You added to this discussion immensely. I however am questioning your use of Ad Hom regardless of “LOL” Which could be an “Ad Hom” Itself, Or the Rolling Smiley. It would seem that ad hom are easily disguised by frivolous mannerisms. I would hate to think that the pluralistic nature of your post as distracting, derailing, attacking, etc wrapped up in a nice defensible smiley Icon.
Forgive me if I seem forward, I am not entire impressed by your contribution to this topic. Perhaps, because my arguments are in fact good, logical, very easy to defend. It would explain your need and desire to Mock and ridicule.
LOL! Projecting, Loganthor, my friend? Well, you're very welcome, any time, but perhaps you should try and find out the definition of Ad Hominem, because as you well know I was talking about your words, not you. I don't know you. Have a look at the thread where meljomur has ad-hommed me twice, maybe it'll help. You know where to find it.
And, you haven't noticed yet how hopelessly ridiculous you make yourself look right now
Funny.... I think I am doing extraordinarily good, in light of what I have to work with
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
It now has to actually exceed the "universally recognized definition", huh?
Does it meet the definition?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Here's a source for ya; I'll buy ya a Popsicle if you guess who penned it:
quote:
Dec. 10 [1984]: The U.S. endorses UNGA Res. 39/46, the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which enters into force on Junes 26, 1987. The Senate nonetheless refuses to ratify the Convention for 8 years before ostensibly allowing the U.S. to join 94 other countries in accepting the law's binding effect on Nov. 20, 1995. The gesture is largely a subterfuge, however, as the Senate attaches 2 reservations, 5 "understandings" and 2 declarations to its ratification, all of which add up to the claim that the U.S. retains a "sovereign right" to exempt itself from compliance when and however it desires to do so. As innumerable prison inmates, arrestees/subjects of police interrogation, and countless others can readily attest—and as Amnesty International has thoroughly documented—U.S. self-exemption remains in 2003 so ubiquitous as to constitute a normative official posture.
Be careful not to be seen as a seditionist, dude. You might end up getting waterboarded, you know.
To be universalliy defined as torture. Yes. Anything less is just plain rhetoric.
quote:
Be careful not to be seen as a seditionist, dude. You might end up getting waterboarded, you know.
My secret Neo-con Decoder Ring protects me against all enemy's both foreign and domestic.
I have already offer myself to be waterboarded, seems there are no takers.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
I'll buy ya a Popsicle if you guess who penned it:
Ward Churhill "Justice of Roosting Chickens"
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Ah, Monk, but you see, that doesn't frighten our mutual friend here; you see, waterboarding is nothing more than just scaring somebody a little. One might say it's more like play. A fun passtime. No resemblance whatsoever to the practice of torture, during which, as you know, people get injured, traumatized, or sometimes even die.
you see, all this:
quote:
Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.
is not true. And if it were, it would still be legal, so there.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
I'll give you back your Popsicle if you can tell me why this statement is correct.
quote:
U.S. retains a "sovereign right" to exempt itself from compliance when and however it desires to do so
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Please note that Loganthor hasn't substantially adressed a single issue raised by me. Please also note that I myself may not be accused of that flaw.
That would be the formal appearance of the ontology of "winning a debate".
quote:
Christ, don't you hate it when you have to explain to people why their King is out of options? Well, I do - so good luck trying to move off of that one square you find yourself pinned down on.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
Absolutely, and we'll even forget about the trouble with anything more, then, shall we?
quote:
I have already offer myself to be waterboarded, seems there are no takers.
Don't be so pessimistic; it's simply against the rules to be doing the physical threat business. Besides, you'd be the taking party.
quote:
Ward Churhill "Justice of Roosting Chickens"
Firstly, I said "guess", not "visit Google Books". Secondly, it's wrong. Had you limited your answer to Ward Churchill, you might have, well, "earned" your candy, but you had to be smart and add a half-assed title. The correct one is in fact On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality. Don't be thinking yourself rich before you've thought things through, especially so if you're going to even use your assumed riches to pay for diversions and evasions to envelop the many contradictions you are staging as, ahem, logic, or something.
LOL
And then it's "waah, waaah, tricks and games" and all, no doubt, but now it isn't because I've called it. Good thing, that, 'cause if ya can't take this shit (an assumption, yes indeed, based on "responses" such as "Dream alitle [sic] dream...."), how'd ya swallow the water?
Well, you get 6 days to ponder the fact that you have little concept of what the actual argument is by your consistent misrepresenting of My argument , that I did in fact address your emotional moral relativity question and that you have no possible way to overcome any of the Legal issues that surround defining torture.
I am heading to Sunriver Oregon for Christmas with 40 member of my family. I will be thinking of you. If I can find internet access I check on your progress and drop some Love notes. Merry Christmas.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
A wee bit sad that you won't reply to me anymore. Have I done something wrong? Will you not grant me the opportunity to shove some of your "arguments" into the limelight? Rude, somewhat, your mates and you, for leaving me all alone during this jolly time, which you wouldn't have, which is a shame.
Oh, and I overlooked that you didn't even get Ward's name right.
that I did in fact address your emotional moral relativity question and that you have no possible way to overcome any of the Legal issues that surround defining torture.
So glad you brought this up; I saw you refer to the incongruity you perceive between fact versus emotional and moral relativity before, and I think it’s time I comment.
Please allow me to respond.
First off, in your statements there is the implication that a purely factual argument trumps an argument that incorporates emotion. Interesting statement, that is, and food for thought, but no more than a simple opinion. There are thousands of them.
(Please note how you would like us NOT to be emotional about torture, how you would like us to stay nicely detached on that one, just like you. I’m sure you understand the implications.)
Second, in your statements there is the implication that factual argument trumps an argument that incorporates moral relativity. Interesting statement, that is, and food for thought, but no more than a simple opinion.
Personally, if you don't mind of course, I would say that ALL morality is circumstantial and therefore relative. For instance the answer to the question whether or not to kill a human being is wrong hugely depends on the circumstances. That said, you might want to take note what I said about torture in this light. You seem to have skipped over that.
Next: what you refer to as fact has been demonstrated not to be all that factual after all. On severaloccasions now. Of course, you have 'missed' that, and you mindlessly keep repeating that your argument is rooted in fact; after all, waterboarding still legal! Obviously it's clear by now to anyone but yourself that this has very little to do with substantiating the alleged ‘facts’, or with the morality of waterboarding and with the factual basis of such a morality.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
And now, the big one. Here it is ladies and gentlemen: my esteemed antagonist claiming fact, all the while emphatically stating over and over and over again on this thread that
quote:
I do not think waterboarding exceeds the universally recognized definition
The Nazi defense at Nuremburg was that they were not breaking "the law". That they were obeying orders, etc. This shallow view of human existence is most common now among the "leaders" of this criminal cartel posing as a "government". Torture is a symptom of failure, failure of method, failure of goal, failure as a society. We are now part of the same evil that once was disparaged as "unamerican". Few in the world now rwegard the U.S. as more than just another corrupt state stealing and killing for the empire of folly which regards life as an impediment to the goals of "righteousness".
" Government is the entertainment arm of the Military-Industrial-Complex."- Frank Zappa
Posts: 261 | Location: Erehwon | Registered: 09 March 2006
And in case there's still somebody out there who didn't get it by now:
Legal consensus about an issue does not constitute the full range of the facts about that issue. If a group of people agrees that they legally own (sic) a tract of land, that doesn't automatically make it so (especially if that agreement is unilateral). If a group of people agrees on what legally constitutes torture (FTR, no such consensus exists), and that legally, waterboarding isn’t torture (again, no such consensus exists) that doesn't automatically mean they have described reality. And if that same group of people declares it law, again, rather unilaterally, it STILL doesn't turn that law into a full description of the facts and morality surrounding waterboarding. Anybody basing their argument about whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture singly on legal grounds, and then only on the singular strain that “waterboarding is legal (sic), therefore (sic) waterboarding is not torture, seeing how torture is illegal (sic) and therefore (sic) it is ok to waterboard people” is bound to present an exceedingly one-sided view indeed. Especially if said individual doesn’t have any formal legal training.
Say, Loganthor, do you remember this? Well, you must feel like a right nitwit by now, huh? Well, that should teach you not to cry ‘victory’ before you know what you’re up against.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
The open was dull, but you had some fine pirouettes between your first and second act. I was left confused by the sheer lack of content or storyline. Interesting opening of the third act with “ALL morality is circumstantial and therefore relative”, but found my momentary interest lost in the chorus of the mundane. Thank God, intermission come. “Dodge, dodge, dodge” Drum roll starts for the closing act…. “I do not think waterboarding exceeds the universally recognized definition” . with a flurry of dancers spinning, jumping, tossing, the ballet comes to yet another unremarkable, content poor, string of jibber jabber that addressing only the person Not the material. The only redeeming aspect of that post, I didn’t have to pay any money for it. Let hope the others are better.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
As much fun as I am having catching up, I am bit taken back by a few problems today and do not have the time nessesary to give you my full attention.
Can you by chance sum up your position in a statement or question. So we may start anew.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Discussion Community 
