Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal fustakrakich's Journal: If you want to win unconditional surrender at ALL costs, no matter what... 42

Journal by fustakrakich

Then Dick Cheney is your man... One of the very few who, at the right price, will do anything you ask. And he did tell the truth. The CIA had full authorization, and that includes full consent of 98% of the people who voted. And he said he'd do it again in a minute. Your kind of guy, no? Put him back on the GOP ticket, and guess which amongst you would vote for him. Shouldn't be too difficult. And the democrats? Being the dumbasses they are, we already know what's up with them. Do we really need to waste space yammering about them anymore? Morons...

And while I'm on the subject, is there anybody who reads this JE who can honestly tell me they are against torture, no matter what? Don't give me any conditions of any kind. It's either yes or no. I expect, but probably will not receive the proper one word answer to the question. In fact I really expect no response at all, but maybe I could be pleasantly surprised. I really only want to know how much real physical savagery is permissible.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If you want to win unconditional surrender at ALL costs, no matter what... More

If you want to win unconditional surrender at ALL costs, no matter what...

Comments Filter:

  • Torture is needlessly cruel and isn't productive [techdirt.com], as the CIA has reported.

    From the linked article:

    [A]ccording to CIA records, seven of the 39 CIA detainees known to have been subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques produced no intelligence while in CIA custody. CIA detainees who were subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were usually subjected to the techniques immediately after being rendered to CIA custody. Other detainees provided significant accurate intelligence pr

    • 'n/t' would have been sufficient after the 'yes', or something along the lines of, 'I am against torture', something in your own words more than the one requested. I don't care what the CIA thinks. I've read all that kind of crap since Nixon. They are 'errand boys, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill'...

      But thank you for taking your valuable time to respond. I will make a note of it.

      • 'n/t' would have been sufficient after the 'yes', or something along the lines of, 'I am against torture', something in your own words more than the one requested. I don't care what the CIA thinks. I've read all that kind of crap since Nixon. They are 'errand boys, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill'...

        But thank you for taking your valuable time to respond. I will make a note of it.

        In that case, please ignore everything after "Torture is needlessly cruel and isn't productive" and you're welcome. Have a nice day!

  • If it was one of my daughters at stake, the only rule is there are no rules.

    • So, you would destroy the universe for family?

      • So, you would destroy the universe for family?

        That's simply not within my power. And if I *did* have that much power, then I could also fix the problem in a less destructive manner.

        People seem to forget that torture won't work on someone who, like a masochist or any martyr, believes that all the physical punishment is going to assure them of a greater reward in the hereafter. For them, both threats and torture are counterproductive. Better to take the approach of the sadist and the masochist:

        Masochist: Hurt m, hrt me!
        Sadist: (with evil grin) No! Suffer.

        People who are more focused on the here-and-now, or are n

        • I'm only asking if you had your finger on the button, would you push it?

          'normals'? Now there's an interesting concept...

          • "I'm only asking if you had your finger on the button, would you push it?"

            That's a different question. If you're talking "launch all the nukes", no.

            • Do you have a defined limit? Something that can be equally applied to friend and foe alike? Or is it asymmetrical?

              • Of course. While in the original scenario I outlined, there are no rules, there are limits (might sound like splitting hairs or a contradiction, but I think you get the gist of it. Just because I would consider all options doesn't mean I would find all options justified). Harming innocent people isn't really justifiable, and I would hope friends and foes alike would realize that.

                I'm just not a hypocrite - I can admit that, in some scenarios (safety of family, etc) while I know I'd be troubled by it later,

  • There is no limit to what I would personally do in defense of my loved ones.

    • Is it okay if someone does it to you under the same claim simply because you 'fit a description'? Wouldn't you at least like to make sure they have the right guy? If it's okay for one, it's okay for all. And in this case, do you really think these people are actually 'protecting' us? I have to ask, how far would you go? How can torture be considered as a 'defense'? All it does is extract a response, and usually the wrong one. To me it's just a hollywood feel good thing being fed by the media. Everybody wan

      • Is it okay if someone does it to you under the same claim simply because you 'fit a description'? Wouldn't you at least like to make sure they have the right guy?

        Of course, but once you know you have the right perv^H^H^H^Hguy ...

        If it's okay for one, it's okay for all.

        [citation required] Actually, if you added "all who pose a serious and immediate threat to my family", I'm okay with that. And the law backs it up - depending on the circumstances, even killing the guy is legal at that point.

        I know, a "blood-thirsty Canadian - WTF", but turning the cheek in such a case is morally wrong.

        • I'll re-phrase, What is okay for one is okay for all. I make no allowances for exclusivity or social hierarchy or any cultural biases. And self defense is instinctive, not necessarily 'moral'. Most, if not all our 'morals' are simply philosophical rationalizations of instinctive behavior. And here I see them being used to justify the most heinous of acts.. Everybody's still playing the lesser evil game. 'Lesser evil' being defined by the target and not the act.

          • The universe is neither "moral" nor "evil". Those are strictly value judgments made by some types of living organisms, including humans.

            Waterboarding was stupid. They knew it would be counter-productive, but they did it anyway, probably because they "had to be seen doing something." There's a huge difference, however, between an individual acting to defend themselves, their family, or the person standing next to them from an immediate threat, and what went on in Gitmo, where there was no immediate threat f

            • The universe is neither "moral" nor "evil".

              Yeah well, that's usually why I don't bother to bring it up. And I didn't question the 'morality' of torture. I only asked if you approve. I merely happened to be an absolutist, and don't, no matter what. It is strictly sadism and vengeance.

              ...an institutionalized culture of "ah'm sooo mad thet ah haz lost mah friggin' mind!"

              Sorry, that's just mass media garbage you're swallowing. This is a well financed business, and it is very structured. They are recruited by p

            • I may regret saying this, but I really don't give a damn. When it comes to 'morals', I was under the impression that you had some. It seems your only complaint about the CIA torture thing is its lack of effectiveness, and not the fact that nobody should be doing it, whether on a collective or individual basis. So before I get really offensive about it, I am going to cut out of here and just leave you all to discuss it amongst yourselves, if you are discussing it at all. I got what I was looking for. And tho

              • No - my complaint is that torture was not justified because the prisoners were not an immediate and serious threat to anyone around them - after all, they were prisoners.

                Things that are acceptable for an individual to do when responding to an immediate and serious threat are not necessarily justifiable when the threat is not immediate.

                Example - someone comes at you with a knife. Immediate and serious threat. You're morally justified in whacking them with a 2x4 to try to protect yourself.

                Someone in prison

                • I'm not sure I ever said simple self defense was torture.

                  • You didn't, but your response "When it comes to 'morals', I was under the impression that you had some. It seems your only complaint about the CIA torture thing is its lack of effectiveness, and not the fact that nobody should be doing it, whether on a collective or individual basis." wasn't exactly nuanced. Maybe my fault, so I offered clarification.

                    Killing someone else, even in self-defense, is a failure, usually on the part of many people, that led up to the need to kill in self-defense. Unfortunately,

                    • I don't know how this got turned into a story about self defense. I was asking about torture. To me you don't do it, ever. Even if it works... Torture is not self defense, or any other kind of defense, in any sense of the word. It is pure sadism, plain and simple, cut and dried...

                    • The "justification" for torture is "self-defense in the large". "We need it to defend the country" and that sort of stuff. We need to make the comparison with individual self-defense, because when someone is an immediate threat to you, well, you can't afford to be too picky on how you defend yourself. On the other hand, a bunch of prisoners sitting safely behind bars is a completely different situation. While violence is condoned in the first case, there is no excuse for it in the second, because of the l

                    • No, torture is always an offense, never a defense. It is a 'defense' of cowards and despots.

                    • No, torture is always an offense, never a defense. It is a 'defense' of cowards and despots.

                      ... and how is that inconsistent with what I wrote?

                    • You have self defense and torture mixed up. In no way can torture be considered self defense, in any fashion whatsoever, expect maybe to sociopaths... and internet trolls :-)

                    • I never said they were the same thing. However, the JUSTIFICATION for torture is "self-defense at the national level". And a lot of people are stupid enough to buy into it. And many of THOSE are voters. So there's an incentive to try to make torture look like some sort of self-defense.

                      In no way can torture be considered self defense, in any fashion whatsoever, expect maybe to sociopaths

                      ... and I'm sure there's a lot of them working as spin doctors ... they'd have to be sociopaths to even come up with such lies.

                    • I never asked about 'justification'. That is totally irrelevant. I do not care about somebody else's 'justification'. It simply means they are advocates, nothing more. The original question was/still is if you disapprove of torture. It's such simple thing... All this 'nuance' people try to stuff into it is nothing more than obfuscation of something they are ashamed to say directly.

                    • Of course I disapprove of torture. Nevertheless, I am not foolish enough to say that I wouldn't resort to it if it came down to the safety of my kids. I just don't know for sure how I would react under that scenario. I'm a human being, and when it comes to my kids, I'm the same as most parents.

  • Even before I became a Buddhist, I believed that it is never right to inflict harm on other beings except in self-defence against an immediate grave threat to one's own physical safety. So if you come at me with a knife, I've no compunctions about grabbing my cricket bat and taking a swing or two in order to stop you.

    But inflicting harm on a defenceless and possibly restrained subject is right out.

    (And if you don't believe that existence isn't moral, then you've got the wrong morals. Karma isn't just a neat

    • Your scenarios don't involve you holding an office, with possibly numerous lives hanging in the balance. Hopefully, such a situation never finds either of us. But let me offer that, in a zero-sum situation, your cricket bat might be called into action that any morally lively person will have problems managing after the fact.

      • Your scenarios don't involve you holding an office, with possibly numerous lives hanging in the balance.

        Pure evil! You are playing a numbers game, and only addressing the target. Why am I not surprised?

        • How did you possibly get "only addressing the target" out of my reply?
          Oh, wait: your usual "make it up as you go" process. Never mind!

          • Addressing the target is all you've ever done all along. I'm not telling you anything new. I didn't make anything up. It is plain simple fact that you define the terrorist (and torturers) by their target, it's that simple. Your 'morality' is extremely asymmetrical. No big thing. It's just the way it is. You don't want to see it, eh, nothing I can do.. I merely express the things that are most obvious and let you get swallowed up in the details. I believe your euphemism is 'nuance'. I prefer the more correct

            • Your 'morality' is extremely asymmetrical.

              Absolute truth is defined by God. Mankind is existentially estranged from the essential goodness of creation in God's image (Tillich). Past that, I'm unclear as to what "it" is in your formulation. "It" appears to be a handwave upon which an accusation is based.

  • If our Postmodern era has anything to teach, it's that you never know when some jackwagon is going to move the line, and suddenly reading Dr. Seuss in a normal tone of voice is considered "torture". Probably due to some latent racism & bigotry of which you were also unaware.

    • I will take that as a 'no'. You approve of torture, simple as that, and are just spewing more of your usual mass media bullshit, pretty much what I expect from you, sadly. You could have saved yourself some wear and tear on your keyboard with your silly rationalizations.

      • I don't approve of torture.
        However, if you're operating anywhere above the Amish subsistence farming level, then you're either implicitly or explicitly, directly or indirectly, interacting with a government that has done Nasty things. You're not impressive, nor are you doing much that I can see to minimize the practice.

        • More than you, sir. At the very least I never, ever voted for people who do approve, not publicly anyway. And I certainly never spoke up in defense of them, as you are doing right now with your 'definition' and 'what if' schtick. If you approve at all, then you approve. Can't be half pregnant. Just accept it. I won't hate you for it.

          • At the very least I never, ever voted for people who do approve, not publicly anyway.

            Hey, if these mental gymnastics are working for you, then I say: "Why mess with a good thing?".
            Y'all stay superior now, hear?

Slashdot Top Deals

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Close