Stop This. Everybody. Now
 

You sir, are a jackass. You are guilty of arrogance beyond measure. You constantly engage in sollipsism, semantic torture, and pure leaps of logic to come up with genuinely ridiculous positions. You do everything that you accuse other posters of in spades. I tire of you.

Now, to get to the business at hand. The post which led Spanky to get his knickers in a twist was a rant. A good old-fashioned Sebbyesque rant; a jump-off if you will. It is a tactic which enjoys a long and distinguished tenure here, one that extends to the dark and misty days long before we were plagued by the utter inanity that is Spanky and the acerbic, yet delightfully bracing wit that is Ms. No.

During the course of a long and painful stretch in the WC, examining a small puncture wound and attempting to soak off adhesive from places that I truly hope none of you ever need to have adhesive used, I happened to glance at the current issue of GQ. I was somewhat chargined to find that the Editor had devoted his monthly space to precisely the same topic as my rant.

At the risk of losing some credibility on the originality front, I direct you to that editorial, as Mr. Nelson expressed the same thought in a more organized and coherent fashion than I.

And with that explanation, Spanky, you pustulent, stinking, chancre of a pox on the art of logical and intelligent discourse, I banish you forever more to the land of fu, where I trust you and the other maroons will be very happy together.

Stop This. Everybody. Now
 

You just love to make unsubstantiated accusations. If I am wrong, quote my specific statements where I engage in solipsism, semantic torture and leaps of logic?

I make an effort with every assertion I make to back it up. You just throw accusations around that have no basis in reality. When I ask to you to explain or support these unsubstantiated positions you just ignore me and throw out another slew of unsubstantiated allegations. Case in point: you never explained to me which acts people need to perform that are immoral.



The feelingis mutual

You have the temerity to equate your rants with Sebby's? His rants are rarely uninteresting and almost always funny; sometimes downright hilarious. Yours are just sour grapes. And even his most irrational rants are infinitely more analytical and substantiated than your most considered posts.

I know you probably don't feel like doing me any favors right now, but is there anyway you can post this article?

No, he prefers to stare into the Abyss.

And how would he know the upside and downside? He doesn't.

So this is just another in a long line of bullshit hypothetical subjective discussions initated and egged on by someone who loves to argue.

And, Spanky, please don't respond by asking me to specifically list any point you've made that I would consider "bullshit"
and explain why, or by asking me which of your "five (now seven)" bullet points I disagree with. And please don't say that, if I don't disagree with your bullet points, I must agree with you. And that, if I don't agree with your bullet points, I must want to see Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq (blast from the past).

I don't have the energy. Merry Christmas to all.

S_A_M

Stop This. Everybody. Now
 

Sebby would be very disappointed to read this.

S_A_M

Stop This. Everybody. Now
 

On this, we can mostly agree, all a'yall suck.

Spanky, you are starting to get hysterical.

The problem is that your argument can be accurately summed up thusly: torture works, so we should do it.

The problem with your symplicity is that it ignores at least three valid critiques: (1) even if it works, torture may be immoral, (2) to the extent that the question of morality turns on our ability to torture only those who are truly guilty, we do not have any semblance of that ability, and (3) torture is widely recognized as leading a unreliable information, calling into question whether it is either necessary or the most effective means of interrogation.

Point (3) is the argument that "torture doesn't work." You do not overcome that argument by saying that the Soviets and the Nazis used torture, but that only shows that torture leads to information. It does not show that torture is necessary or superior to other forms of interrogation.

And, of course, you have done nothing to respond to critique (1) or (2).

ETA: I was unfair. You have addressed (2), but simply by saying that you don't care about the innocents who will be torutred.


What does their act of barbarism have to do with the moral standards that we choose to hold ourselves to?

Stop This. Everybody. Now
 

His arguments are not stupid simply because you choose to ignore them or don't understand them.

The thing that makes it fascinating to watch is how bad he is at something that he loves. His obtuseness alone lends a rare air of sincerity to what would otherwise read as yet another in a long line of posters who take extreme positions only becuase they enjoy defending them.

None of that contradicts what I said. We were a democracy, fighting dictators. This fact helped us win the war.

Many of them flipped by choice, because we were on the side of truth and justice.

If you'd like a better understanding of this, read The Deceivers, a lengthy account of how we fooled Axis intelligence during the war.

I know it happened, but explain and substantiate "a lot."

E.g., it makes people more inclined to support Al Qaeda and less inclined to help us. And since AQ is a small organization hiding among civilians, that is important.

For one, because we are a democracy. Which means the public needs to know what the government is doing in its name. I'm surprised that I need to mention this, since it is the ostensible principle behind the Bush foreign policy.

What "value" are you asserting here, other than that you are scared of terrorists and are willing to sacrifice very, very basic principles for an empty assurance that it will make you safer. That's not a conservative value. It verges on cowardice.

In this country, we don't torture the guilty. We put them in prison.

How many terrorist acts were "implemented" on US soil between WTC I and WTC II? None, over a longer period of time. So what?

None of those "assumptions" are faulty, but if you think they form a useful syllogism that you are a few cards short of a deck.

eta: Adder's (1), (2) and (3) above are well-put. If my internet connection disappears again, he has my proxy.

What is it about people on this board that they love to accuse other people of being emotionally distraught? Its seems that it is the ones that have tendencies towards histrionics that throw this accusation around the most. Being upset about a verb form would seem to be an indication of being emotionally unhinged. What statement in my post indicated to you that I was hysterical?


My guess is that you are simplifying my argument by extracting important aspects of it, and then you are going to pretend I have not addressed certain issues that those extracted points addressed; a modified version of the straw man argument. We shall see….

Typical. You simplify my argument, knocking out the parts where I addressed this issue, and then state I am not addressing this issue. The “symplicity” only comes from your “simplification” not from my arguments. I have consistently and repeatedly addressed those critiques; why do you pretend that I have not? At this point the morality issue does not provide a problem for my argument because I already established that in certain circumstances torture is not only moral, but is a moral imperative. This was where Taxwonk came up with the completely absurd argument that sometime one must do acts (like torture) to do the right thing, yet such acts are still immoral. Except for Taxwonk's self contradictory and illogical statement, no one has even attempted to dispute that assertion. At least do me the courtesy of when stating that torture may be immoral, to address the issue of the ticking time bomb scenario.

Does our criminal justice system turn on our ability to only imprison and fine those who are guilty? Does our ability to employ our armed forces turn on our ability to have absolutely no collateral damages (if it did has there ever been a war without collateral damage)? Is perfection ever an option? Isn't the issue whether we can employ torture and significantly avoid torturing the innocent?

Are you saying that we have never coerced information out of a guilty party? Please provide evidence of this statement. And one or two examples of mistakes are not a valid refutation. You need to show that it is a commonly recurring (and an unfixable) occurrence.

It is my examples of the use of torture by the Nazis, KGB, and North Korean, North Vietnamese etc. that I believe thoroughly refute this point. I know peopel would like to pretend that I bring these examples up to defend the morality of torture but you ignore these facts when you aver that torture is an unreliable means of procuring information? I asked many questions like, why did the underground movements in France introduce strict information restrictions so their operatives couldn't expose the whole operation when they were caught by the Gestapo? If torture is not reliable then why was this necessary? Why did the pilots in North Vietnam give up so much clandestine information? Bribery? No one addressed those questions. At least Sidd, Cletus and a few others were honest enough to concede that torture can procure reliable information.

Those situations showed torture works. The next issue is; are there other means as effective as torture that could get that information? I believe I addressed that issue and was not disputed. I asked a simple question that I believe makes it obvious this is an erroneous statement, and yet no one has an answer. These captured operatives don't want to give the information up, so what sorts of interrogation techniques have been used besides torture to get this information? The only techniques I have heard of are coercive techniques (like water boarding and sleep deprivation) but the person who employed them claimed they were not torture (but they actually were torture). I am still waiting to hear of techniques that are more effective than torture at getting detainees to divulge information they would otherwise like to not divulge. Or techniques that we have employed that have consistently and effectively forced detainees to divulge information equal to or better than the techniques used by the Gestapo and KGB?

Please see statement above. So why did you not address the Nazis and Soviets success with torture when discussing the issue of the ability of torture to procure reliable information?

As I said before, I have addressed points (1) and (2) many times and no one has been able to address my points. You just conveniently ignored my points by simplifying my argument and then arguing against your summary of my argument.

Now you are just being dishonest. Can you at least do me the courtesy of not accusing me of saying things I have not said? Is that really so hard for you to do? Why are you so big on the straw man arguments?

I could easily summarize your argument as: torture is bad so we shouldn't use it. Then I could argue against that summary of your argument ignoring your other statements. I choose not to do that, why can’t you extend me the same courtesy?

I made five simple points that are the foundation of my argument. Why not just refute each one separately like I have done to your points up above instead of grossly simplifying my argument. )I realize that you pretended to address them but you lumped them all together and then made statements that made no sense. When I asked you to clarify you ignored me) Is the logic of those points so overwhelming that you just need to ignore them? Why not just take each line and tear them apart? Why pretend I said something else and address that?

He said our acts made us "less decent" than them. My point was we would have to do a hell of lot more than we have done to make ourselves less decent than them. Do you disagree?

Stop This. Everybody. Now
 

Which one of these points did I ignore or didn't understand? Any of these points you want to defend?

If you are going to choose one please choose this one:

“I don't agree that torture is moral in some cases. I do believe that sometimes people need to act in an immoral way.”

Sour grapes anyone?

Actually, I think the SAM's statement would be a good thread title.

How this is answered, again, turns on how one defines "them". If you are speaking, narrowly, of bona fide al Qaeda members (henceforth AQM) and the decapitation brigades and their ilk, then, clearly, there's a long way down yet. If "them" includes all who have raised a hand against Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, then there's room to take a different position.

That is a fair point. However, I am no expert, but from what I have read, most of the insurgents groups in Iraq don't exactly conduct themselves in what most would consider being the most honorable manner.

Duke Case
 

4 pm on the Friday before a long christmas weekend, in fact