Reality: Homosexual Marriage

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I am saying because the Japanese used saltwater which in and of istelf can cause death, but was still used; jumping on the stomache and inducing vomiting can cause death, but was still used; because not timing the use or measuring the amount of the water can cause death and or brain damage, but was still used; that this is not close or equal to the careful use of watreboarding by American interrogators where none of these techniques were applied...where death or brain damage was ever a possibility, that they are in fact NOT equal.

Are you saying they are? If so how so?

I am tempted to repeat one of your posts and ask for definitive proof that the japanese used every single one of those on every single prisoner, however, the mere fact that it's waterboarding, i.e., pouring water on the upturned face of a restrained human being so as to induce the sensation of drowning, should be enough to just consider it torture. Sadly, for those more interested in security instead of liberty, are quite willing to allow for their government to torture alleged terrorists while comfortably believing that it isn't torture.

The problem is that you cannot answer the question. Are the 3 men Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri terrorists? Have you or are you, planning on commiting acts of murder against civillians for political reasons?

once again, you're sidestepping the issue. I understand that you must keep it on that track to reconcile torture as a legal interrogation method, in your mind, but it doesn't detract from the issue.

The real issue is 'is it legal and justifiable to torture another human being?' It doesn't get any simpler than that. no traps, no tricks, just a simple question.

 

[Canceled2]

I am tempted to repeat one of your posts and ask for definitive proof that the japanese used every single one of those on every single prisoner, however, the mere fact that it's waterboarding, i.e., pouring water on the upturned face of a restrained human being so as to induce the sensation of drowning, should be enough to just consider it torture. Sadly, for those more interested in security instead of liberty, are quite willing to allow for their government to torture alleged terrorists while comfortably believing that it isn't torture.

once again, you're sidestepping the issue. I understand that you must keep it on that track to reconcile torture as a legal interrogation method, in your mind, but it doesn't detract from the issue.

The real issue is 'is it legal and justifiable to torture another human being?' It doesn't get any simpler than that. no traps, no tricks, just a simple question.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are legal and used regularly. Are you saying what the Japanese did and what the Americans did is the same thing? Certainly waterboarding is the act of making a person feel as though they are drowning. That said, what the Japanese did went far beyond that using techniques that caused death and permanent damage.

No, it is you who have sidestepped the issue. You are the one who used yourself as some sort of comaprison to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, not me. So my questions are valid...you are unwilling to answer them is all.

It was authorized and legal for the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques...pretty simple.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Enhanced interrogation techniques are legal and used regularly.

again, you're avoiding the question by simply referring to a hashed up redefinition of a term.

waterboarding was torture, now it's enhanced interrogation techniques, and its legal and used regularly, but how did that occur? what else would you like to see a liberal supreme court or government redefine and use regularly? should they redefine 'well regulated militia' to mean the national guard?

Are you saying what the Japanese did and what the Americans did is the same thing? Certainly waterboarding is the act of making a person feel as though they are drowning. That said, what the Japanese did went far beyond that using techniques that caused death and permanent damage.

the mere fact that the japanese added some of their own practices to the act of waterboarding does not change the fact that waterboarding is torture.

No, it is you who have sidestepped the issue. You are the one who used yourself as some sort of comaprison to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, not me. So my questions are valid...you are unwilling to answer them is all.

patently false. You support your position by stating that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are only applied to terrorists, but as I stated before that this 'imaginary line' can be changed and moved to include other things as has been done in the past with other legislation, i.e. the patriot act advertised as a law to be used against terror suspects only, then later including domestic drug dealers because it was a way around constitutional rights. So my statement wasn't a comparison, as much as you would like it to be, but an interrogative to see how far you were willing to go to continue to soothe your conscience about torturing terror suspects.

It was authorized and legal for the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques...pretty simple.

who authorized it?
how was it authorized?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How does one define normal? Is it what the majority do? Do you really want to reserve gov't benefits for only those who do what the majority do?

Scientists define normalcy based on testing and observation of a species. Certain behavior characteristics appear more or less often within the species, and can be defined as 'characteristic' or 'normal' and 'uncharacteristic' or 'abnormal.' Homosexuality is an abnormal behavior in the species.

 

[Canceled2]

again, you're avoiding the question by simply referring to a hashed up redefinition of a term.

waterboarding was torture, now it's enhanced interrogation techniques, and its legal and used regularly, but how did that occur? what else would you like to see a liberal supreme court or government redefine and use regularly? should they redefine 'well regulated militia' to mean the national guard?

the mere fact that the japanese added some of their own practices to the act of waterboarding does not change the fact that waterboarding is torture.

patently false. You support your position by stating that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are only applied to terrorists, but as I stated before that this 'imaginary line' can be changed and moved to include other things as has been done in the past with other legislation, i.e. the patriot act advertised as a law to be used against terror suspects only, then later including domestic drug dealers because it was a way around constitutional rights. So my statement wasn't a comparison, as much as you would like it to be, but an interrogative to see how far you were willing to go to continue to soothe your conscience about torturing terror suspects.

who authorized it?
how was it authorized?

I have avoided nothing whereas you have avoided every question I have asked or tried to assert some dumb rationale for not answering.

You inserted yourself as an example of a terrorist...it was a stupid thing to do unless of course you intend to take similar actions to those of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri...

You cannot answer whether or not what our interrogators did was the same as the Japanese and if so how so.

You asked for the simple answer yes or no if what our interrogators did was legal...I answered

You have tried to parse the differences between what our interrogations were as compared to what the Japanese practiced...as if they are not night and day different, they are.

For starters waterboarding is a new term. It was called both water torture and water cure by the Japanese. The methods the Japanese used were brutal and often caused permanent damage and or death. The methods used by our interrogators caused neither death nor permanent damage nor risked doing so.

You really don't know from whence authorization for enhanced interrogations comes from? Yet you debate it? WTF!

Congress and the president~~~

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I have avoided nothing whereas you have avoided every question I have asked or tried to assert some dumb rationale for not answering.

You inserted yourself as an example of a terrorist...it was a stupid thing to do unless of course you intend to take similar actions to those of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri...

I had thought better of you than to try the old Southern Man obfuscation. You know I did no such thing and its beyond me why you're intent on holding that position.

You cannot answer whether or not what our interrogators did was the same as the Japanese and if so how so.

waterboarding is waterboarding. It doesn't matter what extras were thrown in by the japanese because jumping on someone elses stomach isn't the issue, waterboarding is.

You asked for the simple answer yes or no if what our interrogators did was legal...I answered

you said it was authorized and legal, I asked you by who and how was it done so.

You have tried to parse the differences between what our interrogations were as compared to what the Japanese practiced...as if they are not night and day different, they are.

you are seriously confused. YOU are the one who compared differences by clinging to salt water and position as well as stomach jumping. I stuck to waterboarding alone and said all the rest was irrelevant.

For starters waterboarding is a new term. It was called both water torture and water cure by the Japanese. The methods the Japanese used were brutal and often caused permanent damage and or death. The methods used by our interrogators caused neither death nor permanent damage nor risked doing so.

but still had the same mental and emotional effects, therefore torture.

You really don't know from whence authorization for enhanced interrogations comes from? Yet you debate it? WTF!

Congress and the president~~~

so congress and the president have the authority to override legal precedents and the constitution?

if yes, then it goes back to my question of what happens if a liberal congress decides to include right wing militia types as terrorists and can waterboard us?

 

[DamnYankee]

it's not just MY opinion this is based on. This is a majority of the world. It's not 'libel' if a majority of people have the same opinion, so try not to get all butt hurt because your authoritarianism is naked before the world.



constitutional obligations, like protecting all of my rights? following the constitution itself? and your logic of my logic is seriously flawed....hyperbole much?

1. Appeal to Popularity: fail.
2. Again:

Just because the government exhibits incompetence in one area doesn't mean that it shouldn't fulfill its Constitutional obligations.

 

[DamnYankee]

two arms, two legs, a brain.......looks like they are all human beings to me. probably lots of others also. So what you're really trying to promote is that there is no longer any equal protection under the law, something that DOES fall in to the lines of the constitution. you approve of the government ignoring the constitution when it suits you now?

So you don't know the difference between a legal soldier and a terrorist.

 

[DamnYankee]

...

...

...

...

...

...

LOL @ Stalker six in a row.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. Appeal to Popularity: fail.
2. Again:

total strawman. appeal to fail.

 

[DamnYankee]

total strawman. appeal to fail.

Obviously you don't know what a straw man is.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you don't know the difference between a legal soldier and a terrorist.

two classifications of people defined by legal standards in order to deny basic human rights and allow a government to ignore its constitutional limits in order to torture them.

do you feel safer now that an altered definition lets your government torture people?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Obviously you don't know what a straw man is.

you must be taichi in disguise, to so blatanly hold on to the obfuscated definitions and positions you hold, no matter how wrong.

 

[DamnYankee]

you must be taichi in disguise, to so blatanly hold on to the obfuscated definitions and positions you hold, no matter how wrong.

Now that would really hurt if it wasn't so ironic, as well as untrue.

 

[DamnYankee]

two classifications of people defined by legal standards in order to deny basic human rights and allow a government to ignore its constitutional limits in order to torture them.

do you feel safer now that an altered definition lets your government torture people?

So now you agree that terrorists are not the same as legal soldiers. Progress.

Now you have to understand that it is perfectly legal to treat certain folks differently because of their behavior, or because they broke the terms of a treaty.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So now you agree that terrorists are not the same as legal soldiers. Progress.

not so fast, totalitarian. I'm providing you YOUR distinction, not mine. soldiers and terrorists are all human beings, despite that you think otherwise.

Now you have to understand that it is perfectly legal to treat certain folks differently because of their behavior, or because they broke the terms of a treaty.

just like it's ok to lynch black people, or harass brown people, relocate non white native americans, etc.

is that what i need to understand? that there are two classes of people? those with rights than can be removed and those without rights?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Your examples are of things that will harm people. Homosexuals marrying will harm no one. The arbitrary definition drawn, that only heterosexual couples can marry and get the multitude of benefits from the gov't shows a bias that has no basis in fact or logic.

Allowing this segment of the population (that much research has shown did not choose to be gay) the ability to marry and get the benefits will harm no one and do away with a bias that should not exist.

first of all, they are Damo's examples.....second, they were intended, I believe, to be examples of abnormalities rather than of things that harm people (immature pop divas notwithstanding)....despite the fact this thread seems to have turned into a discussion of everything from waterboarding to racism, I don't think the topic of discussion is "harm" but rather, is a discussion of normality.....

 

[WinterBorn]

Scientists define normalcy based on testing and observation of a species. Certain behavior characteristics appear more or less often within the species, and can be defined as 'characteristic' or 'normal' and 'uncharacteristic' or 'abnormal.' Homosexuality is an abnormal behavior in the species.

It is not so abnormal that it is unexpected in the species.

And its odd that this standard is the only abnormality that causes them to be denied the benefits of marriage between consenting adults.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

"built to engage in same-sex sexual behavior"?

yes, do you need a visual aide?.....perhaps it comes as a surprise to you, but biology can demonstrate that the male sexual organs and the female sexual organs are uniquely shaped for interaction.....

The fact that numerous species do engage in homosexual behavior (and not limited to sexual acts) shows it to be a normal variant.

lol, and I supposed that the fact that cancer is widespread tells us that cancer cells are not abnormal?....

Should we only allow people who follow what the majority do the privilege of marrying??

yes.....if the alternative is to pretend that the abnormal is normal......you may consider the abnormal to be normal if you chose to.....I see no reason why we should all be required to by law.....

 

[WinterBorn]

first of all, they are Damo's examples.....second, they were intended, I believe, to be examples of abnormalities rather than of things that harm people (immature pop divas notwithstanding)....despite the fact this thread seems to have turned into a discussion of everything from waterboarding to racism, I don't think the topic of discussion is "harm" but rather, is a discussion of normality.....

As I said at the outset, to only allow marriage between people who are considered "normal" is to require that all follow the majority.

Damo's examples showed that what is abnormal is still often acceptable.