Lord Ratner
-
Posts
1,991 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
114
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Lord Ratner
-
-
35 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
Depends on how bad you need that car I suppose. A lot of people get killed in war that I’m sure didn’t necessarily need to die for objectives to be achieved.
And though I’m morally against bringing drawn out suffering to an animal, for some people it’s what they want to do. Like I said a while back, I don’t support what this DoD guy did…but it does beg the question of why things are legal and why things aren’t.
As for this being a philosophical discussion, I thought that was obvious but I guess it wasn’t…next time I’ll say so.
Okay, now this is a bit confusing. You don't consider rights and laws to be synonymous, but now it's also not a moral connection?
What exactly is a right? If the animal does not have a right to avoid unnecessary suffering, what makes it immoral?
46 minutes ago, HeloDude said:but it does beg the question of why things are legal and why things aren’t.
Why they are or aren't is simple, because whatever the ruling legislative body is, decided to make it a law.
I assume you meant what should or should not be a law, and in that case I think the general guiding principle is that things that have a negative effect on the society, which results in people uninvolved in the act having a reduced level of human flourishing, are things that we should make illegal. Murder is a pretty obvious one. Driving over the speed limit is less obvious, however the in arguable correlation with accident severity makes for an acceptable argument.
Drug use is another great example, and one where the libertarians start crashing into the limitations of their own philosophy, mostly because libertarians have the luxury of not living around drug addicts. Do what you want with your own body starts to fall apart when the drug you are taking causes psychotic outbreaks that end with bystanders being hurt or killed. Punishing the drug user after the fact does little to help the person who was killed her their family. On secondary level, accepting that we have chosen to live in a society that provides services for those who are most in need, allowing people to take a drug that will overwhelmingly put them in a position of need is a threat to the solvency of that system. Thus drug laws.
Prostitution is yet another area where those in favor of legalization have seldom had any direct experience with actual prostitution. There are some places like Amsterdam that have done what they can to clean up the industry, yet even they have struggled. And somewhere like America, the world of prostitution is one of the clearest examples of predators taking advantage of prey. Yet again, libertarians operate on assumptions that do not jive with reality. In this case, that all humans are capable of protecting themselves. This is simply not true, and many of the women who "voluntarily" sell their bodies are usually under the predatory influence of a sociopathic male. Again, it's a bit difficult to frame this within the context of rights and morals because you have not yet defined what you consider a right. If anything you just confused me more.
Oh, and they are also usually hopelessly addicted to drugs, another inconvenient reality for the legalization movement.
37 minutes ago, HeloDude said:Depends on how bad you need that car I suppose. A lot of people get killed in war that I’m sure didn’t necessarily need to die for objectives to be achieved.
This is either moral relativism or you're intentionally dodging the question, which means you aren't at all interested in the philosophical discussion. When someone talks about stealing a car, do you feel it is reasonable to assume they are referring to someone who desperately needed the car for a moral use? If you tell me that you are honestly posing that as a rational response, I will believe you, but I will have to be much more meticulous in explaining arguments that normal people do not usually require clarifications on.
As for the war hypothetical, was that also confusing? Did you not understand the concept of killing someone as an act of war in accordance with societally accepted rules of warfare? Again, I just need to know how pedantic you require me to be in order to have this philosophical discussion.
Not going to lie, considering this:
2 hours ago, HeloDude said:Some of you don’t seem capable of having an actual philosophical discussion outside of what is legal vs illegal.
It really doesn't seem like you are engaging in good faith.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
If animals don’t have a right to not be killed by humans for our pleasure, then no, they don’t have rights. And this isn’t a hill…it’s a fact. Unless you’re one of those who thinks people who eat animals should go to jail?
Some of you don’t seem capable of having an actual philosophical discussion outside of what is legal vs illegal. Or “well this is how our laws are so they must be right”…I guess all of our laws have always been perfect. Again, killing a 7 month unborn baby is ok in many states…but getting two chickens to fight is not ok. But breeding horses to aggressively race for our viewing pleasure…and if they get hurt because of it and need to be killed, well that’s ok, but eating a cat is not ok. But eating a pig is ok.
I want to live in a world where you can have your morals and I can have mine…but that we don’t cater to certain people and not others when they’re literally the same thing. And yes, if you hunt coyote on BLM land then you leave them to rot…they go back to nature. Or should the coyotes be protected? If not, maybe a proper burial required after you shoot them for fun?…we could regulate how deep the hole needs to be, a required head stone, whatever makes people feel better. Maybe if we hit a raccoon on the road we should have to stop and bury it…maybe report it since that might be a crime because the animal had a “right” to not be hit by a car?
If you truly believe in individual liberty then you have to ask yourself uncomfortable questions at times. Oh and enjoy that steak dinner or chicken sandwich next time!…you heartless person you lol.
If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are.
So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why
Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?
-
57 minutes ago, gearhog said:
This f’n guy. Lebanon launching rockets into Israel this hour. Speculation: Hezbollah. Gerald Ford CBG inbound.
If left to their own devices, it seems likely that either Israel will eventually be overwhelmed, or they will start annihilating the surrounding Arab states. I don't see how either option is good for the US, and it's certainly more important than Ukraine given the reliance on stable energy markets.
Military intervention is probably not the best option, but what do you suggest?
-
6 hours ago, HeloDude said:
Children are people, and people have rights. Animals do not. And if I can eat something because I want to eat it just because I think it’s delicious, that’s pretty darn close to absolute control lol.
I just we're just arguing semantics at this point. You are not allowed to beat your dog. Depending on how you do it, or the jury at the time, you will go to jail for doing it. If that doesn't mean that your dog has a "Right" then that's fine, but the effect is the same. Both your child and your dog have a right not to be beaten, or at the very least, there is a law preventing you from doing so.
They certainly have different rights, but that is because in both instances the line is drawn somewhere between the two absolutes of total and no control, just at different points.
It is also illegal in certain states to eat cats and dogs, so those particular animals, both of which you are capable of owning, seem to have "rights" of some sort as well.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, I kind of agree with lawman on this one, we have certainly unchained our fighting forces to destroy a specific enemy, but that enemy is not a nation. It's a military target
It would be fascinating to see how it plays out if we did. Imagine targeting every power production facility in every major city of a developed enemy nation. Or targeting the waste water treatment plants, which there aren't many and they're not hardened. Then just wait to see what a metro area of millions looks like with no functional sewage system. I bet there are tons of horrifying options that are easily targeted.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, HeloDude said:
You had some decent counter arguments until the last one…my children are most definitely not my personal property. However my animals are.
Who's are they? The state? They do not have agency over their lives.
I didn't call them property, but they just certainly are yours, while they are considered minors.
In either case that's irrelevant to the point. Children further prove it. You can decide what they eat, but you can't decide to feed them too little. You can home school then, but you *must* educate them.
Owning something has never given you absolute control over it in this country.
-
On 10/6/2023 at 2:14 PM, HeloDude said:
I’ll try and help you out…
Either we own animals and can do what we want with them, or we can’t. If you eat meat then an “animals rights” person would tell you that you’re immoral. So the line has artificially been drawn to satisfy X but not Y…just don’t pretend that animals have any rights. And as I previously said, I don’t support what this DoD official did, but yet I have friends who hunt purely for sport…are they also immoral? Why is one legal and not the other?
But that is literally what rules and laws are, drawing lines between two black and white positions.
Why are people in the military allowed to murder, yet I cannot murder my neighbor for playing loud music?
You are allowed to own property in a neighborhood, yet you are not allowed to cover it in toxic waste. But you are allowed to decide what type of grass you grow on it. But you aren't allowed to let the weeds grow too tall and become a breeding ground for mice.
Your children are yours, and yet, like animals, you are not allowed to beat them. But you are allowed to punish them.
-
56 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
I hear what you are saying but her "off the cuff jesting" typically has a basis in truth:
“What? Like with a cloth or something?” she asked, then laughed. “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
"We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."
When referencing Snapchat - "I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves."
White House’s hacking by Russian forces would not have happened "had they been using my server."
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
I agree with all that. I just think it's more likely that she was implying that all of the Trump supporters are mindless robotic cultists, rather than she actually thinks deprogramming is some sort of solution we should pursue.
Just more of the basket of deplorables nonsense.
-
I have no love for Hillary Clinton, but listening to that quote in the actual interview with full context, it did not sound like she was actually suggesting it some sort of deprogramming regimen.
She was expressing exasperation at a phenomenon that she does not understand, and does not know how to counter. That doesn't mean I believe in anything she's arguing, or even that I don't think they would use totalitarian means to get their way, but I'm also not doing to take what was clearly an off the cuff jesting remark as some sort of policy suggestion.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Pooter said:
Over half of the Republican Party is in a hostage situation because they're either too stupid or too prideful to adjust course or admit they were taken advantage of.
Wrong. They're too mad.
In the hierarchy of concerns, classified document mishandling, treating women grossly (but not illegally), cheating on your marriages, lying about nearly everything in your past, or all the other things that Donald Trump does to distinguish himself as a human with little or no character, those things are all subordinate to being called a piece of shit, or a liar, or a rube, or being gaslit, or having your most foundational family values attacked, to be called a racist, or a sexist, you get the idea.
American conservatives are furious. And furious people do not see nuance or reason. Until the thing that is making them furious is resolved, they are not going to get caught up in little details like what a miserable human being Donald Trump is.
And since the exact same activists, politicians, famous people, and other progressive entities who rebranded the American conservative as some sort of hate spewing, idiotic, predatory, and privileged group are the ones now going after Donald Trump, there is a 0% chance that they are going to see the light.
And you know what, the many shortcomings of Donald Trump are in fact very, very, very subordinate to the societal warfare that is being waged by the most privileged and unaccomplished in our country. I honestly don't know that I can vote for Donald Trump again, but there is no aspect where his re-election is worse for the country than what American progressives have done and are continuing to do.
My primary concern is that his election will not make the problem any better, because Donald Trump also blinds liberal voters to what The Democratic party has become.
-
1
-
2
-
4
-
-
I think the number one threat to the Republican party right now, aside from the usual political machinations in Washington, is the inability of conservative voters to deal with the cognitive dissonance of appreciating the policy successes of Donald Trump contrasted with the fact that he is in fact a piece of shit as a human being.
-
2
-
3
-
8
-
-
On 9/27/2023 at 10:17 PM, HuggyU2 said:
HindSight, you're such a dick.
But... since you brought it up...
https://www.avweb.com/news/wagstaff-says-shes-sorry-for-oshkosh-incident/
"I have accepted personal responsibility for my actions by pleading no contest to the remaining reduced charges."
I'm not sure not-denying is the same as "accepting responsibility" 😂🤣
She seems like a pain in the ass.
-
On 9/28/2023 at 1:01 AM, FDNYOldGuy said:
Meant to circle back to this one, because while the movie put some artistic license and drama to backdrafts, real ones will slam your prison wallet closed at a rapid rate. I remember back when I was FDNYYoungGuy being told by old hats that we'll think, "they're storing dynamite in there," when it happens the first time. They weren't kidding.
This is a crazy video of a (rather large) backdraft the brothers in Queens had a few years back. It's amazing people weren't killed in this one; it's certainly larger than most (sts) with a block full of taxpayers on fire. Saving grace was a lot of street for it to expand out to and a lot of folks weren't inside (sts) yet; ones in apartments don't always have that luxury (RIP in peace Jason Gedrick; your sacrifice won't be forgotten...) and can be more lethal.
@BFM this, nice pickup! Such a great movie that doesn't get the mileage it should. Some pretty heavy hitters in there for a goofy movie that doesn't get talked about much.
The Slow Mo Guys video on backdrafts is one of their best
-
6 hours ago, Standby said:
I know the real answer is more nuanced…but I’ll ask: why even fly the more expensive jet unless it’s needed for combat operations? If it’s more cost effective to train in a fuel efficient and less maintenance intensive jet, why even fly the MWS? Do you think there is any merit in teaching the METL item in the actual aircraft they will execute it with? If yes, where does the crossover in benefit occur? Why not get people with the UPT basic stick and rudder skills to an MWS and plop them in a sim to grow into the mission?
He answered that question:
9 hours ago, Pooter said:teaching skills at the lowest possible level in the cheapest airframe
So for the tanker, if we're talking basic stick and rudder and keeping radio calls, trimming, airport operations, airspace navigation, and other fundamentals honed, then the cheaper smaller plane is a better value.
You also have to be competent in the specific landing and handling characteristics of the tanker, and in that case the lowest level and cheapest plane is the tanker. Or perhaps you could have a few tanker variants that don't have any of the refueling systems maintained and it's just a pattern monkey. But the premise is sound.
And yeah, the simulator is adequate for a huge percentage of this, which is why the airliners do not train in the aircraft (non-revenue), ever.
For fighters you are obviously going to have less capacity to use the simulator, but there's no reason why an F-22 pilot couldn't practice in a much cheaper jet aircraft. Got forbid we actually ran acquisitions in an integrated, forward thinking way, you would buy trainer aircraft that are vastly cheaper yet handle similarly to the MWS's.
The flying I did in the T6 improved my KC135 flying far more than my KC135 flying improved my T6 flying.
-
Okay, yes, this person is clearly not working 911 part time to pay for their mensa membership. But.
If you're the pilot that just ejected out of a fighter aircraft and you're sitting in some guy's house calling 911, don't you think you would maybe take a little bit more control over the conversation rather than answer stupid questions that only make the person on the other end more confused?
This guy is 47 years old and in the military, so ostensibly has some sort of leadership experience under his belt. If you can't lead one moron into sending an ambulance without a 15 minute discussion about how ejections work, it might not be the 911 operator that's the problem.
-
2
-
5
-
-
26 minutes ago, Biff_T said:
"Buck Nasty, what can I say about that suit that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan."
Classic. Lol
"She looks like she wears underwear with dick holes in them" 😂🤣
-
5
-
-
22 minutes ago, uninformed said:
Ever since the Afghanistan withdrawal, I have a hard time believing Milley.
You needed a catastrophic withdrawal from a 20-year-war to distrust a 4-star?
-
1
-
3
-
-
There are few things douchier than calling yourself a doctor when you aren't in the medical field.
-
2
-
7
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
RAF Airplane with RAF service members is not an airliner (not sure if any Brits were on that flight....and BREXIT has changed a few things. I've been in London all week and there you can feel it in the air when this story hit BBC.
You're there, and your work puts you in a much better position to know, but it's very hard to imagine the response you suggest. Especially considering the history.
This is a real question: Are there still reputable groups that believe the pipelines were blown up by Russia? The public narrative seems to have settled on Ukraine-assisted-by-the-US/UK and then the story kinda faded. I'd expect the pro-Ukraine-support crowd (myself as one) to be talking about that more if there was still a credible argument that Russia did it.
I remember you implied you saw or were told of very definitive evidence that it was Russia.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, brabus said:
Historically you could compare this to WW2 having tons of aces and we’ve got zero actively flying today - that doesn’t mean fighters diminished in relevancy, it means things changed how we used them in concert with other tech. Buffs aren’t carpet bombing the fuck out of things like Nam, but they’re still relevant and important today…things change, but relevancy hasn’t decreased.
That sounds... diminished.
Why doesn't the bomber Mafia run the AF anymore?
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, dream big said:
Yeah, that’s totally not what he said.
It was still a bad analogy.
The girl at the party made decisions that ignore the reality of the situation she's in. She did not show up with a bucket of date-rape drugs and casually leave them scattered around the room, thinking it wouldn't ever affect her.
There's a big difference between questionable *personal* decision making, and making the world worse for other people, then having that come back to bite you.
The girl in the sexy dress never deserves to be raped. The politician who fucked up their city for everyone else absolutely deserves to be mugged.
-
4
-
-
21 hours ago, HeloDude said:
Appreciate the data. My question is this: When does all this start that it becomes obvious to a majority of Americans that we’re in trouble? Predictions are great and all, but if the person making them can’t be fairly accurate with the timeline then the predictions are near useless…just take a look at the global warming/climate change nonsense predictions over the last 30+ years.
Exact timing? Dunno. We are at a fork in the road between an asset-value-crash and reigniting inflation. I have no clue what the Fed picks, but I don't expect them to let the government go insolvent until they have no choice. That means a new tea-party wave of politicians replacing the entrenched incumbents and forcing the Fed to fix their mess. That too will take time.
In the short term, they can't stop inflation and protect the government/stock market/investor class. These are now mutually exclusive interests. So if you want to invest in something, keep an eye on commodities. The government can't control the price of oil, copper, etc.
But the safe answer right now is to shovel your money into short-term treasuries. No risk from rate-changes and a pretty good yield right now. Whatever you do, don't sit on cash right now. When the Fed starts cutting rates, move your money into something that will benefit from inflation.
Fun Fact: Because the Fed has increased their balance sheet so spectacularly, the only way they are able to keep rates above ~0% is by directly paying the banks and money-market funds to not put their money into treasuries (which would push up the prices and lower the yields/rates). So as we speak, the Fed is paying the banks billions to sit on the reserves that the Fed forced them to take in the first place. If you don't think the system is rigged, your aren't paying attention. But I don't think this madness can go on for too long.
-
2 hours ago, VMFA187 said:
Ouch. My neighbor bought his $1.8m home in 2018, which is now around $3.0m but he did interest only, for the first 7 or 10 years, at which point the rate becomes variable when he has to pay interest/principal. I'm scared for him. I'd never be able to afford my home at current rates.
Yeah, not going to be great for him.
A few more interesting stats:
Right now, for the first time ever, the cost of new homes is the same as existing homes. This is an artifact of the reality that existing homeowners (as a group) never *have to* sell, but homebuilders do. So the rate increases have killed off the existing home sales (too expensive for buyers, and most sellers can't/won't trade a 3% mortgage for a 7% mortgage), leaving new homes as the "best" option.
Homebuilders are doing mortgage buydowns to incentivize sales without lowering prices. If they lower prices, that sets the new value for all remaining homes (even the localities would hate this, as it would depress property taxes. Everyone is aligned against the homebuyer). So they pay the bank you drop the mortgage rate, 5.5% seeming to be the magic number for a lot of buyers. If we operate on the reality that most homebuyers base their budget on the monthly payment, not the home price, then a drop from 7.5% to 5.5% has the same effect as dropping the price of the home by ~19%. How do you think the market would react if the narrative for the housing market had a 20% loss of value in one year nation wide?
Investor buying is falling off a cliff. The average cap rate (profit) on renting these homes out is now a percent or so below the risk-free rate of treasuries. It's about equal with the 10-year note. So... run a portfolio of thousands of homes that require maintenance, management, and renters, with the risk of losing value if the market drops, or just buy US treasuries and sit on them? Easy math...
Home prices in the last bubble didn't drop for about two years after the sales dried up. Housing moves slowly, but we have a huge percentage of investor-owned homes now, so the drop could be steeper with more owners capable of quick sales. And if things turn, he who panics first profits best.
This doesn't have to happen, but the alternative is massive inflation to bring our wages up to levels that can normalize these prices. The US government will benefit massively from inflation because it will diminish the debt, but that assumes they survive the usually-associated social upheaval that follows large inflation.
-
2
-
-
On 9/7/2023 at 5:55 AM, ClearedHot said:
Slife is one of two in AFOSC that provide slamdunk proof the supposed USAF interest in climate and culture is nothing but lip service.
He is a well known narcissistic megalomaniac. Many believe he is on the spectrum and it manifests in the way he treats people including his wife. At a commander's event at his house his wife said something he didn't like so he took her down the hall and verbally ripped her in a tone and volume that the officers under his command could clearly hear. I should be shocked that nothing came of that...but alas I am not given the dysfunction in AFSOC.
His command philosophy was summed up to me by another three star...when it comes to Jim there are "DOJ's" (Disciples of Jim), and Clydesdale. If he picks you as a DOJ you will be cared for and protected. If you are a Clydesdale you are expected to work and pull the wagon until you fall over dead. On a CSB he argued we should not put Lt Col's on the Eagle list unless they were BPZ...yes his metric for command was being below the zone. He did it again for the O-6 CSB and argued against making Farrell the OG at Cannon because he was an on time guy and would never be a GO. For the record Farrell was just nominated for his third star.
There are so many other incidents and stories but it doesn't matter. Evil prevailed and sadly a lot of damage will be done.
She's just not that into you.
The only fools are the ones who stay. It may suck to be a warrior in a time when warriors are not needed, but it sucks more to be a warrior in an organization that is openly hostile to warriors.
They court martialed Billy Mitchell. Nothing changes, just the numbers on the calendar.
-
2
-
1
-
World War III Updates
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Lord Ratner
At least half of the innocent civilians support Hamas. More than that support the destruction of Israel in exactly the manner that Hamas attempted this week.
I don't think sparing the civilian population is as obvious as some are acting. Actively wipe out "innocents?" Probably not. But intentionally wipe out everything they need to survive in Gaza to force their expulsion into the rest of the Arab world? Probably. Ignore the collateral risk if you have a legitimate target to hit? Also probably.
This is exactly the type of attack Israel can expect now that it succeeded, if they return to the status quo.