upside. anyway im ignoring you because its a dumb conversation can we stop. I didnt ever call the tsunami not a disaster i simply said I forgot it even happened so it clearly didn't effect the west. you brought it up for some reason to divert from the iran invasion not being a disaster at least not yet 😀

Iran is a signatory to the Geneva convention and they're doing everything they can to maintain the moral high ground. They aren't going to execute some airman.

its not something you can easily quantify but of course a safer controlled middle east is good for me/my familiy/my people long term. Its one thing to not want the war its an entirely different thing to cheer for irans victory once that war has started because an iran victory is bad for you. its like cheering for your own defeat its non sensible. Its like hoping you get punched in the face or kicked in the balls. its self destruction

lol thats not true but I agree of course they wont execute him he's too valuable im saying they would hide his death if he died from the crash so they can use him as a bargaining chip anyway . There's somethings worse then death tho

Of course you want to stop talking to me, because your position is absolutely absurd and you’re having to commit to some of the most disgusting things to hold to it.

You don’t even understand why I’m putting forth my line of questioning, so you also have a tracking issue. I know analogies are hard for sub-80 IQ sociopaths like yourself but it’s not too difficult to see that I’m pointing out that a “disaster” can be so even if it doesn’t effect your life. That’s why we were using the tsunami example in the first place.

You just want to be outraged about something. your so cool trying to take the "people dying is bad" side of a debate. that's a hard one to win. really putting yourself out there. of course I don't want to have an unwinnable conversation. doesn't change the fact I wouldn't care if you had a heart attack. talking about feelings is not what im here for. I like to talk about the strategy's.

What's wrong with being a sociopath anyway. I'm probably not in the traditional sense because I have a lot of emotions but if there's a spectrum I'm probably on it

So, since I wasn't on the Titanic or at Pearl Harbor, I guess I can't rightfully call those incidences a 'disaster.'

And since literally NOBODY is still alive who was on the Titanic, I guess we can now expunge it from all lists of oceanliner disasters.

Amazin'!

Everyone is on the spectrum. It's a spectrum ffs.

In one sense you are correct, of course.

But in common discourse, being 'on the spectrum' means the person exhibits evidence of being autistic. That is, there are degrees of autism. Just like there are degrees of empathy and degrees of hostility, etc...

Na im almost certainly not very high on the spectrum but I wouldn't be ashamed if I was. Im just super into history/war and see the world like it has been for the entire duration of human civilization not just the rosy utopian last 60-70 years that everyone else sees the world from. I just have a very depressed low standard of human civilization and an us vs them mentality that I think a lot of you should have more of since half of you are siding with your literal enemies who want to see you dead.

if you really think about how many disasters have happened its hard to care about the ones that don't effect you. There's no real difference to me between this tsunami and the mongol genocides because neither effected me. like am i supposed to have fake outrage for the 1000 world events throughout history where 0.01% of a population died? What about the 80% populations. its really just a dumb thing to get hung up about. What happened in indonesia may as well as happened in 1400 to me

It's just a number from a test.

I'm on the spectrum, but certainly not ashamed of it.

I don't know how many folks have a 'utopian' view of the last 70 years. Would you like to name some names for us? thanks.

I’m not outraged actually. I methodically boxed you into a corner where you have to announce to the entire forum that you’re a sociopath just so you can maintain consistency.

But also, I’ve clearly shown that you’re not a competent english language speaker, because most people would consider 200k people getting shot in the head in a concentration camp in one day a disaster even if it doesn’t personally effect them. So you’re also welcome to have your proprietary definition of disaster but just understand competent english speakers may misunderstand you, and you should be clear that you’re using your own definitions and not the common ones people use.

This was another line I was going to try but I suspect he would just say “but billions of people have died and you don’t call every death a disaster!” or some other impotent pleading that misses the point.

Caring about or not caring about or even being happy about it as an individual doesn't mean an event can't be properly identified as a 'disaster.'