|
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 August 20 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 24 2016 00:52 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 00:30 silynxer wrote:On June 24 2016 00:09 SolaR- wrote:On June 24 2016 00:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote:I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column?  I mean, I don't personally agree or think that it would work out well, but Trump did have at least one important indirect point that he highlighted when making the argument: sometimes you have to play dirty and accept collateral damage when battling terrorism. There are three historically successful means of fighting against a guerilla army: fight for decades until they ultimately wither under constant pressure, bomb aggressively and indiscriminately so that they cannot hide among the populace, and cut them off from all support structures and bleed them dry. Trump is basically advocating for the second one, and while that does not conform well to modern ideas of human rights, it is probably the most feasible way to fight terrorism in the modern era. Thank you, my point exactly. The logic is there it just depends on the individual and how they prioritize their values. kwizach had a very long post about the state of research into exactly the question whether dealing with terrorism in this way is effective (the post got completely ignored of course). Turns out it is almost universally seen as ineffective or counterproductive and if effective then only in very narrow circumstances that are not met in this situation (of course the outcry of the world would also be a predictable effect with very real negative consequences for the US). Now, you and LegalLord can of course ignore this or declare the research faulty (I can imagine that you both would argue that it's tainted by modern conceptions of human rights and thus biased or something) but the question would remain how you would determine the effectiveness of such a strategy. And how small (or counterproductive) the effect would have to be for you not to support this approach. Maybe in the end it is not that much about the actual effect but more about emotions ("at least we are doing something", "we are showing them", "an eye for an eye"). You are correct that I would have probably ignored a long kwizach post, a stance I take from experience. Between the misrepresentation of opposing positions, misrepresentation of sources, stonewalling, and general unpleasant manner of arguing, I generally don't see much value in reading his posts. They tend to annoy and irritate me even when I actually agree with his main point. If you want to summarize it or offer sources, be my guest - otherwise I'll simply have to treat this as a phantom assertion that "someone else proved you're wrong but I don't want to actually show you where."I'm sure that we could agree that dealing with ethnic strife in the long term is a problem that none of us have a good answer to. In the short term, guerilla movements fail when you destroy their organization. Dissent is one thing, active militants is another. I couldn't have said it better myself. Half of the time he just throws out a wall of sources claiming that they stand for proposition X when there is no realistic possibility of verifying either the claim that the source actually stands for that proposition, or that the source cited is sound/unimpeachable. I did take the time to look at some of the stuff that he posted in his most recent wall of bullshit post, and I found it highly wanting. Points were misrepresented, sources were over-cited, and some of the sources were just ridiculous. If I had several free days, I could have posted a meaningful response if I was so inclined. And I'm not. The only result would be the complete shitting up of this thread with stuff that basically no one cares about. Long story short, there's a reason why kwizach is ignored by many of the veteran posters in this thread. Continues to be proven valid. Though I suppose it's fair to add "unable to avoid spinning a criticism into a personal vendetta" to the list of reasons that I don't waste my time.
So, in other words, you're too lazy to put in the effort to refute his thoroughly-sourced arguing points.
And I find it really ironic that Templar cites xDaunt as a quality poster and that xDaunt himself claims that we ignore kwizach when xDaunt is easily one of the worst shit posters here. He repeatedly condones genocide, justifies disenfranchising a huge segment of the population by calling them stupid, repeatedly personally attacks posters, and doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty as he consistently strawmans his opponents, or just ignores them when he's soundly defeated.
Perhaps instead of just relying on xDaunt's lazy response, you should put a little effort into your own.
|
On August 20 2016 02:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 02:18 Mercy13 wrote:On August 20 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 24 2016 00:52 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 00:30 silynxer wrote:On June 24 2016 00:09 SolaR- wrote:On June 24 2016 00:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote:I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column? I mean, I don't personally agree or think that it would work out well, but Trump did have at least one important indirect point that he highlighted when making the argument: sometimes you have to play dirty and accept collateral damage when battling terrorism. There are three historically successful means of fighting against a guerilla army: fight for decades until they ultimately wither under constant pressure, bomb aggressively and indiscriminately so that they cannot hide among the populace, and cut them off from all support structures and bleed them dry. Trump is basically advocating for the second one, and while that does not conform well to modern ideas of human rights, it is probably the most feasible way to fight terrorism in the modern era. Thank you, my point exactly. The logic is there it just depends on the individual and how they prioritize their values. kwizach had a very long post about the state of research into exactly the question whether dealing with terrorism in this way is effective (the post got completely ignored of course). Turns out it is almost universally seen as ineffective or counterproductive and if effective then only in very narrow circumstances that are not met in this situation (of course the outcry of the world would also be a predictable effect with very real negative consequences for the US). Now, you and LegalLord can of course ignore this or declare the research faulty (I can imagine that you both would argue that it's tainted by modern conceptions of human rights and thus biased or something) but the question would remain how you would determine the effectiveness of such a strategy. And how small (or counterproductive) the effect would have to be for you not to support this approach. Maybe in the end it is not that much about the actual effect but more about emotions ("at least we are doing something", "we are showing them", "an eye for an eye"). You are correct that I would have probably ignored a long kwizach post, a stance I take from experience. Between the misrepresentation of opposing positions, misrepresentation of sources, stonewalling, and general unpleasant manner of arguing, I generally don't see much value in reading his posts. They tend to annoy and irritate me even when I actually agree with his main point. If you want to summarize it or offer sources, be my guest - otherwise I'll simply have to treat this as a phantom assertion that "someone else proved you're wrong but I don't want to actually show you where."I'm sure that we could agree that dealing with ethnic strife in the long term is a problem that none of us have a good answer to. In the short term, guerilla movements fail when you destroy their organization. Dissent is one thing, active militants is another. I couldn't have said it better myself. Half of the time he just throws out a wall of sources claiming that they stand for proposition X when there is no realistic possibility of verifying either the claim that the source actually stands for that proposition, or that the source cited is sound/unimpeachable. I did take the time to look at some of the stuff that he posted in his most recent wall of bullshit post, and I found it highly wanting. Points were misrepresented, sources were over-cited, and some of the sources were just ridiculous. If I had several free days, I could have posted a meaningful response if I was so inclined. And I'm not. The only result would be the complete shitting up of this thread with stuff that basically no one cares about. Long story short, there's a reason why kwizach is ignored by many of the veteran posters in this thread. Continues to be proven valid. Though I suppose it's fair to add "unable to avoid spinning a criticism into a personal vendetta" to the list of reasons that I don't waste my time. It's okay if you're too lazy to put the same amount of effort into responding to Kwizach's posts as he does writing them, most posters are. But don't pretend this is his failing. I found the post on the effectiveness of targeting civilians to be very persuasive, you should read it. I've read his posts plenty, and I've previously spent time looking through his sources and giving him a full response. The result is the same: long-winded responses with plenty of questionable assumptions, misrepresentation of sources and the inability to acknowledge as much, and the inability to avoid spending quite a long time complaining about people ignoring him. At some point you have to realize that there is really nothing to be proven by discussion with him (participation in this thread is fully voluntary and doesn't influence anything in the real world) and it's not worth wasting the time to do so. You are free to agree with him - I sometimes agree with the general point he makes as well. However, discussions involving kwizach on any topic always inevitably devolve into "shitting up the thread with stuff that basically nobody cares about." No thanks.
You're repeating yourself again. I answered all of that. If you're not willing to engage with me on substance, that's perfectly fine (just don't pretend "nobody cares about" the topics being discussed). Ignore my posts in this thread and stop with the personal attacks. Move on.
|
United States13779 Posts
On August 20 2016 02:22 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 20 2016 01:23 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 01:06 OtherWorld wrote:
Is this Manafort guy the one who replaced Lewandowski? Is so, is it likely that Trump will call Lewandowski back? After all, you don't change a winning team. None of the changes seem to compete with the others. Lewandowski was campaign manager, Manafort is campaign chair, Bannon is campaign CEO. I don't know how much their influence overlaps in practice. Are these normal titles for campaigns? These all sound like the same thing lol. What is the distinction between any of these roles? I feel like title of campaign CEO would be more appropriate for Trump. Also the fact that none of them have been concurrently part of the campaign makes it seem like the same thing.
I just assumed it was a face-saving measure to avoid having to explicitly dismiss any of them.
|
On August 20 2016 02:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 24 2016 00:52 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 00:30 silynxer wrote:On June 24 2016 00:09 SolaR- wrote:On June 24 2016 00:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote:I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column? I mean, I don't personally agree or think that it would work out well, but Trump did have at least one important indirect point that he highlighted when making the argument: sometimes you have to play dirty and accept collateral damage when battling terrorism. There are three historically successful means of fighting against a guerilla army: fight for decades until they ultimately wither under constant pressure, bomb aggressively and indiscriminately so that they cannot hide among the populace, and cut them off from all support structures and bleed them dry. Trump is basically advocating for the second one, and while that does not conform well to modern ideas of human rights, it is probably the most feasible way to fight terrorism in the modern era. Thank you, my point exactly. The logic is there it just depends on the individual and how they prioritize their values. kwizach had a very long post about the state of research into exactly the question whether dealing with terrorism in this way is effective (the post got completely ignored of course). Turns out it is almost universally seen as ineffective or counterproductive and if effective then only in very narrow circumstances that are not met in this situation (of course the outcry of the world would also be a predictable effect with very real negative consequences for the US). Now, you and LegalLord can of course ignore this or declare the research faulty (I can imagine that you both would argue that it's tainted by modern conceptions of human rights and thus biased or something) but the question would remain how you would determine the effectiveness of such a strategy. And how small (or counterproductive) the effect would have to be for you not to support this approach. Maybe in the end it is not that much about the actual effect but more about emotions ("at least we are doing something", "we are showing them", "an eye for an eye"). You are correct that I would have probably ignored a long kwizach post, a stance I take from experience. Between the misrepresentation of opposing positions, misrepresentation of sources, stonewalling, and general unpleasant manner of arguing, I generally don't see much value in reading his posts. They tend to annoy and irritate me even when I actually agree with his main point. If you want to summarize it or offer sources, be my guest - otherwise I'll simply have to treat this as a phantom assertion that "someone else proved you're wrong but I don't want to actually show you where."I'm sure that we could agree that dealing with ethnic strife in the long term is a problem that none of us have a good answer to. In the short term, guerilla movements fail when you destroy their organization. Dissent is one thing, active militants is another. I couldn't have said it better myself. Half of the time he just throws out a wall of sources claiming that they stand for proposition X when there is no realistic possibility of verifying either the claim that the source actually stands for that proposition, or that the source cited is sound/unimpeachable. I did take the time to look at some of the stuff that he posted in his most recent wall of bullshit post, and I found it highly wanting. Points were misrepresented, sources were over-cited, and some of the sources were just ridiculous. If I had several free days, I could have posted a meaningful response if I was so inclined. And I'm not. The only result would be the complete shitting up of this thread with stuff that basically no one cares about. Long story short, there's a reason why kwizach is ignored by many of the veteran posters in this thread. Continues to be proven valid. Though I suppose it's fair to add "unable to avoid spinning a criticism into a personal vendetta" to the list of reasons that I don't waste my time. So, in other words, you're too lazy to put in the effort to refute his thoroughly-sourced arguing points. And I find it really ironic that Templar cites xDaunt as a quality poster and that xDaunt himself claims that we ignore kwizach when xDaunt is easily one of the worst shit posters here. He repeatedly condones genocide, justifies disenfranchising a huge segment of the population by calling them stupid, repeatedly personally attacks posters, and doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty as he consistently strawmans his opponents, or just ignores them when he's soundly defeated. Perhaps instead of just relying on xDaunt's lazy response, you should put a little effort into your own.
but he says he is the one honest enough to not get blinded by stupid pc to call all those lazy shitty brown people lazy shitty brown people, which is not racism but just a deliberate action with disparaging impact on black people, which is totally different to racism
but since he is a contributor none of his posts can be reported, even if he purposefully "revels" in being an ass to the weaker/socially disenfrenchised
|
Lets reign it in before we get this thread closed again.
|
“This morning Paul Manafort offered, and I accepted, his resignation from the campaign. I am very appreciative for his great work in helping to get us where we are today, and in particular his work guiding us through the delegate and convention process. Paul is a true professional and I wish him the greatest success.”
– Donald J. Trump
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement1
|
United States13779 Posts
So I just remembered the old jebbush.com website which redirected to Trump's campaign page before it got removed. I also just found this gem: http://tedcruzforamerica.com .
|
|
|
Person has opinion: News at 11!
|
On August 20 2016 03:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Person has opinion: News at 11!
Isn't this pretty standard for this thread?
|
On August 20 2016 02:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 02:18 Mercy13 wrote:On August 20 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 24 2016 00:52 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 00:30 silynxer wrote:On June 24 2016 00:09 SolaR- wrote:On June 24 2016 00:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote:I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column? I mean, I don't personally agree or think that it would work out well, but Trump did have at least one important indirect point that he highlighted when making the argument: sometimes you have to play dirty and accept collateral damage when battling terrorism. There are three historically successful means of fighting against a guerilla army: fight for decades until they ultimately wither under constant pressure, bomb aggressively and indiscriminately so that they cannot hide among the populace, and cut them off from all support structures and bleed them dry. Trump is basically advocating for the second one, and while that does not conform well to modern ideas of human rights, it is probably the most feasible way to fight terrorism in the modern era. Thank you, my point exactly. The logic is there it just depends on the individual and how they prioritize their values. kwizach had a very long post about the state of research into exactly the question whether dealing with terrorism in this way is effective (the post got completely ignored of course). Turns out it is almost universally seen as ineffective or counterproductive and if effective then only in very narrow circumstances that are not met in this situation (of course the outcry of the world would also be a predictable effect with very real negative consequences for the US). Now, you and LegalLord can of course ignore this or declare the research faulty (I can imagine that you both would argue that it's tainted by modern conceptions of human rights and thus biased or something) but the question would remain how you would determine the effectiveness of such a strategy. And how small (or counterproductive) the effect would have to be for you not to support this approach. Maybe in the end it is not that much about the actual effect but more about emotions ("at least we are doing something", "we are showing them", "an eye for an eye"). You are correct that I would have probably ignored a long kwizach post, a stance I take from experience. Between the misrepresentation of opposing positions, misrepresentation of sources, stonewalling, and general unpleasant manner of arguing, I generally don't see much value in reading his posts. They tend to annoy and irritate me even when I actually agree with his main point. If you want to summarize it or offer sources, be my guest - otherwise I'll simply have to treat this as a phantom assertion that "someone else proved you're wrong but I don't want to actually show you where."I'm sure that we could agree that dealing with ethnic strife in the long term is a problem that none of us have a good answer to. In the short term, guerilla movements fail when you destroy their organization. Dissent is one thing, active militants is another. I couldn't have said it better myself. Half of the time he just throws out a wall of sources claiming that they stand for proposition X when there is no realistic possibility of verifying either the claim that the source actually stands for that proposition, or that the source cited is sound/unimpeachable. I did take the time to look at some of the stuff that he posted in his most recent wall of bullshit post, and I found it highly wanting. Points were misrepresented, sources were over-cited, and some of the sources were just ridiculous. If I had several free days, I could have posted a meaningful response if I was so inclined. And I'm not. The only result would be the complete shitting up of this thread with stuff that basically no one cares about. Long story short, there's a reason why kwizach is ignored by many of the veteran posters in this thread. Continues to be proven valid. Though I suppose it's fair to add "unable to avoid spinning a criticism into a personal vendetta" to the list of reasons that I don't waste my time. It's okay if you're too lazy to put the same amount of effort into responding to Kwizach's posts as he does writing them, most posters are. But don't pretend this is his failing. I found the post on the effectiveness of targeting civilians to be very persuasive, you should read it. I've read his posts plenty, and I've previously spent time looking through his sources and giving him a full response. The result is the same: long-winded responses with plenty of questionable assumptions, misrepresentation of sources and the inability to acknowledge as much, and the inability to avoid spending quite a long time complaining about people ignoring him. At some point you have to realize that there is really nothing to be proven by discussion with him (participation in this thread is fully voluntary and doesn't influence anything in the real world) and it's not worth wasting the time to do so. You are free to agree with him - I sometimes agree with the general point he makes as well. However, discussions involving kwizach on any topic always inevitably devolve into "shitting up the thread with stuff that basically nobody cares about." No thanks. Also let's not continue this line of discussion since it is starting to be off-topic.
Having a history of arguing with kwizach and not wanting to do it anymore is one thing, but don't claim that gives you credence in invalidating, without actually addressing, any specific recent post he has made. Because that is what you're doing when you say "Continues to be proven valid" and "otherwise I'll simply have to treat this as a phantom assertion that "someone else proved you're wrong but I don't want to actually show you where".
|
United States44077 Posts
That it's twitter and I don't care, even if a black guy said it. Opinions from blacks are not automatically more valid just because of claims of marginalization. In fact, due to that very marginalization, they're often less informed or educated than the average opinion on topics other than their experience of that marginalization.
|
Isn't that video old? I could have sworn I saw the same video like a month or two ago.
|
reminds me of how sometimes breitbart will write an article about how shitty BLM is because they found a black dude who's critical of it
|
On August 20 2016 03:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 03:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Person has opinion: News at 11! Isn't this pretty standard for this thread?
You asked for thoughts, and that's about all the thought required for "some guy on street said something".
|
On August 20 2016 03:04 TheYango wrote:
Isn't that video old? I could have sworn I saw the same video like a month or two ago.
You did, that one keeps cropping up over and over. Notice how it is cropped, the CNN header and footer are removed and it has a different water mark. If you purge all the date stamped information, you can claim it happened yesterday every day.
|
United States13779 Posts
Generally I treat "someone on the street said something" the same as I treat news comments: sometimes interesting to note, but not credible enough to say anything more substantial than "k cool" in response.
|
On August 20 2016 03:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 03:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 20 2016 03:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Person has opinion: News at 11! Isn't this pretty standard for this thread? You asked for thoughts, and that's about all the thought required for "some guy on street said something".
Fair enough
|
On August 20 2016 03:06 PassiveAce wrote:
reminds me of how sometimes breitbart will write an article about how shitty BLM is because they found a black dude who's critical of it
The oppressive majority has been doing this for pretty much all of human history.
|
This piece from the New Yorker reporting on the "War on Doctors" perpetrated by the Syrian government is really difficult to read:
"In the past five years, the Syrian government has assassinated, bombed, and tortured to death almost seven hundred medical personnel, according to Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that documents attacks on medical care in war zones. (Non-state actors, including isis, have killed twenty-seven.) Recent headlines announced the death of the last pediatrician in Aleppo, the last cardiologist in Hama. A United Nations commission concluded that 'government forces deliberately target medical personnel to gain military advantage,' denying treatment to wounded fighters and civilians "as a matter of policy.'"
The Shadow Doctors
It's full of horrifying accounts of just a small subsection of the violence afflicting people in Syria.
It got me thinking about the contrast between how the West responded to Libya and Syria. Both have been almost universally categorized as failures, but I'm not sure that's accurate in the case of Libya.
It's true that Libya today is a mess, but it is a smaller mess than Syria, where the government is using it's air superiority to indiscriminately massacre civilians.
According to Libyabodycount.org, as of April of this year about 4,500 Libyan civilians had been killed.
In Syria, the death toll is estimated to be 470,000 by the Syrian Center for Policy Research.
time.com
That's 11.5% of the population killed, in addition to the 45% of the population which has been displaced.
If the goal of the Libyan intervention was to spread democracy then sure, it was a failure. But if its goal was to prevent large scale massacres by a brutal dictator, than it appears to have been a success, at least in comparison to Syria.
I think this indicates that the hands-off approach the West took with Syria was a mistake. At the least, establishing a no fly zone would have negated Assad's air superiority, and would have made it much more difficult for his regime to massacre civilians in rebel-held cities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
