|
On May 16 2009 09:23 zizou21 wrote:
why would you admit to listening to rush?
Because I don't care what others think about me?
I prefer Levin anyways. *awesome voice* Eh, You got 20 seconds go...
|
On May 16 2009 09:16 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:06 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. If it's not consistent then I can't agree with torture. I completely understand the constitution and the reasons it was written. I also agree with a lot of the things written in it, including the right to bear arms. I think gun control laws should be more relaxed in most places in the world, and I think America's gun control laws are fine. I know how gun control affects crime. What part of my thinking is shallow? Narrow-minded? All I was saying is that things need to be reviewed on a regular basis and not just accepted, simply because they're on the constitution. I would say that despotism leads to fear of the government, not that fear of the government leads to despotism. Also that, as much as I am in favour of lax gun control laws, I don't think the governments of any of the civilised world is a violent threat to the people. First off the Constitution has been reviewed extensively for years, first as the Articles of Confederation and then, as it is was written. The Founder's were some of the wisest, smartest, men to ever grace this planet. If you don't count their review of the work in the Constitution, then nothing can ever constitute review, because no one living today can measure up to them; not even within miles, kilometers, phathoms... How many politicians today are philosophical in nature? How many understand human nature, its societal impacts, and other repercussions? How many understand governmental functions that preserve life, liberty, and freedom? No, what we have today are a bunch of two-faced lawyers who will take everything you have to behind your back (AKA 'Stimulus'). Secondly, no interrogation method is consistent because none of them work all the time on all cases, or even some of the time, on most cases. It is a case by case basis. So, in essence, you are against any interrogation method. Think about that for a second. No, it is the Government with no fear of the people that leads to Despotism. That is why the 2nd amendment was written, and why it is the first amendment after our most basic and unalieable rights. They saw how important it was. It was the only reason we even stood a chance against the British.
To clarify, what I meant by consistent was that there were no people that gave false information or people from which no information was obtained. Which would mean that people would be tortured for no reason, which I could never stand for.
I do count all the reviews to the constitution. I don't know what you're getting at.
I don't know how many politicians are philosophical or understand human nature. I'm sure many are and do. Again, I don't see what you're getting it.
Your comment about despotism... You say that the people's fear of the government leads to despotism. Could you explain how?
|
On May 16 2009 09:27 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:16 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 09:06 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. If it's not consistent then I can't agree with torture. I completely understand the constitution and the reasons it was written. I also agree with a lot of the things written in it, including the right to bear arms. I think gun control laws should be more relaxed in most places in the world, and I think America's gun control laws are fine. I know how gun control affects crime. What part of my thinking is shallow? Narrow-minded? All I was saying is that things need to be reviewed on a regular basis and not just accepted, simply because they're on the constitution. I would say that despotism leads to fear of the government, not that fear of the government leads to despotism. Also that, as much as I am in favour of lax gun control laws, I don't think the governments of any of the civilised world is a violent threat to the people. First off the Constitution has been reviewed extensively for years, first as the Articles of Confederation and then, as it is was written. The Founder's were some of the wisest, smartest, men to ever grace this planet. If you don't count their review of the work in the Constitution, then nothing can ever constitute review, because no one living today can measure up to them; not even within miles, kilometers, phathoms... How many politicians today are philosophical in nature? How many understand human nature, its societal impacts, and other repercussions? How many understand governmental functions that preserve life, liberty, and freedom? No, what we have today are a bunch of two-faced lawyers who will take everything you have to behind your back (AKA 'Stimulus'). Secondly, no interrogation method is consistent because none of them work all the time on all cases, or even some of the time, on most cases. It is a case by case basis. So, in essence, you are against any interrogation method. Think about that for a second. No, it is the Government with no fear of the people that leads to Despotism. That is why the 2nd amendment was written, and why it is the first amendment after our most basic and unalieable rights. They saw how important it was. It was the only reason we even stood a chance against the British. To clarify, what I meant by consistent was that there were no people that gave false information or people from which no information was obtained. Which would mean that people would be tortured for no reason, which I could never stand for. I do count all the reviews to the constitution. I don't know what you're getting at. I don't know how many politicians are philosophical or understand human nature. I'm sure many are and do. Again, I don't see what you're getting it. Your comment about despotism... You say that the people's fear of the government leads to despotism. Could you explain how?
No, what I'm saying is the Governments fear of the people is what limits its power and stifles any chance for Despotism; in other words the population at large doesn't fear their government, they are mindful of it, but the Government knows if they try anything an armed populace of 200+ million is a very, very powerful thing, more powerful than even the US Federal Government.
Edit: Apparently you don't count the reviews because if you read what you wrote you dismiss the process of drafting and ratifying the constitution and implying those who were in that process were dumbasses and the Constitution should be re-reviewed by those more capable in todays society. Bullfuckingshit. Please clarify yourself.
|
On May 16 2009 09:25 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:23 zizou21 wrote:
why would you admit to listening to rush? Because I don't care what others think about me?
It's not about what others think of you, but more of a matter of what it reveals about what kind of person you are. (now it makes sense why you think what you do about muslims, "liberals", etc). You seem like a bright person and clearly subscribe to a lot of correct views but you really need to get the fuck out of the United States and drop the "Us vs. them" mentality. Like many of the liberals you despise, you live in a delusional world.
|
On May 16 2009 09:35 zizou21 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:25 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 09:23 zizou21 wrote:
why would you admit to listening to rush? Because I don't care what others think about me? It's not about what others think of you, but more of a matter of what it reveals about what kind of person you are. (now it makes sense why you think what you do about muslims, "liberals", etc). You seem like a bright person and clearly subscribe to a lot of correct views but you really need to get the fuck out of the United States and drop the "Us vs. them" mentality. Like many of the liberals you despise, you live in a delusional world.
As long as they keep coming for my rights, it is a Us vs them. You think I'm going to sit idly by and let them waltz over me?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Wiser things rarely if ever said.
I just want the damn federal government to get the hell out of our lives, out of the private sectors lives, and do its Constitutional obligations and nothing more. Governmental functions perform vastly superior at the local level, and is a pinnacle of Federalism; that and it creates competition amongst the States, which facilities many many improvements and allows you freedom of choice. You have to abide by Federal mandates, regulations, and bureacrocy, there is no where else to go.
|
On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands.
Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story.
All the socialists and free-spirits are out in force in this thread.
Only liberals could ever view terrorist / enemy combatant scum with greater regard than those serving my country and their families. DISGRACEFUL. These are people killing our soldiers and civilians, wake up.
You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal"
Dumb people are dumb.
[...]
So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine.
Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are.
*cough* *cough*
|
On May 16 2009 09:33 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:27 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 09:16 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 09:06 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. If it's not consistent then I can't agree with torture. I completely understand the constitution and the reasons it was written. I also agree with a lot of the things written in it, including the right to bear arms. I think gun control laws should be more relaxed in most places in the world, and I think America's gun control laws are fine. I know how gun control affects crime. What part of my thinking is shallow? Narrow-minded? All I was saying is that things need to be reviewed on a regular basis and not just accepted, simply because they're on the constitution. I would say that despotism leads to fear of the government, not that fear of the government leads to despotism. Also that, as much as I am in favour of lax gun control laws, I don't think the governments of any of the civilised world is a violent threat to the people. First off the Constitution has been reviewed extensively for years, first as the Articles of Confederation and then, as it is was written. The Founder's were some of the wisest, smartest, men to ever grace this planet. If you don't count their review of the work in the Constitution, then nothing can ever constitute review, because no one living today can measure up to them; not even within miles, kilometers, phathoms... How many politicians today are philosophical in nature? How many understand human nature, its societal impacts, and other repercussions? How many understand governmental functions that preserve life, liberty, and freedom? No, what we have today are a bunch of two-faced lawyers who will take everything you have to behind your back (AKA 'Stimulus'). Secondly, no interrogation method is consistent because none of them work all the time on all cases, or even some of the time, on most cases. It is a case by case basis. So, in essence, you are against any interrogation method. Think about that for a second. No, it is the Government with no fear of the people that leads to Despotism. That is why the 2nd amendment was written, and why it is the first amendment after our most basic and unalieable rights. They saw how important it was. It was the only reason we even stood a chance against the British. To clarify, what I meant by consistent was that there were no people that gave false information or people from which no information was obtained. Which would mean that people would be tortured for no reason, which I could never stand for. I do count all the reviews to the constitution. I don't know what you're getting at. I don't know how many politicians are philosophical or understand human nature. I'm sure many are and do. Again, I don't see what you're getting it. Your comment about despotism... You say that the people's fear of the government leads to despotism. Could you explain how? No, what I'm saying is the Governments fear of the people is what limits its power and stifles any chance for Despotism; in other words the population at large doesn't fear their government, they are mindful of it, but the Government knows if they try anything an armed populace of 200+ million is a very, very powerful thing, more powerful than even the US Federal Government. Edit: Apparently you don't count the reviews because if you read what you wrote you dismiss the process of drafting and ratifying the constitution and implying those who were in that process were dumbasses and the Constitution should be re-reviewed by those more capable in todays society. Bullfuckingshit. Please clarify yourself.
"The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism."
What's "the other way round"? The people's fear of the government?
Regarding the constitution, what I mean is that just because something is law, it should still be opposed if the need arises for a new law. People saying something is unconstitutional is different from presenting an argument against the proposed change. Like my example of the banning of assault rifles. Just because banning assault rifles might be seen as unconstitutional, that in itself is not a reason to not ban assault rifles. It should be because they don't do any harm or some other logical reason.
|
On May 16 2009 09:40 Hans-Titan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Show nested quote +Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story. Show nested quote +Only liberals could ever view terrorist / enemy combatant scum with greater regard than those serving my country and their families. DISGRACEFUL. These are people killing our soldiers and civilians, wake up. Show nested quote +You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal" Show nested quote +Dumb people are dumb.
[...]
So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. Show nested quote +Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are. *cough* *cough*
you missed the part about him having a realistic view of the world and the liberals all get their ideas from faeris whipering in their ears.
|
On May 16 2009 09:40 Hans-Titan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Show nested quote +Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story. Show nested quote +Only liberals could ever view terrorist / enemy combatant scum with greater regard than those serving my country and their families. DISGRACEFUL. These are people killing our soldiers and civilians, wake up. Show nested quote +You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal" Show nested quote +Dumb people are dumb.
[...]
So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. Show nested quote +Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are. *cough* *cough*
I will admit the dumb comment was out there, however the others in context of what I said a few posts ago, are in no way defamation. Defamation is not the art of calling others for what they are, however unpolitically correct you define it. Defamation is the assassination of character by false accusations.
Now, I can prove what I said, is not defamation, shall I have to go do that?
PS: Shoving it up where the sun doesn't shine is hilarious and is not slanderous at all to character lol.
|
On May 16 2009 09:45 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:40 Hans-Titan wrote:On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story. All the socialists and free-spirits are out in force in this thread. Only liberals could ever view terrorist / enemy combatant scum with greater regard than those serving my country and their families. DISGRACEFUL. These are people killing our soldiers and civilians, wake up. You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal" Dumb people are dumb.
[...]
So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are. *cough* *cough* you missed the part about him having a realistic view of the world and the liberals all get their ideas from faeris whipering in their ears.
I believe it was "instrinsic, utopian fallacies". You can coin that now.
|
aegraen your are a brainwashed, indoctrinated bee. Nothing more.
Stop arguing, stop telling what you have been told, you long lost the capability to form a thought yourself.
|
On May 15 2009 18:54 Jusciax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 17:29 Promises wrote:On May 15 2009 14:23 Space[Fright] wrote:
Arguing with a wall is like running into a wall, the wall always wins Say what you want and altho I dont particulary agree with Aegraen he is constantly backing up his opinnions with arguments and reason, which is often more then can be said of the people opposing him. You couldn't be less specific, good job man.
Aww, you're right I didnt actually highlight all the arguments he gave, and all the people opposing him who didnt. Read the thread and you might stumble across it tho. As said, I dont think Aegraen is right about what he considers torture or not, and I think my viewpoint lies somewhere between Jibba's and (whoever it was) the guy that said that altho us ordinary citizens might not want to acknoledge what's going on beside our comfort zone that stuff does happen and with the reason to protect us. I dont feel the need to specifically post all my musings since I rather get a full grip on my own thoughts before I put it into script, but bullshit stuff dismissing either Aegraen's points as a stubborn, unreasoning bastard or the opposers as liberal pussies does piss me off, hence my post. Hope that was specific enough for you.
|
On May 16 2009 09:53 Promises wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 18:54 Jusciax wrote:On May 15 2009 17:29 Promises wrote:On May 15 2009 14:23 Space[Fright] wrote:
Arguing with a wall is like running into a wall, the wall always wins Say what you want and altho I dont particulary agree with Aegraen he is constantly backing up his opinnions with arguments and reason, which is often more then can be said of the people opposing him. You couldn't be less specific, good job man. Aww, you're right I didnt actually highlight all the arguments he gave, and all the people opposing him who didnt. Read the thread and you might stumble across it tho. As said, I dont think Aegraen is right about what he considers torture or not, and I think my viewpoint lies somewhere between Jibba's and (whoever it was) the guy that said that altho us ordinary citizens might not want to acknoledge what's going on beside our comfort zone that stuff does happen and with the reason to protect us. I dont feel the need to specifically post all my musings since I rather get a full grip on my own thoughts before I put it into script, but bullshit stuff dismissing either Aegraen's points as a stubborn, unreasoning bastard or the opposers as liberal pussies does piss me off, hence my post. Hope that was specific enough for you.
Well liberals are the 60s hippies. Peace, love, and blahblah man (Sure do love to appease dictators, fawning over Fidel Castro like its in style...). Now, would you call them sissies, or pussies? I'm sure draft dodging fits somewhere in there...
|
On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands.
Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster.
Edit:
To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be.
|
On May 16 2009 10:17 Promises wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster. Edit: To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be.
Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute.
|
On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 10:17 Promises wrote:On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster. Edit: To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be. Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute.
who mentioned 'the massive conservative right conspiracy'?
also, you did compute a probability, so it did infact compute.
edit: though i doubt there was much computing done to get that figure, it was probably pulled out of thin air.
|
On May 16 2009 11:28 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 10:17 Promises wrote:On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster. Edit: To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be. Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute. who mentioned 'the massive conservative right conspiracy'? also, you did compute a probability, so it did infact compute. edit: though i doubt there was much computing done to get that figure, it was probably pulled out of thin air.
Geeze man, get out a little? That little quip was sarcasm. Anyways, the 'brainwashed' implies conspiracy, at least it is associated with it in the US. Which is absurd on every foundation imaginable. The left always denigrates to that though. 'You're an idiot, you're brainwashed, you're st0000pid, you're a fundamentalist/creationist pig (As if there aren't atheist conservatives/libertarians), you're a nutjob (Who doesn't view libertarians as this, since we have an innate distrust of the government, which is good!), etc.' Heard it all. While we do exchange blows with the left, the right is at least much more tempered, and we generally don't tell the other side to go fucking die, that is unless you try and take away the 2nd amendment, but then you brought that on yourself.
|
Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky
Basically you criticize the "left", again, for something you're doing as someone on the "Conservative" end of the spectrum.
I think you should try to get out of the left/right mindset and try to address the arguments that are being put on the table, because thusfar your only evidence towards the effectiveness of torture is that "its being done" thus it must be effective.
|
On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:
Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute.
FYI man, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously in this thread. Your statements are getting more erratic, increasingly generalized, and often are little more than cheap potshots at some imaginary "left."
The problems in this country do not arise from right vs. left or democrat vs. republican or liberal vs. conservative, no matter how much some people wish that were true.
what an awesome 1000th post 
|
On May 16 2009 11:36 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 11:28 jeppew wrote:On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 10:17 Promises wrote:On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster. Edit: To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be. Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute. who mentioned 'the massive conservative right conspiracy'? also, you did compute a probability, so it did infact compute. edit: though i doubt there was much computing done to get that figure, it was probably pulled out of thin air. Geeze man, get out a little? That little quip was sarcasm. Anyways, the 'brainwashed' implies conspiracy, at least it is associated with it in the US. Which is absurd on every foundation imaginable. The left always denigrates to that though. 'You're an idiot, you're brainwashed, you're st0000pid, you're a fundamentalist/creationist pig (As if there aren't atheist conservatives/libertarians), you're a nutjob (Who doesn't view libertarians as this, since we have an innate distrust of the government, which is good!), etc.' Heard it all. While we do exchange blows with the left, the right is at least much more tempered, and we generally don't tell the other side to go fucking die, that is unless you try and take away the 2nd amendment, but then you brought that on yourself.
"we generally don't tell the other side to go fucking die" i disagree, but it would be pretty hard to prove which side throws around insults the most.
and about the second amendment, what about nations that doesn't have an armed populace?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
