Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I found that site today, and to the best of my knowledge had never been there before. Thanks for your support for the board.

Oh, and Episcopalianism and athiesm technically are somewhat different.

copy the history that shows how you "found" it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
copy the history that shows how you "found" it.

Why?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why?

I'm asking the questions here.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
copy the history that shows how you "found" it.

Potentially outable?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Potentially outable?

It just doesn't matter. I'll explain how I found it -- following a link from Andrew Sullivan, whose blog I look at more than once a week but less than once a day, and which I would say is not a pet site, FWIW -- but the site it came from is not one I can even recall visiting before, so definitely not a pet site.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It just doesn't matter. I'll explain how I found it -- following a link from Andrew Sullivan, whose blog I look at more than once a week but less than once a day, and which I would say is not a pet site, FWIW -- but the site it came from is not one I can even recall visiting before, so definitely not a pet site.

I thought I had typed "linked" from a pet site, but I had not. whatever. (or maybe Ty edited out the "linked"):disbelief :disbelief

[Spanky]

:bs:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This letter to Andrew Sullivan does a good job of fleshing out something I was saying a week or two ago:

• Real patriots will break the law for the greater good and proudly face the music for their actions. Sometimes we have to do things that are wrong, but making the wrong lawful cheapens the choice.
  
  The president and his crowd come from the top of corporate America where one can run a company into the ground and still get paid tens of million. Bush has no concept about self-sacrifice for the greater good. The army and CIA have always done things against the law but did it in the shadows. If they were caught, then they accepted their punishment. Oliver North made a choice. He broke the law and paid the price (sort of). This administration wants to take away that price. It is cheapening acts of patriotism. When an interrogator looks into a suspect's eyes, he should see a jury of his peers looking back and then he needs to make his choice.
  
  When Americans think of torture they think of Dirty Harry standing over a serial killer whose next victim is running out of air at a remote location. Americans think of Harry as a hero for doing everything he can to save the victim. But what most people fail to realize is the thing that makes Harry the hero is not the act of torture. It is the choice to torture given he will face consequences for his action. If the consequences are removed then Harry becomes a meter maid.
  
  Once the torture bill passes it won't take long before many, many more terror suspects will be tortured. A time will inevitably come when a detainee is found to contain some information that could have stopped a loss of life or property. At that time interrogators will have to account for not getting the information. Torture will become a cover-your-ass technique.
  
  This is a sad time for morality and accountability.

This has got to be one of the dumbest rationalizations I have ever heard. If torture doesn't work, fine, then we won't use it. If you think torture works, but the benefits it accrues are outweighed by the negatives that is also an argument that has weight.

But to say that legalizing torture is bad because it takes the necessity off self sacrifice away from the soldiers on the war on terror. Are you kidding me?

These guys sacrifice enough. Why do we need to make their lives even more difficult? They could probably have much higher paying jobs in the private sector and they risk their lives daily for their country. Why should we make the lives even more difficult than it already is? Why we would make them face the possibility of criminal charges for doing the right thing? We want to encourage them to do what is in the interest of this country, not discourage them.

The CIA has asked for clear parameters on what it can do, and you don't want to give it to them because it makes them less heroic? After all the sacrifices these guys make you want to put them in the position of having to worry about prosecution if they do the right thing?

First this person says: "Real patriots will break the law for the greater good and proudly face the music for their actions." Yes - but if they do something for the greater good why should they "have to face the music". Wouldn't it be better to set up a system where if they did something for the better good they are actually rewarded? Don’t we want to encourage, not discourage them, from doing things for the greater good.

The author in his breathtaking stupidity says: "Sometimes we have to do things that are wrong, but making the wrong lawful cheapens the choice." This is such twisted morality. If we have to do it then it is not wrong. Torturing someone to get information to save the lives of innocent people is not wrong. If it is wrong, we shouldn’t do it.

And to top off the stupidity of this statement: "Bush and other businessmen don't understand this because they come from a culture of greed." No the author doesn't understand this because they don't care at all about the people that are sacrificing for this country. To make their jobs more difficult to insure that their jobs are "more heroic" shows such a disregard for these patriots that is breathtaking. With friends like these who needs enemies? Bush and his friends that “are from the culture of greed” understand morality on a much deeper and saner level than the idiot that wrote this article ever could.

This is the part I love: "If the consequences are removed then Harry becomes a meter maid." So Dirty Harry risks his life by capturing a criminal and then saves a human life but because there is no chance he will face prosecution he is just a meter maid? How many meter maids do you know that risk their lives to save people. But according to the author it is not enough that he risks his life, and saves other lives, he also has to face the possibility of prosecution to be heroic.

He says that we are "cheapening the acts of patriotism" if people don't have to face consequences if they do them. How can an act of patriotism be cheap? Isn't it enough to do the right thing? We have to make it more difficult and make it harmful to the person that does it to give it weight? Why don't we just throw a cop in jail every time he does his job well? That sure would un-cheapen every act of patriotism.

Ty - are you sure this letter wasn't a parody. Can anyone really think like this and expect to be taken seriously? Did my sarcasm alarm not go off again?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Many people I know, including lifelong Catholics in my own family, also oppose the Church's position on the role of women. That is probably a bigger net negative than you realize.

Oh, also there's the position on divorce. Many people don't like that.

Oh, then there was the whole "defend the child molester priests at any and all cost" thing, which cost them quite a few parishioners.

I'd redo the positive/negative balancing in light of these issues.

The Divorce thing may be a bummer for the people who are Catholics, but no one is forcing them to stay in the church. Same with the role on Women. If you are a women and you don't like their position, leave the church. The discouragement of contraceptions effects everyone negatively, not just Catholics.

The defense of the child molesters was unforgiveable and awful. A huge black mark on the church. But the good the church does, even with these huge scars, in my opinion outweighs the bad. But of course that is a totally subjective assessment and I am not a Catholic.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky

Ty - are you sure this letter wasn't a parody.

Ty really can't say. today he has been going, sua sponte to various webpages he has never been to before. Who knows what he's dragged back.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It worked on Savanarolla. He confessed to heretical views after just a few days of torture.

As a matter of fact, I think it was a remarkably effective tool for the Inquisition in general. Think of how many people confessed their errors and were saved thanks to torture!

I believe Stalin used torture to similar effect.

I think it is spelled Savonarola: In any event that jerk deserved what he got. The amount of cool stuff he had burned in his "Bonfire of the Vanities" was a crime.

Any no one has ever disputed that torture can get people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. So can crafty interrogations. But that doesn't mean torture can't also be used to get people to divulge information that they wouldn't otherwise divulge.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
:bs:



This has got to be one of the dumbest rationalizations I have ever heard. If torture doesn't work, fine, then we won't use it. If you think torture works, but the benefits it accrues are outweighed by the negatives that is also an argument that has weight.

But to say that legalizing torture is bad because it takes the necessity off self sacrifice away from the soldiers on the war on terror. Are you kidding me?

These guys sacrifice enough. Why do we need to make their lives even more difficult? They could probably have much higher paying jobs in the private sector and they risk their lives daily for their country. Why should we make the lives even more difficult than it already is? Why we would make them face the possibility of criminal charges for doing the right thing? We want to encourage them to do what is in the interest of this country, not discourage them.

The CIA has asked for clear parameters on what it can do, and you don't want to give it to them because it makes them less heroic? After all the sacrifices these guys make you want to put them in the position of having to worry about prosecution if they do the right thing?

First this person says: "Real patriots will break the law for the greater good and proudly face the music for their actions." Yes - but if they do something for the greater good why should they "have to face the music". Wouldn't it be better to set up a system where if they did something for the better good they are actually rewarded? Don’t we want to encourage, not discourage them, from doing things for the greater good.

The author in his breathtaking stupidity says: "Sometimes we have to do things that are wrong, but making the wrong lawful cheapens the choice." This is such twisted morality. If we have to do it then it is not wrong. Torturing someone to get information to save the lives of innocent people is not wrong. If it is wrong, we shouldn’t do it.

And to top off the stupidity of this statement: "Bush and other businessmen don't understand this because they come from a culture of greed." No the author doesn't understand this because they don't care at all about the people that are sacrificing for this country. To make their jobs more difficult to insure that their jobs are "more heroic" shows such a disregard for these patriots that is breathtaking. With friends like these who needs enemies? Bush and his friends that “are from the culture of greed” understand morality on a much deeper and saner level than the idiot that wrote this article ever could.

This is the part I love: "If the consequences are removed then Harry becomes a meter maid." So Dirty Harry risks his life by capturing a criminal and then saves a human life but because there is no chance he will face prosecution he is just a meter maid? How many meter maids do you know that risk their lives to save people. But according to the author it is not enough that he risks his life, and saves other lives, he also has to face the possibility of prosecution to be heroic.

He says that we are "cheapening the acts of patriotism" if people don't have to face consequences if they do them. How can an act of patriotism be cheap? Isn't it enough to do the right thing? We have to make it more difficult and make it harmful to the person that does it to give it weight? Why don't we just throw a cop in jail every time he does his job well? That sure would un-cheapen every act of patriotism.

Ty - are you sure this letter wasn't a parody. Can anyone really think like this and expect to be taken seriously? Did my sarcasm alarm not go off again?

Not surprisingly, the message sailed right over your head. The point was that the use of extreme measures may be justified by an individual actor, basing the decision on his conscience and his willingness to have the courage of his convictions. You seldom display much of either.

When the state sanctions torture, it renders inconsequential an action that should be measured against the full measure of the consequences and the benefits. It cheapens the action and the actor. In doing so, it increases the likelihood that torture will be used and and the likelihood that it will be used inappropriately.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy .

Are you happy?

What is this Oprah? The goal of this board is not to make other people "happy". The goal is to poke and prod until you hit a sore spot, and then when you find the sore spot, punch that spot as hard as you can.

:box:

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is this Oprah? The goal of this board is not to make other people "happy". The goal is to poke and prod until you hit a sore spot, and then when you find the sore spot, punch that spot as hard as you can.

:box:

Bush lied!

:trout:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The text was far more Log Cabin Republican than left-wing pacifist.

But let's be honest here, Hank, shall we? You responded only because you wanted to post the half-naked swarthy guy, right?

I think it was two nights ago on the Daily Show where they interviewed that expert from the military on why Homosexuals should be kicked out of the armed forces? Did anyone else see it? It was priceless. I don't think I have ever seen an "expert" made to look more ridiculous.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
But the good the church does, even with these huge scars, in my opinion outweighs the bad. But of course that is a totally subjective assessment and I am not a Catholic.

A friend in law school engendered much discussion with this proposition:

The world would be a better place if there no religion.

He argued that on balance religion caused more harm and unrest than its absence. At the time I took the view that religion was the opiate of the masses, but that that was a good thing. Now I'm not so sure he didn't have it right.