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 » Rational, informed and conservative. (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Rational, informed and conservative.
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not that we'd expect them to stop it, it's that we could cry foul on it to other countries and be able to rally their support against it without looking inconsistent.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Do you think that if we stop the waterboarding, Al-Qaeda would suddenly stop chopping people's heads off on purpose?"
The question isn't what would Al Qaeda do, but how many people would choose to join Al Qaeda.

I know, for example, that I would be willing to chop off the heads of torturers. You only need add a bit of racial/ethnic bigotry in this mix for someone to take this feeling and transform it to "I would chop off the heads of any American."

AND I'M NOT EVEN MUSLIM.

quote:
Expecting the "bad guys" to become civilized just because we choose to pay for the luxury of having the moral high ground is wishful thinking - it is not rational
Bull****. Please read "Renouncing Islamism: To the brink and back again" at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html

I've still not yet read it fully myself, but here's some passages:
quote:

"Everyone hated the [unelected] government [of Hosni Mubarak], and the US for backing it," he says. But there was an inhibiting sympathy for the victims of 9/11 – until the Bush administration began to respond with Guantanamo Bay and bombs. "That made it much easier. After that, I could persuade people a lot faster."

quote:

"though they abhorred his political views, Amnesty International said he had a right to free speech and to peacefully express his views, and publicised his case.

"I was just amazed," Maajid says. "We'd always seen Amnesty as the soft power tools of colonialism. So, when Amnesty, despite knowing that we hated them, adopted us, I felt – maybe these democratic values aren't always hypocritical. Maybe some people take them seriously ... it was the beginning of my serious doubts."

quote:
"You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think – anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was – they stressed – also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.

Look, seagull -- this is a war between barbarism and civilization. And in this war Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration have BOTH been on the side of barbarism. Al Qaeda has been the excuse of the Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration has been the recruiting tool of Al Qaeda.

This isn't about "the moral high ground". This is about which side you choose to support. By supporting barbarism you strengthen barbarism. By supporting civilization you support civilization.

It's not that I support civilization DESPITE my selfish interests. I support civilization because it IS my selfish interest.

[ November 16, 2009, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron L,
Your post about Satan does not belong under a thread title that starts with the word "Rational". There are too many people that do not accept the statements you made about Satan part of their belief system and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion if we can not agree on the premises.

According to Jewish tradition, Satan is a faithful servant of god who is simply performing the role of a prosecutor (which was assigned to him by god). Even if that role involves tempting us to commit sins, that does not mean that Satan himself is a sinner.

Let's try to keep the religion out of a discussion
about being rational and informed.

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
""Do you think that if we stop the waterboarding, Al-Qaeda would suddenly stop chopping people's heads off on purpose?""

A silly question (in the form of a false dichotomy as regards the larger context, i.e., the merits and demerits of institutionally condoned torture) deserves a silly answer:

Why yes, I think they would, and I think we'd all get Free! Ponies! too.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish to make something very clear for our friend Aris. Much as I dislike certain tendencies on his part as a poster, I very much enjoy (and admire) the basic cant of his politicsw, and wish I had half the erudition with which his are informed.

I often delight in the cogency of his arguments as well as their holistic and global span, and frequently learn much historical/political detail from his posts.

"Let's try to keep the religion out of a discussion about being rational and informed."

But everything is subject to rational analysis and data collection. Religion, porn, tissue paper gradient preferecnes: the point of rationality is that it can be applied to anything. Not everything will fully submit, but I doubt there is anything humanity has so far encountered that doesn't yield somewhat to analysis based on rigorous measurements and unbiased comparison thereof.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I see it, if Satan does exist as described by Ron Lambert, it is sensible to beware of him. A malignant enemy, with intelligence superior to any human and with supernatural powers, would be a major threat. That does not seem to me to be the case - for example such a being could cause a lot of damage by setting off all the world's nuclear weapons - but Ron Lambert thinks differently. Most likely he argues that such straightforward destruction of everything on earth is prevented by God. Such a view of the world seems to me similar to a true dualism, as perhaps Satan is lesser than god, but men are still pawns on a battlefield on which their presence has little effect. Or perhaps pets for a God vastly superior to them. But for someone who does see the world that way, it seems rational that he act in accordance with his beliefs.

[ November 16, 2009, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, being able to "cry foul" will not undo the damage and I see nothing to gain from it. Allies who would desert us just because we "look inconsistent" are not worth having. Given the choice between crying foul and having my mortal enemies cry foul, I'd go with the second every time.

I am much more concerned with the valid point that:
quote:
Al Qaeda has been the excuse of the Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration has been the recruiting tool of Al Qaeda.
The question I ask myself is: will action "X" make it EASIER for Al-Qaeda to recruit more intelligent operatives (like bomb makers and cyber terrorists).

If Al-Qaeda has more candidates for suicide bombers and ax murderers than they know what to do with (which I think was already the case before 9/11) than creating a few more of those should not be our main concern.

If it is already easy for Al-Qaeda to recruit people based on Clinton's cynical bombing of Iraq in 1998, or Reagan's "cowardice" in Lebanon then Cheney's latest antics are not the main issues we need to be concerned with.

quote:
I know, for example, that I would be willing to chop off the heads of torturers.
If all you are willing to do is
chop off heads, you'll have to get in line. If you actually manage to kill an american, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you helped recruit more people into the US armed forces just so they can go back and kill you!

Which raises the theoretical question: can they get started on killing Aris right away? Or should they wait for Aris to kill someone before they do anything.

To OrneryMod: Please feel free to edit Aris' name out of this post and replace it with a generic reference if you are worried that it could be misinterpreted as a call to violence against Aris.

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How interesting that you would take one sentence of my reply and leave the more pertinent portion unanswered. If they never existed then Cheney and Bush are not the only ones deluded and wrong. And yet you libs/progressives keep railing as if it was purely a presidential decision. Please address the quotes too if you will.
I intentionally ignored the quotes, cb, because I was trying to make a point about the subject of this thread.

We were talking about irrational beliefs among conservatives. While it is very true that many people on both sides of the aisle believed that Sadam had WMD before the war, just about everyone agrees now that he was only pretending to. I agree with that.

But there are still conservatives who insist that Sadam actually had them.p Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they still insist that they were there. And often they rudely disparage anyone who disagrees.

How do you respond to such people? How do you handle them?

After all, there's not much I can say to them. I'm just some crazy Liberal who wants to destroy the country. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Al-Qaeda has more candidates for suicide bombers and ax murderers than they know what to do with than creating a few more of those should not be our main concern.
Are you seriously arguing that Al Qaeda has so many eager candidates that it is no longer hiring?

quote:
If it is already easy for Al-Qaeda to recruit people based on Clinton's cynical bombing of Iraq in 1998, or Reagan's "cowardice" in Lebanon then Cheney's latest antics are not the main issues we need to be concerned with.
So basically because Reagan took a wrong decision 25 years ago or so, we should just abandon the concept of making right decisions. Ever again. We are just doomed doomed doomed because of Reagan's cowardice in Lebanon.

Al Qaeda finds it difficult to recruit people, because in the few places it took control, it became despised by its oppression and murder. i.e. the "Iraqi Awakening" when the Iraqi Sunnis turned against Al Qaeda.

The only way that barbarism has to survive is when it can point to some other barbarism and argue that it's fighting against *that*.

quote:
If all you are willing to do is
chop off heads, you'll have to get in line. If you actually manage to kill an american, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you helped recruit more people into the US armed forces just so they can go back and kill you!

Which was actually my EXACT POINT about Al Qaeda's barbarism and American Republicans' barbarism feeding off each other and supporting each other.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Which was actually my EXACT POINT about Al Qaeda's barbarism and American Republicans' barbarism feeding off each other and supporting each other. [/QB]

I'm not sure how this qualifies as rational debate. You might find American Republicans barbaric in your own mind, but that hardly makes it true.

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." Daniel Moynihan

barbaric - without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive

Barbaric

The American Republican party is hardly primitive or uncivilized. You might disagree with the results, but the process was driven in a democratic system, by a democratic process.

You'll also note that the Republicans are out of power, and gracefully let the Democrats assume power. This is hardly the actions of a barbaric group. Furthermore, now that the Democrats are in power, US policies are virtually unchanged. Despite the rhetoric President Obama has left virtually all US policies enacted under the former administration in place.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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:
You might disagree with the results, but the process was driven in a democratic system, by a democratic process.
Are barbarians unable to be democratic?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
But liberals who have the effrontery to characterize conservatives as being less than sane or moral need to have this testimony brought to their attention again.


Ok I'll stick to sane but immoral. I seem to recall all you conservatives are helpless sinners and as such are prone to immoral and hypocritical behavior. Of course that describes every person in human history except for one.
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Viking, yes I do know some people who have admitted to being liberals. Some even in my church (all women). I like them as persons, but I have very little to do with them, and have given up discussing politics with them. It just does no good. The liberal mind is a closed mind, that is incapable of critical self-examination or questioning of its settled political world view.

A pox on both those answers. IMO any society that lacked something like a liberal, or something like a conservative, would flounder.

I was simple atempting to remind Ron that according to the faith he and I both espouse all humans are sinners, conservatives included. Ok I was being a little snarky about it, but I don't think they are more or less sinful than progressives.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seagull:
Ron L,
Your post about Satan does not belong under a thread title that starts with the word "Rational". There are too many people that do not accept the statements you made about Satan part of their belief system and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion if we can not agree on the premises.

According to Jewish tradition, Satan is a faithful servant of god who is simply performing the role of a prosecutor (which was assigned to him by god). Even if that role involves tempting us to commit sins, that does not mean that Satan himself is a sinner.

Let's try to keep the religion out of a discussion
about being rational and informed.

I think Ron's religion is the basis of his worldview so I doubt he can easily compartmentalize it like that. He was making a point about the corrupting effect of repeated wrongdoing.

Now having said that

Ron the only differance between a mainstream Republican conservative like you and most liberals are ones of policy. Your tactics and political theories are pretty much identical. Scratch that, actually you're more like a hard left liberal college professor and I don't mean that in jest.

[ November 16, 2009, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You might disagree with the results, but the process was driven in a democratic system, by a democratic process.
Are barbarians unable to be democratic?
Iceland had a kind of democracy under Viking rule. Of course it wasn't exactly our version.

[ November 16, 2009, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What makes you think that setting a civilized standard would stop other countries from doing it anyway?
Yeah. What a waste of time it was writing those useless Geneva Conventions. [Roll Eyes]

The funny thing about all of this is that I believe I understand the hard-nosed realist position. "What happens in dark, dank rooms stays in dark, dank rooms" and all. It just seems to me that a real hard-nosed realist would also realize the necessity of stringing up a politician as a scapegoat when the country gets caught with its pants down, rather than publicly defending a policy that weakens America's diplomatic position out of personal political loyalty.

I can understand *thinking* that it needs to be done, even if the unwashed masses wouldn't understand why. What I can't understand is publicly defending a policy that shouldn't be publicly defended.

Why is anyone even arguing this? It doesn't take an idealist position, and it doesn't take a realist position. It takes a: "someone on my team did it, and I won't admit my team is capable of doing something wrong" position.

[ November 16, 2009, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
barbaric - without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive

Barbaric

The American Republican party is hardly primitive or uncivilized. You might disagree with the results, but the process was driven in a democratic system, by a democratic process.

You aren't following even the definition you provided, by adding additional criteria like "democracy" into the mix. If you add *such* a criterion, then why can't I add my "NO WATERBOARDING" criterion?

You are of course right that I didn't bother to define barbarism -- and I didn't bother to define what I meant by civilization either. These words describe a fuzzy set of practices.

My point was made nonetheless: If one behaves like the enemy, the one *is* the enemy. If one treats the enemy inhumanely, then that action validates and strengthens inhumane practices.

The Berlin Wall would never have fallen if Western Europe was as tyrannical as Eastern Europe. But because freedom flourished on one side, tyranny was *weakened* on the other.

Compare and contrast how even the *memory* of Western-supported dictatorships in Latin America, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, helps fuel a new breed of fascists in those regions; ones even worse than those that *America* once supported.

America supported barbarism and it inevitably, karmically, got barbarians that are now opposing it.

By contrast in the regions where it supported democracy (e.g. Eastern Europe), it has allies there.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Rep party isn't barbaric, but not for lack of trying?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the return of duncan jack and boone the baboon
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris, I love that compare and contrast.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
seagull, your request that religion be kept out of a thread titled "rational, informed, and conservative, is arrogant, intolerant, and discriminatory.

Many, if not most, participants in this forum do believe in God and adhere to some religion, and to us religion relates to everything. Just because some do not hold to any religion does not place any obligation on me to bow to the lowest common denominator. Freedom of speech means FREEDOM of speech, and does not imply exclusion of religion.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see the federal government telling you not to make religious arguments, Ron. Are you aware of what 'freedom of religion' actually means?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
your request that religion be kept out of a thread titled "rational, informed, and conservative, is arrogant, intolerant, and discriminatory
Ah. Pulling motes from eyes, are we?

I think seagull simply meant that such arguments belong in a thread for super-rational discussion.

You know, for people whose reasoning transcends typical mortal reasoning. [Wink]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
a real hard-nosed realist would also realize the necessity of stringing up a politician as a scapegoat when the country gets caught with its pants down
Amen.
That goes not just for the Country but also for "when the Politician gets caught with its pants down" regardless of which party he belongs to.
quote:
It takes a: "someone on my team did it, and I won't admit my team is capable of doing something wrong" position.
Which may be a realist positon but does not exactly count as a rational argument in my book.

Ron, I did not mean to offend you. I also happen to believe in God and I would be happy to discuss the differences in our perspectives. I simply meant that a discussion about Religion is important enough to deserve its own thread and that since it is likely to involve some meta-rational arguments, it would only confuse things to have that discussion on this thread.

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Why is anyone even arguing this? It doesn't take an idealist position, and it doesn't take a realist position. It takes a: "someone on my team did it, and I won't admit my team is capable of doing something wrong" position.

What are you referring to? No one was caught. This was all revealed "as policy". That was what the huge deal was about.

Or maybe, I'm completely confused. What was this about again?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"lowest common denominator" [LOL]
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE, ah, you noticed that. I wondered if anyone would. [Big Grin]
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
seagull:
quote:
Amen.
That goes not just for the Country but also for "when the Politician gets caught with its pants down" regardless of which party he belongs to.

Hmm. Personally, I'm no Clinton apologist. I think talltwin's response on that issue, for instance, was very rational and insightful.

I do, however, think that there is a world of difference between stringing up a politician in order to salvage the diplomatic position of the US upon the revelation of a policy that does highly impactful damage to our reputation in the global community, and stringing up a politician for moral turpitude that creates a tantalizing scandal, and I'm not sure why you chose to link these disparate issues.

Perhaps your point was that liberals are also guilty of irrationally defending the actions of their political leaders out of partisanship, so conservatives should not be criticized for doing so? If so, I'd agree that bias exists for all self-interested individuals, but I don't think that pointing out the sins of political opponents absolves one of the responsibility to make rational choices of one's own.

More pointedly: controversy surrounding Clinton's sexual escapades has no relevance to the issue of whether the decision to publicly defend the policy of waterboarding represents a very rational position.

For my part, I find most of your posts to be quite rational and informed (perhaps this is simply because I don't self-identify as a liberal [Wink] ), but I have noticed a trend of you changing the subject rather than acknowledge the validity of interlocutors' points. For instance, I found your posts on the linked thread about objective truth to be keenly interesting and indicative of a deep grasp of logic as well as nuance, but it seemed that the point of it all within a greater context was to find ways to discount the importance of conclusions derived from relatively sound and well structured logic through the use of an interesting distraction--instead of acknowledging that an interlocutor has a compelling point that appears to be as sound as 1+1=2, you seem to think it better to simply undermine the point by discussing the discursive impossibility of translating arguments about issues into perfect formal logic.

All this really boils down to is quibbling about an ancillary issue in a way that diverts attention from the substance of the argument.

I don't think this irrational, and I don't think the point being made in such a diversionary response should be dismissed as irrelevant. But I do think it can be rightly criticized as failing to address the impact of the argument that actually has been made.

Now, since you did respond with an: "amen," and you responded earlier that you think that policies of torture should not be condoned, am I to understand that you agree that waterboarding should not be publicly defended as a policy of the US?

[ November 18, 2009, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts:

I refer to the decision to publicly defend such a policy.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JW:

I think that the fact that a huge segment of the US population is vociferously defending a policy of simulating drowning individuals is best explained through the irrational motivations such as partisan bias and emotional investment which are at play.

The fact that rational arguments can be made to support such a policy seems clear to me. But the fact that they are being made publicly and overwhelmingly by individuals highly invested in the welfare of the particular political party that got stuck holding this particular bag makes it apparent that the most relevant reason this particular geopolitical gaffe has occurred is that "bias" and "vengeance" have superseded reason.

The nation that prides itself as being the international standard-bearer of universal civil ideals shouldn't be tarnishing its reputation for such silly reasons.

It's like watching June Cleaver throwing household items at Ward on the front yard while he screams about how cold she is in comparison to his secretary.

[ November 18, 2009, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's like watching June Cleaver throwing household items at Ward on the front yard while he screams about how cold she is in comparison to his secretary.
Ward shouldn't have been so hard on the Beaver.
(couldn't resist, sorry)

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's late in the thread to bring this up but "conservative" has a few widly different schools of thought. Ron Paul frequently says things that get liberals accused of hating America.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
[QB] JW:

I think that the fact that a huge segment of the US population is vociferously defending a policy of simulating drowning individuals is best explained through the irrational motivations such as partisan bias and emotional investment which are at play.

The fact that rational arguments can be made to support such a policy seems clear to me. But the fact that they are being made publicly and overwhelmingly by individuals highly invested in the welfare of the particular political party that got stuck holding this particular bag makes it apparent that the most relevant reason this particular geopolitical gaffe has occurred is that "bias" and "vengeance" have superseded reason.

This is clearly a policy dispute within the US, and it has developed along partisan lines, but so what? Most disputes do. If it wasn't a contentious issue then no one would object.

Abortion is a a contentious issue that has largely become a partisan issue.

I think that the fact that a huge segment of the US population is vociferously defending a policy of "killing unborn infants" is best explained through the irrational motivations such as partisan bias and emotional investment which are at play.

Again, So what?

For the record, I'm cold blooded enough to not get uptight about women committing abortion, but I don't try and change the facts to fit my world view.

The debate as I see it is:
1) Do you think water boarding is torture?
I think so, others think otherwise, largely based on whether or not they lump psychological torture and physical torture together.

2) Should we make use of torture in extreme circumstances?
I think yes. Indeed we always have. So do the British, French and Italian's etc. It's pretty clear when you read the various accounts that all three countries had agents right there with the CIA at the time. It's also clear that they weren't just watching. Not to say they were the only ones mind you, just the ones I've read about.

So your argument seems to be we should follow the letter of the law. It's a good point, but it's not very likely to happen. Certainly no one on the other side will. Nor will most of our allies. Indeed, the French always seem to laugh at our Anglo-Saxon habit of letting laws and regulations get in the way of results. They get quite a few more oil contracts out of that fact.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The what that is so regarding the partisan aspects seekprom mentioned is in part, this what: it frames the larger, simplified, polarized nature of the topic as presented to and consumed by American mainstream political consumers.

seekprom is very much an wholistic thinker, and while he himself is decidedly among the intellectual elite of our fair land, he remains deeply connected to (what Flip Wilson used to call) The Church of What's Happenin' Now.

[ November 18, 2009, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think so, others think otherwise, largely based on whether or not they lump psychological torture and physical torture together.
It's pretty physical to be forced to draw water via your respiratory system. The drowning sensation is physical: if you call it psychological you may just as well call the pain of having your fingers smashed "psychological".

It's not as if they are showing you naked pictures of Michael Moore or telling you bad "knock-knock" jokes.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The United States's Office of Legal Counsel stated the CIA's definition of waterboarding in a Top Secret 2002 memorandum as follows:

In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout... You have... informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application."[23]

Link

So, thus no water should be drawn into the respiratory system. Granted the procedure is rough and no doubt many did inhale some water. But it is designed and implemented as a psychological event, not to physically harm the person.

The person is not drowned. His fingers aren't broken, his skin isn't burned. He'll have no lasting physical effects. He almost certainly will have psychological after affects. I don't care. Stop trying to kill civilians and then will stop hurting you.

And I believe you are the one who said you would "behead torturers". Which by any rational definition is worst than this. So your being hypocritical.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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 JWatts:
So, thus no water should be drawn into the respiratory system. Granted the procedure is rough and no doubt many did inhale some water. But it is designed and implemented as a psychological event, not to physically harm the person.

Guess what else isn't drawn into the respiratory system during the procedure.

Air.

The precess makes it impossible to breath.

Suffocation can kill you just as well as drowning. The only difference is that there's no need to pump out the lungs to save the victim.

Saying that it's not drowning the subject is like saying "We're not poisoning him; we're just not giving him anything to eat or drink at all."

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 JWatts:
The person is not drowned. His fingers aren't broken, his skin isn't burned. He'll have no lasting physical effects. He almost certainly will have psychological after affects. I don't care. Stop trying to kill civilians and then will stop hurting you.

And, actually, right there at the end you point to the actual truth. It's not about doing anything directly useful, it's about tit-for-tat vengeance.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, thus no water should be drawn into the respiratory system. Granted the procedure is rough and no doubt many did inhale some water. But it is designed and implemented as a psychological event, not to physically harm the person.

The person is not drowned. His fingers aren't broken, his skin isn't burned. He'll have no lasting physical effects. He almost certainly will have psychological after affects. I don't care. Stop trying to kill civilians and then will stop hurting you.

I thought this was already conceded - the brain is a physical organ. The distinction between physical damage and psychological damage is bogus.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Raw excruciating physical torture via the Spanish Inquisition was designed and implemented as a psychological event too. (Although they used the term 'soul' rather than 'psyche'.)

They also used this same logic:

"Stop trying to kill civilians and then will stop hurting you."

but in this form:

"'Stop denying you are a heretic/possessed of the Devil/whatever and we'll stop torturing you.'

Of course, we now know that many souls (reiteration intentional) were not heretic nor possessed by supernatural malevolence but confessed nonetheless so that the priests would STOP TORTURING THEM.

I find the logic by which folks attempt to justify torture absurd to the point where it surpasses absurdity and achieves schizoid cognitive dissonance.

I mean it drives me crazy to attempt to take it seriously, to do more than ridicule it.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
P.S. It is said that a person can drown on a teaspoon of water.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

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