How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

[Alverant]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Only if you're using bad action movie plotting. IRL, there are multiple and separate reasons why this scenario is as implausible as heck.

 

{snip}

 

As well as a new problem... the aliens cannot plausibly misinterpret one lone idiot with a backpack or terrorist-built nuke as an official attack by the government or governments of Earth, given that said governments have a much bigger and better nuclear *arsenal*, and don't have to go for the improvised or pony bomb in a bucket approach.

 

Like, if half the US Navy attacks me, I can be quite sure that the US government authorized it. If six sailors in a patrol boat shoot up my waterfront, it is much more plausible to assume that six guys have just gone nuts, as opposed to immediately leaping to the conclusion that the President has ordered a strike on my coastline... 'cause if he really had ordered one, well, he's got a lot more than six guys in a patrol boat.

 

I appreciate your point of view, but I was pulling the "nuke" thing out of the air. But you're assuming it's one of our nukes that gets launched. China, Russia, India, France, and other countries have their own nukes to use if they feel threatened. They may not have the same safeguards we do. Don't forget, a leader has a tendency to include like-minded people in his cabnet. Plus people can be tricked. Someone who is fanatically anti-alien could manufacture evidence and convince the right people of its validity. Since there's a state of emergency, we'd have the choice of striking first or get destroyed as we check for more proof.

 

But they're not restricted to nukes. What happens when an ambassador gets murdered? It's what triggered WWI. Check the news, if a lone cartoonist can be the catlyst of national threats then a lone kook with a big mouth could cause uneasiness which leads to a "preemptive strike" on us. If China attacked first the rest of the world is guilty of association. If humans demonstrate the willingness to use such weapons then it's better to take care of all of them first. After all the aliens have been through, who knows what little thing could set them off. An easy victory can raise troop morale.

 

My general point was that the plot could go that we started the war and got our butts handed to us. Say there was just 3 small ships initially. Someone gets the idea they'd be easy targets. Then the rest come at the worst possible moment.

 

Finally there's no reason why the aliens couldn't manufacture the evidence we attacked first as a propaganda machine.

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

> I appreciate your point of view, but I was pulling the "nuke" thing out

> of the air. But you're assuming it's one of our nukes that gets

> launched. China, Russia, India, France, and other countries have their

> own nukes to use if they feel threatened. They may not have the same

> safeguards we do.

 

I addressed that point, actually.

 

The US is actually the country in the world /least/ paranoid about generals or government officials going rogue on it. Dictatorships like China, or the old Soviet Union, are the *most* paranoid. For example, the old Soviet Union nuclear weapons launch authenticiation procedures made ours look downright forgiving.

 

[snip]

> But they're not restricted to nukes. What happens when an

> ambassador gets murdered? It's what triggered WWI.

 

That's a vast oversimplification, actually. It was the catalyst that ignited a situation that was already looming on the horizon anyway, yes, but it no more was the sole cause of WWI than a spark is the sole impetus behind a bonfire. Y'all need *fuel*, too.

 

/But/ we digress here, majorly.

 

Especially since WWI was not fought with nuclear weapons, and trust me, the logic that starts wars and the logic that starts NUCLEAR wars are two totally different books with two totally different sets of pages. Nuclear warfare doctrine, in one sentence, is "We *never* want to actually use these damn things, we only keep them around in case we get nuked first."

 

[snip]

> If China attacked first the rest of the world is guilty of association. If

> humans demonstrate the willingness to use such weapons then it's

> better to take care of all of them first.

 

You are postulating aliens that are not only entirely unable to grasp that Earth is not a one-world state, but also unable to grasp the concept that one nation state is not responsible for the actions of another, especially one is not allied with. At this point, you are running them as either dumber than the Signs aliens, or simply not rational actors.

 

I might also point out that while China is hardly overburdened with morals, they *are* rational actors -- the depth of stupidity it takes to /start/ a fight with an alien race that has a starfleet orbiting you, at Earth's current tech level, is a depth deeper than the Marianas Trench. Even the /dumbest/ Star Trek fanboy can figure out 'do not try to nuke the giant mothership hovering over your planet when they're trying to be friendly with you', and contrary to popular belief, the collective wisdom of the Earth's nuclear powers is not, in fact, materially inferior to the bottom IQ curve of the Star Trek fanboy community.

 

You keep talking about 'beliefs challenged'. Contrary to your, well, belief, not everybody with a strong faith in something (whether religious or otherwise) is a suicidal fanatic when that faith is crossed. And attacking an entire alien race of unknown powers is, literally, suicidal.

 

Quite simply, no government in the world that actually has a respectable nuclear arsenal (North Korea has a few bombs, yes. It does not have ICBMs yet.) is this stupid. And even if you invent one that *is*, or give North Korea ICBMs, do you know what the other governments of the world have as their rational next move?

 

Aliens -- "You attacked us!"

 

Governments -- "Not us! That guy!"

 

Aliens -- "You're all in it together!"

 

Governments -- "No we're not, and to prove it, WE'LL NUKE HIM!"

 

*China, the US, everybody etc., throws nukes at North Korea*

 

Governments -- "See? We're on your side! We killed the guys that nuked you! Just like we would have if he nuked us!"

 

Aliens -- "You're still all in on it anyway!"

 

Governments -- "... apparently, North Korea was not the only psycho fanatic in this equation..."

 

 

Basically, you don't want your players wondering WTF they are trapped on a world where the governments, both human and alien, are acting like the Knights of the Dinner Table. Which is what you're saying, basically.

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

> Finally there's no reason why the aliens couldn't manufacture the evidence

> we attacked first as a propaganda machine.

 

For whose benefit? Is there an Interstellar Red Cross they have to be trying to lie to or something? The entire point of these guys is that they have the mojo to arsewhip the combined armed forces of Earth to teh point where our governments are gone, our society is gone, TWO-THIRDS OF OUR POPULATION is gone.

 

When you overmatch the other guy this badly, who the hell needs to head-fake him? Just run him over. The Rock does not need to put up a propaganda campaign to help him beat me up, he just reaches out and unscrews my head with one hand, 'cause he's the damn Rock and I'm... somebody a lot smaller.

[Basil]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Wait a minute!

 

You've got Earth's native infrastructure pretty well trashed, the aliens setting up plantations but damnall else, and 4 billion dead in 5 years?!!?

 

OK, you've killed off the human race and given a gut-shot to the rest of Earth's ecosphere.

 

Do you have the slightest idea what 4,000,000,000 corpses will do? Without the machinery, materiel, etc. to bury more than 1-2%, they will rot. They will decay. They will support disease organisms untold. They will spread disease into every corner of the Earth. Almost all of those diseases will be able to infect humans, many will be able to infect simians, some will be able to infect mammals, even a few will be able to infect birds, amphibians, reptiles, etc.

 

And there will be no infrastructure to immunize, treat, or give any help at all to 95%+ of the survivors. As more die, the fewer and fewer survivors will be "helped" by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population that is made up of trained health-care workers (who will, due to their jobs, die off at a faster rate than the average).

 

It will spiral out of control. You will not have 2,000,000,000 survivors. You will be lucky to have 200,000. And that's after 5 years; the rest will either die off in the next half-decade, or live in small villages with absolutely no contact. Anyone wandering into bow/sling/spear/thrown-rock range will be killed at the maximum range possible. After all, strangers all carry disease, and The People must be protected.

 

And don't expect help from the aliens. They won't know jack about human physiology and epidemiology. Oh, and remember: they're the rag-tag remainders of a larger force, just trying to keep their equipment patched up; that's a full time job, and trying to deal with 4,000,000,000 corpses is a task a half-dozen orders of magnitude too big for them.

 

No, an alien invasion that killed off 4,000,000,000 --- hell, even 1,000,000,000 --- would be the death sentence for the rest of humanity. Except for the unlucky one who live through the dozens upon dozens of pandemics, to live in a barbarity not seen since the Neolithic.

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

There is a possibility for an organized society to remain, but that's only if the 4 billion dead are all on those continents over there, and the 2 billion survivors are all on this continent over here -- i.e., they exterminated by region, not with even distribution.

 

Of course, *that* runs perilously close into the territory of the players wondering if the DM just isn't living out a power fantasy by blowing up every country except his own, or that one that's his favorite, or whichever.

 

Edit -- plus, if the 4 billion or so died by orbital plasma bombardment, no corpses -- just ash.

[dbcowboy]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Although dead Humans would probably make good fertilizer for the fields, they wouldn't get much work done planting or harvesting the crops needed to support the alien armada. Therefore since it is necessary to keep the slaves alive; the conquerors MUST expend resources in this area.

 

In my own campaign, one race with matrix (ie: psionic) ability is the Zen Rigellians. They are a race of healers, their medical science surpasses all other races in the alien Alliance. Though I'm sure they and the rest of the personnel in the fleet's Medical Corp (they're not ALL Zen's) would be pulled into other duties from time to time, it would seem the only major ongoing medical task they have is care and feeding of the animals (Humans). My thought was that, given their medical technology, they could probably vaccinate the lot of them through additives the food. Do they have the resources to do so? Dunno, what else are those medical frigates doing? I like the idea because here would be a bit of alien infrastructure that the Resistance would avoid damaging at all costs.

 

As for the dead, I estimated the two-thirds died in the invasion and since then the population is probably down to only one-quarter of the original 6 billion. Humans would still be having babies but the population continuing to decrease would be another reminder that the race as a whole is dying.

 

Whether or not the aliens could support something like this for this many Humans still seems to hinge on just how many ships they have, how extensive their medical personnel are, how powerful their tech is and the state of their resources.

 

Edit - actually though, I'd toyed with the idea of having the fleet be engaged with another nearby alien race. If there WAS a major on-going conflict then the medical personnel WOULD be tied up. Hmmm.

 

You know, it's all just one BIG balancing act...

 

Edit again - btw Basil, those are all excellent issues and makes me think that one of the largest set of "alien collaborators" would be the Humans who help perform medical duties. Might be a good organization to place Resistance spies in, thought they’d be under greater alien scrutiny.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

At this point, you are running them as either dumber than the Signs aliens...

...trapped on a world where the governments, both human and alien, are acting like the Knights of the Dinner Table.

[Karmakaze]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Speaking of mass deaths, the early portrayals in Y - the last man (http://www.dccomics.com/features/Ylastman/) was interesting in that vein. (In that case it's not aliens but some yet-to-be-determined effect that left almost everything with a Y chomosome dead. Our hero and his pet monkey are just about the only exception...) I have some issues in that I think the damage to the biosphere would have been greater than portrayed, but otherwise it's a pretty interesting apocalyptic scenereo.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

You are postulating aliens that are not only entirely unable to grasp that Earth is not a one-world state' date=' but also unable to grasp the concept that one nation state is not responsible for the actions of another, especially one is not allied with. [/quote']

While I agree with this point overall, there also were (and are) a lot of people in this country (including, arguably, at least one world leader) who were eager to blame the entire Muslim world for the 9-11 attacks. A depressingly-large percentage of Americans STILL believe that Iraq was behind the attacks, even after the President admitted publically that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Not trying to open an NGD can-o-worms here. Just pointing out that world leaders aren't always completely rational actors...

 

 

bigdamnhero

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

I have some issues in that I think the damage to the biosphere would have been greater than portrayed' date=' but otherwise it's a pretty interesting apocalyptic scenereo.[/quote']

Yeah, that's true of most post-apocalypse scenarios: real apocalypses would tend to be much nastier than most fiction will permit.

 

 

bigdamnhero

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

While I agree with this point overall' date=' there also were (and are) a lot of people in this country (including, arguably, at least one world leader) who were eager to blame the entire Muslim world for the 9-11 attacks.[/quote']

 

Really? Then why do I keep hearing them world leaders making speeches that call Islam 'The Religion of Peace', and always regretting that it's a decent religion hijacked by a minority faction of extremist fanatics?

 

Name me a world leader who has said that the entire Muslim population is are evil and are all to blame for 9/11. Name *one*. I call your bluff. Name it.

 

People, it might make you feel better to go around thinking that the world is all run by morons and you're way smarter than them, but it's just self-righteous ego boosting. Sure, there are nations run by complete idiots. (Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, etc, etc.) Notice how their nations are not on the top of the world's food chain? You might be smarter than *somebody*, but you damn sure ain't smarter than *everybody*. Neither am I. And yet, in this thread, I've heard several people talking like if they were writing the script for the world, the world's nuclear powers would be run by people who are stupider than my cat. (1)

 

This debate is not about whether all world leaders are perfectly rational, it's about whether any one of the world's major nuclear powers is so *extremely* stupid and irrational that it will go off on the aliens like an abortion clinic bomber, because their mere existence is shattering their believer's worldview.

 

The answer to that is "Hell no.", period, end of sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Or to put it another way -- if *you* know that it's a completely brain-dead idea, why didn't your NPC know? Aren't they presumed to be of at least enough basic smarts to come in out of the rain like you?

 

And if the answer is "No, he's a retard.", then ask yourself "Why am I writing a world where the most important positions are all staffed by retards?" (BTW, if nothing else, note that some cynical subset of players will, upon being confronted by a world that's apparently composed of 99% raving idiocy, actually say out loud 'And I should be trying to save this planet why?')

 

Supervillains have an excuse for combining great power with great cluelesness -- their little empires are all self-made, and they live in a world whose genre tropes allow a single individual to potentially contain within his own body enough raw physical might to actually equate to an army. Thus it is possible for them to be world-scale threats *without* having somehow had to convince the majority of an entire national population that they are not a gigantic raving loony tune, when anybody with at least one working eye can easily see that they are.

 

Governments, OTOH, have to have at least *SOME* self-correcting mechanisms to keep the reins of power from continually being grabbed by suicidal loonies, or else they don't last long -- and unless you're writing a really alternate alt-history, the major nuclear powers of Earth have lasted pretty durn long so far.

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Or to try to sum it up even shorter:

 

Remember that even the most selfish, short-sighted, amoral, mass murdering tyrant alive still shares a basic common desire with every other sane human being -- the desire to not die young. And write accordingly.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

[sigh] Honestly, I was NOT trying to invoke a political rant; my apologies to everyone on the thread. This is one reason I normally avoid the NGD forums. Chuckg I already stated that I agree with your post overall. I even repped you for it, you'll recall. If even this small amount of disagreement is enough to invoke that much vitriol from you, then I got nothing for you.

 

Name me a world leader who has said that the entire Muslim population is are evil and are all to blame for 9/11. Name *one*. I call your bluff. Name it.

Said it? Of course not. But actions speak louder than words. 9-11 was used as justification for invading another Muslim country that had nothing to do with the attacks. As recently as a year ago, a solid majority of the American people STILL believed Iraq was behind the attacks, even though most of the hijackers were Saudis. Whether you think that's the result of a mistake or a deliberate manipulation is subject to debate, but it happened.

 

Now do I think a leader of any of the major nations would be suicidal enough to nuke the alien battlefleet? No, I already agreed with you on that point. Do I think that's a stupid premise for a game? Personally, yes. (`Tho I've heard dumber suggestions that didn't draw personal attacks.) But assuming that someone always makes fair and wise decisions just because they're a World Leader is every bit as flawed as assuming that they're all idiots. Just because someone becomes a World Leader doesn't mean they stop being human beings.

 

 

bigdamnhero

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

> Honestly, I was NOT trying to invoke a political rant;

 

*snorts*

 

You knew perfectly well what your last post was going to provoke, don't try to pretend that you didn't.

 

More to the point, you knew what *this* post was going to provoke. If y'all truly didn't want to argue about it, this last post of yours would have ended with "... my apologies to everyone on the thread.", and *NOT* gone any further. You honestly think you're going to drag Iraq into a thread and then claim you didn't think it would trigger an NGD debate?

 

Oh, one thing. 'Vitriol'? Don't overdramatize. I didn't show you *any* vitriol yet. What I *have* done is object strongly to your accusations -- which, given the strength and seriousness of the charges, is an entirely appropriate reaction. You accuse people of serious ****, don't act shocked when you provoke serious feelings.

 

You made an extraordinary claim, you had to provide extraordinary proof. You have totally failed to do so. None of them said it -- and contrary to your claims, none of them have acted like it either. If we'd reprised the Japanese internment camps, only with American Muslims, *THAT* would be 'acting like it'. You know what? We haven't.

 

It takes more than handing me rep and agreeing with some things I say to make me ignore when the rest of what you're saying is totally not true.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Um, you still have ignored his major points, and I don't recall him actually saying that the hypothetical scenario was likely or even logical. Perhaps my memory is flawed.

 

Oh, on the "bluff" you called: what about Islamic fundamentalists and cell leaders who damn ALL Americans, or ALL Christians, or just people of ANY other religion, and advocate their extermination? As many do... though I might not call them world "leaders" I would give a few the name of world "players."

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

What major point? His major point is because some people are mistaken about the hijackers being involved with Iraq, therefore President Bush hates all Muslims (with mutterings aside from him about how he's possibly manipulating other people into believing this as well). That isn't a 'point', it's a patent absurdity. It's right down there with Merovingian conspiracy theory. I treat reasoning this fallacious with all the intellectual respect it deserves, which is none.

 

As for the 'bluff', you yourself admit that none of them are world leaders, and that's all I need. Your 'but they're world *players*!' fudge is precisely that, fudge. Not to mention that the Islamic fundamentalist radicals to which you refer have hardly gotten up and stated that they think all *Muslims* are evil, which is the question I originally asked.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

What major point? His major point is because some people are mistaken about the hijackers being involved with Iraq, therefore President Bush hates all Muslims (with mutterings aside from him about how he's possibly manipulating other people into believing this as well). That isn't a 'point', it's a patent absurdity. It's right down there with Merovingian conspiracy theory. I treat reasoning this fallacious with all the intellectual respect it deserves, which is none.

 

As for the 'bluff', you yourself admit that none of them are world leaders, and that's all I need. Your 'but they're world *players*!' fudge is precisely that, fudge. Not to mention that the Islamic fundamentalist radicals to which you refer have hardly gotten up and stated that they think all *Muslims* are evil, which is the question I originally asked.

 

*Sigh* No, his point about how leaders can be incredibly irrational, like anyone else. You haven't actually addressed this.

 

I "admit" this because, to be perfectly honest, I am uncomfortable with the idea of calling these people "leaders" even though they really are. Not only do they have the devotion of thousands (if not millions) across the globe, they also are capable of drastically altering (and in essence) dictating world policy via their actions. Thus, they really ARE world leaders, just not in the sense YOU might have meant it, which is why I fudged. Further, while, yes, your original question was about hating Muslims, I have two response: First, that these people view all those who do not follow their teachings as infidels, regardless of their proclaimed religions. Thus, they would hate all Muslims, but attempt to classify them as traitors or infidels. Because, obviously, these leaders are not truly of the religion they preach, or they would not be doing what they are doing. This meets your criterion. Second: I was addressing the actual point of the question as to how it supported your argument. So, IF you buy my analysis, your question is irrelevant because you no longer have a position to argue from and thus POSE the question.

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

*Sigh* No' date=' his point about how leaders can be incredibly irrational, like anyone else. You haven't actually addressed this.[/quote']

 

Actually, I have, repeatedly, and you are just pretending otherwise.

 

But I'll repeat yet again:

 

Proving that leaders can be as irrational as the average intelligent human being does absolutely nothing to invalidate my argument, because even the average intelligent human being, in all his medicore glory, is not irrational ENOUGH to be taking the actions that have been posited. When you're talking about something that any idiot can figure out is a dumb move, the bar is not exactly high.

 

In order to be dumb enough to do the 'nuke first because aliens offend my religious beliefs!' thing that has been posited, you can't just be possessed of normal human fallibility. You have to be down around the absolute bottom percentile of the human sanity curve. I mean, there's 'not too bright', and then there's 'so dumb he tried to trim his own foreskin with a chainsaw'. Even a most of the people who might qualify for door #1 are still light-years above door #2.

 

The very very few world leaders alive today, like Robert Mugabe, who actually *are* dredging the bottom of the sanity curve are leaders of very minor, marginalized nations that are not in any way, shape, manner, or form, major-league nuclear powers, and that any aliens who have enough marginal neuron function left to remember to wear their space suits could figure out are *not* representative of the mainstream political or social will of the human race.

 

Get it? Got it? Good.

 

(edit) As for your second paragraph, if the only way you can have a point is by redefining the word 'leaders' to mean whatever the heck silly thing you want it to mean and to hell with what I originally asked you, then I'll just accept that as a sign that you really can't answer the question.

[dbsousa]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Happy NGD day, everybody!

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Actually, I have, repeatedly, and you are just pretending otherwise.

 

But I'll repeat yet again:

 

Proving that leaders can be as irrational as the average intelligent human being does absolutely nothing to invalidate my argument, because even the average intelligent human being, in all his medicore glory, is not irrational ENOUGH to be taking the actions that have been posited. When you're talking about something that any idiot can figure out is a dumb move, the bar is not exactly high.

 

In order to be dumb enough to do the 'nuke first because aliens offend my religious beliefs!' thing that has been posited, you can't just be possessed of normal human fallibility. You have to be down around the absolute bottom percentile of the human sanity curve. I mean, there's 'not too bright', and then there's 'so dumb he tried to trim his own foreskin with a chainsaw'. Even a most of the people who might qualify for door #1 are still light-years above door #2.

 

The very very few world leaders alive today, like Robert Mugabe, who actually *are* dredging the bottom of the sanity curve are leaders of very minor, marginalized nations that are not in any way, shape, manner, or form, major-league nuclear powers, and that any aliens who have enough marginal neuron function left to remember to wear their space suits could figure out are *not* representative of the mainstream political or social will of the human race.

 

Get it? Got it? Good.

 

(edit) As for your second paragraph, if the only way you can have a point is by redefining the word 'leaders' to mean whatever the heck silly thing you want it to mean and to hell with what I originally asked you, then I'll just accept that as a sign that you really can't answer the question.

 

 

Actually, even if you had addressed it in what I deemed a sufficient manner, I wouldn't be ignoring it, because as I posted (but you pretended not to notice) was that I didn't RECALL you doing so, and that my memory might be wrong. So, thank you for refreshing me with your counterarguments.

 

First, I would like to point out the inherent contradiction between "irrational" and "intelligent." No intelligent being would willingly be irrational. Thus, if a being is capable of being intelligent AND irrational at the same time (despite the fact that they might otherwise be concluded to be mutually exclusive, we will accept the hypothesis that they are not exclusive, if that is ok with you), that must mean that the intelligent being does not have control, or at least complete control, over their own irrationality. That means that the being does not have control over HOW that irrationality is exhibited. Thus, the being does not have complete control over how they decide to act, since I think it is fair to say (feel free to disagree) their irrationality will be manifested through their actions. Thus, we cannot make presuppositions to know if an intelligent, irrational individual could restrain themselves from doing the monumentally "stupid," because prediciting how they will behave is essentially impossible. Don't you love free will?

 

Second, your entire premise devalues (utterly, and without justification) other people's world views. You are basing your arguments from your desire to continue to live, and the value of life. Thus, these individuals actions are stupid because they conflict with this desire (which, in all honesty, most people do share, including myself). However, not all people value their lives, or value their lives above everything else. So, it is a rational act to them to kill themselves, if it meets their criterion for whatever IS the purpose of their life. I can see one significant attack my argument here, but I will wait to see if you spot it on your own before I address it.

 

Third, you have not provided the standard by which we should judge this sanity curve, except perhaps your implied value of life, which I have already addressed as possibly being unjust and therefore unacceptable as a value standard, since it dismisses all other value standards without consideration. Also, you say major-league nuclear powers, not just nuclear powers, so you are now allowing for the presence of these rather suspect individuals to have nuclear weapons (in the argument) but still don't consider them very important. I find this curious, especially considering the major threat posed to your value (life) by ANY nuclear armament.

 

Fourth (in response to your edit)- You never defined leader. So, I can define it however the hell I want, and you really don't have much of a right to complain, because you didn't provide a standard to clarify what YOU were specifying in the question. However, this does not really address the meat of your post, like your attack failed to do with mine. Allow me to move on to... ah, here it is: I not only addressed your question, but I addressed it in two different possible lights. The first was in the most literal aspect as you asked it, which I considered least important, because I figured that me finangling your words while ignoring your intent would have been nonproductive at best, and utterly inane at best. However, I covered it "just in case." Second, I addressed the ARGUMENT behind your quesiton, which is far more important than the question itself. Since I believe I have successfully negated that argument, and you have actually failed to respond to my counters or rebuild your own stance, the question itself and any further questions stemming from said argument are irrelevant, because I've addressed the issue entirely. Anytime you ask the question, or a variation thereof, you can just look back to my response and apply my answer as to how you would deal with it. If you want to continue with the question, you need to resolve this conflict between your lack of offense and your desire to continue pushing the same point as if it still stood.

 

Edit: Finally, I was reluctant to post in this thread again for fear of this situation deteriorating even further. To me, you seem to be trying to attack my character or my intelligence with your words by implying that I am not giving your arguments serious thought or ignoring them entirely. I do not appreciate this, but then again I don't appreciate the Mona Lisa either, so maybe that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do not understand why you seem to be reacting in what appears (to me) such a personal manner. The only thing that I can conclude is that I, or perhaps BDH, has somehow offended you. If it is the first and I have managed to offend you, please accept my apologies. At no point have I deliberately tried to cause you grief or harm, but if I have then I certainly regret doing so. People's feelings are more important than some idle debate on a web forum. If it is the second, please take a second to recognize that I am not BDH, and thus your taking out your anger/frustration with him out on me is not only illogical, but it is also improper. Your grievance with another party should not cause you to attack me, who had nothing to do with said party. Now, perhaps I am wrong, and you are not in the least bit upset, and I am merely misinterpreting the tone with which you have been communicating. If this is the case, please accept my (new) apology of misrepresenting you and your arguments in a manner that is not representative of their intent or content.

[dbsousa]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

I loved this thread so much, I rebooted it.

Everyone who wants to discuss this please join. Everyone who wants to talk politics, please stay here until they lock the thread.

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Second' date=' your entire premise devalues (utterly, and without justification) other people's world views. You are basing your arguments from your desire to continue to live, and the value of life. Thus, these individuals actions are stupid because they conflict with this desire (which, in all honesty, most people do share, including myself). However, not all people value their lives, or value their lives above everything else. So, it is a rational act to them to kill themselves, if it meets their criterion for whatever IS the purpose of their life. I can see one significant attack my argument here, but I will wait to see if you spot it on your own before I address it.[/quote']

 

Damn, and (edit) they call *me* intellectually arrogant, folks.

 

The fallacy is very simple, and you point it out yourself -- the vast majority of people totally do not share this death-seeking worldview that you posit, so, how do these deathseekers become world leaders? Oh, right, unless you're talking about some particularly isolated, backward, or fanatical subset of a place, *they don't*.

 

Suicidal fanaticism of the type that you posit is, by definition, totally removed from the mainstream. People that far removed are not major world leaders, especially not of the world's nuclear powers. Thank you, drive through.

 

Edit -- oh, and PS, I will gladly and unashamedly 'devalue' the worldviews of suicidal fanatic terrorists for about the same reason that I gladly and unashamdly 'devalue' the worldviews of Nazis -- because there are some worldviews out there that really just plain deserve the 'devalueing'. As in, to zero. Some hypothetical mad bombers wants to use nukes and kill millions or billions of people, including quite likely himself, because the voices in his head simply can't deal with the existence of aliens? I'm not gonna pretend not to have noticed that he's a complete freakin' loony *and* a brain-dead cretin, whoever said hypothetical mad bomber might be. Doing so would be a feat of insincerity entirely beyond my meager talents.

 

Finally, I was reluctant to post in this thread again for fear of this situation deteriorating even further. To me, you seem to be trying to attack my character or my intelligence with your words by implying that I am not giving your arguments serious thought or ignoring them entirely.

 

No, I'm saying you weren't paying attention and that your lack of attention annoyed me. If you're going to pretend that that is a vicious personal attack upon you, maybe I should make a *real* one so that you could tell the difference. Then again, the moderators tend to frown when I do that, and I've collected enough warnings.

 

Second, I addressed the ARGUMENT behind your quesiton, which is far more important than the question itself. Since I believe I have successfully negated that argument, and you have actually failed to respond to my counters or rebuild your own stance, the question itself and any further questions stemming from said argument are irrelevant, because I've addressed the issue entirely.

 

No, what you have done is completely make up something inside your own head and then claim that it was what I was really saying.

 

The last time I checked, I was not, in fact, the Oracle at Delphi. I did not need somebody to translate my cryptic mutterings for the world to hear, nor did I need an interpreter to divine the *real* 'truth' of what I was saying and do all my talking for me. I do the talking for me. You do the talking for you. You do not in any way, shape, manner or form pretend that you have either the ability or the right to read my mind and find 'the real argument behind my words', or whatever the hell nonsense you were saying.

 

You most especially do not do so as a dodge to avoid having to address what I'm actually saying. If this isn't plain enough for you, I can't think of anything that would be that would not involve language sufficient to get me tempbanned.

 

I do not understand why you seem to be reacting in what appears (to me) such a personal manner. The only thing that I can conclude is that I, or perhaps BDH, has somehow offended you.

 

No, the reason I am reacting in such a manner is because you have been combining an egregiously fallacious argument along with a devastating lack of attention to the points I've actually been trying to make, *plus* your making up arguments 'behind my questions' that I've never actually said and spending all your time talking about those, as opposed to simply addressing what I'm saying, you're instead pretending to read my mind.

 

So on both a logical, a presentation, and a communications level, you've managed to figure out exactly what most annoys the heck out of me and stomp right on that particular nerve ending with hob-nailed boots. You have scored a perfect trifecta of Chuckg's frustration triggers. At this point, I don't need to be personally offended to show signs of irritation, my general lack of admiration for both the types of arguments you're making and the debate tactics you make them with is enough to serve.

 

PS -- or if you need it boiled down into one sentence -- your original argument was so damn wrong it made my head hurt just to look at it. I get very cranky when my head hurts.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

*snorts*

 

You knew perfectly well what your last post was going to provoke, don't try to pretend that you didn't.

Believe whatever you want, but don't pretend you know what's going on in my head. Not everybody here is like you. Goodbye.

 

[Edit: And again to everyone else, my apologies for derailing a perfectly good thread. Won't happen again.]

 

 

bigdamnhero

[Chuckg]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

Believe whatever you want, but don't pretend you know what's going on in my head. Not everybody here is like you. Goodbye.

 

Yes, and I just ripped a strip off the other guy for pretending to read *my* mind.

 

But, of course, I wouldn't have done that and said this if I hadn't felt the two situations were different. Why did I feel they were different?

 

Simple. It is really unlikely that anyone who's been on NGD, much less seen *me* post on NGD, bring up *that* issue of real-world politics in a conversation with me and then claim that he didn't expect a real-world political discussion to break out.

 

It is flat-out impossible that anybody could do so *twice* and not expect a political discussion to break out.

 

(Add -- good God, man, you didn't get on the Internet just last week. You /know/ what political hot buttons exist on the Internet, and you knew you were saying one. I mean, it's like if I suddenly went off in a speech about gun control or abortion, and then tried to claim I didn't expect anybody to react politically to my post. You'd *know* I couldn't possibly be serious.)

 

I mean, seriously, dude. The real killer was not your first post, but your second -- the one where you 'apologized' and said that you didn't want a political discussion to break out but then went on to keep trying to score political points.

 

Like I said then and say again now, if you'd really wanted to avoid an NGD-style heated discussion on politics, you'd have stopped talking about politics right after the word 'apology', instead of devoting the last paragraph of that post to trying to get the last -- political -- word in again.

 

You didn't. Stop, that is.

 

So I didn't *have* to read your mind. I *wasn't* reading your mind. Your intent and your actions were literally written all over your posts in black and white, I merely had to read *them*.

 

Edit -- and no, you're not like me at all. For one thing, I'm not much for pretending that I wasn't doing something while I did it.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords?

 

One brief note: I did not call you intellectually arrogant. Please do not make up accusations such as that. If you prefer, consider that one of my "hot buttons."

 

One final note: I am sorry that you choose to interpret my arguments and my words in the way you do. Obviously, we have a very fundamental difference in world view. But, hey, that's ok. Variety is the spice of life. I am sorry to have wasted both your and my time. "You go your way, let me go mine." Surely, these forums are big enough for the two of us.

 

Side note: Dbsousa, I never meant to mangle your thread like this. I am sorry.