How they do stuff in other countries
Because I’m a commie America hater, I sometimes read news sources from other countries. Earlier this week, I was reading an article in The Guardian about a British torture scandal. This is what I found (all emphasis mine):
MI5 faces fresh torture allegations
The home secretary Jacqui Smith faces legal action over allegations that MI5 agents colluded in the torture of a British former civil servant by Bangladeshi intelligence officers..
Right off the bat you notice a difference. A high-ranking government official is actually facing a legal action for her alleged role in torturing somebody. You’ll also notice that the opening graf contains no references to Jack Bauer or ticking time bombs. Continuing:
Lawyers for the British man, Jamil Rahman, are to file a damages claim alleging that Smith was complicit in assault, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and breaches of human rights legislation over his alleged ill-treatment while detained in Bangladesh.
The claims bring to three the number of countries in which British intelligence agents have been accused of colluding in the torture of UK nationals. Rahman says that he was the victim of repeated beatings over a period of more than two years at the hands of Bangladeshi intelligence officers, and he claims that a pair of MI5 officers were blatantly involved in his ordeal.
The two men would leave the room where he was being interrogated whenever he refused to answer their questions, he says, and he would be severely beaten. They would then return to the room to resume the interrogation.
Oh wow! So it’s not like the British government even the MI5 to torture the guy themselves! They just left the room and pretended not to know he was being tortured by other people. And they’re still facing legal action over it! And again, still no mention of how tuff Jack Bauer is!
Now here’s the part that will really blow your mind:
The alleged complicity of the MI5 officers who failed to report or do anything to prevent torture appears to be in line with a secret government-approved interrogation policy at the time. Gordon Brown has ordered a review of the policy, but there have been numerous calls for an independent inquiry into the affair.
Among those demanding an inquiry are opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg; Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions; Lord Carlile of Berriew, the government’s independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation; Lord Howe, foreign secretary in the Thatcher government, and Lord Guthrie, former chief of defence staff.
For those of you who don’t follow British politics, Cameron is the leader of Britain’s Conservative Party. Which, as you may have guessed by its title, is the center-right party in the U.K. You’ll notice that Cameron is actually demanding an independent inquiry instead of giving a speech at the American Enterprise Institute telling us all how swell torture is. Nor is he telling us that Jack Bauer would so have approved torturing this guy because otherwise the terrorists would blow up the Queen Mum.
Why is our country the only Western democracy whose government officials outspokenly support torture? Have we become that depraved?
Say, let’s look at another article to see how David Cameron differs from our country’s right-wing leaders:
David Cameron: I would reduce No 10’s power
David Cameron will tomorrow pledge to deliver the most dramatic redistribution of power in living memory as he attempts to deal with the concerns of voters left disgusted by the row over MPs’ expenses.
In a broad-ranging article in the Guardian, Cameron declares that he would trim back the powers of the prime minister and boost the role of parliament to win back public confidence.
What the hell. Why can’t we get center-right leaders like this? Hey Britain, if you send us David Cameron, we’ll gladly trade you Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.
Brad:
SATSQ. Yes.
.
Damn. Beat me to it.
No one’s going to take that trade.
Hey Britain, if you send us David Cameron, we’ll gladly trade you Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.
I’ll sweeten the deal with a wingnut to be named later.
Rush Limbaugh as a celebrity waterboy?
(‘Cause he carries water for them, ya know? lol)
Okay shitty joke time is over.
Sorry I can’t accept reading too much into Cameron’s views from opposition. US conservatives also talk about shrinking government and yammer about states’ rights.
Here in Canada, Harper is leading perhaps the most secretive and centralized administration in our history, with his Cabinet members reduced to puppets and all decisions made in the Prime Minister’s office.
But… but… we had 9/11! That gives us carte blanche to do anything, anywhere, anytime, to anybody, who may or may not be intending to cause us harm sometime in the future, maybe.
Rush Limbaugh as a celebrity waterboy?
I was thinking Pam Atlass, myself.
Oh, and yay new thread.
Sorry I can’t accept reading too much into Cameron’s views from opposition.
I’m well aware that he’s likely bullshitting us. All the same, it says something about the state of our civilization when our center-right leaders feel they can proudly and openly support human rights abuses without any rebuke from their supporters.
Tax Cuts. The end.
I’ll sweeten the deal with a wingnut to be named later.
That makes the deal more sour, not sweeter.
I was thinking Pam Atlass, myself.
My dyslexic self sometimes reads her name as “Patless Mams.”
God I hate her. What ever happened with her husbands murder trial?
Obviously the funniest person to explode.
An important note is that those being tortured are UK nationals.
Lindh was of course from California and thus awful to start with.
We have them. We just call them Islamocommiefagoextremoleftists here. Or just “the Left” for short.
The Right has moved the goalposts so far, and everybody has bought in and chased whatever the new fifty yard line is today, that we don’t even have a decent metric to measure where the “center” is anymore.
Hey Britain, if you send us David Cameron, we’ll gladly trade you Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.
Forcing the Brits take sneery face-shooter Satan and smarmy death-bed divorce Satan would be a war crime.
What ever happened with her husbands murder trial?
I think it’s “ex” now, and that’s why it’s been sotto voce.
We’re making up for lost time, w/r/t Britain and a history of bad behavior.
Because SHUT UP, that’s why.
Jacqui Smith was the hottest Angel.
Fuck. I think I’ll go back to the previous thread; this one is just too depressing.
At least this one hasn’t been overrun by trolls, yet.
Quick quiz: Repeatedly insisting you’re right and the rest of the civilized world, including your allies, is wrong, is a sign of:
1) Resolution
2) Insanity
No peeking at your neighbor’s paper.
Well I saw the Mel Gibson movie where all the evil devil Brits tortured the American patriots who were carrying the crosses to be crucified by the Romans… wait, and then, um, 9/11.
Quick quiz: Repeatedly insisting you’re right and the rest of the civilized world, including your allies, is wrong, is a sign of:
I like men to behave like men–strong and childish.
Maybe it’s because dey’s so many idjits in dis cuntry?
For example, NOM does it again. Not quite up there with 2M4M but still,
BWAHHAHA feckin idjits.
I think we need Camille Paglia to weigh in on this with a carefully considered, empirically-supported argument.
how David Cameron differs from our country’s right-wing leaders
Britain’s Conservatives also don’t dress up in powered wigs and toss teabags around and scream about how Greater London should secede from the rest of the country.
Power wigs are HOT.
I want me a powered wig. Gas powered.
Britain’s Conservatives also don’t dress up in powered wigs and toss teabags around and scream about how Greater London should secede from the rest of the country.
And they sound a whole lot more erudite when they do say ignorant things.
Power wigs are so ’80s.
BTW, what the hell do we care what “other countries” do? We’re TEH USA, God’s gift to Earth and God’s own personal favorite nation, most powerful roided-up country on the planet and best ever at blowing stuff up! So what if our newspapers are written at a third-grade level, our cities are disintegrating, health care is a sham, schools are underfunded, the only ones hiring are the Army and our economy is on the brink? WE GOT TEH BOMZ DOOODZ
PowDERED wigs, FYVMWP.
Pfeh!
Doesn’t Britain already have the Monster Raving Loony Party? I mean, not to insult them by comparing them to the tea-baggers of the Republican Party of the Dixie Confederate Uprising.
Why can’t we get center-right leaders like this?
Well, our center-right leaders are all Democrats, to start with.
Lest the impression be given that Britain is now Kumbayaland, this article appears to be about a civil tort action, not a criminal prosecution.
Why is our country the only Western democracy whose government officials outspokenly support torture? Have we become that depraved?
Well, we’re also (if I’m not mistaken) the only Western democracy where elected leaders are elected by how much they hate the government they’re being elected to, up to and including calling for violent revolution against the system they themselves represent.
Conservatives in Britain and Canada equals Blue Dog Democrats here.
I’m an American conservative who wants a full investigation, btw. We do exist.
Conservatives in
Britain and Canadamost of the civilized world and many dictatorships equals Blue Dog Democrats here.Fixed!
“Hey Britain, if you send us David Cameron, we’ll gladly trade you Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.”
That’s like asking for Nas in exchange for Snow and MC Skat Kat. Computer says “Nooo.”
I want me a powered wig. Gas powered.
I like to dream yes, yes, right between my sound machine
On a cloud of sound I drift in the night
Any place it goes is right
Goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here
Well, you don’t know what we can find
Why don’t you come with me little girl
On powered wig tonight
Well, we’re also (if I’m not mistaken) the only Western democracy where elected leaders are elected by how much they hate the government they’re being elected to, up to and including calling for violent revolution against the system they themselves represent.
We are more like Nepal in that way. But more like China in our environmental, criminal, and foreign policies. Although China has health care, so more like Egypt in that regard. And it’s down to us and Burma being left out of the metric system.
Are we sure that the US is a Western democracy?
Isn’t this the same bullshit Republicans were on about in the 90’s, before they had the presidency? I imagine if the Conservative party were in power, Cameron would be arguing for more power vested in the executive for the same reason.
Link
he also wrote this about Pammy:
Blasphemy! Kate Jackson was the hottest Angel. By far. Heathen!
I’m with Rusty.
Kate Jackson’s necklines were too high. Imagination shmimagination.
Are we sure that the US is a Western democracy?
That’s what they keep telling us, anyway.
“…I’ll sweeten the deal with a wingnut to be named later.”
Oh god, Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, and K-Lo – without thinking twice. Hell, give ’em the whole rightard team – they can play rugby with their fookin’ heads, for all I care.
WHAT? There are “other” countries?
When did this start?
(And what are we going to do about it?)
Actually, I see more conflation of the ticking time bomb scenario with the torture conducted by the U.S. and Britan in recent years on Sadly, No than I do anywhere else.
As I said in the previous thread, trying to score Jack Bauer laugh points while muddying this fact up only serves the pro-torture side. Outside of Dick Cheney, no one has really tried to defend Bushco’s torture on ticking time bomb grounds for a very simple reason: not because the ticking time bomb scenario would not be a defense but rather because there haven’t been any nuclear bombs discovered in terrorist hands anywhere so it simply doesn’t apply.
Laugh all you want about Jack Bauer. But if terrorists had a nuclear bomb, you would no longer be laughing about it. All the high and mighty absolutist moral posturing that lumps together the Dick Cheneys of the world (who want to torture in order to get any information at all) with the reasonable and vast majority who would countenance torture in an actual ticking time bomb scenario is simply counterproductive.
If you want to LOSE the torture debate, the surest way to do it is to get the anti-torture side branded as extremist pacifists who would oppose torture even when used on a a nuclear terrorist to prevent a nuclear holocaust. You can yuck it up here all you want and it doesn’t matter, but if your rhetoric infects actual public rhetoric then that will only help the immoral pro-torture side.
Shit, I’d trade Cheney and Newt to Laos for a second round draft pick.
Concern troll is concerned.
The British Empire and the American Empire are at dramatically different stages in their respective declines. Give America 2 or 3 more generations and you’ll see some realignment. Keep in mind that at this point we really have two wings both fighting for control of the single electable Property Party.
England had a pretty rough 20th century. The 21st is unlikely to grow much kinder to America.
It’s a Trap![/Adm. Ackbar]
But if terrorists had a nuclear bomb, you would no longer be laughing about it.
Yeah, and if they could bring the dead back to horrible shambling brain-eating life they’d REALLY be dangerous, so there!
And if the Hulk could beat up Jesus the Christian religion would look a hell of a lot different.
And if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass on the ground.
See, libs? SEEE? DOOO YOOOOU SEEEEE THE POINT???
Concern troll is incoherent.
If you want to LOSE the torture debate, the surest way to do it is to get the anti-torture side branded as extremist pacifists who would oppose torture even when used on a a nuclear terrorist to prevent a nuclear holocaust.
No, if you want to lose the torture debate, the surest way to do it is to try to sidetrack it with ridiculous parsing of the word “torture,” while conjuring up fantasies about “nuclear terrorists.”
Cameron’s only speaking out against it because he’s the Opposition. He’s just as much of a cunt as any other Tory or Republican. You can fucking have him for free.
Nuclear terrorists represent a significant improvement over conventional terrorists because of their speed, efficiency, stealth, and ability to stay submerged for months at a time.
I do think that the “thinking” that justifies torture comes from an unconscious assumption that the US is special and different and therefore it’s not wrong when we do it, whereas it’s horrible and a war crime when others do it. It’s called American Exceptionalism, and it papers over all sorts of internal contradictions in the conservative national self-image. Of course, its absolute treason to be even slightly objective about American history and current actions. You’re either with us, or you’re objectively with the terrorists, there can be no middle ground. And why aren’t you wearing your flag pin?
It’s just an outgrowth of the basic authoritarian personal self-image anyway.
If we’re having a torture debate, we’ve already lost.
Scribe: I don’t parse the word ‘torture” so you;re barking up the wrong tree there.
It seems like many of my fellow liberals are set on autopilot when it comes to discussing torture. They immediately fit their opponents into stereotypical pigeonholes, whether they fit or not, and they all make the same very strident arguments attempting to simply dismiss a possible scenario for which their absolutist rhetoric is very ill-fitted. Just because you boys and girls reflexively dismiss it as a fantasy doesn’t mean it is. You all need to grow up and face the fact that you live in the nuclear age.
Butter my toast, libs!
“Actually, I see more conflation of the ticking time bomb scenario with the torture conducted by the U.S. and Britan in recent years on Sadly, No than I do anywhere else.”
>.>
<.<
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/jesse-ventura-piledrives-yellow-elep
You all need to grow up.
Heyblart:
Cid’s got some jelly for your toast, bro.
Sooner or later, one of the female commenters here will say something clever, and then I’ll really lose my shit!
Now, coast to coast, libs!
“Stereotypical pigeonholes” is ingeniously brilliant. Destined to be becoming a timeless classic.
Grow up and address my post, bros.
Sorry. Sorry.
‘They immediately fit their opponents into stereotypical pigeonholes’
And the Jack Bauer argument is what?
You all need to grow up
Spare us.
I seem to notice dancing badgers with regard to certain hypotheses about torture.
Its actually not as redundant as you might think.
Man, the badgers is multiplicatin’.
Bros! Bro my bro, or else bro bro. I have bro to bro for a high-powered bro, on bros that are bro to your own bros. Then I have to go home and bro my bro, who I rescued from the bro with my patented bro-on-the-downbro technique.
My bros are 99th brotile. Bro up and bro.
Ah Cid: my old buddy. We’ve been through so much together. I thought you had tied yourself to the mast with some high falutin’ technology but once again:
You just can’t quit me, can you bro?
Right on, bra.
Faux Fool is not funny.
Address my points, bros.
@El Dic:
Jelly, anal. Now address my points with the seriousness I deserve, bro.
Cut it out!
Stay strong, kids.
Wow,these st00pid punk bitchiz self-troll. Awesome.
“Actually, I see more conflation of the ticking time bomb scenario with the torture conducted by the U.S. and Britan in recent years on Sadly, No than I do anywhere else.”
<..>
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/jesse-ventura-piledrives-yellow-elep
Holy crap! There’s a whole page full of Greasemonkey badgers! They must be gettin’ het up about something!
>.>
<.<
fywp.
I see more conflation of the ticking time bomb scenario with the torture conducted by the U.S. and Britan in recent years on Sadly, No than I do anywhere else because I spend every waking minute here.
Bro.
You can’t really call someone a troll when he makes the most sustained and logical argument in the thread only to get jokes in response can you?
Stupid question! These stoopid punk bitchiz are almost certain to react to a reasonable argument with name calling and then start weeping about the trolls that have taken over their thread.
If only it could all be lolcatz!
You bros have ignored my points. I win, bros.
Jody: that’s not a TTB discussion because there are no terrorists known to have a nuke — an essential part of a TTB scenario.
I can think of numerous scenarios where cold-blooded, preemptive murder of a fellow human being would be justified. For example, a battered wife, knowing that her husband was going to kill her the next time he lost his temper, decides to kill him in his sleep. Fine. This has come to court numerous times, in fact, and juries tend to be sympathetic. Even if she is not acquitted, she can face prison knowing in her heart that what she did was the right thing. This does NOT mean that therefore murder should not be considered a crime, or that someone who takes a moral stand against murder is naive.
“I see more conflation of the ticking time bomb scenario with the torture conducted by the U.S. and Britan in recent years on Sadly, No than I do anywhere else because I spend every waking minute here.”
>.>
<.<
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/chris-matthews-embraces-ticking-time-bomb
Steerpike: murder and terrorism are different.
You can’t really call someone a troll when he makes the most sustained and logical argument in the thread only to get jokes in response can you?
Troll makes the rules around here! Now, check on the roast, libs!
The principle is exactly the same. You posit one, vanishingly unlikely scenario where torture would be justified, and claim that anyone who still opposes all torture is naive.
Steerpike: even that analogy’s too generous: using the time bomb argument is like arguing that only naive liberals say murder is bad, because what if a wizard possessed your boss and the only way to save yourself from his supernatural powers was to cut his head off with a chainsaw? The example is ludicrous and vanishingly unlikely after even a moment’s examination.
Heh. Vanishingly unlikely jinx!
“Jody: that’s not a TTB discussion because there are no terrorists known to have a nuke — an essential part of a TTB scenario.”
>.>
<.<
Steerpike: that’s not what I did and you know it. Obviously you know nothing about academic philosophy, where the use of the ticking time bomb scenario is common in ethics classes. Try not to be so obtuse.
If no one around here is intelligent enough to debate with me, I’m going to have to leave you children to your sandbox.
We’re opening tonight for Hispanic Pizza Menace.
linky
“Hey Britain, if you send us David Cameron, we’ll gladly trade you Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.”
At that price, we’ll take it! Cheney is so unpopular here, and Gingrich’s views so repugnant to most people (I doubt more than 20% of the population know who he is), that they’d make the Tories lose the next election. And the opposition has basically no power in most circumstances, so they couldn’t do any harm.
N.C. said:
using the time bomb argument is like arguing that only naive liberals say murder is bad, because what if a wizard possessed your boss and the only way to save yourself from his supernatural powers was to cut his head off with a chainsaw? The example is ludicrous and vanishingly unlikely after even a moment’s examination.
Oohh. That’s a really deep FAIL N.C. I thought you were smarter than that, bro.
The point of the TTB scenario is not at all to say that only naive liberals say torture is bad. Oh you BADLY missed the point, brohim.
The point is not to question the badness of torture, the point is to head off ill-considered and self-defeating absolutist rhetoric that pretends that it is impossible to ever be in a lesser-of-two-evils quandary and that risks having the anti-torture side being branded as extremist pacifists.
Maybe you should think the logic through a little, bra.
And, as an empirical matter, its just not that hard to imagine that sometime in the next, say, 50 years, a nuclear bomb of some kind could fall into terrorist hands. I think that’s why we have a program that pays the Russians to tighten up their nuclear security, isn’t it? Do you oppose that program as a waste of money?
Its also a loser argument to go out and pretend to be much more confident about the pragmatic question than everyone knows you really are.
The Fool comment at 21:54 is Faux Fool.
You think the Hispanic Pizza Menace is a joke? Have you not heard about the threat posed by the Marinara Salsatrufa?
@El Cid:
I can’t HEAR you!
I’ve had sugar-free cookies. That is torture.
Steerpike countered my argument but I’m going to pretend he didn’t.
Bra.
I’m very concerned that people who hate liberals will call you names. You can only avoid that phenomenon by abandoning your principles, bras.
Oh, and I’m one of you. Trust me. A guy with a hot stripper wife wouldn’t lie.
No ticking bomb scenario has ever happened anywhere, even with a conventional bomb. You may as well argue for shooting one’s mother in the face, as it may be necessary to prevent a zombie apocalypse. It is a pure literary invention.
Read this..
amk: I don’t read things, I tell you what to read.
Now redress my host, bri.
You losers will never win your argument until you give up. Only then will you win, brus.
A Briton Writes:
Um… Cameron is not exactly a nice chap. He’s a filthy rich toff who with the Bullingdon Boys–a society of rich tearaways at Eton school–used to smash up restaurants for laughs and pay off the establishment afterwards. Basically, another rich kid with Bush levels of entitlement trying to make out a having the common touch.
He is scum. You Yanks are welcome to him.
Although my “arguments” depend on outlandish starting conditions, I’m right and you’re wrong because my imaginary degrees come from better colleges than your real ones.
The last Fool post was Faux Fool.
I don’t see how you people think we can live in a free society without extrajudicial torture. Explain that, bros.
It is a pure literary invention.
It aint literature, either.
Just because you boys and girls reflexively dismiss it as a fantasy doesn’t mean it is. You all need to grow up and face the fact that you live in the nuclear age.
You’re a moron and a fraud. In the fantasy-land “ticking time bomb” scenario, the problem that arises isn’t the morality of torture, but its efficacy. It doesn’t fucking work.
If the time bomb is ticking, then all our terrorist has to do is toss out false leads and force us to waste time until kaboom. Detective work is what’s needed, not torture. Torture assumes that an unreliable source will magically give up reliable information.
You can’t really call someone a troll when he makes the most sustained and logical argument in the thread only to get jokes in response can you?
The biggest joke here is that you somehow think that your argument is logical.
Besides having plenty of imaginary degrees from hi-falutin’ colleges and stuff, I hang around with CIA agents and hot strippers.
Those things, even moreso than the imaginary degrees, is why I’m right and you’re wrong about torture.
I used to love Vanishingly Unlikely Jinx until they sold out with the Ticking Time Bomb album.
Random fact: the TBS was invented by the French (actually a French novelist), trying to rationalise the misbehaviour of their military in Algeria in the 1960s.
Krauthammer, Scheuer and Cheney are therefore aping the cheese eating effete Frogs..
I am totally open to being waterboarded about the veracity of my numerous claims of knowing lots of hot strippers and CIA agents, as long as you give me Depends to wear, and limit the waterboarding to 2 seconds, once a day.
We may not have powered wigs, but there’s a picture of Obama with a turbine on his head.
The cheese-eating effete Frogs had an interesting album with It’s Only Right and Natural.
This obsession proves that all the trolls are the same guy. A couple days ago he had Kim Jung (sic)-Il “dropping” (out of what?) a 10 MT (Bwahahaha!) bomb on a US base. Yesterday he’s got some goatherders in Afghanistan fabricating a similar 1950’s city-destroying behemoth and somehow spiriting it to New York and hiding it with the timer ticking away.
I’m seriously worried that idiots may read this kind of crap and think, if they can get their hands on some plutonium (“Reactor-grade? What’s that mean?”) that it’s easy to build a bomb with it, what with their Terrist S00perpowerz and all. Never mind that North Korea can’t even get a nominal-yield 20 KT device to work after two tries.
Someday somebody’s just going to surround some fissile material with high expolsives and set it off somewhere, thinking they built a bomb (“‘Cause the Fool said I could, and he’s knows lotsa CIA agents!”) It’s going to make a hell of a mess and guess who’s to blame? Right: The people who are against torture!
The cheese-eating effete Frogs had an interesting album with It’s Only Right and Natural.
Their Algerian Rationalization album kinda stunk though.
amk: I will read that and get back to you. In the meantime, I am familiar with Luban’s general argument from his article, “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Time Bomb”.
Luban’s argument is one of the stronger ones out there, but unfortunately Luban doesn’t really go beyond simply questioning the likelihood that the TTB would happen.
But even Luban admits, “I don’t mean that the time bomb is completely unreal” while pointing at the example of the Phillipino police who tortured a prisoner and were thereby able to get information about an al-Qaeda plot. His only counterargument is that they tortured the guy before they knew he knew anything. I agree that is wrong, but in the end Luban has presented evidnce in favor of the TTB’s possibility and the utlity of torture.
I’ll grant you, he does have some good points to make about the slippery slope and how you set the limits to the use of torture. And he also has some really bad arguments to make against the TTB as not being chivalrous enough and lots of appeals to really vague concepts like dignity. And he has lots of good arguments against Bush’s torture policy — but that has nothing to do with the TTB.
In the end, Luban has nothing more than what the commenters here on Sadly, No have. Yes, you can raise lots of pragmatic questions about how it would happen exactly. And yes, it is unlikely. But it is entirely plausible at the same time.
Most people can imagine a nuclear 9/11 plot. And just as 9/11 could have been thwarted, it is possible to imagine that a nuclear 9/11 could be thwarted. And if you’re thinking of a timeframe that covers the next 50-100 years, it is really not so far-fetched to think such a situation might arise.
Does Luban add anything in the article you linked to that I haven’t covered here?
Look, I have to write a lot of important legislation for my important Democrat party boss, so stop wasting my time. Just tell me once and for all: how can we defeat evil totalitarian Islamofascism without a shadow system of extrajudicial torture and secret prisons, all of which is unreviewable by courts or Congress and completely out of the public eye? Answer me that, bres.
The Afghani Goatherders rawked, especially their Terrist Superpowers EP.
Meanderthal;
If the time bomb is ticking, then all our terrorist has to do is toss out false leads and force us to waste time until kaboom
I destroyed this argument on an earlier thread.
Well, unless this guy has multiple personality disorder (a distinct possibility), I think there are definitely a few different trolls around here.
That said, I would just point out that this current troll has been at it for over 24 hours.
Which is interesting, because that hasn’t happened recently, and wouldn’t you know it, it’s that time of year when K-12 is out for the summer.
Most people can imagine a nuclear 9/11 plot. A nuclear bomb is just as easy to get as a box cutter. Google it if you don’t believe me.
And clearly, terrorist organizations who want to spread maximum terror with minimal resources (compared to nuclear nations) would rationally expend all those resources trying to obtain a nuclear bomb, rather than undertaking numerous smaller, non-nuclear efforts (like 9/11) that we have all imagined a million times as we’ve walked through shopping malls or public parks.
Now that I’ve established that a nuclear 9/11 is not only not fantastical but possible, and not only possible but likely, and not only likely but inevitable, I declare victory so I can go home and fuck my hot stripper wife.
> Just tell me once and for all: how can we defeat evil totalitarian Islamofascism without a shadow system of extrajudicial torture and secret prisons, all of which is unreviewable by courts or Congress and completely out of the public eye?
You can’t and I think it would be unwise to try.
For starters, torture is most effective when done in public. The purpose of torture is to obtain confessions and indictments against others. It was, for example, the preferred tool of intelligencers such as Sir Francis Walsingham. In the Elizabethan era a confession was the best way in which to trump up charges that would permit you to incarcerate state enemies or suspected state enemies. The system worked because it was public: courts accepted testimony obtained by torture and victims would often talk to avoid torture. In this model torture therefore works best when it is done in a fashion that advertises it.
Who are the trolls now, my brothers?
Fool/Troofus/whatever, it’s pretty clear from your posting patterns that you’re just a stupid kid. Now, most kids spend their summers outside, or looking at porn, or something like that.
Maybe this summer will be the summer you’ll be caught by your mom jerking it to gay porn. First time for everything!
Who is the troll now, Simba?
I know you are but what am I?
First time for everything!
Probably not, in this case.
I yearn for a Gibson Custom Shop Les Paul, although I can’t really play. That’s the kind of guy I am, bros.
I’m still ignoring my pwnage by Steerpike. Pretty good, huh?
I destroyed this argument on an earlier thread.
Then link to it, or cut and paste. It’s not difficult. I’d love to see it.
The cheese-eating effete Frogs – Camus’ lesser known novelette
It’s not difficult. I’d love to see it.
Unfortunately, his ultra-clever comments were deleted. They said stuff like “LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL”
Wow–think what we could do with a case of Thin Mints! Send in the Girl Scouts, pronto!
what if a wizard possessed your boss and the only way to save yourself from his supernatural powers was to cut his head off with a chainsaw?
I would rent that movie.
I destroyed all of you bros’ arguments on a different thread, in Canada.
You mean this weak Steerpike argument?
I can think of numerous scenarios where cold-blooded, preemptive murder of a fellow human being would be justified. For example, a battered wife, knowing that her husband was going to kill her the next time he lost his temper, decides to kill him in his sleep. Fine. This has come to court numerous times, in fact, and juries tend to be sympathetic. Even if she is not acquitted, she can face prison knowing in her heart that what she did was the right thing. This does NOT mean that therefore murder should not be considered a crime, or that someone who takes a moral stand against murder is naive.
That’s easy, bro. First of all, Steerpike is a strange champion for you to choose since he/she seems to be arguing for justifiable preventive homicide based on a hunch. I don’t agree with that at all.
But as to steerpike’s other point, I have argued for leaving torture a crime. If anyone in government really, honestly thinks they face a TTB, they will have to commit an act of civil disobedience.
The point of my argument is not to argue that taking a stand against torture is naive. I haven’t argued that at all — quite the opposite.
Meanderthal:
Don’t have time. But there are two basic points;
1) the “fuse” on the TTB can be arbitrarily long depending on the stipulated circumstances. So it could be weeks or months.
2) We can check the terrorists’s story about where the bomb is and threaten to increase the intensity of the torture if he lies.
So it’s been you all along, Jonah, hasn’t it?
1) the “fuse” on the TTB can be arbitrarily long depending on the stipulated circumstances. So it could be weeks or months.
The problem is that you’re still not even addressing a real-world situation. You don’t get to decide how long the fuse is. You don’t know how long the fuse is. And if you know how long the fuse is, you probably have enough information to find the bomb without wasting time on torture.
And if you know you have weeks or months, where’s the urgency that justifies torture?
Wait, wait, wait… did I just say I think torture should be a crime? Like everyone else here?
Then what the fuck am I arguing for?
meanderthal:
I’m not going to go through the whole long argument. Check the previous thread. But the deal is, it is a hypothetical scenario in which I can propose anything I want as long as it is logically possible. That provides the logical power to eviscerate the absolutist argument.
From there I acknowledge that the empirical likelihood is a matter of debate. Some find it less likely than others, but arguments that it is impossible or fantastic are counterproductive because they are obviously overstated and harm the credibility of the people who make them, ultimately hurting the anti-torture side rather than helping.
Faux Fool — You see, bro? Open your ears before you stick people in pigeon holes. You had no idea you agreed with me all this time did you? Even though I have held the same position consistently.
I’m gonna hang the Les Paul on the wall of my living room, to impress chicks. It’s gonna be just like Duane’s. Haven’t decided whether to put strings on it yet. If I do they’ll be the most expensive ones. You get what you pay for, bros.
Faux Fool:
I am primarily making 2 points:
1) A philosophical point about absolutist morality. You may find it uninteresting but it is actually a crucial argument in ethics and political theory.
2) A strategic point about how to best win the communications battle and minimize actual torture.
Actually I play a Strat.
The TTB scenario is ludicrous. The chance of it happening as is so often constructed – is virtually zero.
However, I will grant the wingnuts the fact that the chance is NOT zero. So if it does happen, torture the fuck. Get the info and stop the threat.
But. It’s against the law. Society knows this and acts accordingly. Investigations will be held, the torturers will be arrested for their crime, etc.
Then the President can use his completely legal pardon power as given to him by the Constitution to pardon the torturers of their crimes.
Is there anything wrong with this? It seems to me to be the most reasonable way to deal with the TTB scenario. The LEAST reasonable way to deal with it would be to hire sycophant attorneys to provide phony legal justifications, to build a prison in a country you have no relationships with to get around the fact that what you are doing is unquestionably illegal in your own, and build an entire bureaucracy of torturers, medical examiners to make sure the phony legal justifications aren’t being violated, and lawyers to keep nudging around the meaning of torture so your guy can get on TV and say “we don’t do torture” with a straight face, or at least the closest resemblance of a straight face your guy has.
It’s fucking insane.
Joshua:
Thank you for summarizing my position exactly.
if you know you have weeks or months, where’s the urgency that justifies torture
Remember that bomb that the fuse is on? However long that fuse may be, it is a nuclear bomb and in the hands of terrorists. Are you really asking where the urgency is?
Then there’s always the Dicking Time Bomb scenario – the only way to get the terrorist to divulge the location of the bomb is to suck his dick.
Every bit as likely as TTB, just less violent and more teh ghey.
I think I saw that one at Balloon Juice (BJ). Heh heh.
My Strat is a ’55, built by Leo himself. Buddy Holly recorded “Peggy Sue” with it. Hendrix burned it at Monterey, then Buddy Guy rebuilt it from the ashes and Jimi used it at Woodstock. Clapton borrowed it for “Layla,” which I actually wrote and taught him. Stevie Ray did “Little Wing” with it; his last words as the ‘copter went down were “give my Strat to TheFool – he’s the only man worthy of it.”
Faux Fool — Hey I like your fantasy. Except in my fantasy, I taught Layla to Duane Allman who taught it to Clapton.
In reality though, my Strat is a recent vintage Mexican model. Your fantasy Strat is way cooler.
Hey, a shout-out for The Frogs!!! kewl.
I’m just sitting here ropin’ dopes….
However, I will grant the wingnuts the fact that the chance is NOT zero.
I rank the probabilty about as high as The Fool actually being what he claims he is.
Is there “negative probability”?
By the Jowls of Limbaugh, this is a stupid argument.
Most people can imagine a nuclear 9/11 plot.
Most people also believe evolution is fiction.
In your case, they have a point.
actor:
Would you be willing to make a prop bet on my claims? How much money would you put where your mouth is?
Look; even if you let the bastard who performs torture in this one ludicrous fantasy scenario off the hook, it doesn’t change the moral argument against torture.
It merely says that someone is willing to do it. But hellz, Milgram proved that many years ago.
And there’s nothing in the fairy-tale mind-game gotcha scenario that really shows that traditional, non-heinous methods of interrogation and investigation wouldn’t do just as well, if not better. Other than the stipulation of the idiot who posed the scenario, basically “because SHUT UP, that’s WHY!” In other words, the torturer has ‘a hunch’ that it won’t work in time, but torture and sending people all over hell and back, kicking in doors would…
Torture is still absolutely wrong, if you want to call yourself and your country civilized. Something the rest of the world has already come to grips with, and America did once.
Myself, I wouldn’t even do it to Cheney. That’s what frickin jails are for.
zombie:
Well my argument is that, in the scenario, saving millions of lives at the cost of one tortured terrorist who can stop his torture at any time, is not wrong. Hence, torture is not absolutely wrong. This is a standard implication of consequentialist ethics and only mind boggling to the philosophically naive.
I imagine if the Conservative party were in power, Cameron would be arguing for more power vested in the executive
The Westminster system does not have an Executive branch.
The last time the English executed a politician was Roger Casement in 1916.
My argument is purely semantic. It’s just the definition of “absolutely” that concerns me, bro.
In physics, yes: there are many theories that yield negative probabilities or probabilities >1, or even infinite.
A theory is not considered seriously unless it’s “Unitary”, that is: yields probabilities between 0 and 1, inclusive. Peak Wingnut theory is not yet Unitary, but perhaps this is a feature and not a bug.
Well, Roger Casement was , technically a traitor. (However you regard the justice of his cause.) When are we going to start executing some of these neo-Confederate traitors in Congress?
And of course, since these bombs are so easy to make, and move, and hide, the terrorists would never move it after one of their guys who knew its location was captured!
I find it constantly amusing that for years liberals have been decried as ‘moral relativists’ for admitting that in most cases, there are indeed shades of grey.
But as soon as they find one morally reprehensible act they can get behind, then suddenly it’s all relativism ahoy, mateys!!
But then, tomorrow, taxes will become absolutely bad again….
the argument that has been raging is bullshit, as so many have called out; as Isaac Asimov once said “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”; if you have to resort to torture to prevent a crime, then you’re not a very fuckin good crimefighter….
The last time the English executed a politician was Roger Casement in 1916.
Did they defenestrate him?
That’s way over my head Battleaxe. I thought probability maxed out at 1.
So on your understanding of probability, what exactly would the TTB scenario have to show to be considered possible under your definition?
I’d pay more heed to British criticism if:
A) Cameron wasn’t in opposition addressing the sins of his main rival (party-wise)
B) The UK wasn’t basically a surveillance state- been to London lately, I’m not paranoid about security but good god, its like a protopolice state- it has a network and infrastructure (not just the cameras- the evolution of long-term “preventive detention” on citizens).
zombie: my position is not relativist at all. It is non-absolutist but that is a much different idea. My claim is that it is right to torture under the TTB scenario for everyone, not relative to any individual or community.
BTW battleaxe: if your argument holds up you should strongly consider submitting papers to all the major philoosphy journals because you apparently have a knockdown argument that has never appeared before in the literature.
I have managed to turn this thread into a dull one, although one that I can turn in with suitable editing as a term paper to my Philosophy 101 class here at the CC I go to.
I used the thread I hijacked the other day for my Creative Writing 101.
Thank you punk bitchez for helping me get through the first year of my A.B. degree!
There are “major philosophy journals”? Hunh.
More reading comprehension fail. A theory that is not Unitary is essentially intellectual masturbation (Like the TTB scenario) although it may be cleaned up later to become useful (Unlike the TTB scenario).
This article has a serious mistake. The centre-right party in the UK is called Labour. The Conservatives are an off-the-dial unhinged rightist party who are pretending to be centrists so they can get elected. Sound at all familiar?
Remember that bomb that the fuse is on? However long that fuse may be, it is a nuclear bomb and in the hands of terrorists. Are you really asking where the urgency is?
Spare me the mindless escalation. If your argument is sound, it doesn’t matter in the slightest what kind of bomb it is. Ultimately, your argument relies entirely on making up conditions and saying “What if?” And when you get an answer, you make up another condition and say “What if?” And in the end, even if you wear down your debater, you’re still left with an incredible scaffolding of hypotheticals that cannot practically exist, requiring a combination of absolute knowledge, and absolute ignorance.
Where do you stop? In the interests of honesty, at what point would you re-evaluate your own position? And what length would you not go to in order to extract information. How much damage would you do, to the innocent and the guilty alike, to discover information to save people from the dreaded TTB?
Would you kill/torture/maim (projected death toll of TTB – 1) people to find the information? What about (projected death toll of TTB – 2) people? If that was the only way to get the information? At what point does the damage you inflict outweigh the damage of a bomb? And at that point, the world may need saving from you.
Hypotheticals can be a real pain. I’m feeling a tad tortured myself. What in the hell is wrong with my life that I should be having this discussion in the first place?
The Fool has already embarrassed himself thoroughly on this thread. Please don’t retype it.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/farlio/2989350850785641893/
Dear Major Philosophy Journal:
I always thought those letters were fake, until recently I found myself in a most interesting situation. While sitting in the bubble bath I learned of a terrorist with a nuclear device…
Thanks, Bubba. Goodness, I must be feeling extra-bored or extra-belligerent today to keep this going.
And where do you want us to mail all these internets you just won?
Q:
A:
Not to rain on anybody’s calvalry column, but ‘Murka currently holds the World Heavyweight title for successfully-prosecuted democide (a whiter, gentler, more ‘Murkan form of genocide), courtesy of that great democratic institution, the US Army, which oversaw the physical and cultural extirpation of the ‘savages’ who had the misfortune to be blocking the path of Manifest Destiny of the White Man on the North American continent. Along with about 80 million bison.
So, no, we haven’t become that depraved, we were always that depraved, and worse! In fact, we seem to have improved a little lately. Nowadays, a certain number of people are capable of being shocked, shocked that we would stoop to torture of people identified as ‘terrorists’ (read, ‘savages’). Back in the day, not only would it not have been shocking, it would probably have been celebrated in story and big-screen epics for the entertainment and edification of our young. Just like cowboys and Indians.
– AManOfConstantZorro
More reading comprehension fail.
No. I;m not claiming to have any comprehension of what you are talking about. I simply don’t have the mathematical or physical consepts you are referring to.
So I’m asking you. Given this earth shattering piece of logic you have handed me, what would one have to show to show that the TTB was possible? I mean it goes beyond you;re mere decree doesn’t it? So what would you have to do to establish that any hypothetical scenario was possible, under your conception of probabillty?
BTW: I’m serious about the philosophy journals. They appeal to logical possibility all the time which is fulfilled by anything that is not self-contradictory. So they talk about things like teletransporter devices and alien bodysnatchers and utility monsters and all kinds of wild stuff. But apparently none of those people were aware of the BattleAxe Theorem that decisively disproves vast swathes of the philosophical literature. And this despite the fact that there are a fair number of philosophers who are quite expert in matehmatics and formal logic!
Hey, bro, if you don’t want to do it, then I will. I’m going to learn the BattleAxe Theorm as fast as I can and quickly become famous in the field. Can you just get me started by explaining it to me a little?
Bubba, thanks for the haloscan link. It appears that Fantasy-Boy (whom you might know as a Fool) is some kind of undergrad at some mediocre college who thinks sitting around discussing vacuous semantics is Doing Philosophy.
I believe this theme was already covered conclusively in Animal House during the pot scene with Donald Sutherland – which, in a spooky turn of fate, is the FATHER OF THE GUY WHO TORTURES PEOPLE ON ’24’!!!!
OH NOES!
So where do the philosophy journals prove that the terrorists can’t possibly move the fucking bomb after one of their guys is captured? Links, please.
Well Battleaxe, I’m chaning things again by adding yet another condition to my complex scenario. The bomb can’t be moved after they capture the terrorist.
I love those Moving Goalposts™! They make winning arguments as easy as scoring with lots of hot strippers!
So where do the philosophy journals prove that the terrorists can’t possibly move the fucking bomb after one of their guys is captured?
Oh they don’t prove that! How silly! Instead they prove that it is simply logically possible that they didn’t. I’m sure if you use your imagination you can think up several scenarios on your own where that could happen.
So, dude, after you explain this probability thing to me, how should I cite you in my paper? Is it just “The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge” Or is the “Right Reverend” or what? I’m very grateful for your revelations and want to make sure you get cited the way you want to be cited –especially since I am quite certain that you will be further cited by probably hundreds of other philosophers in the years to come.
Oh Faux Fool! You’re so silly!
You see the way a hypothetical argument works logically is you really are allowed to hypothesize ANYTHING — as long as it is logically possible. No harm and no foul in that at all!
So does anyone else remember the first time The Fool showed up, he was an investment banker or some shit?
Stupid kid. Go play in traffic.
I gotta get going now! My hot stripper wife and all her hot stripper girlfriends are going to take to a special hot tub party.
Why is it special? I’m glad you asked. It is actually the hot tub where the CIA does warplanning, like ticking time bomb scenarios. I have been invited there as an expert in ticking time bomb scenarios.
Faux Fool: remember that according to my rules, the more you mock and pwn me, the more I WIN!
I RULE!!!!
Simba: I am an investment banker, but I am also a confidant to numerous CIA agents. All my friends are hot stripper bitchez. I am very, very important and know lots and lots of very, very important people. I spend countless hours on blogs because my super-genius intellect and numerous degrees allows me to finish my assigned work in a couple of minutes.
Literally, if I wasn’t around, the US Government would cease to function, as well as the entire private sector, and world banking would collapse.
Literally.
Sorry, Fool the credit should probably go to Heisenberg, or maybe Dirac, to drop two names I know you’ve never heard.
Faux Fool — actually I am working frantically as we speak on influencing 2 very major pieces of legislation on the Hill!
rev: aren’t you going to spell out your logic for me?
Simba: I never said I was an banker. You’re so silly!
Come back in ten years. It took the Tories two successive pastings to get a clue that there might be room to attack Labour on civil liberties and concentration of executive power.
Rev:
The first sentence of your wiki link says, “In quantum physics, unitarity means that the sum of probabilities of all possible outcomes of any event is always 1.”
But at 23:43 you said, ‘In physics, yes: there are many theories that yield negative probabilities or probabilities >1, or even infinite.”
Which would seem to contradict wikipedia. But I’m sure you have an explanation for that.
Anyway, I don’t understand your argument, so will you tell me what would rehabilitate the TTB and make it possible?
Cripes, Fool, are you this dense? Somebody (RB maybe) asked if there was such a thing as negative probability. I answered that there was in many physical theories. These theories are not considered ready for prime time, however, because any theory that predicts negative probabilities, or infinite probabilities, or a sum of all possible probabilities that add up to more than one, cannot be used to make useful predictions.
This constraint goes back to the Probability Interpretation of Schrödinger’s Wave Equation, due to Pascual Jordan. Who was, by the way, a Nazi. Which is central to my point.
Little hint for you Troofus; Just because you THINK you are being clever, it doesn’t mean you actually are, no matter how much you misinterpret the historical role of the Fool (or Jester) as written by men with so much more genuine intellectual talent (written over many months and years) than yourself and your attempts to capture wit you don’t have with inspiration you can’t actually summon. Example? Your last post… after an entire thread of OCD and completely unconvincing nonsense, you came out with this classic of completely self-unaware idiocy;
“The first sentence of your wiki link says, “In quantum physics, unitarity means that the sum of probabilities of all possible outcomes of any event is always 1.”
But at 23:43 you said, ‘In physics, yes: there are many theories that yield negative probabilities or probabilities >1, or even infinite.”
Which would seem to contradict wikipedia. But I’m sure you have an explanation for that.”
I’m sure he can point it out himself, but you see, in basic English, the phrase “there are many theories” indicates that “theories” is a plural. And Quantum Mechanics is a single theory. One of “many”. If you want to see what other theories say, you should be reading other pages on wikipedia
And you think you’ve got the right to lecture us on Philosophy?
But not to worry, this upswing of your insanity will burn out eventually (24 hours of trolling eh?) and you’ll be back to hating us all again soon!
Of course, if you didn’t want to be confused with “The Troof” and his normal idiocy you’d put more effort into being unable to understand a sentence 5 year olds would spot the construction of, instead of just making yourself looki dumb; but well, you chose to be “The Fool” today, on a comedy blog of all places (and elsewhere it seems!), so it’s kind of hard to care much about taking you and your persona seriously, y’know?
Yes, the term “Unitary” means that the sum of all probabilities must add up to exactly one. They can’t do that unless the value for each and every probability lies between zero and one, so Unitarity implies that, too.
So what would you have to do to establish that TTB was possible, pratically speaking?
the term “Unitary” means that the sum of all probabilities must add up to exactly one. They can’t do that unless the value for each and every probability lies between zero and one,
Oh gosh, I could think up an infinite number of ways to add things up to 1 without all of them lying between 0 and 1
Remember, the more you mock and pwn me, the more I WIN!
I RULE!!!
Rev:
I’m still waiting to here. Given your understanding of probability, what would you have to do to establish that TTB was possible, practically speaking? What would you have to change about the scenario?
You have studiously avoided this question several times now. Why is that?
It’s impossible, numbnuts, because as soon as one of their guys is captured who knows where the bomb is, They’ll MOVE the fucking thing!, Quite aside from your informant lying to you, which he will, because he knows all he as to do is run the clock down, anything he does tell you will be worthless because it’s outdated! Therefore the probability of this scenario playing itself out the way it does in your wankoff mags is so close to zero as makes no difference.
And really? You can think of lots of ways to add up any random collection of numbers and make them sum to exactly one? None of them can be negative, remember.
Wait…he cites *Wikipedia* to bolster an argument? A word to the impressionable children out there: Wikipedia is not a source. It is a suggestion.
That is all.
Yeah, I cited it. It’s easy to find, the stub looked pretty simple and accurate, so I quoted it. All their physics stuff I’ve seen is OK, certainly good enough for this argument.
Rev:
Well, let’s analyze your argument a littl;e more carefully. It actually stared out as N.C. ‘s argument that the family of possible TTB scenarios was, according to him, countably infinite while the number of other possible scenarios was uncountably infinite. He went on to argue that this meant the probability of the TTB was effectively 0 since, I guess, an uncountable infinity is so much larger than a countable infinity.
I have some questions about that:
1) Why is the set of TTB scenarios countable but the set of non-TTB scenarios uncountable? How do you know that?
2) For the purposes of establishing sheer possibility, doesn’t the argument fail because possibility is established by any non-zero positive probability and what you all have done is taken a non-zero posirtive probability and decided that it is “effectively” equal to 0 as an estimate, when it is not actually equal to 0?
3) Haven’t you proven too much? You and N.C. purport to have made a basically logical/mathematical argument against TTB. That would mean that you weren’t making any empirical assumptions about the relative probability of TTB because, after all, that is exactly what is in question. You can’t win an empirical argument about the probabability of a hypothetical by assuming that the hypothetical is impossible (or “effectively” impossible).
So I assume you haven’t made any such empirical assumptions and are basing your argument entirely on a formal mathematical argument. Then what is it that is special about the TTB scenario that makes its logical possibility so suspect? Wouldn’t your argument work against ANY complicated scenario that depends on a large number of contingent events? Yet we know that complicated scenarios eventuate in reality all the time.
Can you spell your argument out a little more in such a way that the questions I have raised are made moot?
1) I’m a shark
2) I’m a shaaaark
3) suck my dick, I’m a shaaaaark
I think we need Camille Paglia to weigh in on this with a carefully considered, empirically-supported argument.
After scrolling through this thread, even Camille Paglia would be refreshing. Sheesh.
I have very been so happy to kill a thread in my life.
I don’t know how the worthlessness of this scenario can be pointed out any more clearly than I already have. There is no way anyone could imagine that any information they got was still current, even if it had once been accurate, which is also vanishingly unlikely.
The countably/uncountably infinite post wasn’t me. Both are mathematical constructs that have no application to the real world. Our universe is not a continuum. Even in an inflationary universe that’s 10^50 or 10^100 times larger than we can see, if you counted the number of cubic Planck lengths in it, and multiplied it by the number of Planck times it’s existed, and specified some ridiculous number of bits to specify the state of each one of these minimum points in space-time, multiply them all together and it’s still finite: just as far from even countably infinity (aleph-null) as 17 is.
c, the power of the continuum, is nothing but mathematical hogwash. Tell me your take on the Axiom of choice and we’ll decide where Cantorian set theory goes wrong.
This is who they are and who they shall ever be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tnWFojtcY
If this is the same “The Fool” who got his ass handed to him at Greenwald’s a couple of weeks ago, arguing with him is a complete waste of time.
#
Realist said,
May 29, 2009 at 5:16 (kill)
If this is the same “The Fool” who got his ass handed to him at Greenwald’s a couple of weeks ago, arguing with him is a complete waste of time.
Even if it isn’t, Realist.
So I apologize for the troll chow I threw out there. My only meager defense is that my comments were intended for Sadlynaughts….
Besides, my minimally witty joke about defenestrating a Brit named Casement got trampled in the blather…. I’m bitter, dammit.
Sorry, Z. R. Mac!
I was trying to get the Defenestration of Prague in there somewhere, and then got sidetracked.
Gary Novak. You can debate him forever too.
There will be lots of declarations of victory from him. This I know.
The beatdown at Greenwald’s blog was absolutely brutal. Reminded me of this.
Dear Mr. Very Reverend:
Noes! I didn’t mean to criticize you! You know the limitations of Wikipedia as an information resource–it was the other one, the dude with more mental and social disorders than one can shake a level 28 Tauren Elemental Shaman at. And those Tauren are heavy, man, they are heavy…
If I had ever cited teh Wiki as some kind of source of record when debating with my advisor, he would have burst into tears and then tried to strangle me. But then, I went to a reputable school.
Kein Problem, Fredegunde! I kind of figured as much, but I didn’t want anyone to think I quote Wikipedia without checking out at least the part I’m aiming at, if not the whole page. There are some areas that are really unusable, but for Math and Physics, I’ve found it pretty reliable, at least as far as my knowledge goes.
There is no way anyone could imagine that any information they got was still current, even if it had once been accurate, which is also vanishingly unlikely.
Aha. So you are NOT depending on some argument that turns on countable v uncountable infinities! I was not in the position to dispute that since I don’t know that math.
So basically all you’ve been arguing all this time is your personal intuition about the probabailty of the TTB scenario. LOLOLOLOL.
The Right Reverend Bullshit can’t imagine it, so Q.E.Fucking. D. LOLOLOLOL!!
Basically, you got nothing at all. Omigod, that is rich!
That is hilarious. You really had me going there. I have to admit. I feel like an idiot. Somebody on the internet starts talking bullshit about countable v. uncountable infinities and I actually fall it for it like they have some kind of real argument other than “Gosh, I don’t see how it could possibly happen. Not in a million years!”
Congratulations, Reverend! You fooled The Fool! You have succeeded in baffling me with bullshit — and that happens only very, very rarely. My cap and bells are off to you, sir!
Realist:
You are so full of shit about the debate at Greenwald’s. It just shows that you are not competent to judge the arguments. Even Greenwald himself stayed out of it, and Glenn doesn’t hesitate to smack down an idiot.
Realist, a friendly word of advice for you:
When you’re a fat dorky looking dude with a lardass and you have the option to include or not include a picture of yourself on something liie, for example, Blogger? Leave out the picture, bro. Or at the very least have enough sense to go with the headshot and not the one that exposes your lardass self for the lardass you really are.
lolololol
st00pid punk bitchiz!
Gary Novak. You can debate him forever too.
“Why Big Band is wrong.” Hey, what’s he got against Benny Goodman?
Tedious Troll is Tedious.
I tried keeping up with TheFool, but lost the thread of his point totally.
I gather you object not to someone being against Torture, but object against those that state that they can NEVER accept torture. Is this correct ?
I’m against torture, but if someone took a kid for example and time was of the essence, I would have no problem taking off each fingernail, digit and eyeball to get that info from the nonce.
I would then accept my fate in the courts knowing I had saved a kid.
If I had the wrong person I would spend the rest of my days in prison crying that I had failed the kid and tortured an innocent.
Not be on TV saying how great I am that I tortured innocents, and trying to make it legal.
Your TTB ‘moving the goalposts’ shit is essentially meaningless. I can if I choose object 100% to torture. I can watch a million people be nuked because I will NOT TORTURE and sleep well knowing that the terrorist killed a million people, not me.
It is merely another viewpoint.
Therefore there is only the facts of each case. You wankers are defending torture, without the TTB, without the Nukes, without any fucking thing. BISCUITS got better intel than waterboarding for crying out loud.
You spent 24 hours waffling a meaningless point. I made a possibly meaningless point in 5 minutes.
PS> FauxFool is fucking Brilliant.
@BobUK
I tried keeping up with TheFool, but lost the thread of his point totally
Yes. You did.
I’m against torture, but if someone took a kid for example and time was of the essence, I would have no problem taking off each fingernail, digit and eyeball to get that info from the nonce…I can if I choose object 100% to torture. I can watch a million people be nuked because I will NOT TORTURE and sleep well knowing that the terrorist killed a million people, not me.
Of course this is utterly contradictory.
It is merely another viewpoint.
And now we know why. You are an extreme relativist. For Bob, anything goes. Whatever it is you do — save a million lives, take a million lives, whatever — its all just another viewpoint.
Rev said, “Tedious Troll is Tedious.”
Thanks. The Bloggish sentence, “”Tedious Troll is Tedious” is translated into English as “I got totally pwned and there is no way I can possibly respond so now I will feign disinterest.”
Thanks Rev. Thanks for the ultimate compliment in a blog debate. Your last post is the equivalent in war of throwing down’s weapon, dropping trou, and adopting the lordosis position. Complete and totally unconditional surrender.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
I can watch a million people be nuked because I will NOT TORTURE and sleep well knowing that the terrorist killed a million people, not me.
Well said.
It would be one thing if you could stop the bomb from going off, you know, like you have the switch in your hand, but it’s another thing to say that you failed to prevent it because you refused to engage in tactics that are useless at best in gathering factual material.
No, Fool, we are all aware that your tedious arguments are those of a total moron. Then on top of that, you take up some other thread of thought about logic and mathematics that had nothing to do with your original crap and melded the whole insane farrago into an apocalypse of FAIL. You are truly an imbecile. Thank you for showing us the depths to which the intert00bs can sink. You are a cautionary tale, indeed.
Besides, my minimally witty joke about defenestrating a Brit named Casement got trampled in the blather
If that joke was a window into your soul, you should be double hung over an awning pit. Or maybe that’s just my jalousie talking and you should take a bow…
If that joke was a window into your soul, you should be double hung over an awning pit. Or maybe that’s just my jalousie talking and you should take a bow…
*muching on mutton*
I’ll give you six over four you lose.
You jerks are so transparent.
Sill, I can screen your comments for putty jealousy. I can stop anytime I want, in casing you hadn’t noticed, so I won’t be hung out to dry.
I see your eyes are glazing over. I guess this is below-E even you. Maybe we all should mullion it over.
(actor, its muntin /construction pedant)
It may BE muntin, but it’s pronounced “mutton” here in Da Norfeese.
And stop being such a pane in the glass.
Actor is Mark Crackwhorian?
(see what I did there?)
Actor is Mark Crackwhorian?
Do you pronounce is MACDonald or MuckdonALD?
Cuz if it’s the last, you’re nothing but a minority Raza-loving racist.
Wow
I thought that the posters were just being funny because you cant write clear explanations, but you are either willfully ignorant, or just dumb and pretentious. Either is not really a good place to be mate.
You talk about ‘its all philosophy’ and all that crap to make bizarre points that are actually not worth shit, but when I state 2 clear morally opposing but legitimate positions you are unable to comprehend them.
The first person (not specifically me as I’ve not had to make that decision – its a philosophical point ) has a moral position, but will break it for a reason that they count worth it, with the full knowledge of facing the consequences. (in my humble opinion this is most people)
The second person ( again, oh slow one, is not me – its a philosophical point ) has a moral position that WILL NOT BREAK regardless of the provocation. ( Some people – Jesus, Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, my Aunt Maude for pointless and useless examples that you excel at)
Do you understand yet.
There are those that will, those that wont. But torture is still MORALLY WRONG and ILLEGAL.
What those lawyers did was illegal. What the Bushies did was illegal.
They should stand in court and explain WHY they did something illegal, and hope they get a nice soft sentence. Because there are extenuating circumstances ( like self-defence for murder etc )
Saying that Torture is fine ‘ in the TTB’ scenario and therefore they are innocent is pathetic, wrong and they are still guilty.
Comprende vu ?
Bob UK, I can guaran-damn-tee ya that whatever it is you said I said, it turns out it’s not what I said at all. I can say that without even reading what you said I said.
And you Faux, are a star that has made this thread a bloody good laugh. Its a shame your alter-ego makes exactly the same points as you, without either the wit or intelligence ( or awareness ).
Oh and Fool ( the dumb one ) you noted that I had missed your point, didn’t clarify it, and simply ignored my following question about whether my understanding of your point was correct.
You Sir ( and I use the word ‘sir’ with hesitation guessing that your sad need to be da winnar is driven by some kind of small genitalia issue ) are a hypocrite.
Do you pronounce is MACDonald or MuckdonALD?
It’s pronounced Throatwarblermangrove.
My verdad counterpart has toddled off to another thread to complain about our foolish fondness for eating, or some such. Sorry, Bob.
It’s pronounced Throatwarblermangrove.
Now, is that THROATwarblermangrove, or throatwarblermangROVE?
Mmmmmmm…..Whifff!!!
The smell of napalm is strong in here…
This is the Faux Fool responsible for about 85% of the Faux Fool posts on this thread.
I am a semi-regular on S,N!. Whenever that Fool shows up I’m right behind him. What a dope. He’s too easy to mock and pwn, but his responses are pure comedy gold! I repeat: What. A. Dope.
Thanks for the accolades, everyone.
Hey fool, how come you have time to write a zillion posts (even assuming many of them are fake TheFools) but you don’t have time to find the thread where you totally demolished someone’s argument, or the time to read Luban’s paper (which addresses most if not all of your issues with his brief article)?
It just seems odd, or rather it would if I thought you were sincere.
@DoctorB
Re finding the thread: Well it takes a lot more time than whipping out a post and I did even better and ended up making the argument (albeit quickly) right here instead of linking. Believe it or not I am actually working a pretty tough job at the same time as schooling all of you st00pid punk bitchiz.
Re Luban: I’ve already read one of Luban’s major pieces on torture and responded in detail to what he said there. I asked the commenter who brought him up if I had missed anything that Luban might have said in the other paper and he did not reply so I assume I already touched all of Luban’s bases.
It just seems odd, or rather it would if I thought you were sincere.
Oh come on, bro. I’m obviously sincere. You may disagree with me and hate me and think I’m stupid, but you can’t deny that I make consistent arguments and try to defend them sincerely.
You won’t find anyone else around here being more responsive than me. Sure I trash talk, but unlike all these other chuckleheads around here, I don’t ONLY trash talk. I am always very responsive. Most of the monkeys you find swinging around this cage are good for a few jokes and that’s about it.
but you can’t deny that I make consistent arguments and try to defend them sincerely.
Yeah, like when I said 15 million but then changed that later to a less specific number after ridicule on that point.
My definition of “consistent” is that the arguments I make won’t change WITHIN THE POST.
Most of the time, anyway.
Most of the monkeys you find swinging around this cage are good for a few jokes and that’s about it.
And although making a few jokes is the stated purpose of this blog, I don’t like it, so I’m trying to turn it into a “Dorks On Parade” blog.
Well, anyway, at least one dork (The Fool).
You maybe make some consistent arguments, but I really think you argue for the sake of scoring some kind of “points”.
Faux Fool: but the 15 million number is totally arbitrary so its not clear why you are focusing on that minor point. Well, actually it IS clear. You have nothing so you’re forced to nitpick. Very weak, troll.
The argument only depends on there being a large number of people’s lives at stake. If you don’t like 15 million, how about 5 million or 1 million? Is that enough dead people for you? Is 1 million or half a million not enough for you to stop your moral posturing and bite the bullet and torture the terrorist to save their lives?
Believe it or not I am actually working a pretty tough job at the same time as schooling all of you st00pid punk bitchiz.
My job involves keeping a whole bunch of CIA agents, who moonlight as hot strippers, from neglecting their jobs and attacking my Ivy-League educated manhood.
Is 1 million or half a million not enough for you to stop your moral posturing and bite the bullet and torture the terrorist to save their lives?
I like to use 1/2 million as the low number because if it gets too close to 5, 2, or even a “questionable 1”, my brilliant argument just melts into the pile of stupid-undergraduate pot-party BS session that it really is.
DoctorB;
Well just consider the possibility that my arguments are pretty strong and have not met much strong counterargument. The few on point counterarguments that have been made have all been very adequately and sincerely responded to. In the meantime, there has been a ton of personal invective and a great deal of bad faith, non-responsive “argument” from my opponents. The Fool’s the one they love to hate!
Understanding that, you can then see that my motivation would just be not to give in to intellectual bullies. When someone made an argument I didn’t have an immediate response to, I asked questions about it. It turned out to be hand wavy bullshit but when I didn’t have an immediate response I admitted it. That is sincere good-faith argumentation You’re just not being charitable about my motivation when you assume it has to be all about scoring points.
Hey fool, how come you have time to write a zillion posts (even assuming many of them are fake TheFools) but you don’t have time to find the thread where you totally demolished someone’s argument, or the time to read Luban’s paper (which addresses most if not all of your issues with his brief article)?
Can you divide zero by infinity? I mean, doesn’t that open some catastrophic wormhole and Cthuhulu crawls out?
I’m thinking Fool thinks Luban is when Utah told Pep Boys they had to leave.
A full day of goalpost-moving and increasingly unrealistic hypotheticals in order to say that you’ve “schooled” some “st00pid punk bitchez” is just sad.
A full day of goalpost-moving and increasingly unrealistic hypotheticals in order to say that you’ve “schooled” some “st00pid punk bitchez” is just sad.
Well, hanging out with all those hot stripper CIA agents does get boring after a while, and I finish the daily polishing of the frames on my Ivy League degrees in a few minutes.
So I’m left with nothing to do except school you stoopid punk bitchez, and then declare victory, on this blog. There doesn’t really seem to be much else to do on the Internet or in the real world.
Doctorb:
It’s not goal post moving first of all, but more importantly, if you understand the logic of my argument, you will understand that no “moving the goalpost” argument can be made against it.
I was employing a reductio ad absurdum form of argument against a universal absolute prohibition. A universal propsition is disproved by even a single counterexample. A universal normative proposiiton is disproved by even a single logically possible counterexample. Thus, I can legitimately “move the goal posts” all I want and if I end up moving them in such a way that I end up with a logically possible counterexample, then the reductio is established.
By the way, it is not actually correct to call it “moving the goal posts”. It woul dbe closer to the mark — but still off of the mark — to try to argue that I was guilty of ad hoc theory adjustments.
But that argument fails too. What you were seeing was a dialectical process in which I posed a hypothetical counterexample and then people threw out lots of pragmatic obstacles to that hypothetical. I tried to explain early on that that was a futile approach to debunking my position. It is futile precisely for the reasons I just explained. Whatever merely pragmatic obstacle you come up with can be easily and legitimately met simply by tailoring the scenario to avoid the obstacle.
Will somebody pass me the joint? I’m having trouble keeping my brilliant, brilliant monologue going.
Faux Fool – Can you respond to the briiliant monologue? More importantly, are you even capable of grasping the point that was made?
It’s a very curious thing to say:
Will somebody pass me the joint? I’m having trouble keeping my brilliant, brilliant monologue going.
Very curious. Someone makes a fairly detailed logical argument and you respond not by actually addressing the argument but by attempting to label the person as stupid. But its like the Liar’s Paradox because what could be stupider than responding to a good faith detailed logical argument with mere name calling? It’s kind of a self-undermining thing to say.
Now why don’t you suck this jelly fart out of my ass, monkeyboy?
Now why don’t you suck this jelly fart out of my ass, monkeyboy?
Haha Fool! All you have is insults! Pwned!
As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, “jelly fart” is the height of wit. And when I really want to get in your face, I will call you a “retard”.
These two brilliant, brilliant fragments of verbosity are central to my point about all my Ivy League degrees and stuff.
Strippers CIA good job ivy league IQ guitar! Pwned!
CIA Strippers good job IQ ivy league guitar! Pwned!
Guitar strippers good job IQ ivy league CIA! Pwned!
Hey you st00pid punk bitch #2, don’t forget that my job is super-important, and that my boss is a really important guy, and that you would recognize him if you saw him on TV or something.
What I’m trying to tell you is that I’m better than all of you punk bitchez! Isn’t it OBVIOUS????
Now gaze in awe at my SAT scores and how completely I destroyed all your pathetic arguments!
I WIN!
I RULE!
( ) pwned!
Hey, Stupid Punk Bitch #3?
Yeah, 4?
I can’t think up a way of debunking The Fool’s argument.
Damn! I hate that!
What shoud I do?
Do what I do.
Guitar strippers good job IQ ivy league CIA! Pwned!
Oh yeah, right! Thanks #3
Guitar strippers good job IQ ivy league CIA! Pwned!
Dude, I just said that. Get your own material.
Sorry #3.
I mean: Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA! Pwned!
You see? Even you punk bitchez agree – I RULE!!!! I AM THE BESTEST EVAH!!!! MY ARGUMENTS ARE PERFECT! NO ONE CAN BEAT MY ARGUMENTS!!!!!!!
I am so brilliant!!! I just can’t help but think about it constantly!!!! And my hot stripper wife!!! Oh boy is she hot!!!! When she has her CIA agent hot stripper friends over we have a ball!!!!!
I have a much better argument than those other st00pid punk bitches:
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
Strippers good job guitar IQ ivy league CIA
I stipulate
That I am great
With perfect-titted gal
I stipulate
Some drinks at eight
With secret agent pals
I stipulate
A three point eight
NO WAIT! A three point nine!
I stipulate
A poker date
Would make your money mine
With all these stipulations
And my ever-flowing wit
How, when I stipulate some more,
Could you think me full of shit?
One day they will erect a monument to me. They’ll probably tear down a building in Washington DC and put the statue there.
It will have a single phrase – “A Brilliant Man” – on the base, and my manly visage looking out thoughtfully at the horizon.
I WIN!
I RULE!!!!
I haven’t moved any goal posts. If you posters would actually read what I write you’d see that I never established any goal posts to begin with. That’s how I’m able to say you’re misstating my argument – no matter what you say.
Pwned, st00pid punk bitch-AZZ
A full day of goalpost-moving and increasingly unrealistic hypotheticals in order to say that you’ve “schooled” some “st00pid punk bitchez” is just sad.
It’s like how a five year will take a three year old’s toy away, and hide it behind his back and then show him one hand, then the other, then the first hand.
…meanwhile, the three year old has finished quantifying the number of jelly beans in a jar using differential calculus and written his answer on the slip for to win the new Prius…
Now why don’t you suck this jelly fart out of my ass, monkeyboy?
Yes. There’s a rational, unemotional argument…
Hey Bubba showed at least a glimmer of some wit. A little clunky but eaily surpasses these other monkeys.
Bubba: want to play head-to-head poker on Full Tilt right now? I’ll give you my screenname. You give me yours. We decide on stakes. And then I kick your punk bitch ass.
Got the balls? Got ANY balls?
What you punk bitchez call “moving the goalpost” is what I call “adjusting my brilliant, brilliant argument so that it is even more brilliant”.
Now do you get how I debunked all your arguments?
I WIN!
I RULE!
Bubba: want to play head-to-head poker on Full Tilt right now? I’ll give you my screenname. You give me yours. We decide on stakes. And then I kick your punk bitch ass.
Part of the reason that my job is so important and that my boss is a recognizable person in National Politics is that I play online poker.
I WIN!
I RULE!
And Bubba runs away like a scared little girl…
My hot stripper wife gives me poker tips.
Get it? A stripper giving “poke-her” tips?
Man, my wit is almost as brilliant as my brilliant, brilliant philosophical musings. Someday I’ll write a philosophy textbook and I’ll show you guys! I’ll SHOW YOU!!!
Then they’ll put that monument up to me! Thinking about it is so satisfying! I’ll SHOW YOU MEANIES!
I WIN!
I RULE!
Don’t mind me declaring victory once again.
My mommy said it is very important to my self-esteem to pat myself on the back as much as I can.
Poker in the front, liquor in the rear.
GET IT?
Faux Fool: 100% derivative. Without me you have no reason to live. Without me you wouldn’t even exist.
real faux: Hey shitbreath: its the other way around
Faux Fool: 100% derivative. Without me you have no reason to live. Without me you wouldn’t even exist.
A sacrifice he’d be glad to make, I’m sure.
No, bros, my point is that it is objectively impermissible to assert that you wouldn’t torture one person to save two people, or a zillion people, or some number of people greater than zero.
You are not permitted to have a different answer to my ridiculous hypothetical than the one I deem to be correct. That’s my whole fucking point.
Now excuse me, but I have to go influence some legislation that favors something you libs favor, but which I can’t tell you what that is.
Oops, there I go patting myself on the back again.
Maybe my self-esteem is pretty low, but don’t worry about me! After I publish that brilliant, brilliant book on philosophy, all you punk bitchez will realize just how mean you were, and you will all bow down to my brilliant, brilliant mind.
I WIN!
I RULE!
Dizzy… so dizzy…
My CIA friends are calling me now! I gotta go influence politics! Oh boy, I don’t know how I find time to play online poker while doing all this earth-shaking work!
Then my nympho hot stripper wife makes me fuck her for 2 hours in a row! It really cuts into my time coming up with ground-breaking philosophy.
@artist:
artist said on his own blog, “Two words, Mr Ex-President: shut up and go away. OK, four words…”
1) shut
2) up
3) and
4) go
5) away
1+1+1+1+1 = 5 ne 4
lol
lololol
LOLOLOLOL
Bwahahaha
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!1111!!!!!111!!!!
Moran!!!
Somehow, I picture Fool’s wife as a striper, something he caught by dangling his tiny worm in the ocean.
Next time I put bomb in guitar.
“And” is not necessarily a word in this instance, Fool. Didn’t they teach you proper English at that little hIvy League school you gradumacated from?
I know how easy it is to prove 5 equals 4 as long as you make enough stipulations, but that is besides the point.
Or is it central to the point? I don’t know anymore! This crazy schedule I am keeping is driving me mad! Hours and hours blogging, hours and hours working on matters of vast political importance, hours and hours fucking my hot stripper wife, hours and hours playing poker, and hours and hours philosphizing!
BUT I INVENTED A TIME MACHINE!!!!!
Yes, now I have no problem keeping up with all those demands on my busy, busy life nor my brilliant, brilliant mind.
<i.Somehow, I picture Fool’s wife as a striper, something he caught by dangling his tiny worm in the ocean.
So what else are you doing while you’re picturing my johnson?
Wait! I don’t want to know.
FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP!!!!
Ho Boy! Is that idiot “The Fool” posting his tripe here? He keeps sending us this crap to publish. But we don’t mind because he prints it out one-sided and we keep it around for free scratch paper.
So what else are you doing while you’re picturing my johnson?
I don’t have small thoughts.
I’ve been asked to get “The Fool”s’ picture to illustrate our next edition.
“The Fool”, could you please email a digital picture of yourself to high_school_seniors_at_pot_parties@pretentious_dolt.com?
While antipodeans are bootless
a man with issue’s never fruitless
<i.a man with issue’s never fruitless
Beans, beans the musical fruit
The more you eat, the more
Hey come over here and suck this jelly fart out of my ass, sweetpea!
Anybody seen Bubba?
The last time he was seen he was running away with his tail tucked between his legs, scared shitless at the thought of playing The Fool in poker.
Come out come out where ever you are, Bubba!
Hey Actor:
You wanna play poker? Cause I definitely want to play poker with a dude who can’t count past 4.
Anybody seen Bubba?
Yes, I did. He had written your name on a slip of paper and was trying to vote in the “Biggest Asshole-Dork On The Internet” polling.
But the ballot box was completely filled, and I saw that all the slips of paper said “The Fool” on them.
You wanna play poker?
I don’t fuck little boys dressed in drag.
Yes, I did. He had written your name on a slip of paper and was trying to vote in the “Biggest Asshole-Dork On The Internet” polling.
But the ballot box was completely filled, and I saw that all the slips of paper said “The Fool” on them.
Ooh, good one. But you forgot the part about the jerk store.
Yikes! Painful comedy FAIL FAIL FAIL
Hey Fool?
Did your parents have any children that survived in captivity?
mama didn’t raise no slaves, brother
mama didn’t raise no slaves, brother
So she abandoned you to daddy?
Are you clowns going to give the objectively correct answer to my ridiculous hypothetical or not? I can’t be here all day. I have a life, you know.
Are you clowns going to give the objectively correct answer to my ridiculous hypothetical or not? I can’t be here all day. I have a life, you know.
Obviously you aren’t the real Fool. As I illustrate, ALL I have to do is post here.
Damn all those hot strippers, CIA agents, poker games, and jobs-of-national-importance! They really cut into my real purpose, which is annoy a half dozen people on one of the 2,664,336 blogs that exist.
What are you talking about? The Fool has no purpose in life.
mama didn’t raise no slaves, brother
Doesn’t Hulk Hogan call everybody “brother”?
What are you talking about? The Fool has no purpose in life.
I beg to differ. We just got his picture in email, and he will look perfect in the next edition.
I call everybody “brother” except I pronounce it “broo-thuh.”
I call everybody “brother” except I pronounce it “broo-thuh.”
I only used brother because all the meanies at S,N! started mocking my constant use of the much-cooler “bro”.
I hope you understand just how cool “bro” is! I really want to use it! It makes me sound so cool! I think being cool is really, really brilliant and cool!
The correct answer to me is the opposite of whatever you’re about to say it is.
I just BLEW YOUR MINDS
Pitiful mortals.
Now you’ve learned just how powerful and brilliant and cool my super-genius mind is. You punk bitchez are MINE! I have won every argument you bitchez have offered without even breaking a sweat! In fact, for most of this thread I’ve been fucking my hot stripper wife. Sometimes the phone rang, but it was only some CIA agent asking my advice about something relating to National Security.
I know that all you punk bitchez realize just how smart, powerful, and cool I am. Sometimes I amaze myself. I am just SO FUCKING COOL I just can’t get over myself!
Sometimes I amaze myself.
Doesn’t sound like a particularly hard feat…
“Hey Britain, if you send us David Cameron, we’ll gladly trade you Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.”
Done.
“much-cooler “bro” ”
Inshidentally, I believe the way it’s said now is “bra”. Though why youngsters choose to address each other as items of underwear, I do not know. Ha ha.