Quake3World

Its too bad, and unfortunate that you have some refusal to acknowledge an argument, and persist folks adhere to your view.

menkent wrote:amazing that after all this (twice), canis still seems to think he's not dumb. surely there's an existential point to be made about the power of the subject's self-perception.

Nothing has been resolved, just senseless bashing when folks dont agree about something. The point I've presented hasnt even been acknowledged. Folks arent even willing to reiterate it back to me with a positive argument. Instead, its responses like yours of "you're a dipshit because everyone here claims something you disagree with" that occur instead. I've stuck to the argument because I see a hole in Rook's logic that I've presented, but that's been dismissed by him and everyone else. Through this discussion I've persisted on my point but tried to incorporate others' views in ways to show I acknowledge their view and also to hopefully bring my point to a level on their thinking where they'd at least be able to acknowledge it. As it turns out, every time folks have falsely interpreted it to be some logical folly, reiterating it back to me not as I presented it, but falsified by their refusal to distinguish between two concepts I presented: conceptual vs practical legality.

It seems these two things cannot be distinguished by folks here. They refuse to even humor the possibility of it even though I've requested they do so. In this mindset they will never see the point I'm making, and will instead resort to demeaning, off-hand comments of dismissal such as your little response there.

when you make sense people don't hassle you

so make sense and the problem is solved

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:when you make sense people don't hassle you

so make sense and the problem is solved

Its there, but unfortunately at this point folks are so biased and stuck to their interpretation of my argument that even when I present it in a different way they're not willing to see it. I agree from some points of view this may be seen as an obscure point, but I see importance in it, even though others may not. Oddly, it seems these "others" are those who put down others and bash folks with biased viewpoints. Its like interacting with Freakaloin, only to a lesser degree of severity. Talk sense to him and he'll cry and moan, and call you a moron, and say he crushed you, etc. without really having said much. I'm not saying this has happened here, but a similar mindset is apparent with the dismissive comments and the put-downs, and the belittlement when someone disagrees as opposed to forming a discussion that includes any effort or desire to find out what the difference in mindsets is. Without this its not a discussion, but is just a senseless bash-fest.

you, having been backed into a rhetorical corner, sought a way out by inserting the trivial word "practically" into your claim that what is not enforced is not illegal. we all get it. it's just a restatement of the old saying "it's not illegal unless you get caught," except you've made it even more wrong by going further to say that even if you're caught it's not illegal until you're somehow prosecuted.
this is, aside from wrong, dumb. in both threads there are multiple pages of people carefully explaining why this is so - from the basic logical fallacy recently rook re-explained above to the simple truth that your definition could not possibly be tenable in the US as it necessarily violates the separation of powers since you're equating the legislative responsibility of enforcement to the judicial responsibility of deciding legality.
there's no flaem-warr1oring going on here, you're just wrong. no amount of deflection, denial, or accusations of geoffism will change that.

menkent wrote:you, having been backed into a rhetorical corner, sought a way out by inserting the trivial word "practically" into your claim that what is not enforced is not illegal. we all get it. it's just a restatement of the old saying "it's not illegal unless you get caught," except you've made it even more wrong by going further to say that even if you're caught it's not illegal until you're somehow prosecuted.
this is, aside from wrong, dumb. in both threads there are multiple pages of people carefully explaining why this is so - from the basic logical fallacy recently rook re-explained above to the simple truth that your definition could not possibly be tenable in the US as it necessarily violates the separation of powers since you're equating the legislative responsibility of enforcement to the judicial responsibility of deciding legality.
there's no flaem-warr1oring going on here, you're just wrong. no amount of deflection, denial, or accusations of geoffism will change that.

I'm sorry you think it is just plain wrong, when what I've described in my position is happening all the time and has happened countless times in the past. Its the reasoning for folks getting away with atrocities they commit, and its the reason why folks take advantage of their powers to do thing like, oh, invade iraq under false pretenses. I think its wrong that it happens, but its not incorrect to claim that it doesnt happen, which is implied if not directly stated in Rook's argument.

I've presented a view that recognizes this occurs, as it does all the time. I've refined my argument for clarity, and if that's your excuse for dismissing it then so be it. Ultimately, yes my argument does point to the fact that unless someone is prosecuted, then IN ALL PRACTICE they've not comitted a crime. I hate that it occurs, but it does, and it cannot be denied that it occurs. If you think my distinguishing conceptual law and practical law is my way of weeding out of an argument you are wrong. I've refined it because lumping those two views of law together would be a fallacy. Still, in your and rooks argument its clear this is being done, and you're then resorting to putting me down for providing argument for "you're not guilty unless you're caught" which you've blindly accepted as being downright wrong. However, there is truth in it from the views I've presented, and it is backed by countless folks taking advantage of it, but you choose instead to turn a blind eye to it and just throw the word "illegal" around as if it fully applies in these instances. Sure it does conceptually, and I've not argued that point. However, practically its dead in the water in these instances, and refusal to see this or merely acknowledge it is an argumentative and logical mishap. Granted I understand its tough to see from the perspective rook has mentioned, but the logic is there and its got quite a bit of backing to it. Folks, however, are just straight up blind to it, or so it seems.

what, you're trying to boil this down into some wank epistimological question now? the law, as an object, is external to you and therefore irrelevant? trying to get zen? if i punch you in the face and rook isn't there to see you, you didn't get your face "practically" fractured?
a crime has been comitted - practically, metaphysically, essentially, consequentially, rambunctiously, refinedly, whatever. type it in all caps if you want. your causal relationship is backwards. the act defines the crime, not the result of the act.
the word illegal means "contrary to the law," not "punishable." enforcement is completely irrelevant.

menkent wrote:what, you're trying to boil this down into some wank epistimological question now? the law, as an object, is external to you and therefore irrelevant? trying to get zen? if i punch you in the face and rook isn't there to see you, you didn't get your face "practically" fractured?
a crime has been comitted - practically, metaphysically, essentially, consequentially, rambunctiously, refinedly, whatever. type it in all caps if you want. your causal relationship is backwards. the act defines the crime, not the result of the act.
the word illegal means "contrary to the law," not "punishable." enforcement is completely irrelevant.

You realize what you're saying has been repeated over and over, but has nothing to do with the practicality of law. I've reiterated over and over again that the conceptual components of law are valid as you've described, but they're empty without action. In my arguments I've claimed folks can claim illegality as it is defined, etc, but until something is done about it the applicability of the law falls flat. Its a simple concept, but folks are falling back to the definitions you've described and are using that to refute the idea i presented. Additionally, they're using this argument of definitions to overlook the idea I'm presenting. The mere fact is, regardless of the words you use or how eloquently you phrase it, the idea I'm advocating is a reality that is being used by folks everywhere.

If you can present a concrete argument against the view that the applicability of law requires enforcement or otherwise it can be seen as mere rhetoric, then I'll be quite open to it. Citing definitions does not address the idea behind my argument. If this argument were about definitions I'd have agreed with everyone a long time ago because sure, somewhere it is written down that some action that contradicts a written statue that is called a "law" makes that action "illegal". However, as it is there's something beyond the definitions that is being taken advantage of by the politicians such as bush, and I've presented it as a clear difference between conceptual and practical law. I dont see it as them just breaking the law and getting away with it even though this appears to be the obvious conclusion, but rather I see it as them using a cleaver loophole in the justice system that pushes claims of illegality into meaning nothing based on the power (and timing, what the heck) of enforcement.

Since we seem to be locked on definitions, lets drop them and hope we can argue and discuss the ideas.

-

Bush and Arlen Specter have jointly written a bill that would not only legalized the warrantless wiretapping that the NSA has been conducting -- oh no, this goes above and beyond our needs, and makes it completely legal for the President to tap ANY American citizen's phone, as long as he claims it is in some loose way affiliated with terrorism.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... chnology_3

:icon27:

R00k wrote:Bush and Arlen Specter have jointly written a bill that would not only legalized the warrantless wiretapping that the NSA has been conducting -- oh no, this goes above and beyond our needs, and makes it completely legal for the President to tap ANY American citizen's phone, as long as he claims it is in some loose way affiliated with terrorism.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... chnology_3

:icon27:

And...

According to other reports it makes it legal retroactively...so Bush can't be accused of breaking the laws before they changed the laws that were being broken but weren't laws cause they weren't enforced by some law guy in some law room with a judge of some sort.

Mickey Mantle is pretty cool.

full: http://snopes.best.vwh.net/photos/mantle.pdf

important:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/

Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is ‘Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources’

Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.” Watch it.

I really suspect that Bin Laden is dead, and the White House knows it.

And this is why 65% of Republicans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11:

Senator Reid calls on White House to stop cover-up of Cheney's Iraq lies
by John in DC - 9/13/2006 07:05:00 PM

September 13, 2006

The Honorable William H. Frist
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
U.S. Capitol
Room S-230
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Leader Frist:

Late last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis released reports that discussed Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and its links to terrorism and the intelligence community’s use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. These reports provided the American people with important insights into these critical issues.

Unfortunately, the Administration chose to classify certain important portions of these reports that should have been released to the public. A bipartisan majority of the Intelligence Committee disagreed with the Administration’s decision to classify certain portions of the report’s findings and conclusions and said that classifying this information is
“without justification.”

In my view, the Administration’s decision to classify one particular portion of the report – a section discussing a CIA document about the alleged meeting in Prague between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer – is especially troubling and lacking in justification.

As you may know, as recently as this Sunday on national television, Vice President Cheney left open the possibility that such a meeting may have occurred. However, a bipartisan majority of the Intelligence Committee, after thoroughly reviewing relevant intelligence reports and assessments, concluded “no such meeting occurred.” The continued classification of sections referencing this meeting only serves to prevent the American public from knowing the full facts about this matter.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09 ... se-to.html

ctrlnuke wrote:Mickey Mantle is pretty cool.

full: http://snopes.best.vwh.net/photos/mantle.pdf

important:

best post in the thread.

True, no CNN article with massive quote that 3 people will read, but good none the less.

ctrlnuke - raising the bar with every post. You can search CNN for that one, it's a fact.

ctrlnuke wrote:
best post in the thread.

True, no CNN article with massive quote that 3 people will read, but good none the less.

ctrlnuke - raising the bar with every post. You can search CNN for that one, it's a fact.

What the fuck are you groaning about you mouth breathing queerfag?

This guy makes a fairly well researched call of high crimes charges agains Bush regarding torture.

There may be probable cause to try George W. Bush for capital crimes. Bush is losing it. He's combative, belligerent, rambling, disconnected and overtly defensive....


....The issue is torture —a heinous act that Bush insists on calling "...an alternative set of procedures". Interviewed by Matt Lauer, Bush tried to justify torture as necessary even as he denied that the US was torturing. Bush tried to avoid the question: if torture is "legal", then why did the US try to keep it secret throughout Eastern Europe? Bush may choose to refer to torture by some Orwellian term.....

..Bush openly claims the right to torture —at his personal discretion. The dictatorial powers that he claims —work against him. They make him personally culpable for all crimes that follow from his lead, his example, his direction......

Here's a little refresher video to show you what's been said by BushCo, what's been revealed....and then try to reconcile that with what's been said by BushCo lately.

Outlawed - Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the "War on Terror"

You can directly download the video here: Right Click Save As (27 min/20 MB)

They also talk to that german guy who was arrested, "renditioned", he sued for human rights violations and had the suit thrown out.

Human rights groups and several public inquiries in Europe have found the U.S. government, with the complicity of numerous governments worldwide, to be engaged in the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition, secret detention, and torture.

The U.S. government-sponsored program of renditions is an unlawful practice in which numerous persons have been illegally detained and secretly flown to third countries, where they have suffered additional human rights abuses including torture and enforced disappearance. No one knows the exact number of persons affected, due to the secrecy under which the operations are carried out.

so canis is wrong?

(can't be arsed to read the whole thread)

saturn wrote:so canis is wrong?

(can't be arsed to read the whole thread)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Quisque vulputate nibh eu risus semper mattis. Sed non turpis nec augue faucibus congue. Cras lacinia, tellus ac varius posuere, neque pede vehicula tortor, vel vestibulum nunc lectus sed justo. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Sed rutrum convallis magna. Nunc at tortor. Proin quis pede at quam suscipit vestibulum. Etiam non dui consequat pede molestie sagittis. Quisque a eros quis nunc egestas dapibus. Nullam magna pede, facilisis eget, vulputate quis, iaculis at, risus.

(yes)