• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged rlopez2's thread to discuss recent history

> You haven't posted it, despite your claim that you have. The link you've actually posted is to an article about a US base in Germany and has nothing to do with the Nazis whatsoever.

I did the Math in that article. Can you at least read English!?! I think you certainly can, so what is the problem?
Perhaps that link is being multiversed?

> A sane person would be able to post the following pieces of information:

> (1) Number of people killed by the US Government.
> (2) Number of people killed by the Nazis.

OK, I think the teacher in me was able to "understand" what might be that you don't. Thank you!

You don't understand what ratios and/or wars are. Do you?

There is no Math or even sense whatsoever in your 1 and 2 for more than one good reason. It would be like adding telephone numbers and expecting it to be meaningful.

a) a war is neither a fight, nor a brawl but a confrontation among peoples as nations, so, as I thoroughly explained in that link you have to compare ratios. Let me even shew it a bit more for you "skepticals" fellows. The ratios should be calculated like this:

a.1) How many people Nazis killed (here I included everybody who could have been possibly thought died as a result of the war even if they died due to famines in Russia (more influenced by Stalin's "miscalculations" (to call it something) than Nazism))
a.2) How many of their own were killed

b.1) How many people did USG killed in their latest "freedom loving" and still keep killing
b.2) How many gringos were killed in those wars.

Then take those two figures and compare, devide them. That is what I or any other "sane" person would think of doing, how you should go about such a comparison.

Do you see now what I mean?

However spurious you may consider such claims, multiculturally speaking I could claim I am both a bit German and a bit gringo. I find preposterous this idea most people have when they associate Germany with Nazism. It would be like thinking that most gringos are KKK enthusiasts. German people don't even consider themselves to be "white" in the sense that some (most?) "white" American people do. They see themselves as "German" and they are not too crazy about your skin color, but that crap they call "integration". In the U.S. people would laugh about Angela Merkel statement "wir schaffen es!" and then her check on her own statements. In the U.S. you are expected to "keep your place". I kind of like that much better.

Since I have taken the time to read up on both U.S. and German history. I could explain to you why USG has been worst than Nazis on more than one important count, but I don't want to overwhelm you. Just check your Math homework for now.

If you want to have a better sense of what I mean I would suggest Stephen Kinzer's excellent books about U.S. history. He took the time to go deep into the U.S. history not only as German do when they go deep down their own, but a Hegelian German. It is your history, effing own it!
 
Last edited:
Amazingly, I think I'm beginning to understand what you're trying to say here. You're trying to say that the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the USA in its wars is eight times the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the Nazis in WW2, right? Has it occurred to you that this has no relation whatsoever to who is morally worse, but is solely indicative of who's better at fighting once the war starts?

As for how many the Nazis killed and how many of their own were killed, you may like to note that a very large proportion appear in both the numerator and the denominator.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Amazingly, I think I'm beginning to understand what you're trying to say here. You're trying to say that the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the USA in its wars is eight times the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the Nazis in WW2, right? Has it occurred to you that this has no relation whatsoever to who is morally worse, but is solely indicative of who's better at fighting once the war starts?

As for how many the Nazis killed and how many of their own were killed, you may like to note that a very large proportion appear in both the numerator and the denominator.

Dave
Click to expand...

Is THAT what he has been on about all this time? I think we need to remember he didn't think of this but is reusing old material and he doesn't actually understand what he spewing about or he would be able to explain it instead of ranting about everything in the world and no one understanding him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way Lopez when are you going to apologize for what your ancestor: Miguel Lopez, the conqueror of the Philippines, did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel...pez_de_Legazpi
 
Hans said:
Is THAT what he has been on about all this time? I think we need to remember he didn't think of this but is reusing old material and he doesn't actually understand what he spewing about or he would be able to explain it instead of ranting about everything in the world and no one understanding him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way Lopez when are you going to apologize for what your ancestor: Miguel Lopez, the conqueror of the Philippines, did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel...pez_de_Legazpi
Click to expand...

Not a big shock considering the guy can't figure out the quote button.
 
Hans said:
Is THAT what he has been on about all this time?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, we don't actually know that, it's just my best guess. He might actually be describing his favourite chilli con carne recipe but got all of the words wrong. But if he's really saying that ratio of people killed by a country to citizens of that country killed is a measure of how evil the country is, it produces some intriguing results. Suppose country A launches an invasion of country B with a small raiding force, and in the ensuing firefight all of the raiding force are killed on country B's territory by country B's army, which suffers no losses. We are left with the conclusion that country A, which launched an unprovoked attack on country B, is infinitely good, whereas country B, which did no more than defend itself competently, is infinitely evil. If someone's definitions of good and evil are that fundamentally absurd, it's hardly worth paying attention to the content of anything else they're saying.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, to be fair, we don't actually know that, it's just my best guess. He might actually be describing his favourite chilli con carne recipe but got all of the words wrong. But if he's really saying that ratio of people killed by a country to citizens of that country killed is a measure of how evil the country is, it produces some intriguing results. Suppose country A launches an invasion of country B with a small raiding force, and in the ensuing firefight all of the raiding force are killed on country B's territory by country B's army, which suffers no losses. We are left with the conclusion that country A, which launched an unprovoked attack on country B, is infinitely good, whereas country B, which did no more than defend itself competently, is infinitely evil. If someone's definitions of good and evil are that fundamentally absurd, it's hardly worth paying attention to the content of anything else they're saying.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes of course and I did like the phrase, "fundamentally absurd" which describes almost all of the OPs posts.
 
> However spurious you may consider such claims, multiculturally speaking I could claim I am both a bit German and a bit gringo

In the sense that I smelled your ***** close enought to your ass to know what it means.

> ... you're trying to say that the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the USA in its wars is eight times the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the Nazis in WW2, right?

Right!

> Has it occurred to you that this has no relation whatsoever to who is morally worse

Yes, it does! At the very least it shows the stupidity in talking so much ***** about Nazism and celebrating USG gringo bs when in fact they have been worse including on the moral ground for more than one good reason.

> but is solely indicative of who's better at fighting

No it doesn't! Of course not! So gringos are better at fighting you said? Really? Here comes another aspect that relates to the moral issues you mention. If gringos are so "freedom lovingly good at fighting" why is it they have never tested how "brave", "better at fighting" they are with actual forces which could and would defend themselves on an equal basis?

> ... once the war starts?

OK, at times gringo illusiveness gets so demanding that I think you are just being sarcastic. USG is a machinery of creating problems for other people. They do that as a way to easily exploit them, prime them onto favorable "business" position. The latest wars which we have been talking about in our "ratios" were even made up based on well-known lies: "WMD", "09-11 was orchestrated during a summit by Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden ...". So they genocidally destroyed whole countries for the fun of it. They very well know they were just lying.

> As for how many the Nazis killed and how many of their own were killed, you may like to note that a very large proportion appear in both the numerator and the denominator.

Now I am the one who is curiuos.

What do you effing mean? You are talking like a 3rd grader. What do you mean with "a very large proportion appear in both the numerator and the denominator", when denominators are not even numbers?
 
> I ask you for the third time. How many people did the Nazis kill? and you still can't answer that basic question from history.

Once again, what do you mean by that? How can you make sense of that kind of data?

The only way you can make sense of "How many people did the Nazis kill?" as it compares to "How many people has USG killed?" (you mean, right?) is by comparing apples to apples.

USG would first have to be "better at fighting" but not by invading Afghanistan, Haiti, Nicaragua, ... When will USG find Russia and China on a map? Something a primary school kid should be able to do right? Why is that so hard? Because the Israeli government haven't helped them, as they say?

I really don't get what is the problem. Gringos in addition to being the worldsonlysuperpower, are already above and beyond all unAmerican lowlifes with whom they have been forced to share planet earth. They are even way above biologically and even physically, about which they seem to be coock sure, but they never, effing ever put it to the test.

In a sense I'd wish they would be more like Nazis who had the balls to engage actual powers if only for that kind of "Math" to make sense. I mean gringos don't even die. Their TV sets go to heaven, but why don't test their own believes?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Amazingly, I think I'm beginning to understand what you're trying to say here. You're trying to say that the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the USA in its wars is eight times the ratio of kills to losses achieved by the Nazis in WW2, right? Has it occurred to you that this has no relation whatsoever to who is morally worse, but is solely indicative of who's better at fighting once the war starts?

As for how many the Nazis killed and how many of their own were killed, you may like to note that a very large proportion appear in both the numerator and the denominator.

Dave
Click to expand...

If this is the case- and well done, if you've actually managed to prise some coherence out of this farrago- then that doesn't take into account to huge differences in the ways that wars are fought now, as compared with WWII.
Missiles, drones and long-range warfare generally, have made it easier to inflict casualties on the opposition without putting so many troops in the front line. The Germans of WWII were much closer to the action, and so would have suffered more casualties.

As a side note, I watched a war documentary a few weeks ago, which was looking at ways to motivate soldiers. The Germans didn't put troops on the front line until they had had a chance to bond in their units. This created an esprit de corps, so those soldiers would fight harder to protect their mates. The US, on the other hand, threw soldiers together and on to the front line much faster. The end result was that the Germans killed more Americans than vice versa (can't remember whether that was total or proportional, but still). Don't ask me for the name of the programme, because I've forgotten it, but I'm sure there'll be some corroboration if this available somewhere online.
 
rlopez2 said:
What do you mean with "a very large proportion appear in both the numerator and the denominator", when denominators are not even numbers?
Click to expand...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denominator#English


1.(arithmetic) The number or expression written below the line in a fraction (such as 2 in ½).

We can add simple arithmetic to the list of subjects you are happy to lecture about from a position of total ignorance.

Dave
 
> Missiles, drones and long-range warfare generally, have made it easier to inflict casualties on the opposition without putting so many troops in the front line. The Germans of WWII were much closer to the action, and so would have suffered more casualties.

Again, are you being sarcastic? You should be able to see that all that technology should work also with Russia and China, as well as with gringos, so what is the problem?
 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denominator#English
> 1.(arithmetic) The number or expression written below the line in a fraction (such as 2 in ½).

Actually, that statement shocked the hell in me. I have found innacuracies and downright bs put in writing on wikipedia, but that one top them all. Again, "the number or expression written below the line", as visual kinds of folks would stupidly say, is not an effing -number- for Christ sake!!!

But then I have just noticed that they don't even explain such a basic thing right on its etymological page!

https://www.etymonline.com/word/denominator

denominator (n.)

1540s, in mathematics, "that term of a fraction which indicates the value of the fractional unit" (commonly the number written below the numerator or dividend), from Medieval Latin denominator, agent noun from past-participle stem of denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name," from nomen "name" (from PIE root *no-men- "name"). As "one who or that which gives a name," 1570s.

> We can add simple arithmetic to the list of subjects you are happy to lecture about from a position of total ignorance.

Ask any person who knows his ABC about Mathematics why it isn't. In fact that idea is quite crazy and one of the deepest concepts in Mathematics.
 
rlopez2 said:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denominator#English
> 1.(arithmetic) The number or expression written below the line in a fraction (such as 2 in ½).

Actually, that statement shocked the hell in me. I have found innacuracies and downright bs put in writing on wikipedia, but that one top them all. Again, "the number or expression written below the line", as visual kinds of folks would stupidly say, is not an effing -number- for Christ sake!!!

But then I have just noticed that they don't even explain such a basic thing right on its etymological page!

https://www.etymonline.com/word/denominator

denominator (n.)

1540s, in mathematics, "that term of a fraction which indicates the value of the fractional unit" (commonly the number written below the numerator or dividend), from Medieval Latin denominator, agent noun from past-participle stem of denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name," from nomen "name" (from PIE root *no-men- "name"). As "one who or that which gives a name," 1570s.

> We can add simple arithmetic to the list of subjects you are happy to lecture about from a position of total ignorance.

Ask any person who knows his ABC about Mathematics why it isn't. In fact that idea is quite crazy and one of the deepest concepts in Mathematics.
Click to expand...

Oh please please explain.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
I ask you for the third time. How many people did the Nazis kill? and you still can't answer that basic question from history.
Click to expand...
rlopez2 said:
> Once again, what do you mean by that? How can you make sense of that kind of data?
Click to expand...

You are the very mad person who claimed the USA has killed 8X more people, through genocide than Nazi Germany did, during the war.

You are now saying you don't have a clue how many people Nazi Germany killed in WWII.

That means you have been lying to us and your claim is a load of crap.

:big:
 
Merriam-Webster:
1 mathematics : the part of a fraction that is below the line and that functions as the divisor of the numerator.
Examples of denominator in a Sentence:
In the fraction 2/3 the numerator is 2 and the denominator is 3.

Oxford English Dictionary:
2. Arithmetic and Algebra. The number written below the line in a vulgar fraction, which gives the denomination or value of the parts into which the integer is divided; the corresponding expression in an algebraical fraction, denoting the divisor.

Cambridge Dictionary:
denominator
the number below the line in a fraction:
•In the fraction ¾, 4 is the denominator.

Collins Dictionary:
1. countable noun
In mathematics, the denominator is the number which appears under the line in a fraction.

How strange; all these prestigious dictionaries make the same absurd mistake by claiming that a denominator is a number (although Merriam-Webster only does so by implication; I eagerly await rlopez2's explanation of why 3 is not a number). Then again, none of them contain the word "gullible" either.

Dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom