Waterboarding Rocks!

[Upchurch]

And I hope you also reported that it was Upchurch and a few others who introduced, not once, but several times this "off-topic" topic to this thread in a clear attempt to derail the thread and attack me as uncaring, rather than deal with the OP topic and my responses to that topic.

Is that what you thought I was doing? Did you not understand the "steal from the rich vs people die from starvation and illness" parallel at all?

Were you attacking me as uncaring?

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe I am going to make myself seem an old geezer here, but I remember clearly reading the newspaper accounts of frequent terrorist attacks in France carried out by Algerian terrorists. Anybody who was anybody made sure to look under their vehiclews before starting them, even in reasonably secure areas.

And the Foreign Legion was doing some ghastly thiongs to extract intelligence from Algerian resistance fighters.

France lost big time, and they did nothing noticeable to stop the terrorist attacks.

History sits like an elephant on the backs of the mousey little wussie boys who think we gain anything quanitfiable by torturting people because of a terrorist threat.

 

[BeAChooser]

Nova Land, I'm not going to respond to most of what you wrote in your latest posts (#1181 - #1188) since my last set of responses (#1143 - #1155) pretty much address the substance of what you wrote. I'll instead wait until you get to my last set of responses and you respond to them specifically. Otherwise, this conversation will get too confusing, too repetitive and we'll just keep arguing in circles. I have only a few comments on statements in your latest set of posts that deal with claims that were outside the topics already responded to in my last set of posts.

Here they are:

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
If waterboarding is as ineffective as NL claims, then there is no reason not to declassify the interrogations and show the American public the truth about the CIA and Bush Administration.

There are many reasons why information is classified.

Then I challenge you to list the reasons you think would explain not releasing the data needed to resolve this issue? Don't just hide behind the classification label and wave your hands, NL.

If you're concerned that the names of agents would be made public (not that the reasons for classifying such names seem to really matter to those on the left ... see ABC's recent release of names involved in waterboarding), Obama need only black out those names from the documents before they are released. We don't actually need to know the names of agents.

I'm not asking that any plot that they've discovered and are still trying to stop be made public. They need only release information on those plots already been mentioned by the government which were claimed to have been prevented thanks to enhanced methods.

I'm not asking they release information that goes beyond the interrogations and how what was learned compares with the reality, and how what was learned helped stop some supposed terrorist event.

I'm not even asking that any specific interrogation method be identified. They could simply relabel them "conventional method 1", "enhanced method 1", etc in the released information. That would still allow us to know that "conventional method 1" was used for 2 weeks and gathered such and such data, then "enhanced method 1" was used for 1 week and gathered such and such additional data. This is the sort of information needed to determine which side of this issue is telling the truth or telling the most complete account.

Whatever the reasons the Bush administration had for classifying this material, either the reasons were valid (in which case it should remain classified, regardless of whether water-boarding is ineffective)

In my opinion, that's just a cop out. It seems you aren't really interested in the truth. Have you ever noticed folks, how democrats rant and rave about the need for transparency and have no problem revealing secrets whenever it's something they think they can score some political advantage with, but the second it's suggested that we declassify something that might show one of their own has done something foolish, they claim up and invoke national security.

Quote:
But if Obama doesn't release the information, we can only assume it's because it casts HIS administration, HIS minions and HIS chosen policy in a bad light.

Wow! If that's the only possibility you see for why this material might remain classified, then you must have extremely limited knowledge of how our government works.

Dr Adequate has already done a good job of pointing out a few of the many other possible reasons for this, so there's no need for me to repeat what he's already done so well.

Ignoring your various insults, there is a need for you (or at least someone) to respond to my detailed rebuttal of DA's silly and pathetic response (see post #711: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4659530&postcount=711 ). You'll notice that he just ran from that rebuttal and later even claimed that I never responded to him at all (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4664532&postcount=1055 ). And when I caught him telling that lie, he posted this, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4665739&postcount=1090 , which again does not contain a rebuttal of my points but simply dismisses them out of hand. So you make a big mistake in holding up DA as some icon of reason. The fact is, he ran ... just like he and the others are obviously now running from the contents of post #903, too. And I guess by the time your reading brings you up to date in the thread, we'll find out if you are too.

 

[applecorped]

Yes. Now aren't you ashamed?

I'm ashamed of a lot of things.

 

[BeAChooser]

THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

boloboffin: wikipedia is mostly written by people on the left. Of course they have a negative view of those charging the left with moral equivalence. It doesn't take anything but common sense (and not being someone who subscribes to the view that all evil is the same) to see they are wrong.

 

[boloboffin]

boloboffin: wikipedia is mostly written by people on the left. Of course they have a negative view of those charging the left with moral equivalence. It doesn't take anything but common sense (and not being someone who subscribes to the view that all evil is the same) to see they are wrong.

 

[Praktik]

boloboffin: wikipedia is mostly written by people on the left. Of course they have a negative view of those charging the left with moral equivalence. It doesn't take anything but common sense (and not being someone who subscribes to the view that all evil is the same) to see they are wrong.

What does the Conservapedia say on "moral equivalence"?

 

[Upchurch]

boloboffin: wikipedia is mostly written by people on the left.

Well, yeah, but only because reality has a well know liberal bias.

 

[Lonewulf]

boloboffin: wikipedia is mostly written by people on the left.

Reality leans on the left.

 

[Lonewulf]

What does the Conservapedia say on "moral equivalence"?

"Moral equivalence is the claim that two radically different ethical actors are really doing the same thing and that they should be judged and treated the same way. For example, if two schoolchildren are scuffling and hitting each other in the playground, a judgment of "moral equivalence" by the teacher may result in separating the two and (perhaps) punishing them both equally (for "fighting").

The problem with moral equivalence as an ethical doctrine is that it completely sidesteps the crucial issue of right and wrong; see good and evil. If one of the children in our example was a notorious school bully, and the other child was fighting back in self-defense, then it would clearly be wrong to punish them both equally.

If we believe that evil is defined by taking advantage of another person for one's own benefit, then an aggressive move (like a schoolyard bully beating up a little kid) is an evil action. It is clearly wrong."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Moral_equivalence



The irony? Conservapedia says Waterboarding is torture (and says it's AKA "Wature Torture")

Common methods

Torture is widely practiced in many countries throughout the world as a means of intimidating the ruling regime's opponents. Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific states that incidences of torture or ill treatment by the police have been reported in over 140 different countries since 1997. [4] By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include:

* Rape and sexual abuse in custody

* Mock execution or threat of death

* Prolonged solitary confinement

* Electric shocks

* Suffocation[5]

* Waterboarding[6], also known as 'water torture' or 'water cure"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Torture


Even conservapedia disagrees with the conservafreaks here.

Some more!

It is a matter of dispute whether it serves any valid purpose to distinguish between degrees or levels of torture. To some opponents, "torture is torture" and should always be prohibited. The US maintains that its coercive interrogation techniques are not "torture". While this position has met with considerable resistance from legal experts nationwide[7], President George W. Bush vetoed the McCain Amendment, which was intended to tighten the definition of torture. Ironically, under the current administration's definition of "torture", the abuse Senator McCain received while a POW in Vietnam would not be considered torture.

In addition to disagreement over the nature of what is or is not considered torture, controversy exists as to whether torture generally elicits useful information. A large amount of prisoners tortured will eventually break and give up information or confession just to end the torture. John McCain, who is considered both a patriot and a conservative, had his will broken after weeks of torture and the pain of improperly treated injuries, and subsequently signed a written confession stating "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors."[8] Examples like this illustrate that rather than evoking truthful statements or valuable intelligence, torture has the equal potential to elicit misinformation, and is therefore of questionable value.

The signatories to the Geneva Convention [9] in 1949 defined relative classes of persons who may be considered "prisoners". The Bush administration has classified terrorists as unlawful combatants not associated with any signatory power and maintain that previous international conventions have not addressed this classification.

This is hilarious.

This means that conservapedia has a liberal bias!

 

[applecorped]

Well, yeah, but only because reality has a well know liberal bias.

I'm sure more people on the Left took acid too. I've personally never.........manufactured the stuff.

 

[Cleon]

boloboffin: wikipedia is mostly written by people on the left. Of course they have a negative view of those charging the left with moral equivalence. It doesn't take anything but common sense (and not being someone who subscribes to the view that all evil is the same) to see they are wrong.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is nobody going to address the issue of how well torture worked in a similar campaign in Algeria?

Am I the only one who remembers this stuff?

Is it convenient amnesia on the part of the thugs?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So you think "greater than" means "equivalent"?

Nope, keep reading.

Yet that's exactly what you implied when you wrote: "Comparing the two and judging one to be greater than the other is setting up a moral equivalency."

Perhaps you didn't pass your english classes either.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Did you actually pass your math classes?

Major in Physics, minor in Mathematics. I did okay.

And yet you seem to think that > is the same as =.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
For that matter, did you pass your logic class?

In fact, I did. Symbolic Logic. It was part of my minor in Philosophy. Liked it so much, I kept the book.

Then why did you make such a simple mistake as thinking that a > symbol redefines morality?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No, A is still immoral, but the act of using A to prevent B is moral.

And that is moral relativism.

Obviously, you did NOT pass your philosophy class.

The notion of "relative" certainly is inherent in the > symbol. But that's not what the term "moral relativism" refers to nor does saying "the act of using A to prevent B is moral" refer to it either. Even wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism ) could have told you that. Moral relativism refers to the belief that morality claims in general are made RELATIVE to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativism posits that there are no universal morality standards. And that's not what the above equation says. I believe Act A is still immoral regardless of the circumstances. I believe Act B is still immoral regardless of the circumstances. But I also believe (because I'm not a moral equivalist) that Act B can be more immoral (in a univeral non-moral relativism sense) than Act A, and that if Act A is used to prevent Act B, the act of doing so (call it Act C) has morality and that morality is on the positive side in the same universe. It would lead to a universe with more overall morality than had you just let Act B take place because you valued Act A the same or worse (as some on this thread have indicated) than Act B.

 

[BeAChooser]

What does the Conservapedia say on "moral equivalence"?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Moral_equivalence

It's called a browser or search engine. You have one don't you?

 

[A'isha]

The notion of "relative" certainly is inherent in the > symbol. But that's not what the term "moral relativism" refers to nor does saying "the act of using A to prevent B is moral" refer to it either. Even wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism ) could have told you that. Moral relativism refers to the belief that morality claims in general are made RELATIVE to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativism posits that there are no universal morality standards. And that's not what the above equation says. I believe Act A is still immoral regardless of the circumstances. I believe Act B is still immoral regardless of the circumstances. But I also believe (because I'm not a moral equivalist) that Act B can be more immoral (in a univeral non-moral relativism sense) than Act A, and that if Act A is used to prevent Act B, the act of doing so (call it Act C) has morality and that morality is on the positive side in the same universe. It would lead to a universe with more overall morality than had you just let Act B take place because you valued Act A the same or worse (as some on this thread have indicated) than Act B.

So, in other words, committing Act A, which is "immoral regardless of the circumstances" in your words, can actually be the moral thing to do...depending on the circumstances?

 

[applecorped]

Spock: That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Kirk: Or the one.

 

[A'isha]

Spock: That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Kirk: Or the one.

Amanda Grayson: Spock, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the one?
Spock: That would be a logical argument.
Amanda Grayson: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they felt that the good of the one, you, was more important.
Spock: Humans make illogical decisions.
Amanda Grayson: (Proudly) They do, indeed.

 

[BeAChooser]

So, in other words, committing Act A, which is "immoral regardless of the circumstances" in your words, can actually be the moral thing to do...depending on the circumstances?

... depending on the morality of the act you prevent by doing it. If you want to label that "circumstances", fine, but that is not what "circumstances" means in the definition of "moral relativism".

 

[applecorped]

Amanda Grayson: Spock, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the one?
Spock: That would be a logical argument.
Amanda Grayson: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they felt that the good of the one, you, was more important.
Spock: Humans make illogical decisions.
Amanda Grayson: (Proudly) They do, indeed.

We should prosecute those flawed, feeling, humans.