MOS DEF Demonstrates Conditions At Gitmo

FIFY

I just gave a detailed argument with facts and a source, while he has done none of that but rather just hoped what hes saying is true, and you tell me im being illogical? Please, show me the facts he has provided in this forum, that prove any single one of my points wrong.


Look at all those facts, so apparently everyone at gitmo is going to try and capture a soldier despite that more than half are cleared for release, or like i said, cameramen. I like how he backed that up with facts. I like how he proved how everyone released would be killed by a drone too even though they're not all assumed as a threat, some not even at all, more sourced facts and not assumptions for his assumptive question, God im overwhelmed with all these facts and accurate points.

Obviously shouldn't even waste your time with amandarius, as usual. Its all trolling all the time.

Mesic: Rational argument based on facts, common sense and reasoning.


Response from Tenshibaby: "I don't feel like reading facts and stuff. The world is as small as my perception of it"

Hmmmm, well ok. I was asking because I was thinking that even if they were released, I feel like it would be incredibly hard to blend back into society. Like in Shawshank Redemption where the one of the guys Freeman knew couldn't adapt to being out of prison.

When I think about it, im sure anything would be better than how they are being treated in there.

and usual my second biggest fan shows up to contribute nothing except to troll me.

So I still haven't seen an answer to what we should do with them if we aren't going to keep them at Gitmo. Do you think I am just blindly standing up for President Obama or something?

Edit: Release them? Release them where?

No I am not talking about the people in Gitmo. I am talking about the people that we now just drone without trial to avoid capturing them and having to deal with legal limbo.

I'm sorry to single you out (trust me it's not personal). I really do not like this trend lately on ffxiah. Every debate thread i see has at LEAST once per 5 pages someone playing "poor arguement cliche bingo" as if pointing out someone's one line of ad-hominem, masked man, straw man, completely negates the rest of their points.
This isn't american idol, or the presidential debates. You don't win a prize for making less mistakes, or losing your cool less than the other guy (granted it is a great way to sway favor, and endear the audience to your pov) but it's getting really old to see a post that only says "OMG LULZ ILLICIT NEGATIVE BRO" (imaginary high five) in response to a 10 point post with at least 5 lines. "You got trolled enough to *** up" is not arguement auto-win.

Also, (since i did single you out and I'm still sorry) his "hasty generalizaion" is not necessarily false because killing the types of people in gitmo would be likely alternative if gitmo wasn't an option. Not our preferred option but the realistic alternative the government would take.

Ash is bitter because he is actually Mos Def,and the OP video is him dealing with SE customer service to get his account back :(

What i go through with SE support involves the other end. Luckily the JP aren't well endowed.

A logical fallacy can completely negate your point or at the very least weaken it. If this is a debate forum (which I'm sure everyone agrees that it is at this point) then your logic needs to hold up.

Well, one thing's for sure. If the detainees are ever released they will hate America for the rest of their lives, teach their children to hate America, and make sure everyone they know knows they hate America.

Glad we're fixing the problem.

^ Agreed. A simple logical fallacy can destroy a whole point. If I ask you "why are you gay?", and my questions illogical cause it assumes you're gay, then the whole argument based off that is illogical, along with anything I post after it (for example my theories on why you're gay). So yes, it does matter. Making sense at every turn is important...believe it or not.

'^'

Or if you can't beat the argument look for an error in grammar or spelling. Or completely miss the point they made and assume they are the idiot when in fact... etc etc etc

Or if you can't beat the argument challenge them to cite a source. If the bait is taken and a source is provided then challenge the credibility of the source and mock it. This will effectively change the subject and protect you from further humiliation in the argument.

Oh. Hi Ashman. I don't think I'd go so far as calling it a trend. I was up to similar antics here 5+ years ago, albeit perhaps with less capitalization, less punctuation, and possibly a tad more creative use of white space. Incidentally, this probably doesn't say much about the quality of my free time, but that's neither here nor there.

Let's talk about logical form. I'll use wikipedia, if you're okay with that! I can cite original sources, if that's what floats your boat.

When you have a genuinely valid/cogent logical argument, it's possible to strip out the subject ant reduce the argument to a set of variables. I'll laze it up and use a page 1 logic textbook classic, conveniently reprinted by wiki!

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This translates to:

All H are M.
S is H.
Therefore, S is M.

To put it in informal language, you have a premise, you infer from the premise, and you draw a conclusion. This is a super simple argument. Where it has one step 2, more complex arguments can have a lot of variations on step 2! As long as you start with a valid premise and draw valid inferences, you will end up with a valid conclusion. Here's the thing. The conclusion/conclusions are based on the inferences.

Hopefully, by reducing the argument to a series of steps (quite similar to a math problem!) it highlights the fact that if one step can be proven illogical, nothing after that point is valid. You could compare an argument to a house of cards. If you can pull a card out of the middle, everything beyond that point collapses.

It does not matter whether this is American Idol, the presidential debates (which are, incidentally, probably not known as hotbeds of formal logic) a casual conversation, or an internet forum. An argument is an argument is an argument, and the rules of logic do not change based on setting. It would be like relaxing the rules on a calculus problem because I'm doing it on a forum instead of turning it in for a grade. Rules stay the same no matter where you do it.

This is in response to your general claim that quickly pointing out a logical flaw in threads across ffxiah is an undesirable trend. I'm not applying it to this specific circumstance. To say that Amandarius is capable of making a formal argument in the first place is probably giving him too much credit.

Here's the page I'm drawing from, if you're curious!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Alright, with the previous issue squared away, let's take a look at why you're probably not the ideal person to take me to school on formal (or informal!) logic (Ad hominem, sorry guys!)!

First of all, I didn't accuse him of a hasty generalization. I accused him of of a false choice fallacy (alibis: false dilemma, false dichotomy, black-and/or-white thinking, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of the false alternative or the fallacy of the excluded middle! Watch out for this guy whatever name he's using at the moment!).

A hasty generalization, in informal terms, means you are essentially drawing your conclusions from an insufficient pool of evidence, e.g.

X is true for A.

X is true for B.

X is true for C.

X is true for D.

Therefore, X is true for E, F, G, etc.

Example in english: A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. The person then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

The mistake Amandarius made had absolutely, absolutely nothing to do with a hasty generalization. So yeah, directly changing the logical fallacy I accused him of might not have been the most classy move. Now let's take a look at the false choice fallacy!

A false dilemma is an informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

I'll demonstrate that I was correct in accusing Amandarius of a false choice logical fallacy by means of a Counterexample.


Amandarius creates a false choice by means of artificially eliminating all choices except for being blown up or going to Guantanamo. Here are choices that Amandarius did not list: Capture terrorist, allow for fair trial. Foster successful relations between U.S. forces and the local populace, making it highly inconvenient to operate as a terrorist in the area. Don't put soldiers in the area in the first place.

I do not claim this is an exhaustive list. I also do not claim anything I listed is a perfect solution. With that said, it only takes one counterexample to prove a fallacy, and the options I listed are as least as realistic as killing people with drones, or paying six figures a year for the quasi-torture of some guy we think might mabye possibly be a terrorist. As shown via counterexample, his "false choice fallacy" is necessarily invalid.

ps do you even lift

Did that really make you throw up? lol.

Mos Def look like he was acting to me. He couldn't even get the whole procedure done, then he started crying wtf? I also don't think having a tube shoved through your nose and down your throat is unbearable torture.

I think that's *** up they're forcing them to eat, and while I think no doubt is that an uncomfortable thing to happen, it beats what real torture is like by a million, in my opinion anyway.

i agree with beef, an actor acting is all i see.

lets be honest the ppl they are trying to protect are no doubt dangerous and in most cases are killers/terrorists, realising this how can anyone seriously take this crap on board i dont know.

troll harder.

Saeed al-Shihri, killed in U.S. strike in Yemen



looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool eat me

What exactly do you think that you have proven? Besides the fact that someone held for six years in Guantanamo was then killed six years later?

can you read?

I believe I have captured the basic concepts of being literate, yes.

Would you mind answering the question?

Apparently it is more humane to kill someone with a missile from a drone, and blow up everyone else around them, than it is to hold them at Gitmo? Something along those line yeah. Do I really have to connect these dots for you to point out something so obviously absurd?

It was said to me that this was a false choice when I made that claim. This shows that it was indeed NOT a false choice.

No, it doesn't.
Your false choice is that you propose the options are:
1. Kill them with a drone
2. Put them in Guantanamo

Other options would include:
- working with the local government to apprehend the individuals and tried for laws they may be violating
- not doing anything

The questions that people seem to not be asking:
- Have these people been convicted of breaking any laws in their country?
- Why are we using military force for local police activities?
- Why are we OK with working with countries that allow the US to bomb their citizens/inhabitants?

And what choice was made with the fellow mentioned in this article that was once a prisoner in Gitmo?

Choices 1 and 2 were made. And your point being these are the only two options is made because.... they were killed before exercising any other option?

And that this person died *THREE MONTHS* after the strike, and likely was not the only person affected?

Whose cause do you think it benefits, to be able to bring kids by and be able to say "Look what the USA has done to this person"? And what experience do they have to counter that sight in front of them?

If you think that is a victory, you've become worse than your enemy.