NEW Bi-Partisan report on torture

[Drummond]

You're actually desperate to keep this going, aren't you ??

How very sad ....

You posted the myth of "winning" of course.

No myth. You cannot prove the existence of humanity in subhumans. Terrorists exhibit NONE AT ALL, and well you know it.

And yes, I tend to assert that I "win" when even basic questions are unable to be answered.

Well, THAT, AT LEAST, IS HONEST !!

You have no way of answering how terrorists still qualify for 'human' status when they lack any trace of humanity. But you'll still claim victory in a debate which addresses that issue, and which you CANNOT ANSWER !

Do you need me to rundown again what you will not answer?

I believe you're referring to my choosing to treat quotes from other people in the same way YOU do, namely, distancing yourself from them when it suits you.

Observe, and maintain selective amnesia, concerning this previous post:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...297#post640297

''Actually they are not my points, they are the points from the bi-partisan commission."

'So, now we get to some evidence of hypocrisy from you.

On the one hand, in answer to my statement that I'd never argued that limited intelligence was a part of 'subhumanity', you quoted the Merriam Webster dictionary back at me, asking if I 'disavowed' it. To put it another way, you wanted to say that, as I'd provided that definition, I had to be, MYSELF, 'owning' the definition.

But on the other, THIS IS NOT A PRINCIPLE YOU ARE WILLING TO APPLY TO YOURSELF, MUCH THOUGH YOU WISH ME TO ACCEPT IT ABOUT MYSELF !! You're quick to distance yourself from the 'bi-partisan commission's' own points ... but require the OPPOSITE approach from me, for quotes I provide !!!

Why should I think it fair and reasonable to defer to you, when you yourself illustrate an unwillingness to do the very same thing, when our roles are reversed ??'

Continue to forget your own double standard FJ, but insist that I must 'own' someone else's definition in a way YOU REFUSE TO, when it suits you.

And as far as my "FACT" assertion; do you agree that even terrorists fit the human being definition scientifically?

There is more to human beings than scientific definition. Get a scientist to measure, and scientifically demonstrate, 'decency', and 'empathy', for example.

Please define for me what you think I "will never accept." Do I not accept your "proof" that they are not human beings

You now want to be told what you think ???

Don't be tiresome. We both well know that you have no wish to accept what's patently obvious. Terrorists (.. how many MORE times ?) lack all humanity, therefore, cannot be human.

... or do I not accept that they commit despicable acts?

You refuse to learn the obvious lesson from that. Obviously the script you're working from doesn't allow it.

So, tell me. For how much longer will you insist upon ... ????

[fj1200]

You're actually desperate to keep this going, aren't you ??

Under the hope that you'll end up debating as an adult... sure.

No myth. You cannot prove the existence of humanity in subhumans. Terrorists exhibit NONE AT ALL, and well you know it.

False premise.

Well, THAT, AT LEAST, IS HONEST !!

You have no way of answering how terrorists still qualify for 'human' status when they lack any trace of humanity. But you'll still claim victory in a debate which addresses that issue, and which you CANNOT ANSWER !

I've been nothing but honest. And what haven't I answered that I "cannot" answer? I can give you a sampling of what you've ignored.

I believe you're referring to my choosing to treat quotes from other people in the same way YOU do, namely, distancing yourself from them when it suits you.

Observe, and maintain selective amnesia, concerning this previous post:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...297#post640297

Continue to forget your own double standard FJ, but insist that I must 'own' someone else's definition in a way YOU REFUSE TO, when it suits you.

What are you even talking about? They are not mine because I did not create them but I do place credence in them. I only ask that you "own" something that you post and use as basis for your opinion.

There is more to human beings than scientific definition. Get a scientist to measure, and scientifically demonstrate, 'decency', and 'empathy', for example.

So you can't even agree to that? I know, I know, to do so would destroy your position.

You now want to be told what you think ???

Don't be tiresome. We both well know that you have no wish to accept what's patently obvious. Terrorists (.. how many MORE times ?) lack all humanity, therefore, cannot be human.

No. I want to know what you think I think so that I know if you are even coming from a basis in reality. Besides, you have backed away from the definition of human that you proffered.

You refuse to learn the obvious lesson from that. Obviously the script you're working from doesn't allow it.

Again, the script "leftie" argument without answering the question.

So, tell me. For how much longer will you insist upon ... ????

dunno. When will you debate honestly?

[aboutime]

You're actually desperate to keep this going, aren't you ??

How very sad ....



No myth. You cannot prove the existence of humanity in subhumans. Terrorists exhibit NONE AT ALL, and well you know it.



Well, THAT, AT LEAST, IS HONEST !!

You have no way of answering how terrorists still qualify for 'human' status when they lack any trace of humanity. But you'll still claim victory in a debate which addresses that issue, and which you CANNOT ANSWER !



I believe you're referring to my choosing to treat quotes from other people in the same way YOU do, namely, distancing yourself from them when it suits you.

Observe, and maintain selective amnesia, concerning this previous post:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...297#post640297



Continue to forget your own double standard FJ, but insist that I must 'own' someone else's definition in a way YOU REFUSE TO, when it suits you.



There is more to human beings than scientific definition. Get a scientist to measure, and scientifically demonstrate, 'decency', and 'empathy', for example.



You now want to be told what you think ???

Don't be tiresome. We both well know that you have no wish to accept what's patently obvious. Terrorists (.. how many MORE times ?) lack all humanity, therefore, cannot be human.



You refuse to learn the obvious lesson from that. Obviously the script you're working from doesn't allow it.

So, tell me. For how much longer will you insist upon ... ????

Sir Drummond. fj simply can't help it. He has a really bad case of Halitosis....and it doesn't matter which end
he brushes....cow-fire.jpg, same results.

[red states rule]

Sir Drummond. fj simply can't help it. He has a really bad case of Halitosis....and it doesn't matter which end
he brushes....cow-fire.jpg

He is more like a spoiled brat who cannot stand NOT being the center of attention.

How much longer is he going to use this thread to show his unwavering support for terrorists?

[fj1200]

He is more like a spoiled brat who cannot stand NOT being the center of attention.

1

red states rule

42,709

How much longer is he going to use this thread to show his unwavering support for terrorists?

...

[red states rule]

You're actually desperate to keep this going, aren't you ??

How very sad ....



No myth. You cannot prove the existence of humanity in subhumans. Terrorists exhibit NONE AT ALL, and well you know it.



Well, THAT, AT LEAST, IS HONEST !!

You have no way of answering how terrorists still qualify for 'human' status when they lack any trace of humanity. But you'll still claim victory in a debate which addresses that issue, and which you CANNOT ANSWER !



I believe you're referring to my choosing to treat quotes from other people in the same way YOU do, namely, distancing yourself from them when it suits you.

Observe, and maintain selective amnesia, concerning this previous post:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...297#post640297



Continue to forget your own double standard FJ, but insist that I must 'own' someone else's definition in a way YOU REFUSE TO, when it suits you.



There is more to human beings than scientific definition. Get a scientist to measure, and scientifically demonstrate, 'decency', and 'empathy', for example.



You now want to be told what you think ???

Don't be tiresome. We both well know that you have no wish to accept what's patently obvious. Terrorists (.. how many MORE times ?) lack all humanity, therefore, cannot be human.



You refuse to learn the obvious lesson from that. Obviously the script you're working from doesn't allow it.

So, tell me. For how much longer will you insist upon ... ????

I am sure this reminds you of FU and how he views the War on Terror and how to deal with terrorists

[fj1200]

I am sure this reminds you of FU and how he views the War on Terror and how to deal with terrorists

You might be more of a Tina though.



The way you run from debates like a little girl that is.

[aboutime]

...

fj.....the.... broken_record_logo.jpg. The King of Troll....The King of Troll....The King of Troll.....The King of Troll.

[fj1200]

fj.....the.... broken_record_logo.jpg. The King of Troll....The King of Troll....The King of Troll.....The King of Troll.

Sorry, beat you to it. I bet Tina is more man than you too.

[red states rule]

fj.....the.... broken_record_logo.jpg. The King of Troll....The King of Troll....The King of Troll.....The King of Troll.

AT, please remember FU was a butt buddy with Conman before he was shown the door - so consider the source. Like Conman, if FU cannot win a debate he sets out to derail the entire thread so perhaps a mod will lock it. That is FU's way of "saving face"

[fj1200]

AT, please remember FU was a butt buddy with Conman before he was shown the door - so consider the source. Like Conman, if FU cannot win a debate he sets out to derail the entire thread so perhaps a mod will lock it. That is FU's way of "saving face"

T'rolling in the deep.



Actually I hope the trash posts that you knuckleheads insist on posting get split off into the cage where they belong. Maybe there is a whole "Troll" forum that could be created in your name.

[aboutime]

AT, please remember FU was a butt buddy with Conman before he was shown the door - so consider the source. Like Conman, if FU cannot win a debate he sets out to derail the entire thread so perhaps a mod will lock it. That is FU's way of "saving face"

I know. But it's just so much fun watching the frustration, and misery as left-overs from a different "PERSPECTIVES" kind of way.

As for the butt buddy. I wonder WHICH face he is trying to save???

[red states rule]

I know. But it's just so much fun watching the frustration, and misery as left-overs from a different "PERSPECTIVES" kind of way.

As for the butt buddy. I wonder WHICH face he is trying to save???

FU is obviously trying to take the title for Most Obnoxious Poster from OCA FU wins in a landslide

[fj1200]

FU is obviously trying to take the title for Most Obnoxious Poster from OCA FU wins in a landslide

At least he didn't run from debate like a little girl.

T'Rollin'



Though he was wrong a lot so you do have that in common.

[Drummond]

T'rolling in the deep.

Actually I hope the trash posts that you knuckleheads insist on posting get split off into the cage where they belong. Maybe there is a whole "Troll" forum that could be created in your name.

... and to which you'd expect to be invited as the 'star of the show' (no doubt wanting to be the centre of attention at all times) ?

You admitted in your reply to me that you are, indeed, 'desperate' to keep arguing with me.

You clearly have problems. I wish you success in finding the proper remedy for what ails you .. whatever that may be ....