it's logic by right of the masses

12/19/2007 3:13:04 PM

utilitarianism?

12/19/2007 3:14:27 PM

hatehooksawanism

12/19/2007 3:15:44 PM

^^^ And that would be argumentum ad numerum. Got more logical fallacies?

^ Yeah, it's called hooksaw derangement syndrome. And you're ate up with it.



[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2007 3:17:16 PM

what's the logically fallacy where you just tell people to shut up and stop trolling you?

12/19/2007 3:31:01 PM

^ I'm not sure. Will you be looking in the mirror when you say it?

12/19/2007 3:36:33 PM

i love how attaching a latin phrase to something validates it.

12/19/2007 4:15:48 PM

^ You love it? Really? Then how's this: reductio ad absurdum.

12/20/2007 1:25:03 PM

waterboarding is torture [/thread]

12/20/2007 1:59:21 PM

^ If you had a child and waterboarding could save him or her, would you do it? Yes or no?

12/20/2007 2:01:47 PM

wtf? why would I waterboard my kid?

12/20/2007 2:25:55 PM

^ Stop being purposely obtuse. If your child's life were in danger from, say, kidnappers and a suspect with information that could save your child was in custody, would you allow waterboarding of the suspect to save your child? Yes or no?

It's a simple question, Hillary.

12/20/2007 2:33:54 PM

nahh my bad i really didn't quite understand the question.

umm yeah sure. i'd be down. however, it is still torture and I would be prosecuted if caught

12/20/2007 3:30:46 PM

^ You have been very clear that you and a number of others believe waterboarding is torture--I get it. My point is that I don't care what it's called--in extreme cases, it may be necessary.

In any event, the Democrat-led Congress has had trouble deciding what to do about waterboarding, too.

Quote :

"Congress has been on the other side, sort of. It has deplored torture but never explicitly outlawed waterboarding. Many lawmakers wanted to have it both ways: To be on record against torture, but to avoid blame if there's a terror attack that conceivably might have been averted."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/11/our-view-on-tor.html

12/20/2007 11:30:06 PM

if we think it is torture, which I believe even YOU DO, then it should not be a technique endorsed by official policy, EVER

...

that doesn't mean that agencies can't use it, they just can't officially use it, and if they get caught using it, it's their ass

I mean, what is so hard for people to understand about the idea of things being officially sanctioned and not being officially sanctioned. It's like we have a bunch of fucking amateurs running our government.

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 11:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2007 11:35:32 PM

Quote :

"I get it. My point is that I don't care what it's called--in extreme cases, it may be necessary. "

I have NEVER made an opinion about if we should or should not torture regarding current foreign policy and treatment of non-traditional combatants. Every post I have made on the subject is regarding Bush's nay-saying when he just needs to be like "Look ok we use water boarding which some believe to be torture in the name of national security"

They say the first step of being an alcoholic is denial........

12/20/2007 11:51:37 PM

i thought about it a little bit

and i'm starting to feel that waterboarding is NOT real torture

I mean, who gives a shit if these assholes are scared within an inch of their lives, we're not really hurting them

i really don't give a rat's ass about their psychology

12/21/2007 11:25:56 AM

N. Vietnamese I guess were not hurting our soldiers either when they stuffed POW's inside a 3x3 hotbox that was 120* internally either.

Quote :

"Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 12:44 PM. Reason : aa]

12/21/2007 12:43:40 PM

could that be any more vague?

and that lack of precision works both ways, it allows the administration to do nearly anything they want and just declare "we don't torture"

i mean, what is "severe" anyways

12/21/2007 1:02:10 PM

What the fuck would you declare water boarding as???

Friendly play time. You are extremely obtuse and would probably jump off a cliff if George W said it would make you a more patriotic american

12/21/2007 2:13:44 PM

you obviously know nothing of my politics

but anyways... ok then, what do you think is the highest acceptable level of force permitted in an interrogation?

12/21/2007 2:16:28 PM

^ that is NOT what i am arguing nice Red Herring.

12/21/2007 2:30:03 PM

you better answer the fucking question

12/21/2007 2:31:46 PM

or what; you will torture me up with your TWW arguments and ad hominem attacks.

During no post within this topic have I debated on when, where, or if torture should be used.

Learn to read douche

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : a]

12/21/2007 2:49:04 PM

well, I can see that your sense of humor is underdeveloped

i'm not asking when you think "torture" should be applied

I'm asking you what you think is torture? Where is the line?

12/21/2007 3:32:48 PM

Any technique employed on a subject under custody or in interrogation that uses physcial pain or mental/emotional distress in order to coerce a subject into revealing information or as punishment.

Psychological torture can be just as effective on some subjects as physical (i.e cutting their fingers off or electrocuting someone).

If you claim waterboarding is not torture what is it????? Mental therapy to wash the radical islam out of them.

12/21/2007 3:43:31 PM

Quote :

"Any technique employed on a subject under custody or in interrogation that uses physcial pain or mental/emotional distress in order to coerce a subject into revealing information or as punishment."

now you see, i'm not being a dick about this, but what does that mean?

screaming at a person or asking a person for 9 hours straight is pretty distressful

i think there are pretty much three groups

i) asking questions

ii) the grey area

iii) beating the shit out of someone/physically hurting them/physically hurting their loved ones

i) is basically a discussion, iii) is torture, and the ii) the grey area, that's what everyone is debating

waterboarding is definitely IN the grey area, it's where we put the line in the grey area that matters

i'm not necessarily convinced that waterboarding is over the line... yeah, it's awful, but if you want to use severe pressure then what tools are you going to allow...

12/21/2007 3:52:17 PM

There is a major difference between having a stern chat with a prisoner and tying him down with the simulation of being drowned. physical injury is not required for an act to be torture.

Would forcing someone to ingest oil link in 3 Kings be torture?

How about locking someone who a major phobia of snakes into a trunk with a bunch of snakes (even if non-venomous).

Forcing a prisoner to be nude?

A mock execution?

Solitary confinement with no outside contact in a dark small cage.

Using high frequency loud sounds, strobe lights, and other agitating devices in order to force total sleep deprivation.

Quote :

"yeah, it's awful, but if you want to use severe pressure then what tools are you going to allow"

Once again you are using a Red Herring. What do you not understand. I am not trying to debate when I think torture should be used or if it should be used.

"OMFG THEIR IS A NUCLEAR BOMB IN NYC WHAT SHOULD THE PRESIDENT BE ALLOWED TO USE TORTURE TO FORCE INFORMATION "

I am merely pointing out that not all torture is solely of the physical "tell me what i want or i chop your finger off." My issue is that Bush just needs to stop playing politics and just admit that the US intelligence community has used torture as in the waterboarding case. He is fooling nobody.

Why don't you volunteer to be waterboarded in the brickyard this January? Maybe we can resolve if this causes major mental distress and physcial discomfort.

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM. Reason : a]

12/21/2007 4:15:26 PM

yes, there is a major difference

are you saying that we should only have stern chats with prisoners?

12/21/2007 4:19:21 PM

you are obviously are just trolling. congrats on graduating from hooksaw's school of trolling.

Quote :

"During no post within this topic have I debated on when, where, or if torture should be used. Learn to read douche "

Quote :

"I have NEVER made an opinion about if we should or should not torture regarding current foreign policy and treatment of non-traditional combatants. Every post I have made on the subject is regarding Bush's nay-saying when he just needs to be like "Look ok we use water boarding which some believe to be torture in the name of national security" "

Quote :

"There may be some Machiavellian justification in its use in some circumstances but I do not want to assert either way. Whoever says it isn't is a fucking liar. Bush just needs to stop beating around the bush and admit its torture used for National Security."

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 4:24 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 4:26 PM. Reason : a]

12/21/2007 4:21:55 PM

wow... this is why I don't like to participate in the soap box on any real serious level

because even when you tone down and actually try to debate the other guy just keeps on with the bat shit crazy

whatever

12/21/2007 4:23:28 PM

what debate??

your constructive is solely

Quote :

"are you saying that we should only have stern chats with prisoners"

which is not what i have been arguing.

12/21/2007 4:26:40 PM

Quote :

"waterboarding is definitely IN the grey area, it's where we put the line in the grey area that matters"

i think it's worth pointing out again that waterboarding is not "simulated drowning". It is drowning, only not in our conventional definition of the term where a person is completely submerged. Water enters the nose and mouth and it is fully possible to "drown" (die from water inhalation) because of this, even if your head is not submerged. I suppose this technique is considered "simulated" because there is not full submersion, and how much damage it does just depends on how far or long the process goes on.

12/21/2007 4:27:18 PM

well they are not actually injuring him so its OBVIOUSLY not torture

12/21/2007 4:31:59 PM

ok so... this is what you're all about

Quote :

"I am merely pointing out that not all torture is solely of the physical "tell me what i want or i chop your finger off." My issue is that Bush just needs to stop playing politics and just admit that the US intelligence community has used torture as in the waterboarding case. He is fooling nobody."

the first statement is obviously true

the second is just fine if not a little ridiculous and naive

i think you just like to make rolly eyes...

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2007 4:40:45 PM