KillingTimeItself

And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)

oh cool we’re just fucking, lying now. That’s the sound level of the f35 at altitude.

“F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off”

“F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db”

“F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph”

(https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you’re wondering)

btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that’s literally because it’s the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.

wait i’m sorry modern day native americans in the US are equivalent to french people living in france under the military control of nazi germany?

What a lot of people get from this (including me) is the absurdity of military shows. Air shows are less ridiculous because planes are capable of some incredible things, but it’s still unsettling. Like gun shows or parades of duty.

if we’re talking about absurdity, you should really think about philosophy here, we’re talking about this, over the internet, using funny keyboards. This entire fucking interaction is absurdist. The very concept of a technologically influenced military is absurdist. Literally everything is absurdist.

Would you say the same thing about the moon landing? Was that absurdist? What about the pioneer and voyager satellites? Are those absurdist?

There are so many things in day to day life, and outside of it that could be considered absurdist.

We have advanced many of our societies to such a point that we might be able to do away with weapon worship entirely, so I think it’s sensible to be uncomfortable with venerating the trappings of dictators and despots.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Call me when people stop randomly getting into fights with each other and maybe i’ll give you that point lol.

I kind of agree that militaries are still necessary, but there’s a big difference between an unfortunate but necessary thing and a celebrated thing.

yeah but why not celebrate it? In the case of the US the military is primarily volunteer based. Drafts are extremely unpopular. Should you not respect and celebrate the people that have served in the military? Does celebrating the military not directly bolster these people as well?

In the specific case here, the US military is the reason this country even exists. It’s obviously going to be a pride point of the country when it’s the entire reason we exist. As evidenced in many other countries.

I would argue that a celebrated military is better than a required and mandated military (think finland)

The difference between an F-15 and an angle grider is that the F-15 is intended to hurt people.

says who? It’s a plane, it’s the instruments on the plane that are intended to hurt people. Should we be ok with other planes like recon and spy planes? Is the U2 a martyr of service? Is the SR-71 the pinnacle of peaceful military technology? This is on it’s face a relatively silly statement.

I could very easily argue that an angle grinder was designed to injure people by proxy. It’s literally designed to remove material, or to cut material, i see no mechanism in which this can’t be applied directly to a human, and thus, it’s designed to hurt people. And it’s not just going to hurt a little bit, it’s going to really fuck your shit up. you could argue that it’s not an intended behavior, but i would disagree with you on principle of it being a tool designed to remove material, being successful at removing human material from human.

Pulling an angle grinder out of your coat isn’t as intimidating as pulling out a knife

is a knife designed explicitly to kill? Why do we have them in the kitchen then? Why do we use them outside of killing people, seems to me like you’re implying that a primary function of a knife is to hurt people. I would argue both of these things are incredibly common, a kitchen knife even more so. If we’re operating in this realm of definition. A knife would be less threatening than an angle grinder, because it’s expected that someone may have a knife, but it’s really unexpected for someone to have an angle grinder.

Also if we’re being pedantically correct here, it’s not designed to kill people, it’s designed to down other planes. Not people. It’d be a little weird to launch an f16 or an f15 specifically to target one single person.

Could you argue that the military stems from the innate human need to kill other people over conflict? Sure. Could you also argue that the only reason we have this technology we have now is because of the military and this need to kill people over conflict? Also yes. There is an extremely high link between military effectiveness, and technological advantage. This can be seen throughout human history, as well as into the industrial revolution.

GPS likely wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the USSR and the US during the cold war.

An F-15 can only destroy.

are you willing to argue that the f-15 streak eagle was designed with the explicit purpose of killing people? It’s an f15. I would also like to point out that there are training variants of the f-15 as well. Obviously not intended for real combat. There’s also really weird shit like the ASM-135 ASAT which was designed to be carried on an f-15 as an anti satellite measure. Pretty sure that’s not supposed to kill people.

This is an odd philosophical question. Because at the root here is basically the question of what came first. The knife, or killing people with a knife. The gun, or killing people with the gun. Theoretically there is a world in which you could invent from scratch, a tool used to kill people. However philosophically, you’re going to run into problems with related innovations and inventions. Is a sword entirely isolated from a spear? A spear is basically just a stick. At what point do we consider a weapon “intended to kill” and at what point is it just “a weapon, but with the ability to kill”

You would have a better time making the argument for something like a military service rifle, compared to like, a basketball. But i’m not sure that would make sense philosophically. Because you’re basically predicating the entire human race on the ability to kill other people, and if we’re doing that, then who cares.

can’t advance science, at best it can do acrobatics while being incredibly expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD

ok.

It’s nothing more than a weapon.

no, it’s a plane, the weapons go on the plane, the Japanese may have used their planes as weapons during world war 2, but that is contrary to popular belief, not the standard mechanism for operation of a fighter jet.

yeah that’s pretty much the case. I guess my main point was that it will probably even out to some degree.

oh well if we’re including civilian deaths, and you assume i’m only talking about military deaths (which afaik i wasn’t but i didn’t look too hard at the data so lmao)

This would actually only bolster my point. As it would increase the stats i’ve presented, or decrease the ones you’ve presented.

Here’s a list of zero year olds killed by the IDF in the last year. Zero year olds are not soldiers.

also to be clear, there’s like 300 names on the list.

“When Al Jazeera launched from the Qatari capital, Doha, on Friday, November 1, 1996, it was the first independent news channel in the Arab world.” cool source bro.

Shitposting aside, i have nothing to reference this number to. It’s probably high, but that’s a cost that israel is willing to take, and clearly, it’s a cost that palestine is willing to pay. Seems to me that both parties are content with the situation.

i like how the entire argumentative basis of this comment relies upon two words, genocide, and fascism.

no i think i get it. I was talking about anti air defense, and you were talking about how it’s “a guarantee” which is, statistically not true. And never will be. If you would like me to directly quote it at you i can.

Maybe i’m being a bit pedantic here, but i think it’s fair given the fact that you guys refuse to use any word other than genocide, or talk about like, most actual war-crimes being committed, and instead just say genocide, which while rather amusing, means almost nothing.

Going deep into the legal definition of genocide is missing the point.

oh ok, so we shouldn’t consider the legal definition then, well let’s see what the colloquial definition is.

“Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people.”

as per the first wiki line. The whole rest of the page provides a more academic definition, and argubaly a very legal one, but we aren’t talking about that.

"genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. "

as per brittanica, one of the sources of all time.

well if we’re basing this entire feelings thing off of this definition specifically, i see no resemblance to this conflict in significant part. I see no reason to believe that israel is doing this SOLELY because muslims (or arabs or whatever)

and sure, we could consider the academic definition of it. But academics used to believe that the earth was at the center of the solar system, and that plate tectonics, wasn’t a thing. And now we do. You shouldn’t treat academics as a source of authority (this is a fallacy btw), their works, if tried and tried, proven to hold up against the rigorous test that is the universe, can be said to be, to some extent. When it comes to things like philosophy and sociology, it’s literally just write your own story line adventure game. Everyone says different things, and in some capacity, everyone is right.

We could talk about history, which would arguably be more relevant. But considering this is an active conflict, good luck trying to parse that one, you’re only going to get historical contexts with that one. Which to be fair, would help a lot.

What category it falls under doesn’t change what’s happening there and the support the US is giving it

well yeah no it would, because that’s the whole point of the legal definition, is to give it an actual conceptualization that isn’t purely based on internet conjecture and shitposting. But again, we’re not here to talk about the legal definition.

just to repeat myself here

Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.

i guess you forgot to read this part.

10% of the Gazan people are injured, missing, or dead within a year

i assume you’re pulling the 200k number? which would be 10% of 2 million. If so it’s worth noting that only 40k deaths have been confirmed, which gives us a baseline of 2.5% of the population has been killed for sure. Upwards of 10% using estimations or whatever idk where that number comes from and frankly i don’t care enough to look it up, if you would like to elaborate on it feel free.

As far as historical references go, and i’m just pulling these out of my ass (from the internet of course) so take them with a grain of salt. The soviets seem to have lost about 10% of their population during ww2. Citing wikipedia of all sources, for ww1 and ww2

Numbers between 1-5% of the population seems to be about within the range of normalcy, in fact the average of ww1 is about 2% and ww2 is about 3% 10% is high but you would expect that to be seen with smaller populations and less armed populations (for obvious reasons) generally when smaller nations conflict, they tend to have much larger (comparatively) tolls, due to the fact that they don’t have as much land, or labor capability.

Larger nations such as the US are able to keep such low numbers primarily because they don’t have to invest a significant portion of their population to make a significant troop increase.

is this bad? Probably? But then again war is bad, so… At the end of the day, this is just a risk that you take as a smaller nation, especially going against a much bigger nation.

Drag thinks Israel wants to destroy Palestine so Israel can have Palestine’s land.

and honestly. i don’t really disagree. I don’t think colonization constitutes as genocide per se however.

Drag thinks killing 10% of the Gazan people is an act intended to destroy Palestine.

Maybe, or maybe it’s just a result of how the middle eastern warring tends to go. They’ve never exactly had high standards.

Drag thinks these are the words of politicians who want to commit genocide.

if you want to argue that the politicians are shitheads, sure, i agree, they’ve definitely said some genocidal esque language, and some really spooky shit. But so have politicians in the US. Does that directly translate? Probably, at least to some degree. But policy is always going to be fundamentally different to rhetoric at the end of the day. Look no further than US domestic politics if you need an example for this.

I came here to argue against the incorrect semantic usage of the term genocide.

Almost everyone from the region

you mean the middle east? So arabs? Muslims? The exact group of people that would be vehemently opposed to literally anything slighting them in the least bit? (no shade, i mean catholocism has done about the same)

although tbf, idk much about the middle east, or it’s culture, but from what i do understand, it’s not the friendliest to people who don’t follow expected social norms.

Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.

i mean, this specific conflict is close to 100 years old by now. While i’m sure that didn’t help, and there are definitely arguments to be made about warcrimes in general. it’s pretty hard to have a complete and total view of the war, and every little indiscretion possible.

So i’m not sure that

It’s pretty clear at this point

is being said in good faith here.

Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.

personally im a firm believer in the shut the fuck up and be quiet camp.

Who cares if you talk. If you have something to talk about, talk about it, if not, don’t it’s that simple.

i mean, to my knowledge maybe i’m wrong i don’t follow this conflict very closely, but so far the only source i’ve seen for it being genocide was the ICJ ruling that it “might be genocide if this continues getting worse” which i dont believe was followed up on.

A number of history scholars or whoever have claimed that it “amounts to genocide” or is “effectively genocide” (im being really generous with the phrasing here) which people have equated to mean “there is genocide”

The ICC has put out a warrant for the funny israeli guy, doesn’t mention genocide.

I don’t know if any countries have explicitly called it genocide? Aside from maybe south africa, idk how they raised the case. But if you know of any cases, inform me, i am actually curious about that one.

and if we go with a strict definition of genocide, I.E. “strictly killing related to ethnicity” and extrapolate that to a test of “would the killing stop if the conflict stopped” i personally so no reason why israel would continue to kill people in the same capacity as they are not, or at all, if the conflict magically stopped entirely.

People also point to the UN definition of genocide being incredibly broad. The US bombing japan in WW2 would arguably be genocide under that definition, most wars would constitute genocide. Now to be clear, i don’t think it’s bad, it’s just a legal definition, meant to be held out in a court of law, which usually tend to be pretty vague, until tried.

Frankly, i think it would also be rather unprecedented for someone in a higher position of power to call this a “genocide” as well. Who knows what kind of a mess that would entail. It’s certainly not something you want to throw around if you want the rest of the government, and the american public to like you. Which is, the goal of politics.

I don’t really see any reasonable expectation for her to call it a genocide. Expectation to callout war crimes and various other wrong doings? As well as retracting support? Absolutely.

Although little fun fact, right now the harris campaign isn’t running on policy, as policy gives something for trump to attack, so without policy he can’t attack anything she says, aside from her character, so it’s pretty likely they’re trying to outwit trump in that regard, if you’re wondering why she doesn’t talk about things like this more specifically.

this post is so based

yeah, which i why i consider the use of pseudo occupation, as opposed to like, settlement or something. There aspects of occupation, but up to the current modern day, there are natives in positions of power within the US government, and those with sovereign control over their own land as well.

Although to be fair, most people didn’t have very many rights until the 1970s lmao.

tbf that’s mostly because they’re really fucking loud, all of the time. Military air fields are probably quieter for longer periods of time lol. Although still rather loud im sure.

Active duty flights would’ve usually happened nearer to the front, and modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway.

to be clear, this wouldn’t matter, we’re talking about airshows, most people living near the front lines are going to be gone anyway. And even if we were to grant this point, it still wouldn’t diminish my statement. national pride is a weird thing.

The comic is making fun of the fact that an airshow idolizes machines of war.

i mean sure, but im pretty sure humanity has always idolized the military and it’s armies, as well as it’s ability to project force. It’s the stable of basically every great empire. Humanity seems to have an inherent connection with the ability of projecting force. It would be evolutionary advantageous, so that’s probably why.

As cool as they are, it’s good to remember that those machines are instruments of death, and often used against people of no immediate threat. Regardless of the necessity, I don’t think that’s something to cheer for.

i mean sure, but morbidity is the calling card for a lot of things, the dahmer netflix series for example. Should we be treating that the same? Like to be clear, i don’t disagree, but every time you pick up an angle grinder do you really need to think about how many people have been horrifically inujred by it and pray to the grinder gods for you safety? Or should you just be conscious of how you use the tool, and be careful with it.

and often used against people of no immediate threat.

also idk about this statement, maybe for the case of like the russian artillery units for example. I doubt that f-16s have been primarily used on like, someones dog. More than people of actual consequence. It’s also really vaguely defined, which doesn’t help.

Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won’t vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.

it’s not a fact, it’s a statement, arguably a fallacy. The whole point of running as a candidate is to appeal to the most voters, you’re going to lose some here and there, but the general idea is to appeal most broadly to as many as you can. This is why we have a two party system, if this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have one. We wouldn’t have a multi party system either, we would have a single party system based purely on only pushing legislation that everyone agrees with.

Idk where the misunderstanding is happening here, but if you don’t want to vote for kamala that’s fine, you’re legally allowed to do so, and morally encouraged to vote for whoever you want. However that doesn’t make you decision sound or logical, nor does it make you entitled to any particular representation.

You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.

i don’t believe i have ever said this, i just said that MI might not vote for kamala, who cares, it’s an arguably stupid choice to do, but that’s a choice they can make. Like i said it’s most effective to focus on the moderates in literally every other state.

If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.

ok so, no, technically not, it’s only to the extent that support is required, and that people require direct representation on that issue. Things like kamala not being 80 years old, and being a woman, are gong to be more impactful than things like “actually i think we should continue with current energy policy”

Also to be clear, you’re arguing for an absolutist democracy here, a state where the people opt to elect a fascist, thus a fascist gets in power, and the end of democracy happens. I think most people would agree that this shouldn’t be possible. Sometimes popular sentiment is just wrong this is why the founding fathers constructed the government the way it is, with the electoral college, and the three branches. It’s intended to operate in a mostly isolated fashion from the public. Even the directly representative people within it, are not directly representative. They’re not meant to be. That’s why we still have a government.

And just so we’re on the same page here, if this does dock her enough public support that she is going to lose, she should dock this point, and move forward. However i don’t see that happening because i don’t think people care at all. And even if they did, it’s secondary, either locally, state level, or not at any government level.

Yeah… Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that’s not how things work.

it’s just basic game theory. We have the option between losing 100000 dollars, or losing 1000 dollars, you’re going to choose 1000 dollars every time. You could choose 100000 dollars in protest, but that would be stupid. Granted this isn’t a direct analogy here. You still see the same forces operating here, trump if elected, at the loss of MI in this weird hypothetical. Would lead to a scenario in which muslim MI voters literally caused more death and destruction to palestine, lebanon or whatever.

This is kind of like if every farmer held a national strike. It would fuck everything up. Generally essential industries are immune from organized strikes for this particular reason.

It can go both ways here, democratic voters can vote for things against their ideals, and also be responsible for voting for things against their ideals. If you’re a muslim living in MI and you don’t vote or vote someone other than kamala, there is a non insignificant chance that you will directly influence the potential for a trump victory. While to be clear you are allowed to do this, it would be very silly. This just doesn’t make sense. It might make sense if like, primaries were running, and kamala didn’t have the popular support she currently does, but that’s not what’s happening.

idk maybe you just consider going against basic game theory and self preservation to be “courting the wealthy donors” but you’ve provided no evidence of the sort other than “kamala harris like oil as evidenced by the fracking” which is maybe evident. Regardless, this would still be a separate issue, something to do with campaign finance laws and legality of donating money to super pacs and what not, this is irrelevant in any of these cases, and arguably another fallacy.

Conservative voters are not anti-war, they are anti-Russian war, and the Republican ticket already addresses that. These people don’t historically vote for left wing parties, nor are they in this case.

it depends. Some of them are anti-war because they’re isolationist, and they don’t want to be a part of the ongoing global politics thingy. Some of them as you said, are anti russian war, which is absolutely true. A lot of these same republicans also support israel, although that might be construed differently since they are technically an ally of the US. But that is pretty the case there.

The green party’s base is pot smokers and college students who haven’t gotten wise to the green grift yet.

it’s either stupid people who don’t know anything about politics, or people who think the green party is a real political party lol.

actually you dont even have to download shit, just appear on the fucking ip leech list, leech that shit yourself, and then fucking spam them to the ISP and music industry. See how long it takes them to respond lmao

GPS is literally from the concept of nuking the USSR. Thank your ass the cold war happened the next time you get lost, it’s the only reason you aren’t lost now.

Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.

idk about this one, idk much about canada, but water infrastructure is more complicated than just “here’s some money” and there’s also the inevitable governmental over spending problem that seems to encroach everything.

it’s also worth noting that we’re comparing two irrelevant things here, it’s like me comparing the worlds loudest yell to the sound of an f35 flying at altitude. Yeah they’re comparable to each other. In the sense that they both make noise.