|
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. |
On July 21 2016 07:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 07:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 21 2016 05:10 IgnE wrote: Show nested quote +
Depends on your assumptions about states and citizens. Drone operations outside of ISIS-controlled Syria at the very least dehumanize and depersonalize non-US citizens. Drone operations cause far less civilian casualties than either ground combat or traditional airstrikes, which would suggest a more human and personal view of non-US citizens. War itself depersonalizes and dehumanizes so not sure what the point is. It's a rather bizarre world where the most effective method of bombing ever devised so far as limiting collateral damage is portrayed and perceived by many as just as bad if not worse than regular old bombs or missiles sent from a plane, which has always killed far more people who weren't the target. In any case, the Geneva Conventions places responsibility for civilian casualties in a situation where one side hides among civilians or blatantly uses them as human shields (for example by establishing positions in a residential neighborhood) on that side, not on the other side. The depersonalization and dehumanization is the responsibility of those who control the ground and view civilians as a resource like shells or rifles, to be expended for combat purposes. Consider if the US carpet bombed Pakistan trying to kill an Afghani terrorist leader and then reevalute everything you wrote because it's totally off base. but, they're not doing that; and his points are valid and sound. So address them rather than create an irrelevant hypothetical.
|
Today's RNC Speakers -
Laura Ingraham, Radio Host & Speechwriter for President Reagan Phil Ruffin, Businessman Pam Bondi, Attorney General of Florida Eileen Collins, Retired Astronaut, First Female Shuttle Commander Michelle Van Etten, Small Business Owner Kentucky State Senator Ralph Alvarado, Jr. Darrell Scott, Pastor Harold Hamm, Founder of Continental Resources Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Lynne Patton, Vice President of The Eric Trump Foundation, Senior Assistant to Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Jr. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Eric Trump, Executive Vice President of The Trump Organization Newt & Callista Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House and his wife Future-Vice President Mike Pence
|
On July 21 2016 05:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 05:30 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 05:26 zlefin wrote: I never said intent has relatively little bearing; there are many factors, and in some cases intent is the most important factor (because other factors have been addressed). What I said was highly germane to the conversation I was having. We arrived at common ground because I put in a lot of work to be more clear; it gets annoying when I have to do that a lot and the other person doesn't put in enough effort on it. Give me an example where intent matters. I think if we look back at our conversation the effort I put in (take, for example, word count and sentence complexity) is far higher than yours. an example for drone strikes, or an example in general? and will hypothetical examples suffice? In criminal law, which I was referencing, it matters an awful lot, but I suppose I can make up some examples anyways. word count and sentence complexity may not matter if you make more basic communication errors, like unfounded assumptions. I'm talking about the effort needed to ensure clarity.
I've kind of lost interest in this discussion for now, but let's take the example of the article that sparked the discussion. I'm going to simplify it to a situation where a drone strike war authorized that was valid under a set of material and political facts (it took place in a warzone and was consistent with a valid war aim, for example). If intentions enter into at all, and I'm not convinced they do, you might say something like, at least the US was trying to achieve a valid war aim while minimizing civilian casualties in a warzone. Sure, maybe. But perhaps it's better to look at whether the US was competent in trying to achieve it valid war goals or whether it was negligent in trying to achieve those goals (i.e. there was unacceptable risk and so it conflicted with the valid war aim of killing enemy combatants when the risk of killing non-combatants is low).
In any case, I would argue that intent here is subsumed by the validity criteria related to the material and political facts on the ground, and most probably is intellectual shorthand for something like "competence in prosecuting a just war with valid war aims" and is unrelated to defining the war aims in the first place. Otherwise you fall into scenarios where the honest intentions of immoral leaders/regimes justify their actions. That is, intentions can never justify war aims themselves.
|
On July 21 2016 07:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 07:35 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 07:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 21 2016 05:10 IgnE wrote: Show nested quote +
Depends on your assumptions about states and citizens. Drone operations outside of ISIS-controlled Syria at the very least dehumanize and depersonalize non-US citizens. Drone operations cause far less civilian casualties than either ground combat or traditional airstrikes, which would suggest a more human and personal view of non-US citizens. War itself depersonalizes and dehumanizes so not sure what the point is. It's a rather bizarre world where the most effective method of bombing ever devised so far as limiting collateral damage is portrayed and perceived by many as just as bad if not worse than regular old bombs or missiles sent from a plane, which has always killed far more people who weren't the target. In any case, the Geneva Conventions places responsibility for civilian casualties in a situation where one side hides among civilians or blatantly uses them as human shields (for example by establishing positions in a residential neighborhood) on that side, not on the other side. The depersonalization and dehumanization is the responsibility of those who control the ground and view civilians as a resource like shells or rifles, to be expended for combat purposes. Consider if the US carpet bombed Pakistan trying to kill an Afghani terrorist leader and then reevalute everything you wrote because it's totally off base. but, they're not doing that; and his points are valid and sound. So address them rather than create an irrelevant hypothetical.
He QUOTED my statement about drone operations OUTSIDE OF SYRIA. Are you trolling ME now?
It's pretty simple. We aren't at war in Pakistan. Bombings are bombings. You can't bomb people in peacetime. His use of the Geneva Convention simply has no bearing on drone attacks outside of defined warzones (of which Syria might be one).
The next thing I know you are going to come back and say that you think bombings in Pakistan are valid after making such a big stink about how you qualified your statements and that I made unjust assumptions about your position when I brought Pakistan into the discussion.
|
|
On July 21 2016 06:32 Plansix wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/20/secret-service-investigates-trump-advisor-who-said-clinton-should-be-executed/Show nested quote +The Secret Service is investigating one of Donald Trump's most outspoken supporters, a New Hampshire state representative who said this week that Hillary Clinton should be shot for treason.
“The U.S. Secret Service is aware of this matter and will conduct the appropriate investigation," Nicole Mainor, a spokeswoman for the Secret Service, said about the comments from Al Baldasaro. The investigation was first reported by the Daily Beast.
Baldasaro, a Republican from Londonderry, N.H., is a former Marine who calls himself Trump's "veteran advisor." Trump gave him a key role during a crucial moment in this campaign: In May, when Trump criticized the news media for its coverage of his promise to give $1 million to veterans groups, Baldasaro was given a speaking role and a place in the background when Trump spoke.
This week, as Republicans at the party convention in Cleveland called for Clinton to be jailed, Baldasaro went further.
“Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason,” Baldasaro said earlier in the week on "The Kuhner Report," a conservative radio show hosted by Jeff Kuhner.
On Wednesday, Baldasaro stood by those comments in an interview with WMUR of Manchester, N.H. He said the death penalty was appropriate for Clinton’s handling of government emails. “As far as I’m concerned, it is treason and the penalty for treason is the firing squad — or maybe it’s the electric chair now,” Baldasaro said.
Baldasaro did not immediately respond to an email sent seeking comment on Wednesday afternoon.
Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, said in a brief statement that "Mr. Trump and the campaign do not agree" that Clinton should be executed for treason. Hicks did not respond to a question asking whether Trump would cut ties with Baldasaro. Trump decides the advocating the killing of his opponent was to far and decides to walk the statement back. Unclear if he will fire the person who made the statement. Secret Service decides to take this shit seriously, because advocating to the extra judicial execution political figures isn't acceptable. Its almost like what Palin did with that image of some political opponent with a photoshopped crosshair on her.
|
They're really milking Wisconsin for speakers for some reason. That state is a catastrophe so not sure why you'd want anyone from there talking but whatever.
|
"It was easy to come out as trans. It was hard to come out as Republican," said Caitlyn Jenner at a Republican National Convention outside of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Wednesday morning.
She was mostly-joking, but had a point: Other than Donald Trump, himself, she was the most famous celebrity to touch down on Cleveland during the Republican National Convention. (And she wasn't actually speaking on the convention floor.)
But Jenner showed that her Republican views don't interfere with her social activism. She spoke about the absurdity of North Carolina's bathroom laws ("I haven't used a men's room in a year and a half. I follow the rules. I never flush a feminine product down the toilet."), about how she came out to her kids ("God said, 'Let's give this one the soul of a female and see how he does.'") and explained that she wants more conservatives to change the way they think about LGBTQ issues. "I think the Republican Party needs to understand. They need to know people who are trans."
If Jenner could tell the official Republican nominee one thing, "I would tell Donald that there are people out there that have been marginalized for so many years... It's about the next generation coming up. We have to provide a safe environment for them."
Source
|
And I am again reminded by my trans friends do not like Caitlyn Jenner. Its for jokes like that one that people read as super serious.
|
Jokes are bad! Control your speech to not offend anyone!
|
On July 21 2016 07:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 07:45 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 07:35 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 07:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 21 2016 05:10 IgnE wrote: Show nested quote +
Depends on your assumptions about states and citizens. Drone operations outside of ISIS-controlled Syria at the very least dehumanize and depersonalize non-US citizens. Drone operations cause far less civilian casualties than either ground combat or traditional airstrikes, which would suggest a more human and personal view of non-US citizens. War itself depersonalizes and dehumanizes so not sure what the point is. It's a rather bizarre world where the most effective method of bombing ever devised so far as limiting collateral damage is portrayed and perceived by many as just as bad if not worse than regular old bombs or missiles sent from a plane, which has always killed far more people who weren't the target. In any case, the Geneva Conventions places responsibility for civilian casualties in a situation where one side hides among civilians or blatantly uses them as human shields (for example by establishing positions in a residential neighborhood) on that side, not on the other side. The depersonalization and dehumanization is the responsibility of those who control the ground and view civilians as a resource like shells or rifles, to be expended for combat purposes. Consider if the US carpet bombed Pakistan trying to kill an Afghani terrorist leader and then reevalute everything you wrote because it's totally off base. but, they're not doing that; and his points are valid and sound. So address them rather than create an irrelevant hypothetical. He QUOTED my statement about drone operations OUTSIDE OF SYRIA. Are you trolling ME now? It's pretty simple. We aren't at war in Pakistan. Bombings are bombings. You can't bomb people in peacetime. His use of the Geneva Convention simply has no bearing on drone attacks outside of defined warzones (of which Syria might be one). The next thing I know you are going to come back and say that you think bombings in Pakistan are valid after making such a big stink about how you qualified your statements and that I made unjust assumptions about your position when I brought Pakistan into the discussion. Pakistan is a complicated situation with a long answer; but bringing up carpet bombing as if it were a possibility seems irrelevant to me; as that involves a vastly different ratio of civilian casualties which is far outside the realms of worthwhileness, given current capabilities.
I didn't get into the Pakistan bombing because I have insufficient information, and the answers are very long and complicated, and it wasn't germane to that other discussion.
on your other response; the main relevance of the intent is to the potential criminality of the act, and which charge it could fall under.
in any case, I agree on being tired of this discussion.
|
By the way, has there been a poll in this thread to get a rough number of TL democrats/republicans? Curious what the ratio is. 70/30 with majority liberals?
|
On July 21 2016 08:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: By the way, has there been a poll in this thread to get a rough number of TL democrats/republicans? Curious what the ratio is. 70/30 with majority liberals?
There was one for Trump/Clinton but I don't remember the exact results.
Clinton definitely had a large majority though
|
On July 21 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 08:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: By the way, has there been a poll in this thread to get a rough number of TL democrats/republicans? Curious what the ratio is. 70/30 with majority liberals? There was one for Trump/Clinton but I don't remember the exact results. Clinton definitely had a large majority though
Ah thanks, I kind of want to try to hunt it down, but at the same time with the number of pages, not really S:
|
Man, I went on Hillary's twitter for the first time in a while... Ugh, they're running such an ugly campaign. Actually makes me mad that they try and play the rational and logical card with the shit in their videos.
|
On July 21 2016 09:11 FiWiFaKi wrote: Man, I went on Hillary's twitter for the first time in a while... Ugh, they're running such an ugly campaign. Actually makes me mad that they try and play the rational and logical card with the shit in their videos. Who did they advocate to be executed for treason? Bush?
|
On July 21 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 08:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: By the way, has there been a poll in this thread to get a rough number of TL democrats/republicans? Curious what the ratio is. 70/30 with majority liberals? There was one for Drumpf/Clinton but I don't remember the exact results. Clinton definitely had a large majority though Alot of Republicans will not vote trump so that isn't an accurate representation of Dem vs Pub anyways.
|
On July 21 2016 09:14 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 21 2016 08:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: By the way, has there been a poll in this thread to get a rough number of TL democrats/republicans? Curious what the ratio is. 70/30 with majority liberals? There was one for Drumpf/Clinton but I don't remember the exact results. Clinton definitely had a large majority though Alot of Republicans will not vote trump so that isn't an accurate representation of Dem vs Pub anyways.
Say what you will, Trump has been doing reasonably in the polls compared to both the 2008 and 2012 nominees.
|
Why does Clinton end some of her tweets with "-H"?
|
On July 21 2016 09:18 Sent. wrote: Why does Clinton end some of her tweets with "-H"?
She doesn't personally run the twitter or tweet herself so that implies it's a quote from Hillary.
|
|
|
|