5 ms·

I don't consider this trollish at all, I'm legitimately asking. Just because you don't like that your argument can be flipped around doesn't change anything. >

I don't consider this trollish at all, I'm legitimately asking. Just because you don't like that your argument can be flipped around doesn't change anything. > Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books. I do consider that and I can't defend America in this case. We have historically targeted civilians, condoned rape, and definitely answer to a book that I strongly consider outdated. This is the problem that I have with censorship: It usually ends up being OK if the "good guys" do it, but we can't let "them" do the same thing, or people might listen to them! I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

sqeaky 9y ago
The argument cannot be flipped and that is why I called it trollish. There is no hypocrisy. The US military does not post beheading videos, or any of the rebuttals I pposted easlier. There are periods were we did bad things, but those are the exception, and we take active effort to fix. the US military has ethics panels and a court system. Can you show me the ISIS court system? Today the level of scandal is places like gitmo or drone strikes. We have an army of lawyers overseeing both. Waterboarding as inhumane as it is not the condoned rape of 14 year girl every day for 6 months because she was born into the wrong ethnicity. One side has done wrong things. The other wants to do wrong things. The ethical line is clear. EDIT- Also thank you for finally bringing up the real issue, the slippery slope. My rebuttal to that is that what was posted was generally not legal as it was. Speech that incites violences is not protetected in the United States. The government is allowed to silence people doing things like calling for "Death to all Infidels". This isn't censorship this is enforcing laws we have already had for centuries.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but I can't disagree with you more. Your decision to make this an "us vs them" issue seems to be clouding your judgment on who should be able to speak their mind, and who shouldn't. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy here, and if you can't see it, then I'm not sure I can help you.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    I wouldn't oppose videos promoting many other militaries, including at the extreme end of the "them" spectrum the Russian military. Because they would follow Youtube rules and US laws. The Russians for whatever their other flaws understand bilateral communication and have the ability to treat people like people. This is something specifically ISIS (and some other extremist groups) cannot do. Just like the US military the Russians are imperfect but after WWII they didn't promote rape as a benefit of joining their armed services. ISIS today presents the option of raping infidels as a virtue and a reason for potential rapists to join. Russia doesn't promote attacks on unarmed civilians, ISIS does. This is only us vs them issue I have is difficulty endorsing people who embrace rape, attacks on non-combatants and other embracing of war crimes. No other group that is a world power does this that I am aware of. No group is perfect, but most groups at least make an attempt to punish people who participate in war crimes like this. ISIS promotes these war crimes.

sqeaky 9y ago

The argument cannot be flipped and that is why I called it trollish. There is no hypocrisy. The US military does not post beheading videos, or any of the rebuttals I pposted easlier. There are periods were we did bad things, but those are the exception, and we take active effort to fix. the US military has ethics panels and a court system. Can you show me the ISIS court system? Today the level of scandal is places like gitmo or drone strikes. We have an army of lawyers overseeing both. Waterboarding as inhumane as it is not the condoned rape of 14 year girl every day for 6 months because she was born into the wrong ethnicity. One side has done wrong things. The other wants to do wrong things. The ethical line is clear. EDIT- Also thank you for finally bringing up the real issue, the slippery slope. My rebuttal to that is that what was posted was generally not legal as it was. Speech that incites violences is not protetected in the United States. The government is allowed to silence people doing things like calling for "Death to all Infidels". This isn't censorship this is enforcing laws we have already had for centuries.

CaptSpify 9y ago
I'm sorry, but I can't disagree with you more. Your decision to make this an "us vs them" issue seems to be clouding your judgment on who should be able to speak their mind, and who shouldn't. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy here, and if you can't see it, then I'm not sure I can help you.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  I wouldn't oppose videos promoting many other militaries, including at the extreme end of the "them" spectrum the Russian military. Because they would follow Youtube rules and US laws. The Russians for whatever their other flaws understand bilateral communication and have the ability to treat people like people. This is something specifically ISIS (and some other extremist groups) cannot do. Just like the US military the Russians are imperfect but after WWII they didn't promote rape as a benefit of joining their armed services. ISIS today presents the option of raping infidels as a virtue and a reason for potential rapists to join. Russia doesn't promote attacks on unarmed civilians, ISIS does. This is only us vs them issue I have is difficulty endorsing people who embrace rape, attacks on non-combatants and other embracing of war crimes. No other group that is a world power does this that I am aware of. No group is perfect, but most groups at least make an attempt to punish people who participate in war crimes like this. ISIS promotes these war crimes.