Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 08-22-2008, 07:29 PM
James Trotta's Avatar
James Trotta James Trotta is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 04-25-04
Posts: 1,085
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
What was your point? James says that you should have agreed that there is a difference, but you denied a difference. What was your point?
I said there is a difference but still a "do as I say, not as I do" element. I think Zap was agreeing with the second part. Not really sure if Zap agrees that there is an important difference or not...

And I must say, this thread has a totally different kind of drama that I predicted it would!
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 08-22-2008, 07:59 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Trotta View Post
I said there is a difference but still a "do as I say, not as I do" element. I think Zap was agreeing with the second part.
Yes. This "do as I say, not as I do" attitude the US has, really has to stop.
It's saddening to me. I can remember a time when the US would have railed against places like Guantanamo.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-22-2008, 08:09 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
When in time was it you were referring to Zap? Throughout the U.S. military history there have been things such as Gitmo during times of war.
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-22-2008, 11:28 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
The point was that it is hypocritical.
Sorry. No cookie for you. I tried my best to help you earn it but you're going to have to start to think.
Think? No, the word you're looking for is "assume". Insofar as you quoted his entire statement and then followed it with "That was my point", your intention could easily be seen as agreeing with the whole statement. The intelligent thing to do in such cases is not assume.

The fact that you equate "assuming" with "thinking" gives some meaningful insight into your failure to demonstrate intelligence in debates. You might want to stop "assuming" and start thinking.
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-22-2008, 11:35 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Yes. This "do as I say, not as I do" attitude the US has, really has to stop.
Hahaha! Reading your posts is great entertainment.

The US has to stop? LOL!

The NPT was signed and ratified by Canada, and 42 other nations. What's that saying? Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

And it's not "do as I say, not as I do". The US and other world powers have done little to stop several nations from developing nuclear weapons. The difference is the risk involved. Israel has nukes, but we know they aren't going to use them against non-aggressors. Not all nations enjoy that level of trust.

You might as well look at the law banning felons from owning firearms, and say "well, that's hypocritical". Your statement is no less obtuse than that one.
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:40 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
The difference is the risk involved. Israel has nukes, but we know they aren't going to use them against non-aggressors. Not all nations enjoy that level of trust.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1013206.html
Quote:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned yesterday that if Lebanon came under Hezbollah's control, then Israel would not be restrained from using all military means at its disposal during a war.
Does Israel have nuclear weapons?

My posts may entertain you, but yours are a laugh riot for everyone.
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:53 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1013206.html

Does Israel have nuclear weapons?
If you intend this to be a rebuttal of my statement, then you might want to actually state why you think it's a rebuttal. Until then it's just another sign of your lack of intelligence.
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:39 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Is not Israel surrounded by multiple countries all seeking it's complete and total destruction and removal from existence?

I mean I don't agree in the use of nuclear weapons, but Israel has shown remarkable constraint over the years and recently. And if a nation or a people are confronted with complete destruction and have no other means of defense, then that would be the only time it should even be considered. Though I don't believe that they would ever actually use it or have a need to.

A statement like the one you stated is more of a warning shot and is meant more towards conventional means with a hint of the nuclear option, not a plan of action, you know that, so using it as part of your argument actually weakens your position I think. I mean if Israel was an irresponsible third world state then they would have used the nuke long ago.
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-23-2008, 05:08 PM
James Trotta's Avatar
James Trotta James Trotta is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 04-25-04
Posts: 1,085
iTrader: 9 / 100%
We might need another thread to discuss Israel's "remarkable constraint".
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
Is not Israel surrounded by multiple countries all seeking it's complete and total destruction and removal from existence?

I mean I don't agree in the use of nuclear weapons, but Israel has shown remarkable constraint over the years and recently.
And how do we know that "if Israel was an irresponsible third world state then they would have used the nuke long ago"?


Now clearly (as John was saying) some countries are more trusted than others. We trust Israel more than Iraq (since we invaded Iraq to get rid of their WMD but never even considered invading Israel when they actually have WMD). Zap seems to be arguing that this trust is misplaced because Israel implied it might use nukes. I disagree with Zap as long as we clarify: America trusts Israel not to nuke America.
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-23-2008, 07:27 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Trotta View Post
We might need another thread to discuss Israel's "remarkable constraint".

And how do we know that "if Israel was an irresponsible third world state then they would have used the nuke long ago"?


Now clearly (as John was saying) some countries are more trusted than others. We trust Israel more than Iraq (since we invaded Iraq to get rid of their WMD but never even considered invading Israel when they actually have WMD). Zap seems to be arguing that this trust is misplaced because Israel implied it might use nukes. I disagree with Zap as long as we clarify: America trusts Israel not to nuke America.
I would believe that America believes Israel responsible enough not to use Nuke at all enless the most extreme circumstances are presented. And would never use them on a non aggressor.

On the other hand, is it not probable that a third world country that let us say, finds another race an atrocity or feels that a nation has no business being where they are, or perhaps even thinks another nation is infringing on their religious beliefs. Do you not find it possible that a nuke would get used if they lacked other means to accomplish their goals?

Say Iran against Israel, it's already been made more than clear how the government of Iran feels towards Israel and what they will do to Israel given the opportunity. How bout Afghanistan? Suppose they had been allowed to have nukes back in the 80's or 70's even. Where would the world be now. How about Hussein in Iraq, where would the world be?

This is really becoming a ridiculous discussion and yes should be in a different thread as it's outside the thread title. But to say that since the U.S. or Russia, or other countries have nuclear weapons that we should allow every country to have them is not only unsound but the most scary thing I have ever heard.

Iraq had already used WMD's in it's past, against it's own people even. Unstable countries are a clear and present threat to the rest of the world if not monitored and contrary to popular belief of some, diplomacy is always the first choice and practiced to the point of stupidity before any other type of action is used.
 
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-23-2008, 07:28 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
I would hope that no country used a nuclear weapon on any other country.
I don't care which country is the one to launch the weapon, nor do I care which country gets the weapon dropped on them.
I hold the view that any nuclear activity of that kind is bad for everyone.

Others want to qualify it and use terms like "non-aggressive nation" but that's just a copout to make themselves feel better and to try to forget that it doesn't matter which country gets bombed, innocent people will die by the thousands.
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-23-2008, 07:37 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Have nuclear weapons been used any time since WWII that I haven't heard of?

And when they were used during WWII it was during a time of war on a country that had attacked another country while their ambassador sat at the state department debating peace. They were a very ruthless people mutilating prisoners that had surrendered or become to injured to defend themselves. Using a misplace code of honor using suicide techniques against their enemies in instances such as the Kamakaze. Have you ever seen a ship that was hit by one? It was a much much different time, a different culture. And nukes were new and not as thoroughly understood.

To attempt to hold the U.S. responsible as the only ones to ever have used them and imply that the U.S. having already used them once would freely do so again is again misguided. And very much false.

I'm really having a very difficult time as much as I try, to come close to being able to relate to or to understand the positions that Zap and the others that tend to share similar mentality come up with.
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:09 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Trotta View Post

Now clearly (as John was saying) some countries are more trusted than others. We trust Israel more than Iraq (since we invaded Iraq to get rid of their WMD but never even considered invading Israel when they actually have WMD). Zap seems to be arguing that this trust is misplaced because Israel implied it might use nukes. I disagree with Zap as long as we clarify: America trusts Israel not to nuke America.
If Israel doesn't present a clear enough difference, then you might want to consider France. Or any of the other nuke-having nations that are trustworthy enough that nobody is demanding the UN take action to disarm them.
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:17 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post

Others want to qualify it and use terms like "non-aggressive nation" but that's just a copout to make themselves feel better and to try to forget that it doesn't matter which country gets bombed, innocent people will die by the thousands.

It's not a copout, it's a distinction. Nobody here is suggesting that nukes should be used.

The debate was about the difference in trustworthiness. I said there is a difference in risk involved in possessing nukes. Some nations are less restrained than others. You denied that difference. An obviously untenable denial. Now, instead of offering an intelligent defense of that denial, you're trying to change the topic.

Pretty much everybody else in the world understands the difference in risk. France can have nukes and nobody is running to the UN to try to get them disarmed. Iran, a nation which hangs homosexual children in the streets, doesn't enjoy that level of trust. If you cannot understand why Iran is perceived to be more of a risk than France, then you're a lost cause from the beginning and the drivel you post here is useless.
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-24-2008, 06:11 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
It's not a copout, it's a distinction. Nobody here is suggesting that nukes should be used.

The debate was about the difference in trustworthiness. I said there is a difference in risk involved in possessing nukes. Some nations are less restrained than others. You denied that difference. An obviously untenable denial. Now, instead of offering an intelligent defense of that denial, you're trying to change the topic.
Straw man. Actually, my comment was about who is more likely to use them. There's a difference between trustworthiness of nations and the probability that they would use nuclear weapons.
When trying to assess probabilities, I took past actions into account.
There's a huge leap made between threatening to use the bomb and actually pushing the button. Only one nation has yet made that leap so they are a strong contender.
I thought that was pretty clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Pretty much everybody else in the world understands the difference in risk. France can have nukes and nobody is running to the UN to try to get them disarmed. Iran, a nation which hangs homosexual children in the streets, doesn't enjoy that level of trust. If you cannot understand why Iran is perceived to be more of a risk than France, then you're a lost cause from the beginning and the drivel you post here is useless.
Perhaps you could explain to me what capital punishment carried out on your own citizens has to do with war against foreign countries? I don't see the connection there and even if I did, the US practices capital punishment for reasons it deems necessary too. Using your logic, wouldn't they, then, be less trustworthy?
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-24-2008, 06:37 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Straw man.
Are you saying that you are going to post a straw man argument, or are you accusing some unnamed person of posting a straw man argument? If the latter, you need to state which argument is a straw man argument and why.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
When trying to assess probabilities, I took past actions into account.
There you go lying again. You really need to keep your lies straight. First you denied that there was a difference is possession because you were just talking about possession and not usage. Now you attempt to say that you were talking about probability of usage and now there is the difference, which you previously denied.

Wow. So now you are admitting that there is a difference in risk depending on who is possessing the nuke.

Quote:
There's a huge leap made between threatening to use the bomb and actually pushing the button. Only one nation has yet made that leap so they are a strong contender.
I thought that was pretty clear.
No, Zap, it's not clear. In fact the opposite seems to be clear to most people who think within the bounds of reason.

First, an intelligent person isn't going to say "Bob is more likely to shoot somebody than Bill, because Bill has never shot anybody" unless both Bob and Bill have access to guns.

In fact, Bill may have never shot anybody just because he never had a gun. He may have stabbed hundreds of people and professed a desire to shoot thousands. Bob, on the contrary, may have only shot somebody in self defense.

When you say things like "Only one nation has yet made that leap so they are a strong contender", it shows that you're not an analytical thinker. It's a specious argument on the face of it. I doubt any adult, other than you, would even fall for such an argument.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Perhaps you could explain to me what capital punishment carried out on your own citizens has to do with war against foreign countries? I don't see the connection there and even if I did, the US practices capital punishment for reasons it deems necessary too. Using your logic, wouldn't they, then, be less trustworthy?
I'm not addressing capital punishment. I'm not addressing hanging in public. If you can't see the point being made - that Iran's government is radical and unrestrained - then why do you litter v7n with your nonsense?

You know, how many people in the world, if told that Iran hangs homosexual children in the streets, would think that it capital punishment was the topic of discussion? Do you think that by being obtuse you add value to the discussion?
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-24-2008, 10:41 AM
James Trotta's Avatar
James Trotta James Trotta is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 04-25-04
Posts: 1,085
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Of course it is possible. I was objecting to the statemnt that If Israel were a third world nation they would have used nukes by now. That suggests certainty rather than possibility. I don't think that certainty is justifiable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
On the other hand, is it not probable that a third world country that let us say, finds another race an atrocity or feels that a nation has no business being where they are, or perhaps even thinks another nation is infringing on their religious beliefs. Do you not find it possible that a nuke would get used if they lacked other means to accomplish their goals?

By the way, this thread is getting real old real fast and I may not be back. For the record:

When John says that a nation that does crazy stuff is more likely to use nukes than France, Israel, and the US, I agree.

When Zap says that the US is more likely to use nukes than other countries because of the 2 used 60+ years ago I disagree.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which Camera Do You Own? Cricket Digital Photography Forum 38 08-18-2008 05:27 AM
new camera rourkey Digital Photography Forum 14 01-19-2007 12:28 PM
Has anyone used this camera? cbolts Digital Photography Forum 2 10-22-2006 11:42 AM
v7n Is On Camera King Justice Forum Lobby 165 07-16-2006 10:46 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC