You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Torture etc.
- Thread starter spankingman
- Start date
In the famous words of OBL: "Western nations have no balls. Bunch of pussies."
Torturing is a pussies way, balls is having principle and not compromising your principles in the face of harm.
Balls is having principle and not compromising your principles in the face of harm.
Oh I think we agree about the role of principles. It's just that our values lead us to having different principles. For example, I don't think I could condemn an innocent to death because my "principles" tell me it's not ok to scare or hurt someone who's trying to hurt or kill them.
I'll grant you're within your rights to sacrifice your own life for your beliefs. But your family and dog? That seems somewhat cavalier.
balls is having principle and not compromising your principles in the face of harm.
The Rockslingers have been around for 100,000 years and we never compromise our principle of protecting the family first and foremost. Nothing is more important than family on this Earth.
B
burt-oh-my!
In the famous words of OBL: "Western nations have no balls. Bunch of pussies."
Au contraire, we are the ones who refuse to be ruled by tyrants and assorted thugs who violate basic human rights.
The ones who you think have balls, i.e. tyrants and totalitarian regimes, - funny, they have a lot of cuarage about wasting OTHER peoples lives, such as their militaries and the poor SOBS in their armies.
Au contraire, we are the ones who refuse to be ruled by tyrants and assorted thugs who violate basic human rights.
Yes, I totally agree with you BUT OBL was speaking of a different context. OBL meant that the "soft" West is unable or unwilling to get "down and dirty" when confronted with an immoral, uncivilized and barbaric enemy.
B
burt-oh-my!
Yes, I totally agree with you BUT OBL was speaking of a different context. OBL meant that the "soft" West is unable or unwilling to get "down and dirty" when confronted with an immoral, uncivilized and barbaric enemy.
LOL, in other words, a moral, civil, modern society is cowardly because, well, they aren't willing to become, err......down and dirty, meaning .... immoral, uncivilized and barbaric when confronted with an immoral, uncivilized and barbaric enemy.
LOL, in other words, a moral, civil, modern society is cowardly because, well, they aren't willing to become, err......down and dirty, meaning .... immoral, uncivilized and barbaric when confronted with an immoral, uncivilized and barbaric enemy.
I respect your beliefs but I hope you will do everything in your power to defend yourself and your family if you are ever attacked by some brutal street thugs (but I will understand if you don't).
LOL, in other words, a moral, civil, modern society is cowardly because, well, they aren't willing to become, err......down and dirty, meaning .... immoral, uncivilized and barbaric when confronted with an immoral, uncivilized and barbaric enemy.
Where is this moral civil society that's unwilling to become "down and dirty"?
B
burt-oh-my!
I respect your beliefs but I hope you will do everything in your power to defend yourself and your family if you are ever attacked by some brutal street thugs (but I will understand if you don't).
Oh, I'll defend myself quite well, thanks very much.
But lets stick to the topic at hand: torture.
B
burt-oh-my!
Where is this moral civil society that's unwilling to become "down and dirty"?
I presume ROCKSLINGER meant the West, as he was contrasting the soft West with the opposite of the abovementioned values.
So, us, our society, as I am sure you knew. I take it that what you really want to say is that our society is none of these things, to which I would disagree. Not perfect, of course, but better than the alternatives, dont you think?
No, of course not. I think you've either fooled yourself, or are a hypocrite if you think our society merits being thought of as moral, civilized etc. and worse, presumably that other societies where torture happens don't merit being thought of that way.
That is the thinking of a child.
The truth is all societies pay lip service to similar moral ideals, but none honour them. To bring us back to the point at issue, torture happens every where. In some places it's open, in others perhaps one or two steps removed. But it happens.
Dershowitz is simply saying that given that fact, we should put rules around it. That way, there would be a framework for judging its use.
That is the thinking of a child.
The truth is all societies pay lip service to similar moral ideals, but none honour them. To bring us back to the point at issue, torture happens every where. In some places it's open, in others perhaps one or two steps removed. But it happens.
Dershowitz is simply saying that given that fact, we should put rules around it. That way, there would be a framework for judging its use.
B
burt-oh-my!
OK, this is just plain silly now, equating our system with the likes of what goes or has gone on in in Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Darfur, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cloumbia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, most of the former Soviet Union, China, Myanmar, ...
Since this website is focussed to some extent on women...
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/326354
So, we are the same as these countries?
From markhumphrys.com:
Western values are the best
I believe in the western Enlightenment model of free speech, human rights, democracy and capitalism. These ideas are universal, and they will work for every country that adopts them. Every country in the world should adopt these ideas. They will be much freer, much happier, and incidentally much richer, if they do.
If the whole world adopts these ideas it will mean the end of war forever. This isn't an opinion. This is statistical fact.
My world view might be shocking if you were brought up in the polite left-liberal consensus in Europe. My view is that there is something basically wrong with the non-westernised world. My view is that humanity has discovered the correct way to live - the so-called western way - and any country in the world that doesn't adopt it is simply backward. Other races aren't backward. Other cultures are. Western values - reason, science, democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, free press, a secular state, private property, free enterprise, and so on - are not the property of one racial group (as America itself shows). They belong to all races, and these values should be adopted by the whole world.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09.pdf
Since this website is focussed to some extent on women...
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/326354
So, we are the same as these countries?
From markhumphrys.com:
Western values are the best
I believe in the western Enlightenment model of free speech, human rights, democracy and capitalism. These ideas are universal, and they will work for every country that adopts them. Every country in the world should adopt these ideas. They will be much freer, much happier, and incidentally much richer, if they do.
If the whole world adopts these ideas it will mean the end of war forever. This isn't an opinion. This is statistical fact.
My world view might be shocking if you were brought up in the polite left-liberal consensus in Europe. My view is that there is something basically wrong with the non-westernised world. My view is that humanity has discovered the correct way to live - the so-called western way - and any country in the world that doesn't adopt it is simply backward. Other races aren't backward. Other cultures are. Western values - reason, science, democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, free press, a secular state, private property, free enterprise, and so on - are not the property of one racial group (as America itself shows). They belong to all races, and these values should be adopted by the whole world.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09.pdf
Oh my indeed. My first impression of you was correct.
You've abandoned the original topic of torture, so I guess you have no answer to Dershowitz's argument.
As for your, "world view" as you put it, here are some answers and points for you to consider.
No. In my view, we're worse. Those countries are almost all afflicted with grinding poverty and almost all if not all have a sad history of being abused by the West you find to be morally superior. Why do I say we're worse? Look at the U.S. It abides by the rules only when it suits its national interest. It practices the lamentable policy of extraordinary rendition, getting others to torture on its behalf, which in my view makes the U.S. not only a torturer, but a cowardly one.
Your world view is shocking. Shockingly dumb. How do you explain the situation we're in if your world view is correct?
One of these tenses is wrong. But I'm not in the mood to mine your distorted brain to find out what you meant.
You've abandoned the original topic of torture, so I guess you have no answer to Dershowitz's argument.
As for your, "world view" as you put it, here are some answers and points for you to consider.
So, we are the same as these countries?
No. In my view, we're worse. Those countries are almost all afflicted with grinding poverty and almost all if not all have a sad history of being abused by the West you find to be morally superior. Why do I say we're worse? Look at the U.S. It abides by the rules only when it suits its national interest. It practices the lamentable policy of extraordinary rendition, getting others to torture on its behalf, which in my view makes the U.S. not only a torturer, but a cowardly one.
Your world view is shocking. Shockingly dumb. How do you explain the situation we're in if your world view is correct?
If the whole world adopts these ideas it will mean the end of war forever. This isn't an opinion. This is statistical fact.
One of these tenses is wrong. But I'm not in the mood to mine your distorted brain to find out what you meant.
B
burt-oh-my!
You seem incapable of taking a discussion and not making it personal. That's a sign of immaturity.
"Shockingly dumb. distorted brain" Please, grow up. It contributes nothing to the discussion.
I can only presume you are actively attempting to move to those countries which you find so superior to us then? Got your visa to North Korea now, do you?
You make a huge error, common to those wishing to bend facts to suit their own point of view no matter the cost: just because their are exceptions doesn't mean that the general argument isn't completely valid. for instance, the US - OF BLOODY COURSE a huge, powerful country like that is going ot have made mistakes, and done immoral things along the way. So what? that proves nothing other than imperfection. Try to think ON BALANCE. Generally, greater rule of law, respect for individual rights, etc. The very fact that the US has come to its senses on torture shows somethign about the kind of society it is. Who provided the Marshall Plan, for instance? But no, I don't want to go down the same logical road as you, pointing out specific insatnces of do-gooding. in general th eUS is a far far bigger respecter of human rights than those countries I mentioned earlier. Even with the lapses.
Two more points; you tellingly point out how poor those countries are. Hmmm, any possibility that thy are poor BECAUSE of their lack of human rights? Lack of property rights, for instance, will lead to underinvestment, and the subsequent rise of living standards. Maybe, just maybe, the rights come first, the prosperity after?
Secondly, we can argue all day, but a very good impartial indicator of what is truly what is immigration flows. If a place is attracting a lot of immigrants, it is attractive, and if people are leaving, there's something wrong with that place. The only way you can argue with that fact is to say that they are all wrong, that YOU know better, which in itself is a profoundly undemocratic way of thinking.
"Shockingly dumb. distorted brain" Please, grow up. It contributes nothing to the discussion.
I can only presume you are actively attempting to move to those countries which you find so superior to us then? Got your visa to North Korea now, do you?
You make a huge error, common to those wishing to bend facts to suit their own point of view no matter the cost: just because their are exceptions doesn't mean that the general argument isn't completely valid. for instance, the US - OF BLOODY COURSE a huge, powerful country like that is going ot have made mistakes, and done immoral things along the way. So what? that proves nothing other than imperfection. Try to think ON BALANCE. Generally, greater rule of law, respect for individual rights, etc. The very fact that the US has come to its senses on torture shows somethign about the kind of society it is. Who provided the Marshall Plan, for instance? But no, I don't want to go down the same logical road as you, pointing out specific insatnces of do-gooding. in general th eUS is a far far bigger respecter of human rights than those countries I mentioned earlier. Even with the lapses.
Two more points; you tellingly point out how poor those countries are. Hmmm, any possibility that thy are poor BECAUSE of their lack of human rights? Lack of property rights, for instance, will lead to underinvestment, and the subsequent rise of living standards. Maybe, just maybe, the rights come first, the prosperity after?
Secondly, we can argue all day, but a very good impartial indicator of what is truly what is immigration flows. If a place is attracting a lot of immigrants, it is attractive, and if people are leaving, there's something wrong with that place. The only way you can argue with that fact is to say that they are all wrong, that YOU know better, which in itself is a profoundly undemocratic way of thinking.
Oh I think we agree about the role of principles. It's just that our values lead us to having different principles. For example, I don't think I could condemn an innocent to death because my "principles" tell me it's not ok to scare or hurt someone who's trying to hurt or kill them.
I'll grant you're within your rights to sacrifice your own life for your beliefs. But your family and dog? That seems somewhat cavalier.
are you upset about the dog or the family?
Canada is not so pious people It was only the early 70's when the LASH was removed from the Judicial books. My wifes uncle was a CO at a Fed Penn in the 50's and 60's and was one of the CO's called upon many times to administer it. He always said one session and most inmates NEVER screwed up again!!!!!!
He always said one session and most inmates NEVER screwed up again!!!!!!
Is there a lesson here? I heard car vandals get 50 lashes in Singapore. Guess what, no cars get vandalized in Singapore. Are Singaporeans immoral?
Is there a lesson here? I heard car vandals get 50 lashes in Singapore. Guess what, no cars get vandalized in Singapore. Are Singaporeans immoral?
if no cars get vandalized then what car vandals are getting 50 lashes?
if no cars get vandalized then what car vandals are getting 50 lashes?
Actually, a foreigner (an American) did vandalized some cars and was caught and sentenced to 50 lashes. President Clinton rode to the rescue and said that the Singaporeans were barbarians because it is the human right of every American citizen to be allowed to vandalize cars.
