Who gives a fuck how the Taliban prisoners are being treated?

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

Bitch!

Ain't that the tooth?

 

[Problem Child]

Re: hahaha

go ahead make fun of me i do not care....

Ok, sure. Why did you name yourself after an antacid? What's your last name...Prilosec? Sudafed?

 

[Mystical]

Thank you for the wonderful informative debate here. As to the start of the thread "I care."

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by UncleBill
Doesn't it get difficult making moral choices and decisions with no clear and certain distinctions between good and evil? I don't accept the idea of a gray morality. It's just a convenient way to avoid moral judgements and choices.

Yes, it is difficult to make moral choices, and it's even harder to make legal choices that encompass a moral fabric that the majority of people can comfortably live with. In fact, I would assert that simply relying on the extremes conveniently ignores the reality of our world and the fact that many moral judgments and choices do lie somewhere in between pure "good" and "evil."

As an example, if a person kills another, I do not automatically condemn that person as a murderer. The taking of a human life can take on many shades - from first degree murder to justifiable homicide. Take the case of the battered wife; after years of violent physical and mental abuse, she kills her husband. Is she deserving of the same moral judgment as the man that kidnaps and kills a child because the parents could not get the ransom money to him in time?

As another example, I support a woman's right to choose adoption, abortion, or motherhood for an unexpected pregnancy. Are these rights without restraint? No. If the woman waits until the 8th month of her pregnancy and demands a partial birth abortion, I do not believe it should be performed; the rights of the viable fetus supercede her right to terminate the pregnancy. If she is an HIV+ crack addict with a history of child neglect, I do not believe she is entitled to be a mother to the child; protective services should place the child elsewhere. The line of when abortions should be offered is not a bright line. Severing parental rights is not easily determined. For me, both choices lie in the difficult middle moral ground.

If there is no black and white, then there can be no gray because it is only a mixture of the two. So to opt for the gray is to deny any real moral distinction between the black and white, the good and evil.

Your analogy is blurring for me. I never denied the existence of the extremes, but I believe that few decisions will lie in the black and white. People possess elements of both good and evil, and their decisions and actions reflect this dichotomy. Attempting to polarize humanity to the extremes ignores the motivations of us all.

What you characterize as irrational caricature is the product of observation of the ludicrously contradictory parody of words and behaviors of the highly visible Liberals in politics or other highly public positions. Their words and actions are inconsistent, thus they are irrational or liars. They will misrepresent, distort or lie to further their political goals. They will ignore the substance of an issue and attach the person, ad hominem attack, rather than try to prevail honestly in the arena of ideas. They exemplify the collectivist tenet, ?truth is whatever advances the collective? , i. e. their political agenda. My opinion and judgement is based on what I am shown by the proponents of the ideology. The Clinton debacle was a perfect example of the total contradiction of all the values espoused by the left demonstrated blatantly by their incessant defense of a man who violated every idea they claim to value.

I read this section many times, and I still do not know how to properly respond. Your words both repulse and sadden me. I do not deny that many politicians - especially in the most prominent positions - rely on tactics that ordinary people cannot comprehend or condone. Too many politicians have sold themselves - their integrity, their compassion, their ideals - for personal glory and power. History has shown this pattern repeated countless times; it is one of mankind's greatest deficiencies.

However, I vehemently disagree with your assessment that all proponents of the liberal ideology are guilty of this behavior. I cannot even comprehend how you can say that. I am liberal; do you see me in this light? Am I so morally bankrupt that I cannot rationally consider the actions of another person of my ideology? I do not even agree that all liberal politicians exemplify this behavior. The first person I thought of as I read your description was Barbara Jordan. She was a high ranking Democrat, and a remarkable woman. She was principled and passionate about what she believed in, and not a word of that disgusting description fits her. Making such blanket generalizations ignores the fact that the true beauty in mankind lies within individuals, not ideologies.

Perhaps the distinction in our viewpoints lies with the difference in our moral stances. As I said, I find the world extraordinarily complex, and I consequently struggle with moral judgments and decisions. I do not automatically disrespect another person because they differ from me in their political, moral, or religious beliefs. No person holds a belief they think is wrong; I look to unearthing the reasons behind our differences. Sometimes I believe one will be proven wrong. But more often than not, I believe that we are equally right. The complexity of civilization lies in balancing these beliefs.

 

[Mischka]

Originally posted by UncleBill
Doesn't it get difficult making moral choices and decisions with no clear and certain distinctions between good and evil? I don't accept the idea of a gray morality. It's just a convenient way to avoid moral judgements and choices.

Yes, it is difficult to make moral choices, and it's even harder to make legal choices that encompass a moral fabric that the majority of people can comfortably live with. In fact, I would assert that simply relying on the extremes conveniently ignores the reality of our world and the fact that many moral judgments and choices do lie somewhere in between pure "good" and "evil."

As an example, if a person kills another, I do not automatically condemn that person as a murderer. The taking of a human life can take on many shades - from first degree murder to justifiable homicide. Take the case of the battered wife; after years of violent physical and mental abuse, she kills her husband. Is she deserving of the same moral judgment as the man that kidnaps and kills a child because the parents could not get the ransom money to him in time?

As another example, I support a woman's right to choose adoption, abortion, or motherhood for an unexpected pregnancy. Are these rights without restraint? No. If the woman waits until the 8th month of her pregnancy and demands a partial birth abortion, I do not believe it should be performed; the rights of the viable fetus supercede her right to terminate the pregnancy. If she is an HIV+ crack addict with a history of child neglect, I do not believe she is entitled to be a mother to the child; protective services should place the child elsewhere. The line of when abortions should be offered is not a bright line. Severing parental rights is not easily determined. For me, both choices lie in the difficult middle moral ground.

If there is no black and white, then there can be no gray because it is only a mixture of the two. So to opt for the gray is to deny any real moral distinction between the black and white, the good and evil.

Your analogy is blurring for me. I never denied the existence of the extremes, but I believe that few decisions will lie in the black and white. People possess elements of both good and evil, and their decisions and actions reflect this dichotomy. Attempting to polarize humanity to the extremes ignores the motivations of us all.

What you characterize as irrational caricature is the product of observation of the ludicrously contradictory parody of words and behaviors of the highly visible Liberals in politics or other highly public positions. Their words and actions are inconsistent, thus they are irrational or liars. They will misrepresent, distort or lie to further their political goals. They will ignore the substance of an issue and attach the person, ad hominem attack, rather than try to prevail honestly in the arena of ideas. They exemplify the collectivist tenet, ?truth is whatever advances the collective? , i. e. their political agenda. My opinion and judgement is based on what I am shown by the proponents of the ideology. The Clinton debacle was a perfect example of the total contradiction of all the values espoused by the left demonstrated blatantly by their incessant defense of a man who violated every idea they claim to value.

I read this section many times, and I still do not know how to properly respond. Your words both repulse and sadden me. I do not deny that many politicians - especially in the most prominent positions - rely on tactics that ordinary people cannot comprehend or condone. Too many politicians have sold themselves - their integrity, their compassion, their ideals - for personal glory and power. History has shown this pattern repeated countless times; it is one of mankind's greatest deficiencies.

However, I vehemently disagree with your assessment that all proponents of the liberal ideology are guilty of this behavior. I cannot even comprehend how you can say that. I am liberal; do you see me in this light? Am I so morally bankrupt that I cannot rationally consider the actions of another person of my ideology? I do not even agree that all liberal politicians exemplify this behavior. The first person I thought of as I read your description was Barbara Jordan. She was a high ranking Democrat, and a remarkable woman. She was principled and passionate about what she believed in, and not a word of that disgusting description fits her. Making such blanket generalizations ignores the fact that the true beauty in mankind lies within individuals, not ideologies.

Perhaps the distinction in our viewpoints lies with the difference in our moral stances. As I said, I find the world extraordinarily complex, and I consequently struggle with moral judgments and decisions. I do not automatically disrespect another person because they differ from me in their political, moral, or religious beliefs. No person holds a belief they think is wrong; I look to unearthing the reasons behind our differences. Sometimes I believe one will be proven wrong. But more often than not, I believe that we are equally right. The complexity of civilization lies in balancing these beliefs.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Mischka
Yes, it is difficult to make moral choices, and it's even harder to make legal choices that encompass a moral fabric that the majority of people can comfortably live with. In fact, I would assert that simply relying on the extremes conveniently ignores the reality of our world and the fact that many moral judgments and choices lie somewhere in between pure "good" and "evil."

As an example, if a person kills another, I do not automatically condemn that person as a murderer. The taking of a human life can take on many shades - from first degree murder to justifiable homicide. Take the case of the battered wife; after years of violent physical and mental abuse, she kills her husband. Is she deserving of the same moral judgment as the man that kidnaps and kills a child because the parents could not get the ransom money to him in time?

As another example, I support a woman's right to choose adoption, abortion, or motherhood for an unexpected pregnancy. Are these As another example, I support a woman's right to choose adoption, abortion, or motherhood for an unexpected pregnancy. Are these rights without restraint? No. If the woman waits until the 8th month of her pregnancy and demands a partial birth abortion, I do not believe it should be performed; the rights of the viable fetus supercede her right to terminate the pregnancy. If she is an HIV+ crack addict with a history of child neglect, I do not believe she is entitled to be a mother to the child; protective services should place the child elsewhere. The line of when abortions should be offered is not a bright line. Severing parental rights is not easily determined. For me, both choices lie in the difficult middle moral ground.

I reject your offer that moral judgements lie in the middle-ground, in the gray. My rationale is stated below.

As to killing, I can relate that into 3 categories; murder, self-defense and accident. The first necessarily carries a legal accountability. The other two do not. Murder is the initiation of force against another person resulting in their death. Self-defense is legitimate protection of your life. Accident by definition is beyond your control, thus holding you accountable is ludicrous.

As to abortion, that I also addressed in other discussion recently with Shy Tall Guy and others on the Pro-life Pro-Choice thread (search using Pro-choice, for some reason Pro-life doesn't produce a find). This thread is about 7 or 8 pages long.

Originally posted by Mischka
Your analogy is blurring for me. I never denied the existence of the extremes, but I believe that few decisions will lie in the black and Your analogy is blurring for me. I never denied the existence of the extremes, but I believe that few decisions will lie in the black and white. People possess elements of both good and evil, and their decisions and actions reflect this dichotomy. Attempting to polarize humanity to the extremes ignores the motivations of us all.

See the link below for more detail. And I do agree that each of us carries the potential to do both good and evil. And it is incumbent upon each of us to suppress the evil in ourselves. And to the extent we succeed, we are decent, noble representatives of humanity. And please be clear, it is the decision that is black/white, not the judgement. When you ask, is this good or evil, it can only be one. If it contains an element of evil, it is evil just as food containing an element of poison is poison.

Originally posted by Mischka
I read this section many times, and I still do not know how to properly respond. Your words both repulse and sadden me. I do not deny that many politicians - especially in the most prominent positions - rely on tactics that ordinary people cannot comprehend or condone. Too many politicians have sold themselves - their integrity, their compassion, their ideals - for personal glory and power. History has shown this pattern repeated countless times; it is one of mankind's greatest deficiencies.

I can only judge that of which I have some knowledge. These people are the source of what knowledge I have because they are very public. My exposure to those if the liberal ideology on a personal level is scant but the correlation all too well meshes with the public figures impressions.

Originally posted by Mischka
However, I vehemently disagree with your assessment that all proponents of the liberal ideology are guilty of this behavior. I cannot even comprehend how you can say that. I am liberal; do you see me in this light? Am I so morally bankrupt that I cannot rationally consider the actions of another person of my ideology? I do not even agree that all liberal politicians exemplify this behavior. The first person I thought of as I read your description was Barbara Jordan. She was a high ranking Democrat, and a remarkable woman. She was principled and passionate about what she believed in, and not a word of that disgusting description fits her. Making such blanket generalizations ignores the fact that the true beauty in mankind lies within individuals, not ideologies.

I understand that. I judge people on an individual basis. But with the public image projected by the liberal leadership, when you claim to espouse the same ideology, what is the implication of your claim? Not knowing you but already having a familiarity with the ideology you claim to espouse offers me some implied insight into the values you hold and thus, by reasonable extension, some insight into your character. The person you mention is a name completely unfamiliar to me. The standard bearers for liberalism that come to mind are Kennedy, Daschle, Gephardt, Clinton, Jackson, Sharpton, Gray Davis, Boxer, Feinstein, FDR, Johnson, Carter, Humphrey, Rosie O'Donnel, Alec Baldwin, Barbara Striesand, . . .

In particular, the political figures are elected by people who ostensibly share their values, so would that not imply the shared values and morality? If the leaders advocate and practice dishonesty, and their supporters continue to elect them, does it not by reasonable implication say the voters are of the same morality as the leaders they elect?

Above you offer that normal people cannot comprehend or condone the actions of their political leaders. Why not? Are they stupid? Are they ignorant? Are they gullible? Why can they not comprehend? I can and I don't see myself as extraordinary. If they can understand, then why do they condone because that is precisely what they do by reelecting these same people.

Originally posted by Mischka
Perhaps the distinction in our viewpoints lies with the difference in our moral stances. As I said, I find the world extraordinarily complex, and I consequently struggle with moral judgments and decisions. I do not automatically disrespect another person because they differ from me in their political, moral, or religious beliefs. No person holds a belief they think is wrong; I look to unearthing the reasons behind our differences. Sometimes I believe one will be proven wrong. But more often than not, I believe that we are equally right. The complexity of civilization lies in balancing these beliefs.

I've never said the world is as simple as the black/white analogy. It's the distinction between good and evil where I draw that clear definition. I discussed this with Shy Tall Guy among others on the Extereme (sic) Moral Decisions thread of recent vintage. Follow this link and my post is a bit above the halfway point down the page:

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=63165&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

I do not necessarily disrespect the person based on a belief they hold. But I am by no means required to respect their opinion/belief; only their right to hold it. Their belief is of no consequence to me unless and until they can use it to harm me. At that point, their belief then becomes intolerably offensive.

And this is where law and government should enter the equation; to protect my life, freedom and property from those who believe they should be able to take any part of it without my consent.

However I do absolutely disrespect anyone who holds the belief that they somehow have an arbitrary claim on that which another owns. And while they may somehow believe that their claim (or belief) is legitimate, in objective reality, what they believe is the legitimacy of theft, i. e., to take what is not theirs by force if necessary from the rightful owner.

And here is where we absolutely differ. I know that it is wrong to steal no matter who is the perpetrator. And in a civilized society, I cannot fathom so ludicrous an idea as "balancing these beliefs", i. e. my belief that theft is wrong (evil) and another's belief that theft is right (good).

There is no compromise between good and evil. To offer such a compromise is to suggest that both have equal legitimacy. But to offer that evil has any legitimacy is to deny that good has any. To compromise between good and evil is NOT a compromise, it is a surrender of the good.

When I analyze the programs offered by the left/liberal political cadre, the truth is they are advocating theft as a legitimate function of government, supposedly the instrument of justice. For me that is an irreconcilable dichotomy. To them it is a political goal. And I admit they do not SAY they are advocating theft. They can't. Hardly anyone would support them if they were honest (at least I hope it's only a small minority that would actually support them). So they offer euphemisms, a pretty word for lies. But I recognize the stench of the fertilizer despite their proclamations that it's a rose.

 

[p_p_man]

Bloody hell Unclebill you use words...

in order to confuse. Are you a professional politician by any chance? You say a lot and nothing at the same time.


"As to killing, I can relate that into 3 categories; murder, self-defense and accident."

What happened to suicide? Or is that considered by you to be the murder of oneself. How would you judge the suicide only in black and white terms?

"As to abortion, that I also addressed in other discussion recently with Shy Tall Guy and others on the Pro-life Pro-Choice thread (search using Pro-choice, for some reason Pro-life doesn't produce a find). This thread is about 7 or 8 pages long."

Is there any particular reason you couldn't repeat your arguments on this thread? Or do you normally expect others to run around seeking refrences you may want them to read. Even a link would have been helpful.

"And please be clear, it is the decision that is black/white, not the judgement. When you ask, is this good or evil, it can only be one. If it contains an element of evil, it is evil just as food containing an element of poison is poison."

Now you really are splitting hairs. Paraphrasing old sayings such as 'it only takes one bad apple' is not the same as a decision being only good or evil. It can be mainly evil or mainly good with trace elements of the other colour mixed in with it. A decision is a formalising of a thought process which is always in a constant flux. A bad apple is a physical object which does have a knock on effect with other apples in the barrel. You can't reverse a bad apple but you can reverse a decision.

"I can only judge that of which I have some knowledge. These people are the source of what knowledge I have because they are very public. My exposure to those if the liberal ideology on a personal level is scant but the correlation all too well meshes with the public figures impressions."

Perhaps you should widen your exposure to more ordinary folk. Or perhaps your style of writing is at fault here. Maybe something like 'allegedly' or 'so I understand' or even the odd 'I don't know for sure' would avoid the possibility of you giving the wrong impression.

See, Unclebill words, words, words. But nothing said.

"In particular, the political figures are elected by people who ostensibly share their values, so would that not imply the shared values and morality?"

Oh dear I take my earlier question back. You are obviously not a professional politician. Possibily you have read a lot of books though.

People do not necessarily elect politicians who share their values. People elect politicians who come as close as possible to what they, the people, would like to see in a Government. Or, would you believe, they even vote for the politician who's the best of a bad bunch. As most people have a very diverse sense of values and morality, which might clash with neighbours, doesn't necessarily mean that the neighbours vote for separate parties. So the implication you mention does not hold water.

"Above you offer that normal people cannot comprehend or condone the actions of their political leaders. Why not? Are they stupid? Are they ignorant? Are they gullible? Why can they not comprehend? I can and I don't see myself as extraordinary. If they can understand, then why do they condone because that is precisely what they do by reelecting these same people."

To comprehend a politician's actions is to have some insight into that politician's decision making process. Do you mean to say that you can comprehend every decision you have seen a politician make. That you have never shrugged your shoulders and thought "what the fuck?", and to go back over old ground, people don't necessarily elect politicians to office because they condone what they do. They often vote for the reasons I've mentioned above. If they didn't, there would be no floating voter category that politicians need to attract to win an election.

I wouldn't say you were "stupid, ignorant or gullible" but your wordiness confuses even yourself at times.

As I had time today I was going to go through this thread and criticise the style and manner in which you express yourself. But my time has now run out.

But I must say when I followed your link to the other thread, I enjoyed your style and comments on the PC Nazi, the cigarette Nazi and others.

Is this because I agreed totally with what you were saying or because you suddenly became lucid in your writing? Did you fully believe the comments yourself and that's why they came across in a much more understandable manner than your comments on this thread?

I don't know, but if you do reply, please be brief!

 

[miles]

PP, you write the longest post of your life, and polish it off with this gem:

I don't know, but if you do reply, please be brief!

 

[KillerMuffin]

We all make mistakes Uncle Bill. I read it in the back of my government book and apparently I was reading one of the Federalist papers and not the Constitution. Don't I feel silly. Thank you so very much for pointing it out in such a way as to make me feel like the biggest idiot on the block. Such things as supercilious condesension really do make a person feel good about boo-boo-ing. I really do appreciate the way you used the language to put my mistake into the worst possible light. Thanks. I mean that. Really. What are friends for but to take the high ground and highlight errors the way one highlights an error for a dog one is trying to housebreak. You're the man, Bill. You are the man.



Whaddya know, PC, I'm exactly that color. The hair is wrong, though. And so are the boobs. Mine aren't fake.

 

[p_p_man]

PP, you write the longest post of your life, and polish it off with this gem:

I don't know, but if you do reply, please be brief!

Yeah, but people can understand my posts!

 

[miles]

Yeah, but people can understand my posts!

You're assuming people read them.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
We all make mistakes Uncle Bill. . . . I really do appreciate the way you used the language to put my mistake into the worst possible light. Thanks. I mean that. Really. What are friends for but to take the high ground and highlight errors the way one highlights an error for a dog one is trying to housebreak. You're the man, Bill. You are the man.

I'm sorry you presumed my response to be condescending or offensive. It was not intended that way. I merely responded to your saying I should read something which had been part of a discussion only a couple of weeks ago and I had pointed out the same thing on that thread regarding the Constitution being a uniquely American government document and intended solely to be applicable to American citizens. I iterated here the same ideas addressed in the previous post and quoted the specific passage I used as the basis for my point.

If I had started out the response with, "Look, asshole, . . ." or something similar then I would understand your being offended and frankly I'd think you were owed an apology. But I did not. That is not a manner of civil discourse and is not the manner in which one presents an argument against a differing idea. I dislike and disrespect the ad hominem argument because it is disingenuous. It ignores the idea and attacks the person, i. e., shoot the messenger mentality.

From my perspective, it is an acknowledgement that one cannot refute the idea, therefore, to prevail, one must assassinate the character or public image of the presenter of the argument (you'e ugly, your mama wears combat boots, etc.). And I consider that the ultimate in disingenuousness. I watched eight years of it in action and have no respect for people who practice that as their method of prevailing.

I've even called a few people on the board trying to use the same tactic with me.

 

[p_p_man]

Yeah, but people can understand my posts!

You're assuming people read them.

Well I know for certain that you and Problem Child do!

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Bloody hell Unclebill you use words...

Originally posted by p_p_man
What happened to suicide? Or is that considered by you to be the murder of oneself. How would you judge the suicide only in black and white terms?

Pardon my lack of specificity; my statement was intended to address the killing of another person. Suicide: your life, your choice.

Originally posted by p_p_man
Is there any particular reason you couldn't repeat your arguments on this thread? Or do you normally expect others to run around seeking refrences you may want them to read. Even a link would have been helpful.

Sheer volume and that not all were my posts. I gave a working search key.

Originally posted by p_p_man
Now you really are splitting hairs. Paraphrasing old sayings such as 'it only takes one bad apple' is not the same as a decision being only good or evil. It can be mainly evil or mainly good with trace elements of the other colour mixed in with it. A decision is a formalising of a thought process which is always in a constant flux. A bad apple is a physical object which does have a knock on effect with other apples in the barrel. You can't reverse a bad apple but you can reverse a decision.

A decision is making a choice, the end of the evaluation process. Why would you decide against the good? What other reason would there be to change the decision? And the apple analogy is flawed. The rotten one can be segregated. But embracing a measure of evil as legitimate in your decision poisons the decision as evil because it is an integral part of making the decision.

de·ci·sion (di-sizh'en) n. 1. The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration. 2. The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind. 3. A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict. 4. Firmness of character or action; determination. 5. Sports. A victory in boxing won on points when no knockout has occurred.

Originally posted by p_p_man
Perhaps you should widen your exposure to more ordinary folk. Or perhaps your style of writing is at fault here. Maybe something like 'allegedly' or 'so I understand' or even the odd 'I don't know for sure' would avoid the possibility of you giving the wrong impression.

See, Unclebill words, words, words. But nothing said.

All of my contact is with ordinary folk except perhaps Laurel and Manu but that is not a protracted contact.

You achieved your stated aim. I haven't a clue what this means. Are you insinuating or suggesting I should try to appear ambiguous about or uncertain of my values, judgements, opinion, etc. when that is not the case?

Originally posted by p_p_man
People do not necessarily elect politicians who share their values. People elect politicians who come as close as possible to what they, the people, would like to see in a Government. Or, would you believe, they even vote for the politician who's the best of a bad bunch. As most people have a very diverse sense of values and morality, which might clash with neighbours, doesn't necessarily mean that the neighbours vote for separate parties. So the implication you mention does not hold water.

And that's not a representation of perceiving some common (shared) values? If they elect not on values, then on what? Whim? Chance?

Originally posted by p_p_man
To comprehend a politician's actions is to have some insight into that politician's decision making process. Do you mean to say that you can comprehend every decision you have seen a politician make. That you have never shrugged your shoulders and thought "what the fuck?", and to go back over old ground, people don't necessarily elect politicians to office because they condone what they do. They often vote for the reasons I've mentioned above. If they didn't, there would be no floating voter category that politicians need to attract to win an election.

You mean I can't evaluate the results of his choices and actions and extrapolate from that an estimate of his values, particularly when he chooses a path yielding consistency of results?

Originally posted by p_p_man
I wouldn't say you were "stupid, ignorant or gullible" but your wordiness confuses even yourself at times.

Wow! You presume that I confused myself. How quaint. Did you misread the question? I was asking if the people who allegedly could not comprehend or condone the actions of the politician for whom they voted were in those categories. While I don't consider myself extraordinary, I'm not stupid either. I see the results of the actions, judge the moral principles implied and I do NOT condone them. I sought an explanation of why people lack the ability to achieve comprehension as was declared.

Originally posted by p_p_man
As I had time today I was going to go through this thread and criticise the style and manner in which you express yourself. But my time has now run out.

But I must say when I followed your link to the other thread, I enjoyed your style and comments on the PC Nazi, the cigarette Nazi and others.

Is this because I agreed totally with what you were saying or because you suddenly became lucid in your writing? Did you fully believe the comments yourself and that's why they came across in a much more understandable manner than your comments on this thread?

I don't know, but if you do reply, please be brief!

Since I hold integrity as a cardinal vale, what would be my purpose for a disingenuous post?

 

[jsykes69]

for miles

miles,
how would you feel if the ppl at gitmo bay were caucasian and christian? better yet US citizens? different laws apply huh? when the oklahoma city bombing happened there was a lot of talk of the "middle east"connection, until they found a white boy was responsible. he got a fair trial and then was sentenced. why arent these ppl being given the same treatment?????

is this what US law is about? it certainly is not.

 

[iwmggw]

sorry folks......i just don't get it. what makes u think the prisoners aren't being treated well. they're getting meals,medical attention, and are allowed prayer and the right to their religion. yes.......they are restricted, and we call the shots,but if the roles were reversed are soldiers would simply be shot,tortured, or both.i fought for my country and for the right that each and every one of you have to voice your opinions. but reality says we are in a war......like it or not..........no matter how well you think of, or advocate the rights of these people............they wouldn't hesitate to kill you! this is not drama,or some case study,its real...and like it or not,if its your life or theirs, i wonder how many of you would chose theirs? I was in the situation,and i understood and was sympathetic to the people in se asia.........but when it came time to kill or be killed.............i never hesitated. we are at war,like it or not,get real and understand that the world will never be the same.......this is a new enemy,and one that can't be reasoned with...........and when i listen to Pathetic Prick Man espouse his brand of ethics.....i laugh until i damn near cry!

 

[iwmggw]

Re: for miles

miles,
how would you feel if the ppl at gitmo bay were caucasian and christian? better yet US citizens? different laws apply huh? when the oklahoma city bombing happened there was a lot of talk of the "middle east"connection, until they found a white boy was responsible. he got a fair trial and then was sentenced. why arent these ppl being given the same treatment?????

is this what US law is about? it certainly is not.

all i've got to say to you is that, you've fallen into conlusion by your own way of dealing with a problem. We are not you, and the prisoners will be treated fairly...tho not under the same code of justice that middle eastern custom dictates........love your mob rule. and,while your at it lose the idea that it has to do with color or religion.........it has to do with fanaticism, and the fact that they lost and were captured. however we decide to treat these prisoners will be far fairer than our people would've been treated. I respectfully submit you try to be a bit more subjective-js sorry miles......i didn't mean to speak for you