• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

Grant said:
And do they base this on any knowledge, studies, or first hand information? Or is that just their feelings talking?
Click to expand...

Who knows. I've heard people from both sides use that argument when convenient.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Who are you to pick up the banner for what an argument is? I don't understand this.
Click to expand...

This is kind of an odd response. Do you just want to pick some notion out of thin air and expect everyone to act as if that's where the real debate is?

I'm sorry if it disappoints that it doesn't always work that way. Now, I made a few points. Do you have any counter argument?
 
Is it odd? I'm responding to something I've seen, then you come in and say "No, you haven't seen that, you've seen this!" Ummm...okay.

Anyway, I made the counter argument. I guess you missed it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then don't fly? ;)



Well.... That Health Insurance thing is new and I am not sure how it works as I am living overseas.... as to the rest, don't start a business then.. they can't "force" you.
Click to expand...

No, the government cannot force you to start a business. Good point.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Is it odd? I'm responding to something I've seen, then you come in and say "No, you haven't seen that, you've seen this!" Ummm...okay.

Anyway, I made the counter argument. I guess you missed it.
Click to expand...

It's easy to miss a specious argument. :2wave:
 
So...you don't really have any argument at all. Okay. But thanks for your VERY STRONG EMOTIONS on this matter all the same.
 
Oh, that was just awesome!!! I don't think I have seem Boo give up so quickly, and completely as OWO just dispatched him there in that back and forth....Even with his recent pilot fish actor Henery David....I enjoyed that....:)
 
j-mac said:
Oh, that was just awesome!!! I don't think I have seem Boo give up so quickly, and completely as OWO just dispatched him there in that back and forth....Even with his recent pilot fish actor Henery David....I enjoyed that....:)
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Is it odd? I'm responding to something I've seen, then you come in and say "No, you haven't seen that, you've seen this!" Ummm...okay.

Anyway, I made the counter argument. I guess you missed it.
Click to expand...

No, you made a mistake concerning the actual argument, throwing up a strawman that no one was really arguing.

Btw, if you post with my quote I'll know you said something. Just saying you'll more likely get a response.
 
Boo Radley said:
The strawman came earlier...
Click to expand...

Ok, point it out if you would be so kind, instead of leaving me to guess. Because I read the entire thread, and I didn't see it. That isn't to say it wasn't there, but I don't see what you are talking about.

...and instead of addressing it he used the snarky tactic.
Click to expand...

Oh come on...:roll: Now you would never do that would you? :lol:

And no, I have not run off.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Well, leaving the thread 24 hours earlier just when a good debate was taking place, leaving a hanging question, some would say, with the hopes that you could re enter the debate later never having to address the last point made...(that to me is running off) Might be taken as a rather dishonest tactic on your part. Just sayin' :2wave:
 
j-mac said:
Ok, point it out if you would be so kind, instead of leaving me to guess. Because I read the entire thread, and I didn't see it. That isn't to say it wasn't there, but I don't see what you are talking about.



Oh come on...:roll: Now you would never do that would you? :lol:



Oh really? Well, leaving the thread 24 hours earlier just when a good debate was taking place, leaving a hanging question, some would say, with the hopes that you could re enter the debate later never having to address the last point made...(that to me is running off) Might be taken as a rather dishonest tactic on your part. Just sayin' :2wave:
Click to expand...

I assumed you read it all as you said you enjoyed it so much. He claimed there was a disconnect in those arguing torture was ineffective and immoral, saying if it was ineffective you couldn't argue it was immoral. And if it was immoral, you couldn't argue it was ineffective. I was brash enough to say they were not mutually exclusive.

As for leaving, I received no notification of any response. His last response was not connected to my post. I thought he was done. It is after all kind of a silly position that he holds.
 
Boo Radley said:
I assumed you read it all as you said you enjoyed it so much.
Click to expand...


Oh I did, thank you....:)

He claimed there was a disconnect in those arguing torture was ineffective and immoral, saying if it was ineffective you couldn't argue it was immoral. And if it was immoral, you couldn't argue it was ineffective. I was brash enough to say they were not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about this post?:

OldWorldOrder said:
I've always found it weird that the same people that think torture is ineffective also think it's immoral. Just...odd. You get these weird arguments wherein people are forced to defend the position that torture can never, ever, ever work, because they don't like the idea of using it.
Click to expand...

As for leaving, I received no notification of any response. His last response was not connected to my post. I thought he was done. It is after all kind of a silly position that he holds.
Click to expand...

:lol: Really Joe? Did you forget how notifications work? You didn't receive one because the last posting to you was the one I linked to, and your answer to that post was to only respond to the opening irrelevant portion, leaving the heart of the substance out of your reply, then you never came back to it...

As to whether or not his position is silly, is your opinion of it, and has nothing to do with the argument itself. You should instead of trying so hard to marginalize the argument, focus on your answer to it so that we as readers can see both sides. Because to read through it, the appearance is that you chose to only address the silly, and leave the substance alone, then you left for 24 hours.

:shrug:
 
j-mac said:
Oh I did, thank you....:)



I assume you are talking about this post?:





:lol: Really Joe? Did you forget how notifications work? You didn't receive one because the last posting to you was the one I linked to, and your answer to that post was to only respond to the opening irrelevant portion, leaving the heart of the substance out of your reply, then you never came back to it...

As to whether or not his position is silly, is your opinion of it, and has nothing to do with the argument itself. You should instead of trying so hard to marginalize the argument, focus on your answer to it so that we as readers can see both sides. Because to read through it, the appearance is that you chose to only address the silly, and leave the substance alone, then you left for 24 hours.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Strawmen are in general silly as they are a fallacy. And yes, I popped I'm and saw your post, but knew nothing of his.

If you see some substance to the fallacy, please share. But the fact remains the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
 
Boo Radley said:
Strawmen are in general silly as they are a fallacy. And yes, I popped I'm and saw your post, but knew nothing of his.

If you see some substance to the fallacy, please share. But the fact remains the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Ummm...I never said they were mutually exclusive. Can you find where I said that, or is this a strawman you're employing? Ironic.

I think it's funny because if people think it's immoral that should be enough. Likewise (albeit ignorant) if they think it's ineffective. But people that are against it unfailingly argue both, not because they think/know, but because they're against it and they'll throw everything but the kitchen sink at it to try to "win".

Now, I already made my case about different methods having varying levels of success dependent upon the source or subject, and many other factors. Your counterpoint is...what? "No, waterboarding or stress positions or torture are NEVER the best for a certain source under certain circumstances"? If that's your position, you're flatly wrong. If that's not your position, we're in agreement.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Ummm...I never said they were mutually exclusive. Can you find where I said that, or is this a strawman you're employing? Ironic.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Boo's latest tactic is to claim that those responding to his postings either don't read the entire posts, or that they have some block in understanding them. It is funny that the series of posts he is speaking of from you only garner response of partial portions of those postings, then a feigned ignorance of what else was said in the post in question. So, your analysis of his own post on this matter are indeed yes, a strawman argument.

I think it's funny because if people think it's immoral that should be enough. Likewise (albeit ignorant) if they think it's ineffective. But people that are against it unfailingly argue both, not because they think/know, but because they're against it and they'll throw everything but the kitchen sink at it to try to "win".

Now, I already made my case about different methods having varying levels of success dependent upon the source or subject, and many other factors. Your counterpoint is...what? "No, waterboarding or stress positions or torture are NEVER the best for a certain source under certain circumstances"? If that's your position, you're flatly wrong. If that's not your position, we're in agreement.
Click to expand...


I think the bottom line on this so called torture is best looked at in a compartmentalized fashion...1. Is the act of what is being done actually torture, or simply severe tactic to garner cooperation? 2. Is the subject in question involved at a level that would yield actual intelligence that would be useful? 3. Are the members of the interrogation team of sound enough mind to know the differences between interrogation, and torture, and where that line is? 4. Do we as a nation place the good of the many at the expense of the few as an unfortunate choice, but one none the less in certain circumstances necessary? 5. Are the methods employed carried out for sadistic purpose, or are they done extremely sparingly, and only in cases that are deemed absolutely crucial to the saving of innocent life that otherwise would be lost needlessly?

I think if we answer those questions we start to see the soundness, and necessity of our part in three incidents that bunched up many anti war liberals during the Bush administration. Funny that they can still argue this torture pap, yet, their own elected President is recently revealed to have continued the rendition program, but the criticism tends not to address the present, but rather to go back to the past to continue to bash the former President for this. Is it partisan? Purely.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Ummm...I never said they were mutually exclusive. Can you find where I said that, or is this a strawman you're employing? Ironic.

I think it's funny because if people think it's immoral that should be enough. Likewise (albeit ignorant) if they think it's ineffective. But people that are against it unfailingly argue both, not because they think/know, but because they're against it and they'll throw everything but the kitchen sink at it to try to "win".

Now, I already made my case about different methods having varying levels of success dependent upon the source or subject, and many other factors. Your counterpoint is...what? "No, waterboarding or stress positions or torture are NEVER the best for a certain source under certain circumstances"? If that's your position, you're flatly wrong. If that's not your position, we're in agreement.
Click to expand...

No, both are actually correct. It is ineffective and immoral. There is no logical problem noting this. By insinuating that there is, you do create a strawman. You may disagree with one or both, but not that one has to argue one or he other.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So...you don't really have any argument at all. Okay. But thanks for your VERY STRONG EMOTIONS on this matter all the same.
Click to expand...

So what is YOUR argument? Assuming you can state it in a sentence or 3?

That assault is legal under certain conditions? Conditions to be determined by some government talking head? Some government sycophant? As long as there is a memorandum signed by a superior officer, any sort of human mistreatment is legal?
 
j-mac said:
Oh, that was just awesome!!! I don't think I have seem Boo give up so quickly, and completely as OWO just dispatched him there in that back and forth....Even with his recent pilot fish actor Henery David....I enjoyed that....:)
Click to expand...

Pat yourself on the back, good buddy! :lol: Give yourself a gold star on your forehead too!
 
Henry David said:
So what is YOUR argument? Assuming you can state it in a sentence or 3?

That assault is legal under certain conditions? Conditions to be determined by some government talking head? Some government sycophant? As long as there is a memorandum signed by a superior officer, any sort of human mistreatment is legal?
Click to expand...


Wow, they would tie you up, and hook your genitals to a voltage source in a nano second, yet you defend them against those trying to protect you? That's gratitude for ya.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, both are actually correct. It is ineffective and immoral. There is no logical problem noting this. By insinuating that there is, you do create a strawman. You may disagree with one or both, but not that one has to argue one or he other.
Click to expand...

I didn't insinuate there was a logical problem, I insinuated it was funny. Do you even know what a strawman is?
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I insinuated it was funny cause it reminded me of girls in high school:

Girl #1: I hate Emily, she's a moron!
Girl #2: Oh, she's actually on the Dean's List this semester...
Girl #1: She's ugly, though!
Girl #2: A lot of guys say she's really hot.
Girl #1: It's probably cause she's a slut!
Girl #2: I think she's actually only kissed that one guy, I'm sure she's never done anything more with anyone else.
Girl #1: She's a bitch, she talks behind people's backs.
Girl #2: I've never heard her do that...
Girl #1: Hey, do you like Justin Beiber?
Girl #2: Uhhh...no.
Girl #1: EMILY ****ING LOVES HIM! Let's hate her together.

It's just an example of people being against something and throwing any argument they can at it? Immoral? No, you don't agree? THEN IT DOESN'T WORK. Sadly, Boo, the experts don't agree. Maybe people who say torture can work sometimes like Justin Beiber, though, so you can try to attack them with that.

Henry David said:
So what is YOUR argument? Assuming you can state it in a sentence or 3?
Click to expand...

I already stated it. Did you miss it? Use what works. Making someone physically uncomfortable is fourth down the list, after making them want to help you out of ideology (#1), making them want to help you for a reward, usually financial (#2), making them help you only because you put them in emotional distress (#3). But the idea that there's NEVER EVER a time in which #1-3 would fail but #4 would not is ****ing laughable. Why would someone even propose such an argument?

Well, probably because don't you just hate Emily! (They try to use anything they can to support their argument, even if it makes virtually zero sense)

That assault is legal under certain conditions? Conditions to be determined by some government talking head? Some government sycophant? As long as there is a memorandum signed by a superior officer, any sort of human mistreatment is legal?
Click to expand...

What? I don't give a **** about morality. Don't care. We all have it, it's all subjective: why bother arguing about it? On that note, my favorite movie is Mrs Doubtfire. Yours? Actually, who cares, it too is all subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom