I was misled

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message


[...]

The torture that has occurred puts the Bush II administration's
prior vehement opposition to the ICC in a new light, does it not?

Bush opposed the International Cricket Council? Geez, 'muricans
don't even play the game!

But to be fair, there is something positive to say about cricket...
it's the only game that makes baseball look exciting!

Ah, you've never seen it then.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"DRS" wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message


[...]

The torture that has occurred puts the Bush II administration's
prior vehement opposition to the ICC in a new light, does it not?

Bush opposed the International Cricket Council? Geez, 'muricans
don't even play the game!

But to be fair, there is something positive to say about cricket...
it's the only game that makes baseball look exciting!

Ah, you've never seen it then.

I'm afraid I have... I lived in Australia a couple years. To be fair,
I actually DID enjoy watching cricket - it's just the big matches that
go on for days are VERY tedious (to someone without a dog in the hunt
at last).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...

Show me where I "defended" the torture.

Go back up the thread and respond there. Copy-paste-quote is not
necessary.

Translation: I can't come up with a quote.

"I figure they were put up to it by an intel puke. Hope they at least
got the info they needed. Maybe that's how we got Saddam, who knows?"

Of course, for the rest of your post, you state that it's wrong.
Which way is it:

1.) The ends justify the means, or,

2.) Morality is absolute.

3.) You have preconceived notions OR poor reading comprehension.

My preconceived notion that torture of a human is evil? You damn
betcha.

You seem to be having difficulty with what constitutes a moral
argument. In a moral argument, the means are just as important as the
ends, thus NO good can come of an evil deed.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your clergyman.

I said it was bad on just about every level.

And then go on to make an "ends/means" argument. They are
incompatible. I know this is tough, and maybe when you figure out the
simple stuff like this, we can move on to your "proof" strawman.

Hoping that at least
something GOOD came out of it is QUITE different than justifying it.

No, it's a semantics game. No good can come from an evil act in any
moral situation.

If a cyclist is killed at a dangerous intersection, I can certainly
hope that they'll redesign the intersection as a result without
supporting killing cyclists, don't you think?

For your analogy to have any meaning, the following would have to
occur:

1.) The assumed motorist would have to have the intent to kill the
cyclist, and

2.) The goal of the motorist would be to change the design of the
intersection.

It was a mistake on almost
every level

Hey, we agree. So why even bother trying to make apologies for doing
it?

Heh heh heh. See above.

Who's laughing now?

Me. Thanks for asking.

I understand that sometimes disturbed folks laugh at the wrong things
in the wrong places.

OK then, show me a credible link to the SecDef and we'll go from there
(you seem to be striking out a lot - let's see how you do on this
one).

Above, in the thread, the SecDef is talking to the DOJ about stuff,
and out pops this memo. Smoking gun? No, but it certainly can raise
a few eyebrows amongst those who might question how far our government
might go to extract intel.

OK, so we agree - no proof. Next subject....

Sorry, but I can't let you off the hook. Since your standards of
proof are so low, this ought to be plenty for you. After all, I don't
see you producing any proof that he didn't order torture.

For reference, let's just say "mobile bioweapons lab", "ready stores
of WMD", and "didn't provide destruction documentation." I'm sure the
more astute will get the references.

I find the DOJ memo credible.

If Rummy ordered it, OK'ed it, knew about it but looked the other way,
then it's up to Shrub to give him the heave-ho. If that's all the
case, and Rummy stays on, then that's an implicit "okey-dokey" on
torture.

Like I said, come up with a credible source tying it back to Rumsfield
and we can talk about it.

I did already, upthread. And here.

You haven't posted squat that backs up your point - there's certainly
nothing in this post (I haven't trimmed it either). C'mon... surely
you can cite the actual memo that serves as the smoking gun... you
couldn't be imagining all this could you?

Of course not. And you again reiterate your strawman requirement of a
smoking gun. I never claimed to have proof, at any point. I am using
the same sort of reasoning conservatives used for war justification,
so you ought to be OK with it. The memo exists - try using the
following search string in Google:

"justice torture memo"

Copy and paste, and you'll find analysis and the full text of the memo
in the links.

Of course, once it was made public, the administration tried to wash
their hands of it. LOL.

Either torture is wrong, no matter what the outcome, or it's OK in
some circumstances.

Pick one.

Errrr, it's wrong.

Then, no good can come of it. Ever. (This is the moral argument.
The ends/means argument is where some good can come of it. Try to
keep those straight henceforth.)

Then, tell me that it's just not possible that the SecDef or even the
POTUS gave an "OK" to it. Current evidence suggests it goes higher
than just a few folks in-theatre.

You'd like to think so, but you don't have a clue.

Funny, that memo seems to argue otherwise. I notice that you did not
state whether or not you think it impossible that someone from the
White House or the Pentagon gave an order to torture. Is it possible,
or not?

What if I started
suggesting it was your idea?

You could, but there's no memo justifying it from my department.

Wouldn't that be the same as trying to
pin it on anyone else without the vaguest hint of any proof?

Read the memo. It's quite enlightening.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy wrote:

...
Then, no good can come of it. Ever. (This is the moral argument.
The ends/means argument is where some good can come of it. Try to
keep those straight henceforth.)...

This is logically wrong. It is entirely possible than an immoral act can
result in positive (morally good) consequences.

However, no matter what the results of the initial act are, they can not
change the morality of that act: an immoral act remains immoral.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Tom Sherman wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

...
Then, no good can come of it. Ever. (This is the moral argument.
The ends/means argument is where some good can come of it. Try to
keep those straight henceforth.)...

This is logically wrong. It is entirely possible than an immoral act can
result in positive (morally good) consequences.

However, no matter what the results of the initial act are, they can not
change the morality of that act: an immoral act remains immoral.

I've given up on Jonesy. It's like trying to reason with a turnip.
He misses the most fundamental points so he can spin off on dozens of
rabbit trails on every thread.

Pithy he ain't.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
Tom Sherman wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

...
Then, no good can come of it. Ever. (This is the moral argument.
The ends/means argument is where some good can come of it. Try to
keep those straight henceforth.)...

This is logically wrong. It is entirely possible than an immoral act can
result in positive (morally good) consequences.

However, no matter what the results of the initial act are, they can not
change the morality of that act: an immoral act remains immoral.

I've given up on Jonesy.

It's better to have a logical argument to begin with, rather than
circumlocute and then give up.

It's like trying to reason with a turnip.

So, in comparison, you are some sort of igneous material?

He misses the most fundamental points so he can spin off on dozens of
rabbit trails on every thread.

No, I *disagree with the logic* of your fundemental points. See,
that's why you never make any progress in these threads - your
arguments are full of holes, so your points have no meaning. They are
not *missed*, they are *dismissed.*

Pithy he ain't.

I didn't know that values discussions were about who is pithy and who
ain't. Pithiness is great for cocktail parties, but discussions about
serious issues require a different approach. Maybe you are a
sociopath? Dunno.

Good to see that the memo shut your big yap. See ya next argument...
--
Jonesy

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
Jonesy wrote:

...
Then, no good can come of it. Ever. (This is the moral argument.
The ends/means argument is where some good can come of it. Try to
keep those straight henceforth.)...

This is logically wrong.

No, it actually isn't. Read some Kant for his views on right vs.
wrong.

It is entirely possible than an immoral act can
result in positive (morally good) consequences.

This is the philosophy of utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill is an
excellent read on this particular ethical philosophy.

However, no matter what the results of the initial act are, they can not
change the morality of that act: an immoral act remains immoral.

Indeed. In the case of Judeo-Christian fundementalists, many of the
theologians will say that no good can come of an evil act. The
outcome may appear to have utility, but the "goodness" is removed by
the "evilness" of the original act. This is a consequence of hewing
to absolute morality. Once you define what is good and what is evil,
you are bound by your own definition to do only what is good. The
problem comes where most humans tend to be utilitarian - some bad acts
are justified, due to a very desirable outcome. One might cite
Hiroshima and Nagasaki as these kinds of events.

Once one accepts a utilitarian viewpoint, then one also must accept
that not all people value things in the same ways, and that their view
of what is good and evil might not match yours. Without some sort of
external reference, good and evil are both on a sliding scale,
depending on the act and the outcome. Absolutists would have you
believe that they are the only ones with the true knowledge of good
and evil, and thus are qualified to make value judgements upon various
acts. Osama bin Laden plays absolutist, but his acts show he is a
utilitarian.

Now, before you go and semantically pick apart the above, humans have
been working on the nature of good and evil for all of recorded
history, and no doubt before that as well. Thousands and thousands of
pages have been written on the subject. Personally, I am a
utilitarian with a belief set close to John Stuart Mill. He has a
pretty high threshold for condoning an immoral act to bring about a
moral outcome. He also recognizes that humans cannot know absolutely
what is good and what is evil, because there is no external reference
point. In any case, my few paragraphs cannot, in any way, do the
subject any kind of justice. I'm just trying to get at Mark's
Kerry-like flip-flopping. "It's evil, but it's OK because the outcome
is good, blah, blah, blah."

Funny thing - my college philosophy professor was a staunch
conservative. Smartest conservative I ever met. If you consider Bill
Buckley an intellectual conservative, I'd say my prof would be able to
have a serious, evenly-matched debate with him. My prof would often
shake his head at so-called political conservatives, mostly because he
said they were "fuzzy-headed non-thinkers."

Most the conservatives I've met fit that description to a tee.
Strangely enough, many liberals are also afflicted with this
"disease." Maybe it's because they're trying to occupy a portion of
the political spectrum that lends itself to contradictions - I have no
idea. Neither extreme has any monopoly on clear thought, that's for
damn sure.
--
Jonesy

(Jonesy) wrote:

Something.

Whatever... (yawn)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Something.

Whatever... (yawn)

Heh.

I suppose this is supposed to be a "pithy" rejoinder.

Keep on worshipping the Shrub Torture Machine. I'm sure that the
"rule of law" is just a convenient phrase used when the situation
warrants. Quite "utilitarian."

LOL.
--
Jonesy

(Jonesy) wrote in message . com...
Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
Jonesy wrote:

...
Then, no good can come of it. Ever. (This is the moral argument.
The ends/means argument is where some good can come of it. Try to
keep those straight henceforth.)...

This is logically wrong.

No, it actually isn't. Read some Kant for his views on right vs.
wrong.

Jonesy:

Actually, Kant talks about the categorical imperative which is not
grounded on logic, but in faith. The categorical imperative stipulates
that we should always take the morally correct route because this is
the imperative supercedes everything else.

Kant's argument is in response to our limitation as humans to
understand things based on experience, with only time and space, cause
and effect and math as the only apriori rational categories of
understanding. Because there are no categories of understanding that
allow us to judge what is morally correct, he uses faith as his
gorunding for coming up with the categorical imperative which
supercedes logic. I would agree with you that there ain't no Kantian
categorical imperative for GW. I think that his categorical imperative
is to have fun and make money. I have to run now. I hope that this
makes sense,

Andres


It is entirely possible than an immoral act can
result in positive (morally good) consequences.

This is the philosophy of utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill is an
excellent read on this particular ethical philosophy.

However, no matter what the results of the initial act are, they can not
change the morality of that act: an immoral act remains immoral.

Indeed. In the case of Judeo-Christian fundementalists, many of the
theologians will say that no good can come of an evil act. The
outcome may appear to have utility, but the "goodness" is removed by
the "evilness" of the original act. This is a consequence of hewing
to absolute morality. Once you define what is good and what is evil,
you are bound by your own definition to do only what is good. The
problem comes where most humans tend to be utilitarian - some bad acts
are justified, due to a very desirable outcome. One might cite
Hiroshima and Nagasaki as these kinds of events.

Once one accepts a utilitarian viewpoint, then one also must accept
that not all people value things in the same ways, and that their view
of what is good and evil might not match yours. Without some sort of
external reference, good and evil are both on a sliding scale,
depending on the act and the outcome. Absolutists would have you
believe that they are the only ones with the true knowledge of good
and evil, and thus are qualified to make value judgements upon various
acts. Osama bin Laden plays absolutist, but his acts show he is a
utilitarian.

Now, before you go and semantically pick apart the above, humans have
been working on the nature of good and evil for all of recorded
history, and no doubt before that as well. Thousands and thousands of
pages have been written on the subject. Personally, I am a
utilitarian with a belief set close to John Stuart Mill. He has a
pretty high threshold for condoning an immoral act to bring about a
moral outcome. He also recognizes that humans cannot know absolutely
what is good and what is evil, because there is no external reference
point. In any case, my few paragraphs cannot, in any way, do the
subject any kind of justice. I'm just trying to get at Mark's
Kerry-like flip-flopping. "It's evil, but it's OK because the outcome
is good, blah, blah, blah."

Funny thing - my college philosophy professor was a staunch
conservative. Smartest conservative I ever met. If you consider Bill
Buckley an intellectual conservative, I'd say my prof would be able to
have a serious, evenly-matched debate with him. My prof would often
shake his head at so-called political conservatives, mostly because he
said they were "fuzzy-headed non-thinkers."

Most the conservatives I've met fit that description to a tee.
Strangely enough, many liberals are also afflicted with this
"disease." Maybe it's because they're trying to occupy a portion of
the political spectrum that lends itself to contradictions - I have no
idea. Neither extreme has any monopoly on clear thought, that's for
damn sure.