Risk, Reward, Bayes, and Engineers who can't do math in Off Topic
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 don't need to go to elementary school because you believe everything you're fed.
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.
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.
No, I'm ignoring labels and justification and calling it like it is.
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.
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? )
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.
Yet, you assume ethics do not play a factor. There's your first mistake.
I said he's not a terrorist.
Your argument is as closed-minded as saying one who maintains a faith is idiotic - but I can name offhand several incredibly intelligent people who maintain a faith.
It's interesting, because your first inclination here (and I'm interested in how you squeeze out of this argument) is that anyone that disagrees with you is automatically wrong.
And not only that, but you are saying that they are wrong, but also being brainwashed by propaganda.
Your argument is weak - it's like saying my agreement that 1+1=2 is because I'm brainwashed if YOU chose to believe 1+1=3, simply because you think differently.
No, you are still a child. It's pretty obvious based on every comment you've made.
However, your argument is that these people who disagree with you are automatically wrong, because they are weak-minded.
I don't care if you disagree - it's that you are so clouded in your arrogance that you don't even recognize that fairly intelligent people have the ability to agree with a societal aspect.
And if you begin to deny this, then you fall into your own trap, because you'd be a hypocrite.
There's the fallacy in your logic. I'd recommend taking basic mathematics, or introduction to logic to learn how to think.
No. You are twisting definitions. And, if you are ignoring labels, then how can you use terrorist in an argument?
Again, assumptions. I'd say before you begin making large leaps of faith on who a person is, you actually try to figure them out first. I've already explained how this is wrong, no need to waste more space.
Right. OBVIOUSLY he has no conscience. Did I ever say his actions were fine? Nope. Were they efficient? Nope. But is he a mass murderer?
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you are not looking at it from both sides - you are closed-minded.
He's not a good person, but he's not Osama. And that's just what you do not get.
Right. Because you know everything, right?
So, because you know everything, and everything about me,
you should also know that I've been taking a philosophical course, and have written fairly well-documented essays explaining why I think how I do, and why it's a very strong argument.
Your question of people assuming corruption doesn't exist is also weak
I'd look up the problem of evil, and you'd see quite a few people deal with this issue.
You assume people don't think, and because you are a 16 year old in high school with access to Wikipedia and 40 hours a week to sit around and think about how to troll this week, you must be correct. Focus on school, don't become an idiot - because currently, you're being a huge moron.
Of course I'm saying you guys are wrong - why would anyone argue unless they believed they were right? Which is the EXACT same thing you're doing. I need to go back to school, I'm a moron, whatever other names you've called me in the comments because you disagree on Bush being a terrorist. Besides, I've asked you to tell me why he isn't one. I gave my example and my definition - its your turn. Quit resorting to name calling and insults and prove your point.
ET, if your assertion is still "Bush is a terrorist," the burden of proof is still on you.
My proof was comment #42 - instead of arguing that, I'm just called a moron and a troll. It's their way of backing out of an argument they can't win.
WoMD was a lie all along. Bush just needed excuses to come up with so he could do whatever he wanted to do which makes him a liar. And he didn't care about the lives that were taken in the process.
Besides, who knows, Osama could have done some good things in his lifetime to before al Qaeda. Besides, al Qaeda supported Taliban - a group U.S. gave millions of dollars to. So either they gave money to ruthless bastards or people who were at some point doing the right thing.
Now that Osama's dead, we can dismantle the TSA! Hooray! /wishful thinking
But heck, for the sake of argument pretend the above isn't true, and by pretend I mean ignore it and believe whatever you like because you were going to do that anyway.
I gave my example and my definition - its your turn.
That's a pretty watered down definition and doesn't count for crap. It's not the least bit descriptive; the word might as well not even exist if that was its definition. The use of violence in the pursuit of political aims is already called war, and the use of intimidation is one facet of diplomacy.
As a strategem, terrorism's single most dominant characteristic is the deliberate targeting of noncombatants.
I don't think Bush deliberately targeted civilians, but at the same time I think he couldn't care less which makes him just as bad. If he did, he wouldn't have wanted to make up ridiculous excuses to go over there in the first place.
Perhaps we're so used to calling everybody else a terrorist, when we employ a bit of our own terrorism, we don't recognize it.