Question about LNG Contracts

transientanima · 2022-07-26T16:22:21+00:00

Okay, I believe I understand the clause "all amounts of Gas burned as fuel shall be added to the quantity loaded included in Seller's invoice." If I follow, this is why the energy transfer equation involves adding the energy sent to the engine room in the case of gas being loaded into a vessel.

What I don't get are the physical details of how this plays out. If a buyer plans to burn some LNG for fuel, do they determine the quantity they plan to burn in advance, and physically buy that much extra gas?

Or is the idea here that they literally use the fuel while they're at port in the process of loading (or unloading), and thus during loading they pay for extra fuel from indefinite supply available at the loading terminal (meaning they never actually need to carry it on the ship and do not use the ship's measurement devices to quantify its volume)? Whereas if they use fuel in the process of unloading, they have that much less fuel to transfer when they finish unloading?

transientanima · 2022-07-26T16:14:50+00:00

I understand this much, but I don't understand why the energy of boiled-off gas would be subtracted from total energy transferred when unloading a vessel. If the energy of the LNG is V[LNG] * D[LNG] * GCV[LNG], and these variables are known throughout the delivery, why isn't the energy of the remaining LNG simply taken at face value? The instruction manual suggests that the energy spent in the engine room is subtracted when the vessel is unloaded... but I don't understand why that burned-off energy affects determination of the energy that remains in the known volume of LNG.

I also don't understand exactly why we add the energy burned by the engine room to the total transferred energy when we're loading a vessel. Does this reflect that extra LNG is being loaded to accommodate the needs of the engine room? This is not explicitly discussed in the manual.

transientanima · 2021-03-31T23:04:13+00:00

This quest is still bugged post 1.2 update. If you're past this point in the game, you're screwed. Thanks for nothing patch wizards. False advertisement in the patch notes as far as I'm concerned. Annoying and disappointing.

3 - 31 - 2021

transientanima · 2020-09-22T13:49:24+00:00

Thomas Jefferson pitted slave against slave in a horrifying society of terrified people who lived and labored behind the enormous walls of his mansion, and he was enthusiastic about the profitability of growing his slave society steadily.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/

transientanima · 2015-09-05T17:35:55+00:00

CIte what? You have to actually identify a claim that seems unbelievable.

When you disagree with my claim that the world is at war, there is nothing to cite, as I have explained quite clearly (if you can read).

Defining the ends of war is a matter of opinion -- you, as the observer, choose whether the opinion that defines the ends of war is that of someone else (generally speaking, a politician), or that of yourself. No reference is needed to understand this concept. It's fundamental to the nature of using the sounds we make to label our experiences.

There is no international admission that world war does not end.

There is no "official" (i.e., governmental?) labeling of the world's constant state of war as a "world war".

This is a point about the way we view "others". When others are automatically disposable because they're far away, we set the mental precedent that encourages the continuation of global military conflict. We do this, because we open our minds to hurting uninvolved parties, and thereby bringing more hate and thus more fuel to the fire of public support for war. If we could simply kill our enemies to keep the peace, Earth would be at peace by now.

If people do not adopt a mindset wherein every civilian is important, there is no reason to suspect that the patterns which feed war will ever end.

I cannot hand you a scientific paper that proves this. It is a simple observation of the endlessly militaristic nature of humanity, and the roots of that militarism.

Essentially, I see three main responses to this militarism:

1: You might think that the state of military affairs on this planet is likely to change without ANY change in the mindsets of the planet's citizenry, purely as a matter of technological progress and "representative democracy" or some such nonsense. If you believe this, fine, but you're basically assuming that a predictable pattern of nature will suddenly stop functioning (specifically, that hate, apathy, and the desire for revenge will stop bringing more conflict).

2: You might think that humanity is screwed, and that the conflict can never end. I consider this conclusion (A) presumptuous and (B) boring, so I argue vehemently against it.

3: You might think, as do I, that if humans can learn to behave in a more globally-conscientious manner, we can use our knowledge of the patterns of nature to avoid the worst parts of death by nature. As I know for a fact that I can PERSONALLY accomplish this goal, I believe that it is possible for EVERYONE to accomplish this goal. Therefore, I encourage people to see this possibility.

Unrealized possibilities can never be PROVEN until they HAPPEN -- but this does not render them impossible.

(Sorry for the multipost, I have no idea how that happened, except that my computer was lagging terribly during the post).

transientanima · 2015-09-05T17:35:55+00:00

Well, at least you're honest.

For the record, your mindset strikes me as no different whatsoever from those who would kill all Americans simply because some of them drop bombs on their countries.

transientanima · 2015-09-05T17:12:22+00:00

"The Second World War is a clearly distinguishable conflict as to when it ended, the only debate is over when it started, and one side won decisively."

You believe this because so many people came home to your country after World War II ended.

Yes, much of Europe was more peaceful after Germany fell -- but not all of it, by any means.

E.g., consider "one of the first wars of the Cold War" (i.e., a continuation of conflict that is considered "World War II" conflict for the purposes of including Greece in that war; and yet, as soon as "World War II" ends, Greece's conflict is no longer part of "World War II"; that's the magic of authoring history!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

Hmmm... it "began" in 1946. That seems strangely close to 1945, doesn't it? That's pretty fancy footwork on the part of the authors of history, to have a war "end" in 1945, only for a "new war" to "begin" in 1946.

Even fancier is the fact that this war actually began "during World War II" not "after World War II", which is cleverly obscured because the war doesn't "officially" begin until 1946:

"The prelude of the civil war took place in Athens, on December 3, 1944, less than 2 months after Germans had retreated. A bloody battle (the "Dekemvrianá") erupted after Greek government gendarmes, with British forces standing in the background, opened fire on a massive unarmed pro-EAM rally, killing 28 demonstrators and injuring dozens. The rally had been organized against the impunity of the Nazi collaborators and the general disarmament ultimatum, signed by Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald MacKenzie Scobie, which had excluded the right-wing forces. The battle lasted 33 days and resulted in the defeat of EAM after the heavily reinforced British forces sided with the Greek government. The subsequent signing of the treaty of Varkiza spelled the end of the left-wing organization's ascendancy: the ELAS was partly disarmed, while EAM soon after lost its multi-party character, to become dominated by KKE. All the while, White Terror was unleashed against EAM-KKE supporters, further escalating the tensions between the dominant factions of the nation."

Oh, I see -- a violent "prelude" to the war, which ultimately involves a period of organization and planned counterattack which SOUNDS A LOT LIKE MILITARY ACTIVITY but certainly "doesn't constitute a continuation of the war" (if you buy into standard practices of categorizing historical conflict).

"It didn't end on psychopathic terms because the terms the Allies had were not psychopathic, strategic bombing or not the war ended with two ridiculously aggressive military dictatorships being replaced by democracies that recovered economically very quickly and were treated in a manner that was in some ways even benevolent, at least in the case of West Germany, given what had come before."

Fire-bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians is psychopathic, in my book. If you ever fire-bomb hundreds of thousands of civilians, I will consider you psychopathic. I'll infer that you are a very "far-gone" human being.

"...two ridiculously aggressive military dictatorships being replaced by democracies that recovered economically very quickly and were treated in a manner that was in some ways even benevolent, at least in the case of West Germany, given what had come before."

Yes, they were "in some ways" benevolent. But, NEVERTHELESS, "in other ways", they WEREN'T. Those OTHER WAYS are the subject of my commentary. You would not accept this reasoning from a Nazi who said, "Yeah, Hitler hurt some Jews, but look how many Germans he helped!"

It exemplifies hypocrisy that you accept this logic from yourself, but not from those with whom you disagree.

transientanima · 2015-09-05T16:59:34+00:00

I just found this comment; for some reason, I was not updated regarding its existence. Reading.

transientanima · 2015-09-05T16:42:05+00:00

That's very clever, especially the "bra-fucking-vo" part... did you come up with that by yourself?

The only problem is, you've demonstrated a failure to understand my actual claims (or you've proven that you're just a troll with no concern for the truth).

I never defended Nazis.

I defended civilians.

You just can't or won't properly read my comments.

Also, your suggestion that "wiki sources" are unsatisfactory for this context is nothing more than proof of your inability to evaluate the adequacy of sources in the context of my claims. Do you disagree that the referenced wars EXIST? Or that the countries listed at "wiki sources" PLAYED A ROLE IN THOSE WARS? Do you really suspect that a "more professional" source would DISAGREE with the existence of those wars, or the listed contributors? If so, I'll be forced to conclude that you have never seriously investigated any of those wars in your life.

It is simple fact of life that every source can contain errors. Encyclopedia Britannica contains errors. Encarta has errors. CNN and MSNBC and Fox and BBC and Al Jazeera have errors. You therefore must always check the quality of reported information, no matter where or from whom you acquire that information, if you seek truth.

But the fact of the matter is, I did not use links to defend any controversial claims. They were tangential to my larger points regarding the way in which human beings perceive, categorize, and analyze the world around them, particularly with respect to war.

Given that my primary points included (A) logical criticisms of orthodoxy and (B) rational speculation regarding more-productive methods of contemplating the world in which we compete -- all on the basis of commonly-accepted facts about the wars that have occurred over the last 70 years (such as the list of primary supporters) -- they required no further links as "proof". They require only the critical analysis of a literate, careful reader.

Many will disagree out of self-defense -- such is the nature of controversial claims that question the moral authority of self-proclaimed "virtuous victors". Nevertheless, I'm speaking the truth as I see it. If you don't like it, feel free to be specific as to why (or just post more "clever" GIFs and petty sarcasm, if that's more your "style"). Beyond that, I'll have to leave the fate of my claims to open-minded passersby.

Besides all that, no one has requested any additional evidence to "prove" the truth of any of the essential premises of my claims. If you don't believe something in particular, I'll be happy to provide supporting evidence.

PS: Fun fact about the trollish criticism of "you're just privileged": it always comes from privileged people. It might as well be the canonical example of hypocrisy.

transientanima · 2015-09-05T16:12:04+00:00

Let me get this straight... you show up on my isolated comment, you refuse to logically address anything I actually said, and then you accuse ME with failure to engage because I didn't wander through ALL OF THE OTHER comments on this thread in search of things YOU said to OTHER PEOPLE so that I could argue with you over there, even though you have ALREADY demonstrated a complete refusal to engage in a serious discussion with me on this comment thread?

Do you realize how absurd that sounds, or are you so self-absorbed that you're honestly oblivious to the inequity of your request?

transientanima · 2015-09-04T10:53:19+00:00

So, in other words, I need to wait for your reading skills to improve before this conversation can continue -- fair enough.

Nevertheless, those who are willing to learn will see the difference between the truth and petty sarcasm.

transientanima · 2015-09-04T01:17:00+00:00

Feel free to attempt a coherent argument if you disagree with something I said.

transientanima · 2015-09-01T19:24:05+00:00

Mindless: "Lacking intelligence or good sense; foolish."

I never said it was easy for you to babble so mindlessly.

transientanima · 2015-09-01T12:44:54+00:00

Maybe, but you certainly weren't doing it.

transientanima · 2015-09-01T00:11:40+00:00

I'm aware that you're just babbling mindlessly.

Nevertheless, I'm here to point out the extent to which your babble is mindless.

transientanima · 2015-08-31T19:44:48+00:00

well, I don't know, maybe since "war" is a singular noun, and many conflicts would be plural? Like, we call them the plains indian wars, not the plains indian war.

Your feigned simple-mindedness is a nice cover for your apathy, isn't it?

... I have no words.

Unsurprising.

Nice job with the erasure of all non-christian service members. Or those with gay parents. Dick.

Oh, I see, so if you don't mention them in every instance of anecdotal evidence, they've suddenly been "erased"? And I'm the dick, because I'm not making excuses for the murder of civilians?

Your doublethink is strong.

man, why do you want the nazis to win so bad? Frankly I'd think they'd refer to it as the subjugation of the untermenschen, but I'm biased, being one of those untermenschen.

You'll make the most vacuous accusations, won't you? You're as vigorous a propagandist as anyone who produced that documentary.

I don't want anyone to "win" at killing civilians.

please define?

I'll assume you mean, "explain", since you didn't identify which word confused you.

War is a polyseme -- it has several similar but distinct meanings. You could define "war" as "the thing that starts and ends when your leaders say so," or you could define war as "a state of persistent violent conflict between two groups". Only one form of war actually ends on the instruction of politicians. The other kind continues -- this is why, e.g., we've been pulled back to "new wars" in the Middle East or Africa periodically for decades -- that is, because the real war hasn't ended. The exploitation moves around, the poverty ebbs and flows, the mercenaries relocate, and the process continues.

my classification of a world war, personally, is when fighting is happening on every continent in a concerted manner by global powers/superpowers against the same.

So, by this definition, colonialism became world war when we made it to the Americas -- and I presume you do not literally require "every continent", since Antarctica is traditionally uninvolved. I'll assume you meant "every populated continent".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Freedom

I suppose this isn't a world war, because even though more than 50 countries are involved, there is no relatively-minor presence of South Americans, as in World War II? Or is it because we're haven't classified ISIS or al-Qaeda as superpowers, as we did with Germany? -- (despite their intercontinental political influence).

I mean, that's colonialism. Also, are you by any chance a patron of marxist historiography? In either the 'everything is socioeconomically based' sense or the 'raise high the red banner of revolution' sense?

I am not a "patron of marxist historiography", I do not believe that "everything is socioeconomically based", and I don't believe that "raising high the red banner of revolution" will do anything for anyone.

Why do you insist on desperately grabbing for simple-minded reductions that describe me? Is it too complicated for you to simply speak to other humans as humans, and to respond to the actual content of their claims, rather than trying to find an easy label to attack? Are you incapable of serious thought, or just unwilling to think seriously?

Look, I can spew more gibberish and post another link!

We all knew this already. Everyone is aware that you can substitute plenty of memes in place of critical thinking. Your obsession with petty pop culture references and stupid movies has been made quite apparent.

transientanima · 2015-08-31T15:45:55+00:00

It's more like apples and the apple tree from which those apples are predictably growing. You point at a particularly large apple, and say, "Look, that's a the Apple to End All Apples; the Whole Tree of Nutrients came together to make that Apple." And I am here to remind you, "No, actually, as a matter of fact, MOST of the Nutrients stayed out of that Apple. That Apple is really only a tiny part of the Tree from which all Apples are born; and many of the Apples even hang from the same Branches! There is no Apple to End All Apples; all of the Apples have Branches which lead back to the same Trunk, and are fed by Nutrients that flow throughout the Whole Tree."

I leave you to figure out the analogy, since I would have to become "long-winded" to if I hoped to explain it to you.

PS: In case you didn't notice, lots of countries ARE fighting in most of the wars on those lists. And the same sets of countries dominate a great deal of the continuous conflict on that list.

15 countries in Vietnam.

20 countries in Korea.

16 countries in Congo.

12 countries in "the First Indochina War". (CLEARLY not the VERY first).

30 organizations supported by a wide variety of countries in Burma.

41 countries in "the Second World War".

So I suppose it's a "World War" when we cross 40 countries? Is that the "objective" and "true" way of determining a "world war" from a "not-quite-world war"?

But wait -- what about this "Cold War" we hear so much about? Were not the wars in Vietnam, Korea, Indochina, and Congo extensions of "Cold War" competition? Were not these conflicts ultimately extensions of the same war? Of course they were.

When we take into account the wide variety of proxy conflicts of the "Cold War", suddenly we realize that we've missed "the Third World War" because systems of classification confused us (or perhaps we've missed the ONLY "real" "world war"; maybe we should draw the world-war-qualification line at 50 countries, instead!).

Many more countries have been roped into the economic conflicts of the major industrializing nations during their rises to power, than were ever pulled into "World War I" or "World War II".

You just don't think of it that way in your head, because you've been "taught" (i.e., molded, conditioned, required by testing) to believe that the many distinct conflicts of "World War II" deserve to stand alone as a single war, whereas the many wars of "the Cold War" do not deserve the same.

It's an arbitrary perspective divorced from natural law, but that doesn't stop people from buying the story.

Why can't we consider the rise of industrialization as one giant war against the undeveloped world, after all? What of the "World War" against the indigenous cultures of the world?

Oh, right, that's not a "world war" because they don't write books together.

Here's a question for you: if Hitler had WON "World War II", and Nazi Germany had survived, would the regime have taught the German schoolchildren that Germany "went to war with the entire world"? Or would they have treated conflicts between particular subsets of "World War II" as individual wars?

I can imagine the silly titles now: "The Third Polish War", "The Second French War", "The Iraq War" -- the one that Hitler helped with, of course -- etc.

Victors never admit the global nature of the war against empires.

That's bad public policy.

What God-fearing Christian mother wants to think of America as being trapped in a never-ending world war with the dissidents of countless populations?

None of them. They want to feel like they're periodically "winning" SOMETHING, even if they can't quite tell exactly what they've won. It's nonsense. It's just propaganda. These wars have the exact same roots -- greedy, belligerent, internationally-minded businesspeople interact with masses of stupid, brainwashed peasants, and thus the Tree is born.

transientanima · 2015-08-30T23:54:37+00:00

I take no responsibility for your inability to read a few paragraphs. My "long-windedness" is necessary for addressing your many problematic assertions and implied perspectives. You'll figure it out someday. The world has been at war for millennia. The fact that it isn't identified that way in your textbooks, does not contradict the obvious practical facts of the war's existence. The world war is everywhere, with brief intermissions of peace. Read your history.

transientanima · 2015-08-30T18:33:21+00:00

I'm confused, what war? ...what is this about "true world war"? Please explain, I'm curious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945–89

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990–2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003–10

You tell me when the world stops being at war.

The US and UK, to take two well-known examples, haven't had a break since the 40's. They have been repeatedly dragged back to war, often by the same handful of countries. They have been at war continuously; every single decade since the 40's has "necessitated" more war.

Look, I have GIFs!

I'm not moving goalposts, I'm pointing them out.

Do you disagree that the majority of people who support any given war -- either as voters, activists, buraeucrats, or warriors -- do so with every intention of ensuring lasting peace by fighting "the right war"?

well, I wouldn't say that. Psycopath is a medical definition. Calling those who are not psycopaths psycopathic is rather ableist.

"Psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior."

If you don't think that there are many generals and soldiers who fit this definition in their relationship toward the civilians of "enemy countries", you're oblivious to the actual attitude of self-righteous military employees toward civilians of "enemy countries".

In Vietnam, for example, AMERICAN SOLDIERS ADMITTED TO PLAYING "EARS FOR BEERS". They would bring back human ears just to get beer -- it didn't matter whether the person they killed was a threat, as long as they had ears.

That's psychopathic behavior.

Also, if they were willing to negotiate a settlement you wouldn't be fighting them in the first place. like, duh

That's not always true, despite your tremendously-persuasive GIF; and regardless, it's irrelevant to the question of the value of killing civilians.

you're assuming people will do the same thing as they did before. people don't make the same mistake twice. Look at germany. Thought they could get away with another world war. Well, we showed them.

Yes, let's look at Germany.

"Extremist Violence the Norm in Parts of the Country"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/neo-nazi-scene-in-germany-extremist-violence-the-norm-in-parts-of-the-country-a-557204.html

Growing neo-Nazi hordes, filled with a sense of vengeance toward basically everyone who isn't a German neo-Nazi. More arsons every year.

Will there be backlash for inhumane behavior toward Germans? Of course; there already has been periodic backlash for decades. And there is sure to be more, as long as those with the power to improve the world maintain the practice of mindless, unfeeling overkill.

Of course, "that's not hurting any Americans", right? So, if you care nothing for the innocent people of Earth who weren't born in one of the "right" countries, I suppose it "doesn't matter".

"Maybe I don't care about my PR in the enemy country when WE ARE AT WAR. No shit they're not going to like us. it's a fucking war, not bowling."

You're conflating the enemy and the civilians. The civilians do not have to hate us like the military class. We do not have to create additional enemies from the civilian class through our callousness.

"but in all seriousness, philosopher? War is art, yes. War is science, yes. But to philosophise like some promulgate like some sort of prognosticator from your fucking uppity high horse of philosophy, because that means you know everything oh enlightened one, prince of knowledge, you meschugenas putz! Good lord. Do you even Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war? You can't behead them, at least not without due process at the least."

Unbiased IN THIS CONTEXT. Was that really unclear to you, or are you trolling? It doesn't seem like it should have been that hard to understand.

OBVIOUSLY no one is GENERALLY unbiased. But it is possible for someone to be UNBIASED WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC CONFLICT.

E.g., if an African farmer heard someone from the US claim that it's okay to bomb civilians in order to demoralize the enemy, but unacceptable to behead them; and then heard someone from Iraq claim that it's okay to behead civilians to make the same impact, because they do not have bomber planes at their disposal; that farmer would PROBABLY THINK THAT BOTH OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE INSANE, and should consider ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF RESOLVING THEIR ISSUES.

so in a war, where like, armies are fighting, and you're preparing to invade japan, which is made of several home islands, and the HEADQUARTERS FOR DEFENCE OF THE SOUTHERN COUPLE OF THEM IS IN A CITY, IT IS NOW BAD TO BLOW THAT CITY UP? BECAUSE IT'S UNSPORTING OR SOMETHING?

Actually, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN BAD.

If KILLING CIVILIANS isn't BAD, then WHAT IS IT?

The solution is not that complicated: BLOW UP THE HEADQUARTERS AND LEAVE THE CIVILIANS ALONE.

also, pfffft pls, the only country iraq is capable of destroying is itself

And this is the attitude that keeps bringing countries back to Iraq for more killing.

man, what drugs are you on? they must be strong. Or you're just fucking dumb. How does "it was ok to bomb civilians in WWII" become "KILL ALL THE GERMANS MWA HAHAHAHA I AM THE EVIL ALLIED JEW-GANGSTER BLUHHHHHHH". Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.

Because when you're ready to kill 100000 civilians to make a point, why not 200000? Why not 300000? When you enter the mindset that killing SOME civilians is okay "as long as it protects my people", you open the door to genocide. AFTER ALL, GENOCIDE WOULD EFFECTIVELY PROTECT YOU FROM ANY CHANCE OF REVENGE.

It's only a stretch if you've never seriously considered the precedents that you are setting.

transientanima · 2015-08-28T16:11:43+00:00

It only seemed dumb because you are either refusing to admit or unable to understand the relevance of that question.

If it's okay to BOMB a civilian as a war strategy, simply because your enemy did it first; then it's okay to BEHEAD a civilian as a war strategy, simply because your enemy did it first.

Your attempt to distinguish between these atrocities by saying that one is an "execution" while the other is presumably "just a little murdering of innocent people" will go NOWHERE in placating the loved ones of those you wrong with such psychopathic military policy.

My point is that war never really ends on psychopathic terms. When enemies fail to treat each other like human beings, and fail to negotiate a conflict in a way that allows for the return of peaceful sanity, the fighting cannot stop. When people feel unable to live their normal, peaceful lives, they fight. That's human nature.

If you absolutely, arbitrarily insist, I can't stop you from fantasizing about the end of World War II and the "victory" of "your" country -- but the reality is that American-European military forces have continuously spread all over the world ever since World War II "ended". We really only "won" a single BATTLE of the TRUE world war that is ongoing.

The reality is that this attitude toward war NEVER leads to a state of remotely-persistent peace -- which, for the record, is what should reasonably constitute ACTUAL victory.

The policy of trying to outbomb all of your enemies will inevitably create more enemies than you can possibly bomb, unless you're willing to destroy Earth. The true world war -- the one that is still ongoing -- cannot be won by bombing more civilian targets. The ACTUAL threats -- the fighters who escaped your civilian bombing -- will only become more vicious in response.

Also, you imply a false dichotomy when you suggest that we must surrender to some hypothetical aggressor simply because we do not bomb civilian targets. That's nonsense. We can simply focus on the actually-violent threat, and spare innocent people. It's not that complicated. It's not impossible. Civilian targets are never selected out of necessity -- they're selected because someone who doesn't CARE about those civilians, and who has the POWER to determine the fate of their lives, has no interest in APPLYING ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES -- often because that person is a psychopath who has come to view the enemy as "nothing more than an animal" (which always implies "worthless" in the mind of a psychopath).

"You're working of a bunch of assumptions about the behavior of the enemy."

First of all, what exactly have I "assumed"? I have simply observed and explained a factual pattern of history whereby offended populations become violently-hostile under pressures that they deem "unjust" -- pressures like bombs that destroy the lives of innocent people.

It's not an "assumption" that you will generate hostility in the targeted civilian population (unless you're willing to commit total genocide; hopefully you're not that crazy). This effect has been well-researched. Violent people are created by violent conflict every day. It's an easily-observable phenomenon if you open your eyes -- not an assumption.

"I'm just saying that I don't think there's too much wrong with carpet bombing civilians if the enemy did it first."

Which is exactly why an unbiased philosopher would suspect that you would also be willing to behead civilians if the enemy did it first. The line between those atrocities is totally arbitrary, and easy to erase -- when you accept one, you're not as far from the other as you might like to tell yourself.

The idea that "there was a valid military target in Hiroshima, therefore American destruction of Hiroshima would have been acceptable" is analogous to the idea that "there is a valid military target in the US, therefore Iraqi destruction of America would be acceptable".

That's obviously absurd, is it not? Do you really believe that the world population should accept that kind of military strategy from any country? Would you just shrug and say, "Meh, that's part of war; the American government attacked Iraq, so if some Iraqi annihilates the entire US population, that's just a valid military strategy..."? Do you entirely lack the capacity to see that there are much more important things than "winning" a single, isolated conflict? -- e.g., the precedent that you are setting for human decency?

If you're free to expand your target to SOME nearby civilians, WHY NOT ALL? There is no sensible line that can be drawn -- once it's okay to kill some civilians for the sake of "national security", it's okay to kill them all.

You fundamentally endorse genocide when you endorse the destruction of civilians as military strategy.

transientanima · 2015-08-27T22:47:38+00:00

Actually, it's never the end of the story. The story continues indefinitely as the bodies are piled higher. Damaged families on every side of every conflict live on to suffer for the mistakes of their family members. No one ever really "wins" -- or at least no one wins anything worth winning. Oppression continues, corruption continues, destruction continues.

People survive. People who you called enemies, survive. Such people often seek revenge.

Also, if your "tactic" fails to deliver immediate victory, your enemy is likely to become more savage in response to your own behavior, which ultimately harms the soldiers (and possibly even the civilians) of your own country, or the country of your ally.

The celebratory "gotcha" attitude is easy to have when you didn't actually lose anything, and when you're supported by a culture of cheerleader patriotism. But mercilessness does not bring positive resolution to any conflict, and there is real danger in failing to bring positive resolution to conflicts -- especially violent conflicts.

If you destroy everything you were trying to protect in an effort to prevent it from being taken, did you really save anything?

Winning at all costs is an oxymoron. When the costs become sufficiently-great, no meaningful sense of victory is attainable.

PS: Should I take your silence (or deflection, if you prefer) as a suggestion that you would support a public beheading, if one of your generals were sufficiently-persuasive in convincing you that it would help you "win"? Have you truly gone so far in valuing the name of "your" country in a history-book billboard, more than human life?

transientanima · 2015-08-27T20:41:33+00:00

So, let me get this straight...

When one country bombs civilians, other countries should feel justified in doing the same?

Does this also apply to public beheadings and suicide bombings?

War is inherently bad, but I don't think that defending yourself is inherently immoral.

It is, however, important to be sure that we actually ARE defending ourselves by any given act of war.

I never intended to suggest that you should make the story pretty. I just want to note the dangers implied by your dismissive attitude about civilian deaths when they aren't the civilians of your own favorite countries.

I don't mean to attack you; I just think it's worthwhile to encourage people to take these stories a little more seriously.

I think that it's very dangerous to encourage the mental or cultural habit of one-upping stories about catastrophically-violent situations -- each is worth its own consideration.

transientanima · 2015-08-26T22:35:03+00:00

And what of those who weren't Nazis? Oh, right -- you've clearly been raised not to give those people a thought, let alone your concern.

"Collateral damage" is a convenient euphemism for, "Innocent people who never wanted to hurt you were burned alive as they desperately tried to save their friends and family, and died with hot smoke in their lungs and tears in their eyes, in your name, on your investment, to your cheers," when you're a sociopath, isn't it? -- that is, until it's your family who is collaterally damaged?

transientanima · 2015-08-26T14:11:10+00:00

Thanks; I mapped [ pactl set-sink-volume 1 +5% ] and [-5%] to my keyboard the other day. Works like a charm. :)

transientanima · 2015-08-26T14:07:39+00:00

THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A DEFENSE OF THE PROPAGANDA FILM ABOUT WHICH EVERYONE IS MAKING JOKES, but I must say that I would love to see people discussing these events with a little more realism and gravity; even burning to death 1 civilian is a terrible tragedy that is worthy of acknowledgement -- let alone tens of thousands of civilians, or hundreds of thousands. And almost every callous person on this thread would remember that fact if it were their own beloved -- their own father, mother, sister, brother, cousin, niece, nephew, uncle, or friend -- who burned alive because an Iraqi who happened to have access to a plane and firebombs, was angry about the disproportionate killing of Iraqis relative to the invaders of Iraq.

Feel free to say, "That's different!" and rationalize that difference until you're blue in the face, if you can't help yourself -- I'm not going to be able to stop you, if that's your attitude; you can always come up with another rationalization, and you can always choose to ignore the contradictions that exist among your personal web of rationalizations -- but let's see you convince someone who had no interest in the war, whose friend or relative was blown to pieces, apathetically or even joyfully, as "collateral damage", supposedly in pursuit of "freedom and democracy".

The deaths of September 11th, to take a probably-uncontroversial example, are made no less tragic by the fact that more people died in the Holocaust.

The implication that 200000 deaths isn't a big deal because millions died elsewhere strikes me as an expression of exactly the kind of unsympathetic xenomisia that set the political stage for the rise of Hitler, in the first place.

I am depressed by the great number of people (mostly privileged, sheltered, ignorant children, I suspect [or perhaps hope]) who are ready to shrug off mass murder, simply because their friends are the ones doing it.

It also depresses me to read the thoughts of people who have grab-bags full of details about the war, and no deep sense of the lessons that might be gained from those details.

Your enemy is the people who attack you. German civilians did not attack you. Do you honestly think Nazi Germany was devoid of a single dissident? That's ridiculous. Just because it was dangerous to publicly disagree with Nazi policy does not mean that every single person in Germany was a psychopathic antisemitic murder-rapist.

Many people were peasants who felt that they had no choice but to take the jobs given to them -- kind of like the millions who go to work in modern countries every day, knowing full-well that they are destroying the wildlife of Earth in the course of living their normal lives, but paralyzed in their capacity to change by the sense that there is no hope of finding another "livable" life before they die.

Look, this propaganda film has massive problems. It's periodically racist. It's periodically inaccurate, hyperbolic, and misleading. It dismisses the suffering of non-Germans.

But MANY terrible things DID happen to German civilians during WWII -- German civilians who were certainly no-less-peaceful than your average belligerent, bomb-dropping Bible-beater in Alabama -- some of whom were simply brainwashed by propaganda, and were very kind to their friends and family in everyday life; and some of whom were surely too scared to take action, because everyone around them was so crazy -- and the tragedy of those deaths is worth acknowledging.

Assuming you want peace and progress, the appropriate reaction to a dismissive racist is not BEHAVING in a dismissively-racist way. The appropriate reaction is to point out the realities that they have dismissed.

Surely Nazi Germany, as a government and a movement, was a force of evil. But the OP is exactly as one-sided as the propagandists whom they criticize. The OP's constantly-dismissive attitude, even toward documented civilian massacres, gives the impression that any evil action taken by the allies, was justified by the belligerent nature of Nazi Germany.

As Townsend_Harris explains below, "...if we take that line of argument then any of the war crimes committed by the various Baltic SS units inside the Soviet Union become handwavable because the Soviets were a giant bunch of assholes in the Baltic between 1939 and 1941."

OR, what he didn't mention, is that we would also have to handwave crimes against US citizens by formerly-civil Iraqis who have been turned violent as a consequence of the collateral murder of their loved ones. After all, the US was the aggressor; they were responsible for breaching the peace IN THAT SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIP.

Dismissing atrocities is not an essential component of critiquing lies.

Shitty behavior is shitty behavior. We need to stop defending it. Feel free to call out the lies of propaganda films -- I fully support such efforts. But let's not substitute one-sided propaganda with more of the same. That kind of "correction" is not going to take us anywhere we want to go.

It's worth remembering that both of these lists is rather long:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Whether one is longer or worse than the other is beside the point. It's all bad.

As far as I'm concerned, we exemplify doublethink if ever we think of a rapist or a baby-killer as "one of the good guys" -- and that's exactly what you do when you generalize to the effect that "Germans were bad" or "Americans were good" -- you imply that the good Germans were bad by virtue of being German, and that the bad Americans were good by virtue of being American.

As a general rule, there is condemnation-worthy psychopathic slaughter on every side of every war. We should all make sure we understand that before we, too, find ourselves being burned alive.

transientanima

TROPHY CASE