'Palin Ray' being tested by whozit

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Both are signs of martial law and rule by force.

Just like the existence of laws, crisp packets and Barry Manilow. I don't think Martial Law is what you think it is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Or we could stop pointing any sort of lethal or non-lethal guns or weapons at Iraqis and get the fuck out of there. Would that work for you?

Not really, the time to not be in Iraq was before the invasion, not after the invasion. Now it's time to deal with the mess that the invasion created; running away, washing your hands of the whole thing and expecting other people to clean up the mess isn't dealing with the problem, btw.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Punishing our entire nation by forcing us to stay, because our president, administration, and congress are a bunch of FUCKWITS, because you feel like the American people should have to pay the consequences for what we did JUST HURTS MORE PEOPLE, Iraqi and American.

The vast majority of American citizens supported the invasion of Iraq, so it is the American people's responsibility. And as for your false dichotomy, do you really think if American troops leave Iraq is suddenly going to become a shangri-la? Iraq's pretty much an unstable powder keg waiting to go off, withdrawing troops now is more likely to HURT EVEN MORE PEOPLE than leaving them there. But some of those people won't be American's any more, so there's that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It would be like us saying, well, Tony Blair supported it, so now you Brits have to be stuck there with us too. It's lacking common sense.

Not really. I never supported the Iraq war, but I know many did, most of them changed their tune when the pretty explosions stopped and the body bags started coming back. Those people who are all gung ho for war, as long as it's other people who do the dying are pretty disgusting human beings.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You don't have to stay, we're not blaming you Brits or your soldiers because your leadership is a bunch of rich spoiled entitled morons (like ours!).

We're the one's that made them our leaders, why can't we be held accountable for their actions?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
No, we don't. See above. (Our leadership does, though. Again, please convict them of something. You could make something up, try some of them just for being supremely ugly or stupid. I don't really care)

Your side seems determined to make statements about what should be done based entirely on how you think the world should be, not how it is. While you're determined to pass off non-lethal weapons as totalitarianism, you're pretty much ensuring the status quo will continue and that no one'll listen to you if you point out a real case of totalitarianism.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Stick with what you know, Cit - your cops are as a rule, better people, and still have at least a hint of respect for peelian principles.
Ours... not so much.

And I accept that that is possible. When I was in the states I found your police to be quite stand offish and more ruler than servant to the people. The point I'm trying to make is that Non-lethal weapons aren't a sign of totalitarianism, and hell you guys might be better off with police that carry non-lethal arms over the lethal kind.

Totalitarianism would want to use guns, real guns, because threat of death is a powerful motivator to do as you're told. Threat of pain is less so.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not a war. ;)

Actually the Korean War was (and technically is) very much a war, regardless of what the US wants to call it ;).

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 6:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Totalitarianism would want to use guns, real guns, because threat of death is a powerful motivator to do as you're told. Threat of pain is less so."

Hello,

You continually miss the central point that some of us have been trying to make. Mainly, that they might not *want* to shoot us because it becomes very messy and ugly and bad in the press.

But they can use the agonizer on you all day and twice on Sundays.

It's not *either* you shoot me *or* you use the agonizer. We all wish it was.

No, you get to use the agonizer even when you wouldn't have shot me. The agonizer fills a happy niche where before you'd have done nothing, or at least had to deal with me like a person, but now you can make my nerves dance for fun and profit.

Your Iraq war arguments, meanwhile, assume that the American presence in Iraq (and presumably Afghanistan) will someday result in a happy, stable, death-free state.

Meanwhile, there are those of us who believe that will NEVER be the case. That no matter how long we stay there, we won't be able to grant the region true stability. And so, knowing that we'll never transform this joint into shangri-la, it makes sense to leave. Because the alternative is to stay forever, and make Iraq and Afghanistan the 51st and 52nd states.

And won't THAT work out well for everyone?

Finally, I'm sorry that constant vigilance against authority troubles you so much. I'm sorry that when we worry about what people might do with more power and weapons options, it irks you.

Down here in the ex-colonies, vigilance against authority is largely seen as the duty of the citizenry. The question 'How can they f*ck us?" is one every patriot ought to ask. It's a duty as serious to us as tea time and a stiff upper lip is to you lot.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 6:10 AM

Quote:
Not really, the time to not be in Iraq was before the invasion, not after the invasion. Now it's time to deal with the mess that the invasion created; running away, washing your hands of the whole thing and expecting other people to clean up the mess isn't dealing with the problem, btw.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that Americans (and Brits) can actually fix the situation by staying there. It's pretty much certain that 1) we can't and never could, and 2) that our leadership didn't send us in there to fix things in the first place.

So why compound the situation? It's like you have a burglar who broke into a jewelry store, and the sentence is that the burglar has to "stay and clean up and guard the jewelry store, wink wink." I don't see this working out for anyone involved. Except the burglar, but no one wants that, right?

Quote:
Not really. I never supported the Iraq war, but I know many did, most of them changed their tune when the pretty explosions stopped and the body bags started coming back. Those people who are all gung ho for war, as long as it's other people who do the dying are pretty disgusting human beings.

The vast majority of American citizens supported the invasion of Iraq, so it is the American people's responsibility.

Should I hold you personally responsible for your government's actions? Should you hold me responsible? Neither of us supported the war. Germans who didn't support the Nazis didn't get tried in the Nuremberg trials, they were praised for helping Jews. Or if they were the unluckier kind, they got stuck in a concentration camp when they couldn't keep their mouths shut. Speaking out can be all it takes to turn popular support against the government, and no matter how many guns they have, the population DOES outnumber them, if it comes to that. Therefore, one citizen is not necessarily responsible for the actions of their government.

So what should we do? The only thing I see that we can do that won't just increase violence is get the hell out of there and send a crap ton of humanitarian aid. We'll have to make sure it's distributed evenly while the people work out a transition government, but at this point that's the only solution I could reasonably support. Maybe for each soldier that goes home, we send over enough food to last a family for a year, and send more if a year doesn't cut it.

But I suspect even if we did THAT, someone would find a way to make a profit off of it. So what would you propose?

Honestly, I don't think we can fix it or make it better. I think the most humane thing is to get out.

Quote:
And as for your false dichotomy, do you really think if American troops leave Iraq is suddenly going to become a shangri-la? Iraq's pretty much an unstable powder keg waiting to go off, withdrawing troops now is more likely to HURT EVEN MORE PEOPLE than leaving them there. But some of those people won't be American's any more, so there's that.

I disagree, Americans have killed a lot more Iraqis than infighting post war Iraqis have killed Iraqis, or Iraqis have killed Americans. It seems to me that Americans are the main problem here in this equation. The situation is already unstable, I see intervention as making it moreso.

Quote:
Your side seems determined to make statements about what should be done based entirely on how you think the world should be, not how it is. While you're determined to pass off non-lethal weapons as totalitarianism, you're pretty much ensuring the status quo will continue and that no one'll listen to you if you point out a real case of totalitarianism.

They aren't going to use non-lethal weapons INSTEAD of lethal weapons, you know. They're going to use both in conjunction, because ultimately both are useful for them. You save no one's life by supporting non-lethal tech.

Besides, anyone who would resist a totalitarian government who would put themselves in the path of either kind of weapon is, frankly, an idiot. This is why subterfuge and sabotage exist.

Preserving the status quo is supporting the government, protectors of the status quo, having access to either lethal or non-lethal weapons. They're weapons period, and they're used against US, and our poor counterparts in other nations. I don't believe our government has the right to screw up either that foreign citizen's life or ours.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 7:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Finally, I'm sorry that constant vigilance against authority troubles you so much. I'm sorry that when we worry about what people might do with more power and weapons options, it irks you.

I'm sorry people not walking lock step with your opinion irks you so much, ain't freedom of speech a bitch. I'm sorry that non-lethal options irk you, less blood and deaths, no fun eh?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Down here in the ex-colonies, vigilance against authority is largely seen as the duty of the citizenry. The question 'How can they f*ck us?" is one every patriot ought to ask. It's a duty as serious to us as tea time and a stiff upper lip is to you lot.

And over here in the real world we like to see things for what they are, education we call it. We take it as seriously as you evidently take national slurs

I'll leave you to your righteous indignation, remember: panic now while there's still time! There's a puppy over there, a German student might use it to oppress you!

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So why compound the situation? It's like you have a burglar who broke into a jewelry store, and the sentence is that the burglar has to "stay and clean up and guard the jewelry store, wink wink." I don't see this working out for anyone involved. Except the burglar, but no one wants that, right?

Or it's like you sent a bull into a china shop, and now it's smashed up the place you've decided to do a runner and pretend it never happened.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only thing I see that we can do that won't just increase violence is get the hell out of there and send a crap ton of humanitarian aid.

Yeah, that'll work. Like it did in various African states, you know, the ones where warlords take control of the aid and use it to help fund their territorial conflicts.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You save no one's life by supporting non-lethal tech.

Much like you prove nothing by making stuff up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Preserving the status quo is supporting the government, protectors of the status quo, having access to either lethal or non-lethal weapons.

It's pretty well preserved by people taking extremist stances where they focus always on the worst case scenario, babble on about EVERYTHING being tyranny, and generally discredit any true examples of tyranny by association.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 8:42 AM

Quote:
You save no one's life by supporting non-lethal tech.

Much like you prove nothing by making stuff up.

Bulldunk. I made a testable prediction, there's a difference. Us using non-lethal tech will NOT discontinue use of lethal tech. You might be able to retroactively show me examples of this being the case in Britain, but this is NOT the case in America.

Quote:
The only thing I see that we can do that won't just increase violence is get the hell out of there and send a crap ton of humanitarian aid.

Yeah, that'll work. Like it did in various African states, you know, the ones where warlords take control of the aid and use it to help fund their territorial conflicts.

This does not count as offering an alternative solution (and I noted the likely unrealistic nature of this one, yet it's still the only one I can think of).

I'm beginning to think you don't have one. In which case, you can't hold it against us if we think there's no way to fix anything, and think it would do less damage to just leave.

Quote:
It's pretty well preserved by people taking extremist stances where they focus always on the worst case scenario, babble on about EVERYTHING being tyranny, and generally discredit any true examples of tyranny by association.

For all people obsess about the small stuff when there's tyranny, they don't go, "oh look, food deprivation, gas chambers, baby killing, and forced exile, ho hum. Non-lethal tech? OH SHIT! Let's get us all up in arms about this!" I'm sorry, in my opinion, it's all shades of the same thing, and we get pissed off about all of it.

Clearly you don't agree they're the same thing, so, how exactly does using weaponry of any type on citizens of any country not constitute oppression?

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Bulldunk. I made a testable prediction, there's a difference. Us using non-lethal tech will NOT discontinue use of lethal tech. You might be able to retroactively show me examples of this being the case in Britain, but this is NOT the case in America.

Well in that case it's just a non-sequitur then. It doesn't need to bring about peace on Earth to save lives, move the goal posts much? Antibiotics haven't ended all disease so I suppose that Antibiotics haven't saved a single life then?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This does not count as offering an alternative solution (and I noted the likely unrealistic nature of this one, yet it's still the only one I can think of).

I'm beginning to think you don't have one. In which case, you can't hold it against us if we think there's no way to fix anything, and think it would do less damage to just leave.

We were discussing the non-sequitur...

If I think the best path in a shitty situation is to keep the troops where they are now, then yeah I do get to hold it against you. I don't need to come up with a third option just because you want to shift goal posts around and win by default.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
For all people obsess about the small stuff when there's tyranny, they don't go, "oh look, food deprivation, baby killing, and forced exile, ho hum. Non-lethal tech? OH SHIT! Let's get us all up in arms about this!" I'm sorry, in my opinion, it's all shades of the same thing, and we get pissed off about all of it.

Clearly you don't agree they're the same thing, so, how exactly does using weaponry of any type on citizens of any country not constitute oppression?

Because clearly they're not. Not every time you use force does it equal oppression. Frem is the first to advocate force in self defence, Kung Fu teaches force is only to be used in self defence, and that self defence can be extended to the defence of others. SO Kung Fu is an oppressive ideology is it? How about Frem? Is he a tyrant? Or can we take it as writ that Force doesn't automatically equal oppression, as with all things it depends on how and where it's used, and to what degree.

(Oh at this point I'll be somewhat disappointed if you try and trade me off as a Nazi as Anthony did earlier).

How about you explain how your perfect Utopian Anarchist society doesn't also use the threat of force to protect its values? Even the perfect anarchist society is going to resort to force to stop people attacking it's members. Or are you going to let someone rape a person because force is always oppression? Or murder someone because stopping them would be oppression? Or is force ok, it's only when government does it that it's oppression? Which would be double standards, wouldn't it?

Like I said, people who WANT to see oppression and Tyranny will see it everywhere.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 9:55 AM

Quote:
How about you explain how your perfect Utopian Anarchist society doesn't also use the threat of force to protect its values? Even the perfect anarchist society is going to resort to force to stop people attacking it's members. Or are you going to let someone rape a person because force is always oppression? Or murder someone because stopping them would be oppression? Or is force ok, it's only when government does it that it's oppression? Which would be double standards, wouldn't it?

No, I won't call you a Nazi. I think that you... have a lot of faith in something, and I don't share that same faith at all. But it doesn't make your intentions malicious.

A government is not a protected entity, nor a single person, nor a discriminated party. Double standards is not applicable, particularly when we're comparing the government threat of force to the average group of protestors. They are already treated unequal under the law, and it's the protestor that gets the bum wrap. The government is granted greater freedom and access, under the law, to use force of arms (see the military), and doing so in these cases is an unconstitutional violation of first amendment rights. At least, that's how it works in America.

Quote:
A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The proverb "life is not fair" is often invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.

I do know that corporations recently obtained special protections like this under the law in America, and it's caused us nothing but grief.

And much like you don't have to offer a third option to me so that I can't shift the goal posts to "win" in our argument about what best to do in Iraq (which I didn't do, I was perfectly willing to listen to a list of things you think America should be doing, as I don't have the slightest clue what we could do to fix this damn mess), I don't have to offer an explanation of a "perfect anarchic society" (which would be impossible by definition) so you could do the same automatically to me. Fair's fair.

Quote:

Well in that case it's just a non-sequitur then. It doesn't need to bring about peace on Earth to save lives, move the goal posts much? Antibiotics haven't ended all disease so I suppose that Antibiotics haven't saved a single life then?

Antibiotics have saved a number of lives. I'm arguing that there are certain situations when the American government (and police) will use lethal weapons, and that in situations that don't require lethal weapons, they don't use them (there are liability concerns, you know). As such, I'm arguing that the death rate from lethal weapons in law enforcement confrontations would remain the same. So, using and developing non-lethal weapons would not effect the death rate from lethal weapons in law enforcement confrontations. Hence, my statement about non-lethal tech not saving lives.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 10:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I'm sorry people not walking lock step with your opinion irks you so much, ain't freedom of speech a bitch."

Hello,

Interesting leap. Your complete lack of concern for what authority might do is worrisome, but your freedom of speech is well acknowledged and supported. Did I try to silence you somewhere that I'm not aware of?

"I'm sorry that non-lethal options irk you, less blood and deaths, no fun eh?"

No, now we can have blood and deaths AND remote control torture compliance tools depending on the whims of the pacifiers. It's a rainbow of possibilities. You keep viewing it as an either-or situation. The new technology opens new options. Some of them are legitimate, but some of them are not.

"And over here in the real world we like to see things for what they are, education we call it. We take it as seriously as you evidently take national slurs"

Your education doubtless shows you how pain compliance tools have well documented and multiple incidents of misuse.

"There's a puppy over there, a German student might use it to oppress you!"

I'm not sure how the Germans got into this?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 10:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"(Oh at this point I'll be somewhat disappointed if you try and trade me off as a Nazi as Anthony did earlier)."

Hello,

What on Earth does this mean?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 10:51 AM

Hey, I forget. What does "Appeal to Ridicule" mean again?

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 11:12 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hey, I forget. What does "Appeal to Ridicule" mean again?

Hello,

Mocking something to place it in a lower social position or suggest a lack of validity.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, June 21, 2010 12:13 PM

DREAMTROVE

if you ain't cop you're little people

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
No, I won't call you a Nazi. I think that you... have a lot of faith in something, and I don't share that same faith at all. But it doesn't make your intentions malicious.

I don't have faith in anything, except that governments are groups of people and are exposed to the same factors there of. Hence why I don't buy the Government scapegoating that goes on a lot around here, nor statements that a non-lethal weapon is a tool of oppression because the government was involved somewhere.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A government is not a protected entity, nor a single person, nor a discriminated party. Double standards is not applicable,

And you make that statement, ironically, by using a double standard as to where the term "double standard" can be applied. You also ignore much of the definition you quote to allow you to do so. The very opening line of the article you quoted mentions:

Quote:
The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another

Government is a group of people, QED.
The trailing sentences of the portion you quoted disagree with your premise:

Quote:
...the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards.

You take the short list it presents as definitive, no other criteria can be applied, when the final "other distinction" clearly indicates the list is not definitive. Other distinctions being, say whom you happen to work or not work for.

The definition below works well in this specific:

Quote:
double standard - an ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/double+standard

So yes, it is a double standard, if you claim government ever using force for any reason or in any circumstance is automatically wrong, and or oppression, while giving other groups (protesters are your example) a free pass, and even blaming government for their actions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I do know that corporations recently obtained special protections like this under the law in America, and it's caused us nothing but grief.

If you're referring to corporate person-hood, a group doesn't need to be personified in-order to be exposed to a double standard. Excluding groups from having their treatment counted as a double standard, is a double standard in it's own right.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And much like you don't have to offer a third option to me so that I can't shift the goal posts to "win" in our argument about what best to do in Iraq (which I didn't do, I was perfectly willing to listen to a list of things you think America should be doing, as I don't have the slightest clue what we could do to fix this damn mess), I don't have to offer an explanation of a "perfect anarchic society" (which would be impossible by definition) so you could do the same automatically to me. Fair's fair.

It would be fair if those things are in anyway equivalent. You're using Government force as inherent proof that Government is totalitarian, I'm pointing out that any society eventually uses force and threat of force, it's not unique to governments or any particular society. What I was trying to get you to do was to see that, by providing an example, even the most utopian anarchist society relies on threats or application of force eventually. Ergo the threat or application of force is not the definition of oppression.

What you did is demand I come up with a third option, even though I was saying the current path was better than than your alternative, or accept your alternative is correct. There's nothing equivalent, nor fair in what you've tried to just compare.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Antibiotics have saved a number of lives. I'm arguing that there are certain situations when the American government (and police) will use lethal weapons, and that in situations that don't require lethal weapons, they don't use them (there are liability concerns, you know). As such, I'm arguing that the death rate from lethal weapons in law enforcement confrontations would remain the same.

Good effort. Unfortunately what you said is somewhat different. What you said is (essentially) that because non-lethal weapons won't get rid of all of the lethal variety in perpetuity, they won't prevent any deaths at all. On the face of it what you're doing here would seem to be equivocation, the death rates of a single lethal weapon encounter don't have to be affected at all for non-lethal weapons to save lives. The central conceit of your argument is that because non-lethal options won't replace lethal ones everywhere they won't replace them anywhere. You're trying to prove a generality with a specific, a hasty generalisation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So, using and developing non-lethal weapons would not effect the death rate from lethal weapons in law enforcement confrontations. Hence, my statement about non-lethal tech not saving lives.

Ha, I didn't read this before writing the above paragraph, but here you are putting out a hasty generalisation fallacy in your own words. Because lethal weapons will still be used somewhere, non-lethal alternatives won't save lives anywhere. I really hope you can see the fault in that logic.

A non-lethal weapon doesn't have to change the lethality of a lethal weapon in order to save lives, any more than antibiotics have to cure death and all diseases to do the same.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Interesting leap. Your complete lack of concern for what authority might do is worrisome, but your freedom of speech is well acknowledged and supported. Did I try to silence you somewhere that I'm not aware of?

What's really interesting is that it's less of a leap than anything you've posted so far. You try to insinuate I'm a willing tool of oppression: turn about is fair play. I never claimed you tried to silence me, merely that the fact that I'm not silent clearly irks you. Which wouldn't seem to be a million miles away from the truth right about now.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No, now we can have blood and deaths AND remote control torture compliance tools depending on the whims of the pacifiers. It's a rainbow of possibilities. You keep viewing it as an either-or situation. The new technology opens new options. Some of them are legitimate, but some of them are not.

No, I don't keep viewing it as either or, I view it as shades of grey, your the one with the black and white viewpoint. Since you can only see my statements in those terms perhaps you're incapable of seeing anything but in terms of black and white? Either way that's your problem not mine.

I see it as an option that can be used where other more dangerous non-lethal weapons are currently used (rubber bullets, CS-Gas etc), or lethal ones. You're not going to wish away the need to control crowds at times, riots are a poignant example, and that need is not in and of itself oppression. I've found it kind of cute how you and byte have both tried to pass off a riot as a peaceable assembly, but it amounts to little more than intellectual dishonesty.

You and Byte claim its an instrument of oppression and can be nothing else, and I'M the one not recognising other possibilities? That's pretty fucking hilarious, especially given that my very opening statement acknowledged that it could be misused. I know you read it, since you quoted and replied to it, so are you lying or do you just have a truly astounding confirmation bias?

Because this one non-lethal weapon won't bring about peace on Earth, get rid of all weapons and get us all to sit around singing kumbaya, that proves it's a tool of oppression? Nonsense. At the end of the day you can't support the underlying premise that all force is always oppression regardless of circumstances, so instead you try and pass me off as a willing tool of government oppression. Nice.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Your education doubtless shows you how pain compliance tools have well documented and multiple incidents of misuse.

Yeah, but the mistake you make is thinking that because your argument relies on absolutes, mine does too. For my position to be confirmed, I have to show that not every case of non-lethal weapons use constitutes oppression/torture/totalitarianism/is worse than the alternative. You have to show that every case constitutes those things, since you're going on about how the very existence of this weapon, and the project that created it, is evidence of totalitarianism. Instead you try to strawman my argument by saying that I'm claiming that it can never be misused, despite the fact I said pretty much the exact opposite of that, and have done time and again throughout this thread.

I don't classify the possibility of something being misused as the probability that it always will be, or will be the majority of the time. Nor that that means the thing itself is oppression ipso-facto. Just because it can be misused does not mean that misuse is it's primary function.

Further, while you're making a big thing of this tool being oppression, you're removing blame from the oppressors. I prefer to hold them responsible for their actions, rather than absolve them of blame, apparently that stance makes me a willing participate in state sanctioned oppression.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure how the Germans got into this?

It's a reference to a German Student throwing a puppy at hells angels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10333211.stm

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"(Oh at this point I'll be somewhat disappointed if you try and trade me off as a Nazi as Anthony did earlier)."
...
What on Earth does this mean?

That you're trying to pass me off as someone willingly compliant in state sanctioned oppression. It's not like it's a cryptic sentence. Since you're still doing it ("Your complete lack of concern for what authority might do is worrisome" et al), evidently my statement doesn't fall too wide of the mark.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:21 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
if you ain't cop you're little people

Nice one!

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:07 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mike

Or perhaps now, small people ;)

Quote:
I don't buy the Government scapegoating

I like this logic. I concur. Serial killers are scapegoated to. The killing just happen, no one knows their complex social dynamical causes. But certainly the killers aren't to blame, after all they are just people. Ain't nothing on that old moon except some little golf balls the astronauts left behind.

The RUF is just people to, they're just folk, like al Qaeda, just folk. Don't matter how many people folk kiil, they're still just folk.

See, you may think of govt as those people who work for it, fulfilling it's secret agenda, or not, del ending on the job, like all of us, who probably every one of us worked for the govt at some point. Or a govt.

Anwyay, I want to thank you for sinking your political side. I would love the left to by the pro-big govt side, it auto makes me the good guy ;) [/snark]

Cit,

Just funnin. I don't really want to have debate about it, just wanted to point out the absurdity of the position.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Just funnin. I don't really want to have debate about it, just wanted to point out the absurdity of the position.

Yes your strawman is extremely absurd.

I mean no one is at fault for anything they do, ever. It's all governments fault. Serial Killers don't kill people, Government MAKES them do it with its insidious mind control. Al Qaeda hasn't killed anyone, it was the government. No one but government can be held accountable for their actions, unless their actions are good, then it wasn't the government. Because government == bad, so anything bad == government.

Thanks for sinking your side of the argument, I love it when the opposition rely on lies and logical fallacies to push their agenda, it makes me right, and the good guy, by default. ;)

Anyway just funning, pointing out you have to strawman like crazy to make your position sound less insane. Don't want to debate it.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:40 AM

DREAMTROVE

Nah you missed the point of my post. Serial killers analogy for govt. The govt, it just can't stop killing. Ain't nobody's fault.

ETA: missed the ref too, and you? Not want to debate?

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nah you missed the point of my post. Serial killers analogy for govt. The govt, it just can't stop killing. Ain't nobody's fault.

And you missed the point of mine. You can't stop ascribing everything bad that ever happens to government, while giving everything other entities do a free pass, because you've already blamed some government somewhere for their actions.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:09 AM

The quote wasn't my own words, Citizen, it's two the opening paragraphs for the article on double standards in wikipedia. Under the law, the government is not supposed to be a protected entity, nor a single person, nor considered a discriminated party. What most people consider the purpose of a government is for the government to act as a fair impartial arbiter of justice. They are supposed to be horizontally removed from a consideration of double standards or discrimination, because they are supposed to be held to the same rights, privileges, and restrictions of the average member of the public, and should derive no particular benefit or protections from being in a certain group (the government). They are not supposed to be considered a special case.

Obviously, this isn't how it works IRL in the legal system, as the state and federal government often acts as a defendant in civil and criminal trials. Which, depending on your point of view, may have unfortunate implications. The government also has a tendency to award themselves special privileges under the law, such as greater access to weapons and authorization of use of force.

The way I read your argument, is arguing for the government having a right to something like corporate personhood. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part, but I don't know what else you could mean. And the idea of considering the government a possible discriminated group is beyond my ability to fathom. My understanding is there are provisions under the law to prevent this in practice, because there's so much potential for abuse. Not that it stops the government, but it's supposed to be there, I thought. And removing such provisions for the benefit of corporations has had major consequences.

I can maybe understand the concept vaguely by the logic you're using, that we conspiracy theorists and anti-government people etc. have a bias against the government, and I'll concede it. But that bias is a safety mechanism, for those of us that want to keep the government in check. I'm not sure how things would operate if people had no such safety mechanism.

This overreaction, as you might see it, by us towards a non-lethal technology is merely that safety mechanism engaged, we want to watch the government, to make sure they don't misuse it against the citizens. This is... bad, in your opinion? Why?

I mean, it's not like any of us really could stop the use or deployment of such a machine, unless we organized and mobilized against them whenever and wherever they were deployed. I suppose Frem might have such a capacity. The rest of us don't, not really. So for the rest of us, this is probably what you might consider internet pissing and moaning, but it serves a valuable purpose in being part of a spread of information beyond what the mainstream media can supply. It's part and parcel of preventing any abuse, if it should happen.

Quote:
What you did is demand I come up with a third option, even though I was saying the current path was better than than your alternative, or accept your alternative is correct. There's nothing equivalent, nor fair in what you've tried to just compare.

Hmm. I didn't realize you thought that this current path was all that good. You don't think there isn't something better we can do? Because the situation seems awful to me, for everyone involved.

Citizen, it's not intellectual dishonesty, some people might just have a different mindset from yours, believe different things, and have different concerns. Our brains just plain work differently, not better or worse, but different. There are concepts that make sense to you that won't make sense to us.

On the specific point where you made this accusation towards me, you saw what I defined as a riot (violence, damage to property, lighting stuff on fire), it's probably fairly consistent with what you would define as a riot. I merely expressed a suspicion that some riots didn't start out as riots when intervention was deployed.

Besides, I'm only dishonest about being an intellectual.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The quote wasn't my own words, Citizen, it's two the opening paragraphs for the article on double standards in wikipedia. Under the law, the government is not supposed to be a protected entity, nor a single person, nor considered a discriminated party. What most people consider the purpose of a government is for the government to act as a fair impartial arbiter of justice.

I know, it's the second paragraph of three in the wiki article. In fact I stated as much in my post, did you read it? If you care to look, I quoted other areas of the wikipedia article, which clearly point out that double standards can be applied to entities such as government, because they apply to any "group of people". You lifted the "protected groups" stuff from one particular sentence from what I can see, and I dealt with that specifically also. You seem to be taking the list it gave as exhaustive, when the sentence itself makes it very clear it is not so. I'm not claiming they were your words, I'm not even dismissing the page as wrong, just pointing out your understanding of the page and what it says, is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
They are not supposed to be considered a special case.

All the more bizarre that you'd single out government as a special case, whereby it's the only entity that can't be considered to be subjected to double standards, then.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The way I read your argument, is arguing for the government having a right to something like corporate personhood.

You've gone from me pointing out a double standard, via your own misunderstanding of a wikipedia page on the term "double standard" and managed to make it all the way to me arguing for corporate personhood for government? I wonder if you read my post at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This overreaction, as you might see it, by us towards a non-lethal technology is merely that safety mechanism engaged, we want to watch the government, to make sure they don't misuse it against the citizens. This is... bad, in your opinion? Why?

Ah, we come back to this. While you might think you're keeping a good watch on Government and all it's ills, what you're actually doing is undermining your own position. Calling everything totalitarianism and oppression is like the boy that cried wolf, someday there will be a real wolf and no one's going to listen:

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So for the rest of us, this is probably what you might consider internet pissing and moaning, but it serves a valuable purpose in being part of a spread of information beyond what the mainstream media can supply. It's part and parcel of preventing any abuse, if it should happen.

Part and parcel of preventing any real abuse would be coming here with an example of said real abuse, not "pissing and moaning" about how the existence of the thing constitutes abuse in and of itself. Because it really doesn't, and sure, some arsehole is going to abuse it, and when that happens I'm going to be as vocal as anyone condemning it. But screaming blue bloody murder about how it's existence is proof of tyranny can only increase the signal to noise ratio to an extent that it undermines your own position. Especially given that there are plenty of ways it can be employed that don't constitute tyranny.

Piratenews might be right on occasion, but most people here, or anywhere, would never know it because the times he's right are utterly buried in a fragrant pile of Commie-Nazi-Jews.

Anything can be misused. That it can be misused does not mean it itself constitutes tyranny. Does the existence of water, towels and plastic constitute tyranny, given that those things can be used for waterboarding?

For me this whole conversation would be like declaring Nikola Tesla or Benjamin Franklin a tyrant, because you can use electricity for torture.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm. I didn't realize you thought that this current path was all that good. You don't think there isn't something better we can do? Because the situation seems awful to me, for everyone involved.

I think the situation will be worse with the troops removed, as I said. That says nothing on how I feel about the current situation; when it comes to arrows the best thing is to never be shot by one, but if you've already been shot by one it's not always a great idea to tear it out.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:56 AM

I did read your post, but it doesn't mean I understand all of it. If there are leaps I made, it's because I'm trying to figure out what you mean, and address what I think I understand. My thinking style may not be completely linear, as such my questions about double standards may not necessarily follow, in logical sequence, my question about corporate personhood. It's basically me saying "do you mean this, or this? What about this?" I got a clear answer on the corporate personhood part, I consider that a definitive 'no.'

I think the disagreement we're having is whether it's a good thing to have a double standard for a government, for either more privileges or for more restrictions. I see a government as having more privileges, as such a double standard in the favour of the government.

You think that I am biased towards the government, and expect them to meet stricter standards in behaviour than the citizens (who might be more violent, as in a riot). Is this right?

And if this is a correct assessment, are you arguing that my bias towards the government constitutes a double standard and discriminatory practice?

Under what law, and relative to what?

Quote:
Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.

~From Wikipedia, again, on discrimination. I was not aware that I am able to deploy ADS machines against people in government employ.

Quote:
The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.

Also from wikipedia. I would consider prevention of abuse a good reason for not having a double standard in regards to government access to weaponry compared to the citizenry.

I would agree double standards are probably not a good thing, and I definitely don't support double standards with an advantage for the government. I have to think about if I think there are or can recognize any double standards the government is subjected to that aren't in it's advantage. I could use some help, examples wise here.

I see the rest of your points, and I think I understand them. But I still express doubt that people will ever become bored hearing about or decrying tyranny, or that crying wolf in such a case will diminish response to real tyranny.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Citizen,

I am sorry that we are unable to have a logical debate about this topic. I feel this is the case because you enjoy repackaging my argument into absurdities.

"turn about is fair play. I never claimed you tried to silence me, merely that the fact that I'm not silent clearly irks you. Which wouldn't seem to be a million miles away from the truth right about now."

Here, you suggest that because we disagree, I must be upset about freedom of speech. This is the repackaging of an honest disagreement into an absurdity. It makes it so that if I continue to disagree with you, I am an enemy of free speech.

"No, I don't keep viewing it as either or, I view it as shades of grey, your the one with the black and white viewpoint. Since you can only see my statements in those terms perhaps you're incapable of seeing anything but in terms of black and white? Either way that's your problem not mine."

Here, you try to repackage my position as one of absolutes. I have been saying that the government may use this weapon as a tool of oppression. I specifically conceded it has other uses 'The new technology opens new options. Some of them are legitimate, but some of them are not.' But you continue to repackage me as a black and white absolutist. You do it multiple times, again below:

"You and Byte claim its an instrument of oppression and can be nothing else,"

Again, you pretend as though we are blind to the possibility of a nonlethal weapon being useful, when we have conceded (if you re-read) instances when nonlethal force might be useful. However, it is easier to repackage us as saying it can never be anything but a tool of oppression.

"Further, while you're making a big thing of this tool being oppression, you're removing blame from the oppressors. I prefer to hold them responsible for their actions, rather than absolve them of blame, apparently that stance makes me a willing participate in state sanctioned oppression."

Here, you repackage us from saying that this is a tool of potential oppression... and make the new package into something new - it is now oppression itself. A ridiculous statement never made or implied. We have repeatedly in fact said that if we trusted our law enforcement we wouldn't begrudge them these sorts of devices. However, you repackage us into believing that a tool is inherently evil. Another repackaging job to make us easy to shoot down.

"I don't classify the possibility of something being misused as the probability that it always will be, or will be the majority of the time. Nor that that means the thing itself is oppression ipso-facto. Just because it can be misused does not mean that misuse is it's primary function."

This is, incidentally, the real and only honest argument you have made. Why you need to repackage us five times to make one honest statement is beyond me. This is the central point of disagreement. You trust that the use of the device will be mostly responsible and good. We do not. Why we can't have an honest debate without this repackaging process is beyond me.

"That you're trying to pass me off as someone willingly compliant in state sanctioned oppression. It's not like it's a cryptic sentence. Since you're still doing it ("Your complete lack of concern for what authority might do is worrisome" et al), evidently my statement doesn't fall too wide of the mark."

Here you try to repackage not me, but yourself! As a Nazi! Then you try to say I repackaged you that way, so that you have a new means to defeat me. It's remarkable!

For the record, I think you can turn a blind eye to the dangers of abuses by the people in power and still not be a Nazi. The suggestion that this is a unique characteristic to one short-lived community in one place at one time in history is fascinating. I think you chose Nazi because of its incredible absurdity, thus creating a new package to obliterate in a nice reversal, claiming I packaged you.

Your packaging and labeling is all a continual process of creating absurdities that you can shoot down, without dealing with the essential central disagreement as an honest disagreement between people.

You trust those who would use this device more often than not. I distrust them more often than not. You find it lamentable that I don't trust them with a pain compliance device. I find it lamentable that you do trust them with a pain compliance device. No Nazis, Dogs, or Hells Angels involved.

Having frequently observed riot control procedures where unarmed, nonviolent protesters were shot repeatedly with less-lethal munitions, I feel very justified in my concern.

Since the U.S. Army has no riot-control duties in Afghanistan, I am concerned about the weapon having no cause for legitimate deployment there.

Since the U.S. Army has no riot-control duties in the United States, I am concerned about the weapon having no cause for legitimate deployment there.

Since our police forces routinely use less-lethal munitions without sufficient cause, I am concerned about the weapon being deployed under their auspices.

You have thus far expressed none of these concerns to me, and I find that lamentable. I find it lamentable without packaging you as a Nazi or trying to silence your Free Speech or even feeling bad about the fact that you have it. I am treating you as an individual person with starkly different views than my own. No seran-wrap or labeling required.

Do you share any of my concerns? If so, you haven't shared them with me.

For the record, a pain compliance device such as this agonizer beam has a singular legitimate use: A group of people are trying to kill other people or destroy their property. These people have to be clustered close together and be in a location where the pain truck can be deployed to effect. The alternative to deploying the pain beam would have to be lethal force. If the device is deployed amidst a civilian population, the deploying agency would need to have police duties.

This is the solitary legitimate use for a pain compliance device: To prevent killing. I do not believe it is being deployed for this noble purpose. I have repeatedly seen less-lethal munitions used to force compliance from nonviolent protesters. It seems likely to me that this new tool will, if deployed, be used for the same purpose. It's possible it may *also* be used for legitimate purposes somewhere in the manner proscribed above. However, I consider the danger of illegitimate use to outweigh its benefits to society at this time.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,

I am sorry that we are unable to have a logical debate about this topic. I feel this is the case because you enjoy repackaging my argument into absurdities.

Actually it's because you don't like others doing to you what you do to them. I'm sorry, is it only you allowed to strawman peoples arguments and accuse them of things that aren't true because they don't agree with you? I'm afraid I didn't get the memo.

Everything you claim I'm doing to you, is stuff you've already done to me. That's why I was doing them to you. I guess you don't hold to the idea of treating others as you want to be treated, because you sure as shit don't like being treated the way you've treated me.

If I've only made one real and honest argument in this thread, that's still one more than you.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Since the U.S. Army has no riot-control duties in the United States, I am concerned about the weapon having no cause for legitimate deployment there.

You might wanna revisit that, Anthony.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/ (<-add slash manually or link will fail.)

There's a couple of these rotating through at any one time, and DepHomeSec does in fact at any time have some active duty troops on hand who are trained and geared for that kind of thing.

Quote:
The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

I did however notice they edited the story and threw in (well over a YEAR later) this supposed correction..
"A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated."

But I call bullshit, cause they have, as you say, no legit use for it in a war zone, and they *did* in fact bring an ADS unit to the G20 protests in Philadelphia.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40100

We've got a wonderful surprise for them concerning the L-RAD too, since revisiting that thread reminded me, and you'll see it in action if they try that stunt again.

-Frem

PS. THAT is what I meant by getting "Crazy Eddied", Anthony.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I guess you don't hold to the idea of treating others as you want to be treated, because you sure as shit don't like being treated the way you've treated me."

Hello,

If I repackaged your argument into absurdities, I apologize. I was not aware of it at the time, and am still blind to it. I thought I dealt with your opinion very fairly. I'm sorry if you feel I've been less than genuine or honest with you, or with my arguing technique.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:54 AM