02-09-2010, 10:15 PM | #51 | ||
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02-09-2010, 10:21 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
I have made a good faith effort to answer your questions in the face of an avalanche of distortion and distraction. Don't blame me for your impotence.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
02-09-2010, 10:22 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
02-09-2010, 10:23 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
02-09-2010, 11:03 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Forgive me if your whining about not having your questions answered falls a little flat.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
02-09-2010, 11:17 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Then you said people who don't follow the rules of the Geneva Convention can be waterboarded because they aren't covered by Geneva. I characterized this as a statement that Geneva, according to you, permits some people to be waterboarded at which point you once again threw a fit. I am still awaiting an explanation on how my characterization fails to fit your explanation. Follow along here: Geneva prohibits waterboarding on at least some people (we can both agree on that). You claim the group which can't be waterboarded is limited to those who abide by the Geneva rules on conduct. If you don't abide by the Geneva rules on conduct, you can be waterboarded. So, according to you, a group of nations got together, made an agreement on lots of issues, one of which was that a defined group of people cannot be waterboarded, but people outside that definition have no protection (i.e., can be waterboarded by default). Throw a fit all you want (maybe it will impress somebody), but that has been your argument. And here we are. At the end of the day, you are standing on the side of torture, and I am standing on the other side. I expect that one day in the hopefully near future, you and others who have argued for torture will look back on this era and realize how insanely far you were willing to go when prompted by fear (much like many did following detainment of the Japanese post-WWII). I think that will be an uncomfortable day for you. |
|
02-10-2010, 12:34 AM | #57 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
There's soft torture and hard torture.
Soft results in no permanent physical impairment and hard does.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
02-10-2010, 01:05 AM | #58 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Let's see if we can dial it down a notch, shall we?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It all boils down to this. Put simply: people who don't meet the Geneva convention requirements don't get Geneva convention protections. I interpret that to include waterboarding. Others, like you, don't. We may disagree, but it's not an inconsistent position. Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||||
Bookmarks |
|
|