 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ted - quote:
Yes, I think you just answered your own question. |
I was "delusional" when you said married people have babies out-of-wedlock? 
quote:
I have engaged in the personal parts of these threads and have never said I haven't. |
No, you did not "engage" in the "personal parts" of these threads, you started them with insults. And it is HYPOCRISY for you to suggest I'm the one who has made this a personal issue when it is you who made it a personal issue, God you're DUMB.
quote:
But every thread you've ever started ALWAYS end with you calling somebody a: liar, hypocrite, or dishonest. I'll let your borderline personality track record speak for itself. |
Now that's FUNNY! In our first debate, it was you who accused me of lying, YOU HYPOCRITE! Actually, you're the only person I accused of being dishonest, and I rarely call anyone a hypocrite. I can't help it if you're a dishonest hypocrite. 
quote:
See, the difference here is that you are trying to make the two clauses mutually exclusive. |
Nope. Just using the definition YOU provided. You're the one who is trying to dismiss the 2 definitions I cited because they refute your accusation.
quote:
You just took the last part, and that's it, and accusing me of only taking the first part and ignoring the second. |
BS! I used both parts - personal insults RATHER than addressing an argument on it's merits. You were the one who used insults RATHER than reason or logic to attack the merits of my opening post. I used logic when showing why you're unqualified to make judgements about the intelligence of others.
quote:
That's not what I did. |
You did "ignore" the second part.
quote:
I looked at the whole context. Your whole argument is relying specifically on the second clause, not the whole definition, nor the HUGE context of the paragraph that follows it. |
The second clause modifies the first, are you now ignorant of how sentences are structured?
quote:
What the above (ad hominem) definition means is that, instead of arguing about the topic on its own merits, (the second clause) you start arguing about the character of the poster himself. (the first clause). |
You didn't argue against my opening post on any merits, instead using an ad hominem. That left me with only the merits of your ad hominem to address - and I did by quoting your assinine statement about married people having babies out-of-wedlock. The purpose of my attack was to show you are incapable of judging which statements are intelligent or stupid, DUH!
quote:
So I've taken the whole thing into account. |
Blah blah blah.
quote:
Even so, we have two more definitions that only specifically talk about the personal nature of ad hominem, further focusing specifically on the personal nature of the term. They don't even HAVE a "logic or reason" clause to clarify them. Reading the rest of the discussion about the term, they go on to mention the personal nature of the term as its focal point. |
In order for you to support your accusation of hypocrisy, you had to show I used an ad hominem in my attack on you AND that I was using an invalid definition of "ad hominem" when claiming I didn't. Since I used logic to attack the merits of your insults, I did not use an ad hominem - a personal insult RATHER than using logic to attack the merits of an opponents argument. Since you are claiming to take into account the entire "context" of the definition, how can you ignore that the definition specifically refers to personal insults RATHER than logic or reason? Because YOU ARE A MORON! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
In order for you to support your accusation of hypocrisy, you had to show I used an ad hominem in my attack on you |
I'd pretty much point to this whole thread as reference for your ad hominem accounts, including the last post, which most of it regards the essense of things personal. Doesn't matter who was first, who was next, you have used and continue to use personal references.
But for a recap, let's take a look at only the last post:
quote:
1. And it is HYPOCRISY for you
2. God you're DUMB
3. YOU HYPOCRITE!
4. You're a dishonest hypocrite
5. Because YOU ARE A MORON! |
Are there any dj's in the house? Because this would make some nice lyrics to a dance mix. "And..and..it is hypocrisy..hyp..hyp...hypocrisy." thump thump thump thump
Was, is, has been, will be, clinically diagnosed...
You know it's too bad I can't pull up a "history" thread that was written here last year. I remember reading your summary, in which it said, "called people liars, cheaters."
But hey if you want to continue to ruin your thread with all of the "ad hominem" asides, I'll be more than happy to play along. Just make sure you look up big words and actually understand what they mean before you use them next time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ted - quote:
I'd pretty much point to this whole thread as reference for your ad hominem accounts, including the last post, which most of it regards the essense of things personal. |
I support my insults, you didn't, that's the difference between me and you and your ad hominems. Just as the definition says - an ad hominem is a personal insult RATHER than a logical or reasoned rebuttal. You threw around insults RATHER than using logic or reason to address my opening post.
quote:
Doesn't matter who was first, who was next, you have used and continue to use personal references. |
It does matter who started it, and it matters who backs them up with logic and who doesn't.
quote:
But for a recap, let's take a look at only the last post: |
First, you separated those declarations of fact from the arguments supporting them. A rather important "omission" since the definition of ad hominem means unsupported insults in place of reasoned arguments. Btw, is calling someone who commits murder, "murderer", an ad hominem? No? Then calling you a hypocrite for being a hypocrite is not an ad hominem if it's backed up.
quote:
Are there any dj's in the house? Because this would make some nice lyrics to a dance mix. "And..and..it is hypocrisy..hyp..hyp...hypocrisy." thump thump thump thump |
Umm...why is it hypocrisy to point out that you were making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my opening post? Oops!
quote:
Was, is, has been, will be, clinically diagnosed... |
You took words out of their context to perpetrate a lie and you complain about being accused of dishonesty? You're a dishonest person, Ted.
quote:
You know it's too bad I can't pull up a "history" thread that was written here last year. I remember reading your summary, in which it said, "called people liars, cheaters." |
Yeah, isn't it just too bad you can't actually pull up this "history" from last year.  Maybe you should try extending the thread search feature, that's what I do when the liberal I'm debating "forgets" what they've said. 
quote:
But hey if you want to continue to ruin your thread with all of the "ad hominem" asides, I'll be more than happy to play along. |
"With all the ad hominems aside"? Has this thread been ruined just like how the world will be ruined if people don't get their government handouts?
quote:
Just make sure you look up big words and actually understand what they mean before you use them next time. |
This coming from the idiot who posted a definition of ad hominem that refuted his own accusation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
"You and Your ad Hominems"
Produced by Ted Striker
Lyrics by berzerker
You and your ad hominems.
Just as the definition says -
An ad hominem is
The definition of ad hominem means
"Murderer", an ad hominem?
Is not an ad hominem
You were making ad hominem
Then calling you a hypocrite
For being a hypocrite
Why is it hypocrisy...?
You took words out of their context to perpetrate a lie
You complain about being accused of dishonesty?
You're a dishonest person, Ted.
This coming from the idiot
Who posted a definition of ad hominem
Last edited by Ted Striker on 20-01-2002 at 13:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know which alternative insulating material was used on the upper stories of the WTC? Such information might have a bearing on your argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
If we knew what it was we could make that judgement ourselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giant_Squid
|
 |
Fun Guy from Yuggoth
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
Wow. I've seen some pretty stupid stuff on this fora, but this really takes the cake (with the exception of stuff like Evan and Giancarlo...putting them in the same category really wouldn't be fair.)
As soon as I saw the thread title and the author, I knew it would be good for a laugh, but this is even worse than I expected.
But hey, just for fun, let's consider the September 11th attacks in a Libertarian Paradise, free from those nasty environmentalists and all those other latter-day Nazies.
DRAMATIZATION
September 11:
6:00 AM EST: On four different flights, terrorists try to board with concealed weapons. The federal government, following its policy of nonintervention in the free market, has left airlines free to decide their own security measures. Some have chosen to charge higher prices for higher security, and other bargain airlines just do a cursory check with a low-budget metal detector. American Airlines is one of the latter. The terrorists get onto four American Airlines flights without a hitch carrying a large arsenal of firearms.
7:30 AM EST: The terrorists hijack the airliners using their guns. Some people on one of the flights try to fight back, but are stopped by the terrorists' superior weaponry.
8:48 AM EST: An airplane crashes into the first World Trade Center. It is fortified with the latest in asbestos-derived material. After a while, the building collapses. According to www.howstuffworks.com, which maintains a page on why the buildings collapsed, they were especially built to be able to stand normal fires for hours without any problems, but the intensity of the explosions and the fact that there was airplane fuel to feed it overwhelmed the structure.
9:03 AM EST: A second plane crashes into the second Trade Tower. It, too collapses.
9:45 AM EST: The third and fourth planes crash into the Pentagon and White House, respectively.
12:00 PM EST: A huge cloud of asbestos descends onto NYC. Its effects are not known until much later. However, it is discovered that many of the firefighters who risked their lives to save people in the buildings are getting much higher than normal rates of lung cancer.
September 13: Terrorists leaving out of Logan airport are not apprehended because of the lax security. They crash a plane into...oh, let's say the Capitol.
October 4: Anthrax is sent via mail (FedEx, since of course our utopia doesn't include the Post Office) to a person in Florida. The CDC has been de-funded years ago in a lower-taxes campaign in favor of more private health care. The case is identified as flu and ignored.
Late October: More such cases of flu arise. After about fifty deaths, the terrorists make the mistake of sending it to someone rich enough to afford excellent medical care. The diagnosis of anthrax is made.
November 1: Taking advantage of the free-market system, the makers of Cipro increase the price to over ten times its pre-anthrax scare level and make a killing. The terrorists learn from their earlier mistake and no longer send anthrax to people rich enough to afford the drugs. Death toll reaches about 50%
November 15: An underfunded FBI reports that it thinks someone from the Islamic world might have had some sort of influence in the case. They report they will need a few more months and a large increase in their budget to confirm this. After debating a while from a makeshift replacement capital, Congress denies this.
December 1: Annoyed that he's not getting any publicity, Osama Bin Laden releases a tape in which he claims that he was responsible for the attacks. The FBI is unable to officially confirm or deny this, but President Bush says it makes sense. He tells the military to look into doing something about this. The CIA has been disbanded years earlier because of the possibility it was a violation of people's privacy, and does not take part in any further action.
February 1: An underfunded Pentagon gets a few ships into the waters around Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we don't have any allies in the region because of the isolationism we entered into when the libertarian government first came into power. Two weeks are spent negotiating a deal with Pakistan so that we can cross their territory. We end up paying them a few billion dollars, a significant portion of our budget.
February 15: The attack begins. The military has hired multiple small companies to take care of its strategies and tactics, not having the resources to do it themselves. The companies have some trouble coordinating with one another, and one of them threatens to leave the coalition unless it gets a higher percentage of the pay. The attack flounders after about a week. The Taliban have had ample time to fortify themselves, and no major problems occur.
March 1: A major newspaper publishes an expose on how the wives and children of people killed at the WTC are on the streets (except those who were lucky enough to have life insurance). Donations pour in, but they are too few too late.
March 10: The family of someone killed by lung cancer, reduced to dire straights, sues the builders of the WTC for including asbestos. They are laughed out of court on the principle that how can anyone possibly blame people 30 years after the fact for not preparing for an unthinkable situation. Berserker posts at Apolyton laughing hysterically at these "environmentalists" for expecting such incredible foresight.
The Rest Of 2002: More planes are hijacked, and the Taliban gains popularity among Islamic youth because of the resounding success of its terror programs. Americans are living in fear, but pundits in the media are quick to point out that for enough money, you can buy Cipro, reinforced buildings, and anything else you may need. They laugh, saying "Perhaps the government should give you a Caribbean vacation after they're finished protecting you from the Afghanis."
November, 2002: The Libertarian Party suffers a humiliating defeat in the elections for the first time in 30 years.
Just something to think about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ted - Oops, I mean Giant Squid
Wow! You sure are dishonest! Now you're using a DL in the absurd attempt to hide yet another ad hominem, what an intellectual coward.
quote:
Wow. I've seen some pretty stupid stuff on this fora, but this really takes the cake (with the exception of stuff like Evan and Giancarlo...putting them in the same category really wouldn't be fair.) As soon as I saw the thread title and the author, I knew it would be good for a laugh, but this is even worse than I expected. But hey, just for fun, let's consider the September 11th attacks in a Libertarian Paradise, free from those nasty environmentalists and all those other latter-day Nazies. |
See? Just another insult with NOTHING to back it up, just like Ted. Had libertarians been running the government, the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon would not have happened because libertarians are opposed to the foreign policies that created these enemies. That shoots down your entire "dramatization", but you obviously didn't think far enough ahead to realize that, good job, Squid. Nor did you figure out these attacks occured under the big government you happen to like, DOH!
quote:
Just something to think about. |
You thought about this first? Should I change my signature now that you're trying to hide from your stupid claim that married people are having babies out-of-wedlock?
Dr Strangelove - quote:
If we knew what it was we could make that judgement ourselves. |
The article didn't say, but I'll trust Mr Levine's judgement since he does know alot more about the subject than me (or anyone else here I suspect).
Bob - quote:
It doesn't matter if the jet fuel fire wasn't sustained, the initial moments of extreme heat and the shock of the impact would pretty much obliverate much of the asbestos. |
How so? The impact itself wouldn't do anything to asbestos with the possible exception of abrasion resulting from the collision of metal with metal. But the steel was still insulated with concrete too in addition to the asbestos. The concrete layer would have taken the hit more than the underlying asbestos coating. And the initial high temperature would have to be sustained over enough time to erode the asbestos.
quote:
The tower's colapse may have been delayed, but only slightly. Asbestos isn't indestructalle. |
According to the man who invented the asbestos coating, it sure was better than what they used as a substitute.
Tolls - quote:
Hmmm...
Had a look for some figures over the weekend. Asbestos seems to degrade at 600 C, but keeps insulating (though less and less as time goes on) until 1000 C, when it melts. |
The coating was more than just asbestos.
quote:
Now the jet fuel is generally placed at about 1000 C, but then you have to realise that the planes are also aluminium bodied...which would have combusted as well, giving us a temperature of around 1500 C...so any asbestos would have melted easily. |
Not when this temperature lasted for only a few seconds. It was the sustained fire over 20-30 minutes fueled by materials within the buildings themselves that eventually weakened the steel superstructure.
quote:
Current insulating materials based on mineral wool can go to about 1600 C I think, but these weren't available 30 years ago. |
The inventor combined asbestos with rock wool and he did say a major fire above the 64th floor would collapse the tower(s)
- the jet fuel merely ignited the building with virtually all of it expended upon impact with much of it spent outside the buildings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Giant Squid, you left out some details in your recounting of the probable history of a world in which Libertarians dominate the political system of the US. For instance, thanks to the cross the board leagalization of dope, the US army would be reduced to a functional level that would make the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages during Carter's administration look like a paragon of German efficiency by comparison. Consequently our European allies, taking into consideration the degree of security their alliance with the "Libertarian" USA is likely to bestow upon them, completely caves in to Bin Laden's demands. Russia soon follows, as does the rest of the world. Eventually the mujhadeen occupy Washington. The first act of the Islamic government is to execute Libertarians, drunks, and drug addicts. Freed of those three Albatrosses the American people soon throw off their oppressors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giant_Squid
|
|
Fun Guy from Yuggoth
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
Berserker, I'm sorry* if that sounded ad hominem, but it had to be said. The facts to back it up are either below or in all of the other posts in this thread.
As for Ted, I've been accused of being a double login ever since I came here 3 (count 'em, three) years and 3000 posts ago, and I don't see why it should stop now, except possibly for the fact that you'd think whoever I actually was would give up a bit before I achieved Emperor. It's traditional to use the old DL thing on people who have been here *shorter* than you have. Now, about your reply...
quote:
Had libertarians been running the government, the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon would not have happened because libertarians are opposed to the foreign policies that created these enemies. That shoots down your entire "dramatization", but you obviously didn't think far enough ahead to realize that, good job, Squid. |
Good point**. However, I did consider it, and thought as follows: the United States under a libertarian government would still need just as much oil (if not more, since there wouldn't be the current incentives to cut back on energy usage). Therefore, we would still need to make sure that the Arab countries are supplying it to us. While the government might not interfere directly, I have complete faith in the free market to find a way to do things like prop up the Saudi regime. I was thinking specifically of Nigeria, in which case the government isn't doing much but various oil companies (I think they're mainly British, but a few American ones too, and don't quote me on this) have, for the past few years, propped up various despots and kept the country in a third world condition (easier to get labor that way, you know). I suspect strongly that the same thing would happen in Saudi Arabia, and I doubt that Bin Laden and Co would really find much of a difference between American companies violating sacred Islamic sites and the American government doing it. If anything, the government's probably making sure to tread lightly there because of security concerns and public opinion.
quote:
Nor did you figure out these attacks occured under the big government you happen to like |
In case you didn't notice, that same government has arrested virtually everyone responsible, destroyed the organization that perpetrated the crimes despite the fact that it controlled a good part of a country, responded incredibly quickly to the biological weapon attacks so that fewer than 15 people died, allowed both private citizens and businesses affected by the attacks to recover in amazing time, prevented on at least three separate occasions further hijackings, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc. etc. Nothing's perfect, government least of all, but I say they've done a pretty good job in this particular instance, although you're welcome to disagree with me.***
*not really
**see footnote 1 above
***you would, of course, be wrong
Last edited by Giant_Squid on 22-01-2002 at 03:26
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Stefu - quote:
Am I seeing right? Is Berz accusing Giant Squid of being DL? |
I may be wrong.
quote:
Squid, who has been on the fora for 3 years and is well-known and loved, and who has had several DLs of his own? Giant Squid? |
And who was Ted Striker before becoming Ted Striker? He has emporer status and has not been here long enough under that name to compile that many posts, a few hundred more than the Squid.
quote:
And can't he see differences between Squid's writing style, which at least to my eye seems to be traditional Squid, and Ted's writing style? |
I saw a nice connection between Ted and Squid in how they both used ad hominems in this thread. I've debated Squid in the past and we have always debated with civility, but now Squid shows up with the same kind of unsupported insults as Ted.
quote:
er, is it actually impossible for you to debate without insulting people? Oh, this takes me back to good ol' "Liar! Thief!" debates. |
You obviously don't read many of my posts. I suggest you look at this thread to see if I've been insulting everyone. Ted and Squid (ahem...) entered this thread launching ad hominems at me, and it wasn't the first time Ted did this. The fact you point your finger at me and not at Ted/Squid says something about you. As for calling people "liars", aside from Ted/Squid, whom have I called a liar? And if you use "government" to take money from others to pay for what you, there is NO moral distinction between you and the thief who steals without help from "government" to pay for what he wants.
Bob - quote:
Berzerkre, youre just a troll wannabe. Ignoring all the facts in Giant-Squids and others posts, insisting that your right, and calling everyone Ted DLs, its a wonder people even bother to speak with you. |
First, I have not ignored your (or others) arguments, I addressed each of them except for "Squid's" "dramatization". And what "facts" did Squid offer? He offered only an ad hominem along with a "dramatization" of what he thought might have happened if libertarians were running the government. Are you suggesting I am a "wannabe troll" because I believe I am right and you're wrong? Doesn't that make everyone, including you, a "wannabe troll" for not accepting the validity of opposing arguments?
quote:
EDIT: Oh ys, now you'll just call me an idiot/fool, and any attempt to explain something to you will result in your just writing it off. |
Using generalizations and false statements is hardly laudable.
Lefty - quote:
Of course not, , His name is BERZEKER after all. I fhis had the handle Miis Manners, maybe he would politely preate while holding his little finger out for the the teacup, but the name is Bezerker. |
Did I insult anyone in this thread aside from Ted/Squid who entered this thread to insult me? Noooo....
Squid - quote:
Berserker, I'm sorry* if that sounded ad hominem, but it had to be said. |
My apologies, according to one of the moderators, he thinks you're not Ted. It was an ad hominem - a personal attack RATHER than a reasoned response. If you felt it "needed" to be said, what does the fact you didn't support it say? Btw, I'm only apologising for accusing you of being a DL, not for my retaliation against your insults.
quote:
The facts to back it up are either below or in all of the other posts in this thread. |
In ALL the other posts? And what "facts" are these? "Facts" you didn't think of yourself? I read your arguments "below" and you didn't bother addressing my opening post (again), instead, you gave reasons why we would have been attacked anyway even if libertarians were running the government. I haven't seen anyone explain how the asbestos coating could have been eroded in the few seconds it took for the jet fuel to be spent. The buildings collapsed about a 1/2 hour after the impact and jet fuel was not being burned for more than a few seconds.
quote:
As for Ted, I've been accused of being a double login ever since I came here 3 (count 'em, three) years and 3000 posts ago, and I don't see why it should stop now, except possibly for the fact that you'd think whoever I actually was would give up a bit before I achieved Emperor. It's traditional to use the old DL thing on people who have been here *shorter* than you have. |
And Ted has a few hundred posts more than you, but he hasn't been here long enough to attain emporer status. That means he was someone else and I found the coincidence that both you and him are the only ones to enter this thread for the purpose of attacking me rather than debate the issue I raised quite a stretch.
quote:
However, I did consider it, and thought as follows: the United States under a libertarian government would still need just as much oil (if not more, since there wouldn't be the current incentives to cut back on energy usage). |
The oil industry receives huge "subsides" thereby distorting the energy market, subsidies that libertarians oppose. That would level the playing field for other energy producers like natural gas which is plentiful along with nuclear power. Furthermore, we would have much more domestic oil being used.
quote:
Therefore, we would still need to make sure that the Arab countries are supplying it to us. |
How does one "make sure"?
quote:
While the government might not interfere directly, I have complete faith in the free market to find a way to do things like prop up the Saudi regime. |
Yes, if a company wanted to sell the Saudis weapons, the government would not interfere. That might make the company a target, but not Americans in general. After all, many foreign governments are selling weapons to ME regimes. But you have to separate this free market reality from the fact the attack was directed at us BECAUSE of government foreign policies, not because some company might sell weapons to the Saudis. Besides, I'm skeptical about Saudi support being a reason for the attacks. It appears support for Israel and Egypt had more to do with it. The Saudis supported the Taliban thru OBL.
quote:
I was thinking specifically of Nigeria, in which case the government isn't doing much but various oil companies (I think they're mainly British, but a few American ones too, and don't quote me on this) have, for the past few years, propped up various despots and kept the country in a third world condition (easier to get labor that way, you know). |
How am I to address this argument if I cannot quote you? Had Nigerians launched this attack and the US government "isn't doing much" in that country, your point might be valid if the Nigerians said they did it because of US oil companies.
quote:
I suspect strongly that the same thing would happen in Saudi Arabia, and I doubt that Bin Laden and Co would really find much of a difference between American companies violating sacred Islamic sites and the American government doing it. |
Then why haven't these people been attacking American companies over in Saudi Arabia?
quote:
If anything, the government's probably making sure to tread lightly there because of security concerns and public opinion. |
Bombing Iraq while giving massive amounts of money and weapons to Egypt and Israel is not treading lightly.
quote:
In case you didn't notice, that same government has arrested virtually everyone responsible, destroyed the organization that perpetrated the crimes despite the fact that it controlled a good part of a country, responded incredibly quickly to the biological weapon attacks so that fewer than 15 people died, allowed both private citizens and businesses affected by the attacks to recover in amazing time, prevented on at least three separate occasions further hijackings, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc. etc. Nothing's perfect, government least of all, but I say they've done a pretty good job in this particular instance, although you're welcome to disagree with me.*** |
All of which has nothing to do with the fact that "big government" did not prevent the attacks and IMO, caused the attacks in the first place. Why did you use a quote only to ignore it while raising a different issue? Do you have proof of the following:
1) destroyed the organization responsible
2) arrested virtually everyone responsible
3) which biological weapons?
4) allowed citizens to recover? Americans donated over a billion dollars, WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT? Still hasn't arrived...
5) prevented other attacks? Kind of meaningless since government created these terrorists with it's policies.
And when the next attack comes, what will you tell us about this "destroyed organization" with virtually all it's members arrested?
Ted - My apologies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giant_Squid
|
|
Fun Guy from Yuggoth
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
I saw a nice connection between Ted and Squid in how they both used ad hominems in this thread. I've debated Squid in the past and we have always debated with civility, but now Squid shows up with the same kind of unsupported insults as Ted. |
So? I could use this to prove that you're Ted's DL...
quote:
In ALL the other posts? And what "facts" are these? "Facts" you didn't think of yourself? I read your arguments "below" and you didn't bother addressing my opening post (again), instead, you gave reasons why we would have been attacked anyway even if libertarians were running the government. I haven't seen anyone explain how the asbestos coating could have been eroded in the few seconds it took for the jet fuel to be spent. The buildings collapsed about a 1/2 hour after the impact and jet fuel was not being burned for more than a few seconds. |
OK...let's discuss engineering here. The big deal about asbestos insulation was that it was supposed to last over four hours. This is based on something called the Underwriters Laboratories’ tests. However, the replacement, non-asbestos insulation *also* passed these tests. Unfortunately, the tests were used to simulate the kind of fire you might get if someone dropped a lit cigarette or something, not the kind of fire you get when a jumbo jet crashes into a tower at a few hundred miles an hour. What's more, a good deal of insulation was thrown off by the initial impact. Thus, whether asbestos-based or not, it would have been useless. I'll randomly throw in a quote from engineer who studied the problem here and said that "no material on Earth could have survived that kind of impact". Finally, most of the problem wasn't melting at all. Because a number of them were destroyed by the original crash, the rest of them (which weakening by fire no doubt contributed to, but wasn't the main cause) gave out and failed.
Interestingly enough, in my search for the information, most of the sites I found were actually about the asbestos risk from the collapsing towers. Immediately after the collapse tests were taken around New York and in one area asbestos was significantly above safe levels. It is quite likely that the only reason New York was able to get itself back together so soon after the attack was because the top floors were *not* made of asbestos. As things were, a number of buildings near the WTC had to close because of asbestos safety problems. There was even some consideration of leaving the stock exchange closed until it was confirmed there was no asbestos risk. It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the asbestos material been used all the way to the top, but only from far, far away.
quote:
The oil industry receives huge "subsides" thereby distorting the energy market, subsidies that libertarians oppose. That would level the playing field for other energy producers like natural gas which is plentiful along with nuclear power. Furthermore, we would have much more domestic oil being used. |
Possibly, but I suspect (I'll look it up if you want) that the government gives far more subsidies to try and prevent oil usage (like to design hybrid cars) than to support it (or at least it did before the Bush administration, not sure about now). While we would be using more domestic oil, a lot of it is low grade, and we'd probably still have to look to the Mideast for higher quality crude.
quote:
How does one "make sure"? |
In our case, unfortunately, by propping up any dictatorial government that happens to want to give us oil.
quote:
Yes, if a company wanted to sell the Saudis weapons, the government would not interfere. That might make the company a target, but not Americans in general. After all, many foreign governments are selling weapons to ME regimes. But you have to separate this free market reality from the fact the attack was directed at us BECAUSE of government foreign policies, not because some company might sell weapons to the Saudis. Besides, I'm skeptical about Saudi support being a reason for the attacks. It appears support for Israel and Egypt had more to do with it. The Saudis supported the Taliban thru OBL. |
Well, something like 17 out of 20 hijackers were Saudi (not to mention most of the Al-Qaeda high command), which ought to give you some idea. And I don't think the terrorists are going to be that discerning. If they wanted to get the government this time, why'd they hit the World Trade Center, one of the biggest symbols of American capitalism and foreign trade? Terrorists, as the name implies, work through terror. They hit whatever will scare us. Going into America and killing innocents scares more people than bombing those of us in Saudi Arabia (although they've tried that too). We're the Great Satan, and Osama doesn't seem like the kind of person to say "Well, it's really just the American businesses, so I won't harm all of the innocents." I don't remember him checking to make sure all the people in the Trade Towers supported our Mideastern foreign policy.
quote:
How am I to address this argument if I cannot quote you? Had Nigerians launched this attack and the US government "isn't doing much" in that country, your point might be valid if the Nigerians said they did it because of US oil companies. |
My point wasn't that the Nigerian oil companies had anything to do with an attack, it was that private companies can shape a foreign country and do things that would be capable of getting the Saudis as mad as they are now.
quote:
Then why haven't these people been attacking American companies over in Saudi Arabia? |
Because right now the government is acting as an extension of the will of the companies and doing their dirty work in Saudi Arabia for them. They have bombed government barracks in Saudi Arabia. Please don't get me wrong...I oppose American government intervention in Saudi Arabia as much as (I think) you do. I just think if we take out the US government but don't change anything else, US corporations will have about the same effect.
quote:
Bombing Iraq while giving massive amounts of money and weapons to Egypt and Israel is not treading lightly. |
They're doing what they can. I'm sure we'd like to support Israel a lot more than we already do, and I'm sure you've heard the stories about how we make our female troops in Saudi Arabia wear traditional clothing and all that stuff so as to not offend the Saudis.
quote:
All of which has nothing to do with the fact that "big government" did not prevent the attacks and IMO, caused the attacks in the first place. Why did you use a quote only to ignore it while raising a different issue? Do you have proof of the following:
1) destroyed the organization responsible
2) arrested virtually everyone responsible
3) which biological weapons?
4) allowed citizens to recover? Americans donated over a billion dollars, WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT? Still hasn't arrived...
5) prevented other attacks? Kind of meaningless since government created these terrorists with it's policies |
My proof of number one is that it's self evident. We haven't got Bin Laden, but I think you'll agree that the Taleban is a whole lot weaker than it was before September 11, and the same with Al-Qaeda.
For 2, we've arrested that Moussadi guy, who's the only one who's still alive of the actual hijackers, as well as a number of people planning the same things like that guy who was going to bomb the embassy in Paris.
For 3, I'm referring to the anthrax, which was identified as soon as infection occurred (although I suppose we wouldn't know about it if other cases happened before it was identified) and about which multiple security measures were taken that saved the lives of most of the people who received it.
For 4, you're wrong. The government has pledged money to the families equal to the salaries lost for 20 years plus pain & suffering cost plus pension. It would be interesting to see the private sector get that much.
I won't respond to 5 since you're not asking for proof but just reopening the point we're debating above about whether the same thing would have happened with American businesses in Saudi Arabia, except by saying yes, it did prevent other attacks, and the proof is in the news.
When the next attack comes, it will also be a tragedy. It would be nice to have a perfect magic Terrorist-Detector-O-Matic, but since we don't, we'll just have to rest content stopping everything we humanly can.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Giant Squid - quote:
So? I could use this to prove that you're Ted's DL... |
I didn't enter your thread accusing you of being stupid without backing it up, you did, just like Ted.
quote:
OK...let's discuss engineering here. The big deal about asbestos insulation was that it was supposed to last over four hours. This is based on something called the Underwriters Laboratories’ tests. However, the replacement, non-asbestos insulation *also* passed these tests. |
First, do you have a link? Mr Levine said if there was a fire above the 64th floor, the towers would collapse. He must have believed the substitute was not as effective for a reason.
quote:
Unfortunately, the tests were used to simulate the kind of fire you might get if someone dropped a lit cigarette or something, not the kind of fire you get when a jumbo jet crashes into a tower at a few hundred miles an hour. |
Skyscrapers like the WTC are designed to withstand airliner impacts, the question is whether or not the substitute was effective enough to hold off the fire. And as I have said, virtually all the fuel was spent upon impact, so the fuel is not the issue, but how long the insulator would last given the massive fire that can result from any kind of unchecked fire with enough fuel.
quote:
What's more, a good deal of insulation was thrown off by the initial impact. |
How does this engineer know that? The steel and it's insulation were covered by concrete and other materials, just not to the level of older skyscrapers.
quote:
Thus, whether asbestos-based or not, it would have been useless. |
Depends on the assumption that it was destroyed upon impact.
quote:
I'll randomly throw in a quote from engineer who studied the problem here and said that "no material on Earth could have survived that kind of impact". |
The steel did.
quote:
Finally, most of the problem wasn't melting at all. Because a number of them were destroyed by the original crash, the rest of them (which weakening by fire no doubt contributed to, but wasn't the main cause) gave out and failed. |
If one side of the building's steel supports had been taken out, it would have collapsed within seconds, not a half hour.
quote:
Interestingly enough, in my search for the information, most of the sites I found were actually about the asbestos risk from the collapsing towers. Immediately after the collapse tests were taken around New York and in one area asbestos was significantly above safe levels. It is quite likely that the only reason New York was able to get itself back together so soon after the attack was because the top floors were *not* made of asbestos. |
The bottom 64 were. And I don't know what you mean by the city "getting back together".
quote:
As things were, a number of buildings near the WTC had to close because of asbestos safety problems. There was even some consideration of leaving the stock exchange closed until it was confirmed there was no asbestos risk. It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the asbestos material been used all the way to the top, but only from far, far away. |
Which is kind of the point, had the asbestos been used and it prevented the collapse - at least long enough for firefighters to combat the fire, maybe the towers would not have collapsed and airborne asbestos would not have been a problem.
quote:
Possibly, but I suspect (I'll look it up if you want) that the government gives far more subsidies to try and prevent oil usage (like to design hybrid cars) than to support it (or at least it did before the Bush administration, not sure about now). While we would be using more domestic oil, a lot of it is low grade, and we'd probably still have to look to the Mideast for higher quality crude. |
But the attackers did not attack us because we buy oil. According to them, they attacked because of our support for Israel and Egypt and our presence in Saudi Arabia. And there is no way the government subsidizes alternative fuel research anywhere near what it has done for the oil companies (I'm including the cost of the Gulf War).
quote:
In our case, unfortunately, by propping up any dictatorial government that happens to want to give us oil. |
And that would not happen under libertarians. Whomever had the oil to sell, oil companies would buy. And if the ME source was not available or reduced, the marketplace would lead to other sources of fuel.
quote:
Well, something like 17 out of 20 hijackers were Saudi (not to mention most of the Al-Qaeda high command), which ought to give you some idea. |
That doesn't prove they attacked us because we have been supporting the Saudi government. Their only gripe dealing with Saudi Arabia, one of the countries that funded the Taliban, was that US forces there were violating holy sites (somehow).
quote:
And I don't think the terrorists are going to be that discerning. If they wanted to get the government this time, why'd they hit the World Trade Center, one of the biggest symbols of American capitalism and foreign trade? |
Apparently they planned on 2 planes for the towers and 2 for the Pentagon and the White House or capital. It was the symbolism, not of capitalism and foreign trade which they have profited from themselves, but of America's might, and the best way to hurt us economically.
quote:
Terrorists, as the name implies, work through terror. They hit whatever will scare us. |
Then capitalism and trade were not the motive, true?
quote:
Going into America and killing innocents scares more people than bombing those of us in Saudi Arabia (although they've tried that too). |
Those of us in Saudi Arabia are there because the policies are set here, not there.
quote:
We're the Great Satan, and Osama doesn't seem like the kind of person to say "Well, it's really just the American businesses, so I won't harm all of the innocents." I don't remember him checking to make sure all the people in the Trade Towers supported our Mideastern foreign policy. |
He considers all Americans targets because we have a "democratic" form of government where the people supposedly rule. But why are we the Great Satan? Because we use oil? His family got rich because of that oil we buy.
The terrorists gave their reasons and not once did they say they hate us because of anything other than government policies interfering in ME affairs. You're assuming he hates the fact American businesses buy oil, where is the proof?
quote:
My point wasn't that the Nigerian oil companies had anything to do with an attack, it was that private companies can shape a foreign country and do things that would be capable of getting the Saudis as mad as they are now. |
Mad at the companies, not the US. The result would be attacks on company personnel and assets within their country. Are Nigerian terrorists attacking England? Are they even attacking the oil companies there?
quote:
Because right now the government is acting as an extension of the will of the companies and doing their dirty work in Saudi Arabia for them. They have bombed government barracks in Saudi Arabia. Please don't get me wrong...I oppose American government intervention in Saudi Arabia as much as (I think) you do. I just think if we take out the US government but don't change anything else, US corporations will have about the same effect. |
Possibly, but these people who did this have had ample opportunities to attack American oil companies and others (My Dad worked in Saudi Arabia) for decades but haven't. It was only after US troops (in addition to their other gripes) were stationed there that these attacks began.
quote:
They're doing what they can. I'm sure we'd like to support Israel a lot more than we already do, and I'm sure you've heard the stories about how we make our female troops in Saudi Arabia wear traditional clothing and all that stuff so as to not offend the Saudis. |
Yup, just saw a story the other night on "60 Minutes" about that. But it is this support for Israel (among the 2 or 3 other gripes) that has led to the US being targets.
quote:
My proof of number one is that it's self evident. We haven't got Bin Laden, but I think you'll agree that the Taleban is a whole lot weaker than it was before September 11, and the same with Al-Qaeda. |
No doubt, but there is a big difference between destroying Al-Qaeda and weakening them. God only knows how many there are and they will have little or no problem filling their ranks. I hope I'm wrong, but I believe we are in serious trouble and will be for quite a while.
quote:
For 2, we've arrested that Moussadi guy, who's the only one who's still alive of the actual hijackers, as well as a number of people planning the same things like that guy who was going to bomb the embassy in Paris. |
Oh, I agree we have some of the people directly involved who weren't killed, but we are waging this war based on the principle that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were responsible and we don't have many of them in jail.
quote:
For 3, I'm referring to the anthrax, which was identified as soon as infection occurred (although I suppose we wouldn't know about it if other cases happened before it was identified) and about which multiple security measures were taken that saved the lives of most of the people who received it. |
Ah, ok.
quote:
For 4, you're wrong. The government has pledged money to the families equal to the salaries lost for 20 years plus pain & suffering cost plus pension. |
The key word there is "pledged". The money we gave was relatively immediate (except for the Red Cross and United Way bureaucrats trying to hold onto some money for administrative costs and future outlays). Even with that obstacle, private money reached the victims far sooner than government money which is still in the pipeline. And notice how the politicians are telling victims that if they take government money, they can't sue the airlines and their backers? We gave the money without strings...
quote:
It would be interesting to see the private sector get that much. |
Well over a billion and counting. And the tally would be even higher if government was not promising handouts in exchange for not filing lawsuits. The more money we have, the more we can afford, and the less dependent on government handouts, the more people know the burden is on them to give. And these families don't need alot of money all at once. Combined with pensions and other benefits, donations flowing in over the next few years would eventually be quite enough. Yes, that's speculation, but $500,000 for each family with ~ 3,000 families is almost where we're at not counting future donations.
quote:
When the next attack comes, it will also be a tragedy. It would be nice to have a perfect magic Terrorist-Detector-O-Matic, but since we don't, we'll just have to rest content stopping everything we humanly can. |
And wouldn't this "stopping everything we humanly can" include reversing the policies that have led to this situation?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2002 06:13
|