1,422 Forum Posts by "JerkClock"
At 12/10/07 08:14 PM, Elfer wrote:
So you're saying that anyone who has been captured by US forces is definitely guilty of torture,
No.
and that torture is somehow a justifiable form of punishment?
In certain cases yes. What's wrong with torturing people who deserve to be tortured?
Yeah, and the second (of three) was our support of Israel. This Bin Laden "just hates freedom" position is bull. Because of all the democratic nations in the world, very few have been hit. In fact, Al-Qaeda has only hit specific countries, like the US and UK.
In all fairness palestine attacks Isreal even when it's not attacking Palestine. We can't let fanatical terrorists stop us from doing what we think should be done.
How bout.....we FINISH THE JOB!? Everything I've heard says he's probably in Pakistan. How bout we go into Pakistan and GET the motherfucker? Instead of bullshitting around with Iraq, Iran, and other countries?
I agree, we should.
Did we just give up after that? Looks like it, cause he's still at large.
Didn't, but we didn't, try hard enough either. In fact, we still have yet to.
Because it's TORTURE.
That's not a reason why it isn't sometimes suitable as a punishment.
This isn't 1157. It's 2007
Neither is that. It matters not the year it is, a suitable punishment in 1157 is a suitable punishment in 2007. Time has no effect on what punishment should be administered.
I thought we were supposed to be more civilized?
That doesn't suffice either. I don't want to see sick fucks not get what they deserve just because people will argue it isn't, "civilized."
Torture is not a means of punishment. It's a means of inhumane treatment.
No, it can be inhumane, it is not such if it is done to people who deserve it.
Sure why not? Let's allow electric shock to the balls, the Rack, and all the other little nasties of yore while we're at it.
I don't see why not.
I'm talking more towards our actions since Afghanistan.
We've lost no allies over Iraq, but I do agree it was a bbad idea nonetheless.
I'm not the one making speeches about Axis of Evil, how vile Saddam was, how Iran don't have civil liberties, and how Osama hates freedom.
If I was in charge, believe me, I wouldn't be making this a moral war.
I think that stuff was bad too for the record.
At 12/10/07 09:23 PM, mayeram wrote:
However, the great biodiversity found across the planet could not have happened in such a short period of time as 4 thousand years. Also if so many new species evolved due to changes in climate why did humans not evolve? Or do you think that the different races of man (black, white, Asian, etc) are different evolutionary paths of man?
Err, well you don't know that for a fact, but then again the bible isn't clear on exactly how many years ago it was either. Only time frame it is clear on with respect to today's date, is Jesus' death. And yes, other races of man are quite potentially different evolutionary paths. They do have native nations on different continents with different climats and different environments, so this is partially supported by geography.
Dumbass wrote:
JerkClock, you're a fucking moron.
Your unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
elfer wrote:
So your evidence is vague details about some newspaper article you might have read, but you can't provide any evidence that such a newspaper article about the subject ever existed?
No I read and heard the news reports, they were real, but I;m not wasting my time fighting with google for something it's too stupid to find(ie. everything) becaue of some internet idiots who are going to be stubborn minded.
So, 1993 would be around the right time then?
It was revealed to be a hoax about five months after it was first brought to the stations.
Further details
Some reports were erroneous, yes, but not all of them. That applies to just about anything though.
At 12/10/07 07:36 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
But the story of the flood takes place some thousands of years ago, and evolution takes literally millions before the species will be so divided that they are called different species.
Not neccessarily. That's:
1. only theory
2. neglecting the more minor things, like a species having different variants. Something could have moved to different continent where it evolved into both deer on one, and elk on another.
At 12/10/07 07:20 PM, mayeram wrote:
stuff
Simple, they evolved into existence. Evolution is nothing more than gradual adaptation, and so it makes sense for a god to design life to evolve.
jf
At 12/10/07 07:18 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:
stuff
Those were tablets written about the incident after it happened. Which is funny because if that many people wrote about, be it from different points of veiw or not, it does make it more likely that such an event happened.
At 12/10/07 07:09 PM, mayeram wrote: How does it prove the story of Noah's arc then? Massive floods have happened before, obviously not on that scale, and many scientists today believe that that sort of flood could never have happened, but huge floods do happen. Your evidence at best may prove that there was a massive flood. There is no proof that there was a ship built or that god told a man to build it.
Such a ship was found, it had animal cages, but as I said it was more likely built to house the animals the person who built it knew about, not all that existed in the world.
But yeah, I said there wasn't 100% evidence, just that evidence is more than there is for pastafarianism, and that's true.
At 12/10/07 06:38 PM, Elfer wrote: So what you're saying is, there's no reason for anybody to follow any regulations governing human rights,
No I'm saying there's no reason to obey international law, especially the kind that stupidly says we shouldn't torture sadistc fucks who torture the innocent.
At 12/10/07 06:58 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:
I'm sorry my friend, but here on NG we require some form of proof on the matter, hell even a Wiki would be better than nothing on the matter.
Jimbo Wales' bullshit is just that, bullshit. Anyway, you're dumb fuck if you expect me to dig up shit from years ago using the peice of shit that google is, believe I'd use it if it had any ability to dig up anything using more than 3 fucking words. Unfortunately I don't have that, but it did exist, it happened around the time I was in 6th grade, which should be about 13 years ago.
As for the ship, such a ship has been found but it wasn't exactly big enough to house 2 of every single earthly animal, more like it could hold every known animal in the within the region of the place it was built(ie. every known one within perhaps a 100 mile radius) which is a reasonable assumption for how such a thing could have happened.
Yeah I know, but in all fairness, their whining was quite understandable. Newgrounds is much more enjoyable with that blatant bullshit being gone.
PS - Scaling or not, I still wish Bedn's butt-fuck buddy pimp would die. He's a stain on Newgrounds whether or not he generates an experience curve for us.
At 12/10/07 06:25 PM, mayeram wrote:
Also are you saying that it was a world wide flood or a centralized flood?
World wide, no I'm not tangling with google to find these peices but I can recall some of the details.. They were news posts made in the papers years ago that I remember reading about news of a worldwide catastrophic flood, they'd be next to impossible to find on a peice of shit engine like google where you can type in a phrase that exists within it's database yet not get any links.
It said stuff about bones from many types of creatures, including dinosaurs being found crushed together in parts of the world(above land no less), and evidence that they got that way due to water-pressure. Also they cited signs of water erosion in even the non-snow covered parts of some of the highest mountains.
At 12/10/07 06:17 PM, Christopherr wrote: stuff
Exactly, that shit is asinine, not to mention illogical hogwash.
At 12/10/07 06:07 PM, schneelocke wrote:
For good. :P
It better damned well be for good. I'm gonna be pissed if it starts scaling again after all this relief from that massive bullshit.
At 12/10/07 06:06 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: And what proof is there for organized religion in general? Besides the ambiguous, "you can't disprove it" that I've heard over and over?
Bits and peices although nothing conclusive. Events described in the bible have been proven, most notably, the evidence discovered that the Noah's Ark thing happened. While that's not 100% proof, you do have to wonder how someone would know there'd be a big enough flood to kill off everything on the planet and build a ship to survive said flood pre-emptively.
At 12/10/07 04:45 PM, mayeram wrote: I was wondering if any of you religious newgrounders could prove that your religion is more valid then Pastafarianism. So many religious people tell me that there are great amounts of evidence and proof pointing towards their religion, and yet I haven't seen anything that gives more proof for the belief in any other religion then the Pastafarians have for their religion. Why be offended of a religion that has just as much proof as yours?
By the way, if you don't know what Pastafarianism is, here is a link to the religion's homepage.
http://www.venganza.org/
And what proof is there for pastafarianism? Besides the ambiguous, "you can't disprove it" that I've heard over and over?
At 12/10/07 05:44 PM, Elfer wrote:
The UDHR is not an arbitrary game of semantics. Sure you could define the right to be shot in the head as a "human right" but that wouldn't make it a ratified international law of a body to which the US is a party.
Right, I didn't say it was, just saying that his argument, as presented, was him playing semantics, which it was.
What he's doing is citing an international treaty on human rights that is a part of international law, not playing semantics and applying things without actual reasons. And tell me, if "human rights" don't apply to "humans," then who do they apply to? The UDHR is very unambiguous, and uses terms like "All human beings," "Everyone," and "No one" at the beginning of every article, with the exception of Article 30, which states:
Right, but at the same time why should we obey international treaties and apply them to people who don't follow them. Sure it clearly defines it's terminology, but what's our incentive. Is Mr.International nation going to come down on us if we don't? It's not like other countries are goint to declare war on us either, especially considering that no country obeys international law perfectly.
I'm not sure how else you can interpret this.
Maybe as something we should just ignore and form our own policies on.
At 12/10/07 04:03 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
If you are gonna keep it literal, it means "the people's rule", not "rule by the people". If you are gonna be literal, only direct democracy is democracy, and every single individual would get the right to vote.
Which still means it has nothing to do with civil or economic rights, which was my point. You missed said point, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
How do you know they deserve it if they get it before facing trial?
If they were found to be in Al Qeada and captured as such they were trying to kill our soldiers who witnessed being shot at by them etc. Then we certainly don't need to release them. Only our soldiers can truly know, yes, but calling for trials isn't going to make things any better. It'll just allow lawyers to get real Al Qeada operatives free, I'm not going to want to live with the possibility of being by released Al Qeada killed because some idiots are too stubborn to accept that maybe our soldiers know the enemy that's shooting at them.
It's like killing someone and saying "You don't know that he wasn't gonna hurt me! It's self-defence!"
No that's just your low IQ speaking. What I was saying is we, not being the captures or releasers have little to no info on the subject. What you are saying is that noting such is justifying killing people for no reason and taking a "guilty until proven innocent" stance which is idiotic at best. You really shouldn't talk out of your ass like that.
So it's more important to kill the ones you don't like than to protect the ones you like?
Where the fuck did I say that? Where? I did not. I said we retaliate against those who do attack us, I said nothing about importance of killing over protecting.
But they should always get the HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
These rights should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. Everyone have them automatically by being a Homo Sapiens. They shouldn't be denied anybody, yet they are.
That's a non-sequitur. I could define the right to be shot in the head as a "human right" and use that to say that every "homo-sapien" should be shot in the head, it won't make it so.
That is what you are doing here, playing semantics with the word "human" and arguing anything defined as "human" rights should be applied to all "humans" without an actual reason.
At 12/10/07 03:43 PM, Imperator wrote:
Do we even know why they were captured in the first place? (honest question, out of curiosity).
We know they were captured during the war on afgahnastan for being Al Qeada operatives, but that's it.
According to the CIA Clinton had something like 10 chances to assassinate the fucker and blew them all. I have no problem putting people in their place. I have a problem with invading random countries for apparently little thought or reasoning (read, Iraq).
I'm not advocating the war in Iraq nor am I saying Clinton shouldn't have seized on those opportunities, so I don'tsee your point.
Right. Our intelligence agencies and Osama himself has stated that it's our foreign policies which get them mad,
No it's the presence of American non-muslims in Saudi Arabia and was only a peice of it, not the whole thing.
simplistic drivel
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
neocon fucktards.
This unsubstantiated invective is erroneous.
Good for you. I question them whenever they say "don't worry, we'll take care of you", which in today's world is quite often.
I quite often express dissent for them but have yet to be drug off for it so I dunno, I feel pretty safe.
I'm doing a bad job or explaining
You must be.
I'm not saying we shouldn't go in and kick some ass, I'm saying let's be SMART about this and make sure we're going after the right targets, and not looking like idiots making stupid statements.
The taliban were the right targets, as were Al Qeada, I dunno what more you want.
Let's go after Osama. Let's fuck him and his crew up.
We did go after him in Afgahnastahn, didn't we?
But Iraq was a mistake.
I'm not advocating Iraq.
Waterboarding and whatever else we were doing were mistakes.
No they weren't. Those sick fucks deserve to be tortured.
The torture itself was probably fairly ineffective as well. If you get tortured, there comes a point where you'll tell your interrogators whatever they want to hear, whether it's truth or not.
So? Why not do it just to punish them?
Cute. Let's be clear here. There's a difference between justice, which is punishment for one's crimes, and torture, which is not.
Playing semantics with the word justice does not change the fact that torture is just another way to punish someone. And let's face it, the definition of "punishment for one's crimes" does not outrule torture as said punishment.
I'm arguing that torture is torture, whether or not the fucker "deserves" it, because torture is outside the judiciary system.
So why not change that?
retaliation is not a bad thing. REVENGE is.
Says who? What's bad about payback?
If necessary, YES. You lose allies otherwise.
We have lost zero allies over this, you fail. No doing such a thing can lead to enemy combatants being released and attacking our soldiers again, sorry but that's not going to work.
Sucks, but when you're claiming moral superiority (which we are) then you've got to stick to the rules, even if they favor the enemy.
Then stop claiming moral superiority and just say that we don't like being attacked unprovoked.
Doesn't matter if they are or aren't,
Actually yes it does, the rules of combat have to mean something and it's basically the only incentive enemy combatants have to obey them. Because what else are you going to do to enforce those rules? Kill them? Oh wait.......................
At 12/10/07 03:18 PM, BIGmamaKATIE wrote:
3 moar [posts and you'll have 1337..I get a feeling you'll be posting THAT..?!?!?
Not really, I'm not a fan of leet speak.
Right, but I don't post just to watch my post count go up, so that is irrelevant.
At 12/10/07 02:14 PM, BIGmamaKATIE wrote:
But 500 posts was a bitch to get..
I imagine so if they only reason you post is to watch that number go up.
At 12/10/07 02:32 PM, Imperator wrote: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
It was a joke dude, see, you're not helping to make yourself look any better when you take an obvious joke serious.
I didn't mean to dodge, I just hoped you would catch the more symbolic meanings of democracy,
There's no "symbolic" meaning, democracy means rule by the people, it says nothing about civil or economic rights, not a single, fucking thing.
Be careful when you fight monsters, lest you become one yourself....
When someone gets what they deserve, I could give a fuck less when some idiot on the internet is going to say I am or am not, I know damn well they're getting what they deserve and that's all that matters.
Not all the people in Gitmo are criminals. We just recently released 4 of them after holding them for 5 years without trial or charge.
Doesn't mean they weren't criminals, in fact, we have no idea why they were even released.
He doesn't have to tell them, the evidence speaks for itself. The Koran warns against that sort of stuff, and having a large empire invade a Muslim country enhances that fundamentalism.
Right but not torturing people.
We can't just let people attack us on our soil simply because others will see it as a reason to take their place. If more rise up, they can be killed too, until there's nothing left if we have to. We don't need to sit here and let them attack whenever they please.
I don't buy the "they attacked us for our freedom" bit, so sorry.
That's because you lack the IQ points to learn it. Osama has demanded several times in publicly released videos that we stop our "sinful" lives. It's not if we "sin" because we are free to or if it's our government, it's that we, "sin" at all.
we're not just making violent people afraid, we're making our own citizens
Funny, I'm not very scared of the government.
Afraid is afraid, and while there may be a different in degree and cause, the base fear that controls policy as a result remains.
Well what do you propose we do? Never counter attack? Let only the innocent people be tortured who don't deserve it but never the savage fucks who do? Sorry but what you want is just plain illogical.
It is.
No it isn't, ferrous cranus. Punishing someone who deserves to be punished is not and never will be the same as doing it to someone who doesn't.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yeah, you do know that's a crock of shit right? Just because someone invented some lame stock quote like that is not a sufficient reason to call retaliation a bad thing. Find your own argument instead of copy-pasting something that's been said billions of times by other people.
Ad hominem.
Which isn't a flaacy when it's not being used as part of the argument, which it was not.
Ad hominem. They don't, but they should. If we're fighting a moral war, which I believe by our actions and words we are, then they NEED to have the same rights.
In this case you low IQ is quite relevant to the situation because it is making you say things that are erroneous on quite a few levels. So Ad Hominem considerations are important. You can't give enemy combatants trials, what are our soldiers supposed to do? Testify that they captured the man holding a gun in a hail of gunfire only to have a lawyer spin the fuck out of that and have him walk free? No I think not.
And the problem isn't one between POWs and US citizens, it's one between their rights as POWs or no rights at all.
Right but they aren't conventional enemy combatants. They didn't obey the standard rules of war, and as such they don't get the same rights as those that do.
I can see the point about 10000 posts, because that is quite a huge number. But anything else shouldn't be, at least not if you ask me.
At 12/10/07 10:20 AM, Imperator wrote: Who's the US to say what "evil" means?
The country with the biggest guns is who. Yeah I know, we shouldn't have said, "Axis of Evil", that was a diplomatic blunder waiting to happen as is.
Simplistic view of the world there.....
No it's not, it's an objective definition of what exactly democracy is, thanks for dodging the point and proving me right.
Ok. Fine. You go win hearts and minds by using waterboarding or whatever else your little mind desires. Lemme know how it turns out.
If it's done to the savage fucks who do it to innocent people I don't see why it can't.
If you want a historical example of how treating people like shit doesn't do wonders for swaying them see any empire or emperor towards the end of their reign that gets overthrown. There's always some strict rule that turns the people 100% against the State. Always.
That's because they'd capture and torture random people, or people who simply weren't patriotic, not just criminals who deserved it. There's a difference between the 2, but yet here you are lumping them together as if they're one and the same, they aren't.
And if the US plays into his propaganda,
Dude seriously, muzzle that shit. Osama and his band of terrorists savagely saw people's heads off ever slowly while they suffer through that shit. There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that he turns people into savage brutal killers by telling them that's what we are. No he makes them hate us by telling them we're sinners who need to be purged. This is a fact, what you are pulling out of your ass is not his propaganda.
I know you wish to think it is, but it is not.
I'm not spinning shit.
Yes you are, you were playing semantics with 2 definitions of the word "terror." Making violent people afraid of you isn't the same as blowing up innocent people, but you tried to say it was.
You wanna talk about "spin", let's talk about the US government and how they're ignoring some key issues to win this war. Let's talk about how Saddam was bad because he tortured people, but we're gonna try to claim waterboarding isn't torture.
Why yes because tortuing savage fucks who cheerfully saw people's heads off ever slowly is EXACTLY the same as torturing innocent people who never hurt no one.
I seriously think you need to quit existing. You presence on this planet alone reduces its collective IQ quite substantially.
Let's talk about how the terrorists hate freedom, but we're denying basic rights to prisoners in Gitmo.
Enemy combatants don't get the same rights as US citizens and never have. Unfortunately, your low IQ blinds you to this.
At 12/10/07 01:52 AM, Imperator wrote:
The hell news have you been watching? I must just be imagining the talk about how bad terrorists are, how Saddam was a big meanie, and the great "Axis of EVIL".
And evil is what? See that's your problem, you think your own code of ethics are the only "good" that can exist. Who are you to say what "good" means?
Little hard to spread democracy when you attach little rules and regulations....or deny it entirely.
Er no it isn't. You can have a totalitarian democracy, it has nothing to do with civil or economic rights. It only has to have elections, nothing else.
You can't win hearts and minds while torturing your enemies.
Says who? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean middle-eastern people who are used to severe punishment being prevalent won't.
We do "lose", because every time a scandal occurs, Bin Laden gets more recruits, and we look just as bad as "they" do.
No he doesn't, he gets more recruits as time goes by with his propaganda.
You can't win the war on terror by causing terror.
That's a double definition, dumbass. Being mean is not the same as being a terrorist. Stop trying to spin things.
At 12/9/07 08:08 PM, Imperator wrote: Our language makes the War on Terror a moral war. We're good, they're bad.
Not really, you're playing semantics is all that is. People got attacked who were leaving them alone, you have to be an idiot to think that means we're being moralistic for defending innocent people.
They cut off heads, deny freedom, bomb civvies, torture people, etc.
We do the opposite.
Says who? The dumb fucks who think torturing someone who deserves it is the same as torturing someone who doesn't? Who says we can't torture them back? And why not?
We're fighting a Moral War on Terror. And you can't win that by playing dirty. End of story.
You're actually trying to argue that if we be mean back to them we "lose." I somehow doubt our soldiers care that some idiots out there are going randomly declare we lost based on stupid non-sense like how "moral" we act.
At 12/9/07 06:27 PM, Imperator wrote: Proteas, we're fighting a moral war.
Nothing moral about it, we attacked Afgahnastahn because we were attacked, and put the captured Al-Qeada in Guantanimo Bay, plain and simple. It's not a moral war, it was us attacking them for attacking us. I don't see what's so hard to figure out about that.
At 12/9/07 05:01 PM, ReconRebel wrote:
Same here. All it does is promote spamming (although I would like to hit 10,000 posts before I resign the account to deposits).
When natural selection fails
Yes exactly. Posting about post milestones is giving yourself another post towards the next that you will also post about, making it spam.
At 12/8/07 06:26 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Same thing, your changing the rules as written in your constitution.
In all fairness, the constitution means jack fuck anymore. You can't have "freedom of speech" and yet have a "Federal Communications Commission" at the same time. It doesn't work that way.
I would argue post milestones shouldn't be considered achheivements at all.
At 12/8/07 11:38 PM, Timmy wrote:
Your official rank doesn't count for monthly voting - you just have to be one of the top 2000 users in the past month. I'm not ranked in the top 2000, but I've participated in the monthly voting.
Odd, cus I'm able to do it even when all I did in that month is deposit.
