Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 462  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 25, 2022, 10:26:39 PM »
You have provided no valid reason for why the Guard should have been ordered any earlier than they were.

Yep, no valid reason for sure...

Your first image shows violence occurring against police officers and is an example for why it might not be a good idea to engage a large crowd of people. The capitol police ended up basically just letting them in and didn't engage much. This sort of violence is also why the National Guard engaging protestors on the capitol steps might not have been the best idea. A large crowd can easily bulldoze a line of soldiers trying to control a situation with non-lethal tactics. Your example works against you and shows why it would have been a good idea to wait for the situation to reach its apex.

Your second image shows minor property damage and trespass into a largely empty building.

The officials watching this clearly did not find this to be a compelling reason to call in the National Guard and add in more violence. Again, you are not an expert on this, and nor are you experienced. It is certainly possible that the military officials involved in this actually did know what they were doing. It is also possible that you are an inexperienced National Guard armchair commander babbling ignorance and calling it fact.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM »
Quote from: stack
He certainly did, according to his own sense of responsibility, the responsibility to put a stop to the peaceful transfer of power. He didn't do anything and hoped the mob, potentially armed, would get to Pence before he could open those ballot boxes. Calling in the NG might have spoiled that...

Incorrect. Trump wanted the National Guard there and ultimately delegated the use of the National Guard to the Defense Secretary, who was adamant that they should be used appropriately. As much as you would have liked to see the National Guard swarm the Capitol and incite violence with batons or guns as the protestors were climbing up the steps that may not have been the appropriate course of action.

The protestors ended up taking a tour of of a largely empty Capitol building and were gently escorted out by the National Guard. You have provided no valid reason for why the Guard should have been ordered any earlier than they were. Your argument falls on a false premise that the Guard should have been there at the time you are demanding. Compared to the people who were in charge of this, you are no expert and have no experience, and therefore have no valid argument to make.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 25, 2022, 11:17:48 AM »
Anyone remember when The Buck Stops Here, was a thing?

Yes, and Trump fulfilled his responsibility. Trump had thought ahead and gave full permission to use the Guard prior to the event at the time officials and experts monitoring the event deemed appropriate and necessary. The Defense Secretary maintains that he used the Guard at the appropriate time.

Usage of the Guard was a sensitive issue for image reasons. Congress was already evacuated and it was not necessary to send in soldiers immediately for direct confrontation as the Capitol was being breached. The Guard was smartly sent in to gently escort them out after they had done their tour of the Capitol building.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM »
It was not Trump's responsibility to approve usage of the the National Guard. The approval was already given and delegated in days prior. Trump had already delegated deployment of the guard to the Defense Secretary -

    National Guard troops had already been activated and deployed to checkpoints around the city that day, before the violence began. When the rioting started, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who approved it.

    The Pentagon said Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.

The President does not need to be involved in every police action. This is why he has generals and appropriate personnel who decide when and if to act.

The Defense Secretary affirms that it was his sole responsibility to deploy the Guard:

    Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on
January 6. Did President Trump, as the commander-in-chief of
the U.S. Armed Forces, call you during the January 6 attack to
ensure the Capitol was being secured? Mr. Miller?

    Mr. Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the
President to fulfill my constitutional duties.

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with President Trump at
all as the attack was unfolding?

    Mr. Miller: On January 6?

    Chairwoman Maloney: Yes.

    Mr. Miller: No, I did not. I didn't need to. I had all the
authority I needed and knew what had to--I knew what had to

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with Vice President Pence
during the attack, yes or no?

    Mr. Miller: Yes.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to a Defense Department
timeline, it was Vice President Pence, and not President Trump,
who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure
and to give you the direction to ``clear the Capitol.'' What
specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day?

    Mr. Miller: The Vice President is not in the chain of
command. He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed
very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based
on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him
that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was
being fully mobilized, and it was in coordination with local
and Federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to the DOD timeline, the Vice
President's call to you occurred at 4:08 p.m., more than two
hours after the Capitol had been breached. Yet according to
this timeline, it was not until after your call with the Vice
President at 4:32 p.m. that you authorized D.C. National Guard
troops to deploy to the Capitol.

    Did you issue your order in response to the Vice
President's call?

    Mr. Miller: No. I issued the order to mobilize the District
of Columbia National Guard and provide all necessary support to
civilian and local and Federal law enforcement at 3--I gave
approval at 3 p.m., and the order was issued at 3:04 p.m.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 24, 2022, 06:46:23 PM »
You are quoting things that Miller said in that passage, not Trump. Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard and Soldiers at the protest.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 24, 2022, 05:00:22 PM »
This passage from the Inspector General's DOD Review contradicts the fundamental accusations of the January 6 investigation and Trump's role in the purported 'insurrection'. In the review it indicates that Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard or Soldiers at the protest to make sure it was a safe event:

From p.31 -

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: July 24, 2022, 03:33:14 AM »
Under Biden the White House is an assisted living facility.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 23, 2022, 07:22:23 PM »
Despite the vaccine, why are there more deaths this year?

Actually some say that cold showers may be the blame:

Others lay blame on energy bills:

Still others lay blame on a number of other causes:

I'm guessing that the framers could probably have envisioned a scope for larger explosions, bombs, as they already had explosive-filled cannon balls, mortars and howitzers. I'm hard-pressed to think they could have envisioned flying contraptions like an apache helicopter or a Mach 2 capable F-15 with launchable stinger missiles.

At that time there were people who were rich enough to own fleets of vessels with armaments to potentially bombard towns and cities from the coast and employ men with weapons to raze, burn, and rape cities. Yet they still allowed people to own fleets of armed vessels and employ men with weapons capable of extreme destruction.

The framers knew this. Piracy was a known thing and a problem. If they had gone to college they would have known there was also thousands of years of history on this. In Ancient Rome a number of famous figures had personally funded militaries. There were those who used their militaries for evil and got in various conflicts and trouble, and there were also those who used their militaries for defense and the noble eradication of bad apples.

So yes, if the framers allowed private individuals the tools to ravage entire towns it logically follows that they would have allowed them to own F-15s.

The question remains, why can't a well-regulated militia, or any individual citizen, possess conventional arms like a FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank rocket or a sawed-off shot gun? Do you think citizens should be allowed to possess such arms?

As long as proper precautions and training are made for safe storage and use, sure. People are already allowed rifles with long range scopes on them for sniper activities. An anti-tank rocket should be fair game as well.

If by "dispose of it" you mean the 2nd ammendment, then your hypothetical is nonsensical because no branch of government can unilaterally change the constitution, so who cares?

By "dispose of" I mean disposing of the Fed because they became too tyrannical. Violating the second amendment might be one reason, yes.

Question along the same lines; Isn't the fact that a citizen can't own an F-15 or a tactical nuke an infringement of our second amendment rights?

During the time it was written the equivalent of billionaires in those times could own fleets of armed vessels and train and equip their men with weapons, so it is arguable that the founding fathers would not put restrictions on F-15s.

In regards to nuclear weapons, this may fall outside of the scope of what the framers envisioned. The second amendment gave the public the ability to act as a military power against a tyrannical government. But nuclear weapons fall outside of the classification of normal arms, as even the militaries of foreign countries are prohibited by international regulations from building and possessing nuclear weapons beyond the countries which already had them, since their proliferation could cause nuclear winter and human extinction. The usage of nuclear weapons against human targets is also tantamount to genocide, even if used solely against military targets, due to atmospheric and land-based radioactive effect, would provoke an international response, and is extremely taboo.

Nuclear weapons are not necessary to wage a serious war, so this limitation is generally accepted by the militaries of the world, and semi-successful efforts have been underway for the eventual mutual denuclearization of existing nuclear powers.

If the Fed was tyrannical enough to dispose of it is also possible that the entire military would rebel against them along with the people. Military members and military officers have sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, and take pride in their oath. They may not want to become the Fed's Gestapo to infringe on those rights. It is not a given that they would commit atrocities on demand.

Now, in this scenario the rebellion has all of the "F-15s", and all of the guns.


If things were bad enough that people were rebelling against the Fed it is also likely that states would ideologically secede and the military bases in the opposing areas would align with the rebellion, as what happened during the civil war. Therefore the conservative rebellion would also have its own "F-15s", and also a civilian army of millions of people with guns. The liberal side would have F-15s and no millions of people with guns.

Also, the number of people with guns generally outnumbers F-15s and major military hardware hundreds or thousands to one.

The purpose of the Second Amendment isn't only for personal self defense against individuals.
I know.
But the actual reason it's there is also bullshit in the modern context.

Why is that? Is it no longer possible for governments to be tyrannical?


I'll never understand the American mentality in this area, why would you want to live in a society where you feel the need to arm yourself?

The purpose of the Second Amendment isn't only for personal self defense against individuals. The assumption of such is incorrect.

Quote from: honk
it's obviously not a good-faith argument

Actually, it is. If someone is jumping up and down saying that there is no way to get evidence for religion, the argument I provided, while extreme, successfully shows that statement to be incorrect.
And then they could come back and relay their findings to you on this forum, yeah? Not sure good debates typically involve suggesting suicide for obvious reasons.

He was interested in seeing the findings himself, so it wouldn't be necessary to come back and tell me about it. It was also not necessary to do it, only that a point was made that it is possible to gather evidence on this. I also communicated that I thought it would be abhorrent for anyone to do it, and that it was merely answering the query.

If the evidence is in the afterlife a debate might involve suicide or death, yes. The concept of death and suicide and sin can be a theme in philosophy discussions. Demanding that you can see "hard evidence" for something spiritual or the work of something spiritual might involve a suggestion which involves death, so it shouldn't be surprising that it came up.

Tom, I don't think that the question in this thread is whether or not the experiment is valid.  Rather, the question is whether or not advocating murder and/or suicide is a violation of the forum rules.

Actually the OP concedes that this doesn't break the forum rules:

And no, this isn't exactly prohibited by the rules as written

It isn't strictly against the rules as written

The OP wants the moderators to implement debate constraints on making certain kind of arguments:

I think a mod ought to step in and put a halt to this kind of I-dare-you method of arguing.

As well, he wants debate constraints on what he personally finds to be:

creepy and unsettling

Also, this is this person:

Mar 26 04:19:43 <Saddam>   Parsifal: You should kill yourself
Mar 26 04:19:44 <Saddam>   js

Mar 28 13:15:25 <Saddam>   Parsifal: You should kill yourself

Mar 28 13:18:04 <Saddam>   Parsifal: Kill yourself

And then, after having put me on ignore (for the record, I hadn't said anything):

Mar 28 13:22:05 <Saddam>   Parsifal should kill himself, though
Mar 28 13:22:25 <Saddam>   I don't know if he's even talking

Quote from: BillO
That's not how that works.

If it was meritless you wouldn't have suggested that I do it.

Me - Can I get some hard evidence for God
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - No.  I was asking for evidence for a God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - That's stupid and not evidence for God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.

God is definitely a part of religion and the Bible, hate to break it to you. If you are suffering in damnation it would be pretty good evidence that something designed that, and that supernatural entities exist.

You were definitely demanding for a way to see the nature of God for yourself, in a form of "hard" evidence. I'm not sure how harder firsthand experience of the afterlife can get. If you didn't want to go to that extreme I also suggested reading books about it.

You conceded that the argument had merit when you suggested for me to do it myself.

You were repeatedly stamping your feet in that thread and demanding "hard" evidence. A way to determine your query and visit the afterlife directly was then provided to you. You will either experience an afterlife or you won't.

That's exactly what makes it a bad-faith argument. Obviously nobody's going to perform an "experiment" that involves killing themselves or other people

It won the argument. It was conceded that the analysis was correct that there was a way to get evidence and determine this, but the method was too extreme for their liking.

No one has to actually commit suicide for an argument to have merit. And it's silly to argue that we can't use suicide or killings as a tool to show a point in philosophical arguments.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Gospel?
« on: July 17, 2022, 11:58:37 AM »
Actually I have stated neither that religion is true or false, or that you should believe or disbelieve it. I have stated that there is an experiment to determine the truth of the matter.

It's not really clear how your experiment would work. Because if you die and that's just it, lights out, there's nothing left of you to know whether there was another place to go or not. Someone living would have to observe the fact that you're just lights out.

The Bible claims that you will be in an afterlife and that it isnt it. It is possible to prove to yourself the existence of an afterlife, not to other people.

In the Maccabees passage it suggested that some of the dead were stuck somewhere between heaven and hell.

Maccabees seems to be only a Catholic thing. KJV got rid of it. Are you going by Catholic rules only?

I couldn't say which rules are correct. This is why I called it a "possibility".

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 462  Next >