|
On September 10 2003 00:13 SoLsiTO wrote:
I never said that I did not lie, and once again you take the stance of a relativist which pretty much kills any room for debate. I respect the fact that you have morals and ethics that you live by, I wish the same could be said for everybody but it cannot. However, I do not believe that lieing or doing drugs makes you unmoral, the lack of morality in Bush lies in his manipulation of the American public and his unnecessary greed, especially with his relations and ties to certain corporations. I just cannot see how you can say that Bush is any more or any less moral then Clinton. Clinton lied about being adultry to the American public, Bush lies about reasons to send off americans to kill and be killed. As for your quote, I really hope it is different within the context of where it came from, otherwise it sounds rather hateful.
lol that was probably clinton's most minor scandal, to go along with his other 20
|
On September 09 2003 22:33 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Not to mention I'm sure that what qualifies as "moral" has different definitions to you and I.
That is taking a stance of relativism, I did not say you were taking the stance of relativism in any other of your posts in this thread. However, I do believe you have taken the stance of relativism in other threads, but if I am wrong I apologize.
I'll leave the source finding to psylo as he seems to like doing research, however, until Bush finds WMD he lied about reasons for going to war. Just because he changed his focus from WMD to 9-11 and liberation does not make at any less of a lie. Furthermore, there is no proof linking Al Qaeda to Iraq so 9-11 as a reason is seemingly less and less likely.
And BlackJack i chose that scandal as an example because it is the one he got in the most trouble for and recieved the most critisism for.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 09 2003 18:03 BlackJack wrote: Show nested quote +On September 09 2003 07:11 Klogon wrote: On September 09 2003 03:39 BlackJack wrote:
Psylo, your sources have already proven to be not credible.
You give 2 links,
one says that the steel couldn't have melted.
another says they found pools of melted steel on the ground.
That makes at least 1 of them wrong, and if 1 is wrong they might as well all be wrong. the only one that would be wrong would be the one that says it found pools of steel. The one that says stell couldn't have melted is correct. Well the fact is that one of them is wrong, because there was no foul play at the base of the towers that could have melted steel, if 2 jets couldn't have. It's all about credibility, and yours is gone now.
"Well the fact is that one of them is wrong, because there was no foul play at the base of the towers that could have melted steel, if 2 jets couldn't have."
-wow, did you think of that all by yourself? Not to start flaming or anything, but that's also what I meant as well.
and speaking of credibility... I didn't want to say this a while back because I didn't want to start flaming again, but I'm going to say it now.
You attacked my source that was BACKING YOU UP. But at the time you read my explination of it, you thought I was still "against" you in the debate. So you said "the guy has little idea what he's talking about" until I pointed out that I was backing you up in your case of: The towers fell from the planes. After you figured that out, I guess you were fine with the source eh?
And what's more confusing is that you basicly just said EXACTLY what I said except in your own words. I just didn't bother pointing out the obvious like you did. Then you go on to say my credibility is gone? wtf? wow, I love your logic there.
|
On September 10 2003 00:43 SoLsiTO wrote: Show nested quote +On September 09 2003 22:33 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Not to mention I'm sure that what qualifies as "moral" has different definitions to you and I. That is taking a stance of relativism, I did not say you were taking the stance of relativism in any other of your posts in this thread. However, I do believe you have taken the stance of relativism in other threads, but if I am wrong I apologize. I'll leave the source finding to psylo as he seems to like doing research, however, until Bush finds WMD he lied about reasons for going to war. Just because he changed his focus from WMD to 9-11 and liberation does not make at any less of a lie. Furthermore, there is no proof linking Al Qaeda to Iraq so 9-11 as a reason is seemingly less and less likely. And BlackJack i chose that scandal as an example because it is the one he got in the most trouble for and recieved the most critisism for.
Three things:
1) Relativism is saying that no matter what you believe you are right - I have never said this, and only argued against it. I believe in absolutes.
2) Since when is it guilty until proven innocent?
3) There are links between Iraq and Al Qaida - there is such a thing as classified information, you know? The CIA has established connections, they simply haven't declassified them to everyone yet.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
2) Since when is it guilty until proven innocent?
I'd like to ask Mr. Bush the same question
|
Since we had evidence contrary to the innocence of Saddam Hussein.
One more thing to Solsito - if you're not willing to inform yourself on the issue, don't involve yourself in the debate.
|
Talk about informing yourself, are you part of the 70% of Americans that still believe that there is a direct link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Yes, 70%, I must say: today I am truely ashamed to be American. No wonder everyone hates us. Oh yea and once again(I just love this picture  ) Take a look at the "clear link"  .
http://ijustgotsc.tripod.com/thereisalink.html
And also the CIA's link network? Weren't they also the ones that said that Iraq was getting uranium from Nigeria? FOR PETE'S SAKE come on!
|
Btw, Clinton was not a good president, yea he lied about his private life, but does anyone really need to know about his private life?
On the other hand, Bush lies about goin into Iraw, this costs the lives of hundreds(potentially, actual number >100 tho) of soldiers.
Think logically, hundreds of lives, or someones personal life that we shouldn't be poking our noses into in the first place?
|
|
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 10 2003 03:37 hmmm wrote:
Btw, Clinton was not a good president, yea he lied about his private life, but does anyone really need to know about his private life?
On the other hand, Bush lies about goin into Iraw, this costs the lives of hundreds(potentially, actual number >100 tho) of soldiers.
Think logically, hundreds of lives, or someones personal life that we shouldn't be poking our noses into in the first place?
^uhhhhhh wtf....... thats right you SHOULD be ashamed of being an american
|
On September 10 2003 01:15 Klogon wrote: Show nested quote +On September 09 2003 18:03 BlackJack wrote: On September 09 2003 07:11 Klogon wrote: On September 09 2003 03:39 BlackJack wrote:
Psylo, your sources have already proven to be not credible.
You give 2 links,
one says that the steel couldn't have melted.
another says they found pools of melted steel on the ground.
That makes at least 1 of them wrong, and if 1 is wrong they might as well all be wrong. the only one that would be wrong would be the one that says it found pools of steel. The one that says stell couldn't have melted is correct. Well the fact is that one of them is wrong, because there was no foul play at the base of the towers that could have melted steel, if 2 jets couldn't have. It's all about credibility, and yours is gone now. "Well the fact is that one of them is wrong, because there was no foul play at the base of the towers that could have melted steel, if 2 jets couldn't have." -wow, did you think of that all by yourself? Not to start flaming or anything, but that's also what I meant as well. and speaking of credibility... I didn't want to say this a while back because I didn't want to start flaming again, but I'm going to say it now. You attacked my source that was BACKING YOU UP. But at the time you read my explination of it, you thought I was still "against" you in the debate. So you said "the guy has little idea what he's talking about" until I pointed out that I was backing you up in your case of: The towers fell from the planes. After you figured that out, I guess you were fine with the source eh? And what's more confusing is that you basicly just said EXACTLY what I said except in your own words. I just didn't bother pointing out the obvious like you did. Then you go on to say my credibility is gone? wtf? wow, I love your logic there.
I said that the steel melted and caused the collapse. You post a link saying that the steel couldn't have melted. Thanks for getting my back.
You are a very gullable person if you think we let our soldiers die in Pearl Harbor, the towers were a controlled collapse, Bush was behind 9/11, and that the steel did not melt.
One guy comes on a site and says the steel not melted and you have spent the past 3 days saying stuff like YOU ARE WRONG THE STEEL DID NOT MELT. You can't speak with this extreme confidence if you don't want to embarrass yourself. One guy says something and you automatically believe him. That is called being gullable.
P.S. I didn't say your credibility was gone, I said psylo's credibility was gone.
Your credibility has been gone ever since you thought Pearl Harbor was brought upon by the US government.
|
On September 10 2003 01:19 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Three things:
1) Relativism is saying that no matter what you believe you are right - I have never said this, and only argued against it. I believe in absolutes.
2) Since when is it guilty until proven innocent?
3) There are links between Iraq and Al Qaida - there is such a thing as classified information, you know? The CIA has established connections, they simply haven't declassified them to everyone yet.
1) Relativism as taken directly from dictionary.com "A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them." So who exactly is pretending to know what they are talking about? You said that what I hold as moral would be different from what you hold as moral, meaning morals are relative to me or you.
2) Did Iraq have the chance to be innocent untill proven guilty? Perhaps I am being too judgemental of Bush, but untill he proves to me that his reasons for war with Iraq are true, that Iraq really does have WMD and there really is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda then he has lied, or do you just want to call him a story teller? And notice i said Iraq, not Saddam.
3) Do you work for the CIA? Do you have access to classified information for the CIA? But you know what information the CIA has and the connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq are, would you care to post them so you can enlighten me?
I am sick of your holier then though attitude, you refuse to acknowledge any ideas outside of your own as true, and then preach your ideas to the rest of us. The only point you bothered to argue with sources against Psylo was his weakest point (a controlled colapse) and in the overall debate held little meaning. Psylo even conceded that part of the argument and since you have done little to refute his other points. But I forgot, you are more moral then anyone here so therefore you must be right.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 01 2003 03:09 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 01:41 BlackJack wrote:
My intuition tells me, if their was an uprising in Iraq, and a mob killed a couple hundred soldiers, this guy would be extremely overjoyed because he would be able to blame the Bush administration.
you are a fool. i have friends in iraq. friend that are sitting in an extremely hot dessert that they know nothing about. surrounded by a culture they know nothing about. just waiting to get picked off by some sniper or step on a land mine.i care about the soldiers in iraq. bush does not. i say bring them home, before more die. bush says "bring'em on". we have sent 1000's of young americans over there, most of wich are in the military just becuase its the only way the can afford higher education in this country, to kill innocent iraqi's. to take a part in what history will most likely call the beginning of americas down fall. american soldiers are some are the most effected victims of the bush administration(not to mention he is cutting there pay, along with the veterans).
"I care about soldiers in iraq. bush does not."
-who are you to say what bush does or doesnt care about?
"we have sent 1000's of young americans over there, most of wich are in the military just becuase its the only way the can afford higher education in this country, to kill innocent iraqi's."
-how else are we to uphold stability in iraq? soldiers are essential, as for the soldiers purposes , i dont see how thats in any way rellevent to anything, we would have an army regardless of the motives for joining of the enlisted, perhaps not as large a one as is right now but im sure our army would exceed 100k soldiers which is how many are in iraq right now..why the fuck are the iraqi soldiers necessarily innocent? you're saying those who defend a tyrant dictator and his dissipated regime are exempt of the consequences of doing so? so we should have spared the SS in the closing stages of WWII when Nazi germany defeat was inevitable and immiment? other than that i dont see how the iraqi's are innocent unless you're implying that our soldiers are SLAUGHTERING innocent citizens which is simply not the case
"to take a part in what history will most likely call the beginning of americas down fall"
wtf are you talking about, america's downfall? what is this / how do you support it?
"american soldiers are some are the most effected victims of the bush administration(not to mention he is cutting there pay, along with the veterans"
its funny how you call them victims , it was by their own consent that they enrolled in the army, even if they needed money for college there are other options such as getting a job & waiting. To the extent of my knowledge there is no mandatory draft in the army, so they are by no means 'victims'
that was a horrible post
|
On September 10 2003 04:12 SoLsiTO wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2003 01:19 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Three things:
1) Relativism is saying that no matter what you believe you are right - I have never said this, and only argued against it. I believe in absolutes.
2) Since when is it guilty until proven innocent?
3) There are links between Iraq and Al Qaida - there is such a thing as classified information, you know? The CIA has established connections, they simply haven't declassified them to everyone yet. 1) Relativism as taken directly from dictionary.com "A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them." So who exactly is pretending to know what they are talking about? You said that what I hold as moral would be different from what you hold as moral, meaning morals are relative to me or you.
Please take notice of the fact that what I said was both sardonic and moral was in quotations. What I was saying is that what you hold to be moral isn't the same as what I do - but that doesn't mean you're right, or that we both are. I've done about 3 years of research on and off regarding values clarification and moral relativism.
2) Did Iraq have the chance to be innocent untill proven guilty? Perhaps I am being too judgemental of Bush, but untill he proves to me that his reasons for war with Iraq are true, that Iraq really does have WMD and there really is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda then he has lied, or do you just want to call him a story teller? And notice i said Iraq, not Saddam.
Saddam was the leader of Iraq - is the country as a whole to blame? No, but many followed Saddam, and almost all of the atrocities attributed to the country for the past 20 years are due to him. Yes, Iraq did - for instance, when Colin Powell made his presentation at the U.N., why did Iraq make no refutation other than to say, "These are lies!" They brought forth no evidence of any kind. Isn't that rather suspicious, don't ya think? You're still judging guilty until proven innocent.
3) Do you work for the CIA? Do you have access to classified information for the CIA? But you know what information the CIA has and the connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq are, would you care to post them so you can enlighten me?
I already did - and if you want, I have links for the Washington Post mentioning them as well.
I am sick of your holier then though attitude, you refuse to acknowledge any ideas outside of your own as true, and then preach your ideas to the rest of us. The only point you bothered to argue with sources against Psylo was his weakest point (a controlled colapse) and in the overall debate held little meaning. Psylo even conceded that part of the argument and since you have done little to refute his other points. But I forgot, you are more moral then anyone here so therefore you must be right.
Ah, thank you, pot (can I call you pol pot??), for calling me, the kettle, black! As for the refutation of Psylo's other arguments; I'm 17 - I have school daily, I'm employed as a web designer, and yes, I like to play a little SC every now and then. I am working on getting some information, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to acquire companies' financial information, sometimes? They don't usually publicize it all over the net, ya know.
|
i have decided that the debate has come down to a differance in opinion that most likely can not be changed. i feel the "political culture" of the united states is one that is extremely self serving, devious, and egotistic. for obsoletes point to hold true, he would have to give much more credit to the "political culture". i quite frankly can not concieve of how one can think so positively about it, if they knew how politics works, but it would be futile for me argue against his perception. maybe one day, US induced devestation will knock on his door, and he will see things differantly, personally, i dont need to wait for that to happen. i know about the millions lost for political and corporate reasons. i have seen the pictures of the dead and dying. i make it a point, to visually know what my tax dollars are paying for. it is easy sit in the most luxurios country in the world, and justify the slaughter and manipulation of weeker countries, cuase quite frankly, we most likely would not have our riches and luxeries if we did not do these things. but one should atleast relize that such recklace and aggressive actions will ultimately turn there tides. no empire has survived. no people remain opressed for long. the cycle of violents in the world will once again cycle over, and most will not have the luxory of sizing up the masacre of entire cultures, to driving a nice SUV.
obsolete, i obviously respect your opinion, but i just think u lack perspective. as to many others on this thread, some just quite frankly dont know what the hell they are talking abuot -_____-
|
On September 10 2003 05:55 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Please take notice of the fact that what I said was both sardonic and moral was in quotations. What I was saying is that what you hold to be moral isn't the same as what I do - but that doesn't mean you're right, or that we both are. I've done about 3 years of research on and off regarding values clarification and moral relativism.
Saddam was the leader of Iraq - is the country as a whole to blame? No, but many followed Saddam, and almost all of the atrocities attributed to the country for the past 20 years are due to him. Yes, Iraq did - for instance, when Colin Powell made his presentation at the U.N., why did Iraq make no refutation other than to say, "These are lies!" They brought forth no evidence of any kind. Isn't that rather suspicious, don't ya think? You're still judging guilty until proven innocent.
I already did - and if you want, I have links for the Washington Post mentioning them as well.
Ah, thank you, pot (can I call you pol pot??), for calling me, the kettle, black! As for the refutation of Psylo's other arguments; I'm 17 - I have school daily, I'm employed as a web designer, and yes, I like to play a little SC every now and then. I am working on getting some information, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to acquire companies' financial information, sometimes? They don't usually publicize it all over the net, ya know.
I still believe that in that statement, and in the one above, that you are making a relativist argument, perhaps I am still misinterpreting what you are trying to say and it really doesn't matter as it does not pretain to this argument, but i would like to hear your thoughts on 'values clarification and moral relativism.' In my experience using relativism as an argument in such subjects as pleasure, freedom and morality tend to be academically frowned on, so much so by certain professors that if you do you will recieve an F on your paper. But this is all besides the point so...
Yes Saddam needed to go, but was war the only solution? It sounds like Iraq took a very similar stance to Colin Powells presentation as you and many others have to Psylo's presentation. Don't you think it is rather suspicious that all these WMD that we were suppose to have found have not shown up, and that now WMD are no longer the focal point of Bush's policy towards Iraq. As for judging bush guilty untill proven innocent, he is not exactly innocent and maybe he deserves more from me, but to be perfectly honest i expect more out of him, the president, then i do a normal citizen of the US.
Could you please point me to the place where you have posted confidential CIA information and give me the links to the washington post. I am glad that I finally met someone who has inside access to CIA info., i have many other questions for you
As for calling me a black pot (pol pot no thankyou), I will readily acknowledge when I am wrong, something I have not seen you do. I am open to new ideas, something that you seem not to be, perhaps i can point to your oh so nice quote again. I have no idea how difficult it is to get companies' financial information, and I have no reason to believe that they will give you the information, but for the sake of this debate i hope you do. You see i really hope I am wrong about Bush, i hope that Bush did not have prior knowledge of 9-11, i hope that Iraq did pose as a threat to the US and that they did have WMD, i hope that there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, i hope that Bush has not gained anything out of 9-11 and that he did not go to war with Iraq primarily for oil, most of all i hope that Bush has not lied too and manipulated the American public, so here is to hoping that you are right about bush. But so far you nor anyone else on these forums has presented a reasonable argument against any of these things. One last thing, where in California do you live, and if it is in the bay area what school do you attend? Oh and in case you were wondering, and so we can make this the personals , i am a 20 year old college student who is still on summer vacation and plays soccer religously. So here is to hoping...
|
dont mean to kill your hopes buddy -___-
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
psylo you're simply wrong and you had like 400 spelling errors in that last post
|
no worries, you never killed them... these specific hopes have been dead for a long time now  But maybe obsolete can revive them
|
not looking likely as time goes on, more and more evidence comes out about 9-11, and the bush administration in general. i use to beleive the government story, but information slowly pushed me to my current perspective. as time goes on, my opinion is only strengthed by what developes. i see this trend continueing, until one day the truth will be revealed to the mass public. what happends then, i dont konw...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
