All Activity

Firstly, it's not impossible to defeat a nuclear power. It is risky, and shouldn't be attempted just for the LOLS (we shouldn't be declaring war on, say, Britain or France simply because they have nukes) but we absolutely could do it, if we decided it was worth the risk. Here's a good rule of thumb: you must never dismiss the possibility of conflict with someone who does not share your values and interests, nor assume that they will automatically win such a conflict. The moment you concede that you've already surrendered your own values. And to be perfectly frank I have had just about enough of the defeatist, hand-wringing sort of obsequiousness towards Russia that the right seems to have recently discovered. You're an American, for God's sake! It's our flag that's on the moon (which rightfully should be American territory) and we're the ones who decided the outcome of two world wars (one of which involved the invention of the very weapons you consider undefeatable)! Everyone, in every single country on Earth, watches the movies and listens to the music that we create. Which country has by far the greatest number of Nobel laureates, the most scientific discoveries and by far the most inventions? We are the hub of the production and trade of the entire globe, and our military remains supreme. We're the cultural, scientific, economic, technological and military apex of all of Western civilization and if we decide we dislike the underwear that Putin wears then we'll damn well inform him of where he's allowed to purchase replacements and how large of an American flag we'll require on them! This extremely French sort of attitude used to be unique to the left. Probably not. They could opt for that (it's always possible) but I would not bet any actual money on it. The Ayatollahs are bad news, though. It would be difficult for the Iranians to pick a worse form of government - and if they did then we could quickly and cheaply change the regime again, without setting a single boot on the ground. I don't use the word "glass" as a synonym for "nuke". I just mean to devastate an area with an aerial bombardment, which our military is very good at and could probably do without a single American casualty. Iranian casualties are for the Iranians to worry about when they're choosing their next form of government. No, the modern form of Islam is not "what they've been doing for 1000+ years"; the modern (past century or so) interpretation of the Koran and the Hadiths is far more rigid, virulent and fundamentalist than anyone has tried to practice for a very long time. Just as the modern form of Christianity is very different from the early form that conquered Rome, the modern form of Islam is different from (and much worse than) any earlier strain of it. The current form of Islam evolved as a response to prior military humiliations by Western countries; they embraced the strictest and harshest possible interpretations of their scriptures out of the belief that Allah would bring them victory if they did so. The Islamists (the political Muslims who are causing problems) are more than happy to explain that their fanaticism will lead them to military victory. Yaron Brook has an excellent lecture course on YouTube about this, if you're interested. It's about six hours long but it explains exactly what I'm talking about in much more detail. To remedy this belief it's not necessary to wipe out all or even most Muslims. We only need to demonstrate that Allah will not save them from America. I don't know how many Muslim regimes we'll have to stomp on before they learn that lesson but we should continue the demonstration until they do so. Half-measures do not work in the Middle East.

Thought about it a bit more and I'm actually not sure they were misapplied to January 6th. Not after some more serious consideration. So yeah. Jail all of the troublemakers, jail anyone who was part of any protest that included the troublemakers, convict any political leaders who agitated for it and bar any of them from ever holding public office in the future.

Strongly on board as I am with a self-interested, non-altruist/interventionist USA for its good and for other countries, the anti-war "isolationists" are flat-out wrong, ultimately, self-sacrificial. Present situation, it is nowhere at any time a matter of committing US forces to that arena, just a single mission by a B-52 at little risk after the complete air dominance that the Israelis have achieved. Ah, but what will the regime do in reprisal? Won't it attack the American bases? If it does, it does, too much second-guessing looks weak, and is. But then the aerial retaliation on Iran by the two nations will be massive, and despite the bold rhetoric they know this, ending permanently Iran's military threat to the region and abroad, again without committing American ground troops. But I would prefer that Israel finished their self-defensive war as they began it, alone, incredibly seeing off all its enemies; but it lacks the ordinance for that crucial underground installation. (I am sick and tired of hearing "Israel/Jews are [again] 'dragging us' into war"... since when?) Watching the CNN wrangle the issue must lend morale to Tehran and other foes of the west, seeing the isolationists' lack of will and resolve to defend the USA's own security (what do isolationists believe Iran could intend - or would menace - with its nuclear weapons and ICBM programs?) nor will they avert the spreading turmoil of an Iran-dominant Middle East. "The USA is becoming a paper tiger". The skeptics, one must take the isolationists for, seem not to reason and anticipate much worse down the line by not taking action now. Perceptions count with people. "America First" has to maintain its image of permanent deterrence with occasional, judicious actions. A powerful and free nation will draw enemies, and must reserve the right to pre-emptively surprise-strike a country - all without "boots on the ground", as modern warfare allows, or conquest and occupation, lengthy (and self-sacrificial) "entanglements" - negating too, the also altruistic "warhawks" on the other side of this false alternative. Values kept/gained at what cost? Wars come down to which "hill" is one prepared to fight for and possibly sometimes die on.

My wife just this weekend was showing me pictures of a Wright house currently on the market , I think it was this property though I couldn’t get to the pictures I. The post other one showing a gate I assume is on the driveway. The interior shots of the one my wife shared show the property was kept pretty ‘original’ , although some of the decor and furnishing didn’t seem authentic, but what looked like the master bedroom appeared to have what I imagine a FLW bed would have been and maybe a table and chair set. If this house in the post is on the market , I bet it is the same one. Awesome abodes them

https://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewtopic.php?t=17155&sid=2e162cf27244620d76030274d2f44ddd

Starvation is also an effective tool that has been used numerous times. One nuke is not terribly effective for genocide, true. How about hundreds? Maybe it’s worth saying that I do not share Harrison’s view about the viability of glassing anyone as a long-term solution to any of our problems, lest I be misunderstood.

And to think it was right there the whole time.

So why are you hoping for regime change then? What do you think will happen, after the regime changes? Iran will become a western style democracy? The best case scenario is that the new regime will be one western nations can work with to maintain a slightly less belligerent, nuke free Iran. That's the hope in Syria, as well. That's why we're working with the people who took over, not because they're freedom loving individualists. We're working with them because they seem open to being managed to some extent. To being guided towards some semblance of order and cooperation. I wish people would stop saying shit like this. First off, you don't understand what a nuclear weapon does. It's not a good way to commit genocide. Hiroshima wasn't "turned to glass", it's still there. Most of its people survived. If you want to commit genocide, you're gonna have to go in and start killing people. One at a time. That's the only method that actually works. Second, Iran isn't special. It's an Islamic state because it's a Muslim country that was left to its own devices by Jimmy Carter.That's what Muslims do when they're left to their own devices: they establish Islamic states. It's what they've been doing for 1000+ years. So what's your big plan? Wipe out all Muslims, because you can't stomach the idea of managing a problem instead of magically making it disappear?

Found

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/trump-urges-tehran-evacuation-iran-israel-conflict-enters-fifth-day-2025-06-17/ Okay if you’re a troll account then I rescind everything I’ve ever said about you because that would be incredibly funny.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War It’s honestly starting to feel like you’re actively trying to be wrong just to check who is paying attention. So according to you, Russia just needs to declare that they’ll nuke anyone who touches Iran and then the whole world must back off, forever. Hopefully Putin doesn’t skim this forum for such brilliant insight. The past few years in Ukraine have proven quite clearly that the Russian military is dogshit, and they also can’t use nukes because (as you fully know) there would be severe world-ending consequences to them doing so. The *real* difference between Russia and Iran is that Russian leaders are very much afraid to die, but the religious fanatics in charge of Iran are not. This is precisely why Iran having nukes is an actual threat. Also, what are the “benefits” to the west from the Iranian regime?

In every example you gave, the President had bipartisan political support for the actions he took. In this case, Trump does not have such support for going to war with Iran. He doesn't even have a simple majority backing him, members of his own party are introducing stupid anti-war resolutions. Demanding the surrender of Iran isn't on the table, because enforcing that demand isn't on the table. Cannot be done. Iran has access to CNN. They know it would be an empty threat. What is on the table is demanding a deal limited to the subject of nuclear weapons. Such a demand can be enforced, because a. supplying Israel does have congressional support, and b. dropping a few bunker busters on targets Israel asked for help with is within his authority without congressional support.

Russia is impossible to defeat militarily, because they have a nuclear arsenal with which they can annihilate any attacker. That's not an argument, that's a statement of fact. They don't belong in the same category, because there's a fundamental difference between them: Iran is a temporary nuisance which can be defeated whenever one or several western countries decide that the costs outweigh the benefits. Russia is the exact opposite of that. Russia is invulnerable. It's a monolith. You cannot move it, you can only convince it to move on its own. We don't need to indefinitely co-exist with Iran on this Earth. But we do need to indefinitely co-exist with Russia. Our attitude towards Russia should reflect that fact.

Also great stuff to work to. Most of the music I like is.

Seriously? That's flattering in a weird way. Objectivism Online is worth spamming? What are the spammers trying to do? If they're here with financing options on new cars, some of us might be interested.

I suppose there are some sticky questions around legally encoding that; yes. On an individual basis, I'd advise people to be as up-front about it as they possibly can be; it's just not a good strategy to do otherwise. However, considering my track record with women, I'm really not sure what my relationship advice is worth. I can tell you all about the Roman Empire. Women, though? Women are fucking weird.

I didn't really jump into this at the time. I think there's something to what @stansfield123 was saying here; it's just not framed in a very precise way. First of all, the notion that "there's no such thing as absolute free speech" is precisely analogous to the question of sexual dimorphism. If there are legitimate exceptions to the principle of free speech (such as incitement to violence) then does that invalidate the general principle? I don't think so. In the same way and for the same reasons that the existence of hermaphrodites does not disprove the fact of sexual dimorphism, the very small number of valid exceptions to freedom of speech does not negate the general principle. Secondly, although the first amendment is one of the most important things we can defend (and a large part of what I have against the trans movement), just because some leftist claims that something is part of their "freedom of speech" or "freedom of assembly" doesn't make it so. And we're in for real trouble if people don't start figuring that out and punishing the bad actors involved. Drawing swastikas on other peoples' property, looting and arson, for example, are obviously not covered by the principle of free speech. It's not even that they're exceptions; they simply have nothing to do with it. Blocking roadways and restricting everyone else's freedom of movement is not a peaceful protest. It would be a violation of rights even if our roads weren't public property which every single citizen is supposed to be able to use. Even some of the stuff I routinely see posted on Twitter ("Don't miss Trump next time" or "the time for peaceful protests is over; we need to make our protests hurt") should not count as free speech; trying to round up an angry mob to go and inflict violence is not a legitimate case of free speech, and ought to be prosecuted. Weirdly enough, the left got some of the reasoning around this correct in how they dealt with January sixth. I don't agree that was an actual rebellion (when you're starting a rebellion you damn well bring guns) but it wasn't good, and some of the rhetoric surrounding it -ideas about trying to foment a rebellion (or start a riot) and how that ought to be dealt with- were actually right on the money. They were just being misapplied. This is what those ideas should be applied to. Not because totalitarian wokists have no right of free speech, but because much of what they're doing on a daily basis has nothing to do with free speech. So anyway. I imagine you and I would probably agree on most of the details of what that would mean, but the general framing of the issue is also important. Lol. How? Gave their lions indigestion? Shut down the schools and centers of philosophy, shut down all pagan temples and killed off all the values that had made Romans behave in a Roman way. Also, prior to taking over and legally proscribing all other religions the early Christians were the ones who wanted to be eaten. They wanted martyrdom. There are numerous accounts of Pagan governors and bureaucrats saying things to the effect of "if you want to die then go do it on your own time; I can't be bothered to deal with your madness". It's actually quite remarkable. The same long, slow march through the institutions that some Communists have been attempting to do today is precisely what the early Christians did in Rome. And when Julian the Apostate (the last Pagan emperor) attempted to reopen the Greek schools and Pagan temples, in the hopes of Making Rome Great Again, the Christians rioted across the empire and burned down Alexandria. The Roman Pagans did not take Christianity seriously until it was too late. We are better than Rome in many ways today, but still based on the same underlying ideas and still subject to the same kinds of dangers. Modern Christianity bears little resemblance to the early form of Christianity that killed Rome (thankfully); far from being commonplace, to find a modern Christian castrating themselves without any form of anesthetic or actively seeking their own death would be pretty unusual. But modern Islam is quite similar, as are some of our domestic philosophies. We ignore them at our own peril. I can't find the original video this comes from, but 6:00 into this one Woke Moses seeks to be eaten by a bus. And I don't know about you, but part of me would be extremely entertained by sticking Woke Moses in the Colosseum with a wild bus and charging admission to watch her wish be granted.

(completed 17 June 2025) JUST NORTH Just north home station, this railway cuts dark through old old bedrock. Out to burning day, the old woods, river, Kudzu macabre. Tears, tears over you gone out from being, gone your station wave. You joy, joy those days, you god, your angel, ever we of love.

On Sept. 21 2001, Bush II demanded that the Taliban government hand over Bin Laden and his henchmen. That did not happen, so “steps were taken” – bombs dropped – on Oct. 7. Kabul fell on Nov. 12. This is an instance of a meaningful ultimatum and an actual (albeit futile) delivery. He also issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2003, and the overt invasion started 3 days later (covert preparations preceded significantly). On July 26, 1945 we also delivered an ultimatum to Japan, and delivered a few weeks later. The threat against Japan was brief and short on details of implementation but clear in gravity – “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”. Here’s a history question: when in the past 120 years has the US issued clear ultimata and delivered on the threat? We are now in the “where’s the beef?” phase of Trump’s “threat” that Iran has 60 days to “make a deal” (wtf does that even mean?). Since the US Embassy in Tel Aviv just suffered collateral-damage flesh wounds, this would be an opportunity for Trump to Man Up, OTOH tomorrow is TACO Tuesday. Unlike the Potsdam ultimatum, there is no clear “or else”, and “make a deal” is not a meaningful demand. (Seriously? “Cause it to come about that these parties agree to terms!”. A demand to surrender is specific and doable).

I say this to counter fresh condemnations of Israel in other sites. This Iran war began Oct 7; despite a common, propagandized notionality that Hamas and Hezbolla (their almost simultaneous assaults, tellingly quite overlooked by media, in their focused 'concern for Gaza'), and the Houthis - and Tehran - were all disconnected or independent actors - in "solidarity" with Gaza. I.e. An unorchestrated "resistance" movement. But I'd claim that if removed from the equation Iran's nuclear ambitions, its defaults and delays and the argument around Iranian intentions with nukes -- and the above "proxy" attacks largely directed and backed by Tehran would alone have provided ample just cause for Israel's offensive strikes at Iran. Re-introduce that danger and their casus belli against "the principal" nation is far exceeded. A good discussion on the legalities of war.

Over 500 spam accounts so far:

I've enabled manual new member approval due to spammers. You can contact me @ [email protected] or on WhatsApp: +1 (470) 424-0056

So there’s an interesting question that arises (mostly but not exclusively in the context of casual sex as opposed to sex in committed relationships) about the level of disclosure that people owe one another. I certainly agree that if a person explicitly lies (e.g., about a vasectomy, or being a woman, or being in love, or not having an STD) to get sex that they know wouldn’t be granted without that lie, then that’s bad. While I’m not opposed to civil/criminal liability in some of those situations, it can sometimes be trickier when what happened was a “lie by omission.” So for example, if a Jewish woman doesn’t bring up that she’s Jewish to some hook-up that she met a few hours prior, and the man wouldn’t have knowingly had sex with a Jew, I don’t think we can say the she deceived him (assuming she didn’t know how the man felt about Jews). But does the calculation change if this scenario is playing out in Qatar, where the Jewish person perhaps “ought to know” that this is a more likely possibility? Analogously, while some people obviously wouldn’t intentionally have sex with a trans person, others would and do. Yet presumably(?) the laws governing disclosure shouldn’t be entirely different in San Francisco and Louisiana, simply because they have different cultures. It seems to be a common topic of debate among trans people and their allies as to what level of disclosure is owed to potential partners, in what contexts, and at what stage in a relationship.

I genuinely don't know, though. I'm hopeful (the Israelis do seem to get very good results once they commit themselves to a course of action) but hope is not an argument, and as far as any definite outcomes of this war I'm not trying to take intellectual responsibility for anything. If I find myself committed to a position on that I'll take it as a sign that I'm no longer thinking clearly about the subject at hand, log off and forget about the whole thing for a few weeks, until I'm ready to approach it again with fresh eyes. Actually, I am confident that they'd eventually break if Israel started carpet-bombing Tehran. But I'm assuming that the Israelis aren't willing to do that and I'm curious as to whether it's strictly necessary. Iran should end. I can state my reasons for that belief while hopping on one foot. Will it end right now, because of this? Again, all I feel confident in stating is that I hope so. I don't mean that it's a selfless action, on their part; just that we're not really helping them, despite the fact that we clearly share national interests in seeing Iran go up in flames. Exactly that. I don't have a plan. My plan would be to carpet-bomb Tehran, blow up the holiest Mosque in the country, bring their entire economy to a full halt, salt the Earth so that crops could never grow there again and see if they were ready to surrender of if they wanted more. It doesn't look like anyone's going to enact anything similar to my plan, but maybe they don't need to. Do they? Maybe they do, since members of Iran's command structure are being replaced as rapidly as Israel can assassinate them. Maybe nothing short of decimation (in the old sense of the word; a loss of ten percent) will be enough to achieve our goals. Or maybe the will to fight in Iran is such that a tricimation or bicimation is required. This is actually one of the primary reasons why I lump Russia into the same group of countries as Iran. It's not because of their domestic policies or laws (which I know very little about); it's simply because they're an unfriendly nuclear power. If they can give nukes to Iran then they can give nukes to any other petty tyrant or terrorist cell with anti-American sentiments, and that's not acceptable. The fact that you're concerned about what they might do with their nukes (and you're not wrong to be, either; it is a perfectly legitimate concern) is precisely why we can't keep pussyfooting around Putin forever. The "we can't act against him because he's too powerful" argument only works if you're refusing to consider its long-range implications. He's not going to become weaker by remaining in power for longer; he only stands to gain from procrastination and we only stand to lose. Sooner or later that particular cancer has got to be dealt with. I don't want to go on too long about Putin. He's distressing and sad to think about, and I'd prefer to dwell upon the positive vibes of Iran having finally been dealt with. But sooner or later he's got to go, too. Oh, Hell no. I'd like to think that's one lesson we all should have learned by now. One of the other benefits of glassing a place is that you don't have to give one single bullet to your future enemies. Exactly. And when you give a blackmailer what he wants, he doesn't go away; he discovers that there are more things that he wants from you. Things he didn't even know that he wanted until he realized how cheaply and easily he could make you give them up. There is a very good reason why one must never negotiate with terrorists.

Touche. Fairly confident. Not 100% but fairly high. At some point last year I was arguing with some trans activist on Twitter. He provided a list of trans people who'd been recently murdered (I think it was on Wikipedia) which I started digging into much more thoroughly than he expected, and found that the majority were of this nature. It wasn't just strangers who shouted "ho, there! A trannie!" and commenced with the murdering; it was lovers who'd discovered their deceit too late. Almost all of them were inner-city men with extensive criminal histories who murdered their inner-city trans lovers, too, which suggests something about which American subcultures consider summary execution to be an appropriate response to such deception. So although Wikipedia itself doesn't count as a proper empirical source, in a pinch I could track that list back down, chase down the proper sources and come up with some better data on it - and I'm fairly confident the proper sources would bear out what I was finding in the individually-linked Wikipedia articles. No. There probably should be some sort of legal consequence for deceiving someone into bed with you. That's not okay. That this consequence should be summary execution, though (and without even a trial) - no; that's not tenable, and I don't agree that it should count as a legitimate legal defense. Even when people are behaving immorally and genuinely mistreating you, you can't just kill them. It does speak to the legitimacy of the premise of the argument about "safety", though. It's not analogous to a Jew in a neonazi biker bar fearing for their life - so long as the trans person in question hasn't seduced an entire crowd of gullible ex-lovers. Although I suppose that partly depends on the promiscuity of the trans person in question. And in a situation where a secret trans person is in the company of their lover, and therefore has legitimate cause for concern about being "outed", that situation can only exist in part because of their own ongoing malfeasance. The better analogy would be of a woman who'd been told she could have unprotected sex with her boyfriend, since he'd already had a vasectomy, only to later discover herself several months into an unwanted pregnancy due to her boyfriend's dishonesty. Such a boyfriend doesn't deserve to have his head blown off right then and there, certainly, and yet any danger he finds himself in would be because of his own transgressions. And he would have no right to demand that some third party help to perpetuate his lie even further. That's fair.