if we waterboarded everyone for DUI, we could soon reduce the number of American citizens dying a violent death each year by thousands. if we tortured every drug dealer, we could reduce drug-related violent deaths significantly as well. if we waterboarded everyone who owns a gun, crime would stop.
the war on terror doesn’t meet the “whatever it takes” level, i’m sorry.
sesquipedalian on April 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM
You have very precisely not responded to my argument at all. I argued that we have to argue each case individually and you create some strawmen silliness about torture and drunk driving. I'm modern enough in my beliefs that I oppose torture as a criminal punishment, but ancient enough to argue that if torture seems appropriate then we should probably execute. Crime and war are separate issues and terrorism is a category of war.
(Categories are slippery things and we should admit it. When I say crime and war are separate issues, I mean crime is a individual action and doesn't seek to wrest power from the state. There is of course organized crime, which isn't individual, but doesn't seek to wrest power from the state. But then there is also organized crime which does seek to wrest power from the state. Such organized crime is in the war category. Perhaps Mexico has such organized crime. If this is the case, it does argue for a harsher treatment of the Mexican drug lords. Again, we have to argue this on what is happening in Mexico and serious reflection on the issues involved.)
what it takes is that you need to overcome your irrational fear of the enemy. more torture doesn’t mean more success. we don’t have to take revenge on them in the interrogation room either. we’ll win the “war” by not torturing.
sesquipedalian on April 24, 2009 at 10:42 PM
No, the problem here is your irrationality about torture. The scenarios where we argue torture are those in which our fear of the enemy is quite rational.
hmmm a return to corporal punishment. Sounds like something that would really shake up a few sensibilities. I think I would agree with that “under open democratic oversight “.
Fighton03 on April 24, 2009 at 9:48 PM
I desire society to be as happy as possible. However, there are difficulties we face that are not due to human ignorance and human malice, but due to the face we live in a universe which doesn't correspond to the fantasies of the politically correct moralist. For instance, if we want better medicine we have to do animal research. It's simply ignorant to argue that computer models from the information we have now will do the job--as the smelly anarchist animal rights protesters two blocks from my house tried to tell me yesterday. (I actually respect the fact that they smell. Hygiene is way overrated by mainstream society.)
We live in a complex world and some cruelty and killing is justified. I'm pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-abortion, pro-animal research, pro-occasional-torture-of-terrorist because I feel the killing or cruelty is justified. On the other hand, I object to eating pork because pigs are treated so inhumanely. Of course, I'm also a Jew which may bias me here, but I only buy eggs from chickens who are raised cage free, because of animal welfare considerations.
It's useful to consider jointly all the cruelty/killing issues together so that we can have a rational framework for considering each individual issue. This approach gets us out of the impasse of the mindless spewing of denunciations of opposition views.
What you have described is corporal punishment, not designed to elicit any form of information coercion. It is administered after the act as punishment, not prior to an act to coerce compliance.
Fighton03 on April 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM
and your point is?
To be clear, my point is that corporal punishment for many reason including information extraction was accepted by good people in the past. And I'm not saying that we should restrict torture only for the purpose of information extraction. I think we should consider looking the other way when terrorists are tortured--as every single society in the world would have done before 1940.
F**k tolerance. It way too expensive and way over rated.
Guardian on April 24, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I agree with your sentiment, but I do think we have to be careful about how say this. We need to reassure others that we believe it is awesome to be tolerant of difference that don't injure you. I tell people that I'm a gay Jew and I don't have to tolerate muslims or anyone else who wants to kill me. People understand why my intolerance is appropriate.
I believe that the torture of enemies in war is always option that we should keep on the table and that it is moral to do so. I have arguments to support my belief, but they aren't relevant to my point. My point is that I'm not a despicable person, and that to argue that I'm despicable is to argue that at least 99.9% of all human beings before 1940 were despicable.
Here's one example of the real world of our Founding Fathers from the Lewis and Clark expedition:
On June 29, 1804, Lewis and Clark had two suboridinates punished by torture. Collins received 100 lashes and Hall received 50 lashes. This was because Collins was on guard duty and broke into the supplies and got drunk. Collins invited Hall to drink also.
I think Lewis and Clark were cool, not despicable.
You have very precisely not responded to my argument at all. I argued that we have to argue each case individually and you create some strawmen silliness about torture and drunk driving. I'm modern enough in my beliefs that I oppose torture as a criminal punishment, but ancient enough to argue that if torture seems appropriate then we should probably execute. Crime and war are separate issues and terrorism is a category of war.
(Categories are slippery things and we should admit it. When I say crime and war are separate issues, I mean crime is a individual action and doesn't seek to wrest power from the state. There is of course organized crime, which isn't individual, but doesn't seek to wrest power from the state. But then there is also organized crime which does seek to wrest power from the state. Such organized crime is in the war category. Perhaps Mexico has such organized crime. If this is the case, it does argue for a harsher treatment of the Mexican drug lords. Again, we have to argue this on what is happening in Mexico and serious reflection on the issues involved.)
No, the problem here is your irrationality about torture. The scenarios where we argue torture are those in which our fear of the enemy is quite rational.
I desire society to be as happy as possible. However, there are difficulties we face that are not due to human ignorance and human malice, but due to the face we live in a universe which doesn't correspond to the fantasies of the politically correct moralist. For instance, if we want better medicine we have to do animal research. It's simply ignorant to argue that computer models from the information we have now will do the job--as the smelly anarchist animal rights protesters two blocks from my house tried to tell me yesterday. (I actually respect the fact that they smell. Hygiene is way overrated by mainstream society.)
We live in a complex world and some cruelty and killing is justified. I'm pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-abortion, pro-animal research, pro-occasional-torture-of-terrorist because I feel the killing or cruelty is justified. On the other hand, I object to eating pork because pigs are treated so inhumanely. Of course, I'm also a Jew which may bias me here, but I only buy eggs from chickens who are raised cage free, because of animal welfare considerations.
It's useful to consider jointly all the cruelty/killing issues together so that we can have a rational framework for considering each individual issue. This approach gets us out of the impasse of the mindless spewing of denunciations of opposition views.
and your point is?
To be clear, my point is that corporal punishment for many reason including information extraction was accepted by good people in the past. And I'm not saying that we should restrict torture only for the purpose of information extraction. I think we should consider looking the other way when terrorists are tortured--as every single society in the world would have done before 1940.
I agree with your sentiment, but I do think we have to be careful about how say this. We need to reassure others that we believe it is awesome to be tolerant of difference that don't injure you. I tell people that I'm a gay Jew and I don't have to tolerate muslims or anyone else who wants to kill me. People understand why my intolerance is appropriate.
I believe that the torture of enemies in war is always option that we should keep on the table and that it is moral to do so. I have arguments to support my belief, but they aren't relevant to my point. My point is that I'm not a despicable person, and that to argue that I'm despicable is to argue that at least 99.9% of all human beings before 1940 were despicable.
Here's one example of the real world of our Founding Fathers from the Lewis and Clark expedition:
On June 29, 1804, Lewis and Clark had two suboridinates punished by torture. Collins received 100 lashes and Hall received 50 lashes. This was because Collins was on guard duty and broke into the supplies and got drunk. Collins invited Hall to drink also.
I think Lewis and Clark were cool, not despicable.