Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I cannot condone his actions William. It makes us even more of an enemy. What good is the Geneva convention otherwise?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Transvestite*** Proper terminology is "transsexual". ***she/he/it*** And this is extraordinarily insulting. Not for nothing, but a dear old friend of mine turned out to be a transsexual (recently underwent reassignment surgery in fact), and although I'm finding it a challenge to wrap my head around the issue I'm trying my damnedest to be as tolerant as I expect everyone else to be in other circumstances. Sorry if that sounded rude, but if you compare it to (regardless of personal feeling) calling a gay person a "faggot" or something similar...I think that's the sort of comments that could be nixed in civilized company regardless of your internal feelings towards whomever. You don't have to agree, that's just my 2 cents (and as everyone on LP knows...I can be abrasive to a fault, so sorry for not being subtle).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What I stated was my personal opinion on when I feel torture should be allowed*** If so, please note "this is my opinion, unsupported by facts". ***get off your friggin high horse and let me have my opinion, it is not a lie if it's my frigging opinion*** Okay, so if it's my opinion that the terrorists on 9/11 were justified in their attack, due to the imperialistic actions of the U.S. government, and that Osama bin Ladin is in actuality a hero much like Washington and Lincoln...I suppose you should get off YOUR high horse and let me have my opinion? And such an opinion would NOT be a lie, right? Since it's an opinion and all.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***cannot condone his actions William. It makes us even more of an enemy. What good is the Geneva convention otherwise?*** Agreed 100% William, how do you feel about the VietKong doing that sort of stuff to our soldiers during that war? Was it cool with you? Perfectly justified (since, perhaps...if they managed to coerce OUR guys, perhaps THEY saved some Vietnamese lives right?).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo He, no skin. But what is it? (we are all it's). Born a man. Turns woman. Unless chromozonal, it is still a man mascarading as a woman? I too know transexuals, and the pain some have gone through. Be she/he referred to themselves as a transvestite - hence the term. and if I use the terminology I think and feel, it is far more important than supression. Because then we can have conversations about it. I used to be vahemently against gay marriage. But by talking it through with gay friends, I could better understand the issues at play and change my views. Would you prefer someone who thought one thing and said another (like a lot of politicians), or someone who speaks their mind and opens up the debate (where there may be a chance to change their minds).
Originally Posted By Mr X I'll need to process what you wrote, so I'll not comment til I sleep on it... I'll say this much, regardless of the other stuff, to refer to any human being as "it" is beyond offensive. When slaves were traded, they probably said "IT'S an excellent specimen, strong and young!". "it", is something you use for an object, or an animal. To refer to a human being as "it" is really, really low imho. Of course, that's just mho (as I said, this goes beyond whatever your own personal feelings are towards another persons lifestyle or whatever).
Originally Posted By mawnck Dana International IS a transsexual. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_International" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...national</a> Aha! That's it! Pronoun trouble.
Originally Posted By mele <<and if I use the terminology I think and feel, it is far more important than supression. >> What does this even mean?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No they don't, but if you need to use "Excessive" force to get some information in order to save American lives in the long run, then so be it...." Hmmm. I know of some Seals who couldn't disagree more with that.
Originally Posted By DAR So let me get this straight, we don't care if a terrorist gets killed in combat but we do care if he gets roughed up a bit. Okey dokey.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So let me get this straight, we don't care if a terrorist gets killed in combat but we do care if he gets roughed up a bit. << Notice how every time he starts a sentence with "let me get this straight," the crazy talk is certain to follow?
Originally Posted By DAR How is that crazy either you can't be okay if we or one of our allies kills a terrorist then turn around an be outraged if we captured that terrorist and make things a little uneasy. You can't have it both ways.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>><<and if I use the terminology I think and feel, it is far more important than supression. >> What does this even mean?<<< What I mean is, rather than hide one's views, or in this case, not knowing how to honestly refer to Dana Internation (he or she?), is it not better to state what you think (rather than suppress it) and then have the opportunity to discuss it, and then maybe learn something?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Please tell me what's wrong with my opinion.> I already did, in #48. It's not only immoral, it's not effective. If it were immoral but effective, we'd have a dilemma on our hands. But we don't even have that dilemma because it is NOT effective. So I disfavor torture not only from a moral standpoint, but because not using it is a MORE effective way to protect the country, "24"-inspired fantasies and visceral desires for revenge notwithstanding.
Originally Posted By mele I guess so. It read more like you were saying it was better to use whatever words you "felt" like using to describe people instead of using the proper terminology, which doesn't strike me as something an educated person would say. If you were, indeed, trying to *learn something with your comments*, then I apologize for taking offense.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo No worries mele. It is difficult with written text. What I was getting at is it is better to use the language that comes to mind rather than be too scared to comment. At least then you can have a conversation and reach an understanding. even if that means expanding one's mind, or defending their stance. Like I say, I used to be really against gay marriage, but once I understood the implications (e.g. two people being in love from different countries could not be together, or two partners having no protection when the other passes away), it gained my support(even if I have preferred legislative solutions).
