homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » More about Saddam (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: More about Saddam
The-Tech
Geek
Member # 2506

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 06, 2007 20:50      Profile for The-Tech     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Never_Ask_Why,

First let me say that for a High School Student to write an essay about her feelings on a complex issue like capitol punishment and then ask for a review on an open forum is comendable. Now that the niceties are out of the way I'll abuse you and your beliefs [Big Grin]

You may want to avoid naming Hitler because of the emotional response his name will evoke, you will spend more time defending the use of his name then your actual position.

Saying We did the same thing as Hitler when we killed Sadam is a stretch. It also minimizes the horrible things done during the holocaust by comparing the execution of a dictator to the attempted genocide of a group of people.

The death penality is a thorny subject. I believe that Sadam's execution was a forgone conclusion and I also believe he was well aware it was going to happen. Execution is not an unusual punishment in the Middle East. Sadam executed many people with out the benifit of trial or even a crime. He received the justice he gave.
I don't think the executioner saying he did the right thing makes him a hypocrite. If the executioner suddenly find himself in front of the noose after putting so many people through it and asks for mercy then he is a hypocrite.


Dave

--------------------
God not only plays dice with the universe,
he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen
--- Stephen Hawking

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject -- Winston Churchill

Posts: 128 | From: Third Stone from the Sun | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
never_ask_why333
Geek
Member # 6340

Icon 1 posted January 07, 2007 04:38      Profile for never_ask_why333     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will again take my earlier method of replying to everything in one post (or at least attempting):

freja42: in that small paragraph, you basically summed up my essay. I think we have the same beliefs, or at least similar. -on a side note: is your name (freja) in reference to the goddess?

Ashitaka: Of course, as always, your opinions are respected, because everyone is entitled to their own, and seeing as there are billions of people on this earth, thus a million different opinions (at least). With that being said, I feel the need to say that I do disagree. I don't think anyone really 'deserves' anything. Or if they do, it is not our place to decide. (just my opinion). Also, about your second reply: thats a very interesting thought, and I would love to know! It would have to be true in my case, just based on pure evidence. But whether or not America supported captiol punishment or not, I believe I would still feel the same.

uilleann: well first of all, I must say that for myself being around here so short a time, you are definately earning my respect (hard to do). I like the way you don't attack or commend, really, instead just state facts, and philosophise. Anyway- I agree with the potential part. Thats how I try to look at things. And as far as what to do about crime, I don't know. But I do think that there are a lot of overreactions to crime. For instance, in Austin, TX, they just recently made it a FELONY to vandalize via spraypainting. I don't really think that is going to stop many people. All it has been doing so far is tying up the courts and juvenille centers for something that should have been a misdemeanor. Also, something a bit more about this, but on a smaller scale. In my school (as in most) being tardy to class is a huge problem. This year they made some rules that I think are outlandish and overall ridiculous. Per period: if we are tardy two times during a six week time frame, we are sent to 'lunch detail'. This just means that instead of eating lunch with friends, you are pushing a trash can around so that everyone can see. Three tardies and you have after school detention. Four and you are suspended.
I just think this is ridiculous. There are actually more tardies this year than there were last year, but still they insist on keeping this rule. I honestly think it is encouraging the students. While talking to some peers, it appears that they *like* having everyone see them push the trash cans around. I think those that are tardy - or at least a good percentage of them - do it for the attention. I say this based on observation. Those teachers that merely ignore the interruption of late students don't have a lot of kiddos being tardy. The ones that make a huge deal of it, have a lot more. I think if they would simply ignore it, and only deal punishments when it got to an extreme, not only would there be less, but they would be wasting less time and money. They pay the teachers extra to sit there after school with the multitude of 'tardy' students, you know.

But anyway, I really do see your point, and in this case I don't see any solution that seems fit. :-/


Stereo: I'm not really sure, then. I understand what you are saying, but that is the way I have learned it. I mean I never actually heard anyone say "Hitler was just trying to help us," but I don't see what his other motives may have been. (Mind you, I am talking about in the beginning before he became so obviously power-corrupted. As in the first few years of when this all came to be). He was trying t make the perfect race. In doing so he did do those horrible things, yes. But in his striving for perfection - for what he believed good - how could he have had ill intentions? Yes, he planned to kill people and such. But it was not to be vengeful, etc, per say. This is just what the logic appears to me to be.

Sxeptomaniac: You know, I did not look at it that way. You are absolutley right, I did judge that. However, I was more or less talking about that I did not judge Hitler/Saddam. But true, judge I did, even if it was something different.

Mel: I like your thinking. I just wish you would have said more. But I do like what you said, and I pretty much agree.

TheMoMan: Honestly, I am not 100% sure I am that I grasp what you are saying (through no fault of your own). But I will respond to what I think I get:
Death could remove a criminal, but we can never know for sure whether someone is truly guilty or not. This has a big impact on my opinion here. It also leads me to believe that life in prison is just as good, if not better. It removes that person from society and the gene pool as well, but it can be reversed, should new evidence proving their innocence arise. Also, it will not allow them room for negative impact, but it will allow the possibility for a positive one. I can't remember any specifics (and I am much too tired to go look) but I recall cases of people making complete 180s while in prison. Becoming a role model, preachers, I think there were some that even wrote books. And I know for certain that there are those who 'preach' about their wrongs, and how people nowadays should not do as they did. I believe that has more of an impact than those who have not been through it-leading by example.

The-Tech: Well first off thank you [Smile] That was appreciated.
True- Hitler does cause an emotional response. I actually lost family (that I never knew) by that, and it has caused a deep wound in my family. However, though I do not ignore that, I realize that in debating -in dealing with people's lives, that emotion should not play a part in the outcome. This, I believe, was what happened in Saddam's case.
It may be a stretch, but I hold firm to the truth in it. I'm sure you have heard the saying thats go something like "shoplifting and murder hold the same because they are both sin" or "thinking it is as bad as doing it". I can't quite figure out how to say in words how they tie into this, but I will try. As I explained in the essay, killing someone, no matter what the reason, still ends up with someone dead. But to go even further than that- Saddam was dead because he did wrong and we no longer wanted him here, because we felt he should have to pay. Hitler had the Jews killed because he felt they were wrong, in a sense. He didn't feel like they belonged here. Besides the slightest tweak in differences, I think the underlying reasons are still identical. And the outcome was definately the same -death.
As for your opinion about Saddam - as always, it is respected. And I do see where you are coming from. And if I didn't have a passion for seeking different perspectives, I would probably agree. But, I have chosen to look at other perspectives, and I have to disagree, even if I am the only one who does/will ever take this stance. I don't think anyone should kill anyone else, regardless if it is offenseive or defensive so to speak. I'm using that as an analogy here -- offensive meaning blind murder, defensive meaning killing the offender, whether it be in self defense, or as punishment.

****Think about this: if I knew a murderer (that nobody else knew of, or hadn't caught yet) and I killed him and got caught - I will still get tried in court, and still mostlikely go to jail, right? Yet, we just did the same thing (only we had court approval) and just because of that approval, it was considered 'right'. That brings me back to saying that humans should not have a right to judge on matters that involve life or death. I just don't think that we are capable of doing so in a good manner. I just think that we are too corrupt as a whole.

Anyway, I hope I covered everything. And I also hope it makes sense, too. It is 6:30 am and I hav not slept a wink. With that being said and done, I am off to bed.

Oh, and one last thing. I must say one last thing: thank you not only for your responses, but also for being respectful in them, and for keeping your calm. I realise that this is indeed a touchy subject,and as mentioned, it does play on emotions. So thank you for not being rude or disprespectful [Smile]

'Night.

--------------------
I haven't forgotten
and I won't forget
I just haven't gotten
around to it yet

You can call me Eternity :)

Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted January 07, 2007 08:36      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
never_ask_why333 wrote:
Death could remove a criminal, but we can never know for sure whether someone is truly guilty or not. This has a big impact on my opinion here. It also leads me to believe that life in prison is just as good, if not better. It removes that person from society and the gene pool as well, but it can be reversed, should new evidence proving their innocence arise. Also, it will not allow them room for negative impact, but it will allow the possibility for a positive one.

I couldn't agree more [Applause]

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
uilleann
Discontinued


Icon 1 posted January 07, 2007 09:06            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
never_ask_why333: Britain's prisons are all full: we had a crisis recently from having nowhere left to put anyone else. This is not counting all the people who are out on bail who were caught red-handed. Someone my parents know, an old lady, had a burglar trying to break down the door, so she called the police. He'd given up on the door and just smashed the window, but got subsequently arrested. My dad reckons he's probably not locked up though -- I guess he'd be on bail waiting a trial. What sort of a trial do you need when you're caught in someone's house stealing stuff after having smashed their front window? [Razz]

I don't think that the problem is that we're arresting too many people for too many crimes, but that society has gone so badly wrong that we just have that many people to arrest. And there are still far, far more people who are not locked up who should be.

That's where we're going wrong. Poverty in communities, greed that stops that improving, selfish, grasping civil and company leaders, a lack of opportunities for young people, widespread bad parenting.

I don't think we can say that Saddam should have been imprisoned on the grounds that we don't know whether he was guilty or not, and plenty of people are caught in the act and again, we know they're guilty. But to lay down the law in a country where the politicians, local government and the corporate world are all totally responsible for the mess that most people's lives are in, cannot take a view on who should live and who should die, let alone claim the authority to punish anyone for falling victim of a broken society where those controlling the punishment are quite possibly more corrupt than those being punished. While not true for things like corporate fraud (criminals who truly understand what they're doing), it's more true for the youth of the country who are so often the perpetrators of crime.

IP: Logged
Too Cool To Quit
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 2217

Icon 1 posted January 08, 2007 05:52      Profile for Too Cool To Quit     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if Donald Rumsfeld was one of the people in the video.
Posts: 1097 | From: North Carolina | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
never_ask_why333
Geek
Member # 6340

Icon 1 posted January 08, 2007 22:12      Profile for never_ask_why333     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by uilleann:
never_ask_why333: Britain's prisons are all full: we had a crisis recently from having nowhere left to put anyone else. This is not counting all the people who are out on bail who were caught red-handed. Someone my parents know, an old lady, had a burglar trying to break down the door, so she called the police. He'd given up on the door and just smashed the window, but got subsequently arrested. My dad reckons he's probably not locked up though -- I guess he'd be on bail waiting a trial. What sort of a trial do you need when you're caught in someone's house stealing stuff after having smashed their front window? [Razz]

I don't think that the problem is that we're arresting too many people for too many crimes, but that society has gone so badly wrong that we just have that many people to arrest. And there are still far, far more people who are not locked up who should be.

That's where we're going wrong. Poverty in communities, greed that stops that improving, selfish, grasping civil and company leaders, a lack of opportunities for young people, widespread bad parenting.

I don't think we can say that Saddam should have been imprisoned on the grounds that we don't know whether he was guilty or not, and plenty of people are caught in the act and again, we know they're guilty. But to lay down the law in a country where the politicians, local government and the corporate world are all totally responsible for the mess that most people's lives are in, cannot take a view on who should live and who should die, let alone claim the authority to punish anyone for falling victim of a broken society where those controlling the punishment are quite possibly more corrupt than those being punished. While not true for things like corporate fraud (criminals who truly understand what they're doing), it's more true for the youth of the country who are so often the perpetrators of crime.

You are absolutely right. The prison's are too crowded. But still, there are those who need to be punished, at least according to our laws. I just don't think killing them off like sheep is the 'right' way to go about things.

And about not knowing whether Saddam is guilty or not- well I do think he is. We all do, because he is. But I meant as far as the death penalty in general, I do not agree with it (partially because of this). And actually, if I am understanding this correctly, I agree with what you said in the latter part of your reply. In a nut shell, I just don't think humans should have the right to decide who lives or dies.

Also:

Well, just to be a little bit silly here, I do have a fantasy that I have created of a 'as close to perfect world as it will get'. Now, before I give a brief discription -no, it is not well thought out, or even very realistic. But its just a silly, whimsical endeavor that I enjoy adding to when I have nothing to do [Big Grin]
Well, it would be similar to communism, in a sense. As far as the jobs/land/housing is distributed. There would also be no money whatsoever. We would have some excellent means of transportation (something like a hovercraft, but it could jump into 'hyperspace' like on Star Wars [Razz] ). Because of this awesome means of transportation, we would not need a McDonald's on every street corner. So maybe like about 5-10 of every store per continent, if that many.
As far as disciplinary action goes, there would be a large jail house. All the crimes committed, like vandalism, would have to be 'fixed' by the inmates, as part of their punishment. There would be no death penalty. And I'm sure someone would have asked about abortion. In a nut shell, I disagree with it, but I know there are exceptions (ie rape).
And as far as the way things are governed, I think each town/city/etc should hold a weekly meeting. The people there would vote (majority rule) on a judge, dictator, etc (any government position, just on a smaller scale)for the upcoming week. And in doing such, I *think* this would disallow anyone from having absolute power.
And the way the no money thing works- there would be set rules on the limit of necessitites you can get, and the limit of recreational items etc.
And people working for free- well they would of course be assigned jobs, as mentioned. There would be penalties for unexcused absenses to it (these of course would be a similar job on a day when someone else is not working). Also they would quickly learn that if they don't do it, it won't get done, therefore no wonderful assets [Smile]
And recycling, conserving, etc., would be a must.
Other than that, freedom of religion, speech, dress, etc, would be encouraged.
But then again, I wouldn't exactly want things to be like they are in the book 'The Giver' by Lois Lowry [Big Grin]

Anyway, just a whimsical, heavily flawed fantasy. Oh, and feel free to criticize it if you wish. I actually love constructive criticism, odd as that may sound. So please, be my guest [Smile]


Anyway, that perfect world probably won't ever happen. And we can change laws etc, all we want, but just by doing this, I doubt much will improve. I think the only way to actually fix these problems, is not to change the laws, but instead what we really need to change is humanity, and it's morals.

--------------------
I haven't forgotten
and I won't forget
I just haven't gotten
around to it yet

You can call me Eternity :)

Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 4 posted January 10, 2007 00:16      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(Rhetorical Question)
Why all the fuss over "the Death Penalty"? (especially in Saddam's case)

First, capital punishment has been around as long as someone could act as a judge (according to a Bible story, Solomon proposed cutting a baby in half to end a dispute -- and the baby didn't do anything wrong [Eek!] ).

Second, most of the countries that have eliminated the death penalty still had the death penalty in 1990.

Executions (according to Wikipedia)
  • US: 60 executions in 2005
  • Iran: 159 executions in 2004
  • China: 3400+ executions in 2004   [Eek!]

For Some Societies, Lack of Capital Punishment May Cause More Problems

If Honor Killings, Blood Feuds, or Vendettas are socially accepted, then people are likely to ignore the will of courts and kill others who bear no fault of wrongdoing (for the sake of revenge). The Slippery Slope: Courts become irrelevant in the face of vigilantism.

How do you protect a criminal that over 8 million people (just in Iraq) want to kill? In Saddam's case, US troops held him prisoner. However, when only foreigners are trusted to enforce the will of the courts, another problem arises: sovereignty (and the will of the people).

Apparently "everybody" in Iraq agrees that capital punishment is legitimate -- although they might disagree over who it applies to ("them"/that other group). Forbidding the death penalty against Saddam could only be seen as placing Western culture above the values and sovereignty of the Iraqi people.

The fact that Saddam got "all" of his weapons and technology from non-Arabs would reinforce the image that foreign nations protect Saddam even when he's removed from power.

...

About other things.....
quote:
January 08, 2007, 22:12
I do have a fantasy that I have created of a 'as close to perfect world as it will get'.

Warning: Humans are too lazy for their own good.
 
 -
 
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/001_300/267.html

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 04:36      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
First, capital punishment has been around as someone could act as a judge (according to a Bible story, Solomon proposed cutting a baby in half to end a dispute -- and the baby didn't do anything wrong [Eek!] ).

That's possibly the most off topic argument I've ever seen from you, ASM, and that's saying quite a lot. If you include the complete context of the story, two women were fighting over who owned a baby, and Solomon proposed cutting it in half, reasoning that the true mother would naturally object and propose that the other woman have it to save the child. Nothing to do with capital punishment, whatsoever (and I doubt that he would have followed through with it, just using it as a trick).

I'm sure the rest of your argument is water-tight though [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
never_ask_why333
Geek
Member # 6340

Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 14:37      Profile for never_ask_why333     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
First, capital punishment has been around as someone could act as a judge (according to a Bible story, Solomon proposed cutting a baby in half to end a dispute -- and the baby didn't do anything wrong [Eek!] ).

That's possibly the most off topic argument I've ever seen from you, ASM, and that's saying quite a lot. If you include the complete context of the story, two women were fighting over who owned a baby, and Solomon proposed cutting it in half, reasoning that the true mother would naturally object and propose that the other woman have it to save the child. Nothing to do with capital punishment, whatsoever (and I doubt that he would have followed through with it, just using it as a trick).

I'm sure the rest of your argument is water-tight though [Roll Eyes]

In the short time that I have been here, I have noticed that this is the way that most of AMS' arguements go (irrelevant and taking points out of context). Which is why I took Steen's suggestion, and now just simply overlook most of AMS' replies.
[ohwell]
But I did find this particular one quite humorous.

--------------------
I haven't forgotten
and I won't forget
I just haven't gotten
around to it yet

You can call me Eternity :)

Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Explainer
Mini Geek
Member # 5716

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 15:16      Profile for The Explainer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by never_ask_why333:
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
That's possibly the most off topic argument I've ever seen from you, ASM, and that's saying quite a lot.

In the short time that I have been here, I have noticed that this is the way that most of AMS' arguements go (irrelevant and taking points out of context).
I took a deep breath and looked back through some of Mr 65816's past postings.

I've noticed that about the only 'debating technique' he knows is redirection. When anyone raises a point that he cant/doesn't-want-to address, he responds with a torrent of entirely irrelevant (mis)information, (usually about the misdeeds of some other party) in the hope of changing the subject away from the issues he doesn't want discussed. Anyone who attempts to stay on the topic s then accused of supporting the misdeeds described.

Mr Csk and Ms never_ask_why (and probably Mr Explainer) should prepare themselves for a torrent of abuse for their support of baby-dismemberment.

Posts: 53 | From: The hall of logic | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 15:41      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
Mr Csk and Ms never_ask_why (and probably Mr Explainer) should prepare themselves for a torrent of abuse for their support of baby-dismemberment.

Actually, I've noticed that, while ASM's posts are frequently not logical, he rarely uses ad hominem. He just often responds with longer, more confusing posts (hence the opinion by several here that we are actually dealing with someone's AI project).

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 18:47      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
...hence the opinion by several here that we are actually dealing with someone's AI* project.

*Artificial Idiot

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 19:07      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
...hence the opinion by several here that we are actually dealing with someone's AI* project.

*Artificial Idiot
No, I'd suggest there's nothing artificial about his idiocy. It's true blue.
Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 2 posted January 10, 2007 19:16      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. Capital Punishment Wasn't Off Topic for Anyone Else
quote:
January 10, 2007, 04:36
That's possibly the most off topic argument I've ever seen from you, ASM

"Death Penalty" was used at least six times in the thread and people mentioned judging, guilt, and being humane.
 

2. It's a Fact: Capital Punishment Has Been Around for a Very Long Time
quote:
Solomon proposed cutting it in half, reasoning that the true mother would naturally object and propose that the other woman have it to save the child. Nothing to do with capital punishment.
"Nothing to do with capital punishment" does not change Fact: "Capital punishment has been around as long as someone could act as a judge." (Edit: I had left out "as long")

Get a clue: "-- and the baby didn't do anything wrong   [Eek!] "
  • "baby didn't do anything wrong" -- Observation: Someone could be put to death without doing anything wrong. What this does show is: More than 2000 years ago, a "judge" ordering the death of another human being had no shock value at all. (Life was "nasty, brutish, and short" and cheap.)
     
  • Notice the " [Eek!] " -- Advice: Recognize Cultural Differences. Solomon's proposal could not be used in Europe, Canada, etc. today. However, in Solomon's culture (and time), his method was appropriate and just.
 

3. "It's a Right to Other Countries, Don't Tell Us We Can't"
quote:
January 10, 2007, 15:16
he responds with a torrent of entirely irrelevant (mis)information

I mentioned number of executions in a few countries. Consider the following "argument":
quote:
Westerner: You should not execute Saddam.
Iraqi:     Why? The US executed 60 criminals in a year.
Westerner: You should not execute Saddam.
Iraqi:     Why? Iran executed 159 criminals in a year.
Westerner: You should not execute Saddam.
Iraqi:     Why? China executed over 3400 criminals in 2004.
Westerner: The Death Penalty is wrong!
Iraqi:     Make them stop first, and we'll think about it.
Westerner: Just because they're wrong doesn't mean you should be wrong too.
Iraqi:     So you're saying that we've been wrong for thousands of years.... Maybe you should leave now.

Even if I don't understand what someone meant by a comment on Saddam's trial and execution, anyone that doesn't believe that Iraqis have logical and culturally justified reasons behind Saddam's execution is treating them as irrelevant and meaningless -- don't expect them to appreciate that kind of treatment.
 

4. Slander by Innuendo
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
____ and ____ and ____ should prepare themselves for a torrent of abuse for their support of baby-dismemberment.

If someone says something that should not come from the mouth a civilized human being, I'm willing to post condemnation. Aside from that, "a torrent of abuse" is a wild exaggeration.   [shake head]
 

5. What Is ASM?
quote:
January 10, 2007, 15:41
hence the opinion by several here that we are actually dealing with someone's AI project.

Maybe I'm something from the depths of Hell taking some vacation before the Apocalypse.

[Geek]   You'd be surprised at how many vacation days accumulate in 5000 years.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 20:23      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oops, dupe, nothing to see here, please ignore this post...

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 20:32      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
"Death Penalty" was used at least six times in the thread and people mentioned judging, guilt, and being humane.

OK, let's get this straight. From wikipedia: "Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences".

Even if the baby was executed in the biblical story we've been discussing, it would not have been the death penalty, because the baby was not a convicted criminal. In fact, there was no convicted criminals, because the situation arose over basically a custody dispute between two women . So, ASM, perhaps you can tell me how your example relates to the death penalty?

And, it had no shock value that the natural mother was willing to give the baby up to her enemy to avoid it being killed?

Please fix your AI's reading comprehension, it currently blows...

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
never_ask_why333
Geek
Member # 6340

Icon 1 posted January 10, 2007 20:49      Profile for never_ask_why333     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for the direction this discussion has turned, I've decided to look at it as comical.

That is one thing for sure that AMS is good for: laughs.

But I will refrain from further bantering him/her/it. Their creator was pretty good, I must say. Had I tried to contstruct something like that, mine would probably just be a broken record ranting about nonsense things.
Perhaps it just needs a few more tweaks?

*chuckles*

--------------------
I haven't forgotten
and I won't forget
I just haven't gotten
around to it yet

You can call me Eternity :)

Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Explainer
Mini Geek
Member # 5716

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 12, 2007 18:39      Profile for The Explainer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
Mr Csk and Ms never_ask_why (and probably Mr Explainer) should prepare themselves for a torrent of abuse for their support of baby-dismemberment.

Actually, I've noticed that, while ASM's posts are frequently not logical, he rarely uses ad hominem. He just often responds with longer, more confusing posts (hence the opinion by several here that we are actually dealing with someone's AI project).
My analysis was based on postings like this one

quote:
Originally posted by mr 65816:
Cap'n Vic and Colonel Panic are Sociopaths

in justification for this attack on the characters of 2 other posters, Mr 65816 offers this...
quote:
These two have a lot of enthusiasm for hanging the people they named above, but they're comfortably silent about the Janjaweed committing massacres in Darfur, or Kim Jong Il starving the people of North Korea, or the (Arab) "Muslims" that promote car bombings and death squads against common people
Mr 65816's comment is
a) abusive
b) based on Mr Vic and Mr Panic's failure to state their disapproval of a long list of parties (some totally unrelated to the topic under discussion) whose behavior Mr 65816 disapproves of.

In general, the "Oh yeah, well (party X) did something bad, and you didn't complain, so you must support their actions, and that invalidates your criticism of US policy" argument is a recurring theme in Mr 65816's postings.

Posts: 53 | From: The hall of logic | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 2 posted January 13, 2007 13:28      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part I: "A Torrent of Abuse" vs "Civilized Human Beings"
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
My analysis was based on postings like this one

You left out what the two people said:   [shake head]
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:

(In Response to: ... the Saddam thing, is that they should have just shot him on sight.)

Then should have moved on and shot GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Guiliani, Tony Blair and for good measure Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

and ...
quote:
Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
Those suckers should be hanged, not shot. Hanged! At halftime of the US NFL Superbowl.

 
From what "the explainer" has said:
  • It's perfectly civilized to incite the killing of media personalities that one disagrees with, and inciting the death of someone that served as mayor of a major US city is OK too.
     
  • It's perfectly civilized to hold a lynching or public execution at the middle of a nationally televised sports event.
 
I'm trying to imagine what dinner at "the explainers' home" is like, knowing that public executions of hated people is fine:
quote:
Pop Explainer: The guy in the library that called me an idiot should be shot in front of the town hall.
Ma Explainer: The woman who called me a psycho should be hanged in the center of the mall.
Junior Explainer: Santa Claus should be burned alive!

    (Others at dinner table laugh wildly.)

Pop Explainer: Silly boy, Santa Claus isn't real... But if he was, he should be burned alive in Times Square on New Years Eve.

 

Part II: A Reminder About "Hate Speech"
quote:
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, ..., ..., ..., moral or political views, ..., etc.
"Hate speech" is not something that only counts if it's against an entire race.

The "explainer" probably doesn't understand some things about law in Western countries. Laws do not have the following format:
quote:
It is unlawful to ____, unless the victim is <person1>, <person2>, or <person3>.
Since laws "don't care" who the "victim" is, what if Cap'n Vic and Colonel Panic had made their statements against someone else?
quote:
Statement with names changed:

They should have moved on and shot Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and for good measure Oprah Winfrey at halftime of the US NFL Superbowl.

 
Does "the explainer" thinks that the above statement about killing Obama, Jackson, and Oprah is the behavior of a Sociopath?
  • If "Yes" -- then Cap'n Vic and Colonel Panic behave like Sociopaths (but they have a different list of people to kill).
     
  • If "No" -- then "the explainer" apparently thinks that talk about killing people is healthy human behavior.   [shake head]

Part III: Freedom of Speech?

I guess "the explainer" thinks death threats and inciting violence are protected by "freedom of speech."

I wonder: Is "the explainer" a hypocrite? He is willing to defend Cap'n Vic and Colonel Panic for their statements, but would he defend David Duke for statements that recommend killing non-whites.

Or, is "the explainer" a violent nut? Does he believe that people in normal conversation should talk about killing people and how to kill them?

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Explainer
Mini Geek
Member # 5716

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 13, 2007 14:49      Profile for The Explainer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr 65816 likes to interpret any analysis of the illogic of his argument as support for terrible crimes.

quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
From what "the explainer" has said:
It's perfectly civilized to incite the killing of media personalities that one disagrees with, and inciting the death of someone that served as mayor of a major US city is OK too.

 

Mr 65816 likes to abuse those who question his logic

quote:
Is "the explainer" a hypocrite? ...
Or, is "the explainer" a violent nut?

 
Mr 65816 believes that a crime is a crime, no matter who the victim is...
quote:
The "explainer" probably doesn't understand some things about law in Western countries. Laws do not have the following format:
It is unlawful to ____, unless the victim is <person1>, <person2>, or <person3>.

 

but a crime is not a crime when the USA is "supporting the enemy of my enemy".

Posts: 53 | From: The hall of logic | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted January 13, 2007 14:55      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just so you all know... I'm going kidnap politicians, dress them as Santa Claus and set fire to them in your front yards if you don't stop talking about each other in the third person.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
uilleann
Discontinued


Icon 1 posted January 13, 2007 15:07            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hehehe be my guest. Set a few alight for me will you? :)
IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 13, 2007 15:58      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Explainer please know there is no known explanation for ASM. The entirely valid points you make have been made before to him one gazillion three thousand five hundred and thirty seven times before, with no noticeable impact. He is impervious to everything. Insults only encourage him, he has the hide of a rhino, and positively delights in how much he is despised. Facts and logic don't enter into the equation at all. Argument is pointless as he will not engage, or answer any of your points, but he will twitter on with his barmy posts until everyone gets bored and stops. I think he either feels this means he has won, or perhaps he just gets a perverse pleasure from wearing people down. Perhaps he thinks it makes him a real man or something. I just don't know, and care even less. The argument as you have seen is nearly always the same. Saddam was evil, which justifies everything, and so it follows that anyone who disagrees must think Saddam was a sweety pie etc. The logical fallacies in this matter not one jot to him, neither does anything much else. The only change that I have noticed is that recently he mentions the UN oil for food scandal less, which might indicate that he is at least aware that the financial scandals that have occurred since the invasion are even worse, but this is the only indication I have had that reality has intruded on his world view to even the most miniscule extent.

Either ignore or simply be entertained by his barminess, but really don't waste your time replying to him. You'd be better off talking to the waves with King Canute, and they'll certainly take much more notice of you.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 13, 2007 20:22      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
Mr Csk and Ms never_ask_why (and probably Mr Explainer) should prepare themselves for a torrent of abuse for their support of baby-dismemberment.

Actually, I've noticed that, while ASM's posts are frequently not logical, he rarely uses ad hominem. He just often responds with longer, more confusing posts (hence the opinion by several here that we are actually dealing with someone's AI project).
My analysis was based on postings like this one

quote:
Originally posted by mr 65816:
Cap'n Vic and Colonel Panic are Sociopaths

in justification for this attack on the characters of 2 other posters, Mr 65816 offers this...
quote:
These two have a lot of enthusiasm for hanging the people they named above, but they're comfortably silent about the Janjaweed committing massacres in Darfur, or Kim Jong Il starving the people of North Korea, or the (Arab) "Muslims" that promote car bombings and death squads against common people
Mr 65816's comment is
a) abusive
b) based on Mr Vic and Mr Panic's failure to state their disapproval of a long list of parties (some totally unrelated to the topic under discussion) whose behavior Mr 65816 disapproves of.

In general, the "Oh yeah, well (party X) did something bad, and you didn't complain, so you must support their actions, and that invalidates your criticism of US policy" argument is a recurring theme in Mr 65816's postings.

I would describe the post as rather condescending. You have an odd definition of a "torrent of abuse."

Might I point out that it is also rather condescending to assume that I haven't noticed the typical flaws in ASM's logic in my time here, and there's a lot of people who've been here quite a bit longer than I have. Maybe you should find a better hobby than regurgitating posts that already tend towards the repetitive.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
garlicguy

Member # 3166

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 13, 2007 20:51      Profile for garlicguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
Just so you all know... I'm going kidnap politicians, dress them as Santa Claus and set fire to them in your front yards if you don't stop talking about each other in the third person.

Talk about handing out broadswords to the natives!

Nice incentive program, Steen! [thumbsup]

--------------------
I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posts: 3752 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam