A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I. Don't. Recall. What. Carter. Did.

You're the only ones paying attention to him now.

Penske, Slave and i read the DU. For balance, and for you to convey value here you need to promise to read Littlegreenfootballs.com next year.

For you reading one more blog will be like stretching a 200 guy gang bang film to 201 guys.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Penske, Slave and i read the DU. For balance, and for you to convey value here you need to promise to read Littlegreenfootballs.com next year.

You guys must like the agitation. No thanks. Spanky is enough for me.

For you reading one more blog will be like stretching a 200 guy gang bang film to 201 guys.

I don't read those kind of blogs, NTTAWWT, but you should send Penske the url.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Addressing foreign policy"?

You have saved the "understatement of the year" for the final work day of 2006. Bravo.

Or, in the words of the Nobel Peace Prize committe, "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

Yeh, you're right, ex-Presidents should just travel around doing big-bucks lectures on the circuit and keep their mouths shut.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Or, in the words of the Nobel Peace Prize committe, "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

Yeh, you're right, ex-Presidents should just travel around doing big-bucks lectures on the circuit and keep their mouths shut.

it strikes me that his failure to do something in Iran is the cause of one of the World's biggest threats to peace. But maybe you mean he built some houses for poor people?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course I am. In law school we called them "hypotheticals." Like your ticking-time bomb situation.

Look, I no longer care about this question you're ducking here. My point was that you like to ascribe the worst motives to people who disagree with you, and you have helped me make it.

Don’t you agree that hypotheticals only are relevant to certain discussions?

You said that I lacked values when I said that sometimes it was moral to torture someone. In other words, a person that says torture is moral in any circumstance lacks values. That is an absolute. When you use an absolute that makes hypotheticals (even impractical or rare hypotheticals) appropriate to test that absolute. If you use the terms the majority or most, then extreme hypotheticals are not appropriate. You were not reserving your sweeping absolute for only practical situations. So to see if you really meant what you said, I asked you if it was moral for someone to torture someone in the ticking time bomb situation, because you had used a sweeping absolute. If you really meant what you said, then you should have immediately said torture is immoral in that situation.

In the current situation, you asked how I can tell what someone’s motives are when they say we should pull out. I pointed out what I thought was painfully obvious in that we are talking about pundits and politicians here, and generally pundits and politicians give the reasoning behind their stances. In addition, they talk a lot (as that is there job) and so you can also determine their motivations from other things they have said. You asked what if two politicians or pundits said exactly the same thing, how you would know the difference in their motivations. Although I said the chances of that of happening are almost impossible (making your hypothetical not relevant as we were talking about real world situations and not absolutes) I STILL ANSWERED IT. I said that if two people said the same thing and they did not explain their reasoning, then you could not know what their motives are. So even though I did not think your extreme hypothetical was not relevant to the situation (as we were not discussing absolutes), I STILL ANSWERED IT.

How can you possibly interpret my response as ducking the question?

I showed you the courtesy of answering your question, something you have continually refused to do with my question about morality in the ticking time bomb case.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I can't believe you don't follow this:

• "I think that if you find yourself in a situation in which you are convinced that you should use torture to avert a greater harm, you should do so, and then confess to the torture and turn yourself in to the authorities."

Maybe the emphasis will help.

You can’t believe that I don’t follow this?!?!? Either you are unbelievably stupid or a total Jerk. You are basically saying “asked and answered” here. I asked whether or not torturing the terrorist in this case is MORAL. Not whether it was the lesser of two evils or whether one should or should not do it. Can you really not see the difference? How can you possibly argue that the above statement is an answer to the question of whether it is MORAL? Do you remember the discussion about IMMORAL IMPERATIVES? Taxwonk and Sam both argued that there was such a thing as an immoral imperative. You did not disagree with them. So if it is even remotely possible that there is such a thing as an immoral imperative, then how could your response be considered an answer to the question? Can’t you see that? Maybe this answer wouldn’t be so painfully stupid (but still pretty stupid), if we hadn’t already discussed moral imperatives, but we did.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't take Dennis Kucinich or Cindy Sheehan seriously. I'm surprised to hear that you do.

I don’t. What in my post do you think indicates that I do? Again, you are not paying attention to what you are saying. You said: “What I didn't think I needed to say -- but I see that this omission confused you, and for that I apologize -- is that because EVERYONE agrees that success is important”. Please pay special attention to the word “everyone”. You thought that is was so obvious that ALL pundits and politicians consider it important that we succeed that you didn’t even think you needed to say it. You did not limit it to serious people (whatever that means) or people I take seriously.

A point you don’t seem to get, is that if you make a sweeping statement (an absolute) one exception shows that your statement is fallacious. You said that anyone who argues that torture is ever moral lacks values. Agreeing that the ticking time bomb situation presents a MORAL imperative either refutes your assertion or demonstrates that you lack values by your own definition. In this case you said “everyone”. You did not make any exceptions. And even though I could have thrown out anyone to refute your assertion, I threw out a member of congress that is running for president of the United States. If you throw out the terms most or majority then one exception does not dispute the underlying claim, but that is not what you did in this case.

Can you see that?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not familiar with Charles Rangel's position. That said, I doubt very much that they think that our Iraq policy is unimportant.

You have no respect for language, and that is what makes discussing things with you so difficult and often pointless. The point is NOT whether they think the Iraq policy is important or unimportant; the point is whether or not they appreciate how important is that we succeed. There is a massive difference there. Can’t you see it?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Setting aside a few folks on the fringe, just about everyone thinks that Iraq policy is important. Which is why it's so irritating when conservatives go on and on and on about how important it is, as if many people disagree, in order to avoid a discussion of how to get the best outcome.

Please seem comments below.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please. And Caldicott is a foreigner -- stick to Americans.

Among other things, she said it directly to my face two weeks ago. Unfortunately for me, because of certain relationships in my family, I am forced to spend some time with the idiot. Any time is too much time. But if you agree with me that Dr. Caldecott is a complete moron, and no one should ever listen to anything she has to say, I will agree that what she says in context here has absolutely no relevance. In other words, when you use the term “everyone” I will assume you mean people with an IQ above four, and she clearly does not fall in that category.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The problem here is the definition of "success." Staying in Iraq is counter-productive in all sorts of ways -- e.g., the drain on our military and the harm to our international standing hurt us in the larger war on terror. But he and many others also think that our open-ended commitment to stay gives the Iraqi government a crutch, and prevents it from getting its act together.

When you kick the crutch away, do they stand up, or do they fall? That's the question.

The problem here is not the definition of success, that “problem’ was dealt with; the problem is your inability to follow a logical train of thought. It was obvious to me earlier (but unfortunately not for you) that we needed an agreed upon definition of success or the subsequent discussion would be pointless. I made clear that I thought that success in Iraq means leaving a stable democracy in Iraq. To reiterate what I already said, leaving a stable democracy in Iraq would be an almost priceless accomplishment for the people of Iraq, the people of the United States and the people of the Middle East. As I said, before, accomplishing that goal would be worth spending ten times the lives and money we have already put into the operation. We discussed Iran in relation to this, but in the end my definition was left as the definition. If that was not the case, and the definition of success was undefined, entering into the subsequent discussion was pointless. That is why I went to such great pains to establish the definition. I assumed you understood this; I won’t make such an assumption again. If you remember what I said, that if there was any chance of success in Iraq and our continued presence there would make it more likely than not that we would succeed, there is no question we should stay.

Under the definition of success we are using, you claimed everyone (and that includes Murtha) wants us to succeed. Clearly under the definition we were using that is wrong. You are now realizing this, so now you want to put into question the definition of success.


The only people I think who should be taken seriously are people that agree with that position. When John Murtha talks about the money that we have spent, and live that are lost and says that there is no way this is worth it, he makes it clear he does appreciate the value of success (as I just defined it) and the cost of losing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
... you asked how I can tell what someone’s motives are when they say we should pull out. ... I said that if two people said the same thing and they did not explain their reasoning, then you could not know what their motives are.

OK, so then explain to me which Americans want us to fail in Iraq because they want Bush to fail, without regard to the cost to the country, and which public statements they made that you deduced this from. Since you're smearing people as unpatriotic, presumably you have specific names and statements in mind.

Notwithstanding your own relationship with Dr. Helen Caldicott, she is an Australian and so she doesn't count for these purposes.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, so then explain to me which Americans want us to fail in Iraq because they want Bush to fail, without regard to the cost to the country, and which public statements they made that you deduced this from. Since you're smearing people as unpatriotic, presumably you have specific names and statements in mind.

Notwithstanding your own relationship with Dr. Helen Caldicott, she is an Australian and so she doesn't count for these purposes.

Has he made pubic statements about her in the past?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Okay. Then let's say that you have ten prisoners that our repeatedly flawed intelligence suggests might know something about an attack that might happen. However, you also know that all of the prisoners were reported to be "terrorists" by neighbors who have grudges against them.

Torture them? Yes or no?

Why is that relevant? What is that relevant towards?

Please read what I wrote to Ty:

You said that I lacked values when I said that sometimes it was moral to torture someone. In other words, a person that says torture is moral in any circumstance lacks values. That is an absolute. When you use an absolute that makes hypotheticals (even impractical or rare hypotheticals) appropriate to test that absolute. If you use the terms the majority or most, then extreme hypotheticals are not appropriate. You were not reserving your sweeping absolute for only practical situations. So to see if you really meant what you said, I asked you if it was moral for someone to torture someone in the ticking time bomb situation, because you had used a sweeping absolute. If you really meant what you said, then you should have immediately said torture is immoral in that situation.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, I read them over and over again. You set up a tautology, where your assumptions can only support your conclusions. The basis for your assumptions ranges from gut feel to anecdote. You ignore every contrary fact -- like that we end up torturing innocent people, including our own informants. Like that we create more enemies then we find this way (the number of insurgents in Iraq continues to grow. Why do you think that is?) Like that we lose popular support that we need (the US is widely viewed, particularly in Muslim countries like the one we are supposedly liberating, as the enemy. Do you think torture -- Abu Ghraib -- has anything to do with that?)

You said that I only used the Ticking Time bomb case to justify the use of torture in the War on Terror. The above post establishes that I only used tithe ticking time bomb example to refute an absolutist statement used by Ty and used the extended assumptions to justify the use of torture in the war on terror. Can you not acknowledge that?

I posted the extended assumptions again for the purposes of disputing your assertion, not because I wanted to debate the merits of those extended assumptions. Isn't that obvious? Why are you rambling on about the merits of those extended assumptions, instead of acknowledging your assertion was shown to be fallacious by my post?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's not a "scenario". It's a "fabrication." It has roots only in your imagination, not in reality.

Do you grasp that?

Don't you grasp that whether or not it has any basis in reality (which I dispute) is irrelevant. I referred to the example (i didn't make it up, it has been discussed before by Ty and others before) to refute his absolutist statement. Even if he had said that it is almost without exception that the use of torture is wrong, then the hypothetical would not have been relevant. But he said that if you argue that torture is ever moral then you have no values. The absolutist statements make the hypothetical relevant. We were discussing the ethereal subject of morality in terms of absolutes making the hypothetical pertinent to the discussion.

Is such a simple point really so hard for you to wrap your mind around?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I paid attention to your posts. That's how I recognized how idiotic they were.

We could argue whether or not they were idiotic, but you can't you see that wither they were idiotic is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch But thanks for confirming your complete inability to back up yet another stupid position with anything resembling a fact-based argument.

Than you for confirming you complete inability to follow a logical train of thought.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You don't have a clue what a "war" is;

I am sorry, I forgot? What experiences have you had that make you such an expert?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch you are just an armchair neocon strategist, and a hard-core Republican loyalist, grasping for straws in the effort to validate the flawed policies that have led to the most poorly managed military and diplomatic operation in US history.

Save it for the old ladies that you play bridge with. Remember there are a few lawyers on this board that appreciate actual substantive arguments, that have a logical flow and that are supported by evidence.

What did you say you did for a living? Are you a televangelist? Used car salesmen?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can’t believe that I don’t follow this?!?!? Either you are unbelievably stupid or a total Jerk. You are basically saying “asked and answered” here. I asked whether or not torturing the terrorist in this case is MORAL. Not whether it was the lesser of two evils or whether one should or should not do it. Can you really not see the difference? How can you possibly argue that the above statement is an answer to the question of whether it is MORAL? Do you remember the discussion about IMMORAL IMPERATIVES? Taxwonk and Sam both argued that there was such a thing as an immoral imperative. You did not disagree with them. So if it is even remotely possible that there is such a thing as an immoral imperative, then how could your response be considered an answer to the question? Can’t you see that? Maybe this answer wouldn’t be so painfully stupid (but still pretty stupid), if we hadn’t already discussed moral imperatives, but we did.

I don't recall your discussion of moral imperatives with other people, and don't understand what part of your question you think I'm not answering. It seems to turn on some aspect of the word "moral" that I guess I didn't learn in Sunday school. If you'll explain, I'll try to answer.

I don’t. What in my post do you think indicates that I do? Again, you are not paying attention to what you are saying. You said: “What I didn't think I needed to say -- but I see that this omission confused you, and for that I apologize -- is that because EVERYONE agrees that success is important”. Please pay special attention to the word “everyone”. You thought that is was so obvious that ALL pundits and politicians consider it important that we succeed that you didn’t even think you needed to say it. You did not limit it to serious people (whatever that means) or people I take seriously.

So many people think that Iraq policy is important that I -- and, I suspect, most commentators other than political hacks trying to score cheap points -- don't expect them to need to say this. My point -- which must have been too subtle for you -- is that I assume that commentators believe that Iraq policy is important unless they say otherwise. This being the case, it would be odd to go looking for people who say it. You'd end up with a bunch of the aforementioned political hacks.

Agreeing that the ticking time bomb situation presents a MORAL imperative either refutes your assertion or demonstrates that you lack values by your own definition.

Again, you seem to have translated something that I said into something nonsensical using an English-to-Spanky translator. If you'd care to link to whatever it was that confused you, I'd be happy to try to clarify.

You have no respect for language, and that is what makes discussing things with you so difficult and often pointless. The point is NOT whether they think the Iraq policy is important or unimportant; the point is whether or not they appreciate how important is that we succeed. There is a massive difference there.

That depends on what you mean by success. The problem is that they want our foreign policy to be a success, while you are focused more narrowly on realizing the CPA's pipe dreams of an Iraqi democracy.

Among other things, she said it directly to my face two weeks ago. Unfortunately for me, because of certain relationships in my family, I am forced to spend some time with the idiot. Any time is too much time. But if you agree with me that Dr. Caldecott is a complete moron, and no one should ever listen to anything she has to say, I will agree that what she says in context here has absolutely no relevance. In other words, when you use the term “everyone” I will assume you mean people with an IQ above four, and she clearly does not fall in that category.

I don't know much about Dr. Caldicott and am happy to accept your characterization of her for these purposes. Since she continues to be Australian (I thought she was a Kiwi, but Googled), she continues to be irrelevant for present purposes, which have to do with whether your outlandish smears of your political opponents have any basis in reality.

The problem here is not the definition of success, that “problem’ was dealt with; the problem is your inability to follow a logical train of thought. It was obvious to me earlier (but unfortunately not for you) that we needed an agreed upon definition of success or the subsequent discussion would be pointless. I made clear that I thought that success in Iraq means leaving a stable democracy in Iraq. To reiterate what I already said, leaving a stable democracy in Iraq would be an almost priceless accomplishment for the people of Iraq, the people of the United States and the people of the Middle East. As I said, before, accomplishing that goal would be worth spending ten times the lives and money we have already put into the operation. We discussed Iran in relation to this, but in the end my definition was left as the definition. If that was not the case, and the definition of success was undefined, entering into the subsequent discussion was pointless. That is why I went to such great pains to establish the definition. I assumed you understood this; I won’t make such an assumption again. If you remember what I said, that if there was any chance of success in Iraq and our continued presence there would make it more likely than not that we would succeed, there is no question we should stay.

Under the definition of success we are using, you claimed everyone (and that includes Murtha) wants us to succeed. Clearly under the definition we were using that is wrong. You are now realizing this, so now you want to put into question the definition of success.

People like Murtha think that our continuing efforts in Iraq are (a) prolonging Iraq's agony by worsening the conflict and forestalling national reconciliation, and (b) undermining our national security in a number of other ways. You don't get (a), and you ignore (b) by defining "success" to ignore things like the state of our military, international standing, etc. The point I was making before is that (a) is, for many people, sufficient. The idea is that the Iraqis are never going to get their shit together until we set a timeline for departure.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Has he made pubic statements about her in the past?

Maybe on the Adult Board.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Extra points for anyone who can tell the difference between the two.

There is a woman of persian descent (24 years old) that works for my real estate company. She is really good at what she does for the business. She was raised as a muslim and her mother is pretty religious (her mother also works for me sometimes). She was not aware of ther terms Sunni or Shia, that Muslims are divided into different sects, and that she is a Shia (or at least she was raised in a Shia household and that all her relatives are Shia).

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
Save it for the old ladies that you play bridge with. Remember there are a few lawyers on this board that appreciate actual substantive arguments, that have a logical flow and that are supported by evidence.

Spanky never makes sexist statements. I guess this one is ok because "old ladies" only includes women who were, by definition, not allowed into law schools back in the good old days?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ummm, Reagan was addressing rhetoric about what clinton maybe might do.

It's like Groundhog day. 12 more months of no value here.

2. Sad, but it least it presages how their comrades on the hill will squander their new found power and lead us to another all-Republican government in 2008.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You guys must like the agitation. No thanks. Spanky is enough for me.



I don't read those kind of blogs, NTTAWWT, but you should send Penske the url.

Word! Ever since I retired here I have been indulging my prurient side....perhaps my dislike of Clinton is misplaced self-loathing...?????

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Has [spanky] made pubic statements about her in the past?

Doubtful. Spanky talks politics, not pubes.