Report comment

Svoboda is a Ukranian National Socialist political party that until recently held three positions in Ukraine’s government.

Three seats out of 450? Well, I might be naive, but that hardly seems like a fascist takeover.

For context: in the State Duma of the Russian Federation, 92 out of 450 seats are held by the Communist Party, led by a fan of Stalin, and 56 seats — by LDPR, the party led by a political clown famous for fistfights and threats to rape a journalist and carpet-bomb Poland.

Report comment

If you have an actual thing you’re trying to debate, then it should be obvious when somebody’s changing the topic. If working out who’s using motte-and-bailey (or weak man) is remotely difficult, it means your discussion went wrong several steps earlier and you probably have no idea what you’re even arguing about.

The Battle for Yellowstone: Morality and the Sacred Roots of Environmental Conflict (Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology) is an upcoming book that provides a deep and broad case-study example of this, according to The Economist‘s USA columnist, “Lexington” (Jan 3 issue, “Ranchers v bison-huggers“):

… In short, all sides purport to be weighing what is true and false, while really arguing about right and wrong.
Pro-wolf biologists and officials call themselves dispassionate custodians of a unique place. But they give themselves away with quasi-spiritual talk of wolves restoring “wholeness” to a landscape damaged by man. Indeed, when the first Yellowstone wolves were released in 1995, the then-interior secretary, Bruce Babbit, called it “a day of redemption.” …
As for the anti-wolf types, when offered financial compensation for wolf-attacks on their livestock, some turn it down—suggesting that more than economics is at stake. … Many “Old West” types see a plot to drive ranchers from the land. They talk of “federal wolves” undermining their property rights, and challenging the God-ordained duty of humans to protect their own families, and exercise dominon over Creation.

Report comment

Report comment

Azov is a Ukranian National Socialist paramilitary battalion that has been heavily involved in the fighting vs. separatists / invaders in E.Ukraine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis

Svoboda is a Ukranian National Socialist political party that until recently held three positions in Ukraine’s government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_%28political_party%29

Report comment

“Extremely high numbers of Japanese do not find sex appealing – 45% of women and 25% of men ages 16 to 24 are not interested in or despised sexual contact.”

Why’d they find sex appealing if they’ve never really had any.

Easier and more convenient to masturbate to pornography, which is reportedly extremely varied and quite widespread in Japan. Also addictive and reputed to make heavy users unable to have sex..

Report comment

130 score is 1-100. If that were the case, let’s be generous and say 1 in a 1000 would be ‘effective.

That’d mean US would have 300,000 people as smart and capable as Feynman.

….Right!

Report comment

hahaha. Feminism and the search for truth ended in David Stove’s Farewell to the Arts.

Anyway, the recent Ceci and Williams humongous paper had some surprising bit hidden in there. That and some of my corrections besides other gender-equality hijinks here,

http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/2l5jpz/academic_science_isnt_sexist/

Report comment

Report comment

1. The cost (net present value, constant dollars, assuming 200 flight hours per year) of keeping an A-10 in service through planned retirement in 2028, is about $35 million. For an F-35, including the cost of buying the F-35 now rather than putting it off to 2028, $105 million. So, if there are missions the A-10 can do even half as well as the F-35, we come out ahead keeping the A-10 around for those missions.

2. The USAF is planning to buy roughly 2,000 F-35s. It seems unlikely that low-to-medium-threat close air support will be less than 5% of the mission set in any major war, so we’re going to have 100+ F-35s doing that. Or 200 A-10s, if the A-10 is only half as good as an F-35, and since we’ve already got 200 A-10s that saves us $3.5 billion.

3. The USAF is often, and not unjustly, accused of neglecting close air support in favor of the more glamorous air superiority, deep strike, and SEAD missions. Ensuring that 5% of the force is limited to CAS missions, puts a floor on the level of support the Army can expect from the flyboys.

4. Lockheed may get so damn greedy that we cancel that blank check labeled “F-35″ no matter the cost to our military readiness. If that happens we’re going to be scrambling desperately to fill a lot of gaps, at least some of which will be sort of A-10 shaped. And until then, having the alternative at least marginally strengthens the negotiating position of the US taxpayers vs. Lockheed-Martin.

5. War Nerd is still nuts if he thinks the A-10 is the One True Warplane. We’re talking about 2000 F-35s vs. 1900 F-35s and 200 A-10s, or something along those lines.

Report comment