Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

The fact that we debate whether or not torture is OK makes us different. The Nazi, the Communists and the Baathists never did any soul searching over torture and that makes us better right there.

Your absolute position that torture is wrong is untenable. It is like saying it is always wrong to lie: but what if you are hiding Jews and the Nazis ask if you have any. The moral thing to do there is lie. Don't laugh but in the first Dirty Harry movie he caught a serial killer who he knew had burried a woman somwhere and he knew that if did not find out where the woman was buried the woman was going to die. So Dirty Harry stepped on one if his bullet wounds until he told him where the girl was buried. That was the moral thing to do. Allowing an innocent girl to die just because you have some absolute moral rule about torture is absurd - and immoral.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

How do you know they never did any soul searching? No free press.

Nice "othering" of people to try to make yourself feel better.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I don't recall any public hearings in Nazi Germany when they had questioned the SS's use of torture. Nor do I remember any public debate or hearings in the Sovit Union over whether it was OK for the KGB torture. Did you read about some hearings the Baathists held over their Governments treatment of prisoners. I don't seem to recall any.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Lack of public debate does not mean no debate occurred. What, so the fact that we have a free press gives us a free pass? That's crap, and irrelevant to the underlying moral question.

ETA good to know that after you witnessed the birth of the Soviet Union you were prescient enough to travel to Berlin to oversee the Nazi regime.

I don't know why you guys are still discussing this. I pointed out the rules on torture yesterday. Me and the snake (or is it a worm) agreed on the rules, so that should end the discussion.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

You really think there was an internal debate about this stuff in any of these regimes? The fact that we even questions the use of torture make us different. To say that if we torture our prisoners we are no different from the Baathists is absurd. Do we also gas our people, torture political dissidents, etc. Everything is relative and just because we do one thing wrong does not make us the same as them. It is like saying that since we use the death penalty that makes our criminal justice system no different from Saudi Arabia's. Or the fact that we use common law makes our legal system just the same as Englands. Get real

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

What, so the fact that we don't gas people is what makes us different? Pick a lane. The fact that I don't strangle small children on the street doesn't make it right that I'm a complete bitch to people on here for no reason.

The fact that we aren't as bad as some people who engage in an activity that we engage in doesn't make that activity right.

Reptilian humanoid, but whatever.

Question for the Readers
 

I have been working on a question and wonder whether anyone else has too, and figured y'all were just the losers to ask:

Whether People Should Have Children (or How To Minimize The Risk of Global Nuclear/Biological Disaster)

The Question is - Should people even bother having children or should they instead spend their time and money enjoying the rise and fall of civilization and leave a well-used corpse?

Inherent in the Question is the presumption is that, in a quantum world, anything that can happen, will happen. Nuclear devices exist, so they will be set off. Biologic plagues exist, so they will be released. We can effectively end civilzation as we know it, so we will. There is no putting technology back in the bottle - the only unknown is when such events will occur.

The Question then becomes whether we can limit the probability that global destruction occurs to an acceptably low level that people should continue to have children, and, if so, how can we do so?

I see it as two curves. The first is the Knowledge/Ability curve - the increasing knowledge about weapons of mass destruction combined with the increasing ability to use and deliver them around the globe. The second is the Desire/Violence curve - the amount of people who would use such weapons if they could.

Obviously, we want to: (1) limit the Ability curve (because I don't see us limiting the Knowledge curve), and entities like the TSA and the CIA are presuambly trying to do so; and (2) decrease the Desire/Violence curve, and various people are trying to do so in different ways. And we have the bazillions of dollars we are spending on Iraq, Afganistan, the TSA, CIA, NSA, etc. to do it.

But are we applying our best efforts to determine what factors are most important, most effective, and most efficient to address, or are we just winging it? Have we rigorously analyzed whether our use of the money is cost-efficient to our goal? Would the money be better spent in outright grants to impoverished countries? Missile-defense? Education? Sniffing technology? Satellites? Communication monitoring? Internet monitoring? Alphabet soup agencies? Biochemical defenses? Pharmaceutical development? Bunkers? Outreach groups? Assassination of extremists and wackos? Destruction of WMDs?

If we haven't done this analysis, shouldn't we? We have super-fucking-Cray computers that should be able to analyze what efforts work best. They should be able to compare whether neo-cons, religious wingnuts, bleeding hearts, loudmouth drunks in bars, bloggers, bookies, astrologists or Euroweenies high on Extasy while listening to the Chemical Brothers have the statistically best method to fight global disaster, and, whether, given the probabilities, we should bother having kids.

Perhaps more importantly (and finally), if we haven't done this analysis purely because I am the first moron to think of it, where do I publish?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I never it said that it makes it right. I was diputed the idea that if we torture our prisoners that makes us the same as them. If we torture our prisoners that does not make us the same as the Baathists. There are also levels of torture. Did we torture thousand's to death - no. There is no black or white just shades of Grey. And no matter what you say about what our troops did in Iraq we are still a great deal of a lot lighter Grey than Saddam Hussein's regime.

Question for the Readers
 

Funny - I've been working on a question, too: Were it not for the impressionists, would people be seeing the face of the Virgin Mary in cheese sandwiches?

I decided to keep it to myself.

Question for the Readers
 

Obviously not.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

It's like I don't even know you anymore.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I have an internal debate about it and to date have always concluded the satisfaction would not be worth the prison/criminal insane asylum time.

Donut?

Question for the Readers
 

What can I say, you inspire me.