Vermolius wrote:
I walk up to you and try to stab you. Somehow, in the ensuing struggle I wind up dead. You're now a murderer, go to jail you piece of scum. Really? I guess you should've just let me kill you.

Killing someone is killing someone. And what Bush did wasn't self-defense - I don't know what you tried to accomplish here.

Well, you're wrong here too. The important differences are that porn stars are tested for diseases regularly and aren't constantly in a drugged stupor while their counterparts are typically the opposite. The key point being that while they perform similar work one is semi-regulated and the other is a prime cause of STD/STI transmissions.

Again, you try to pick reasons out to justify the differentiation of the two. A woman who sells their body is a prostitute - whether it's recorded and we can all watch it on TV or it's done in the back seat of your Geo Storm. I understand one can be more dangerous than the other, but does that really mean porn stars are better than prostitutes? I say if you jail one prostitute, jail them all, including the ones in California who get paid thousands of dollars to do it. Which goes back to my original point: people in this country, including some of our presidents, are worthy of the same judgment they self-righteously cast on others according to their actions. Yet, it doesn't work that way. We call things "good" when it's convenient for us and call things "evil" when it's convenient for anyone else. It's wrong for Osama to kill, not the U.S.

What did you just tell me?

To look at things the way they are without hypocritical self-righteous labeling to justify immoral actions we judge and crucify others for - something a lot of you obviously aren't capable of.
@ ET: Or you know give concrete examples? That would really make your argument stronger, please for the love of god give an example of what you are talking about.
Sinfall wrote:
@ ET: Or you know give concrete examples? That would really make your argument stronger, please for the love of god give an example of what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Read the article, about the lives lost including thousands of civilians, about the the non-existent "Weapons of Mass Destruction", about the 36 million people protesting against this unnecessary war, which happened under Bush's administration. All of this chaos and murder while this joke plays golf. Does "Watch this drive!" ring any bells?

America is the true source of terror in this world. It's just hard for us to see it that way because we're apart of this country.

I shouldn't even have to give you links - you know what went on. I love it when people enter a debate and suddenly have amnesia about everything. "Can you give examples, we don't know what you're talking about dood"
ET: What do you think terrorism means? And you are saying that America is the true source of fear in this world? Really?
Sinfall wrote:
ET: What do you think terrorism means? And you are saying that America is the true source of fear in this world? Really?

Terrorism, to most Americans, is whenever another country attacks us - not vice versa. America's violence, unnecessary invasions of other countries isn't terrorism - or so they want us to believe.

Why do you think a lot of countries don't like the U.S.? U.S. has always been a bully and sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. The number of U.S. enemies is on the rise, not the decline. Retaliation is coming and America won't be the one dishing it out. We think we can do whatever we feel like and always get away with it.

Rome, just like America, was great at some point. And America, just like Rome, will fall one day. And BS like what the Bush administration did will make that day come a lot quicker.
You will make a great politician, not only did you not answer my question you went off on another tangent. Once again what does terrorism mean for you? How would you define it?
Sinfall wrote:
You will make a great politician, not only did you not answer my question you went off on another tangent. Once again what does terrorism mean for you? How would you define it?

As I said in the beginning, this is not my opinion. Bush and the actions of America, by definition ( that you can find on Google or in Websters ) is terrorism.

al Qaeda flying planes into our trade centers was terrorism, but us using airstrikes killing off thousands of civilians in Iraq wasn't? Us invading Iraq with the ridiculous excuse of "WoMD" isn't terror?
Terror = fear. Terrorism is " the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear " (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism) Can we agree those are the definitions of both words as we understand them? And a terrorist would be someone who uses terrorism?
I give, this guy is a re-re.
ET: If someone ran up to you with a knife in hand, and you held a gun, would you be a murderer for shooting them to stop them from possibly killing you?

I'm asking this specifically for clarification of how you define things, because it sounds like you need to go to elementary school with some of the arguments you are providing.

In addition, it's likely you are simply at the stage of life where you want to rebel against everything. You are likely a teenager that thinks they are smarter than everyone, but has little evidence to back up anything they do. You are twisting the definitions of every word you are using for your argument. You'd actually be really good at starting a cult. Anyways, it's not that we are being brainwashed - by the definitions you have provided, it's a giant leap to go ahead and say that Bush is the same as Osama. It's absurd, and we would all appreciate if you stick in school, because if you are a good example of the future of America, then I may need to move to another country soon.
I just assumed that he would be leaving america by the peacecorps funded by terrorist.
I'm not sure what the names for these particular logical fallacies are, but I think ET's argument boils down to "Words don't mean things, therefore I'm always right," and "The fact that you don't agree with me means They got to you."
In an additional note, I could easily say Bush was a good president. The majority of America says he was a bad president, so it's really easy to use ET's logic to say that "They got to him" because he agrees Bush was bad. Because clearly no American thinks for themselves.
CauTi0N wrote:
ET: If someone ran up to you with a knife in hand, and you held a gun, would you be a murderer for shooting them to stop them from possibly killing you?

No, I wouldn't be a murderer and I probably wouldn't be tried for murder, probably manslaughter. But, I would have still, by definition, be a killer.
All fancy labels aside, all morals and opinions aside, by definition, a killer.

I'm asking this specifically for clarification of how you define things, because it sounds like you need to go to elementary school with some of the arguments you are providing.

I don't need to go to elementary school because you believe everything you're fed.

In addition, it's likely you are simply at the stage of life where you want to rebel against everything.

How am I being a rebel? I'm only mad at the fact that people are so hypocritical and that Bush is as evil as Osama, yet Bush isn't on the "FBIs Most Wanted List". Both of these people are terrorists - refer back to my link for why I say this. And explain how that makes me a rebel or why that statement is even relevant.

You are likely a teenager that thinks they are smarter than everyone, but has little evidence to back up anything they do.

No, I just happen to think differently. The same thing happened when I made the post about Valentine's Day. All my life, people have disagreed with me on a lot of things - this doesn't mean I lack common sense or that I'm automatically wrong. It means I'm not apart of the masses.

You are twisting the definitions of every word you are using for your argument.

No, I'm ignoring labels and justification and calling it like it is.

You'd actually be really good at starting a cult.

Why not - the only reason I'd be able to is because of weak-minded people like you who will believe whatever is set before them.

Anyways, it's not that we are being brainwashed - by the definitions you have provided, it's a giant leap to go ahead and say that Bush is the same as Osama.

How so? First, Bush is a greedy liar ( made up excuses to invade Iraq ), a murderer ( had thousands, including civilians, killed for nothing ), and obviously has no conscience ( how can you even sleep at night or play golf when you know your military is airstriking innocent people over some "WoMD" bullshit that never even existed? )

It's absurd, and we would all appreciate if you stick in school, because if you are a good example of the future of America, then I may need to move to another country soon.

You don't have to. As I said, I'm not apart of the masses. Unfortunately, people in America are afraid to believe in things like this. They won't allow themselves to think for a second that corruption exists, that presidents can do wrong, that maybe everything in the media isn't what it seems. The problem is people aren't questioning things anymore.
Lummox JR wrote:
I'm not sure what the names for these particular logical fallacies are, but I think ET's argument boils down to "Words don't mean things, therefore I'm always right," and "The fact that you don't agree with me means They got to you."

I don't think you understand my argument. You wrote an explanation of my argument a few comments back that entirely missed my point. But you are free to call them fallacies and any other name you can come up with and back out if that's what you need to do.
Read this, it's a cool little breakdown I found of how stupid this all is.

http://forums.dealofday.com/threads/ 144731-Daddy-why-did-we-have-to-invade-Iraq
Hey Empirez Troll :)

This seems to be a long discussion, nice link though lol.
Teka123 wrote:
Hey Empirez Troll :)

This seems to be a long discussion, nice link though lol.

Yeah, my favorite part is "China is a good economic competitor where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. "
EmpirezTeam wrote:
...

I realize that you have a lot of strong feelings about this. Passion is the key to many great inventions and revelations in the world. However, you need to stay focused and consistent with your arguments and harness that passion in a more effective manner.

Here are some things to consider:
1) If you want to illustrate equivalence between civilian deaths between bin Laden and the US executive branch, you shouldn't simply outright state it (which would be considered argumentum ad ignorantiam), but rather, present relevant data and its associative analysis. You could have started with this:

http://stay-human.tumblr.com/photo/1280/5130403626/1/ tumblr_lkkhznvHlO1qi4g1h

2) Choose your definition carefully from the very beginning or everything that follows will crumble. If you are going to assert: "Bush is a terrorist," you will and have been met with valid counters to this claim. That simple mistake has detracted from what might have otherwise been a more effectively communicated message.

3) With any assertion that you make, you hold the sole responsibility of the burden of proof. When this fails, do not resort to ad hominem labels such as "you are brainwashed" and the like -- communicate more effectively and your assertion will hold more ground. Otherwise, you remain the bearer of the burden of proof.
Oh also ET, though that link has it's points. please stop being so opinionated :).

Most people won't understand your view.

You are good at your trolling but this discussion should end.

All i can say is.. at least Bush never treated his own people so publicly the way Osama has done :).

And we have the Catch 22. They allow people like china to get away with what they want, or invade them all and risk being classed as a terrorist by you. It's obvious the US and what not has turned a blind eye sometimes, but when they still choose to act on certain things, for the right reasons accompanied by benefactual reasons :).

But who know's i'm from the Uk, I live under a rock, i could be wrong. (i'm also not very intelligent)
Page: 1 2 3 4