Waterboarding

[John Scott]

.............

Originally Posted by Zap

I'm a little surprised at both if you. You both argue so strongly in favour of rights, including your right to smoke in restaurants, but here we have people being tortured (and denied rights) and you both are in favour of it. Innocent people do get tortured.
I guess you're both really only concerned with your own rights.

This comment should be used in a textbook as a classic example of sloppy thinking.

First off, the comment that anybody is "in favor of rights" is just beyond stupid. It is literally meaningless. Collectivists are for collectivists rights. Individualists are for individualist rights. But the suggestion that anybody is "in favor of rights" is just meaningless.

Rights are not promoted in and of themselves. Rights are promoted as a byproduct of a political ideology.

If you were intelligent, you would be able to parse the ideology without anybody mentioning it.

Let's see. Right to freedom as long as that freedom doesn't impinge upon the freedom of others. That would be individualism.

And let's see, what did that say? "Right to freedom as long as that freedom doesn't impinge upon the freedom of others."

That implies that the right to freedom ceases to exist when that the actions of that person impinge upon the freedom of others. So that actively denies the rights of anybody to be terrorists.

The idea that anybody would be in favor of rights in the generic sense - only a dullard to come up with such an silly idea.

Innocent people do get tortured.

So? Sloppy thinker refuses to draw a conclusion? Innocent people get tortured, therefore we should ban torture altogether?

Innocent people go to jail, so we should ban jail altogether?

Innocent people get prosecuted so we shouldn't prosecute anybody?

LOL.

[m42]

Originally Posted by jdspc

I still have an AI sticker on my gtr...but when I placed it there I really didn't get it...

I was goin to go off on this thread but it is really a simple issue

To catch a thief...

I do not believe it takes a thief to catch a thief. The difference between a thief and an honest man is restraint. It seems somewhat ignorant to imply that all thieves can outwit honest men. There are varying degrees of intelligence in every society. There are also varying degrees of characteristics shared by many thieves. Profiling can be a useful skill. Let’s not discount people’s abilities to adapt via careful observation.

In certain situations, time is of the essence. Thievery isn’t often considered a critical situation. The prevention of genocide is considered by many to be a rather critical priority.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

All educated people know what socialism is. Your response to this is to say that some educated people do not have an education? So you are in fact admitting that they are lacking an education.

Wrong again. I never said that some educated people do not have an education.
That would be stupid. Go back and reread it if necessary.
Trying to twist my words in this fashion is dishonest.
Why not tackle that bit of logic head on if your counter point is so compelling?

Originally Posted by John Scott

And your sloppy thought comes out again in saying that "Some of them know how to split an atom", suggesting that the standard for being educated would include that. The standards for Western education do not include knowing how to split and atom. The standards for Western education do include knowing what socialism is.

Link please, specifically detailing that knowing what socialism is included in the "standards for Western education".
There are many people educated in thousands of different ways to varying degrees. What I said stands. Some educated people know how to split an atom. Some don't. Some educated people know what socialism is and some don't. And some educated people are terrible at geography.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Hahaha! You're a cute little weasel, aren't you? Like a little child, you think you can play stupid and nobody will be the wiser.

What was it you said?

He used to be a mod. He disagreed. He is no longer a mod. What happened? Wink wink.

Yep, that would be universally recognized as a suggestion by innuendlo that he was demodded because he disagreed.

It's a childish assumption to think that if you use innuendo we won't get your point.

The assumption was all yours.
Was it suggestive? Maybe. But I offered no theories as you had asserted.
A little harsh to be calling me a weasel and a child for your mistake.
I had no idea what had happened to Brian. One day he was here. The next day he was gone.
I haven't had the chance to communicate with him since I noticed that.
Thanks for filling in the blanks on that, btw.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

Wrong again. I never said that some educated people do not have an education.
That would be stupid.

Indeed, it was stupid. When you say some people have gaps in their education, a gap is "uneducation". So you're just saying that they are uneducated.

Originally Posted by Zap

Trying to twist my words in this fashion is dishonest.

LOL. Just because you don't like the words doesn't mean I twisted them.

Originally Posted by Zap

Why not tackle that bit of logic head on if your counter point is so compelling?

A "gap" in education refers to an absence of education.

Absence of education is is indicative of uneducatedness.

A gap in education is therefore the same as uneducatedness.



Link please, specifically detailing that knowing what socialism is included in the "standards for Western education".

Grade Ten Standards

Originally Posted by Zap

There are many people educated in thousands of different ways to varying degrees. What I said stands. Some educated people know how to split an atom. Some don't. Some educated people know what socialism is and some don't. And some educated people are terrible at geography.

No, educated people do know what socialism is. It's part of being educated to have an education. If you don't know what socialism is, obviously you're not educated. (At least not to the tenth grade level.)

Originally Posted by Zap

Was it suggestive? Maybe. But I offered no theories as you had asserted.

Of course you offered a theory. Specifically, you offered the theory that Brian was removed as a mod because he disagreed with me.

Just because you used innuendo to offer that theory doesn't mean that it wasn't offered. You can use all sorts of chikenshit ways of offering theories, but they are being offered all the same.

Originally Posted by Zap

A little harsh to be calling me a weasel and a child for your mistake.

Not a mistake. You can wink all you want, but we all understand the very clear suggestion that is being offered. Find me one native English speaker who doesn't understand the suggestion, and I'll reconsider my statement.

Originally Posted by Zap

I had no idea what had happened to Brian. One day he was here. The next day he was gone.

Of course you had no idea. We all know that. But that didn't stop you from suggesting to the whole forum that he was removed because of political disagreement. Very dishonest - but then you are a very dishonest person, aren't you? And very irresponsible - but then you're proud of your irresponsibility and lack of character, aren't you?

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Indeed, it was stupid. When you say some people have gaps in their education, a gap is "uneducation". So you're just saying that they are uneducated.



LOL. Just because you don't like the words doesn't mean I twisted them.




A "gap" in education refers to an absence of education.

Absence of education is is indicative of uneducatedness.

A gap in education is therefore the same as uneducatedness.



Link please, specifically detailing that knowing what socialism is included in the "standards for Western education".

Grade Ten Standards




No, educated people do know what socialism is. It's part of being educated to have an education. If you don't know what socialism is, obviously you're not educated. (At least not to the tenth grade level.)




Of course you offered a theory. Specifically, you offered the theory that Brian was removed as a mod because he disagreed with me.

Just because you used innuendo to offer that theory doesn't mean that it wasn't offered. You can use all sorts of chikenshit ways of offering theories, but they are being offered all the same.




Not a mistake. You can wink all you want, but we all understand the very clear suggestion that is being offered. Find me one native English speaker who doesn't understand the suggestion, and I'll reconsider my statement.





Of course you had no idea. We all know that. But that didn't stop you from suggesting to the whole forum that he was removed because of political disagreement. Very dishonest - but then you are a very dishonest person, aren't you? And very irresponsible - but then you're proud of your irresponsibility and lack of character, aren't you?

How funny...

I haven't been over here for awhile and the first thing I see when I come back is more controversy.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by tdd1984

How funny...

I haven't been over here for awhile and the first thing I see when I come back is more controversy.

You don't like controversy? Personally, I love it. Give me controversy and coffee and I'm good to go.

[Zap]

By your logic and definition, John, everyone who is in Grades 1-9 in the state of California is uneducated.
What have they been doing for all these years, if not getting an education?

Since you appear to be ignorant of what education is, here's the definition.

the activities of educating or instructing; activities that impart knowledge or skill; "he received no formal education"; "our instruction was ...
knowledge acquired by learning and instruction; "it was clear that he had a very broad education"
the gradual process of acquiring knowledge; "education is a preparation for life"; "a girl's education was less important than a boy's"
the profession of teaching (especially at a school or college or university)
the result of good upbringing (especially knowledge of correct social behavior); "a woman of breeding and refinement"

A person can be considered educated if they learned something (for example, how to define "education")
Even if they learned something as simple as good table manners, it seems to qualify.
The act of learning how to read takes place long before grade 10 in most places in the West. You would call those people uneducated.
Students in grade 9 are studying mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, languages, arts. You would label every one of them "uneducated".

What about all the grade 8 teachers in California? What are they doing with their students if not educating them?
Are they just wasting their time?

I have a difficult time with your definition of "education", "assumption" and "theory".
And, again, your name calling exposes the weakness of your arguement.
If your points were strong enough, they could stand on their own.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

By your logic and definition, John, everyone who is in Grades 1-9 in the state of California is uneducated.

Yes, I would say they are uneducated. That is precisely why they are going to school - to fix their lack of education.

You seem to want to hide is some wishy-washy ignorance about the meaning of the word "education", as if the definition is gray. It isn't.

Educated is an adjective meaning:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

1: having an education; especially : having an education beyond the average

Now you say -

Originally Posted by Zap

A person can be considered educated if they learned something

No, I wouldn't call somebody educated because they learned something. I don't think anybody who used the English language in an intelligent manner would say that a child is "educated" because the child learned to count to ten.

Merriam-Webster happens to agree with me here, so your pleadings really have become pathetic.

Originally Posted by Zap

And, again, your name calling exposes the weakness of your arguement.
If your points were strong enough, they could stand on their own.

My arguement? What's that? Anything like an argument?

Actually, my arguments do stand on their own, and they also stand on logic and on authoritative reference like Merriam-Webster. The name calling, my silly butthole of a friend, is just an added measure to motivate you to get an education.

And if you want my arguments to appear weak, why not use logic? Simply saying they don't hold water - well, that's not a very forceful "arguement", is it?

[StrongInTheArm]

Thus every tortured individual must have been proven to have been a terrorist before being tortured.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Precisely.

I was beginning to think you were never going to comprehend plain English.

Well, actually, I might make a small edit and have that say "Thus every legitimately tortured individual must have been proven to have been a terrorist before being tortured."

Thanks for the reply John. I'm sure I had more to ask, but this thread has got so confusing I dare not even try to sort it out in case I go insane!

Plain English is a bad enough second language but this American variation is mind boggling at times

[StrongInTheArm]

OK TheGameLink dude, you have my undivided attention. Let's talk torture, but only if you get disciplined and keep your posts to under 200 words, anything more and I won't bother reading them. Try not to be verbose and pompous. I suggest you compose your thoughts away from the computer and keep to the point, you will be a better debater for it. Remember you are not writing your life story, I don't really want to hear it anyway.

I do not believe in the use of torture except under extraordinary circumstances.

What is your position?

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Yes, I would say they are uneducated. That is precisely why they are going to school - to fix their lack of education.

Following your logic to it's inevitable conclusion, anyone who is not educated on all things is uneducated because they lack education on all things.
There's not one single person on Earth who can tell us what is on the other side of a black hole with any certainty. Not one.
Are all 6 billion of us uneducated? Including you?

Originally Posted by John Scott

You seem to want to hide is some wishy-washy ignorance about the meaning of the word "education", as if the definition is gray. It isn't.

It is you, who foolishly decided to call me uneducated, along with calling me stupid and a weasel.
Allow me to further your edumucation...
A weasel is a small mammal, incapable of constructing sentences like the ones seen in this thread.
Here's a photo...

I can assure you that, while I don't look as good as the gal in my avatar, I do resemble her much more closely than our small mammal friend.
I am a homo sapien.
Homo sapiens are a completely different mammal from the weasel.
It might be fun to try to teach the weasel to type, but I suspect a weasel's posts would look a lot different than the posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Merriam-Webster happens to agree with me here, so your pleadings really have become pathetic.

I'm happy to learn that you know the definition of pathetic.
See your quote just below this line...

Originally Posted by John Scott

My arguement? What's that? Anything like an argument?

Princeton happens to agree with me. Whoopdeedoo!
Seriously, John. I disagree with you and in return I get called a bunch of names like weasel and butthole and told that I'm uneducated and stupid and pathetic. And, now you're going to pick on my spelling??? This is what you reduce this discussion to? Wow!
I haven't said one word about your numerous typos. I overlook petty stuff like that. It's lame.

[m42]

Originally Posted by Zap

It is you, who foolishly decided to call me uneducated, along with calling me stupid and a weasel.
Allow me to further your edumucation...
A weasel is a small mammal, incapable of constructing sentences like the ones seen in this thread.
Here's a photo...

Tunnel vision?

Be careful Zap, lest you wish to further resemble the definition you'd elected to omit when accusing your adversary of dishonesty, stupidity, and insincerity. Let's not delve too far into hypocrisy.

Main Entry:wea·sel
3 : a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person

- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel

[Zap]

I Googled it and it was nowhere on the page. Funny that, huh?