|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2008 : 20:06:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
So you're more interested in playing word games than having an actual discussion. |
I don't understand where you get "word game" from anything I said. He made his argument, I responded to it as it was written. If you or he thinks I should have interpreted what he said differently, well then say so. That's a part of having a discussion.
As it is, though, my understanding of what he meant seems to be backed up by his latest statement.
Originally posted by Ricky
I make it a habit of not talking to people with this mindset.
|
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
My "mindset" is that of someone who doesn't see things the same way you do. If that were not true, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2008 : 21:10:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Ricky
So you're more interested in playing word games than having an actual discussion. |
I don't understand where you get "word game" from anything I said. He made his argument, I responded to it as it was written. If you or he thinks I should have interpreted what he said differently, well then say so. That's a part of having a discussion.
As it is, though, my understanding of what he meant seems to be backed up by his latest statement. |
Damn, you're like a biblical literalist when it comes to political discussion. I had never thought I'd see such a thing.
I honestly believe you understand that you aren't supposed go by literal interpretations in a discussion, but rather look for the ideas they are trying to convey. Clearly the position "I don't like it, ergo it's torture" is absurd, and thus you discard it. Not when you just like to play word games, however. Then you live off that stuff, just like you have done. Like I said, I think you know this already so I'm really just wasting words...
Ah well.
| Attack the argument, not the arguer. |
Not when I see a problem with the arguer. Then I go straight for 'em. When I see someone intentionally being dishonest, like you have using obviously absurd literal interpretations to further the conflict, screw the argument. You'll never get anywhere. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2008 : 22:37:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
I honestly believe you understand that you aren't supposed go by literal interpretations in a discussion, but rather look for the ideas they are trying to convey. Clearly the position "I don't like it, ergo it's torture" is absurd, and thus you discard it. Not when you just like to play word games, however. Then you live off that stuff, just like you have done.
|
I understand what he means to say. What he means is that it's wrong just because it is.
Which, as I said back on page one, is a perfectly valid argument. When it comes to declarations of ethical principles, that's about as good as it gets. At some point every ethical argument is reduces to a simple declaration that something is wrong just because we feel it's wrong.
Which is inarguable. If you disagree, all you can do is gainsay it. I disagree. Why? Because I feel differently from you.
It's when we make up rationalizations for these feelings that these opinions become arguable. Is it wrong because the Chinese did it? No. Is it wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me? No, that doesn't work either. Is it wrong just because I feel it's wrong? Well...okay, you got me there.
But in being wrong just because you say it's wrong, it joins a long list of other things wrong for the same reason.
Murder. Incest. Homosexuality. Abortion. Cursing in the name of your deity. Kissing girls. Eating shellfish. Spanking. Bestiality. Disrespecting the Prophet. Stepping on a crack. Working on the Sabbath. Masturbation. Mixing the fibres of your clothes. Prostitution. Drinking alcohol. Gambling. Premarital sex. Smoking marijuana. Daydreaming. Lying in order to get sex. Being lazy. Sniffing your mom's panties. Rolling your eyes. Using birth control. Smoking tobacco. Eating meat. Kissing boys. Liking it when you get spanked. Wasting money. On and on...
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 07:52:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
It's when we make up rationalizations for these feelings that these opinions become arguable. Is it wrong because the Chinese did it? No. Is it wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me? No, that doesn't work either. |
So you don't believe in the ethics of preciprocity. That is interesting, and from where I'm sitting, that explains some of the views you've championed on SFN.
This particular argument should be enough to oppose torture. It is one of the underlying principles of Geneva Convention. But as we already know, USA doesn't give a rat's ass about that.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2008 : 08:33:37 [Permalink]
|
| Murder. Incest. Homosexuality. Abortion. Cursing in the name of your deity. Kissing girls. Eating shellfish. Spanking. Bestiality. Disrespecting the Prophet. Stepping on a crack. Working on the Sabbath. Masturbation. Mixing the fibres of your clothes. Prostitution. Drinking alcohol. Gambling. Premarital sex. Smoking marijuana. Daydreaming. Lying in order to get sex. Being lazy. Sniffing your mom's panties. Rolling your eyes. Using birth control. Smoking tobacco. Eating meat. Kissing boys. Liking it when you get spanked. Wasting money. On and on... |
Gracious, such a life you've led! I'm envious! But none of this; none of it!, excuses torture.
To get back a little closer to topic, I'd just kind'a like to add the reminder that "Well he's doin' it!" is a school child's first response to a behavoral repremand. In this case, captured Americans can expect like treatment, and not necessarily by Muslims, 'cause, whaddahell, he's doin' it!.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 09:42:02 [Permalink]
|
 |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 10:00:40 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft.....
At some point every ethical argument is reduces to a simple declaration that something is wrong just because we feel it's wrong.
|
But in being wrong just because you say it's wrong, it joins a long list of other things wrong for the same reason.
Murder. Incest............etc. |
Most of the rest of your examples are human activities of highly controversial degrees of "wrongness", and I would not quarrel with the idea that abortion, homosexuality, or smoking marijuana were "wrong" only because some individual or group arbitrarily decided that they were wrong.
However, many of your earlier arguments either state or imply that anything can be considered wrong simply because someone or some group "said" (arbitrarily decided) that it was wrong.
That theory of moral relativity is defensible on purely abstract epistemological grounds, but utterly without merit when considered pragmatically. No civilized society could long remain civilized or even cohesive as a society without an enforced code of behavior that proscribes activity such as murder, rape, assault, torture, and other physical violence committed by one person or persons upon another person or persons.
These laws, together with a great many others, are based on philosophical concepts of morality which are, in some cases arguable; but for the most part act to structure a population aggregate (a society) which can pursue the goals of survival, pleasure, enlightenment, and other common human pursuits without excessive fear of physical harm from societal aberrants.
To state that murder or torture are "wrong" simply because one or many says that these acts are wrong, ignores the very real fact that many things that are wrong are also illegal. Usually, (certainly not always), there is a practical reason for the codification of a law of this sort.
Generally that reason is derived from substantive collective experience demonstrating that which benefits the majority to the exclusion of the minority (those who would forcefully impose their will upon others without due process of the law.) These kinds of laws accrue to the survival and well-being of the majority whom they protect and largely permit the "pursuit of happiness" as defined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence - which in itself is predicated on the greatest good for the greatest number.
So to dismiss crimes of violence such as murder, or illegal appropriation of property (theft, robbery), criminal fraud, kidnapping, and many other such affronts to the individual or group; as "wrong simply because you (or they) say it is wrong, completely fails to consider that the activity is wrong because it is antithetical to survival or the pursuit of happiness. This is a vastly more cogent reason for defining something as wrong rather than just because a person or group said it was wrong.
I fully realize that many laws are poorly conceived, deserve repeal, and some may even be bad enough to demand non-compliance. But in most societies, including the United States, a reasonable majority of local, state and federal laws are on the books for good, pragmatic reasons; not simply because someone said something was "wrong"
I might point out, Mycroft, that your collective statements in this thread clearly imply to anyone objectively reading your comments, that you personally don't consider torture - as it is commonly understood by everyone of nominal intellect except the lackies of the Bush administration - as something that is wrong. I completely agree with most of the commentators here that this is a reprehensible attitude. Torture is wrong on many highly logically defensible grounds, and neither your philosophical musings of relativism nor any amount of nit-picking parsing of the various "meanings" of torture is in any way persuasive in lessening the moral and ethical repugnancy of the practice of torture. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 10:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So you don't believe in the ethics of preciprocity. That is interesting, and from where I'm sitting, that explains some of the views you've championed on SFN. |
Sure I do, it's just that it becomes more complex than simple prohibitions when you examine it.
I don't like getting punched in the nose, so the ethics of reciprocity dictates that I shouldn't go around punching other people in the nose. Simple?
But wait, I certainly would punch someone in the nose if it would prevent them from doing something terrible. At the same time, I would certainly take a punch in the nose if it would prevent something terrible from happening.
So it's just not as simple as a proclamation that you should never do any one action.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
This particular argument should be enough to oppose torture. It is one of the underlying principles of Geneva Convention. But as we already know, USA doesn't give a rat's ass about that.
|
And yet the Geneva Conventions do make distinctions between protected and non-protected persons. They don't make blanket statements that you can't perform these actions on anyone, they're very specific that some people are protected and some are not.
See, if you make a legal argument, then you have to look at the parts of the law that might disagree with what you believe is ethical.
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 10:13:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Gracious, such a life you've led! I'm envious! But none of this; none of it!, excuses torture. |
It was late at night, and I was getting silly. I'm not saying which of those things I have or have not done. :)
Originally posted by filthy
To get back a little closer to topic, I'd just kind'a like to add the reminder that "Well he's doin' it!" is a school child's first response to a behavoral repremand. In this case, captured Americans can expect like treatment, and not necessarily by Muslims, 'cause, whaddahell, he's doin' it!.
|
Some people are signatories to the GC and some are not. I expect those that are will not be in armed conflict with us anytime soon, and if they are they will abide by their agreements. The Islamic radicals who currently produce snuff films for release on You-tube and other outlets will continue to behave as they behave regardless of what we do.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 13:05:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by filthy
Gracious, such a life you've led! I'm envious! But none of this; none of it!, excuses torture. |
It was late at night, and I was getting silly. I'm not saying which of those things I have or have not done. :)
Originally posted by filthy
To get back a little closer to topic, I'd just kind'a like to add the reminder that "Well he's doin' it!" is a school child's first response to a behavoral repremand. In this case, captured Americans can expect like treatment, and not necessarily by Muslims, 'cause, whaddahell, he's doin' it!.
|
Some people are signatories to the GC and some are not. I expect those that are will not be in armed conflict with us anytime soon, and if they are they will abide by their agreements. The Islamic radicals who currently produce snuff films for release on You-tube and other outlets will continue to behave as they behave regardless of what we do.
|
Then there is no room for morality? There is nothing but Medieval thought & method to be considered?
Take out the terrorists by all means, but do not sacrifice honor to do it. Besides, it has been shown that torture doesn't work all that well, so one might conclude that it is done more for revenge and/or pleasure than anything else.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2008 : 11:28:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Then there is no room for morality? There is nothing but Medieval thought & method to be considered? |
Of course there is room for morality. I've said from the beginning that if your objection is primarily moral, that it's wrong because you feel it's wrong, that that's a perfectly valid argument.
If, on the other hand, your argument is a legal argument, that it's wrong because the GC says it's wrong, then it's relevant to look at what the GC actually says.
Originally posted by filthy
Take out the terrorists by all means, but do not sacrifice honor to do it. |
Someone might argue that war is inherently dishonorable. You really can't fight a war without doing despicable things. A wise leader will certainly only turn to war as a last resort.
At the same time, sometimes war is the right choice. Sometimes it is the lesser evil.
Originally posted by filthy
Besides, it has been shown that torture doesn't work all that well, so one might conclude that it is done more for revenge and/or pleasure than anything else. |
Has it? I've seen that opinion expressed, but I don't think I've seen it proven.
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2008 : 16:12:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Someone might argue that war is inherently dishonorable. You really can't fight a war without doing despicable things. A wise leader will certainly only turn to war as a last resort.
At the same time, sometimes war is the right choice. Sometimes it is the lesser evil.
|
Ah, but you can minimize the amount of dishonorable things you do, can you not? You can kill someone with a bullet in the head efficiently, since you're so inclined to use that word, and relatively painlessly, or you can slice someone open and draw out the kill for a long time. The end is the same: person's dead.
I am admittedly unlearned in the ways of interrogation, so I do not know what interrogators may deem necessary. Nonetheless, I find very hard to believe the only efficient way to do it, as you said, is by sleep deprivation and other needless methods that seem - to my uncultured self - rather like the drawn-out kill: a method of indulging one's sadistic streak, perhaps under the excuse of 'necessary'.
But then, what do I know. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2008 : 20:44:01 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft said:
| Has it? I've seen that opinion expressed, but I don't think I've seen it proven. |
To return this to the proper frame of reference: The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion. In order to validate the "pro" torture argument you must provide evidence that torture can effectively extract accurate and critical information that could not be obtained another way.
I have never seen any evidence to support this positive assertion. On the other hand, we have tortured a few people and there is an absence of accurate critical facts obtained from them. A couple of confessions maybe, but fuck... people will say ANYTHING to make the waterboarding stop. Yes Mr Torturer, I killed and ate those babies. I washed down their cooked flesh with the blood of puppies I personally stomped to death. Now let me sign that!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2008 : 22:06:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
Ah, but you can minimize the amount of dishonorable things you do, can you not? You can kill someone with a bullet in the head efficiently, since you're so inclined to use that word, and relatively painlessly, or you can slice someone open and draw out the kill for a long time. The end is the same: person's dead. |
Well, I certainly think you can minimize the amount of dishonorable things to do, that's a good thing. At the same time, if you must go to war, it's important to do your best to win.
Originally posted by Siberia
I am admittedly unlearned in the ways of interrogation, so I do not know what interrogators may deem necessary. Nonetheless, I find very hard to believe the only efficient way to do it, as you said, is by sleep deprivation and other needless methods that seem - to my uncultured self - rather like the drawn-out kill: a method of indulging one's sadistic streak, perhaps under the excuse of 'necessary'.
But then, what do I know. |
I think it's possible that methods unsuitable in general may be suitable in specific situations, and that it might even be possible to develop a set of rules, procedures and oversight so that such methods might be available if necessary yet still not over-used.
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2008 : 13:41:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Mycroft said:
| Has it? I've seen that opinion expressed, but I don't think I've seen it proven. |
To return this to the proper frame of reference: The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion. In order to validate the "pro" torture argument you must provide evidence that torture can effectively extract accurate and critical information that could not be obtained another way.
I have never seen any evidence to support this positive assertion. On the other hand, we have tortured a few people and there is an absence of accurate critical facts obtained from them. A couple of confessions maybe, but fuck... people will say ANYTHING to make the waterboarding stop. Yes Mr Torturer, I killed and ate those babies. I washed down their cooked flesh with the blood of puppies I personally stomped to death. Now let me sign that! |
Rubbish!
The claim discussed is that torture does not work.
Donīt try to shift the burden!
Interrogation sometimes work and sometimes does not work. You always have the risk of getting false information. A skilled interrogator knows this and have to check the validity of the information received. With or without torture!
An interrogator able to use torture has an extra "tool" to apply to break the resistance of the victim. And to discourage the victim from giving false information.
Your claim is that this extra "tool" is of no value.
Please support it!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
We lose, because we have become "them"
