KillingTimeItself

put a sign on your door next year, and report back on how well it works lol.

I see you did it this year, but doing it again next year should also increase the amount of visitors. We do a little science.

And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet.

to be clear, i wasn’t the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.

i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. “operational altitude” for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that’s irrelevant here, we’re talking about the ground.

this is true, it’s also a dog whistle for many other things.

This is a more philosophical consideration, rather than a political one though, mostly just a tidbit on how everything is relative and nothing actually matters lol.

well yeah, you can’t just try, you need to actually do it.

Stupid title, grammatically at least.

And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)

oh cool we’re just fucking, lying now. That’s the sound level of the f35 at altitude.

“F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off”

“F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db”

“F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph”

(https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you’re wondering)

btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that’s literally because it’s the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.

wait i’m sorry modern day native americans in the US are equivalent to french people living in france under the military control of nazi germany?

What a lot of people get from this (including me) is the absurdity of military shows. Air shows are less ridiculous because planes are capable of some incredible things, but it’s still unsettling. Like gun shows or parades of duty.

if we’re talking about absurdity, you should really think about philosophy here, we’re talking about this, over the internet, using funny keyboards. This entire fucking interaction is absurdist. The very concept of a technologically influenced military is absurdist. Literally everything is absurdist.

Would you say the same thing about the moon landing? Was that absurdist? What about the pioneer and voyager satellites? Are those absurdist?

There are so many things in day to day life, and outside of it that could be considered absurdist.

We have advanced many of our societies to such a point that we might be able to do away with weapon worship entirely, so I think it’s sensible to be uncomfortable with venerating the trappings of dictators and despots.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Call me when people stop randomly getting into fights with each other and maybe i’ll give you that point lol.

I kind of agree that militaries are still necessary, but there’s a big difference between an unfortunate but necessary thing and a celebrated thing.

yeah but why not celebrate it? In the case of the US the military is primarily volunteer based. Drafts are extremely unpopular. Should you not respect and celebrate the people that have served in the military? Does celebrating the military not directly bolster these people as well?

In the specific case here, the US military is the reason this country even exists. It’s obviously going to be a pride point of the country when it’s the entire reason we exist. As evidenced in many other countries.

I would argue that a celebrated military is better than a required and mandated military (think finland)

The difference between an F-15 and an angle grider is that the F-15 is intended to hurt people.

says who? It’s a plane, it’s the instruments on the plane that are intended to hurt people. Should we be ok with other planes like recon and spy planes? Is the U2 a martyr of service? Is the SR-71 the pinnacle of peaceful military technology? This is on it’s face a relatively silly statement.

I could very easily argue that an angle grinder was designed to injure people by proxy. It’s literally designed to remove material, or to cut material, i see no mechanism in which this can’t be applied directly to a human, and thus, it’s designed to hurt people. And it’s not just going to hurt a little bit, it’s going to really fuck your shit up. you could argue that it’s not an intended behavior, but i would disagree with you on principle of it being a tool designed to remove material, being successful at removing human material from human.

Pulling an angle grinder out of your coat isn’t as intimidating as pulling out a knife

is a knife designed explicitly to kill? Why do we have them in the kitchen then? Why do we use them outside of killing people, seems to me like you’re implying that a primary function of a knife is to hurt people. I would argue both of these things are incredibly common, a kitchen knife even more so. If we’re operating in this realm of definition. A knife would be less threatening than an angle grinder, because it’s expected that someone may have a knife, but it’s really unexpected for someone to have an angle grinder.

Also if we’re being pedantically correct here, it’s not designed to kill people, it’s designed to down other planes. Not people. It’d be a little weird to launch an f16 or an f15 specifically to target one single person.

Could you argue that the military stems from the innate human need to kill other people over conflict? Sure. Could you also argue that the only reason we have this technology we have now is because of the military and this need to kill people over conflict? Also yes. There is an extremely high link between military effectiveness, and technological advantage. This can be seen throughout human history, as well as into the industrial revolution.

GPS likely wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the USSR and the US during the cold war.

An F-15 can only destroy.

are you willing to argue that the f-15 streak eagle was designed with the explicit purpose of killing people? It’s an f15. I would also like to point out that there are training variants of the f-15 as well. Obviously not intended for real combat. There’s also really weird shit like the ASM-135 ASAT which was designed to be carried on an f-15 as an anti satellite measure. Pretty sure that’s not supposed to kill people.

This is an odd philosophical question. Because at the root here is basically the question of what came first. The knife, or killing people with a knife. The gun, or killing people with the gun. Theoretically there is a world in which you could invent from scratch, a tool used to kill people. However philosophically, you’re going to run into problems with related innovations and inventions. Is a sword entirely isolated from a spear? A spear is basically just a stick. At what point do we consider a weapon “intended to kill” and at what point is it just “a weapon, but with the ability to kill”

You would have a better time making the argument for something like a military service rifle, compared to like, a basketball. But i’m not sure that would make sense philosophically. Because you’re basically predicating the entire human race on the ability to kill other people, and if we’re doing that, then who cares.

can’t advance science, at best it can do acrobatics while being incredibly expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD

ok.

It’s nothing more than a weapon.

no, it’s a plane, the weapons go on the plane, the Japanese may have used their planes as weapons during world war 2, but that is contrary to popular belief, not the standard mechanism for operation of a fighter jet.

yeah that’s pretty much the case. I guess my main point was that it will probably even out to some degree.

i like how the entire argumentative basis of this comment relies upon two words, genocide, and fascism.

no i think i get it. I was talking about anti air defense, and you were talking about how it’s “a guarantee” which is, statistically not true. And never will be. If you would like me to directly quote it at you i can.

Maybe i’m being a bit pedantic here, but i think it’s fair given the fact that you guys refuse to use any word other than genocide, or talk about like, most actual war-crimes being committed, and instead just say genocide, which while rather amusing, means almost nothing.

personally im a firm believer in the shut the fuck up and be quiet camp.

Who cares if you talk. If you have something to talk about, talk about it, if not, don’t it’s that simple.

yeah, which i why i consider the use of pseudo occupation, as opposed to like, settlement or something. There aspects of occupation, but up to the current modern day, there are natives in positions of power within the US government, and those with sovereign control over their own land as well.

Although to be fair, most people didn’t have very many rights until the 1970s lmao.

tbf that’s mostly because they’re really fucking loud, all of the time. Military air fields are probably quieter for longer periods of time lol. Although still rather loud im sure.

Active duty flights would’ve usually happened nearer to the front, and modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway.

to be clear, this wouldn’t matter, we’re talking about airshows, most people living near the front lines are going to be gone anyway. And even if we were to grant this point, it still wouldn’t diminish my statement. national pride is a weird thing.

The comic is making fun of the fact that an airshow idolizes machines of war.

i mean sure, but im pretty sure humanity has always idolized the military and it’s armies, as well as it’s ability to project force. It’s the stable of basically every great empire. Humanity seems to have an inherent connection with the ability of projecting force. It would be evolutionary advantageous, so that’s probably why.

As cool as they are, it’s good to remember that those machines are instruments of death, and often used against people of no immediate threat. Regardless of the necessity, I don’t think that’s something to cheer for.

i mean sure, but morbidity is the calling card for a lot of things, the dahmer netflix series for example. Should we be treating that the same? Like to be clear, i don’t disagree, but every time you pick up an angle grinder do you really need to think about how many people have been horrifically inujred by it and pray to the grinder gods for you safety? Or should you just be conscious of how you use the tool, and be careful with it.

and often used against people of no immediate threat.

also idk about this statement, maybe for the case of like the russian artillery units for example. I doubt that f-16s have been primarily used on like, someones dog. More than people of actual consequence. It’s also really vaguely defined, which doesn’t help.

actually you dont even have to download shit, just appear on the fucking ip leech list, leech that shit yourself, and then fucking spam them to the ISP and music industry. See how long it takes them to respond lmao

GPS is literally from the concept of nuking the USSR. Thank your ass the cold war happened the next time you get lost, it’s the only reason you aren’t lost now.

Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.

idk about this one, idk much about canada, but water infrastructure is more complicated than just “here’s some money” and there’s also the inevitable governmental over spending problem that seems to encroach everything.

it’s also worth noting that we’re comparing two irrelevant things here, it’s like me comparing the worlds loudest yell to the sound of an f35 flying at altitude. Yeah they’re comparable to each other. In the sense that they both make noise.

yeah, and they still have rights

I knew some kids from the reservations and I’ll never forget how casually they’d say with every blast they’re reminded that they’re occupied.

wouldnt this technically be more of a form of pseudo occupation, since they also get benefits from being a US citizen, and also protection, from these same planes as well.

i always find these kind of statements and comics weird, because like.

If the plane is your own, this would also signal the sound of protection and defense, which is an objectively good thing, if we’re classifying dying due to a plane as a bad thing.

There are two sides to the coin and i guess this is either shitposting memes, or people never think about the fact that like, you can also just have a military.

that one would in fact work.