>> I have to admit, it was pretty funny to mark the post >> specifically as "OT:"
>> What, like all the other rants about how we should kick the shit >> out of everyone and make the world safe from people who kick the >> shit out of those they disagree with were ON topic?
> Given that Savard clearly lives in a fantasy world, with literally > no connection whatsoever to the world you and I live in, it is > arguable that literally anything he says or does, or posts, is on- > topic in a speculative fiction newsgroup.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:33:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>I make no apologies for being on the side of peace, progress, >civilization, and freedom.
What you should make apologies for is, thinking that dropping nuclear weapons on the major population centers of China would somehow produce peace, progress, civilization and freedom.
Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> writes: >On 2010-03-02 11:30:16 -0800, "Mike Schilling" ><mscottschill...@hotmail.com> said: >> Quadibloc wrote: >>> I have come under criticism here by some for some political views I've >>> expressed here.
>> Not for the views thenmselves, as much as for the complete ignorance of the >> world that informs them. >Oh, for the views, too, but rarely the ones he thinks.
Although if he thinks he's getting made fun of for the vat-girls thing he's right. I think that's one of his funniest bits.
-- Joseph Nebus --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>> On 2010-03-02 11:30:16 -0800, "Mike Schilling" >> <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> said:
>>> Quadibloc wrote: >>>> I have come under criticism here by some for some political views I've >>>> expressed here.
>>> Not for the views thenmselves, as much as for the complete ignorance of the >>> world that informs them.
>> Oh, for the views, too, but rarely the ones he thinks.
> Although if he thinks he's getting made fun of for the vat-girls > thing he's right. I think that's one of his funniest bits.
He hasn't mentioned them recently anywhere someone quoted it and I'd have seen it; I think he's actually embarrassed about that one. Although he did try to defend the logic behind it a while ago, claiming that everyone's rights would be respected while he was sweepingly and unilaterally giving (straight) men more choices and (straight) women fewer, in order to slake the violent lusts of (presumably non-Muslim, non-Communist) men.
>>> I have to admit, it was pretty funny to mark the post >>> specifically as "OT:"
>>> What, like all the other rants about how we should kick the shit >>> out of everyone and make the world safe from people who kick the >>> shit out of those they disagree with were ON topic?
>> Given that Savard clearly lives in a fantasy world, with literally >> no connection whatsoever to the world you and I live in, it is >> arguable that literally anything he says or does, or posts, is on- >> topic in a speculative fiction newsgroup.
> Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:36:20 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc >> <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in >> <news:63a56517-4b49-4779-87b0-8edd193977b3@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> >> in rec.arts.sf.written: >> [...] >>> Peace is when tyrants have no opportunity to commit >>> aggression, [...] >> For that you a major extinction event. > One that kills off all the verbs?
Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:33:15 -0800, Mike Schilling > <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in > <news:hmkvrd$har$1@news.eternal-september.org> in > rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>>> Pretty much sums up Savard, don't you think?
>>>> I have to admit, it was pretty funny to mark the post >>>> specifically as "OT:"
>>>> What, like all the other rants about how we should kick the shit >>>> out of everyone and make the world safe from people who kick the >>>> shit out of those they disagree with were ON topic?
>>> Given that Savard clearly lives in a fantasy world, with literally >>> no connection whatsoever to the world you and I live in, it is >>> arguable that literally anything he says or does, or posts, is on- >>> topic in a speculative fiction newsgroup.
>> Only if it gets published somewhere...
> Usenet counts. Doesn't it?
Does it? If someone posts their fanfic or amateur prose here, is that then on-topic?
I thought the standard was that it should be from a recognized, non-vanity publishing house. Online publication would count in the case of organized online SF magazines and such, but geez, if posting stuff here renders it on topic, then a few excerpts from RARITY IN THE HOLLOW and bam, that guy'd have been in business.
On Mar 2, 3:50 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> > : WE SHOULDN'T HAVE LET THAT HAPPEN, WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE TO DO > : SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
> Yeah yeah yeah, we shoulda nuked them commies, because that would > have been so much better than the cold war and eventual disintigration > of the Soviet Union.
No, that's not what I meant.
I meant that shortly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, before Medvedev and Putin took power, the U.S. should have engaged Russia - with offers of economic aid, but also the condition of unilateral nuclear disarmament in return, since the situation in Russia was admittedly unstable, and the danger to world peace of Russia not staying firmly on the course of democracy was clear even then.
Of course, Russia would have a legitimate need - like India - for nuclear weapons to defend against China. And, yes, I was thinking of a pre-emptive nuclear strike _there_... against their missile silos and the like. Preparatory to a conventional invasion and regime change. Further nuclear strikes would not be required, unless there was too much conventional resistance to easily cope with.
On Mar 2, 6:27 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:33:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> > wrote:
> >I make no apologies for being on the side of peace, progress, > >civilization, and freedom.
> What you should make apologies for is, thinking that dropping nuclear > weapons on the major population centers of China would somehow produce > peace, progress, civilization and freedom.
I was thinking of their missile silos, not their cities.
Also, it isn't "produce", it's "remove a deadly threat to".
On Mar 2, 9:15 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> He hasn't mentioned them recently anywhere someone quoted it and I'd > have seen it; I think he's actually embarrassed about that one. > Although he did try to defend the logic behind it a while ago, claiming > that everyone's rights would be respected while he was sweepingly and > unilaterally giving (straight) men more choices and (straight) women > fewer, in order to slake the violent lusts of (presumably non-Muslim, > non-Communist) men.
Occasionally, I do try to defend it, noting that I fully realize that the notion is shocking.
However, tampering with the sex ratio, by causing excess girls to be born, without otherwise tampering with their personalities at least successfully avoids *really bad* things like rape or arranged marriage or systematically curtailing the economic opportunities of women.
Given the historical record of human societies, my claim that men who fail to find mates are more likely to cause various kinds of trouble (a la "Sexual Suicide" and "Naked Nomads" by George Gilder) does not seem an unreasonable fantasy. *His* proposed solution was to roll back Women's Liberation.
I think that his proposed solution was morally wrong. But I think the problem he pointed out was genuinely real. Whether it's the appeal of 72 houris in the afterlife, or of the lifestyle of a drug dealer or a pimp, we see plenty of evidence that, for men, success is being able to support a wife and family, and if success is hard to find through one's honest work, men don't just sit down meekly and put up with it. The consequences start with things like union militancy and political radicalism, and get worse from there.
And that men fight the wars, make the revolutions, and commit the violent crimes, is something I shouldn't need to present arguments for. Nor can this be socialized out of them: on a dairy farm, you will be able to note that the bulls behave differently from the cows, and yet the cattle are not corrupted by watching TV and imbibing sexual stereotypes from it. The difference in temperament between males and females is not, as some people try to claim, merely an artificial cultural construct.
I've also noted that the economic boom of the early 'sixties coincided with the leading edge of the baby boom. Since age at first marriage, historically, is two years less for women than men, this means men marrying women from a more numerous age cohort. But simple mathematics tells us that exponential growth, even at 2% per year, cannot continue forever and ever.
So altering the sex ratio appears to be required for social contentment to be sustainable: so that the crime rate will be at an acceptably low level, and the employment rate will be acceptably high - because people won't need to push for higher rates of pay than the economy can support with full employment.
Another important part of this argument, of course, is to note how much more advanced our technology is today - or in 1960, or in 1920 - than it was in the Middle Ages. And yet it is not the case that everyone is happy! What's wrong with people? You give them more, and they still want more. Are people perversely driven by envy when they have such great wealth that they ought to be content?
Similar causes produce similar results. So even if, in future, we discover new sources of energy, new ways to feed and house people, and our factories churn out titanic quantities of cheap electronic toys... while this will address some sources of unhappiness, and other aspects of technical progress, such as advances in medicine, will do this even better... it may well be that it won't, by itself, usher in universal contentment any more than our past technical progress has done so.
So if we want to nearly wipe out war and crime through some other method than simply tightening the screws of repression... we have to ask where the discontent is _really_ coming from. And what more reasonable thing to conclude but that real happiness for people doesn't come from toys and luxuries, which our machines can churn out in greater profusion, but from love?
And, of course, that there intensity of the male sex drive is such that it is the lack of one particular kind of love that is the key factor in preventing contentment.
So, if, say, 96% of men and only 92% of women seek a mate - which is hardly impossible, given such things as women's disproportionate involvement in childrearing, the risk of sexual assault faced by women, and serial polygamy by successful men - this is dynamite under the foundations of our society!
We need to find a way to defuse it. We need to reach down to the dark heart of the source of crime and revolution, and kill it dead, so that life will be peaceful and humans will be safe.
When a hazard is identified, it is dealt with; when a risk is noted, it is avoided. (Of course, there are other ways in which our society, at present, fails to behave in this rational way. For example, there have been cases where the authorities have been helpless to deal with paranoid schizophrenics who have ceased to take their medication even when their historical behavior has shown that a risk of violent acts exists. This is because the appropriate laws have not been enacted.)
In message <3416c32d-8c1d-457c-bc3e-2fc1eb3fb...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> writes
>On Mar 2, 6:27 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:33:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> >> wrote:
>> >I make no apologies for being on the side of peace, progress, >> >civilization, and freedom.
>> What you should make apologies for is, thinking that dropping nuclear >> weapons on the major population centers of China would somehow produce >> peace, progress, civilization and freedom.
>I was thinking of their missile silos, not their cities.
The Chinese don't have missile silos. Their limited ICBM fleet is based on the Long March series vehicles, 1960s tech liquid-fuelled launchers similar to the Russian Vostoks. They have one SSBN which I don't think has ever actually sailed operationally, the rest of their nuclear arsenal is all short-range tactical and regional-strategic (i.e. able to plaster the rebel province of Formosa if they decide to get uppity) and based on mobile launchers and (I think) aircraft-carried. So to promote peace, progress, civilisation and freedom you'd have to nuke their cities since they're about the only suitable target that stays still long enough. -- To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
On Mar 3, 3:52 am, Robert Sneddon <f...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> They have one SSBN which I don't think > has ever actually sailed operationally,
That _was_ true, back in the early days of the Clinton administration. Thus, Time magazine reported that they had one nuclear-armed submarine, which was currently docked in port for repairs.
Now, they've been building up, and have quite the credible second- strike capability.
So, no, I do not advocate nuking China *now*, I'm just expressing regret over us having missed our chance.
If we assume your thesis is true, the easy solution is to restrict the male population to no more than one-tenth of a percent of the available females. That should end the male frustration, or at least reduce it to the point of not mattering.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 02:59:05 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Mar 2, 9:15 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> He hasn't mentioned them recently anywhere someone quoted it and I'd >> have seen it; I think he's actually embarrassed about that one. >> Although he did try to defend the logic behind it a while ago, claiming >> that everyone's rights would be respected while he was sweepingly and >> unilaterally giving (straight) men more choices and (straight) women >> fewer, in order to slake the violent lusts of (presumably non-Muslim, >> non-Communist) men.
>Occasionally, I do try to defend it, noting that I fully realize that >the notion is shocking.
>However, tampering with the sex ratio, by causing excess girls to be >born, without otherwise tampering with their personalities at least >successfully avoids *really bad* things like rape or arranged marriage >or systematically curtailing the economic opportunities of women.
>Given the historical record of human societies, my claim that men who >fail to find mates are more likely to cause various kinds of trouble >(a la "Sexual Suicide" and "Naked Nomads" by George Gilder) does not >seem an unreasonable fantasy. *His* proposed solution was to roll back >Women's Liberation.
>I think that his proposed solution was morally wrong. But I think the >problem he pointed out was genuinely real. Whether it's the appeal of >72 houris in the afterlife, or of the lifestyle of a drug dealer or a >pimp, we see plenty of evidence that, for men, success is being able >to support a wife and family, and if success is hard to find through >one's honest work, men don't just sit down meekly and put up with it. >The consequences start with things like union militancy and political >radicalism, and get worse from there.
>And that men fight the wars, make the revolutions, and commit the >violent crimes, is something I shouldn't need to present arguments >for. Nor can this be socialized out of them: on a dairy farm, you will >be able to note that the bulls behave differently from the cows, and >yet the cattle are not corrupted by watching TV and imbibing sexual >stereotypes from it. The difference in temperament between males and >females is not, as some people try to claim, merely an artificial >cultural construct.
>I've also noted that the economic boom of the early 'sixties coincided >with the leading edge of the baby boom. Since age at first marriage, >historically, is two years less for women than men, this means men >marrying women from a more numerous age cohort. But simple mathematics >tells us that exponential growth, even at 2% per year, cannot continue >forever and ever.
>So altering the sex ratio appears to be required for social >contentment to be sustainable: so that the crime rate will be at an >acceptably low level, and the employment rate will be acceptably high >- because people won't need to push for higher rates of pay than the >economy can support with full employment.
>Another important part of this argument, of course, is to note how >much more advanced our technology is today - or in 1960, or in 1920 - >than it was in the Middle Ages. And yet it is not the case that >everyone is happy! What's wrong with people? You give them more, and >they still want more. Are people perversely driven by envy when they >have such great wealth that they ought to be content?
>Similar causes produce similar results. So even if, in future, we >discover new sources of energy, new ways to feed and house people, and >our factories churn out titanic quantities of cheap electronic toys... >while this will address some sources of unhappiness, and other aspects >of technical progress, such as advances in medicine, will do this even >better... it may well be that it won't, by itself, usher in universal >contentment any more than our past technical progress has done so.
>So if we want to nearly wipe out war and crime through some other >method than simply tightening the screws of repression... we have to >ask where the discontent is _really_ coming from. And what more >reasonable thing to conclude but that real happiness for people >doesn't come from toys and luxuries, which our machines can churn out >in greater profusion, but from love?
>And, of course, that there intensity of the male sex drive is such >that it is the lack of one particular kind of love that is the key >factor in preventing contentment.
>So, if, say, 96% of men and only 92% of women seek a mate - which is >hardly impossible, given such things as women's disproportionate >involvement in childrearing, the risk of sexual assault faced by >women, and serial polygamy by successful men - this is dynamite under >the foundations of our society!
>We need to find a way to defuse it. We need to reach down to the dark >heart of the source of crime and revolution, and kill it dead, so that >life will be peaceful and humans will be safe.
>When a hazard is identified, it is dealt with; when a risk is noted, >it is avoided. (Of course, there are other ways in which our society, >at present, fails to behave in this rational way. For example, there >have been cases where the authorities have been helpless to deal with >paranoid schizophrenics who have ceased to take their medication even >when their historical behavior has shown that a risk of violent acts >exists. This is because the appropriate laws have not been enacted.)
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 02:26:42 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Mar 2, 6:27 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:33:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> >> wrote:
>> >I make no apologies for being on the side of peace, progress, >> >civilization, and freedom.
>> What you should make apologies for is, thinking that dropping nuclear >> weapons on the major population centers of China would somehow produce >> peace, progress, civilization and freedom.
>I was thinking of their missile silos, not their cities.
What missile silos? In the time you were saying the United States should have been using nukes on them they didn't have missile silos.
>Also, it isn't "produce", it's "remove a deadly threat to".
If all you did was take out missile silos they wouldn't be removed.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:25:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 3:52 am, Robert Sneddon <f...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> They have one SSBN which I don't think >> has ever actually sailed operationally,
>That _was_ true, back in the early days of the Clinton administration. >Thus, Time magazine reported that they had one nuclear-armed >submarine, which was currently docked in port for repairs.
>Now, they've been building up, and have quite the credible second- >strike capability.
>So, no, I do not advocate nuking China *now*, I'm just expressing >regret over us having missed our chance.
>>On Mar 3, 3:52 am, Robert Sneddon <f...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> They have one SSBN which I don't think >>> has ever actually sailed operationally,
>>That _was_ true, back in the early days of the Clinton administration. >>Thus, Time magazine reported that they had one nuclear-armed >>submarine, which was currently docked in port for repairs.
>>Now, they've been building up, and have quite the credible second- >>strike capability.
>>So, no, I do not advocate nuking China *now*, I'm just expressing >>regret over us having missed our chance.
>Your chance to do what?
Convince the Americans, with whome Quadi inexplicably identifies, to commit an unprovoked counter-force strike on China, with the casualites the necessary ground strikes imply. -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 02:59:05 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>However, tampering with the sex ratio, by causing excess girls to be >born, without otherwise tampering with their personalities at least >successfully avoids *really bad* things like rape or arranged marriage >or systematically curtailing the economic opportunities of women.
No, it doesn't. Your understanding of the motivations of rapists is... "lacking" isn't a strong enough word. "Fucking moronic" comes close.
Some rapists rape because they aren't getting laid any other way, but others, probably the majority, do so because they enjoy hurting and humiliating people. Increasing the supply of potential victims is not going to discourage them.
Calling arranged marriage a *really bad* thing is also a display of ignorance. Some people of both sexes _choose_ arranged marriages, and are very happy with the results.
People are not all the same.
>I've also noted that the economic boom of the early 'sixties coincided >with the leading edge of the baby boom.
Yes, but you've totally failed to demonstrate a causal connection, or even assuming there is one, to explain the economic boom of the eighties.
>We need to find a way to defuse it. We need to reach down to the dark >heart of the source of crime and revolution, and kill it dead, so that >life will be peaceful and humans will be safe.
On Mar 3, 9:24 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> Your chance to do what?
Our chance to effect regime change in China, and to have Russia abandon its nuclear arms, so that the hopes for an "end of history", the hopes that the democracies like the United States and Europe would never again face significant military forces in other hands opposed to them, would have been realized.
So that human rights issues in other countries would be dealt with swiftly - we speak, and governments from Egypt to Sri Lanka swiftly obey.
So that the War on Terror would be handled quickly; Osama bin Laden would be dead by now if Pakistan were more cooperative - with troop levels comparable to those during Vietnam or World War II being deployed to both Afghanistan and Pakistan to root out the last of al- Qaeda and the Taliban. The idea is for there to be rather less in the way of both American and local civilian casualties; things go more easily with overwhelming force.
So that Argentina would realize that maintaining any claim to the Falklands Islands is on the very far side of sanity, and not to be done.
So that the political prisons - and Communist rule - in Cuba and North Korea are ended.
No more unpleasant headlines in the newspapers. Except for the usual news about drug stores or convenience stores being held up and the like - there, we will need more advanced social and economic engineering so that our society provides full employment and prosperity on a consistent basis.
Thus, while China would no longer be a military power, it would remain an economic power. While its cheap imports would be mostly kept out of the American market, we would not begrudge them the fact that their products get bought by poorer countries in the place of much more expensive American exports, since America would have decoupled its economy from dependency on exports (and the rest of the world would do so too; the United States would stop contributing to world discord by trying to push other countries to admit more American imports).
|
