• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

Torture isn't effective and is morally wrong. It's common sense. Why would anyone believe otherwise?
 
logger said:
All have some type of common sense, its what leads one to find evidence.
Click to expand...

It's quite the opposite, actually. If one believes that that something is true because it's common sense, what motivation does one have go search for evidence to prove it? It's common sense. In that regard, it is identical to faith.

If, however, one recognizes that appeals to common sense are logical fallacies, much like faith, then that does motivate one to find evidence.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
So it's "common sense" to you that torture has kept us safe? For all your appeals to common sense, it's clear you haven't stopped to think about where common sense originates or what it means. Let me explain to you what common sense really is.

Common sense amounts to little more than the prejudices you have accumulated growing up. Prejudgments save you from having to think critically, because you assume you already know the answer. You don't have to evaluate the situation, gather evidence, or get to know a person, because you presume foreknowledge. You jump straight to the conclusion without any supporting premises. You bypass reason and believe what you want to believe because self-assurance is more comfortable.

Common sense is a collection of logical fallacies. An appeal to common sense is no different from an argument from personal incredulity, which is to say, you can't imagine how something could be true, therefore it must be false. Creationists use this all the time to attempt to disprove evolution. They can't imagine how complex life could have arisen by random chance, therefore evolution must be false. After all, it's common sense.

Common sense lies to you every single day. Common sense is what makes you judge others for their bad decisions in hindsight, even though if given the same exact set of circumstances, you would have done the same thing. Common sense is what people use to attack ideas they don't like just because they aren't the perfect solution to every problem. Common sense tells you that if something, no matter how remote, might happen, it probably will happen. Common sense causes people to see patterns and associations that aren't there, leading to many a superstitious belief.

Common sense means clinging to your preconceived notions. For centuries, common sense held that women were mentally and emotionally inferior to men, and should be denied equal rights or opportunities. Common sense once held that blacks were an inferior race and deserved to be enslaved to keep them in line. It was once common sense that the sun went around the Earth. Common sense once told people that evil spirits caused diseases. It's fortunate therefore that we've learned to challenge what was once held in common sense.

Most of all, common sense is antithetical to skepticism. Skepticism requires that one demand evidence to support a claim, belief, theory, or conclusion. Skepticism requires that one challenge one's preexisting prejudices and be willing to change one's beliefs. Skepticism means asking questions and informing oneself, rather than blindly accepting what one is told. Skepticism keeps us from making rash decisions, from rushing to judgment, and from holding fast to ideas that don't work.

So when you speak of "common sense" you are talking about your automatic thoughts. Common sense cannot be a source of knowledge because everyone has automatic thoughts, prejudices, and preconceived notions, and they're all different and unique depending on the individual's upbringing. Common sense does serve a function in helping people live their everyday lives without having to stress over the details, but it's not a source of universal truth or wisdom.

I prefer evidence over common sense.
Click to expand...

Nommed.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
So it's "common sense" to you that torture has kept us safe? For all your appeals to common sense, it's clear you haven't stopped to think about where common sense originates or what it means. Let me explain to you what common sense really is.

Common sense amounts to little more than the prejudices you have accumulated growing up. Prejudgments save you from having to think critically, because you assume you already know the answer. You don't have to evaluate the situation, gather evidence, or get to know a person, because you presume foreknowledge. You jump straight to the conclusion without any supporting premises. You bypass reason and believe what you want to believe because self-assurance is more comfortable.

Common sense is a collection of logical fallacies. An appeal to common sense is no different from an argument from personal incredulity, which is to say, you can't imagine how something could be true, therefore it must be false. Creationists use this all the time to attempt to disprove evolution. They can't imagine how complex life could have arisen by random chance, therefore evolution must be false. After all, it's common sense.

Common sense lies to you every single day. Common sense is what makes you judge others for their bad decisions in hindsight, even though if given the same exact set of circumstances, you would have done the same thing. Common sense is what people use to attack ideas they don't like just because they aren't the perfect solution to every problem. Common sense tells you that if something, no matter how remote, might happen, it probably will happen. Common sense causes people to see patterns and associations that aren't there, leading to many a superstitious belief.

Common sense means clinging to your preconceived notions. For centuries, common sense held that women were mentally and emotionally inferior to men, and should be denied equal rights or opportunities. Common sense once held that blacks were an inferior race and deserved to be enslaved to keep them in line. It was once common sense that the sun went around the Earth. Common sense once told people that evil spirits caused diseases. It's fortunate therefore that we've learned to challenge what was once held in common sense.

Most of all, common sense is antithetical to skepticism. Skepticism requires that one demand evidence to support a claim, belief, theory, or conclusion. Skepticism requires that one challenge one's preexisting prejudices and be willing to change one's beliefs. Skepticism means asking questions and informing oneself, rather than blindly accepting what one is told. Skepticism keeps us from making rash decisions, from rushing to judgment, and from holding fast to ideas that don't work.

So when you speak of "common sense" you are talking about your automatic thoughts. Common sense cannot be a source of knowledge because everyone has automatic thoughts, prejudices, and preconceived notions, and they're all different and unique depending on the individual's upbringing. Common sense does serve a function in helping people live their everyday lives without having to stress over the details, but it's not a source of universal truth or wisdom.

I prefer evidence over common sense.
Click to expand...


So nominated.
 
Yeah. Luv me some awesome anarchy. :D

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/fox-host-forget-torture-america-is-awesome.html


This afternoon in the alternate reality that is Fox News, the hosts of Outnumbered explained that the report was only released to distract Americans from real problems, like the IRS scandal and Benghazi....

"The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome," she continued. "We’ve closed the book on [torture], and we’ve stopped doing it. And the reason they want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we’re not awesome" — mainly because they "don’t like this country" and "want us to look bad."
Click to expand...
 
pharphis said:
I wish these so-called "patriots" would actually be patriotic for once and fight injustices instead of proclaiming that anyone who dissents to anything done in the US is unpatriotic or wants to make the US look bad.

Oh wait, they dissent too: When a democratic president does anything
Click to expand...

I still can't tell those who actually believe what they say from those who are just addicted to stirring up trouble. I think a lot of us are used to, or inured to, the right wing's monotonous stream of Obama criticisms, often even for ideas obviously beneficial to their own goals. To be frank, it makes them look disingenuous and ultimately foolish when they sabotage their own agenda. These arguments lately in favor of torture are just the latest republican apologist ditto head nonsense. They don't seem to ever be able to get on the right (correct) side of history, until it's too late.

I remember when Bill O'Reilly was interviewed by Letterman, and Letterman asked if he really believed all the crazy stuff he spouted or was just being entertaining. O'Reilly said he believed it, and the audience laughed uproariously. He called Limbaugh and Beck "entertainers", while he, O'Reilly is a journalist.;) More laughter. Personally, I think O'Reilly really does believe that stuff, but Krauthammer, on the other hand, not so much. What amazes me though, is a Limgaugh fan-guy who told me "everything" Rachel Maddow says is a lie. WTF?

The meme that liberals are somehow trying to destroy the country and love anarchy, just because they are criticizing illegal and immoral acts of conservative idols, is very disturbing, once one gets done laughing at the people who appear to have been so infected. Do some really believe this or do they want to merely gain rhetorical advantage in their zeal to maintain the status quo? I think there are cases when both are true, but I often can't tell the difference.

I do know this. Fox News has been the unique source of many of the falsehoods that I have heard repeated among my conservative acquaintances. Most of what I hear is similar to what I see here at ISF, quoting something in a context of disparagement, without actually saying why it is that such a claim should be disparaged. I'm seeing a lot of addiction to unreasonable and unwarranted Obama hating.

Neighbor: Yeah, we need more Obama regulations.:rolleyes:
Me: What kind do we need?
Neighbor: Too many regulations.
Me: Which ones are bad?
Neighbor: I don't know, just too many.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Why do you think torture is one of those things that needs to be kept secret?
Click to expand...

A very good question, if torture is effective and appropriate policy for the USA why does it need to be kept secret? Indeed wouldn't it make sense to publicise the fact so those captured by the USA know that will be tortured until they cooperate?
 
Olowkow said:
These arguments lately in favor of torture are just the latest republican apologist ditto head nonsense. They don't seem to ever be able to get on the right (correct) side of history, until it's too late.
Click to expand...
By "ditto head nonsense", do you mean that they are repeating something Limbaugh has said (and if so and if you have it, I'd like to read what he said) or are you just referring to a general parroting of the party line?


Olowkow said:
O'Reilly said he believed it, and the audience laughed uproariously. He called Limbaugh and Beck "entertainers", while he, O'Reilly is a journalist.;) More laughter. Personally, I think O'Reilly really does believe that stuff, but Krauthammer, on the other hand, not so much.
Click to expand...
The thing with O'Reilly is he did start out as something of a journalist. His slide down to whatever it is he does now was probably too gradual for him to realize that he isn't a journalist anymore.

[/offtopic]
 
Upchurch said:
By "ditto head nonsense", do you mean that they are repeating something Limbaugh has said (and if so and if you have it, I'd like to read what he said) or are you just referring to a general parroting of the party line?


The thing with O'Reilly is he did start out as something of a journalist. His slide down to whatever it is he does now was probably too gradual for him to realize that he isn't a journalist anymore.

[/offtopic]
Click to expand...

Yes, my bad. I can't even bear to hear his remarks played on MSNBC, so I don't know why I used the term "ditto head", since I was not referencing nor pay much attention to Limbaugh. I simply meant the type of person who copies their thinking in full from any of a number of pundits, no doubt including liberals at times, without using their own logic and moral values.

I'm probably thinking of the type of post hoc and tu quoque reasoning O'Reilly uses to justify torture as in this video.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/12/11/bill-oreilly-truth-about-senate-torture-report/

This is what I hear played back to me quite often in my conversations. No one seems to want to hear about the potential extended legal implications of the Bush administration's conspiracy to break laws and abandon our country's moral high ground.
 
Darat said:
A very good question, if torture is effective and appropriate policy for the USA why does it need to be kept secret? Indeed wouldn't it make sense to publicise the fact so those captured by the USA know that will be tortured until they cooperate?
Click to expand...

And if so, why would they hide it from Colin Powell so he wouldn't "blow his stack"? Is he unpatriotic? Is he a leftie?
 
Olowkow said:
Yes, my bad. I can't even bear to hear his remarks played on MSNBC, so I don't know why I used the term "ditto head", since I was not referencing nor pay much attention to Limbaugh. I simply meant the type of person who copies their thinking in full from any of a number of pundits, no doubt including liberals at times, without using their own logic and moral values.

I'm probably thinking of the type of post hoc and tu quoque reasoning O'Reilly uses to justify torture as in this video.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/12/11/bill-oreilly-truth-about-senate-torture-report/

This is what I hear played back to me quite often in my conversations. No one seems to want to hear about the potential extended legal implications of the Bush administration's conspiracy to break laws and abandon our country's moral high ground.
Click to expand...



Ah, you don't need the moral high ground with the the largest military budget in the world.

Morals are for those with small armies. Indeed it's often the treat of US military action that keeps those other nations in line and adhering to their obligations. Ironic, really.
 
3point14 said:
Ah, you don't need the moral high ground with the the largest military budget in the world.

Morals are for those with small armies. Indeed it's often the treat of US military action that keeps those other nations in line and adhering to their obligations. Ironic, really.
Click to expand...

There's no irony at all. The threat or specter of overwhelming military retaliation to keep other nations at bay has no connection to the topic of breaking the law by succumbing to a reactionary theory of governing through the accepted use of torture.

In my view, the assurance of self preservation through limited use of force is practiced by all higher animals and is a given for the evolution of our species. Sacrificing every semblance of a moral direction or high ground to achieve narrow temporary goals is uniquely human, and it has been tried. It doesn't work.
 
Upchurch said:
Pretty sure I read that in the New Testament. In Matthew, maybe?

"Thou Shalt Torture America's Enemies" is totally from the book of John.
Click to expand...


John 6:66

Thou shalt bind thy enemies to a board of cypress wood and pour the Water of Truth down his throat till he speaketh the Truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom