Y NO Update? @Chief Savage Man

what kind of stupid questions are those?

On 6/24/2017 at 0:27 AM, Memph said:

aka the type most likely to be an internet troll. 

I beg to differ. 

DEBATER(ENTP-A)

DEBATER PERSONALITY (ENTP, -A/-T)

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ’crack-pot’ than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.

Thomas J. Watson

The Debater personality type is the ultimate devil’s advocate, thriving on the process of shredding arguments and beliefs and letting the ribbons drift in the wind for all to see. Debaters don’t do this because they are trying to achieve some deeper purpose or strategic goal, but for the simple reason that it’s fun. No one loves the process of mental sparring more than Debaters, as it gives them a chance to exercise their effortlessly quick wit, broad accumulated knowledge base, and capacity for connecting disparate ideas to prove their points.

Playing the devil’s advocate helps people with the Debater personality type to not only develop a better sense of others’ reasoning, but a better understanding of opposing ideas – since Debaters are the ones arguing them.

This tactic shouldn’t be confused with the sort of mutual understanding Diplomat personalities seek – Debaters, like all Analyst personality types, are on a constant quest for knowledge, and what better way to gain it than to attack and defend an idea, from every angle, from every side?

There Are no Rules Here – We’re Trying to Accomplish Something!

Taking a certain pleasure in being the underdog, Debaters enjoy the mental exercise found in questioning the prevailing mode of thought, making them irreplaceable in reworking existing systems or shaking things up and pushing them in clever new directions. However, they’ll be miserable managing the day-to-day mechanics of actually implementing their suggestions. Debater personalities love to brainstorm and think big, but they will avoid getting caught doing the “grunt work” at all costs. Debaters only make up about three percent of the population, which is just right, as it lets them create original ideas, then step back to let more numerous and fastidious personalities handle the logistics of implementation and maintenance.

Debaters’ capacity for debate can be a vexing one – while often appreciated when it’s called for, it can fall painfully flat when they step on others’ toes by say, openly questioning their boss in a meeting, or picking apart everything their significant other says. This is further complicated by Debaters’ unyielding honesty, as this type doesn’t mince words and cares little about being seen as sensitive or compassionate. Likeminded types get along well enough with people with the Debater personality type, but more sensitive types, and society in general, are often conflict-averse, preferring feelings, comfort, and even white lies over unpleasant truths and hard rationality.

This frustrates Debaters, and they find that their quarrelsome fun burns many bridges, oftentimes inadvertently, as they plow through others’ thresholds for having their beliefs questioned and their feelings brushed aside. Treating others as they’d be treated, Debaters have little tolerance for being coddled, and dislike when people beat around the bush, especially when asking a favor. Debater personalities find themselves respected for their vision, confidence, knowledge, and keen sense of humor, but often struggle to utilize these qualities as the basis for deeper friendships and romantic relationships.

Opportunity Is Missed Because It Looks Like Hard Work

Debaters have a longer road than most in harnessing their natural abilities – their intellectual independence and free-form vision are tremendously valuable when they’re in charge, or at least have the ear of someone who is, but getting there can take a level of follow-through that Debaters struggle with.

Once they’ve secured such a position, Debaters need to remember that for their ideas to come to fruition, they will always depend on others to assemble the pieces – if they’ve spent more time “winning” arguments than they have building consensus, many Debaters will find they simply don’t have the support necessary to be successful. Playing devil’s advocate so well, people with this personality type may find that the most complex and rewarding intellectual challenge is to understand a more sentimental perspective, and to argue consideration and compromise alongside logic and progress.

1. Option A - We must Secure Borneo; Not only will the Germans be severely weakened we will gain resources from the Island.
2. Option C - Both India and NA; but send both cavalry armies to NA and both infantry armies to India.

3. Option A - Securing the seas is vital for the security of the Entente as a whole. We decided to become a part of it and we should commit to the fullest. Anarcho-Syndicalism and German Imperialism is a threat to Japan too.

Hit the soft underbelly of China.

Yes.

Option A. No appeasement, no trying to control the elephant.

B and B

Germany is too dangerous a foe to take on without a strong platform to stand on. 

Liberals.

Option B and Option A

I'm an Estonian learnt Finnish by watching TV as a child. Finnish TV was our hole in the Iron Curtain.

1 hour ago, White Death said:

Deus ya a finn or ya learnt finnish at school?

3 hours ago, Rin said:

Has Russia ever lost a war?

Yes.

But to as an answer to the original question, there would be no winners.

Estonian, English, Finnish, a tad of Russian and a bit of German.

1 hour ago, hadesflames said:

 

Okay, so here's the thing. One, you seem to be implying that dictatorship and communism go hand in hand. They don't, it just so happens to be the case that every failed communist state has also been a failed dictatorship. Two, the communism that has been tried in these *extremely* repressive states has been a certain brand of communism that pretty much misses the point. The point of communism is "more for the people" so to speak, whereas what those states have been like seems a lot more like "more for the state." A dictatorship using communism as a means to attain power is not true communism. Where communism promotes fairness, equality, power to the people rather than the state etc, the USSR, China (not modern day) and all these other communist countries promoted the state over all else.

 

Someone else above raised a fair point that communism goes against human nature, and that's a fair assessment. Humans like to compete and be rewarded for their efforts. In a world where you get the same no matter what you do, that goes against that. It stifles competition and everything else I'm sure I don't need to argue. However, I would disagree that this means the idea itself is a failure as a result.

 

Our species is clearly trending towards mass automation of all jobs, skilled or not. In a world where you have mass abundance as a result of the means of production being achieved through complete automation, workers who don't require motivation, competitiveness or even a wage for that matter, this point falls flat. In this case society has enough goods and resources where money no longer even becomes necessary, and everyone is living in abundance and luxury so it becomes a non-issue. In fact, in that scenario, the true enemy to worry about is capitalism, which if you went too far into, would start to see the owners of those means of production reaping all of the benefits while the rest are forced to live off whatever charity the mega-elite are willing to give out. The exact same problem with Soviet Communism except now the table is turned. The mega-elite aren't very charitable and should not be trusted.

 

So is communism a failure? Absolutely not. It's just *very* ahead of its time. But fairly soon, not only will it be a good idea, it'll be a necessary one. You can already see the cracks of capitalism forming. In the US, wealth inequality is RIDICULOUS. The mega-elite own so much wealth that the could easily buy and sell the bottom half of the country. The poor are starting to hurt almost if not as bad as a soviet-era family might have been hurting. The middle class is starting to become indistinguishable from the poor. Capitalism's greed caused the worst collapse of the US economy since the great depression, that was only avoided due to the sacrifice of the tax payers, which is atrocious because the poor and middle classes ended up having to pay for the short comings of the rich, while the rich got bailed out and kept getting richer. Capitalism is clearly in the beginning stages of failure in the US, and all this red-scare garbage propaganda is doing more harm than good because whenever someone tries to do something even remotely good, like take care of people's basic needs (HEALTHCARE) they're labeled filthy commies and ostracized by the entire right and most of the center. It's ridiculous.

I said it goes against human nature. Plus I stand by my statement that Communism wouldn't work in a democracy, because there will always be enough people opposing it, plus in a communist system there is no private property, so the state is responsible of the means of production. There is too much uncertainty in a state planned economy for it to work.

What you are talking about is socialism or social equality. 

8 hours ago, Rin said:

 

Do tell us the details. It would be nice to know the experience of someone who was actually there.

Well I was 9 years old when SU collapsed, but what I remember is that everything was scarce - shops were empty, because of planned economy and theft all along the production chain. People didn't actually use the term buy, but rather procure. People were poor and repressed.

Communism ca work in a very small community where all the members agree with it and feel responsible, but in a big system where the state owns everything and the workers "own" the state, you end up owning nothing. If that's the case then who cares?

Also dictatorship of the proletariat can't end up well.

But then again I had a nice childhood. Lot's of being outside, building of tree houses, swimming in the sea, no to little parental supervision (because it was a lot safer). For a kid it was super, but for an adult (with opinions) not so much.

You know as a person born in the CCCP I support this message though the poll needs the right answer as well, which is that Communism fails to take basic human nature into account. Something that goes against basic human nature is a failure at conception.

I don't have a nickname.

Brits weren't the owners of the land. They merely had a mandate to govern it after the Ottoman Empire collapsed after WW1. When the mandate ended the Brits just pulled out. That was in 1948 I believe. And right after that Israel was DOE-d.

31 minutes ago, Dabawss said:

Can you imagine the story he had to tell the doc? I mean, really, how does that EVEN happen?

#Kinkysexthings.

2 hours ago, Fanag said:

I actually read this shit over the years he wrote this. It's pretty neat. Good job

You are not alone brother.

Ingria. Just for the challenge.

It seems that the AARland has gone missing with the forum glitches. Therefore I ressurrected it and invite all of you post your after action reports of games you might have going on.

Alliance: What are we going to do tonight?

Me: Same thing we've tried to every night. Take over the world.

I wanted to be an adventurer like Indiana Jones (but then I took an arrow to the knee).