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

I hope I'm doing the quoting thing right. I guess I'll find out when I hit "send comment".

>Please direct us to my statement where I said it applies to "every" relationship.

It was this earlier comment:

> Because that's human nature. The strong conquer the weak. It's been true for all of history and will be true for all times to come.

Human nature. The nature of all humans. Don't pretend like this means something different than every human relationship. If it's human nature, then it must apply to all human relationships, by definition. Unless we start playing semantics, at which point I'll dip out of this conversation because that would truly be a waste of my time.

>My bad. I thought you had an argument. Apparently you feel otherwise.

I'm simply disagreeing with the argument as you originally proposed it. It was your original comment to which I replied, after all. I'm not sure why this is complicated for you.

I said no such thing. You inferred it by piecing together several of my statements and making an unwarranted inference.

The inference is very warranted. I will quote the conversation again to you:

Me: "I'm not sure why you think the Chinese are just waiting for the opportunity to attack us at all. Why do you believe this?" You: "Because that's human nature. The strong conquer the weak. It's been true for all of history and will be true for all times to come."

You did not deny my statement. You actually confirmed it. My inference is warranted from a single statement of yours.

>I think you mean more "imminent" threat, not greater. Otherwise you're arguing that your freedoms are threatened more by the US government than they would be if you lived under Chinese rule.

I agree, they are a more imminent threat, but I also do believe the U.S. government is a greater threat. The U.S. government has control over the geographical area referred to as "the United States"; it has military bases in every state, as well as many abroad. The U.S. has a well-armed, well-trained (in the case of combat soldiers, spec ops, pilots, etc.) military, and the bulk of its resources are located here. The U.S. government has control of the education system, the corporate press, and heavily influences Hollywood, and has used them to indoctrinate and propagandize the people into compliance. The U.S. government is a far greater threat. The Chinese might have more soldiers and a comparable military in terms of technology and training, but they'd have to transport all of it over here, then gain control of every inch of territory with a country where the guns outnumber the people. And they'd have to gain control over all of our institutions. It would be incredibly difficult and likely not worth the effort.

I'm saying this for the third time, but the anti-Chinese rhetoric is propaganda that comes straight out of the state department. Trump pushed this nonsense narrative and the corporate press continues to push it with Biden in office.

>That's like not wearing a seatbelt because crashes are unlikely, or not being armed because needing to defend yourself with deadly force is unlikely.

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.

I hope I'm doing the quoting thing right. I guess I'll find out when I hit "send comment". >>Please direct us to my statement where I said it applies to "every" relationship. It was this earlier comment: >> Because that's human nature. The strong conquer the weak. It's been true for all of history and will be true for all times to come. Human nature. The nature of all humans. Don't pretend like this means something different than every human relationship. If it's human nature, then it must apply to all human relationships, by definition. Unless we start playing semantics, at which point I'll dip out of this conversation because that would truly be a waste of my time. >>My bad. I thought you had an argument. Apparently you feel otherwise. I'm simply disagreeing with the argument as you originally proposed it. It was your original comment to which I replied, after all. I'm not sure why this is complicated for you. > I said no such thing. You inferred it by piecing together several of my statements and making an unwarranted inference. The inference is very warranted. I will quote the conversation again to you: Me: "I'm not sure why you think the Chinese are just waiting for the opportunity to attack us at all. Why do you believe this?" You: "Because that's human nature. The strong conquer the weak. It's been true for all of history and will be true for all times to come." You did not deny my statement. You actually confirmed it. My inference is warranted from a single statement of yours. >>I think you mean more "imminent" threat, not greater. Otherwise you're arguing that your freedoms are threatened more by the US government than they would be if you lived under Chinese rule. I agree, they are a more imminent threat, but I also do believe the U.S. government is a greater threat. The U.S. government has control over the geographical area referred to as "the United States"; it has military bases in every state, as well as many abroad. The U.S. has a well-armed, well-trained (in the case of combat soldiers, spec ops, pilots, etc.) military, and the bulk of its resources are located here. The U.S. government has control of the education system, the corporate press, and heavily influences Hollywood, and has used them to indoctrinate and propagandize the people into compliance. The U.S. government is a far greater threat. The Chinese might have more soldiers and a comparable military in terms of technology and training, but they'd have to transport all of it over here, then gain control of every inch of territory with a country where the guns outnumber the people. And they'd have to gain control over all of our institutions. It would be incredibly difficult and likely not worth the effort. I'm saying this for the third time, but the anti-Chinese rhetoric is propaganda that comes straight out of the state department. Trump pushed this nonsense narrative and the corporate press continues to push it with Biden in office. >>That's like not wearing a seatbelt because crashes are unlikely, or not being armed because needing to defend yourself with deadly force is unlikely. 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.

parent
link

[–] • 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

Load more (1 reply)