IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New so you state that a missile and a plane is identical?
how?
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Both used to intentionally destroy a building and kill the
people inside it.
New Is that your final definition so we can start?
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Yes. As I have stated before.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=79669|Here]

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=79763|Also here]

Go ahead. Explain how....

flying a plane into a building to kill children
-is different-
than sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children

New you changed it again, find one and stick to it please
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Again.
flying a plane into a building to kill children
-is different-
than sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children
New Once, twice, three times.
flying a plane into a building to kill children
-is different-
than sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children
New Very good, stable define, lets begin
lets start off here
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=79672|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=79672]
In this hypothesis it is, at most, permitted on account of a reason commensurate with so great an evil as is the destruction of human life. Thus, for instance, a military commander may train his guns upon a fortified place, even though in the bombardment which follows he knows perfectly well that many non-combatants will perish. The sufficient cause in the case is consideration of the highest public good to be subserved by the defeat of the enemy.
note the highest public good part of the argument. A plane piloted by terrorists flying into the world trade center has no "public good" attached, the intent is to kill the children as per your argument. The target was strictly civilian deaths. No military objective was gained.
A cruise missile must be targeted on a military target
[link|http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/02spring/butler.htm|http://www.carlisle....spring/butler.htm]
\ufffdOur first problem was with using suppressive fires against the air defense. According to standard Army procedure, we simply estimated where the enemy air defense might be, based on the terrain and the force\ufffds operating pattern. But the Defense Department\ufffds lawyers insisted that before we shoot at these locations, they had to be `observed,\ufffd that is, not \ufffdtemplated.\ufffd . . . By the lawyers\ufffd definition, someone would have to view Serb air defenses through photography or TV within a few hours of the time the artillery was to be fired. This was a requirement derived from the NATO Rules of Engagement that had been approved for the operation, without regard to the kinds of needs we might have for the Apaches. . . . Before we could shoot our suppression, we would have to have visibility over what was there, updated to the last few hours. . . . The commander would either have to accept the risk from other untargeted [templated] locations, or call off the planned mission. Surely there had to be a better way. Never had we imposed such a standard on ourselves. There had to be a misunderstanding, I thought.\ufffd[1] -- General Wesley K. Clark, USA Ret., concerning legal constraints to suppressive fires in support of AH-64 operations in Kosovo
this is the current state of rules of engagement. The target must be have a military objective. Target must also be inspected in real time to get approval for a fire mission. If any children are killed it must meet criteria that underscore the greater public good.
That is the difference. Wanting to kill children and avoiding killing children are two very different things. If you claim there is no diffence, then a drunk driver killing a kid is also equivelent as the results are the same.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New You make it too easy.
Boxley claims:
A cruise missile must be targeted on a military target
Really?

So a cruise missile hitting a building and killing a child is because the child is a military target?

Wanting to kill children and avoiding killing children are two very different things.
Yes. They are.

But those are intentions. Different intentions.

So, your position can be summarized as:

If a cruise missile hits a building and kills children, it is because those children were military targets.

If a plane hits a building and kills children, it is because those children were terrorist targets.

So the "difference" is whether the children were targetted by a "terrorist" or the "military".

Bzzzzzztttttttttt!

Try again.

flying a plane into a building to kill children
-is different-
than sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children


Yes, the plane was flown by terrorists and the cruise missile is targetted by the military.

Yes, one is a plane, the other is a cruise missile.

What is the difference?
New so the drunk killing a kid=terrorism/military
If a cruise missile hits a building and kills children, it is because those children were military targets.

If a plane hits a building and kills children, it is because those children were terrorist targets.

If a drunkdriver hits a child/children it is because they are terrorist/military targets

But those are intentions. Different intentions.

but according to you all three are identical

thanx,
bill


will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New How many differing....
...levels of "murder" are there in the US code.

Murder 1 and 2

Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaugher.

And what is generally the basis for differentiation.

Intent.

Your opponent insists on continually adding >to kill children< to the language. He is adding intent to his logical alternatives to frame the argument in such a way as you cannot win

Because there is no logical difference between flying a plane into a building >to kill children< and launching a missile into a building >to kill children<.

There is a world of difference between flying a plane onto a building with the express purpose of killing thousands of innocent civilians and launching a missile at a military target.

In the end...both may result in people dying.

But is it capital murder?

Or is it involuntary manslaughter?

Or is it self-defense?

Thats the argument he can't win. So thats the argument he won't make.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Your logic fails.
If a cruise missile hits a building and kills children, it is because those children were military targets.
As you stated. The "targets" are evaluated by the military.

If a plane hits a building and kills children, it is because those children were terrorist targets.
Again, as you stated. The terrorists evaluated the "target".

If a drunkdriver hits a child/children it is because they are terrorist/military targets
And who evaluated that child? Was the drunk drive military or terrorist?

A == B
C == D
therefore (in Boxley's "logic")
E == B or D

flying a plane into a building to kill children
-is different-
than sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children

But those are intentions. Different intentions.

but according to you all three are identical
No. That is YOUR claim.

I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building and killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building and killing a child

But NEITHER of them are the same as a DRUNK DRIVER hitting a child.

The KEY FACTOR being that the driver is DRUNK.

YOU are the one claiming that they are all the same.

Despite the first two being conscious, evaluated choices by sober individuals
-and-
the drunk driver being drunk and NOT making a conscious, evaluated choice to hit anything/anyone.

Go ahead. Wriggle some more.

The difference between YOUR example and MINE is that in YOUR example, the person involved is DRUNK.

Oh, just a minor issue to you, I'm sure.
New You have lost
[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84002|You claimed]:
Like your claims that sending a missile into a building is somehow different when that missile is a cruise missile or an airplane.

Yet you refuse to detail HOW it is different.

You just hide behind your claim that one is "killing" and the other is "murder".

But you refuse to detail how THOSE categories are different.

Then you [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84210|asked him] to clarify that his position was in fact:
flying a plane into a building to kill children
-is different-
than sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children
My emphasis.

Then [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84302|you countered]:
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building and killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building and killing a child
My emphasis.

Note the difference in the two stated positions. Is this because:


a. You don't see the difference.
b. You don't agree that the difference is meaningful.
c. You didn't realize you had changed the statement.
d. You hoped no one would notice you changed the statement?

If it's 'c' or 'd', you will have confirmed you are either incapable of or not worth the effort for a well-reasoned discussion.

If it's 'a', I'll explain the difference. Or rather I'll reiterate what the Bills have already told you, and you ignored:

[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84248|boxley]:
A plane piloted by terrorists flying into the world trade center has no "public good" attached, the intent is to kill the children as per your argument.
My emphasis.

[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84285|bepatient]:
And what is generally the basis for differentiation.

Intent.
My emphasis.

Note the word emphsized in those last two quotes.

So, is it 'a', you don't understand how this applies to the change in your stated position; or 'b', you don't agree that this is a meaningful distinction?

If it's 'a' you aren't worth the effort of a well-reasoned discussion. If it's 'b' then there might be a basis for discussion, but I don't feel like having it with you.
===

Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
New That will never be admitted.
Because to do so would be an admission that his "accepted" and [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84217|now admired] technique of "discussion" is dishonest at best.

It is not "debate". It is semantic gamesmanship with deliberate use of emotionally charged "additions" to stated positions...and then dismissal of entire positions over "debates" about the meaning of one unrelated word.

Lather, rinse, repeat. (again and again)

Hate to say I told you so.

And now come the insults and the introduction of fabricated positions.

Oh yeah...forgot about the...trying to prove a completely unrelated point by playing semantic games with a completely idiotic assertion. How could I forget that?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient Feb. 26, 2003, 02:50:28 PM EST
Expand Edited by bepatient Feb. 26, 2003, 03:19:10 PM EST
Expand Edited by bepatient Feb. 26, 2003, 04:21:24 PM EST
Expand Edited by bepatient Feb. 27, 2003, 07:06:10 AM EST
New I will clarify that.
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building and killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building and killing a child
Change the "and" to "to".

There. Happy now?
New further clarification
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building and killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building and killing a child
Change the "and" to "to".


I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
a flying pig hitting a building to killing a child
assuming enough thrust is used.
thanx,
bill

will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New That is the standard, Boxley, admission of defeat.
Your failure is accepted.

Perchance, in the future, you may mature enough to recognize that killing a child is never a valid means of achieving your goals.

For my part, I'll continue to oppose those who view the death of children as a legitimate path.
New So you admit defeat?
For my part, I'll continue to oppose those who view the death of children as a legitimate path.

no matter how many children die because of your view? How noble of you, willing to oppose yourself.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New How many children have died because of my views?
It seems to me that Saddam has not attacked any other country since we gave him the green light to attack Kuwait.

Sanctions and inspections are working.
New how many Iraqi kids have died because of his policies?
You know it may be debatable whether removing him and his regime is for "the greater public good" but he has by his actions killed thousands of children.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Marlowe, give the keyboard back to boxley.
Next you'll be posting those pictures of dead kids again.

You know it may be debatable whether removing him and his regime is for "the greater public good" but he has by his actions killed thousands of children.
Yes he has.

In the past.

And, should he do that again, I would oppose those policies (as I did the other times).

But, right now, he isn't killing any children.

While you advocate that WE kill children.

To punish Saddam for killing children in the past we'll kill children now?

Like I said, I'll oppose your agenda if it requires the death of children.

Or are you advocating that we kill Iraqi children TODAY so that Saddam MIGHT NOT POSSIBLY kill children MAYBE tomorrow or COULD BE next year?

How about we wait until he actually starts killing children before WE start killing children?
New So no children have died because of his policies lately?
You believe that?

Post the following

No children have died because of Saddam Hussein's policies in the last 2 years

I know you wont because it is false.

thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Nice try. :)
Boxley posted:
So no children have died because of his policies lately?
You believe that?

Post the following

No children have died because of Saddam Hussein's policies in the last 2 years

I know you wont because it is false.
I'll re-post what I just said.

Next you'll be posting those pictures of dead kids again.

You know it may be debatable whether removing him and his regime is for "the greater public good" but he has by his actions killed thousands of children.


Yes he has.

In the past.

And, should he do that again, I would oppose those policies (as I did the other times).
Yep. I posted that Saddam's past policies have required the death of children.

And that I have opposed those policies.

Now Boxley wants me to say that Saddam's past policies have not resulted in the death of children.

Why? That is the opposite of what I just posted.
New So when did his policies stop killing children?
Provide a date that I can check against. You are claiming no children have died lately. You mean as of today? 3 days ago? a month? a year? when did he stop killing children?
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New When he stopped bombing the Kurds.
After we promised them help that never arrived.
New Is that your final answer? Be very sure
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Whee! Let's do it again!
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84127|
Is that your final definition so we can start?]

Cool!

Then we can go through this again and you can post [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,]

I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
But this contradicts your original position that a plane and a missile are different because one is "killing" and the other is "murder".

While my position was that there isn't a difference between the plane and the missile.

And then you try to claim that the "logic" problem is on my side.

Even though I provided the link to your post.

Even though I provided the specific quote in your post.

Even though the quote was in context and complete.

But you'll keep claiming that I'm the one with the problem even though you can't specify where I'm mis-reading your post.

Oh, this is the "sarcasm" ploy from you, again. Isn't it?

When the facts don't match what you want, you were "being sarcastic".

heh heh heh

Oooooooh. Like you were being in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=83034|this] post.

Awwww, the facts don't match up with what you posted.

That's okay.

You were just being "sarcastic".

You weren't really wrong.
New just like I thought no balls
pick a date that sadaams policies quit killing kids
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Here's a link to your other post.
You seem to have forgotten it.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84474|Here]
New whats the Magic man version of godwin?
you know that sadaan has not stopped killing children and you claim to be against killing children so do you support Sadaam and his killing children or not? Is his killing children somehow acceptable to you? So now you will be opposing yourself?
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Maybe you missed the link to your post.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,]

Recognize that?

:)
New Links, prooves and circular references
no nobility about the kids. Face it you dont give a flying fuck about kids, burning or otherwise. A poseur.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Not to mention...
...the fact that the "position" being argued in tantamount a "Guilty of 1st Degree Capital Murder" charge being leveled at a very large percentage of war veterans, past present and future.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Awwww. Your feelings are hurt, aren't they?
no nobility about the kids. Face it you dont give a flying fuck about kids, burning or otherwise. A poseur.
It's okay. Just because you can't follow basic logic doesn't mean you're a bad person.

I can send you some chocolate if it would make you feel better.
New would I have to decontaminate it first? :-)
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Would someone mind branching this shite off in a new thread?
Huge topics impact performance. We're still single-threaded, you know.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New oops forgot, Im done
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New When did we go back to 1-thread? (new thread)
Created as new thread #84676 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84676|When did we go back to 1-thread?]
New Do you really believe that?
[link|http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,742303,00.html|Observer]:

The most chilling witness was one of Saddam's torturers, who was captured spying against the Kurds this year [2002]. 'Kamal' told us: 'They would bring the son in front of his parents, who were handcuffed or tied, and would start off with simple methods of torture, such as cigarette burns. Then they started using other methods of torture, more serious ones.

'They would tell the father that they'd slaughter his son, and they'd bring a bayonet out, and if the parents didn't confess they'd kill the child. 'The interrogator has the right to kill the child, or perform any other butchery, whatever's necessary.' And then Kamal chuckled.


Regards,
Scott.
New Hang on.
I'm dealing with boxley right now.
New Not very effectively.
I think I know what boxley's been saying. As you know, his posting style unfortunately can be quite ambiguous (due to lack of capitalization and lack of punctuation, and his ambiguity in indicating what he believes and what he thinks your posts lead to when carried to their logical conclusion) so he's been giving you ammo.

I don't think you've been very persuasive in this thread, but that of course is just my opinion.

This thread could and probably should have been over long ago. As it stands, I don't think either of you is going to "win".

FWIW.

Now, how you respond to my post [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84500|#84500] might be interesting....

Cheers,
Scott.
New This has nothing to do with winning
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New You are wise beyond your years.
I think I know what boxley's been saying. As you know, his posting style unfortunately can be quite ambiguous (due to lack of capitalization and lack of punctuation, and his ambiguity in indicating what he believes and what he thinks your posts lead to when carried to their logical conclusion) so he's been giving you ammo.
And, for my part, I keep harping on definitions and examples. Clarity.

I don't think you've been very persuasive in this thread, but that of course is just my opinion.
I don't think persuasion is possible on this subject. This is another of those that hits at the emotional (fear) level. It's "us" against "them". What "we" do is "okay" or, at least, "justified".

What "they" do is "evil".

I'm using boxley as an example of the mental process required to maintain that belief system.

Allow me to go off on a tangent for an example.

In one of my earlier posts, I compared sending a missile to kill children with crushing a child's head under your boot. The only difference in the actions being whether you could see the child you were killing.

And, from a pure activity viewpoint, those actions are equivalent.

From an intentional viewpoint, the same can be said.

From any viewpoint, they are equivalent.

The only difference is something not in the scenario. Your reaction to someone who could do that. How do you feel about someone who is capable of crushing a child's head under his boot?

Do you feel differently about someone who could send a missile into a city knowing that children would die?

If so, why?
If not, why?
New so you want to pick a date from 2002?
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New dont fsck my setups please :-)
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Hey, I waited over an hour. Sorry. Carry on... :-)
New heh,
[link|http://www.law.wfu.edu/courses/crimlawrfw/DrivingDay.htm|http://www.law.wfu.e...fw/DrivingDay.htm]
The driver, Donald Edgar Bass, is facing a first-degree murder charge - an extraordinary charge for a traffic accident. His trial begins Tuesday in a Greensboro courtroom. If convicted, he could become the first person in the nation to receive the death penalty for a drunken-driving death.\ufffd

He intended to drive drunk, his intent resulted in the death of a child so
Despite the first two being conscious, evaluated choices by sober individuals
the drunk driver made a concious decision to take that first drink under the law in America that is Intent, lots more cases where that came from
so
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Game, set and match.
Boxley posts:
the drunk driver made a concious decision to take that first drink under the law in America that is Intent, lots more cases where that came from
so
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child


Now, my original position was that there wasn't a difference between
sending a cruise missile into a building to kill a child
-and-
flying a plane into a building to kill a child

Boxley claimed there was. He claimed one was "killing" and the other was "murder".

Now he has claimed that they are identical.

Which was my position.
New not hardly, me pointing out the falacy of your logic
choo choo your logic train has left the station.
time to catch up with it :-) Murder, Killing, 2 entirely different things.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Here's a link to your post.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,]

And here is the direct quote.

I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
Again, I said the plane and the missile cases were the same.

You had said they were different. You said one was "killing" and the other was "murder".

Now you're saying they are the same.

Twist all you want. :)

Those are your words.

Quoted.

Linked.

In context.
New your logic not mine
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New "Can't we play something else?"
[link|http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/02/23/|Here].

[image|http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ch/1992/ch920223.gif|0|C&H|416|600]

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Provide a link to my post. Here's a link to your's.
I'm not quite sure what you're claiming in your title.

Perhaps you can clarify it.

Meanwhile, here's a link to the post of your's where you claimed that they are the same.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,]

the drunk driver made a concious decision to take that first drink under the law in America that is Intent, lots more cases where that came from
so
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
That's right. You're claiming they are the same. No case of one being "killing" and another being "murder".

You claim they are the same.

It's good to see that you've finally seen the light.
New here is a link to yours
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84317|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=84317]
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building and killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building and killing a child


It is obvious that you have no position

and are just randomly posting as BP suggested here

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84310|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=84310]
It is not "debate". It is semantic gamesmanship with deliberate use of
emotionally charged "additions" to stated positions...and then dismissal of
entire positions over "debates" about the meaning of one unrelated word.


That's right. You're claiming they are the same. No case of one being "killing" and another being "murder".

You claim they are the same.
thanx,
bill


will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New From that link your posted. Even from that block you posted.
I said (and boxley quoted):
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building and killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building and killing a child
Yep. That's what I said. Exactly.

And now the bit you said:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,]

I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
Yep "-is the same as-". No difference. None of this "one is 'murder' and the other is 'killing'".

"-is the same as-"
New Your logic bomb repeating in my post
Your claim, your agument supplemented to show you how ridiculous it is. Keep twisting.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New My claim. You said I was wrong. Then you said I was right.
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
Here's the link [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,].

Emphasis added.

Now you're going to say that when you say "I am claiming..." what you REALLY mean is NOT what you're posting.

:)

Same old boxley.

No, you weren't wrong. That was... um.... "sarcasm". Yeah. That's it. You were being "sarcastic".

heh heh heh

Keep wriggling.
New your claim matches BP's accusations
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84310|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=84310]
|Because to do so would be an admission that his "accepted" and now admired [*] |technique of "discussion" is dishonest at best.
so since in this part of the thread we are both recycling prior thread posts, lets continue on the other portion of the thread.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Here's a link to your post and the quote from there.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,]

I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
My position was that there wasn't a difference between the plane and the missile.

Your position was that there was.

Now you say there isn't.

Which is my position.

But now you claim that what you posted isn't what you posted?

heh heh heh.

Oh, and if you have somehow managed to forget my opinion of Mr. Pathetic, he's a lying, pathetic, sack of shit.
New you were wrong in one post, which one?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84002|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=84002]
Except that you'll give an example of someone being drunk and accidentally hitting a child.
Yet in NEITHER of the INITIAL cases was anyone drunk nor was the building hit accidentally.
Like I've said before, those who support this war can only "justify" it by lies and semantic games
the last sentence proved out nicely. Now is the above post wrong or this one?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84332|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=84332]
the drunk driver made a concious decision to take that first drink under the law in America that is Intent, lots more cases where that came from
so
I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child

Now, my original position was that there wasn't a difference between
sending a cruise missile into a building to kill a child
-and-
flying a plane into a building to kill a child

Boxley claimed there was. He claimed one was "killing" and the other was "murder".

Now he has claimed that they are identical.

Which was my position.

so now you totally accept the fact that drunks killing kids is the same as flying planes into buildings or targeting a cruise missile. You are either correct in post one and playing
"justify" it by lies and semantic games
or not.
thanx,
bill

will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Eeek! A ferocious strawman!
so now you totally accept the fact that drunks killing kids is the same as flying planes into buildings or targeting a cruise missile. You are either correct in post one and playing
That is what is known as a "quote".

You said they were the same and I quoted you.

Completely.

In context.

And I provided a link to your post.

:)

Awwww, and you thought I wouldn't recognize a strawman. That's so cute.
New Box...this ass is playing a game...
...which I tried to point out to you.

He's not debating the same issue as you. He can't. He knows he can't. So he has created a "logical position" to attempt to obfuscate your point.

Your point depends on intent. His has already assumed intent. His assumed intent is the emotionally charged statement "to kill children"

The real difference is that one side really does have the intent "to kill children". The other does not.

And my constant refusal to play this type of game with him has made him afraid. So he calls me names.He would actually have to state positions..not logical strawmen. He can't. So I'm pathetic. See?


You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New yabbut Im not bored yet :-)
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Oh. Ok.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New so you total agree with my position, thank you
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Eeeek! It's Son of Strawman!
No. I am not in "total" agreement with you.

But the section that you posted that says a plane and a missile are the same is in agreement with my statement that a plane and a missile are the same.

Therefore, you concede the point to me that a plane and a missile are the same.

But you go further and claim that a drunk driver is the same also.

I claimed
A == B

You claimed
A !== B

Then you claimed
A == B == C

I have said that
A !== C
and
B !== C
in my previous posts.

But that doesn't matter because my position was that
A == B
Which you now claim is CORRECT
A == B == C

Watching you wriggle makes me smile. :)
New I claimed for your logic to work
A=B=C
you first protested no, but now you agree with me.
thats ok, eat some of that chocolate. you will feel better
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
New Here's a link to your post.
Like I said before:

Linked

Quoted

In context

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84323|heh,]

I am claiming that:
a cruise missile hitting a building to killing a child
-is the same as-
a plane hitting a building to killing a child
is the same as
a drunk driver killing a child
So now we're back to you claiming that what you posted wasn't what you posted.

Once again, I've provided the link and the quote. Complete and in context.

:D
New See branch request above.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     US-UK-Spanish draft of new UN SC resolution. - (Another Scott) - (103)
         So it isn't about terrorism now? - (Brandioch) - (95)
             Call it.. the Sophistry of Naked Power-speak (?) -NT - (Ashton) - (5)
                 Yup Artful Dodging - bootstrapping on new accusations on way - (dmarker) - (4)
                     Is it just me? - (Silverlock) - (3)
                         Fair comment - thought everyone knew the tactic - my error - (dmarker) - (2)
                             I've noticed lately that you seem... - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                 Do have a lot on my plate - pack for big move - (dmarker)
             They have been reading your posts so kept it simple -NT - (boxley) - (88)
                 Awww, that's cute. - (Brandioch) - (87)
                     what position, I want a war that ends up with - (boxley) - (86)
                         I wish that didn't make sense -NT - (Silverlock) - (3)
                             :-) -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                 You know this doesn't mean I won't..... - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                     No prob, enjoy the discourse -NT - (boxley)
                         That is a position. - (Brandioch) - (81)
                             why -NT - (boxley) - (80)
                                 If you have to ask, you'll never understand. -NT - (Brandioch) - (79)
                                     Actually I do understand, you are the antipost - (boxley) - (78)
                                         I'll cover this from the beginning. - (Brandioch) - (76)
                                             I have proved it many times - (boxley) - (75)
                                                 I posted links to support my position. - (Brandioch) - (71)
                                                     Sh*t you having a bad day? usually your stuff is better - (boxley) - (70)
                                                         Every has an opinion. - (Brandioch) - (69)
                                                             so you state that a missile and a plane is identical? - (boxley) - (68)
                                                                 Both used to intentionally destroy a building and kill the - (Brandioch) - (67)
                                                                     Is that your final definition so we can start? -NT - (boxley) - (66)
                                                                         Yes. As I have stated before. - (Brandioch) - (65)
                                                                             you changed it again, find one and stick to it please -NT - (boxley) - (64)
                                                                                 Again. - (Brandioch) - (63)
                                                                                     Once, twice, three times. - (Brandioch) - (62)
                                                                                         Very good, stable define, lets begin - (boxley) - (61)
                                                                                             You make it too easy. - (Brandioch) - (60)
                                                                                                 so the drunk killing a kid=terrorism/military - (boxley) - (59)
                                                                                                     How many differing.... - (bepatient)
                                                                                                     Your logic fails. - (Brandioch) - (57)
                                                                                                         You have lost - (drewk) - (33)
                                                                                                             That will never be admitted. - (bepatient)
                                                                                                             I will clarify that. - (Brandioch) - (31)
                                                                                                                 further clarification - (boxley) - (30)
                                                                                                                     That is the standard, Boxley, admission of defeat. - (Brandioch) - (29)
                                                                                                                         So you admit defeat? - (boxley) - (28)
                                                                                                                             How many children have died because of my views? - (Brandioch) - (27)
                                                                                                                                 how many Iraqi kids have died because of his policies? - (boxley) - (26)
                                                                                                                                     Marlowe, give the keyboard back to boxley. - (Brandioch) - (25)
                                                                                                                                         So no children have died because of his policies lately? - (boxley) - (24)
                                                                                                                                             Nice try. :) - (Brandioch) - (23)
                                                                                                                                                 So when did his policies stop killing children? - (boxley) - (22)
                                                                                                                                                     When he stopped bombing the Kurds. - (Brandioch) - (21)
                                                                                                                                                         Is that your final answer? Be very sure -NT - (boxley) - (12)
                                                                                                                                                             Whee! Let's do it again! - (Brandioch) - (11)
                                                                                                                                                                 just like I thought no balls - (boxley) - (10)
                                                                                                                                                                     Here's a link to your other post. - (Brandioch) - (9)
                                                                                                                                                                         whats the Magic man version of godwin? - (boxley) - (8)
                                                                                                                                                                             Maybe you missed the link to your post. - (Brandioch) - (7)
                                                                                                                                                                                 Links, prooves and circular references - (boxley) - (6)
                                                                                                                                                                                     Not to mention... - (bepatient)
                                                                                                                                                                                     Awwww. Your feelings are hurt, aren't they? - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                                                         would I have to decontaminate it first? :-) -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                                                             Would someone mind branching this shite off in a new thread? - (admin) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 oops forgot, Im done -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 When did we go back to 1-thread? (new thread) - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                                                                         Do you really believe that? - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                                                                                                             Hang on. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                                 Not very effectively. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                     This has nothing to do with winning -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                                                                                                     You are wise beyond your years. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                                                                 so you want to pick a date from 2002? -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                                                                                             dont fsck my setups please :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                 Hey, I waited over an hour. Sorry. Carry on... :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                         heh, - (boxley) - (22)
                                                                                                             Game, set and match. - (Brandioch) - (21)
                                                                                                                 not hardly, me pointing out the falacy of your logic - (boxley) - (20)
                                                                                                                     Here's a link to your post. - (Brandioch) - (19)
                                                                                                                         your logic not mine -NT - (boxley) - (18)
                                                                                                                             "Can't we play something else?" - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                                             Provide a link to my post. Here's a link to your's. - (Brandioch) - (16)
                                                                                                                                 here is a link to yours - (boxley) - (15)
                                                                                                                                     From that link your posted. Even from that block you posted. - (Brandioch) - (14)
                                                                                                                                         Your logic bomb repeating in my post - (boxley) - (13)
                                                                                                                                             My claim. You said I was wrong. Then you said I was right. - (Brandioch) - (12)
                                                                                                                                                 your claim matches BP's accusations - (boxley) - (11)
                                                                                                                                                     Here's a link to your post and the quote from there. - (Brandioch) - (10)
                                                                                                                                                         you were wrong in one post, which one? - (boxley) - (9)
                                                                                                                                                             Eeek! A ferocious strawman! - (Brandioch) - (8)
                                                                                                                                                                 Box...this ass is playing a game... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                     yabbut Im not bored yet :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                         Oh. Ok. -NT - (bepatient)
                                                                                                                                                                 so you total agree with my position, thank you -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                                     Eeeek! It's Son of Strawman! - (Brandioch) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                                         I claimed for your logic to work - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                             Here's a link to your post. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                 See branch request above. -NT - (admin)
                                                 And here's a link to one of your lies. - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                     thank you for proving my point - (boxley) - (1)
                                                         Try that one again. - (Brandioch)
                                         ICLRPD (new thread) - (Another Scott)
         No need to say any more - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
             No problem, let them put the men in the field -NT - (boxley)
             Instant veto. -NT - (Brandioch)
             Love. It. but.. not in the Disneyland World of 02, I think. -NT - (Ashton)
         Well now. - (bepatient) - (2)
             and a paragraph on the back one explaining what each one was - (tuberculosis) - (1)
                 And creatin a nuisance :) -NT - (bepatient)

Most of the posts on this thread are from some idiot named "this user is blocked."
433 ms