Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 477

On July 23 2016 07:45 OtherWorld wrote:
Why has the UK supposedly adopted the metric system, while literally everything is still measured in Imperial units (speed limits, etc)?

On July 23 2016 02:44 farvacola wrote:
I would file a complaint if I were you. Not sure how it would work in Canada, but in most US states, that'd trigger an inspection and it sounds like they might find some shit. Hard to say if anything would come of that though.

On July 22 2016 23:25 KwarK wrote:
I really cannot understand how you're possibly not getting this. I cannot conceive of any way an intelligent being could not understand this scenario but to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll try again.

MAD is a state of peace created between two hostile powers through the assurance that any attack will be met with the full destruction of your state, in the knowledge that it'll leave their state also destroyed. The purpose of MAD is not that both states are destroyed, it is that neither are destroyed. The goal is not mutually assured destruction, the goal is peace through the threat of destruction. Let us define it as follows "A state of peace maintained by an assurance of apocalyptic consequences should either party violate the peace".

Now, to the bit you're getting confused by.

If one party launches then at this point MAD has already failed. The objective of MAD is not to destroy both parties, it is to destroy neither party. Once one party has launched the peace is violated and MAD is obsolete. It doesn't matter why one party launched, maybe it was computer error, maybe they created an automated counteroffensive mechanism which had a buggy detection system, maybe they thought the moon was a NATO strike, maybe they just wanted everyone to die, at this point it doesn't make any difference at all. MAD is a strategy for avoiding a nuclear strike, if a nuclear strike has happened then the MAD rulebook no longer applies because no amount of proving that your second strike is every bit as apocalyptic can undo their first strike. Their first strike has already been launched.

I'm not saying that one ought not to follow the strategy of MAD to the utmost before the enemy has launched, making assurances of the dire consequences and ensuring full second strike capability with protocols in place to guarantee the destruction of the enemy should they strike. You should absolutely do that. MAD depends on that stuff to endure. But the success condition for MAD is "nobody launches". The entire policy of MAD has no success condition after one party has already launched due to causality.


This isn't philosophical or even very confusing. If the success condition for MAD has already been rendered unobtainable due to causality then continuing to follow it with no hope of achieving that success is absurd. No amount of launching a devastating second strike is going to unlaunch their first strike, at that point you're just killing people. That you'd still do it on principle, even when the stakes were escalated to the extinction of the entire species, is baffling to me. This isn't a complicated game theory situation. Hell, make a game theory box.

Box---------------------------------------Party A launches------------------Party A does not launch
Party B launches--------------------Extinction of humanity-----------Half humanity wiped out
Party B does not launch----------Half humanity wiped out--------Peace


Obviously you want the 4th box, peace. But once party A launches you're restricted to just picking your favourite of the two policies. I am really not sure how you can possibly not be understanding this.

On July 23 2016 18:22 xM(Z wrote:

aergsaegscdtyjy.
my MAD does not fail, ever; its success is inherent/intrinsic.
so, i will never accept your fail MAD shenanigans because my MAD does not fail; it's an automatic counter response which can not fail. if you shoot, i shoot; success.
the end.

now, you can ditch you whole MAD bs and completely remove it from the argument; neither sides has heard nor dreamt of MAD but they're aware of each others capabilities.
after one side shoots, i'd inquire whether or not the one/ones doing the shooting are representative of their entire population.
- if at > 66% pro-bombing, i'll retaliate, no fucks given.
- if at >33% but < 66% pro-bombing, i'll probably flip a goddamn coin.
- if at < 33% pro-bombing(making the ones shooting some fucking retard extremists of sorts), i'll not retaliate.
- if i won't know/i wouldn't be given the numbers, i will retaliate because i'll never leave a future in the hands of some Hitlers wannabees(out of principle and because your hopes and dreams will not convince me that they're worth saving).
(note: the idea that i would be given bs numbers just because, is off the table).

@farv + Show Spoiler +

On July 23 2016 18:22 xM(Z wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
- if i won't know/i wouldn't be given the numbers, i will retaliate because i'll never leave a future in the hands of some Hitlers wannabees(out of principle and because your hopes and dreams will not convince me that they're worth saving).
(note: the idea that i would be given bs numbers just because, is off the table).

@farv + Show Spoiler +

On July 24 2016 16:23 xM(Z wrote:
not accepting it is not the same as getting it wrong or not getting it.
i made you rephrase it once(for many of you who didn't know, this started in the UK politics thread with nukes) and i figured i could do it again; i wanted to emphasize the binarism of your logic but for some reason you felt pinned, with nowhere left to go and kept going in circles.
0 = do nothing = good = with us
1 = bomb = bad = against us

On July 24 2016 16:23 xM(Z wrote:
not accepting it is not the same as getting it wrong or not getting it.
i made you rephrase it once(for many of you who didn't know, this started in the UK politics thread with nukes) and i figured i could do it again; i wanted to emphasize the binarism of your logic but for some reason you felt pinned, with nowhere left to go and kept going in circles.
0 = do nothing = good = with us
1 = bomb = bad = against us

On July 24 2016 19:57 TMagpie wrote:


Dong nothing =\= good
Bombing =\= bad

Both options have good and bad things about them, and hence is the point of the dialogue.

It is true that doing nothing => moralistic and bombing "because of" revenge => emotional, but philosophical discussions needs more reason than either of those base conclusions.

As an example, most people would bomb back because they either underestimate their firepower or because they want vengeance. But are those reasons correct? Are there better reasons to fire back? Is a species on this planet with the power to destroy it worth still having on this planet? Etc....

The opposite would be the same--if you were the type to not shoot back, would it be because of logic or would it be because of you're moralism? Would it be because you don't like the idea of blood in your hands? Are those good enough reasons to allow psychopaths to rule the world? Etc....

On July 26 2016 17:30 xM(Z wrote:

there was really nothing philosophical about how the original premise was set up. kwark was just teaching someone a lesson so 0 = do nothing = good = with us / 1 = bomb = bad = against us was about the intent of the argument, assumed or otherwise.

you kill that intent from the start with Dong nothing =\= good, Bombing =\= bad which starts a different thing all together.
so to your point, the side doing the bombing would commit genocide which is an act of war which carries a life imprisonment or death sentence. so you'd be within current laws to play the judge, the jury, the executioner and kill them. the end.
you can then try and go all philosophical on it with the likes of -but would you?, -but should you?; but then you'd need to assign value to ... things and from your perspective, a mere mortal, you can't do that objectively(and that's your blame game, in which everyone gets to be stupid for choosing the wrong way based on ... perspectives).

to somewhat salvage the argument, the only interesting part(to me) would be talking about the justification of ones action and not the action itself. a.k.a., the why?.
why would you kill them vs why would you not kill them. that could quickly turn into a child's play of sorts: because i hope this, because i dream that, because i assume that, because i would not be physically and psychologically able to commit murder ... etc; interesting still.
(note: be observer, run futures: GG)
(note1: human empathy is limited so you can not use it to justify the fate of billions because even if you pretend to care, you're not biologically able to, in any meaningful way)

For example, you feel that the question is inherently moralistic and is meant to attack people like you for being okay with pushing the button. That's fascinating to me, because I myself would not care what they thought of my answer. It is revealing of how you think of both yourself and how you think of how you are perceived by others within this specific community group.