• 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.

Waterboarding Rocks!

boloboffin said:
The only way the ends justify the means is if you make sure you eliminate all people who might ensure you meet justice for the means you employ.

And the only sure way of doing that gets you into genocide.
Click to expand...

Genocide is the ONLY answer to that question?!?!?!?!?!:jaw-dropp
 
BeAChooser said:
Unlike you, I don't believe in moral equivalency.
Click to expand...
You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

A: Intentionally hurting another is immoral.
B: Murdering is immoral.

Comparing the two and judging one to be greater than the other is setting up a moral equivalency. B is more immoral than A, therefore if A can prevent B, then A is moral.

Moral equivalency.
 
BeAChooser said:
Could it be that the way existing foreign aid was spent had nothing really to do with ending hunger or that the chosen (liberal) approach manifest in any existing spending to ending hunger doesn't work? Could it be that the liberals who doubtlessly ran the program siphoned off a large portion of the funds for "management" costs, much like the US government does in other programs? Could it be that government programs are just not as efficient as private aid programs like the one I linked? The fact remains you still haven't shown why my calculation is incorrect concerning the amount of money needed to feed hungry people, which you made an issue. That being the case, I can only assume my calculation is correct. In that case, we'd have to conclude that the government already has more than sufficient money, by your own admission, to solve the hunger problem. So why are you coming to me and demanding more money? Why doesn't Obama and his democrat, filibuster proof Congress just solve the problem with existing funds and shut up? Or are they, like you, all talk and bluster?
Click to expand...
While your dumb fantasies shed an interesting light on your mental condition, and are amusing in their plethora of factual errors and false assumptions, they are off-topic. Now, would you like to get back to talking nonsense about waterboarding? Try to stick to one nutty obsessional error per thread, there's a good chap.
 
Upchurch said:
You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

A: Intentionally hurting another is immoral.
B: Murdering is immoral.

Comparing the two and judging one to be greater than the other is setting up a moral equivalency. B is more immoral than A, therefore if A can prevent B, then A is moral.

Moral equivalency.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he had is back up from the barrage of people disagreeing with him, but when I honestly asked BAC to define "moral equivalency" and spell out how it applied to my posts, he refused, claiming that the mere asking of the question on my part was sufficient information for him to conclude that I was a lost cause.

Of course I don't make a habit of placing myself on a moral pedestal so I may not be familiar with all the terms used by such individuals to disparage the moral fibre of their debating opponents.

I am also not as steeped in conservative lore as he is (though not for lack of trying!) so I am unfamiliar with the use of this term.
 
Praktik said:
I don't know if he had is back up from the barrage of people disagreeing with him, but when I honestly asked BAC to define "moral equivalency" and spell out how it applied to my posts, he refused, claiming that the mere asking of the question on my part was sufficient information for him to conclude that I was a lost cause.
Click to expand...
To be fair, what he is doing is more an issue of moral relativism. It could be couched either way.
 
yes, now THAT term I'm familiar with. Bandied about all over the place in conservative talk - but usually I can find a way to apply the same term to some of their positions.

So I've come to understand it simply as "moral position I don't agree with", couched in a term that presents the speaker in the glorious light of True Morality, and the target in the inglorious darkness of moral depravity.
 
BeAChooser said:
varwoche said:
Still, I'll play make believe and answer your question: If the scenario were to happen, and I'm the interrogator, and waterboarding is illegal, and the bomb is about to blow... I think I'd waterboard and then turn myself in for prosecution.
Click to expand...
Good for you. We are of like mind. And apparently in the minority on this thread. :D
Click to expand...

I think you have the positions backwards, unless you have quietly changed your mind. The majority of us here have been arguing in favor of prosecution. Have you changed your mind? Do you now favor prosecution for the crime of torture?
 
facepalm2sn8.jpg


@ BAC's inability to read and comprehend my (and everyone else's) posts.
 
I just read a good commentary on torture on CNN.

Among other points, the guy says:

The Bush administration, euphemistically seeking to employ "coercive" interrogation techniques against al Qaeda detainees, pursued three major strategies of implausible deniability to bypass the uncompromising legal ban: It denied that certain national and international laws that prohibit torture applied to certain categories of detainees (a position squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in its 2006 Hamdan decision), it denied that the "United States" was engaged in torture (while, at the same time, outsourcing the business of torture to other countries), and it also denied that the United States was engaged in "torture."

Orwellian legal constructions and definitional wizardry by lawyers demonstrating small-mindedness, technocratic reasoning, ideological motivation, and I-just-followed-orders mentality facilitated this last claim.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
BeAChooser said:
Could it be that the way existing foreign aid was spent had nothing really to do with ending hunger or that the chosen (liberal) approach manifest in any existing spending to ending hunger doesn't work? Could it be that the liberals who doubtlessly ran the program siphoned off a large portion of the funds for "management" costs, much like the US government does in other programs? Could it be that government programs are just not as efficient as private aid programs like the one I linked? The fact remains you still haven't shown why my calculation is incorrect concerning the amount of money needed to feed hungry people, which you made an issue. That being the case, I can only assume my calculation is correct. In that case, we'd have to conclude that the government already has more than sufficient money, by your own admission, to solve the hunger problem. So why are you coming to me and demanding more money? Why doesn't Obama and his democrat, filibuster proof Congress just solve the problem with existing funds and shut up? Or are they, like you, all talk and bluster?
Click to expand...
So does your ranting about those "evil liberals" actually have a point, or are you just erecting a red herring and going incredibly off topic?

Either way, reported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom