Waterboarding

Diest TKO wrote:

This time I'm not going to go through everyone, I'll only show you one, the rest you are free to figure out on your own. I understand quite well the concept of a strawman. I think I illustrated that well,

Up to this point you've illustrated nothing other than an ability to cut and paste a definition.

Quote:

... and if you have your doubts, you're welcome to illustrate how I've mislabeled the arguement as per definition. If you're not willing to do so, saying you have your doubts is really meaningless.

For instance:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

can you say that all of the detainees are innocent dupes?

when I said...

Diest TKO wrote:

If those in Guantanamo Bay are criminals, charge them with a crime and continue with due process. Let them rot in jail, but after, and only after we give them a trial by jury or put them up for war crimes.

I don't have enough information (very few do) to make judgement on the detainee's guilt. It's ultimately irrelavant though. The suspension of Habeas Corpus for these individuals makes us look like hypocrites, worse, it makes us hypocrites. These individuals being proven (in any court) guilty or innocent has been bypassed and we have moved directly to a detention camp.

I won't say that any of them are innocent, but give them a trial, and show that we hold up to our own standards. This flexibility is dangerous.

Then respond to Finn's point with that counter-argument. He didn't say: "How can you say that all of the detainees are innocent dupes?" To call that a strawman is a stretch.

In any case, it's only one, and a very small one.

Quote:

As for Finn's arguments, his logical falacies are distracting from his factual falacies.

I gotta say, your frequent typo/misspellings are distracting from your point. Seriously, get a spell checker going ... or maybe take a little more time typing your words. I'm not grading your paper here, but you drop so many in a post it's ridiculous. You want to call this ad hominem, be my guest.

Quote:

For instance:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Organized crime in America doesn't present the same threat as do Islamists.

In essence this statement is true. But only in that it identifies that Organized crime and terrorism present different threats (methods/victims/etc). This statement fails to establish some measureable difference in how the threats are more or less severe. If he plans on making the arguement that organized crime is a lesser threat, he has failed.

Then make a counter-argument. If he made a true statement, but you want to criticize it, then do it.

Quote:

In the same post he refers to shameful things from poor justifications made in the past, but in no way offers how the justification he offers differs from that of the past and it's shameful outcome.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Generally, people do shameful things because they think they are justified. In this case they were very wrong, but their intent was not so black and white. This in no way excuses what they did.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If an American citizen is credibly suspected of have information about a catastrophic event, I'm all OK with waterboarding him or her to get the info necessary to avoid the catastrophe.

More than nuff said.

T
K
O

Actually, it's not "more than nuff said." Earlier in his post he identified what he believed to be several distinctions between the historical and the now. He then stated his opinion that waterboarding is ok to get info necessary to avoid a catastrophic event. You may not like his opinion, but his giving it does not constitute a "logical fallacy" just because you don't agree.

And it certainly doesn't constitute a "straw man." Recall, it was your "Strawmen. Plural." remark that prompted me to respond in the first place ... not your unenunciated thought that he displayed logical fallacies.

I think you may be smarter than this, but just being a tad lazy.

And odd claim concidering you chose to address things I wrote which were not cut and paste. Finn's statements easily fall into the definitions I posted. If you disagree, your problem not mine.

First off, I did respond, and unlike your claim, I did more than cut and paste a definition. Fact: I've stated my opinion clearly on the guilt of the detainees. I don't believe all of them are innocent. It's irrelavant to the argument. regaurdless of my opinion of their guilt, my stance is claer that they deserve a trial. If found guilty, I expect them to be treated like a criminal, but not until then. We have standards, but politicians with flexible ethics.

As for this being one case and a small one. Can you define for me a small strawman? I believe your definitons will align neatly to your arguments.

Ticomaya wrote:

I gotta say, your frequent typo/misspellings are distracting from your point. Seriously, get a spell checker going ... or maybe take a little more time typing your words. I'm not grading your paper here, but you drop so many in a post it's ridiculous. You want to call this ad hominem, be my guest.

I will. This is pure ad hominem. It's pathetic and shameful.

Ticomaya wrote:

Then make a counter-argument. If he made a true statement, but you want to criticize it, then do it.

I did. You quoted it. He failed to make establish how "Islamists" are a greater threat than organized crime, and I illustrated that. I've already made my argument.

Ticomaya wrote:

Actually, it's not "more than nuff said." Earlier in his post he identified what he believed to be several distinctions between the historical and the now. He then stated his opinion that waterboarding is ok to get info necessary to avoid a catastrophic event. You may not like his opinion, but his giving it does not constitute a "logical fallacy" just because you don't agree.

Those distinctions aren't a difference in the justification though. The justification for both is still "war time" secondary standards in the name of national intrests. In short: We have to do bad things in the name of the greater good.

A "better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission" philosophy when it comes to human rights is dangerous and offensive. He offers no reason to believe that this won't be acknowledged as a shameful part of our history.

Ticomaya wrote:

And it certainly doesn't constitute a "straw man." Recall, it was your "Strawmen. Plural." remark that prompted me to respond in the first place ... not your unenunciated thought that he displayed logical fallacies.

A straw man is a logical fallacy.

Ticomaya wrote:

I think you may be smarter than this, but just being a tad lazy.

I'm not interested in your meter on my intellegence. I'm getting bored with your attempt to support these arguments.

I'm not impressed.

by the way, you never illustrated how I improperly indentified Finn's strawmen (plural). I'd advice you put either your foot or some marbles in your mouth next time.

Nuff heard.

I gotta say, your frequent typo/misspellings are distracting from your point. Seriously, get a spell checker going ... or maybe take a little more time typing your words. I'm not grading your paper here, but you drop so many in a post it's ridiculous. You want to call this ad hominem, be my guest.

You didn't initially make any argument. You initially bleated "straw man," in lieu of countering his argument.

No, he doesn't ... nor is he required to. The fact that your opinion is different than his does not constitute a logical fallacy on his part.

But that was not a straw man. Do you still not get it?

I asked you to identify the straw men, and you failed to do so. That's all I needed to do in that regard.

Tico - Your incompetent and maybe a liar. Your ad hominems are a pathetic attempt to make up for what intellectual prowess you lack.

Quote:

But that was not a straw man. Do you still not get it?

This as Chumly would describe is the argumentum ad nauseum. It's where you atempt to say something over and over, in atempt to make it true. You've still yet to look at the list of examples (which was very large) and show me how I misidentified the strawmen. I don't think you will step up to this challenge.

You're either incompetant or a liar.

Quote:

I asked you to identify the straw men, and you failed to do so. That's all I needed to do in that regard.

This post in particular is making me lean towards you being a liar. Your welcome to retract this lie at any time.

Strawmen. Plural.

I'd be interested in seeing you point them all out, if you have the time.

In what way do you believe he has misrepresented your position?

I'll only show you one, the rest you are free to figure out on your own.

I asked you to identify the straw men, and you failed to do so.

Nuff explained.

Ticomaya - Your request, isn't unreasonable, but it is a bit cumbersome. Finn's scarecrows in blue his herrings in red.

They are troubling realities and it would be foolish to declare that they fall within the All-American set of Mom, Flag, and Apple Pie. Lots of things are troubling.

Take pacificsim for example. Very few people would leap to the assertion that violence is "good," and yet the vast majority of us can accept that violence in certain situations is acceptible.

I have tremendous respect for anyone that is willing to die or lose his freedom before engaging in violence. There are precious few of these people, but their committment is to be commended. The rest of us can talk all we want about non-violence but there are quite a few scenarios where we will not only find it A-OK to be violent, but wish for the ability to be overwhelmingly violent. However...what is the case when their personal pacificism imperils their family?

They rape your wife and daughters, and kill or maim your sons, but you remain true to your principles.

viewed solely through a lens manufactured in 2007.

* The detainees are not American citizens
* The detainees were rounded up on a battle field, not by virtue of their ethnicity
* The detainees have all been put through a process that reliably or not is intended to judge their continued danger
* There are far more examples of Guantanamo detainees who have been released and gone on to engage in warfare against the US than can be said about the Japanese who suffered internment
* None of the detainees are contained with their family members

One set of my grandparents were Norwegian immigrants and one of my great-uncles was murdered by the Mafia. How is this instructive to what I believe today?

Another set were Irish immigrants, and the lousy way in which they were treated is well established. How is this instructive to what I believe today?

We all can reach back for ancestral wrongs and lay claim to them, but is this rational?

can you say that all of the detainees are innocent dupes?

Organized crime in America doesn't present the same threat as do Islamists.

Your are so very young for this to be a credible argument. "So long" for you is most likely something less than 10 years.

I would be all for it just to shut up the anti-American caterwaulers

If you think they can, you further reveal your innocense.

There is great virtue to youth. Perspective and rationality are not among the high points.

wikipedia wrote:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[3] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

wikipedia wrote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Argumentum ad hominem is the converse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.

Nuff said.

T
K
O

...you assert -- incorrectly, IMO -- that Finn posted "Straw men. Plural,"...

Tico
You are the same insulting jerk that you've always been.

When you are unable to rebut a sane argument you descend into insult and lies. No one on this blog pays any attention to what you say because you are unable to make a justifiable argument about anything you post.

Neither of you want to debate the issues.

Ticomaya wrote:

Neither of you want to debate the issues.

An interesting statement. Just on a whim, I decided to look back on all 33 pages of this thread. Do you know how many times Ticomaya discusses any issues on this topic.

ZERO...

...how embarassing for you.

In fact, his first post in this thread, and every post since has only been ad hominem attacks on me.

Diest TKO wrote:

Strawmen. Plural.

I'd be interested in seeing you point them all out, if you have the time.

I can't even address his argument for waterboarding, because he hasn't put up his reasons for it's justification.

Add to that the fact that he doesn't know what a strawman is (or chooses to misuse the term).

I've been more than fair to fulfill your requests. I identified several strawmen in Finn's useless post.

Why should I have to disect every single strawman that he posts. It's not worth my time. It's obvious, despite your oblivious nature that what he posted was littered with strawmen.

Below was more than generous. I provided the strawmen and a definition to support the selected statements.

You seem to think I need to break down each and everyone of these. It's pointless. It's not like you've honored my request to show me how I've mislabeled these statements. How dare you call me lazy, I've wasted my time on your garbage.

As far as the one example I choose to disect, you seem to contend (falsly) that his responce is simply contrary to mine and is not a strawman. You have made said statement without stepping up to support it.

Quote:

...you assert -- incorrectly, IMO -- that Finn posted "Straw men. Plural,"...

"IMO" means it's your opinion, but your opinion is very incongruent with the definition in question.

As for who I am and spelling. I spend hours meticulously formatting, proofreading and spellchecking every technical report I turn in. That's in a day's work. I don't give a damn (nor do I need to) about spelling or typecraft on a online forum. You say it's important, because you need it to be important. You lack the ability to rebuttle my argument, so you choose to attack my credibility, and not my ideas. Your an Ad-hominem-troll and I won't be attacked for my spelling errors in an online social community where standards are low.

As for my age: I'm 25. My education: BS Aerospace Engineering (MAY08), Minor: Russian. Ethnicity: 4th Gen Japanese-American.

I'm not affraid of your brand of ad hominem rhetoric. It's all you've got, and I've heard better. Your method's expose the hollowness of your beliefs. You should stop your little flame crusade, it's pathetic. It's nothing more than an attempt to derail this thread.

Bottom line on waterboarding: It's toture, and being in a time of war does not mean that we suspend the rules or what we stand for. I've heard not compelling arguement for the justification of torturing a human, and that includes waterboarding.

I wonder if Ticomaya agrees with using torture to interogate people? He seems to think that waterboarding is not torture dispite the fact that we've punished others for using it as torture. It's also a part of training for torture resistance. Ticomaya seems to have a problem with definitions. He should learn what the meaning of the following are...

strawman, ad hominem, torture,

...before embarassing himself anymore. His logic is full of holes.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

I wonder if Ticomaya agrees with using torture to interogate people? He seems to think that waterboarding is not torture dispite the fact that we've punished others for using it as torture. It's also a part of training for torture resistance. Ticomaya seems to have a problem with definitions. He should learn what the meaning of the following are...

strawman, ad hominem, torture,

...before embarassing himself anymore. His logic is full of holes.

T
K
O

Why don't you respond to me instead of preaching to your choir? I asked you why you consider waterboarding to be torture. I'm willing to let you convince me .... so convince me.

Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."
By: Nicole Belle on Saturday, November 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 PM - PDT

The pending confirmation of Michael Mukasey to the position of Attorney General, now destined to go to the full Senate, thanks to Lieber-moves of Shumer and Feinstein, is troublesome to more than just we in the progressive community. Senator Patrick Leahy received this letter (.pdf) from four retired JAGs, who understand that the concept of "Rule of Law" must mean something, even with Bushies in charge.

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of President Bush's nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of "waterboarding" under United States and international law. We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.


In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding "the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . ." Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America's military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America's history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

If waterboarding is not torture then it is plainly UN -AMERICAN

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

Who are you talking to, DTKO?

Talk to me, why doncha?
I
C
O
M
A
Y
A