Bush vetoes anti torture bill

[Andy]

Let's turn the argument around, then, and say that it is OK morally and legally to torture prisoners and to flout international law.

What is it that makes it OK?

Is it because the jihadi scum think it's OK?

Is it because it's already being done, so It's OK?

Is it because different individuals have different moral codes?

Is it that the end justifies the means?

Is it because we're the big dog in the yard, and we'll do what we please?

Or is it something else?

The answer would be yes to all of those. If you believe that morals are relative, then yes to every single one. Tell me how the answer is no?

 

[PLC1]

The answer would be yes to all of those. If you believe that morals are relative, then yes to every single one. Tell me how the answer is no?

The jihadi scum think it's OK, so we agree.

It's already being done, so that makes right.

Since different individuals have different moral codes, we don't have to abide by any reasonable code.

The end justifies the means.

We're the big dog in the yard, and we'll do what we please, because might makes right.

Well, let's take them one at at a time. First, your position is that torture is OK, because the scumballs we're supposed to be fighting say it's OK. We don't have to be any better than they are, and so we're going to follow their lead.

My position is that we're supposed to be fighting cockroaches, not becoming them ourselves.

 

[vyo476]

Try applying situational morality instead of relative morality, it'll give you less of a headache. Or more of one, but you're more likely to have an answer at the end.

 

[Andy]

The jihadi scum think it's OK, so we agree.

It's already being done, so that makes right.

Since different individuals have different moral codes, we don't have to abide by any reasonable code.

The end justifies the means.

We're the big dog in the yard, and we'll do what we please, because might makes right.

Well, let's take them one at at a time. First, your position is that torture is OK, because the scumballs we're supposed to be fighting say it's OK. We don't have to be any better than they are, and so we're going to follow their lead.

My position is that we're supposed to be fighting cockroaches, not becoming them ourselves.

No, this is your position. I am arguing your points from your position. I'm asking you to be intellectually honest from your own view point.

"We don't have to be any better than they are"

You are making a moral judgment here that you do not claim to believe. If all morals are relative, if no ones opinion is better than another, if there is no absolute truth... how then can you say we are better than they, or they are worse than us? Is their views wrong? Who are you to say that? Are we morally superior? Why?

Is not this what you say when any religious person tries to make a case for their world view?

You also sound like you are claiming we would be morally better if we don't do things they do. Well they kidnap people. We're kidnapping them right? They kill people. We're putting some of them to death for their actions. They bomb. We bomb.

If we followed this logic, we would do nothing about terrorists at all.

 

[Andy]

Try applying situational morality instead of relative morality, it'll give you less of a headache. Or more of one, but you're more likely to have an answer at the end.

Situational morality is might makes right. What ever helps the largest number of people, the has the most people behind it, therefore has the most might, is therefore right.

Laws are like this. If 51% of the voters support it, they have the 'voting' might, and therefore they are right.

 

[PLC1]

No, this is your position. I am arguing your points from your position. I'm asking you to be intellectually honest from your own view point.

"We don't have to be any better than they are"

You are making a moral judgment here that you do not claim to believe. If all morals are relative, if no ones opinion is better than another, if there is no absolute truth... how then can you say we are better than they, or they are worse than us? Is their views wrong? Who are you to say that? Are we morally superior? Why?

Is not this what you say when any religious person tries to make a case for their world view?

You also sound like you are claiming we would be morally better if we don't do things they do. Well they kidnap people. We're kidnapping them right? They kill people. We're putting some of them to death for their actions. They bomb. We bomb.

If we followed this logic, we would do nothing about terrorists at all.

I'm not so sure that you're understanding my point of view at all.

I did say that laws are not necessarily based on morals, and that different people have different morals.

I didn't say that we have to stoop to the moral code of the Jihadis that we're fighting, quite the opposite.

We do have to be better than they are. If we allow the terrorists to bring us down to their level, then they have won.

And, there are some absolutes. Deliberately killing civilians in order to terrorize an enemy is an absolute moral wrong, whether or not the laws of the land are against it. Torturing prisoners is an absolute wrong, also, whether or not the terrorists think so.

There is such a thing as evil.

 

[Andy]

I'm not so sure that you're understanding my point of view at all.

I did say that laws are not necessarily based on morals, and that different people have different morals.

I didn't say that we have to stoop to the moral code of the Jihadis that we're fighting, quite the opposite.

We do have to be better than they are. If we allow the terrorists to bring us down to their level, then they have won.

And, there are some absolutes. Deliberately killing civilians in order to terrorize an enemy is an absolute moral wrong, whether or not the laws of the land are against it. Torturing prisoners is an absolute wrong, also, whether or not the terrorists think so.

There is such a thing as evil.

As so you do believe in absolute truth then? All morals are not equal? There is something beyond the law, beyond mans opinion, that determines right and wrong?

This is good. We are now getting somewhere. Now how do we determine whose moral values are right and wrong? Because you can't say torture is an absolute wrong when other people say it isn't wrong... unless there is something external to man's opinion. What is that reason?

You also can't use the circular logic that 'torture is wrong because they do it, and they are wrong because they use torture'. There has to be something external to this.

 

[PLC1]

As so you do believe in absolute truth then? All morals are not equal? There is something beyond the law, beyond mans opinion, that determines right and wrong?

This is good. We are now getting somewhere. Now how do we determine whose moral values are right and wrong? Because you can't say torture is an absolute wrong when other people say it isn't wrong... unless there is something external to man's opinion. What is that reason?

You also can't use the circular logic that 'torture is wrong because they do it, and they are wrong because they use torture'. There has to be something external to this.

No, nor can you say that torture is OK since the jihadis we're supposed to be fighting say it's OK, or because they practice it themselves. The only way that it is possible to deny that torture is an absolute moral evil is to deny that there is evil, which is another way of saying that there is no good, therefore no god.

So, how do you determine whose moral values are right or wrong?

 

[Andy]

No, nor can you say that torture is OK since the jihadis we're supposed to be fighting say it's OK, or because they practice it themselves. The only way that it is possible to deny that torture is an absolute moral evil is to deny that there is evil, which is another way of saying that there is no good, therefore no god.

So, how do you determine whose moral values are right or wrong?

Beats me. I just know that when a religious person comes on preaching, the moral relativism starts spamming across the forum. Yet when issues like this come up, suddenly everyone is quick to make a morally judgment, and everyone else's morals are wrong if they disagree.

So do you claim that there is a God, and that God determines right and wrong, and by his standards torture is evil? That would suggest that one of the world views about God would have to be correct, and the rest false.

No I never claimed that something was morally ok because terrorists are doing it. I claimed that the theory that "us doing it is going to help terrorist recruit because it supports the idea we are the great satan", is false because, us doing something that THEY do not consider wrong, will not help them believe we are evil. Like I pointed out before, you tell a muslim that doesn't believe torture is evil, that we are the great satan because we torture people... that isn't a support for the argument in his mind.

There are only two main reasons they believe we are the great satan, and it has nothing to do with how we conduct interrogations. 1. We have freedom instead of national, and public support for Islam. 2. We support our allies instead of helping to slaughter the Jews.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'm curious if there is anything in any of the holy books like the Bible or Koran or 'Gita that says that it's okay to torture people. I know the Bible okays rape, slavery, and such, but torture? Anybody know? Is there anything, anywhere that would suggest that torture is okay in God's sight?

 

[Andy]

I'm curious if there is anything in any of the holy books like the Bible or Koran or 'Gita that says that it's okay to torture people. I know the Bible okays rape, slavery, and such, but torture? Anybody know? Is there anything, anywhere that would suggest that torture is okay in God's sight?

No the Bible does not on any of those

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm curious if there is anything in any of the holy books like the Bible or Koran or 'Gita that says that it's okay to torture people. I know the Bible okays rape, slavery, and such, but torture? Anybody know? Is there anything, anywhere that would suggest that torture is okay in God's sight?

As our resident expert in warped biased biblical interpretion I am sure you will find it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As our resident expert in warped biased biblical interpretion I am sure you will find it.

Oh no, not me. No sir, Pale has convinced me of the value of abortion and you two have convinced me of the fallacy of believing what is written in the Bible in plain English. Congrats! I am coming to realize that denial is an invaluable tool if one is going to be a Bible-believing person.

 

[PLC1]

There are only two main reasons they believe we are the great satan, and it has nothing to do with how we conduct interrogations. 1. We have freedom instead of national, and public support for Islam. 2. We support our allies instead of helping to slaughter the Jews.

The people doing the recruiting may have no qualms about torture, but the people that they want to convince to join them may have a more realistic view of right and wrong.

How do you convince people that it's better to live in a theocracy in which every move is dictated by those in power? That is the task of the people behind the terrorism, and they seem to be able to do their jobs well. We have hte easier task of convincing people that freedom is better than autocracy, and yet seem to fail at it all too often. Why is that?

 

[Andy]

The people doing the recruiting may have no qualms about torture, but the people that they want to convince to join them may have a more realistic view of right and wrong.

How do you convince people that it's better to live in a theocracy in which every move is dictated by those in power? That is the task of the people behind the terrorism, and they seem to be able to do their jobs well. We have hte easier task of convincing people that freedom is better than autocracy, and yet seem to fail at it all too often. Why is that?

First, in reply to the top portion of your post, I refer to my own post #57, in which I detailed what happened in Palestine during Clinton. I quote myself:

In the 90s, during the Clinton administration, the PLO accused a fellow arab Palestinian of being a spy. Without a trial, or the slightest scrap of evidence, they dragged him through the streets of Palestine, publicly beat him physically, and stoned him for more than an 1 hour. After being tortured by his own people for blocks, he was hung upside down on a communications tower by his legs. There he was stoned and beaten until death at which point they sliced half way through his neck with a blade of some sort. Then the people of Palestine had their children come and and throw stones at the body until one finely knocked his head off of his sliced neck.

To clarify, the PLO only made the accusation... it was the general public that dragged him through the streets and brutally tortured and ultimately murdered a member of there own nation. It was the mothers and fathers who brought their own children out to desecrate the body of the accused. Granted this is one example, but I know of about 6 more, and this is fairly common among middle eastern cultures.

Why do you think the middle eastern man tortured and ultimately strangled to death his own daughter in Canada and called it an "honor killing"? You believe that people with these as moral values are going to be horrified by waterboarding? Time to get a reality check.

Part two answer: I do not think that we have failed so often. History is covered with the success of spreading freedom in other lands.

However we have lost many times, but normally by our own choices. We lost China because our government refused to help our allies there when they were being over run by communists supported by the Soviets. We lost Vietnam because right when we made peace we withdrew all support and in came the Soviet backed north Vietnamese. On down the list it goes. Carter ignored the Shaw of Iran, a very westernized leader, who was than over run by the current fruit bat who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

There are other reasons though. Every horrible dictator divides the country into groups and pits those groups against each other, in order keep focus off of themselves. (a tactic used often in the 90s) Saddam, for example had a huge group of people that thought highly of him because he was 'on their side' against another ethnic group. They knew he was a scum bag, but he was their scum bag. Even Castro had a small group of dedicated followers in Cuba. So rarely is a country uniformly against the evil dictator.

Finely, not all dictators are automatically bad. Sometimes people come to power that really, and honestly want to improve things, and move to that end. Is a republic better? Absolutely. But it's hard to convince people in another country that this is better when the person in power is not all that bad.

Last, I'd say, sometimes the people, the public... is just really screwed up.