Why do people love bashing America?

[Edi]

I've talked about "Gitmo torture" thing on the thread about "punishment" for Gitmo "offences".

Yeah, you've talked a lot of bullshit and refused to actually answer any questions or consider any evidence. All of your arguments so far in all the threads I've seen can be summarized as "Because I say so!"

As far as I'm concerned, you've worn out your welcome and it's time to request the admin that you get your well deserved (and in retrospect long overdue) ban.

[Edi]

Oh, and for the time being, the pile-on stops now. Thanas, Lagmonster, Broomstick and I will be responding to darth Herobrine and everyone else gets to keep their mouth shut so that he can actually try to get in responses without needing to debate a hundred people all at once.

If anyone other than the nominated people posts to respond to Herobrine, I will summarily delete their posts and circular file any complaints related to that.

[NoXion]

We don't let 18 year olds drink alcohol, so clearly we don't think they're "fully capable adults" at that age.

"We" being the American legal system, since plenty of other countries have different ages for consuming alcohol. I'd wager that countries with lower drinking ages have fewer problems and don't have this whole freak-out complex over youth drinking, and the greater accessibility of alcohol would do much to remove its "forbidden fruit" factor.

The only reason 18 year olds universally got the vote was because during the Vietnam war the argument was made that if you're old enough to fight and die for your country you should have a vote in how it's run. These days, with no more draft, I'm not at all convinced that the 26th amendment would pass if proposed today.

That's a reason, but not an argument. 18 year olds still have to live with the decisions that their older peers make and I see no good reason why they should be legally excluded from any part of that decision-making process.

On top of that, recent scientific research would seem to indicate that, legal rules aside, the human brain does not finish maturing until around 25 on average. People in their late teens/early 20's aren't quite finished yet.

Specious argument! What does it mean exactly for the brain to "finish maturing"? Especially since I'm pretty sure that the human brain continues changing throughout one's life, so it could be argued that human brains are constantly "maturing", so that begs the question of where we draw the line and why.

People over 25 years of age didn't invent car surfing, m'kay?

How is that relevant? Car surfing ain't exactly political. On the other hand I'm fairly sure that it was someone over 25 who invented the gas chambers.

People under 25 are more likely to be young, dumb, and full of cum.

More likely I'll grant you, but not certain and the question needs to be asked how much of that is down to youth and how much of that is down to youth culture, which is hardly immutable?

While age won't guarantee wisdom it's more likely to occur with advancing age, and on top of that, experience at life also counts.

Experience is no good if the individual concerned refuses to learn from it. How many times have politicians repeated the same old stupid mistakes? I don't think age is a salient factor in that respect, except perhaps that a younger person is probably more likely to change their mind later in life.

Really, focusing on the age limits for Congress is one of the stupidest responses to what was essentially "What have you done to make your nation a better place?"

Darth Herobrine is too stupid or trollish to be able to argue his case effectively. However, my problem is with this negative perception of younger people, and I think in most cases such a negative perception is unwarranted. It might be easy to come to the conclusion that all youth are dribbling idiots when the antics of the worse ones are plastered all over the TV, movies, and internet, but I think that one has to look harder to see the young people who are smart, conscientious and want to change the world for the better, because idiots have no sense of volume control.

[Edi]

There is actual statistical data backing up Broomstick's argument, NoXion. The issue has been studied quite a bit and the data sets for it are large enough that conclusions can be drawn. Some young people are more mature than their peers, but compared to the entire peer group, they are statistical outliers and you don't formulate policy or procedures on the basis of outliers.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Yeah, most of my age group (19) I wouldn't trust anywhere near a political office. They haven't matured anywhere near enough.

Not to say I have either. I am well aware I'm not ready for anywhere near that level of responsibility.

[Broomstick]

We don't let 18 year olds drink alcohol, so clearly we don't think they're "fully capable adults" at that age.

"We" being the American legal system, since plenty of other countries have different ages for consuming alcohol. I'd wager that countries with lower drinking ages have fewer problems and don't have this whole freak-out complex over youth drinking, and the greater accessibility of alcohol would do much to remove its "forbidden fruit" factor.

I happen to agree that absolute prohibition on the under 21 crowd is no more effective that Prohibition was when applied to everyone. At the very least, I think parents should be permitted to set the rules within their own homes for their own children so they may, if they choose, introduce alcohol in a controlled manner and context for drinking, such as family dinners.

However, Darth WhiningBrine was clearly talking about current US practice, not prior practice such as prevailed when I was growing up and not the practice in other places. My comments were directed towards his statements.

The only reason 18 year olds universally got the vote was because during the Vietnam war the argument was made that if you're old enough to fight and die for your country you should have a vote in how it's run. These days, with no more draft, I'm not at all convinced that the 26th amendment would pass if proposed today.

That's a reason, but not an argument. 18 year olds still have to live with the decisions that their older peers make and I see no good reason why they should be legally excluded from any part of that decision-making process.

Seems to me if we deem 16 year olds mature enough to drive on public roads there's an argument for them being allowed to vote at that age, but beyond that, I was not speaking of an ideal situation but rather in pragmatic terms. Back in 1971 the argument was that if we can draft young men and send them to fight and die for their country they should have a voice in how the country is governed. It wasn't the only reason for the amendment's passage - some states already has an 18 voting age if I recall correctly (geez, it's only been 40+ years!) - but it was a compelling one. Given the current all-volunteer military and trend over the past 40 years to extend childhood and impose more limitations on teenagers/young adults and not fewer no, I don't think the 26th amendment could possibly be passed today.

On top of that, recent scientific research would seem to indicate that, legal rules aside, the human brain does not finish maturing until around 25 on average. People in their late teens/early 20's aren't quite finished yet.

Specious argument! What does it mean exactly for the brain to "finish maturing"? Especially since I'm pretty sure that the human brain continues changing throughout one's life, so it could be argued that human brains are constantly "maturing", so that begs the question of where we draw the line and why.

See my comments on the brain's "executive function", which does not finish completion until some time between 20 and 30. It's a higher level function that ties together many other brain functions.

Less than complete executive function is one reason why the young make such good cannon-fodder soldiers - they are easier to stir up emotionally, less able to foresee the results of the actions, and more prone to recklessness. All reasons not to put them in charge of the government. Historically, it's largely been young men who fight and die and old men who plot, plan, and command. This does not rule out exceptional and/or early maturing individuals, but Dark Herobrine's example would be more in line with the young and reckless achieving success in a military encounter and less with said individual showing exceptional ability at the age of 10.

People over 25 years of age didn't invent car surfing, m'kay?

How is that relevant? Car surfing ain't exactly political.[ On the other hand I'm fairly sure that it was someone over 25 who invented the gas chambers.

Car surfing is an activity that is, to put it bluntly, dumb. It's high risk for a quick, cheap thrill that could be obtained via safer means. It's an illustration of how young people are prone this sort of thing. On the other hand, as evil as the "gas chambers" are, whether of the WWII mass murder variety or instruments of state execution, they actually are efficient on a certain level and protect the killers from being harmed by their victims. In other words, your example may not be entirely relevant here, and can in fact be used to support my position.

People under 25 are more likely to be young, dumb, and full of cum.

More likely I'll grant you, but not certain and the question needs to be asked how much of that is down to youth and how much of that is down to youth culture, which is hardly immutable?

We are dealing with probabilities and generalities here, which is why holding up one potential counter-example isn't really a good counter-argument. I'm not aware of anyone researching this area but I hope someone is, as I'd prefer to mitigate the damage caused during that period of life. Sort of adolescent-proofing, analogous to the way one might child-proof a home to protect infants and toddlers until they are mature enough not to endanger themselves so easily.

While age won't guarantee wisdom it's more likely to occur with advancing age, and on top of that, experience at life also counts.

Experience is no good if the individual concerned refuses to learn from it. How many times have politicians repeated the same old stupid mistakes? I don't think age is a salient factor in that respect, except perhaps that a younger person is probably more likely to change their mind later in life.

The other asset to age is that it provides a track record for the person in question. If you have, hypothetically, an 18 year and a 38 year old both entering politics you can at least look back at the 38 year old's adult life to see if they exercise good judgement and other qualities desirable in government leaders. An 18 year old? Not much to go on there, is there?

My personal opinion is that 18 year olds interested in politics should be gaining experience at that age - working as pages or interns, being involved in political movements, and running for low level offices (of which there are a multitude) where experience can be gained and, if they make mistakes, the consequences are not so severe as at higher levels. Actually, someone new to politics at any age should probably start at low levels. I find instances of spouses taking over for deceased Congressmen, as an example, extremely distasteful nepotism.

It might be easy to come to the conclusion that all youth are dribbling idiots when the antics of the worse ones are plastered all over the TV, movies, and internet, but I think that one has to look harder to see the young people who are smart, conscientious and want to change the world for the better, because idiots have no sense of volume control.

The thing is, back in the 1960's the young folks were absolutely essential and instrumental in instigating political and legal changes even without the vote or holding political office. There's more than one way to effect change.

[Simon_Jester]

Most people around 20 aren't stupid, they're just not ready to make decisions that could get people killed or ruin their livelihoods.

Sometimes necessity forces us to put those decisions in the hands of people that age (i.e. infantry lieutenants). But we try to train them very hard before doing that, and we have more senior, experienced people in place to kick out anyone we're sure can't handle it.

While it might conceivably be that the best president for the United States at some future time will be a 22-year-old, or even (my age) a 26-year-old, I don't think it's very likely to happen in any given year. As noted by Broomstick, older candidates have more depth of track record- it is easier to prove that they have judgement and good character, or disprove it.

[Broomstick]

Sometimes necessity forces us to put those decisions in the hands of people that age (i.e. infantry lieutenants). But we try to train them very hard before doing that, and we have more senior, experienced people in place to kick out anyone we're sure can't handle it.

The training process also helps to identify those individuals who are exceptional for their age, possibly singling out those who mature early in this regard and thus are more capable of such a position of authority.

[Darth Herobrine]

Switzerland has a national level militia, and it has gone quite well for them. As for my user-name, I chose Herobrine 'cause a) it sound cool to me, b) Darth Herobrine is my Minecraft user-name and c) it's a reference to xViperLink's Minecraft trolling videos (the vids are very fun too).

P.S. Ottoman rule is a self-inflicted thing, since Turkey is part of the Middle East.

Are you fucking kidding me? A. Turkey is not part of the Middle East. B. By that logic, Nazi occupation of Poland was a self-inflicted thing too, because both are part of Europe.

Also, America only bullies its allies because they refuse to act like allies.

You know that ally does not mean "jump when we tell you to", right?

One, Turkey can be considered part of the Middle East, just like Iran is. Two, the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim power, controlling a Muslim region, while Nazi Germany had no such connection to Poland.
Three, many of America's European allies refused to help us track down al Queada until they were attacked as well. Does that sound like something allies do?

One more thing, if you guys are as mature as you say you are, why all the swearing?

P.S. teens do stupid things mainly 'cause our culture decided in the early 1900s that teens were children instead of adults. They are expected to act like kids.

[Thanas]

One, Turkey can be considered part of the Middle East, just like Iran is.

Under what definition would that be? The one in the Eisenhower doctrine used by the State Department, which defines it as:

the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia

or the one later used which defined it as including:

Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar

?

Which magical definition says that Turkey or Iran are part of the Middle East?

Two, the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim power, controlling a Muslim region, while Nazi Germany had no such connection to Poland.

Nazi Germany was a Christian power, ruled by a Catholic (Hitler), which controlled a Catholic region (Poland). The connection is stronger than that of a Sunni Sultan oppressing Shiite Iraq.

Three, many of America's European allies refused to help us track down al Queada until they were attacked as well. Does that sound like something allies do?

Which nations would that be and how did they refuse to do so?

[Edi]

Switzerland has a national level militia, and it has gone quite well for them. As for my user-name, I chose Herobrine 'cause a) it sound cool to me, b) Darth Herobrine is my Minecraft user-name and c) it's a reference to xViperLink's Minecraft trolling videos (the vids are very fun too).

P.S. Ottoman rule is a self-inflicted thing, since Turkey is part of the Middle East.

Are you fucking kidding me? A. Turkey is not part of the Middle East. B. By that logic, Nazi occupation of Poland was a self-inflicted thing too, because both are part of Europe.

Also, America only bullies its allies because they refuse to act like allies.

You know that ally does not mean "jump when we tell you to", right?

One, Turkey can be considered part of the Middle East, just like Iran is.

Because you say so?

Two, the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim power, controlling a Muslim region, while Nazi Germany had no such connection to Poland.

Because you are incapable of understanding analogies? How about actually offering some better evidence than "Because I say so!" ?

Three, many of America's European allies refused to help us track down al Queada until they were attacked as well. Does that sound like something allies do?

Because you say so? Sorry, that shit doesn't fly. Concrete examples required, so start posting the fucking evidence for your arguments.

One more thing, if you guys are as mature as you say you are, why all the swearing?

Because you're being an obstinate asshole who refuses to provide any evidence for his arguments and replies to everything with smart-arse oneliners and "Because I say so!" posts. Swearing is not against the rules here precisely for the reason that we won't have to tolerate idiots retreating behind Miss Manners rules and trolling and sniping from the protective sheathing of superficial politeness.

The reason you're getting the reaction you are is because you act like a snot nosed smartass and refuse to actually debate while proclaiming your superiority at every turn. You're the kind of asshat who back some 30 or 40 years ago would have gotten the shit beat out of him in the schoolyard for his behavior and what you're getting now is the internet forum equivalent of the same. If you can't take the heat and stand up for yourself, don't whine. IF you actually did try to stand up for yourself rather than going neener-neener in every bloody post, the climate here might turn more polite.

Right now it's not worth even attempting to be polite to you so your opponents might as well vent their spleen when they reply to you. If you want that to change, I've told you what you need to do to get there.

[Broomstick]

One more thing, if you guys are as mature as you say you are, why all the swearing?

1) It's called "adult language" for a reason, asshat.
2) Because you deserve it for being a fucking idiot either unable or unwilling to actually support your claims.

[Darth Herobrine]

Watch my reactions in this video. Yes, it's not really relevant to the thread topic, but I'm challenging the accusations that I'm immature. And to Thanas, I have seen Turkey described as part of the Middle East. Also, Hitler wasn't Catholic. He was at best a deist.

I'm not doing any "because I said so" stuff. I have provided sources. Also, how am I trolling? I state my positions and gave reasons for them. What do you want, a 1200 page report?

[Dalton]

Something more substantial than "read this book" or "I have seen x y and z" would help. For example, you will cite evidence that Turkey is considered part of the middle east. Also, you will cite evidence that Hitler was not a Catholic.

[Dalton]

You will also answer my call for proof in the Gitmo thread. These are not requests.

[Darth Herobrine]

The adult Hitler... saw Christianity as a religion fit for slaves

Wikipedia. How's that?

[Broomstick]

Watch my reactions in this video. Yes, it's not really relevant to the thread topic, but I'm challenging the accusations that I'm immature.

If it's not relevant to the thread topic why are you including it?

Also, we are quite willing accept very young people as equals here if they perform as equals regardless of age. The problem is not your date of birth, it is how you conduct yourself. You behave like an immature brat.

And to Thanas, I have seen Turkey described as part of the Middle East.

Good luck with arguing with Thanas. That alone will make this thread worth watching.

Also, Hitler wasn't Catholic. He was at best a deist.

Oh, really? Is that why he served as an altar boy and at one point was considering entering the priesthood? It's on record that he was raised as a Catholic. Obviously, some of the kinder points didn't take and as an adult his views changed.

In short, he was a Catholic but did not remain one.

I'm not doing any "because I said so" stuff. I have provided sources. Also, how am I trolling? I state my positions and gave reasons for them. What do you want, a 1200 page report?

No, if anything we'd want an executive summary of a 1200 page report.

Here's what you do. You say "X is Y because blah, blah, blah. I base this on A, B, C." It's important to note that "A, B, C" needs to be something that doesn't require your opposition to spend hours reading a reference book. If you do quote a book, providing page references would be extremely helpful. Some things are widely enough known that you don't need a lot of back up (such as "the Nazis killed a fuckton of people") but if someone asks for supporting evidence for something they haven't heard of before you might want something more substantial than Wikipedia (hint: many Wikipedia articles have references you can look up and read yourself! Some of them can be substantial, some not so much). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you need some time to research say "Can I have a couple days to research that?" and get it in BEFORE the moderators start imposing time limits. If you are mistaken admit it. Anything that is pure opinion should probably be clearly labeled as pure opinion, which you are entitled to have with or without facts (but we may still call you a dumbshit if we disagree strongly).

Now, please not that your direct question regarding what is expected as evidence and back up was answered in a civil manner without swearing. Direct questions will often be answered in such a manner, particularly if they are even somewhat intelligent. The more responses you get of that nature the more it is an indication you are on the right track in regards to debating.

[Dalton]

The adult Hitler... saw Christianity as a religion fit for slaves

Wikipedia. How's that?

You call this citing evidence? You post an out of context quote with ellipses replacing likely relevant words, no link and with Wikipedia, which ANYONE can edit, as a source? Are you in fucking grade school?

You're rolling with people who have college degrees, bucko. Provide evidence or get the fuck out.

[Edi]

Pint0 Xtreme's post deleted. I said the dogpile stops and I meant it.

Obviously that order did not extend to Dalton, since he outranks me, and if other people wish to debate each other, feel free, but there is no open season on Darth Herobrine. Yet.

[Irbis]

Nitpick:

Under what definition would that be? The one in the Eisenhower doctrine used by the State Department, which defines it as:

the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia

Which magical definition says that Turkey or Iran are part of the Middle East?

I believe Iran is west of Pakistan, comfortably, no?

Although, yes, you'd be hard pressed to name any part of Turkey except for Turkish Kurdistan as being in Middle East.

[Thanas]

Nitpick:
I believe Iran is west of Pakistan, comfortably, no?

But it is not South of (including)Iraq. A state has to fit all criteria.

[Thanas]

Watch my reactions in this video. Yes, it's not really relevant to the thread topic, but I'm challenging the accusations that I'm immature.

Too bad for you that you are judged by your actions here and not on that festering piece of idiocy called youtube.

And to Thanas, I have seen Turkey described as part of the Middle East.

Where?

Also, Hitler wasn't Catholic. He was at best a deist.

How so? And even if you claim Hitler not to be a practicing catholic (which is a matter of historical debate) he was still a christian and so were the Germans. The analogy still applies. Now answer it.

I'm not doing any "because I said so" stuff. I have provided sources. Also, how am I trolling? I state my positions and gave reasons for them. What do you want, a 1200 page report?

No, I'd be happy with a quote and citation from a book which supports:
a) your assertion that Turkey is in the middle east
b) Your assertion that the Ottoman/British rule was self-inflicted

[ChaserGrey]

Don't think 18 is old enough, fine, raise the minimum age of enlistment, don't send soldiers to die in a war when every chance to stop or start it was in someone else's hands.

What was even worse was that, because of the way the Army chose to fight Vietnam, the typical soldier in that war was drafted at 18 and came back after a year in-country at 19 or 20. Meaning that virtually none of the soldiers fighting the war had gotten any say about it whatsoever. Other wars had different demographics, so the situation wasn't as pronounced. I think that had a lot to do with it.

[Darth Herobrine]

Look, I'm learning this thing as I go. I will take constructive criticism into account. Now stop slamming me for being new.

So, anyway, the only country I know of that should be allowed to complain about America is Mexico, 'cause we trashed them 100+ years ago and they haven't recovered.

[Darth Herobrine]

Watch my reactions in this video. Yes, it's not really relevant to the thread topic, but I'm challenging the accusations that I'm immature.

Too bad for you that you are judged by your actions here and not on that festering piece of idiocy called youtube.

And to Thanas, I have seen Turkey described as part of the Middle East.

Where?

Also, Hitler wasn't Catholic. He was at best a deist.

How so? And even if you claim Hitler not to be a practicing catholic (which is a matter of historical debate) he was still a christian and so were the Germans. The analogy still applies. Now answer it.

I'm not doing any "because I said so" stuff. I have provided sources. Also, how am I trolling? I state my positions and gave reasons for them. What do you want, a 1200 page report?

No, I'd be happy with a quote and citation from a book which supports:
a) your assertion that Turkey is in the middle east
b) Your assertion that the Ottoman/British rule was self-inflicted

I only said that Ottoman rule was self-inflicted.
[img]http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/coun ... MpTGSo[img] Here is a map of the Middle East that has Turkey. There's other ones as well. In fact, the first six or so maps when 'Middle East map' is Google'd have Turkey as part of the Middle East.