Last Bought

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 02-19-2017, 08:55 AM

ok but that article you quoted is doing exactly what i mentioned, ignoring context and manipulating his quotes ro fit their narritive. in fact he addressed this exact issue on his blog. i don't expect you to read it all but here's a snippet on the torture quote.

Quote:

In one section of the book (pp. 192−199), I briefly discuss the ethics of torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may be not only ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary. This is not the same as saying that they should be legal (Crimes such as trespassing and theft may sometimes be ethically necessary, though everyone has an interest in keeping them illegal).

I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. The liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of these thought experiments. The point is that unless your argument rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a person appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it.

My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to water-board a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like him). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of water-boarding high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make a travesty like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I consider our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon our nation.

Some people believe that while collateral damage may be worse than torture, they are independent evils, and one problem sheds no light upon the other. However, they are not independent in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. But most people’s intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of my collateral-damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a “successful” military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever. The case of Baitullah Mehsud, killed along with 12 others (including his wife and mother-in-law), is a perfect example: Had his wife been water-boarded in order to obtain the relevant intelligence, rather than merely annihilated by a missile, we can be sure that torrents of outrage would have ensued.

im not even saying i necessarily agree with him, im just trying to clarify here. if you disagree with him that's fine but it's clear some of the reasons you dislike him stem from the media's misrepresentation of him, which i dont believe is very fair.

kibbeh · 02-19-2017, 10:08 AM

the problem with him justifying torture for men who are 'like osama bin laden' is the fact that many of the men that america tortures for being 'like osama bin laden' are in fact NOT 'like osama bin laden' and get held without any evidence and without even a trial but because they look like dirty muzzies and were probably in the wrong place at the wrong time but hey i guess lifes not fair

still nothing justifies him making excuses for racial profiling or for being so defensive of israel and its war crimes

read a book

sam harris is a pseudo intellectual

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 02-19-2017, 10:21 AM

sure but i think he definitely has a point regarding dropping bombs. how many casualities died during obama's presidency through drone strikes? whenever i bring that up people call me a right-winger and an obama hater but if 1/4 of the casualties had of been tortured, everyone would care.

kibbeh · 02-19-2017, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy

sure but i think he definitely has a point regarding dropping bombs. how many casualities died during obama's presidency through drone strikes? whenever i bring that up people call me a right-winger and an obama hater but if 1/4 of the casualties had of been tortured, everyone would care.

i never said dropping bombs wasn't wrong

dropping bombs on people = wrong

torturing people especially those who you have arrested with no evidence and without a trial = wrong

its not that complicated

you know that you can be against dropping bombs AND against torturing innocent people, yeah?

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 02-19-2017, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy

im not even saying i necessarily agree with him, im just trying to clarify here.

.

Tristan_Geoff · 02-20-2017, 08:30 PM

Got this gem in the free bin at Sorry State

Got this for $7 at Sorry State

Got these for a dollar each at Sorry State (minus the Melvins and Bad Brains, I made those myself)

**Frownland** · 02-20-2017, 09:37 PM

What did you get for $7?

Tristan_Geoff · 02-20-2017, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

What did you get for $7?

the Rites of Spring demo 12"

The Batlord · 02-21-2017, 03:03 AM

****ing hipster.

innerspaceboy · 02-27-2017, 08:12 PM

Lotus Biscoff coffee biscuits and a cappuccino.

02-19-2017, 10:08 AM	#2122 (permalink)
kibbeh kibbeh Join Date: May 2016 Location: nowhere Posts: 648	the problem with him justifying torture for men who are 'like osama bin laden' is the fact that many of the men that america tortures for being 'like osama bin laden' are in fact NOT 'like osama bin laden' and get held without any evidence and without even a trial but because they look like dirty muzzies and were probably in the wrong place at the wrong time but hey i guess lifes not fair still nothing justifies him making excuses for racial profiling or for being so defensive of israel and its war crimes read a book sam harris is a pseudo intellectual __________________ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2u2p1FzNM

02-20-2017, 09:37 PM	#2127 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	What did you get for $7? __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x