The Gaming Den

infected slut princess wrote:*Queue the Stalin-fappers saying the process is ok or good enough when controlled by Shithead Team A but not when controlled by Shithead Team B.

You keep saying this, but can you point to even a single actual quote of any of the people you are accusing or supporting drone strikes anywhere?

Drone strikes are terrible. Assassinations should be carried out by highly trained action movie stars.

Kaelik wrote: You keep saying this, but can you point to even a single actual quote of any of the people you are accusing or supporting drone strikes anywhere?

So is it correct that you oppose the drone assassination program regardless of who is running it?

Is it correct that Genghis Bush, Obomba, and 'tarded Trump are all accessories to murder? If not, why not? Just wondering.

hyzmarca wrote:Drone strikes are terrible. Assassinations should be carried out by highly trained action movie stars.

Agreed.

Excluded middle?

I can argue that police officers should kill fewer unarmed civilians without arguing that we shouldn't have police.

Why do you call it a 'drone assassination program'.

The way the United States chooses to use drones should absolutely be a matter up for public debate and those rules should be applied regardless of who is in charge of the program. But if there are no rules, it would generally be expected that a good person would be less bad than a bad person. Because tautology.

infected slut princess wrote:

Kaelik wrote: You keep saying this, but can you point to even a single actual quote of any of the people you are accusing or supporting drone strikes anywhere?

So is it correct that you oppose the drone assassination program regardless of who is running it?

Is it correct that Genghis Bush, Obomba, and 'tarded Trump are all accessories to murder? If not, why not? Just wondering.

Well first off, even if I secretly in my heart of hearts thought that blowing people up with rockets was fucking sweet, none of that would change the fact that if I've never said it, or anything like it, or anything that even implies it, that you are still full of shit on a cosmic scale for repeatedly whining for years about how I totally must believe it with literally no evidence.

But more specifically, I believe, as should be well evident from anyone who has read anything I have to say about any number of subjects, that murder is a governmentally defined term that has no actual meaning outside the consent of the governed applied to a nation, so technically, military actions by the President of the United States, whether he is Obama, the Dumb Terrible One, or the Dumb Terrible Crazy Extra Dumb Horrible Evil Criminal One, is not a legally murder, and so, they are not murders.

But on a foreign policy that is best for this country and the world idea, I think that without having all the evidence that the various Presidents have I am still confident that probably everyone would be better off if at the very least most, and probably the vast majority, of drone strikes had just not been done.

Not realizing this thread was about drones, the image that came to my mind immediately was Donald J. Trump strangling a little girl with his tiny, tiny hands.

It's scarysad that that image still seems perfectly plausible.

It's a thread where ISP is hoping to score a personal point by 'tricking' someone into being outraged at how the 'War on Terrorism' is going under Trump so ISP can then point and insist that 'Dem' Librals r jus az bad/wrong az Dem Republicans cuz dey onry kare wen da OTHER tem duz it!!11<-excitement". Unfortunately ISP forgot to get people to actually say they agree with the 'War on Terrorism' in the first place.

Neurosis wrote:Not realizing this thread was about drones, the image that came to my mind immediately was Donald J. Trump strangling a little girl with his tiny, tiny hands.

It's scarysad that that image still seems perfectly plausible.

I think that Trump would kill a lot less people if he had to do it with his own bare hands.

Maybe we should pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring any wartime President to lead from the front lines.

We'd have a lot fewer wars that way, I think.

hyzmarca wrote:We'd have a lot fewer wars that way, I think.

The US doesn't tend to call its wars wars, though. Also, there's no front line nowdays.

Mind you, when Trump talking about murdering people during his campaign, it was via shooting, rather than strangling. Though, he'd want support from people concerned about the right to bear arms, rather than bear hands.

Over/Under on number of months until dumbass ISP comes back to rerepeat his allegation that all leftists are pro killing people after his temporary run away because he has confronted with the fact that across the vast wealth of over 20000k posts between Frank and I he has literally no evidence of that at all?

I set the Over/Under at 2 months.

I want to be optimistic here so I'll say three months.

Optimism has worked poorly for me lately, so I'm gonna give it six weeks.

As someone who's probably not not a liberal, I'm not 100% against drones. I just think our army of flying killer robots needs a tighter leash and (DEAR GOD) not to be under the control of Donald Fucking Trump.

Drones aren't going to go away. As with all things, as technology becomes more advanced more an more aspects of warfare will become automated. Give it a decade and you'll have killer ground-robots in addition to killer sky-robots. The issue is violence without proper oversight and accountability.

They do have killer ground robots. In fact, they have ones that are completely automated and don't require a remote pilot. They just aren't deployed because even the people behind these things have seen Terminator and aren't 100% certain how to be sure they won't kill the wrong people without making them too easy to disarm.

For example, a robot machine gun could be put in a defensive emplacement. The robot can recognize the presence of people and fire. The robot cannot recognize 'non-combatants' or 'allies' so if you activate the robot, you'd have to be sure that the only people coming from that direction are going to be enemies.

Here's an article about it (see #3). The article is from 2008.

Eh, a killer robot is not that different in concept to a landmine, and there are a zillion issues with those. For that matter, an automated CIWS, there's been some exciting incidents with those.

A truly autonomous machine is likely to cause a massive outcry when it inevitably kills someone it shouldn't, which is a good reason to only have humans killing people by accident.

Personally, I'd want to replace soldiers with fully autonomous robots. Robots don't suffer from stress. They don't become frightened or angry. They don't commit atrocities. They just follow their programming. And if they're programmed correctly, that will include the laws of war.

Hypothetically, autonomous military robots will kill fewer civilians, fewer allies, than humans.

Right now, if you want to throw a coup, you have to convince hundreds of thousands of soldiers to, at the very least, not stop you. In a world of drone infantry, that number is, like, twenty colonels and IT guys.

Chamomile wrote:Right now, if you want to throw a coup, you have to convince hundreds of thousands of soldiers to, at the very least, not stop you. In a world of drone infantry, that number is, like, twenty colonels and IT guys.

If house of cards has taught me nothing else, it's that you don't need any military support to pull a coup, if you lie well enough.

I must've missed the episode where Frank Underwood told a lie so compelling it deflected the bullets of soldiers who had decided to depose him.

Re: Killer robots

At some point in the future, the technology for killer robots will become so ubiquitous that armies will deploy them just to not give insurgents some kind of edge.

For example, for a fully automated killing system, you shouldn't need much more than a Kinect, a servo mounted SMG and software instructions to point the gun to the torso or head of any people at the premises and shoot. Something like this would look like cutting-edge technology 10 years ago and like something a military-themed Youtuber would put together today.

I really don't understand why quadcopters carrying grenades aren't already a thing on battlefields.

Unless your goal is to kill all humans, you need some way to distinguish between targets other than "everything humanoid is the enemy." That's a significant software hurdle.

I'd have expected to see remote control killer robots before autonomous ones. Since we're already using remote control killer robots that happen to be airborne instead of using caterpillar tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWRlFWzNva4

This an interesting video on the subject.

As expected, Trump continues Bush's and Obama's "killing family members of terrorists" policy:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/oba ... ld-sister/

Frank Trollman's girlfriend wrote: all leftists are pro killing people

Not all, just a notable sub-category that includes you.