TynanSylvester

@AlanLevinovitz @jessesingal An airplane-fearing person screaming "I'm going to die!" is not "disguising" their pain as "other forms of discourse". That's physical distress over an immediate physical situation, not at all like what we were discussing.

You're erasing the line between therapy and discourse.

@AlanLevinovitz @jessesingal It's worth understanding why someone is speaking. But stating their motivations is not a response to what they're saying (no matter how dumb their logic).

That would be

So basically you're right but this isn't something that should be used in discourse.

@AlanLevinovitz @jessesingal Danger: Seem like this could be an easy way to dismiss arguments.

"You're just shouting in pain." -> acknowledge the emotions in order to ignore the logic (or whatever attempt at logic there is) without appearing openly oppositional.

@juliagalef Constructive discourse is *work*.

@urwumpe @Novbirovsk @sapinker I honestly think the only reason WW2 didn't reignite and continue to ~1955 was the Manhattan project.

@Novbirovsk @sapinker Again - the point is that it's not "amazing" that the US has a first strike doctrine.

Again - they couldn't know the USSR's thinking at the time and it's irrelevant to the point.

You seem to treat this like a game about naming logical fallacies. It's dull. Engage in good faith.

@Novbirovsk @sapinker The tangible thing is: The NATO army was weaker. That's all.

From NATO's point of view (not knowing Soviet intentions) the option of nuclear first strike was the logical reason they could feel secure in that situation. Hence it being part of doctrine.

@TheLibertonian @sapinker Thanks for adding information! To be clear: I'm not making the claim that "nukes deterred an invasion" that would've happened. I'm making the claim that it's not "amazing" NATO had a first-strike doctrine. At the time, they couldn't be sure what the Soviets were thinking.

@Novbirovsk @sapinker Nobody made the assertion that nukes "definitely" prevented a war.

I'm just saying that if you consider the strategic situation, there are straightforward, non-amazing reasons to not have a "no-first-strike" doctrine.

@Cataphract @sapinker Tying your own hands can enable forms of cooperation that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

@Novbirovsk @sapinker Well, they could've won a conventional war. They had more men, more planes, more tanks, more artillery, and the advantage of surprise.

Of course I can't know what they were thinking; nobody can.

I'm only saying the US nuclear doctrine isn't "amazing".

@Novbirovsk @sapinker Threat of conventional world war doesn't stop dictators if they think they will win.

This should be clear given that the last world war was started by a dictator who thought he would win.

(The USSR would have won conventional war in Europe; this isn't controversial AFAIK.)

@sapinker It's not amazing. It's the only thing that deterred the USSR from invading Europe.

NATO conventional forces could never have stopped them - but the threat to nuke their armies did (not nuke their cities - their armies).

It may play a similar role in the future with China.

A version of StarCraft but you're limited to a pool of clicks that increases at 1 click per second (up to a max of 10).

Would probably be a lot more relaxing.

@LadyAllowyn Excellent to hear :)

@thatJaneNg Curds is a really good sign! Never seen that outside Canada. You should give it a shot! Let us know if it's properly squeaky.

@thatJaneNg I basically do this with poutine in every city I've lived in (though it doesn't really work outside Canada sadly).

Mac+cheese sounds fun. You could just order every type online and try them all.

@RoboB0b_ Thanks :)