warri0r45

You could always start a fun topic. No need to make a thread like this if you fixed the problem yourself.

The Ultimate Incantation by Vader (album).

I'm not surprised considering how touchy some black people are. In some places It's got to the point where they will call racism on almost any word or phrase without even knowing what racism means. It's a nice little cop-out when someone criticises their opinions, attitudes or actions. People should learn what the word means before using it, because it really is a heavy charge to lay on someone.

Faith No More. Apparently they're reforming to do some shows in Europe. Hopefully it turns into a world tour because I'd love to see them.

Angel Dust by Faith No More (album).

The people who call you a commie are probably uneducated and ignorant of what exactly communism is. I suppose that kind overtly anti-communism attitude is also because any change from capitalism is seen as radical. Me, I'm against communism because I think it would be unfair to go through years of education only to end up earning as much as someone who only needs to make a job application and do a few weeks of training. Capitalism won't be perfectly "fair" either because there's always going to be a lower class, but if people want to apply themselves then they can work for a better life. Put in the effort, get the reward. The furthest I'd go down the road to communism is some socialism.

Now, I do understand it's not their fault usually they end up on the streets, but with money given to them, they usually just turn and buy more drugs. Let's think why that could be. Could it be because they have serious drug addictions to feed (heroin/cocaine/meth users specifically)? It's not like they piss away charity money on drugs because they're rebellious college kids wanting to have fun. If given the chance I'm sure many of them would want to get help for their addictions and use money to buy food and pay for rent, etc.

Yeah, you should probably do some research before you post crap like that. Well, most of them anyways, and it's usually a lot of their faults. I could pretty much quote pyro verbatim to make exactly the same point - you should probably do some research before you post crap like that. That isn't research. This is research: http://www.nacd.ie/news/launch_event14042004.html Note the first point - this study suggests the primary reason for becoming homeless is family conflict, not drug use. While drug use rises when people become homeless, it's a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Etiology is important! Also notice that nearly a third of homeless people in this study have been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. Perhaps why some of them can't function in normal society and end up homeless?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Click on the full episodes tab. There should be links somewhere to full episodes of the colbert report, if not just google "colbert report" and you'll find a similar page to this one.

I should have put it this way. Well said. I'm not one to feel sorry for people who contribute to their own downfall, but I do feel for the people who've just had crap lives despite trying to make something out of them.

It's not as black and white as you think it is, but on the whole I don't feel particularly sorry for them. Many of the homeless people I see around the city sell magazines to get income, so they actually have a way to support themselves. That's the kind of initiative I support. Homeless people still have hands and a brain, so given the opportunity they can at least make a few bucks to get some food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Issue

Hugh Jackman's performances were cringe-worthy.

Although Colbert is great, I like the Daily Show better. Rushrock put it well - Jon Stewart's humour is addicting. I suppose you either prefer his or Colbert's personality and style. Again, I like both, but I just prefer Stewart.

What I mean is that the people trying to stop the immigrants aren't the only ones watching. There are people that use the network of cameras to check to see that the coast is clear. By "Unfortunately or not", I mean that it's unfortunate if you are against illegal immigration and not if you're for it for whatever reason. I see now. Good point. :thumbup: The "unfortunately or not" comment just threw me off. On balance I think it's much better to have this in place than not, though. If you could get enough people watching, there would probably be more caught than let though. If nothing else, it would make illegal activity more difficult.

It works both ways, unfortunately or not. Unfortunately? "Coast is clear, go go go!" Neat, though. What? To be honest, the more I read his reply the more confused I get. I'll have to let dsavi clarify what he was saying.

Noctambulant by Spawn of Possession (album). Super-technical stuff. Takes more than one listen to "get it". Love it.

It works both ways, unfortunately or not. Unfortunately?

Awesome initiative. If it helps curtain illegal immigration or drug trafficking, I'm all for it.

Turn yourself into the police. I have very little sympathy for thieves. I think you should get some new friends, too.

Pretty much every scenario could have been worse, so it's pretty meaningless to say that. Saying "it could have been worse" is just a way of consoling someone when something bad happens to them. Added, "luck" doesn't exist. It might be used to describe a situation where something unlikely happens, but that doesn't change the chances of it happening.

The Sound Of Perseverance By Death (album).

Desensitization, which requires, among other things, engaging in torture, is necessary for professional torture in these scenarios. Jessica Wolfendale wrote on the topic in Training Torturers: A Critique of the "Ticking Bomb" Argument. [hide=]the training process of these specialised units [torturers] involves intense, highly stressful, and often brutal exercises. Aside from the more conventional weapons and fitness training, trainees are subjected to the techniques of psychological torture, a process which is extremely distressing and humiliating and can result in dissociation and deep anxiety. (35) Despite the severity of this training and the suffering that it can cause to trainees, this training is very effective in desensitizing trainees to the infliction and the endurance of suffering. (36) New trainees become desensitized to their own suffering, and when they in their turn play the "torturer" in the stress inoculation training they learn to be desensitized to the infliction of pain. This desensitization reduces soldiers' empathetic reaction to physical suffering and thereby makes the infliction of pain and humiliation on the enemy psychologically easier. Given that the ticking bomb torturer might have to inflict incredibly brutal tortures without flinching, he must be thoroughly desensitised to the infliction of pain and must not be hampered by feelings of empathy or sympathy for the suspect-in the ticking bomb scenario there would be no time for hesitation. The Khmer Rouge Manual makes the same point: "is necessary to avoid any question or hesitancy or half-heartedness of not daring to do torture, which makes it impossible to get answers to our questions from our enemies, which slows down and delays our work ... it is necessary to hold steadfastly to a stance of not being half-hearted or hesitant. We must be absolute. Only thus, can we work to good effect." (37) The basic training described above is only part of the process, however. Despite the brutality of the Special Forces training, torturers still need time to get used to their work. One Chilean ex-torturer described this process: "When you first start doing this job, it is hard ... you hide yourself and cry, so nobody can see you. Later on, you don't cry, you only feel sad ... And after ... not wanting to ... but wanting to, you start getting used to it. Yes, definitely, there comes a moment when you feel nothing about what you are doing." (38) Torturers, if they are to be effective and efficient, must "feel nothing" about what they are doing.[/hide] It's one thing to learn how to torture another person, but it's another thing entirely to actually torture them. Good point, but couldn't they just watch videos of torture without engaging in it? Or perhaps they need to get over that psychological hump of doing the act themselves.

I don't think so. You could probably train a "professional torturer" by training them in psychology and the techniques of torture without engaging in it. You do bring up a good point with torture being unreliable, though. I tend to think that's true, but I'll look into it a bit more. For now, here's a debate on the issue (check out the video): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military ... 2-02.html#

On some level it seems cruel and unjust, but I still think it would be more unjust to let millions of people die. The hypothetical you posed breaks the issue down pretty simply - either you tolerate the torture of one/some and save the lives of millions or you save one/some from torture and tolerate the death of millions. From that basic scenario it's a pretty easy choice for me.

Where do you draw the line when using pure numbers for your justification? The reason that the numbers argument runs into trouble is because, as you stated in the latter paragraph, is that what if the authorities think that one person out of 5 has the information. Do you torture all of them for that one person? It's only 5, 4 being innocent, to save millions. Where is the line drawn? Why is 5 any less frivolous than 1, when compared with millions? I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but even if it's 5 people, 4 being innocent, I'd torture to get the information (assuming all the other details of the hypothetical hold true). The problem for me doesn't come with comparing numbers, but in the uncertainty of whether you'll get anything out of torturing people. What if you torture hundreds and get nothing of any use whatsoever? That's my main concern.