| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 21 2016 03:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Your attempt to justify an obviously false slander piece is mildly entertaining In the contest of who is more likely to be lying, Trump or the NYT, the odds are that Trump is fully of shit 99 times of out 100. There is no contest. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:03 Plansix wrote: In the contest of who is more likely to be lying, Trump or the NYT, the odds are that Trump is fully of shit 99 times of out 100. There is no contest. but muh false equivalence | ||
KwarK
United States44435 Posts
On July 21 2016 03:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Trump campaign's official response on the Melania speech Source Source to Statement Someone must have explained to Trump that you can't always get away with everything. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5082 Posts
What great, charitable people they are. Nice charity event. Really good people. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44435 Posts
Yeah Donald but Melania actually did the thing people say she did. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44435 Posts
On July 21 2016 03:52 Cowboy24 wrote: Running guns to Mexican drug cartels, the Iran deal, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton selling secrets to foreign powers. Take your pick. The Iran deal? That was fantastic. It keeps a nuke out of Iran's hands while adjusting to the reality that the sanctions against Iran were untenable in the long term. Obama sold Iran something Iran was always going to get anyway and in doing so not only got his objective but also got the other powers which were undermining the sanctions to commit to renewing the sanctions should Iran return to trying to get nukes. It was a masterful piece of diplomacy. Do you need an explanation of how the deal actually worked and what the issue was or are you just going to double down on treason? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:02 zlefin wrote: you are now trolling. I didn't bring up pakistan; pakistan isn't part of the discussion, and you've provided no basis for adding pakistan to the discussion. You're making up stuff I never said or implied, and in quite a rude way, when I have been very civil (in regards to your accusation of ignoring the lives of foreign innocents also). If you stop trolling and apologize I will resume discussion with you. I'm not really trolling. Most collateral casualties of drone strikes in the history of the program have occurred outside of ISIS-occupied territory, such as in Yemen and Pakistan. I'm sure you can understand that defending the intentions of those who authorize drone strikes, even in the context of an article about a strike in Syria, without adding any caveats (such as that drone strikes are only morally permissible in ISIS-occupied warzones) can lead to the warranted assumption that you are defending drone strikes, in general, not just that particular drone strike. edit: I also don't think I've been rude at all. Any rudeness on my part is wholly an affective fabrication on your end. I certainly wasn't intending to be rude. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I did specifically state: "There are several different groups of drone strike targets, and the validity of each of them varies. " perhaps that should've been clearer about the geographical differentiation being the key one, but I did state it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:07 KwarK wrote: Someone must have explained to Trump that you can't always get away with everything. I dunno, he got away with that awful day 1 of the convention with little more than the media obsessing over plagiarism. They could have talked about the shitty dangerous speakers that spoke that day, but nope. Just plagiarism. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24499 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:09 KwarK wrote: Yeah Donald but Melania actually did the thing people say she did. What did people say Hillary did regarding her server issue that she didn't do? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote: I dunno, he got away with that awful day 1 of the convention with little more than the media obsessing over plagiarism. They could have talked about the shitty dangerous speakers that spoke that day, but nope. Just plagiarism. As one political reporter said: it was a neutral scandal that avoided the media appearing to comment on policy. But in reality, it just toothless media being unwilling to report on the worst aspects of the convention. Though maybe the calls for the execution of Hillary Clinton might change that. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:17 zlefin wrote: Igne -> I did specifically state: "There are several different groups of drone strike targets, and the validity of each of them varies. " perhaps that should've been clearer about the geographical differentiation being the key one, but I did state it. But surely you can see that the validity of each of them does not depend on the intentions of the people authorizing the drone strike. The validity depends on political and material facts, assuming application of Just War theory. Civilians asking for support in the overthrow of an illegitimate state authority are necessarily engaged in a revolutionary war against said authority, and are war participants in a way that innocent civilians in sovereign countries with legitimate state authorities are not. The analysis has got nothing to do with whether or not the US is "intending" to kill just the bad guys. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
I can almost hear them scream "hang her high,hang her high,hang her high" They have to come with a bit more then this tbh,maybe go back to the things that threaten americans. Make America scared again. Nah, trump is doing fine for now. Just hope to see a bit more substance,this is starting to look like the ugliest election in history. Guess it will be mostly personal attacks till November. Briliant response from the trump campaign btw. Michelle Obama was one of the people who inspired melania trump. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:26 IgnE wrote: But surely you can see that the validity of each of them does not depend on the intentions of the people authorizing the drone strike. The validity depends on political and material facts, assuming application of Just War theory. Civilians asking for support in the overthrow of an illegitimate state authority are necessarily engaged in a revolutionary war against said authority, and are war participants in a way that innocent civilians in sovereign countries with legitimate state authorities are not. The analysis has got nothing to do with whether or not the US is "intending" to kill just the bad guys. yes, i did see that, which is why I SAID they varied. Intentions are one factor in moral culpability, and were relevant for the case being discussed. I did not cover the cases that were not a part of the discussion; nor cover all the various reasons for the variation of validity (and there are many). So you're assuming things about my stance that I didn't say. Better to ask for more clarification than assume. I shouldn't have to cover piles of other related cases just so people don't misinterpret what I'm saying. You could've just asked: "what do you make of the drone strikes in Pakistan? Yemen?" that would've been much better. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:27 Nyxisto wrote: The thing with drone strikes is that every alternative seems to be just as bloody, if not much more so. Pretty much any war from the 80's onward had 90%+ civilian casualty ratios. There are lots of numbers about drone strikes around but it least it seems as if they've gotten that number down somewhat over the last few years. Yeah if you ignore Just War Theory and only care about the life and liberty of US/Western persons then it's a perfectly great tool, because non-Western people are just ants anyway. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote: yes, i did see that, which is why I SAID they varied. Intentions are one factor in moral culpability, and were relevant for the case being discussed. I did not cover the cases that were not a part of the discussion; nor cover all the various reasons for the variation of validity (and there are many). So you're assuming things about my stance that I didn't say. Better to ask for more clarification than assume. I shouldn't have to cover piles of other related cases just so people don't misinterpret what I'm saying. You could've just asked: "what do you make of the drone strikes in Pakistan? Yemen?" that would've been much better. I did ask for you to construct your syllogism so that I didn't misrepresent your views. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:34 IgnE wrote: Yeah if you ignore Just War Theory and only care about the life and liberty of US/Western persons then it's a perfectly great tool, because non-Western people are just ants anyway. non Western people are also saved by drone strikes if we assume that it's at least to some degree effective at taking out combatants that threaten non Western civilians. Which is probably a safe assumption to make given that non Western people are the one's most affected by, say ISIS or terrorists in Yemen. Given that the people being killed by drones are pretty far away from the West I'd actually say the West is taking the worse deal here because we're drawing quite a lot of attention to us. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 21 2016 03:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Your attempt to justify an obviously false slander piece is mildly entertaining I wasn't justifying the piece. I was calling out the astonishing level of intellectual dishonesty that you consistently carry through this thread. | ||
| ||
|
|
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
herO vs Rogue
IPSL
WorsT vs nOmaD
Dewalt vs andersOn
AI Arena Tournament
IntoTheTV X SOOP
IPSL
Azhi_Dahaki vs ggnore13
Double vs WIZARD
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
YoungYakov vs Lambo
SHIN vs TBD
Percival vs Shameless
Solar vs TBD
PiGosaur Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
