Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on October 06, 2005, 07:25:59 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees
Delivering a rare wartime slap at Pentagon authority and President Bush, the GOP-controlled Senate voted 90-9 on Wednesday to back an amendment that would prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.
-
$20 says they'll make some arguement that Gitmo isn't technically part of the US Government. Don't believe me? Well, if they can create confusion & misdirection over whether or not it's on US Soil, they can do this...:doubt:
-
I doubt it'll make a difference. Rumsfeld (or was it Cheney? I forget) already defined 'acceptable' torture. Besides which, they've ignored that part of various UN treaties/Geneva convention at Gitmo for years now.
Or, they can just do the usual thing and ship them off to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc for a bit of the old slap and tickle (more slapping, much less tickling). CIA interrogators will be changed to 'guests' or soforth.
It's interesting to see this described as 'wartime'.
-
Delivering a rare wartime slap at Pentagon authority and President Bush, the GOP-controlled Senate voted 90-9 on Wednesday to back an amendment that would cover there asses and not have any effect on anything other than there copability to there inattentave constituancies
on the other hand it does just go to show just how damned cool McCain is.
-
Bobboau: except the other 95% of the time when McCain is slobbing bush and the **************'s knobs
[edit]
they're still censoring a valid political science term - how FASCIST of them
makes me one any of .. oh wait i don't have to wonder i know one of the admins is a member of the christian theofacist movement
-
That's a new one. Honestly, I would consdier myself lucky that the Christian theofascist you are reffering to is as nice a guy as he is.
Bob: McCain is...he's the good cop. But he's still a cop. Sure, I prefer him to the Republicans and most Democracts, but that says more about them than it does about him.
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's interesting to see this described as 'wartime'.
Shush! Don't you know that the Motherland (I always wondered how they decide the gender of a nation) is in grave danger?! That Zarqawi, he's the next Rommel.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I doubt it'll make a difference. Rumsfeld (or was it Cheney? I forget) already defined 'acceptable' torture. Besides which, they've ignored that part of various UN treaties/Geneva convention at Gitmo for years now.
Or, they can just do the usual thing and ship them off to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc for a bit of the old slap and tickle (more slapping, much less tickling). CIA interrogators will be changed to 'guests' or soforth.
It's interesting to see this described as 'wartime'.
Waht did you expet? War is a b****. Information is power.
You can't really expect the other side to play nice either..
That said, a US citizen doens't even have to touch a captive. tehy have allies in X counttries that would be more than capable of extracting information out of any captives they hand over...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Waht did you expet? War is a b****. Information is power.
You can't really expect the other side to play nice either..
Exepct? Nothing more.
Want? Humane treatment, rule of law, adherence to conventions against torture. Y'know, all the things that this 'war on terror' is supposed to be fighting to preserve.
Plus torture is considered inherently unreliable in any case; it tends to make the person more likely to say what the torturer wants, than anything they actually know. (also, if they genuinely don't know anything, then their choice is lying and making stuff up, or suffering indefinately)
I'm not sure this is really 'war', though. Doesn't feel like a war over here, there's not any threat of invasion (and minimal threat of actual attack; I think the odds of being killed in a terrorist act are about 120,000 to one or so, probably higher). I guess Iraq is a war, but that wasn't really part of this purported 'war on terror' in anything but rhetoric. It's a bit like the 'war on drugs'' or the 'war on cancer', I guess.
Originally posted by TrashMan
That said, a US citizen doens't even have to touch a captive. tehy have allies in X counttries that would be more than capable of extracting information out of any captives they hand over...
That's what I said; that's what they already do.
-
It's a bit like the 'war on drugs'' or the 'war on cancer', I guess.
Except, I actually care if we win the war on cancer.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Bobboau: except the other 95% of the time when McCain is slobbing bush and the **************'s knobs
[edit]
they're still censoring a valid political science term - how FASCIST of them
makes me one any of .. oh wait i don't have to wonder i know one of the admins is a member of the christian theofacist movement
Is that me? :)
Someone accused me of belonging to a "hippie religion" the other day so I'll go with that :D
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Except, I actually care if we win the war on cancer.
Seconded :)
Originally posted by IceFire
Is that me? :)
Nah, it's really hard for Canadians to be shrubs. Well minus that one guy from Alberta in my astronomy class who thinks Venus has no atmosphere...
-
icefire: nope not you - and "hippie" is the opposite of authoritarian and fascism is a form of authitarianism :P
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Is that me? :)
Someone accused me of belonging to a "hippie religion" the other day so I'll go with that :D
Who's the resident Christian around here, and an admin? And who just so happens to be one of the nicest guys on this, or any any other web forum?
-
Wait... so nine people thought the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on people was A-OK? :confused:
-
Its a representative body.
Of course some of them thought it was ok, Blaise: this is a country where some people think its okay to tie someone to the back of your truck and drag him until he's dead.
Considering how many US citizens still think its okay to bomb anyone who disagrees with US Foreign Policy, I'm surprised it was only 10% of the Senate.
-
*smells a flamewar coming somehow*
*wanders out of thread and into bunker*
-
We aren't at war.
Has Congress voted to declare war on anything? No. Hell I'm not even sure how they voted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Who's the resident Christian around here, and an admin? And who just so happens to be one of the nicest guys on this, or any any other web forum?
There are three self-described Christians on staff here: Setekh, Sandwich, and me. As for who censored Kazan's pet insult, I believe it was Raa who petitioned for it and Sandwich who added it to the filter. And I doubt either of them would agree that they are a "theofascist".
Now with that out of the way, let's kindly not turn this into another religious thread. :)
-
Lol. Im a...nm
I think this is bull. I think its fine to torture dingheads..
-
I agree. There's not enough animalistic brutality in today's sanitized world. Every time I think about other people in pain, I just wanna spring a rubbery one.
-
What exactly was censored? (don't **** about, I'm up at this hour because I have the cold and can't sleep :p )
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
Lol. Im a...nm
I think this is bull. I think its fine to torture dingheads..
Maybe if someone totured you you would think otherwise.
-
Originally posted by vyper
What exactly was censored? (don't **** about, I'm up at this hour because I have the cold and can't sleep :p )
CHRISTOFACIST was censored. :p
Or was that neo-con?
...maybe it was dinghead that was censored?
-
"We could torture him."
"I was tortured once. I didn't like it. You know what the ****ed-up thing is? They tore off my right nut. Sort of turned me off to the whole thing."
--Once Upon a Time in Mexico
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
There are three self-described Christians on staff here: Setekh, Sandwich, and me. As for who censored Kazan's pet insult, I believe it was Raa who petitioned for it and Sandwich who added it to the filter. And I doubt either of them would agree that they are a "theofascist".
Now with that out of the way, let's kindly not turn this into another religious thread. :)
I thought it was me? Anyways, so long as christo...etc isn't listed in the dictionary, it's not a political term. Petition Collins or something if that's a problem. I always felt it was quite insulting, because there's an implication that Christianity equates to facism in it.
Originally posted by Charismatic
Lol. Im a...nm
I think this is bull. I think its fine to torture dingheads..
:rolleyes: The US school system at it's finest?
What the **** does 'dinghead' mean, anyways?
-
I always felt it was quite insulting, because there's an implication that Christianity equates to facism in it.
I think the implication is more that a particular sociopolitical movement has used Christianity in its arsenal. But then again, I think any organized value system is proto-fascism. (That's not to say I don't think we need them.)
I was a little puzzled by "dingheads" myself. My Google search yielded very little that was even offensive-- clothing manufacturers, etc.
-
Dinghead is the new christofacist ;)
Sort of like how grey is the new black.
Actually I do think it was neoconservative or somesuch that was actually banned as that's a real term, not a Kazanism. (though christofacist is fun, try to say it three times fast and Billy Graham will appear from thin air like Beetlejuice, or like... Derek... SMART! :) )
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I thought it was me? Anyways, so long as christo...etc isn't listed in the dictionary, it's not a political term.
1) Jargon often doesn't make it into main dictionaries so :rolleyes:
so clue meet aldo, aldo meet clue
Originally posted by aldo_14
I always felt it was quite insulting, because there's an implication that Christianity equates to facism in it.
I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading the definition of the term that i've repeated nine million times. :rolleyes:
Christofa5c1sm is just like the term islamofascism - it refers to certain members of that religion who wish to turn their countries into authoritarian theocracies. I know quite a few christians who are very appauled by the behavior of the christofa5c1sts and fight against them.
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I think the implication is more that a particular sociopolitical movement has used Christianity in its arsenal.
Close - see above
-
Originally posted by Ace
Dinghead is the new christofacist ;)
Sort of like how grey is the new black.
Actually I do think it was neoconservative or somesuch that was actually banned as that's a real term, not a Kazanism. (though christofacist is fun, try to say it three times fast and Billy Graham will appear from thin air like Beetlejuice, or like... Derek... SMART! :) )
neither term is a kazanism
-
A thing of pied beauty, the human language, is it not? An accidental work of art, something so limitlessly flexible.
-
And so frequently sodomised, too.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
1) Jargon often doesn't make it into main dictionaries so :rolleyes:
so clue meet aldo, aldo meet clue
Why do you always result to insulting people who disagree with you?
Or, when they accuse you fo being wrong or somesuch, you often accuse them of trying to (paraphrase) 'insult your intelligence'.
What's up with that?
Originally posted by Kazan
I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading the definition of the term that i've repeated nine million times. :rolleyes:
Christofa5c1sm is just like the term islamofascism - it refers to certain members of that religion who wish to turn their countries into authoritarian theocracies. I know quite a few christians who are very appauled by the behavior of the christofa5c1sts and fight against them.
I think calling people facists to try and win an arguement runs pretty much to Godwins law. By connotating people who support, say, the republican party of the US to the people who supported Hitler, or Mussolini, etc, it's not a very nice thing, is it? And it's not as if it conveys any new information or context.
Do you actually need the word? What's wrong with, say, 'fundie'?
-
He's not talking about the Republican party. He's talking about a faction in the US that seeks to impose a militant code of ethics on the population at the inevitable expense of all opposing viewpoints. Now, I will not make any inflammatory claims regarding this faction's size or level of influence, but I do agree with Kazan that the religious right in this country is a fascist movement.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Exepct? Nothing more.
Want? Humane treatment, rule of law, adherence to conventions against torture. Y'know, all the things that this 'war on terror' is supposed to be fighting to preserve.
Plus torture is considered inherently unreliable in any case; it tends to make the person more likely to say what the torturer wants, than anything they actually know. (also, if they genuinely don't know anything, then their choice is lying and making stuff up, or suffering indefinately)
I'm not sure this is really 'war', though. Doesn't feel like a war over here, there's not any threat of invasion (and minimal threat of actual attack; I think the odds of being killed in a terrorist act are about 120,000 to one or so, probably higher). I guess Iraq is a war, but that wasn't really part of this purported 'war on terror' in anything but rhetoric. It's a bit like the 'war on drugs'' or the 'war on cancer', I guess.
That's what I said; that's what they already do.
You got no arguments from me about that.
Totture allways was and will be brutal and unreliable - but savage and stupid people (the army and secret services) don't know better.
they should all be outlawed....
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
He's not talking about the Republican party. He's talking about a faction in the US that seeks to impose a militant code of ethics on the population at the inevitable expense of all opposing viewpoints. Now, I will not make any inflammatory claims regarding this faction's size or level of influence, but I do agree with Kazan that the religious right in this country is a fascist movement.
Well, call them facists then. I'm sorry, but every time I've seen christo-facist used, it's been seemingly as a veiled insult intended to basically annoy rather than provide factual context, etc. To me - and I agree US fundamentalists are a destructive force that I'm glad to be thousands of miles from - the whole meaning of the word (intentional or not) is to insinuate christianity is synonymous facism and thus insult both, and to me that's inaccurate and detracts from the core of the arguement. I'd apply the same to islamofacist, etc.
And from another perspective, using it also implies religion is a valid base for that sort of, well, facism, which to me is the first part of that ideology you have to remove. Otherwise attacking, say, the fundamentalists will look as much an attack on the validity their religion as upon their political beliefs, which is divisive; it's no wonder these guys try to characterise what they don't like as aetheistic.
I think if you keep launching attacks about christo-facist this, christo-facist that, it just causes confusion about what you're attacking - facism or christianity?
-
I agree. I find the word annoying as well. I just wanted to draw a distinction between Newspeak mudslinging and what I think is a legitimate political argument.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I agree. I find the word annoying as well. I just wanted to draw a distinction between Newspeak mudslinging and what I think is a legitimate political argument.
Aye, fair enough. My main reason for not liking it was because I thought it kind of drew attention away from the issues in threads and soforth.
-
I think you're all ****ing nuts (says the man who posted last night while burning up...). Christofascist implies someone who is so fervent in their beliefs they support a theocracy in all but name, and I don't see how that insults all of christianity.
Besides which, we just moved from censoring swear words to censoring terms people don't find politicially or philosophically comfortable. That's rather ironic if the word that was banned mentioned fascism.
Excuse me, I have a nose to blow.
Edit: No, you're a bunch of Nazis now, I can't believe I had to edit this to get one word (which is a pop-culture term, not even a curse) to appear.
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
Lol. Im a...nm
I think this is bull. I think its fine to torture dingheads..
Superb. Let's advocate the barbaric practice of inflicting pain and suffering on human beings, but God forbid we say anything stronger than 'dingheads!'
Also, yes, silly word filter is worthless. And barring somebody's pet insult is bad form, even if it is incredibly sad and stupid.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I think you're all ****ing nuts (says the man who posted last night while burning up...). ************** implies someone who is so fervent in their beliefs they support a theocracy in all but name, and I don't see how that insults all of christianity.
Besides which, we just moved from censoring swear words to censoring terms people don't find politicially or philosophically comfortable. That's rather ironic if the word that was banned mentioned fascism.
Excuse me, I have a nose to blow.
Edit: No, you're a bunch of Nazis now, I can't believe I had to edit this to get one word (which is a pop-culture term, not even a curse) to appear.
I never said I supported the word being censored. I abhor censorship. We were simply discussing the merit of its use.
-
I was unaware of the following things
- that saying basically "here is a clue" is an insult - I was just implying you didn't know what you were talking about and made a bad argument - that you were ignorant not stupid
- That "Fascism is Nazism" not "Nazism is a form of Fascism" - DEFINITIONS PLEASE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
I'm sorry - but if your argument against me rests on logical fallacies and being willfully misinformed I'm going to put you on ignore
[edit]
Originally posted by aldo_14
I always felt it was quite insulting, because there's an implication that Christianity equates to facism in it.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Aye, fair enough. My main reason for not liking it was because I thought it kind of drew attention away from the issues in threads and soforth.
hrm.... consistency?
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
A thing of pied beauty, the human language, is it not? An accidental work of art, something so limitlessly flexible.
That's beautiful, man. Sell it to Hallmark, they can make a series of cards to comfort those kids who always fail their spelling tests.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
That's beautiful, man. Sell it to Hallmark, they can make a series of cards to comfort those kids who always fail their spelling tests.
:lol:
-
Kazan, your argument should speak for itself. There's no reason to call anyone ignorant any more than stupid.
Rictor, those kids would never appreciate the god-like beauty and Apollonian perfection of my words. It would be blasphemous.
-
Political censorship of things like this (be it words or ideas) has typically been associated with the worst of the worlds governing bodies.
To be honest, I can't see why you need to censor it. I can kind of see the case for censoring Swear words (though I don't actually agree with it), but christofascist? Anyone who feels offended by reading that shouldn't be on the internet.
Now, the situations of its use are another question entirely, but that's neither here nor there.
-
It's no different from when the Admins censored Bush. Since it's obviously possible and actually quite easy to defeat the filter, it's more of a point to people who use it too often without regard for its meaning than it is an attempt to stifle any form of speach. I don't agree with it either, but given who managed to use it enough to get it temporarily added to the curse filter it's not exactly a suprise.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
hrm.... consistency?
You misunderstand me. My feeling is that there is an intentional or otherwise connotation in the word that in many cases is, will, or is intended to cause offence. Also, I think it detracts from the political definition of facism and it's application, being jargon/slang; furthermore that said connotation makes the use of the word seem an attack upon religion as much as a particular political demographic, owing to the fact there is no literal definition of it.
As such, I think that acts to misdirect threads from the basis of politics, to be somewhat of an 'aetheist vs christian' type situation. People are likely to assume (in my reckoning) that the implication is that these people are facist because they are chrisitian, and feel compelled to defend the part of the situation.
Whilst they may not agree with the intent or phraseology of said political demographic, they may feel inclined to partially align with it if they feel their own religious, rather than political, beliefs are being attacked.
You can put me on ignore if you wish, but I'm not sure throwing a hissy fit because I disagree with you is the best course of action. That, I think, would become wilful ignorance of anything I say in any possible future thread, and I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate being considered ignorant.
Incidentally, if you look up the word 'ignorant' and 'stupid' in the dictionary, you'll find the words are very similar in meaning, and almost universally are regarded as the same insult. Please don't play semantics, it's demeaning to us both.
-
I have to say that this particular term has irritated me more than once in the past when Kazan has tried to apply it to me. I will freely admit that I am a Christian, and I am a pretty staunch conservative. However, the views I have stated that have caused Kazan to use that particular term against me are a pretty far cry from fascism or a theocracy, at least in my own humble opinion. (I'm not going to restart any old debates here, but I'm sure most people get the idea.) My problem isn't exactly the word itself, even though I think it can be taken very easily to imply that all Christians hold fascist views. My real problem is that Kazan seemingly chooses to apply it every time someone expresses values that go against what he personally believes in anything remotely related to the Christian faith. I don't think that censorship is necessarily the way to go here, although I will say that it feels great to not have to see that word flying around everywhere. :p
-
its used when he sees people who think that they have the right, no, responcibility to legislate there faith onto other people. it's an implication that such people beilive that it is the governments job to instill there christian beleifes on the people.
it's acurate.
oh, and as will be funny for all the word actualy is a basturdisation of the word Islamofascist wich was an invention of off the wall nuty conservitive talk show host michael savage.
-
So Kazan has taken to heart a term that is the offspring of a term coined by Michael Savage.
I couldn't ask the universe for something more beautiful.
-
does sort of bring a tear to one's eye :)
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Kazan, your argument should speak for itself. There's no reason to call anyone ignorant any more than stupid.
Rictor, those kids would never appreciate the god-like beauty and Apollonian perfection of my words. It would be blasphemous.
'calling' someone ignorant is just saying that they are not informed - ie they don't have the information. It's not an insult.
-
Bobboau+Ford I wasn't the one that corrupted Savages abusive term into a real political science term - some PhD in political science did that and I happened to find it fitting.
And thanks for the backup guys :D
Mongoose: I apply that term in exactly the manner the bobboau stated. You can be a conservative, you can be a christian - don't attempt to legislate your religion - that makes you just like the people your president calls islamofascists - except you're christians.
-
'calling' someone ignorant is just saying that they are not informed - ie they don't have the information. It's not an insult.
Well, it kind of is if you make a point of saying it. If you felt that aldo was uninformed, you could have supplied him with the information without making a point of stating that he was ignorant, especially since you stated it in such a... figurative manner.
And yes, we know you didn't invent the term, but just that you're using a word that was spawned from Michael Savage is tickling me all over.
-
Yes, irony is sweet is it not :D
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
its used when he sees people who think that they have the right, no, responcibility to legislate there faith onto other people. it's an implication that such people beilive that it is the governments job to instill there christian beleifes on the people.
it's acurate.
I don't want to drag this out any longer, but I do want to make one final statement. No matter how any of my posts have come across, I have never, nor will I never, support imposing my personal beliefs for their own sake on other people. If I do support a position that happens to coincide with a particular belief of my faith, I will always do so for reasons that go beyond my personal faith, such as a belief that it benefits the common good or improves society as a whole. I don't see this type of outlook as any sort of fascism whatsoever; we all choose to support positions because we think they will make society better, no matter where our beliefs originated from or what they were inspired by. I'm not expecting anyone to take me seriously, but that's the way I see myself, and that's all I'll say on the matter.
-
Mongoose but you never have been able to validate your opinion that it helps people - it competely comes down to the fact that it's your religion so you think it's right and therefore it helps people and that's why you're wanting to legislate it
that's legislating your religion
-
this nation wasn't founded on the beleif that the government's role was to tell you how to live. it was founded on the idea that you know best how to fufill your own potential, and that no one has the right to tell you how to live.