[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…[/quote]
According to you, morality is simply self interested action - or it’s just what we think it is at any given moment - or it’s what the majority believe it is (geee, I never could quite get your story straight) - so you shouldn’t have a problem with the morality of interrogation (ooops, must have meant “TORTURE”) because it fits any one of those justifications.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
According to you, morality is simply self interested action - or it’s just what we think it is at any given moment - or it’s what the majority believe it is (geee, I never could quite get your story straight) - so you shouldn’t have a problem with the morality of interrogation (ooops, must have meant “TORTURE”) because it fits any one of those justifications. [/quote]
…you’re right, i don’t have a problem with doing what need to be done. Just stop kidding yourself believing you’re better than the ‘bad’ guys…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
According to you, morality is simply self interested action - or it’s just what we think it is at any given moment - or it’s what the majority believe it is (geee, I never could quite get your story straight) - so you shouldn’t have a problem with the morality of interrogation (ooops, must have meant “TORTURE”) because it fits any one of those justifications.
…you’re right, i don’t have a problem with doing what need to be done. Just stop kidding yourself believing you’re better than the ‘bad’ guys…
[/quote]
Based on your theory of morality, you have no independent position to say that we are not the “good guys.”
Moreover, just to start with we should feel perfectly comfortable considering ourselves to be the “good guys”: working off yet another one (!) of your morality argument (about connection between prosperity & morality), what have these “bad guys” ever built - socially, economically, culturally - that can even approach the enduring landmarks of western civilization?
Liz Cheney does an excellent job here debunking Norah O’Donnell’s talking points:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
According to you, morality is simply self interested action - or it’s just what we think it is at any given moment - or it’s what the majority believe it is (geee, I never could quite get your story straight) - so you shouldn’t have a problem with the morality of interrogation (ooops, must have meant “TORTURE”) because it fits any one of those justifications.
…you’re right, i don’t have a problem with doing what need to be done. Just stop kidding yourself believing you’re better than the ‘bad’ guys…
Based on your theory of morality, you have no independent position to say that we are not the “good guys.” [/quote]
…i see you still have problems understanding: there are no good or bad guys, just people doing what’s necessary to survive and make their clan thrive…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
According to you, morality is simply self interested action - or it’s just what we think it is at any given moment - or it’s what the majority believe it is (geee, I never could quite get your story straight) - so you shouldn’t have a problem with the morality of interrogation (ooops, must have meant “TORTURE”) because it fits any one of those justifications.
…you’re right, i don’t have a problem with doing what need to be done. Just stop kidding yourself believing you’re better than the ‘bad’ guys…
Based on your theory of morality, you have no independent position to say that we are not the “good guys.”
…i see you still have problems understanding: there are no good or bad guys, just people doing what’s necessary to survive and make their clan thrive…
[/quote]
“You do not need to return to morality, but to discover it.”
— Ayn Rand
[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
According to you, morality is simply self interested action - or it’s just what we think it is at any given moment - or it’s what the majority believe it is (geee, I never could quite get your story straight) - so you shouldn’t have a problem with the morality of interrogation (ooops, must have meant “TORTURE”) because it fits any one of those justifications.
…you’re right, i don’t have a problem with doing what need to be done. Just stop kidding yourself believing you’re better than the ‘bad’ guys…
Based on your theory of morality, you have no independent position to say that we are not the “good guys.”
…i see you still have problems understanding: there are no good or bad guys, just people doing what’s necessary to survive and make their clan thrive…
[/quote]
I know you think you’re being sophisticated, but what you may not know is that you just sound like a typical American college student.
I understand you quite well: you’re pretending to be morally neutral, to lack a theory of “the good” that transcends the immediate context - but what you still don’t understand is, claims like the above encapsulate a whole series of values and moral precepts - only they’re unconscious and unexamined. Basically, you’re deceiving yourself. That’s why you continually resort to sophistry.
Worse, you’re only able to deceive yourself about all of this because you’re a spoiled rotten human being; you have obviously either never observed or never been in the presence of evil; or, you have averted your eyes (“how dare I judge!”) People who have seen and experienced evil would never speak so glibly about values and morals being relative, etc.
However, mark these words sir: when Holland is someday a small province in a growing Caliphate, and law and order break down; and (God forbid), should thugs break into your house and slit the throat of your only son, and then rape your daughter and wife repeatedly in front of you before slitting their throats, and then use your toddler for target practice in the driveway, all while laughing - you just keep telling yourself that evil doesn’t exist.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
According to you, morality is simply self interested action - or it’s just what we think it is at any given moment - or it’s what the majority believe it is (geee, I never could quite get your story straight) - so you shouldn’t have a problem with the morality of interrogation (ooops, must have meant “TORTURE”) because it fits any one of those justifications.
…you’re right, i don’t have a problem with doing what need to be done. Just stop kidding yourself believing you’re better than the ‘bad’ guys…
Based on your theory of morality, you have no independent position to say that we are not the “good guys.”
…i see you still have problems understanding: there are no good or bad guys, just people doing what’s necessary to survive and make their clan thrive…
I know you think you’re being sophisticated, but what you may not know is that you just sound like a typical American college student.
I understand you quite well: you’re pretending to be morally neutral, to lack a theory of “the good” that transcends the immediate context - but what you still don’t understand is, claims like the above encapsulate a whole series of values and moral precepts - only they’re unconscious and unexamined. Basically, you’re deceiving yourself. That’s why you continually resort to sophistry.
Worse, you’re only able to deceive yourself about all of this because you’re a spoiled rotten human being; you have obviously either never observed or never been in the presence of evil; or, you have averted your eyes (“how dare I judge!”) People who have seen and experienced evil would never speak so glibly about values and morals being relative, etc.
However, mark these words sir: when Holland is someday a small province in a growing Caliphate, and law and order break down; and (God forbid), should thugs break into your house and slit the throat of your only son, and then rape your daughter and wife repeatedly in front of you before slitting their throats, and then use your toddler for target practice in the driveway, all while laughing - you just keep telling yourself that evil doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
Well said.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
I know you think you’re being sophisticated, but what you may not know is that you just sound like a typical American college student.
I understand you quite well: you’re pretending to be morally neutral, to lack a theory of “the good” that transcends the immediate context - but what you still don’t understand is, claims like the above encapsulate a whole series of values and moral precepts - only they’re unconscious and unexamined. Basically, you’re deceiving yourself. That’s why you continually resort to sophistry.
Worse, you’re only able to deceive yourself about all of this because you’re a spoiled rotten human being; you have obviously either never observed or never been in the presence of evil; or, you have averted your eyes (“how dare I judge!”) People who have seen and experienced evil would never speak so glibly about values and morals being relative, etc.
However, mark these words sir: when Holland is someday a small province in a growing Caliphate, and law and order break down; and (God forbid), should thugs break into your house and slit the throat of your only son, and then rape your daughter and wife repeatedly in front of you before slitting their throats, and then use your toddler for target practice in the driveway, all while laughing - you just keep telling yourself that evil doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
great response - I especially appreciated the 2nd paragraph -good stuff
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
<<< I know you think you’re being sophisticated, but what you may not know is that you just sound like a typical American college student.
I understand you quite well: you’re pretending to be morally neutral, to lack a theory of “the good” that transcends the immediate context - but what you still don’t understand is, claims like the above encapsulate a whole series of values and moral precepts - only they’re unconscious and unexamined. Basically, you’re deceiving yourself. That’s why you continually resort to sophistry.
Worse, you’re only able to deceive yourself about all of this because you’re a spoiled rotten human being; you have obviously either never observed or never been in the presence of evil; or, you have averted your eyes (“how dare I judge!”) People who have seen and experienced evil would never speak so glibly about values and morals being relative, etc.
However, mark these words sir: when Holland is someday a small province in a growing Caliphate, and law and order break down; and (God forbid), should thugs break into your house and slit the throat of your only son, and then rape your daughter and wife repeatedly in front of you before slitting their throats, and then use your toddler for target practice in the driveway, all while laughing - you just keep telling yourself that evil doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
Very, very good indeed, but without a supra human court beyond which there is no appeal even this reduces evil to that which perpetrates misery upon individuals. In other words to subjective sensibilities.
In this case the misery of the victims, if they can really be called such without a supra human court beyond which there is no appeal, produced joy for the aggressors, hence the laughter. Who was right? Or were they both right? Or wrong? Or is the question even meaningful… if there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
I know you think you’re being sophisticated, but what you may not know is that you just sound like a typical American college student.
I understand you quite well: you’re pretending to be morally neutral, to lack a theory of “the good” that transcends the immediate context - but what you still don’t understand is, claims like the above encapsulate a whole series of values and moral precepts - only they’re unconscious and unexamined. Basically, you’re deceiving yourself. That’s why you continually resort to sophistry.
Worse, you’re only able to deceive yourself about all of this because you’re a spoiled rotten human being; you have obviously either never observed or never been in the presence of evil; or, you have averted your eyes (“how dare I judge!”) People who have seen and experienced evil would never speak so glibly about values and morals being relative, etc.
However, mark these words sir: when Holland is someday a small province in a growing Caliphate, and law and order break down; and (God forbid), should thugs break into your house and slit the throat of your only son, and then rape your daughter and wife repeatedly in front of you before slitting their throats, and then use your toddler for target practice in the driveway, all while laughing - you just keep telling yourself that evil doesn’t exist.[/quote]
…thank you for this woefully inaccurate psyco-analasys katz, and for the subsequent belly laugh, i appreciate it, i really do. On the other hand, i pity you. If this is about being, and staying, safe then you’re the one who’s safer than me. So how can it be that you seem to be so fearful?
…i say there isn’t one. How would you go about establishing that there is one?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:Or is the question even meaningful… if there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.
…i say there isn’t one. How would you go about establishing that there is one?
[/quote]
I can arrange a meeting . . . .
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:Or is the question even meaningful… if there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.
…i say there isn’t one. How would you go about establishing that there is one?
[/quote]
It is no more possible for me to “establish” such a thing to you than it is for you to “establish” the opposite. Both are positions of faith relying for essential elements of their system on that which must be assumed before the conversation commences. Epistemology is the only arena that is either meaningful or necessary when addressing ultimate questions. Whatever position is taken there will unavoidably dictate all others.
It is also what I was referring to when I said it is not possible, at least for me, to have that debate effectively on an internet forum.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I say there is one… and only one.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:Or is the question even meaningful… if there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.
…i say there isn’t one. How would you go about establishing that there is one?
It is no more possible for me to “establish” such a thing to you than it is for you to “establish” the opposite. Both are positions of faith relying for essential elements of their system on that which must be assumed before the conversation commences. Epistemology is the only arena that is either meaningful or necessary when addressing ultimate questions. Whatever position is taken there will unavoidably dictate all others.
It is also what I was referring to when I said it is not possible, at least for me, to have that debate effectively on an internet forum.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I say there is one… and only one.[/quote]
Debating is so 80s and so slow and ponderous. It’s a lot easier to say, " You’re and idiot, just shut the hell up".
Are there things we’d do to save our families that we’d never do to save our neighbor?
Even setting aside the moral case, I myself believe we have to refrain. It’s tough to say we can’t use a rather safe (if not distressing) technique to potentially save 1000’s of lives. However, do we really want the government going down this road? After all, it never seems to shed any power or authority it’s been granted. If anything, the government seems too likely to expand the initial scope it’s powers were approved under. Maybe it’s just me.
wow - have we really become a bunch of pansies or what? We are afraid of causing a murderous bastard a few moments of discomfort in order to prevent his compatriots from killing more of us?
Are we so scared of our own government that we are afraid to give it this little bit of leeway in a strictly military setting to protect us? Rome would go into martial law and appoint dictators in times of national war - can we not allow the military defending us the ability to gather intelligence from enemy combatants?
You will find no greater enemy of the expansion of federal powers than myself - but I am not so weak and small-minded to fear that I cannot allow this small expediency in such a critical time as this.
We are not granting such power to our criminal courts (despite some here trying to tie this together) - we are granting our military leniency in its standards of conduct regarding the questioning of captured enemy fighters.
I do not fear my government - my government fears me - as should be the case in every nation. But especially here - we are a government of the people with the certain right to even overthrow our own government should it become oppressive or repressive - maybe even in the case of pure obnoxiousness related to the global warming shyte.
Anyhoo . . . wow that was a serious rant - sorry for that- hope your balls are all intact boys - we play rough in the Free Irish Republic!!
Extreme measures have been taken in the field in every foreign conflict we’ve ever been in. I do really think that people have subconsciously substituted the word opponent for enemy.
Enemies MUST be defeated… period… by any means necessary. Especially when facing feral uncivilized animals like this. Defeat is absolutely not an option and they will not be playing by our rules.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
wow - have we really become a bunch of pansies or what? We are afraid of causing a murderous bastard a few moments of discomfort in order to prevent his compatriots from killing more of us?
Are we so scared of our own government that we are afraid to give it this little bit of leeway in a strictly military setting to protect us? Rome would go into martial law and appoint dictators in times of national war - [/quote]
And that worked out well…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Extreme measures have been taken in the field in every foreign conflict we’ve ever been in. I do really think that people have subconsciously substituted the word opponent for enemy.
Enemies MUST be defeated… period… by any means necessary. Especially when facing feral uncivilized animals like this. Defeat is absolutely not an option and they will not be playing by our rules.[/quote]
Funny, we’ve faced MUCH more serious, existential enemies than Islamic terrorism (Nazism, communism, etc.) and triumphed without using torture.
Edit: In fact, the fact that we did NOT torture and were clearly on a higher moral plane than our enemy was one of the primary reasons for the fall of Soviet communism.