Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/11/05 07:36 PM, metalhead676 wrote: they should quit censoring shit down there and let poeple make their own decisions ans stop whining i want to live my life t teh fullest and try to experince a lot before i die so bitchy feminist parents...

HAHAHAHA.
Oh, man , you're a joke. But a FUNNY one, so don't feel bad.

At 1/11/05 01:27 PM, The_Patriot wrote: A defence mechanism is exactly what it is but im trying to apply it to the theoy that racism can be put down to nature and the standard of living. I'm trying to say that Racism could be put partially down to a inbuilt natural defence mechanism.

So what, if it is? I don't think it is, at all...but let's pretend that's true, for a moment. Lust is an inbuilt instinct, too. Does that mean every time the mood strikes us, we should fulfill our lustful desires? Can one simply say 'hey, it's built in, so it's ok'?

At 1/11/05 02:22 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: My own experiences make me wonder if we've got the right attitude towards racism. I know that a lot of racism is a result of racist attitudes in the family but sometimes people actually have good reasons for being racist.

Oh, do they? Give me an example of a 'good reason' for being racist. The basis of racism is generalizations, and stereotypes. And the basis of such generalizations is ignorant assumptions. Thing's like 'blacks smell, because i knew a couple who smelled bad', or 'black people beat me up once, so all blacks must be violent, and abusive' (and no, i'm not implying that's how you feel).
Most people, rational people, aren't succeptable to this mentality. Most people realize that one man, or a small sample of people, do not represent an entire group.
Of course, there's always those far and few who can't seem to grasp the ignorant flaw of generalizations.

It's funny, people acknowledge that Nicotine is addictive and has very real effects on behavior, to the point of overcoming one's own willpower, but the idea of traumatic events having an effect on one's behavior makes them weak and ignorant.

Sure, I know what you're saying. My brother has a friend, who, as weird as it sounds, was a decent guy. But he had been raised in a racist house, with racists parents, and racist brothers. It was ingrained in him, from the start. This is how it goes with many, in one form or another.
But that only justifies it for so long. Sure, when you're seven, and you're number one (and perhaps only) major influence is your racist family/home enviroment...i can see that.
But when you're, i don't know, eighteen..should not one change, by that point? After seeing at least a mediocre percent of how things work, and how real people are...should one not recognize their own faults, and seek to correct them?

At 1/11/05 05:26 PM, sitruc2002 wrote: I had to leave here early yesterday so i didnt post my own....
A rival gang of some people in my school were plannin to just burst in and shoot up the school...it never happened but the thing was 10-12 kids,including myself had weopons...I carried a knife while I know some other that I knew were carrying guns...

Was it stopped by the school's administration, or did the cowards simply cry off? How about you? Did you plan to use your knife, on another human being? Or was it just 'cool' to carry a knife to school, and talk about killing?

At 1/11/05 05:26 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 1/11/05 05:11 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Irrational, indeed.

actualy, I figure my only shot at living forever, or at least long, is if the whole planet doesn't blow up before science finds a way to make us live hella long, hence I try to be a good boy for the moment.

lol i don't want to live till i'm 100, personally. Why drag on a dying, fading life?

another part is mostly convenience. We have a recycling bin, so its not like it takes a lot of effort to put a can in there and not in the trash. I don't drive either, but that's because I don't need to and I don't really wanna learn right now anyways, or buy a car ever -.-

Well, i can say the same for me NOT recycling. My small city doesn't offer recycling bins, or even recycling facilities. I have to drive fourty five minutes to drop off a bag of cans. I've got much better things to do with my time.
Like smoke cigaretes :-D

and I still get to bitch at smokers ALL I WANT 8-)

Oh, of course. I wouldn't have it any other way. People like you balance the scales, whether you know it or not. I don't want EVERYONE smoking cigaretes...and that's the purpose your kind fulfills. It's your niche. You discourage some, while allowing the rest of us to indulge without buzzwords like 'prohibition' or 'stoping the problem'.
Thanks, for that :)

and I'm still right to say we'd have been better off without smokes 8-)

And i have the right to say i'm santa claus, and i have an elf sitting in my lap.
This is what freedom of speech is all about.

smoke all you want as long as it doesn't affect me EVER.

Hey...can i offer you a cigarete??

At 1/11/05 05:14 PM, Operation_death wrote: Censorship sucks....i hate i thought...thats what "freedom" ment, the "freedom" to do what we want.

Yes, you have the 'freedom' to say anything you'd like. The 'freedom' you do not have, however, is the freedom to broadcast aforementioned comments over the air waves, and on tv. If you want to listen to explicit music, go buy the cd. If you want to watch a gorey/nudity-filled movie, watch HBO, or buy the dvd
Stop turning to your local radio station and looking for explicit eminem lyrics. Stop turning on MTV, and looking for titties.
If you want titties, get on the internet, or buy a playboy.
The mass media isn't there to appease your need for pictures of necks spraying blood, and full frontal nudity.
You don't have that 'freedom', and you never did.

its defined in the constitution i thought.

No, the freedom of speech is in the constitution. You have a right to voice your opinion, in the most lewd, profane, uncouth way...if you choose. You don't, however, have the right to have your voice heard by others. Just because you have a right to shoot of your mouth, doesn't mean i have a duty to listen.
Niether does the media.

Well anyways thats just me responding to this...thnx for reading.

Don't thank me for reading. I wasn't particurlaly doing you a favor by refuting your points. Unless you want to look at it as me 'enlightening' you on how things work...but i bet you DON'T want to look at it like that.

At 1/11/05 12:07 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Does anyone here love the OC or is it just me?

No. It's all teen-angsted out. Teen-angst pisses me off. That's why i can't stand emo, or people like john mayer.

Oh and for all the DAGGERS do you think Damenin_FLAG would make a great addition to our ranks.

You...really...really butched my name. I mean, i usually don't say anything about the misspelling of my name...because most people seem incapable of spelling 'damien' for their life..but you sodomized the spelling so bad, it had to be commented on.
Oh, and yea...after i talked to you about that DAG stuff...i just kind of procrasitnated, and thought of reasons to not do it.
Sorry about that.

And, on a refreshing side not to all you MGS Snake Eater players...i found something deeply disturbing.

About three days ago, i was playing...and i reached the boss battle with "The End" (it's, personally, the shittiest boss battle on the game". Well, i was getting ready to leave, so i saved it, right after the battle started...and when i went to save, para-medic said something like
Para-medic: "uh...snake...are you...really sure you want to save"?
Snake: "Yes....why?"
Para-Medic: "Well...i just have a feeling something bad will happen if you save now."

And, me being the 'i really don't care' kind of guy, i saved and turned it off.
Well, i go to play today...and when my game loads ...it shows me a movie i've never seen before. It shows snake, creeping up on The End, who's laying face down in the area that he starts the battle off at.

Snake examines him, and proclaimes him dead. He radios in, and para-medic speculates that he probably died while waiting for me.
Which...means...i accidently fucked up a boss battle.

Anyone else experienced this? Will this fuck up my ending/ranking?

At 1/11/05 03:30 PM, -poxpower- wrote: so why should you care if someone smokes? Or play violent games?
To feel better about yourself, now

Yea, see? It's all asthetics. Masturbation of one's own ego. Hilarious.

this "irrational" behavior leads to the fun time happy land of hippies and people who complain that we ruin the earth and that we have to recycle, when the truth is that our decendants are not born yet and don't give a shit about the earth because THEY DON'T EXIST.

Wait, aren't you all for some recycling? Aren't you one of the one's who complains about 'ruination'?
Irrational, indeed.

At 1/11/05 08:36 AM, bcdemon wrote: As one of your great leaders said, "you go into war with the army you have, not the army you want", so on that note, I say learn how to shoot more accurately, cuz a FMJ round can easily kill.

And yet, we've replaced a very large percentage of the equipment 'we went into war with'. Changing bullet types is much simpler than outfitting a vehicle with armor.

And the most dangerous human is the one who wishes for better killing power.

And yet, those are often the humans who make the biggest strides. Funny, how that works.

It'd be better if every bullet a US soldier shot killed an enemy combatant. But, since that isn't realistic...we should do away with FMJ, and increase the odds that every bullet will take an enemy life.

At 1/11/05 02:37 PM, ReiperX wrote: if you are so unhappy with the US that you don't want to live here, then move.

Oh, no, of COURSE not. Do you really think most people's morals and political leanings run that deep?
Because they don't. So many people i talked to, pre-election, said that if bush won, they were moving to canada, or europe. And have they? Of course not.
Their morals and ethics, and cultural tolerance/intolerance, only runs to this countries borders.

At 1/11/05 06:52 AM, -poxpower- wrote: we always have a fighting chance.

Lol. You're like a stand up comic.
Really, it's vain, and presumptuos to think of yourself on a 'crusade' for right. The only people that give a shit are non-smokers. And if they don't like it, they don't have to smoke. It's as simple as that.

if you has never heard of fried chicken, you wouldn't make friend chicken, crave friend chicken or order fried chicken o.o

Oh god, just fuck you. You people bitch and moan about the 'moral majority' sticking their nose in everyone's business, but, truth is, people like you are worse.

we forget cultures, everything can change. The human mind is maleable. If you don't take your kids to KFC...

But i WILL take my kids to KFC. And I'LL go to KFC. All my friends will take THEIR children to KfC, and so on, and so forth. Don't you realize...people are willingly resisting your 'grand ideas' for change? We don't WANT kfc to go away...we don't WANT cigarettes to go away. And we live in a capitlist society. As long as their are products in demand, there shall be products supplied.

well you're not talking about the right thing, because cigarettes are uneccessary AND harmful, while clothes are only beneficial :o You can't compare them 100%

It's more than just clothes. We don't need 95% of the things we have, yet we do. There's nothing you can do. Get over it. You just make yourself look foolish.

the thing is, I realise they'd be happier if they didn't :o

Doesn't matter. That's what 'willpower' is all about. You go on and on about your 'depth of willpower' to do something about smoking. But there's an even larger group of people, with that same depth of willpower, willingly and knowingly standing against you. It's not just culture. We weren't just buffaloed into smoking. We willingly and intentionally stop your actions, and force smoking to continue.
Another funny thing...you talk about how raising taxs will stop smoking. Don't you realize that if smoking falls to an all-time low, because of taxes...cigarete companies and convinience stores and EVERYONE will lower their price on cigaretes, to compensate for the tax.
That is, again, supply and demand.

Same as everyone would definately be happier in the long run without cigs.

Nothing but your opinion, and that's all it ever will be.

same with cigs. You're like, convincing yourself that you need them.

Well, define 'need'. Physically, i do need them. Mentally, they make me happy. Health wise, it is bad for me.
You're opinion is worth just as little as everyone else's. Nothing seperates you from anyone else. You're not special, poxpower...and it's laughable when you pretend you are.

ha, I beg to differ. We already force you to pay more for them. That's already a plus. And in the pass, we force people to wear seatbelts n' shit like that, when people like you, who "wanted the freedom to not put on a seatbelt and fucking die" complained and said "see, you're not making ME put on a seatbelt".

They didn't make me put a seat belt on. You act like just because something is passed into law, EVERYONE listens. Just because something is a law, doesn't make it right.

and you did NOT already "know" that cigarrettes are bad. It took a long legal battle to make the companies admit it.

No..i was born in 1986...after the dangers of cigaretes were well known. And i didn't start smoking till about four years ago...when everyone DEFINITELY knew the dangers of smoking.
I've always known, and i still chose to pursue my own form of happiness.
Really, this idea of your is definitely facist. "I don't like it, and it's bad for you...so lets forcibly TAKE it from people'.
It failed during prohibition...what makes you think this will be any different? Those same disillusioned foolish men, at the time, thought they were 'making a difference' by getting rid of 'the scourge of alcohol'. And they failed, miserably.

But more and more people hate smoking, and we're gaining grounds.

People thought they were gaining ground with prohibition, too. Your vain, presumptuous plan has been tried before..it failed.

suit yourself, but again, don't whine when the consequences come bite you in the ass. If you die in a car accident and your kids are left all alone, well I hope you'll go straight to hell, mister "I live in a bubble". And don't whine if you get fined for not wearing it.

My state cannot, legally, pull me over, simply for nothing else than not wearing a seatbelt. They can charge me with it, if they pull me over for something else...but, in VA, there is no such thing as a legal police stop for not wearing a seatbelt. And, when i'm dead, what do i care for my kids? I'm DEAD.

And no, I use to be like you. Use to think human were walking bags of shit. Sacks of crap with no power of will, who just drifted around selfishly.

That's the complete opposite of what i think. We're using our willpower now to defy your anti-smoking campaign.

I realised there's also a lot of good-willed folk on earth, and I also realise that the only true way to collective happiness, is working as a collective.

I don't support 'collectives'. You've been watching too many Borg episodes of Star Trek.

But I sure do know that people are always dependant on what others say, and that if you can get enough people to pass a fad ( atkins anyone?) then you'll change the behavior of even the most resilient people.

Yea, that worked during prohibition. Oh, wait...

and we're kicking you out of public spaces. Live with it as much as you want, but don't complain. What if we passed a public healthcare thing? But excluded smokers from free care?
how would you like that? You can still smoke AAAAAAAAll you want though, but don't pretend like there's no difference.

I'd make the sacrifice, for my happiness. Middle class men like me cannot afford health-care anyway...how would it affect me?

well considering its the most addictive shit, its hard to get rid of it, especialy with so much scum willing to sell ANYTHING illegaly. But thanks for helping out by not caring >: (

No problem. Anything i can do to make it hard for people like you, the happier i am.

I'm still happy you have to pay you tax on stupidity when you buy smokes.

So am I, actually. Taxes on smokes raised a good deal of money for local school boards, in virginia.
You can thank me, personally, for giving children new textbooks.

At 1/11/05 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Now, firstly...i agree...they didn't have a right to complain about anything, before it was aired. That's simply ignorant.
But, to play both sides...does a one hour show need 8,000 obsencities? Is that not, in any context, extreme? By my rough calculation, that's an obscenity every 45 seconds, or so. Again...is that neccessary?

It's a two hour show, which would make it every 90 seconds...forgetting, of course, that those complaining hadn't seen it, so how would they know if there were even eight obscenities in it?

Well, were there any refutations of that claim of 8,000 obscenenities? If it wasn't denied by the station, or the show...it was probably true.
And if it was true, then i could see how someone may complain. A profanity every 90 seconds is...silly.

Remember, to truly make something seem EVIL, which is what they always do, they have to exaggerate (or plainly mak up) something to focus on. Be it video games or Marilyn Manson having puppies killed at gigs, you have to make out that it happens - even if it doesn't, and how could you know if you haven't seen it.

Again...did the network, the show, or ANYONE deny the amount of obscenities in the show?

At 1/11/05 11:13 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 1/6/05 06:30 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Kid's in their back yards are most likely throwing real punches. They're most likely slamming each other on the ground. They try real drop kicks.

Yet if they play High School Football, they take real tackles which are just as dangerous (in fact, it's the same thing - Goldberg, anyone?) , yet it's seen as a good thing.

The difference is a football player, on a field, is wearing pads, and a helmet. Kids in their back yard are, more than likely, delivering real punches and real wrestling holds. They don't have pads, or helmets...and they don't wrestle with the same knowledge of training that a Sports Entertainer does. You think The Rock REALLY chokes out his oppenent, as hard as he can? Do you think he's REALLY kicking that man in the ribs, as hard as he can.
Have you ever picked up a real steel folding chair? The mother fuckers are HEAVY. What you see them use in WWE are not real steel chairs. For one, if you hit someone hard enough with a steel chair to bend it around their head (as is depicted on television) you'd most likely kill them, or at least injure them severly.
This is the difference between athletes, and little children in the back yard.

This is actually part of my point. Violence, in general, should not be met with such disgust, and outrage. Whether it's GTA, or the war on terror.

But the news coverage on this "war" is more likely to desensities, as it's censored beyond belief and gives a very different image on what war is like.

Are you even talking about the same thing I am? I'm saying, desensitizing people to violence is a GOOD thing. I don't think footage of the war should be censored. I think they should show exactly how it is, instead of hyping it up like a goddamn hollywood production.

Censorship always seems to have the opposite effect to what they're trying to do - especially in this country, where censors have a history of snipping films/videos, while the TV regulators have a policy of "If in doubt, cut."

Television networks have every right to censor their material...it's THEIR network. If they want to show nothing but 1980's claymation, they could do that, too, if they wanted. You possess no right to make a decision for a network. Their company, their rules. The effect is has is almost irrelevant.

As I've said, time and again, they still have a voice that is listened to, based on Class and other social positioning. Just like the RIAA and the Moral Majority - ignore them at your peril, especially in an election year.

And, again, i re-emphasize...if they have such an influence, why have the standars been lowering? Why has the level of tolerance for sex, violence, and harsh language higher than it was even twenty years ago?
They have an influence, now, sure. But they won't, not forever. Tolerance for violence, language, and nudity will continue to raise, while standards continue to drop.
If these people want to stroke their own egos, thinking their slowing down the declining standards...let them have their disillusionment.

Of course, during the 50's people were lynching black people, but we're supposed to forget that...

I'm not talking about crime rates. I'm talking about standards, in reference to your concern about censorship. I'm telling you, straight-out...you have nothing to worry about. Teenagers, right now, are buying and playing manhunt. They're listening to Eminem, and Slipknot, and Metallica. Their parents bought them half life two, and they're more than busy butchering it up, right now. Desperate housewives is probably coming on in ten different countries.

Exceptions are usually those who can't tell reality from fiction. And, no, I don't mean children (sit down at the back, "Appalled"), but those with a level of intellect that makes Forrest Gump look like Stephen Hawking.

Doesn't matter if they can't tell reality from fiction. They are still part of society, and must be fit into the equation, somehow.

The fact that Moral Guardians assume children fit into this category again shows up just how shortsighted their handwringing truly is, because it also implies that they know everything and are so smart they can tell everyone what to do.

Define 'children'. Do you mean, seven year olds? Thirteen year olds? Two year olds?
Most children, in early years, NEED guidance. It's why we came up with that crazy 'parenting' thing.
I know, i know...you think we should just give children a car, a house, a job, and a wife at age ten...but that's not how this country works.

Now, telling people what they can or can't do, in this case watch or play, isn't that a position that we should've got past by now?

No one is stopping anyone from playing anything. If a teenager wants a violent game, let him get his parents to buy it for him. If you're an adult, go ahead and by manhunt, and DOOM 3. There is nothing stopping you.

At 1/7/05 07:37 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 1/7/05 07:30 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Oh, yea. Like, the War on Terror, immagration (both legal and illegal), homeland security, social security, alternative fuel resources, and the economy...those thing's aren't major issues at ALL.

Of course when he meant moral issues he was probably talking about gay marriage and shit. But whatever.

I personally think "moral issues" is a stupid poll answer. I mean, ANYTHING can be a moral issue. That's probably why it was the top issue on election day.

Exactly. I've been saying the entire time that 'moral issues' is too broad of a term. Most things, in one form or another, are a moral issue.
And, the bad part, it wasn't even the top issue. The media just MADE it a top issue. It was the fourth answer from the top, in the reasons given at exit polls.

Alright, i can conceed that point. The political arena that exists today is near impossible for a third party to enter. It'd be a constant, straight-uphill climb. And even then it's be so improbably, it's mind boggling.

But, then, in your opinion...what should replace what we have now? Or what things could be changed, to make the current system work better?

At 1/11/05 12:30 AM, Maus wrote:

At 1/11/05 12:27 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: I don't even know what IRC stands for.

...Internet...Relay...Chat...

-_-

Yea, see? The amount of personal loser points just increased by, say, twelve.

At 1/11/05 12:29 AM, Maus wrote:

At 1/11/05 12:11 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Yet, the method of using water as an interrogation technique has killed no one, recently, that you know of? This is an honest question, because i don't know.

Define 'recently.' Shouldn't the fact that it has killed people, period, be enough for you? It's not like it's high tech, and they've improved it, or anything.

Recently, as in, since we've been using them in our current detainee system. And, if it hasn't killed anyone recently, mayhaps they HAVE improved it, in some way.

Nothing is not productive.

Investigating leads that are the result of lies is counterproductive. So nothing is actually better.

Investigating nothing DOES nothing. If no one gives us any answers, we have a whole branch of the intelligence community doinng NOTHING at all. It's not written in stone that anyone who undergoes stress and duress tactics will axiomatically lie. If even one lead proves to be true, they've become more productive then investigating nothing.

Seriously, i only advocate the 'stress and duress' tactics, because there is no better option.

These 'stress and duress' tactics are in breach of the GC. Red's right, you should take the time to look on the site.

Christ, people. I KNOW some of these tactics breach teh GC. I'm expressing my opinion, and disagreeing with certain parts of the GC. I know that's *GASP* just my personal perspective, but i'm still allowed to fucking voice it.
I don't need a link or a reference to the GC after EVERY point I make.

If you'd rather not be on the recieving end of my particular way of speech, simply don't respond to me.

I'm simply asking that you not make the effort of calling me 'sister.' I find it rude, and patronising. The tone I feel is very condescending when you use it.

Fine, i'll refrain to referring to you as if you're any kind of acquiantance.
Really..though...i meant nothing rude, patronising, or condescending...and I apologize if you took it as such.

At 1/11/05 12:24 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/11/05 12:15 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: It makes me feel like less of a man :(

Grovel.

To who? IRC, in general...or the users? Or both?

I don't even know what IRC stands for.

I'm such a loser.

At 1/11/05 12:20 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: The DMZ has a unique property compared to all other fields. This will probally never have a civilian set foot in it (unless oneside wins a war that will never be won so really never). However the princeple is the same. There should be no anti-personal mines, these things are disgusting. I say remove them and have the US figure out something else, how about agreeing to a peace treaty, since technically the war is still going on (no peace treaty has ever been signed).

They wouldn't agree to a peace treaty. It's never as easy as just 'holding a summit' (which is one reason i really didn't like Kerry...he thought EVERYTHING could be fixed by just holding a 'summit').
Do you know what I think would happen? The only way America could step in and remove those land mines, would be to replace the mines with American troops, and try to force peace. Now, even if that worked...do you think the American people would support that? Do you think congress would approve? Do you think either political party would give the go ahead on a plan that would, essentially, involve thousands and thousands of American troops. occupied on Korean soil. We'd at LEAST have to be there long enough to remove the mines. And, as you pointed out, it takes a long time to remove and disarm mines. And, as we remove the mines, we'll open up pathways for the North Koreans to use. That endangers not only the South Koreans, but American troops as well.
So, let's go a different way. Let's say the North holds off any kind of military movement, and they hold their peace until American troops leave Korean soil. Let's say they THEN decide to invade the south. Then, there's nothing, at all, to stop them from crushing the weaker south koreans.

Again...this DMZ in korea actually saves south korean lives than it endangers.

That...doesn't make sense. I mean, i believe your source...and that's the problem. Save for the korea situation...landmines are almost untactical as fuck. They're becoming obselete. So why keep spending money on them?

At 1/11/05 12:06 AM, red_skunk wrote: But if we all switch to IRC, then there would be hundreds of different servers, and everyone would be confused the fuck out.

I don't leave quakenet, ass clowns.

I've never used IRC. And, most of the time, when i say things like 'I've never used IRC' to people, they call me a total loser, and internet noob, and stuff.

It makes me feel like less of a man :(

At 1/11/05 12:08 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: The US "owns" the worlds largest single minefield. The DMZ in Korea is this minefield. It is what keeps the North Koreans from invading the south. This is why the US doesn't want to give up landmines. The North Koreans could easily beat the south koreans and the US military presence in the south if they could get there.

So, in your professional opinion, should we remove all the landmines, and let the North Koreans invade the South Koreans, and easily crush them?
I'm honestly curious about your answer.

At 1/10/05 11:58 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/10/05 11:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Look, so far, i've condemned any tactic that causes ANY amount of bodily harm.

I think the definition for torture that Proteas posted is pretty adequate. And includes a bit which you're ignoring, mental anguish. Whether or not you wouldn't mind snarling dogs, naked pyramids, simulated fellation, unduly cold or hot weather... The rest of us probably do.

I do not approve of 'naked pyramids' or 'simulated fellation'. And, i suppose, because i'm being pressed, i don't totally approve of using heat as method of interogation.

And i'm saying, there's a fine moral line between 'stress and duress' and 'torture'.

At 1/10/05 11:58 PM, Maus wrote:

At 1/10/05 11:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: These things i've just mentioned are appalling. Disgusting. They are not fitting of the image we, as a nation, would like to present.

Everything that you've defended causes bodily harm of some sort. Water torture has indeed killed people in the past, and will continue to do so. Leaving people in a room that is extremely hot can lead to heatstroke.

Yet, the method of using water as an interrogation technique has killed no one, recently, that you know of? This is an honest question, because i don't know.
And, fine, i'll conceed the heat treatment.

Oh god, that's a 'kid-glove' mentality. This isn't preschool, and this isn't the principals office. I could care less if they used a dog to 'make someone highly anxious'. We can't hurt them...so our hand is forced to resort to tactics like this. It's 'stress and duress', torture, and doing nothing that are the current options.

It is not a kid glove mentality. Would you support hanging acrophobics off a precipice 100 feet in the air? Would you support putting an agoraphobic in the middle of a field, and then questioning them? When people are put in a situation like that, they will lie, lie, lie to get out of it. I'd rather hear nothing instead of a lie.

Nothing is not productive. Look, everyone says this is 'so horrible', and mayhaps i can see why you'd think so, looking at it from your perspective. But no one has a better answer. And, that includes me. I have no magical answer on the best way to interrogate prisoners. What you people are advocating is 'just ask them nicely. If you can't get any answers, just leave 'em in their cells. It'll all be cool'.

Most situations filled with complacency rarely under up in a positive situation.

Got any nifty interrogation tactics, sister? Then lay them on us. Fact is, few can think of anything better than we're doing now. So many people would have us just release everyone we have captive, and not ask them ANYTHING, after they tell us one time they know nothing.

So just because we can't think of anything better, we should continue being brutal to people? Great thinking.

We're between a rock, and a hard place. We can't torture them, even if it was effective. And we can't simply not bothering to interrogate them. Seriously, i only advocate the 'stress and duress' tactics, because there is no better option. Am I proud that these tactics are what in place? Not particurlaly. Am I thrilled that this is, currently, the last ditch effort, the plan C? No.
But there's not a better option, that i can think of.

How about sodium pentothal, the truth serum? That's better than shoving a water hose down someones throat.

I bet you sodium pentothal is against the Geneva convention. Most other things are.

Don't call me sister. I am not your sister.

Jesus christ. You people take this shit so personally. You act like i'm in your living room, drinking your coffe, or something.
And, as much as i'd rather not have to say it to you, maus...you know how this political forum works. When you respond to my posts, and enter yourself into an debate...you are subject to the way i talk, and everything else about the way i post. If you'd rather not be on the recieving end of my particular way of speech, simply don't respond to me.

At 1/10/05 11:56 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 1/10/05 11:47 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Fine, brother, i'll conceed this to you: I have not a single legal leg to stand on, when it comes to land mines.

Was that a joke?

An...unintentional one. But, it's fucking hilarious, now that you mention it.

But, i guarantee that's just me.

Probally. Landmines are not designed to kill a person, they are designed to seriously injury (like taking off a leg). You kill the person in a battle and one person is out of the equation. The whole idea of rescuing a fallen comrade means you are looking at taking out 2 or 3 people (1 or 2 people to carry them out).

And, is that not tactical? What other weapon of war could replace this function?

Also known minefields can be used to redirect troop movement.

That's definitely tactically intelligent, isn't it?

So, I'll ask red this question, because he's the walking document encyclo-fucking-pedia. How much do we, currently, use landmines? Do we use them in anywhere in the middle east?
Because i honestly don't know.

Removing landmines takes a very long time and is very dangerous. A field will be sectioned of into strips about as wide as a bowling lane and a team will go down these lanes and search for them and remove them (which is very dangerous and time consuming).

Yes, i can understand how it would be. But my opinion hinges on the anwer to one question: How much do we use landmines now? Because, if they aren't practical, anymore, they're useless to keep on board. I mean, if we simply have advanced past the point of using landmines, why go out of our way and create such a fuss, just out of principle?

At 1/10/05 11:25 PM, TheShrike wrote: I'd prefer if there were no YIM, MSN, or AIM, and we all had some sort of standard Internet Relay Chat...

That'd be cool.

Well, that'd make thing's simpler. Gone would be the days of "Do you have yahoo?...no...ok...how about AIM? No...well..shit...I don't know...because i don't have msn.''

At 1/10/05 11:52 PM, Forgotten_Moose wrote: Whats the oddest NG name?

OOO,OOO, i know!

It's called "Go-back-to-general-stupid''.

I'm right, aren't I?

At 1/10/05 11:37 PM, red_skunk wrote: I'm liking this Geneva Convention site I found. I just wish other people would browse it occasionally. Land mines are indiscriminate. Anti-personal mines that are stepped on blow up, regardless if it's friend, foe, or little Johnny. And this, is prohibited by the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. (Geneva, 10 October 1980.) Another convention dealing specifically with landmines. They are indiscriminate, and it is expensive to de-mine.

Fine, brother, i'll conceed this to you: I have not a single legal leg to stand on, when it comes to land mines. So i'll resort to something a link cannot disprove: My opinon. I think landmines are an excellant weapon of war. I, personally, agree with the use of landmines...even if it is expensive and high in labor. I don't care about indiscriminate...but then again, i don't value human life as an end-all to every debate.
But, i guarantee that's just me.

At 1/10/05 11:36 PM, Maus wrote:

At 1/10/05 11:13 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: I never did any such things. I do not approve of inflincting physical pain on an irregular combatant. That being said, it's obvious we must find OTHER interrogation tactics, if we cannot hurt them, physically.

Then why do you keep defending their actions?

Look, so far, i've condemned any tactic that causes ANY amount of bodily harm. No bending thumbs back. No crushing genitals. No deprivement of food, or water. No prisoners, chained up, covered in feces.
These things i've just mentioned are appalling. Disgusting. They are not fitting of the image we, as a nation, would like to present.

And, again...since we cannot hurt them, physically...what should we do? Should we just not interrogate them? Should we just assume they all know nothing? Should we just ask them one time if they know anything, and accept any answer they give as truth?

Also, do spiders make you nauseous, and highly anxious? I think being in a room absolutely crawling with them would make you more than a little uncomfortable. Muslims have a near phobia of dogs. You know what happens to people when you shove something they have a phobia of in their face? It's mentally abusive. Mental abuse is not allowed, either.

Oh god, that's a 'kid-glove' mentality. This isn't preschool, and this isn't the principals office. I could care less if they used a dog to 'make someone highly anxious'. We can't hurt them...so our hand is forced to resort to tactics like this. It's 'stress and duress', torture, and doing nothing that are the current options.

Got any nifty interrogation tactics, sister? Then lay them on us. Fact is, few can think of anything better than we're doing now. So many people would have us just release everyone we have captive, and not ask them ANYTHING, after they tell us one time they know nothing.

I agree with the use of landmines. The USE of landmines isn't the problem. It's the fact that we don't remove them, or disarm them, when we leave a country.

Let's keep using land mines, and simply remove them.

There is no easier answer, than this. Abolishing hand grenades is like abolishing bombs, because they sometimes hit the wrong target. It's not the weapon that is to blame...the weapon is an inanimate object. It's the USE of the weapon that's a disgrace, and the non removal.

At 1/10/05 11:24 PM, red_skunk wrote: Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention. They are covered under the Geneva Convention until their status is determined by a competent tribunal. Which the vast majority of detainees have not been afforded. You should go directly to the Conventions, they're written pretty straightfoward.

Yes, i know this...but there is no answer. We are, very slowly, releasing people from confinement. And since we can't rationally just release them back into their country, we HAVE to keep them detained until we determine their 'status'.

This feels familar for some reason.

Because there are three threads about the same thing, i think.

At 1/10/05 10:42 PM, Elfer wrote: It's not just "hot and cold", it's INTENSE TEMPERATURE EXTREMES. Maybe not so far with the cold, but the heat would be something that's unbearable. The person pulled out their hair and passed out, in case you didn't read that. And as for the homeless, they can find shelter or blankets, while the prisoners didn't have that luxury.

Yet, as inhumane is it may be...it is not 'torture'. It's only stress and duress.

OooOOoo DUCT TAPE! OMG! THAT'S LIKE, TORTURING HIM, REALLY BAD!
Fuck your melodrama.

Duct tape covering most of the head, including the mouth and probably the eyes would be intensely uncomfortable, and can cause infections and severe pain when removed. If you cover a person's body with duct tape, they can overheat and die.

HAHA. Again, being 'uncomfortable' is not the same thing as torture. And we're not covering 'entire bodys' with duct tape. We're covering the mouth. And no, it's not on the yes...that's what the bag over the head is for.
And the minor amount of pain that is caused from duct tape being pulled off is hardly 'torture'.

He was gagged with duct tape and covered because he refused to comply with an order to 'stop chanting the koran'. If he had listened better, he would not have been reprimanded. This is a goddamn military institution...it ain't day care, sissies.

Disobeying an order doesn't give license to use cruel and unusual punishments.In this case, 'cruel and unusual' are subjective. If he had simply followed his captures commands, mayhaps things would have turned out different. It was his choice, to bring on the consequences of his actions, after he had been warned.

Who said i thought these tactics were too inhumane for american prisons?
And no...they're not hurting the man by 'making him think he's going to drown'. It's a scare tactic, that produces nothing but 'stress and duress'.

This is called water torture. Water TORTURE. And yes, with the technique used, it is possible for the prisoner to drown.

It said they partially submerge the prisoner in water, and drip water on his face. That's, again, only stress, and duress. And, have any prisoners drowned from this procedure? or are we just talking 'what if' scenarios?

Torture is completely unreasonable. And if you use the enemy torturing your prisoners as justification for torture, you are sinking to their level, and no longer have any reason to say that they're inhumane.

I never did any such things. I do not approve of inflincting physical pain on an irregular combatant. That being said, it's obvious we must find OTHER interrogation tactics, if we cannot hurt them, physically.