Who watches the watchers?
-
I don't have the option of displaying the :facetious: smiley. Mind you that said, when Colchester (and Army Garrison town) last played Luton we all sung "All your mothers get fucked by squaddies!" at them, and worse things too, so a mild form of psychological torture. I agree that torture is wrong in 99.99% of the time, but where it is for the public good it must still be an option. A government doesn't invoke laws as a suicide pact. If there was a nuclear bomb set to go off, would you want your security forces to locate it even if it meant torture? A tough question, but valid.
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
Dalek Dave wrote:
I agree that torture is wrong in 99.99% of the time, but where it is for the public good it must still be an option.
So, it's wrong, unless we REALLY want to do it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
A good comment but my main point is about double standards - expecting your citizens to be treated a certain way but treating others completely differently.
Once again (and, as before, I'll leave unexamined the question of whether your charge has merit), you seem to be appealing to some objective moral standard in this condemnation of hypocrisy. As I asked before, are you sure you want to go there?
Objective moral standards are pretty universally agreed upon, by people of all sorts of belief. Everyone knows that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I agree that torture is wrong in 99.99% of the time, but where it is for the public good it must still be an option.
So, it's wrong, unless we REALLY want to do it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I can admit openly to sticking a knife into an open wound of a man I watched being shot, but you what, he gave up the information we needed. I was in the army at the time and we didn't have time for shits like this. Am I a torturer, or someone who saved many lives? I bet if you kid died that day and we could have stopped it I would have been a basterd if we didn't stop it. You call it?
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
-
I can admit openly to sticking a knife into an open wound of a man I watched being shot, but you what, he gave up the information we needed. I was in the army at the time and we didn't have time for shits like this. Am I a torturer, or someone who saved many lives? I bet if you kid died that day and we could have stopped it I would have been a basterd if we didn't stop it. You call it?
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
I would do it again
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
-
Objective moral standards are pretty universally agreed upon, by people of all sorts of belief. Everyone knows that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Trollslayer: A good comment but my main point is about double standards - expecting your citizens to be treated a certain way but treating others completely differently. Ilíon: Once again (and, as before, I'll leave unexamined the question of whether your charge has merit), you seem to be appealing to some objective moral standard in this condemnation of hypocrisy. As I asked before, are you sure you want to go there? Christian Graus: Objective moral standards are pretty universally agreed upon, by people of all sorts of belief. Everyone knows that.
Are you vastly ignorant, or merely disingenuous? Or -- shocker, here -- are you trying to be ironic, are you trying to express agreement with me without, you know, actually expressing agreement? People universally -- at any rate, when "universe" is defined as "'liberals' and other leftists" -- dispute either that: 1) there is such a thing as objectively binding moral obligations, in the first place; or, 2) that any objectively binding moral obligations can be known, even if they do exist. Of course, these deniers don't *really* believe what they assert; it's always about asserting that real morality doesn't apply to themselves.
-
I would do it again
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
You need to be inoculated.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You should hurry up and evolve a brain already.
It's too bad that your mind hasn't yet evolved (to use the word properly).
'Evolve' in the context of biological evolution is very much a proper way of using it.
-
I can admit openly to sticking a knife into an open wound of a man I watched being shot, but you what, he gave up the information we needed. I was in the army at the time and we didn't have time for shits like this. Am I a torturer, or someone who saved many lives? I bet if you kid died that day and we could have stopped it I would have been a basterd if we didn't stop it. You call it?
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
Dalek Dave wrote:
I can admit openly to sticking a knife into an open wound of a man I watched being shot, but you what, he gave up the information we needed.
Whoa. :omg:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Trollslayer: A good comment but my main point is about double standards - expecting your citizens to be treated a certain way but treating others completely differently. Ilíon: Once again (and, as before, I'll leave unexamined the question of whether your charge has merit), you seem to be appealing to some objective moral standard in this condemnation of hypocrisy. As I asked before, are you sure you want to go there? Christian Graus: Objective moral standards are pretty universally agreed upon, by people of all sorts of belief. Everyone knows that.
Are you vastly ignorant, or merely disingenuous? Or -- shocker, here -- are you trying to be ironic, are you trying to express agreement with me without, you know, actually expressing agreement? People universally -- at any rate, when "universe" is defined as "'liberals' and other leftists" -- dispute either that: 1) there is such a thing as objectively binding moral obligations, in the first place; or, 2) that any objectively binding moral obligations can be known, even if they do exist. Of course, these deniers don't *really* believe what they assert; it's always about asserting that real morality doesn't apply to themselves.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Trollslayer: A good comment but my main point is about double standards - expecting your citizens to be treated a certain way but treating others completely differently. Ilíon: Once again (and, as before, I'll leave unexamined the question of whether your charge has merit), you seem to be appealing to some objective moral standard in this condemnation of hypocrisy. As I asked before, are you sure you want to go there? Christian Graus: Objective moral standards are pretty universally agreed upon, by people of all sorts of belief. Everyone knows that.
Are you vastly ignorant, or merely disingenuous? Or -- shocker, here -- are you trying to be ironic, are you trying to express agreement with me without, you know, actually expressing agreement? People universally -- at any rate, when "universe" is defined as "'liberals' and other leftists" -- dispute either that: 1) there is such a thing as objectively binding moral obligations, in the first place; or, 2) that any objectively binding moral obligations can be known, even if they do exist. Of course, these deniers don't *really* believe what they assert; it's always about asserting that real morality doesn't apply to themselves.
Ilíon wrote:
at any rate, when "universe" is defined as "'liberals' and other leftists"
This is perhaps half true at best. In any case, I'm sorry you think that the universe consists entirely of 'leftists'. I was thinking more of kalihari bushmen and tribes of PNG. All societies tend to have similar rules of morality. That some extreme aspects of society ( which I would contend does not include all 'leftists', except in the rabid fantasies of the extreme right ), may want to push moral relativism, but, that doesn't mean that it's a widely held view.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Hi, Gillian Do you have an objective moral standard?
Bob Emmett I solemnly declare that I do not wish the USA to be more like Britain, Canada, or Oz.
-
I don't have the option of displaying the :facetious: smiley. Mind you that said, when Colchester (and Army Garrison town) last played Luton we all sung "All your mothers get fucked by squaddies!" at them, and worse things too, so a mild form of psychological torture. I agree that torture is wrong in 99.99% of the time, but where it is for the public good it must still be an option. A government doesn't invoke laws as a suicide pact. If there was a nuclear bomb set to go off, would you want your security forces to locate it even if it meant torture? A tough question, but valid.
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
Dalek Dave wrote:
If there was a nuclear bomb set to go off, would you want your security forces to locate it even if it meant torture? A tough question, but valid.
If the bomb was already set to go off there would be nothing you could do. Unless your suggesting that you could pick it up and run really fast or maybe the people who set the bomb would have been nice enough to put in an override switch for it. A bit hollywoody and totally unlikely. A stupid question for morons.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
If there was a nuclear bomb set to go off, would you want your security forces to locate it even if it meant torture? A tough question, but valid.
If the bomb was already set to go off there would be nothing you could do. Unless your suggesting that you could pick it up and run really fast or maybe the people who set the bomb would have been nice enough to put in an override switch for it. A bit hollywoody and totally unlikely. A stupid question for morons.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Trollslayer: A good comment but my main point is about double standards - expecting your citizens to be treated a certain way but treating others completely differently. Ilíon: Once again (and, as before, I'll leave unexamined the question of whether your charge has merit), you seem to be appealing to some objective moral standard in this condemnation of hypocrisy. As I asked before, are you sure you want to go there? Christian Graus: Objective moral standards are pretty universally agreed upon, by people of all sorts of belief. Everyone knows that.
Are you vastly ignorant, or merely disingenuous? Or -- shocker, here -- are you trying to be ironic, are you trying to express agreement with me without, you know, actually expressing agreement? People universally -- at any rate, when "universe" is defined as "'liberals' and other leftists" -- dispute either that: 1) there is such a thing as objectively binding moral obligations, in the first place; or, 2) that any objectively binding moral obligations can be known, even if they do exist. Of course, these deniers don't *really* believe what they assert; it's always about asserting that real morality doesn't apply to themselves.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
A stupid question for morons.
And you answered it! :-D
Bob Emmett I solemnly declare that I do not wish the USA to be more like Britain, Canada, or Oz.
:laugh:
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Hi, Gillian Do you have an objective centre by which rightists and leftists may be defined?
Bob Emmett I solemnly declare that I do not wish the USA to be more like Britain, Canada, or Oz.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Do you have an objective centre by which rightists and leftists may be defined?
Yes, he does. Your name is not Ilion, therefore you're a leftist. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.