Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let's sue musicians for torture.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Let's sue musicians for torture.

    Musicians Demand Release of Songs Used to 'Torture' Gitmo Detainees
    A slew of legendary American songs were reportedly played for hours -- sometimes days -- to try to force cooperation and punish prisoners detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Source and full story.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

    (note: My title is meant to be comical and have a political and moral point. Using "fascist liberal" reasoning music is torture; therefore we should sue in musicians who make music that we think is bad or distasteful or irritating. Sounds like another excuse for "fascist liberals" to censor. )

  • #2
    Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
    Source and full story.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

    (note: My title is meant to be comical and have a political and moral point. Using "fascist liberal" reasoning music is torture; therefore we should sue in musicians who make music that we think is bad or distasteful or irritating. Sounds like another excuse for "fascist liberals" to censor. )
    Interesting story ATFS... but I'm intrigued by your take on it which I assume is aimed at irony but which I don't quite understand, perhaps because I'm not seeing the history of the cliche I keep seeing on these boards.

    How, exactly, does "'fascist liberal' reasoning" convolute the fact that it doesn't matter what it is, whether we like it, don't like it or are otherwise oblivious to it (whatever 'it' is), when we're subjected to forcefully experience 'it' ad infinitum, 'it' doesn't become torture itself since torture is a process, not an article?
    Last edited by HB-IHC; 2009-10-23, 13:47.



    All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last (Marcel Proust)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by HB-IHC View Post
      I'm intrigued by your take on it which I assume is aimed at irony but which I don't quite understand
      I'm amused by the hypocrisy, dogma, narrowmindedness and the drama.

      I find it ironic that some of the musicians are admitting that listening to their music is torturous; yet they want to blame others.

      So it's criminal that terrorists should face consequences? I think it would be criminal to allow a WMD attack with massive casualties that could possibly trigger MAD; because we wanted to play politically correct fascist liberal games and not make it unpleasant for the terrorists that are trying to kill us and bring about Armageddon.

      I think it's insane to try to equivocate music or waterboarding that we have done in interrogation; to what terrorists have done: pulling out fingernails; burning, raping, disemboweling, decapitating, acid burns, electrocutions, ect... I think it's insane to try to equivocate listening to Pearl Jam; to watching my family be raped to death with cattle prods and then having the same done to me.

      Let's try not to equivocate a music copyright to a license to torture.

      Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein issued rape licenses so his henchmen could use state sanctioned rape to try to keep his political opponents in line.
      Aziz Saleh Ahmed's license to rape.


      I would normally consider waterboarding to be illegal and considered torture under our domestic laws governing typical criminals. However I feel there is a different law for terrorists; especially foreign terrorists on foreign soil. I feel that most our domestic laws and Geneva Convention should not apply to foreign terrorists.

      There are several levels and definitions of torture. Sometimes I think listening to Barney the dinosaur is torturous; but so far I don't know of many occasions where it approaches the levels that I would consider criminal.

      Just because something can technically or morally be defined as torture on some level doesn't necessarily mean it rises to the level that it can meet the definition of torture legally. Fascist liberals often play a dishonest game of gotcha where they try to apply the technical or moral definition of something; to a legal definition.

      Parents having to listen to Barney the dinosaur can technically and morally meet some definitions of torture; however I consider it a small price to pay to let our children watch moral and educational TV programming that is enjoyable and beneficial to them; the degree of suffering for the parents does not cross the line of criminality.

      There are different levels of legal definitions to. Another dishonest game that fascist liberals try to play is they try to dishonestly apply one type of legal definition to another application in an inappropriate manner. The legal definition of torture as applied to a US citizen on US soil; isn't necessarily the same thing as the legal definition that applies to a terrorist, especially when they are foreign (non-UScitizens), and especially when they are not on US soil.

      The fascist liberals often play this game of morally bankrupt hypocrisy; where they often play victim to bilk others for their own personal greed and or as hatemongering to smear others. They often accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. They often try to project their own faults on to others. Whether it be as a deliberate diversion or as a psychosis of denial.

      It's much like how Al Gore snobbishly and hypocritically criticizes others for not being environmentally friendly yet he himself and his policies are much worse than most of the people he criticizes. Much like the Clintons essentially were lawyers/shysters that largely made their money by parasiteing off of legitimate businesses with frivolous lawsuits. Much like how the Obama's snobbishly go to food bank for a photo op to portray themselves as modest and benevolent; yet Michelle Obama was wearing shoes cost over $500. Ironically some of the "poor" people she was serving food to were better dressed and have more expensive cell phones than I do. I find it rather ironic that they want to FORCE everyone else spread the wealth; but yet they themselves do not want to spread their own wealth. I find it ironic that they demonize others for extravagance; yet hypocritically they are much more extravagant and opulent than most of the people they are demonizing.

      I'm amused for many other reasons/its multifaceted. The absurdity and hypocrisy is so insane it is laughable and frightening. The moral compass of much of our society is broken.

      Using absurd "liberal" reasoning a harmonica in Republican's pocket is a concealed weapon.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
        to what terrorists have done: pulling out fingernails; burning, raping, disemboweling, decapitating, acid burns, electrocutions, ect... I think it's insane to try to equivocate listening to Pearl Jam; to watching my family be raped to death with cattle prods and then having the same done to me.
        Welcome back to middle age... seriously, I don't see much problems about killing terrorists as we are in a war against them. Where I do have a BIG problem is that many many of them are suspected terrorists or just total innocent.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim)
        Unfortunatly when we start to use torture there's no way to draw the line on who should be put under torture and who shouldn't... As long as these suspected terrorist have not been proven terrorist all torture has no justification at all.

        Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
        l. I feel that our domestic laws and Geneva Convention should not apply to terrorists.
        Yes that's exactly what Nazis said about some categories they considered like "untermensch" like ... russian soldiers, communists and to those we call resistant and that they called.... terrorsits.
        There a quiet a few categories of people who should not live imo, terrorist, pedophiles, rapists but still I strongly believe that the Geneva convention is there to restrain us to become as bad as the ones we're trying to fight against.

        Same when you say
        Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
        Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein issued rape licenses so his henchmen could use state sanctioned rape to try to keep his political opponents in line.
        So what ? Because Sadam who was an horrible dictator allowed it, it does give us the right to do the same. No, not at all, that's the difference between him and us, we are better than him and we DON'T allow that kind of treatment done to "suspects"

        Alex

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
          hypocrisy, dogma, narrowmindedness and the drama.
          mmmm.... I see.

          Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
          I find it ironic that some of the musicians are admitting that listening to their music is torturous
          ... there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this in the story.

          However, I do think you are correct in identifying that this is multi-facteted, something which the musician's also seem to be saying.

          Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
          Using absurd "liberal" reasoning a harmonica in someone's pocket is a concealed weapon.
          Yep, that is absurd in the same way that "political correctness" is both absurd and dangerous. But here's where the story seems to differ from this example and where the musician's make a reasonable point, whether they be hypocritical, dogmatic, narrowminded and dramatic or not.

          If the harmonica was used, for example, to shove down someone's throat and choke them to death, after the event the harmonica is, ipso facto, a weapon.

          However, I think you are also correct in recognising that there is a vast difference (of severity) between using music to elicit information from people and the type of abhorent techniques you describe.

          Nonetheless, when push comes to shove, and since you refer to a broken moral compass, the premiss for a healthy moral compass must be that, for example, whether you steal a Cent or $50,000 dollars, you still recognise it as an act of stealing, a violation against humanity, whether they be someone you like or not.

          The point is, if you steal a Cent and get away with it, you are more than likely to steal a Dime at some later stage, a Dollar after that .... etc. and by the time you get to habitually avoiding your own dishonesty, you won't worry about doing it to friends, family and neighbours either. And, since this could be taken as an assertion, I can confirm that this is exactly what happens from my experiences of working in the Probation Service.

          In these respects then, the answer cannot be "do what they do to us but not as much" because it merely boils down to the same absurd reasoning behind the "kill those that kill" argument.

          If anyone seriously thinks about it, the first person you would kill is yourself if you've killed someone (that has killed someone else) and, applying that to the moral model we have here: don't torture them to THAT extent, just THIS extent, you would constantly have to find ways of self harming yourself, albeit to a lesser extent than the harm you have committed to others.

          That said, I think you make number of very salient points, but I think there are better ways to address them.
          Last edited by HB-IHC; 2009-10-23, 17:10.



          All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last (Marcel Proust)

          Comment


          • #6
            Fascist liberals often argue that gun makers should make their guns less lethal; that would be kind of like telling musicians to make their music more silent.

            Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe View Post
            Unfortunatly when we start to use torture there's no way to draw the line on who should be put under torture and who shouldn't
            False. People may not agree exactly where the line should be drawn, however the line should be drawn based on a moral compass. Apparently you donít have a moral compass, or itís field is weak and/or reversed.

            Incarcerating prisoners can be considered torture; so a liberal extremist position would be there should be no prisons or jails or even any form of punishment/consequences. To a bleeding heart liberal any form of punishment whether it be fine, incarceration, public service, or some other loss of freedom could be considered torture. Using your reasoning we shouldnít even spank our children; regrettably many people agree with you thatís why our children and this generation are such sociopaths. Using your reasoning we shouldnít even keep dogs on leashes or put them behind fences.

            Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe View Post
            As long as these suspected terrorist have not been proven terrorist all torture has no justification at all
            Youíre a sociopath.

            So if you knew that terrorists were planning a nuclear attack on major cities that could result in millions of lives lost and possibly even the end of mankind because it could trigger MAD; would you not be willing to resort to circumventing the formal judicial process and political correctness? Would you rather murder millions and possibly end of mankind so you could be politically correct?

            Dramatic Hollyweird hypothetical scenario as an analogy:
            If I received information that bin Laden was using a truck to plant a fission or fusion nuclear bomb in New York City on a timer and I caught bin Laden fleeing New York City in a rental truck and had evidence that it was recently carrying something heavy and radioactive verifying my previous information. I think itís a situation would be so extreme that it would give me a reasonable cause to make an exception to ordinary law. I would do anything I could to get information out of bin Laden to prevent the destruction of New York City; even if it meant using some of the techniques that his subordinates use on their prisoners and subjects.

            I believe in trying to save civilization; apparently you donít. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.


            Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe View Post
            I strongly believe that the Geneva convention
            The Geneva Convention does not and should not cover terrorists.

            Pedophiles and rapists may be terrorist morally and they should be held account criminally; however their crimes do not elevate to the level of (mass terrorism). Though many terrorists use rape and pedophilia as part of their methodology. Youíre trying to equivocate one to the other.

            Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe View Post
            Because Sadam who was an horrible dictator allowed it, it does give us the right to do the same. No, not at all, that's the difference between him and us, we are better than him and we DON'T allow that kind of treatment done to "suspects"
            I donít think we should ever completely sink to his level; however regrettably sometimes you have to sink lower than you normally would. I donít think we should ever rape anyone. However under some circumstances I think we have to become cruel and violent because itís the only language that they understand and itís the only method that is effective.

            There is a big clear difference between us and them; if you had a moral compass you could see that.

            In Saddamís or bin Ladenís sanctioned rape and rewarded rapists. Rapists were sometimes put on payroll and/or given titles/positions. Muslim extremists will sometimes rape a female that was raped therefore unfaithful. In other words in this Muslim extremist culture sometimes to be a victim is to be a criminal. Instead of treating a raped woman as a victim; tribal elders will often convict and punish a rape victim with rape.

            Whereas we typically have sympathy for the victim of rape. We typically punish the perpetrators of rape; even if it means punishing our own soldiers, administration and command.

            Originally posted by HB-IHC View Post
            there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this in the story

            The songs were said to be played for hours -- sometimes days, a practice the musicians say amounted to torture
            Source and full story.
            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

            Donít you see how that could be interpreted as musicians admitting that listening to their music is torturous? I find it hilarious.
            Originally posted by HB-IHC View Post
            If the harmonica was used, for example, to shove down someone's throat and choke them to death, after the event the harmonica is, ipso facto, a weapon.
            That it would be. However it seems to be a moot argument; as I donít recall any cases that a music CD was rammed down a throat of a GuantŠnamo prisoner and choked to death.

            Originally posted by HB-IHC View Post
            Nonetheless, when push comes to shove, and since you refer to a broken moral compass, the premiss for a healthy moral compass must be that, for example, whether you steal a Cent or $50,000 dollars, you still recognise it as an act of stealing, a violation against humanity, whether they be someone you like or not.
            I saw the daughter of one of my neighbors trespass on my property and steal a few tomatoes. It was a minor infringement so I didnít want to make a big deal out of it; yet it still bothered me because Iím the type of person that if they just asked I wouldíve given her more than she took. Though it was a minor infraction I was afraid that it might be a symptom of a larger problem or escalate to lead the girl to a life of crime. I talked to her mother without letting either of them know why I was talking to them; but I was trying to figure out why her daughter stole tomatoes and if I should mention it. I found out that the mother was divorced, a smoker, alcoholic, drug addict and somewhat mentally ill. I canít help but feel that the drug addiction, alcoholism and smoking may be the cause of her divorce, and being a jobless bum with mental illness; however I also thought that I should give her some benefit of the doubt as often it is hard to tell cause and effect especially when you hardly know someone; particularly their history. The mother was spending money on brand-name cigarettes and alcohol and had other luxuries yet her cupboards and refrigerator were virtually barren. She obviously had her priorities all screwed up. Her daughter was complaining about how hungry she was. So I went back home and gathered up the groceries and I had on my shelf that were getting dusty. I told them that most of the food was stuff that other people gave me that I really didnít care for or food that I donít eat enough of fast enough to keep from expiring. I gave them all the fixings for spaghetti; the daughter was ecstatic; however they didnít even have a can opener to open the can of spaghetti sauce (so I gave them my old Swiss Army knife). I then found out neither the mother or the daughter knew how to cook something as simple as spaghetti. Iím a moron when it comes to cooking, but even I know how to cook spaghetti. I then realized that the mother must have had drug problems, alcohol problems, or mental illness all her life. I showed the daughter how to cook spaghetti and a few other things and also introduced her to an old lady that loved to have the company of a child and liked to have someone to teach and cook for. The old lady had much more time in new much more about cooking than I did.

            Though the girl did trespass on my property and steal from me in this case Iíd choose to not openly make an issue of it because the offense was small and her desperate circumstances that I think was largely the fault of her mother not of herself. I hope thatís a little bit of help that I gave them might push them in the right direction; though I realize odds are things will not turn out sweetly.

            Originally posted by HB-IHC View Post
            the same absurd reasoning behind the "kill those that kill" argument.
            Your argument is absurd and dishonest. Your moral compass is broken. There is a difference between killing and murdering. Killing is by accident or self defense or in the case of killing animals it is for food. Killing is justifiable, accidental or nonjudgmental whereas murder is immoral. Murder is for selfishness/greed (sometimes abstractly by criminal neglect/dereliction/extreme recklessness). Murder is unjustified killing. The difference between killing and murder is a moral difference; partly methodology and partly motive.

            I have no problem with ďkilling those that murderĒ as it should be more accurately stated. The way you phrased it is amoral and does not represent the facts of the reasoning of those who want to fight terrorism.

            At adult Sunday school I shocked everyone when I said I had objections to the 10 Commandments. IE ďthou shall not killĒ After my explanation the minister fired back that it would be more appropriately translated as ďthou shall not murderĒ. I fired back; then the church should change itís 10 Commandments because ďthou shall not killĒ is a watered down politically correct amoral version.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              You’re a sociopath.
              Oh, I didn't realise you knew each other... wait a minute....

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              I believe in trying to save civilization; apparently you don’t. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
              You're a superhero!

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              There is a big clear difference between us and them; if you had a moral compass you could see that.
              Now you're talking... that's EXACTLY what 'they' think as well

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post

              Source and full story.
              http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/report-musicians-demand-release-songs-used-torture-gitmo-detainees/?test=latestnews

              Don’t you see how that could be interpreted as musicians admitting that listening to their music is torturous? I find it hilarious.
              Yep, I can see how you could interpret it like that. Easy peasy, all you have to say is...

              "a practice the musicians say amounted to torture" = "we admit that listening to our music is torture"

              But your compass interpretatus must be working a whole lot better than mine because no matter what I do, I still can't make 1 + 1 = 3 unless I interpret it like this..."the green and white raddish man from Zarg has admitted stealing a forum member and making soup out of him"

              Can you see how it could be interpreted like that? ... no?... oh, wait, yeh.... I think I do know how you'll interpret that. Funny that


              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              Your moral compass is broken.
              Oh, I didn't know we knew each other... wait a minute ...

              ... you're not JUST a superhero are you... you're GO.... Sorry, really, I am so sorry ATFS, I'm truly humbled... it wasn't me honest, it was those compass operators... they took away MY HARMONICA!

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              There is a difference between killing and murdering.
              Yeh, choice of words, unintentionally ambiguous I admit and, after all, I have slaughtered Turkey's and Chicken by my own hands in my time so you could (perhaps I should write so you could) interpret that as hypocrisy. But if you want to argue semantics in order to make value judgements about me then, based on your one diatribe, oh, did I mean to say thread?.... alone, I'd probably be here all night, tomorrow and all of next week 24/ 7 if I was to return the complement.

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              I have no problem with “killing those that murder” as it should be more accurately stated.
              I knew it!...... YOU'VE got my harmonica!

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              The way you phrased it is amoral
              ATFS_Crash... does that stand for All The Freakin Semantics Crash?

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              At adult Sunday school I shocked everyone when I said I had objections to the 10 Commandments.
              And here's me thinking that you wrote them

              But then again, you are saying that you shocked everyone so you must know irrespective of the fact that it's a claim that could never be substanti... unless, of course, you're.... you are aren't you, you're the omniscient one... I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!

              Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
              appropriately translated as “thou shall not murder”. I fired back; then the church should change it’s 10 Commandments because “thou shall not kill” is a watered down politically correct amoral version.
              So you were obviously around when they were written... I get it ATFS, "fired back", clever, they were written in fire weren't they? (only you know of course), "fight fire with fire"... wow, I'm definitely right, you DID write them but now those pesky amoral mortal moralists just WON'T DO WHAT YOU SAY!

              How about a plague of locusts or someth... oh yeh, no need, we've already got a plague of cliches and value judgements.......duh!

              Seriously though, I see you point, totally, and I'll be sure to ask you for clarification on one of your other posts if I ever want to risk getting dragged off to Zarg but before I go, can I please, please, please have my harmonica back?

              Thanks

              Mr. Compassless Amoralus Dishonestus Harmonicarsus
              Last edited by HB-IHC; 2009-10-24, 11:48. Reason: Disambiguation of term... if possible



              All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last (Marcel Proust)

              Comment


              • #8
                ATFS_Crash what the hell have you been reading???? The Gospel accoring to St. Douchebag?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                  Fascist liberals often argue that gun makers should make their guns less lethal; that would be kind of like telling musicians to make their music more silent.



                  False. People may not agree exactly where the line should be drawn, however the line should be drawn based on a moral compass. Apparently you donít have a moral compass, or itís field is weak and/or reversed.

                  Incarcerating prisoners can be considered torture; so a liberal extremist position would be there should be no prisons or jails or even any form of punishment/consequences. To a bleeding heart liberal any form of punishment whether it be fine, incarceration, public service, or some other loss of freedom could be considered torture. Using your reasoning we shouldnít even spank our children; regrettably many people agree with you thatís why our children and this generation are such sociopaths. Using your reasoning we shouldnít even keep dogs on leashes or put them behind fences.



                  Youíre a sociopath.

                  So if you knew that terrorists were planning a nuclear attack on major cities that could result in millions of lives lost and possibly even the end of mankind because it could trigger MAD; would you not be willing to resort to circumventing the formal judicial process and political correctness? Would you rather murder millions and possibly end of mankind so you could be politically correct?

                  Dramatic Hollyweird hypothetical scenario as an analogy:
                  If I received information that bin Laden was using a truck to plant a fission or fusion nuclear bomb in New York City on a timer and I caught bin Laden fleeing New York City in a rental truck and had evidence that it was recently carrying something heavy and radioactive verifying my previous information. I think itís a situation would be so extreme that it would give me a reasonable cause to make an exception to ordinary law. I would do anything I could to get information out of bin Laden to prevent the destruction of New York City; even if it meant using some of the techniques that his subordinates use on their prisoners and subjects.

                  I believe in trying to save civilization; apparently you donít. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.




                  The Geneva Convention does not and should not cover terrorists.

                  Pedophiles and rapists may be terrorist morally and they should be held account criminally; however their crimes do not elevate to the level of (mass terrorism). Though many terrorists use rape and pedophilia as part of their methodology. Youíre trying to equivocate one to the other.



                  I donít think we should ever completely sink to his level; however regrettably sometimes you have to sink lower than you normally would. I donít think we should ever rape anyone. However under some circumstances I think we have to become cruel and violent because itís the only language that they understand and itís the only method that is effective.

                  There is a big clear difference between us and them; if you had a moral compass you could see that.

                  In Saddamís or bin Ladenís sanctioned rape and rewarded rapists. Rapists were sometimes put on payroll and/or given titles/positions. Muslim extremists will sometimes rape a female that was raped therefore unfaithful. In other words in this Muslim extremist culture sometimes to be a victim is to be a criminal. Instead of treating a raped woman as a victim; tribal elders will often convict and punish a rape victim with rape.

                  Whereas we typically have sympathy for the victim of rape. We typically punish the perpetrators of rape; even if it means punishing our own soldiers, administration and command.





                  Source and full story.
                  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

                  Donít you see how that could be interpreted as musicians admitting that listening to their music is torturous? I find it hilarious.


                  That it would be. However it seems to be a moot argument; as I donít recall any cases that a music CD was rammed down a throat of a GuantŠnamo prisoner and choked to death.



                  I saw the daughter of one of my neighbors trespass on my property and steal a few tomatoes. It was a minor infringement so I didnít want to make a big deal out of it; yet it still bothered me because Iím the type of person that if they just asked I wouldíve given her more than she took. Though it was a minor infraction I was afraid that it might be a symptom of a larger problem or escalate to lead the girl to a life of crime. I talked to her mother without letting either of them know why I was talking to them; but I was trying to figure out why her daughter stole tomatoes and if I should mention it. I found out that the mother was divorced, a smoker, alcoholic, drug addict and somewhat mentally ill. I canít help but feel that the drug addiction, alcoholism and smoking may be the cause of her divorce, and being a jobless bum with mental illness; however I also thought that I should give her some benefit of the doubt as often it is hard to tell cause and effect especially when you hardly know someone; particularly their history. The mother was spending money on brand-name cigarettes and alcohol and had other luxuries yet her cupboards and refrigerator were virtually barren. She obviously had her priorities all screwed up. Her daughter was complaining about how hungry she was. So I went back home and gathered up the groceries and I had on my shelf that were getting dusty. I told them that most of the food was stuff that other people gave me that I really didnít care for or food that I donít eat enough of fast enough to keep from expiring. I gave them all the fixings for spaghetti; the daughter was ecstatic; however they didnít even have a can opener to open the can of spaghetti sauce (so I gave them my old Swiss Army knife). I then found out neither the mother or the daughter knew how to cook something as simple as spaghetti. Iím a moron when it comes to cooking, but even I know how to cook spaghetti. I then realized that the mother must have had drug problems, alcohol problems, or mental illness all her life. I showed the daughter how to cook spaghetti and a few other things and also introduced her to an old lady that loved to have the company of a child and liked to have someone to teach and cook for. The old lady had much more time in new much more about cooking than I did.

                  Though the girl did trespass on my property and steal from me in this case Iíd choose to not openly make an issue of it because the offense was small and her desperate circumstances that I think was largely the fault of her mother not of herself. I hope thatís a little bit of help that I gave them might push them in the right direction; though I realize odds are things will not turn out sweetly.



                  Your argument is absurd and dishonest. Your moral compass is broken. There is a difference between killing and murdering. Killing is by accident or self defense or in the case of killing animals it is for food. Killing is justifiable, accidental or nonjudgmental whereas murder is immoral. Murder is for selfishness/greed (sometimes abstractly by criminal neglect/dereliction/extreme recklessness). Murder is unjustified killing. The difference between killing and murder is a moral difference; partly methodology and partly motive.

                  I have no problem with ďkilling those that murderĒ as it should be more accurately stated. The way you phrased it is amoral and does not represent the facts of the reasoning of those who want to fight terrorism.

                  At adult Sunday school I shocked everyone when I said I had objections to the 10 Commandments. IE ďthou shall not killĒ After my explanation the minister fired back that it would be more appropriately translated as ďthou shall not murderĒ. I fired back; then the church should change itís 10 Commandments because ďthou shall not killĒ is a watered down politically correct amoral version.
                  I really love how you complain about me using straw arguments when you re write what we've typed, then argue against that. Damn, perhaps if thou shall not kill in the first we wouldnt need to kill those that killed. But hey, thats a catch 22, but yeah, no settle on sinking to their level. Its what your moral compass says.

                  On a moral compass, you tell people theirs is broken when they are more open minded than you. How do you define the difference between a terrorist and some guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But hey, to hell with some reasonableness right, they came from Iraq or Afghanistan they must be terrorists, it couldnt possibly be some poor young farmer trying to stay alive. You say torture and kill with no proof, but some people who think we should take a step back, well they are a fascist liberal comparable to hitler. YOU make more generalisations than all those that you dispise so much. Your not a fascist liberal, you are just fascist. In every way, your post i quoted proves it, your way is right and to hell with anyone else.

                  And By the Way, i love how you have made a comment on someones mental health.

                  And to quote what im listening to right now

                  "You dont know what its been like, meeting someone like you."
                  Sam Rudge
                  A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
                    ATFS_Crash what the hell have you been reading???? The Gospel accoring to St. Douchebag?
                    I was going to write something in here but that pretty much sums it up! Priceless!

                    Paul
                    Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

                    My images on Flickr

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I wouldnt mind suing Sarah MacLachlan for torture...her song "Arms of an Angel" is enuff to make you want to slit your wrists....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DeltaFlyer View Post
                        I wouldnt mind suing Sarah MacLachlan for torture...her song "Arms of an Angel" is enuff to make you want to slit your wrists....
                        That I can agree with...

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X