User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who's your GOP pick for 2012?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bachmann

    0 0%
  • Cain

    1 3.33%
  • Gingrich

    0 0%
  • Huntsman

    4 13.33%
  • Paul

    23 76.67%
  • Perry

    0 0%
  • Romney

    2 6.67%
  • Santorum

    0 0%
First 2101112131422 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 287

  1. #111

    Default

    The one who is factually correct, which in the end, is all that matters, for the world is not ruled by political law, but by factual, natural law.

    I am sure there is a nice place in hell just for Newt and company. Hope he enjoys it. I bet Obummer will be there too.

    Pine, out.

    This thread is dead.

  2. #112
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Former speaker of the House.
    Thank you. You know what I meant.

  3. #113
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    This is getting interesting.

  4. #114
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Pine View Post
    The one who is factually correct, which in the end, is all that matters, for the world is not ruled by political law, but by factual, natural law.

    I am sure there is a nice place in hell just for Newt and company. Hope he enjoys it. I bet Obummer will be there too.

    Pine, out.

    This thread is dead.
    :yim_rolling_on_the_

  5. #115
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This is getting interesting.
    You can almost feel his reasoning crumble under the pressure of others' criticism...

    His language game reveals itself for precisely what it is: nothing more...

  6. #116
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You can almost feel his reasoning crumble under the pressure of others' criticism...
    Yeah.....I guess in the interest of bumping this discussion up a notch, since our friend here refused to define what natural law actually is(and the guy he cites does a shitty job too on his website), here's a better attempt:
    St. Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Law

    One interesting excerpt states:
    It is a fundamental tenet of Aquinas' political theory that rulers rule for the sake of the governed, i.e. for the good and well-being of those subject to the ruler.
    So at the very least, Aquinas is arguing in favor of government for the people, if not necessarily of the people per se - since he made some critical remarks about democracy as a form of government, but noted that the best regime was one with mixed monarchy and democratic elements at work. However, as some Thomist theorists have articulated, Natural Law per se doesn't necessarily attach itself to any one kind of regime. Others, like Maritain, would argue that liberal democracy is the best form of government for natural law to be more fully implemented, but I'm not fully convinced of this argument personally.

    Two cents on the issue of natural law brought up in this discussion.

  7. #117
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Hmmm, okay guys, maybe you're right. Are these amenities suitable enough for our terrorists?





    If we kill them with kindness, maybe they'll talk.
    Yes, my suggestion that waterboarding, which is done often without trial, is ineffective based solely on the claims of ex-interrogators, POWs, psychologists and the fact that it has had no apparent positive effects like preventing an attack or being responsible or finding a major terrorist is my way of saying we should all give terrorists mani-pedis. How did you see through my rouse?

    It is mamby-pamby people complaining about taking extreme methods without trial that put an end to seeing if women float to determine if they are witches, and look what that got us.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  8. #118
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    First off, it's spelled "whether", not "weather".

    I normally wouldn't point this out, but you committed this mistake 3 times, and I wouldn't want you to continue this in the future; people might think you're stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    There are a near infinity of possible sub-parameters. I happened to choose those that I felt were the most basic and best fell in line with peoples heuristic of a "ticking-time bomb".
    If by "most basic" and "best fell in line with", you're referring to those parameters that only support your simplistic arguments, then yes, you're absolutely correct.

    If you're referring to the obvious alternative parameters that would afford one a well-rounded, balanced, more objective, impartial, nuanced, accurate, proper, and appropriate view of the situation, then no, your choice of parameters didn't come anywhere close...

    Hmm... still not sure... lack of intelligence, or lack of integrity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Of course anyone can scratch together a dozen convoluted situations in which all manner of otherwise immoral things are moral, but we dont leave open little ethical backdoors where if there is a _______ scenario you have to able to commit rape/murder/genocide.
    The very obvious alternative parameters I speak of are not anything remotely similar to the ridiculous straw man you've proposed here.

    I'm starting to lean towards lack of intellectual integrity...

    He's been given the chance to recognize his obvious wrongness, but still hopes to get away with it; a more honest interlocutor would admit his obvious mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    It comes down to weather such a situation could reasonably happen. You put forward a "Ticking-Time bomb" scenario. If you have any reasonable scenarios within this category in which my reasoning does not apply I would like to hear them.
    Awesome!

    Here's your chance!

    You can prove that you actually do have intelligence and integrity!

    I promise you, they're very easy to think of: all you have to do is engage in this activity called critical thinking, whereby you consider the strongest possible argument of the viewpoint you would otherwise oppose. I assure you, if you're able to engage in this activity, the examples will just come flooding into your brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    So youve accused me of being an unintelligent ideologue that is lacking in integrity.
    No.

    I've questioned whether you would present the lines of reasoning that you did due to a lack of intelligence, or a lack of integrity (or both?). Now that I think about it, considering how many times I've aptly corrected you in the few times we've discussed issues, maybe I was wrong earlier about it being a lack of integrity...



    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Do you really consider this impressive debating?
    Pointing out how ridiculously inane your ideologically-driven arguments that you present as valuable, truthful, and/or meaningful positions really are?

    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Well duh, thats always an option. In fact its the option that you already pointed out. Do I to remind you of your own argument constantly?
    No, I was perfectly aware of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    It was already an established point and it didnt need repeating.
    In any balanced view of the situation, it would be taken into account.

    The point is that you seem to rarely, if ever, present balanced accounts of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    My point is that the other 2 scenarios are very likely and I would guess perhaps more likely than scenario 3.
    You have some kind of proof for this conjecture?

    You're about to mention the lack of empirical evidence for torture, so I'd like to see you have enough consistency to require the same of your own point of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    This makes torture in this situation a gamble...
    ... since this is based on an unfounded premise, it's specious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    ...we have no empirical evidence on torture, only anecdotes, and that evidence(however flawed it is) seems to point towards torture being unreliable.
    Well, first off, I already pointed out that you have no empirical evidence supporting the claim you made above, but, interestingly enough, you start requiring it here, of your opponents' point of view. Very interesting... but not very consistent.

    Second, you can't actually have empirical evidence on torture unless you actually have a significant history of having used torture, and, as such, there are so many flaws in this line of thinking, I'm not even gunna start down that path. It's like the Lernaean Hydra.

    Third, anecdotal evidence suggests that torture is a less effective means of getting information from suspects than more conventional means, in more normal circumstances (i.e., not those of a ticking time bomb scenario). But, as you have probably already realized, these anecdotes are more-or-less irrelevant to the parameter I laid out : a ticking time bomb scenario.

    The whole point of mentioning a ticking time bomb scenario is that it's an example wherein other forms of interrogation are almost certain to fail, so torture stands out as the only reasonably likely method of extracting the necessary information from the suspect in the necessary amount of time. As @Edgar just pointed out in the other thread on waterboarding: if interrogation professionals think that torture will be a less effective means of extracting information, then they will not use it; we should not, however, in the most exigent of circumstances, tie their hands behind their back and prevent them from using torture, as, in that moment, it may be the only effective means by which to save a large number of human lives. To think anything else, is, in my opinion, idiotic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    It comes down to weather torture is more effective than military interrogation.
    Yes, in a sense it does.

    If other methods are more effective in all circumstances, then I would see no reason for torture.

    But there's no empirical reason to believe torture is never the more effective method, nor is there a purely rationalistic reason to believe so.

    There is, however, an ideological one.

    And you've got that one down pat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    None of this addresses the issue at hand either, weather torture should be an institutionalized policy.
    Actually, yes it does.

    I go more directly into this below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    If we can leave our little platonic fantasy land and go back to reality I dont believe there is a single case of a "ticking time bomb" scenario in the torture scandal.
    The amount we know, compared to the amount we don't know, is so vast, that I really don't think either one of us is in a place to accurately make that assessment.

    Regardless, the issue is about whether torture should ever be allowed, and, the fact of the matter is, if there is an exigent circumstance concerning a potential act of war, the Constitution authorizes the Commander in Chief to utilize enhanced interrogation techniques and/or torture to try and prevent that act from occurring.

    This is not Platonic fantasy land; it's Constitutional interpretation.

    Accurate Constitutional interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    It therefore stands that the current use of torture is unjustifiable...
    No, actually, it does not.

    And the fact that you think you somehow proved that it does is laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    ...would you agree?
    No, as I did actually demonstrate above, in exigent circumstances of war, torture is justifiable.

    The justification is in the United States Constitution.

  9. #119
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Pine View Post
    The one who is factually correct, which in the end, is all that matters, for the world is not ruled by political law, but by factual, natural law.

    I am sure there is a nice place in hell just for Newt and company. Hope he enjoys it. I bet Obummer will be there too.

    Pine, out.

    This thread is dead.
    Newt seems like the most knowledgeable candidate as 'former' Speaker of the House, he's a credible source of information. I understand the moral dilemmas, but I also understand there's an appropriate time and season for things. There are enough prominent credible supporters to take note. Cheney admitted that torture techniques probably contributed to the attack on Osama Bin Laden. Interrogation techniques that you consider torture, may serve a practical purpose when time and lives are at stake. Who are we to say? We are not the experts. Unless you've worked on the front line, it might be tough to fully understand and appreciate the rules of engagement. Nobody is talking about torturing people for thrills. The last video I posted should help put things in the proper context.

  10. #120
    Senior Member giegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Any candidate who supports creationism
    and apposes abortion
    while supporting the death penalty
    Limits freedom of speech
    while supporting an agenda
    Or supports torture
    Of anyone, for any reason

    Is a complete fuckwit.

Similar Threads

  1. Republican debate
    By jixmixfix in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-18-2015, 07:42 PM
  2. The Middle East dreamed up at the Republican debate doesn’t really exist
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2015, 07:44 PM
  3. 2012 Presidential Debates: Round 1
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 10-27-2012, 10:59 AM
  4. Your Most Anticipated Movies of 2011/2012
    By Crescent Fresh in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 02-08-2012, 04:01 AM
  5. Debating styles
    By labyrinthine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-11-2007, 08:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO