The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[husaberg]

Quote of 2020 already in!!!

True that......... Katman cant do straight answers

[oldrider]

Why Do Stupid People Think They're Smart? The Dunning Kruger Effect (animated):- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJz66wm95-M - 2019 was a vintage year - 2020 even better?

[Katman]

And neither am I.

What it is, however is that you're just not willing to stand on your supposed principals.

If you can't see the ridiculous nature of asking for a cost/benefit analysis on the subject of torture, simply to provide you with an answer that meets your approval, that's your problem.

It's also a perfect example of why it's impossible to conduct any sort of rational discussion with you.

[TheDemonLord]

If you can't see the ridiculous nature of asking for a cost/benefit analysis on the subject of torture, simply to provide you with an answer that meets your approval, that's your problem.

Except I didn't.

Re-read what was written.

The point was to paint you into a corner whereby two of your beliefs that you held where at odds with each other and forcing you to choose a side. You declined, you refused to stand on either Principle. Thus showing that you have no actual principles.

The question posed was an absolutist one.

When you declined to actually answer the question I ridiculed you and said that you could have answered the question in the form of a cost/benefit.

i.e. if a few rogue officers give a couple of known thugs a couple of love taps whilst in custody - it's technically torture - but it's not exactly justification to invade the country, kill thousands of people (Military and Civillian alike) in order to re-architect the entire society.

Which is one possible way you could attempt to reconcile your two contradictory positions, by adhering to a higher principle of wanting the least amount of suffering possible. There are other possible ways to answer as well that would reconcile your two statements.

But.
You.
Didn't.

It's just same scenario as when I asked you (in relation to Rwanda) to define a scenario where lethal force is justified knowing that civilians will be hurt and killed whilst doing it - you could not. That's when I called you a pacifist who refuses to acknowledge that you are.

It's clear from this (and other interactions) your highest principle is that you don't want to get your hands dirty and are happy to stand idly by whilst terrible things are happening to others.

I just wish you'd be honest with yourself.

It's also a perfect example of why it's impossible to conduct any sort of rational discussion with you.

Funny how you say that after I forced you into a no-win situation. Sour Grapes don't make good wine

[Katman]

Except I didn't.

Except you did.

Right here.

The funniest part is that you could answer it in such a manner qualifying the amount and degree of torture going on vs the potential amount of death and destruction that would be caused by going in.

At least such a cost/benefit analysis would be honest.

[Katman]

That's when I called you a pacifist who refuses to acknowledge that you are.

I'm quite happy to identify as a pacifist.

[TheDemonLord]

Except you did.

Right here.

No. Try again and re-read.

That was not the question, that was a potential answer.

2 very distinct and separate concepts.

The Question posed was deliberately absolutist.

[Katman]

The Question posed was deliberately absolutist.

If that's another way of saying deliberately retarded, then I agree wholeheartedly.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm quite happy to identify as a pacifist.

reaaaaaaalllly.


https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131119907

so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist per se.

You want to try this again?

This is the problem with not sticking to your principles. People like me remember things you said over a year ago that contradict things you say now.

[Katman]

reaaaaaaalllly.


https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131119907



You want to try this again?

This is the problem with not sticking to your principles. People like me remember things you said over a year ago that contradict things you say now.

Well the 'per se' part of my post qualifies the statement somewhat.

[TheDemonLord]

Well the 'per se' part of my post qualifies the statement somewhat.

Well, would you call yourself a Pacifist or not?

In one you are saying 'not really' and in the other you are saying you'd be happy to.

you seem to have great trouble picking something and sticking to it....

[pritch]

You two should get a room.

[Katman]

Well, would you call yourself a Pacifist or not?

In one you are saying 'not really' and in the other you are saying you'd be happy to.

you seem to have great trouble picking something and sticking to it....

I have an interest in New Zealand's involvement in past warfare and I'm happy to identify as a pacifist.

Make of that what you will.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm happy to identify as a pacifist.

Make of that what you will.

Indeed - you would stand idly by with the means and opportunity to help someone, but would refrain to do so on fear of someone else getting hurt.

[Katman]

Indeed - you would stand idly by with the means and opportunity to help someone, but would refrain to do so on fear of someone else getting hurt.

That is certainly not the definition of a pacifist.

The fact that you seem to think it is is a clear indication of the neurological disorder you suffer from.