Pete
Repete
Stiffle Edith!!
let him spew venom all he wants. Everytime he does a puppy dies and one swing voter votes McCain out of sympathy 
John McCain was not tortured
- Thread starter forestal
- Start date
Stiffle Edith!!
let him spew venom all he wants. Everytime he does a puppy dies and one swing voter votes McCain out of sympathy 
drmatsci
New Member
Don't get me wrong, I think if convicted, most of them should see their lives end. But what bothers me the most is that by doing it ourselves we are saying its okay for others to do it to our troops. That's not something I want to say.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
GENERALLY - because I've been known to do it sometimes - I don't resort to them at all, even when they've been cast at me. I just don't see anything to be gained by it, and usually I derive zero satisfaction from it. On the other hand, persons who do insult pretty much lose credibility with me. You don't gain any points by using pejorative terms such as "right-wing nutjobs" and when they're used on JibJab, they usually insult the character who is SAYING them. It highlights the fact that the person USING the term is intolerant and bigoted.
Instead of trading barbs, you can ignore them or just leave the thread. It's what I usually do.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Ok, now THAT argument doesn't make sense. By holding to some higher moral ground, you think our enemy is going to feel shame, and refrain from torture? They SAWED off a man's head while he was alive, while reciting prayers, live, on the Internet. And he was just a journalist.
They're not going to follow our lead.
We do have a peculiar situation with terrorists, and I've read indications they're finally doing something I suggested long ago - write a new set of policies and laws specifically for dealing with terrorists. Because what else do you do? Treat them as a soldier of an enemy nation? As an international criminal? So are we at war with his homeland? Do we repatriate him to his homeland, even if he hasn't been there in decades? To me, the rules for POW's that we've had in the past just don't apply to them. You need a new set of rules, and I've been saying this for years.
Pushrod
Patriot
There is a big difference between them and us, they (the muslim terrorist) torture and kill people who are not combatants, we do not. Its a war over there, if we try to fight a PC war we will surely always loose. Could you imagine if this had been done during WWII?
I just read online yesterday about a marine who is being charged in a civilian court for murder because he killed two men in a combat situation who he thought were the ones who had been engaging his patrol, now that is rediculous.
Now I don't think torture should be used indescriminately, but I do think there are situations where it needs to be used to expedite information gathering.
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This...
...is a simple two part question, yes or no;
Had the justice department not issued the memorandum reasserting the restrictions between CIA and FBI cooperation and had the FBI/CIA gotten ahold of incomplete information on, say, 9/9, showing some large attack, hoping for 50,000 or more deaths, was scheduled for 9/11 and had they gotten ahold of one of the suspects while the others suddenly disappeared, likely to position themselves for whatever was coming up, and had FBI or CIA told you the guy knows what's up and that we might be able to prevent this attack if he talks, would you, if you were president, having taken an oath to provide for the common defense, A, give them permission to whatever it takes and B, would you face the nation afterwards if you told them no?
...is a simple two part question, yes or no;
Had the justice department not issued the memorandum reasserting the restrictions between CIA and FBI cooperation and had the FBI/CIA gotten ahold of incomplete information on, say, 9/9, showing some large attack, hoping for 50,000 or more deaths, was scheduled for 9/11 and had they gotten ahold of one of the suspects while the others suddenly disappeared, likely to position themselves for whatever was coming up, and had FBI or CIA told you the guy knows what's up and that we might be able to prevent this attack if he talks, would you, if you were president, having taken an oath to provide for the common defense, A, give them permission to whatever it takes and B, would you face the nation afterwards if you told them no?
drmatsci
New Member
This is akin to that age old argument, if you had hitlers daughter and you could torture her to prevent world war II, would you? I don't have the answer. Maybe the answer is that a descent human being would not but the leader of a nation must. I don't know, I don't have the answer. I guess that's the problem with moral questions, there really is no right answer, just the one that is right for you.
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
Also just a thought:
When kids are lying or bad, why do some parents turn to spanking or punishment??? Do they feel in is necessary for the situation???
What's even more amazing is the liberal protesters against any sort of harsh prisoner interrogation (which to liberals is all torture) are some of the most violent and destructive during their protests!!! Explain that people???
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
That's an age old argument? From my understanding of history, Hitler was FURIOUS after Neville Chamberlain left. He absolutely wanted war, and was trying to provoke it. I suspect that if Hitler had ever *had* any offspring, he would have had zero problem with shooting them himself.
But if you're just arguing semantics, then - KNOWING that WW2 would result in the deaths of more than 100 million people? I'd have to go with that one.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's...
...not even close to being apples and apples. I laid out specifics, specifics that are probably very, very close to what was actually going on. It is a scenario that is short term, right now, imminent with very few moving parts and/or variables.
Hitler's daughter, which he didn't even have any kids in the first place, so assuming he did, there is no logical way that torturing his children would in any way affect the myriad variables over time and endless other players and moving parts of what became WWII. That is an absurd analogy and I've never heard it before.
For your benefit, if someone could sit there as potus and have CIA and FBI tell you, in no uncertain terms, something bad was about to happen and they think they might be able to stop it if they beat it out of some guy who they know to be part of it, if a person could say no with that kind of knowledge, then they would be immoral. They would not be a decent person. They would be part of the evil.
...not even close to being apples and apples. I laid out specifics, specifics that are probably very, very close to what was actually going on. It is a scenario that is short term, right now, imminent with very few moving parts and/or variables.
Hitler's daughter, which he didn't even have any kids in the first place, so assuming he did, there is no logical way that torturing his children would in any way affect the myriad variables over time and endless other players and moving parts of what became WWII. That is an absurd analogy and I've never heard it before.
For your benefit, if someone could sit there as potus and have CIA and FBI tell you, in no uncertain terms, something bad was about to happen and they think they might be able to stop it if they beat it out of some guy who they know to be part of it, if a person could say no with that kind of knowledge, then they would be immoral. They would not be a decent person. They would be part of the evil.
Pete
Repete
OK up until now I thought you were misguided but still capable of cognitive thought.
drmatsci
New Member
Yes, hilters daughter was a semantic / theory arguement.
Sorry Larry, I don't agree, its not what I was taught growing up.
I don't think doing harm is justified to prevent harm. And from what I remember from the bible, its not justified in there either, you know, "turn the other cheek" stuff as well as the Golden Rule, which not biblical (is it?) but is a good guide. IMO, hurting someone makes you no better than them.
Sorry Larry, I don't agree, its not what I was taught growing up.
I don't think doing harm is justified to prevent harm. And from what I remember from the bible, its not justified in there either, you know, "turn the other cheek" stuff as well as the Golden Rule, which not biblical (is it?) but is a good guide. IMO, hurting someone makes you no better than them.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I realize...
...you're going to take evasive action no matter what I say, but, I'm sorry you were taught to let many innocent people die to protect the guilty few.
McCain was tortured just for the hell of it. He, as a pilot, could not have any meaningful, immediate or near term life saving intel past some details about the missions he was part of, details that were useless other than as simple intel gathering. We don't, I hope, torture in cases like that. We shouldn't. Point is, there is a huge distinction to be made.
...you're going to take evasive action no matter what I say, but, I'm sorry you were taught to let many innocent people die to protect the guilty few.
McCain was tortured just for the hell of it. He, as a pilot, could not have any meaningful, immediate or near term life saving intel past some details about the missions he was part of, details that were useless other than as simple intel gathering. We don't, I hope, torture in cases like that. We shouldn't. Point is, there is a huge distinction to be made.
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
I hope you can remember this next time you go to the E.R. for, say, a ruptured appendix.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Matt 7:12, Luke 6:31
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Generally I dissassociate religious principles with secular ones for a reason that may be difficult to elaborate on, but that is, Christianity and government are utterly different with what they wish to accomplish.
With a Christian, the intent of turning the other cheek is two-fold. See, to turn the other cheek after you have been struck, you have to make a willful effort to move your head. Your head has just been knocked to the left - you have to turn it consciously to the right. The idea is you intend to shame your enemy in accordance with his sin, because your aim - is to save his SOUL. As such, your allegiance is to the kingdom of God, and your death may result in the salvation of yet even more souls. Roman leaders who persecuted Christians observed that for every one they killed, two more left the crowd. You need an enemy with a sense of ethics before you can "heap hot coals on his head".
As such, they were laying up treasures in heaven. While they laid the foundation for the later church, no secular institution, no issue, nothing was resolved by their actions, visibly. They died for their faith and their God. But they did not die for their freedom.
Government institutions do not exist to save my soul. They're there to protect my ass from enemies foreign and domestic. They run the police and the courts, build the roads and public works, write the laws and enforce them. While they can be as charitable as anyone, it's not their place to be a spiritual body or to mentor me in ethics. They're there because I pay them to be there with taxes.
I realize that this can get deeper than I want to get, but the government is never going to take the place of my faith, nor should it ever be an arm of it. They have different missions. I expect my police, my doctor, my fireman to obey the laws of the land - not follow Christian principles. If I expected THAT, I certainly would enshrine the highest parts of my faith in the government, but we don't do that here, to protect everyone's freedom to practice their religion.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
George...
...Will book; Statecraft as Soulcraft.
His argument is that government can very much affect people's beliefs, ideas and behaviors, can act very much as a religion through what it promotes, what it discourages and so forth.
Government programs that reward single parent households, discourage work and promote irresponsibility affect people very much on an inner, on a soul, level.
To me, those who are aggressively hostile and highly reactive to anything they see as a merging of traditional church and state understand this principle very much. They clearly think Will is right and they don't like the older ideas, traditions and, in a manner of speaking, the old faiths promoted by government. It's why they are so trip wire tense to jump on it. It interferes with the institution of the modern, secular type 'faiths' of humanism and moral relativism and so forth.
So, boiled down, the argument is not whether or not government acts, by it's very nature, as a faith, but over whose faith holds sway.
...Will book; Statecraft as Soulcraft.
His argument is that government can very much affect people's beliefs, ideas and behaviors, can act very much as a religion through what it promotes, what it discourages and so forth.
Government programs that reward single parent households, discourage work and promote irresponsibility affect people very much on an inner, on a soul, level.
To me, those who are aggressively hostile and highly reactive to anything they see as a merging of traditional church and state understand this principle very much. They clearly think Will is right and they don't like the older ideas, traditions and, in a manner of speaking, the old faiths promoted by government. It's why they are so trip wire tense to jump on it. It interferes with the institution of the modern, secular type 'faiths' of humanism and moral relativism and so forth.
So, boiled down, the argument is not whether or not government acts, by it's very nature, as a faith, but over whose faith holds sway.
forestal
I'm the Boss of Me
All I'm saying is if you use Bush's definition of torture, has to cause organ failure, McCain wasn't tortured.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
My friends, hear me out here:
When you have noticed that nonno, forestool, or nhboy, drmatsci, etal., have posted a new thread, simply exercise an action, a very simple one, that I have found to be a very useful tool:
Move your cursor/pointer over to the thread title, of one of these folks' entries. and let it hover for a few seconds. You will get a preview - the first 3 lines or so - and then you can decide if you wish to further view their idiocy - or not!
When you have noticed that nonno, forestool, or nhboy, drmatsci, etal., have posted a new thread, simply exercise an action, a very simple one, that I have found to be a very useful tool:
Move your cursor/pointer over to the thread title, of one of these folks' entries. and let it hover for a few seconds. You will get a preview - the first 3 lines or so - and then you can decide if you wish to further view their idiocy - or not!
Ooh, aren't you the clever one?!
Looks like you got ripped off getting your "credentials" and should ask for a refund.
People who are so well edumacated and live in glass houses shouldn't throw around their degrees and stones.