International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Weapons, poll (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357725)

wollery 15th May 2022 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806720)
Why a sane person would make poison if there is no profit to make with it


I asked you a question a few days ago, but you never answered. Iíll repeat it, because it seems relevant after some of your recent posts, the one above in particular.

Have ever actually met any real, flesh and blood human beings?

Gaetan 15th May 2022 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Man (Post 13806736)
Of course you can make profit with it, you can take the resources that others have. You continue to fail to understand that getting rid of money does not and can not get rid of profit. As long as people value things one can always profit through such valuations.

So again, Who's going to stop you? Remember, by your own assertions, there are no controls or oversight in your no money world?

Since everything is free that would include the factory to make said "poison".

In a system of money goods and services exist to make profit not because they are good to people, most products are just poisons.

The Man 15th May 2022 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806766)
In a system of money goods and services exist to make profit not because they are good to people, most products are just poisons.

Again, getting rid of money doesn't get rid of profit. So again, how will weapons and poisons be stopped form being manufactured and marketed?

Foster Zygote 15th May 2022 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13806682)
That wasn't posted as a joke.

Well, not intentionally.

Foster Zygote 15th May 2022 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806766)
In a system of money goods and services exist to make profit not because they are good to people, most products are just poisons.

In your "system", if I work my garden all summer long and produce enough food to can for the winter, if a dozen people come along and ask me for my produce, do I just give it to them?

JoeMorgue 15th May 2022 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806766)
In a system of money goods and services exist to make profit not because they are good to people, most products are just poisons.

Okay. That gives people who aren't good people a viable reason to treat others well. What's the issue?

Systems where you DON'T have to just trust in the vague, undefined, and unenforceable "kindness of strangers" are BETTER than systems where you do.

bruto 15th May 2022 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806720)
Why a sane person would make poison if there is no profit to make with it

Money or not, there is always profit. Power, enslavement, personal advantage, pleasure....no money is required. Every rapist and every school bully has figured that out.

Gaetan 15th May 2022 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13806799)
Money or not, there is always profit. Power, enslavement, personal advantage, pleasure....no money is required. Every rapist and every school bully has figured that out.

If you have tools like money and fire arms that ease up crimes you just get more victimes. Healty products in groceries are rare, a lot of poison sold for the goal profit that kill people slowly.

Jack by the hedge 15th May 2022 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806720)
Why a sane person would make poison if there is no profit to make with it

Or bread. Or cars. Or houses. Why would a sane person make anything in your no money world when they gain no benefit for doing so?

Serious question.

Jack by the hedge 15th May 2022 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806828)
Healty products in groceries are rare, a lot of poison sold for the goal profit that kill people slowly.

What do you eat, then? Do you grow your own food?

The Man 15th May 2022 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13806828)
If you have tools like money and fire arms that ease up crimes you just get more victimes. Healty products in groceries are rare, a lot of poison sold for the goal profit that kill people slowly.

As already asked multiple time by Craig4...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13801124)
Why didn't not having weapons help the people the Russians murdered with their hands tied behind their backs?

Did a lack of firearms help those victims?

Ziggurat 15th May 2022 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote (Post 13806772)
Well, not intentionally.

I don't think it's funny at all. It's sad. Towards the end of the thread, Gaetan says that he's on medication to stop seeing things, but he still believes the things he sees are real.

He needs professional help, and an internet forum debate cannot offer that to him.

JoeMorgue 15th May 2022 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13806839)
What do you eat, then? Do you grow your own food?

I've asked Gaetan what his solution to the "Who will till the soil?"* problem a dozen times across the dozen threads he keeps getting to start that all lead back to the same nonsense. I've never gotten an answer.

https://libquotes.com/aristophanes/quote/lbu9j7i

Gaetan 21st May 2022 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13806835)
Or bread. Or cars. Or houses. Why would a sane person make anything in your no money world when they gain no benefit for doing so?

Serious question.

If i wash dishes there is benifit for me as i eat in clean dishes and others, if others do some work as well there is benifit for them and me somewhere.

The Man 21st May 2022 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13813007)
If i wash dishes there is benifit for me as i eat in clean dishes and others, if others do some work as well there is benifit for them and me somewhere.

Responded to in appropriate thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post13813047

Gaetan 22nd May 2022 05:03 PM

Sweden and Finland voted to be in NATO, these politicians must be corrupted by billions of dollars printed by US national bank because it doesn't make any sense, they'll be on the list to be bombed in case of a nuclear war.

Foster Zygote 22nd May 2022 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13813807)
Sweden and Finland voted to be in NATO, these politicians must be corrupted by billions of dollars printed by US national bank because it doesn't make any sense, they'll be on the list to be bombed in case of a nuclear war.

If there's a nuclear war, they'd still be ****** even if they weren't on Putin's to do list. Pretty much everyone will be ******.

8enotto 22nd May 2022 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13813807)
Sweden and Finland voted to be in NATO, these politicians must be corrupted by billions of dollars printed by US national bank because it doesn't make any sense, they'll be on the list to be bombed in case of a nuclear war.

Being in NATO also means other NATO nations will come to your aid should something bad happen.

Like a Russian invasion maybe? It could be a useful alliance in so many other ways too.

Putzin basically forced four nations on his borders to rethink future national security. They can trust him or try their luck with NATO.
It's not a really difficult choice in light of recent events.

Craig4 22nd May 2022 06:01 PM

As we've seen and you have confirmed, the only way to prevent Russian aggression is to be part of NATO and have an army capable of defending their citizens from Russia. We've seen proof positive that not being part of NATO and not being armed won't prevent Russia from killing you.

Lurch 22nd May 2022 08:32 PM

I'm late to this party. Stupid poll is stupid. A hard binary choice on this topic is at the very least impractical because it leaves out the vast middle ground where some nuanced approach can be striven for.

I voted "yes" to be rid of firearms only because my philosophy lies nearer to that end of the restricted spectrum of choice.

In the real world there are valid reasons for people to own firearms. And there are reasonably effective means to greatly reduce gun violence without an outright ban. Other countries do it.

bruto 22nd May 2022 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13813932)
I'm late to this party. Stupid poll is stupid. A hard binary choice on this topic is at the very least impractical because it leaves out the vast middle ground where some nuanced approach can be striven for.

I voted "yes" to be rid of firearms only because my philosophy lies nearer to that end of the restricted spectrum of choice.

In the real world there are valid reasons for people to own firearms. And there are reasonably effective means to greatly reduce gun violence without an outright ban. Other countries do it.

Well, considering the source, one would have to wish awfully hard, maybe on a falling star or something, to expect a smart poll.

Crossbow 23rd May 2022 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13813807)
Sweden and Finland voted to be in NATO, these politicians must be corrupted by billions of dollars printed by US national bank because it doesn't make any sense, they'll be on the list to be bombed in case of a nuclear war.

If this is actually the case, then you do not have anything to worry about.

Because I expect that anyone who may be seriously involved with the international diplomacy issues of Finland and/or Sweden would quickly determine that none of your the postings that you have made in this thread has any real value to such a person.

Lurch 23rd May 2022 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13813807)
Sweden and Finland voted to be in NATO, these politicians must be corrupted by billions of dollars printed by US national bank because it doesn't make any sense, they'll be on the list to be bombed in case of a nuclear war.

In the event of a major nuclear slugfest, it'll not matter that much if one's country is hit directly or not. Civilization will functionally end, and radiation poisoning will take its toll on the survivors in most places. The southern hemisphere might fare not quite so terribly due to the fewer hits there and the slow rate of atmospheric interchange between hemispheres.

Gaetan 23rd May 2022 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8enotto (Post 13813844)
Being in NATO also means other NATO nations will come to your aid should something bad happen.

Like a Russian invasion maybe? It could be a useful alliance in so many other ways too.

The benefit is for NATO not for Finland and Sweden. Why would the russian bother them if they are not a threat, now they are. Do you think they would attack them for fun?

8enotto 23rd May 2022 05:59 PM

Yes, I do think putzin will attack any neighboring nation for fun. He has already made veiled threats to that effect.

NATO is a community of nations dedicated to mutual defence and assistance in some non military things. It benefits it's members with the strength of the group.

Your town or city is a community with pretty much the exact same goals. Should that be considered dangerous too?

arthwollipot 23rd May 2022 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13814683)
The benefit is for NATO not for Finland and Sweden. Why would the russian bother them if they are not a threat, now they are. Do you think they would attack them for fun?

NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO has no interest in threatening Russia.

Sideroxylon 23rd May 2022 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13814683)
The benefit is for NATO not for Finland and Sweden. Why would the russian bother them if they are not a threat, now they are. Do you think they would attack them for fun?

Very few thought Putin was about to attack Ukraine but here we are.

bruto 23rd May 2022 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13814683)
The benefit is for NATO not for Finland and Sweden. Why would the russian bother them if they are not a threat, now they are. Do you think they would attack them for fun?

Backwards as usual.

Craig4 24th May 2022 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13814683)
The benefit is for NATO not for Finland and Sweden. Why would the russian bother them if they are not a threat, now they are. Do you think they would attack them for fun?

Yes.

The Don 24th May 2022 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13814683)
The benefit is for NATO not for Finland and Sweden. Why would the russian bother them if they are not a threat, now they are. Do you think they would attack them for fun?

Not for fun per-se, but Russia has a great deal of history attacking adjacent countries when it suits their geopolitical aims.

Finland and Sweden are much less likely to be attacked if they are NATO members and being NATO members may even make it marginally less likely that they would attack Russia because if there was previously a 0.00000000001% chance of a unilateral unprovoked attack, it's now zero.

Crossbow 24th May 2022 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13814683)
The benefit is for NATO not for Finland and Sweden. Why would the russian bother them if they are not a threat, now they are. Do you think they would attack them for fun?

You are wrong again.

I do not expect that Putin would attack Finland and/or Sweden for fun.

However, I do expect that Putin would attack Finland and Sweden if he thought that he could do so successfully.

Gaetan 24th May 2022 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13814956)
Finland and Sweden are much less likely to be attacked if they are NATO members and being NATO members may even make it marginally less likely that they would attack Russia because if there was previously a 0.00000000001% chance of a unilateral unprovoked attack, it's now zero.

The opposite is true, they'll be the first attaked in case of a nuclear war because they are closer to Russian and so a maximum threat.

Gaetan 24th May 2022 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 13815019)
You are wrong again.
However, I do expect that Putin would attack Finland and Sweden

And for what reason?

Craig4 24th May 2022 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13815780)
The opposite is true, they'll be the first attaked in case of a nuclear war because they are closer to Russian and so a maximum threat.

This assumes a lot. Why would Russia launch a nuclear attack? Three NATO nations have a survivable counter strike capability.

arthwollipot 24th May 2022 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13815780)
The opposite is true, they'll be the first attaked in case of a nuclear war because they are closer to Russian and so a maximum threat.

In a nuclear war, the first to be attacked will be enemy nuclear powers, because they are the ones that will retaliate. Specifically, the US, UK, and France.

You'd better hope it doesn't come to that.

Sideroxylon 24th May 2022 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13806909)
I don't think it's funny at all. It's sad. Towards the end of the thread, Gaetan says that he's on medication to stop seeing things, but he still believes the things he sees are real.

He needs professional help, and an internet forum debate cannot offer that to him.

Thanks for the heads up.

Crossbow 25th May 2022 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13815784)
And for what reason?

If you actually bothered to read my entire posting, then you would have your answer.

Foster Zygote 25th May 2022 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13815780)
The opposite is true, they'll be the first attaked in case of a nuclear war because they are closer to Russian and so a maximum threat.

In the case of nuclear war, being nuked first is better than being nuked last. It's like when Cthulhu wakes - better to be devoured first.

The Don 25th May 2022 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13815780)
The opposite is true, they'll be the first attaked in case of a nuclear war because they are closer to Russian and so a maximum threat.

Nope.

As has been pointed out upthread by arthwollipot, they won't be the first attacked in the event of a nuclear war.

Given the size and preparedness of their forces and the logistical challenges involved then it's also unlikely that they would be first to be attacked in the event of a conventional war - that dubious privilege would likely go to the Baltic states.

Gaetan 28th May 2022 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 13815019)
You are wrong again.

I do not expect that Putin would attack Finland and/or Sweden for fun.

However, I do expect that Putin would attack Finland and Sweden if he thought that he could do so successfully.

If the Russian would like to attack successfully others countries they could do it with 90% of countries in the world but they don't do so because they are not a threat for them.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.