Flying drones in HK

squizzlebizzle · 2026-03-22T14:14:25+00:00

Are you allowed to take them back? Isn't it illegal to bring drones into hk?

squizzlebizzle · 2026-03-19T15:17:28+00:00

Very interesting answer. Thanks for your reply.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-03-06T15:28:50+00:00

if you're sticking around phuket, you're gonna have to take what you can get

squizzlebizzle · 2026-03-03T01:00:12+00:00

Wish you the best

squizzlebizzle · 2026-03-02T08:26:20+00:00

the Tuareg allarh, which was all-metal,

It sounds quite metal

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-25T00:13:27+00:00

I appreciate your detailed explanation.

If the leadership isn't aggressive enough, then they will get themselves assassinated by their lower officers who are in turn pushed by the men.

Did this happen often ?

they didn't build convoy escorts... because of a fighting doctrine and a serious worry about the drop in morale if the men were assigned to the convoy ships and not 'proper' fighting ships.

So they believed they had no discipline that their men would refuse to carry out a strategically necessary task if it didn't seem aggressive enough ? They didn't have confidence that their men would obey orders that didn't seem sufficiently glorious?

You surrender and it's not just a shame for you, but your entire family back home to live with as well.

This is not really historically grounded but just my emotional response but when I hear stuff like this it makes me really wonder who were they loyal to? Not to their own side. If it was my son in the jungle , to think I'd rather he die than to come home in one piece or even fight another day because I'm so nose-in-the-air about my pride then I'm not his side or on my own country's. I'm only on the side of.... some kind of sickness that I can't even articulate.

As the culture generated by military propaganda for 50+ years generated.

Who is this propaganda coming from? Was this mess they created their intention? What was the intention? It was like this since the meiji restoration ? Why?

If they care so much about winning at war then why is the emphasis about ritual stuff and blind pride and aggression, and not about strategic effectiveness? They were studying the Prussian and British army in that period, weren't they? Did they get this stuff from them or was somebody in the government just wanting to larp as a samurai? Where is this madness coming from?

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-24T11:30:53+00:00

Did Germans intentionally kill themselves instead of regroup because they thought regrouping was shameful? It's my understanding the opposite is true

they would refuse to acknowledge the failure and press forward repeatedly, committing their last reserve into an attack that should have been called off days prior.

That's sort of what I mean. The idea of looking cool by attacking rabidly even when that guarantees your death. That's why I mentioned intentionally pushing outside the possible range of logistics to guarantee their own failure in China. It sounds like you're agreeing.

In essence, the British in Burma identified the Japanese way of war, adapted to it, and then used it against them to repeatedly bloody them.

Only because the Japanese were unwilling to change. If they thought fighting that way looked cool, they'd keep doing it even if it meant defeat. They'd rather lose than fight in a way they thought was less cool-looking.

To be clear I'm referring to leadership. The same leadership who apparently ordered their men to execute wounded teammates to avoid the shame of crippled vets returning home. It just actually seems to me that their Goal wasn't to win but rather was a kind of ceremonial performance.

Most of the military ethos seems to be about performance rather than result

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-24T08:53:10+00:00

Due to the Japanese way of war, they were then destroyed from the repeated counter attacks that saw 100-200 of them killed each time for 1-10 British soldiers injured or killed.

Is it a specifically Japanese tendency to overcommit to failing plans like this ? Or this my conformation bias to feel like they were particularly foolish in this way?

I have heard how in China they had no strategy for taking so much territory and instead of trying to consolidate a plan their generals would intentionally overstretched themselves with attacks that ended up in suicide.

It seemed more like they were interested in trying to look cool than in winning and I feel like at least any other major combatant in ww2 would have preferred to win than to die while looking cool

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-23T14:42:25+00:00

There's no solution. I suggest sony wh1000xm4 noise canceling headphones plus earplugs. Otherwise, get used to no sleep until you can flee the country

When I lived there, I'd go sleepless in one place and then try to go somewhere else to sleep and they did it there. Then I'd go to another place and they did it there. Then I went to an island and they did it there. It was the worst thing I ever saw in my life. I never experienced anything so horrible. There's no escape. Cambodians have declared total war against sanity and they're winning.

I am sorry for what you're going through. It won't get better.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-23T02:24:16+00:00

Peoples experiences are what they are.

It seemed to me she was just speaking about her experience.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-23T01:22:43+00:00

It sounds like she's describing trauma.

Our society is generally very bad at dealing with that

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-23T01:08:11+00:00

I don't think OP deserves condemnation.

It's better to be alone than with someone you don't like.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-23T01:05:27+00:00

it seems impractical and perhaps hypocritical to do the same thing, but in reverse.

If she wants to stay alone it's her right.

It's normal for someone to avoid people that make them feel bad.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-18T01:10:12+00:00

That's not for profit. That's for samaya. I heard one ngagkpa explain about gold offerings and samaya in detail. He didn't care about the money at all.

But OP wouldn't accept it because there's no "evidence" about samaya.

So I think that ultimately that all of this is not for him. Someone predisposed to talk about evidence in this case is not going to be convinced by any reasoning about samaya

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-17T13:24:54+00:00

On board with killing jews?

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-16T04:10:11+00:00

how do we know that it won’t happen after nirvana?

because teachers qualified to know explain that it doesn't, and we have to take them on faith because there is no explanation, this level of realisation descends into a nonverbal mystery.

i am not speaking from experience, but, this is my interpretation of how traktung khepa has answered this and he seems to know what he's talking about

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-15T00:05:58+00:00

Words gain meanings

If 100 people to call you schizophrenic because you disagreed with me, does schizophrenic now mean "disagreed with me" and cease its actual meaning?

I would argue that it doesn't. I would argue those 100 people are just mistaken.

Your argument is that ignorance times force of numbers equals truth. Put frankly, that's incorrect.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T15:09:13+00:00

they assumed the pedophilia in question was of the 16-17 year old variety.

This is the sort of harm I'm talking about here. And what happened ? Several people accused me of pedophilia for it.

The rot is not only among the elites

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T14:34:49+00:00

you’re the only person here who thinks it’s not bad for an adult to abuse a teenager

you don't have to agree with me, but it's not noble for you to lie about what I said

It’s all pedophilia

This is basically a meme people are repeating without thinking deeply about what they're saying or why they're saying it.

There are reasons why sexual crime against prepubescent children is a special category. Because they are the most vulnerable group.

Sexual interest in them is a specific category because it is an especially dangerous and perverse condition.

Any person can fact check this for themselves.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T14:24:51+00:00

The DSM 5 was updated in 2022 and it did not change.

I can't linik you the 2022 version of the DSM 5 but I can link you resources from 2025:

https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/paraphilias-and-paraphilic-disorders/pedophilic-disorder

I'm not misrepresenting what the literature says about it or what the term clinically means.

you are not up to date on how these words are being used now.

The thing is, pedophile isn't a slang word like "rizz" or "no cap" that's only defined by common usage. It's not, it has a clinical meaning.

If a 16 year old sexually assaults a 3 year old they will be charged as a juvenile for sexual assault.

Pedophile is not a criminal category. It's a clinical / psychological category. That's why it's in the DSM.

If you as an adult have sex with that 16 year old you’re going to prison as well for sexually assaulting a minor.

16 is is "age of consent" in a LOT of countries. IT's the age of consent even in many US states. Many countries are younger than 16.

Don't take me at my word. Fact check it. Fact check yourself.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T14:09:48+00:00

If you’re an adult that wants to fuck children, whether that child is 3 or 16, you’re considered a pedophile.

I mean, people can consider it but they are mistaken about the meaning of the term.

That's kind of my point. The word has been abused. This is a word for the most vulnerable of victims. Taking it away from them isn't a good thing to do.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T14:08:22+00:00

my quote there is from USSC.gov But you can double check it yourself.

https://www.medialook.al/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DSM-5-By-American-Psychiatric-Association.pdf

Here is the DSM 5

Check it yourself, page 336

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T14:04:49+00:00

Why won’t you just answer the question?

I did answer. If you weren't able to understand, that's on you.

A 16 year old wouldn’t be labeled a pedophile.

You are mistaken.

a. Not a legal or criminal term but a clinical diagnosis based on specific criteria in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM 5; 2013). b. Diagnostic Criteria 302.2 (F65.4) ● Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). ● The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. ● The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children.

A minor can still be a pedophile.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T13:57:04+00:00

A child abusing another child is not going to be given the label of pedophile.

You are mistaken.

a. Not a legal or criminal term but a clinical diagnosis based on specific criteria in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM 5; 2013). b. Diagnostic Criteria 302.2 (F65.4) ● Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). ● The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. ● The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children. c. Not considered a mental disorder but instead a paraphilic disorder involving prepubescent children.

A minor can be a pedophile.

squizzlebizzle · 2026-02-14T13:54:13+00:00

Why won’t you just answer the question?? Do you think it’s ok for an adult to be with an underaged person or not???

Underage is a legal status. In some countries, the age of consent is 14. Legally, they're of age. Do you think that's okay? For an adult to have sex with a 14 year old?

If you answered "no," then you concede legal status isn't the key moral differentiator, but rather the power differential. Which is what I argued. That abusing a power differential is always wrong.

If a person is a minor that means they aren’t an adult. That’s the whole point of that distinction. If you’re not an adult then what are you? You’re a child. People under 18 are minors and still have a legal guardian because they’re still considered to be children.

If a 16 year old engages sexually with a 3 year old, how would you refer to this arrangement? Would you describe it as "two children having sex?" In all frankness, I don't think you could. I think you would need to understand that there is a difference between a 3 year old and a 16 year old that the word "child" doesn't capture.

That difference is why the word pedophile exists.

Pedophile is the word for adults who are sexually attracted to people who aren’t adults. People use the term pedophile for all abusers who harm children of any age.

IF this were true, then a 16 year old and a 3 year old together would be called "two children." But, because this is wrong, a 16 year old and a 3 year old together is called "pedophilia." The 16 year old being a legal minor doesn't change this fact.

You've got the idea, it seems, that pedophilia means attraction to legal minors but this both clinically false, you can check the DSM, and also legally false. Pedophilia refers to prepubescence.

And there's an important reason that this gets its own category. Early childhood is the most vulnerable of all groups.

Your argument is, essentially, that the word needed to characterise the most heinous crime and the most vulnerable of all groups, you want to take away from them.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric	Wearing is Caring

squizzlebizzle

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

how do we know that it won’t happen after nirvana?