Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump supports waterboarding and will move to end it's "status as a war crime
455 replies, posted
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49702194]So we'll just treat them as uneducateable retards and torture and bomb them to keep them in line if they get any ideas of rising above their lowly station. :ok:[/QUOTE]
Not all of them. You are all doing this again, misrepresenting my points.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49702232]By excluded you mean dead right because you've already figured out you have to kill them all to stop them all
Conscript, you can call us all sorts of things to talk about how ineffective and out of touch we are, but if you really think this is not worth an apology, then I'm not sure what it is from you. It's okay to hold these ideals, but God fucking damnit if someone's a liberal.[/QUOTE]
No I mean exclude them from the developed westernized world. They clearly can't mesh with western values.
[QUOTE=wystan;49702243]Not all of them. You are all doing this again, misrepresenting my points.[/QUOTE]
Only the ones who want to fight.
Which we've explained to you will inevitably be 100% of the population if your response is to kill them for striking out at you for any reason. Because of the cycle of retribution.
Which you offer no solution for except to weakly support reconstruction but suggest that some countries would not cooperate and should be "excluded".
So about these excluded countries, where is your solution other than perpetuating the cycle of retribution until all that is left are cripples and seniors and children too young to keep a grip on a recoiling pistol? (And then the country just collapses because it has no functioning economy or infrastructure and everyone starves to death without outside aid. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.)
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49702261]Only the ones who want to fight.
Which we've explained to you will inevitably be 100% of the population if your response is to kill them for striking out at you for any reason. Because of the cycle of retribution.
Which you offer no solution for except to weakly support reconstruction but suggest that some countries would not cooperate and should be "excluded".
So about these excluded countries, where is your solution other than perpetuating the cycle of retribution until all that is left are cripples and seniors and children too young to keep a grip on a recoiling pistol? (And then the country just collapses because it has no functioning economy or infrastructure and everyone starves to death without outside aid. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.)[/QUOTE]
Yep because it is literally undeniable 100% true that your viewpoint is correct and will happen. Literally no more or less likely than them giving up because of how they keep getting killed and tortured, things can work both ways you know.
These excluded countries can end up like North Korea, don't try and guilt me into supporting a country that wants nothing to do with us and doesn't accept help.
[QUOTE=wystan;49702151]No I didn't.[/QUOTE]
no you literally did
this is not an opinion it's a fact
go back and check for yourself and tell me you addressed the fact that a brain research professor said torture is fundamentally flawed
hint: you didn't, you proceeded to say "well it's just not being done right"
hint²: look up what fundamentally flawed means
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49702346]no you literally did
this is not an opinion it's a fact
go back and check for yourself and tell me you addressed the fact that a brain research professor said torture is fundamentally flawed
hint: you didn't, you proceeded to say "well it's just not being done right"
hint²: look up what fundamentally flawed means[/QUOTE]
Don't condescend to me. And clearly if replied to it I didn't ignore it, I just disagree with it, one professor's opinions are not facts.
[QUOTE=wystan;49702420]Don't condescend to me. And clearly if replied to it I didn't ignore it, I just didn't give it credence, everything is skewed anti-torture because it's unpleasant to think about, but like I've said before, I don't see anything wrong with the principle of torture.[/QUOTE]
Are you really saying O'Mara is so unprofessional as to let personal convictions get in the way of scientific research? Who [I]are[/I] you to say this? Do you have a background in interrogations? Psychology? Investigative journalism? Have you read his book? Have you even read the article that I posted mentioning his book?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49702483]Are you really saying O'Mara is so unprofessional as to let personal convictions get in the way of scientific research? Who [I]are[/I] you to say this? Do you have a background in interrogations? Psychology? Investigative journalism? Have you read his book? Have you even read the article that I posted mentioning his book?[/QUOTE]
"nah i don't agree with what it says so it's wrong and i can ignore it"
[QUOTE=Conscript;49701388]There was nothing pretentious about it, if anything it was anti-intellectual I guess. I have none, I don't make broad moral prescriptions like that. If you need an answer: it either works or it doesn't.
I don't see why we can't do both, exactly because morals are nothing as they're being prescribed in this thread are nothing but abstract concepts. So it [i]works for us[/i] to be cruel to militants and be good guys for the rest. We are moral insofar it is in our interests, nothing more. You're taking it too far if you your rigid adherence to the former, which is typical for self-righteous liberal universalism, means sacrificing the latter.
I don't prove to myself I'm not a horrible person by affording to people I've never met, and who likely despise who I am, various rights enforced by my own government I fund and otherwise don't exist. It makes no sense, and I don't find it to be the hallmark of a good person to be so criminally naive. A good person would be responsible and loyal to what he comes from, after all. It is one thing to afford rights to national citizens, particularly since it fosters a healthy capitalist national economy, it's another to do the same to the enemy out of a mental disorder called liberalism.
I don't, people like to regurgitate a bunch of dogma hammered into them by a post-modern Western liberal culture, like the moral of a story to a Disney movie, and call it state policy. For example: "That's exactly what the terrorists say/do, too!" Who gives a fuck? Who cares about your musings of the world where everything is relative and meaningless? Keep shooting and bombing if only for the sake of our energy interests. Does that offend your liberal sensibilities? Because that's the sort of thing it boils down to.
The feeling is completely mutual. When I see your typical center-left liberal immediately try to place themselves 'above' the western conservative or the muslim reactionary in our present context, whether through some murmurs about cultural relativism, moral equivalence, individualist appeals, our tainted past, or whatever, I instantly turn off. You can't have a debate at all with someone like that. These are the sort of people that actually believe that they have some kind of point when they say that ISIS and the European far-right feed off each other. :v: It's exactly the same deal when liberals 80 years ago were drawing parallels to another dual threat to their power that squeezes them on both sides, fascism and socialism. It's meaningless intellectual masturbation, squirming at that.
The simple fact is liberals do live in another world. They are not a mass movement, they have no national or class loyalties, after 1945 they aspire to some pseudo-internationalist 'humanitarian' ideal which is really just a smokescreen for the dominance of international finance and rootless employers. They are idealists and so fervently believe in things that are so true and real that they need states to make sure they exist in the first place. Here they are wasting half a thread telling a user how bad of a person he is for not being an indoctrinated liberal ideologue, but instead rather unapologetic in his feelings and apparent double standards for a community he shares an organic relationship with.
He really owes no explanation nor has anything to apologize for. He has interests, he recognizes them, and sees how he shares them with others and other times how he doesn't. That is the hallmark of a good person, not extolling some list of abstracted morals at every opportunity. It is one thing to question everything, it's another to be a liberal.[/QUOTE]
Conscript is where horseshoe theory advances into pretzel theory.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49701388]
The simple fact is liberals do live in another world. They are not a mass movement, they have no national or class loyalties, after 1945 they aspire to some pseudo-internationalist 'humanitarian' ideal which is really just a smokescreen for the dominance of international finance and rootless employers.[/QUOTE]
Ahh yes, the scary, horrifying liberals. Clearly, it is they who are at fault, and not those who seek to cause violence based on twisted dogmas or ideas of racial superiority, or territorial revanchism.
It is all the liberal's fault, of course.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701993]And yet no one has given a better alternative, if they are going to keep trying to kill us how else are we going to stop them without violence?[/QUOTE]
Explain to me why continuing the current path, which has been said and proven unreliable and not working, is acceptable to continue on merely because there is not a better solution?
Besides the obvious ethical and moral reasoning, if throwing taxpayer money at the problem in the form of bombs, bullets, and dead soldiers isn't working then there is no financial benefit to continue that policy regardless of the lack of a better solution.
[QUOTE=Luni;49702803]"nah i don't agree with what it says so it's wrong and i can ignore it"[/QUOTE]
he's basically been doing this the whole thread and its werid
we fundamentally can't argue with him because he's refusing to accept certain information. there's nothing wrong with this, you can choose to accept whatever you want, but it makes it pretty much an impossibility to argue any proper point with him because its emotionally charged opinions vs logically driven opinions
and at this point i'm wondering how it's gone on so long
like why do we keep engaging him despite the brick wall we've run into and why doesn't he see how he (from a debate standpoint) has absolutely nothing to stand on
this is probably the weirdest and most fun thread in SH atm tbh
I love how blatantly obvious it is that Wystan is ignoring the posts that bring up points he can't actually formulate a response to. Really shows the level of debate we're at.
Come to think of it, I have yet to see Wystan provide a single citation proving the efficacy of torture as a means of actually accomplishing anything at all.
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;49703239]he's basically been doing this the whole thread and its werid
we fundamentally can't argue with him because he's refusing to accept certain information. there's nothing wrong with this, you can choose to accept whatever you want, but it makes it pretty much an impossibility to argue any proper point with him because its emotionally charged opinions vs logically driven opinions
and at this point i'm wondering how it's gone on so long
like why do we keep engaging him despite the brick wall we've run into and why doesn't he see how he (from a debate standpoint) has absolutely nothing to stand on
this is probably the weirdest and most fun thread in SH atm tbh[/QUOTE]
You're welcome.
I should've made it clear from the beginning and argued the principle of torture, since on principle I don't see anything wrong with it, there is no reason not try it. Obviously keep in mind that the information pulled MAY not be good, but maybe it is, you never know until you try.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;49703404]I love how blatantly obvious it is that Wystan is ignoring the posts that bring up points he can't actually formulate a response to. Really shows the level of debate we're at.
[/QUOTE]
Well I mean the dude has like 10 people on him at once (many of whom are using logical fallacies in addition to valid points) making a ton of arguments per post, plus the "you are wrong and dumb and a bad person for having your opinion" brigade on him at the same time. I don't agree with him at all but this really shows how fucking awful SH is for actually meaningful discussion sometimes. Ya'll can debate without going "HOW DARE YOU", and you'd still win because there's more of you and you're right.
[QUOTE=wystan;49703429]You're welcome.
I should've made it clear from the beginning and argued the principle of torture, since on principle I don't see anything wrong with it, there is no reason not try it. Obviously keep in mind that the information pulled MAY not be good, but maybe it is, you never know until you try.[/QUOTE]
Oh but we do know, and we've been trying it for years now. Zukriuchen posted a shit ton of evidence that showed not only that torture was ineffective as a means of gathering information, but also detrimental to our interests as well because it fueled anti American sentiment. You then proceeded to dismiss all the evidence against his position without even reading the sources or giving any valid reason as to why they're not credible. It's painfully obvious that you're approaching this issue from an emotional perspective and making ex post facto rationalizations for it afterwards.
[QUOTE=phygon;49703442]Well I mean the dude has like 10 people on him at once (many of whom are using logical fallacies in addition to valid points) making a ton of arguments per post, plus the "you are wrong and dumb and a bad person for having your opinion" brigade on him at the same time. I don't agree with him at all but this really shows how fucking awful SH is for actually meaningful discussion sometimes. Ya'll can debate without going "HOW DARE YOU", and you'd still win because there's more of you and you're right.[/QUOTE]
If you're actively advocating a decision that would logically result in a genocide and is then fully accepting it as just a thing that happens, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond beside point out the odd connection between him and his supposed enemy
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49703657]If you're actively advocating a decision that would logically result in a genocide and is then fully accepting it as just a thing that happens, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond beside point out the odd connection between him and his supposed enemy[/QUOTE]
There's that word again, just has he said you misrepresent my points, you think I want a genocide. You people are as dense as I am.
[QUOTE=phygon;49703442]Well I mean the dude has like 10 people on him at once (many of whom are using logical fallacies in addition to valid points) making a ton of arguments per post, plus the "you are wrong and dumb and a bad person for having your opinion" brigade on him at the same time. I don't agree with him at all but this really shows how fucking awful SH is for actually meaningful discussion sometimes. Ya'll can debate without going "HOW DARE YOU", and you'd still win because there's more of you and you're right.[/QUOTE]
to be absolutely fair the thread hasn't always been like this
the arguments against him have slowly decayed into insults and logical fallacies due to his completely solid and unmoving standpoint. both sides have run out of things to say at this point
[QUOTE=wystan;49703865]There's that word again, just has he said you misrepresent my points, you think I want a genocide. You people are as dense as I am.[/QUOTE]
When you say you'll have "to kill enough of them" and then that's clarified to be basically all of them then what else is it possible to describe as that doesn't offend you?
[QUOTE=Conscript;49701388]*words*[/QUOTE]
I literally can't elucidate any meaning from your posts. All I can see is "blah blah liberals are idiotic and ruining this world". Can you please stop trying to sound intelligent by using unnecessarily obtuse words and type in simple English?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49705727]I literally can't elucidate any meaning from your posts. All I can see is "blah blah liberals are idiotic and ruining this world". Can you please stop trying to sound intelligent by using unnecessarily obtuse words and type in simple English?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]He really owes no explanation nor has anything to apologize for. He has interests, he recognizes them, and sees how he shares them with others and other times how he doesn't. That is the hallmark of a good person, not extolling some list of abstracted morals at every opportunity. It is one thing to question everything, it's another to be a liberal. [/QUOTE]
i THINK he's trying to say wystan is stronger than us for being objectively wrong on literally every level but not in any way acknowledging it? and this ties into liberals being liars?
[QUOTE]I don't see why we can't do both, exactly because morals are nothing as they're being prescribed in this thread are nothing but abstract concepts. So it works for us to be cruel to militants and be good guys for the rest. We are moral insofar it is in our interests, nothing more. You're taking it too far if you your rigid adherence to the former, which is typical for self-righteous liberal universalism, means sacrificing the latter.
I don't prove to myself I'm not a horrible person by affording to people I've never met, and who likely despise who I am, various rights enforced by my own government I fund and otherwise don't exist. It makes no sense, and I don't find it to be the hallmark of a good person to be so criminally naive. A good person would be responsible and loyal to what he comes from, after all. It is one thing to afford rights to national citizens, particularly since it fosters a healthy capitalist national economy, it's another to do the same to the enemy out of a mental disorder called liberalism.[/QUOTE]
OHHHH wait i think i get it now. he's saying he has a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra under his pillow, sealed shut by thirty years worth of semen and dried blood. of course.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49705727]I literally can't elucidate any meaning from your posts. All I can see is "blah blah liberals are idiotic and ruining this world". Can you please stop trying to sound intelligent by using unnecessarily obtuse words and type in simple English?[/QUOTE]
sure, if you want to add me on steam or something. Otherwise if I have time to think about something, it just happens. Sorry, I guess.
Can you actually tell me what you have a problem with?
[quote]OHHHH wait i think i get it now. he's saying he has a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra under his pillow, sealed shut by thirty years worth of semen and dried blood. of course.[/quote]
^ this is what word soup really is
[QUOTE=wystan;49703865]There's that word again, just has he said you misrepresent my points, you think I want a genocide. You people are as dense as I am.[/QUOTE]
With how little you listen its no wonder people choose to ignore you back
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49705727]I literally can't elucidate any meaning from your posts. All I can see is "blah blah liberals are idiotic and ruining this world". Can you please stop trying to sound intelligent by using unnecessarily obtuse words and type in simple English?[/QUOTE]
I think Conscript discovered post modernism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.