Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri (Page 32)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  ...  53  54  55   
Author Topic: UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Demanding nonreciprocal inquiry is not
You realize this is EXACTLY what you do, right noel? You ask questions but refuse to answer anyone elses questions?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"Do you believe that your support of torture is in fact a part of your character at the most primal level, noel? "...

What is torture?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PSRT,

"You realize this is EXACTLY what you do, right noel? You ask questions but refuse to answer anyone elses questions? "...

Try me.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"(And, hey, in case you forgot this was asked: which noun didn't agree with which verb in my earlier post?)"

How could I miss this? The plural, and singular, usage of "were" was what I had in mind. It turns out it is also proper to use in the singular for a hypothetical present, or future. Congratulations Tom... you know what they say about broken clocks. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I submit that I am likely to be right on matters of grammar considerably more often than twice a day. [Smile] To be fair, I suspected that you were thrown by the subjunctive.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I submit that I am likely to be right on matters of grammar considerably more often than twice a day. [Smile] To be fair, I suspected that you were thrown by the subjunctive. "...

If all that I challenged you on was grammar, you would find yourself on the winning side of an argument much more frequently... to be sure. [Smile]

Let's test your vocabulary. What is "torture"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rather than fussying with trying to create generalized definitions, let's deal with the specific:

I submit that breaking someone's legs, beating them until their muscles separate and liquify, and then hanging them from their wrists for hours for the purposes of breaking their spirit and intimidating them counts as torture.

Moreover, I believe that this is not regrettable merely because it is an illegal act that violates written protocol but also that it is an evil, immoral act, whether performed on an innocent man or a captured, hostile "enemy combatant."

Are we agreed on this point? That the problem with this torture is not that it violates protocol but that it is morally repugnant?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Are we agreed on this point? That the problem with this torture is not that it violates protocol but that it is morally repugnant? "...

No, which is why I asked for an elaboration on your use of the word "torture".

If I "intimidate" a rioting mass of kleptomaniacs by placing formations of militarized guards in front of small businesses, for the purpose of compelling a type of behavior in discord with the mob, is this "torture" justified?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again: you do not find it morally repugnant that we beat a captive in our power until his muscles liquified, broke the bones of his lower legs, and then hung him from the ceiling by his wrists? The issue with that behavior, to you, is that it violates our written protocol?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are further constricting your already anemic definition. It is not possible to have a substantive discussion if you keep hiding the ball.

Try again to answer the question.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have not yet posited a general definition of "torture." Rather, I have put forward a specific example of something I consider torture, and you have said -- if I'm understanding you clearly -- that you do not consider this example to be morally repugnant. Because I am struggling to not conclude that you are in fact a horrible person, I am asking you to clarify your position on that so that your opinion of this particular form of capital punishment is unambiguous.

This seems like perfectly sensible, logical behavior. By contrast, your "does provoking a mob with militarized guards count as torture" question strikes me as so absurdly nonsensical as to amount to a distraction tactic.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I have not yet defined torture. "...

You have said it could be as non-invasive as "intimidation", and I agree with that characterization.

"If I'm understanding you clearly -- that you do not consider this example to be morally repugnant. "...

I have said *nothing* regarding your vague hypothetical.

I *would* consider physical harm as an instrument of torture if I believed it was the most effective means to protect life in an emergency situation. As it happens, there are better means even where time is limited. So, in the abstract, my answer is no.

"By contrast, your 'does provoking a mob with militarized guards count as torture' question strikes me as so absurdly nonsensical as to amount to a distraction tactic. "...

You have misstated my post. It fits your criteria, such as it is. The critical element is "intimidation" as a vehicle of "torture". If you have a more specific objection, state it. I am certain there will be no problem in tailoring my scenario to your satisfaction.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Seneca, do you actually believe you are responding to anybody posting on this thread?

Do really think that because Seneca doesn't explain his views within the confines of the narrative and language used by Pyrtolin and others that means he's off topic? Maybe he is on topic and you've failed to connect what he's saying to what you're saying. His meaning was pretty clear to me.
He didn't say Seneca wasn't generally on topic, he said, very accurately, that Seneca was raising imaginary complaints about things that no one here has advocated instead of actually replying to what people were saying.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
As a black man I can say that those of us who care about equality don't want white pity and we are pretty disgusted by white guilt. We wanted to be treated equally, that means no special treatment. You cannot fix old, past institutionalized racist structures from generations past by harming anyone alive now to "make up for it" because all that does is just create new racism, which is what is happening now.

No one has advocated for harming anyone. On the other hand, when people talk about ways people need to act to actually demonstrate equal treatment or otherwise prevent unequal treatment you try to label them as "racist" and trying to "hurt" those that would need to actually make the effort to treat people equally, instead of suggesting that they continue to passively participate in and promote highly inequitable treatment.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually I didn't insinuate that the doctor knows better; in my example the doctor just says he needs to investigate, which means that while he isn't outright agreeing with whatever the patient is saying at the same time he doesn't claim to know yet what the real issue is. But the patient doesn't want a dialogue about what the problem is or for the doctor to use his own judgement; he wants the doctor to just do what he says. By the way a lot of real patients in hospitals do just this.
Sure, but the patient has said "My leg hurts". The doctor has said "Yep, it's a broken leg", and every other medical expert has confirmed his diagnosis and you're saying "Don't trust the patient, it's really his arm that hurts" and insisting maybe the doctor should take more time and think about it because you're not convinced yet that the patient isn't lying about his leg hurting.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If these others aren't so quick to agree to whatever's said first but want to think it over for themselves, or even to present an alternate view of the issue, then that's exactly what should happen when you try to work with others; you need to accept that they have minds of their own and that you need to come to an agreement with them. But framing an issue in just one way and expecting consensus isn't the way to approach others who are different than you.
So every patient in the ER should get a say on the proper diagnosis, regardless of what the medical experts figure out? Heck, you're even suggesting that everyone else should effectively get to assert their own opinion of what symptoms the patient is feeling- that they doctors should trust you more than the patient, and if the doctor tries to point out that he thinks that only the patient is a reliable witness for what hurts, then the doctor is resorting to needless orthodoxy and not properly working to try to get your consensus.

I mean, what you are saying might have more weight if you showed any evidence of having seriously studied the issue and history of the problem enough to display anything but total ignorance of the issue; at that point your opinions would be worth pursuing and you might be a valid source of a second opinion. But at the moment, again, you're effectively jumping up and down saying "I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express, I'm qualified to offer expert advice here, and you need my input before you can do anything" instead of even trusting the patient when he explains the symptoms or listening to the doctors making the diagnosis to maybe show an interest in learning about the issues at hand before you start pontificating about your solutions to the problem and how getting your consensus should be of the utmost importance.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have said *nothing* regarding your vague hypothetical.

quote:

"Are we agreed on this point? That the problem with this torture is not that it violates protocol but that it is morally repugnant? "...

No, which is why I asked for an elaboration on your use of the word "torture".

Perhaps you misunderstood. When I said "this torture" in the bit cited above, I was talking about the specific method of torture I described previously in that post. When you then replied with "no, the problem is not that it is morally repugnant," I was left -- understandably, I believe -- with the understanding that either you believe morality to be less important than military regulations or that you don't find it immoral.

quote:
It fits your criteria, such as it is.
I have provided no criteria.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
As a black man I can say that those of us who care about equality don't want white pity and we are pretty disgusted by white guilt. We wanted to be treated equally, that means no special treatment. You cannot fix old, past institutionalized racist structures from generations past by harming anyone alive now to "make up for it" because all that does is just create new racism, which is what is happening now.

No one has advocated for harming anyone. On the other hand, when people talk about ways people need to act to actually demonstrate equal treatment or otherwise prevent unequal treatment you try to label them as "racist" and trying to "hurt" those that would need to actually make the effort to treat people equally, instead of suggesting that they continue to passively participate in and promote highly inequitable treatment.
Many of the actions advocated here in the name of "fighting racism" negatively impact others. Things that have been listed here such as affirmative action, redistributive taxes, protected classes, etc. all come at the cost of disadvantaging or harming others.
And now at the extreme end we have completely unnecessary violence towards people and property that didn't save any black lives yet was encouraged as a form of protest by the race hustlers.

Do I really need to re-post Farrakhan's speech about desirable violence?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
we have completely unnecessary violence towards people and property that didn't save any black lives yet was encouraged as a form of protest
How do you feel about diner sit-ins?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
If these others aren't so quick to agree to whatever's said first but want to think it over for themselves, or even to present an alternate view of the issue, then that's exactly what should happen when you try to work with others; you need to accept that they have minds of their own and that you need to come to an agreement with them. But framing an issue in just one way and expecting consensus isn't the way to approach others who are different than you.
So every patient in the ER should get a say on the proper diagnosis, regardless of what the medical experts figure out? Heck, you're even suggesting that everyone else should effectively get to assert their own opinion of what symptoms the patient is feeling- that they doctors should trust you more than the patient, and if the doctor tries to point out that he thinks that only the patient is a reliable witness for what hurts, then the doctor is resorting to needless orthodoxy and not properly working to try to get your consensus.

I mean, what you are saying might have more weight if you showed any evidence of having seriously studied the issue and history of the problem enough to display anything but total ignorance of the issue; at that point your opinions would be worth pursuing and you might be a valid source of a second opinion. But at the moment, again, you're effectively jumping up and down saying "I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express, I'm qualified to offer expert advice here, and you need my input before you can do anything" instead of even trusting the patient when he explains the symptoms or listening to the doctors making the diagnosis to maybe show an interest in learning about the issues at hand before you start pontificating about your solutions to the problem and how getting your consensus should be of the utmost importance.

I don't know if you realize it, but all you've been doing in this thread is to reiterate what you see as the truth over and over, without even lip service to the fact that someone other than you might know something or at least disagree and still have a brain. You have repeatedly sidelined any dissenting comment (and I'm not even dissenting, just offering a more neutral perspective); if Seneca says something you don't like, you say he's responding to no one; if I say something that is anything other than full agreement I'm told that my knowledge of the world is equivalent to someone staying at the Holiday Express Inn and calling himself a doctor. It's really an insulting way of discussing an issue.

To remind you, Tom suggested that the doctor was the public, and the patient was the underprivileged black population; I didn't come up with that setup but I went along with it. You speak of "every other medical expert" as being in some kind of consensus and that this one doctor is being a racist dummy; but you miss the point. 'The doctor', i.e. they who can help to change things, is everyone. So no, there is no consensus among people on this, and even if there is a such thing as an expert on race relations (an expertise I'm not sure I'd respect as having superior real knowledge to other people) I'm not interested in what they think because experts don't set policy and the U.S. isn't a Republic of experts, it's a republic of normal people. It's no good to say that normal people are too dumb to talk with you about racism; they are the people you need to reach, and if they don't agree right away then dismissing them isn't going to help you.

So should "every patient in the ER" have a say? If by that you mean every normal person in the U.S., then yes! That goes in the "duh" column. The fact that you may not like what some "uneducated" people (apparently like me) think it might mean that you don't really want to have a discussion on this, but would prefer to make a sermon. If so, have at it and call it that too.

[ December 12, 2014, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"no, the problem is not that it is morally repugnant, ... "...

Could you please point out where the preceeding "quotation" can be found in *any* of my posts?

(Tom): "I have provided no criteria. "...

Yes, you have. :

"I submit that breaking someone's legs, beating them until their muscles separate and liquify, and then hanging them from their wrists for hours for the purposes of breaking their spirit and 💥intimidating them counts as torture💥. "...

You "submitted", and I accepted. Would you like to change your mind?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just cut to the chase Tom, does "intimidation" count as torture?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

(Tom): "I have provided no criteria. "...

Yes, you have. :

"I submit that breaking someone's legs, beating them until their muscles separate and liquify, and then hanging them from their wrists for hours for the purposes of breaking their spirit and 💥intimidating them counts as torture💥. "...

You "submitted", and I accepted. Would you like to change your mind?

noel I know I'm butting into your conversation with Tom, but you do know that sectioning off a sentence fragment such as "intimidating them counts as torture" from a sentence such as that is not a proper use of language, right?

I've been in agreement with you on some points you made, on and off, but I don't think that evading Tom on this simple question helps your position. I give more credit to some of the things you've said in this thread than I think some others do, and I'd very much like to see you maximally strengthen your general position so that we can have a good variety of coherent views here.

Tom didn't say that "intimidating them counts as torture", he simply recited the facts of one case, which included the goal of breaking the spirit of and intimidating the subject. It is the entirety of the facts that he listed that he's calling torture, which is why it's a single example and not a general definition.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

I believe the addition of that "fragment" was an intentional Segway into the actual practice of "enhanced interrogation". Tom uses his words carefully, and it strikes me as mildly humorus that "intimidation" is the coup de grâce in the chain of physical mutilation.

Let him deny that feature from his description, and see what happens.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You have repeatedly sidelined any dissenting comment (and I'm not even dissenting, just offering a more neutral perspective)
No, you're offering a less-informed perspective. Ignorance doesn't become more correct if you try to dress it up as neutrality.

quote:
; if Seneca says something you don't like
Not something I don't like, if he makes accusations that have no basis in reality; repeating propaganda invented by talkshow hosts to anger people who aren't familiar with the facts and even prevent them from trying to understand the facts.

quote:
if I say something that is anything other than full agreement I'm told that my knowledge of the world is equivalent to someone staying at the Holiday Express Inn and calling himself a doctor.
No- you you say things that outright contradict and deny the life experiences of people that actually live in the conditions being discussed on a daily basis. If you say things that contradict the expertise of people that have made a point of studying the issues in depth, analyzing what does and does not work.

But most of all when you presume to be able to dictate to others what they really must be feeling and experiencing to be something other than what they say they're feeling and experiencing. When try to call that basic expression of their pain and perspective with a patient diagnosing themselves and refuse to put your opinion of what's going on aside long enough to even bother to listen to them because they're so rude as to try to tell you that they're feeling something that doesn't match your uninformed opinion of what they really must be feeling and refuse to listed to them unless they first change what they're saying to satisfy your biases, insisting that it's their responsibility to change to match what you want if they want your help instead of understanding that you can't be helpful unless you're willing to listen and learn even if it means that you have to put forth effort instead of being able to get credit for superficial willingness.

I do challenge the notion that the public is the doctor. The public are the ones that keel smacking the patient in the leg as they go by, despite the doctor trying to tell them that they're aggravating the wound by doing so. The public does have a role to play, to be certain, but that role is to make the effort to listen to the experts in the matter instead of claiming that the doctor's "orthodoxy" on the matter is insulting and that he must first agree that there's nothing wrong with a little traditional leg smacking before considering the possibility that he patient might have a broken leg.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Fenring,

I believe the addition of that "fragment" was an intentional Segway into the actual practice of "enhanced interrogation". Tom uses his words carefully, and it strikes me as mildly humorus that "intimidation" is the coup de grâce in the chain of physical mutilation.

Let him deny that feature from his description, and see what happens.

Even if it's true (and I don't think it is) that the entire point of torture is intimidation, the question of morality is about the methods used, not the result. Intimidation by psychological tricks and abuse is something that could be discussed, but Tom is, for now, discussing physical abuse as torture, which although it has psychological results is illegal at this time strictly because of the physical acts involved. So that's what he's asking you, if I'm not mistaken - whether those physical acts (messing up someone's body badly) are acceptable or not.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, I disengaged from this thread because I found it pointless to discuss things further with you - you have been sermonizing the whole time. Even Tom, who I often take issue with for passive-aggressive type argumentation, at least engages what other people say seriously.

I would not go so far as to say that your behaviour violates the rules of the forum - only that you render debate rather pointless since you are impervious to any argument that does not perfectly mirror your own position on a subject.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Could you please point out where the preceeding "quotation" can be found in *any* of my posts?
I anticipated this question, which is actually why I also quoted that exchange in my post. Namely:
quote:
Are we agreed on this point? That the problem with this torture is not that it violates protocol but that it is morally repugnant? "...

No, which is why I asked for an elaboration on your use of the word "torture".

Specifically, I asked whether you agreed that the problem with the torture I described was that it was morally repugnant, and not merely that it was illegal. Your response was "no."

------

quote:
I believe the addition of that "fragment" was an intentional Segway into the actual practice of "enhanced interrogation".
Oh, lord. *sigh* Leaving aside your bizarre use of "Segway" when you mean "segue," which I only mention here because, y'know, subjunctive mood, I should point out that I added that clause to differentiate it from merely tormenting someone at random for no reason.

I think the intent behind torture matters, and I wanted to make sure that we were differentiating torturing someone for what we thought were reasons versus torturing someone just because we really wanted to cause pain, or because we randomly spun "break this guy's legs" on the Wheel of Fortune. Merely intimidating somebody is not in itself torture, although it can certainly be unpleasant; I would argue that intimidating somebody in certain ways, over a certain period of time, might well constitute a torture, but I don't think any of the cases discussed in the CIA report are made up of nothing but intimidation (unless you would count threatening to kill someone's family, or forcing them to kneel inside a grave they dug while you half-fill it with dirt, as "intimidation" on the order of hiring some guards to stand outside a building.)

There are of course degrees of torment. Can we agree that it is not necessary to establish a hard line between "torture" and "really unpleasant, but not torture" for the purposes of this conversation?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
As a black man I can say that those of us who care about equality don't want white pity and we are pretty disgusted by white guilt. We wanted to be treated equally, that means no special treatment. You cannot fix old, past institutionalized racist structures from generations past by harming anyone alive now to "make up for it" because all that does is just create new racism, which is what is happening now.

No one has advocated for harming anyone. On the other hand, when people talk about ways people need to act to actually demonstrate equal treatment or otherwise prevent unequal treatment you try to label them as "racist" and trying to "hurt" those that would need to actually make the effort to treat people equally, instead of suggesting that they continue to passively participate in and promote highly inequitable treatment.
No one has advocated violence huh?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/29/farrakhan-on-ferguson-well-tear-this-gdamn-country-up-video/

And yes, we were talking about the race hustlers, not people om this board...

As far as correcting "institutionalized" racism, name ONE way to do that that isn't already being done and doesn't negatively impact ANYONE.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"Even if it's true (and I don't think it is) that the entire point of torture is intimidation, the question of morality is about the methods used, not the result. "...

... And here I disagree.

It *is* about the result. I have already said that if, in exigent circumstances, infliction of physical harm upon an enemy combatant was effective in preserving life, I would consider it.

We "capture" jihadists in the cross-hairs of Hellfire missiles with some regularity. There is really no escape, and the "liquification" imagery takes on a literal meaning. "Collateral" damage (innocent casualties) are not uncommon. I still support the practice, because we are at war.

Enhanced interrogation is infinitely preferable, yet this is where Feinstein, and Tom, has chosen to make a statement. I think her panties are in a knot because she has yet to get over John Brennan's CIA investigated members of congress... hardly a justification to undermine the methods which *have* resulted in actionable intelligence.

[ December 12, 2014, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr, I do find it entertaining to see people try and debate Pyr without sharing his theoretical framework. Pyr's responses are so predictable, I wonder why they bother. His opponents usually fail to engage as much as he does. It's not like they don't know what he's going to say.

More on topic, I've heard the first step in being a good ally is to shut up and listen. Showing up and offering advice and suggestions is to risk paternalism and condescension.

Seneca, you're quoting the Nation of Islam, really? And considering how much institutionalized racism has negatively affected people, why shouldn't the solutions? Freedom--or justice--isn't free.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"I anticipated this question, which is actually why I also quoted that exchange in my post. "...

... And I anticipated your anticipation.

"Specifically, I asked whether you agreed that the problem with the torture I described was that it was morally repugnant, and not merely that it was illegal. Your response was 'no.' "...

The "torture" that you described contained multiple elements, all of which constitute torture. I disagree that "intimidation" is immoral; do you?

"I think the intent behind torture matters, and I wanted to make sure that we were differentiating... "...

... And does any of this differentiation result in "moral" process?

"Can we agree that it is not necessary to establish a hard line between 'torture' and 'really unpleasant, but not torture' for the purposes of this conversation? "...

Yes, does this mean that intimidation is a torture modality?

[ December 12, 2014, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder why they bother.
2 people failing to persuade each other are not necessarily wasting time. By reading someone reframe the same position over and over in different ways you can remove any confusion or doubt that you know their position. I find that interesting even when not useful. By writing out your own position over and over in different ways you can reexamine and recommit to that position feeling more confident or you can recognize flaws in that position or in how you articulate it. I find that very valuable.

It doesn’t have to be about winning or persuading someone they are wrong. Even if that is the form the exercise takes.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I disagree that "intimidation" is immoral; do you?
I believe there are many different sorts of activities that would fall under the rubric of "intimidation." I would consider some of them immoral, no doubt; others probably are not.

quote:
does this mean that intimidation is a torture modality?
No one gives a ****, noel.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one has advocated violence huh?
Fair enough- one voice on the extreme, who's operating on about the same level as the Oath Keepers about how to resist an oppressive government. What tactics would you suggests to fight back against a crackdown on you by militarized police force intent on keeling or imprisoning you?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It doesn’t have to be about winning or persuading someone they are wrong. Even if that is the form the exercise takes.
I don't disagree in principle, but it seems to me that there must exist at least the possibility that someone is capable of changing their position however minutely, otherwise the debate becomes rather tedious - like debating with a robot whose hard drive is set to "read only".
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as correcting "institutionalized" racism, name ONE way to do that that isn't already being done and doesn't negatively impact ANYONE.
All of them that have actually managed to be implemented. Feel free to explain how any one actually implemented program negatively impacts someone as compared to how they'd be treated if everyone was operating in an equitable system. Or do you count "no longer getting a special advantage over everyone else" as a negative impact, rather than just a natural consequence of equal treatment? Is an unqualified white person not getting a job because an employer was forced to consider the better qualifications of a black person count as a negative impact on the white person who would have otherwise been picked without pressure to actually consider qualifications?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"I believe there are many different sorts of activities that would fall under the rubric of 'intimidation.' I would consider some of them immoral, no doubt; others probably are not. "...

In the context of acquiring timely intelligence that results in preservation of life; is intimidation immoral?

"No one gives a ****, noel. "...

For purposes of my argument, it does. Is intimidation a torture modality, and if it saves lives do you consider it immoral?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the context of acquiring timely intelligence that results in preservation of life; is intimidation immoral?
I think it depends on the sort of intimidation. I also think that the expectation that torture produces timely, life-saving intelligence has been pretty solidly disproven, and makes for a poor fallback justification for it. After all, not every scenario has a ticking timebomb and a captured mastermind at its heart, so torturing every captured lackey in hopes of working your way up to capturing a mastermind -- and then torturing him in hopes that he'll give you good intel about something he's hypothetically planning -- is a great way to spend a lot of money being horrifically evil without actually doing any good to justify it.

quote:
if it saves lives do you consider it immoral
I think it depends what's being done. As a matter of policy, I think few enough lives are saved, even hypothetically, to ever justify it -- because if lives are not saved, surely we agree that it's definitely immoral, right? So every single person we tortured fruitlessly goes into the "immorally tortured" column?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin:
quote:
Sure, but the patient has said "My leg hurts". The doctor has said "Yep, it's a broken leg", and every other medical expert has confirmed his diagnosis and you're saying "Don't trust the patient, it's really his arm that hurts" and insisting maybe the doctor should take more time and think about it because you're not convinced yet that the patient isn't lying about his leg hurting.
I was going to let this lie, but since the conversation has come back around to tortured analogies again, I would like to point this out.

You have distorted every single analogy offered up in this discussion. Every. Single. One.

The original analogy dealt with a poisoning victim, but let's go with the broken leg.

The patient comes in, says his leg is broken.
The racist in the waiting room accuses him of faking it to get prescription drugs or something.
The doctor says okay, lets put on a cast.
The patient says, no cast. A cast is what broke my leg in the first place. I want a splint. I feel that I would heal better if my leg is not associated with a cast at all.
The doctor says well, I know that mood and mental well-being can enhance healing. so I guess I can do that...
DW (in the waiting room) overhears this and says that's nuts. he won't heal as fast in a splint, and it might end up crooked.
The patient says to DW that it is his leg and he can avoid casts if he wants to.
DW says sure, that's your right. but just because some moron smacked you with a cast and broke your leg doesn't mean you SHOULD avoid all casts from now on.
The patient accuses DW of siding with the racist who thinks he is faking it.

Brian leans over and points out that DW was just trying to help optimize the patients recovery. That you can't blame the cast for causing the injury.

Pyrtolin yells at every single person in the waiting room, saying that if they don't agree that what the patient feels is more important than logic, then they are actually trying to break his other leg. And maybe his arms. Oh and that Brian guy is trying to drill holes in the patient's boat so he'll drown.

Fenring tells Pyrtolin that he might be getting a bit carried away.
Pyrtolin says of course you would say that, since you don't know what it feels like to have your soup poisoned.

Brian shakes his head and wonders if he should get checked for a concussion while he is at the doctor's office, since half of the conversation is making no sense.

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  ...  53  54  55   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1