I will explain why your "love for country" scares me, and why it makes me sad.
When looking to history for examples of great leaders who drew a line in the sand of what is right and wrong I always fall to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Both took a path of non-violence, both died for their beliefs, and both created a positive impact for humanity (not just themselves) that will live on long after they left us.
There are millions of examples of leaders who have taken steps that are out of line with their publicized beliefs. This is my assumption of the root cause of "the worlds" issues with the United States. We claim to be on the "right side" of incidents, conflicts, and nation building projects. We insert our own belief system on other countries as if it is the only possible choice for a successful society. We claim the moral high ground.
Then we leak false intelligence to our leaders, allies, and general populace. Whilst in the hunt, we compromise our values further by resorting to tactics we have agreed with the World not to utilize. When caught in our actions, we resort to "well...it worked".
I don't think Martin Luther King Jr. would have water boarded a known Klansmen so he could find out if there were credible threats on his marches or demonstrations.
I believe that we as people... not just as Americans... have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies. If you are a Christian you are told to love your enemies, to pray for them, and to turn the other cheek. Where in this "Christian Nation" (a popular rightwing catch phrase these days) is there room for physical and mental abuse?
There should be none... apparently, based on our actions... there is plenty.
This is why your love of country scares me. You approve of, and applaude that we dipped to their level. You see it as both necessary and agreeable.
I do not want us to be like them.
The white elephant in the room... we already are.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
--- Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Check out my Sketchbook! Critique and Criticism welcomed.
or my Deviantart!
· or check out my: Blog
Burning Chrome, you have said exactly what I was hoping to never see.
You know what, fine, I will back down from this thread. It seems that all of my posts have the equivalent of "shit", according to you Burning Chrome.
I not once insulted anyone of you or your intelligence. I might of made a sarcastic notion or two, but deliberately demoralizing and disgracing one's beliefs as "shit" is not what I'm about. Burning Chrome, I do not know if you meant what you said, but to call my words "shit" gives me the impression you honestly do not care about opposing points of view. I at least attempted to understand everyone that opposed me (and I could of done a better job sympathizing), yet all I received in return was feelings of hate.
I try to have a decent debate with you all but in the end I'm assaulted on a personal level? Am I really that pathetic in your eyes? To label my words as "shit"? I'll tell all you right now I have the highest regard for you, your inputs and your character. Now I don't know about that... I have a growing feeling I was wrong to accept each of you of good character if you insist on declaring, or backing up, insults against me or anyone else who dares think differently.
If it satisfies you, I take every word back and every thing I ever thought about you all. If what I say really is "shit" then I guess there is no point in me writing this because, well, this would be "shit" too now wouldn't it?
Please, if anyone dares to be so bold to tell me I'm wrong then do so. I want to think better of you all so show me that you deserve it! I really don't like to think negatively of others, even when my thoughts are treated like crap.
I beg you all good day.
Last edited by Wiggles; May 9th, 2009 at 03:25 AM.
But more importantly, nations should do the moral thing because it's the right bloody thing to do. That's sort of the definition of morality. I'm not so naive as to believe that nations typically behave in such a manner, but that's no excuse for not casting what influence you have on the side of good.
If I had to choose... I actually don't know which would be worse.
To be beaten to a pulp, or to be tortured in a more controlled, less physical way for a long period of time. I think the latter case, my mind wouldn't come out intact, even if my body did.
I am reminded of this video where you can see a contrast between physical and psychological damage.
Last edited by Prometheus|ANJ; May 9th, 2009 at 03:55 AM. Reason: typo
Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
I think where this question all boils down to is: Can we take action based on a moral highground?
With that question you soon come to the question: Can you say that you are any better person than the person next to you? Because that is what you are basicaly saying when you say you have a moral highground.
I strongly believe that the answer on the last question is no. We've had to many experiences in history that show us that answering yes to this question is a very dangerous thing to do. ( I don't think I have to show examples, because I hope by now, we all know them)
Since I believe that there isn't something like a moral highground, it makes no sence to take actions based on that moral highground, so torture is for me a simple no.
I said Burning Chrome had made an attack on me and implied that others sit back and watched. Maybe it was unintentional on their part to miss what had been said. Maybe not. I do not know. I cannot speak for another human being but I can fill in the gaps with what I see until I'm otherwise told.
I appreciate your response Bronke.
I can count on you in the future to stand up and voice your opinion.
Once again, if I am running away - okay - I'm running away. But I don't go off without being heard - you and Bronke are evidence of hearing me out.
I simply will not debate with anyone who throws the trump card by belittling his opponent to the point where his thoughts don't even matter. I cannot argue with someone who thinks that to win they must debacle the opposition through disgracing their very purpose for arguing.
Telling someone their ideas are "shit" shows me the aggressor has nothing better to do than to ignore the debate going on to make a personal attack on the opposition.
For me to debate with such an individual is not worth my time.
If by debate you mean reciting the talking points of Fox News pundits, then yes, you have accomplished that feat. You have not contributed one iota of substantive materials or responses towards understanding why the U.S. government might choose to engage in harsh interrogation tactics beyond the sophomoric replies of "we're the good guys" and "they are the evil-doers."Originally Posted by Wiggles
I criticized the validity and strength of your arguments yes, but if you believe that somehow those are attacks on you as a person, let me be clear: they are not. I'm only responding to the words you've chosen to post here, and that analysis stands until you can provide something more concrete to support the validity of your acceptance of torture as a means for gathering credible intel.Originally Posted by Wiggles
And while we're on the topic, I DID provide elaboration in my previous post on what specifically I deemed as seriously wrong with your arguments:
Allow me to clarify then - your arguments are shit. Let me be more in-depth: the crux of your arguments advocating the use of torture as the means towards attaining some greater tangible moral or positive real-world outcome based on the premise of unchallengeable U.S. moral authority bears no difference in comparison to the very same fundamental dogmatism that motivates those you deem as 'evil' or 'Bad Guys' by default.
And here we go.
I have no ties with the FOX news class. I may prefer them, but I do not view them. I've lost my interest in watching the news. Period.
Is your second sentence aimed towards calling us the "bad guys"? I consider us to be the "good guys" because we don't slaughter our captives or experiment on them. We are "good" because we capture and investigate by methods (that maybe potentially harmful to one's health if done incorrectly, granted) to save lives.
I cannot even begin to convince you that we were doing before was not torture and you can't prove the opposite to me. I stand on the grounds that we were right to do what we did to save lives. You tell me, how many people have been saved from buttering up hostile bastards? Do people work cooperatively under fear or under comfort? If I were to think I was going to die then I would tell them everything or worn out. If I had my captives kissing up to me I have no reason to tell them anything because I have no reason to fear them, wouldn't you? Of course, neither of us are killers and neither of us are insane so it's hard to say what exactly goes on in a delusional brain. Buy hey, if you are content of thinking we're soulless monsters for scaring captives then by golly you might be onto something!
Hah! You just acknowledge that "the words [I've] chosen," is shit. So then you must understand that the words I chose were for a reason. What reason? What we did to captives was not torture. Should I cite Gomorrah for you to read? It seems absolutely bizarre to even consider what we did as torture! I'll say it again, despite I'd only be repeating myself: What we did was not torture. Period. Therefore what we did is not torture anybody. That being said, I see a crack in your analysis.
I have given you the evidence you need to see what torture is, and what we did was far from it. If you think what we did was torture would you stop a parent disciplining their child as torture? Do you think we are inherently bad, we for sure aren't being very nice, for using the methods that we did to investigate? What is your purpose for calling what we did torture? What IS torture in your book?
Look, Burning Chrome, I enjoy your input and think it's great you are dedicated to your position just as much as I am to mine. I see your approach more abrasive than mine which is why I reacted the way I did.
Good talkin' to ya.
You holding a certain position in a debate is not a bad thing, you are however holding onto an idea which when scrutinised is completely devoid of any semblance to reality. Good luck with that.
Good grief. Still going on about that eh? Would it make you feel better if people called your arguments "doodie" or "crumalamadingdong"?
Sorry Wiggles, but your arguments come from a position of supposed righteousness (i.e. I love my country therefore it's right! We're the good guys they're the bad guys!) without much reasoning behind them. Your arguments really do sound like the rhetoric and propaganda that FOX news churns out everyday to feed to people who don't think on their own.
So you keep claiming that waterboarding is not torture, did you actually see the videos I posted up? Did you see what it entails? I think you think waterboarding is merely splashing water on the victim's face while he holds his breath. It seems that you have a very very narrow definition of what torture is.
I think you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you said it's an acceptable torture rather insisting that it's not torture at all. Because that just shows us that you're not being honest at all or just out of touch with reality.
In case you neglected to read it the first time, I'll post this again:Originally Posted by Wiggles
"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that [waterboarding] as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans. I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak. If the United States was in another conflict, which could easily happen, with another country, and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted on people we hold captive, then there's nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."
- John McCain
And your evidence in support of such claims is what exactly?Originally Posted by Wiggles
Really? More abrasive than your stance of supporting "torture utilitarianism"?:Originally Posted by Wiggles
Originally Posted by Wiggles
Wiggles, I'm not going to continue further - if presenting the counter argument against your stance on the issue of torture by using factual evidence somehow seems harsh, I'll stop and leave it to the voice of others who might fare better at the task.
TASmith, I second the thread closure
Last edited by burning_chrome; May 9th, 2009 at 08:37 PM. Reason: Relevance
Ok this thread was hardcore like this