And yet, when you have people who have been nearly drowned call that torture you disregard it.

I’ve read the legal definition of torture, as defined by US laws.

And have yet to show how forced drowning fails to meet this definition.

I’m okay with it. Just because I intensely disagree with someone one topic doesn’t mean I have to think they are completely wrong on every other topic. I may intensely disagree with anything a right-wing racist may shout on a street corner but I’d agree with them that they have a right to say it.

Are you suggesting that that there is never room for any common ground with someone you’ve had a disagreement with? More specifically, are you suggesting I agree with Jay Tea’s moronic “it ain’t torture if I say it ain’t” statements? Cause I’d like to see you back that up.

Further, I’ve read the legal definition of torture, as defined by US laws.

I don’t like it when words get diluted and lose their meaning. It’s part of the reason I don’t like Strowbridge — I have great respect for profanity, its rhetorical power and occasional necessity. But that idiot ruins it by dropping it casually at almost every opportunity, revealing himself to be just a pottymouthed, frothing idiot.

It’s hard to draw a legal definition of “torture,” to set up a bright line between “unpleasant” or “uncomfortable” and “inhumane.” The procedure outlined by the CIA is fairly near that line, no argument. But I don’t believe it crosses into the realm of such treatments as broken fingers, crushed testicles, electrocution, bamboo shoots under fingernails, dislocation of joints, removal of fingernails, nails driven into the body, burning, or inflicting hypothermia, or a host of other hideous procedures.

(Odd trivia: nearly all the data on treating hypothermia derives from meticulous Nazi records of immersing Jews and other “subhumans” in freezing water during the Holocaust. Many people owe their lives to those atrocities.)

It’s hyperbole. It’s rhetorical inflation. It’s like denouncing Bush as “BusHitler” or calling Obama a Communist.

J.

And Sean regularly makes some of the most astounding misinterpretations of rather straight-forward statements. And he generally doesn’t address criticisms, choosing instead to build new strawmen or just run away.

Now, anyone want to talk about whether forced drowning is torture?

Sure, it is. Easy. Now how do you feel about being defended by a guy with the most idiotic defense of waterboarding ever? I never thought I’d live to see someone play the “I had a vasectomy and gave blood so being drowned can’t be that bad”-card. That this was followed by “I have a simple test that I apply to something that is considered “torture:” would any sane person submit to it willingly simply to prove a point? is just gravy. I guess to Jay Tea there is no such thing as torture. Still, awesome stuff, it’s like hitting the moron hole-in-one and following it up with a double eagle of stupid.

This is what we’ve all come to expect from you.

Apparently this is NOT a claim to speak on behalf of everyone.

Maybe I need to sign up for an ESL class from Strowbridge’s mother…

(Someone cue up “Hot For Teacher…”)

J.

Well I suppose that’s only fair. Earlier I sounded a bit like Strowbridge, so only fair that he now sound like me.

Well, it is the things you write that I’m trying to make sense of. GIGO.

Must have missed where I said I was the official mouthpiece of the readership here.

But thank you for ignoring my point and continuing to attack me instead.

I just proves my point.

And ain’t you big to take on the role of speaking for everyone else on this forum. I bet they’re all just THRILLED beyond words to have you present their opinions for them.

Must’ve missed the day when you were elected official mouthpiece of the readership here…

J.

I don’t give a fuck about your opinion. Anyone who believes waterboarding isn’t torture because it’s ‘simulated’ drowning and not ‘controlled’ is not someone whose opinion I value. (By the way, waterboarding is controlled drowning, and simulated drowning would be considered torture under US law.)

However, I will note you completely ignored every other point I made. This is what we’ve all come to expect from you.

So, you’re saying that the problem wasn’t that you used the wrong word, but you didn’t catch your mistake? I find it hard to believe that someone who is as intelligent and as educated and as erudite as yourself (by your own claims) would make such a mistake.

No, you must be wrong. You didn’t use the wrong word in the first place. You are incapable of doing that. Your application of “discussion” must be an obscure but acceptable variant that the rest of us are too stupid to know about, but you’re saying I was correct out of some sense of sympathy or pity.

Well, you can take your pity apology and cram it.

On a serious note: you really need to study Keith Olbermann more. He cops the same faux-serious attitude (his studied use of the sneering “sir” is the stuff of legend), but he comes across just a smidgen less batshit psycho than you.

J.

Translation: “Waaahhhh!”

“In this context, Strowbridge, I believe you meant ‘discussing.’ The verb form, not the noun, of ‘discuss.’”

Yes. You are correct. I made a mistake. However, mistakes like these have little to do with literacy and more to do with proofreading (or the lack thereof). On the other hand, not being able to rewrite what someone said does have a lot to do with literacy.

I said to Sean, in another thread, “So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but naming a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.”

What do you think I meant by that?

Sean thought I was saying he was not allowed to speculate.

Seriously.

Sean: “Your question as to whether I should be allowed to speculate without any direct evidence.”

Feel free to use that next time you two get into a verbal argument.

He has serious reading comprehension problems, to the point where I find it unlikely he could pass a comprehensive literacy test.

This is not hyperbole.

My opinion of him is that low.

I think I proved one thing: when I try to emulate Strowbridge’s style, I fail miserably. I guess I don’t possess the “asshole” gene that lets one carry that off. And I was rather proud of the “retroactive abortion” line; it really seemed to capture both his philosophy on abortion and his tendency for over-the-top insults.

I’m not surprised he didn’t pick up on it; self-important blowhards like him tend to be immune to satire. And “Newsy” is too obsessed with cherry-picking to see the whole context of anything. But I’d hoped that SOMEONE would note the effort…

And normally I eschew spelling/grammar flames, but since Strowbridge is claiming to be the final arbiter of The Queen’s English, and calling Sean illiterate, I have to bring this up:

I’m merely asking you to rewrite something we were discussion to prove that you comprehend the subject matter. I am doing this because I don’t think you do comprehend it.

In this context, Strowbridge, I believe you meant “discussing.” The verb form, not the noun, of “discuss.”

You stupid fuckhead.

J.

You should feel something when I say that. You should feel a deep sense of shame.”

Sean D. Martin: “I do feel something. A passing bit of amusement. At your continued hyperbole when you claim you know what a fact is, for one.”

Sean, it is not hyperbole. I know want to think it is, but it is not. I can assure you, I’ve read papers written by kids who have been in the country less than a year who can correctly interpret a conditional statement, whereas you have failed to do so on a number of occasions.

The exact example from ESL involved fish and a pond. If there are no fish in the pond, then the fisherman won’t catch any fish. This does not mean the fisherman won’t catch any fish, because there could be fish in a pond.

Likewise, if someone is involved in a crime that is under investigation, they are assumed to be under investigation unless there is evidence to the contrary. This does not mean everyone is assumed to be under investigation unless there is evidence to the contrary, because they are likely not involved in a crime that is being investigated.

If you are allowed to question the motives of Child Safety Services, then I should be allowed to ask for an investigation of the parents who name their kid Adolf Hitler. I’m not saying you are not allowed to question the motives; I’m saying I’m allowed to ask for an investigation.

These are questions similar to those that would appear on reading comprehension tests given to elementary school kids.

Me: “Running away from debates…”

Sean: “No, not just running away and disappearing. Specifically stating that I see no point in continuing the discussion, explaining why I see no point, and then moving on.”

Except your explanations are not factually correct, nor are they compatible. They are excuses you are using to cover up for the fact that you are running away.

“As I’m going to do here before this becomes any more of another SDM/CSS s/he said/he said ‘why don’t you two just get a room” waste of time. You should try it.”

Except it’s not he said / she said. It me putting force factual arguments, and you running away.

I’ve explained exactly what I want you to do, and I’ve explained why your complaints are not valid. I’m not asking you to defend any position, so clearly I’m not asking you to defend a position you never took.

I’m merely asking you to rewrite something we were discussion to prove that you comprehend the subject matter. I am doing this because I don’t think you do comprehend it.

“Now, anyone want to talk about whether forced drowning is torture?”

I don’t think you are capable. I don’t think you have a strong enough grasp of the English language to do so.

That’s all I am asking for. For you to prove you can comprehend the topics we are discussing.

You are running away, because you don’t.

It is not that you don’t have the facts.

You can not comprehend the facts.

Sean D. Martin: “Which I’d done repeatedly to apparently no effect.”

No you haven’t, Sean. You have never answered these question. You’ve claimed repeatedly that you have answered the questions repeatedly, but I’ve never seen these answers.

However, it is interesting that you said at first that you refuse to answer these questions because they, ‘were predicate[d] … on a mis-representation of what I have said’. while now you are saying that you have answers them, ‘repeatedly to apparently no effect.’

These two claims are incompatible. One of them must be wrong. They can both be wrong, but they can not both be correct.

So which is it? Are you refusing to answer them because they are not legitimate, or because you’ve already answered them.

If they are not legitimate, explain what position I’m assigned to you, which will be impossible because I have not assigned any position to you. In fact, I have stated that you could have no position at all, and still answer the question with ease. Explain how I misrepresented what you said, which is equally impossible, since I’m asking you to explain in your own words what someone else has said or done.

BloggingDemocratic.blogspot.com
Mark Allen Report

You should feel something when I say that. You should feel a deep sense of shame.

I do feel something. A passing bit of amusement. At your continued hyperbole when you claim you know what a fact is, for one.

Running away from debates…

No, not just running away and disappearing. Specifically stating that I see no point in continuing the discussion, explaining why I see no point, and then moving on. As I’m going to do here before this becomes any more of another SDM/CSS s/he said/he said “why don’t you two just get a room” waste of time. You should try it.

Now, anyone want to talk about whether forced drowning is torture?

Which I’d done repeatedly to apparently no effect. You didn’t like the answers/explanations I gave and continue to ask questions about things which have little to do with the original point of contention. I could say that blue shirt doesn’t go with those pants and you’d tell me it does and then demand I explain why one would wear colored clothing.

Apparently you won’t be satisfied, even on pure differences of opinion, until I admit you’re 100% right and I’ve been completely swayed by your superior logic to your point of view. I’m not going to do that and you’re not going to agree that my opinion on something can differ from yours. So I see no further point in it.