Exposed: All US military pilots are meth junkies! Disgusting!

[guifa]

Re: re: Official Language of the US

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Sorry, but I didn't spend my childhood mastering American English so that some foreigner could come in and expect me to change for his/her convenience. And I don't. I know some spanish, but do you think I use any when talking to a Mexican who can't speak more than two words of english? I don't believe I should have to, and I don't. And in the process, they learn a little english along the way.

You have a good point, however, it should be noted that in many cases, it was the English-speaking Americans who went into other countries to stir up trouble. Examples include both the Southwest and Hawaii. Both areas had their own languages and cultures and governments until US citizens came in, and in the case of the Southwest, managed to startup a war that gave the US almost the entire Southwest. My ancestors lived in the Río Puerco valley at that time, they were isolated, and had nothing to do with the conflict (so much so that they still speak with a Castillian accent even today). I'm really not even sure if they knew about the war until several decades afterwards. Could you explain to me then how/why we should expect them to learn English when it was the English speakers who went into their home region? The same question applies to Hawaii (although there wasn't a war there).

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Now as for persecuting (or prosecuting) people who don't know--or want to know--English if it were our official language, well that is ridiculous. In my scenario, they just wouldn't be able to adequately function in our country until they learned to properly communicate with its residents. And I don't see anything wrong with that. But just because some such laws in the past have been used to persecute those who refused to conform, doesn't make the idea of an official language wrong or immoral--just how it is implemented.

I agree with this.

 

[MacBandit]

Let's get this road show back on topic.


Does anyone really think that American pilots are the only ones who take speed? I believe this is a common thing for pilots all over the world. The thing about pilots is in a dog fight the pilot with the quickest reactions wins. Therefore they inlist the help of drugs.

 

[guifa]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Since I have never been there, outside an airport anyway, I can't say much about the 'bigotted' part, but given some of your other posts in this thread, I certainly can't argue with the 'stupid' (it's spelled bigoted, BTW).

Obviously you don't know what a typo is. Since I spelt it correctly everywhere else in my post, it can be assumed that I do, in fact, know what it means. And you say I grasp at straws. Correcting spelling and grammar is the lowest form of going against someone's point.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Very good, you know some history.

Perhaps then you missed the entire point of my argument. Restricting other languages has happened before, with less than ideal results.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Straw man.

Once again, pointing out historical evidence to my argument. While very bad things occurred elsewhere in the world, it is just as important to note that it HAS happened before in the USA, and that has NOT had good effects on our society. Explain to me why this is "straw"? If you can not make a statement without sufficient support, don't make it.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
No, it's not (the accepted part, not the Latin name). It's called a straw man, which is not accepted.

May I respectfully ask who taught you philosophy? They really must need to go back to school, as reductio ad absurdum IS an acceptable form of philosophical debate. By this simple statement of yours I highly doubt I can take any of your comments as being intelligent. Saying that something is "straw" because it's not what it really is is not what I call an intelligent discussion.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Apparently, the evidence is also supported by you.

I'm just going by all the studies that I have seen reported that puts southern states (especially Alabama and Mississippi) at the bottom of nearly every state ranking for all things positive, and near the top for all things negative. Additionally, the Birmingham News has had a wonderful series of articles illustrating just how bad it gets, especially in rural black Alabama, where people making $4000 a year are a being taxed on their income as well as the food they buy, and where people say we need to increase funds to education, but the refuse to take the steps necessary. There's a reason our constitution is over six times longer the second longest state consitution, and several hundred times longer than the USA's. Yeah, we be really smart, ain't us?

 

[guifa]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Let's get this road show back on topic.


Does anyone really think that American pilots are the only ones who take speed? I believe this is a common thing for pilots all over the world. The thing about pilots is in a dog fight the pilot with the quickest reactions wins. Therefore they inlist the help of drugs.

It probably is very common. The question of course becomes which drugs they may be using and what adverse side effects they may have.

I remember reading an article that while caffeine may keep you up and increase reaction speed a tad, after a certain time (for a coffee I think it was like an hour or two), it becomes a false crutch, and your body tries to push through sleep hormones more so, and so the coffee begins to lose its effects.

I could be wrong about a lot of that since I'm trying to remember an article from about a year ago.

Edit: I should mention I'm well known at the local coffee house for being able to drink three massive cups of their strongest coffee (probably about the same as 9 mugs) and literally dumping in sugar (with just a hint of cream), and then going home and sleeping like a rock.

 

[Kethoticus]

Yujenesis wrote:

You don't sit idly back babbling about how every country has "problems" so we don't need to worry about fixing our own.

You need to go back and read my post again. I never said or even implied that we don't need to fix our own problems. In fact, I thought I criticized the idea of a moral grading curve (e.g., when I mentioned the UN giving us their okay to attack Iraq). Morality is not relative, in my view, but absolute. And we can not allow the righteousness or evil of other nations to be a deciding factor in how righteous we decide to be.

But my original point was that the US should not be singled out for its crimes and sins while others--some of whom are far, far worse, almost on a Hitlerian level--are actually defended as poor, helpless victims. This I find both infuriating and scary. We ALL need to be held accountable, but it seems like some find criticizing the US to be the fashionable thing to do.

 

[Kethoticus]

guifa wrote:

Could you explain to me then how/why we should expect them to learn English when it was the English speakers who went into their home region? The same question applies to Hawaii (although there wasn't a war there).

Hey Guifa, I'm ashamed to admit this, but my knowledge of history does not seem to be as extensive as yours. I do not know enough about this conflict to intelligently respond ;-)

 

[guifa]

Originally posted by Kethoticus
guifa wrote:
Hey Guifa, I'm ashamed to admit this, but my knowledge of history does not seem to be as extensive as yours. I do not know enough about this conflict to intelligently respond ;-)

Well, I'm kinda of in the middle of a US-relations history class, so these things are rather (and having just a midterm, WAY TOO) fresh on my mind ;-)

 

[Yujenisis]

We ALL need to be held accountable, but it seems like some find criticizing the US to be the fashionable thing to do.

Go to any country and you will find plenty of people who will criticize their own country.

While America does get a lot of flack it is because of the amount of influence we have in the world. When I say influence I mean both politically, diplomatically, and of course-militarily.

Because we have our fingers in an awful lot (Doing both good and bad) we tend to be more noticeable.

While I do not consider myself an isolationist, I do not feel we have the right to police the world and should leave that up to international organizations, such as the UN and NATO.

We have many problems we need to address at home before self-righteously police the world. Does this mean stop doing anything? No.

It means exercising more restraint before getting involved. And not trying to seek out a war. (Iraq).

I love America, I consider myself one who would defend America but also be the first to attack it for mistakes it has made. THAT is Patriotism. Loving your country enough to realize when it is wrong.

Blindly loving your country keeping yourself ignorant from the bad is something more along the lines of Nationalism.

 

[Kethoticus]

Go to any country and you will find plenty of people who will criticize their own country.

I'm sure the Iraqis and Chinese are doing just that.

Edit: The people in the US criticizing the US are not just criticizing America's policies. They are making it appear our targets are innocent, helpless victims of the great imperial USA. This is a lot more than just national self-examination.

While America does get a lot of flack it is because of the amount of influence we have in the world. When I say influence I mean both politically, diplomatically, and of course-militarily.

Okay, fair point. But the way people are criticizing this country, you'd think we were never attacked, that we had absolutely no reason whatsoever to defend ourselves, that we were the ones who were wiping an entire race or religion out (as opposed to Saddam's attacks on the Kurds or the terrorists' attacks on Judaism and Christianity). I for one believe in the right of pre-emptive strikes as a measure to prevent another 9/11. Those who don't, in my not-so-humble opinion, are either insane or really stupid. Now of course I would agree that this right does not give us a pass to attack anyone indiscriminantly or for reasons other than self-defense. And obviously we disagree over whether or not an attack on Iraq is self defense. But that would probably best be left for another thread.

Because we have our fingers in an awful lot (Doing both good and bad) we tend to be more noticeable.

Perhaps. But it is still not a justification for overly criticizing the US while leaving others alone or even defending them. You seem to keep missing my point here. I'm not saying we shouldn't be scrutinized, but neither do I feel excessive scrutinization is right, either. In fact, it's disturbing.

While I do not consider myself an isolationist, I do not feel we have the right to police the world and should leave that up to international organizations, such as the UN and NATO.

But what if those organizations refuse to properly police the world either due to a watery backbone or national self-interest in the region in question? Someone has to stand up for what is right. (I'm not saying the US regularly does this, but it should, especially if the UN won't.)

We have many problems we need to address at home before self-righteously police the world. Does this mean stop doing anything? No.

Especially when it comes to the possibility of nukes being smuggled into an American city from say, Iran or Iraq.

It means exercising more restraint before getting involved.

Agreed.

And not trying to seek out a war. (Iraq).

Not sure I agree. But I don't have enough evidence either way, and I'm not sure any of us does to make a truly informed conclusion on the matter. We may not know for sure until the conflict is over.

I love America, I consider myself one who would defend America but also be the first to attack it for mistakes it has made. THAT is Patriotism. Loving your country enough to realize when it is wrong.

No argument.

Blindly loving your country keeping yourself ignorant from the bad is something more along the lines of Nationalism.

I'm assuming you weren't making this conclusion about me or my statements, but were making a more general statement.


Back to the original topic... I think that if this is true, that our pilots are being given narcotics, then it would just be another nail in the coffin of our national honor. I believe in just causes and waging war in a just way for just reasons. But how are we supposed to do this if we're using mind- or mood-altering drugs?? Of course, I don't have all the facts, and am just taking the original post at face value. But defending our troops in countries where they've raped or killed a resident in the host country is immoral. Clinton's defending that idiot in... where was it... Taiwan??---who broke some local laws and was sentenced to a public flogging is another ridiculous example. These incidents put a serious doubt on our moral fibre, national character and drive wedges between us and the countries we call friends. If I were president... wow... I would try very hard to strengthen our national character (altho I'd probably come under fire from far-left groups accusing me of trying to bring religion or something into public life).

 

[Hemingray]

Re: Grow up? Open your eyes

Originally posted by guifa
[1] Your poor usage of grammar and spelling don't exactly help your argument.

Your poor usage of grammar and spelling DOESN'T exactly help your argument.

Sorry, that was simply too good to resist...

 

[diorio]

I live about 5 miles away from the Air Force Academy. They are reputed to be the most studious, non party school in America. It is one of the most difficult schools to get into. I'm sure that the drugs they are taking are not being taking irresponsibly or of malicious intent. If you were flying for 15 hours and performing 5g manuveors, you might need something to keep you going too.

 

[guifa]

Re: Re: Grow up? Open your eyes

Originally posted by Hemingray
Your poor usage of grammar and spelling DOESN'T exactly help your argument.

Sorry, that was simply too good to resist...

Didn't you realize I wasn't writing in formal English? I was writing in...*dum dum dum* Southern Drawl. We ain't never done gone used dem ugree-in subjects fur nuttin.

 

[Kethoticus]

We ain't never done gone used dem ugree-in subjects fur nuttin.

Well shoot. Smack my nose and punch my face. You sher know howta talk good.

 

[JupiterZen]

Originally posted by Juventuz
There's no drug that can keep a person awake for four days,

Speed is well capable of keeping you awake for even more than 40 hours. But after 3 of 4 days it does begin to affect your whole reasoning and you begin to hallucinate due to lack of sleep.

 

[JupiterZen]

Re: Exposed: All US military pilots are meth junkies!

Originally posted by peter2002
What a travesity and hypocracy. It has been revealed that all US military pilots use speed aka "meth" to fly. In fact, the Pentagon approves it.

Everybody here seems to forget that the Second World War was won by the allies on speed. And lost by the Nazis on speed. Drugs have ALWAYS been there in war to make better soldiers. And probably will be until they create terminator T800/T1000 like machines to fight the wars for them.

 

[synergy]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
you need to get your facts straight before you start making blanket statements about this country and its armed servicemen. first of all speed is not 'meth'. speed is just a generic name for an amphetamine. your reasoning places anyone who takes addheral or ritalin or most ADD drugs as 'meth' users.

a speed addiction is nowhere near the severity of a heroin addiction. ask any addict.

if you are going to label the entire military as a bunch of druggies from something you have read in the press...then just leave the country and complain about wherever else you move. frankly most people in the US just dont want to hear that bs.

oh, and that comment about the 'brothers' in jail...way to lose all credibility.

While I don't agree with the original posters labelling Military pilots as junkies I do take issue with your suggesting him to leave the country.
We have a protected right to free speech within certain limits. His statement is protected speech in my mind and I am sure in the minds of many others. If you don't like people exercising their right to free speech then you may wish to goto another country where they don't have such a protected right. Where you could be shot for expressing your views.
People may not want to hear it and they don't have to if they don't want to.
But no one should have the right to say what can and cannot be said within certain limits/reason.

 

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by mymemory


Well, I wouldn't call the military a bunch of druggies, I would call that the entire US! When I was 24 I went to study there for 2 years and I never sow so much drugs in my life, I came back after and I haven't seen in my country in 4 years so many drugs as I was used to see in a single week when I was there. Students, teachers, the secretary, the vistors, the employees, people at the regular partys, drugs dealers every where trying to fit in to the circle of friends, etc. I see a bit of pot here in may country each 2 months and I work as a VJ in rave partys, so there are tons amounts of drugs in the US and the goverment is not doing it best to resolve the problem trust me.

oh, ok. There's how many millions of people in the US and you met them all in your 2 little years here studying? Yea, ok. I wouldn't go to Venezuela because a friend of mine who is from there said down a certain road, if you have your hand out your car window and have a watch on, they will cut off your hand to get your watch.

I'd assume get high, then my hand cut off. Enjoy the goverment overthrow

 

[G4scott]

The 2-day, 40-hour drug is called Provigil

It was approved by the FDA in 1999

This drug doesn't use any narcotics, such as speed or amphetamines (Ritalin).

There is a link here about it. They also give some insight to military usage...

Oh, there was a link towards the beginning of this thread that has an article about a similar drug, Modafinil.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Numbers added for clarity in certain instances.

Originally posted by guifa

1. Obviously you don't know what a typo is. 2. Since I spelt it correctly everywhere else in my post, it can be assumed that I do, in fact, know what it means. 3. And you say I grasp at straws. 4. Correcting spelling and grammar is the lowest form of going against someone's point.

1. Yes, I do. 2. I never said you didn't. It was more of a look who's talking thing. 3. You'll note that this was not the sole, or even the majority, or even a large minority, of my rebuttal. 4. Not when the issue is spelling. Which you made it.

Perhaps then you missed the entire point of my argument. Restricting other languages has happened before, with less than ideal results.

I did not. You stated a paragraph without a point. I merely pointed that out to you. And I think you missed that I never said that English should be the only language allowed, merely that it should be the official one.

1. Once again, pointing out historical evidence to my argument. 2. While very bad things occurred elsewhere in the world, it is just as important to note that it HAS happened before in the USA, and that has NOT had good effects on our society. 3. Explain to me why this is "straw"? 4. If you can not make a statement without sufficient support, don't make it.

1. Then say it's evidence. 2. Really. Care to point out when instituting English as the official language, or any language as the official language, in the United States, has had bad effects on our society? 3. It is a straw man because you took my statement to to the point of a fallacy, and assumed that I meant something I didn't. 4. Right back at you.

1. May I respectfully ask who taught you philosophy? 2. They really must need to go back to school, 2a. as reductio ad absurdum IS an acceptable form of philosophical debate. 3. By this simple statement of yours I highly doubt I can take any of your comments as being intelligent. 4. Saying that something is "straw" because it's not what it really is is not what I call an intelligent discussion.

1. No one has taught me philosophy. However, I was taught debate by my history teacher, also coach of my school's debate team, among others. 2. argumentum ad homenim (sp?) 2a. Philosophy, yes. Debate, no. Look it up. Here, I'll help you get started on that.3. Too late for me to take any of yours seriously, but I'm being polite. 4. A straw man is a logical fallacy in any debate. And I do not call an argument a straw man "because" it isn't, I call it a straw man because it is.

I'm just going by all the studies that I have seen reported that puts southern states (especially Alabama and Mississippi) at the bottom of nearly every state ranking for all things positive, and near the top for all things negative. Additionally, the Birmingham News has had a wonderful series of articles illustrating just how bad it gets, especially in rural black Alabama, where people making $4000 a year are a being taxed on their income as well as the food they buy, and where people say we need to increase funds to education, but the refuse to take the steps necessary. There's a reason our constitution is over six times longer the second longest state consitution, and several hundred times longer than the USA's. Yeah, we be really smart, ain't us?

Those aren't my problems, and I never claimed anything to the contrary of what is stated above, especially the part about people in Alabama being stupid. Except I will say this: I highly doubt that all, or even any, of this is related in any way to English being the official language of the state.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Kethoticus
This I don't understand. Does not Russia have a credible conventional force, not to mention a terrifying unconventional one? And while China has a limited nuclear force (which could still destroy the west coast of the US), they do have a ridiculously large army.

The Russians' can't even afford to properly dress their army, and the only thing terrifing about their unconventional weapons (assuming you mean nukes) is the lax security and possible sales on the black market.


Lethal

 

[guifa]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Those aren't my problems, and I never claimed anything to the contrary of what is stated above, especially the part about people in Alabama being stupid. Except I will say this: I highly doubt that all, or even any, of this is related in any way to English being the official language of the state.

For all your talk of me with straw man arguments, you sure made a giant straw man here. Those comments had NOTHING to do with English and the official language of the state/country. Those were made in refute of comments against my calling the Southern region of the USA stupid and bigoted. And on the previous comments (which for brevity I won't quote), I still do not see how I was straw manning.

A: If people don't like English they should get out. Show me how English being the official language can be detrimental.
B: Okay, here are examples of language-based discrimination in foreign countries based on a single language becoming the official language where multiple ones were once spoken, and here are similar situations here in the US that got somewhat checked before they went out of control.
A: THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID! STRAW MAN!

Please, reread. It may be beneficial since I was attempting to cover several points at once, and apparently you weren't able to distinguish which ones went with who's comment.

 

[Kethoticus]

The Russians' can't even afford to properly dress their army, and the only thing terrifing about their unconventional weapons (assuming you mean nukes) is the lax security and possible sales on the black market.

Hmmm... okay... but either way--selling or launching--they have a massive nuclear arsenal that could leave our nation a radioactive desert. If they're not a superpower anymore, they are sure awfully close to being one.

But yeah... I suppose one modern definition of superpower would be a nation that could execute a war on various levels, including the use of conventional forces, the ability to develop new weapons (such as the "pain beam"), the use of economic pressure, an effective intelligence network (hmmm... we ain't a superpower there), and of course, nukes.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by guifa

For all your talk of me with straw man arguments, you sure made a giant straw man here. Those comments had NOTHING to do with English and the official language of the state/country. Those were made in refute of comments against my calling the Southern region of the USA stupid and bigoted. And on the previous comments (which for brevity I won't quote), I still do not see how I was straw manning.

A: If people don't like English they should get out. Show me how English being the official language can be detrimental.
B: Okay, here are examples of language-based discrimination in foreign countries based on a single language becoming the official language where multiple ones were once spoken, and here are similar situations here in the US that got somewhat checked before they went out of control.
A: THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID! STRAW MAN!

Please, reread. It may be beneficial since I was attempting to cover several points at once, and apparently you weren't able to distinguish which ones went with who's comment.

Perhaps you don't get that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that making English the official language in this country has caused problems. So Alabama has problems. Okay, why are these problems caused by English being the official language? I have yet to see anything that proves a link.

And apparently you need to reread what I am calling a straw man. That, and tell me once when I have said English should be the only language. Never, and in fact, I have said exactly the opposite. English should not be the only legal language, merely the official one.

 

[guifa]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Perhaps you don't get that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that making English the official language in this country has caused problems. So Alabama has problems. Okay, why are these problems caused by English being the official language? I have yet to see anything that proves a link.

And apparently you need to reread what I am calling a straw man. That, and tell me once when I have said English should be the only language. Never, and in fact, I have said exactly the opposite. English should not be the only legal language, merely the official one.

Good greif. Have you still not figured out that they were TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS.

View one: "The South is stupid and bigoted"
View two: "English should not be made the official language of the USA"

These were made separately, and ARE NOT INTERCONNECTED. Thusly, your arguments, assuming them thus, are straw man, because, yes, I'll admit that the South being stupid and bigoted provides no reasoning for the USA not needing English to be the official language.

But of course, I never said that it DID, and NEVER intended to say such. You have placed words into my mouth, and I would appreciate it if you would never do so again.

No, you didn't say that English should be the only language. However, you responded to one of my posts to SOMEONE else, thus, once again, you have quoted me out of order and/or context. Hence, when I showed person A, I was not directly refering to you, because you weren't the person who said it. Instead, I was combining multiple persons to form a single view. Note that "A" does not represent, nor was labeled, as any individual person on this board or anywhere, for that matter. Maybe I'm wrong about people from the South. Even the people who taught WWII as "World War Eleven" would have stopped being such an imbecile by this time.

The main qualm I have with your responses is that you have made the appearance that you have quoted me in order and thus the appearance that I have said that the South being stupid and bigoted is cause for reason that English being the official language would be harmful. HOWEVER, you have NOT been quoting me in order, and thus to third party, you have a construed me as being a fool. You sir, are the fool.

I will admit you have a good debate ability. You are extremely crafty at avoiding explicit points about your faulty logic. Perhaps your history teacher pointed out that doing such things isn't a good idea, since it takes little effort to do point out the damning errors in your logic.

And by the way, no, I can't show why English as the official language has caused any problems. And there's a very good reason. English is NOT the official language of the USA. Therefore, I see not how I can come to your burden of proof. You are asking me to demonstrate hard facts of the effects of an event THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED. If you still want me to show this, then, before I show you how, could you show me how the effects that preventing all forms of capital punishment throughout the USA HAS had on the USA. Not WILL HAVE, but HAS.