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

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Faced with the utter stupidity and irrationality of your arguments you decide to criticize my use of a verb form? Usually when a pathetic poster is faced with the reality of their lame argument they usually lash back by accusing the other poster (that has exposed the wanting logic of their position) of being overexcited, or commenting on a misspelling, grammar or mathematical mistake made by the said poster. But focusing on the use of a verb form; that has to be a new low, even for you. I think that qualifies you as the most pathetic poster on the board.

In any event, firing an employee because they used the passive voice is quite an unexpected irrational and absurd statement, even coming from you. I don't think I have ever heard of that before. The subordinates in your office must love having such erratic and bizarre rules of conduct to comply with. I would never fire someone for using a verb form I didn't like, however, if they demonstrated that they were as irrational, emotional and as unable to differentiate between issues (or to understand what issues and facts are relevant) as you, I would tell them they just have no place in a law office.

You sir, are a jackass. You are guilty of arrogance beyond measure. You constantly engage in sollipsism, semantic torture, and pure leaps of logic to come up with genuinely ridiculous positions. You do everything that you accuse other posters of in spades. I tire of you.

Now, to get to the business at hand. The post which led Spanky to get his knickers in a twist was a rant. A good old-fashioned Sebbyesque rant; a jump-off if you will. It is a tactic which enjoys a long and distinguished tenure here, one that extends to the dark and misty days long before we were plagued by the utter inanity that is Spanky and the acerbic, yet delightfully bracing wit that is Ms. No.

During the course of a long and painful stretch in the WC, examining a small puncture wound and attempting to soak off adhesive from places that I truly hope none of you ever need to have adhesive used, I happened to glance at the current issue of GQ. I was somewhat chargined to find that the Editor had devoted his monthly space to precisely the same topic as my rant.

At the risk of losing some credibility on the originality front, I direct you to that editorial, as Mr. Nelson expressed the same thought in a more organized and coherent fashion than I.

And with that explanation, Spanky, you pustulent, stinking, chancre of a pox on the art of logical and intelligent discourse, I banish you forever more to the land of fu, where I trust you and the other maroons will be very happy together.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You sir, are a jackass. You are guilty of arrogance beyond measure. You constantly engage in sollipsism, semantic torture, and pure leaps of logic to come up with genuinely ridiculous positions. You do everything that you accuse other posters of in spades.

You just love to make unsubstantiated accusations. If I am wrong, quote my specific statements where I engage in solipsism, semantic torture and leaps of logic?

I make an effort with every assertion I make to back it up. You just throw accusations around that have no basis in reality. When I ask to you to explain or support these unsubstantiated positions you just ignore me and throw out another slew of unsubstantiated allegations. Case in point: you never explained to me which acts people need to perform that are immoral.

Originally posted by taxwonk
I tire of you.

The feelingis mutual

Originally posted by taxwonk
Now, to get to the business at hand. The post which led Spanky to get his knickers in a twist was a rant. A good old-fashioned Sebbyesque rant; a jump-off if you will. It is a tactic which enjoys a long and distinguished tenure here, one that extends to the dark and misty days long before we were plagued by the utter inanity that is Spanky and the acerbic, yet delightfully bracing wit that is Ms. No.

You have the temerity to equate your rants with Sebby's? His rants are rarely uninteresting and almost always funny; sometimes downright hilarious. Yours are just sour grapes. And even his most irrational rants are infinitely more analytical and substantiated than your most considered posts.

Originally posted by taxwonk During the course of a long and painful stretch in the WC, examining a small puncture wound and attempting to soak off adhesive from places that I truly hope none of you ever need to have adhesive used, I happened to glance at the current issue of GQ. I was somewhat chargined to find that the Editor had devoted his monthly space to precisely the same topic as my rant.

At the risk of losing some credibility on the originality front, I direct you to that editorial, as Mr. Nelson expressed the same thought in a more organized and coherent fashion than I.

And with that explanation, Spanky, you pustulent, stinking, chancre of a pox on the art of logical and intelligent discourse, I banish you forever more to the land of fu, where I trust you and the other maroons will be very happy together.

I know you probably don't feel like doing me any favors right now, but is there anyway you can post this article?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when torturing, do you recommend looking the victim in the eyes?

No, he prefers to stare into the Abyss.

And how would he know the upside and downside? He doesn't.

So this is just another in a long line of bullshit hypothetical subjective discussions initated and egged on by someone who loves to argue.

And, Spanky, please don't respond by asking me to specifically list any point you've made that I would consider "bullshit"
and explain why, or by asking me which of your "five (now seven)" bullet points I disagree with. And please don't say that, if I don't disagree with your bullet points, I must agree with you. And that, if I don't agree with your bullet points, I must want to see Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq (blast from the past).

I don't have the energy. Merry Christmas to all.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
And even his [Sebby's] most irrational rants are infinitely more analytical and substantiated than your [taxwonk's] most considered posts.

Sebby would be very disappointed to read this.

S_A_M

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Sebby would be very disappointed to read this.

S_A_M

On this, we can mostly agree, all a'yall suck.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never said that. Are you stupid, have a low reading comprehension, or just too lazy to read what you are responding to. For the one thousandth time, I used them as an example to refute the people that were stating that torture never works. Full Stop.

Spanky, you are starting to get hysterical.

The problem is that your argument can be accurately summed up thusly: torture works, so we should do it.

The problem with your symplicity is that it ignores at least three valid critiques: (1) even if it works, torture may be immoral, (2) to the extent that the question of morality turns on our ability to torture only those who are truly guilty, we do not have any semblance of that ability, and (3) torture is widely recognized as leading a unreliable information, calling into question whether it is either necessary or the most effective means of interrogation.

Point (3) is the argument that "torture doesn't work." You do not overcome that argument by saying that the Soviets and the Nazis used torture, but that only shows that torture leads to information. It does not show that torture is necessary or superior to other forms of interrogation.

And, of course, you have done nothing to respond to critique (1) or (2).

ETA: I was unfair. You have addressed (2), but simply by saying that you don't care about the innocents who will be torutred.

Less Decent? They hijack civilian airliners and run them into civilian buildings, killing thousand of innocent women and children are you are saying we are less decent?

What does their act of barbarism have to do with the moral standards that we choose to hold ourselves to?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Faced with the utter stupidity and irrationality of your arguments.

His arguments are not stupid simply because you choose to ignore them or don't understand them.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

So this is just another in a long line of bullshit hypothetical subjective discussions initated and egged on by someone who loves to argue.

The thing that makes it fascinating to watch is how bad he is at something that he loves. His obtuseness alone lends a rare air of sincerity to what would otherwise read as yet another in a long line of posters who take extreme positions only becuase they enjoy defending them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is this some sort of bad joke? On the side of Truth and Justice? I know you have gotten your information from WWII from a Superman comic book, but please. Japan attacked us that is why we went to war with them. Before they attacked eighty percent of Americans wanted to stay out of the war. We fought against Germany because they declared war on us and we thought the Germans pushed Japan into attacking us.

None of that contradicts what I said. We were a democracy, fighting dictators. This fact helped us win the war.

Then why did they flip?

Many of them flipped by choice, because we were on the side of truth and justice.

If you'd like a better understanding of this, read The Deceivers, a lengthy account of how we fooled Axis intelligence during the war.

If you don't believe the CIA was involved in a lot of torture, and used proxies to torture KGB agents and operatives, you are even more naive that I thought.

I know it happened, but explain and substantiate "a lot."

If we torture people is that going to make Al Qaeda hate us even more?

E.g., it makes people more inclined to support Al Qaeda and less inclined to help us. And since AQ is a small organization hiding among civilians, that is important.

And except for the NYT exposing these activities, why do we need to let the world know what we are up to?

For one, because we are a democracy. Which means the public needs to know what the government is doing in its name. I'm surprised that I need to mention this, since it is the ostensible principle behind the Bush foreign policy.

I would say that Conservative have a better understanding of values and that is why they take the positions that they do.

What "value" are you asserting here, other than that you are scared of terrorists and are willing to sacrifice very, very basic principles for an empty assurance that it will make you safer. That's not a conservative value. It verges on cowardice.

It is liberals inability to differentiate between the innocent and guilty, and what the innocent and guilty deserve, that allows them to make all sorts of twisted moral decisions that end up rewarding the guilty and punishing the innocent.

In this country, we don't torture the guilty. We put them in prison.

Hollow promises of safety? Remind me again, how many successful terrorist acts have been implemented on US soil since 9-11?

How many terrorist acts were "implemented" on US soil between WTC I and WTC II? None, over a longer period of time. So what?

I know you hate dealing with logic and logical arguments but which one of these assumptions did you think was faulty?

1) Al Queda can only pull off effective terroist acts to kill innocent people if certain information stays secret.
2) Al Queda operatives have varying levels of access to such information
3) We have captured and continue to capture Al Queda operatives
4) Many captured operatives won't want to give to our interrogators this pertinent information.
5) Not always, but in many cases pain and the threat of pain can induce people to do things they are reluctant to do.

None of those "assumptions" are faulty, but if you think they form a useful syllogism that you are a few cards short of a deck.

eta: Adder's (1), (2) and (3) above are well-put. If my internet connection disappears again, he has my proxy.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Spanky, you are starting to get hysterical.

What is it about people on this board that they love to accuse other people of being emotionally distraught? Its seems that it is the ones that have tendencies towards histrionics that throw this accusation around the most. Being upset about a verb form would seem to be an indication of being emotionally unhinged. What statement in my post indicated to you that I was hysterical?

Originally posted by Adder
The problem is that your argument can be accurately summed up thusly: torture works, so we should do it.

My guess is that you are simplifying my argument by extracting important aspects of it, and then you are going to pretend I have not addressed certain issues that those extracted points addressed; a modified version of the straw man argument. We shall see….

Originally posted by Adder The problem with your symplicity is that it ignores at least three valid critiques: (1) even if it works, torture may be immoral,

Typical. You simplify my argument, knocking out the parts where I addressed this issue, and then state I am not addressing this issue. The “symplicity” only comes from your “simplification” not from my arguments. I have consistently and repeatedly addressed those critiques; why do you pretend that I have not? At this point the morality issue does not provide a problem for my argument because I already established that in certain circumstances torture is not only moral, but is a moral imperative. This was where Taxwonk came up with the completely absurd argument that sometime one must do acts (like torture) to do the right thing, yet such acts are still immoral. Except for Taxwonk's self contradictory and illogical statement, no one has even attempted to dispute that assertion. At least do me the courtesy of when stating that torture may be immoral, to address the issue of the ticking time bomb scenario.

Originally posted by Adder
(2) to the extent that the question of morality turns on our ability to torture only those who are truly guilty,

Does our criminal justice system turn on our ability to only imprison and fine those who are guilty? Does our ability to employ our armed forces turn on our ability to have absolutely no collateral damages (if it did has there ever been a war without collateral damage)? Is perfection ever an option? Isn't the issue whether we can employ torture and significantly avoid torturing the innocent?

Originally posted by Adder
we do not have any semblance of that ability

Are you saying that we have never coerced information out of a guilty party? Please provide evidence of this statement. And one or two examples of mistakes are not a valid refutation. You need to show that it is a commonly recurring (and an unfixable) occurrence.

Originally posted by Adder and (3) torture is widely recognized as leading a unreliable information,

It is my examples of the use of torture by the Nazis, KGB, and North Korean, North Vietnamese etc. that I believe thoroughly refute this point. I know peopel would like to pretend that I bring these examples up to defend the morality of torture but you ignore these facts when you aver that torture is an unreliable means of procuring information? I asked many questions like, why did the underground movements in France introduce strict information restrictions so their operatives couldn't expose the whole operation when they were caught by the Gestapo? If torture is not reliable then why was this necessary? Why did the pilots in North Vietnam give up so much clandestine information? Bribery? No one addressed those questions. At least Sidd, Cletus and a few others were honest enough to concede that torture can procure reliable information.

Originally posted by Adder calling into question whether it is either necessary or the most effective means of interrogation.

Those situations showed torture works. The next issue is; are there other means as effective as torture that could get that information? I believe I addressed that issue and was not disputed. I asked a simple question that I believe makes it obvious this is an erroneous statement, and yet no one has an answer. These captured operatives don't want to give the information up, so what sorts of interrogation techniques have been used besides torture to get this information? The only techniques I have heard of are coercive techniques (like water boarding and sleep deprivation) but the person who employed them claimed they were not torture (but they actually were torture). I am still waiting to hear of techniques that are more effective than torture at getting detainees to divulge information they would otherwise like to not divulge. Or techniques that we have employed that have consistently and effectively forced detainees to divulge information equal to or better than the techniques used by the Gestapo and KGB?

Originally posted by Adder Point (3) is the argument that "torture doesn't work." You do not overcome that argument by saying that the Soviets and the Nazis used torture, but that only shows that torture leads to information. It does not show that torture is necessary or superior to other forms of interrogation.

Please see statement above. So why did you not address the Nazis and Soviets success with torture when discussing the issue of the ability of torture to procure reliable information?

Originally posted by Adder And, of course, you have done nothing to respond to critique (1) or (2).

As I said before, I have addressed points (1) and (2) many times and no one has been able to address my points. You just conveniently ignored my points by simplifying my argument and then arguing against your summary of my argument.

Originally posted by Adder
ETA: I was unfair. You have addressed (2), but simply by saying that you don't care about the innocents who will be tortured.

Now you are just being dishonest. Can you at least do me the courtesy of not accusing me of saying things I have not said? Is that really so hard for you to do? Why are you so big on the straw man arguments?

I could easily summarize your argument as: torture is bad so we shouldn't use it. Then I could argue against that summary of your argument ignoring your other statements. I choose not to do that, why can’t you extend me the same courtesy?

I made five simple points that are the foundation of my argument. Why not just refute each one separately like I have done to your points up above instead of grossly simplifying my argument. )I realize that you pretended to address them but you lumped them all together and then made statements that made no sense. When I asked you to clarify you ignored me) Is the logic of those points so overwhelming that you just need to ignore them? Why not just take each line and tear them apart? Why pretend I said something else and address that?

Originally posted by Adder
What does their act of barbarism have to do with the moral standards that we choose to hold ourselves to?

He said our acts made us "less decent" than them. My point was we would have to do a hell of lot more than we have done to make ourselves less decent than them. Do you disagree?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
His arguments are not stupid simply because you choose to ignore them or don't understand them.

Which one of these points did I ignore or didn't understand? Any of these points you want to defend?

Originally posted by taxwonk

“I believe in absolutes. I also believe that people, being fallible, cannot live according to absolutes.”

“It really isn't difficult. If it is moral to toture someone to make them reveal the location of a bomb that will kill thousands of people, then, under a universal moral code, it should be just as moral to torture someone to get them to admit to beating up a kid in the locker room. If you want to draw a line between the two, then you are being relativist.”

“I don't agree that torture is moral in some cases. I do believe that sometimes people need to act in an immoral way.”

“ History has shown that when a person acts immorally for the greater good, if the act truly is for the greater good, as perceived by the society as a whole, then those people are generally not punished.”

"I think you're an ass,"

I'm not defending Sandy Berger, but if you're expecting us to take a plea bargain too seriously, you're way out on a limb.

“This whole thing started with you using the losers as the base of your argument that torture is good.”

“Should we do this because our leaders have become small, cowardly men who haven't the vision or courage to enter a conflict honestly, and truthfully assess the cost for the people who will be expected to bear it in money and blood? Should we do this because the enemy is Brown and therefore doesn't deserve the same measure of respect? Or should we do it because we're simply less decent?”

“Mistakes have not been made. Bill Clinton made a mistake when he stuck his dick in Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Alberto Gonzales made a mistake when he approved and helped craft a memo that said it was okay to torture civilians. Donald Rumsfeld made a ton of mistakes thinkin that he could win in Iraq with a short-term, under-armed force that would have to rely too soon on an unwilling native military and police force.”

"The use of the passive voice in these circumstances is an abomination. Ther is nothing passive about a fuck-up in judgment. If an employee tried this mealy-mouthed shit with me I'd fire his ass.”

“You sir, are a jackass. You are guilty of arrogance beyond measure. You constantly engage in sollipsism, semantic torture, and pure leaps of logic to come up with genuinely ridiculous positions. You do everything that you accuse other posters of in spades. “

If you are going to choose one please choose this one:

“I don't agree that torture is moral in some cases. I do believe that sometimes people need to act in an immoral way.”

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So this is just another in a long line of bullshit hypothetical subjective discussions initated and egged on by someone who loves to argue.

Originally posted by Adder
The thing that makes it fascinating to watch is how bad he is at something that he loves. His obtuseness alone lends a rare air of sincerity to what would otherwise read as yet another in a long line of posters who take extreme positions only becuase they enjoy defending them.

Sour grapes anyone?

Actually, I think the SAM's statement would be a good thread title.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
He said our acts made us "less decent" than them. My point was we would have to do a hell of lot more than we have done to make ourselves less decent than them. Do you disagree?

How this is answered, again, turns on how one defines "them". If you are speaking, narrowly, of bona fide al Qaeda members (henceforth AQM) and the decapitation brigades and their ilk, then, clearly, there's a long way down yet. If "them" includes all who have raised a hand against Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, then there's room to take a different position.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
How this is answered, again, turns on how one defines "them". If you are speaking, narrowly, of bona fide al Qaeda members (henceforth AQM) and the decapitation brigades and their ilk, then, clearly, there's a long way down yet. If "them" includes all who have raised a hand against Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, then there's room to take a different position.

That is a fair point. However, I am no expert, but from what I have read, most of the insurgents groups in Iraq don't exactly conduct themselves in what most would consider being the most honorable manner.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's been ridiculous for some time. There's been no new evidence except regarding the prosecution's ever thinner case. I predict the case gets dropped during a very quiet period, perhaps over christmas.

4 pm on the Friday before a long christmas weekend, in fact