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 33)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  ...  53  54  55   
Author Topic: UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
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".
IF the discussion was about whether PI was 3.14159.... or 2.5 would you say that both sides should be equally open to change? You'd have a point if we were talking about things that are purely matters of opinion, not matters of fact that some people are trying to insist are just opinions.

Specifically, in this case, the assertion by a group of people that they feel hurt by the use of a particular phrase in light of recent events. The discussion here is literally one side saying "These people say that, given recent events, thing-X hurt them, and it's respectful to take them at face value on that" and the other side saying "I like thing-X, so there's no way that it could be hurtful and it's bad to show respect for other people who say that it hurt them, regardless of recent events"

This isn't an I think this, you think that scenario, it's "People are saying this" "No they're not" scenario, when we have them on record as saying it, not just an opinion that they might be saying it.

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 
Brian, it seems to me that your analogy is completely baseless and entirely distorts the actual conversation being had, but it also occurs to me that if you think that's the conversation being had, I now understand why you and D.W. are so confused.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
noel:In the context of acquiring timely intelligence that results in preservation of life; is intimidation immoral
I believe Tom has already answered this above. I will also answer it:

It depends on the type of intimidation. Torture is not a black-and-white issue; there are gradients.

Some things which can rightly be called intimidation are torture. Some things which can rightly be called intimidation are not torture.

Would you address my questions to you from 4 pages ago now?

quote:
quote:
quote:
Tom: Let me remind you what we did to Dilawar: we beat him and broke his calves and pulped the muscles of his upper thighs when, due to his calves being broken, he could not kneel in front of a CIA consultant when ordered to do so. To break his spirit, he was then hung from the ceiling by his wrists -- which you'll find is pretty similar to crucifixion -- and then, after falling into unconsciousness, inspected by that same CIA consultant who judged him fit to re-hang.

Bear in mind that he was "guilty" of picking up three people -- non-terrorists themselves -- and trying to drive them across town.

Noel: Strictly speaking, "calves" cannot be "broken". Likewise, "pulping" the muscles is a pretty odd way to refer to an injury. I I think your source is unqualified to report on what actully happened.

If both tibia were broken, suffocation would be the result. Assuming the Times reporter was correct back in 2005, disciplinary action was merited, as I have already agreed. Neither the Times, nor the balance of the referenced article supports your CIA "contractor" narrative however.

Do you have another reference?

Army personnel were culpable under any reasonable interpretation of "humane" prisoner treatment.

"I'm curious why you think this position of mine is based in ignorance, since it seems to me to be supported by all available testimony. "...

Simulated torture is realistic enough to "break" people, as you say. The purpose of the exercise is to resist capitulation, not avoid it.

JoshuaD:Noel: I'm coming late to this part of the thread, so please forgive me if you've covered this ground already.

Are you saying that what we did to this man is OK by you?

Perhaps Tom overstated the case slightly (I don't think he did). Perhaps "pulping muscles" is a strange term to you (I think it's a clear thing). All of those are details around the edges.

Do you think beating a man and hanging a man by his wrists from the ceiling until he dies is something the US government should ever be doing? If not, what exactly is your argument here?

To which you simply responded:

quote:
Noel:At least try Joshua.
Again, I asked you to clarify your position:

quote:
JoshuaD: Noel: You responded with scorn, but I don't see a clear answer. At least one other poster understood what I was asking, why didn't you respond?

1) Do you think beating a man and hanging a man by his wrists from the ceiling until he dies is something the US government should ever be doing?

2) If not, what exactly is your argument here?

A few pages later you responded to another post of mine, but failed to address the questions raised above:

quote:
noel Josh,

"Poking" is fine... it is a natural feature of honest exchange.

Demanding nonreciprocal inquiry is not. Agree to change that particularly off-putting feature of your communication style, and I will even play along with the pretense that you are not being patronizingly critical of another's character at the most primal level. Heck, I let Tom get away with it all the time.

Deal?

I'm not sure where you think my inquiry is non-reciprocal, but sure, if you ask me a question, I'll answer it (I have a good track record of this on these forums, it's a simple thing to do). Sometimes, I'll even answer questions you asked someone else, like above.

So again:

quote:
1) Do you think beating a man and hanging a man by his wrists from the ceiling until he dies is something the US government should ever be doing?
Let me show you the sort of answer that one might provide if he wishes to be clear. This is my answer:

1) No. No this can never be justified. No, I do not want my government doing this in my name no matter what the justifications or stakes are. No. This is torture and it is not something I can even get close to condoning or approving. To the contrary, I think it is absolutely reprehensible, and a collective stain on our souls.

Now everyone reading this thread unambiguously know what I think about the particular case that Tom highlighted. Could you do the same for us?

[ December 12, 2014, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 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:
You have distorted every single analogy offered up in this discussion. Every. Single. One.
No, I have fixed the distortions in the analogies so that they're relevant. Your analogy fails because it doesn't actually correlate to anything that's happening in reality.

quote:
The patient comes in, says his leg is broken.
The is misleading. The patient says "I hurt my leg playing soccer, I'm in a lot of pain" As soon as you jump from statement of pain- something that did happen- to self-diagnosis, your analogy become useless because it actively promotes a lie about the facts of the situation.

quote:
The doctor says okay, lets put on a cast.
Yes, indeed.

quote:
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.
No. DW's statement is equivalent to "Soccer is a great sport, I don't want you to ruin it by blaming it for your broken leg. There's no way it could have hurt you, and it's just giving in to people who want to smear soccer to say that it did."

I point out that maybe people should listen to the patient and trust that he knows what he was doing and what hurts.

You and Fenring pipe up saying that the patient isn't a doctor, so there's no way we should trust him to say what hurts or what he was doing, and that since it's just a matter of opinion, the patient should, instead, convince everyone in the ER that he's telling the truth before monopolizing the doctor's attention. Then label that as "logic"

I try to point out that by not listening to the patient or the doctor, not only are things getting worse for the patient, but everyone is also implicitly hurting themselves by tying up the doctor with distractions, and that anyone that wants to help should maybe first pay listen and learn about what the patient is saying and what the doctor recommends would help.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
As I said, half of the conversation makes no sense to me. I am absolutely positive that is the conversation I was having. At least my half of it. And I think it is the conversation DW was having.

So who of us all is horribly confused?

My entire participation occurred because Pyrtolin flipped out on DW for saying that 'all lives matter' should be our ultimate goal, and we shouldn't let some jerk try to twist it into something bad. And we most definitely shouldn't go on to AGREE with the jerk that it now means something bad!

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  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 
And I can take you step by step through the parallel.

University president says something nominally good (soccer game)

People under fire in the race discussion say "Ow! My leg. That really hurts"

Presidents advisers (the doctor in their case) "Shoot, you broke their leg, here's how we fix it)

Not the parallel brreaks a little because we're talking on the sideline and not actually involved, but

DW: How horrible is it that the president and her advisers impugned soccer by listening to that person who said "Ow" and treating a broken leg instead of standing up for what's right and good and saying that soccer can never hurt anyone.

etc...

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:
So who of us all is horribly confused?
I would argue that you and DW are, because I think Pyr's comments have indicated that he understands that you aren't along for the ride; he knows what he's saying and I think he knows what you're saying, but he's made no headway towards getting you to understand what he's saying. I don't know whose fault that is.

I'm giving this one a bit of a berth because it ultimately boils down to a conversation about defaults, privilege, and comfort, and I've found that most people either come to an understanding of that topic or don't -- and trying to force an understanding creates resistance that can actually harden minds. Which is where D.W. is coming from, of course: the idea that you should avoid confronting people in a way that would offend them, even if they were doing something legitimately wrong or hurtful, because you might lose their support for the larger struggle. I don't think that's an invalid point, but I think concern for that population's feelings -- the population of people who'll be vaguely sympathetic as long as they don't feel butthurt -- should never be the primary concern of anyone fighting for justice or equality.

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 
Tom,

"I think it depends on the sort of intimidation. "...

Are you talking about intimidation that you would classify as torture?

"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. "...

If we are confronting the issue based upon actionable intelligence, as a question of fact, I am 90% of the way to proving my point.

"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."...

... Unless it culminates in two .224, 63 grainers, into the head of UBL.

"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? "...

No, how could even surgical procedures be morally justified if positive outcomes required a guarantee?

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:
Pyrtolin flipped out on DW for saying that 'all lives matter' should be our ultimate goal
No- I contested his assertion that there was no way it could have hurt the people who said that it hurt them. And the assertion that it was bad for the university president to acknowledge and apologized for an action that hurt them because being respectful of their pain is just selling out to people who want to make them look bad.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
quote:
No, I have fixed the distortions in the analogies so that they're relevant. Your analogy fails because it doesn't actually correlate to anything that's happening in reality.
It was TOM'S frigging analogy!


also
quote:
No. DW's statement is equivalent to "Soccer is a great sport, I don't want you to ruin it by blaming it for your broken leg. There's no way it could have hurt you, and it's just giving in to people who want to smear soccer to say that it did."
Dw's statement is "someone tricked you into blaming soccer rather than physics for the pain in your leg. I know you love soccer, so why are you agreeing that the entire game is to blame?"
Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  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 
noel, you are aware of the role consent plays in the morality of certain actions?
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 
Josh,

"Would you address my questions to you from 4 pages ago now? "...

I am not going to waste a single key stroke on you unless there is upfront agreement that you will respond to my questions.

Will you?

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 
NH,

"noel, you are aware of the role consent plays in the morality of certain actions? "...

Of "certain actions", yes. Do you have a specific action in mind?

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 
Well, given your statement, surgery comes to mind.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
Actually, Pyrtolin has no idea what my opinion on the subject is. He keeps assuming that I am on the other side because I am not in lockstep with him.
He obviously doesn't understand what I an saying, but pretends that he does.
He even agreed with me that what I was saying was so obvious that no-one could possibly argue against it - and then he argued against it. Because He can't believe that I am actually on his side, just pointing out that he might be a tiny bit mistaken on this one, small idea.

The ONLY thing I have ever argued about is the intrinsic value of a symbol, and how if a few people using a certain symbol can 'taint' it, why can't it be 'cleansed' by other people using it in the way it was originally intended?

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Josh,

"Would you address my questions to you from 4 pages ago now? "...

I am not going to waste a single key stroke on you unless there is upfront agreement that you will respond to my questions.

Will you?

Yes, as long as we are talking with one another, I will answer your questions. I said this already, in the post you quoted:

quote:
JoshuaD: I'm not sure where you think my inquiry is non-reciprocal, but sure, if you ask me a question, I'll answer it (I have a good track record of this on these forums, it's a simple thing to do). Sometimes, I'll even answer questions you asked someone else, like above.
So, again, would you tell us all unambiguously what you think on the topic? For the life of me I have no idea why this is so hard:

quote:
1) Do you think beating a man and hanging a man by his wrists from the ceiling until he dies is something the US government should ever be doing?

2) If not, what exactly is your argument here?


Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 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:
Are you talking about intimidation that you would classify as torture?
There are forms of immoral intimidation that I would not consider torture. There are forms of immoral intimidation that I would consider torture. I honestly don't know why you have such a hard-on for the whole intimidation aspect.

quote:
If we are confronting the issue based upon actionable intelligence, as a question of fact, I am 90% of the way to proving my point.
Rather, I am generously standing on your ground. I do not grant that the effectiveness of a given instance of torture morally justifies it. But even if I were to accept that claim of yours, we must agree, then, that ineffective torture is immoral, no?

quote:
... Unless it culminates in two .224, 63 grainers, into the head of UBL.
It's fairly clear, actually, that torture did not in fact uniquely provide us with the opportunity to kill that guy. More interesting, to me, is the question: how much torture would theoretically be justified by finding a target on whom we wish to avenge ourselves? If we had to torture one nasty baddie to find and kill bin Laden, with no other good coming out of it, would it be worth it? What if we had to torture four baddies for ten years? What if we had to torture four baddies and one completely innocent cab driver? At what point does the campaign of torture cease to be justified by our execution of bin Laden?

[ December 12, 2014, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

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 
NH,

"Well, given your statement, surgery comes to mind. "...

My youngest daughter had two open-heart surgeries by the time she was three years old. I did not obtain her consent on either occasion.

Were my decisions moral? I realize the comparison with enhanced interrogation differs, but not in the "guaranteed result" aspect. In both situations, a third party authorizes a course of action to save a life (or lives) through physical harm which may, or may not, be successful.

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:
Dw's statement is "someone tricked you into blaming soccer rather than physics for the pain in your leg. I know you love soccer, so why are you agreeing that the entire game is to blame?"
In other words, it's a completely false assertion about an argument that no one made? No one said at any point that the game was bad, but DW interpreting the statement that someone hurt their leg while playing soccer as an attack on soccer is bad reasoning.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Noel:
Were my decisions moral? I realize the comparison with enhanced interrogation differs, but not in the "guaranteed result" aspect. In both situations, a third party authorizes a course of action to save a life (or lives) through physical harm which may, or may not, be successful. [/QB]

You have quoted "guaranteed result", but no one else has used that phrase. Who are you quoting?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 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:
Originally posted by Brian:
Actually, Pyrtolin has no idea what my opinion on the subject is.

True enough. I only know what you're saying here and am arguing the points that you raise regardless of your beliefs. You are not the arguments you make by any means, but I'm not going to try to play psychic and try to argue for or against anything buy what you're putting on the table.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
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".
IF the discussion was about whether PI was 3.14159.... or 2.5 would you say that both sides should be equally open to change? You'd have a point if we were talking about things that are purely matters of opinion, not matters of fact that some people are trying to insist are just opinions.

Specifically, in this case, the assertion by a group of people that they feel hurt by the use of a particular phrase in light of recent events. The discussion here is literally one side saying "These people say that, given recent events, thing-X hurt them, and it's respectful to take them at face value on that" and the other side saying "I like thing-X, so there's no way that it could be hurtful and it's bad to show respect for other people who say that it hurt them, regardless of recent events"

This isn't an I think this, you think that scenario, it's "People are saying this" "No they're not" scenario, when we have them on record as saying it, not just an opinion that they might be saying it.

quote:
This isn't an I think this, you think that scenario, it's "People are saying this" "No they're not" scenario, when we have them on record as saying it, not just an opinion that they might be saying it. "
Now there is a chance this statement had nothing to do with me. If so ignore my response to it.

I have never denied people said “All Lives Matter” hurt them. I have never said that attempting to distract from the cause of making people accept “Black Lives Matter” is ok. I haven’t even said that “All Lives Matter” isn’t a distraction. I have never refuted your facts.

I have only explained a probable reaction to a reaction to a distraction. How I believe the second reaction was the goal of the distraction and how it required the first reaction to be achieved. You defend the first reaction and suggest the second reaction is wrong.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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,

"There are forms of immoral intimidation that I would not consider torture. There are forms of immoral intimidation that I would consider torture. I honestly don't know why you have such a hard-on for the whole intimidation aspect.

Are there forms of moral intimidation that you would consider moral?

"Rather, I am generously standing on your ground. I do not grant that the effectiveness of a given instance of torture morally justifies it. But even if I were to accept that claim of yours, we must agree, then, that ineffective torture is immoral, no? "...

Are you still gauging "effectiveness" ex post facto to specific cases?

"It's fairly clear, actually, that torture did not in fact uniquely provide us with the opportunity to kill that guy. "...

... Not according to Barry's current director of the CIA.

"More interesting, to me, is the question: how much torture would theoretically be justified by finding a target on whom we wish to avenge ourselves? "...

Vengeance is not a moral justification to me.

"At what point does the campaign of torture cease to be justified by our execution of bin Laden? "...

When he is dead.

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:
It's fairly clear, actually, that torture did not in fact uniquely provide us with the opportunity to kill that guy. More interesting, to me, is the question: how much torture would theoretically be justified by finding a target on whom we wish to avenge ourselves? If we had to torture one nasty baddie to find and kill bin Laden, with no other good coming out of it, would it be worth it? What if we had to torture four baddies for ten years? What if we had to torture four baddies and one completely innocent cab driver? At what point does the campaign of torture cease to be justified by our execution of bin Laden?
What if it turns out that experts on the matter say that we could have more quickly and accurately gotten the same information that it took torturing all of the above to acquire For a by giving one guy a Big Mac and a Coke?

In all the discussion of "how much torture is worth it" it's easy to miss the point that was also made that we've long established that there are better and faster ways of getting information from people that don't involve any abusive behavoir at all.

It's one thing to say "we needed to do it protect ourselves"- very morally grey. But when it turns out that we already knew that not only did we not need to do it, but it actually did us more harm than good? The entire discussion of the grey area becomes moot.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
It's pretty well established that a parent can consent on behalf of child. I don't think a captor can offer consent on behalf of a captive. Also, it cannot be argued that enhanced interrogation was in the best interests of the victims, unlike your daughter's surgery.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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:
Are there forms of moral intimidation that you would consider moral?
This is a tautology.

quote:
Not according to Barry's current director of the CIA.
Who is, we already know, a liar. The CIA's own internal memos say that torture did not in fact provide information essential to locating bin Laden.

quote:
When he is dead.
So until he is dead, any arbitrary amount of torture with the goal of locating him is justified? Even if locating him did not actually directly save any lives immediately in danger?
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 
Josh,

"You have quoted 'guaranteed result', but no one else has used that phrase. Who are you quoting? "...

I am quoting my own summation of Tom's post on justifiability.

I have to get some stuff done. Take the time to read through the dialogue so you can stop apologizing for jumping into the middle of a discussion.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
On a side note - you guys type way too fast!
I find that 3 or 4 posts have come in in the time it takes me to type up my reply to what I think is the latest one.


Tom
quote:
the idea that you should avoid confronting people in a way that would offend them, even if they were doing something legitimately wrong or hurtful, because you might lose their support for the larger struggle. I don't think that's an invalid point, but I think concern for that population's feelings -- the population of people who'll be vaguely sympathetic as long as they don't feel butthurt -- should never be the primary concern of anyone fighting for justice or equality.
Ironically, right up until you specified which population you were talking about, it seemed to me to be describing the people Pyrtolin is proxying for: the ones who got "butthurt" because of an accidental verbal alignment with a hated group.

I will quote myself again:
quote:
The ONLY thing I have ever argued about is the intrinsic value of a symbol, and how if a few people using a certain symbol can 'taint' it, why can't it be 'cleansed' by other people using it in the way it was originally intended?
That is the only thing I am saying. The only point I am raising. The only thing I am putting on the table.

Edit - Other than my attempt to interpret DW's stance that it was a trap which Pyrtolin fell into.

[ December 12, 2014, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  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 
Joshua, let me try.

noel, answer this question, yes or no:
quote:
Do you think beating a man and hanging a man by his wrists from the ceiling until he dies is something the US government should ever be doing?

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 
NH,

"It's pretty well established that a parent can consent on behalf of child. I don't think a captor can offer consent on behalf of a captive. Also, it cannot be argued that enhanced interrogation was in the best interests of the victims, unlike your daughter's surgery. "...

... How about treatment of a comatose accident victim appearing in an emergency room? Do we really need to run this circut? My parallel is not perfect, but it is personal. If you want a better one, use your imagination. Some variation of the Trolley Problem might be fruitful.

[ December 12, 2014, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

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:
How about treatment of a comatose accident victim appearing in an emergency room?
*sigh*
Need it be observed that the primary distinction here is that the action being taken in one scenario is intended to harmful to the person being acted upon and beneficial to another, and in the other is intended to be beneficial to the person being acted upon?

If we must use your daughter's heart as an example, imagine that she was brought comatose into an emergency room and the doctor on duty decided that her heart should be removed and given to someone else who would benefit more from it.

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 
"Do you think beating a man and hanging a man by his wrists from the ceiling until he dies is something the US government should ever be doing? "...

I can see no conceivable utility in doing something like that, can you?

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 
So consent based on the best interests of the patient waives the requirement of a guaranteed positive result? So who's making that decision on behalf of the victims of torture?

The issue with the trolley problem as a parallel is that torture is demonstrably not effective in avoiding the more crowded track. As Pyr said, there are better ways to throw the switch, maybe even getting us onto a third track without anyone on the way. There is no justification for torture based on consideration of the consequences.

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,

"*sigh*
Need it be observed that the primary distinction here is that the action being taken in one scenario is intended to harmful to the person being acted upon and beneficial to another, and in the other is intended to be beneficial to the person being acted upon? "...

That distinction has already been made Tom. My point is that lives saved through the infliction of harm (physical or psychological), cannot be an after-the-fact calculus.

For the type of analogue you appear to be looking for, use the Trolley Problem format.

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:
I can see no conceivable utility in doing something like that, can you?
I asked for a "yes" or "no" answer, noel. Should the U.S. government ever beat a man and hang him by his wrists from the ceiling?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
DW: How horrible is it that the president and her advisers impugned soccer by listening to that person who said "Ow" and treating a broken leg instead of standing up for what's right and good and saying that soccer can never hurt anyone.
I don’t understand this well enough to refute it. Seems like nonsense to me.
quote:
Which is where D.W. is coming from, of course: the idea that you should avoid confronting people in a way that would offend them, even if they were doing something legitimately wrong or hurtful, because you might lose their support for the larger struggle.
Nope. Not my point at all.

Black community: We are hungry.
Racist: Here is some soup.
Black community: Hey, you poisoned my soup.
School President: Here is some soup.
Black community: Do you have any idea how hurtful it is to offer us soup? The racists just attempted to poison us!
School President: I had no idea. Do you want sandwiches instead or should I just help inform everyone you are hungry?
DW: She just offered you food when you said you were hungry. SHE didn’t poison you and even you don’t think she is in league with the poisoners. You are letting the racists take soup away from you and make you suspicious of anyone who ever offers you soup in the future.


[ December 12, 2014, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
NH,

"So consent based on the best interests of the patient waives the requirement of a guaranteed positive result? So who's making that decision on behalf of the victims of torture? "...

Wrong victim(s).

"The issue with the trolley problem as a parallel is that torture is demonstrably not effective in avoiding the more crowded track. "...

... It is minimization of harm.

"As Pyr said, there are better ways to throw the switch, maybe even getting us onto a third track without anyone on the way. "...

Hmmm, Pyr mentioned it?

I do have not been reading him... what a coincidence.

"There is no justification for torture based on consideration of the consequences. "...

Consideration of the consequences is the only justification for torture.

[ December 12, 2014, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

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 
More like:

Black community: We are hungry.
Racist: Here is some poisoned soup.
Black community: Hey, you poisoned my soup.
Racist: Here is some more poisoned soup.
Black community: Hey, this soup is still poisoned.
Racist: Here, try this poisoned soup.
Black community: Hey, this soup is ALSO poisoned.
School president: Here, have this soup.
Racist: Here, try this poisoned soup.
Black community: Um, School president, offering us soup right now just makes you look like a racist.
School president: Oh, I'm sorry. Here, let me get you a pizza.
DW: But her soup was perfectly good!
Racist: Yeah! Are you saying that all people who like soup are racists? You soup haters!
Black community: *rolls eyes*

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
Wrong, it is effective.
noel, do you agree, then, that ineffective torture is always immoral?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
Looks like you're out of luck on the justification for torture aspect, then. Since there is no evidence that it results in useful intelligence or is more effective than other method of intelligence gathering.

And since torture runs into the same--if not worse ones--epistemological problems as capital punishment even if it could be effective it should not be permitted as a matter of policy.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  ...  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