|
| Thread: The Dictatorial Dictator's Dictatorship of North Korea |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted April 08, 2009 12:45 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:54, 08 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
There is no justification in today's world to use nuclear weapons. I can see no scenario where the only option would be to use a nuclear weapon.
So wait.
It was perfectly plausible to use nuclear weapons against an almost defeated country confined to an island and powerless to win the war anyway, but it wouldn't be plausible now with rogue states with insane dictators making rocket tests and preparing their own nukes? And bear in mind that we live in the age of propaganda that can make people believe that the sky is yellow with little purple dots.
@MVass
I find your phobia of socialism kinda frightening actually. The golden age of witch hunts of the 50s etcetera...
Bear in mind that fanaticism, no matter for what cause, is a horrifying thing.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 12:53 AM |
|
|
This "almost defeated country" would have kept on fighting for a long time, and an invasion would have cost many lives.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 12:58 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:59, 08 Apr 2009.
|
I've heard that "oh God we just wanted to save people" argument a dozen times, and you still can't convince me that not one but two nukes on the civilian population were there to save lives.
That was an act of terrorism and genocide by any standards. You can't explain everything with the "greater good".
But never mind, this isn't a discussion about that.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 01:01 AM |
|
|
The intention may not have been to save lives. But the net result is that they did.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 01:06 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:07, 08 Apr 2009.
|
You're, of course, taking into account all the irradiated families, permanently destroyed and unusable areas and other long-term damage to lives, progress and the environment?
I thought so.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You're, of course, taking into account all the irradiated families, permanently destroyed and unusable areas and other long-term damage to lives, progress and the environment?
Yes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 01:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Every single time I come into Otherside, Death is always coming up with these ridiculous arguements ruining the thread.
You ain't gonna convince anyone with statements like "that is ridiculous" without anything to back it up, which you haven't. Heck the way you've posted you could've just as well totally ignored my post.
You say I add ridiculous stuff, at least I add something.
And remember I can always say the same to you. But I don't, because I try to back up what I say with details or analyzing posts.
Quote:
There is no justification in today's world to use nuclear weapons. I can see no scenario where the only option would be to use a nuclear weapon.
Right, you. But I didn't see any justification to use it in WW2 either. But hey, that's just me.
also, what happened to you mvass? What you said, with extremities, is like black and white. First of all, who cares if you call something capitalism or socialism, as long as 90% of the nation is public means of production, that's how it's gonna be, no label of "capitalist" is going to change that. (btw, nothing wrong with that).
Frankly I find your posts here kinda low quality for some reason, it's as if saying "black people are not black in skin color unless the color is exactly xyz" (no, this has nothing to do with racism, just a simple labeling, ignore that part, it's just what was in my mind now  ).
The only alternative acceptable to me is when EVERYONE has their OWN means of production, or has easy access to (see: computers as "factories" analogy), and their side-effects on the things around them are kept under acceptable level (i.e not if someone makes bombs and blows it up, or if someone pollutes, etc... where it should be intervened). This works too for me, so what now, am I not socialist anymore? Frankly I do not care how you label me, doesn't change my viewpoint as you well know it.
As a matter of fact, "public ownership" is how computers used to be accessed before the PCs we have at home started to appear. And you see how it turned out today, so here's hoping to do the same and boost the time to make into one.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
First of all, who cares if you call something capitalism or socialism, as long as 90% of the nation is public means of production, that's how it's gonna be, no label of "capitalist" is going to change that.
Yeah. What's your point?
Quote:
The only alternative acceptable to me is when EVERYONE has their OWN means of production, or has easy access to (see: computers as "factories" analogy), and their side-effects on the things around them are kept under acceptable level (i.e not if someone makes bombs and blows it up, or if someone pollutes, etc... where it should be intervened). This works too for me, so what now, am I not socialist anymore?
Then that would make you a socialist or an agorist. (But agorism is rather unsustainable - although it works in certain sectors of the economy.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah. What's your point?
Ok let's just drop the "is X socialist?" discussion which you had, because labels are not gonna change how it is (and frankly, the answer to that is pointless anyway)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:13 AM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:15 AM |
|
|
Ok, how about a more realistic/continuous one?
On a scale from 0 to 100:
0-33 = socialism
33-66 = centrism
66-100 = capitalism?
rather than
0-1 = socialism
1-100 = capitalism
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:25 AM |
|
|
Nah. How about:
0: Socialism
1-99: Capitalism with government
100: Anarcho-capitalism
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:37 AM |
|
|
|
Economics isn't a science. Giving strict definitions like this usually impedes discussions rather than makes it easier. Free market and central planning are always gauged in degree. Otherwise there hasn't been a single socialist or anarcho-capitalist government in existence. I don't even think Stalinist Russia was socialist under your definition.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 03:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Economics isn't a science.
Yes, it is.
And no, I would not consider Stalinist Russia socialist. But North Korea is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 03:37 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:38, 08 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Economics isn't a science.
Actually, it is.
Like most sciences, it has subjective, value-based aspects, but it's still a quantitative, analytical discipline. In fact, economical principles, theories and models have been applied to the study of biology, chemistry and physics, and vice-versa. (E.g., evolution, heat transfer, and so on.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 04:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
it has subjective, value-based aspects
Actually, economics is value-free. To quote Ludwig von Mises, "An economist investigates whether a measure A can bring about the result P for the attainment of which it is recommended, and finds that a does not result in P but in G, an effect which even the supporters of the measure a consider undesirable. If the economist states the outcome of his investigation by saying that a is a bad measure, he does not pronounce a judgment of value. He merely says that from the point of view of those aiming at the goal P, the measure a is inappropriate."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 05:31 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:42, 08 Apr 2009.
|
By value, I don't necessarily mean moral.
And by value-based, I don't necessarily refer to the subject matter, but the process of scientific inquiry.
For instance, the mere process of deciding what to study or, even, how to study it, is often value-based.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 05:49 AM |
|
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 06:55 AM |
|
|
Whether or not something is analytical and/or quantitative doesn't mean it's a science. I.E. Music and history are not sciences. Economics is a science in the same way that rap is music. It's a social science, which isn't comparable to the hard sciences. The heart of the hard sciences are based on exact reproducibility. Economics is inextricably bound with human affairs and everything that comes with it: personal agendas, emotions, and shortcomings. It's no more a hard science than politics is.
But that's off topic. Mvass's definition of capitalism and socialism is way off. Nobody grades things in those sort of black and white terms. It's a matter of scale.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 08:33 AM |
|
|
Hey, blizzard, fine posts. I know, I know, won't earn me a sympathy point with you, but fair is fair, and since I agree with the judgement of mvass's posts here someone else made, I'd just like to point out something positive.
As a last comment on the atomic bombs. For me PERSONALLY the one redeeming thing there is my conviction that, given the nature of humanity and the global situation in the 20th century, chances are that someone would have dropped a bomb somewhere anyway, and chances are that it wouldn't have been done with ONE then. The US drops over Japan showed everyone the terrible effects and may just have had the deterring effect necessary to avoid a global desaster.
Not that that would have been their intention, of course. But still...
The rest is of course nonsense. US lost 110.000 men in the whole war in the Pacific theater, half of the number the bombs have cost until the end of 1945. With Russia entering the war their fate was sealed. Japan was desperately trying for peace negotiation, but on Yalta the allies had agreed on an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER for the axis, so there simply were wouldn't be no peace negotiations for Japan except surrendering unconditionally. Dropping the bomb was understandable for many reasons - dropping it on civilian targets twice to kill cities was mass murder.
|
|
|
|
