Charlie Hebdo to attack Muslims again

[Heyo]

So you did. The Muckraker Report (which according to it's website) published its last article on May 9, 2008.


Clicking the link:September 11, 2001
brings up nothing.

It's been 12 years. Broken links are only to be expected. I had to use the way-back-machine for the link to the FBI page (in an other post).

Why would I waste my time looking for evidence to support your allegations when the one that you posted was completely bogus?

Because you have even less evidence for your claim that Bin Laden was wanted for 9/11.

But I'm also not that keen about continuing this conversation. It's off topic and it's really, really old. I don't expect to convince anyone and I don't expect any new evidence that could sway my scepticism.

 

[ppp]

CIA, State Department, and Military Intelligence are not police forces. They don't maintain "wanted" lists and they don't have power to arrest or accuse.

I am pretty sure that MI does have the power to arrest. And even if CIA and SD do not have that power in name, they do have it in practice. The synonyms of detain, sequester or capture come to mind. Also, Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

 

[ppp]

Owning a person who does not have a choice does not make it moral to own that person as property.

Today if you want a domestic helper you have to pay for the office who own
the domestic helper and if another person wanted the same domestic helper
then he has to pay for her owner to get the domestic helper if she wanted so.

What you call this kind of business in trading with the domestic helpers?

That is not an argument against my stated position. Even if you could wangle a cogent argument that such practices constitute the ownership of another person as property, you would simply be arguing that said practice is immoral on the basis that it is slavery. Which is my point.

 

[Heyo]

I am pretty sure that MI does have the power to arrest. And even if CIA and SD do not have that power in name, they do have it in practice. The synonyms of detain, sequester or capture come to mind. Also, Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

You may be right. I don't know enough about US military intelligence. I know that MAD has to call MP for an arrest. It comes with the nature of the agencies; intelligence gathers information, police enforces the law.

 

[ppp]

You may be right. I don't know enough about US military intelligence. I know that MAD has to call MP for an arrest. It comes with the nature of the agencies; intelligence gathers information, police enforces the law.

Heh. I cannot say that my grasp of their structure and processes is strong either.

 

[FearGod]

That is not an argument against my stated position. Even if you could wangle a cogent argument that such practices constitute the ownership of another person as property, you would simply be arguing that said practice is immoral on the basis that it is slavery. Which is my point.

It's unavoidable, it doesn't mean that a person who got a domestic helper from
the office is a bad person, I don't see it immoral except if the person who got
the domestic helper is a bad person and treats her badly.

 

[ppp]

It's unavoidable, it doesn't mean that a person who got a domestic helper from
the office is a bad person, I don't see it immoral except if the person who got
the domestic helper is a bad person and treats her badly.

Figure out what position you are actually trying to occupy. Then present a cogent argument that positively supports your unambiguous points. Or don't.

 

[FearGod]

Figure out what position you are actually trying to occupy. Then present a cogent argument that positively supports your unambiguous points. Or don't.

Do you believe that if a good family that paid money to get a domestic helper
from an office is a bad family and that the office is immoral because of trading
in domestic helpers, yes or no.

Your answer and explanation will make the discussion unambiguous.

 

[ppp]

Do you believe that if a good family that paid money to get a domestic helper
from an office is a bad family and that the office is immoral because of trading
in domestic helpers, yes or no.

Your answer and explanation will make the discussion unambiguous.

You should be able to state your claim as an unambiguous standalone proposition. My existence (let alone my answers or explanations) should be irrelevant to what your actual position is.

 

[FearGod]

You should be able to state your claim as an unambiguous standalone proposition. My existence (let alone my answers or explanations) should be irrelevant to what your actual position is.

I already explained my point, slavery is unavoidable, the domestic helper is
just an example of how trading is happening nowadays, regardless of religion.
Read here

 

[ppp]

I already explained my point, slavery is unavoidable, the domestic helper is
just an example of how trading is happening nowadays, regardless of religion.
Read here

Your position depends on you demonstrating three things: 1) defining your example more clearly and with less loading, 2) demonstrating that your example actually is chattel slavery, and 3) that it is unavoidable. You have asserted these things. Now what?

 

[FearGod]

Your position depends on you demonstrating three things: 1) defining your example more clearly and with less loading, 2) demonstrating that your example actually is chattel slavery, and 3) that it is unavoidable. You have asserted these things. Now what?

The practice is immoral but unavoidable, it is immoral that we let the domestic
helper to serve us while we are relaxing, it's immoral that we let the waiter serving
us while we are sitting down, this is life, some are poor and some others are wealthy.

 

[ppp]

The practice is immoral but unavoidable, it is immoral that we let the domestic
helper to serve us while we are relaxing, it's immoral that we let the waiter serving
us while we are sitting down, this is life, some are poor and some others are wealthy.

No. Now what?

 

[FearGod]

No. Now what?

You' aren't serious in your discussion.

 

[ppp]

You' aren't serious in your discussion.

I'm perfectly serious. I ask you for evidence and reasoning behind your position. You either don't understand, or are not interested in providing either. Are you giving me is a repetition of what your position is.

If this is not interesting to you. That's fine. I'm not interested in forcing you to provide it. But bald assertions are not interesting to me.

 

[FearGod]

I'm perfectly serious. I ask you for evidence and reasoning behind your position. You either don't understand, or are not interested in providing either. Are you giving me is a repetition of what your position is.

If this is not interesting to you. That's fine. I'm not interested in forcing you to provide it. But bald assertions are not interesting to me.

Do you want more evidence to prove to you that slavery exists all times and
it's unavoidable and religion isn't to be blamed for it.

What kind of evidence and proof you're looking for?

 

[ppp]

Do you want more evidence to prove to you that slavery exists all times and
it's unavoidable and religion isn't to be blamed for it.

What kind of evidence and proof you're looking for?

I already answered this, barely 2 hours ago, in detail. Post 571.

 

[FearGod]

I already answered this, barely 2 hours ago, in detail. Post 571.

And what kind of proof do you want?

 

[ppp]

And what kind of proof do you want?

I don't understand your question. Are you trying to get me to make your case for you? Dude. If I had evidence (not proof) sufficient to support your claim, then I would already agree with you.

 

[McBell]

Today if you want a domestic helper you have to pay for the office who own
the domestic helper and if another person wanted the same domestic helper
then he has to pay for her owner to get the domestic helper if she wanted so.

What you call this kind of business in trading with the domestic helpers?

what office "owns" the domestic helper?