Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

[SadisticNature]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own. I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.

The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.

As for the grammar comments, yes I agree that was rather poorly written, the point was to list the documents and I wasn't checking over my work very carefully.

I'll be happy to attack your grammar with equal zeal, there are plenty of mistakes you've made even in just this thread. I just don't see how that is productive.

[SadisticNature]

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

[SadisticNature]

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

[TwistedTails]

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

Finally! an actual resource.

I was beginning to wonder why you were so hesitant to produce your source documents. Now I know. I would have been hesitant to admit that I made a statement like the original post based on a popular piece of quasi history too.

Not to worry though, theres still plenty to talk about. I may not agree with with the authors interpetations of all his source materiel, but he is a good researcher, his sources are verifiable and he references and quotes as appropiate.

For those following along or just arriving, This is a link to a google search for reviews on this book. You can pick and choose your own reviewing publication. If I suggest one I will be accused of either Liberalism or Conservatism in the choosing.

Google search link...
The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley

And the Authors Bio...
James Bradely @ Wikipedia

I would reccomend reading it too, his last work (Flags of our Fathers) was quite good.

So lets begin.....

The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Please indicate which leader you are referring too. The first leader Andrés Bonifacio, a warehouseman and clerk from Manila, or Emilio Aguinaldo, mayor of Cavite El Viejo who took over later after Bonifacios execution by the Spanish for treason? Also if you would kindly check your "source" was the leader you refer too above a Democrat as you stated or was he actually an Oligarchist?

The distinction makes a big difference in understanding the tactics used by both the revolutionaries and the U.S. in the conflict.

Cheers
Twisted

[DuncanONeil]

So what! All that really means is that the ability to determine a peoples origin was not fully understood!

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

[TwistedTails]

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

Nice editing, what I said was....

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

You shouldn't edit something until it is out of context. It ruins your credibility. And there's the predictable Liberal vs Conservitave distraction again! LOL You may want to just abandon that tactic, it is not working. LOL

[DuncanONeil]

In the time it took me to prepare this page for response the language has been controlled.
However, the claim you make below it totally with out either substance or merit.
It is liberals that have driven the creation of the need for virtually every venue have signage in multiple languages, not the conservative. Such signage does nothing to bring people into the mainstream of the community in which they live, it merely serves to allow the separateness to become entrenched. Conservative position is to have all of the people that desire to come here to become a part of a homogenous whole. Such a whole is much stronger than the sum of its parts. To constantly make effort to display differences prevents the parts from melding into the unique entity it could be.
People are not label Socialist because they disagree, but because they advocate taking from those that produce and giving it to those that do not! Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down.

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

[TwistedTails]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own.

This surprises you? You have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to produce your sources. That tells me that you are simply parroting something you have read or been told, without bothering to do your own research to verify the accuracy of the statements. How do you expect someone to produce a "counterclaim" if you refuse to produce your documentation? Handy tactic if you don't really want a discussion. I see it a lot.

You have produced up to this point no supporting evidence. In fact up to this point I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.

Here again you miss the point. You opened the topic, I challenged and asked for your sources. You refused to give them. You are again trying to shift this to a Liberal vs Conservative debate, sure it will distract readers from the fact that you have yet to support your claim, but I hate to break the news to you but a liberal with a healthy dose of common sense sounds a lot like a conservative and vice versa. I on the other hand will quote my resources if and when we actually begin to discuss the subject.

The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

ROFL, Nice try, but that's not what I said, and you and everyone reading knows it. "That's the way it was" is a lot different than "well everyone else was doing it" It is not attempting to justify anything, it just states a fact. You can either accept that, or use the afore mentioned time machine to change history.

As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.

News is recent.. as in NEWs and World Events. It is my opinion that this is politics. Its not an issue though, If the moderators feel the thread needs moved they will move it.

As for the grammar comments, yes I agree that was rather poorly written, the point was to list the documents and I wasn't checking over my work very carefully.

I'll be happy to attack your grammar with equal zeal, there are plenty of mistakes you've made even in just this thread. I just don't see how that is productive.

I was not attacking your grammar. That's not my style because, as you said, it would not be productive. What I was pointing out was this....

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

Where you used a lot of punctuation to make it look like you were offering source documents, while producing none at all.

[DuncanONeil]

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.

This surprises you? You have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to produce your sources. That tells me that you are simply parroting something you have read or been told, without bothering to do your own research to verify the accuracy of the statements. How do you expect someone to produce a "counterclaim" if you refuse to produce your documentation? Handy tactic if you don't really want a discussion. I see it a lot.

Here again you miss the point. You opened the topic, I challenged and asked for your sources. You refused to give them. You are again trying to shift this to a Liberal vs Conservative debate, sure it will distract readers from the fact that you have yet to support your claim, but I hate to break the news to you but a liberal with a healthy dose of common sense sounds a lot like a conservative and vice versa. I on the other hand will quote my resources if and when we actually begin to discuss the subject.



ROFL, Nice try, but that's not what I said, and you and everyone reading knows it. "That's the way it was" is a lot different than "well everyone else was doing it" It is not attempting to justify anything, it just states a fact. You can either accept that, or use the afore mentioned time machine to change history.


News is recent.. as in NEWs and World Events. It is my opinion that this is politics. Its not an issue though, If the moderators feel the thread needs moved they will move it.



I was not attacking your grammar. That's not my style because, as you said, it would not be productive. What I was pointing out was this....

Where you used a lot of punctuation to make it look like you were offering source documents, while producing none at all.

[SadisticNature]

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.

Or the DuncanONeil method of attacking an argument by avoiding to talk about the material at hand at all, but rather criticizing anything that avoids discussing the material at hand. I have responded to criticism on the sources by first providing source materials (the books involved) and some particular sources as well. You have said nothing relating to the Philippines in approximately 10 consecutive posts in a thread on the Philippines.

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.

You state utterly absurd statements as self-evident and unsupported facts yet chastise people for commenting on historical events when they aren't willing to look up the exact page number and paragraph of a quote that you'll never look up anyways.

[DuncanONeil]

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.

First of all Filipinos would not be Asian, they are actually quite a mixed lot.
Also far from claiming any credentials I did have an anthropological course that had a section related to human genotypes. During which it was made clear that physical appearance is the worst indicator of said genotype. With this being displayed in the late 20th century it is easy to see how it could be more of an issue just barely out of the 19th!
But a bit of research indicates that the racial term may have been inappropriately to the negritos

[SadisticNature]

First of all Filipinos would not be Asian, they are actually quite a mixed lot.
Also far from claiming any credentials I did have an anthropological course that had a section related to human genotypes. During which it was made clear that physical appearance is the worst indicator of said genotype. With this being displayed in the late 20th century it is easy to see how it could be more of an issue just barely out of the 19th!
But a bit of research indicates that the racial term may have been inappropriately to the negritos

I asked for a source. Anything I post based on my life experience and my courses you dismiss as irrelevant because it lacks a written source. Kindly hold yourself to the same standards you asked of others. Not I once took this course a while a go, and it had this one section and if I remember it right it said this :P

[DuncanONeil]

Getting a bit testy are we? I am not the one that took you to task! And at least I did qualify my statement.
Anywho!
Filipinos generally belong to several Asian ethnic groups.(Lewis, Paul M. (2009). Languages of Philippines. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.) Taiwanese aborigines migrated to the Philippines from Taiwan, displacing the earlier Negrito groups of the islands. Eventually Chinese, Spanish, and American arrivals intermarried with the various indigenous ethnic groups that had evolved.(Capelli, Christian, James F. Wilson, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Fiona Gratrix, Stephen Oppenheimer, Peter Underhill, et al. (2001-02-01). "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular South Asia and Oceania") Their descendants are known as mestizos.("The Impact of Spanish Rule in the Philippines". (2009). Tagalog at NIU. Retrieved 2009-12-19 from the Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, SEAsite Project.)
Hope you find that satisfactory, however ....

I asked for a source. Anything I post based on my life experience and my courses you dismiss as irrelevant because it lacks a written source. Kindly hold yourself to the same standards you asked of others. Not I once took this course a while a go, and it had this one section and if I remember it right it said this :P

[steelish]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own. I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.

Well, for one thing, I believe what is asked for is sources. (as in, out of that list of books, what are the excerpts within them that are your exact sources?)

Another thing...Theodore Roosevelt was a very liberal Republican. He was not conservative at all.

The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

I really don't think you can equate the holocaust with coercion to extract vital information in order to save thousands of innocent lives. I just don't see how it justifies those atrocities (or equates to them).

As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.

It goes unpunished? Hmmm...On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." This picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier. That can be found in the history of waterboarding...a link I posted previously.