Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You said the CIA used torture during the Cold War "a lot." I asked you to explain what you meant by this, and to offer some support. You responded by saying it was "very common." And you liken me to a three-year old? Right.

Yes. You asked for me to give you some evidence to back up my statement. You may think the evidence I came up with is lacking, or is not well substantiated, but to then claim that the evidence I gave you was used to support an argument you created and assinged to me is beyond absurd.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can believe that if you like. I note that while you profess to say that torture is OK under certain circumstances (only), you get a lot more excited about defending the use of torture in those circumstances than you do about the harm that the use of torture does in other circumstances (e.g., Abu Ghraib). When confronted with this, you plead ignorance or disapproval. And yet the use of torture in Abu Ghraib is the predictable result of the game you play, which is to justify it in unrealistic circumstances (the ticking bomb) but never to worry about how to keep it rare.

I will defend the use of torture when it is used properly. But why should I have to defend, or be expected to defend the use of torture when it is used improperly? The use of torture in this circumstance was used for purely sadistic games. What has that got to do with the proper use of torture? Do you defend the practice of locking up criminals? If you think it is OK to lock up criminals does that mean you automatically support what happened at Abu Ghraib? If a man kidnaps a six year old girl and locks her up in a dungeon, does that mean that anyone that is for locking up criminals supports that activity? Or that their support of locking up criminals led to that activity?

The sanctioning of the use of torture in certain circumstances did not lead to Abu Ghraib. In fact, all use of torture was specifically forbidden at Abu Ghraib.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there a principle lurking in there, somewhere?

Absolutely. Can't you not see it?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, they can't.

It clearly can. The argument that torture is always wrong is similar to the argument that killing is always wrong. You ask most people if killing is wrong and they will say yes. If you ask them if killing in self defense is wrong most will say no. Some will say killing is always wrong. Those people that say killing is always wrong (like Gandhi) draw an absolute that most of us don't draw. If you ask people if torture is always wrong most people will say yes. If you ask them if torturing a captured terrorist is wrong if that is the only way they will give up information that will save innocent lives, most people will say that in that case torture is not wrong. There is a minority of people (including many on this board) that will say torture is always wrong, regardless if it will save innocent lives.

For you to say that your position is moral and has values and the if someone doesn't agree with your position they are supporting an immoral position, that is no different from someone who believes that killing is always wrong and saying the same thing when someone defends killing in self defense.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're the one who brought up.

You said that some of us don't believe that our domestic system of separating the innocent from the guilty should be used with captured terrorists, and inferred there was something wrong with that position. I simply pointed out that our domestic legal system does not prioritize separating the guilty from the innocent. Our domestic system prioritizes protecting people’s rights, and preventing the guilty from being convicted. So if you want a system that prioritizes separating the guilty from the innocent our domestic legal system is not the system to use as a template.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course I do. The difference between us is the value I place on the core principles and values of our system of government. You are ready to piss them away. I am not.

Well you may see that not giving a detained terrorist the same rights as a convicted criminal in our domestic justice system as pissing away the core values of our system. I see it as assigning rights to a captured foreign national terrorist who was operating clandestinely and trying to kill US citizens when affording such rights will probably cost innocent American lives, as pissing away the core principles and values of our system of government.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am astonished to hear you say this.

Of course, because you constantly assign positions and beliefs to me that I have never professed. If you had really read what I have been writing this would not be a surprise at all. You have assumed that because I have said that in certain limited circumstances torture is a moral imperative you think that I think torture should just be used all the time and it a great thing. That is just like someone assuming that if one believes that killing in self defense is OK, then that person believes that killing is a good thing and should be done all the time. You assign positions to me that I don't take and then argue against them.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't like to come here and argue about what the Bible suggests because I think it's presumptuous to start from that basis. So I'm sorry I started this.

I agree. As Shakespeare said, the devil can cite scripture for his purposes.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point was: I think torture is evil and wrong.

I don't think there is anyone that doesn't understand that this is your position.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I thing I've said more than once that sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

In this case I believe that the lesser of two evils is a kind of a dodge. Moral imperatives can often be classified as the lesser of two evils. Depriving someone of their liberty is seen as evil. But if you don't lock a child molester up, who you know if you don't lock them up will molest a child again, then most people agree you should lock them. Locking them up is a moral imperative. You could view locking them up as the lesser of two evils, but I view locking an innocent person up as immoral, and I view not locking up a person that is guilty of child molesting as immoral.

I believe that most people who study and discuss epistemology would agree that there is no such thing as an immoral imperative (hi SAM). Morality concerns what actions ones should or should not take, and whether such actions are just or unjust. One should always act morally. By definition, if an act is imperative, it must be just and moral. That is why the idea that in order to do the right thing you must do an immoral act is, I think, is an absurd position. An immoral imperative is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Truly a distinction without a difference. Why does this paragraph matter?

Are you kidding? A distinction without a difference? You can't see the difference between the guilty SHOULD be tortured and the guilty COULD be tortured. If the guilty should be tortured, we should torture every criminal that is ever locked up. However, the guilty COULD be tortured is a whole different ball of wax.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Tellingly, I asked you a hard question, and you deleted it without answering it. What are the limits on your utilitarianism? When would you not use torture even though it would save innocent lives? All this talk about guilt and innocence leads me to believe that you're hiding behind the notion that AQ is a bunch of bad guys to avoid the moral consequences of what you argue.

No you are the one that avoids the hard questions. I have placed a hypothetical that you would not answer and then you stick me with one and expect me to answer it. But I will do what you refuse to do. I believe that morality is not relative in that what is wrong in Zambia is also wrong in Ohio. Morality is consistent. However, I think moral absolutes are very rare. In other words, killing is wrong. Killing is often wrong, but rarely so. Torture is wrong, and is almost always wrong. But in some very limited cases torturing the guilty is OK, even necessary. There exceptoins to every rule, and exceptions to the exceptions and exceptions to those exceptoins. The UMC is infinitely complicated but universally consistent.

The times when torturing the innocent is moral is an extremely rare occurrence, but sometimes it might be a moral imperative. If the only way to save a plane load of children was to torture an innocent child, then I would say you would have to torture the innocent child.

However, I can't imagine this scenario ever arising.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Wishful thinking on your part. We weren't attacked in America after WTC I, sans torture.

You lost me here. Are you saying that we did not torture after WTC 1? Are you saying we were not attacked after WTC 1 (you can't be saying that because obviously we had WTC II)? If we did not have torture after WTC 1, maybe if we did we wouldn't have had WTC II? If we did torture after WTC 1, maybe we would have had WTC II plus more stuff or been hit earlier?

What do you think you know and what are you claiming the results are of what you think you know?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (I saw Hank's post, which elides the point that terrorists have been very active in other places after WTC II, just as they were after WTC I -- pointing to the fact that this facile comparison is, well, stupid.)

What comparison? I said there hasn't been an effective attack on US soil since WTC II, even though there was a huge upsurge in support for Al Qaeda after WTC II in both monetary and human resource terms, and they have said they are going to hit us, yet they haven't. They have hit a lot of other people but haven't been able to hit us (and I don't think it is from a lack of trying). You don't think some of the credit for that can't be assigned to the current administration and its policies? You think it is just luck?

Come on Ty. I know you hate the current administration but you have to give credit where credit is due.