BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)
-   -   Yeah, I know "plonk" (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/103065-yeah-i-know-plonk.html)

Marty[_2_] March 12th 09 01:19 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:54:37 -0400, Marty said:

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.


Close, but no cigar. It's from Through the Looking-glass.



Missed my meaning?

Cheers
Martin

[email protected] March 12th 09 01:36 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On 11 Mar 2009 18:35:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:54:37 -0400, Marty said:

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.


Close, but no cigar. It's from Through the Looking-glass.


Clopse but no cigar. You are looking in a fun house mirror.


Bruce In Bangkok March 12th 09 03:49 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On 11 Mar 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:12:50 -0400, said:

Not as complicated as that. Hornbook law. The 14th Amendment applies to
States, not to the federal government.


I give up. Which states are not part of the United States?


Not sure whether I should recommend you read a basic civics book, or a
grammar book. Which part of "federal government" do you not understand?


The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States
Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments
that was first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was
proposed on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.

The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their
descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment
requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all
people within their jurisdictions ....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Martin Baxter March 12th 09 05:10 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:17:47 -0400, Marty said:

Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is.


When did you stop beating your mother?



I rather think that you regard circumlocution as one of your strong
points. If you are going to refuse to answer simple questions, then
having a meaningful discussion becomes impossible.

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

[email protected] March 12th 09 08:56 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Dave wrote:

Calling waterboarding "torture" is definitely not an adequate substitute for
reasoned discussion.


OK, solet me make sure I've got your point straight...

Forcefully holding a person's head under water until they believe they
are going to die... and in some cases, actually die... does not fall
within the definition of "torture." Is that it?

Now, what about other things, like giving prisoners electric shocks,
having them attacked by killer dogs, or using "pressure positions" (a
widely used one is to hang them from their arms, remarkably like Roman
crucifixion)... again, many times "interrogators" using these methods
have killed prisoners in US custody... documented by the US military
who had custody of the prisoners but did not carry out the
interrogations.


It's simply trying to attach a label in the hope that
substantive discussion will be foreclosed.

Why do you find this concept so hard to grasp?


Saying that I don'tgrasp your concept is a simple way to divert
attention with a little insult.... while totally failing to answer any
of the points I have made about the serious flaws in your logic... not
to mention your moral position.

Just to make it clear, you are in favor of inflicting pain, fear, and
bodily harm, on US prisoners... to the point of death in many cases...
for the sake of almost-certanly-useless information. To you, the
slight possibility of gaining useful info is worth BOTH the risk of
losing any chance of gaining further info from that prisoner, and
sacrificing the moral position of the whole country. That's it in a
nutshel, right?

DSK



[email protected] March 12th 09 09:08 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Stephen Trapani wrote:
Then why don't we take reasonable measures to find out what we need to
find out to stop these mass murderers!


Sure... I got nothing against that.

..... The moral high ground includes
and excludes many things, but one thing it includes is putting the well
being of innocents ahead of the rights of mass murderers!


Does this have anything to do with the issue at hand (tortureof
prisoners)?

The main point that you (and Dave, and other pro-torture people) have
failed to make is that using torture actually accomplishes anything at
all to prevent terrorists. Instead, you blame -us- for failing to use
torture.... sorry, but terrorism is not my fault. You can take
responsibility yourself if you like. But you can't just change the
laws of our nation to suit your own moral perceptions (just like I
can't).

Furthermore, a group of people who -were- in a position to change the
laws of our nation (or, more accurately, temporarily change a few and
ignore a lot of others) agree with your moral perceptions....
specifically, that torturing prisoners is OK... and they don't really
seem to have gotten such great results.

DSK




Marty[_2_] March 12th 09 11:25 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:10:45 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is.
When did you stop beating your mother?


I rather think that you regard circumlocution as one of your strong
points. If you are going to refuse to answer simple questions, then
having a meaningful discussion becomes impossible.


So you won't tell me when you stopped beating her?


Still waiting for an answer to a simple question......

Do try and display a modicum of intellegence and refrain from reposting
another puerile response.

Cheers
Martin

Capt. JG March 13th 09 12:38 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:10:45 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some situations?
Torture that is.
When did you stop beating your mother?

I rather think that you regard circumlocution as one of your strong
points. If you are going to refuse to answer simple questions, then
having a meaningful discussion becomes impossible.


So you won't tell me when you stopped beating her?


Still waiting for an answer to a simple question......

Do try and display a modicum of intellegence and refrain from reposting
another puerile response.

Cheers
Martin



You sure are asking a lot! Sheesh..

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




Marty[_2_] March 13th 09 12:41 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), said:

OK, solet me make sure I've got your point straight...

Forcefully holding a person's head under water until they believe they
are going to die... and in some cases, actually die... does not fall
within the definition of "torture." Is that it?


Sigh...you still don't get it. I'm not saying it is or is not properly
labeled "torture." I'm saying the label you stick on it is no more than an
expression of your conclusion that it's a "bad thing." Expressing that
conclusion isn't going to persuade any rational person that your conclusion
is correct. Only that you believe it.


Ok, since you insist on this exercise in sophistry, let's return to
first principles and move to a more Socratic level.

Please define what the term "torture" means.

I will keep this to one question at a time to avoid confusing anyone.

Cheers
Martin

KLC Lewis March 13th 09 03:16 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), said:

OK, solet me make sure I've got your point straight...

Forcefully holding a person's head under water until they believe they
are going to die... and in some cases, actually die... does not fall
within the definition of "torture." Is that it?


Sigh...you still don't get it. I'm not saying it is or is not properly
labeled "torture." I'm saying the label you stick on it is no more than
an
expression of your conclusion that it's a "bad thing." Expressing that
conclusion isn't going to persuade any rational person that your
conclusion
is correct. Only that you believe it.


Ok, since you insist on this exercise in sophistry, let's return to first
principles and move to a more Socratic level.

Please define what the term "torture" means.

I will keep this to one question at a time to avoid confusing anyone.

Cheers
Martin


It means whatever we want it to, silly. If we want it to mean birthday cake
and puppies and merry-go-rounds, it doesn't have to mean just "bad things"
after all. It's just a word, after all.

I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com