Jump to content

Woot

Order - Willshaper
  • Content count

    700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Woot last won the day on May 3 2017

Woot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

567 Excellent

3 Followers

About Woot

  • Rank
    Cobalt Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

1,329 profile views
  1. The left was laughing that he wouldn't follow any of his campaign promises, now they're crying that he is. 1) Killed the TPP. I think Hillary reluctantly claimed to oppose it but work continued on it until the moment Trump won. That's kind of why that lying bitch lost the election. Almost everybody who cared about the TPP one way or the other seemed to have opposed it, even the left gives Trump a little credit for this one. 2) Made the pipelines go through. The alternative is shipping with trucks and trains, environmentalists invariably seem to pick the dumbest causes and methods. Popular with the majority of Americans and almost anybody who works for a living, especially in the energy sector, which is an important base of support for Trump. 3) Started construction on a border wall. Republicans have wanted this for decades. People on the left kept talking about how completely impossible this would be to build. They'll happily tell you that we should convert the entire economy to renewables and colonize mars and shit like that like it's nothing, but a long concrete wall? Harder to build than the fucking death star, apparently. Now we have an official estimate of $15 billion, even if it's twice that it's still peanuts to the federal budget. 4) Restricted Muslim immigration to some degree. The left wants this to be like the new holocaust or something, but half the country supports it. The left acts like Islam is just a meaningless little flavor, like skin color or sex. Personally, I grew up with fundamentalist religion, and though I no longer believe in it, I do remain a strong believer that religious ideology has serious power. Islam can fuck the fucking fuck off as far as I'm concerned. Trump can do whatever he needs to do to make that happen. For all the supporters of these moves there are just as many who hate them. But in the sage words of Donald Trump when asked if he was worried about his latest act causing more anger: "Anger? There's plenty of anger right now. How can you have more?"
  2. Trump

    Trump is a ridiculous candidate, but I don't hate him yet. Going against Hillary makes him palatable in comparison. I don't think congress would work with him if we won, no matter what he wanted to do.
  3. Cold war

    The nukes themselves don't cause a nuclear winter, the soot from the fires does, and it has to be from fires massive enough to lift those particles into the upper atmosphere where they wouldn't quickly fall back down. There's a lot of debate over whether or not there would actually be enough such fires. I'm not saying the radiation would be harmless, but it would be survivable for those in the path of the fallout who took cover, and not every place would suffer heavy fallout. In the long term, there would be more cancer, but not so much that society would fall apart. For example, the atomic bomb survivors who took doses of hundreds of rads of radiation had 50% more cases of leukemia than normal and 10% more of other kinds of cancer. Most people worldwide wouldn't be exposed to nearly that much radiation at once, and slower doses are less harmful as well.
  4. Cold war

    I've read a lot of interesting debate about whether or not nuclear war would really be as world-ending as it's portrayed to be. Apparently the fallout wouldn't make the entire planet deadly poisonous for a century, it could be sheltered from and most of what would be blown around would decay to very survivable level within weeks. And nuclear winter would only really kick in if the bombs caused a large number of concentrated firestorms that released massive amounts of smoke, which is just a hypothetical worst case scenario.
  5. Abortion

    People on the pro side often frame it as purely a women's rights or an autonomy issue. But opponents of abortion are usually concerned with something much bigger. Imagine if fetuses were so developed after a couple months that you could talk them and they were going "Please don't let mommy abort me" - would you let abortion happen anyway because 'her body, her rules'? Or tell the baby that it's the product of rape, and we can't reasonably expect your mother to deal with that, so down the toilet you go? The real source of the disagreement is usually whether or not abortion is murdering a Person, which is unjustifiable, or discarding a clump of valueless cells, which anyone should be able to do on a whim, or something inbetween. Those on one extreme end who think a fetus is as valuable as an adult will never accept abortion, and those who think a fetus has no value at all will push against all restrictions. So we have to decide what exactly makes a person a person. There's some special quality that you and I have that makes it a moral negative to cause harm to us, but something that nobody cares about like an ant has none of this special quality, whatever it is. Is it consciousness, awareness, intelligence, being biologically human, having a 'soul', or some mix of those? This is a philosophical question, there's no provable right or wrong, everyone has their own answer. But whatever that answer is, I think it must be a single consistent one. If you change your reasoning in every situation so that it matches your gut feeling, then you have no reasoning at all. So we can poke at each other's answers with thought experiments. For example - if you don't think brain dead adults and babies with anencephaly have to be cared for, I think you should be willing to abort a fetus without brain activity. And is the mere presence of brain activity enough? Is that the distinction that makes a fetus worth protecting? If so, should every organism with a working brain get similar protection? And to go even further, suppose like most people you're not overly concerned with animal shelters euthanizing dogs nobody wants to care for, because dogs just aren't that smart. Then what's your opinion about humans that are dumber than dogs? That's the road my reasoning goes down. The most defensible conclusion I've got is to say that life should be valued based on its position on some vague scale of consciousness and intelligence, as best as we can measure those things. Since I don't think babies in the womb fall anywhere on that scale that I'm remotely worried about, women can buy an abortion kit over the counter at 8.5 months for all I care. But if someone else stops at step 1 and says that any living human is sacred, or if they say that a 3rd trimester fetus in their opinion has enough mental development to deserve some rights, those can be reasoned and consistent positions too.
  6. World War II

    Send a task force three or four thousand miles to the U.S coast, and do what there? Try to bomb LA and fight against any number of land based aircraft that the U.S. cares to bring, and then sail thousands of miles back to Japanese water to resupply and repeat? Or by push to the mainland do you mean tie up vital divisions and unaffordable amounts of supply trying to invade Hawaii or something, sacrificing their real objectives in Asia? I don't think the U.S. would have been dissuaded from war in any scenario. Consider Britain as an example - they were in far worse circumstances, there was a huge bombing campaign against them and so on, but it only made them more determined. We were the same way, the population and government was fully behind the war from the outset. It's conceivable that in your alternate history, the Germans might have eventually gotten past the pilot stage and started devoted massive amounts of resources to really producing a bomb, like we did with the Manhattan Project. But historically they were years behind us, heavy water or not. That would be a problem in the early war but it just delays the inevitable. By 1945 we had a larger navy than the entire rest of the world combined and we weren't even finished ramping up production. You can argue that the U.S. might have been rushed before we had time to switch to a war economy and build up forces, but the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans make that extremely implausible. Don't underestimate the difficultly of stretching supply lines across thousands of miles of ocean, and especially of any kind of amphibious attack. Historically the U.S. did its amphibious invasions from nearby staging areas and with massive advantages on land, sea and air and they were still incredibly difficult. The way you gloss over the Germans "swiftly dealing with" the British is ridiculous enough - a German invasion of Britain some time in the early war is one of the most common alt history debates and usually the consensus is that's unlikely it could have succeeded under any circumstances. It would not be an easy thing for the Germans to ever do, especially after the U.S. entered the war on the British side.
  7. World War II

    I think victory in the pacific was absolutely inevitable and American economic power during the time period we're talking about shouldn't be underestimated.
×