Message from @Xaverius
Discord ID: 680075121972740165
What I find insulting is your willingness to proclaim NAP for the preservation of Liberty, yet you label the defender against the initiator of aggression as the aggressor.
Why the double-standard?
It means you're a coward, and your values, my values, our values, will be erased from this plane of existence, if you're unwilling to defend them.
NAP is about self-defense, and we have agreed, because our combined strength can provide for mutual defense, to defend one another from initiators of force. You cannot preserve this idea of a non-aggression principle, if you are unwilling to defend yourself. What do you not understand about that?
In my interpretation, the person suggesting to me is saying that I am lesser than a brave person who doesn't measure up to the situation and is most likely to be defeated.
As you suggested to me, I suppose you consider my abilities to stand up for what I believe lesser than what you'd deem sufficient.
I think that was an insult but you are trying to weasel your way out here.
Sorry man, these things make me lose respect for people, in this case for your argumentation as well.
How is it, when a Western nation engages in defense against a conventional assault, we are the aggressors in your mind?
It's entirely illogical, and you hide behind the NAP, misappropriating the concept, as if it justifies your position, when you're in direct conflict with the NAP.
If you don't defend yourself, you're not even adhering to the NAP.
I do not need to weasel my way out of anything; your cowardice is self-evident, as bad as Democratic and University intellectuals during the Cold War, who would've allowed the Soviet Union to swallow the globe and deliver us the final ultimatum after our complete isolation, militarily, diplomatically, and economically, @Sq crcl. *That* is what's insulting, because it goes directly against your interests, my interests, and with it, that of our species.
The only reason to support NAP is for the preservation of sovereignty, with it Liberty, yet you seem to be lacking the awareness the very values which underpin any reason to support NAP are eliminated by deeming any act of defense as an act of aggression, taken on our part against an initiator of force/aggressor, are eliminated. It's fundamentally contrary to the concept.
The press release is very transparent, good job! Singapore is definitely taking it seriously and is cooperating as much as possible.
From my friend's lawyer friend on an upcoming New Zealand copyright law change:
If you want to register a trademark or copyright a brand name or logo and you want to use the name New Zealand or NZ, you must also include Aotearoa (the Maori name for New Zealand). So if you want to reference the country in your trademark, you can use Aotearoa on its own. You can use Aotearoa NZ. But you will no longer be allowed to use NZ on its own otherwise your patent could be declined
Because foreign countries that trade with us and buy our goods know us as NZ, if we make it so that Aotearoa is acceptable but not the English, nobody knows what Aotearoa is outside NZ so they will fail to recognise our product and stop buying it
I think what they don't understand is literally nobody outside NZ cares about Maori. China certainly doesn't.
U-huu....
What's going on down there, pal?
Sounds nuts
Imagine having to relearn all the names of the countries in their native tongue, including the 'ko'
@Jeremy
Your analysis is a bit shallow. From a national security standpoint our borders are Mexico Canada and fish. And above and below the fish we have overwhelming military superiority. Given that this is 2/3 of the planet and we are 4% of its population clearly yes allies are a good idea. But they must *Allies*.
Allies have a common interest. They have a meaningful military capability and the willingness to use it. For some of our 'allies' this applies but for most it does not.
@Jym,
I did not argue against that, however. In fact, I argued exactly what you've written, but there are those, such as Sq crcl, claiming an allied defensive use of force, whereupon taken in the course of time such an aggressor initiates against one, is an indistinguishable act of aggression, as though the defender is the initiator. To claim this, however, one must dispose of the NAP, itself, and likewise, the people of another geography beyond our borders, asking for our assistance, in the event they are unable to overthrow a government which has or is eliminating their liberties, would be an act of defense.
Governments do not have inherent sovereignty, individuals do, and for a State to possess sovereignty, it must be instituted with the explicit purpose of preserving the sovereignty and operate at the consent of those governed, liberty not present when one is not conjoined to the other, thus rendering the "State" and its organs as an illegitimate occupier of a territory within which it operates.
I mean, proly senators usually don't have heavy machinery LOIcenses
@Jeremy
Well there's a problem with that framework. If Israel violates the NAP of Palestinians or Iran violates the Iraqis or N Korea violates the rights of N Koreans it is immaterial to our national interests. They aren't Americans.
I'd also note that, by my definition, much of Europe, much of NATO, are not allies.
```Governments do not have inherent sovereignty, individuals do, and for a State to possess sovereignty, it must be instituted with the explicit purpose of preserving the sovereignty and operate at the consent of those governed, ```
that is a very specific view on sovereignty....
Hollywood will now ‘spellcheck’ its scripts and advertising for lack of diversity https://www.rt.com/usa/481311-hollywood-geena-davis-spellcheck-bias/
Uhm.. the word isn't spellcheck, then. >.>
spellcheck?
The wrong think spell checker. "You misspelled this whole sentence!"
Womxn, Latinx nonsense as well.
so ... this seems to be a thing: https://old.reddit.com/r/Wuhan_Flu/comments/f6uy3g/who_stream_suddenly_cut_off_when_asked_about/
**RUSSIA!!!**
B L Y A T. RASH BE
rush bernie