Right Wing Discussion Thread XI: It's Okay To Be Right

[Conserative Morality]

Alright, imagine this scenario, which of these things would make you give in to my demands more quickly?

1. Me stealing your car keys, which isn't an immediate threat to you, as devastating as it could be to you given time.

2. Or me breaking into your house and shoving a gun in your face.

2.

Which of these things would make you give into my demands more quickly:

1. A threat to butcher your wife and children who are on the other side of the country where you don't know what the current situation is like.

2. A threat to butcher you where you live, where you do know what the situation is like.

As I already mentioned, unless the army has significant resources already near the capital that can be moved in at lightning speed and unnoticed until the last second, they're at the same disadvantage that a navy is at with an inland capital.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think if they leave, they reconvene elsewhere, as with the American Revolution

So this is you admitting there is no difference.

So you're just prattling on in the hopes of putting enough distance between your current post and your original point to not have to actually address the problems with it.

Wonderful.

It means no standing army, no war in Vietnam

Is that why invasions never happened before the establishment of standing armies?

Thanks, Parkus, for this history lesson! I feel dumber already!

Now, please, keep your panties nice and untwisted. This thread is for straight, white males, and panties shouldn't be twisted into a degenerate thong, or we will slap you with a pair of nice, reactionary granny panties

You have the weirdest sexual fetishes. I wish you'd keep them separate from your politics.

I think a navy can't abolish the U.S. government because it can't pursue it inland.

Invasions happened before standing armies but Vietnam would have been impossible because we would have required congressional declaration of war prior to military presence

I wish you would stop judging me

[Salus Maior]

Alright, imagine this scenario, which of these things would make you give in to my demands more quickly?

1. Me stealing your car keys, which isn't an immediate threat to you, as devastating as it could be to you given time.

2. Or me breaking into your house and shoving a gun in your face.

2.

Which of these things would make you give into my demands more quickly:

1. A threat to butcher your wife and children who are on the other side of the country where you don't know what the current situation is like.

2. A threat to butcher you where you live, where you do know what the situation is like.

As I already mentioned, unless the army has significant resources already near the capital that can be moved in at lightning speed and unnoticed until the last second, they're at the same disadvantage that a navy is at with an inland capital.

Hm, I don't think I entirely agree with you. But I feel like we're starting to go in circles on this particular discussion.

[Senkaku]

1. Re-routing trade isn't that easy.

2. Threatening to occupy the capital directly and threatening to blockade the coasts are no different from one another other than that marching into the capital is more visible.

As I said, if you have to follow through on your country-wide threat to win, the coup is generally already done for.

Alright, imagine this scenario, which of these things would make you give in to my demands more quickly?

1. Me stealing your car keys, which isn't an immediate threat to you, as devastating as it could be to you given time.

2. Or me breaking into your house and shoving a gun in your face.

Naval infantry, marines, or armed sailors are perfectly capable of acting in a similar role as army troops on land, and coastal capital cities would be under serious threat if the navy threatened to bombard them.

Some examples of "naval coups" that literally involve using boats to threaten people as opposed to just using armed sailors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolta_da_Armada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Rebellion

If your capital is a thousand miles inland and has no naval personnel stationed there, then obviously the navy won't play a leading role in any coup, but for many countries there's no reason why a coup has to be spearheaded by the army, especially if the marines or some sort of naval infantry are also under the navy's control.

[Salus Maior]

I wish you would stop judging me

To be fair, Parkus, sometimes it gets a bit much.

[Salus Maior]

Alright, imagine this scenario, which of these things would make you give in to my demands more quickly?

1. Me stealing your car keys, which isn't an immediate threat to you, as devastating as it could be to you given time.

2. Or me breaking into your house and shoving a gun in your face.

Naval infantry, marines, or armed sailors are perfectly capable of acting in a similar role as army troops on land, and coastal capital cities would be under serious threat if the navy threatened to bombard them.

Some examples of "naval coups" that literally involve using boats to threaten people as opposed to just using armed sailors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolta_da_Armada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Rebellion

If your capital is a thousand miles inland and has no naval personnel stationed there, then obviously the navy won't play a leading role in any coup, but for many countries there's no reason why a coup has to be spearheaded by the army, especially if the marines or some sort of naval infantry are also under the navy's control.

Yes, I don't dispute that. I'm saying that naval coups depend more on certain contexts (like coastal capitals) than armies do.

[Conserative Morality]

I think a navy can't abolish the U.S. government because it can't pursue it inland.

"The navy could never abolish the US government if it knew about the coup beforehand and had time to evacuate and summon up popular support in opposition!"

Find the difference between that statement and this one:

"The army could never abolish the US government if it knew about the coup beforehand and had time to evacuate and summon up popular support in opposition!"

Invasions happened before standing armies but Vietnam would have been impossible because we would have required congressional declaration of war prior to military presence

>> implying the Gulf of Tonkin resolution wasn't a declaration of war with a different name for PR reasons

lol

I wish you would stop judging me

Have you tried not saying stupid things?

[The Parkus Empire]

I wish you would stop judging me

To be fair, Parkus, sometimes it gets a bit much.

I know, I know. You are right

[Salus Maior]

I wish you would stop judging me

Have you tried not saying stupid things?

Which is something we're all guilty of, mind.

[Senkaku]

Naval infantry, marines, or armed sailors are perfectly capable of acting in a similar role as army troops on land, and coastal capital cities would be under serious threat if the navy threatened to bombard them.

Some examples of "naval coups" that literally involve using boats to threaten people as opposed to just using armed sailors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolta_da_Armada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Rebellion

If your capital is a thousand miles inland and has no naval personnel stationed there, then obviously the navy won't play a leading role in any coup, but for many countries there's no reason why a coup has to be spearheaded by the army, especially if the marines or some sort of naval infantry are also under the navy's control.

Yes, I don't dispute that. I'm saying that naval coups depend more on certain contexts (like coastal capitals) than armies do.

Meh, it's a factor, but there's all sorts of factors in army coups too, and who really cares at this point

[The Parkus Empire]

I think a navy can't abolish the U.S. government because it can't pursue it inland.

"The navy could never abolish the US government if it knew about the coup beforehand and had time to evacuate and summon up popular support in opposition!"

Find the difference between that statement and this one:

"The army could never abolish the US government if it knew about the coup beforehand and had time to evacuate and summon up popular support in opposition!"

Invasions happened before standing armies but Vietnam would have been impossible because we would have required congressional declaration of war prior to military presence

>> implying the Gulf of Tonkin resolution wasn't a declaration of war with a different name for PR reasons

lol

I wish you would stop judging me

Have you tried not saying stupid things?

No government can convene as fugitives, really. Which is what an army would mean

I doubt the Gulf of Tonkin Incident would have happened without military presence

I will try not to say stupid things, but your dogmatism and rabid indignation get very fatiguing and sometimes I need obtuseness to cope

[Conserative Morality]

Which is something we're all guilty of, mind.

Not all guilt is equal. I don't think anyone here would defend the stupid things VOID has said, for example, as equivalent with the stupid things you've said, nor would they bar you from commenting on or judging him for the stupid things he's said. Same with the stupid things I've said.

[Conserative Morality]

No government can convene as fugitives, really. Which is what an army would mean

TIL no government has ever survived an army coup they've escaped because that would make them fugitives.

I doubt the Gulf of Tonkin Incident would have happened without military presence

You *do* realize that America has maintained military presences without declarations of war since the very founding of the country, right?

I will try not to say stupid things, but your dogmatism and rabid indignation get very fatiguing and sometimes I need obtuseness to cope

Apologies that my dogmatism does not come in the form of one-sentence nonanswers but actual, if vitrolic, arguments.

[The Parkus Empire]

TIL no government has ever survived an army coup they've escaped because that would make them fugitives.

I said they couldn't convene as national fugutives. As the U.S. government really couldn't, they would need prolonged harbor

You *do* realize that America has maintained military presences without declarations of war since the very founding of the country, right?

Not on that scale

Apologies that my dogmatism does not come in the form of one-sentence nonanswers but actual, if vitrolic, arguments.

Not true. When I said abortion was murder in ecclesiastical law (attested in penance manuals) and misdemeanor homicide in common law (attested by Blackstone), you simply said, "lawdy lawdy"

[Conserative Morality]

I said they couldn't convene as national fugutives. As the U.S. government really couldn't, they would need prolonged harbor

I think you're confusing coups with occupations.

Not on that scale

Not on the scale of pre-1964 'Nam...?

Not true. When I said abortion was murder in ecclesiastical law (attested in penance manuals) and misdemeanor homicide in common law (attested by Blackstone), you simply said, "lawdy lawdy"

I'd already presented my arguments for that in the past; arguments which you had previously ignored and thus I saw no purpose in repeating. But if you prefer it, I can change my standard answer to your posts to one-sentence nonanswers if you prefer.

[The Parkus Empire]

I said they couldn't convene as national fugutives. As the U.S. government really couldn't, they would need prolonged harbor

I think you're confusing coups with occupations.

Not on that scale

Not on the scale of pre-1964 'Nam...?

Not true. When I said abortion was murder in ecclesiastical law (attested in penance manuals) and misdemeanor homicide in common law (attested by Blackstone), you simply said, "lawdy lawdy"

I'd already presented my arguments for that in the past; arguments which you had previously ignored and thus I saw no purpose in repeating. But if you prefer it, I can change my standard answer to your posts to one-sentence nonanswers if you prefer.

A coup is not really successful if the government is still convening.

Correct. I am sure you are now going to explain to me why a standing army wasn't required for that, and how standing armies are unnecessary.

You cited an isolated case on the Continent which has nothing to do with English common law. Don't be obtuse

[Conserative Morality]

A coup is not really successful if the government is still convening.

... okay? What is the relevance of that?

Correct. I am sure you are now going to explain to me why a standing army wasn't required for that, and how standing armies are unnecessary.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was literally a naval incident.

Most of our previous incursions without declarations of war were literally done by the navy.

Standing armies aren't necessary to get bogged down in foreign wars.

You cited an isolated case on the Continent which has nothing to do with English common law. Don't be obtuse

P. sure I cited that case afterwards, though I might be wrong, but English common law has very little to do with the attitudes of Medieval Christendom, and I'm referring to previous insular penitential and church writings I referenced.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think divorce is really a perfect sign of the decade of individualism. You see the argument for example for gay marriage on the grounds of "hospital visits" etc. But that sort of thing is because marriage makes someone family. Nowadays you have depravity like, "it's just a piece of paper!" Ah, no. It's family. You can change family (being adopted changes your birth certificate for instance), but that is an extreme rarity. Divorce is mostly about narcissism. "I want better." But people change. Marriage is LIFELONG and about accepting that. Even if you have to separate, you shouldn't divorce. If my hypothetical wife turned into a paranoid schizophrenic I couldn't live with, I might move out, but I would still love her and would consider her my wife, just as I would still consider my mother my mother even if such befell her

[Mattopilos II]

There a many, many reasons for divorce. That sounds like a very simplistic answer that is built around your own values, which are at odds with whatever you label as "individualist" and modernist.

[The Parkus Empire]

There a many, many reasons for divorce. That sounds like a very simplistic answer that is built around your own values, which are at odds with whatever you label as "individualist" and modernist.

Virtually none of them are valid. If a woman's husband abandons her and she needs a dad for the kids, I can understand seeking divorce. Adultery too, but in this case the adulterer must be held accountable as divorce should not normally be granted

[New Emeline]

There a many, many reasons for divorce. That sounds like a very simplistic answer that is built around your own values, which are at odds with whatever you label as "individualist" and modernist.

Hell, not liking each other is a pretty valid reason for divorce in my view. I wouldn’t want to have to live with someone I hated.

[Mattopilos II]

Whether they are "valid" or not doesn't mean they don't happen. "valid" i subjective here, based on what you think is acceptible justification for separation.

[New Emeline]

Also, abusive spouses exist.

[The Parkus Empire]

There a many, many reasons for divorce. That sounds like a very simplistic answer that is built around your own values, which are at odds with whatever you label as "individualist" and modernist.

Hell, not liking each other is a pretty valid reason for divorce in my view. I wouldn’t want to have to live with someone I hated.

Then don't, but don't ask for someone to be recognized as your family if you are prepared to so lightly dismiss them. And if you do, your dismissal should not mean they cease to be your family

[The Parkus Empire]

Whether they are "valid" or not doesn't mean they don't happen. "valid" i subjective here, based on what you think is acceptible justification for separation.

No, because we aren't talking about moving out, we are talking about divorce