War room lounge v.9 Wake up it's time to go now, wake up...

[lfd0311]

lol

Nice phantom edit half an hour after you made the post. Of course you didn't edit in any substance, but instead just inserted more histrionic insults about how cannon fodder morons are salt of the earth, and persons who understand human rights and political history are children.

Look how much self congratulatory nonsense is in this post. You have such a high opinion of yourself and such a low opinion of some one who has actually done something to preserve this wonderful society we live in. You have literally done nothing. Yet you're in these threads patting yourself on the back like you're the saviour of the universe or something. Why? I mean listen to yourself. "I understand Human Rights". Like congratulations bro, is that some sort of complex and dificult concept to grasp where you come from?

Secondly, what makes you some sort of an authority on what Tim Kennedy thinks about Human Rights? This is literally some of the worst, self agrandizing babble I've seen out of you.

The purpose was intelligence gathering to catch terrorists. And?

What intelligence specifically? That's the point.

The whole of the intelligence community has attested to the fact that torture does not pose demonstrable benefit (i.e. there is no evidence that it is more effective or expeditious than rapport building and traditional psychology) and is extremely costly (more administratively and morally). You can combat that with your "common sense" and view of history, probably similar to the view that says torture is a great criminal deterrent, but the information is not on your side. You are free to present evidence to the contrary.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/26/does-torture-work-and-is-it-worth-the-cost-donald-trump
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/201701/does-torture-work

That's patently not true. No body any where has ever unanimously agreed on anything. The intelligence community absolutely doesn't unanimously agree on the affectiveness of torture. It's not even a common consensus amongst the current living CIA directors:



Within the first minute you have former Director Michael Hayden saying that if we were confronted with the same scenario we were in 2001, he hopes we would do it again. That means he obviously thinks it works. P.S., you should probably watch that documentary, you might learn something.

If it was a matter of, say, Batman asking Bane where the trigger is, and knowing that millions of lives were on the cusp of annihilation and that the prospective tortured person was the only person with the knowledge to prevent that imminent threat - then you can make that argument.

Batman? Jesus man. This isn't super hero world. This is us, a collection of humans deciding whether or not it's justifiable to torture another human being. Not a comic book bad guy.

 

[Trotsky]

Look how much self congratulatory nonsense is in this post. You have such a high opinion of yourself and such a low opinion of some one who has actually done something to preserve this wonderful society we live in. You have literally done nothing. Yet you're in these threads patting yourself on the back like you're the saviour of the universe or something. Why? I mean listen to yourself. "I understand Human Rights". Like congratulations bro, is that some sort of complex and dificult concept to grasp where you come from?

Secondly, what makes you some sort of an authority on what Tim Kennedy thinks about Human Rights? This is literally some of the worst, self agrandizing babble I've seen out of you.






What intelligence specifically? That's the point.






That's patently not true. No body any where has ever unanimously agreed on anything. The intelligence community absolutely doesn't unanimously agree on the affectiveness of torture. It's not even a common consensus amongst the current living CIA directors:



Within the first minute you have former Director Michael Hayden saying that if we were confronted with the same scenario we were in 2001, he hopes we would do it again. That means he obviously thinks it works. P.S., you should probably watch that documentary, you might learn something.








Batman? Jesus man. This isn't super hero world. This is us, a collection of humans deciding whether or not it's justifiable to torture another human being. Not a comic book bad guy.

Alright @Falsedawn I'm tagging out of entertaining this bloviating nincompoop. I've been down this road before and know it just. doesn't. end.

Have at it, brother.

 

[lfd0311]

Or someone with views derived from the Enlightenment instead of from wanton barbarism.

*Pat, pat, pat*

Or someone who professes to be of the Christian faith.

You tried to bring this up earlier, are you talking about me?

Or someone who roundly considers all human life to be valuable with no religious undertones.

*Pat, pat, pat*

Or someone who doesn't like extrajudicial punishment

*pat, pat, pat*

Or someone who knows that torture isn't efficacious to begin with

LOL, oh really bro? You "know" that? How do you "know" that? What has ever happened to you in your life that would give you this sort of knowledge? F**king nothing, that's what. You're just talking. Just grandstanding. This is my point. You don't know anything. You have no experience with any of these things. Niavety and an inability to actually do bad things because of the society you live in, because of having the privilege of living in the greatest society to ever exist doesn't make you a good and moral person.

THIS is why you're an idiot. You jump to "privilege" and "cultural marxism" instead of any of the other various reasons that expose you as being a trash human being. Cultural marxism is easy for retards, all you gotta say is "MARX IS BAAAAAAAD". Having to disprove the Enlightenment, especially when you come from a country that bases its laws and norms on it, not so easy.

See my above comment.

Stick to cultural marxism, that's about your speed. And by your speed, I mean you're a retard.

If that's my speed, you better catch up. You're about ten laps behind seeing as I literally had to lay my point out for you like I was talking to a child.

 

[Falsedawn]

*Pat, pat, pat*



You tried to bring this up earlier, are you talking about me?




*Pat, pat, pat*



*pat, pat, pat*



LOL, oh really bro? You "know" that? How do you "know" that? What has ever happened to you in your life that would give you this sort of knowledge? F**king nothing, that's what. You're just talking. Just grandstanding. This is my point. You don't know anything. You have no experience with any of these things. Niavety and an inability to actually do bad things because of the society you live in, because of having the privilege of living in the greatest society to ever exist doesn't make you a good and moral person.



See my above comment.



If that's my speed, you better catch up. You're about ten laps behind seeing as I literally had to lay my point out for you like I was talking to a child.

 

[lfd0311]

Alright @Falsedawn I'm tagging out of entertaining this bloviating nincompoop. I've been down this road before and know it just. doesn't. end.

Have at it, brother.

Not even going to try? It was that bad huh? I thought we were going to talk about moral relativism and what not? You deep intellectuals sure do have trouble defending your positions beyond name calling and links to other people's opinions.

 

[Rational Poster]

I feel like I'm being waterboarded right now.

 

[lfd0311]

Bro, that was pathetic.

 

[Rational Poster]

Bro, that was pathetic.

Bro, cultural marxist aids trannies right?

So torture is good.

 

[Trotsky]

Not even going to try? It was that bad huh? I thought we were going to talk about moral relativism and what not? You deep intellectuals sure do have trouble defending your positions beyond name calling and links to other people's opinions.

You started out saying I was grandstanding, then said I was a weak child, a nagger, and non-contributor to society. And that was just your first post. And you failed to improve upon that quality, or introduce anything approaching a justification of your vagina sand. My initial appraisal still stands: you are fine contravening extremely important liberal values and negative rights without effective purpose. And that is because you're a reactionary who is not very bright, but is too stubborn to reverse position.

 

[lfd0311]

You started out saying I was grandstanding, then said I was a weak child, a nagger, and non-contributor to society. And that was just your first post. And you failed to improve upon that quality, or introduce anything approaching a justification of your vagina sand. My initial appraisal still stands: you are fine contravening extremely important liberal values and negative rights without effective purpose. And that is because you're a reactionary who is not very bright, but is too stubborn to reverse position.

We haven't even gotten into that. Because you won't just admit that you don't really understand why we were waterboarding in the first place. That's the real crux of this issue. You can't, for whatever reason, be wrong or appear to not know. So around and round we go, in circles, not really talking about anything.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Post-orgasmic depression is already bad enough. Imagine having to bore back into your woman's hole with a wet rag after.

If we're talking robots rather than dolls then just program the bitch to self-clean.

 

[senri]

I feel like I'm being waterboarded right now.

This is nothing, wait till you become saturated by the beauty of The Nexus. It will be a plain of your existence where pain ceases to exist Mr Poster...

Let's go deep inside together...

 

[Fawlty]

If we're talking robots rather than dolls then just program the bitch to self-clean.

Sufficiently advanced female AI will act like a total bitch.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sufficiently advanced female AI will act like a total bitch.

I envision a remote control with one of these.

 

[Gregolian]

So, is the red button the one that makes them take a cast iron pot to your head?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So, is the red button the one that makes them take a cast iron pot to your head?

You gotta press it to find out.

 

[waiguoren]

Women voters make up around 54% of the electorate, so this poll actually underrepresented them.

You don't know that. No one knows if you are right. No one will know until the vote tallies are in.

Electorate are the number of women who are eligible to vote. That is a number we have. I was using it sloppily, but to claim that we don't know the electorate is untrue.

@Quipling

I was reading through some old posts and want to admit fault for this. Although I don't think we really know the female percentage of the electorate to the precision that you specified, and although I disagree that you had sufficient evidence to determine if the poll in question underrepresented the female vote, I still botched the basic definition of "electorate". I was operating under the incorrect assumption that "female percentage of the electorate" meant the female percentage of voters as opposed to female percentage of the voting-eligible. Dictionary.com says differently. I was wrong!

 

[waiguoren]

I also came across this gem from October 31, 2016:

Not to mention Trump potentially carrying PA

Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Assuming he gets Ohio (which I think he does), Arizona and Iowa, Trump still needs Florida, NC, Nevada plus to flip a solid blue after being behind the entire race. That is an absolutely dire, almsot non-existent electoral path. An indictment is their only hope at this point because there is no way he is flipping Penn or Colorado. Maybe something crazy happens in Wisconsin? But again, that would have to be after essentially running the rest of the board.
Nuts that we are likely to see a Republican lose while potentially carrying both Florida and Ohio

 

[Limbo Pete]

I also came across this gem from October 31, 2016:

ITT Waiguoren is totes jelly he missed a great bet

 

[Trotsky]

I also came across this gem from October 31, 2016:

I gave chance a better shot than most, mostly because I'm a pessimist and I tend to hedge my bets, but I had similar thoughts as Limbo. I figured he had a good shot at Ohio and Wisconsin, but a very unlikely chance at Pennsylvania, and virtually no shot at Florida. I figured the most likely outcome was him getting about 250.

And, in retrospect, it's Wisconsin that he most narrowly won - and wouldn't have won if not for voter suppression.