US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Quote:

I have not encountered any evidence, beyond the written opinions of personal opinion writers, that unidentified or not held accountable interrogators exist.

Where would one get such evidence when the identity of such interrogators in secret locations in other countries is surely deeply buried? The "personal opinion" of some writers is derived from leaked information that such secret prisons exist.

Are you asking why some top administration official does not take the mike and reveal those countries and locations? Yeah. Sure.

icant refuses to see it, but this administration does everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian. That's the danger of Bushco that icant will never understand.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I identified a hypothetical meant to illustrate the ridiculousness of your extreme position. If "torturing" one person has the potential of saving millions of lives, I would do it.

I wouldn't. I understand that you are looking at the matter from a point of 'most good,' a Utilitarian viewpoint; I don't, and I think most people don't.

It is never correct to do an evil act, even if it would save lives. Ever. Is it neccessary? Perhaps. That has to be determined at the time by the person committing the evil act, and they have to be responsible for the outcome of their act.

Did you just say you think most people would not elect to sacrifice one life to save millions? You are entitled to your own opinions on this subject, and while I'm not going to pass judgment on your choice, I doubt it's true that most people would agree with you.

I saw the survey ya posted. So I can't say that most people would neccessarily agree with me; though note that I said I think most people would agree with me, which is merely an opinion based upon my personal life experience.

I also believe that if you asked people if they would personally torture someone, the number responding in the affirmative would go way down; having to do one's own dirty work is a difficult proposition. It is far easier to say 'torture might be neccessary' than it is to personally condone or carry out the act.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cyclops wrote:

If shooting a 10-year old girl in the head will somehow magically save a village full of people, would you pull the trigger and put a slug in her brain?

Cycloptichorn

Rather hard to say. Millions of people ... yes I would. Thousands ... probably.

What's the difference between millions, thousands, hundreds, tens? Morally the question is exactly the same. The degree of scope is meaningless; it remains wrong to shoot a 10-year old girl in the head regardless of the number of lives saved.

Maybe there isn't a difference in terms of the morality between saving millions and two, but if would make a difference to me, regardless. At some point between those two points, I would elect to not sacrifice the girl. I can't tell you where.

I understand that you are operating from a utilitarian viewpoint here; to me, it doesn't matter. I don't accept that innocents need to be sacrificed in an immoral way to save people.

Cyclops wrote:

As you well know. I wouldn't do it.

Yes, I know you wouldn't. And I suppose you wouldn't shoot a man about to kill your entire family, because that would be "wrong," "immoral," or "evil." I suppose you wouldn't join with the heroes on Flight 93 in trying to kill the terrorists that had taken over their plane, in order to keep it from being crashed into another building. If you had the chance, you wouldn't have killed Mohammed Atta sitting at the controls of Flight 11 as it flew toward the North tower of the World Trade Center. There are any number of scenarios I could think of, and in none of them would you take a life in order to save a life. Or are you capable of killing evil people after all?

I don't think your view here represents the view of most people ... at least I hope it doesn't.

Now, this is just crazy.

There's a big difference between killing someone who is about to kill my whole family, and torturing someone who may have information which may prevent deaths. Huge difference. In fact, I believe that killing someone is not as bad as torturing them; death is a release whereas torture can go on a loooong time.

You should be able to see the difference in discussing the neccessity of defending against an imminent attacker, and torturing a potential one. If not, I'm not sure how to continue the discussion.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Okay, your turn: You've been involved in a car accident and your car is dangling over the edge of a cliff. Your two children are about to fall to their deaths, but you manage to grab onto them with each of your hands. You are getting weak, and realize you will not be able to keep holding on to both. Do you let one of them go, and save the other one? Or keep holding on to both, risking letting both of them die?

Hopefully I would lift them up before this happened; don't you work out?

If there is no possibility of saving all three of us, I would attempt to quickly find the path that allowed both of my children to live and me to die. If that isn't a possibility, then we all go down together; I wouldn't sacrifice one to save the other.

Not that this question has much to do with torture, but there you are.

Nothing to do with torture, but it certainly has to do with the ethics/morality of tough choices. You are consistent, I'll give you that.

Death isn't something to be afraid of. Acting in an immoral way is far, far worse than death. Sacrificing one kid to save the other would be far worse than death; I couldn't live with myself afterwards.

so its true then...all terrorists are Muslims, and all Muslims are potential terrorists?

Death isn't something to be afraid of. Acting in an immoral way is far, far worse than death. Sacrificing one kid to save the other would be far worse than death; I couldn't live with myself afterwards.

Based on my readings of the Koran, I believe them.

ican711nm wrote:

Based on my readings of the Koran, I believe them.

So you're one...[/b]

Main Entry: de·ism
Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
- de·ist /'dE-ist, 'dA-/ noun, often capitalized
- de·is·tic /dE-'is-tik, dA-/ adjective
- de·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
- de·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Quote:

>>Al Qaeda's seven phase plan for world conquest:

>>Phase 1, the "wakeup call." Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West get the infidels to make war on Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al Qaedas banner. This phase is complete.

>>Phase 2, the "eye opening." Al Qaeda does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how it's done. This phase to be completed by next year.

>>Phase 3, "the rising." Millions of aroused Moslems go to war against Islam's enemies for the rest of the decade. Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that major damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.

>>Phase 4, "the downfall." By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.

>>Phase 5, "the Caliphate." By 2016, the Caliphate (i.e., one government for all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.

>>Phase 6, "world conquest." By 2022, the rest of the world will be conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.

>>Phase 7, "final victory." All the world's inhabitants will be forced to either convert to Islam, or submit to Islamic rule. To be completed by 2025.

>No mention there of global warming on Earth or on Mars Ican, what's your point?

>To be serious for a moment, would you mind saying if you actually believe this stuff? What's the source of your "quote"?

Tico wrote:

Yes, I know you wouldn't. And I suppose you wouldn't shoot a man about to kill your entire family, because that would be "wrong," "immoral," or "evil." I suppose you wouldn't join with the heroes on Flight 93 in trying to kill the terrorists that had taken over their plane, in order to keep it from being crashed into another building. If you had the chance, you wouldn't have killed Mohammed Atta sitting at the controls of Flight 11 as it flew toward the North tower of the World Trade Center. There are any number of scenarios I could think of, and in none of them would you take a life in order to save a life. Or are you capable of killing evil people after all?

I don't think your view here represents the view of most people ... at least I hope it doesn't.

Now, this is just crazy.

There's a big difference between killing someone who is about to kill my whole family, and torturing someone who may have information which may prevent deaths. Huge difference. In fact, I believe that killing someone is not as bad as torturing them; death is a release whereas torture can go on a loooong time.

You should be able to see the difference in discussing the neccessity of defending against an imminent attacker, and torturing a potential one. If not, I'm not sure how to continue the discussion.

Mortkat,

I, too, am on Setanta's list.

Let's be fair ... everyone is on Setanta's list ...


.... and this is the time of year when he checks it a second time.

Mortkat,

I, too, am on Setanta's list. :wink: I just don't like to see anyone demean or belittle others for their opinions, beliefs, etc. I see no reason for it whatsoever.