About the CT shooting, does anyone else find it most disturbing that...

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah yes...another person that doesn't link....posts opinion and thinks he's posted facts. I do hope you never need take a critical thinking course....

LJS9502_basic

It's that whole "salience" thingamajigamabobber.

Oh so you dismiss evidence because you don't agree or like the person that delivers it. Well sorry pal but evidence is evidence.

kuraimen

It's not "evidence." It's an opinion, just like yours, and it cites little in the way of facts, like yours. Here, I'll go find 20 articles that say the US is doing a good job of being careful about civilian deaths overseas, and provide them as "evidence." That's not evidence, dipsh!t, it's just another opinion. You think it's evidence because you're unable or unwilling to do any research to back up your opinions.

I have referenced way more than two incidents with the links I provided.

kuraimen

List them. We'll see which ones you came up with on your own, and which ones someone else found.

USvKeenan was in Vietnam. I told you that it really means little that one person was prosecuted using that law when in the same war another gets his sentence lowered because of the opposite. So that law is not very compelling.

kuraimen

The case in point was that US soldiers can be prosecuted even when they follow orders. Both of these incidents prove that. That someone got a reduced sentence for following orders does not change the fact that he was prosecuted for following an illegal order.

You know what your problem is, kuraimen? You're f*cking lazy. You don't want to do research or spend the time actually crafting a case. I'm lazy too, as there's only so much time I want to spend arguing about stuff. The difference is that you want to go around making wild claims, whereas I'm content to say "I don't know."

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Oh so you dismiss evidence because you don't agree or like the person that delivers it. Well sorry pal but evidence is evidence.

Palantas

It's not "evidence." It's an opinion, just like yours, and it cites little in the way of facts, like yours. Here, I'll go find 20 articles that say the US is doing a good job of being careful about civilian deaths overseas, and provide them as "evidence." That's not evidence, dipsh!t, it's just another opinion. You think it's evidence because you're unable or unwilling to do any research to back up your opinions.

I have referenced way more than two incidents with the links I provided.

kuraimen

List them. We'll see which ones you came up with on your own, and which ones someone else found.

USvKeenan was in Vietnam. I told you that it really means little that one person was prosecuted using that law when in the same war another gets his sentence lowered because of the opposite. So that law is not very compelling.

kuraimen

The case in point was that US soldiers can be prosecuted even when they follow orders. Both of these incidents prove that. That someone got a reduced sentence for following orders does not change the fact that he was prosecuted for following an illegal order.

Answer this:

LOL, LJS, look at this:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="I"]

An analysis of the case would be something like this:

1. List of the soldiers involved.
2. An account of what each soldier supposedly did.
3. A description of the evidence presented against each one of them.
4. The sentences they each received.
5. Why these sentences were disproportionate to their crimes.

If a dozen people are involved in a given crime, it does not necessarily follow that they all share the same level of guilt. If you want to say that they are, then you have to make that case. Why do I have to explain this?

I

I already did that.

You already did this? Where? Show it to me.

None of your posts have been more than a couple paragraphs, and I'm pretty sure the above would would fill a page or two, but maybe I missed something. You can work on this while I go take a shower.

You know what your problem is, kuraimen? You're f*cking lazy. You don't want to do research or spend the time actually crafting a case. I'm lazy too, as there's only so much time I want to spend arguing about stuff. The difference is that you want to go around making wild claims, whereas I'm content to say "I don't know."

Palantas

Answer this:

[QUOTE="I"]

LOL, LJS, look at this:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I already did that.

Palantas

You already did this? Where? Show it to me.

None of your posts have been more than a couple paragraphs, and I'm pretty sure the above would would fill a page or two, but maybe I missed something. You can work on this while I go take a shower.

I´ve said that the majority of cases where there are slaughters by the US military the perpetrators go with light punishments or scott free. I have provided evidence of several. Unless you can provide evidence of more massacres where US military personnel got harsh punishments then I just proved what I said you silly boy.

kuraimen

How do you know it's the majority of cases?

I already linked and listed many of those incidents so if you want to see them they're right here. I'm not going to look up them again for your lazy ass.

kuraimen

No I think I linked and listed them all. I'm not going to go prove this, though; you just have to believe me. :roll: You're being just as lazy as I am. The only difference is you're out here claiming a particular theory, but not wanting to put any work into it. I'm just asking you to make a proper case, which you're apparently incapable of doing.

And I never said they can't be prosecuted smartpants.

kuraimen

Show me where I said you did.

I said that it hardly ever happens and I wasn't aware of a single instance. I am now...

kuraimen

Yes. I have helped educated you. You're welcome.

[quote="I"]

An analysis of the case would be something like this:

1. List of the soldiers involved.
2. An account of what each soldier supposedly did.
3. A description of the evidence presented against each one of them.
4. The sentences they each received.
5. Why these sentences were disproportionate to their crimes.

If a dozen people are involved in a given crime, it does not necessarily follow that they all share the same level of guilt. If you want to say that they are, then you have to make that case. Why do I have to explain this?

kuraimen

What kind of analysis should I make when the evidence is so evident and in your face. I also provided links of people that have researched and argued several cases. For me to give a more in depth analysis I would have to be a prosecutor involved with the case but for the layman we have the public info and the pattern that info shows is that the us military system is lenient with their own murderers which is not surprising coming from the US military.

Again, I need to explain the difference between "evidence" and a value judgement. The evidence is in the Wikipedia article and elsewhere. That is what happened. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your opinion that something different should have happened, which you have yet to actually write an argument for. And no, you don't need to be the prosecutor. All of this information is publically available.

Tell you what, if I fill in the blanks I listed up there, will you admit that you've done a piss poor job of researching this, since I was able to accomplish something you were not?

[QUOTE="I"]

You know what your problem is, kuraimen? You're f*cking lazy. You don't want to do research or spend the time actually crafting a case. I'm lazy too, as there's only so much time I want to spend arguing about stuff. The difference is that you want to go around making wild claims, whereas I'm content to say "I don't know."

kuraimen

And you're so lazy that you can't even write your own argument. You hunt around on Google for 30 seconds, then write "I'm too dumb to write my own argument, Palantas, so here, go argue against someone else on the Internet."

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Because you or anybody else have failed to disprove the ones I post or provide evidence of more cases that refute those.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I already linked and listed many of those incidents so if you want to see them they're right here. I'm not going to look up them again for your lazy ass.

Palantas

No I think I linked and listed them all. I'm not going to go prove this, though; you just have to believe me. You're being just as lazy as I am. The only difference is you're out here claiming a particular theory, but not wanting to put any work into it. I'm just asking you to make a proper case, which you're apparently incapable of doing.

Show me where I said you did.Palantas

Yes. I have helped educated you. You're welcome.Palantas

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="I"]

You know what your problem is, kuraimen? You're f*cking lazy. You don't want to do research or spend the time actually crafting a case. I'm lazy too, as there's only so much time I want to spend arguing about stuff. The difference is that you want to go around making wild claims, whereas I'm content to say "I don't know."

Palantas

And you're so lazy that you can't even write your own argument. You hunt around on Google for 30 seconds, then write "I'm too dumb to write my own argument, Palantas, so here, go argue against someone else on the Internet."

Is called providing evidence kid something that seems to go way over your head...kuraimen

Oh my God, I have addressed this already. Someone's else's opinion is not "evidence." Evidence consists of facts pertaining to the incident itself. Nothing you have provided is "evidence." It's just people who are no closer to the actual incident than we are. You go find this stuff, because you can't write your own damn argument.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[quote="I"]

An analysis of the case would be something like this:

1. List of the soldiers involved.
2. An account of what each soldier supposedly did.
3. A description of the evidence presented against each one of them.
4. The sentences they each received.
5. Why these sentences were disproportionate to their crimes.

If a dozen people are involved in a given crime, it does not necessarily follow that they all share the same level of guilt. If you want to say that they are, then you have to make that case. Why do I have to explain this?

Palantas

What kind of analysis should I make when the evidence is so evident and in your face. I also provided links of people that have researched and argued several cases. For me to give a more in depth analysis I would have to be a prosecutor involved with the case but for the layman we have the public info and the pattern that info shows is that the us military system is lenient with their own murderers which is not surprising coming from the US military.

Again, I need to explain the difference between "evidence" and a value judgement. The evidence is in the Wikipedia article and elsewhere. That is what happened. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your opinion that something different should have happened, which you have yet to actually write an argument for. And no, you don't need to be the prosecutor. All of this information is publically available.

Tell you what, if I fill in the blanks I listed up there, will you admit that you've done a piss poor job of researching this, since I was able to accomplish something you were not?

You really have to be kind of dumb and blind to not realize that there's a pattern of impunity accross the US military justice system when massacres in foreign countries by their own are concerned.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Is called providing evidence kid something that seems to go way over your head...Palantas

Oh my God, I have addressed this already. Someone's else's opinion is not "evidence." Evidence consists of facts pertaining to the incident itself. Nothing you have provided is "evidence." It's just people who are no closer to the actual incident than we are. You go find this stuff, because you can't write your own damn argument.

I have put up more work than you, so if you want to keep whining at least show that you're capable of refuting what I posted. I'm not going to write an essay for such a weak challenge like the one you represent.kuraimen

Lol, weak challenge. Me, LJS, and a couple others are the only people who don't simply ignore you. Name someone on this forum who respects you as a debater. I've already refuted what you are saying. If you want to claim a trend exists, you need to find more than a couple incidents. You can't even analyze a single case, even after I provided the necessary blanks to fill in.

If you're not saying that I said that they can't be prosecuted then why were you arguing that specific point? Are you talking with yourself now? lol

kuraimen

Nope. I'm educating you. See below.

The only thing you have educated me on is on how pathetic and dumb some americans can get...

kuraimen

Oh? Didn't you just write this:

I said that it hardly ever happens and I wasn't aware of a single instance. I am now...

kuraimen

You now know something you did not know before. You're welcome.

Don't argue with kur, he just has a rabid hate of america stemming from his country having a small dick in a lockeroom full of big boys.

You really have to be kind of dumb and blind to not realize that there's a pattern of impunity accross the US military justice system when massacres in foreign countries by their own are concerned.

kuraimen

I'm sorry, "But you have to be kind of dumb not to realize ____" is not an argument. I'll just repost this, since you didn't answer it:

An analysis of the case would be something like this:

1. List of the soldiers involved.
2. An account of what each soldier supposedly did.
3. A description of the evidence presented against each one of them.
4. The sentences they each received.
5. Why these sentences were disproportionate to their crimes.

If a dozen people are involved in a given crime, it does not necessarily follow that they all share the same level of guilt. If you want to say that they are, then you have to make that case. Why do I have to explain this?

...

Tell you what, if I fill in the blanks I listed up there, will you admit that you've done a piss poor job of researching this, since I was able to accomplish something you were not?

I

This is in regard to a single case, not your overall theory of leniency in military justice. This is a single case. Surely you can analyze a single case, can you not? Or do you need me to do it for you?

[QUOTE="I"]

Lol yeah, that's why you're held in contempt by every regular who posts here.

kuraimen

Prove that. You´re a fan of asking for proof of every little statement so practice what your preach mister and prove that.

Oh look, kuraimen, I found one incident of someone holding you in contempt:

Don't argue with kur, he just has a rabid hate of america stemming from his country having a small dick in a lockeroom full of big boys.

MakeMeaSammitch

Combined with myself, that makes two. By your standards of evidence (two incidents), it's now safe to say that everyone on OT holds you in contempt. What do you think of that?

EDIT:

Name someone on this forum who respects you as a debater.

I

Answer this:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]On your character and the kind of person you are. Not a very honest one I must say.I

Oh, I'm not honest. Show me the quote block where I'm being dishonest.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] That's the most ironic post I've seen you make considering you are apparently so lazy that you can't even properly follow some links and refute them properly.kuraimen

And you're so lazy that you can't even write your own argument. You hunt around on Google for 30 seconds, then write "I'm too dumb to write my own argument, Palantas, so here, go argue against someone else on the Internet."

Kurimen, what do you do for a living?

Kurimen, what do you do for a living?

SpartanMSU

I have no idea what he does for a living, but apparently he knows enough about my life to comment on my character and to state that I am dishonest.

If you want to claim a trend exists, you need to find more than a couple incidents.Palantas

I don't even know what this debate is about but it's pretty clear Palantas is kicking Kuraimens ass. Not that that's hard or anything.Ace6301

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Kurimen, what do you do for a living?

Palantas

I have no idea what he does for a living, but apparently he knows enough about my life to comment on my character and to state that I am dishonest.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

And you're so lazy that you can't even write your own argument. You hunt around on Google for 30 seconds, then write "I'm too dumb to write my own argument, Palantas, so here, go argue against someone else on the Internet."

SpartanMSU

Kurimen, what do you do for a living?

You're so dumb that you don't realize you're contradicting yourself in the same paragraph...kuraimen

I'm saying that by your own standards of evidence, you must admit that everyone here holds you in contempt.

No. You provided a piece of evidence. Educating involves creating insights and estimulating. Your info is hardly estimulating more like lame and weak. Even a mindless machine like a computer can point to information but only a fair mind can educate. I'm not surprised you mistake education with information though since it seems your education was hardly stellar.kuraimen

Oh, so you do know what evidence is now? It's a piece of information. It's not some other person's opinion. I'm glad you educated yourself on this.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]QUOTE] The only way someone would think that is if they don´t know what the debate is about... oh wait.Ace6301

Thank you, Ace.

I should point out, kuraimen, that I've often argued with Ace on this forum*. There are plenty of people here with whom I disagree with on various issues. You can disagree with someone and still respect them. Speaking of that, name someone this forum who respects you.

* Footnote:

Actually I tend to be across the aisle from Palantas.Ace6301

lol

I'm saying that by your own standards of evidence, you must admit that everyone here holds you in contempt.Palantas

Oh, so you do know what evidence is now? It's a piece of information.Palantas

You can disagree with someone and still respect them.Palantas

Your character is pretty evident from the way you post. Well you're apparently omnipresent and omniscient to judge what everyone thinks of me here so you're not one to whine...kuraimen

All I said is that from your own standards of evidence you must admit that everyone here holds you in contempt. Actually, I think I did say "Everyone here holds you in contempt." I guess that's not entirely true, so you've got me there*. It's an impression I get.

Answer this:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]On your character and the kind of person you are. Not a very honest one I must say.I

Oh, I'm not honest. Show me the quote block where I'm being dishonest.

*If I were dishonet, I would just count on your laziness in looking back through threads and unwillingness to use copy/paste, and wouldn't have mentioned this. But see, I'm a grownup, and don't mind admitting when I misspoke.

All I said is that from your own standards of evidence you must admit that everyone here holds you in contempt. Palantas

Yep like the ones I've been providing here and you're incapable of reading apparently.kuraimen

I don't care what the editor of the Harvard Crimson thinks, and I don't care what some non-combat colonel who supports deserters thinks. This is about your ideas, evidence, and arguments (or the lack of them).

[QUOTE="I"]All I said is that from your own standards of evidence you must admit that everyone here holds you in contempt.kuraimen

"Wouldn't pass with something dumb." Okay, I guess we're writing at a third grade level now. You were willing to claim a 60-year trend existed based on two incidents. Thus, you should be fine admitting a two-year or so trend based on four pieces of evidence.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yep like the ones I've been providing here and you're incapable of reading apparently.Palantas

I don't care what the editor of the Harvard Crimson thinks, and I don't care what some non-combat colonel who supports deserters thinks. This is about your ideas, evidence, and arguments (or the lack of them).

Ah, a classic kuraiment argument, with multiple people telling him he's a fool, but he just keeps slapping that Submit button. And this joker claimed recently in another thread that I was "the worst debater" he encounters here, or something like that.

But back to the actual argument:

An analysis of the case would be something like this:

1. List of the soldiers involved.
2. An account of what each soldier supposedly did.
3. A description of the evidence presented against each one of them.
4. The sentences they each received.
5. Why these sentences were disproportionate to their crimes.

If a dozen people are involved in a given crime, it does not necessarily follow that they all share the same level of guilt. If you want to say that they are, then you have to make that case. Why do I have to explain this?

...

Tell you what, if I fill in the blanks I listed up there, will you admit that you've done a piss poor job of researching this, since I was able to accomplish something you were not?

I

This is in regard to a single case, not your overall theory of leniency in military justice. This is a single case. To make your overall claim with authority, you would need to have analyzed dozens of cases. Surely you can analyze a single case, can you not? Or do you need me to do it for you?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="I"]All I said is that from your own standards of evidence you must admit that everyone here holds you in contempt.Palantas

"Wouldn't pass with something dumb." Okay, I guess we're writing at a third grade level now. You were willing to claim a 60-year trend existed based on two incidents. Thus, you should be fine admitting a two-year or so trend based on four pieces of evidence.