Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"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.

Whoa... I haven't heard that name bandied about it a while. :)

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:

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


Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
Doug, you must learn to read what's written

Actually, I learned that a long time ago.

The problem here is that you did not write what you later pretend to
have; of course the pretense gives you greater stature (in your
imagination)



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?


Dave wrote:
Nope. Not even close.

I regret to say that you have not convinced me that you've reversed
your position on the matter, Dave.

In the past, you've been a pretty serious Bush/Cheney apologist and
that includes strongly-worded denial that any torture (just to keep it
clear, let's define it as NOT cookies & kittens but rather inflicting
pain, fear, and
bodily harm, on US prisoners... to the point of death in many
cases...for the sake of a slight possibility of gaining useful info)
was being carried out.

Regards- Doug King

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:

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


Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Usually. :-)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.

Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Usually. :-)



Hayakawa was Canadian, his views on bilingualism would be considered
heresy in his native country. However I agree with him, over the last
century we have expended more money on bilingualism than we have on
National Defence and Health care combined,,,

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.

Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Usually. :-)

Hayakawa was Canadian, his views on bilingualism would be considered
heresy in his native country. However I agree with him, over the last
century we have expended more money on bilingualism than we have on
National Defence and Health care combined,,,

Cheers
Martin

Hey, he gave-up his Canuckness when he became a US Citizen. ;-D

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.
Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin
Usually. :-)
Hayakawa was Canadian, his views on bilingualism would be considered
heresy in his native country. However I agree with him, over the last
century we have expended more money on bilingualism than we have on
National Defence and Health care combined,,,

Cheers
Martin

Hey, he gave-up his Canuckness when he became a US Citizen. ;-D



Canadian law, like that of Great Britain, (our mother) does not
recognize this..as far as we're concerned he had dual citizenship ..
not that we are going to send down a team of heavily armed beavers to
bring his corpse back... :-)

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:16:36 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

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,

I think you may be starting to get the point, Karin. If you want to argue
about whether puppies or merry-go-rounds are a good thing, then talk about
puppies or merry-go rounds, rather than arguing about whether puppies or
merry-go-rounds are among the things denoted by the word "torture."

Since it seems clear that Jon, Not-At-All, Marty et. al. think one wins an
argument solely by having the last word, I'll end my participation in the
thread by having underlined that point and let them continue to squabble
should they so desire.

If your map is faulty, you'll never find your way through the territory.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:

Since it seems clear that Jon, Not-At-All, Marty et. al. think one wins an
argument solely by having the last word,


You do have a penchant for making invalid conclusions based on scanty
evidence. Hell, I haven't even started an argument, merely politely
asked you to define your terms.

I'll end my participation in the
thread by having underlined that point and let them continue to squabble
should they so desire.


You forgot to ad, "Without having made a single valid point."

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Richard Casady wrote:

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady

I used to think that beheading was barbaric.
By ax, saber or guillotine. And I'm sure it sometimes was - when the
executioner had to take several swipes before the neck was severed.
But a clean cut through the spinal column, specially if the major blood
vessels were severed, was faster than the long drop. I think that was
likely a humane end in the best case.

Brian W