ParanoiA

Well, for this discussion, I believe we're talking about forcing parents to get medical treatment for their kids, despite their religious (or non-religious) objections. My comparison with a murderer, is that from the point of view of a common citizen, you're forcing them to let another human being cut them, inject drugs into them, objectify and humiliate them. Remember, we don't have issues with all that, we're quite comfortable giving perfect strangers complete power over our lives - and death. They also make mistakes, remember. Again, you're forcing the common citizen to risk their lives - you've taken away their freedom to weigh risk. It's not fair to presume our judgment over theirs. How about we just force you to lob off your foot, rather than treat it? I know you think Athlete's foot is no big deal, but we're doctors and we say you don't need that foot. And since you're 16, we're just going to do it. And your mom and dad, sorry, they can't help you either. To them, that's what forced medical treatment looks like. It's a basic right that the rest of us take for granted and don't have aversions to, so it's automatic. Doctors are not gods, and they're not perfect, so while I enthusiastically concede to their judgement unreservedly, I cannot empower them with law in this way to force others to do the same. Absolutely immoral and way beyond the authority of government. I know we read this stuff on parents and shake our heads. If we're not careful, we'll start reading stuff on doctors killing patients in the process of going against parental wishes. How's that going to compliment freedom and democracy better than our current parental primacy? Remember, there's a price for freedom. You can't stop every act of stupidity and maintain a free state.

I think they want Europe to admire them. I was listening to the radio last night on my way home and listening to the lefties call in and whine about how we look "stupid" to Europeans. I thought that was awesome. I love that position. How many movies shove the whole "be yourself and be proud" message down our throats? It's the same chemistry, most of the time. In sports, the antagonists have the slick uniforms, the tough colors, the advanced style and training equipment, and of course they're usually painted to be quite elitist about themselves. The protagonist has the crappy uniforms, dirtied colors, crappy equipment and a total lack of sophistication - yet they're the ones we root for. And in our movies they are the winner and we rejoice in the unsophisticated underdog upsetting the elite. So, uh, what happened with that? All of the sudden now we're worried about appearances? We're worried about what the neighbors "would think" about our slutty daughter? We're going to sweat about what the community thinks of our family? I thought we were supposed to keep our eye on what actually matters, and to hell with what others think of it. I like Europeans thinking we're stupid. That's our MO. That's how our country works.

Legal protection of life is at question since by forcing medical treatment you're also forcing violation of the body. You're forcing them to let you cut them, stick them, inject drugs in them, strip them and observe them naked - we put people in jail for those things. Oh, I realize you're going to object and claim your cutting and sticking and violations are not criminal nor malevolent - and I'm sure there are some serial killers that would claim the same thing. As long as medical treatment carries the risk of death and injury, then forcing someone to go through it is absolutely immoral - no question.

See, we think it's weird that you would think we would pull our gun over a couple of bucks. A few dollars poorer is not a good reason to escalate a conflict. The insistence on carrying guns is about neutralizing a conflict that is being escalated by the antagonist, not by yourself. At least, that's how I was taught. For instance, if someone were to break in my house, I don't get my gun and go hunting for them - that's stupid. No, I dial 911 and hand the phone to my wife as I get up to get my shotgun and then get to the kids so we can retreat back to our bedroom and hold up until the police arrive. In that way, I'm armed for any violence initiated by the intruders - not myself. I take a "defensive" posture with my weapon. That's going to be the similar tack by most gun owners - certainly responsible ones. And that's what I expect from any human on this planet. It shocks me that people would surrender basic, fundamental self protection. Police cannot be there during the commission of a crime. It's not their fault, they just can't be there. And my life is too important to sacrifice it because fear keeps the ignorant, ignorant about valuable tools - like guns.

Same here. I was just reading some of my crap on here, and just about hit the quote key to argue with myself.

Because my argument is a logical one that rests merely on the notion that torture has worked at some point in human history on some person at least one time - so the method is only as useful as its need. Think on that sentence. To be "needed", it would have to be the ONLY method believed to provide the information required in the time alloted to acquire it AND, it would have to have the "value" to be worth torturing an innocent person. And, I'm not any authority on determining that scenario. I see that the same as I see war. I only agree with war as long as the "value" of the conflict is worth the loss of innocent life - hence why I always require the answer "yes" when asking myself if I'm willing to kill children for this cause. Same with torture. I have to be willing to accept that the person being tortured is innocent. Therefore, the "need" as I've defined it above, would have to apply. When is it worth it to take the chance and torture an innocent person? It's not about naive absolutist idealism, it's about being consistent with my lines in the sand. I can't rule out torture while simultaneously being totally cool with nuking whole civilizations. There's something lob sided and disingenuous about declaring some arbitrary line of horrors. Waterboarding = no, but thousands of dead women and children as collateral damage = perfectly ok. WTF?? Let's say iNow takes a bath in nuclear goo with the help of a mentally crazed doctor Bascule and becomes a super-action hero and kidnaps GWB to have his war crimes trial. Bush is found guilty, (duh!!), and iNow decides to exterminate all republicans as part of the sentence. Only Dr. Bascule has the antedote to disarm iNow's murderous powers, but he's not talking and we have only 15 minutes until execution. That could be one scenario for, doG "The Interrogator", to torture Dr Bascule to save the republicans. Oh wait...that doesn't pass the "value" test does it? Never mind, bad example...

I concur with the above. Both of my kids know what a real firearm feels like and both are well educated on them. I look at it as a moral imperative to teach your family how to protect themselves. Not only should guns be quite legal, they ought to be actively taught and used. It's irresponsible to leave your family alone, counting on a bunch of strangers with badges and electronic gizmos, that can only be reached by phone. No, I think I owe it to my kids and my wife to teach them how to use a weapon for defense when I'm away. I have chosen a 20 gauge shotgun, which helps to compliment size to power. I support law enforcement and the job they have to do, but it is not, nor has it ever been, able to respond during the commission of a crime.

Damn padren...you managed to agree with everyone in here. How'd you do that?

And that's really where I was coming from. I appreciate your honesty. This, is what I fear: What we saw from Bush was deficit spending for the public good - to protect us against terrorism by starting war. It's worrying to think that the next president of the US is set for more deficit spending to protect us yet again. One excuse after another to keep spending money. Each excuse only seems reasonable in a local context - none of them make any long term sense. Unless of course continually devaluing the dollar is sense. I find this very troubling. I fear we're just going to keep on conceding to specious logic and spending ourselves into third world status. That's the biggest reason why I can't just say "best wishes Barack".

Yeah, I got ya'. He has his turn, no matter. The people have spoken, I got no beef with that. I'm just saying that realistically speaking, you can't really expect everyone to wish him success if that success conflicts with their own goals. What if we elected Palin instead? Would you be happy to "give her a chance" if her agenda includes book burning and rolling out intelligent design in our schools? I'm happy we have a black president. That's all I'm happy about, and really, I shouldn't be, it's shallow.

That's not how they worry about it though. His question is thoughtful. If it were just about preparing our military personnel for torture - preparing them just for horrible treatment, that would be one thing. But they prepare our military personnel for torture - so they don't give away truthful information. doG's question is why are we so concerned about giving away truthful information if torture isn't a reliable means for getting truthful information? It's a great question. Why are our actions not matching our words? Well, first of all, we're like libertarians - you get 'em from total anarchists to small government tax dodgers. I'm going to presume that if you're not absolutely 100 % against torture, that you must "support" torture. Did I also mention I support nuclear retaliation? You do know that could literally wipe out millions of innocent people - many will suffer "torturous" injuries that they will have to live with too, if they live. Anyway, yeah, we don't need any stinkin' numbers DrDNA. We're not arguing absolutist positions here, all of our arguments are supported by the notion that torture works some extremely, small, fractional, measure of time - anything other than zero. Even if it only worked one time in the history of mankind, then our arguments are valid. Why? Because we're not arguing it's a really super cool great interrogation technique that we should totally role out full scale. No, our argument is that it should not be ruled out. That's quite a change of scale, to say the least. It would be silly to rule out an interrogation technique simply because it's applicable window is extremely small. No, I think you must supply the science that says torture will never work, ever, before we should even think about making it illegal for national security's sake. Incidentally, I feel the same about nuclear retaliation. As shameful as it would be to commit such mass murder upon innocents. How do you all feel about that? I mean, since torture is so offensive, surely nuclear war is too? yeah, I'm going to keep trying to get you all to bite. Torture, plucked from the air of arbitrary reverence, pales in comparison to other horrors you all may not have even considered, let alone take a position on. That's why I have such a hard time just writing it off. It's just so....fake. Gee, how can I fool myself into believing I'm a good person today?

That's a considerate reply iNow. That's right where I find myself too. On a personal level though, I would persuade people like that - using the strongest language possible - to grow up and take care of their kids or let somebody else do it. Even a crack addict is responsible enough to get their kid to a hospital...well, most of the time anyway.

Well it depends. Making the 'give the guy a chance' appeal only applies as any sort of answer if you're merely questioning his ability to perform. However, if you disagree with his method and ideology altogether, then giving him a chance is not applicable. I don't remember any of us responding to Bush criticisms with appeals to getting along, or any cherry picked flowery speech derivatives as some kind of answer to dissention. That's not an answer, that's an offended follower. Obama will be criticized throughout his presidency. Those of us who lean libertarian; free market advocates of fractionally small government footprint are not going to like Obama any better than Bush. Not sure why anyone didn't see that coming. And no, I hope he doesn't get a chance to screw up the economy even worse than it already is. And why let that bother you? I would expect nothing less from everyone else. If my guy got elected, I fully expect those afraid of freedom to dissent. And they would, no doubt. We're not talking about suicide bombing, we're talking about political difference of opinion. I think Obama is calling for civil discourse, not unconditional indifference.

So I guess you're going to continue to arbitrarily redirect Obama criticism to the Bush administration for next 4 years? The best we're going to get it is a "oh Yeah, well Bush...yadda yadda yadda...?" How pathetic. It's the day after inauguration and you're still whine bagging about Bush. And baiting an anti-Bush, non-conservative, non-neocon, non-liberal while you're doing it. Fabulous. Next I suppose you're going to make believe ecoli and Skeptic are hard core christian conservatives and attempt to bait them like you did above. That'll be fun. Oh, here's a thought....how about you refute ecoli's points, rather than play democrat partisan spin machine? Or, here's another thought....how about dropping the democrat response flow chart for use on republicans, and instead take on ecoli's points AS IF he's his own man? I know, I know, that kind of thinking is WAY out there...

That's true, it sure would have been a consistent follow through on his message of "change" to demand a modest crowd for the inauguration, decline the festivities and get to work since there's so much to do. But hey, why change?

You are not alone my friend. On the one hand you don't want to ruin the fun for everyone by pointing it out, but on the other hand don't you have a moral imperative to point out a startling piece of hypocritical propaganda? Actions speak louder than words and while I wish our new president well, I'm not impressed with this celebratory indulgence. Oh, and hell of a speech he gave. Might be nice having an orator in the presidency for a while.

Ah, I love that movie. But I admit I never really got the ending.

I was wondering if it was some kind of timespace-wrinkle-warp-thingy associated with that nebula (I think that's what it was) she got lost in. And Ellen as the fifth? I'm not real happy about this, but I'm trying to be open minded. I like your theory though. Mine got blown apart 15 minutes into the show so I'm still kinda pouty about it. And that whole sequence with Dualla just broke my heart. I've always liked her character, as little as she's been involved. And I've been thinking about taking up stalking her as a hobby. I could do some time for a girl like that.

Because, for the third time...it's not useful in general practice. I think that's been more than demonstrated. My only reservation is rare, unique scenarios that carry the potential for unbelievable loss of life, or even mass noxious damage and, of course, it must be the most qualified method for the given exigency. If any other interrogative method is better, then torture is obviously out of the question. It's not about personal preference, it's about strict logical preference. Just numbers. I would wager those statistics can give us a particular pattern that would suggest an extremely narrow bandwidth for torture. But that's a wager, not a claim. To pretend there's not a threshold when you'd torture someone is to lie to yourself. Until someone can reverse that philosophically, I can't really relate to an absolutist position on this. Honestly though, I'm leaning back to my original position on this torture stuff. My old thought was to officially condemn torture; to institute our committment legally and so forth, like I think you're saying and just trust that our government will cross that line if the crisis really called for it. Keeping it illegal certainly keeps from being anything like a "standard practice". This seems the most level headed direction to me. I would certainly say waterboarding is torture, really all physical techniques. Psychological abuse though, that gets a little hazy for me.

Thanks IA, that's the one I bought and you're absolutely right, it's much smoother.

I'm not much of a gamer, except that I love Madden football games on PC. Right now I'm stuck with the stock integrated video circuit on my motherboard that I bought about 6 months ago. It's a Gigabyte GA-M61 SME-S2, which are already obsolete at MicroCenter, where I bought it. Needless to say, the video performance ain't that great. I've managed to tweak enough settings to get it managable to enjoy my game. But geez, it's far from the smooth, quality video I see on my kid's Xbox. So, I'm ready to upgrade to a PCIe now. My question is, what kind of PCIe video card specs should I be looking at to attain a smooth video performance on Madden? (in case anyone has any experience with that particular game) Personally, I thought this would be about right: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0291635 Do I have to blow big bucks, are will a practical 50 dollar augment do the trick?

And doesn't this premise dismiss the fact that torture has worked? You all seem to keep making the argument that because torture isn't regularly dependable, that it somehow means it's never dependable. That's just as shortsighted as saying it's always dependable. Swing pendulum swing, from one extreme to the other.... Show me a link from a reputable source that says torture will never work under any scenario for any reason ever. Otherwise, admit there's a narrow range of good results - just not humane, efficient, nor nearly consistent enough to be standard practice There's nothing I've read to suggest torture is a great method to get info. There's also nothing I've read to suggest torture will never ever get info, ever. From my perspective that implies there are unique, rare scenarios where torture happens to be effective. Now whether or not that's a predictable pattern or not, is arguable. I think doG's question is good and for the reasons he mentioned. We can parse our way through our contentions. Doesn't matter, you ignored my qualifier, and so does iNow and bascule, that in general practice is not an effective, efficient, reliable means of information gathering. Even if every detainee is involved in huge terror plots with "stakes too high for a person to really comprehend", it still doesn't imply that torture is great way to get info for it. How can you really make statements like this? Without even trying I can think of a timed bomb that hasn't gone off yet. That's still quite imminent. I'm sure if have a few minutes, I can up with a list for you. Of course, that also doesn't imply torture is called for though either.

I thought of a carrot too, freaked me out. But it seems like I was thinking of the shape, not so much the color.

I have no idea how you'd draw that conclusion considering the statement of mine that you, yourself, included in your post...I guess I'll highlight what you apparently missed. I thought we were talking about war. I thought we were talking about prisoners of war. Because I believe they are trying to infiltrate my government and steal cheese. Sorry, but ridiculous questions deserve ridiculous answers. US citizens are protected by our constitution and while terrorists could obtain citizenship status, it's a principle I'm not willing to compromise, even in the face of national security. Prisoners of war are not protected by that document, namely because their AT WAR WITH US and they like SHOOT AT US TO KILL US. So, yeah, I'm not terribly concerned about them. But torture them? Like I said, I'm not sure what should be ok or not. But feel free to continue to dismiss my posts and cherry pick the parts you can distort into misrepresenting my honest ambivalence on this subject. It only undermines any attempt to persuade others when you demonstrate you're not listening to them. This has already been brought up over and over again, so I'm not sure why I need to retype this but...If AQ doesn't follow the rules of war, then we are not bound by Geneva Convention rules. I think so, yes. And one can answer yes to that question without agreeing to torture. It's obvious that an enemy combatant should not receive the same reverence as a US citizen. Hey bascule...are there other governments on the planet that give foreigners waging war on them, the same rights as their citizens?