Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Let me start by saying this will be my last post on the matter. Your arguments are not constructive, and they do not contribute to this topic. Thus far, almost half of your 'criticisms' or 'trashings(sic?)' have only served derail this thread from it's topic. The rest, in my opinion, are not arguments well founded enough or supported enough for me to justify responding to them any longer. I will not act as a catalyst for this argument that is gradually becoming a pissing fest; the very thing I hope to avoid by introducing the concept of structured debates. After this response I will consider the argument concluded.

At 3/4/09 12:51 AM, n64kid wrote: I believe that saying "It really isn't" matches "this post if off topic".

Alright, I'll concede that. However, I maintain that your post was off topic because pointing out my hypocrisy (by your own admission) had no bearing on my argument (the topic).

No my discussion is taking the stance of the status quo, which is against your rules of structured debates on the forums.

Now wait a second. You just said in your last post that your statement had no bearing on my argument for structured debate. Now you're saying that it was a response, and that it had relevance to the discussion. If this is true, then I can only assume that the argument you were making _was_ that my alleged hypocrisy had a bearing on the argument. Now you're going back and forth.

If you're going to back a lack of effort in your posts, I'll put a lack of effort responding to that particular post. If you put in a lot of effort, I'll put in a lot of effort. Imagine that kind of a system!

So you'll bring yourself down to your opponents level? Feel free to do that, just realize that your opponent's ineptitude doesn't excuse your own. Also realize that it's a particularly weak tactic if you're basing your opponent's 'lack of effort' on posts he made a year ago.

Watch how obnoxious this is:
You violated logic. First you make a logical leap in sentence three. Then you provide the false dilemma fallacy.

Close but no cigar. Your argument hinges on the false dichotomy actually being false. There is such a thing as a true dichotomy. This is one of them.

The entire argument can be grouped into possible categories:
1) that your statement is an address to my argument.
2) that your statement is not an adress to my argument.

There is no third possibility.

if 1) is true, then you were committing an ad hominem fallacy, because my hypocrisy has no bearing on the argument.

if 2) is true then you were straying from the topic, because my hypocrisy has no bearing on the topic.

There are no non-sequiturs here. Everything follows.

I was only pointing out you were a hypocrite, so you'd watch yourself for future posting. Nothing more, nothing less.

In which case your statement earlier in this thread, stating that your post was relevant to the discussion because it supported the status quo is false. You say right here that it was only to point out that I was a hypocrite. 'Nothing more, nothing less'. those are your own words.

The following point that has no agenda other than to point a fact out.
The point of your structured debates:

Following which you will proceed to...

Yet this idea for new formatting is riddled with opinions and not logical arguments. See how easy it is in a structured argument to still get into disagreement and logical fallacies?

Make another point. So it did have another agenda. Also, your point is moot. Arguments are allowed to be based on opinions and instead of logic they can be based on evidence. What you've quoted is closer to a hypothesis, which can and should be called into question. The reason the hypothesis is without much support is because it's something I assume newgrounds will agree with. I'm not going to waste my time explaining everything in extreme detail in my original post, that would seriously reduce the fluency of my writing. If you're looking for evidence that threads get railroaded by popular opinions just take a look at any 'nuclear power' argument on NG, or for that matter any '9/11 conspiracy' argument.

If I feel like doing so, I can hold you to it. That's the beauty of diversity. You have someone with a different ideology from you, and I disagree and won't buy into your way of thinking. I'm not going to ignore the past just because it's inconvenient for you, it's not in -my- rules.

Sure you can hold me to it. However, if you hold me to it under certain circumstances it can be considered a logical fallacy, or off topic, or something else undesirable. You're really only hurting your own argument by doing it.

At 3/3/09 10:56 PM, Al6200 wrote: How about:

Pro Constructive
Con Constructive
Pro rebuttal
Con rebuttal
Pro closing points
Con closing points

I really like this structure. Also, I would like to point out that none of the rules I listed would be applied to every debate thread. The idea is that each debate would carry a different set of rules catered to the preferences of the posters participating in it.

At 3/3/09 09:24 PM, n64kid wrote: It really isn't.

Yes it is.

See what I did there? I didn't elaborate. I didn't explain my argument. I didn't do anything besides perform the rhetorical equivalent of saying 'nuh uh'. Do you see something wrong with that kind of argument?

It contributes to my discussion.

Which discussion is this exactly? Is it a discussion separate from the topic at hand? Then I would say it doesn't really matter if it contributes to _your_ discussion or not because that's a moot point. What matters is _our_ discussion. _Our_ discussion being on the topic of 'structured debate'.

You've personally attacked myself, as well as several users on this board, now you seek immunity?

Are you saying that because I did something, it's suddenly alright for you to do the same thing? So if I were to make a serious argument completely based on faulty evidence and logical fallacies it would be completely alright for you to do the same?

This is what I'm getting at. Douchebags are running around crying "logical fallacy" too commonly. In almost all circumstances I've seen, they are wrong. You are correct that I'm calling you a hypocrite, but this is not a logical fallacy as I did not use it to discredit your argument. Just said it to point out who's saying what.

What exactly was the point of '[pointing] out who's saying what?' There has to be some motivation for you to want to do that. If it was to attack my credibility and thus the content of my argument then it was ad hominem. If it wasn't, then your statement was definitively off topic. You can't have both. So which was it?

1 year.

I'll concede that because it's a moot point. It could have been a day ago and it wouldn't have been any more relevant to the discussion. You see, I change my opinions in light of new evidence or new arguments. You can't hold me to what I've said in the past because it's irrelevant to the argument I'm making now.

NG forums are not professional boards. Politics is no exception.

I'm not looking to make it's professional. I'm looking to add a medium to the board that will accommodate professionals.

Although I like some of what you've proposed, I did make a challenge to your proposal that I don't feel you adequately addressed.

When? When did you raise a challenge to my proposal before this post? I am looking through this thread right now and all I see are 2 joke posts (by you), none of which provide thoughtful, supported arguments.

-You are making threads that are specific to certain users, which could be done via PM

That misses the point of formal debates in the first place. The debates are not exclusively for the benefit of the two arguing. In fact, i'd wager that most of these debates will end with neither side yielding an inch of their position. That's a moot point. The objective of structured debate is to encourage thoughtful, supported arguments that are constructive. To an extent it's about creating academic literature that other users can read, discuss, and use to form their own opinions on issues.

-Structured debates add intimidation, especially to new users (the majority of which are here for games)

Like I said in my first response to you in this thread. Nobody is forcing you to participate in these threads. If you're too intimidated by them, the best course of action would be to stick to informal discourse. This is not a system to replace what we have going here on NG. It's a system made to supplement it.

-You have one user creating rules, could make a post, and then be completely ignored. What a waste, use PM

I could agree to that. The proposition phase could be limited to PM.

-Structured debates create ambiguity if people are restrained from articulating their full thoughts

They could articulate their full thoughts so long as that articulation complied with the rules that they themselves designed and agreed to. I don't find this to be very restricting.

Here's an example
Person A) I think England should provide certain services for Ireland
Person B) You fail. Ireland hates England and would not accept this support (link), no one wants it (link) and the English economy cannot handle a new burden (link)

Wow, efficient, and who the fuck cares that Person B is arrogant, he argued against A's opinion and provided sources.

In this hypothetical situation Person B has created a hostile environment. In a civil debate, Person A might respond "I concede that it's true that the English economy can't handle it right now, but I think that the Irish would accept it because A, B, C". However, in this hostile environment Person A can't feel as secure in conceding something like this because that would mean (in the eyes of some), to be conceding to being an idiot. So instead Person A attempts to disprove all of Person B's point by going to Google and searching for things like "English economy can handle Irish aid", until he finds some abstract link that says what he wants. Eventually the entire debate degenerates into a 'I-can- shout-the-loudest-and-put-the-most-orang e-into-my-post' pissing fest.

Wow, efficient.

Oh, and before you accuse me of ad absurdum take a look around you. This is how 90% of the debates on this forum play out. It's ridiculous.

Here's a structured debate:
Person A: List of 12 rules
Person B: I accept rules 1-9, and 11, remove 10, modify 12 and add rule 13.
Person A: Fine, here's my argument, with the tides of politics changing, don't you feel that Ireland should receive certain benefits from England?
Person B: No, here's why
Person A: Well I don't think that you completely disagree, so let me rephrase my question until you say yes.
Person B: I provided links, (and proved you wrong take a hint)
Person A: (Can't take a hint)

Wow, nothing was accomplished.

And the debates may all end up like that. On the other hand, it may work wonders for intellectual debate here on NG like it has for sciforums. I don't think we can definitively say it will work one way or another until we've given it a shot.

At 3/3/09 07:43 PM, n64kid wrote: Lol
"No, police officers protect. Soldiers kill. End of discussion."

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about folks. This is the cancer killing civil discussion on our board.

1) This post is off topic, and contributes nothing to the discussion
2) It's a personal attack
3) It's a logical fallacy, in that it assumes that just because someone is a hypocrite, it means that their argument is invalidated (ad hominem fallacy).
4) Even if 3 wasn't true, he's quoting something from 3 years ago
5) He's not even elaborating on his argument. He's just quoting something and assuming it will be the end of the discussion.

Don't you all agree NG deserves something better than this?

At 3/3/09 07:13 PM, n64kid wrote: 3) Both sides agree structured debates pose more costs of wasting time than they do benefits of not having to read ad hominems.

Of course, nobody would force you to participate in any formal debates n64kid. You could stick to informal debates riddled with over sentimentalism and obnoxious logical fallacies if you feel that's more your element. The rest of us can '[waste] time' participating in intelligent debates.

At 3/3/09 07:12 PM, Christopherr wrote: I support the idea. Maybe we could even sticky the thread when shaggy gets creamed, that we may never see any retarded 9/11 threads again.

Haha, I would support that. Unfortunately, I don't think we'd ever see the day shaggy would accept a formal debate on the subject. Although, who knows. Crazier things have happened.

At 3/3/09 07:14 PM, Brick-top wrote: Impossible. We're not good enough for 'decent' debates. Just merely "fuck you I'm right" circular reasoning with enough fallacies to make a meal out of.

Well put. The way I see it, if someone wants to be loud mouthed and shout 'Shut up, I'm right, you're wrong, and thats the end of it,' they should have no problem supporting their views in a civil debate.

I've been kicking this idea around in my head ever since I stumbled across this forum that hosts it's own structured debates: http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.ph p?f=101
1. The Idea

Harbor intelligent, structured debates between two people, where both sides of the argument agree to abide by certain rules. The rules are tailored to each specific debate, and each debate is presided over by a moderator.
2. Specifically, How it Might Work

It would start with a proposal thread, where a member of NG Politics would challenge someone else to a structured debate of a set topic. Such a thread might look like this:

Topic: Prop: 9/11 was an inside job.

User:shaggytheclown

Text: I shaggytheclown hereby challenge Elfer to a structured debate on the topic "9/11 was an inside job". I will be taking the affirmative side of the argument, which is to say I will be making a case for 9/11 being an inside job. I propose the following rules for our debate:

1) No personal insults in any way shape or form
2) No formal logical fallacies
3) No straying from the topic at hand
4) We must each wait at least one hour after the last response, to post our next response. This will give the opponent time to include additional information in a second post if he/she cannot fit all information in his/her first post.
5) Each response must be submitted within one day of previous response. If one day passes and a response has not been posted, the thread will be locked and a discussion thread will be opened immediately afterwards(**NOTE: I'll describe discussion threads later in this post**)
6) We will each receive 4 responses including the original post that starts the topic. After the last poster has made his fourth response, the thread will come to a formal end, be locked, and a discussion thread will be opened.
7) We will agree beforehand to restrain our use of scientific jargon for the benefit of those who may be reading our debate presently or in the future.
8) I will make the first post in our debate.
9) 911truth.com will be considered a legitimate source without question.
10) Any violation of the aforementioned rules will result in post deletion, a lock of the debate thread, and the creation of an informal discussion thread.
/Text

After the original post, Elfer would post in the thread either accepting, accepting with terms, or declining shaggy's proposal. For example, Elfer may ask for rule #9 to be edited out, and ask for several additional rules to be added before he agrees to a formal debate with shaggy. In the case that the challenged poster declines (or does not post for an extended period of time) it should be allowed for another poster on NG to volunteer to debate shaggy. For example, if Elfer decides to drop out, poxpower may decide to volunteer to take his place and debate. In that case poxpower and shaggy would haggle over which rules they should debate under until they are in agreement. If 2 weeks pass and nobody has accepted the challenge, the proposition thread will be locked.

The second step would be the debate itself (the topic for our previous example might look like [Dbte: 9/11 was an inside job]). After both posters have agreed upon the rules, one of them would start a topic and make the initial post. The rules agreed upon would be reposted at the top of the initial post for the benefit of any moderator presiding over the debate. This stage does not need much describing as it is similar to any other debate we have on the forums, only both participants must abide by the rules agreed upon in the proposition thread.
** NOTE: The only people allowed to post in the debate thread are those who agreed to debate in the proposition thread.**

After the formal debate has come to a close, the thread will be locked and someone will start a discussion thread (it might look like [Disc: 9/11 was an inside job]), where the rest of NG could further debate the topic (informally), and comment on the structured debate.

I think it also would be a good idea to start another thread similar to AS:Main, where we'd archive all of the structured debate and discussion threads so that NG posters could use them as a resource.

3. Why I'm Suggesting This

I'm suggesting this because, without naming any names, I feel that a lot of times NG is a hostile environment for a debator with an unpopular opinion, and that many of the topics on NG are railroaded by popular opinions rather than logical arguments. By allowing users to challenge other users to enforced formal debates, those with minority opinions will have a chance to present their case to the rest of NG, without the fear of being drowned in a sea of emotionally charged posts.

I also think it would help to solve a lot of the aggressive posting that happens on NG. For example, if you've been posting here for a while you'll know that there is a commonly held opinion that whoever posts last in the thread is the 'winner' of the debate. In formal debate you have the option to restrict the number of posts, which means that posters will have to actually work to make their posts more logical and persuasive and not just work at slowly wearing their opponent down with multiple posts.

Finally, the AS: Main-esque thread we would create (I'm thinking we'd call it 'Formal Debate: Main' or 'NG Debate Archive' or something similar), would provide an invaluable resource to those debating in NG politics, and raise the quality of posting throughout NG politics in general. Furthermore, it may even persuade a more scholarly crowd to sign up and debate on NG, which would expose us an even wider variety of educated points of view.
4. What We Should Discuss In This Thread

I would like to hear all of your opinions on this, especially those of the mods who would be somewhat more burdened having to regulate individual debate threads based on their individual rules. We should discuss all the possible pros and cons of the issue. We should also discuss how we may want to proceed further if we go forward with this (Perhaps we can also have structured 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 debates alongside 1v1 debates). Also, are there any changes that should be made? Please share your opinions.
**NOTE: I'm not suggesting the end to informal debating on NG, rather I'm suggesting that these threads exist alongside informal threads**

At 2/23/09 12:01 AM, n64kid wrote: Keyword 'I think it's likely'

Let's not be naive. Monsanto has been caught dumping toxic chemicals more than once: there was also a scandal in the UK, where they were caught dumping PCBs and derivatives of Agent Orange into landfills. Stop for a second and think about this: Monsanto's subsidiary in India handles toxic chemicals (pesticides) that have to be processed (expensively) before they can be properly disposed of. Now, are you telling me that you think that Monsanto, given its record, would hesitate to dump toxic waste in India?

Patents are a form of government intervention trying to keep things fair for those who invent something unique. As a supporter of regulation, you should like patents as it goes against free market.

I won't let you dodge my point so easily. I've never said that I was against patents. What I did say was that the way they use their patents is destructive. That aside, I do believe that Monsanto's patents should be stripped from them given their evident abuse of them in the US and other countries.

At 2/21/09 04:12 AM, n64kid wrote: 1) They were found guilty in a class action suit and paid hundreds of millions.

Yes, they were sued, and now they're back to making billions. I guess it would be fine if the lawsuit had kicked them in the nuts hard enough to turn them into a company with decent business practices, but, as we both know, it didn't.

2) PCBs and the reselling of water they tainted, as far as I know, ended in the 70s. Now all they do is sue people based on their intellectual property rights. They're a joke now.

Keyword 'as far as I know'. I'll acknowledge that they're probably not doing it in the US or Europe anymore, but in places like India where their more recent scandals (child labor for example, is an ongoing scandal) have taken place, I think it's likely that they're still doing it. Even if they aren't, you yourself said they've basically made a business out of suing farmers in the US and Canada. That in itself is a destructive business practice.

At 2/20/09 07:57 PM, n64kid wrote: Equal's aspartame, Splenda's sucralose and Sweet 'n Low's saccharin have no correlation to instances of human cancer. The warning was removed when people discovered that what happens in lab rats don't often carry over to humans. But if you're against bans of products that haven't been shown to have any significant health risks over an alternative, you'd e against California's ban on trans fats.

I was actually referring to the original ban when there was significant reason to believe that Saccharin could cause cancer in humans.

But hey, why are we arguing over such petty things when we could be talking about all the other much more significant atrocities Monsanto has committed or is currently committing in the modern world? You're a libertarian aren't you? Why don't you explain to me how exactly Monsanto pouring mercury and PCBs into Anniston's water supply reflects on the theory that businesses shouldn't be regulated.

At 2/20/09 06:43 PM, Proteas wrote: Notice that the pic the topic starter opened with does not contain the actual patent number for Sweet 'N Low, whereas mine does.

SHOOP DA WOOP!!!

That's "photoshopped" for everyone else.

Actually it's not a fake. A quick Google search reveals that Sweet N' Low used to have the pictured warning placed upon it. It was just removed in 1991 when the US government decided to remove the mandate. I believe Saccharin is still banned in Canada, along with rBGH.

At 2/20/09 06:24 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a product known to cancer be banned by the FDA? That's what I thought they were for.

That's what it's for technically, but they're hardly incorruptible. The idea of banning Saccharin would mean a sharp blow to Monsanto's profits, a company that I'm sure has quite a bit of influence in the US government.

At 2/4/09 09:59 AM, JoS wrote: Throwing a shoe is a grave insult in the Arab world. This is the equivalent of giving someone the finger. Would we accept a giant bronze statue of the bird at a children's orphanage?

Please by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the statue would only be considered vulgar if it actually depicted a man being hit by a shoe. As it stands, the statue is something similar to a verbal euphemism. It would be like an American artist making a bronze bird and putting a bush next to it, to make a pun on 'giving Bush the bird', etc.

At 2/18/09 10:00 PM, Korriken wrote: on another note, if Obama tries for another stimulus package, I'm thinkin about starting up some hardcore protesting. To hell with letting these sumbitches drive our debt so high that we'll be stuck in eternal debt with the rest of the world.

Not to be presumptuous, but did the same thoughts occur to you when Bush was driving the debt sky high? If not, I find it incredibly hypocritical that you suddenly care so much.

At 2/17/09 04:16 PM, JoS wrote: Perhaps there shoudl be an investigation into the weapons and tactics of Hamas as well. As I recall the IDF found schools and zoo's that had been booby-trapped.

Source

Do you know what a non sequitur is? Just because Hamas is violating international law doesn't mean that the IDF is instantly exonerated.

At 2/1/09 05:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: So we should base our foreign policy not on what we think is prudent but upon the values of foreign cultures?

That's a loaded question. Obviously, prudent foreign policy is based upon an understanding of foreign cultures.

How could we possibly cater to all of them with a single policy?

Are you asking me which specific policies I would propose? Probably the humane treatment of enemy combatants, along with putting an end random raids on houses in Baghdad. On top of that: stricter codes of conduct placed on soldiers, with more oversight to discourage offensive behaivor. Exoneration for insurgents who will willingly turn themselves in and co-operate with the US military (if we dont do that already), should be offered. That would be a start.

Go ask a Middle-Easterner whether the Israeli operation in Gaza was openly aggressive (hint: it wasn't). What do you think he will say? I doubt he will give an objective analysis about the causes or Israel's attempts to limit civilian casualties.

That's the price Israel pays for a shock and awe esque approach to foreign relations. All a Palestinian civilian sees are dead bodies and destroyed buildings. You can argue that Israel has to do so in the interest of its national security (I'm not going to debate that at this time), but this in no way nullifies the fact that a man just had his home destroyed or his family killed.

No contradiction because they are deliberately ignoring the fact that the occupying force is operating reactively to threats. If the terrorists and insurgents were to stop their attacks tomorrow, there would be no more US military action in Iraq. And the people would be better off because of it. But it's obvious the insurgents and terrorists don't care about the people.

You know as well as I do that's not the case. The US would keep searching for terrorist cells, continue to raid houses in baghdad, and most importantly continue to directly influence Iraq's state policy. Arguably the US's presence in Iraq is not just a physical assault, but it is also a cultural assault that many believe threaten their way of life. As for whether or not the terrorists care about the people, it really depends on the terrorist. I do agree though that terrorist leaders don't care for the people, though I don't think anyone's really denying this.

By starting off saying that most terrorists know nothing of ideology but simply want to fit in. Then you say it's a mixture of factors, including revenge against US strikes.

You must have misread me, what I've said in regard to idealogy is simply this: 1) many terrorists have been found (upon interrogation) to be unaware of their leader's ideals, and 2) I believe that most terrorist's are not driven by religious ideals (in the sense that they would not be a part of a terrorist organization were it not for other factors).

Of course we would, if his goal were simply to punish the enemy and kill them. If he wanted to protect those civilians, then we wouldn't. You see, the US military has the capability to put a stop to it. Insurgents and terrorists cannot realistically expect to influence decisions surrounding Guantanamo Bay. They are just lashing out in hatred.

You've been terribly mislead if you believe that the insurgency is only just lashing out in hatred. No doubt they are, but also recognize they do so in order to achieve political goals. To say otherwise is a gross oversimplification of the situation. As for your psuedo physcological analysis, I disagree. I don't think that every soldier that wants to "punish the enemy for 9/11" is 'unstable'. Misguided maybe, but assuredly mentally sound.

Saddam wasn't exactly admired in the Middle East.

No, but neither is the US occupance that has taken his place. In fact, I would wager that the US occupance is quite a bit less popular than Saddam was. Beside's that you're ignoring the fact that it's not about what _you_ think is something to complaign about, it's about what the Middle East thinks.

I don't see how those traits can be anything but exclusive. Certainly its of no importance to US. If they decide that Americans need to die because we have buildings taller than 500 ft, then clearly their "rationality" operates on some entirely different plane that we can't relate to. If anything the US does, no matter how defensible or legitimate in our eyes, to further its interests in the Middle East causes terrorism, then abandoning our efforts to appease them is never an option.

Their rationality isn't so different as you make it out to be. It's quite simple in fact.

Family members/ friends killed by US forces = US is bad
Home/Business destroyed by US forces = US is bad

If the US isn't prudent with civilian lives, they'll recieve a negative standing with the populous. Even 'accidental' civilian casualties detract from the US's image.

If their hostility is based off of our infliction of suffering on people they care about, then terrorism can never be a rational response because it doesn't represent any real capability. Terrorist groups don't provide for the defense of people by stopping attackers, nor do they draw fire away from innocents. All they do is attack civilians, the very crime they use to justify becoming terrorists, never mind the fact that our damage is accidental where their's is deliberate. Occasionally they get lucky and weak nations like Spain withdraw their support after an attack, but they know that the US will never give in to terrorist demands.
If their hostility derives from something else, than what else could possibly justify the slaughter of civilians? Is an "eye for an eye" not the most primordial tenet of justice across all cultures, especially among Muslims?

Like I've said before, its a combination of rationalization (as in justification) mixed with the public acceptance of terrorism. Many of them have joined for reasons other than 'revenge' against the United States (acceptance, etc). Another thing that is also important to note is that once you enter a situation like that it's not like you can just walk away. You're pretty much bound to that organization at that point.

No, the value of Der-Lowe's post was directing my attention to the Detainee Act of 2005, which I should have remembered earlier because it would have saved me from making faulty points in that later post.

It was my impression that Der-Lowe's post was attempting to show you the illegality of torture under domestic and international by showing you various legal documents on the matter. The Geneva Conventions fall under that description, and you should look into Common Article 3, because it offers protections for terrorists/insurgents.

Anyways Adrshperd, the point as it stands is simply: the way you've demonized terrorists is a misinformed approach to international terrorism. To be able to form effective strategies to combat terror, you're going to have to make a stronger attempt to understand the mindset of a terrorist, and the mindset of the typical Arabic civilian.

At 2/1/09 12:31 AM, adrshepard wrote: You're stretching the boundaries by making rationality a subjective trait.

It is a subjective trait in the sense that the definition of what is and isn't "rational" hinges upon culture, education, and other social factors.

The main issue in this argument is whether and if so, how, Guantanamo Bay inspires terrorism. I'm assuming that you're pointing to the outrage and indignance that you say drives some to join terrorist groups. But their sentiment has to be understandable to us, not just themselves, if it's going to mean anything.

Are you trying to imply that when an insurgent sets off a roadside bomb, killing several US troops, that the US doesn't understand the 'sentiment' behind that attack? The sentiment seems pretty clear to me.

If any US policy other than submission abroad is enough to incite terrorism, then it's inevitable and we shouldn't change.

Only openly aggressive foreign policy is going to attract that kind of response. There are other approaches we can take to the situation that won't incite terrorism.

If it's a question of degree and response, then I'm saying that the degree in which Guantanamo Bay affects Middle-Easterners does not justify the response, namely terrorism, and that the same values that are offended by Guantanamo cannot embrace indiscriminate violence and its consequences.

You're assuming that they take offense to violence, which I'm not sure is the case so much as they are offended by violence against people of a similar culture. You think that they see their own actions as indiscriminate violence, but that's not the case. To them, all their doing is driving out a hostile occupation force at by any means necessary. There's no contradiction there.

You're hedging.

Really? Where am I hedging exactly?

And we aren't talking about attacks but about a detainment facility. Those people on the fence are ignorant and unstable already if Guantanamo Bay is enough to push them over the edge.

Guantanamo is a small part of a larger picture. It adds up with other US policy in the middle east to become something much more condemning than Guantanamo alone. Also, your opinion on the mental stability of said people is dully noted, but i respectfully disagree. I don't think we'd be calling an American teenager "unstable" if he decided to join the Army after hearing about how the enemy tortures civilians in Iraq.

In that case, I suppose it's just ignorance and stupidity. I wouldn't trust an irrational person to understand the concept of just retribution, but the demented have perfect clarity in the matter.

Just because they are of a different viewpoint, doesn't mean that they're irrational. 'ignorant' and 'stupid' perhaps, but not irrational.

My basic question is this: if we can't trust people to respond rationally

I stopped reading there. You see, your question is based on a false premise: that "we can't trust people to respond rationally". We definitely can trust people to respond rationally. The challenge is to understand and evaluate their line of thinking, so we can predict their response and craft our policies more carefully.

Also in addition Der-Lowe's excellent response seen above, you may want to do some research into Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which contains provisions that apply to the detainees at Guantanamo.

At 1/31/09 01:13 PM, adrshepard wrote: So they support an organization committed to indiscriminate violence or even carry out that violence so they can feel socially comfortable. Got it.

It's not so different from what happens in the US with gangs and cults. Just because you don't have the will or capacity to understand it doesn't make it irrational.

Wait, didn't you just say that most terrorists aren't motivated by ideology but personal social reasons? In that case why would terrorist leaders seek to provoke military retaliation? According to you, they are already receiving a steady supply of socially awkward recruits. Maybe if you could prove a connection between recruits' feelings of insecurity and the foreign policies of the US?

It's a mixture of a lot of things. However, attacks from the US tend to incite public outrage, which improves the public image of terrorist organizations (since they oppose the US). Those who were once on the fence now find it easier to rationalize joining a terrorist organization and also find it more publicly acceptable to do so.

Even if you're right in saying that the attacks are meant to incite aggressive retaliation, supporting terrorism is not a rational response to that either. The US can inflict massive amounts of suffering at will, but it specifically targets countries that aggravate it, for example those supporting terrorism. Joining a terrorist group will not prevent or discourage US attacks; if anything the attacks and suffering of the public will increase. If, as you maintain, they are rational, then they don't really care about the welfare of their societies anyway, in which case they can't really cite any collateral damage the US inflicts to justify terrorist activity.

Most Iraqi's don't understand much about international politics, so they can't make connections like that. All they see is an opportunity to strike back at a hostile country that has caused them a great deal of misery. Once again, just because you don't have the will or capacity to understand it doesn't make it irrational.

Adrsheperd, as far as a formal response to your argument goes; here is what I have to say:

Your attempt to de-humanize terrorists is not an intelligent reaction to terrorism. You have also shown a lack of knowledge on how exactly terrorism operates, and what motivates terrorists. The picture you paint is that of an enemy who does not follow traditional logic; an enemy who is completely irrational and cannot be reasoned with.

In reality the situation is not nearly as simple. There have been many studies into the matter of terrorism; some have investigated social factors like poverty in the hopes of finding clues as to why so many young men seem to turn to terrorist organizations. What they've found is that these people tend to be social outcasts, looking for a place to belong. A lot of terrorists join terrorist organizations through friends. Upon interrogation, many have been found to not even understand their leader's ideologies. While I'm sure some of the men fighting in organizations such as these are religious idealists, many of them are just looking to belong, or looking to exact vengeance on the US for a perceived wrong the US has done on to them. They may be uneducated lines of thought, but they're hardly irrational.

The leaders themselves don't factor their ideologies into their tactics. The ideologies are merely a ruse to help them garner more support for their cause. They have strategies; quite rational strategies; which they use to obtain their goals. Many (including myself), believe that terrorists attack the US army in order to provoke an aggressive retaliation, which then in turn generates public outrage, which then in turn increases enrollment in terrorist organizations. The ultimate goal? Probably to overthrow the local government or gain more power for themselves in some other way. Once again, hardly an irrational thought process.

My point is that aggressive foreign policy like Guantanamo plays right into the terrorist's hands, because it gives them propaganda that they can use to generate public outrage. Even a stone cold pragmatist such as yourself should see the benefits of closing Guantanamo.

Adrsheperd, could you clarify something for me?

Why is it "torture" when the Islamic radicals do it, and "physical and mental discomfort" when the US does it?

At 1/30/09 12:35 AM, n64kid wrote: I showed that in the event that the economy gets better from a 817 billion dollar package, paying off the debt in the future isn't very likely given that it is improable that the bill can pay for it's initial 817 billion even if it had 100 years to do so. When we look at an investment, you cannot say that 800 billion dollars of spending, of which 300 billion is recovered from economic stimulus that it will pay for itself. If money comes later from activity in the economy that would have happened had this bill not been passed, then it should not be attributed to the stimulus package, and not considered when talking about if the bill pays for itself.

So what are you getting at? We're 9 trillion in debt, another trillion is a drop in the bucket, we basically only been paying interest for years. In other words, our debt has been "un-payable" for quite a while now. Also try considering gains vs losses. Assume that if we hadn't passed the stimulus that the economy would have crashed, unemployment would have skyrocketed, and tax revenue would have went way down. Depending on how badly the economy crashed, we may very well have made back our 800 billion just by avoiding the economic collapse.

Let's talk conceptual here. I have a business with 2 operations. One is dry cleaning and one is selling books. I make $500 off dry cleaning and lose $100 a day off books, totalling a $400 gain. Does selling books get justified because I can use additional revenue from by dry cleaning business?

I'm afraid I don't understand the metaphor.

Uhm, we're talking federal government. Payroll/FICA by law cannot go to paying off debt, they go straight to welfare/social security.

Well like I said to Christopher, one would assume that any money that went into medicare would free up income from other areas of the federal budget.

Sales tax/excise tax goes to the state, not the federal government.

Another point Christopher brought up that I'm confused by. There is such a thing as a federal sales tax, albeit it is less common. Sorry for the confusion.

I agree, but as you said "decreasing spending during a time like this would only worsen our current situation"

I didn't mean to imply decreasing spending right now. However, a couple of years from now after our economy has a bit of time to heal, I don't think it would be a bad idea to start cutting/privatizing some non-essentials out of the budget.

But how do you eliminate nealry 280 billion dollars of spending a year?

Well I don't assume that it would be done entirely by cutting the budget, there would also have to be some additional revenue coming in (this is assuming we plan to pay the loan off anytime soon). The US could see some immense profits if it becomes a leading exporter of alternative energy, especially near the end of the next few decades when oil prices start skyrocketing.

I don't think the increase of "defense spending" or the difference between spending on our military at times at peace and war even after these 8 years have reached 1 trillion, albeit close.

Oh you're definitely right if you're only including things like how much it costs to replace tanks we've lost, or what we've spent in ammunition and supplies etc. The real expenses come from things like casualties, where you have to pay families when a soldier dies, or pay for treatment when a soldier gets maimed etc. Some NGOs have calculated how much it all tallies up to, and the vast majority of them put total expenses anywhere from 1.5-3 trillion dollars.

But if you criticize Bush for having such large deficits and out of control spending, why don't you have a problem with an 800 billion dollar, over 100% of the deficit of 2004 and 2005 combined.

Mostly because it's responsible spending that's reinvests in the economy. It builds things that are viable even during a total economic collapse, like power lines and roads. I'm not sure if Obama's plan specifically includes power lines and roads, but what I'm saying is it builds infrastructure.

You still haven't addressed my concern about how the 817 billion dollars with interest can be recovered DIRECTLY and ATTRIBUTED to the stimulus package.

I'm not sure I ever claimed that it would pay the debt back. There's no way to be sure about something like that. That's why I'm so surprised that you seem 100% certain that this package will fail.

At 1/29/09 11:48 PM, Christopherr wrote: Uhh, we're talking about the national government's debts. The state sales taxes are state taxes, and the federal government isn't entitled to sales tax revenue.

Depends on the state and the product. The feds may very well have their own sales tax on goods. Just look at gasoline for example; that's taxed by the federal government and the state.

Also, the payroll tax is the income tax with social security and Medicare taxes tacked on. Can you guess what social security and Medicare taxes are spent on, leaving the income tax money to be spent?

Even so, I'm assuming it would free up funds from other sources of revenue.

I submit that we cut frivolous spending. The issue is where to define frivolous. For example, the eco-bullshit that keeps getting slung around. Why should a stimulus package even provide for this?

I haven't seen a break down of Obama's stimulus as of yet, so I don't know what you mean when you say "eco-bullshit". Still, I'm generally opposed to cutting spending or raising taxes until the economy has re-stabilized. Afterwards though, I definitely agree, we have to cut the flab off of our budget.

At 1/29/09 05:10 PM, n64kid wrote: That means that the 817 billion dollar investment, that the government needs an increase of revenue of 29 billion dollars, starting from year one, that is reaped from this isolated stimulus package, that needs to last for 50 years. To collect 29 billion dollars, let's say that wages must go up by 116 billion dollars and stay there for 50 years. That means that the increase must be a constant 14.2% return on that inital 817 billion dollars spending, just to pay off the stimulus package over 50 years.

Still not seeing how you can be absolutely positive that the US will never be able to pay off the debt. First of all, it's not like income tax is the only form of government revenue, and even if it was wages don't necessarily have to go up. Increased employment generates more income tax, there's also sales tax and payroll tax (both of which would generate higher income with less unemployment). Second, revenue doesn't necessarily need to increase. Spending could be cut in other areas in order to free up funds to put towards paying back debt.

Just out of curiosity though, do you feel similar outrage at Bush's contribution to the national debt? He added several trillion just with the war alone, and that didn't have the same economic benefits that Obama's package has.

At 1/29/09 04:15 PM, n64kid wrote: You realize that we pay roughly 250 billion dollars each year on our debt's interest, and that number is only going to get larger and more problematic with this stimulus?

Oh I definitely realize this, but increasing taxes or decreasing spending during a time like this would only worsen our current situation. We have debts we need to pay, there's no getting out of that, but it's better to pay them when we can afford to pay them.

The "reinvestment" of this money into the economy will never reach figures that will allow revenue to increase at such a rate to pay off the debt.

How are you so sure? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

At 1/29/09 04:04 PM, n64kid wrote: Why can't we just cut spending without raising taxes during a time of economic turndown. Better yet, raise taxes on the 40% of people employed people who don't pay any. Or force states to spend up to 99% of what they collect and have the states pay their share of the national debt.

Haha forced budgeting, I'm so evil =D

Typically the government won't cut spending or raise taxes during a recession. Repaying debt is usually best left for when the economy is stable.

At 1/25/09 08:02 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: For starters, we're talking about a hypothetical rebellion of the super poor against the super rich.

The super poor being those who can be replaced by robots. Namely, everyone who isn't in high level management... which would be the vast majority of the populous. Even if they can't "afford" weaponry that doesn't mean they can't procure by force. Such things are not unheard of. Besides that, even without cutting edge technology they're hardly at a disadvantage due to sheer numbers. It's how the Chinese drew the technologically superior US army out of Korea in the 1950s.

Secondly, there is NO defense against the ADS or metal storm.

Thats what they said about bullets. Even if there really was "no defense" you're still not considering the social consequences of such actions. Do you think the US military would really tolerate opening fire with such deadly weapons on their own civilians? Do you claim that Soldiers, cut from the same social class as those they would be asked to kill, would perform such such atrocities? Because I cannot see it.

At 1/25/09 06:05 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: Sadly, we've moved beyond the days where an angry but poor mob can power through all opposition. How would this mob face armored police vehicles? Or anti-crowd energy weapons? Or, if it came to it, automated mass-kill systems like metal storm? No, the super rich in this hypothetical future will have little to fear from any sort of prole uprising.

I seriously doubt they will have "nothing" to fear. When 90% of the population takes up arms against the other 10%, armored vehicles and other advanced weaponry offer little protection. Besides, there's nothing to stop such a rebellion from procuring their own armored vehicles and "mass-kill" systems. This is America after all.

I'm sorry, could you clarify what exactly the drawback is for taking both Box A and Box B?

I'll answer your questions adrsheperd; even though I know that nothing I say will have any influence on your views whatsoever. I will answer your questions because they are legitimate questions that everyone should be asking about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and because I hope that this post will help other people better understand exactly what is happening in Gaza right now.

At 1/8/09 10:54 PM, adrshepard wrote: Do you believe Israel's attacks so far are reasonably consistent with a strategy of limiting civilian casualties (yet still destroying the target, of course)?

Now this is complicated. First off you have to understand that virtually every bit of information we've received regarding Israel's conduct in this situation has been obtained from the IDF (Israeli Defense Force, for those who do not know). Most of the other bits of informations we've received are from Palistinian Civilians. The reason that information from Gaza is so scarce, is because of an Israeli enforced ban on foreign journalism in the Gaza strip.

Now if everything the IDF tells us is true, then the answer to your question is clearly: yes, the Israelis are doing everything within their power to limit civilian causalities, and are only acting in self defense. Unfortunately, it doesn't look to be that simple. Recently there has been a string of reports that portray Israel in a less-than-perfect light. For one, there's the UN school mentioned in the original post of the this topic, where Israel shelled 40 Palestinian civilians to death. Israel claims that there were Hamas militants inside the building, but the UN official on-site claims that there were no militants in the building. One especially interesting event was reported just today: IDF soldiers evacuated about 100 Palestinian civilians into a house they subsequently bombed, killing 30 of the citizens they evacuated into it.

So my answer to your question, in complete honesty, is: I don't know, and I can't know until Israel agrees to let journalists into the Gaza strip, and agrees to allow impartial investigations to be held regarding Israels alleged war crimes.

Do you believe Hamas purposely places Palestinians in the line of fire so it can use their deaths as propaganda?

Yes. I've considered typing out an explanation of equal length to my last one, but I feel this has been covered extensively enough by others in this thread. We've seen tapes of Hamas launching rockets from populated residential areas. The evidence on this matter is quite clear as far as I am concerned.

Given Hamas' status as a terrorist organization, its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, and its violent rout of the more moderate Fatah group from Gaza in 2007, is it unreasonable that Israel take even non-violent action, in this case a blockade, to weaken its bordering enemy?

Well I think it really depends on what kind of non-violent action you're proposing. Sometimes "non-violent" action can be equally, or even more devastating than violent action. In the case of the blockade, from what I've heard, it's absolutely devastated the people of Gaza. I understand Israel's concern in protecting itself, but when it has squeezed Palestine to the point where Palestinian citizens are dying due to the lack fuel, food, and medical supplies, then Israel borders what I would consider "aggressive" action.

What would you have suggested Israel do to this openly hostile power?

Considering the IDF is telling the whole truth, then I would suggest Israel do exactly what it is allegedly doing right now. Namely, bombing the rocket sites that pose a threat to Israeli citizens. Though I would differ in that I would want Israel to allow Journalists and UN aid workers into the Gaza strip.

Like I said before though, I can't be sure that Israel is telling the whole truth. I would like very much to believe that Israel is being as benevolent as they possibly can be in this situation, but when there is evidence to suggest things like Israel using Palestinians as human shields, the situation becomes much less simple. At that point you have to wonder exactly what Israels intentions really were when they banned foreign journalism in Gaza.

Personally, I would like nothing better than for my doubts to be proven wrong. I hope that Israel allows foreign journalists into the Gaza Strip, and allows impartial UN investigations to be conducted, and it's concluded that the allegations against Israel are completely and totally false. However, until that happens, I can't be sure that the IDF is being anymore just or reasonable in this situation than Hamas is.

At 1/8/09 05:31 PM, adrshepard wrote: What did you expect? The UN is full of pussies. They whine and complain about the plight of Palestinians, yet one or two of its people are killed in accidents and they pull out.

The UN is delivering aid to members of a foreign nation, out of their dedication to remaining decent human beings in one of the most dangerous and corrupt areas of the modern world. What exactly have you done lately that enables you to proclaim yourself more courageous?

The locked overhead view in Metal Gear Solid 1-3 (Substance not Subsistence).

I'm sorry, I thought the game was supposed to help ME hide from MY enemies, not the other way around.

My favorite Halo moment was when I traded it in at Game Crazy.