The Nuclear Disarmament Game

[Sparhafoc]

I can't help but point out that not one of your cited links supports the challenged contention that 'all the military equipment used by US police is loaned to them by the army'

Even if the 1033 program was restricted to loans, it isn't the only way that police can come by military equipment.

From your own link!!

1033 Program FAQs

www.dla.mil

The LESO/1033 Program is just one way for law enforcement agencies to obtain military sourced equipment. The LESO/1033 Program handles excess military property for use by law enforcement agencies, but prohibits transfer of military uniforms, body armor, Kevlar helmets and the other items discussed above.

In addition to the LESO/1033 Program, law enforcement agencies can obtain military-style equipment from multiple federal government programs that provide support through grants or property transfers. These include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Homeland Security Grant Program, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Justice Assistant Grant Program, the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund’s Equitable Sharing Program and the General Services Administration Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation Program. Also, many police departments procure military-style equipment from the commercial market using their own internal funds.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I dunno, got something running on my 2nd monitor all day and its not like this kinda stuff is a secret.

I wasn't suggesting it was secret: I was suggesting you were exaggerating.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I wasn't suggesting it was secret: I was suggesting you were exaggerating.

I'm coming to recognise this less as bug and more as feature with this contributor.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Would "a fucking shit ton" satisfy your need for literal accuracy?
And since I can find nothing about how much military equipment various police departments are purchasing on their own, I ll keep assuming, they are going with the cheaper option, i.e. hand me downs from the US military. Thats a completly fair assumption.

This one might be an example for military stuff a police department bought, without going through the military.

The NYPD’s Robot Dog Was a Really Bad Idea: Here’s What Went Wrong

Design, context and timing influence whether humans embrace a robot or reject it

www.scientificamerican.com

If you wanna go into detail .. be my guest. I certainly am interested, but not interested enough to play at being a journalist or research assitant.


More importantly ... why the fuck is a pop corn maker considered military equipment?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Would "a fucking shit ton" satisfy your need for literal accuracy?

It would be the opposite of literal accuracy, a 'fucking shit ton' not actually indicating any specific quantity, but would regardless still not amount to 'all'.

And since I can find nothing about how much military equipment various police departments are purchasing on their own, I ll keep assuming, they are going with the cheaper option, i.e. hand me downs from the US military. Thats a completly fair assumption.

Do you normally expect facts to conform to your assumptions? Why is it a 'fair' assumption if the basis for that assumption isn't actually built on evidence?

If you wanna go into detail .. be my guest.

The detail I wanted to go into was the contention that all the military equipment possessed by US police forces were loaned to them by the army.

With respect, I don't need your permission to select what claims I want to challenge.

I certainly am interested, but not interested enough to play at being a journalist or research assitant.

And perhaps not interested enough to ensure that your claims are factual?

More importantly ... why the fuck is a pop corn maker considered military equipment?

Military grade popcorn!

 

[Deleted member 42253]

You are right, I should go with "a metric shit ton".

Considering I am not arguing or debating, yes, I am totally fine with being mostly right, rather than 100% factually correct.

Btw. I am totally fine with "most" instead of "all" or "fucking billions worth of human murder equipment".

 

[amorrow2]

I think it is a realistic 20 year goal to get the total worldwide nuke count down to 5K. That is in line with the 30 year trend. Maybe Putin will just croak in 10 or so years.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You are right, I should go with "a metric shit ton".

Considering I am not arguing or debating, yes, I am totally fine with being mostly right, rather than 100% factually correct.

Btw. I am totally fine with "most" instead of "all" or "fucking billions worth of human murder equipment".

You seem to treat facts as if they're something that will eventually fit your assertions. I find that position untenable and reject it. Your claim wasn't supported or supportable because it was untrue. I believe we should all challenge false claims, and most specifically, those we find ourselves making.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think it is a realistic 20 year goal to get the total worldwide nuke count down to 5K. That is in line with the 30 year trend. Maybe Putin will just croak in 10 or so years.

See 21st?

Amorrow thinks it's 'realistic' to do X, based on.... nothing more than he started writing the sentence so he decided to finish it.

Some people are always going to be impressed with themselves that they can make assertions. As if stringing words together in a semantically sensible arrangement lends the resulting sentence's meaning veracity. I think that's bollocks, and I think we'd all as individuals and societies benefit if more people considered such unwarrated confidence bollocks too.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

No I do not.
And no, it was not untrue, just slightly off. Big difference.
But hey, if you think claiming a tomato is a vegetable and claiming a tomato is a helicopter are the same ... not my problem.

 

[amorrow2]

I have been concerned about disarmament since childhood. I am just thinking about how much the situation might improve during the rest of my life. A web site I used to have online helps to demonstrate this. https://web.archive.org/web/20161009123620/http://thermo4thermo.org/

 

[Sparhafoc]

No I do not.
And no, it was not untrue, just slightly off. Big difference.

It was outright false, so stop trying to shill me.

But hey, if you think claiming a tomato is a vegetable and claiming a tomato is a helicopter are the same ... not my problem.

Or you could stop trying to pretend that you're always right even when shown wrong? Maybe that?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have been concerned about disarmament since childhood.

That's a lot of concern. Do you restrict your concern to office hours, or is it something more of a hobby?

I am just thinking about how much the situation might improve during the rest of my life.

That's better for your health than being concerned about it, I would suggest.

A web site I used to have online helps to demonstrate this.

I don't think you need to demonstrate your concern.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Or you could stop trying to pretend that you're always right even when shown wrong? Maybe that?

Did I, or did I not admit that I was slightly off?
And maybe you missed it, but I pride myself on being right 70% of the time and I have no problem with admitting, that I am an idiot.
Can you admit though, that there is a lot of room between A+ and F?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Did I, or did I not admit that I was slightly off?
And maybe you missed it, but I pride myself on being right 70% of the time and I have no problem with admitting, that I am an idiot.
Can you admit though, that there is a lot of room between A+ and F?

It's not 'slightly off' - it's incorrect.

You're not acknowledging that it's incorrect and revising it to be correct, you're not letting the actual facts inform your position, instead you're trying to find ways in which you're still right. I can't see why you think that's how to proceed - I don't think of other people as idiots until they act in a sustained and outrageously idiotic fashion - but if there's something you're being an idiot about here, it's that you appear more concerned that you're not wrong than you are about what is factually right. I am not ego chap - I am solely about facts. I don't care if it's you or me who's wrong or right - that's irrelevant; I care that it's wrong or right.

I can well understand and accept that you, like many, many other people, might find that annoying, pedantic, or other adjectives... but it's who I am and there are some even stranger people who seem to value that.

Now, you cited a link in support of your claim, but that link contained text directly contradicting your claim.

I've been 'kind' in that I haven't mentioned the fact that you are performing some routine where you've run off to cherrypick some support but haven't even bothered to read the article to see if you're right. You hadn't read that article in the past, then cited it to me having recalled it from your memory... what you did was type some words into Google and let the algorithm produce a result for you.... a result you didn't even bother spending the time to validate.

So let's not bother with the pretense. Your links shows that police have numerous means of acquiring military hardware, and you and I both think that's a problem - so when I question your contention that all military equipment owned by the police is loaned by the army, and that doesn't turn out to be right, just acknowledge, jettison the bad idea, and move on... I can guarantee you that it costs you nothing and actually sets you free to talk about the ideas you want to discuss.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I've never been able to grasp why people ever thought that digging deeper holes was the best route to saving face when, in fact, it's jusrt the quickest route to the antipodes.

The best way to save face when you're shown to be wrong is to acknowledge it and move on, I've always found. It also means you get to learn more shit, especially about the thing you're wrong about.

Of course, if you're not interested in learning, that's also fine, but you're really in the wrong place in that case.

 

[*SD*]

I've never been able to grasp why people ever thought that digging deeper holes was the best route to saving face when, in fact, it's jusrt the quickest route to the antipodes.

It's just about the butthurt. Some people (perhaps lots) are just so fucking terrified of being wrong they think the universe will implode if they just admit it. The best thing about realising you were wrong about something is you're now well on your way to not being wrong about it any more, some people just don't care though.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

So let's not bother with the pretense. Your links shows that police have numerous means of acquiring military hardware, and you and I both think that's a problem - so when I question your contention that all military equipment owned by the police is loaned by the army, and that doesn't turn out to be right, just acknowledge, jettison the bad idea, and move on...

Would you be satisfied if we substituted "all" with "most of the"?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'd be willing to bet the actual figure isn't even remotely important - unless you provide the actual figure and a robust source for the figure. That's not the point at all, nor is it that relevant to any of the surrounding discussion. It's become inflated precisely and only because it crumbled under the tiniest scrutiny and you chose to invest more effort in trying to relativise the answer to make it seem some degree of correct rather than just acknowledge that you over-reached.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Would you be satisfied if we substituted "all" with "most of the"?

Have you bothered to validate the 'most of the' any more than you validated your prior contention?

If not, and I ask you where you get the idea that most of the military equipment used by US police is loaned to them by the army and you're unable to offer any credible source validating that position, will we again have to spend 2 pages before you amend that term too?

Why exactly does it matter to you?

What's wrong with 'some', for example, what point of yours actually hangs on the relative quantity of military equipment that was loaned to the police by the army comparative to military equipment that wasn't loaned to the police by the army?

Why not just jettison it?