Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

Yes, it can. But unless you can explain why it doesn't apply here, you don't have an argument.
This was your argument
Thirdly, there is a risk that if you allow the rules on torture to be flexible, future leaders will bend them further than you originally intended, to the point where they are no longer acceptable even by your standards.
Your problem is that it's the act that causes the harm, not the law. You could say "don't loosen the rules on marijuana, soon you're be allowing babies to use heroin!" which would be ridculous. What are you trying to say, we allow waterboarding one day next day we bring back the rack? It's not the law that's stopping us, it's our morals, the law is there purely for administrative convenience.
 
lol you can't admit you insinuated that I loved torture because now that I've pointed that out it makes you look silly so you've resorted to somehow justifying that statement? :rolleyes:

Whatever.


Hopefully one thing is clear to both of us now: You do not love human rights, or certainly not as they are normally defined. You believe they are optional, which contradicts the founding principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, i.e. that they are universal.

"The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

[my hilite]
 
This was your argument

Your problem is that it's the act that causes the harm, not the law. You could say "don't loosen the rules on marijuana, soon you're be allowing babies to use heroin!" which would be ridculous. What are you trying to say, we allow waterboarding one day next day we bring back the rack? It's not the law that's stopping us, it's our morals, the law is there purely for administrative convenience.

I would argue that your example is not the same form of slippery slope argument, because there is no danger of anyone pushing for babies to use heroin. If there were, i'd feel a tad wary about legalising marijuana as well. But look around at your country for a minute. What if Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann, or someone of similar moral fortitude gains sufficient power, and then the note comes across their desk saying that if the CIA are allowed to cause just a little bit more pain to evil terrorist plotters, they might catch more of them? Are you saying that there is no danger that they might pass that through?

The whole point of a written constitution is to prevent future leaders from being able to break rules that should never be broken, and I believe that the prohibition of torture, physical or psychological, should be added to that list of unbreakable rules.
 
I would argue that your example is not the same form of slippery slope argument, because there is no danger of anyone pushing for babies to use heroin. If there were, i'd feel a tad wary about legalising marijuana as well. But look around at your country for a minute. What if Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann, or someone of similar moral fortitude gains sufficient power, and then the note comes across their desk saying that if the CIA are allowed to cause just a little bit more pain to evil terrorist plotters, they might catch more of them? Are you saying that there is no danger that they might pass that through?
What if we get a Nazi in the White House? We should just get rid special powers just in case. What if we get an alien from outer space that looks like a human and pretends to be one until they get into office? We shoud abolish the presidency, it is too risky.
 
Hopefully one thing is clear to both of us now: You do not love human rights
by your definition which means nothing to me. Your argument against my practical one for torture is that I don't care about human rights! :rolleyes: If there was a method for taking control of someone's mind through computers or drugs I wouldn't want to torture anyone. We have a right to protect ourselves and the act of possessing damaging information you refuse to release is an act of war. Either cooperate or be tortured, you still have choice. It's a practical matter, your philosophical indictment is impotent.
 
Last edited:
What if we get a Nazi in the White House? We should just get rid special powers just in case. What if we get an alien from outer space that looks like a human and pretends to be one until they get into office? We shoud abolish the presidency, it is too risky.

No, we shouldn't, because those aren't genuine risks. But america voting in a right-wing president that approves of torture, or of not finding out that they approve of torture before electing them, or that this president chooses a cabinet member who approves of torture? Sorry to say, but that is a risk, and so the "slippery-slope" argument stands.
 
by your definition which means nothing to me.

It's not my definition. It's the definition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

...which is the basis Your argument against my practical one for torture is that I don't care about human rights! :rolleyes:

I said you don't, as you claimed, love human rights.

You clearly do not even understand what the phrase "human rights" means. Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."

If there was a method for taking control of someone's mind through computers or drugs I wouldn't want to torture anyone. We have a right to protect ourselves and the act of possessing damaging information you refuse to release is an act of war. It's a practical matter, your philosophical indictment is impotent.

Why then, did you claim to love human rights when you clearly do not?

Do you think George W. Bush should be tortured? Many people believe he is a war criminal and it is very likely that he possesses information inside his brain (..) useful for the protection and benefit of many states. The USA is the most dangerously violent country in the world. How about it? It's not like we're going to kill him or anything?
 
Last edited:
No, we shouldn't, because those aren't genuine risks. But america voting in a right-wing president that approves of torture, or of not finding out that they approve of torture before electing them, or that this president chooses a cabinet member who approves of torture? Sorry to say, but that is a risk, and so the "slippery-slope" argument stands.
We shouldn't use torture because someone might abuse torture? :boggled:, nope, still wrong. If Huckabee/Palin/Bachman got into office we would have a lot more problems than our policy on torture which is why it has no chance of happening. So we're going to neuter ourselves just in case the next person might abuse their power? Nope fallacies from every angle.
 
:rolleyes:

Sending troops in to a dangerous mission with a 50-50 chance of it even being bin Laden is what make it a gutsy move by the President. Airstrike was out of the question because we needed his DNA. Your mini-war in the middle of Pakistan has too many variables to be sane. The idea of asking bin Laden to come out nicely is insane.

Man up, Joey. You said he had to be shot because the place might be rigged to explode...but you concede that if the place is rigged to explode, sending crack troops in is a hell of a risk. You did concede that? I keep asking and you keep changing the subject. Do you send the crack troops in because it's a booby trap?

General Joey: It's almost certainly a massive booby trap, Mr President! My advice is to send our best troops in and see if they get blown up!

With a 50-50 chance of being a worthwhile risk. We'll gloss over your invented odds (50/50 as in 'he either is or isn't'?)

It was a 'gutsy' choice, then, for the President. It was somebody else's guts he was gambling with, but he won, so YOU ESS AY!

You needed the DNA to establish if you'd shot the right man. On a 50/50 chance, I'd want the DNA first, but if like you I don't care how many people have to die then why not just air strike? The air strike, you'll remember, comes when he says "Yes, I am Osama and I will fight to the death here". He could be lying, I suppose, but equally we might have shot the wrong man anyway. Maybe we could get the DNA from the rubble, I don't know if modern ordinance destroys it. Do you?

My 'mini-war' has as many variables as the President's 'gutsy' mini-war...at least mine is hypothetical and assumes identification. The real thing, you reckon, was sneaking into a sovereign state to assassinate someone who may or may not be your target. 50/50, eh?

The idea of asking bin Laden to come out quietly is humane. Shooting people because you want to is insane.
 
You clearly do not even understand what the phrase "human rights" means. Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."

You keep sending link for some reason and claiming I don't accept "human rights." Farcical. Why don't you just argue against my position instead of more pedantic argumentation over a term.

Do you think George W. Bush should be tortured? Many people believe he is a war criminal and it is very likely that he possesses information inside his brain (..) useful for the protection and benefit of many states. The USA is the most dangerously violent country in the world. How about it? It's not like we're going to kill him or anything?
Because he isn't a war criminal and he's on the side of the good guys... I don't want to talk about this anymore, have fun with your final word post.
 
Man up, Joey.
baahaha coming from you mr. "This is a concern troll thread that I am too concerned to reply to and I have most of your on ignore" lmao
With a 50-50 chance of being a worthwhile risk. We'll gloss over your invented odds (50/50 as in 'he either is or isn't'?)
This is the chance the president was told that it was actually bin laden in the compound, invented? :rolleyes:
My 'mini-war' has as many variables as the President's 'gutsy' mini-war
What? That's impossible, they were in and out in 40 minutes and you want to sit outside and start a siege and you make this statement? What?
The idea of asking bin Laden to come out quietly is humane.
Yeah bin Laden is gonna come out quietly! hilarious.
Shooting people because you want to is insane.
Shooting people because they are mass murdering terrorists is cause for celebration!
 
We shouldn't use torture because someone might abuse torture? :boggled:, nope, still wrong. If Huckabee/Palin/Bachman got into office we would have a lot more problems than our policy on torture which is why it has no chance of happening. So we're going to neuter ourselves just in case the next person might abuse their power?

Yes, that's part of my point. You shouldn't use torture because someone might abuse torture. There are plenty of examples of things we don't allow the government to do because they might abuse it. We don't allow the government to shut down political commentators they disagree with, even b*stards like fred phelps, not because we like him, but because once they have that power they can abuse it. We don't allow the government to detain people without trial even if we think they're right, because that power could be abused in future. In the UK we recently had a ruling that said that police were not allowed to keep DNA and fingerprint records of people they had not actually charged, and in my opinion this was a good ruling because it prevents this from being abused in future.

Nope fallacies from every angle.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
 
Yes, that's part of my point. You shouldn't use torture because someone might abuse torture. There are plenty of examples of things we don't allow the government to do because they might abuse it. We don't allow the government to shut down political commentators they disagree with, even b*stards like fred phelps, not because we like him, but because once they have that power they can abuse it. We don't allow the government to detain people without trial even if we think they're right, because that power could be abused in future. In the UK we recently had a ruling that said that police were not allowed to keep DNA and fingerprint records of people they had not actually charged, and in my opinion this was a good ruling because it prevents this from being abused in future.

You can be rest assured that I understand your argument. It does not trump the practical benefits of torture in the moment. You have a point, but to insinuate that is this objective evidence against the use of torture is a fallacy.
 
While we do agree in principle, there is a major problem, and a very dangerous component of your statement. Choosing a date and saying that there has been only one killing of an abortion physician, while there has been eight killing at abortion clinics by extreme Christian fundamentalists and over 17 attempted murders in the last 15 years seriously downplays the largest active terrorism threat in America next to Muslim terrorism, extremist Right Wing militias, and White Supremacist groups.

I'm trying to compare apples and apples.

The reason I chose 9/12 is because, if I had gone back before, I would have had to include 9/11. 9/11 is obviously not only a statistical outlier but something organized outside the US and orchestrated by people who were not permanent residents of the US. So it is obviously more complicated than simply "Islamic terrorism" and may have political factors involved, many of which have been presented.

I could have picked another time frame, such as the 1990s, but first, a lot of people would consider that too old to be particularly relevant, and second, 9/12 is when the accusations of huge amounts of Islamophobia in the US really got going.

So I concentrate on a limited time, 9/12 to the present, with a limited population, citizens of the US, and crimes committed within the US, during a period when there haven't been any supreme statistical outliers. I'm also limiting it to actual killings between people of different religious groups that can reasonably be judged to be reiigiously motivated in significant part, with a particular concern to how groups like CAIR would judge something a hate murder if the victim were Muslim.

So, yes, I have excluded Right Wing Christian militia groups and Christian White Supremacist groups, unless someone actually killed somebody. I've also excluded acts of vandalism, assault, and even attempted murders. The thing is that I've done this for everybody, not just Christians. I've done it for Muslims, atheists, Jews, Sikhs, and any other religious or non-religious group you could name. In that process, I've had to exclude a lot of acts of aggression by Muslims. Just as one example of many, I excluded one case where a Muslim shot a Jew in the back six times, because I could not confirm that the guy died. I've also excluded the several "honor killings" because they were not obviously between people of different religions.

You seem to be impatient with that. You want to take a group, say Christians, and count up all the murders and attempted murders and threats and attitudes and so on. You can do that, if you like, but I am not doing this. One reason I am not doing this is that there are plenty of groups who do exactly the same thing about Muslims. They have been accused of special pleading in order to put down Islam, and I quite agree with the criticism. So I'm not doing that for any group, and I'm only looking for the most severe crime, murder. (Which is what Chomsky alleges, so it's relevant to this thread). This is because it is much more difficult to compare instances of special pleading, and the strength of the special pleading is persuasive, so the data get hidden.

Now, it is almost impossible to be completely fair. There are a lot of cases that should obviously be excluded (BTW, I excluded far more cases of Muslim aggression than of any other group), and there are a lot of cases that clearly should be included. In the few cases that were on the cusp, I made the decision to include based on generosity to Muslims, that is, what decision would make Muslims seem as peace-loving as possible, and other groups as violent as possible, given the data. I also applied this to other ambiguous estimates. So I took the largest estimate for the number of Muslims in the US I could find (7 million from CAIR) and the smallest estimate of the number of Christians (200 million, lower than the estimates I've seen).

Doing that, I get the following (these are preliminary numbers).

1 Christian hate killing of an abortion doctor
1 Christian hate killing of a Muslim
1 Christian hate killing of a Sikh
1 Christian hate killing of an Egyptian Copt
1 Christian hate killing of an Egyptian Christian (other, but I'm being generous)
35 Muslim hate killings of non-Muslims (mostly Jews)

Note: I only counted the 10 beltway murders, not the 3 the same people killed in Louisiana, because they were not as clearly linked to the principal perpetrator's writings about Jihad. Also, since this is a preliminary count, the number 35 could be as low as 30 or as high as 40, but with not much variance beyond that.

At a very minimum, these findings refute the idea that Islamophobia is rampant in the US, at least out of proportion to other hate motivations, such as Judenhass amongst Muslims. For all we know, vast numbers of Americans bear secret grudges against Muslims, but as far as hatred that is strong enough to kill, Muslims are winning clearly in terms of absolute numbers, and certainly in terms of killings per capita (5 out of 200 million versus 35 out of 7 million; you can do the math.)

It would be extremely hard to fudge this to support the idea that unwarranted Islamophobia is a particular epidemic, which is probably why polemic and dazzling with bovine fecal matter are so popular. What has actually happened does not support the idea that non-Muslim Americans are, relatively, so hugely murderous of Muslims.

But, talk about Christian killers of abortion doctors, put in a history of the KKK, talk about the Inquisition and the Crusades, Christian missionaries in Africa, and maybe you've got something. I am not accusing you of doing this, but I've seen it a lot, and when it happens, all we get is a shouting match between those people and people who do the same thing on "the other side."
 
has not intelligence gleaned through torture been proven to be notoriously inaccurate?

Absolutely, and really the CIA is full of people vehemently against it, and I'm totally against a lot of what has been done, I just don't disagree with it for the reasons that other people do. As a kind of way of doing business or a policy that's not what I'm about, and I'm sure there's some anti-scientific stuff going on at some level, these things are just way beyond the basic argument, that you can't 100% rule out torture.
 
Absolutely, and really the CIA is full of people vehemently against it, and I'm totally against a lot of what has been done, I just don't disagree with it for the reasons that other people do. As a kind of way of doing business or a policy that's not what I'm about, and I'm sure there's some anti-scientific stuff going on at some level, these things are just way beyond the basic argument, that you can't 100% rule out torture.

Why not?
 
It's quite simple really, anyone can imagine a situation where torturing someone would be the preferred ethical option. Apparently, most Senators etc support the ticking time bomb. If you have a choice between waterboarding someone and killing a lot of innocent people or losing a nuke to terrorists, you'll do it. I appreciate the arguments against torture, they don't outweigh this. I honestly don't know how people think they have a 100% argument against torture.
 

Back
Top Bottom