Negatory

Recent statistic: Millenials currently own 4% of real estate equity in America. Boomers at the same age owned 32% of the nations real estate equity.

I left off nothing that was important and immediately addressed his statement you referenced in that I agreed that very few people are actively hating or suppressing the LGBT. My whole argument was that it wasn’t just active actions that are bad, though, the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm. I know you read it. Also, your argument about marriage doesn’t stand up to other specific examples when you use basically any other immutable trait. The flaws abound, and you’ll see that “thought police” is just an alarmist buzzword. Some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should be not allowed: hence why there are anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, anti-terrorism, anti-anarchist and multiple other laws in our society. Let’s apply your final argument to 1865: ”I, personally, don’t and would never own slaves. But I ask you, good sir, why should someone who does be forced to give up their slaves that they paid for and rightfully own? It’s not even a moral position in [this] case - it’s a legal/financial one.” Took over 100+ years for society to fully get on board, but sounds pretty fucked up to argue like this today, doesn’t it? It will be like this for LGBT rights after you all die out - just check Gen Z’s opinions. BL: Harmful effects of discrimination against those with immutable characteristics isn’t limited to just those who actively fight against them. That’s been my whole point. It’s also those that implicitly support those that fight against them. Enabling fucked up opinions is bad.

I mean, this statement here is actually more telling than you realize, and it’s indicative of the centrist “everyone is right” attitudes that are extremely troubling to some of the LGBT folks I know. THIS subtle implicit non-acceptance is what they’re still fighting against. You don’t personally actively hate or oppress LGBT folks, I’m sure. Most people and military officers I know don’t. But some don’t oppose those that do to the level that shows any moral courage. Implicitly, statements like these normalize and equalize f’d up beliefs. Try these hypotheticals on, imagine you heard one of your buddies say one of these statements: “I don’t morally agree that black people should be able to marry white people. In fact, they shouldn’t be allowed in the same place as white people, it’s just not right.” “I don’t morally agree that a woman should be allowed to have a job. That’s a man’s right. They just shouldn’t be doing this stuff, their place is at the home.” “I don’t morally agree that a person with a different sexuality than me should be able to get married or serve in the military. It’s just not right.” If you heard someone say one of the first 2 things, you’d tell that person to fuck off. You’d tell them they’re wrong. I doubt you’d say “I respect your opinion” - in fact, I would expect you not to. Why is the third one different? Just because someone has different morals doesn’t make their opinions “totally cool.” In fact, their morals can be pretty fucked up and oppressive. The first amendment makes it legal to say whatever dumb shit a person wants, I get that and am not going down that rabbit hole. But you don’t have to respect someone’s beliefs, and you surely don’t have to say that “it’s totally cool” for them to believe something that marginalizes a group of humans for an immutable characteristic.

Because you like to oversimplify my arguments into black and white, lib and conservative, whatever. I think my opinions are more nuanced than you would ever give me credit for, and often I don’t align with the bucket you try to put me in (sts). Also, I don’t believe that serving on active duty provides an iota more feeling of service to the nation than serving in the guard or in the civil service. I believe that if the military wants people on active duty, then they have to compete. As a young fighter pilot, i realized that TR guardsmen got to fly 6-9 times a month working 3 days and one weekend a month. I also realized that’s how much I was flying as a CMR wingman. On top of that I realized that flying was what I actually enjoyed in the Air Force, and it’s where I felt I was actually accomplishing something. The military/gov is type one spatial D’d (unrecognized) when it comes to retention. They know active duty is the most important for military health and they need folks on active duty to accomplish their mission. But every single incentive other than slightly increased chances to become an O-6 🤮 goes to the advantage of the guard or GS. You let me fly fighters, pay me twice as much, don’t force me to move, can’t deploy me if I don’t accept, and have to keep me to 40 hour weeks - thats better in literally every single way.

Why the f would anyone stay active duty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports. If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

@bfarginThat is a quote from the article the previous person posted. Looks like you don't read either.

We both know you wouldn't believe even then. Your arguments have always focused on entirely unrelated appeals to emotion and virtually never on evidence or facts.

Case in point. I don't know if you even read the source. Second paragraph: "We can clearly show the causal link between carbon dioxide emissions from human activity and the 1.28 degree Celsius (and rising) global temperature increase since pre-industrial times." Then he goes on to tell you about other things that have affected the climate in the past, but that article in no way backs up your point. Also, just to be clear, the scientific community is not even slightly split on this. 99-100% consensus on humans causing anthropogenic climate change. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Brandolini's law strikes again. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it"

I think the fundamental disconnect of this forum to American society is that the majority of you don’t believe global warming is either real or a real issue. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

Another well informed take that boils down an entirely flawed economic policy among all us government since 2001 into simplistic red vs blue. It’s everyone’s fault here. How much of gas prices are due to domestic economic policies dictated by the executive branch? Is the US President causing gas to be $6-9 across Europe as well? Oh wait this is global? That’s not good for my narrative or funny gas pump stickers. Or is there a potential that a war in Ukraine + restarting a global economy after a massive overreaction due to COVID + a literal cartel (OPEC) have a lot more to do with energy prices? Also, reminder that there are a surplus of drilling permits (about 10 years worth) available by the federal gov that are unused. What’s the policy you think that would solve this? https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/spending/articles/a-look-at-gas-prices-around-the-world Second, how much of inflation is due to quantitative easing? Reminder that the Trump admin effectively printed and threw over $3T into the economy in 2020 to prop up the stock market. 2 of the 3 stimuluses came from GOP leadership, but giving that free socialism money to everyone probably had no effect on inflation. At least no effect we should talk about. The bottom line is that neoliberal economic policy, which both parties fully support, is driving us off a cliff. Unlimited economic growth in a limited society (actually approaching contracting) isn’t possible. It’s time to raise the interest rates to 6-9% and deal with our poor decisions we have made thinking we could avoid natural economic cycles. The real marker in failure economically was October 2019 when the government saw that quantitative tightening (the right call) made the stock market go down and abandoned all logic to maintain the illusion of a green DJIA. Then COVID happened and the whole of US government lost their collective minds.

Also lots of folks in these forums afraid to actually throw down with their thoughts but very excited to throw spears at political opponents. Par for the course.

I appreciate your opinion and agree with a lot of it. We do need a debate in congress. We really need a coherent grand strategy, but we’ve never really had that outside the Cold War. My point is that the more isolationist we become, the less influence we ultimately will have. You can bet the Chinese will make decisions on Taiwan based on our response to this incursion.

Of course it’s factually correct, but there is little substance beyond that. Your point that Ukraine doesn’t perfectly mirror our nation is no argument that they are not worth protecting or bringing democracy to. Other nations that weren’t American style democracies: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Lebanon, Cuba, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria. Love it or hate it, engaging in the world for the last 70 years is what allowed us such an influence on it. What on earth is the justification to only protect democracies? We get to choose how to exert influence. It is our choice to expand and protect the free world and our sphere of influence or to allow functional autocrats like Putin and Xi to do it. It’s not easy to do that. Here’s an actual opinion. We should have peacekeeping troops protecting Kyiv and Southern Ukraine right now. It’s a question of whether we want to allow this behavior or not. There may be justification, no matter how shitty, for Russia to attempt reunification of the Eastern sects. Fine, whatever. There is no justification or for further aggression other than “we want a land bridge to Crimea and we will take what we want because we can threaten you with nukes and the US isn’t going to do anything about it.”

Also, anyone see how weak the American sanctions were? Literally just two regions in Eastern Ukraine. Hit em where it hurts, huh? "The order bars 'new investment, trade and financing by U.S. persons to, from, or in' the so-called Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, located in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement."

Fox News in 2022 is amazing.

Hey @ViperMan, your quotes for me from 25 Dec onwards were trying to make it seem like I was insinuating the death rate of omicron was gonna be be 5-15% for certain portions of the population. Just wondering why you misrepresented my actual points on this forum? Is this a perception error because you aren’t actually reading what I’m saying? Or is it an execution error in that you’re arguing fallaciously? Did you miss two days prior where I said exactly what you’re arguing I didn’t say? Did you not understand that the estimates you quoted (5-15%) were in reference to historical data under an entirely different pretext? We were talking about what we would have done differently with foresight of historical data. The historical data - which is true - is for delta/previous variants. How can I make my opinions more clear so that you can stop misrepresenting them? I don’t need to engage in this echo chamber where you can only see it as simply you vs my entirely opposite views. I am glad that my predictions on 23 Dec (that the disease would have significantly lower hospitalizations and fatalities) based on scientific evidence (that I was the first to present on this forum) came true. I know you guys want to hate on people like me, pawnman, Prozac, etc. and find the bogeyman, but it’s not productive. I’m good not engaging with you in the future, as you’ve proven not to want to engage in a good faith discussion. Godspeed.

Although you are desperate for validation - craving the herd’s approval and being able to say “I told ya so” - you’re not gonna find it. I never said there was a guaranteed increase in deaths. I never said that omicron would have a death rate that was the same as delta or higher. I said there would likely be over a million cases a day, and we couldn’t know how that would impact the healthcare system. You said that there was no chance we could quadruple our maximum cases per day and were very wrong within just a couple weeks. Standard. Maybe you forget that I used exact quotes from you to prove how incorrect you were. In reality, I see that still bugs you. Glad the mortality of this virus was significantly lower for Omicron. I am and have been fully in support of removing all mask and vaccine mandates shortly after more data came out (but you don’t know or can’t accept this because you can’t debate a nuanced opinion). Go ahead, check my posts. This is not gonna be the “and then they clapped” moment you wish it would be.

Yep, better platform than a light fighter is required for things like this + power + real estate on the aircraft for apertures/radio connectivity. I agree 100%.

I fear that you actually are the one that doesn't get it. If you want, we can discuss the numerous nazi flags seen at the freedom convoy. But that, like much media coverage, probably isn't representative of the movement as a whole. Oh, wait. Question your political biases, slow the flow of information warfare into your veins.

This is the thing though. It was mostly peaceful, and your sentence intentionally misconstrues in a similar way to the opposite political side. Like >99% of protestors were peaceful. But you’re insinuating that is not accurate based on your political bias. For the record, I support the truckers protesting.

We’ve gone full retard.

I agree with your points. Everything should be somewhat attritable. I guess the biggest issues with little fighter like that are that they won’t the power, cooling, or apertures to make datalinks effective from a long range. And they won’t have the legs to not require tankers everywhere. It’s a tough problem.

If it’s just going to be a stand off datalink enabler, I struggle to see why it should be manned whatsoever, at least for the peer fight. SAMs have made it too threatening to have a 4th Gen or less fighter like platform just chilling outside. Why not just go the other way and use a platform like a repurposed B-1/B-21/KC-46. Yes, all of those platforms have issues, but my point is having a larger aircraft that actually doesn’t require 15 air refuelings to get towards the fight could be beneficial. Plus, larger airplane = more cooling, electricity, payload, apertures, and options. There are still niches for fighters, I think. The niche is direct platform confrontation with enemy fighters. If you’re just trying to fight a j-20, don’t hand me an unmanned aircraft until AI is ready. But if you’re confident in the abilities of the unmanned platforms, the only thing the mothership needs is fuel and connectivity - not to have afterburners or be single seat. What the author proposes would be useful in the N Korea/S America/Iran/etc confrontation. But we really need to get ourselves to focus on what we want to succeed at. Trying to be the service that can simultaneously effectively fight terrorism and 5th Gen fighters is a large contributor to why we feel less ahead than we have in the past. Get a friggin acquisition strategy together and don’t walk the line balancing both priorities!

Light fighters can’t get to the South China Sea. On top of that they aren’t survivable at all. For the peer threat, I see no niche. Also, MUMT is the AI of the 2010s. It’s getting funding, but good luck making it economically scalable.