Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

World War II and the Holocaust also played a big role in shaping modern civilisation. I don't think anyone would describe them as "helpful".

I think that depends on how you define helpful and how one measures the aftereffects of the war and for how long they are measured.

For example, within twenty-five years there were two devastating major wars on European soil. But after WWII, with the evolvement of the two superpowers and a bipolar world, there were none. That could be argued as being a helpful development. The technological advancements made during he war and the economic boom in North America afterwards, those could also be argued as being positive outcomes from WWII.

The question is whether such positive developments were worth the pain of the war years.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I think that depends on how you define helpful and how one measures the aftereffects of the war and for how long they are measured.

For example, within twenty-five years there were two devastating major wars on European soil. But after WWII, with the evolvement of the two superpowers and a bipolar world, there were none. That could be argued as being a helpful development. The technological advancements made during he war and the economic boom in North America afterwards, those could also be argued as being positive outcomes from WWII.

The question is whether such positive developments were worth the pain of the war years.

Don't forget that the post-WWII years were defined by the Cold War - an insane escalation of the most destructive weapons ever invented.

That can never be called "helpful" by any standards.

[LostAngeles]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

Where does one go to earn a degree as a ****ing engineer? Hmmm?

And keep away from me with those calipers. It's cold out here. That's all.

While I'm certain that UCLA's program is superior, I would suggest you check with the University of Southern California.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Don't forget that the post-WWII years were defined by the Cold War - an insane escalation of the most destructive weapons ever invented.

That can never be called "helpful" by any standards.

NASA came out of it, didn't it?

I'd call landing on the moon and exploring space to be pretty amazing achievements. I don't think that NASA would have had the push nor the funding had the cold war not occurred. Actually, NASA might not even be around in the first place.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

NASA came out of it, didn't it?

I'd call landing on the moon and exploring space to be pretty amazing achievements. I don't think that NASA would have had the push nor the funding had the cold war not occurred. Actually, NASA might not even be around in the first place.

Why do you think that?

Scientific progress can't happen without an insane arms race?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Don't forget that the post-WWII years were defined by the Cold War - an insane escalation of the most destructive weapons ever invented.

And yet there were never used in a conflict between the two superpowers, and no continent-wide war was fought on European soil as had happened in 1914-18 and 1939-45. That was certainly a positive development.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Why do you think that?

At the practical level, the U.S. space program was heavily reliant on Wernher von Braun to develop its rockets. He got his rocket expertise building the V-2 for the Third Reich, and had it not been for Reich's desire for a vengeance weapon, von Braun wouldn't have gotten the chance to build rockets. So, no war, von Braun probably doesn't get to build rockets at anything like the scale he did during the war, and he doesn't go over to the U.S. side at war's end.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Scientific progress can't happen without an insane arms race?

It can, but generally it's a lot slower. Military necessity and the funds which can be made available are two things which greatly spur technological development in wartime.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Why do you think that?

Scientific progress can't happen without an insane arms race?

It can, but can you give me a single reason why NASA would have had the funding that it never had again?

After the cold war, NASA funding went down astronomically (har har). Coincidence?

Sometimes people need to feel threatened in order to really crank out their work. There's quite a difference in policy when, say, the world will end in 1000 years, and when the world will end in 10.

Policies tend to get more desperate, get more funding, and get more attention the more up close and personal they tend to become. It is no different with the cold war and NASA competition.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the scented bubble bath water with the mutated devil baby.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

While I'm certain that UCLA's program is superior, I would suggest you check with the University of Southern California.

I am just trying to picture the licensing exam . . .

[Kimpatsu]

Originally Posted by andyandy

the guardian comment blog is on fire over this one

Search the blog for my reply to the stupid bugger.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

And yet there were never used in a conflict between the two superpowers, and no continent-wide war was fought on European soil as had happened in 1914-18 and 1939-45. That was certainly a positive development.

For a very good reason: A war would mean immense destruction of whole civilizations.

A "positive" development? No, an insane risk.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

At the practical level, the U.S. space program was heavily reliant on Wernher von Braun to develop its rockets. He got his rocket expertise building the V-2 for the Third Reich, and had it not been for Reich's desire for a vengeance weapon, von Braun wouldn't have gotten the chance to build rockets. So, no war, von Braun probably doesn't get to build rockets at anything like the scale he did during the war, and he doesn't go over to the U.S. side at war's end.

The Soviets were heavily into rocket development way before WWII, and generally kicked the United States' ass with their space program, until the Americans finally got their heads out of their asses. Braun started working on rockets way before WWII as well.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

It can, but generally it's a lot slower. Military necessity and the funds which can be made available are two things which greatly spur technological development in wartime.

We are not in an arms race today, yet science is progressing at an astounding pace, never seen before. Perhaps it is when science is not hindered by military requirements (and limitations) that science progresses the best?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

It can, but can you give me a single reason why NASA would have had the funding that it never had again?

While there is some commitment to military research, NASA is primarily the public space program.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

After the cold war, NASA funding went down astronomically (har har). Coincidence?

Funding of NASA has waxed and waned ever since its initiation. The moon missions were cancelled after 1972, and the Soviets stopped their moon exploration in 1976.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Sometimes people need to feel threatened in order to really crank out their work. There's quite a difference in policy when, say, the world will end in 1000 years, and when the world will end in 10.

Policies tend to get more desperate, get more funding, and get more attention the more up close and personal they tend to become. It is no different with the cold war and NASA competition.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the scented bubble bath water with the mutated devil baby.

As we have seen in recent years of scientific progress, there is no reason to create a mutated devil baby, in order to get the scented bubble bath.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

While there is some commitment to military research, NASA is primarily the public space program.

That's a weak argument.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Funding of NASA has waxed and waned ever since its initiation. The moon missions were cancelled after 1972, and the Soviets stopped their moon exploration in 1976.

...And?

Are you seriously saying that the push for going to the moon would have been just the same without the cold war?

Haha.

Go kill your invisible air marshals, Larsen.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

That's a weak argument.

Facts are never weak arguments.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

...And?

Are you seriously saying that the push for going to the moon would have been just the same without the cold war?

Nobody will ever know that. The push for the moon was, however, very much a publicity issue: The US had been left behind by the Soviet space program, and there was a tremendous pressure to beat the Rooskies in space, too.

Are you going to ignore the vast progress science is making today, after the Cold War?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Facts are never weak arguments.

Facts that are not correctly used, do not support weak arguments.

Quote:

Nobody will ever know that.

Yet, any reasonable person could certainly make the guess.

Quote:

Are you going to ignore the vast progress science is making today, after the Cold War?

Are you ignoring the sheer cost of the moon missions, and the relatively short space of time they were accomplished in?

That was a lot more funding and resources -- not to mention top Air Force personnel -- than your average science project.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Facts that are not correctly used, do not support weak arguments.

How is using the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, not "correct"?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Yet, any reasonable person could certainly make the guess.

A guess is all it would be. However, the fact that science is progressing immensely today speaks against scientific progress happening fast because of military-backing.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Are you ignoring the sheer cost of the moon missions, and the relatively short space of time they were accomplished in?

That was a lot more funding and resources -- not to mention top Air Force personnel -- than your average science project.

I am not ignoring anything.

Are you going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war?

Or are you going to ignore it again?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

How is using the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, not "correct"?

You still don't get it? Ah well, no worries, someday you'll grow up and understand. The rate of progression is the key here, not to mention the funding, speed of missions, and people involved (not to mention government funding).

By the way, don't bother PMing me again. Anything I have to say to you, I will say in public.

I reserve my PM box for hot skeptichicks. Or cool dudes. You don't fall into either category.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You still don't get it? Ah well, no worries, someday you'll grow up and understand. The rate of progression is the key here, not to mention the funding, speed of missions, and people involved (not to mention government funding).

You are not going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, then.

I can see why: It totally destroys your argument.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

You are not going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, then.

I have addressed it. Progression is still key. The rate of progress involved in the moon missions during the cold war is greater than almost any route of scientific expidition. In sheer manpower, man hours, costs, future tech (using the first portable camera for instance), and highest trained personnel, no scientific endeavor has had a greater push.

Furthermore, the mission was different than almost any other scientific expedition. It was going to a place no man (well, besides the russian military) had gone before, and was an incredibly risky and dangerous mission -- we had to have a lot of our top scientists to just figure out if man could even be in space without having his head explode.

Then there was the sheer number of missions, as well as different rockets we used, not to mention the differing roster, picking amongst the top Air Force pilots.

You can't list a single modern scientific endeavor that involves all of this. Not a single one.

The moon missions were unique, and always will be.

Quote:

I can see why: It totally destroys your argument.

No it doesn't.

Also, I warned you already, I'll warn you again, just in case you missed the PM:

Please stop PMing me. If you do not, I will report your PMs to a mod.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I have addressed it. Progression is still key. The rate of progress involved in the moon missions during the cold war is greater than almost any route of scientific expidition. In sheer manpower, man hours, costs, future tech (using the first portable camera for instance), and highest trained personnel, no scientific endeavor has had a greater push.

Furthermore, the mission was different than almost any other scientific expedition. It was going to a place no man (well, besides the russian military) had gone before, and was an incredibly risky and dangerous mission -- we had to have a lot of our top scientists to just figure out if man could even be in space without having his head explode.

Then there was the sheer number of missions, as well as different rockets we used, not to mention the differing roster, picking amongst the top Air Force pilots.

And then, no more moon missions. In fact, the moon was virtually forgotten by NASA. Why, if the moon missions were so crucial to the military?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You can't list a single modern scientific endeavor that involves all of this. Not a single one.

The moon missions were unique, and always will be.

Look, are you arguing that the moon missions happened because of a scientific push or a military push?

What about the push for the moon today? No cold war. Mars?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. We see scientific progress like never before, without military backing.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Also, I warned you already, I'll warn you again, just in case you missed the PM:

Please stop PMing me. If you do not, I will report your PMs to a mod.

Like I said in the PM, please do. PM'ing people is not against the rules. By not putting me on ignore (anymore), you have also allowed me to PM you.

You are always free to ignore my PMs or, of course, to put me on ignore altogether.

Don't forget that the reason I did PM you, was to prevent you from derailing the thread with your lie. That you make new accusations against me via PM, without bothering to justify them, is your problem. Not mine.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

And then, no more moon missions. In fact, the moon was virtually forgotten by NASA. Why, if the moon missions were so crucial to the military?

They were crucial towards beating the russians, and demonstrating superior technology.

Quote:

Look, are you arguing that the moon missions happened because of a scientific push or a military push?

I don't have to argue for either. It was both.

NASA was developed under Dwight D. Eisenhower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA

It's an agency of the United States Government, developed in a time of cold war, during a time when we felt like we had to beat the Russians to the moon, and accomplish many mission objectives before they did so. Anyone that knows anything about NASA, and did the most preliminary research, would know this.

Please explore and study the subject before we continue. I have no interest to educate every elementary school student that decides to sign up.

Quote:

What about the push for the moon today? No cold war. Mars?

The funding today is crap.

Research the subject, then we'll talk.

Quote:

Of course it does. We see scientific progress like never before, without military backing.

You really don't get it, do you? Oh well, some people are terminally hopeless.

Quote:

Like I said in the PM, please do.

Done.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

They were crucial towards beating the russians, and demonstrating superior technology.

Beating the Russians in getting to the moon, yes.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I don't have to argue for either. It was both.

NASA was developed under Dwight D. Eisenhower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA

It's an agency of the United States Government, developed in a time of cold war, during a time when we felt like we had to beat the Russians to the moon, and accomplish many mission objectives before they did so. Anyone that knows anything about NASA, and did the most preliminary research, would know this.

Please explore and study the subject before we continue. I have no interest to educate every elementary school student that decides to sign up.

That would be someone other than me.

I follow space exploration quite closely, and have since the first moon missions. Some of the earliest memories I have of television is of the moon missions. I specifically remember the first one: Everyone was watching it. I mean everyone. We were glued to the telly during the launch, and later the landing, where we watched in wonder at the images. We went out at gazed up at the moon, and marvelled at the fact that, right up there, right now, there were people walking on the moon.

If you have never experienced that, you missed out on one fantastic experience.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

The funding today is crap.

Research the subject, then we'll talk.

Had you done that, you will find that NASA funding peaked around 1966, took a dip after the moon missions, but started to rise again. Today, it is increasing again, due to Bush's plan to return to the moon, and later Mars.

But no cold war.

[Lonewulf]

Okay, so your contention is that, without the cold war, the funding would have been exactly the same, NASA would still have been formed, and we would have had our rockets?

Okay.

BTW, this chart seems intriguing to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...negraph_BH.PNG

I notice a really huge spike during the Apollo missions. Funding never got back to that, it seems. Care to explain?

But yes, if the funding was exactly the same, then I offer for you to go to www.badastronomy.com to edumucate the people there. Common knowledge on that website is that funding never got back to the way it was during the cold war. According to you, that doesn't quite seem to be the case, or else you wouldn't actually think you had a point.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Okay, so your contention is that, without the cold war, the funding would have been exactly the same, NASA would still have been formed, and we would have had our rockets?

Okay.

No, that's not what I am saying. Read my post #52: We can't know what the funding would have been like.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

BTW, this chart seems intriguing to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...negraph_BH.PNG

I notice a really huge spike during the Apollo missions. Funding never got back to that, it seems. Care to explain?

Delighted to:

Quote:

As this chart shows, NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo.
...
Using the Consumer Price Index, it would work out to about $136 billion in contemporary dollars -- but this would not be a very good measure since the CPI does not reflect the cost of rockets and launch pads.
Source

You will not have noticed that the link is the same as I posted in post #60, because you clearly don't bother to read the sources handed to you.

Building the organisation, the launch pads, the whole infrastructure, and so on, always costs a bundle. E.g., the Vehicle Assembly Building only had to built once, in 1966. Still among the biggest buildings in the world.

Try to read that link, at the very least.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

But yes, if the funding was exactly the same, then I offer for you to go to www.badastronomy.com to edumucate the people there. Common knowledge on that website is that funding never got back to the way it was during the cold war. According to you, that doesn't quite seem to be the case, or else you wouldn't actually think you had a point.

Again, that's not what I am saying. You would know that, had you bothered to read the links I provided.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

No, that's not what I am saying. Read my post #52: We can't know what the funding would have been like.

I do believe my educated guess is accurate.

Quote:

You will not have noticed that the link is the same as I posted in post #60, because you clearly don't bother to read the sources handed to you.

Building the organisation, the launch pads, the whole infrastructure, and so on, always costs a bundle. E.g., the Vehicle Assembly Building only had to built once, in 1966. Still among the biggest buildings in the world.

Try to read that link, at the very least.

And where did the funding for all of that infrastructure materialize in such a short amount of time? God?

Personally, I think of wars as bringing somewhat of an idiot savanteness to society. Society tends to suck at some areas of scientific/technological expertise (such as environmental or peacetime applications), but at the same time increases at a rapid rate of progression (relative to peacetime efforts) down certain areas that are either vital or connected to the war.

Oh, and by the way, I decided that I would finally go back to your point here:

Quote:

You are not going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, then.

I will say this:

Science is progressing still. I have never denied that, and to do so, is to commit a strawman fallacy.

Science is progressing, but it has it's lows and it's ups. Just like the funding of NASA projects.

During warfare, that idiot savanteness I explained tends to kick in; NASA was given a huge jumpstart that it never would have gotten without any sort of cold war.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I do believe my educated guess is accurate.

It is contradicted by the present rate of scientific progress.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

And where did the funding for all of that infrastructure materialize in such a short amount of time? God?

The American tax payers, of course.

Do you acknowledge that it took a lot of funds to build the infrastructure of NASA, and that explains the huge funding in those years?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Personally, I think of wars as bringing somewhat of an idiot savanteness to society. Society tends to suck at some areas of scientific/technological expertise (such as environmental or peacetime applications), but at the same time increases at a rapid rate of progression (relative to peacetime efforts) down certain areas that are either vital or connected to the war.

Surely, you are not saying that we should have a war now and then, just to progress science?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Oh, and by the way, I decided that I would finally go back to your point here:

I will say this:

Science is progressing still. I have never denied that, and to do so, is to commit a strawman fallacy.

Where has anyone claimed you don't say that science is progressing still?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Science is progressing, but it has it's lows and it's ups. Just like the funding of NASA projects.

During warfare, that idiot savanteness I explained tends to kick in; NASA was given a huge jumpstart that it never would have gotten without any sort of cold war.

That is your claim, which is contradicted by the present rate of scientific progress. Just like the current funding of NASA projects.

[Lonewulf]

Quote:

The American tax payers, of course.

The American tax payers... given to them... by...?

Who takes the taxes and distributes them? Want a tip? It starts with a g.

Quote:

Do you acknowledge that it took a lot of funds to build the infrastructure of NASA, and that explains the huge funding in those years?

I acknowledge that the infrastructure may have had a high cost, yes. That does not change where the money came from, nor does it change the willingness of the government to pay that money. Do you recognize that the government was willing to pay out a huge amount of funding in a short amount of time during the time of the cold war, or do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Surely, you are not saying that we should have a war now and then, just to progress science?

No, I am not saying that. That is a patently ridiculous idea. Go figure that "kill the air marshals!" Larsen would have come to this conclusion.

I am stating that, during a time of war, technology progression along a certain line tends to be faster than outside of a time of war. That does not mean that a time of war is preferable. It also is costly, requiring much expenditure -- not just on the scientific and technological endeavors, but losses during combat. Not to mention the cost in human life.

Just because I recognize a fact (that there is a greater drive to accomplish certain objectives during conflict), does not mean that I say that we need to reenact such facts. A skeptic would be able to recognize that, and I know how you like to think that you're actually a skeptic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

The American tax payers... given to them... by...?

Who takes the taxes and distributes them? Want a tip? It starts with a g.

The government. But you asked where the money materialized from, not who distributed them.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I acknowledge that the infrastructure may have had a high cost, yes.

"May"? Why don't you read the links I gave you, e.g., the one with the biiiiig building?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

That does not change where the money came from, nor does it change the willingness of the government to pay that money. Do you recognize that the government was willing to pay out a huge amount of funding in a short amount of time during the time of the cold war, or do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Of course it was willing to do that. Who has been arguing otherwise?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

No, I am not saying that. That is a patently ridiculous idea. Go figure that "kill the air marshals!" Larsen

Stop lying. I never said any such thing, and you know it.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

would have come to this conclusion.

Try to understand the difference between a question and a conclusion. I asked if you were saying it. I didn't say that you were saying it.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I am stating that, during a time of war, technology progression along a certain line tends to be faster than outside of a time of war. That does not mean that a time of war is preferable. It also is costly, requiring much expenditure -- not just on the scientific and technological endeavors, but losses during combat. Not to mention the cost in human life.

Just because I recognize a fact (that there is a greater drive to accomplish certain objectives during conflict), does not mean that I say that we need to reenact such facts. A skeptic would be able to recognize that, and I know how you like to think that you're actually a skeptic.

A skeptic would be able to recognize that I never said you did think this.

Now, do you have something new to bring to the table?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

The government. But you asked where the money materialized from, not who distributed them.

Good! Gooood! You're getting there, Larsen!

Now... why were they willing to budget a large amount of money in a short amount of time?

Quote:

Of course it was willing to do that. Who has been arguing otherwise?

Then what the hell is your point? Honestly?

Quote:

Stop lying. I never said any such thing, and you know it.

I beg to differ.

Evidence: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055

Quote:

Try to understand the difference between a question and a conclusion. I asked if you were saying it. I didn't say that you were saying it.

Your question was a stupid question.

Quote:

A skeptic would be able to recognize that I never said you did think this.

Then your question was a stupid question.

But okay, I'll be nice.

No, I have never stated that a war should be started for technological or scientific progress. That has never been my point, nor any point of a poster within here. Further, there was no reason to assume that that point was being made. It will never be a point.

Quote:

Now, do you have something new to bring to the table?

I don't need to bring anything new to the table. I've said nothing but facts during this conversation. You seemingly disagree with nothing.

You admit that there was a huge amount of funding during the cold war.

One of the factors, if not the main factor, for that funding was the cold war, to beat out the russians in timetables.

You haven't been arguing any particular point. You've been specifically arguing just to argue. I think you get off on it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I beg to differ.

Evidence: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055

Nowhere do I say that.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I don't need to bring anything new to the table.

No, you choose to lie and be rude. Have a nice day, then.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Nowhere do I say that.

You said you would kill an air marshal. Let me quote you:

Quote:

I'll kill the f***er. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

Like I said, go kill your air marshals.

Quote:

No, you choose to lie and be rude. Have a nice day, then.

Ciao.

Come back when you actually have a point...

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You said you would kill an air marshal. Let me quote you:

Like I said, go kill your air marshals.

I specifically said that there was no time to find out if he was an air marshal or not.

So, I did not say I would kill an air marshal.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I specifically said that there was no time to find out if he was an air marshal or not.

So, I did not say I would kill an air marshal.

You said you would kill someone, that may or may not be an air marshal, and brought up air marshals specifically within your argument, saying that you would, indeed, kill them if you found out if they had a gun.

So yes. You said you would kill an air marshal.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You said you would kill someone, that may or may not be an air marshal, and brought up air marshals specifically within your argument, saying that you would, indeed, kill them if you found out if they had a gun.

So yes. You said you would kill an air marshal.

Wrong.

Work on your logical skills.

[strathmeyer]

Claus, you do realize that we don't live in the magical world inside your head, and can actually go read what you wrote and make up our minds for ourself. Why aren't you able to stray away from posts that make you look stupid? I've learned to do it, you can, too.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Wrong.

Work on your logical skills.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I'll kill the f***er. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by strathmeyer

Claus, you do realize that we don't live in the magical world inside your head, and can actually go read what you wrote and make up our minds for ourself. Why aren't you able to stray away from posts that make you look stupid? I've learned to do it, you can, too.

I am not conjuring a magical world that exists inside my head. I am describing a scenario.

People can call it imaginary, unrealistic, whatever. But what people can't do, is change the scenario and then claim I am wrong - or whatever adjective they want to use.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I challenge you to find where I say it is known that he is an air marshal.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I challenge you to find where I say it is known that he is an air marshal.

Killing someone is okay if you don't know who they are?

Okay, I'll go shoot some arab. He COULD be a terrorist, I don't know. Therefore, it's justified.

Same argument, honestly.

Seriously, you want to argue this, let's go back to the appropriate thread and revive it. Otherwise, either make your point or... well... continue to post pointlessly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Killing someone is okay if you don't know who they are?

Okay, I'll go shoot some arab. He COULD be a terrorist, I don't know. Therefore, it's justified.

Same argument, honestly.

Seriously, you want to argue this, let's go back to the appropriate thread and revive it. Otherwise, either make your point or... well... continue to post pointlessly.

I have made my case in the thread.

What, no evidence from you where I say it is known that he is an air marshal?

Why am I not surprised?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I have made my case in the thread.

And what a fine job you did of that. I meant the original topic, involving war and the cold war, not your mindless derail.

Quote:

What, no evidence from you where I say it is known that he is an air marshal?

I do not need to give evidence of something I never claimed.

You said you would kill someone in a particular situation, even if it was an air
marshal.

Here, I'll refresh your spotty memory:

Quote:

Think "Sky Marshalls"? Think that guns on a plane is a good idea?

Sorry, I don't have time for that. I don't have time to even contemplate the possibility of him being a "good guy". It takes less than 5 minutes to fly from any NY airport to WTC, and I do not have time to check with authorities to see if the guy with the gun is a "good guy" or not.

I'll kill the f***er. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

So yes. You would kill sky marshals. In a particular situation. There's your proof, there's your evidence.

Now, please go pathetically defend your point in the appropriate thread. I'm done with you.

Quote:

Why am I not surprised?

I don't know, but I'm certainly not. You still have yet to have even the most cursory of debating skills.

Please go and let the grown-ups talk, m'kay?

Either that, or return to the cold war debate, which you so thoroughly lost.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

And what a fine job you did of that. I meant the original topic, involving war and the cold war, not your mindless derail.

You brought up the air marshal issue. If you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up. Especially when it turns out you can't back up your claim with evidence.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I do not need to give evidence of something I never claimed.

(cough)

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You said you would kill an air marshal.

That's as clear as it gets.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You said you would kill someone in a particular situation, even if it was an air
marshal.

Here, I'll refresh your spotty memory:


Now, please go pathetically defend your point in the appropriate thread. I'm done with you.

I specifically say that there is no time to find out whether he is an air marshal or not. Therefore, I don't know that he is an air marshal.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I don't know, but I'm certainly not. You still have yet to have even the most cursory of debating skills.

Please go and let the grown-ups talk, m'kay?

Still only lies and rudeness from you. And certainly no evidence.

Oh, well.

[Corsair 115]

First, please note that you incorrectly attributed the last two quotes in your reply as being mine. Those were not my statements, they were Lonewulf's.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

For a very good reason: A war would mean immense destruction of whole civilizations.

And WWII didn't devastate the societies and nations of Europe?

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

The Soviets were heavily into rocket development way before WWII, and generally kicked the United States' ass with their space program, until the Americans finally got their heads out of their asses.

The U.S. very nearly was the first nation to put a man into space. Alan Shepard was originally slated to go on a sub-orbital flight in March of 1961, but concerns over the reliability of the booster postponed his mission in order to get in one more unmanned test flight. In the interim, Gagarin went up on his orbital flight in April, thus scoring for the Soviets the prize of being the first to put a man into space.

Even in the midst of the space race, Korolev was greatly hampered by a lack of resources from the Soviet government. It's a testament to his abilities that the Soviets were able to do as much in space flights as they did.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Braun started working on rockets way before WWII as well.

"Working" on rockets privately is not quite the same thing as the government coming up to you and offering you billions of dollars to build rockets and make them work in a short timeframe.