Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Joey McGee]

It is an unresolved argument. You have yet to explain how it is possible support torture and human rights simultaneously.

Thanks for the wikipedia lesson Jane, instead of breaking rule 4, you could just link to the section in question

It's just a garbage appeal to emotion, I support torture of terrorists and war criminals so I hate human rights. Too ridiculous to respond to. Just because some group of people, however large, decided that it was a "human right" not to be tortured, doesn't mean that I accept that definition of human rights, doesn't mean you can use this disparity to attack me. I already really said this is as many words, oh here comes the grand philosophical takedown...

 

[JihadJane]

Thanks for the wikipedia lesson Jane, instead of breaking rule 4, you could just link to the section in question

I got the impression that you hadn't read the links I provided so far.

It's just a garbage appeal to emotion, I support torture of terrorists and war criminals so I hate human rights. Too ridiculous to respond to. Just because some group of people, however large, decided that it was a "human right" not to be tortured, doesn't mean that I accept that definition of human rights, doesn't mean you can use this disparity to attack me. I already really said this is as many words, oh here comes the grand philosophical takedown...

As defined in all major declarations, torture is incompatible with human rights.

You claimed that everybody loves human rights.

What is the source of your definition of human rights?

What is your definition?

 

[Joey McGee]

You claimed that everybody loves human rights.

When I said "everyone has a love of these things" I meant idealistic humanist philosophies. Who doesn't love these but the deranged and the sociopathic?

What is the source of your definition of human rights?

What is your definition?

You're arguing from authority and emotion in a remarkably silly way, "Human Rights are what the UN says they are and if you don't agree with them you hate human rights" Ridiculous.

It's a philosophical term that applies to ideas in human brains. There are things we should and shouldn't do/allow for objective reasons if we want a world of maximum well being and happiness. It's simple. Sometimes people like to invoke "human rights" for emotional, not practical reasons. It's the kind of people world deserve to live in, or want to live in. Some people think they were "endowed by our creator" some people think it's just common moral sense, what they are definitely not is something you can waive in someone's face when trying to make a moral argument in a serious way. It's just not connecting with the reality of the world.

 

[egslim]

The point of the ticking time bomb argument is that there are slightly less obvious situations that you could still support torture in that do actually happen. If you don't draw the line at the ticking time bomb, where do you draw the line? That's an open question, it's not the point, the point is to debunk the existence of a complete argument against all torture.

But how to codify those rare situations into law? And should that even be done?

Suppose torture becomes a crime under all circumstances. I can't imagine a jury that would find a person who unquestionably saved lives through torture guilty. Even if it does happen, such a person would certainly be pardonned by the head of state. And become a national hero.

Not to mention the people in Guantanamo have been there for so long, that any ticking time bomb they're aware of has either already exploded or run out of batteries. That argument offers no justification to torture long-term detainees.

 

[Joey McGee]

But how to codify those rare situations into law? And should that even be done?

Suppose torture becomes a crime under all circumstances. I can't imagine a jury that would find a person who unquestionably saved lives through torture guilty. Even if it does happen, such a person would certainly be pardonned by the head of state. And become a national hero.

I don't know that torture should be legalized or what rules should be applied. It is an interesting point. What if in an alternate universe no lives were saved? The same action by the same person could land them in jail. We really just need clear thinking as well as clear laws.

Not to mention the people in Guantanamo have been there for so long, that any ticking time bomb they're aware of has either already exploded or run out of batteries. That argument offers no justification to torture long-term detainees.

But I didn't make that argument and already explained I disagree with most of what actually happens.

 

[angrysoba]

But how to codify those rare situations into law? And should that even be done?

Suppose torture becomes a crime under all circumstances. I can't imagine a jury that would find a person who unquestionably saved lives through torture guilty. Even if it does happen, such a person would certainly be pardonned by the head of state. And become a national hero.

Not to mention the people in Guantanamo have been there for so long, that any ticking time bomb they're aware of has either already exploded or run out of batteries. That argument offers no justification to torture long-term detainees.

This is pretty much the way I see it too. If it were a "ticking time bomb" scenario then indeed I could see a case of someone pulling out the pliers and one by one ripping out the culprits toes and other digits until he confesses.

Once the bomb is defused and everyone is saved, that someone can say, "Okay, take me to court." He'll go to court, plead his case and he'll be applauded by the jury before aquittal.

Outside the courthouse a big brass band would strike up a tune and lots of naked cheerleaders will come running over begging to be impregnated.

.....


As it happens, there is a comparable case to the ticking time bomb here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html

 

[egslim]

What if in an alternate universe no lives were saved? The same action by the same person could land them in jail.

Yes. I think the time bomb-dilemma can not be properly codified for in law - it will always come down to a matter of judgement on the part of the interrogator.

Better force him to take his judgement seriously, otherwise a lot of unnecessary torture will occur.

But I didn't make that argument and already explained I disagree with most of what actually happens.

Fair enough.

 

[JihadJane]

When I said "everyone has a love of these things" I meant idealistic humanist philosophies. Who doesn't love these but the deranged and the sociopathic?

You?

You're arguing from authority and emotion in a remarkably silly way, "Human Rights are what the UN says they are and if you don't agree with them you hate human rights" Ridiculous.


It's a philosophical term that applies to ideas in human brains. There are things we should and shouldn't do/allow for objective reasons if we want a world of maximum well being and happiness. It's simple. Sometimes people like to invoke "human rights" for emotional, not practical reasons. It's the kind of people world deserve to live in, or want to live in. Some people think they were "endowed by our creator" some people think it's just common moral sense, what they are definitely not is something you can waive in someone's face when trying to make a moral argument in a serious way. It's just not connecting with the reality of the world.

It is a legal term that can be used to put people behind bars for abusing them.

I asked for your definition of human rights, not "some people"'s. What is it?

If Barack Obama fell into the hands of Afghanistan or Pakistan, countries against which he has masterminded horrifically violent attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians, would you let him be tortured? It might save hundreds more innocent civilians from violent, premature death if you did.

 

[theprestige]

This is pretty much the way I see it too. If it were a "ticking time bomb" scenario then indeed I could see a case of someone pulling out the pliers and one by one ripping out the culprits toes and other digits until he confesses.

Once the bomb is defused and everyone is saved, that someone can say, "Okay, take me to court." He'll go to court, plead his case and he'll be applauded by the jury before aquittal.

Outside the courthouse a big brass band would strike up a tune and lots of naked cheerleaders will come running over begging to be impregnated.

This scenario doesn't work if such methods aren't actually legal.

 

[HoverBoarder]

A stretch, how so?

I would say that those three words very accurately and succulently represent the contradictions of Jihad's position.

The over sensualization of the torture of three people from the person who's screen name glorifies those who engage in murdering thousands of innocent people, and whose posts excuse and downplay terrorist groups and dictators who also murder thousands of innocent people is very contrary to the "Human Rights Standards" that she claims to support.

No Country anywhere can claim that they have no violation of the UN Human Right Charter, but that does not mean that every country who is a signifying member of that document should not do everything possible to meet the standards agreed to in that Charter, and that they should not be penalized for failing to meet those standards. This includes torture.

However, there is something inherently wrong in spending 95% of your time focusing on the physical and emotional abuse of three people who were tortured while ignoring and even excusing groups that kill, mutilate, and torture thousands.

Did you dream this?

Jihad's positions in the position of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

....blah, blah, random blah...

How is the US being penalized for using torture?


Those are three people that the CIA has admitted torturing...

The central plank the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the declaration upon which the concept of human rights rests, is that human rights apply to all human beings, without exception.

A whole post where you managed not to answer anything. You have made a real art out of that.

Let me just break it down in two simple questions.

1. If you claim to be such a defender of Human Rights, why do you support groups like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran who violate those rights on such a large and frequent scale?

2. Why have you spent no time looking at ways or plans in which the human rights abuses of the thousands who will be tortured or killed from the groups you support could be reduced, and yet you have spent an enormous amount of time focusing on a case where three mass murders had minor violation of their human rights? Especially since this was only done so because it was thought to be a way to protect thousands of other people's lives by preventing another terrorist attack.

The regimes and groups you support kill and torture for their own pleasure with no justification asked for or needed, why do you ignore them?

 

[Joey McGee]

I asked for your definition of human rights, not "some people"'s. What is it?

I already gave you my thoughts. I appreciate your moral concern, but again, I don't see the point of you asking me this. You already know all of my positions, you seem intent on nailing me down on wordplay. Why don't you actually make an argument instead of this strategy?

It's not that I disagree with the right to be free to be free from torture, hopefully the boffins cook up science that can turn anyone truthful and complicit painlessly. I just disagree that there is a 100% certain argument against it, I'm rejecting "rule utilitarianism"

If Barack Obama fell into the hands of Afghanistan or Pakistan, countries against which he has masterminded horrifically violent attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians, would you let him be tortured? It might save hundreds more innocent civilians from violent, premature death if you did.

What are you talking about.

 

[Resume]

If Barack Obama fell into the hands of Afghanistan or Pakistan, countries against which he has masterminded horrifically violent attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians, would you let him be tortured? It might save hundreds more innocent civilians from violent, premature death if you did.

Can you provide evidence for Barack Obama deliberately targeting civilians as a tactic? You know, the same method as the jihadists you admire.

 

[dtugg]

Obama hasn't masterminded the deaths of any civilians, as far as I can tell, unlike say, KSM. He has ordered or given approval for attacks that have killed civilians. Of course the only reason that civialians get killed is because the jihadists that some people here like to aplogize for hide out amongst the civilians. Given the way these cowards choose to fight, it is impossible avoid civilain causalties.

Even if Obama was captured by the terrorists that some people here admire, I doubt that he even has useful information about future strikes. Do you really think he knows what al Qaeda/Taliban safehouses are going to hit soon?

 

[Virus]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

 

[lionking]

More moonbattery. Chomsky wins the Sydney Peace Prize, joining alumni like Pilger. There are times when I'm embarrassed to be an Australian.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/06/02/3233770.htm

 

[Virus]

That peace prize is a crock of lefty crap.

 

[Joey McGee]

They also have a special gold medal for significant contributions to peace and justice. They only give it out once in awhile, this year the glorious honour was given to, you guessed it, Julian Assange.

 

[Virus]

Why don't they just call it the Anti-America, pro-jihad prize? Apparently that's what "peace" means now.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Why don't they just call it the Anti-America, pro-jihad prize? Apparently that's what "peace" means now.

yeah, especially if those "activists" would support people like hamas, and encourage the left to say that Israel is worse than nazi germany and should be destroyed. I wouldnt be surprised if the left began to peddle stories about Palestinians being worked to death as slave labour and believe every single word of it.

It's like the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the previous decade.

 

[JihadJane]

A whole post where you managed not to answer anything. You have made a real art out of that.

Let me just break it down in two simple questions.

1. If you claim to be such a defender of Human Rights, why do you support groups like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran who violate those rights on such a large and frequent scale?

What makes you think that I support "groups (sic) like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran"?

Your argument is undermined by your faulty assumptions. Links to my expressions of support, please.

2. Why have you spent no time looking at ways or plans in which the human rights abuses of the thousands who will be tortured or killed from the groups you support could be reduced, and yet you have spent an enormous amount of time focusing on a case where three mass murders had minor violation of their human rights? Especially since this was only done so because it was thought to be a way to protect thousands of other people's lives by preventing another terrorist attack.

Seems you are making up your "facts" about me as you go along.

Torturing people is a major violation of their human rights, not a minor one.

The whole point of developing the concept of human rights was to protect people from the abuses of power, whatever the ideology of their abusers.

It is also worth noting that many of the founding ideologues of al Qaeda were radicalized towards violence by being tortured in Egypt.

The regimes and groups you support kill and torture for their own pleasure with no justification asked for or needed, why do you ignore them?

Links to my expression of support, please, or shut up with your lies.

~~~~~~~

I already gave you my thoughts. I appreciate your moral concern, but again, I don't see the point of you asking me this. You already know all of my positions, you seem intent on nailing me down on wordplay. Why don't you actually make an argument instead of this strategy?

It's not that I disagree with the right to be free to be free from torture, hopefully the boffins cook up science that can turn anyone truthful and complicit painlessly. I just disagree that there is a 100% certain argument against it, I'm rejecting "rule utilitarianism"

How funny that you previously objected to having the word "Orwellian" attached to your musings!

What are you talking about.

The hundreds of civilians that Obama has killed, and carries on killing, despite objections from both governments, in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you provide evidence for Barack Obama deliberately targeting civilians as a tactic? You know, the same method as the jihadists you admire.

Barack Obama masterminds and sanctions acts of extreme violence that kill civilians. He knows that his violence will inevitably kill civilians and that it has regularly killed civilians and will carry on killing civilians and yet he doesn't stop using it.

Please provide evidence that I admire jihadists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More moonbattery. Chomsky wins the Sydney Peace Prize, joining alumni like Pilger. There are times when I'm embarrassed to be an Australian.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/06/02/3233770.htm

They also have a special gold medal for significant contributions to peace and justice. They only give it out once in awhile, this year the glorious honour was given to, you guessed it, Julian Assange.

Respect to Australia..

Australia is also one of the few countries that has apologized for its horrific racist abuse of indigenous peoples and to attempt to make reparations.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


''Hug me till you drug me, honey;
Kiss me till I'm in a coma;
Hug me, honey, snuggly bunny;
Love's as good as soma."

Brave New World - Aldous Huxley