Torture battle escalating, Pelosi vs. Boehner

[Mr. President]

Now you are comparing American criminals to international terrorists. See where my logic takes over?

 

[catzmeow]

Enemies of the United States are expendable.

Do you consider Crip/Blood/Folks/People/Sureno/Norteno gang members who wage war in urban areas all over the United States to be enemies of the U.S.? You realize that gang members kill more people annually in the U.S. than are killed around the world by terrorists, right?

Gang members are bad people who do harm to innocent people. Thus, even if they are American citizens, we are justified in torturing them.

 

[Iriemon]

Yup

So, you would support torturing a potentially innocent person in the off-chance that it might prevent some other atrocity.

Do you get the moral ambiguity of your position here?

Is it that middle easterners are just somehow less human than the average American, and thus, expendable?

Enemies of the United States are expendable.

That makes them inhuman and therefore not deserving of human rights, eh?

How about drug dealers, child molesters, mafia types, gang members and other members of society. Why aren't they expendable?

 

[Iriemon]

Now you are comparing American criminals to international terrorists. See where my logic takes over?

Because your logic, which is premised upon saving lives, applies equally to American terrorists or criminals as it does to non-American criminals or terrorists.

Furthermore, you rule does apply to Americans. If the rule is that a government can torture if it says it thinks it might save lives, which is your rule, then the Govt of Turkey can legitimately torture Americans by simply saying this. And our Govt would not have standing to utter a word in protest.

 

[Mr. President]

I never said they weren't expendable.

 

[catzmeow]

I never said they weren't expendable.

Do you believe the government should exterminate known gang members?

 

[Iriemon]

I never said they weren't expendable.

I know that. That is why I asked. Because you seemed to demark whether its OK to torture someone based on whether they are deemed "expendable." You've identified "enemies of the US" as expendible and therefore not entitled to human rights. So I'm curious as to how you define expendible and who else is expendible.

 

[Mr. President]

Terrorists are expendable.

 

[catzmeow]

Terrorists are expendable.

I've heard many law enforcement professionals, including the FBI, refer to street gang members as "urban terrorists."

Are you thus in favor of exterminating known gang members before they have the opportunity to do harm?

 

[Iriemon]

Terrorists are expendable.

Are you saying it doesn't make a difference if they are American or not?

But again, why are "terrorists" expendable, and not serial murderers, child molesters, gang members, herion dealers, and the like?

And once we clarify that, if only "terrorists" are expendable and therefore not entitled to human rights, how do you know if they are terrorists? Who decides that, Governments? If an American is capture in Iran, and Iran says hes a terrorist, its OK for Iran to torture him and we have no right to complain?

 

[raceright]

Terrorists are expendable.

Are you saying it doesn't make a difference if they are American or not?

But again, why are "terrorists" expendable, and not serial murderers, child molesters, gang members, herion dealers, and the like?

And once we clarify that, if only "terrorists" are expendable and therefore not entitled to human rights, how do you know if they are terrorists? Who decides that, Governments? If an American is capture in Iran, and Iran says hes a terrorist, its OK for Iran to torture him and we have no right to complain?

Hey asshole thats already what they do,might even cut the American's head off. So if dunking a terroist will help find out were the terroist is going to plant a bomb at your daughters home or maybe you mothers kitchen your going to say hey thats not moral and let my daughter or mother die because Im for human rights ..Bulshit you would dunk the muther real quick.

 

[Iriemon]

Terrorists are expendable.

Are you saying it doesn't make a difference if they are American or not?

But again, why are "terrorists" expendable, and not serial murderers, child molesters, gang members, herion dealers, and the like?

And once we clarify that, if only "terrorists" are expendable and therefore not entitled to human rights, how do you know if they are terrorists? Who decides that, Governments? If an American is capture in Iran, and Iran says hes a terrorist, its OK for Iran to torture him and we have no right to complain?

... asshole ...

Ignored.

 

[NOBama]

Are you saying it doesn't make a difference if they are American or not?

But again, why are "terrorists" expendable, and not serial murderers, child molesters, gang members, herion dealers, and the like?

And once we clarify that, if only "terrorists" are expendable and therefore not entitled to human rights, how do you know if they are terrorists? Who decides that, Governments? If an American is capture in Iran, and Iran says hes a terrorist, its OK for Iran to torture him and we have no right to complain?

... asshole ...

Ignored.

Psst... By replying to people you wish to ignore, you are not ignoring them.

 

[Iriemon]

... asshole ...

Ignored.

Psst... By replying to people you wish to ignore, you are not ignoring them.

I don't wish to ignore the person. Just the post. I suppose I could put "not responding" or something like that. "Ignored" is easier and works fine.

 

[Mr. President]

I am for the strict enforcement of the death penalty and I believe it should be used a lot more than what it is. Child molesters should also face the death penalty as well as murderers as well as convicts with 3 or more drug dealing convictions.

 

[NOBama]

Ignored.

Psst... By replying to people you wish to ignore, you are not ignoring them.

I don't wish to ignore the person. Just the post. I suppose I could put "not responding" or something like that. "Ignored" is easier and works fine.

Just an FYI: This software has an ignore feature that works well. You can find it in your User CP. Using it conserves band width and disk space by preventing you from viewing that posts by those who think you're an asshole. Odds are, if somebody thinks you're an asshole they're never going to have anything to say that's appealing to you anyway.

Replying with "ignored" does nothing but throw the thread into the new post category. In turn, people think someone has posted something that's worth reading and, if they have an interest in the thread, they want to read it. If we all wrote posts that say only "ignored", this place would suck and people would eventually go away.

Personally, I rather enjoy watching you play word semantics in 99% of your posts but, if you keep this shit up, I'm going to have to exercise my privilege to ignore you, because I find clicking on a thread with new a post only to find "ignored" stupid. Not only because it only says "ignored" but, because it's anything BUT ignoring the post you SAY you're ignoring.

 

[Iriemon]

Psst... By replying to people you wish to ignore, you are not ignoring them.

I don't wish to ignore the person. Just the post. I suppose I could put "not responding" or something like that. "Ignored" is easier and works fine.

Just an FYI: This software has an ignore feature that works well. You can find it in your User CP. Using it conserves band width and disk space by preventing you from viewing that posts by those who think you're an asshole. Odds are, if somebody thinks you're an asshole they're never going to have anything to say that's appealing to you anyway.

Replying with "ignored" does nothing but throw the thread into the new post category. In turn, people think someone has posted something that's worth reading and, if they have an interest in the thread, they want to read it. If we all wrote posts that say only "ignored", this place would suck and people would eventually go away.

Personally, I rather enjoy watching you play word semantics in 99% of your posts but, if you keep this shit up, I'm going to have to exercise my privilege to ignore you, because I find clicking on a thread with new a post only to find "ignored" stupid. Not only because it only says "ignored" but, because it's anything BUT ignoring the post you SAY you're ignoring.

Thanks for your concern. But as I said in the previous post, and so I'll repeat, my intent is not to put people on ignore.

On the other hand, I'm not going to engage in infantile flaming. Many think its fun engaging in flame wars and that calling people names is persuasive debate or makes them look sharp. That's fine. To me its utterly boring.

I'm not going to engage in it. I'm happy to engage in discussion with anyone who can do it like an adult. I also don't just not respond at all because then it looks like I don't have a response.

You raise a good point about being sidetracked to see a new post in a thread and it is just an "ignore" post. So I'll think about that. I can understand the feeling, I have the same reaction you describe when I click on new posts only to find its just another round of "you're a fucking moron" type posts. If we all wrote "you're a fucking moron" back and forth ad infinitum all the time, I'm not sure it would be an improvement over reading an "ignore" post in response to someone who does that and it usually puts an end to it.

 

[Mr. President]

Can we get back to the topic of torturing and killing please

 

[NOBama]

I'm not going to engage in it.

Bullshit. You engauge in it everytime you reply "ignored". That was the point of my post.

Look the word up for crying out loud.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm not going to engage in it.

Bullshit. You engauge in it everytime you reply "ignored". That was the point of my post.

Look the word up for crying out loud.

That's flaming?