A metallurgist in Washington state pleaded guilty to fraud Monday after she spent decades faking the results of strength tests on steel that was being used to make U.S. Navy submarines.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (93).

[–] • 0 pt

Human nature. The nature of all humans. Don't pretend like this means something different than every human relationship.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that there is no such thing as human nature, because for everything you can come up with I can find at least one human for whom it's not rue or is not unique to humans.

No, it's not. Crashes are unlikely but it isn't costly in terms of time or resources to wear a seatbelt. Similarly with being armed. Preparing for a physical war with China is extremely costly and in my opinion, a lot less likely than it is that I will get into a car accident.

You're like the bipolar who stops taking their meds because they feel better now. Well, of course it's fucking rare when we have the ability to incinerate the entire existence of any nation that tries. What is the frequency of conflicts where the target has no such capability?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

> The logical conclusion of your argument is that there is no such thing as human nature, because for everything you can come up with I can find at least one human for whom it's not rue or is not unique to humans.

Yes, that is true. There is no such thing as "human nature". The very concept is incredibly simplistic. There are whole branches of science (soft science in many cases) devoted to discovering why humans behave the way they do -- psychology, sociology, cognitive science, behavioral science, etc. While those fields might have been infiltrated and corrupted by progressive leftists, that doesn't mean that we can just throw out the study of the human mind and human behavior and say, "we've figured it all out! we'll just call it human nature!" No, this fallacy that there is an easily-defined human nature that we can encapsulate in a sentence or two is just bunk. Humans are far too complicated and far too varied to have a single nature that defines them all, unless you want to go very basic and look at DNA. But that's not really helpful or germane to what we really mean when we talk about "human nature".

> You're like the bipolar who stops taking their meds because they feel better now.

Ah, more ad hominem. There's another logical fallacy to add to the list. And I don't even know what you mean by it.

> Well, of course it's fucking rare when we have the ability to incinerate the entire existence of any nation that tries. What is the frequency of conflicts where the target has no such capability?

Well, we've had nuclear weapons technology since the 1940s, so it's not that rare, I'd say. In any case, the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons offensively has been the U.S., so once again, I'm more concerned with the U.S. than I am with China. Any nation that has nuclear weapons knows that the second it deploys nuclear weapons, every other nation on earth will deploy its own against that nation. No one wants to destroy the planet. Some people, like the WEF and the Davos crowd, want to depopulate the earth and own the people that remain, but they still want to live on a planet that supports life. No one is truly interested in using nuclear weapons. It's just more scare propaganda to keep people believing that we need the government to protect us, when it's government itself that is our most dangerous enemy.

Even if we had no nuclear capability, and many nations don't, what would be the point of nuking a country if you wanted its resources or to occupy it? It just doesn't make logical sense.

The possibility of nuclear war is near zero. The possibility of war with China is near zero. The possibility we will all be serfs to globalist billionaires who collaborate with the U.S. government and the banking cartel is at least in the double digits. Let's devote resources to the real threats instead of the extremely low-probability imaginary ones, ok?

>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that there is no such thing as human nature, because for everything you can come up with I can find at least one human for whom it's not rue or is not unique to humans. Yes, that is true. There is no such thing as "human nature". The very concept is incredibly simplistic. There are whole branches of science (soft science in many cases) devoted to discovering why humans behave the way they do -- psychology, sociology, cognitive science, behavioral science, etc. While those fields might have been infiltrated and corrupted by progressive leftists, that doesn't mean that we can just throw out the study of the human mind and human behavior and say, "we've figured it all out! we'll just call it human nature!" No, this fallacy that there is an easily-defined human nature that we can encapsulate in a sentence or two is just bunk. Humans are far too complicated and far too varied to have a single nature that defines them all, unless you want to go very basic and look at DNA. But that's not really helpful or germane to what we really mean when we talk about "human nature". >> You're like the bipolar who stops taking their meds because they feel better now. Ah, more ad hominem. There's another logical fallacy to add to the list. And I don't even know what you mean by it. >> Well, of course it's fucking rare when we have the ability to incinerate the entire existence of any nation that tries. What is the frequency of conflicts where the target has no such capability? Well, we've had nuclear weapons technology since the 1940s, so it's not that rare, I'd say. In any case, the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons offensively has been the U.S., so once again, I'm more concerned with the U.S. than I am with China. Any nation that has nuclear weapons knows that the second it deploys nuclear weapons, every other nation on earth will deploy its own against that nation. No one wants to destroy the planet. Some people, like the WEF and the Davos crowd, want to depopulate the earth and own the people that remain, but they still want to live on a planet that supports life. No one is truly interested in using nuclear weapons. It's just more scare propaganda to keep people believing that we need the government to protect us, when it's government itself that is our most dangerous enemy. Even if we had no nuclear capability, and many nations don't, what would be the point of nuking a country if you wanted its resources or to occupy it? It just doesn't make logical sense. The possibility of nuclear war is near zero. The possibility of war with China is near zero. The possibility we will all be serfs to globalist billionaires who collaborate with the U.S. government and the banking cartel is at least in the double digits. Let's devote resources to the real threats instead of the extremely low-probability imaginary ones, ok?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Yes, that is true. There is no such thing as "human nature". The very concept is incredibly simplistic.

Oh Jesus fucking Christ. A "you can't label me" hippy. It's total speculation, but I'm sensing the over 50 with ponytail pot-smoking libertarian hippy vibe. Yes, you're special ... just like everybody else. Guess what? You're a human. You have innate biological traits and behaviors that are dictated by your genetics and there's nothing you or society can do about it. Get over it. Misery comes from trying to resist that which simply is.

If there's no such thing as human nature then there's no such thing as humans. It should be obvious to anyone that it's impossible for something to belong to a group without sharing common characteristics.

Ah, more ad hominem.

I understand that you feel offended. You probably find that you often feel attacked and offended. It comes with the territory of believing things that are contradicted by reality. That being said, tt's an analogy (and it's a valid one). I know you'll disagree because it's imperative for the maintenance of your world view, but that's irrelevant to the objective truth of the matter.

And I don't even know what you mean by it.

Because you're spending too much time thinking about how it makes you feel and not thinking about what it means. What it means is that you're taking the current state of affairs brought about by a massive military superiority and saying, "why do we need all this military when things are so peaceful for us?"

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

> Oh Jesus fucking Christ. A "you can't label me" hippy. It's total speculation...

Another nonsensical personal attack rather than addressing what I've said. This is getting boring. Yes, we're all human, and we all have innate biological traits, but they're not determined JUST by genetics, but by epigenetics, as even identical genes in twins can be expressed in different ways depending on their environment. In any case, a discussion of human nature is typically one about behavior, and we don't all behave the same in response to the same stimuli, or we'd just be fleshy automatons. Sorry to burst your bubble there, pal, but I don't subscribe to your weird pseudo-science explanation of what you pretend "human nature" is.

> If there's no such thing as human nature then there's no such thing as humans.

I already made this distinction and you seem to have ignored it. We're not defining what a human being is biologically. When we're talking about "human nature", we're really discussing human behavior. Playing semantics bores the fuck out of me and I'm not going to do it anymore. You know the context, but you want to win an argument on the internet because winning is more important to you than truth. I get it. But it's a complete waste of my time.

> I understand that you feel offended.

Yawn. You insult me and then pretend I misinterpreted you. It's gaslighting and it's also very boring to me. I already dismantled your argument here. You appear not to like it very much, but you don't defend it. You just assert that it is "objective truth" and dismiss any of my objections. I remember being young enough to believe I knew enough about the world that I could make such final assertions about things. While I'm not a "pot-smoking hippy in my 50s" or whatever, I'm still old enough to know that I don't know everything. You should learn some humility too. I guess you will in time, if you live long enough. I learn more about the limits of my own knowledge every year.

> Because you're spending too much time thinking about how it makes you feel and not thinking about what it means.

You're psychologizing me instead of realizing that you're simply being unclear. I'm not a mind reader. If you think things without stating them explicitly or implying them clearly, then other people won't understand them. You have a certain worldview, but I do not share it. So you assume I'm going to follow the same line of thinking you do. This is a false assumption, and it's why your claim about my supposed "bipolarity" is a non-sequitur.

In any case, you have completely misunderstood my argument. I even clearly stated that even if the U.S. military were to be absent, the Chinese military would not attack us. Did you even read my responses to you or do you just word-vomit all over your keyboard?

I find this so often when talking to people, whether they are progressive communist retards, or boomerfags, or NatSoc idiots who don't realize that they're no better than Marxists themselves, that they are so hostile and close-minded to the opinions of others that they deliberately miscommunicate, dismiss anything they disagree with, and have this arrogant, falsely-superior attitude in their communication. You don't know as much as you think you do. I thought I knew everything in my 20s too. Maybe you'll grow out of it. Probably not. You won't remember this conversation 24 hours from now anyway, so I don't know why I waste my time.

>> Oh Jesus fucking Christ. A "you can't label me" hippy. It's total speculation... Another nonsensical personal attack rather than addressing what I've said. This is getting boring. Yes, we're all human, and we all have innate biological traits, but they're not determined JUST by genetics, but by epigenetics, as even identical genes in twins can be expressed in different ways depending on their environment. In any case, a discussion of human nature is typically one about behavior, and we don't all behave the same in response to the same stimuli, or we'd just be fleshy automatons. Sorry to burst your bubble there, pal, but I don't subscribe to your weird pseudo-science explanation of what you pretend "human nature" is. >> If there's no such thing as human nature then there's no such thing as humans. I already made this distinction and you seem to have ignored it. We're not defining what a human being is biologically. When we're talking about "human nature", we're really discussing human behavior. Playing semantics bores the fuck out of me and I'm not going to do it anymore. You know the context, but you want to win an argument on the internet because winning is more important to you than truth. I get it. But it's a complete waste of my time. >> I understand that you feel offended. Yawn. You insult me and then pretend I misinterpreted you. It's gaslighting and it's also very boring to me. I already dismantled your argument here. You appear not to like it very much, but you don't defend it. You just assert that it is "objective truth" and dismiss any of my objections. I remember being young enough to believe I knew enough about the world that I could make such final assertions about things. While I'm not a "pot-smoking hippy in my 50s" or whatever, I'm still old enough to know that I don't know everything. You should learn some humility too. I guess you will in time, if you live long enough. I learn more about the limits of my own knowledge every year. >> Because you're spending too much time thinking about how it makes you feel and not thinking about what it means. You're psychologizing me instead of realizing that you're simply being unclear. I'm not a mind reader. If you think things without stating them explicitly or implying them clearly, then other people won't understand them. You have a certain worldview, but I do not share it. So you assume I'm going to follow the same line of thinking you do. This is a false assumption, and it's why your claim about my supposed "bipolarity" is a non-sequitur. In any case, you have completely misunderstood my argument. I even clearly stated that even if the U.S. military were to be absent, the Chinese military would not attack us. Did you even read my responses to you or do you just word-vomit all over your keyboard? -------------- I find this so often when talking to people, whether they are progressive communist retards, or boomerfags, or NatSoc idiots who don't realize that they're no better than Marxists themselves, that they are so hostile and close-minded to the opinions of others that they deliberately miscommunicate, dismiss anything they disagree with, and have this arrogant, falsely-superior attitude in their communication. You don't know as much as you think you do. I thought I knew everything in my 20s too. Maybe you'll grow out of it. Probably not. You won't remember this conversation 24 hours from now anyway, so I don't know why I waste my time.

parent
link