|
Post by RAF on Jan 22, 2009 19:30:25 GMT -4
I blame it on your religious upbringing...that is your innate ability to only see things as you "want" to see them. It's not your fault... You don't think that there might be the tiniest possibility that you might be seeing things only as you want to see them, and that there might be some minuscule measure of validity to my point of view? I am a rationalist. I evaluate evidence to arrive at a conclusion. You, on the other hand, rely on blind belief to reach your conclusions. I know this because of your stated belief in a god. You remind me of Richard Hoagland. He thinks that the Moon landings happened, but bases his opinion on irrational ravings about alien cities on the Moon. So while you might get the "right" answer re. the Moon landings, your continued irrationality concerning practically everything else dilutes that "right" answer almost to the point of homeopathy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 19:39:44 GMT -4
You don't think that there might be the tiniest possibility that you might be seeing things only as you want to see them, and that there might be some minuscule measure of validity to my point of view? I am a rationalist. I evaluate evidence to arrive at a conclusion. Is that a concession that you have not always been a rationalist, and haven't always evaluated evidence to arrive at your conclusions?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 19:40:45 GMT -4
You, on the other hand, rely on blind belief to reach your conclusions. I know this because of your stated belief in a god. So no reasonable person can believe in God?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 19:46:17 GMT -4
I'm amused that Roberts screwed up the oath of office--and Obama knew how it was supposed to go. Except that he slipped up too, leading to them re-doing it yesterday. Calvin Coolidge re-did his oath too.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 22, 2009 19:52:05 GMT -4
Is that a concession that you have not always been a rationalist, and haven't always evaluated evidence to arrive at your conclusions? Do you enjoy misrepresenting what others have posted? You, on the other hand, rely on blind belief to reach your conclusions. I know this because of your stated belief in a god. So no reasonable person can believe in God? Again, a misrepresentation... No one can say that their belief in a god is based on evidence because there isn't any... got it?? But this is all distraction...distraction because you can't bring yourself to admit that Bush is war criminal. ...obviously so...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 23, 2009 2:25:53 GMT -4
You remind me of Richard Hoagland. He thinks that the Moon landings happened, but bases his opinion on irrational ravings about alien cities on the Moon. Actually that's not right, Hoagland believes that the Moon landings were real for the same reasons we do, that the hoax claims don't agree with the science. He just also believes that NASA hid what they found there. He also believes that the proponents of the Hoax theory muddy the waters and make people more skeptical of his theories.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 23, 2009 8:34:46 GMT -4
We shouldn't get overly excited over this topic, my friends.
We have a new man in office. That's all that really matters.
Let's not call each other delusional over our different opinions and views of the world. And let's certainly not go over our upbringings, religious or otherwise.
The topic isn't worth the frustration people are exhibiting.
Let's all get along, agree to disagree, okay? It's not like the topic of the hoax theory, where there's science to back us up. This subject delves into opinion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2009 13:05:24 GMT -4
Do you enjoy misrepresenting what others have posted? Yes I do, oh so very much. See the smiley? Smilies usually mean the comment is intended to be humerous. Not really a topic for this thread, admittedly, but how do you know there isn't any evidence? Can anyone ever really know that there is no evidence out there somewhere for any given proposition?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2009 13:07:38 GMT -4
We shouldn't get overly excited over this topic, my friends. It seems to me that this topic was intended to get people excited from the get go.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 23, 2009 14:38:56 GMT -4
Let's all get along, agree to disagree, okay? It's not like the topic of the hoax theory, where there's science to back us up. This subject delves into opinion. I'm sorry, but I think the subject of whether or not what the US does is torture is very important. I agree that the subject of someone's upbringing is not necessarily relevant to that issue, but I do think it's very important that the US acknowledging that, oh, waterboarding is torture. Clearly, so does Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 23, 2009 16:02:40 GMT -4
If you tell your wife that you will never beat her, is that a conscession that you have beaten her in the past? Wouldn't a more analogous question be: "If you tell your wife you will never beat her, is that a concession that her ex-husband has beaten her in the past?"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2009 16:38:39 GMT -4
If you tell your wife that you will never beat her, is that a conscession that you have beaten her in the past? Wouldn't a more analogous question be: "If you tell your wife you will never beat her, is that a concession that her ex-husband has beaten her in the past?" Point taken, though my original analogy was also made in mind with the fact that Pres. Bush signed a law outlawing torture of the detainees in 2006.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2009 16:49:36 GMT -4
President Obama's executive order restricting interrogations to the Army Field Manual contains a potential loophole to allow torture in the future. It creates a committee consisting of the Attorney General, Defense Secretary, and Director of National Intelligence to determine if the Field Manual techniques are too limiting "when employed by departments or agencies outside the military." They are to report back and offer "additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies." In other words, the issue is not yet decided. This task force could easily come back recommending a "Jack Bauer" escape clause for CIA or other Federal agents.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 23, 2009 17:57:58 GMT -4
I agree with everything Gillianren has said. (Apologies for bringing religion into this discussion)
One thing worth repeating...waterboarding IS torture, and our government has waterboarded detainees.
That's not an opinion, although some would like it to be.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 23, 2009 19:14:25 GMT -4
Point taken, though my original analogy was also made in mind with the fact that Pres. Bush signed a law outlawing torture of the detainees in 2006. Only because they were caught torturing people. If that little tidbit of knowledge hadn't been revealed do you think Bush still would have passed the law?
|
|