The word "Liberal" has nothing to do with my argument.You used the word. You need to define it because it's central to your post. Of those who use the word as an insult, I've never found anyone yet who is willing to define it. You know that if you do it will only make you look like an even bigger fool and psychopath.
''Let's keep a CARP METER running to see how Liberals try to kill honest debate, especially when they know they can't win the debate.''fiveredapples wrote:The word "Liberal" has nothing to do with my argument.You used the word. You need to define it because it's central to your post. Of those who use the word as an insult, I've never found anyone yet who is willing to define it. You know that if you do it will only make you look like an even bigger fool and psychopath.
CARP METER = 7
Whether I refer to my opponents as Liberals, Morons, Imbeciles, Lying Pieces of Shit, etc. does not matter. Whatever name is appropriate has nothing to do with my argument. So all of this is carping.''Let's keep a CARP METER running to see how Liberals try to kill honest debate, especially when they know they can't win the debate.''
You dismiss anyone who disagrees with your garbage as 'Liberals' so you need to define the word.
Actually you do anti-philosophy. Philosophy is supposed to be about trying to become more enlightened, and passing on worthwhile ideas. Philosophers help drive social evolution.
This cute little comment PRESUPPOSES that water boarding is torture, which JUST IS THE DEBATE. So, again, another case of assuming the most important premise.Any society that condones torture is backward, primitive, and barbaric.
A fucking page to say a couple of words. Well: if a policeman picks you and start boxing with your body (but being careful in not breaking any bone), puting iron under your nails, and all the things you can imagine that don't cause any permanent damage in your body, then it would be torture anyway. In fact, the body heals itself, so even if they do small cuts in your skin or things like that, in two days you'd be like you were before.fiveredapples wrote:CIA Water Boarding has returned as an issue (thank goodness) now that President Trump has voiced an openness to reinstating this practice. He said he would listen to his Secretary of Defense and others in his cabinet, so it's not a settled matter yet, but it's one that will likely rear its convoluted head again. So I would like to argue, pace the braying horde, that CIA water boarding is morally permissible. I think it's one of the easiest moral arguments anyone could defend successfully. It's also one of the easiest ones to completely misunderstand, misstate, and misrepresent, so I'll try to anticipate the lies, er, the mistakes in this post. I will keep things brief; otherwise, this might look like real philosophy and then I'd lose 90% of you. And, yes, the snark is real.
Let's be super clear from the start. We're talking about the water boarding method implemented by the CIA after the 9/11 attacks. We're not talking about water boarding done by the Khmer Rouge or even the CIA prior to the 9/11 attacks. While many different methods go by the name of "water boarding," they are irrelevant to our debate. Keep that in mind and we'll eliminate half your thoughts.
I think one way to approach the debate is to first eliminate the most popular and most erroneous argument against CIA Water Boarding, and that is that CIA water boarding is torture. I know, I know, it's something you take for granted and something you think goes without argument, but nothing goes without argument when you're a rigorous thinker (like I am). So, I state: CIA water boarding (hence, just 'water boarding') is not torture. For water boarding to be torture, it would have to satisfy the definition of torture, which includes the intent to harm. Now, 'harm' doesn't mean every kind of "pain" or discomfort, as my playing loud music might discomfort you and in some sense cause you "pain", but being subjected to my loud country music doesn't imply that I am torturing you. That would be absurd to think, let alone try to defend. Now, if I play loud music long enough, maybe I can make you crazy to the point where it causes lasting psychological damage, maybe permanent damage, and so then you could reasonably say that you were tortured, provided of course that I restrained you this entire time such that you couldn't simply plug your ears or walk away from the noise. So, by 'harm' is meant some lasting effect -- like I cut off a body part, I used Chinese water torture to drive you insane, I sodomized you with a rusty pipe, etc. Water boarding has never been shown -- not by the Senate Committee, not by anyone -- to involve the intent to harm. So, water boarding has never been shown to be torture. So while some people or agencies have "determined" that water boarding is torture, they have never given a satisfactory argument for their determination. They've simply given their biased and uninformed opinions (in the truest sense) that water boarding is torture. But we're not mindless sheeple. We know this is a moral question, so we need a moral argument. There has never been a cogent moral argument for the view that water boarding is torture, and I've explained the major reason why not: water boarding doesn't involve intent to harm. And the major reason why no one can show or even reasonably infer that there is intent to harm is because THERE IS NO HARM. Wow. Amazing, right? Not one of the three terrorists captured and water boarded after the 9/11 attacks -- I'm talking about Khalid Sheik Muhammed and two others -- suffered any lasting injury; hence, no harm. So if none of them suffered harm, you can see why nobody has been able to argue that the CIA had an intent to harm them. If they did, they are very incompetent at their jobs. So, CIA water boarding not only involves no harm (which, again, must be a lasting effect) but it involves no intent to harm (at least none that you can reasonably infer from the evidence).
So, there are several ways opponents of water boarding mischaracterize and muddle the debate. And they muddle it because they lose the debate when they're clear. One is to simply assume that water boarding is torture. That's right, they simply skip over the most important premise in their argument -- saying "it's obvious" or other inane things -- and go from there. Once you concede that water boarding is torture, you'll have a relatively easy time convincing most people that water boarding is morally impermissible. Frankly, I don't think that follows at all, but I definitely see how most people would concede that conclusion. The second way they muddle this debate is by insisting that CIA water boarding causes "harm". Of course what they mean by harm isn't the definition we require in this debate. If I accidentally hit your thumb as we're hammering something, I haven't tortured you, have I? No. That's ridiculous. But I have harmed you. If I do it intentionally, I still haven't tortured you although I have harmed you. So, they equivocate on the word "harm" to muddle the issue. Being doused with water, as in the CIA water boarding, is extremely uncomfortable and maybe cause you some garden-variety harm (not the lasting harm we need), but you are not being drowned, your lungs are not filling up with water, there's no danger of you drowning, and you are not being harmed (in the way we required for this debate). This is why not one terrorist suffered any lasting effect. The CIA has ingeniously created a way to cause someone a lot of discomfort without causing any long-lasting harm or doing any long-term or permanent psychological damage. So, would you want to be water boarded? No, it's very uncomfortable. Would you suffer any harm if you did get water boarded? No. So, water boarding is not torture. Case closed. You cannot get around this argument, which is why opponents of water boarding, which are mostly Liberals but some Conservatives too, usually skip this annoying step and simply assume that water boarding is torture.
Okay, I think that's all I should say now. I could write a book on this topic, but who would read it, amirite?
I'm sure your "argument" is excellent. I was almost tempted to read it and, if it weren't for the fact that I don't have the slightest interest in what you have to say, I most certainly would have done. No, the only reason you caught my attention was because there seems to have been a spate of nut jobs crawling out from under their rocks lately and it just made me think, oh no, not another fucker.fiveredapples wrote:So you concede my argument? Thank you.It's not your rigorous thinking that's the problem; it's the fact that you feel the need to write it all down. Have a little consideration, Ludwig.
Spare me your pathetic commentary.This is sad...your parent's have wasted money in your philisophy degree, and now you are completely out of reality, thinking that the piece of paper makes you intelligent, or not ignorant, when it is probably more a proof of how you wasted your life time.
You can't recognize an argument. You're inept at thought, let alone philosophy.I'm not a liberal, or a... nothing. But your post doesn't have a single argument, it is highly ridiculous.
Incoherent diarrhea. Stick to the topic: water boarding is morally permissible.Look, I'm not against torture, it can be good sometimes, I can imagine a couple of reasons to do that, so I'm not posting gifs because of that, it is not because of a "closed mind" to something. I wasn't posting the gif for you either, you are not the only one here.
You've only succeeded in showing what a complete moonbat you are.I feel that the possibility of making you see a big part of your mind as a complete mess is very small, but I don't know why, can't stop feeling faith in human brains and comunication. So I must tell you: Your post is ridiculous from the beginingin my eyes, without doubt.
This is my last post here, notice this, it isn't an argument, I'm just trying to show you how ridiculous you are.
You just made my morning. But torture can never be justified. There's no way of knowing if the person being tortured knows anything useful to the torturer or not, so the chances of torturing an innocent person are astronomical. It's even easier to dismiss as primitive depravity than the death penalty. Of course some people deserve the death penalty, but look at all the people who don't. Juries are generally made up of idiots (especially in the US).TSBU wrote:This is sad...your parent's have wasted money in your philisophy degree, and now you are completely out of reality, thinking that the piece of paper makes you intelligent, or not ignorant, when it is probably more a proof of how you wasted your life time.
I'm not a liberal, or a... nothing. But your post doesn't have a single argument, it is highly ridiculous. Look, I'm not against torture, it can be good sometimes, I can imagine a couple of reasons to do that, so I'm not posting gifs because of that, it is not because of a "closed mind" to something. I wasn't posting the gif for you either, you are not the only one here.
I feel that the possibility of making you see a big part of your mind as a complete mess is very small, but I don't know why, can't stop feeling faith in human brains and comunication. So I must tell you: Your post is ridiculous from the beginingin my eyes, without doubt.
This is my last post here, notice this, it isn't an argument, I'm just trying to show you how ridiculous you are.
First of all, I'm going to divide your thread in "argument" parts and completely useless crap. The useless crap iis what isn't in bold letters.
A fucking page to say a couple of words. Well: if a policeman picks you and start boxing with your body (but being careful in not breaking any bone), puting iron under your nails, and all the things you can imagine that don't cause any permanent damage in your body, then it would be torture anyway. In fact, the body heals itself, so even if they do small cuts in your skin or things like that, in two days you'd be like you were before.fiveredapples wrote:CIA Water Boarding has returned as an issue (thank goodness) now that President Trump has voiced an openness to reinstating this practice. He said he would listen to his Secretary of Defense and others in his cabinet, so it's not a settled matter yet, but it's one that will likely rear its convoluted head again. So I would like to argue, pace the braying horde, that CIA water boarding is morally permissible. I think it's one of the easiest moral arguments anyone could defend successfully. It's also one of the easiest ones to completely misunderstand, misstate, and misrepresent, so I'll try to anticipate the lies, er, the mistakes in this post. I will keep things brief; otherwise, this might look like real philosophy and then I'd lose 90% of you. And, yes, the snark is real.
Let's be super clear from the start. We're talking about the water boarding method implemented by the CIA after the 9/11 attacks. We're not talking about water boarding done by the Khmer Rouge or even the CIA prior to the 9/11 attacks. While many different methods go by the name of "water boarding," they are irrelevant to our debate. Keep that in mind and we'll eliminate half your thoughts.
I think one way to approach the debate is to first eliminate the most popular and most erroneous argument against CIA Water Boarding, and that is that CIA water boarding is torture. I know, I know, it's something you take for granted and something you think goes without argument, but nothing goes without argument when you're a rigorous thinker (like I am). So, I state: CIA water boarding (hence, just 'water boarding') is not torture. For water boarding to be torture, it would have to satisfy the definition of torture, which includes the intent to harm. Now, 'harm' doesn't mean every kind of "pain" or discomfort, as my playing loud music might discomfort you and in some sense cause you "pain", but being subjected to my loud country music doesn't imply that I am torturing you. That would be absurd to think, let alone try to defend. Now, if I play loud music long enough, maybe I can make you crazy to the point where it causes lasting psychological damage, maybe permanent damage, and so then you could reasonably say that you were tortured, provided of course that I restrained you this entire time such that you couldn't simply plug your ears or walk away from the noise. So, by 'harm' is meant some lasting effect -- like I cut off a body part, I used Chinese water torture to drive you insane, I sodomized you with a rusty pipe, etc. Water boarding has never been shown -- not by the Senate Committee, not by anyone -- to involve the intent to harm. So, water boarding has never been shown to be torture. So while some people or agencies have "determined" that water boarding is torture, they have never given a satisfactory argument for their determination. They've simply given their biased and uninformed opinions (in the truest sense) that water boarding is torture. But we're not mindless sheeple. We know this is a moral question, so we need a moral argument. There has never been a cogent moral argument for the view that water boarding is torture, and I've explained the major reason why not: water boarding doesn't involve intent to harm. And the major reason why no one can show or even reasonably infer that there is intent to harm is because THERE IS NO HARM. Wow. Amazing, right? Not one of the three terrorists captured and water boarded after the 9/11 attacks -- I'm talking about Khalid Sheik Muhammed and two others -- suffered any lasting injury; hence, no harm. So if none of them suffered harm, you can see why nobody has been able to argue that the CIA had an intent to harm them. If they did, they are very incompetent at their jobs. So, CIA water boarding not only involves no harm (which, again, must be a lasting effect) but it involves no intent to harm (at least none that you can reasonably infer from the evidence).
So, there are several ways opponents of water boarding mischaracterize and muddle the debate. And they muddle it because they lose the debate when they're clear. One is to simply assume that water boarding is torture. That's right, they simply skip over the most important premise in their argument -- saying "it's obvious" or other inane things -- and go from there. Once you concede that water boarding is torture, you'll have a relatively easy time convincing most people that water boarding is morally impermissible. Frankly, I don't think that follows at all, but I definitely see how most people would concede that conclusion. The second way they muddle this debate is by insisting that CIA water boarding causes "harm". Of course what they mean by harm isn't the definition we require in this debate. If I accidentally hit your thumb as we're hammering something, I haven't tortured you, have I? No. That's ridiculous. But I have harmed you. If I do it intentionally, I still haven't tortured you although I have harmed you. So, they equivocate on the word "harm" to muddle the issue. Being doused with water, as in the CIA water boarding, is extremely uncomfortable and maybe cause you some garden-variety harm (not the lasting harm we need), but you are not being drowned, your lungs are not filling up with water, there's no danger of you drowning, and you are not being harmed (in the way we required for this debate). This is why not one terrorist suffered any lasting effect. The CIA has ingeniously created a way to cause someone a lot of discomfort without causing any long-lasting harm or doing any long-term or permanent psychological damage. So, would you want to be water boarded? No, it's very uncomfortable. Would you suffer any harm if you did get water boarded? No. So, water boarding is not torture. Case closed. You cannot get around this argument, which is why opponents of water boarding, which are mostly Liberals but some Conservatives too, usually skip this annoying step and simply assume that water boarding is torture.
Okay, I think that's all I should say now. I could write a book on this topic, but who would read it, amirite?
Your definition of torture or harm is completely ridiculous, and it's only yours.
This is from the dictionary:
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Now, what is "pain" what is at the level of torture, what not... it depends on the person. And... it's not an interesting topic at all.
If I don't take you more seriously than this, is for the same reason that I don't answer to abortion threads (wich usually tend to have the same form, "what is human" instead of "what is torture"... wich is pure irony seeing your avatar), god threads, and many others... What can be said that isn't evident?
Do yourself a favor, throw the paper they give you in university to the bin and start living in the real world. I won't read your next post here, so if you write, be aware that you are not writing to me, but to convince yourself.
I'll keep carping. What is a Liberal?fiveredapples wrote:Whether I refer to my opponents as Liberals, Morons, Imbeciles, Lying Pieces of Shit, etc. does not matter. Whatever name is appropriate has nothing to do with my argument. So all of this is carping.''Let's keep a CARP METER running to see how Liberals try to kill honest debate, especially when they know they can't win the debate.''
You dismiss anyone who disagrees with your garbage as 'Liberals' so you need to define the word.
Actually you do anti-philosophy. Philosophy is supposed to be about trying to become more enlightened, and passing on worthwhile ideas. Philosophers help drive social evolution.
This cute little comment PRESUPPOSES that water boarding is torture, which JUST IS THE DEBATE. So, again, another case of assuming the most important premise.Any society that condones torture is backward, primitive, and barbaric.
CARP METER = 8
TSBU, who'd have thought you'd turn out to be a hero? I always sensed there was something special about you.TSBU wrote: A fucking page to say a couple of words. Well: if a policeman picks you and start boxing with your body (but being careful in not breaking any bone), puting iron under your nails, and all the things you can imagine that don't cause any permanent damage in your body, then it would be torture anyway. In fact, the body heals itself, so even if they do small cuts in your skin or things like that, in two days you'd be like you were before.
Your definition of torture or harm is completely ridiculous, and it's only yours.
This is from the dictionary:
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Now, what is "pain" what is at the level of torture, what not... it depends on the person. And... it's not an interesting topic at all.
If I don't take you more seriously than this, is for the same reason that I don't answer to abortion threads (wich usually tend to have the same form, "what is human" instead of "what is torture"... wich is pure irony seeing your avatar), god threads, and many others... What can be said that isn't evident?
Do yourself a favor, throw the paper they give you in university to the bin and start living in the real world. I won't read your next post here, so if you write, be aware that you are not writing to me, but to convince yourself.
A fucking page to say a couple of words.
Bravo! This is the FIRST legitimate attempt to take on my argument. I honestly applaud you -- even though I think you're very wrong. Notice what you're listing as the actions taken against me: punches to my body, iron under my nails, all the things that would cause "permanent damage" -- almost like you didn't even read my argument, because I listed hitting your thumb with a hammer once, which doesn't imply that I even broke your thumb or that I kept doing it. And I explicitly stated that the "harm" in water boarding is not permanent harm, as evidenced by the fact that the three water boarded terrorists have shown no sign of permanent or even prolonged harm. So, your examples are a waste of our time. My examples were cutting off body parts, so unless you're a salamander, you won't be growing back your body part. I said Chinese water torture that drives you insane, so unless you have therapy back from insanity, it's pointless to compare my example with yours. So, in the first attempt to tackle my argument, we get a misrepresentation of what I said and a pointless list of harm someone can suffer.Well: if a policeman picks you and start boxing with your body (but being careful in not breaking any bone), puting iron under your nails, and all the things you can imagine that don't cause any permanent damage in your body, then it would be torture anyway. In fact, the body heals itself, so even if they do small cuts in your skin or things like that, in two days you'd be like you were before.
But being water boarded is not excruciatingly painful, so you lose. Also, it's not done as a method of punishment or revenge; it's done as a preventative method, a method to stop terrorists attacks, so you lose again. And it's certainly not done out of sheer cruelty, so you lose yet again.Your definition of torture or harm is completely ridiculous, and it's only yours.
This is from the dictionary:
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.
You just made my morning. But torture can never be justified.
Can you fellate him in private? This is a philosophy forum.TSBU, who'd have thought you'd turn out to be a hero? I always sensed there was something special about you.
Don't use the word then. You are only proving my point. I'm well aware that you don't know what the word means. I've seen it so many times before-- rabid, sociopathic non-thinkers dismissing everyone they can't argue with as 'liberals', then flatly refusing to say what they mean by it. Full of yourself aren't you? I can see you are really popular on here, although there are a couple on here who would gravitate towards you.fiveredapples wrote:You just made my morning. But torture can never be justified.
LOL...let's play the 'how long does it take this genius to realize he keeps begging the question' game.
CARP METER = 9
Jealous?fiveredapples wrote:Can you fellate him in private? This is a philosophy forum.TSBU, who'd have thought you'd turn out to be a hero? I always sensed there was something special about you.
I provided a rather lengthy ARGUMENT. You have refused to take it on, so of course you should be dismissed. Why would anyone take you seriously? Who cares what I call you? If I simply said idiotic things like "I don't need an argument" or "It's obviously not torture" and then gave my position, I would rightly be labelled as dismissive. But I gave an argument. It's you who refuses to give an argument, yet I'm the dismissive one? LMAO -- the world turned upside down.Don't use the word then. You are only proving my point. I've seen it so many times. Moronic non-thinkers dismiss everyone they can't argue with as 'liberals', then flatly refuse to say what they mean by it.
Who cares whether I'm arrogant or unpopular here. In fact, I take it as a badge of honor that I'm not popular among people like you. I put forth an argument and I have defended the ONE time it's been attacked. We're almost at Page 2 and we've gotten one response to my argument.Full of yourself aren't you? I can see you are really popular on here, although there are a couple on here who would gravitate towards you.
