Monday, May 3, 2010

England Free Speech Violation?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html


First it was Michael Savage who was banned, and now it is a Christian preacher who said that homosexuality is a sin who was arrested for saying that while street preaching.


It would seem to me that something like this gives gays special privileges that if someone calls them names, the name caller gets arrested. Why not arrest anyone and everyone who calls someone a name? Oh wait ....... free speech. In the USA, free speech is exactly meant to protect speech that you don't like. You don't need constitutional protection for speech that you do like. In the USA, speech that you don't like is not criminalized, rather it is protected.


The police officer who himself was gay, told the preacher that he can be arrested for using racist or homophobic language. Why equate "homophobia" with racism? Gays are not a race, yet they want to be treated like one? That seems silly to me.


Hatred towards anyone in feeling or in speech is wrong, but it is not a crime. Rather, the crime is if one acts upon that that hatred to hurt someone. In Britain, the gay police officer violated the preacher's civil rights by arresting him for voicing disagreement. In America, we cherish our right to voice disagreements and dissent.


And now I would like to exercise my first amendment rights and say this- As it is, homosexuality, and abortion for that matter, is disgusting shit. Homosexuality and abortion are both unnatural and are absolutely antithetical to humanity's survival as a species.

35 comments:

Shalmo said...

Maybe Hashem should bless Jesus! After all every prophet of Israel taught that the messiah would redeem the Jews, help them practice the mitzvohs, ingather them to Israel, make them the center of all world government, and restore them to a nation of priests.

Oh but wait Jesus brought the Jews an Inquistion, the Crusades, pograms in Russia, the Catholic Church sponsored Holocaust, and today so-called messianic jews who plan to end Jewry using conversion instead of the sword. Jesus, if anything, did the exact opposite of everything the moshiach ben David was supposed to do.

A question I have for you Mr. Christian is do you accept every single person who comes to you and says "I am a legitimate prophet from God"? If so, I cannot have a conversation with you because chances are two seconds latter you will find yourself a new prophet.

Since you accept the Old Testament, for you at least until Jesus arrived the Jews were doing right by following their scriptures in accepting only the prophets the Torah tells them they can accept and rejecting those whom the Torah tells them to reject. Aka anybody who adds or subtracts to the 613 mitzvohs is a false prophet. And it was only by following these rules that we were able to get the 55 prophets identified in our scriptures, which you use.

So when Jesus comes along, it would make sense we follow the same rules for discerning a true prophet that we used to validat the other prophets whom you accept.

Too bad for you, Jesus fails on 2 accounts.

1. He tampers with the Torah changing the eye for an eye and other mitzvohs. And if you go with Paul, all of a sudden all 613 mitzvohs are abolished. The messiah was supposed to bring a new temple, yet Christianity takes their cosmic jewish zombie as a temple instead, even though its clear the temple was to be physical, hence why so many meticulou instructions for sacrifice exist.

2. A true prophet gets a prophecy right. A true prophet predicts the future correctly, but Jesus predicted his second coming during the lifetime of his current ministry and of course 2000 years have passed and Jesus never came back.

Shalmo said...

Let me elaborate on point 2 about Jesus' failed prophecy

Consider what Jesus has to say in Mark 8: 38–9:1: For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly I ay to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.

Despite the efforts of Christian apologists to rationalize this as something other than a prediction of the end of the world in Jesus’ own generation, there is little else to which it could refer.

The parallel verses in Matthew even throw in the Last Judgment (Mt. 16: 27, 28): "For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not tastes death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Though there are no parallel verses to this in the Gospel of John, it also proclaims the imminent end of the world (John. 5: 28, 29): "Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his [Jesus’] voice and come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."

Paul also proclaimed the end of the world in his generation in this passage from 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4: 15-17):" For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we, who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep [i.e. died]. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. "

These are but a few of the apocalyptic references salted throughout the New Testament.

However, lest anyone doubt that early Christians believed the world would end in their generation, consider what John of Patmos says at the opening of Revelation, that vivid and detailed description of the end of days (Rev. 1:1, 2, emphasis added): "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. "

“What must soon take place’” cannot refer to the end of the Piscean Age some 2,000 years into the future any more than it can refer to a series of events triggered by Russia invading Israel in 1988 lol.

SJ said...

Comment moderation on this blog has been enabled because of Shalmo and his trolling.

I have 4 threads on Shalmo the dishonest debater and I'd rather not go for a fifth since I'd rather England Free Speech Violation? be the top thread for the time being.

Comments disagreeing and agreeing with me that are relevant to any thread at hand will be accepted.


Now to give my last answer to Shalmo the dishonest debater, who I am really tired of, ...

SJ said...

>> Oh but wait Jesus brought the Jews an Inquistion, the Crusades, pograms in Russia, the Catholic Church sponsored Holocaust, and today so-called messianic jews who plan to end Jewry using conversion instead of the sword. Jesus, if anything, did the exact opposite of everything the moshiach ben David was supposed to do.


Jesus did not bring the Jews any of those things. Before the latter part of the 20th century everyone was killing everyone pretty indiscriminately.

The nazis weren't catholic they had their own warped view called "positive christianity" where they turned Jesus into an Aryan and they erased all references to Jewishness in the Bible.

In the Old Testament there are 2 entities who are foretold, one who will come and die for everyones's sins, and one who will come on a geopolitical mission.


>> A question I have for you Mr. Christian is do you accept every single person who comes to you and says "I am a legitimate prophet from God"? If so, I cannot have a conversation with you because chances are two seconds latter you will find yourself a new prophet.


Nonsense.



>> Since you accept the Old Testament, for you at least until Jesus arrived the Jews were doing right by following their scriptures in accepting only the prophets the Torah tells them they can accept and rejecting those whom the Torah tells them to reject. Aka anybody who adds or subtracts to the 613 mitzvohs is a false prophet. And it was only by following these rules that we were able to get the 55 prophets identified in our scriptures, which you use.


As per Jeremiah, the Jews couldn't handle the old law so a new one was given. The old law is still in effect for Jews who follow it.



>> 2. A true prophet gets a prophecy right. A true prophet predicts the future correctly, but Jesus predicted his second coming during the lifetime of his current ministry and of course 2000 years have passed and Jesus never came back.


Jesus did predict his resurrection, as for the time of his actual return, he spoke in parable language so it don't have to be precise. In fact Jesus said, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24:36)"

SJ said...

One last thing I forgot to address. Messianic Jews don't plan to "end" Jewry.

Yes, they are out to take followers from rabbinic Judaism, but they wish to believe in Jesus in Jewish environments.


I am not a Messianic Jew, my belief is Christian and I am a free thinker. (There are differences betweens Messianic Judaism and Christianity)

SJ said...

Shalmo's post May 3, 2010 3:41 PM is just mistaking poetic language for something literal and nitpicking stuff out of their contexts. The whole thing.


Basically from now on, Shalmo and comments referencing him will not be allowed on this blog. Comments not related to the thread at hand will not be allowed on this blog.


I'm just tired of Shalmo's dishonesty and I have better things to do than debate someone like him.

Let him dream that he caused me to doubt. He didn't.



Comments disagreeing and agreeing with me on points that are relevant to the thread will continue to be accepted and encouraged.

SJ said...

Ahava, you can't call something a later addition just because you don't like it. Mark says Jesus got rid of kasharut, and Paul and the synoptic gospels have consistent theologies.

God said a new covenant is coming so stop crying about the god lied stuff.


In the future please keep comments relevant to the thread at hand.

Joshua said...

This isn't just about gays. Britain has serious free speech problems in general. Atheists for example have been treated quite poorly (see the recent case with the individual who got in trouble for distributing anti-religious tracts). There's a pragamatic reason why in general people should support free speech: Regardless of your viewpoint, almost certainly at some point some view you will have be the minority view.

SJ said...

There's no country like the USA. Hopefully we survive the Obama Misadministration. XD

Joshua said...

Incidental political extremism isn't interesting. Many on the left cried about how Bush was destroying America. Many on the right now cry about how Obama is destroying the US.

SJ said...

The difference is, Bush was destroying terrorists, not America. Obama is destroying America by socializing whole industries, and raising taxes and spending in the middle of our economic downturn.

Joshua Zelinsky said...

In other words the difference is that one is a guy you agree with and the other is a guy whose policies you don't like. Right. Moving on...

SJ said...

In other words the difference is that one is a guy terrorists don't agree with, and the other is a guy that the USA's proverbial bank account don't agree with. Right. Moving on...

Joshua said...

I'm not going to deal in detail with the "destroying terrorists" claim because it is so silly I don't know where to start. I'll simply note that many people in Guantanamo were not terrorists and that Bush did a lot of damage to policies and issues completely unrelated to terrorism (science policy for example).

I'm more interested in your claims about economic damage being done by Obama. Let me ask a question then: Do you think in a year the economy will be better or worse than it is now?

SJ said...

Under Bush, the USA killed tons of terrorists.

In Gitmo, an innocent person here and there may unfortunately have been swept in, it happens also in the American legal system. No system is perfect.

Gitmo houses lots of very dangerous people, and it has a 20% recidivism rate according to ABC.

As far as science goes, I wish Bush was stronger on stem cell research but Obama is worse for turning NASA into a paper agency.


A year from now, the economy will be worse.

Joshua said...

The presence of dangerous people in a location doesn't excuse the incarceration of anyone without trial and certainly doesn't excuse the incarceration and torture of innocents. Moreover, there's a lot of evidence that Bush knew about innocent people in Gitmo:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Officer-Bush-Gitmo-Detainees/2010/04/09/id/355214

I really don't understand how you think that Obama could somehow be worse on science policy. First of all, regarding NASA all that's been done there is that segments of the Constellation program were canceled and the funding directed to other NASA agencies. How that makes NASA into a "paper agency" is not at all clear to me. Moreover, Bush was bad on many science related issues, not just stem cells. See for example: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339

Regarding the economic claim: I'm curious if you'd be willing to stake money on that. The unemployment for April was 9.7% according to the NLRB, what would you be willing to bet that in April 2011 the unemployment rate will be that level or lower according to the NLRB?

SJ said...

If someone's there it's because they did something or because the government thinks they know something.

The fact that innocent people may get swept up is sad but it is apart of reality since people are imperfect. Joshua do you criticize Obama for innocent people being swept in the regular American justice system?


By canceling the moon mission, Obama made the mars mission next to impossible because it would make more sense to launch a Mars rocket from space than from Earth. Obama also canceled the space shuttle program so that the USA also can't build a space station in space to launch a rocket from.

Without being able to launch people into space, NASA is a paper agency thanks to Obama.



If the unemployment rate gets "better," it will be better because of G not C or I.

Joshua said...

SJ, did you read the article I linked to? This wasn't some innocent people. It looks like the majority of the people at Gitmo were innocent.
Moreover, there's still no good reason to torture people.

I don't criticize Obama for putting every single innocent person in the American justice system then for fairly obvious reasons (aside from the additional issue that Obama doesn't even have anything resembling authority over most of the innocent people in our judicial system). I incidentally criticize Obama for a lot of his handling of these issues. His refusal to systematically discuss and investigate in public the NSA wiretapping, or to prosecute anyone responsible for violating FISA (indeed for continuing to claim that the NSA has a right to wiretap without warrants), and Obama's miserable attention to the issue of ensuring actually fair trials for people in Gitmo, and failure to prosecute people responsible for torturing inmates at Gitmo. I could go on this way for quite a bit. I have no problem criticizing Obama. His record on these issues is abysmal.

At to the moon program, simply put, I don't think you understand the planned programs in any detail. It may help if you actually examine what has been canceled. The space shuttle program was already done with well before Obama. What was canceled was Constellation. There were no plans for a space station with capability for use in constructing large interplanetary craft (that sort of design went out when Freedom was canceled almost 20 years ago). Nor were there any plans to launch a Mars mission from the moon. Simply put, the extra lunar gravity well involved in that sort of prospect makes that a prohibitively expensive approach unless you've got extremely well built infrastructure already existing on the moon. (And no one planned for that).

The primary aspect of the Obama plan is to launch vehicles, something which the private sector is already developing. (See for example the work done by Branson's group as well as Rutan's group.) Given that the technology is now well-understood and reliable, it isn't at all unreasonable to let private corporations handle it, especially given that they are already starting to handle launches for many purposes.

There are serious problems with Obama's plans for the space program, but nothing you list is relevant.

Regarding economics, I'm not sure where you get the idea about where a reduction would occur in. In any event, I'm still very curious if you'd be willing to take a bet on this. I'm willing to bet that in a year the unemployment rate will be at least as low as it is now.

SJ said...

It looks like the majority of people were innocent says the word of one person.


Also, torture is ok if you know someone is a terrorist. It's common sense to kick the terrorist's ass for information.


Bush doesn't make the arrests, agencies and the military do. If you want to criticize Bush for gitmo you have to criticize Obama for innocent people in the American justice system because Obama has the presidential power to pardon, just like Bush did.


Ok, without the space shuttles and without Constellation, what exactly is NASA going to use to launch rockets? The reason why government got involved in the space business in the first place (besides the cold war) is that it is generally too expensive for private enterprise, so leaving space exploration to the companies is basically scrapping the space program.


Regarding economics, what I will bet is that private sector hiring will shrink and government hiring will grow.

SJ said...

It looks like the majority of people were innocent says the word of one person.


Also, torture is ok if you know someone is a terrorist. It's common sense to kick the terrorist's ass for information.


Bush doesn't make the arrests, agencies and the military do. If you want to criticize Bush for gitmo you have to criticize Obama for innocent people in the American justice system because Obama has the presidential power to pardon, just like Bush did.


Ok, without the space shuttles and without Constellation, what exactly is NASA going to use to launch rockets? The reason why government got involved in the space business in the first place (besides the cold war) is that it is generally too expensive for private enterprise, so leaving space exploration to the companies is basically scrapping the space program.


Regarding economics, what I will bet is that private sector hiring will shrink and government hiring will grow.

Joshua said...

Regarding Gitmo, that is by the far the only source showing that problem. See for example the Seton Hall report which using official government data determined that around 90% had no clear connection to Al Quaeda and that the majority were given to the US where the US had no investigation or the like to determine that the people were worth determining.

There's also no evidence that the only people have been tortured were "terrorists" (I'm not even going to bother discussing the terrible problems with defining that term other than to note that there are easily at least 20 different definitions of that term). There are many examples of apparently innocent people who were put through horrible things at Gitmo. See for example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml

Moreover, the notion that torturing people is somehow ok if they are "terrorists" is simply wrong. Even before one gets to the moral problems (we don't torture normal criminals for information. We don't torture enemy soldiers. Why are terrorists different?) the basic fact is that the evidence is that torture doesn't work to get people to reveal information. The evidence is overwhelming that torture is not an effective means of getting people to talk.

As to the distinction between pardoning people and Bush, there's a clear distinction when the entire set of policies and procedures at Gitmo and elsewhere as at Bush's orders, with the justifications by his lawyers.

Moving on to the space issue, you seem to misunderstand how the space program is run. Space exploration and going into space are not the same thing. Indeed, in the United States, private space launches have been common since the mid 1990s. Since the late 90s the majority of satellite launches in the US have been by corporations. That process is now extending to include manned launches. See for example SpaceShip One. What Obama has done for launches is to speed up the standardization of launches to a normal, everyday activity.

Regarding economics, so to be clear, you expect there will be fewer total non-government jobs in the US one year from now as judged by the BLS (I accidentally wrote NLRB above when meany BLS)? What would you be willing to bet on such a claim?

SJ said...

The question is do ordinary civilians know what the government knows on the gitmo prisoners? I think the answer is no.

There is also a question of degree of innocence, i.e. stuff that you can't prove in court but everyone knows they were involved in something somehow. It's not a black and white matter.

In ivory tower liberal land, "torture" is always wrong, but in common sense land, kicking a terrorist's ass for info is ok. Lots of useful intelligence was attained from the "torture."


There is no real distinction between Bush and gitmo and Obama and innocent people in the American justice system since Obama now has pardon power. You seem to be more interested in scoring points here than complaining to Obama about innocent people in the American justice system.


In terms of missions to the moon and mars, I doubt that private companies have a way to directly profit from it, hence the need for government involvement.


As far as the economy is concerned Joshua, I'll make you a deal. If the unemployment rate goes back to the way it was in the Bush years at the end of Obama's first term (because of C and I, not G), I'll make a post praising him on that one issue (but also explaining why I'll still vote conservative), and if at the end of Obama's first term the unemployment rate does not go back to the Bush years, you can make a post condemning Obama on that one issue and then explaining the way you are going to vote.

Joshua said...

(Sorry got an error last reply attempt so rewriting this. If other got through just moderate out this one and let the other one through. Thanks).

Regarding torture, the fact is that it doesn't work. See for example http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Regarding the distinction between Bush and Obama, it shouldn't be that hard to see a distinction between someone who isn't going through and pardoning in every single case and someone who set up and repeatedly defended a system that actively detained people without trial and engaged in the torture of innocent people.

Regarding the space program, I again don't think you understand the nature of what Obama is proposing. No one is saying that we should leave Mars exploration to private corporations. All that is being left to the private sector is earth-to-orbit launches. NASA will still be responsible for the actual exploration.

Regarding the economy, I may not have been clear enough: I don't think that the President's actions have much to do with short term economic results in general. The current recession is not Bush's fault, and when we get out of it, it won't be Obama's success. I don't think that the economy will get better in a year because of some magic by Obama but because the economic data suggests that we're beginning the upturn back to prosperity. However, I am fascinated by your conviction that no matter what happens in a year your political views will remain the same. I must wonder if you heard a frum person saying the same sort of thing about their religious beliefs how you would react. Also I'm puzzled by your labeling of your beliefs as conservative given that conservativism generally emphasizes privatization and that's exactly what Obama is doing with NASA.

SJ said...

All the good intelligence is classified so any claims of "torture" not working is meaningless.


You still seem to be avoiding criticizing Obama for innocent people caught up in the American justice system, and because of gitmo now because Obama is president now so Obama is in charge of gitmo. If innocent people being wrongly imprisoned is your cause, then let it be your cause for real, and not just blame Bush for any mistakes gitmo made. You can also be an activist about wrongful imprisonment in other countries.


Next about space, for NASA to cede launching rockets to the private sector seems to be in effect scrapping the Mars program because of the vast amount of $$$ a Mars program would take and the lack of monetary profit for a long time into it.


There is no contradiction between conservatism and wanting the government involved in space. Conservatism does not mean that eveeeeeeeeeeeeerything has to be privatized.



My views will stay the same because I believe that a Republican president would be able to end the recession in a much more timely manner.

Joshua said...

Re: Inability to say torture doesn't work. Did you read the linked to Washington Post article? It gave a lot of direct evidence for this including examination of the French historical records, the commentary of various current and former US military personnel, and the FBI's own conclusions that military use of torture the last few years has made people being interrogated much less cooperative. Just because many of the details of specific examples are classified doesn't mean we can't make conclusions about how effective it is. (That's aside from the larger moral issue).

Re: Obama, You seem set on presuming a degree of political tribalism which is unnecessary. I gave you a long list of things that I'm not happy about with Obama. However, he's certainly handling Gitmo much better than Bush did. I'm not happy with his handling but it is clearly better. And I don't need to focus on every single potential wrongful imprisonment on the planet; that's just stupid: It is clearly different when imprisonment and torture is being performed by the government that I vote for and pay taxes to as opposed to some other government. And that's all the more case when the country in question is one that aspires to be the leader of the free world. When the Puritans founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony, they wanted to create a shining city on a hill, a beacon of light shining
amidst the darkness. That vision has guided this country for centuries. That light should not be sullied by torture of innocents.

Regarding the Mars program, it seems like you still don't understand the point. Corporations will handle ground to earth orbit launches only. Any trip to Mars will be by NASA. That means that NASA will rely on commercial systems to get to low earth orbit (or possibly high earth orbit). That's it. The cost of a Mars program thus isn't at all relevant, since the private corporations won't be going to Mars.

Regarding the final point, I'm curious as to what makes you think a Republican would do a better job. In particular what policies do you think a Republican would do? (Also to back up a single level, I'm curious how you intended to tell what aspects of the economy would account for a change in umemployment rate. Figuring out the exact causes for fluctuations in employment rates is very difficult and a matter fraught with controversy).

SJ said...

Dick Cheny called for information that would prove that the harsh interrogation worked to be declassified but the CIA said no.


Enemy combatants don't get constitutional rights. They get their butts kicked for information. This is a war.


Obama wants a Mars program by .... 2030. This way he can appear like he's supporting NASA while turning it into a paper agency. A later president will come in with his own ideas for the space program.


I think a Republican would do a better job because a Republican wouldn't spend as much and a Republican would cut taxes.

Joshua said...

Regarding the Cheney claim, yes but no one at the CIA has even said that that information actually exists. (Incidentally, Cheney was specifically referring to the May 2004 report which was primarily declassified. He claims that one of the redacted sections has the data that supports him). Other people who've also looked at it say it doesn't support it. Given this and other data points the general pattern seems clear.

Regarding your claim that "this is a war"- that's precisely the circumstances we don't torture people in. We didn't torture prisoners in WWII, we didn't torture people in Korea or Vietnam. We abide by the Geneva conventions for a reason.

Regarding the Mars program, I agree that 2030 is later than is good. Does this change in your argument mean that you are agreeing that the privatization is not an issue?

Regarding your last remark about Republicans, what makes you think a Republican would spend less? And what makes you think that would bring us out of the recession faster?

SJ said...

Yeah sure like someone working for the federal government is going to say something to contradict the liberal-democrat position on the matter while Obama is in office. When a terrorist prison has a 1/5 recidivism rate, it is simply not possible for the "torture" to have not produced results.


In between trusting Cheney, and in between the Mainstream Media (MSM), I think i'll go with trusting Cheney. Cheney was there when it was happening and it is well established that MSM is liberal democrat butt lickers.


There is precedent of going outside the legal system to deal with military threats. FDR (Democrat) worked with the mafia to wack nazi spies on American soil. There's the CIA's KUBARK Interrogation Manual from 1963. Also in 1995 Bill Clinton (Democrat) made it possible for foreign terrorists to be sent to Egypt for interrogating.


Regarding the Mars program, If it works the way you say, I can see a problem in the US government ceding the cutting edge of rocketry to the private sector so that they can sell it to anyone, or to allied countries who in their self interest can sell to anyone.


It does not make sense to me for the U.S. space agency to not be able to build its own rockets.


NASA already has the scientists, engineers, and facilities. Changing it up like Obama wants seems to me to be fixing something that's not broken. If the Mars program don't fly by 2030 then it's ultimately Obama's fault.


By the way, if a Republican president stopped the space shuttle program, I'd be equally critical.


And I already told you, a Republican would cut taxes and not spend as much.

Joshua said...

I'm disturbed by your repeated attempts to make this about some sort of political tribalism. You can't just dismiss sources you don't like because they happen to be from the other end of the political spectrum. And note that that's not even true in general. A lot of the critics are people who are no longer in the government but were around in the Bush years.

I don't see any logical connection between recidivism and torture. Incidentally, does this mean you are acknowledging that your general claim about "war" is wrong? Recidivism is a concept in a criminal context. At very minimum, you can't have it both ways.

I similar don't know what the "Mainstream Media" has to do with anything (although it is interesting how people all over the political spectrum use that term to avoid listening to evidence they don't like). The articles I've linked to, which are only a tiny fraction of the relevant material, are all sourced to qualified individuals making these arguments, not random pundits. So it is isn't at all clear to me why the fact that they are coming from the "MSM" is at all relevant.

Regarding your examples, all of those were extremely problematic. The fact that on some occasions Presidents have abused powers before doesn't make it ok.

I'm curious: If you really think that torture is acceptable, why restrict the types of torture? Is cutting off fingers ok? What about crushing peoples genitalia? Blinding them? What about torturing their children in front of them? Their spouses?

Moving on to the space program I'm not sure I understand your objection. Most launches today are in the private sector anyways. The only difference here is that manned launches will now be private also. The capability to sell launches to allies already exists. So what's your concern?

You didn't answer my last two questions but just repeated yourself. Maybe I didn't phrase them clearly enough: 1) What makes you think a Republican would cut spending? 2) What makes you think that spending and tax cuts would help the economy at this time?

SJ said...

I think ideology plays a much greater role than you are willing to allow. You Joshua, are the one who because of your ideology; absolutely dismissed the existence of precedent for going outside the legal structure to fight fire with fire against enemies in a war. There is plenty of precedent.



It is also fallacious to suggest that someone working for a particular administration would share the president's worldview. Case in point Nixon avoided the State Department to the extent that he could because of the State Department leftists and Nixon instead went to Kissinger as much as possibile.



There can also be internal cliques inside the Bush administration that rubbed eachother the wrong way. You know, office politics.



Ultimately, I dismiss MSM and believe Cheney because Cheney was there and the MSM wasn't.


Don't tell me that hardball interrogations at a terrorist prison with a 1/5 recidivism rate, as reported by ABC, did not produce useful intelligence. That is ooooouuuuuuut of the realm of believability.



Making an issue about the usage of the term recidivism is silly. It's a war.



With regard to the innocence or lack thereof, it is not a black and white issue. There can be innocence in terms of you can't prove it in a court, but everyone knooooooooooows they were involved in something somehow.


Probably a certain percentage of the gitmo inmates are "innocent" in terms of you can't prove it in court, but still be involved somehow.


Or the government knows how they are involved and has plenty of evidence but purposely don't want to make it into a criminal matter and prefers it stays a military matter.




About the type of "torture" that should be employed, that is a subjective question that I won't bother answering. I was happy with the way the Bush administration was handling it.



About the space program, I think It's better for the cutting edge of rocketry to be a state secret. I repeat, it makes no sense to me that the United States space agency can't build its own dang rockets.



Ok, the economy. Let us have a thought experiment. Let us pretend Joshua that you own a business, and your tax rate is 100%, and figure out how many people you are able to hire. Then Joshua let us pretend your tax rate is 0% and figure out how many people you are able to hire.



Business tax rates should prooooooobably be closer to 0% instead of 100% in order to encourage employment.



The same holds true for personal income tax and individual spending.


The debt is bad because it compels more taxation and/or more inflation. That is why spending should also be lowered.

Joshua said...

SJ, I find your claims contradictory and confusing. For example, your latest remark you make an argument that "It is also fallacious to suggest that someone working for a particular administration would share the president's worldview." This is hard to reconcile with your earlier comment "Yeah sure like someone working for the federal government is going to say something to contradict the liberal-democrat position on the matter while Obama is in office."

This is of course aside from the fact that as I've pointed out many of the people commenting are people who are either not in the government or are no longer in the government.

I'm also confused by your statement that "I dismiss MSM and believe Cheney because Cheney was there and the MSM wasn't." This is hard to understand given that as I already explained commentators who disagree with Cheney include people who also saw the unredacted version of the May 2004 report. This isn't a construction of the "MSM."

Regarding the ideological issue, I'm not dismissing precedent. I'm making the point that we have treaty obligations and for good reason we've generally kept them.

Moving on:

Don't tell me that hardball interrogations at a terrorist prison with a 1/5 recidivism rate, as reported by ABC, did not produce useful intelligence. That is ooooouuuuuuut of the realm of believability.

You're going to have to explain this in more detail. Aside from the unique definition of recidivism, what is the connection that's relevant here? Why does a higher recidivism rate make it more likely that we would get useful intelligence? I'm not following your logic.

Moving on to the space program:

About the space program, I think It's better for the cutting edge of rocketry to be a state secret.

I can see why you would want that. Fortunately it is already true. The specifications for rockets with military applications (such as ballistic missiles) are by and large classified, although a lot has been declassified (H.W. and Clinton both were responsible for a lot of declassification across many issues).

it makes no sense to me that the United States space agency can't build its own dang rockets.

There's not going to be substantial change in the manufacturing capability. That capability is generally in private hands to start with. The difference is that we're not going to have the feds be responsible for owning and maintaining the people-capable Earth to orbit launch vehicles. The vast majority of the ability to build will still be right where it is now, in factories in assorted locations owned by corporations.

Moving to economic issues:

Ok, the economy. Let us have a thought experiment. Let us pretend Joshua that you own a business, and your tax rate is 100%, and figure out how many people you are able to hire. Then Joshua let us pretend your tax rate is 0% and figure out how many people you are able to hire.


Business tax rates should prooooooobably be closer to 0% instead of 100% in order to encourage employment.


Do we live in the same universe? I'm just asking because in the universe I live in the maximum corporate income tax bracket in the US is under 40%. Last I checked tha's closer to 0 than it is to 100. And for most businesses the tax rate is even lower. It is possible that we're somehow communicating through a part of the internet that goes through parallel universes. That would be fascinating.

SJ said...

>> SJ, I find your claims contradictory and confusing. For example, your latest remark you make an argument that "It is also fallacious to suggest that someone working for a particular administration would share the president's worldview." This is hard to reconcile with your earlier comment "Yeah sure like someone working for the federal government is going to say something to contradict the liberal-democrat position on the matter while Obama is in office."

This is of course aside from the fact that as I've pointed out many of the people commenting are people who are either not in the government or are no longer in the government.


There is no contradiction Mr. Genius. People working for any administration don't contradict it in public while they are still working there. Are you the kind of person who looks at two different words in different news papers and then says, ahah there's a conspiracy!? XD


>> I'm also confused by your statement that "I dismiss MSM and believe Cheney because Cheney was there and the MSM wasn't." This is hard to understand given that as I already explained commentators who disagree with Cheney include people who also saw the unredacted version of the May 2004 report. This isn't a construction of the "MSM."

I already answered this issue.


>> Regarding the ideological issue, I'm not dismissing precedent. I'm making the point that we have treaty obligations and for good reason we've generally kept them.

Yeah you kinda did.


>> You're going to have to explain this in more detail. Aside from the unique definition of recidivism, what is the connection that's relevant here? Why does a higher recidivism rate make it more likely that we would get useful intelligence? I'm not following your logic.

Stick with set theory if you can't understand what I wrote.


>> I can see why you would want that. Fortunately it is already true. The specifications for rockets with military applications (such as ballistic missiles) are by and large classified, although a lot has been declassified (H.W. and Clinton both were responsible for a lot of declassification across many issues).

I think that the technical stuff of the Mars program should be a state secret, is it? I don't think that people are sure.

Joshua said...

There is no contradiction Mr. Genius. People working for any administration don't contradict it in public while they are still working there. Are you the kind of person who looks at two different words in different news papers and then says, ahah there's a conspiracy!? XD

I'm really not following you here. Can you expand on your reasoning? Is it possible that you are confused by the erroneous premise that everyone criticizing the use of torture are people who are currently in the Obama administration? That's not the case at all. Many are people who were in the government during Bush and had access to the same data as Cheney (for example).


I already answered this issue.


Can you point me to where you addressed this issue? Because I don't see it. You dismiss the "MSM" because "Cheney was there" and "they weren't" but I don't see how that's relevant when the point made is that it isn't the "MSM" making these remarks but people with the same data as Cheney.

Stick with set theory if you can't understand what I wrote.

Or a better idea, you can expand your logic. Presumably between statement A =" There's a 20% recidivism rate of people being released from Guantanamo" and statement B = "Torture of Guantanamo prisoners must have yielded useful intelligence" there's some connecting statement or series of connecting statements. So if I'm being too slow to get what they are, just make them explicit.

I think that the technical stuff of the Mars program should be a state secret, is it? I don't think that people are sure.

Of course it isn't secret. And there's no being sure or not. We're a decently transparent society. We don't make things secret by default. I am however curious as to why you think the details of such a program should be kept secret.

Joshua said...

(Also I still haven't heard back from you to check if we live in the same universe. Could you maybe double check what the corporate tax rates are in your universe and verify they agree with those in mine?).

SJ said...

Answered in today's post.