Niska did not torture Mal... by chrisisall

He had no intent for Mal to die, therefore it was not torture...
Yeah right, you gorram bipedal jerkweeds.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:15 PM

America loves a winner!

Yeah, he did intend to kill Mal. But not before he could hurt him some more.

you're not even a good firefly fan, not to know that.

Sheesh.

Bad fan. BAD!

The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:20 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
He had no intent for Mal to die, therefore it was not torture...
Yeah right, you gorram bipedal jerkweeds.

Ha.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:35 PM

BADKARMA00

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
He had no intent for Mal to die, therefore it was not torture...
Yeah right, you gorram bipedal jerkweeds.

The laughing Chrisisall

----------------

I never liked Mal anyway.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:57 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Well, the ever-shifting metric of what constitutes torture seems to have shifted again, to anything not intended to kill.

So if there is no "crime" because there is no "torture", I guess there's also no such thing as rape now, right? I mean, if you rape someone, you're not intending to kill them, correct? And you're really not doing any permanent physical harm, right?

Also, dangling people from hovering helicopters? No crime there. Even if you drop them, as long as you can claim that you didn't INTEND to drop them, but they slipped, there's no torture and no crime.

Torture is all about "intent", according to the New Right. I'm just putting up a few examples of things the neo-cons would have you believe are NOT torture by the definitions they've glommed onto today.

So the timeline goes something like this:

1) We don't torture.

2) Okay, some "bad apples" tortured some people, but they've been dealt with, and it's not our policy.

3) Well, maybe it IS our policy, but if it is, it's not torture, because the President said we don't torture, and the President, like the Pope, is infallible and can never, ever be wrong.

4) Okay, we don't torture, and the things we DID do weren't torture, but if they were, then Pelosi knew about it. But that's okay, because we don't torture, and she knew all about that, too.

5) It's not torture is you don't kill them or intend to kill them, and as long as there's no longterm or permanent physical damage done, then it can't be called torture.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:05 PM

BADKARMA00

I have to be honest. I don't really care about the 'torture' 'not torture' issue. To me it just doesn't matter, and I say that for this reason.

If my family or community were threatened, and someone knew enough about it that I could stop it, if he told me what he knew, he would tell me.

One way or another.

So I'm not hypocritical about it.

As far as who says it was, or it wasn't, or who lied about it, what difference does it make? If Pelosi knew about it, it won't keep her from being re-elected, so she's not going away. Bush is already gone, as are his appointees. The whole 'who knew what and when' issue is a dead as General Grant, far as I'm concerned. HObamaman is President now, and he says we won't practice 'enhanced interrogation' or 'torture' anymore, so that should be the end of it.

I remember a number of our own citizens being tortured over the years, far worse than what's been done to the criminals in Gitmo, and there was never much said about it by the UN. Or the Red Cross. Or Amnesty International. I remember our soldiers being tortured and killed when we weren't even at war, including one young man who simply had the misfortune to be on a hijacked plane.

If the US is so evil, then why is it that the world always turns to us when the shit hits the fan, or when they need help?

Oh, wait. I know. It's because we've always been willing to help them, even though they don't bother returning the favor, and most of them clearly hate us, lol.

I got a neighbor like that. I finally quit loaning him shit.

We got much bigger problems in this country than what may or may not have happened to a handful of Islamanazis whose only goal in life seems to be to kill Americans.

There are people who need healthcare, jobs, and in some cases food and shelter. That's what we should be concentrating on, IMO. We're pulling out of Iraq soon, according to HObamaman. He's still in Afghanistan, but that needs to be cleaned up, and he seems determined to do it.

rehashing a bunch of crap that's long gone, right or wrong, when people are in need, is just wrong. If it was torture, then we can't undo it. If it wasn't, it doesn't matter. Either way, it's time to see to needs here at home, IMO.

If our elected leaders spent more time doing that, and less trying to lay blame, then maybe we'd be in better shape. At this point, I don't really think the majority of Americans care who did what, or who's responsible, they just want it fixed.

But that's just me.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:

rehashing a bunch of crap that's long gone, right or wrong, when people are in need, is just wrong.

ENHHHH- wrong answer, Hans. You wanna go to Double Jeopardy where the stakes can REALLY increase?

If we don't acknowledge & define our erroneous actions of the past, then there's no way to avoid them in the future.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yeah, he did intend to kill Mal. But not before he could hurt him some more.

you're not even a good firefly fan, not to know that.

Sheesh.

Then by your own New Right definition, it would have only become torture at the point where Niska would have decided to actually end Mal.

Sheesh. You're not even a good logical thinker, not to have understood your own stance on the issue.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So if there is no "crime" because there is no "torture", I guess there's also no such thing as rape now, right? I mean, if you rape someone, you're not intending to kill them, correct? And you're really not doing any permanent physical harm, right?

I believe AU would advise the ladies to just lay back & enjoy it.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
He had no intent for Mal to die, therefore it was not torture...
Yeah right, you gorram bipedal jerkweeds.

Ha.

Is that an agreement ha, or a ha-ha ha?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
I have to be honest. I don't really care about the 'torture' 'not torture' issue. To me it just doesn't matter, and I say that for this reason.

If my family or community were threatened, and someone knew enough about it that I could stop it, if he told me what he knew, he would tell me.

One way or another.

So I'm not hypocritical about it.

And I have no doubt that you'd face the consequences of your actions, one way or another. If you were sent to prison for your actions, you'd say, "it was worth it, because it saved my family."

Quote:

As far as who says it was, or it wasn't, or who lied about it, what difference does it make? If Pelosi knew about it, it won't keep her from being re-elected, so she's not going away. Bush is already gone, as are his appointees. The whole 'who knew what and when' issue is a dead as General Grant, far as I'm concerned. HObamaman is President now, and he says we won't practice 'enhanced interrogation' or 'torture' anymore, so that should be the end of it.

So in your world, there should be no such things as war crimes, there should never be any war crimes tribunals, no war criminals would ever be tried and punished for their actions and policies. Right? Is this what you mean to say?

Quote:

I remember a number of our own citizens being tortured over the years, far worse than what's been done to the criminals in Gitmo, and there was never much said about it by the UN. Or the Red Cross. Or Amnesty International. I remember our soldiers being tortured and killed when we weren't even at war, including one young man who simply had the misfortune to be on a hijacked plane.

This is the "if they do it, why can't we?" argument. It's hogwash. It's a deflection. You know how I know? Because when some "rogue nation" like North Korea or Iran starts "torturing" OUR people, using these EXACT SAME METHODS, you're not going to say "Oh, forget about it, they're not doing anything wrong or illegal." No, you're going to say that we should bomb the living fuck out of those backwards assholes, because they're torturing our people!

When you say that it's okay for the U.S. to do it, or there should be no retroactive punishment for having done it, that's exactly the message you're sending to the rest of the world: that it's legitimate and accepted behavior for governments to engage in. It sets the precedent for other nations. But worse than that, it sets the precedent for US. You know that "slippery slope" argument that gun nuts are always bringing up? This is the exact same thing. If they can torture this guy in Gitmo today, they can torture you in the county jail tomorrow, and for nothing more than calling the President "HObamaman". Political dissent is a form of terrorism, is it not? Most tyrants would argue that it is. You're arguing FOR them at this point.

Quote:

If the US is so evil, then why is it that the world always turns to us when the shit hits the fan, or when they need help?

Or, on the flip-side of that coin, if the U.S. is so good, why is it that so many people are dead-set on wiping us out? At least, according to the right-wing nutjobs, they are...

And I'm sorry, but the people who were all for impeaching a President based on whether or not he got a blowjob from a fat intern and then lied about it - THESE are the people I should now listen to when they say that this whole "torture-not-torture" issue is a non-issue?

Forgive me if I laugh while I holler "Bullshit!" on that one.

The righties dont' think that WE should think it's a big deal, but they only think that because it's their tit that's caught in the ringer.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:08 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The righties dont' think that WE should think it's a big deal, but they only think that because it's their tit that's caught in the ringer.

Mike

So now I'm confused - is tit-ringing considered torture?

ETF: All manner of curious goings on...

W W L L D?
What would Lydia Lunch do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:11 AM

Almost never, by the ringers.

Almost always, by the ringEES.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And I'm sorry, but the people who were all for impeaching a President based on whether or not he got a blowjob from a fat intern and then lied about it - THESE are the people I should now listen to when they say that this whole "torture-not-torture" issue is a non-issue?

Zactly.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:15 AM

BADKARMA00

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
I have to be honest. I don't really care about the 'torture' 'not torture' issue. To me it just doesn't matter, and I say that for this reason.

If my family or community were threatened, and someone knew enough about it that I could stop it, if he told me what he knew, he would tell me.

One way or another.

So I'm not hypocritical about it.

And I have no doubt that you'd face the consequences of your actions, one way or another. If you were sent to prison for your actions, you'd say, "it was worth it, because it saved my family."

Quote:

As far as who says it was, or it wasn't, or who lied about it, what difference does it make? If Pelosi knew about it, it won't keep her from being re-elected, so she's not going away. Bush is already gone, as are his appointees. The whole 'who knew what and when' issue is a dead as General Grant, far as I'm concerned. HObamaman is President now, and he says we won't practice 'enhanced interrogation' or 'torture' anymore, so that should be the end of it.

So in your world, there should be no such things as war crimes, there should never be any war crimes tribunals, no war criminals would ever be tried and punished for their actions and policies. Right? Is this what you mean to say?

Quote:

I remember a number of our own citizens being tortured over the years, far worse than what's been done to the criminals in Gitmo, and there was never much said about it by the UN. Or the Red Cross. Or Amnesty International. I remember our soldiers being tortured and killed when we weren't even at war, including one young man who simply had the misfortune to be on a hijacked plane.

This is the "if they do it, why can't we?" argument. It's hogwash. It's a deflection. You know how I know? Because when some "rogue nation" like North Korea or Iran starts "torturing" OUR people, using these EXACT SAME METHODS, you're not going to say "Oh, forget about it, they're not doing anything wrong or illegal." No, you're going to say that we should bomb the living fuck out of those backwards assholes, because they're torturing our people!

When you say that it's okay for the U.S. to do it, or there should be no retroactive punishment for having done it, that's exactly the message you're sending to the rest of the world: that it's legitimate and accepted behavior for governments to engage in. It sets the precedent for other nations. But worse than that, it sets the precedent for US. You know that "slippery slope" argument that gun nuts are always bringing up? This is the exact same thing. If they can torture this guy in Gitmo today, they can torture you in the county jail tomorrow, and for nothing more than calling the President "HObamaman". Political dissent is a form of terrorism, is it not? Most tyrants would argue that it is. You're arguing FOR them at this point.

Quote:

If the US is so evil, then why is it that the world always turns to us when the shit hits the fan, or when they need help?

Or, on the flip-side of that coin, if the U.S. is so good, why is it that so many people are dead-set on wiping us out? At least, according to the right-wing nutjobs, they are...

And I'm sorry, but the people who were all for impeaching a President based on whether or not he got a blowjob from a fat intern and then lied about it - THESE are the people I should now listen to when they say that this whole "torture-not-torture" issue is a non-issue?

Forgive me if I laugh while I holler "Bullshit!" on that one.

The righties dont' think that WE should think it's a big deal, but they only think that because it's their tit that's caught in the ringer.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

--------------------

At no time, Kwick, did I say it was okay, nor did I say that others doing it made it ok. I said I wasn't going to be hhypocritical about it, and that's all.

I simply stated that the issue is dead, and I say that because there's nothing going to be done, one way or another, and you probably know that as well as I do. Obama ( used his actual name for you ) won't do anything else than what he's done, and if it turns out that Pelosi or other top Democrats did, indeed, know what was being done, or *gasp* approved of it, then that will be the end of it. No more press releases, no more investigation.

And yes, the Republicans would likely do the same thing, if the situation was reversed.

In the meantime, there's a boatload of problems here at home that need attention.

And our people have already been tortured by other nations, just like NK, and we've never done squat about it that I know of. I don't really expect that to change either. Politicians rarely have the moxie to do things that really need doing.

And no, in this country at least, political disent is not a form or terrorism, it's free speech. The same free speech that others use to ridicule people's religious beliefs, moral beliefs, etc. My reference to Obama as 'HObamaman' are a wisecrack on his 'superhero' status among some people. True, I don't like him, because he's a little too socialist for me. But he IS the president. And if everyone can make fun of George Bush, I can damn sure make fun of Barack Obama, lol.

And I'm not arguing for or against anyone. If I was, I'd be posting on this all the time. I'm not. My point was, there are bigger issues to deal with at the moment. And, if nothing's going to be done about all this, ( and you know it's not,) then it's time to move on, and start taking care of other problems.

That's all.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:26 AM

BYTEMITE

See, I think that's where us people who don't like the torture and the people who think it's a good idea diverge.

The people who don't like it are worried that someday WE'RE going to end up in the hotseat, because the government isn't establishing any limits on who can be interrogated as far as I can tell.

Whereas the people who think it's a good idea are concerned about the safety and security of their family, and think the people acting to extract information are working to protect the public.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
the people who think it's a good idea are concerned about the safety and security of their family, and think the people acting to extract information are working to protect the public.

Yep.
Like Nisk was protecting his reputation. Solid.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:16 AM

Quote:
BadKarma wrote:

At no time, Kwick, did I say it was okay, nor did I say that others doing it made it ok. I said I wasn't going to be hypocritical about it, and that's all.

All right, I get ya. Your voice gets mixed in with those on "your" side who ARE saying that it's okay, and some who seem to think it's one of our proudest national moments. Sorry if I got you confused with others; I should know better, since you actually seem a pretty reasonable sort on most issues.

Quote:

I simply stated that the issue is dead, and I say that because there's nothing going to be done, one way or another, and you probably know that as well as I do. Obama ( used his actual name for you ) won't do anything else than what he's done, and if it turns out that Pelosi or other top Democrats did, indeed, know what was being done, or *gasp* approved of it, then that will be the end of it. No more press releases, no more investigation.

And yes, the Republicans would likely do the same thing, if the situation was reversed.

No need to stop using whatever moniker you prefer for Obama. I've called Bush (both of them) quite enough names that I'm not going to play that card. Hell, I've called Obama a few names lately, too - none of them very flattering! :)

As I've said repeatedly, I want this followed, I want it run down, I want it treated like Watergate - follow the truth, WHEREVER it leads. If it takes down a government, so be it. Any government that can be taken down by the revelations of its own deeds done in dark and dingy places is not only a government not worth having in the first place, but one not worth having in ANY place.

Quote:

In the meantime, there's a boatload of problems here at home that need attention.

Problems? Sure, we've got problems aplenty. Do you ever get the feeling that a great many of those problems are manufactured, are cooked up to take your attention AWAY from what's really going on? I'm not PN by any stretch of the imagination, but I've lived long enough to not believe much in coincidences.

Quote:

And our people have already been tortured by other nations, just like NK, and we've never done squat about it that I know of. I don't really expect that to change either. Politicians rarely have the moxie to do things that really need doing.

Again, that's the weakest argument for doing the same. Try applying it to any other form of crime. "My wife got raped, so I gotta go rapin'..." "My house got burgled, so I gotta be a burglar..." It just doesn't add up.

Quote:

And no, in this country at least, political disent is not a form or terrorism...

YET. You forgot to use "yet". ;)

Quote:
...it's free speech. The same free speech that others use to ridicule people's religious beliefs, moral beliefs, etc. My reference to Obama as 'HObamaman' are a wisecrack on his 'superhero' status among some people. True, I don't like him, because he's a little too socialist for me. But he IS the president. And if everyone can make fun of George Bush, I can damn sure make fun of Barack Obama, lol.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you on that. Feel free to make fun. Just hope it's not deemed an "undesirable" trait in your lifetime.

Quote:

And I'm not arguing for or against anyone. If I was, I'd be posting on this all the time. I'm not. My point was, there are bigger issues to deal with at the moment. And, if nothing's going to be done about all this, ( and you know it's not,) then it's time to move on, and start taking care of other problems.

I respectfully disagree. The only way that nothing's going to be done about all this is if WE allow it to be swept under the rug. I'm not willing to do that.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yeah, he did intend to kill Mal. But not before he could hurt him some more.

So then...
He didn't torture WASH!
RIGGGGGHHHHT?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:03 AM

CITIZEN

Niska never tortured them. It's only torture if you intend to torture, and Niska intended to ensure his reputation was fact, solid. So it wasn't torture, it was ensuring Niska's reputation, completely different thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:10 AM

America loves a winner!

Chrissy,

Niska never once asked Mal for any information. Never. I think you're a Battlefield Earth fan, and not much else.

The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Niska never once asked Mal for any information. Never.

NISKA
"Do you know the writings of Shan Yu?"

MAL
"We're starting a book club? What?
Are you trying to torture me?"

Wrong again.

You have no case.

Quote:
I think you're a Battlefield Earth fan, and not much else.

And I think you haven't been burdened with an overabundance of working neurons.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Niska never tortured them.

Go ahead Cit, side with 'Rappy.
Or not.
(Since even HE doesn't understand his definition of torture, it's hard to tell...)

There may be tears...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:05 PM

America loves a winner!

Niska was begging the question, not shaking down Mal for information.

But you're too much a Battlefield Earth fan to understand.

I'm right again, and yes, I do have a case.

The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:08 PM

...and let me also say that as far as I'm concerned, this is the dumbest I have ever seen you at AU, and that's sayin' plenty.

So, if Niska was trying to pry info out of Mal, it wouldn't have been torture? Please help me out here; I can't quite wrap my head around the concept that intent changes action... I mean, if God struck you down in anger, that'd be murder? And if he struck you down in love, that'd be okay?
The "intent" of torture is to inflict various degrees of psychological and/or physical pain- the PURPOSE is what changes.

Douche your way out of this one, pal.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Niska was begging the question

And you're begging for your Authoritarian Lapdog treat.

What's new.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:27 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...and let me also say that as far as I'm concerned, this is the dumbest I have ever seen you at AU, and that's sayin' plenty.

*So, if Niska was trying to pry info out of Mal, it wouldn't have been torture? Please help me out here; I can't quite wrap my head around the concept that intent changes action... I mean, if God struck you down in anger, that'd be murder? And if he struck you down in love, that'd be okay?
The "intent" of torture is to inflict various degrees of psychological and/or physical pain- the PURPOSE is what changes.

Douche your way out of this one, pal.

First of all, even the most casual fan of Firefly would know just how ridiculous your premise is, w/ regards to Mal, Niska and " torture". You ought to know better.

* I'll not dignify that question with an answer.

Second, you're trying to incorporate the Firefly 'verse and our BDH into your personal, real world political views. That's not the reason which brought me here, and I'm sure there are enough here who'd not think too kindly of your inter mingling that which we ALL should enjoy - FIREFLY - and that which clearly divides us, politics and real world issues. This entire thread is a waste of time and a betrayal of the spirit and genuine good feelings generated by Firefly.

Finally, there is such a thing as 'intent' w/ regards to the law. Both manslaughter and murder 1 are the result when 1 person's actions kills another, but those crimes are NOT the same.

So yes, intent clearly has a LOT to do w/ what was done, and that's why the Bush admin. had legal teams looking into exactly what they could do , what they couldn't, and still be with in the law. I say, good for them.

The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

First of all, even the most casual fan of Firefly would know just how ridiculous your premise is, w/ regards to Mal, Niska and " torture". You ought to know better.

Wait for it..

Quote:

* I'll not dignify that question with an answer.

Here it comes...

Quote:

Second, you're trying to incorporate the Firefly 'verse and our BDH into your personal, real world political views. That's not the reason which brought me here, and I'm sure there are enough here who'd not think too kindly of your inter mingling that which we ALL should enjoy - FIREFLY - and that which clearly divides us, politics and real world issues. This entire thread is a waste of time and a betrayal of the spirit and genuine good feelings generated by Firefly.

INCOMING!!!!

When we can't step up with logic & clear reason...
WE ATTACK THE OTHER'S CHARACTER!!!!
And before you play the "You called me dumb/putrid pus-sucker/etc." card, I say a lot of the personal attack stuff in partial jest, YOU saying that I somehow crossed the line with my thread is merely weak, dude. And if I did, why did you wait until now to point it out? Or even participate at all?
No, my friend AU, you've manifested your inability to follow this argument to it's logical conclusion in which you lose. Badly.

Thank you for playing.

Quote:

Finally, there is such a thing as 'intent' w/ regards to the law. Both manslaughter and murder 1 are the result when 1 person's actions kills another, but those crimes are NOT the same.

Tell that to the dead.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:29 PM

Thought so.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:40 PM

America loves a winner!

You were wrong from the very start, as I plainly expressed. You continued on w/ your silly thread, and tried to make it less and less 'silly', until you reached the point which utterly crossed the line. At first, you used Mal and Niska, wrapped up in a false portrayal of the Firefly 'verse, to mirror a discussion going on in the real world. When that failed, miserably, you pushed on, and evoked " torture " as it puritans to the ongoing discussion about Gitmo.

Everyone familiar w/ Firefly knows that Niska wasn't asking Mal for info. He WANTED TO TORTURE HIM... period. He wanted to hurt him so much, he brought him back to life to torture him MORE! ( As I write this , I can't believe I'm wasting my time explaining this glaringly simple point to you )

Niska tortrued, we did NOT!

And I never attacked your CHARACTER. Where the HELL did you dream that up? I simply pointed out that you've crossed the line here, which you absolutely have, by trying to equate Niska to the United States, and the blood thirsty Jihadist to everyone's favorite captain, Mal.

Your 'character' never once was questioned, but your actions were. Big difference.

I'll have no part in this any more. You should be ashamed of yourself, on all manner of levels. That you pretend to not be, only lessens my view of you.

G'day.

PS - As for the matter of 'intent', you really do need to brush up on your legalese. Intent has always been an issue where the courts are concerned where the act of crime exists. Did you completely ignore the example I gave, of manslaughter and murder one ? Yes, you did. I wonder why.

The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When that failed, miserably, you pushed on, and evoked " torture " as it puritans to the ongoing discussion about Gitmo.

Lie or error? I did no such thing on this thread.

Quote:

Everyone familiar w/ Firefly knows that Niska wasn't asking Mal for info. He WANTED TO TORTURE HIM... period. He wanted to hurt him so much, he brought him back to life to torture him MORE!

For info or for pleasure, it's STILL torture. Your rants can't change that.

Quote:

Niska tortrued, we did NOT!

I never said he tortrued, again you are in error (execute your prime function).

Quote:

And I never attacked your CHARACTER. Where the HELL did you dream that up? I simply pointed out that you've crossed the line here, which you absolutely have, by trying to equate Niska to the United States, and the blood thirsty Jihadist to everyone's favorite captain, Mal.

You attacked my character in that you would state that I knowingly crossed the line. And, plus, you know- that straw man you're shoving in my face with that second sentence.

Quote:

You should be ashamed of yourself, on all manner of levels. That you pretend to not be, only lessens my view of you.

I'm sorry, can you ever forgive me?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:55 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I'm sorry, can you ever forgive me?

No.

The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
I'm sorry, can you ever forgive me?

No.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:40 PM

America loves a winner!

what ever.

The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
what ever.

Torture, no torture.
Whatever.

We will miss the angry monkey, we wanted him to evolve beyoynd his calcified take on the way of mankind, and his love of brutal naked force as a resolution to all geo-political problems on this small world, but as they say on Earth, saylavee.

Yes, I know that's not the French spelling; whatever.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:13 PM