Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Why? Why is torture morally wrong and dropping bombs on cities, even if every attempt to minimize collateral damage is made, is not? What is the difference?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

This is the most constructive thing you've ever posted here. Would you be willing to move to No. Va.? I think you've a future in Covert ops.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

So, we're to adhere to your principle, even though the price to be paid for that adherence won't be paid by you at all, but by the lives of hundreds, or thousands, or more, of other people. It's painless for you, they're all dead, and you get to feel all clean and good and moral.

Seems like a very hollow nobility to me.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I'm already there. We're watching you, Chinaski.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Well, do a better job than you guys did on that WMD thing.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Well, for one thing, we can't avoid fighting wars. We can, and by law are required to, avoid deliberately inflicting pain on specific individuals in an effort to coerce them to divulge information.

Let me repeat this. Torture is unlawful. It is prohibited by the laws of the United States. It is prohibited by international law. It is prohibited by the Constitution. Engaging in acts of war, if properly sanctioned, is lawful.

As I noted before, there is no point in getting into the moral aspects with you, as you are apparently not equipped to recognize them.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by Chinaski since 9/11. And you can't really blame us for his posts.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

It's not my principle. It's the principle on which this nation was founded.

And I'll take my hollow nobility any day over your "shit happens." You sit here, safe at home, and pretend that it's okay for us to play God and choose who will live and who will die, vainly believing that you have the power to determine the fate of "hundreds, or thousands, or more."

Seems like a hollow being to me. Devoid of soul, conscience, and compassion. And I'm not being at all partisan.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

But if you had the stones to torture him I bet you could make him stop.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Shape Shifter tortures me over and over, and its had no effect- you guys are right. Remember I was a supporting player in the Slave Sagas

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Well, y'know. Omelettes, eggs, and all that.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

You are doing a bait an switch. The only thing we are talking about is the morality of the issue. The legality of the issue is not in question.

We can certainly avoid fighting wars. The French have done it through history.

I think you don't want to talk about the morality of the issue, because you cannot rationally distinguish killings or other brutal acts as part of war, on the one hand, and torture, on the other hand, other than by pointing to what is currently "legal."

It seems to me that what we have done in the case of war is to engage in a balancing test, where we have determined that the horrors and evils we inflict are outweighed by the benefits. I am only suggesting that the same anaysis should be done for torture. I can see no other rational weigh to distinguish among these horrors.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any other powerful man, like a President or Senator.

Kay: Michael, do you realize how naive you sound. Presidents and Senators don't have people killed.

MC: Who's being naive Kay?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

You haven't been watching TV, have you?

There are groups of people out there who are looking to kill huge swaths of other people for various perceived indiscretions, like not following the right nutjob's version of what some god told him we should all do, or not willingly granting supreme authority over all to the whacko leader they've chosen for themselves. We've stepped in to slow that killing down. The "power to determine the fate" of tons of people is derived from whatever power we can muster to stop those whackos and nutjobs, and I can testify that that power is there. "Vainly"? Right. You're like Adder, standing firm that Saddam and his ilk constituted inconveniences to some people.

So, when we try to stop these killers, are we playing god? Does that fit your definition? Do you perceive that everything we do to try to stop these killers is somehow morally equivalent to the actions and motivations of these killers? If you want to talk about soul, compassion, and conscience, and have people keep a straight face around you, consider that what we're doing ranks far higher on the moral scale then the actions of the Baathists trying to re-seat the murderous dictatorship, or the mullahs looking to rule by their personal vision of gawd, or the simple murderous thieves taking what they can because they can. If that concept staggers you, then your answer to Club about there being no point of communication is right.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Uh . . .

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

stay focused. don't confuse nutjobs.

aV

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Ya know, you're really making me just guess about this, but if this was a cute comment meant to underscore some moral equivalence between our Iraq actions, and the actions of the Baathists, the foreign Islamic insurgents, or the let's-take-it-now Iranians, then you've very nicely proved my point.

On the other hand, if you just couldn't think of anything to say, I take it all back.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Settle down, Hannity. Don't read too much into a joke. Kind of like when none of us really thought you were serious when you were defending Quayle's intellectual ability.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Is there a circumstance to justify our use of chemical or biological weapons?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Oh, I can be naive and have poor taste in men, I admit it OKAY?

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/ava...ine=1112188054
I have to tell you Hank, for once, I think I want to fuck you. I'd still have to bag your face (or do the missionary style position so if you're tall enough your face will be towards the headboards and out of my line of vision) but this is a much sexier avatar.

Yeh Yeh Yeh, take it to the FB.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Like this guy?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Throughout history, civilized societies have agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, that there were limits to what was and what was not acceptable conduct. Deliberately attacking civilians has been deemed immoral and unacceptable. Safe conduct for negotiators is another example. Torture of prisnoers is yet another.

I can't think of any other way to say it. Torture is wrong. It is not dropping bombs. It is not engaging in battle. It is not honoring the humanity of the combatants on each side. It is deliberately inflicting pain on another human being qua human being, not fighting a soldier on the field of battle.

Morality and rationality don't always walk hand in hand. If you can't see it any other way, then please accept that I take this as a matter of faith.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I'm not being naive, Hank. I'm just honoring Bilmore's desire to keep this non-partisan.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Noonday grows fantastic onions. Very sweet.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Good lord.

At what point in life do you start lying about where you're from, and disclaiming any knowledge of Texas? Seems like you could claim good cause by now.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

If we engage in torture, then we are no different from Saddam. Where do you derive the belief that it is okay to adopt the tactics of the Baathists and the mullahs and Al-Qaeda and not be just as morally culpable?

Because our motives are pure? Because we're better than them. Bullshit. If we are willing to torture, maim, and kill them all if we have to, then we are them. What makes us different is the fact that we are governed by laws, and we adhere to them. Pure power is not deemed an aceptable way to lead and govern.

If we throw all that aside, then we have nothing left to claim to be better. We have forfeited the high ground. What staggers me is that you can argue so vehemently about your individual rights and freedoms, but you deny that those rules apply to the Iraqis.

What is your basis for the distinction? That some of them want to kill us? What the fuck do you think we've been doing? That they want to impose their will and their way of life upon the citizens of Iraq? Isn't that what we're doing?

What the fuck, Bilmore? What the fuck?*



*(New board motto.)

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

What is there to support the lack of moral equivalence?

Remember, we're not talking about the invasion or the toppling of Saddam. We're not talking about the efforts to democratize Iraq. We're talking about beating the shit out of people, raping their daughters (or trying to credibly threaten to do so), denying them food water, and sleep.

What makes it better when we do it than it was when Saddam did it?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

See, here is where we just can't communicate. Someone points a gun at your head, and pulls on the trigger. I stop them from shooting. In your view, I have arbitrarily and imperiously imposed my will - my will being, that you should live - on you.

No, that's not what we're doing. Sheesh.

I buy the Dershowitz argument. If some asshole has a nuke set on a timer in Minneapolis, and I can get him to tell me where it is by torturing him, consider him to be without fingernails or eyes. I can do many things in defense of life that I can't do as offensive action. You spend too much time on the surface idea of how it "looks", and not enough on what it serves. Yeah, sometimes the ends justify the means. What makes us different is the moral stance of the end we seek. A moral stance that says "I will enforce my rule with shredders" brings no moral sanction to an action. A moral stance that says "I will stop that man from shredding others" does. Your nobility costs others their innocent lives, but makes you feel good, and that strikes me as serving your own self-image far more than serving life.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

But that isn't what you are aguing in favor of. A more apt analogy would be as follows: You know someone wants to kill me, and you know that his brother knows where the gun he plans to use is hidden.

You are arguing that it is okay to break the brother's fingers one by one until he tells you where the gun is.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinion...511628reh2.pdf

Denial of petition for rehearing.

Language in the separate concurrence regarding Activist! judges.

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.