ParanoiA

We're not talking about US citizens, we're talking combatants that were captured while engaged in hostilities against our forces. They are prisoners of war. And that's the line I'm uncomfortable crossing. It conflicts with my principles about the death penalty too. That's why I can't really take a solid position on all of this yet, but I can cull the extreme absolutes on both ends. Saying torture is never effective and never should be used ever for any reason seems to miss the point. Doesn't that question answer itself? Perhaps it's not an effective means of gathering vital information in general practice, so torturing every individual you pick up obviously isn't efficient and consistently reliable. iNow's links seemed to confirm the same thing. But it still doesn't convince me that there aren't scenarios that uniquely suit torture for immediate information for stakes too high for a person to really comprehend.

You left out the part where we follow up on the info you told us, and discover you're full of shit and then drag you back. Otherwise why in the hell are we torturing you if we're just going to kick up our feet and watch the game when we're done? Like you said, it's not rock science. Did you really believe that no one thought of this? All of these centuries no one ever thought...."hey, ya know, they could just lie to us"? Give me a break. Once again it feels like we're playing with logic that is really beyond us, that has been far more fleshed out with those who are professionals, who are involved in this kind of work for a living. It reminds me of this guy I met that fixed a toaster and now he thinks he's an electrician. I know it seems all simple and easy...which is exactly why you'd be better served to approach with caution. Torture isn't rock science, and it isn't '24' or 'The Unit' either.

And that's an answer. You win a brownie. This line of logic doesn't play out. Torture would not have stood the test of time, century after century, updated methodologies and evolved tactics if it always resulted in feigning intelligence. I imagine it's more like the stop smoking patch, works for some, not for others. Instead of characterizing humans as cardboard cutouts that all react the same, we can be flexible enough to utilize the best technique per individual. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that your position is too absolute to be of any value other than unlimited self sacrifice to the benefit of the enemy. However, I value humanity as well. More than likely I'll fall back to the reality of war and the horrors I seem perfectly ok with, since we're not debating whether or not dead babies are acceptable collateral damage. Waterboarding does seem preferable to many of the vietnam images I've absorbed. I think so?? I guess I'm not clear on the question. Sounds like you want to punish them, just like we would agree to accept our own punishment. Something about that just doesn't settle right. I do agree though, I would accept the consequences with zero regret.

So you're still not going to answer his question? Or are you just going to keep answering with other questions? I mean, there's obviously a threshold here and no one is comfortable with it. Too bad. Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose a ready guide, or some celestial...oh crap, never mind. Anyway, I can say with relative certainty that I would torture the hell out of anyone here if I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the truth out of you - to save my son. To save someone else's? Maybe not. To save 10 someone else's? maybe so.

Ok, let me ask this: Which is worse...killing a baby or waterboarding a suspected terrorist? I ask because we kill babies when we go to war. We kill little kids just like your own. And they witness horrors most of us will never see, just before they die. We kill women. We cause misery and trauma that will make you think twice before you elevate your values above Stalin's. But waterboarding is crossing the line? If we're willing to commit mass murder sanctioned by our people, then I hardly see why we should be having a hard time with this. Or, more appropriately, maybe we should question why we don't have a hard time with mass murder over waterboarding?

Gee...looks like we left out quite a qualifier didn't we? The United States does not, nor any other country on the planet, have any obligation to concede to any construct they have not agreed to, or are a part of. How about I make my own international criminal court right here on SFN and indict the leadership of your country? Now, are you going to blatantly defy International Criminal Court? Or will you bring your leaders to our court for prosecution? Court Date: 01/16/09 @ 1700. Be there or be convicted by default. I think you're overblowing a simple declaration of sovereignty. That's all that really amounts to. If that language was not included, it would be an insult to our republic. We do not and should not capitulate to any power but by choice alone. In fact, I even have a problem with the qualifier that we only reserve the right to protect our soldiers if we're not a party to the criminal court in question. I'd rather reserve the right to protect our soldiers from any action we believe is wrong. If a criminal court were to be hijacked or subverted by another power, I'd rather not pretend as if we're supposed to concede to that corruption. Our sovereignty should never be regulated by any external force, no matter how benevolent or benign it may seem.

I caught a little of Rush talking about this today. I think he may be right here, in that he thinks republicans are trying to appear 'agreeable' because they're tired of looking "heartless"( a popular conservative mark ) and negative. Although, I'm wondering if the blue blooded republicans are going to take control of the party. That would be a boost for them with liberals, but horrible for protecting the constitution. We won't have any small government parties anymore. Well we don't now, I guess.... Come on Libertarian Party...time to make your move!

But one isn't claiming credit in the context iNow used it. That's why I find it so strange, because you seemed to have suddenly, arbitrarily, decided that someone's particular use of the pronoun "we" was a slithery attempt at taking credit for someone else's sacrifice. It just seemed quite clear to me that he was trying to speak for our republic. I'm not saying I agree with his take on the word, but I do think I understand his intent, and it certainly wasn't to rob the good people you speak of, of their credit. Your opinion is your opinion, so hopefully you're only apologizing for misunderstanding his use of "we". I don't see where you "crossed the line" anywhere; just typical forum exchange. Good to see ya' back by the way..

I think the parents should retain the right to refuse medical treatment for whatever voodoo reason they believe is right. And, I don't believe they should be in any trouble for negligence. This should all depend on whether or not the parents truly believe that is the right thing to do. Homocide by "pretend ignorance" should not be an option, tough as that may be to actually prove. The inverse that jumps out at me is when parents listen to doctors and move forward with medical help and the kid dies. By the logic of negligence, shouldn't the parents be punished then too? Information is "free" - we're not required to know stuff. So, someone is entirely free to be stupid about medicine and religion. Since you can't make people know certain things, how can you really punish them for not knowing medicine is the only sane response to certain health conditions? People have a right to refuse other people from cutting them and injecting things into their bodies. I see a dangerous precedent in forcing people to comply with the government's demand to allow some stranger to practice life and death on their children. It's the ole "force" thing again...over and over...it's all we seem to know.

Fair enough, but Jefferson serves as the recognized badge of that ideology. We got Jeffersonians in the anti-federalist corner and Hamiltonians in the other. Maybe I should update my previous post that started all of this to say "I would like to see a generation of anti-federalists cut our government's footprint in half".

I can't find any detail to support your somewhat ambiguous claim that Jefferson did decide to regulate on the terms you spelled out. "Did" and "Could" have profoundly philosophically different conclusions. But it matters little, since Jefferson and most of our forefathers and framers were hypocrites. They failed to live up to the ideals they catalyzed, which is why their written words are what matter. Hypocrites are a dime a dozen and we're all guilty - but hypocrisy has no real functional consequence. It's an emotional appeal that discredits one's character, but is entirely not related to the message - it is generally always advised to ignore the messenger, since even the most righteous can never fully live up to their own rhetoric. Jefferson wrote beautifully. Sometimes his words make me cry. Because I hear the parable and I think I understand what he wanted to be, as if even he knew he wasn't the man he should be. And then other times he just seems to be an opportunistic asshole. Sounds like a spiritual, philosophical struggle that most of us should be able to relate with, if we're honest with ourselves.

Oh that's cool. Most women do that...

Nothing happened to "what if". You "what if'd" and they answered, respectfully, "no". Why say "if" if you're not prepared to get "no" as an answer? Is it too threatening for you to receive anything other than a "yes"? Sorry, I usually don't jump in on these things but I've seen so many folks come in here and make believe scientists are narrow minded party poopers. Rather, they just follow through where you're not. They "what if" - and then they follow through by testing and confirming "if". And they have the unique ability to scratch the drawing board - no matter how painful - if it turns out "not".

Right, which is why I never presented it as such. Unlike Abdul-Aziz, I know how to qualify my statements. I know my limitations and I recognize the diversity in human nature.

This is true and I'm losing faith in it. I used to believe there was a moral and ethical imperative to force what's good for people in the face of their presumed ignorance of that good. Now I'm not so sure. Strangers shouldn't dictate what safety features are on my car - they should advise. Roads and where my house can be built seems a fair regulation for the strangers in government, as it protects us from each other and is an allocated responsibility for government, in my opinion, not a mandate from Daddy USA supposedly for my own good. Your point is taken though, and I meant for mine to question this insane benevolent presumption about government. It's the most corrupt body in the country. And we act like it's the natural check on corruption. It's a business with the weapon of law and order in its pocket. They are obsessed over revenue (effectively profit) and they have squandered the people's money - fed reserve - so much that it makes Enron look like a traffic violation. But we trust these strangers? And we want to invest in this thing? Even more? What the.... How much abuse do we have to suffer before we realize that the leash on government is far less effective than the choker in a freer market. I would like to see the trend fall away from socialism - a healthy distrust of government. I would like to see a generation of Jeffersonians cut our government's footprint in half. If not more. It's not good for us to depend so much on other people, blindly, so profoundly ignorantly. When I think how much of my survival I have given up to strangers it scares the hell out of me. But "creating a flu vaccine which works" may not be my goal. Since when are you qualified to comment on my goal? It's my preference, no matter how stupid you think it is. But I really meant more in terms of a choice available in the market - that is undermined by government. For instance, Iran comes up with a great vaccine that includes some features unavailable in the US version - but we ignore it since they are on the list of terror countries, or, we're too proud to use it. However, that's still a bad analogy, like you pointed out my doctor and I can do whatever we want. I concede your point. Like I mentioned above replying to Pangloss, I'm really more concerned with our general acquiescence to external authority. It's becoming easier and easier to give up survival functions to strangers - strangers that have proven to be corrupt and self serving. There's nothing altruistic about government. I would trust business before government. Why? Because the business is motivated by profit - the government is motivated by power. Business lies to get my money. Government lies to control me and my money. And the government does it with that car salesman smile using appeals to protect me and my family in exchange for liberties. I never trust someone who says "trust me". Nah, that's not true. Exploitation is naturally checked when there is no government structure, or otherwise, to impede new players into the market. Exploitation by monopoly is not a free market phenomenon - it's a government regulated market phenomenon. Not saying regulation isn't needed, just pointing out that when you regulate, there is a consequence and we must realize it as we accept it. Regulation begets regulation. When a big business is artificially propped up with law - not market supply and demand forces - then it restricts competition therefore allowing that company to behave badly without penalty - so you must "watch" them, which usually takes the form of even more law. That in mind, yes, I do believe the government does a great thing by providing these shots to those without access otherwise. But that's not socialism either. And I'm all for it.

Generally speaking though, yes. Most fellas I converse with love big breasts, have a preference for blondes, and want them to be a home girl by day, and total whore at night. That's practically universal for men. But only generally speaking. Personally, I prefer smaller breasts and brunettes, but I still prefer the home girl dirty slut routine. I get lumped into generalizations that I don't personally ascribe to as well - such as the classic affinity males have for large breasts - I really don't care much at all, but I also can't pretend the generalization isn't observable in my kind. And we do see women consistently drawn to pricks. Sometimes I wonder if being a selfish confident jerk portrays a nuance of alpha-male qualities - like a pseudo-alpha trick. Most of the guys I know that are more demanding of their mate, reserved in sharing emotion and committment, hard-to-please personality and restrictive in displaying affection and reward, tend to have wives that appear to "serve" them in a way - as if they're still trying to catch him. While the few really nice guys I know, domesticated males that freely initiate affection and regularly displays committment and appreciation have wives that appear to run their lives. So far, in my circle anyway, they are also the ones that cheat - with "bad ass" guys no less. This woud appear to compliment the OP's take on this. But I also freely admit that perhaps I'm cherry picking my memory here. And since I'm somewhat of a shut-in, my experience with other couples is probably not as extensive as yours. I just think that in general terms, there's some truth to this. Women and dangerous men is about as classic as women and chocolate, so I don't find the "violent criminal" element that much of a stretch. Also, wasn't there a thread recently where someone pointed out something about the out-group mate? That socially rebellious males draw the attention of females for mating due to some instict for gene diversity? The details escape me, but I thought it was fascinating. Could that have an impact on what we percieve as the bad-boy attraction?

So strangers I've never met decide what the vaccine contains without any regard to my preferences. These strangers also decide whether or not I can even have the shot. And, these same strangers apparently decide how much it will cost - market forces be damned. Of course, most of those consequences are my government of strangers exercising their advise. I don't see anything acceptable about that. If you want parental control over your life then why not just move back in with mom and dad? Seriously. Have you considered just how much of your survival you have "given up" to strangers? You entirely capitulate to them, with apparent infinite trust. I simply cannot relate to that kind of willful, fateful dependence on people I've never met. Socialism promotes a dependence on external forces, which threatens self preservation skills which in turn begets more dependence...that can only ever encroach on our freedom, never relax from it. I don't believe this is good for humans at all. And I don't buy this benevolent bill of sale. You wouldn't believe Wal-Mart if they promised the best for you, so why do you believe government? I would agree though that technical socialism and effective socialism are fairly transparent. While this particular example isn't technically socialism, it effectively is so.

Free market, baby...slow and dirty.

One thing we should point out is that an argument for free markets is not a pro-business argument. People hear "free markets" and immediately presume some dramatically favorable position for business to operate from. No. Big business, generally speaking, does not aspire to free markets. Once a business is fairly huge, then they begin to play "prevent defense" in their business practice. Guess what that is? Regulation for one (regulations make it tough for new entrepreneurs to enter the market, so through regulations government creates security for big business; hilariously enough, government aids the effect of monopoly). I'm not saying they lobby FOR regulations, but they lobby the dynamics of them, creating the right "cushion" for their asses. These examples of corporate cronyism and the lobbying - that's business securing their market by manipulating government. That is not compatible with free markets. With a truly free market, Big business MUST earn your business or else another entrepreneur will enter that market and take it from them. Laws cannot create security for them, ever. They are required to compete until they die. In case you've never really delved hard into free market philosophy, this is a great PDF on the nature of man, that explains the mechanics, the natural checks and balances of a free market system. The author goes a bit far in his bid for eliminating government entirely, and I found myself arguing with him internally from time to time, like any author, but the first 50 pages is a good foundation of logic concerning free market dynamics. Why we think it works better than overt government control, like we have today. Another thing I've noticed about folks against free markets, or at least nervous about them, is that they indict corporate behavior as if it isn't human nature. They throw up example after example where business greed hurts people. The irony being that the whole point about the free market is that it checks human nature. It does this because it counts on human nature in order to work - it's built in the design. In a free market when efficiency is sacrificed, or the consumer is exploited, the "signals" are sent and entrepreneurs enter that market and the exploitation ends. That's ideal. And it happens to work out that way in reality too. Except, when the government interferes and undermines the design, of course.

No, I'm not qualified to answer what Israel really wants, and I barely have any grasp on their history there. That's why my posts are more directed to the philosophical component of this. I meant that moral query exactly as I presented it. A kind of critical pondering about war and indefinite generational conflicts. (Though I did note Mooey's criticism about the difference in the generations and peace in years past). Unlike you, I don't see a victim and a perpatrator. I see two grownups. It takes two for peace, and one for war. Israel seems prepared for both, while Hamas seems prepared for the one - war.

This unresolved, never ending conflict always gets me wondering about the moral dilemma: Is it better to string out combat across generations, incrementally piling up dead? Or would it be better to "have it out" in one big fight? Peace is not an option, obviously. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better for Israel to just wipe out the opposition and nuke every country that militarily objects to it. Sounds like warmongering insanity, but is there no moral disgust in indefinite historical conflicts that slowly kill off humans decade after decade? It's like we expect Israel to behave as if there is a viable pretense for peace one day. I suppose that wouldn't stop anything and perhaps there's no way to truly end the fighting until either Israel doesn't exist or everything within a hundred miles of their border is smoldering. But to "accept" intermittent missle strikes as a way of life is nonsense and antithetical to human instinct for survival. How can we truly expect a people to comply with that kind of slow suicidal compromise? Yet they do. How sad. Then we have the nerve to imply their retaliation is disproportionate? As if war is supposed to be fair. I suppose next they're going to suggest it all be done by computer and have equal numbers of each side reporting to "disintegration chambers".

And I do too, actually. But I thought the Arab countries treated them like illegitimate children. While I appreciate the Arab support for Palestine, your stab at the media is a good point, and probably feeds the "poor little Palestinians being victimized by the rich machine of Israel" notion. We see the same thing with the US and terrorism. Of course, that's perverted with illegal war issues and torture and so on, but the sentiment of affluence = ignoble and poor = noble is codified in that din. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Stealing? How did the Palestinians earn that land? How do countries claim land, Bombus? Who decides how much land to claim? Couldn't the first humans to conjure up silly notions of ownership just have claimed the earth as their land? Aren't we all stealing? No matter what people claim land, there's always people before them. Like I said, borders are negotiable by force and very rarely, if at all, by any philosophical justice. The earth's resources are for us to divide and nature chose competition as the method. Humans have thus far complied gloriously with nature's rules. Sorry, but land and borders are one of those subjects that nobody is really in any position to judge in terms of right and wrong - we're all living on somebody else's home.

This is so clearly a big guy - little guy thing. Israel is more than justified in doing what it's doing, and doing it with class since they could have delivered the Palestinians a holocaust 10 times over by now, yet they continue to take their own casualties to err on the side of humanity rather than to err on the side of security. Reading these Palestine / Israel threads, it becomes clear that some would presume an aura of natural innocence about Palestine's poverty stricken military. Somehow it's honorable to kill little kids and target civilians as long as your gun is cheap and you are desperate. Likewise, if you're doing well, then you have no reason to live. Just take it and die because Hamas can't be expected to behave as we expect Israel. There seems to be this weird notion that Israel is the metaphorical grownup while Hamas portrays the child and so we're all supposed to be cool with the idea that kids can hit grownups, but grownups should never hit kids. So we get this one sided bologna where Hamas's behavior is to be expected, but Israel's is out of line. This is not acceptable, in my opinion. Hamas are grownups - poor maybe, but grown up. Every border is negotiable by force, and very rarely by philosophical appeal. If Palestine doesn't have the government and military to take what they believe is theirs, and they don't, they'd be better served to cease their own fire, and grow and evolve for a few generations and then launch an invasion in 2080 when they're militarily advanced enough to do it. Otherwise, they run the risk of eventually pissing off Israel so much that they get wiped out entirely.