HouseOfSteak t1_jdovs4y wrote

>removing the peaceful option always leads to the more violent outcome)

The more violent option, not outcome.


The big two popular examples: Stalin was in power until he died of natural causes. Hitler only died when the Soviets came a'knocking - not by his own angry revolutionaries or ambitious flunkies.


HouseOfSteak t1_jdovcbk wrote

It's not until they actually vote accordingly.


Publicly, loudly announce that you no likey to buff up support, then quietly vote for it anyway. It's been done before....


HouseOfSteak t1_jas91gp wrote

It's....honestly just better to have never included that. The argument of "Do you know who ALSO shared <this attribute>? HITLER!" is a tired one that has little validity, and your paper would not suffer from its exclusion. It doesn't help that this came out of relative nowhere - I certainly wasn't expecting to be hit with that - and then was never referenced again.

The paragraphs before this considers the ideas of working with bad data which when processed without consideration of its validity would paint an incorrect picture. The next paragraph considers the importance of what you do, rather then how you think-

-Do you know how had a solid sense of self? Hitler!-

-The paragraph after the reference refers to how humanity is well, fucked, if it doesn't recognize the concept of interdependence. Which ignores the collectivized thinking of the Nazi system, considering how it disincentivized individual thought over what was for the supposed good of the whole....which to them was the supposed German race. Which is interesting to consider, in that the man on top could very well be a megalomaniac, but the millions that supposedly held his ideals had their individuality and self crushed into something that another wanted, rather than allowed them to come to such conclusions about who they are themselves.


Taking a very common personality trait (The formation of a solid ideal of the self) that can be found in the broad majority of people and associating it to one man who, outside of his speeches, book, and third-party sources we know relatively little about how he thought, and linking the two together isn't a very solid foundation.

Now, there's megalomania (which Hitler likely possessed considering his mannerisms) in which does require the exaltation of the self to a point beyond simple egomania, but the vast, vast majority of people do not exhibit megalomania (nor even garden-variety egomania) just because they've decided on who they are.


HouseOfSteak t1_jas0dxn wrote

>Solidifying your “self” — what kind of person you are, your ideal preferences, your becoming, is always dangerous. That’s how Hitler went his own way and destroyed a whole “race”.


Billions of people build a foundation for who they are and become confident that their 'self' is who they are, and pretty much every one of those billions has not decided that they should exterminate an entire race of people.


Hitler didn't go killing off tens of millions because he had some idea of who he was, he did that so he could control hundreds of millions of people.

>Wars and conflicts will never stop as long as ego prevails, it is the nature of cancer cells, invasive plants, and deadly plagues.

Except those three don't possess egos, let alone a concept of what a 'self' is, they just do as they're mindlessly designed to do. Kinda the opposite of establishing self-conception.

It doesn't help that Buddhism, which this article references multiple times, is just as guilty as other faiths and philosophies when it comes to violations against others in spite of its beliefs about the self. Belief in a 'one true god' or not clearly isn't affecting the violent nature that humans have a bothersome tendency to possess.


Plenty of people who subscribe to the concept of having a self go on to lead completely non-violent lives, even after learning and understanding the concepts of the unimportance of a self and deciding that belief structure isn't for them. Similarly, people who belief that the self doesn't exist or is irrelevant may also go on to hurt other people regardless of what they believe to have learned and follow.


HouseOfSteak t1_ja23b6c wrote

I believe they meant that whatever was up there has literally 'fallen down' by now. While that would mean that the threat is no longer present in the air to fall's now contaminating wherever it landed.

Future evapouration of already-fallen, contaminated water that was mixed with whatever those chemicals were shouldn't cause the contaminants to come back up with it.


HouseOfSteak t1_j809665 wrote

Reply to comment by wombat_supreme in Meet Beans! by Unstupid

Dwarfism for corgis is also a functional trait - being so low to the ground meant that cattle would have difficulties kicking them in the face (which they evolved to do against predators that notably did not have short legs, putting their hooves at perfect head-kicking height).

Of course, when they aren't herding animals and therefore not are risking a hoof to the skull, dwarfism comes with its own set of problems that they otherwise wouldn't have.


HouseOfSteak t1_j7zgcgi wrote

Reply to comment by Saendre in Meet Beans! by Unstupid

Unless they were Beans' parents' owners, no.

Corgis tend to get docked within the first week after birth, and few people will part with a pup before 8 weeks.


HouseOfSteak t1_j6i5lez wrote

They do dull, rust, and break however.


Even the comparatively giant guillotine had a dulling problem and required frequent sharpening due to rust and stubborn neck vertebrae notch the blade. And that was with conditions where the victim was more or less immobile and the blade struck on a good path every time.


HouseOfSteak t1_j6i4ubg wrote

Blades are actually quite notorious for being difficult to maintain properly (one of the reasons why it's a noble's weapon) - and difficult to cause sufficient brain trauma to something without damaging the blade too much. Skulls and other bones are hard, and swords don't like hard.

Unless you have the metal to spare, a forge, and the expertise/manpower to manage it, you'd probably prefer the more blunt weapons.


HouseOfSteak t1_j6hd53j wrote

>Okay was a sale - not 'free money'.

>Your support for pak side in war

I never gave my support to that.

> you said won't be used against India

Again, I never stated any of this.

>And your own state department saying it gave 32B in aid to pakistan .

OK seriously, did you miss the part where I never stated I was American?

But that isn't military funding, it's humanitarian funding. Rather big difference. Did you forget the floods and earthquakes?

> The unwillingness to sanction pakistan on terrorist organisation support.

Being an alleged terrorist organization support base hasn't stopped India from not sanctioning Saudi Arabia either, so there goes that 'but they don't sanction terrorist states!' angle.


>Your congress alone approved 18B in military aid for pakistan in early 2000 to mid 2010s

Ah, ah, ah! Wrong again.

That includes economic aid as well - not just military aid.


HouseOfSteak t1_j6hbtw8 wrote

>I said that statement only on 26/11 mumbai attacks you are reading it out of context.

My mistake, I missed the part where you explicitly said '26/11' and 'Mumbai', how foolish of m-

>We paid dearly with your counter terrorism agent became and participated in the biggest terrier attack we have ever seen.

Oh wait, no you didn't. In fact, you didn't even mention the words 'Mumbai' or the numbers '11' or '27'.

Are you done with the easily disproven arguments?

>They funded mujahedeen.

I never said they didn't. However, considering how the Indian mujahedeen was founded in 2003 - a full 11 years after Operation Cyclone - you're going to have to actually link the two groups if you're going to try assuming that the US had funded the Indian varient.

You.....are aware that 'mujahedeen' are not a single monolithic entity, yes?

I stated that the US didn't found the Taliban, like your no-proof claim attempted to push.

>Dude you made Movies about your support for religious terrorist in Afghanistan.

Oh, I did, now?

How odd, I don't remember being 'them'. Hell, I don't remember the part where I was even American!