User Tag List

View Poll Results: Iran: Bomb or not?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bombs away!

    3 8.11%
  • Pursue other options to ensure Iran abandons nuclear weapons

    16 43.24%
  • Let Iran have nuclear wepons

    14 37.84%
  • I am unsure

    4 10.81%
First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 137

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Some people get it, some people don't.

    What you wrote in your post was so out of sync with what somebody who gets it would write, that, well, you obviously don't get it. And "getting it" doesn't necessarily mean having the same opinion as me; it just means that you have done enough research to understand the situation. I could go into the 4-5 blatant problems with what you said, that demonstrate that you don't get it, or I could just point out that you don't; for expediency's sake, I chose the latter.
    No. You don't just dismiss my post as a form of ignorance supposedly on my part and not offer a rebeuttal, that's not how debates work. It only takes you, what, a few seconds, maybe mintues, to type a valid proof concerning the wrongess of what I said? Because if you can prove that I am wrong, I'll be far more inclined to beleive you.

    Perhaps I should reiterate; I'm against the bombing of Iran as preemtive means to defend the U.S. from possible attack. Now concerning whether Iran be in possession of nukes; If what you say is true, that even possession of one or few nukes would be devestating for the U.S. on both a militaristic and political scale, then I would be inclined to agree that Iran shouldn't have any nukes. But it we're going to ensure that, I would advocate non-violent and subtle methods in doing so, lest any massive destruction result of hasty actions.

    In addition, I'm curious, where exactly do you stand on the matter of preemtively attacking Iran if they are in possession of nuclear weaponry? I know that you're against them having it, but I didn't see where you mentioned any thoughts concerning us bombing them first.

  2. #112
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Actually, the point was very clear, if you could step out of Ti-land and aptly utilize inductive reasoning.
    You should alter your one strike rule in discussions. It doesn't make sense to never explain things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    To an extent, yes.

    But not really.

    That quote is quite apt.

    I'm sorry that you don't appreciate Te.
    You already knew that I thought an informed and invested group wouldn't necessarily or even probably act like that. You basically just said they would, but you did it with a quote from someone famous (but not necessarily an expert on anything). There was really no more depth to it than that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Neither do I, actually.

    I just think your statement that "sophisticated" groups of people won't perform insane actions is ridiculous.
    I think it is very low. And I also didn't mean general insanity, that's too subjective. I said they wouldn't do something that's sure to be suicidal and indiscriminately kill and destroy all they know. That specification is crucial. You might consider it insane to commit genocide on a conquered people, but I know that will happen.

    Secondly, didn't you just criticize someone for using an MBTI related cop-out earlier?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    That's not what I was trying to do. I was trying to make you realize the idiocy of thinking that just because they're a supposedly "sophisticated" group of people (your characterization, not mine), they won't commit insane acts.
    You can see above for another correction there. And if that was your goal, I don't understand your attempt. Was the name Nietzsche supposed to change my mind? Was it the insult to my intelligence? I can't see what you put in that post that would make me realize anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Once again, those inductive skills aren't too good... Let's just call this the straw man that it is, and recognize that obviously I find Iran a more problematic state than most others on the list of nuclear powers. I'm also concerned about a nuclear arms race this may lead to in the Middle East that could have all kinds of catastrophic spillover effects.
    Most? So what are the others that concern you as much or more than Iran? Regarding India and Pakistan, we already have a nuclear standoff.
    You may have missed my point that figuring out which country is safe with nukes and which isn't couldn't be so cut and dry.

    I figure that nuclear weapons will proliferate. They can take a while to detect, sanctions are useless against them, and military intervention is not necessarily reliable, expensive, and runs the risk of serious blow back every time. We are merely incredibly lucky that so few states have actually decided to either pursue or keep nuclear weapons. The world already has quite a few nuclear powers at this point. You should keep in mind how long some of them have had these nukes. We're talking about the USSR and China. They've acted pretty insane in the past. Given the people who have recently had the highest offices in the USA, and now the people within a good shot of it, the USA might be a pretty unstable nuclear power, too. What I figure is, we're already at a point where, technically, anyone could just snap and destroy the earth with the sheer quantity of nukes at humanity's disposal. What difference is it really going to make if Iran has them? I don't honestly think it will change the odds enough to even bother with, unless Israel does something idiotic (which, I'll grant you, is at least as realistic as the Iranian authorities being totally psychotic).
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #113
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You should alter your one strike rule in discussions. It doesn't make sense to never explain things.
    I don't never explain things.

    I explain things all the time.

    With you, it's rather fun to trip your wires.

    You always are trying to get me to engage with you in a Ti-manner.

    I don't care to. I don't need to. There are other ways of communicating.

    And I don't simply blow smoke up your ass about things I know nothing about.

    When I give an opinion on something, it's generally pretty knowledgeable.

    But you always try to force me into Ti-ville; so I enjoy fucking with you.

    If you were to engage me differently; I would engage you differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You already knew that I thought an informed and invested group wouldn't necessarily or even probably act like that. You basically just said they would, but you did it with a quote from someone famous (but not necessarily an expert on anything). There was really no more depth to it than that.
    The problem isn't that there's no more depth that that.

    The problem is that you don't see the depth.

    You think I went and scoured the internet for any random quote about that topic?

    No. I read that quote somewhere a few weeks ago (and remembered reading it back in college), and, when I did (both times), I remember thinking to myself, "damn, there is some fucking truth to that." That is Te.

    I don't, and I don't know if Nietzsche really did either, think it's some ironclad rule.

    I do, and I think Nietzsche did too, think that, in groups, humans will often do some batshit-crazy things.

    I think that is a truth.

    A Te truth.

    An objective statement about the world.

    That is why I quoted it in reference to your statement that you don't think the Iranian government would do something as "insane" as using a nuclear weapon.

    And that's why I said, "I'm sorry you don't appreciate Te".

    Because your subjective (Ti) statement that you don't think "sophisticated" groups of people will do something as insane as use a nuclear weapon, well, it just doesn't ring of objective truth -- not to nearly the extent that Nietzsche's quote does.

    But you don't want to accept that.

    Cuz you're a Ti-user, and what's objective doesn't really matter to you.

    Your inner "primordial image" is what matters to you.

    But I could give a fuck about your inner primordial image.

    Especially when it has to do with crazy Iranian fuckheads getting nuclear weapons.

    You guys are good at devising complex, subjectively-derived systems/structures that, at their best, can accurately reflect the structure of reality (or possibly be built into a man-made system/structure according to the laws/structure of reality).

    But when it comes to accurately reading the world right in front of your face, you guys fucking suck. Some Te and some Se would be a big fucking help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think it is very low.
    I understand that.

    And what I'm saying is that I think you're wrong.

    And that I'm not willing to act, as a country, based on your false perception.

    And, something I haven't even mentioned yet, is that you're completely losing sight of other very crucial facts: like the fact that Iran's getting nukes would likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. Which is why China and Russia are, actually, to some extent, against their getting nukes. No one wants a situation where 20-30 years down the line every one of these fucking countries has nukes; the region is too unstable, and the governments too sketchy, to believe that this is an optimal outcome. Right now, Pakistan, North Korea, and the former Soviet states are the greatest sources of danger when it comes to nuclear material potentially making its way into the hands of terrorist organizations: and Iran would jump right into that same circle, as would all the other states in that region that follow them into a nuclear arms race. Frankly, from what I can tell, your stance on this matter doesn't seem to take this reality into account, and, iirc, you haven't even touched upon it in your "let Iran have the bomb" pleading.

    Another issue you don't seem to have touched upon is the fact that Iran essentially runs its own terrorist organization(s), and funds many others that it essentially uses as proxy forces. This is NOT the kind of government you want possessing nuclear weapons. That this doesn't seem to register in your brain is insane to me. This is why we think you all tend not to have a fucking clue.

    Are you aware of the unlisted flight that takes place between Iran and Venezuela on a bi-weekly basis (LINK 1, LINK 2, LINK 3)? Government only? No record of who or what is on the plane? Been taking place since 2007? Yeah, well, when you consider the fact that we've got a highly porous border with Mexico, which millions of Mexican immigrants have been able to cross over for the last several decades, it shouldn't exactly thrill you that a nuclear Iran has a secret flight to Venezuela through which it could easily transport agents and/or a dirty bomb that could be smuggled through Central America, across our southern border, and into the United States.

    And you think such a scenario is much of a stretch? Well, it's not.

    Just look at the revelation from a month or so ago that Iran Quds Force agents were making deals with whom they thought were members of a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Israeli and Saudi embassies in Washington, D.C., and assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S in our nation's capital. If they're willing to try that, they're willing to try a dirty bomb. It would be a devastating act of terrorism, and we likely wouldn't be able to tie it back to any one state.

    Whether or not you want to accept it, we live in a dangerous and hostile world, and, if you think it's okay for us to just fall asleep at the wheel, then, by all means, go ahead, that's your choice; I will lambast you for it, though; and, after I do, I and other red-blooded Americans, who actually have a will to live and thrive, will pick up your slack, and take care of business, just like we always have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    And I also didn't mean general insanity, that's too subjective. I said they wouldn't do something that's sure to be suicidal and indiscriminately kill and destroy all they know. That specification is crucial. You might consider it insane to commit genocide on a conquered people, but I know that will happen.
    If they go with the route I described above, then they won't even necessarily have to worry about suicide; and, as I've said before, just their having a bomb is highly problematic, whether or not they use it, as it will lead to a nuclear arms race in the region, which could very readily have catastrophic spillover effects, further increasing the probability of a nuclear weapon being used.

    The truth is that they are a horrific government, and need to be removed, and that removal needs to happen as soon as possible, before they obtain a nuclear weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Secondly, didn't you just criticize someone for using an MBTI related cop-out earlier?
    Yes, I did.

    But you have no point, cuz I'm not copping out.

    She provided a piss-poor Jungian analysis, and then left the thread.

    I, on the other hand, am sitting here continuing this discussion.

    See the difference(s)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You can see above for another correction there. And if that was your goal, I don't understand your attempt. Was the name Nietzsche supposed to change my mind? Was it the insult to my intelligence? I can't see what you put in that post that would make me realize anything.
    Well, hopefully, now that I've gone and explained it all to you, you will.

    Frankly, as Nicodemus has pointed out before, it's not very fun for us when we have to explain it all to you.

    It makes perfect sense from the get-go: you just don't get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Most? So what are the others that concern you as much or more than Iran?
    Do you understand how tedious this is?

    Do you understand how unenjoyable it is to engage in this kind of discussion?

    It's like talking with a 3-yr-old who just keeps asking, "Why?"

    Why does this matter?

    I have an answer.

    But, honestly, what good does answering it do?

    Why the fuck should I care?

    What are you gunna do with that information?

    Do you *understand* why they call you Professor Killjoy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Regarding India and Pakistan, we already have a nuclear standoff.
    Oh, thank you for that enlightening piece of information.

    I had no fucking idea that was the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You may have missed my point that figuring out which country is safe with nukes and which isn't couldn't be so cut and dry.
    Trust me, sponge, I did not miss the point.

    But you *are* putting me to sleep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I figure that nuclear weapons will proliferate. They can take a while to detect, sanctions are useless against them, and military intervention is not necessarily reliable, expensive, and runs the risk of serious blow back every time. We are merely incredibly lucky that so few states have actually decided to either pursue or keep nuclear weapons. The world already has quite a few nuclear powers at this point. You should keep in mind how long some of them have had these nukes. We're talking about the USSR and China. They've acted pretty insane in the past. Given the people who have recently had the highest offices in the USA, and now the people within a good shot of it, the USA might be a pretty unstable nuclear power, too. What I figure is, we're already at a point where, technically, anyone could just snap and destroy the earth with the sheer quantity of nukes at humanity's disposal. What difference is it really going to make if Iran has them? I don't honestly think it will change the odds enough to even bother with, unless Israel does something idiotic (which, I'll grant you, is at least as realistic as the Iranian authorities being totally psychotic).
    I'm done here.

    This shit is so pointless.

    This is why INTPs don't get put in management positions.

    In Eeyore's mopey dope voice: "Well everything's already so bad... why even do anything about it?"


  4. #114
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Pine View Post
    .........

    If we all agree stealing is wrong, then why do people vote on it?

    People vote on graduated tax brackets

    To keep their federal pensions

    Welfare

    Social Security

    All of these things are stealing from another, for someone has to pay for it...

    And they never consented.
    It is not too late.
    There is always hope.
    Read Balzac. Read Zola.
    One day you may understand about theft.

    Perhaps.

  5. #115
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    It is not too late.
    There is always hope.
    Read Balzac. Read Zola.
    One day you may understand about theft.

    Perhaps.
    There's more libertarians who have read Zola and Balzac than statists wo have read Hayek and Rothbard for sure.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  6. #116
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I don't never explain things.

    I explain things all the time.

    With you, it's rather fun to trip your wires.

    You always are trying to get me to engage with you in a Ti-manner.

    I don't care to. I don't need to. There are other ways of communicating.

    And I don't simply blow smoke up your ass about things I know nothing about.

    When I give an opinion on something, it's generally pretty knowledgeable.
    You and everybody else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But you always try to force me into Ti-ville; so I enjoy fucking with you.

    If you were to engage me differently; I would engage you differently.
    "Fucking with" me doesn't seem like a very constructive approach to this.
    And, of course, you're asking me to go first, I could just as well ask the same of you. For some reason the onus is on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The problem isn't that there's no more depth that that.

    The problem is that you don't see the depth.
    Could say that about anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You think I went and scoured the internet for any random quote about that topic?
    Nope. I figured you already had it in your head and thought it sounded very important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    No. I read that quote somewhere a few weeks ago (and remembered reading it back in college), and, when I did (both times), I remember thinking to myself, "damn, there is some fucking truth to that." That is Te.

    I don't, and I don't know if Nietzsche really did either, think it's some ironclad rule.

    I do, and I think Nietzsche did too, think that, in groups, humans will often do some batshit-crazy things.

    I think that is a truth.

    A Te truth.

    An objective statement about the world.
    First of all, to merely say a group can do crazy shit is nearly a tautology. The important thing is probability, so let's interpret that as your meaning.
    If you're saying that group is likely to do something crazy, or more likely than an individual, and/or the nature of the group does not alter the odds of it acting crazy, I think you are wrong. That is false. It is objectively wrong. This is not about two different kinds of truth. This about the same kind of truth and opposite points of view. You think you have the objective truth, I think you're wrong, and you don't, and I do. Got that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    That is why I quoted it in reference to your statement that you don't think the Iranian government would do something as "insane" as using a nuclear weapon.
    You still aren't getting the meaning of what I said correct, I already explained rather specifically what it is, but whatever...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And that's why I said, "I'm sorry you don't appreciate Te".

    Because, to you, your subjective (Ti) statement that you don't think "sophisticated" groups of people will do something as insane as use a nuclear weapon, well, it just doesn't ring of objective truth -- not to nearly the extent that Nietzsche's quote does.
    I think it does. I'm not seeing how you are definition objective truth vs subjective truth beyond the fact that you are saying the one and I'm saying the either. I'm inclined to think that is actually your definition, except I'd replace me with "anyone other than you".

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But you don't want to accept that.

    Cuz you're a Ti-user, and what's objective doesn't really matter to you.
    I believe in objective truth, and it matters to me, which is why I feel so compelled to address how wrong you are and so confident in the fact that you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Your inner "primordial image" is what matters to you.

    But I could give a fuck about your inner primordial image.

    Especially when it has to do with crazy Iranian fuckheads getting nuclear weapons.
    What the fuck are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You guys are good at devising complex, subjectively-derived systems/structures that, at their best, can accurately reflect the structure of reality (or possibly be built into a man-made system/structure according to the laws/structure of reality).

    But when it comes to accurately reading the world right in front of your face, you guys fucking suck. Some Te and some Se would be a big fucking help.
    Good grief. This has become a full fledged diatribe against INTPs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I understand that.

    And what I'm saying is that I think you're wrong.

    And that I'm not willing to act, as a country, based on your false perception.
    The feeling is entirely mutual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And, something I haven't even mentioned yet, is that you're completely losing sight of other very crucial facts: like the fact that Iran's getting nukes would likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. Which is why China and Russia are, actually, to some extent, against their getting nukes. No one wants a situation where 20-30 years down the line every one of these fucking countries has nukes; the region is too unstable, and the governments too sketchy, to believe that this is an optimal outcome. Right now, Pakistan, North Korea, and the former Soviet states are the greatest sources of danger when it comes to nuclear material potentially making its way into the hands of terrorist organizations: and Iran would jump right into that same circle, as would all the other states in that region that follow them into a nuclear arms race. Frankly, from what I can tell, your stance on this matter doesn't seem to take this reality into account, and, iirc, you haven't even touched upon it in your "let Iran have the bomb" pleading.
    Abdul Khan apparently did sell technology to a number of middle-eastern countries as it is, anyhow. Iran was one of them. Libya cooperatively discontinued its program, and so forth. This simultaneously makes two, seemingly opposed points. On one hand, it points out how easy it is for this kind of crap to spread around and the difficult of trying to stop it, on the other hand, it shows that the proliferation is perhaps surprisingly slow in that the middle-east hasn't already become over-wrought with nuclear weapons.

    At any rate, I feel we've already passed a horizon where there isn't much to be done but count on mutually assured destruction as a deterrent. Going into Iran may just amount to starting a costly conflict to prevent a conflict that was never going to happen. I am welling to invest in that supposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Another issue you don't seem to have touched upon is the fact that Iran essentially runs its own terrorist organization(s), and funds many others that it essentially uses as proxy forces. This is NOT the kind of government you want possessing nuclear weapons. That this doesn't seem to register in your brain is insane to me. This is why we think you all tend not to have a fucking clue.

    Are you aware of the unlisted flight that takes place between Iran and Venezuela on a bi-weekly basis (LINK 1, LINK 2, LINK 3)? Government only? No record of who or what is on the plane? Been taking place since 2007? Yeah, well, when you consider the fact that we've got a highly porous border with Mexico, which millions of Mexican immigrants have been able to cross over for the last several decades, it shouldn't exactly thrill you that a nuclear Iran has a secret flight to Venezuela through which it could easily transport agents and/or a dirty bomb that could be smuggled through Central America, across our southern border, and into the United States.

    And you think such a scenario is much of a stretch? Well, it's not.

    Just look at the revelation from a month or so ago that Iran Quds Force agents were making deals with whom they thought were members of a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Israeli and Saudi embassies in Washington, D.C., and assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S on U.S. soil. If they're willing to try that, they're willing to try a dirty bomb. It would be a devastating act of terrorism, and we likely wouldn't be able to tie it back to any one state.
    You think the Iranian government is going to direct an organization to carry a nuclear bomb across the Mexican border and detonate it in the USA? For what purpose? On the part of Iranians or Mexican drug cartels? And no, it's actually not safe to assume that the willingness to bomb an Israeli embassy equates to the willingness to use a nuke. One is a rather limited and politically pointed attack, the other has aimless and catastrophic area and long-term effects. Birth in terms of who their targets are and the retaliation they could face, these hugely different scenarios.

    And I don't really think the issue of being tracked back is that big a deal. How much evidence do you think the USA needs to go nuts on Iran? I think very little, and I'd bet, given their impression of thing, the Iranian believe we need even less. Just for the hell of it, to even consider that would require them to be devoid of the suicidal tendencies I said they must be devoid of. Once that's true, it's hard to imagine how they'd think the cost-benefit analysis of this would be positive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Whether or not you want to accept it, we live in a dangerous and hostile world, and, if you think it's okay for us to just fall asleep at the wheel, then, by all means, go ahead, that's your choice; I will lambast you for it, though; and, after I do, I and other red-blooded Americans, who actually have a will to live and thrive, will pick up your slack, and take care of business, just like we always have.
    You might as well be saying that only real red-blooded Americans go around trying to slay dragons. You think you're vigilant, I think you're just convinced of something that isn't real.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    If they go with the route I described above, then they won't even necessarily have to worry about suicide; and, as I've said before, just their having a bomb is highly problematic, whether or not they use it, as it will lead to a nuclear arms race in the region, which could very readily have catastrophic spillover effects, further increasing the probability of a nuclear weapon being used.
    I believe I addressed all of this in some manner in this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The truth is that they are a horrific government, and need to be removed, and that removal needs to happen as soon as possible, before they obtain a nuclear weapon.
    Well, I would have really liked it if we or other countries lifted a finger to help to uprisings a few years ago, but we didn't. That being said, I do not see the need so urgent as to start a war over this (at a time when it would be especially foolish for us to do so). And if you're in the business of using force to remove horrible government, good luck with that. How many countries do you have to invade? You're framing this in terms of strategic defense, but the more you elaborate the more you sound like an international idealist than a realist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yes, I did.

    But you have no point, cuz I'm not copping out.

    She provided a piss-poor Jungian analysis, and then left the thread.

    I, on the other hand, am sitting here continuing this discussion.

    See the difference?
    So it's not a cop-out as long as you keep talking after you said it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Well, hopefully, now that I've gone and explained it all to you, you will.

    Frankly, as Nicodemus has pointed out before, it's not very fun for us when we have to explain it all to you.

    It makes perfect sense from the get-go: you just don't get it.
    Again, anyone could say that about anything. It wouldn't necessarily be true and it certainly wouldn't be informative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Do you understand how tedious this is?

    Do you understand how unenjoyable it is to engage in this kind of discussion?
    Yet you seem to find them irresistible. You could make a better argument, or you could just shut up and not acknowledge me (you did address me first in this thread, not the other way around). I can put up with these discussions forever and ever. If you find them so horrible, I'm afraid you're the one with the vested interest in stopping them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It's like talking with a 3-yr-old who just keeps asking, "Why?"

    Why does this matter?

    I have an answer.

    But, honestly, what good does answering it do?

    Why the fuck should I care?

    What are you gunna do with that information?

    Do you *understand* why they call you Professor Killjoy?
    Of all the references you could use! Who's they? I don't remember anyone other than Marm doing that, and she did so at least partly affectionately. I don't think that's making the impression that you intended it to make on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Oh, thank you for that enlightening piece of information.

    I had no fucking idea that was the case.
    Ah, you see, that's what I had started to suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Trust me, sponge, I did not miss the point.

    But you are putting me to sleep.
    I am all too aware that I've never put you to sleep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I'm done here.

    This shit is so pointless.
    Color me skeptical. At best, "here" will be this and only this thread. I'm not even going to count on that, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This is why INTPs don't get put in management positions.

    In Eeyore's mopey dope voice: "Well everything's already so bad... why even do anything about it?"

    I don't think everything is so bad. You want to talk about missing the point? You seem to have missed one of the most fundamental dichotomies of this argument. You're afraid and I'm not.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #117
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I'd just like to point out something (we all have probably realized) thus far:

    As it stands, the results are:

    Bombs away! - 2
    Pursue other options - 10
    Let Iran have the bomb - 10
    I am unsure - 4

    Here's how they breakdown by type:

    Bombs away! - 1 ITJ, 1 NP
    Pursue other options - 2 INFJ, 2 INFP, 2 ENTP, 2 INTJ, 1 INTP, 1 ENTJ
    Let Iran have nuclear weapons - 6 INTP, 1 ENTP, 1 ISTP, 1 INFP, 1 ENTJ
    I am unsure - 1 ENFJ, 1 INFP, 1 INTP, 1 INTJ

    It's like being a defeatist pussy is embedded in their DNA.

  8. #118
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Flabby relativism.

    This post is dying for a healthy reality check.

    You expect the countries without nuclear weapons to go around stopping those who do from having them?

    Moral authority does not come from having or not having nuclear weapons: it comes from likelihood for responsible use of them.
    Relativism how so?
    I don't see the evidence that "moral authority...comes for the likelihood for responsible use [of nuclear bombs]". That is just 'might makes right' balderdash and 'Responsible use of Nukes' sounds like an oxymoron. Just like your apparent perpetual war for perpetual peace philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    INTP...It's like being a defeatist pussy is embedded in their DNA.
    Yeah the country with more weapons then the rest of the world bombing an essentially third word country that can barely feed itself is the peak of chivalry.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  9. #119
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I'd just like to point out something (we all have probably realized) thus far:

    As it stands, the results are:

    Bombs away! - 2
    Pursue other options - 10
    Let Iran have the bomb - 10
    I am unsure - 4

    Here's how they breakdown by type:

    Bombs away! - 1 ITJ, 1 NP
    Pursue other options - 2 INFJ, 2 INFP, 2 ENTP, 2 INTJ, 1 INTP, 1 ENTJ
    Let Iran have nuclear weapons - 6 INTP, 1 ENTP, 1 ISTP, 1 INFP, 1 ENTJ
    I am unsure - 1 ENFJ, 1 INFP, 1 INTP, 1 INTJ


    It's like being a defeatist pussy is embedded in their DNA.
    Or maybe they're hiding something. Let's waterboard their friends until they talk and steal their nukes in the middle of the night.

  10. #120
    Uniqueorn William K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Relativism how so?
    I don't see the evidence that "moral authority...comes for the likelihood for responsible use [of nuclear bombs]". That is just 'might makes right' balderdash and 'Responsible use of Nukes' sounds like an oxymoron. Just like your apparent perpetual war for perpetual peace philosophy.
    For what it's worth China, India and North Korea have declared publicly that they have a "No first use" policy on nukes. While I take that with a large grain of salt, it can still be considered more "responsible" use than any other nuclear power who says "First strike" is a valid option.
    4w5, Fi>Ne>Ti>Si>Ni>Fe>Te>Se, sp > so > sx

    appreciates being appreciated, conflicted over conflicts, afraid of being afraid, bad at being bad, predictably unpredictable, consistently inconsistent, remarkably unremarkable...

    I may not agree with what you are feeling, but I will defend to death your right to have a good cry over it

    The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell

Similar Threads

  1. To MBA or Not to MBA?
    By pure_mercury in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-15-2008, 01:25 PM
  2. OK to Reveal Team's Type Or Not?
    By ENFJ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-19-2007, 06:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO