KillingTimeItself
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)
oh cool we’re just fucking, lying now. That’s the sound level of the f35 at altitude.
“F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off”
“F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db”
“F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph”
(https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you’re wondering)
btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that’s literally because it’s the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.
What a lot of people get from this (including me) is the absurdity of military shows. Air shows are less ridiculous because planes are capable of some incredible things, but it’s still unsettling. Like gun shows or parades of duty.
if we’re talking about absurdity, you should really think about philosophy here, we’re talking about this, over the internet, using funny keyboards. This entire fucking interaction is absurdist. The very concept of a technologically influenced military is absurdist. Literally everything is absurdist.
Would you say the same thing about the moon landing? Was that absurdist? What about the pioneer and voyager satellites? Are those absurdist?
There are so many things in day to day life, and outside of it that could be considered absurdist.
We have advanced many of our societies to such a point that we might be able to do away with weapon worship entirely, so I think it’s sensible to be uncomfortable with venerating the trappings of dictators and despots.
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Call me when people stop randomly getting into fights with each other and maybe i’ll give you that point lol.
I kind of agree that militaries are still necessary, but there’s a big difference between an unfortunate but necessary thing and a celebrated thing.
yeah but why not celebrate it? In the case of the US the military is primarily volunteer based. Drafts are extremely unpopular. Should you not respect and celebrate the people that have served in the military? Does celebrating the military not directly bolster these people as well?
In the specific case here, the US military is the reason this country even exists. It’s obviously going to be a pride point of the country when it’s the entire reason we exist. As evidenced in many other countries.
I would argue that a celebrated military is better than a required and mandated military (think finland)
The difference between an F-15 and an angle grider is that the F-15 is intended to hurt people.
says who? It’s a plane, it’s the instruments on the plane that are intended to hurt people. Should we be ok with other planes like recon and spy planes? Is the U2 a martyr of service? Is the SR-71 the pinnacle of peaceful military technology? This is on it’s face a relatively silly statement.
I could very easily argue that an angle grinder was designed to injure people by proxy. It’s literally designed to remove material, or to cut material, i see no mechanism in which this can’t be applied directly to a human, and thus, it’s designed to hurt people. And it’s not just going to hurt a little bit, it’s going to really fuck your shit up. you could argue that it’s not an intended behavior, but i would disagree with you on principle of it being a tool designed to remove material, being successful at removing human material from human.
Pulling an angle grinder out of your coat isn’t as intimidating as pulling out a knife
is a knife designed explicitly to kill? Why do we have them in the kitchen then? Why do we use them outside of killing people, seems to me like you’re implying that a primary function of a knife is to hurt people. I would argue both of these things are incredibly common, a kitchen knife even more so. If we’re operating in this realm of definition. A knife would be less threatening than an angle grinder, because it’s expected that someone may have a knife, but it’s really unexpected for someone to have an angle grinder.
Also if we’re being pedantically correct here, it’s not designed to kill people, it’s designed to down other planes. Not people. It’d be a little weird to launch an f16 or an f15 specifically to target one single person.
Could you argue that the military stems from the innate human need to kill other people over conflict? Sure. Could you also argue that the only reason we have this technology we have now is because of the military and this need to kill people over conflict? Also yes. There is an extremely high link between military effectiveness, and technological advantage. This can be seen throughout human history, as well as into the industrial revolution.
GPS likely wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the USSR and the US during the cold war.
An F-15 can only destroy.
are you willing to argue that the f-15 streak eagle was designed with the explicit purpose of killing people? It’s an f15. I would also like to point out that there are training variants of the f-15 as well. Obviously not intended for real combat. There’s also really weird shit like the ASM-135 ASAT which was designed to be carried on an f-15 as an anti satellite measure. Pretty sure that’s not supposed to kill people.
This is an odd philosophical question. Because at the root here is basically the question of what came first. The knife, or killing people with a knife. The gun, or killing people with the gun. Theoretically there is a world in which you could invent from scratch, a tool used to kill people. However philosophically, you’re going to run into problems with related innovations and inventions. Is a sword entirely isolated from a spear? A spear is basically just a stick. At what point do we consider a weapon “intended to kill” and at what point is it just “a weapon, but with the ability to kill”
You would have a better time making the argument for something like a military service rifle, compared to like, a basketball. But i’m not sure that would make sense philosophically. Because you’re basically predicating the entire human race on the ability to kill other people, and if we’re doing that, then who cares.
can’t advance science, at best it can do acrobatics while being incredibly expensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD
ok.
It’s nothing more than a weapon.
no, it’s a plane, the weapons go on the plane, the Japanese may have used their planes as weapons during world war 2, but that is contrary to popular belief, not the standard mechanism for operation of a fighter jet.
oh well if we’re including civilian deaths, and you assume i’m only talking about military deaths (which afaik i wasn’t but i didn’t look too hard at the data so lmao)
This would actually only bolster my point. As it would increase the stats i’ve presented, or decrease the ones you’ve presented.
Here’s a list of zero year olds killed by the IDF in the last year. Zero year olds are not soldiers.
also to be clear, there’s like 300 names on the list.
“When Al Jazeera launched from the Qatari capital, Doha, on Friday, November 1, 1996, it was the first independent news channel in the Arab world.” cool source bro.
Shitposting aside, i have nothing to reference this number to. It’s probably high, but that’s a cost that israel is willing to take, and clearly, it’s a cost that palestine is willing to pay. Seems to me that both parties are content with the situation.
no i think i get it. I was talking about anti air defense, and you were talking about how it’s “a guarantee” which is, statistically not true. And never will be. If you would like me to directly quote it at you i can.
Maybe i’m being a bit pedantic here, but i think it’s fair given the fact that you guys refuse to use any word other than genocide, or talk about like, most actual war-crimes being committed, and instead just say genocide, which while rather amusing, means almost nothing.
Going deep into the legal definition of genocide is missing the point.
oh ok, so we shouldn’t consider the legal definition then, well let’s see what the colloquial definition is.
“Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people.”
as per the first wiki line. The whole rest of the page provides a more academic definition, and argubaly a very legal one, but we aren’t talking about that.
"genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. "
as per brittanica, one of the sources of all time.
well if we’re basing this entire feelings thing off of this definition specifically, i see no resemblance to this conflict in significant part. I see no reason to believe that israel is doing this SOLELY because muslims (or arabs or whatever)
and sure, we could consider the academic definition of it. But academics used to believe that the earth was at the center of the solar system, and that plate tectonics, wasn’t a thing. And now we do. You shouldn’t treat academics as a source of authority (this is a fallacy btw), their works, if tried and tried, proven to hold up against the rigorous test that is the universe, can be said to be, to some extent. When it comes to things like philosophy and sociology, it’s literally just write your own story line adventure game. Everyone says different things, and in some capacity, everyone is right.
We could talk about history, which would arguably be more relevant. But considering this is an active conflict, good luck trying to parse that one, you’re only going to get historical contexts with that one. Which to be fair, would help a lot.
What category it falls under doesn’t change what’s happening there and the support the US is giving it
well yeah no it would, because that’s the whole point of the legal definition, is to give it an actual conceptualization that isn’t purely based on internet conjecture and shitposting. But again, we’re not here to talk about the legal definition.
just to repeat myself here
Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.
i guess you forgot to read this part.
10% of the Gazan people are injured, missing, or dead within a year
i assume you’re pulling the 200k number? which would be 10% of 2 million. If so it’s worth noting that only 40k deaths have been confirmed, which gives us a baseline of 2.5% of the population has been killed for sure. Upwards of 10% using estimations or whatever idk where that number comes from and frankly i don’t care enough to look it up, if you would like to elaborate on it feel free.
As far as historical references go, and i’m just pulling these out of my ass (from the internet of course) so take them with a grain of salt. The soviets seem to have lost about 10% of their population during ww2. Citing wikipedia of all sources, for ww1 and ww2
Numbers between 1-5% of the population seems to be about within the range of normalcy, in fact the average of ww1 is about 2% and ww2 is about 3% 10% is high but you would expect that to be seen with smaller populations and less armed populations (for obvious reasons) generally when smaller nations conflict, they tend to have much larger (comparatively) tolls, due to the fact that they don’t have as much land, or labor capability.
Larger nations such as the US are able to keep such low numbers primarily because they don’t have to invest a significant portion of their population to make a significant troop increase.
is this bad? Probably? But then again war is bad, so… At the end of the day, this is just a risk that you take as a smaller nation, especially going against a much bigger nation.
Drag thinks Israel wants to destroy Palestine so Israel can have Palestine’s land.
and honestly. i don’t really disagree. I don’t think colonization constitutes as genocide per se however.
Drag thinks killing 10% of the Gazan people is an act intended to destroy Palestine.
Maybe, or maybe it’s just a result of how the middle eastern warring tends to go. They’ve never exactly had high standards.
Drag thinks these are the words of politicians who want to commit genocide.
if you want to argue that the politicians are shitheads, sure, i agree, they’ve definitely said some genocidal esque language, and some really spooky shit. But so have politicians in the US. Does that directly translate? Probably, at least to some degree. But policy is always going to be fundamentally different to rhetoric at the end of the day. Look no further than US domestic politics if you need an example for this.
I came here to argue against the incorrect semantic usage of the term genocide.
Almost everyone from the region
you mean the middle east? So arabs? Muslims? The exact group of people that would be vehemently opposed to literally anything slighting them in the least bit? (no shade, i mean catholocism has done about the same)
although tbf, idk much about the middle east, or it’s culture, but from what i do understand, it’s not the friendliest to people who don’t follow expected social norms.
Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.
i mean, this specific conflict is close to 100 years old by now. While i’m sure that didn’t help, and there are definitely arguments to be made about warcrimes in general. it’s pretty hard to have a complete and total view of the war, and every little indiscretion possible.
So i’m not sure that
It’s pretty clear at this point
is being said in good faith here.
Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.
