emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 he isnt doing anything like that. He is agreeing to another totalitarian organization invading iraq. 1. How is the UN a totalitarian regime?2. How can you say that there will be no personal freedom for the people of Iraq after Saddam falls? 3. You say many Iraqi people can leave their country if they will...? Huh? Where did you get this info or did you pull it out of the sky. Have you bothered to even look up one single source of the information that is most relavant here? The IRaqi's that have actually LEFT the country!! Have you bothered to consider what they say at all?. If you don't even consider what they say...then how can you claim that you are "considering" them in this whole war issue? It seems to me you don't consider them very much. Please show me some Iraqi testimony that supports what you are saying...most notably Iraqi testimony from someone that 'freely left' as you seem to be implying. But heck, if all you can do is internal testimony, I'll take that too. Cite something... anything! They may go in and out of their house when they will. oh wow! What a gift of God to man! Many Black slaves could pi$$ and #$$# of their own will also. Its nice to know that you are "moralizing" servitude. I find it very perculiar to hear a free americanized man start classifying enslavement in a moral stairstep as if somehow not getting a whip to your back 10 times a day or being able to walk out of a house (that you don't even own, btw) somehow makes it "better". Try telling a blackman in the North how thankful he should be that his northern slave-owners gave them access to the "house" as opposed to sleeping out in the woodshed for many of the slaves in the south. lol! slavery is slavery. The fact is that at any given instant Saddam COULD kill them....badda boom! badda bing! no justice. no accountability. Boom. Your dead. Would a free white person in America now look at a population of 25 million slaves and tell them "you don't have it so bad. quit whining."?? Slavery as an establishment has nothing to do with what saddam is doing.how so? People are not free and are fully subject to the whim of a single tyrant. What part of slavery does this not fit under? You never answered my questions once. Please answer them. They are above.i see only one question. If there are more, please list them, I'll answer them."You know that you overgeneralized right?"Answer: No. I did not say that it was a fact, I only said this is my impression. Like you said earlier that America was a pi$$ hole, that is your overall impression of America. This is my overall impression of war protesters:they don't care about Iraqi slaves. They like to think they are happy under Hussein and don't have it all that bad. They like to think that freeing slaves is worse than letting them live under tyrranny and oppression, and that despite unanimous testimony of thousands who have escaped...they still say "hey, they don't have it all that bad...besides, some actually LIKE living in oppression. Bush is the true evil tyrant."That is my opinion of the war protesters as a functioning whole. I am not saying that all the parts to the whole are like that, but the war protest, as a whole is to me exactly that. Just like America to you, as a whole, is a pi$$ hole even though all individual americans are not necessarily pi$$ heads. see the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 all you did in that huge post of yours is set up strawman arguments. You proved my point that iraqi's are not slaves by your beating around the bush. Learn to debate like an adult. you are an adult, arent you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 all you did in that huge post of yours is set up strawman arguments. You proved my point that iraqi's are not slaves by your beating around the bush. Learn to debate like an adult. you are an adult, arent you?wow TMA, is that the best you can do? Toss a (usual) personal insult and then ignore everything I say. lol. Ok, whatever. Iraqi's are slaves. lol! slavery is slavery. People are not free and are fully subject to the whim of a single tyrant. What part of slavery does this not fit under? What kind of definition are you using? The TMA "what do you think of Hannibus" Collegiate Dictionary? How, exactly did I "prove" they were not slaves again??Not freeOppressedLiving under the exclusive will of one manhow is this not slavery? What part of the definition of "slavery" do you not comprehend? (prediction: I will not get an answer. I predict this with 77% accuracy) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 emprworm, IMO you shouldn't don't state/complain/condem otehrs that you get thrown personal insults towards you, while you do the same (in this very topic). You actually do ignore posts here as well and when you do reply, you avoid a direct answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 emprworm, IMO you shouldn't don't state/complain/condem otehrs that you get thrown personal insults towards you, while you do the same (in this very topic). You actually do ignore posts here as well and when you do reply, you avoid a direct answer.blah blah! C'mon, cut the campaign already. WHy are you constantly being some kind of "hall monitor" or back seat driver to everything I post? If you are going to follow me around, then please consider contributing. I posted this:he isnt doing anything like that. He is agreeing to another totalitarian organization invading iraq. 1. How is the UN a totalitarian regime?2. How can you say that there will be no personal freedom for the people of Iraq after Saddam falls? 3. You say many Iraqi people can leave their country if they will...? Huh? Where did you get this info or did you pull it out of the sky. Have you bothered to even look up one single source of the information that is most relavant here? The IRaqi's that have actually LEFT the country!! Have you bothered to consider what they say at all?. If you don't even consider what they say...then how can you claim that you are "considering" them in this whole war issue? It seems to me you don't consider them very much. Please show me some Iraqi testimony that supports what you are saying...most notably Iraqi testimony from someone that 'freely left' as you seem to be implying. But heck, if all you can do is internal testimony, I'll take that too. Cite something... anything! They may go in and out of their house when they will. oh wow! What a gift of God to man! Many Black slaves could pi$$ and #$$# of their own will also. Its nice to know that you are "moralizing" servitude. I find it very perculiar to hear a free americanized man start classifying enslavement in a moral stairstep as if somehow not getting a whip to your back 10 times a day or being able to walk out of a house (that you don't even own, btw) somehow makes it "better". Try telling a blackman in the North how thankful he should be that his northern slave-owners gave them access to the "house" as opposed to sleeping out in the woodshed for many of the slaves in the south. lol! slavery is slavery. The fact is that at any given instant Saddam COULD kill them....badda boom! badda bing! no justice. no accountability. Boom. Your dead. Would a free white person in America now look at a population of 25 million slaves and tell them "you don't have it so bad. quit whining."?? Slavery as an establishment has nothing to do with what saddam is doing.how so? People are not free and are fully subject to the whim of a single tyrant. What part of slavery does this not fit under? You never answered my questions once. Please answer them. They are above.i see only one question. If there are more, please list them, I'll answer them."You know that you overgeneralized right?"Answer: No. I did not say that it was a fact, I only said this is my impression. Like you said earlier that America was a pi$$ hole, that is your overall impression of America. This is my overall impression of war protesters:they don't care about Iraqi slaves. They like to think they are happy under Hussein and don't have it all that bad. They like to think that freeing slaves is worse than letting them live under tyrranny and oppression, and that despite unanimous testimony of thousands who have escaped...they still say "hey, they don't have it all that bad...besides, some actually LIKE living in oppression. Bush is the true evil tyrant."That is my opinion of the war protesters as a functioning whole. I am not saying that all the parts to the whole are like that, but the war protest, as a whole is to me exactly that. Just like America to you, as a whole, is a pi$$ hole even though all individual americans are not necessarily pi$$ heads. see the difference?To which not only did I specifically address his question, I raised the same question that he himself has refused to clarify (how those three listed qualities defy the definition of slavery) and here is my response: you did in that huge post of yours is set up strawman arguments. You proved my point that iraqi's are not slaves by your beating around the bush. Learn to debate like an adult. you are an adult, arent you? and now I have the "hall monitor" nyar accusing ME of being the one dodging. How about nyar talk to TMA about his resorting to a personal flame next time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 For other board members sake, I will not start another discussion about this here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 and now back to the topic. I hate it when I get a great argument going and have it diverted.Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manhow is this not slavery? What part of the definition of "slavery" does this elude?I will just pound this point....post after post...until it is addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I did not throw insults at you. Sometimes the truth hurts. I wont go back on my statements because you really do need to work on your debating techniques.I never answer your questions because they are bogus. They are usually loaded, they contain bias information that will set me up, they are emotionally charged. I will not pander to questions like that. Once you cool down emotionally, then I will answer questions. Till then, I am not going to get into a freaking huge debate with you again. okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 I did not throw insults at you. Sometimes the truth hurts. I wont go back on my statements because you really do need to work on your debating techniques.I never answer your questions because they are bogus. They are usually loaded, they contain bias information that will set me up, they are emotionally charged. I will not pander to questions like that. Once you cool down emotionally, then I will answer questions. Till then, I am not going to get into a freaking huge debate with you again. okay?sure. thats allright. but if you do decide to discuss with me again, here is where we will pick up:Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manhow is this not slavery? What part of the definition of "slavery" does this elude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 lol... good grief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Emp, doesn't slavery hold that people can't go where they want to go ? As far as I know, they still are able to travel outside of the country aren't they (I honestly don't know, so if I'm wrong, please correct me) ?If we assume the above is correct, then we can't speak about slavery can we ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 Emp, doesn't slavery hold that people can't go where they want to go ? As far as I know, they still are able to travel outside of the country aren't they (I honestly don't know, so if I'm wrong, please correct me) ?If we assume the above is correct, then we can't speak about slavery can we ?Huh? Slavery means your will is in full submission to the master's will. If the master allows you to do something, that makes you no less of a slave now does it? The master can still kill you at any time, for any reason, without any recourse. The master can do to you what he wills, when he will, and why he wills. If the master says "obey me and you will be able to do X,Y,Z as you desire" makes you no less of a slave. TMA actually thinks that coming and going out of your house somehow makes you "less" a slave. lol. Sorry, but an action permitted by the master does not make you free, because there is still a master who owns your life. And as for being free to leave the country? Hmmm, thats not what the Iraqi's say who have fled the country. Where do you hear that from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 "blah blah! C'mon, cut the campaign already. WHy are you constantly being some kind of "hall monitor" or back seat driver to everything I post?"Perhaps he is tired of trying to getting through to you in opposing you directly, as am I, and has decided merely to stop you doing things like accusing people of insulting you when they're not really... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 "blah blah! C'mon, cut the campaign already. WHy are you constantly being some kind of "hall monitor" or back seat driver to everything I post?"Perhaps he is tired of trying to getting through to you in opposing you directly, as am I, and has decided merely to stop you doing things like accusing people of insulting you when they're not really...oh good grief, another off topic post? Cmon guys. If you don't like me then just stop talking to me. Its easy, really. You don't talk to me, I don't talk to you. I will respect that. I am a respectable guy. Following me around and posting the same ole "i dont like how you are posting, you should listen more, please take criticisms" irrelevant rubbish...I can promise you...will do nothing to the integrity of the thread. If you have more criticisms, may I direct you to this thread here:http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=2;action=display;threadid=8775please post them there, thank you! :) If you just cannot tolerate my posts any longer, please take the issue up to Gob who, at a whim, can oust me from the boards!! :- now, if you don't mind, I would like to bring this thread right back on topic after multiple diversions:Slavery means your will is in full submission to the master's will. If the master allows you to do something, that makes you no less of a slave now does it? The master can still kill you at any time, for any reason, without any recourse. The master can do to you what he wills, when he will, and why he wills. If the master says "obey me and you will be able to do X,Y,Z as you desire" makes you no less of a slave. TMA actually thinks that coming and going out of your house somehow makes you "less" a slave. lol. Sorry, but an action permitted by the master does not make you free, because there is still a master who owns your life. How does the master deciding you have permission to walk around the yard (or even a city for that matter) have any bearing upon your status as a slave? And who exactly told you that Iraqi's are free to leave? that is not what the refugees are saying. WHere is your evidence of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 And who exactly told you that Iraqi's are free to leave? that is not what the refugees are saying. WHere is your evidence of this?Emp... please read my post... I clearly stated (I honestly don't know, so if I'm wrong, please correct me) ? I was honestly trying to get your discussion going...nevermind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 And who exactly told you that Iraqi's are free to leave? that is not what the refugees are saying. WHere is your evidence of this?Emp... please read my post... I clearly stated (I honestly don't know, so if I'm wrong, please correct me) ? I was honestly trying to get your discussion going...nevermind...Nyar, I responded to that. I told you that from what the refugees say, the answer to that is no. What reason is there to think otherwise? Is there one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 empr, please try not to twist things the way you do. Semantics in debate is a fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 empr, please try not to twist things the way you do. Semantics in debate is a fallacy.oh yes I agree. Semantics is very bad. Kind of like defining someone who is:Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manas somehow not being a slave just because he can walk around town is getting exceedingly semantical indeed. Oh, by the way, I would like to know: how isNot freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single mannot slavery? I am not being semantical. someone that contorts the definition of slave to somehow not include those elements is being semantical in a big way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 because that is a completely different term. One that is under subjection of a leader is called a citizen. No matter how bad things get. I seem to remember christ telling the jews not to fight against rome. Rome did some horrible acts that rank with saddam. I fail to see how you make the bible and your opinions go hand in hand. Too many times people mix their opinions in with the bible. Please stop the semantics and debate. You can say all you want, but please stop. I know hat is what you are doing from my and other people's view points. you dont have to respond to that part of what I am saying, because I know you are mature enough to cool it. if you continue, then I will find out how you skirt away from good debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 because that is a completely different term. One that is under subjection of a leader is called a citizen. No matter how bad things get. I seem to remember christ telling the jews not to fight against rome. Rome did some horrible acts that rank with saddam. I fail to see how you make the bible and your opinions go hand in hand. Too many times people mix their opinions in with the bible. Please stop the semantics and debate. You can say all you want, but please stop. I know hat is what you are doing from my and other people's view points. you dont have to respond to that part of what I am saying, because I know you are mature enough to cool it. if you continue, then I will find out how you skirt away from good debate. a completely different term? What is the definition of slave? What "term" then are you referring to? A citizen can still be a slave. Are you actually arguing that a citizen cannot be a slave? Ever study the greek culture? The fact remains that any single person in Iraq at any moment could be tortured, raped, sodomized, and murdered by Saddam for any reason....at any time...with no justice...with no recourse....with no appeals.....with no rights....with no recourse....Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manYou still have yet to explain how this does not fit the definition of slave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 you dont know your greek history. Slaves were not citizens. They were not property owners and could not enjoy the full benefits of being a citizen. Duh.lol That is why they arent slaves. dont try to twist it.Also, you said "no recourse" two times.hehedont get so overemotional either. keep in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 you dont know your greek history. Slaves were not citizens. They were not property owners and could not enjoy the full benefits of being a citizen. Duh.lol That is why they arent slaves. dont try to twist it.Also, you said "no recourse" two times.hehedont get so overemotional either. keep in line.then there are no citizens in Iraq. There are no property owners in Iraq, except one. And what is the "full benefit" of being a "citizen" in Iraq?And lastly:Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manYou still have yet to explain how this does not fit the definition of slave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manMany women (and men visa versa) are living such lives in the western world as well, we do not call them slaves, more like people having no will.I'm not saying that the citizens in Iraq have no will, but the 3 things you summon up, could be used in many situations in the world (even the western world). slav·er·y1)The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.2) A)The practice of owning slaves. B)A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force. 3)The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence."not free" is very vage (or a wide spread word). Not free in what meaning ? Like I said earlier, I do not know if they can or can't travel out of the country and to be honest, I couldn't find anything on it as source (neither that they can or can't). You (Emp) stated that they don't have that freedom. If you have a source, I would gladly read it. It sure would make things more clear for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manMany women (and men visa versa) are living such lives in the western world as well, we do not call them slaves, more like people having no will.I'm not saying that the citizens in Iraq have no will, but the 3 things you summon up, could be used in many situations in the world (even the western world). slav·er·y1)The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.2) A)The practice of owning slaves. B)A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force. 3)The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence."not free" is very vage (or a wide spread word). Not free in what meaning ? Like I said earlier, I do not know if they can or can't travel out of the country and to be honest, I couldn't find anything on it as source (neither that they can or can't). You (Emp) stated that they don't have that freedom. If you have a source, I would gladly read it. It sure would make things more clear for me."Not free in what meaning ?" As in this meaning:Main Entry: free·dom b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous "You (Emp) stated that they don't have that freedom. If you have a source, I would gladly read it. "Main Entry: dic·ta·tor Pronunciation: 'dik-"tA-t&r, dik-'Function: nounb : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressivelyNow, do you really want me to cite sources proving that Saddam is a dictator? Surely this can be assumed right?....or can it not be assumed.The people of Iraq have no freedom- this is different than having no will. Will is something you determine for yourself. Freedom is the state you make that will in.And to dispute your first point: I understand the "loose" definition of slave can be incorporated to call a drug addict a slave. As you correctly cite, there are more than 1 definition to "slave" But I listed 3 criteria for the conditions of slavery in Iraq that would exclude a drug addict to be called a "slave". Not freeOppressedLiving in full submission the exclusive will of a single manThe definition of slavery that I have been referring to this whole time is: Main Entry: slav·ery Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)rEFunction: nounDate: 15512 : submission to a dominating influence3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another When I speak of the Iraqi's as being slaves, this is the definition I am referring to (both 2 and 3- not just 2). By including definition 3, this is the "classical" definition of slavery when referring to human property. That is simply 100% exactly what I am referring to. Its really cut and dry. This would fully exclude anyone in the west that I know of- however, if you have some sources to show me otherwise, I am willing to read your sources. Since Iraqi people have no freedom, and since I already said earlier that their own testimony tells confirms this, it would not be rationally sound to assume they are free to leave. The default position is that they are not. You have the burden of proof here. What reason is there to think they can leave freely? The Iraqi refugees in the US escaped persecution. You think they just hopped on a plane in Bagdhad and exited the country? Why would you think this?Now back to you: If you have any source to suggest the Iraqi people are free to leave, I will read your sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Now back to you: If you have any source to suggest the Iraqi people are free to leave, I will read your sources.I already clearly stated that I have no source. I already clearly stated that I have no idea if what I stated was true or not. I already clearly stated that I made an ssumption and asked if you had any source that stated what you see as a fact, or think. If you haven't fine. I also never stated that Saddam wasn't a dictator. *sigh*.. nevermind Emp. I'm kinda fed up with you putting words in others mouth and twisting the conversation. I honestly tried having a normal discussion with you, but you sure make things impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.