Page 2 of 2

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:01 am
by Hans
Yes, it is your opinion and I disagree with it. I think our policy has be great and exactly what needed to be done. That's my opinion and I know you disagree with it.

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:25 am
by justice7ca
Rhiraden wrote:Championships > Women's Feelings
Wins the thread


Hans wrote:Yes, it is your opinion and I disagree with it. I think our policy has be great and exactly what needed to be done. That's my opinion and I know you disagree with it.
The right to disagree is true freedom :D

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:01 pm
by Shaddowmaster
GD_Fritz wrote: P.S. - Pray we do not get bored overseas and come knocking on your door because if we did, and I stress IF as it seems an unlikely scenario, NOT one single country would try to, or could stop us from taking it to that fine Canadian ass.
Hans wrote:4000 dead people is "can't do anything to you." OK dude, whatever.

What if they get hold of chemicals to attack water supply? How many dead from that? Is that nothing?
Yeah, what if they, for instance, got hold of enough EDC-containing pesticide to spray thousands of acres of american soil? How many dead? How many deformed and stillborn children? How many sick adults? How much destroyed farmland?

Terrorists have learned from American teachings before, what's to say they won't again? This is a seriouse threat people, and anyone who disagrees better pray the US military doesn't get bored and decide to catch up on all those neglected persecutions of different thinking individuals that they have the support of their citizens to perform, and that no one in the world could stop them from going through with!

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:13 pm
by justice7ca
Shaddowmaster wrote: This is a seriouse threat people, and anyone who disagrees better pray the US military doesn't get bored and decide to catch up on all those neglected persecutions of different thinking individuals that they have the support of their citizens to perform, and that no one in the world could stop them from going through with!
I agree with you completely Shaddowmaster. Just look at the new laws being passed to allow the US to detain anyone they want (National Defense Authorization Act), indefinitely without trial. It's quite scary.
It's all well and good as long as the good guys are the ones making the decisions up top, it's when the guys up top are no longer the good guys that you have a real problem on your hands.

Whether or not the current Government is good/evil is really up for debate, but there's no question that in the future someone with a desire to watch the world burn would gain power in the United States.

If the people in power were all good people, I completely welcome giving them all the power in the world to stop terrorism, crime and other terrible things to allow our lives to be worry-free. However, what we know about humanity is that is not how things happen. The people in Germany certainly didn't think Hitler would turn out to be such a terrible person. It happened there, it can happen here and it's very extremely naive to think otherwise.

It's really wrong to think that your own country could do no wrong, because it can, and over history, it has happened over and over again. We must always be aware of it, and learn from our past as humans. This is why it is so very important, to ensure that fair trials (innocent until proven guilty) stay in place for terrorists and criminals alike.

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:44 pm
by dox
You know what? I was going to back away from this -- I know it can get heated, we've been down similar paths and it got a little ugly.

This time however, I see there's enough representation that plays tune with how I tend to see these things from Shaddow and justice: due to life changes and seeking challenge I'm actually going to try on the other pair of pants and go in with Hans on this one in earnest.


By definition, having a national identity means that your philosophies and concerns include more than just yourself; it's a political distinction and there's a line to be drawn - that line, by default, will be your nations border. It insinuates concern for others that you assume are like-minded (or at least in the same boat) and so therefore you need to protect yourself. There's no doubt that people and groups of people have a right to protect themselves, I don't think that is being debated at all.

Furthermore, by definition, "defense" is, simply: defending yourself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who started what; victims of attack are victims. Period. Even if you start a fight you need to defend yourself. Though we all feel outrage for innocent bystanders that end up as victims of violence we can just as assuredly state that most violent conflicts are the result of two parties: regardless of the ratio of blame (something that is often difficult and sometimes impossible to properly weigh).

So why wouldn't you, given a directive/need to defend yourself (something we all have to do in one way or another) continue to adjust, examine and actively do something about it? The disagreement is about how, why and when you do this.

With that preamble, let's look at some of the stuff you are saying:
justice wrote:Just look at the new laws being passed to allow the US to detain anyone they want, indefinitely without trial. It's quite scary.
I'd argue that indefinite, trial-less incarceration is less "scary" than countless other alternatives: countless forms of unsupervised mental and physical torture are worse than the same activity that is monitored. Someone is going to jail: would you prefer to go to one in Saddam-era Iraq or Bush-era USA? I know which one is less preferred - would you agree with me?
justice wrote:there's no question that in the future someone with a desire to watch the world burn would gain power in the United States.
Why just the United States? History is littered with more dramatic examples in vastly different countries.
justice wrote:If the people in power were all good people, I completely welcome giving them all the power in the world to stop terrorism, crime and other terrible things to allow our lives to be worry-free. However, what we know about humanity is that is not how things happen.
Yet most people adhere to the law and respect the authorities that enforce them. To reject that would be anarchy. To accept it is to admit that there are flaws. Why should this only apply to policemen? It's the same logic that provides concepts like check-ups, re-certifications, investigations, peer review and tons more. Everyone knows not all people are good - we do the best we can but we admit there will be errors. You agree later on by saying:
justice wrote:It's really wrong to think that your own country could do no wrong, because it can, and over history, it has happened over and over again. We must always be aware of it, and learn from our past as humans. This is why it is so very important, to ensure that fair trials (innocent until proven guilty) stay in place for terrorists and criminals alike.
That's just one way of looking at it - after all, how many truly guilty people were treated as innocent before judgement was passed?
Here's another way of looking at it: If you really treated everyone as innocent, why can people be detained at all? There's an admission and submission involved that facilitates a proper judicial process, but it always involves someone being detained without being PROVEN guilty in a court of law, therefore all you're arguing is how long is acceptable.
Shaddowmaster wrote:This is a seriouse threat people, and anyone who disagrees better pray the US military doesn't get bored and decide to catch up on all those neglected persecutions of different thinking individuals that they have the support of their citizens to perform, and that no one in the world could stop them from going through with!
I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but at what point DO you draw the line? With the above-referenced assertions that you can not really have a judicial process without someone being taken from their home, inconvenienced, etc. (innocent or guilty) then you could just as simply state: "..better pray the police doesn't get bored and decide to catch up.." Bottom-line: someone is getting their door knocked down at 3:00am and dragged to jail. All you're talking about is how bored and at what time.
justice wrote:It's really wrong to think that your own country could do no wrong, because it can, and over history, it has happened over and over again.
I hadn't seen that assertion anywhere in this thread, really. The need for self-defense is almost always a result of some kind of mistake, misunderstanding or something gone wrong - so of course everyone agrees that people make mistakes.
Hans wrote:Going through a body scanner isn't losing freedom. Unless your talking about the freedomn to bring weapons on board an airplane.
Exactly, totally correct. Don't like body scanners? Don't fly.
Hans wrote:Just wait till even people like you can see the threat before we do anything.
..and that's exactly the source of the debate: where do you justify the sometimes necessary preemptive nature of defense? Doesn't 'intelligence', even if it's wrong, require you to act in the face of possibly doing so incorrectly?
Hans wrote:Oh well arguing on the internet is like...
Not sure I totally agree there if the insinuation is that we're some kind of random Internet watering hole - though this forum IS on the Internet I think it being here in our neck of the woods amongst each other gives is more value and allows us to reach a higher level of discussion.

So here's what I bring to you: WHERE do you draw the line and WHY? How do you feel that "civil liberty" = "body-scanner-less airports"? How long should someone be detained on an unproven suspicion or should they be proven guilty in a court of law before seeing prison time?

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:22 pm
by justice7ca
dox wrote: So here's what I bring to you: WHERE do you draw the line and WHY? How do you feel that "civil liberty" = "body-scanner-less airports"? How long should someone be detained on an unproven suspicion or should they be proven guilty in a court of law before seeing prison time?
That was a beautiful response, Dox. I also quite liked what Fritz had to say in the first page, about how Canada does what the US tells it to (entirely true). =D>

Where do we draw the line? I think you were bang-on when you mentioned it is for each nation to decide. In some countries, if you have a political leaning not in line with the nation you can be locked up forever as a dissenter. I would like to believe that we have moved beyond this mindset as a society, embraced free speech and allow people to express different opinions.

Laws are made to reflect the population within its nation who enforce them. It's when the laws are no longer in line with the people, where problems begin to arise and the only way out at that point (at least in history) has been revolution or major political change at the top. We've seen this countless times over the last year especially with the 'arab spring' going on.
dox wrote:Furthermore, by definition, "defense" is, simply: defending yourself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who started what; victims of attack are victims. Period. Even if you start a fight you need to defend yourself. Though we all feel outrage for innocent bystanders that end up as victims of violence we can just as assuredly state that most violent conflicts are the result of two parties: regardless of the ratio of blame (something that is often difficult and sometimes impossible to properly weigh).
This brings in the discussion of pre-emptive strikes and eliminating threats before they become an incident. This is exactly what happened in Iraq, and is what is being talked about right now in regards to Iran. Isarael and the United States have both openly stated that they will not allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that their ambitions are purely peaceful. Now, I know some Iranians personally... they want the Bomb. Why? Look who is around them, Israel, India, Pakistan... they are all Nuclear powers now, so why not Iran who are a very proud people/nation? I know most answer this with that they called for the destruction of Israel, however it may be shocking to know that this isn't at all true. They never actually said that. The quote was mis-interpreted during his speech, and the media never bothered to make the correction later. (If you're curious i'll dig up the sources for this...)
dox wrote:Why just the United States? History is littered with more dramatic examples in vastly different countries.
As for why was I picking on the United States? Simply because they are the most powerful nation in the world militarily, and by a large margin. They have a lot of strength, and everyone watches them closely, moreso than any other nation on earth. I neither pity nor envy them because of this.

I welcome great debate/discussion.. and remember guys, this isn't personal at all I think you're all awesome. Discussion is good for humanity, even debate, disagreements and eventually... resolution!

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:58 pm
by Shaddowmaster
I was indeed just being sarcastic and attempting a bit of satire, but to be a bit serious:

I think that attitude of "disagree with me and you get the army" is absolutely ridiculous and any kind of punishment without a fair trial is unacceptable. Even satan deserve a fair trial (if I would believe in him). However, to be able to detain someone before or during the time of trial is in most cases a necessity. However I believe that it should never be done in secrecy, because secret imprisonements is the path to "people disappearing in the night". Also there should be a difference between "jail" and "prison" (short term and long term detainment). One before final judgment to prevent further possible damage / escape from trials, the other as a punishment if found guilty.

I also believe that you can have faith in your country and still disagree with things they do and critizise it. After all, those are the tools you have as a citizen to influence your country to remain something you can have faith in. Thus I don't see why people often seem to feel as if they have to defend every action of their nation. However, even if you don't agree with all laws, some are needed to maintain a form of stability over the vast variation of opinions a nation contains. Thus you sometimes have to live with certain "freedom limiting" rules/laws, such as scanners in the airport or the right for the police to act if you are not being cooperative during a stressed situation. Where to draw the line is hard, and a subjective individual choice. But wherever you draw the line, you have to ask yourself "will this work with the people in our society and how will it affect those around us?" (Around us refering either to those who fall under the laws in the society, that differ from us who definitely would agree with them, or those living in nearby societies as they too will be influenced by what we do simply by interaction between neighbours).

That's both the good thing with societies, and the bad things. We live in them so that we can prevent eachother from Robbing, maiming and murdering one another, as well as to benefit from eachother by trading services or goods, but we are then forced to form our societies in a way that matches everyone in "fair" fashions, since otherwise our societies would crumble under revolts and rebellions.
So far no society have found the perfect balance, and they probably won't either since times, things and people change. This will probably never stop. Oh, and then there's the fact that there will always be people who abuse the laws and structures. Here we probably have to construct them so that no one can abuse them without the society being able to stop it, or prevent it from happening a second time. And prevention from happening a second time may refer to "anywhere, ever, with anyone involved" or simply "stop this individual".

Some flawed laws are needed to be flawed as although they give us a possibility for bad people to abuse them, the also more often give us the ability to lawfully act and prevent further damage by something worse.

To sum it up:

* It's a tricky subject to find an answer to
* Body scanners at an airport: More freedom defending than freedom defeating
* The right to knock down people who disagree: Never a good thing. Freedom of speech first!
* Acts of terror: Should not be used as an excuse for whatever you want when you're a nation who use them as well, and have in the past. Individual attempts at randomly hurting others is not very different from using organised attempts to hurt others (randomly or not) when there will be lots of collateral damage. One is simply called "terrorism" and the other "military operation", but for the people in between it's not much of a difference. They die either way. One concept is just more self-rightous than the other. You pick which, neither is really good in a sense of general morals, because war is a dirty buisness and thinking one side has the right on their side (once again, general morals) is naive and foolish. You decide if you have the right on your side and if your acts can be justified in the eyes of your own people, but that doesn't mean you're any better than the other side. I just hate double standards.

Re: Appeal denied for cheerleader who rfused to cheer for rapist

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:12 am
by weezer
9/11 destroys another topic ftw!! Cheerleader got ousted on this one... lmao

That said.. This may sound heartless but I have never really cared about 9/11 or what happened or why..!? But I do enjoy reading the arguments it brings up :) Brings light to how fast an entire world can change with one event.