It's only been a week, and things are already completely different under an Obama Administration.
Love means only having to say you're sorry
Barack Obama, promising the most ethical government in the history of the United States, has offered his full support for Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, saying he is confident the Senate will confirm him despite his "innocent mistake." Geithner claimed he wasn't aware that he had to pay self-employment taxes on self-employment income, a confusion not shared by 20 million other self-employed taxpayers who did not hold senior-level positions at the U.S. Treasury Department, the International Monetary Fund, and as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
According to the Associated Press, President Obama is confident the Senate will confirm Mr. Geithner despite his "innocent mistake." Obama said that only one man on this planet, Timothy Geithner, has the intelligence, experience, wisdom and integrity to lead the Treasury Department during a period of financial crisis, and must be confirmed.
However, according to AP reports, this is the same Timothy Geithner who was "flummoxed by TurboTax, a popular income tax preparation computer program used by millions of people. He neglected to closely read IMF yearly statements warning him of his personal liabilities for the Medicare and Social Security taxes in question, even though he signed the statements saying he understood that. After giving up on TurboTax, he hired a tax preparer, who, he claimed, also failed to catch the errors. Geithner also incorrectly claimed summer camp for his children as a dependent-care deduction. He paid the back taxes plus interest for the years 2003 and 2004 only after being audited by the IRS. But he did not pay taxes he owed for 2001 and 2002, even though he had made the same mistakes for those years – until last fall, shortly before he was nominated by Obama to be treasury secretary."
Those wishing to invoke the "Geithner Predicate" when discussing their own tax returns with the Obama Administration's IRS, please consult Eric Holder for a possible future presidential pardon. That is, if you have a big enough bank account, and well-endowed enough wife, to help argue your case successfully.
In an unrelated story, The Sealy Posturepedic company has introduced a new "mattress stuffer" line for people who want to hide their money (taxed or untaxed) under their beds, rather than let the world's smartest Treasury Secretary use their hard-earned dollars to help manage the nation's finances.
And the "Emily Latilla Award" goes to . . .
"In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues 'for as long as I am president.' He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time."
However, "Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, conceded the two nominees did not adhere to the new rules." To resolve the issue, Mr. Lynn would receive a formal "waiver," and Mr. Corr would promise not to do it again, thus ending the issue.
Confidence in government has therefore been restored under an Obama Administration. The rules are always the rules, except when they aren't. And there will be no exceptions, except when there are. I hope this clears up any confusion.
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss
US airstrikes on suspected terrorist camps in Pakistan on January 24, 2009 killed at least 20 people. The strikes "follow the Bush military blueprint."
Women and Children First
Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced a U.S. operation on January 25, 2009, he claimed killed more than a dozen civilians, including two women and three children. Karzai said the killing of innocent bystanders "is strengthening the terrorists."
Forgotten but not gone
President Obama has issued his first Executive Order on January 24, 2009 in the fight against international terrorism. The U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO), housing many of the world's most dangerous terrorists, will be closed down.
In reading the fine print of the Executive Order, however, the closing will not take place for another year or so, and no decision has been made on where to send these prisoners once GITMO is finally closed. The option of releasing the prisoners has been delayed by a related Executive Order shutting down all military tribunals currently underway to assess each individual detainee's guilt or innocence.
Thus, while maintaining that the US will once again put the rule of law at the forefront of its policies and actions, President Obama has shut down any ability for individual prisoners to have their day in court, closed a military prison facility at some future point while allowing it to remain in operation for the indefinite future, and has not determined what to do with the world's most dangerous terrorists who reside at that facility if and when it is ever closed.
Oh, and just for good measure, any captured terrorist will henceforth be interrogated according to the Army Field Manual, and not made to feel uncomfortable in any way at any time. Interrogators who do not say "please" or "thank you" when interviewing captured terrorists will be subject to Congressional Investigation, fines and imprisonment for violating the terms of civilized behavior, as will those who offer these detainees a Coke instead of the new Obama-logo Pepsi products during refreshment breaks.
Questions regarding what Mr. Obama intends to do, and when exactly he intends to translate his words into actions, should be directed to the author of the Executive Order Greg Craig, the new White House Council, who explained the terms to Obama during a televised press briefing so that Obama could immediately repeat Craig's words to the press which had already heard them.
Change has definitely come to Washington. Hope too — in that we all hope the next four years go by fast with limited domestic casualties.
And they used to say that the 43rd President of the United States was too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Rather than try to actually define torture in practical, pragmatic terms so as to differentiate actual drowning and beheading from getting your face wet, and to understand why Islamic terrorists sent to SuperMax prison are “tortured” but white people, blacks and Hispanics sent there aren’t, and why waterboarding is torture when used on terrorists, but not torture when used as part of the training of US military, let’s all just state our opinions.
At the end of the day we’ll all see which side gets the most feelings to support their opinions, and then we’ll demand that everyone certify this as actual “torture”. We’ll call this real analysis, because “torture” is simply that which you would not want to have happen to you, or Christopher Hitchens.
Oh, and I almost forgot. When we “torture” Islamo fascists, it won’t be to make them reveal operational details of planned attacks which can then be confirmed, but to get them to do “whatever the waterboarder asks you to confirm”, because in the spirit of total intellectual honesty, Raymond believes that the only reason aggressive interrogation techniques are used against captured terrorists is to get them to confess to being hermaphrodites. We’ll just continue to not respond to this issue that I previously raised because, well, acknowledging why aggressive techniques are actually used and produce real, testable results will get in the way of making straw men arguments about eliciting false confessions.
So, I’ll go first. Responding to inane ad hoc drivel that substitutes how one feels about a subject for actual intelligent discourse is now officially “torture”, and Raymond and Friends are now officially designated as “torturers”. Once enough people agree with me, the issue is closed.
And to think some people actually maintain that you have to properly define your terms before using them.
Oh, and just for the record, I continue to maintain that unlike Raymond, who states that “I don’t have a problem with torturing someone who’s been determined by a competent tribunal or judicial process to be a terrorist,” I do have a problem with cutting someone’s head off with a rusty saw (this is torture).
Once again, when all you need to do to make your argument is throw a word around without actually defining it in a way to distinguish between activities, then only a fool would state categorically that “I don’t have a problem with torturing someone who’s been determined by a competent tribunal or judicial process to be a terrorist.”
Jackson’s Razor is again invoked. There is no honest discussion possible with the Left.
Phil:
The reason liberals might hot fear an 0bama theocracy is perhaps revealed in his statement quoted by MM in #13:
“…[Rev. Wright] introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. …”
This is reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth.”
Since when are sins “redeemed”? I was taught that sins are “forgiven” and your soul is thus “redeemed”.
Also, there is an objective definition of “torture”: the process of making a liberal do something he doesn’t want to.
Raymond Ingles:
Re: “I’m not at all ashamed for holding our government and military to a much higher standard than terrorists,…”
How high is “higher” as in “much higher”? No matter how high our standard is, people like you can always raise the bar, while ignoring gross barbarity of our enemies. That’s why everyone should be held to the same standards of international law; otherwise, we have no hope of ever motivating others to conform to those standards, and we might just as well not have international law at all.
Raymond: On a personal note, I debate politely people who don’t go out of their way to insult my intelligence.
You have a particularly bad habit of deliberately refusing to engage in a real discussion. All you want to do is endlessly tell us your feelings. Remember this? “For all his intricate calculations about game theory and the like, he [Raymond] has yet to provide a universal definition of “violence,” “gluttony,” “greed,” etc. to validate his conclusions.” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/
Now substitute a definition of “torture” for any of the above.
You play with words, but refuse to engage in an actual debate. Define torture so I can understand why sawing off someone’s head and making them think they are going to drown (but never are in any physical danger) is the same thing. If the common link is personal discomfort, why isn’t imprisonment for any offense torture? It certainly is to the rapist being imprisoned.
If the only difference is that a criminal is imprisoned after due process, then why is it okay to put someone in SuperMax, but not okay to cut off their head with a rusty saw?
And while you’re at it, enlighten us as to what gives any government the right to deliberately torture people once proper due process is allegedly observed (as you support), particularly when you claim that torture produces unreliable results. This is a blatantly stupid proposition given all that you’ve said about the unreliability of torture. But, like most liberals, you want to begin each point anew, so that what you said in one sentence to make a point will not necessarily constrain you when making a different point at a later time.
My disdain is for anyone who pretends to engage in a thoughtful discussion who is, at the end of the day, a phony pseudo-intellectual. And a morally superior though morally relative one at that.
As some wag once said: “torture should be safe, legal, & rare.”
Dr. Jackson – So, I need to give a solid definition of something before there’s any hope of discussing it? Well, okay, I think the “Convention Against Torture” got very close to a technical definition: “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
(The un-italicized sections, I think, are superfluous. You don’t need to be a government functionary to torture.)
My own personal operational definition of ‘torture’ is: “If it has an excellent chance of making you willing to say anything to make it stop, it’s torture.” (Seriously, where are the volunteers willing to demonstrate on camera that waterboarding is just “pouring water on a person’s face”? Will you step up?)
So, given this, it’s pretty clear “why is it okay to put someone in SuperMax, but not okay to cut off their head with a rusty saw?” (Note, yet again, Dr. Jackson trying to claim that I made that comparison when I explicitly disavowed it. But hey, honesty seems to be in short supply for him these days.) People get through Supermax without even changing their minds regularly. Very few people greet decapitation with equanimity.
Now, can you do me a favor? Can you give me a definition of “The Left”, since all I’ve gathered so far is that it means “the set of people who disagree with Phillip Ellis Jackson for whatever reason”.
>So, I need to give a solid definition of something before there’s any hope of discussing it? Well, okay, I think the “Convention Against Torture” got very close to a technical definition: “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental …
*** Please define examples of “suffering”. Is isolation “suffering”? This is the rationale of the Colorado ACLU in defining transfer of GITMO prisoners toSuperMax as “torture”. Is, denying someone who likes sweets “suffering”. I know many people who crave chocolate, and have actual ‘withdrawals’ when their diets are restricted. Is being forced to watch endless repeats of American Idol mental suffering? It certainly is for me!
“Suffering”, like so many of the words you use to make your points, have no concrete attributes. Your pain and suffering is not necessarily my pain and suffering. Using this as a basis for defining “torture” is meaningless, and is why anything can be called “torture”. It has to be grounded in concrete actions, not generalized phrases that are subject to personal interpretation.
>is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession …
*** You’ll note the language here is “information or a confession”, not “information and/or a confession” as you continue to use the two interchangeably in your examples.
Regarding “information” (since the US does not use aggressive interrogation techniques — which incidentally are not “torture” even though you and Chris H. feel they are”) — exactly what constitutes “mental suffering” to compel information? If a person is being questioned by the police is missing the Superbowl, isn’t this “mental suffering”?
These so-called definitions are just abstract principles. It’s why the Declaration of Independence, which spoke about God-given inalienable rights, needed a Constitution to set out concrete examples and processes. The DOE by itself cannot tell us whether due process is assigned to a specific court action. Rules and procedures do this, which are drawn from specific, enumerated provisions of the Constitution. And where doubt still exists, the Constitution provides a structured process to decide the issue.
All these abstract notions of “mental suffering” do is speak theoretically about an issue without offering the slightest bit of practical guidance. It allows someone (like the Colorado ACLU) to equate pouring water on a person’s face with sawing their head off, because both involve some form of mental or physical duress.
Real policy recognizes DEGREES of pain and suffering, to use your terminology. Mental or physical suffering in and of themselves is not the trigger. The very fact that humans interact with other humans will produce pain and suffering in some people’s minds.
This sophomoric definition of torture as mental or physical pain and suffering is yet another example of tossing around words without defining them, and substituting feelings and emotions for actual thought.
>punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, …
*** So, every prisoner in a US jail is by definition “tortured”, because he/she is punished for an act they committed.
Again, there is nothing in this definition of torture that recognizes incarceration by due process vs. random kidnappings, battlefield-related detentions vs. vigilantism.
>or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind …
*** Another great non-example. If we don’t round up an equal number of Swedes to go along with captures Islamo-fascist terrorists, we are “torturing” people because we can’t make discriminations in judgment “for ANY reason”.
>when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
*** And now we get to the crux of Raymond’s moral relativism. If enough people want to actually torture someone, and pass laws allowing for that torture so the actual torture is carried out under a “lawful sanction”, then by all means go ahead and pull out fingernails, cut off limbs, even kill people because it’s not the act of brutality that constitutes torture, it’s whether the government has voted properly to allow these barbaric acts.
And when we torture people “legally”, ignore the fact that Raymond and others have constantly told us that torture produces unreliable results. Just do it for the fun anyway because, well, it’s “legal” now.
>My own personal operational definition of ‘torture’ is: “If it has an excellent chance of making you willing to say anything to make it stop, it’s torture.”
*** Raymond, I’m willing to concede any point you want to make because my head can only take so much stupidity and sophomoric reasoning from the Left. By your definition, as soon as I agree with your absurd, emotion-based reasoning, I can claim official torture victim status.
Again, we get to the basic dishonesty of this debate with the Left. Their examples about “torture” always deal with false confessions, even though aggressive interrogation techniques do not involve soliciting confessions. They involve eliciting testable information which can be independently verified as true or false.
The Left cannot argue this point, however, so they always fall back on the false confession example. It’s what Raymond constantly does: dispute a real point by discussing an issue that isn’t part of the subject under debate, contend that this invented issues is the other person’s main issue, and then prove your point by challenging a point your opponent never supported.
>So, given this, it’s pretty clear “why is it okay to put someone in SuperMax, but not okay to cut off their head with a rusty saw?”
*** This again shows you the fallacy of Liberal logic. Raymond cites a generalized statement about mental and physical pain and duress to define “torture”. This same definition allows the Colorado ACLU to define incarceration in SuperMax as “torture”. Raymond says that it’s “clear” this isn’t really torture, because unlike the ACLU’s personal definition of torture, Raymond’s personal definition of torture would permit incarceration in SuperMax.
Note the common theme. It’s all about what Raymond, Christopher Hitchens, the ACLU, etc. personally believe. This is not analysis. It’s opinion.
>Now, can you do me a favor? Can you give me a definition of “The Left”, since all I’ve gathered so far is that it means “the set of people who disagree with Phillip Ellis Jackson for whatever reason”.
*** Easy. “People who base their views on ‘feelings’, emotions and personal opinions, and who routinely say internally-inconsistent, contradictory things.”
You’ll spot Leftists easily because they tend to explain their positions with phrases like “I feel”, “my opinion”, and “I believe” as if the very act of expressing an opinion or emotion is all that is required to prove a point. In fact, I wrote a whole series of essays on this in “The Looney Liberal Chronicles”
Some current examples:
Raymond Comment 14: “Dr. Jackson, by now I FEEL only faint surprise …”
Ozzie Comment 40: “I suspect that many of those here who are defending waterboarding would have denounced it as the work of barbarians, and would have hardly hesitated to say that our guy was being tortured. (I’m pretty sure the soldier himself, and his family, would FEEL much the same way).”
Ozzie Comment 40: “If you FEEL Christopher Hitchens has no credibility or moral standing, okay, but it seems a little hard to dismiss John McCain so cavalierly.”
minnesotamama Comment 42: “So think about the scenario. Hypothetical, of course, so no one gets their FEELINGS hurt.”
minnesotamama Comment 23: “I personally BELIEVE that …”
minnesotamama Comment 23: “Not just MY OPINION—I BELIEVE many high-ranking military brass have specifically warned …”
When the political Right talks about “feelings”, “opinions”, etc., it’s normally to mock the reasoning of the Left, not to offer substance for our positions.
“Feel” free now to ignore the detailed substance of each and every issue I raised, and again respond with abstract thoughts or your feelings and emotions.
Actually, Phil, I support cutting off any and all body parts with a saw, rusty or otherwise. The thing is, we don’t have to actually cut off anything, we just need to be shown as willing to do so in the eyes of these terrorists.
What Mr. Ingles and his ilk seem to miss is that we are not dealing with reasonable people. Terrorists will do anything to achieve their goals. Morals, fair play, the Geneva Convention, none of it matters. Anything is permissible – murder, torture, deceit, betrayal. “Death to infidels” is not a statement of “let’s sit down and talk.”
They hate us, and nothing will change that. I say, nuke the b*st*rds.
Sedona man,
“…[Rev. Wright] introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. …”
Inelegant phrasing, and theologically muddled. But I think his meaning is clear. Obama is making the claim that he is a born-again, bought-by-the-blood-of-Jesus Christian.
No one on the Left appears troubled that Obama’s claim to faith is exactly the same as Jerry Falwell’s.
>What Mr. Ingles and his ilk seem to miss is that we are not dealing with reasonable people.
MM: These guys know. They just don’t care. There’s no political or social advantage (as in, street cred with their friends) in condemning Islamo fascists. The game is to demonstrate their tangible love for humanity by focusing only on what the US does while ignoring or excusing the excess of the US’s enemies because, donchaknow, we created all our enemies, and anyway, like, you know, we can’t control their actions — and it’s not nice to kill them.
This is how you end up with a purely abstract discussion of pain and suffering that is portrayed as a “solid definition” of the matter, which ends up degrading into what each person’s individual opinion is.
That’s very true, Phil.
Nevertheless, it is fruitless to endlessly parse the meaning of torture. I support the idea of torture, and its threatened use against irrational, murderous thugs. Period.
When it comes to protecting me and mine, I will use all the tools at my disposal to do so. For example, I personally abhor the idea of killing another person. But if my wife or my son are threatened, I will do whatever it takes to protect them, personal convictions aside.
I expect the same from my country, which is constitutionally charged with defense and protection of the homeland. Whatever act they perpetrate against these animals is fine with me.
MM: Just make sure you get Raymond’s personal approval first before you do anything to cause someone threatening your family emotional or physical duress.
Dr. Jackson – You really had to yank that “I feel” of mine way out of context, didn’t you? (Hint: I didn’t use my feelings as the substance of an argument, I just expressed my dismay at your unwillingness to engage any of mine.)
But hey, let’s see how well this works. Let’s hear your definition of ‘torture’. Come on, out with it!
Points that Dr. Jackson has totally ignored so far in this conversation:
1. Torture has serious disadvantages, such as “sacrificing the moral high ground in an ideological battle… providing grist for enemy propaganda… putting our own troops at increased risk, and… betraying our own principles.”
2. “Other techniques [besides torture] work at least as well and don’t have the collateral disadvantages that torture does.” “[M]any in the military [with experience in this area] say that other methods are more reliable, and don’t have the poisonous side-effects of torture.”
3. Throughout all of history, no one’s come up with an example of an actual situation that resembles the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario usually used to justify “aggressive interrogation”.
4. “[Dr. Jackson says] that “aggressive interrogation” isn’t “the ONLY way to proceed”, but the evidence is that it’s not just reserved for high-value targets. Not just Abu Ghraib – look up Spc. Sean Baker or Dilawar the taxi driver.”
5. Dr. Jackson claims waterboarding isn’t torture, but the U.S. has prosecuted its own troops for performing waterboarding – “pouring water in someone’s face” in Vietnam. Nor has he (or anyone else who’s minimized the severity of waterboarding) volunteered to do a public demonstration to show how mild it is.
(There’s another point: “[Waterboarding] opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.” Dr. Jackson didn’t ignore this, though, he agreed with it: “…if he lies that information can be demonstrated to be a lie — and presumably [you can] subject him to additional duress.” Even if we assume waterboarding isn’t torture – and until he defines what he means by torture, by his own standards we can’t know – does pulling fingernails, apparently the only thing that actually is torture to Dr. Jackson, come under the heading of “additional duress”?)
Instead, he’s raised red herrings, attempted to attack my motivations rather than my words, attributed positions to me that I not only never claimed but specifically disavowed, and quoted my words out of context.
I once did respect him. Really.
Mountain Man – You’re right. Nothing we can do will change the minds of the Al Qaeda types.
However, it’s not just us and the Al Qaeda types. There are allies on both sides, undecideds, and so forth. We can’t make friends of Al Qaeda types, and we can’t usually make most of the Arab world any better than neutral to us by anything we do.
However, we can make enemies pretty easily with our techniques. From the article I linked to at the start of all this: “We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money… A year later, Gen. David Petraeus helped boost the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and signed up with U.S. forces, cutting violence in the country dramatically… We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, “I thought you would torture me, and when you didn’t, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That’s why I decided to cooperate.” …I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.”
Note: “motive” and “justification” are two different things. Homicide investigators look for motive, not justification. Similarly, while a lot of the psychos are motivated in part by their perceptions of us, that does not mean their evil is justified by anything we’ve done. Suggesting that things we do contribute to the risk of terrorist attacks is not the same thing as saying that “we created all our enemies”.
Watch this distinction be immediately ignored in 3… 2… 1…
Mr. Ingles,
I don’t care about what someone down the street might think of me, I will do what it takes to defend me and mine. Similarly, I don’t care what the world community thinks of the US when it defends itself against these evil people.
I agree with you, I do think that the things we do contribute to terrorist attacks. Clinton failed to take decisive action against terrorism, preferring negotiaion, prosecution as criminals, and kow-towing to world opinion. We were attacked again and again.
Conversely, we have not been attacked since 9/11. So, we have objective results right before our eyes. Your theories sound so wonderfully “nuanced,” that is, until we look at real-world results.
>Dr. Jackson – You really had to yank that “I feel” of mine way out of context, didn’t you? (Hint: I didn’t use my feelings as the substance of an argument, …
*** Raymond comment 55: “My own personal operational definition of ‘torture’ is …” I guess because the word “feel” was not used in this sentence, therefore it is not a “feeling”, just a personal opinion as a substitute for a real operational definition. Note: This is what is commonly referred to as a distinction without a difference.
> Let’s hear your definition of ‘torture’.
*** I’ve never once used the word “torture” to describe any policy I support. Torture is the word you use to describe things you don’t like, and things you approve of doing. You are the one who introduced the subject of torture into this conversation, not me.
If you have no idea what you are talking about, how do you expect me to clarify the issue for you?
>Points that Dr. Jackson has totally ignored so far in this conversation:
*** The following are several cut and paste direct quotes of comments I’ve already made reacting to each of Raymond’s issues. [I'm still waiting to have him address the issues I raised in Comment 56! Actually, I don’t expect him too. He can’t.]
DEFINITION OF A LIBERAL: “People who base their views on ‘feelings’, emotions and personal opinions, and who routinely say internally-inconsistent, contradictory things.”
For example re: internal inconsistency of thought:
Raymond Comment # 62: “Torture has serious disadvantages, such as “sacrificing the moral high ground in an ideological battle… providing grist for enemy propaganda… putting our own troops at increased risk, and… betraying our own principles.”
Raymond Comment 45: Torture is unreliable in eliciting accurate information
Raymond Comment # 50: “I don’t have a problem with torturing someone who’s been determined by a competent tribunal or judicial process to be a terrorist.”
Question: Why would anyone support an action (torture) that is unreliable and produces bad results for the US?
Answer: Like most liberals, say what you need to in one case to make one point, and another case to make another point, and never respond to the inconsistencies. Just say that the guy who keeps pointing them out won’t respond to your points (because depending upon which point you want to make, you keep saying silly and self-contradictory things.)
2. “Other techniques [besides torture] …
*** “’Suffering’, like so many of the words you use to make your points, have no concrete attributes. Your pain and suffering is not necessarily my pain and suffering. Using this as a basis for defining “torture” is meaningless, and is why anything can be called “torture”. It has to be grounded in concrete actions, not generalized phrases that are subject to personal interpretation. …This … is yet another example of tossing around words without defining them, and substituting feelings and emotions for actual thought. “
> work at least as well and don’t have the collateral disadvantages that torture does.”
*** THEN WHY WOULD ANY HONEST PERSON SAY “I don’t have a problem with torturing someone who’s been determined by a competent tribunal or judicial process to be a terrorist” IF OTHER METHODS ARE MORE RELIABLE? You are either a fool, or dishonest. Not only do you refuse to define torture as anything other than an abstract feeling, you say there are times you support using torture even when you say it doesn’t work!
>Throughout all of history, no one’s come up with an example of an actual situation that resembles the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario usually used to justify “aggressive interrogation”.
*** This is really sad. Even people in my wife’s special ed class know that the government keeps classified documents. And yet, if the information isn’t public knowledge, or used in a plot for a TV show, it’s not real according to Raymond.
“[Dr. Jackson says] that “aggressive interrogation” isn’t “the ONLY way to proceed”, but the evidence is that it’s not just reserved for high-value targets. Not just Abu Ghraib – look up Spc. Sean Baker or Dilawar the taxi driver.”
*** Where exactly did I specify what level of terrorist it should only be used against? This is another example of “It’s what Raymond constantly does: dispute a real point by discussing an issue that isn’t part of the subject under debate, contend that this invented issues is the other person’s main issue, and then prove your point by challenging a point your opponent never supported.”
>Dr. Jackson claims waterboarding isn’t torture, but the U.S. has prosecuted its own troops for performing waterboarding – “pouring water in someone’s face” in Vietnam.
*** I invoke Jackson’s Razor, an eponymous adage which reads: “Never attribute to simple stupidity that which can be adequately explained by deliberate stupidity.”
We prosecute people for crimes all the time. But not every crime is an example of “torture”. We prosecuted soldiers in the Vietman war for rape, murder, theft, being AWOL,simply disobeying orders (whatever they were) etc. Prosecuting someone for a crime is not prima facia evidence of torture. “This is another example of how the Left argues. Don’t define torture in concrete terms, They want you to fill in the mental blanks (“Well, of course I think torture is bad and unreliable in getting a confession”), without questioning EXACTLY what they are talking about when they use the terms they throw around.”
>Nor has he (or anyone else who’s minimized the severity of waterboarding) volunteered to do a public demonstration to show how mild it is.
*** I don’t volunteer to spend 20 years in Supermax either. But that decision has nothing to do with proving or disproving whether staying in Supermax is “torture” as the Colorado ACLU contends. “It’s what Raymond constantly does: dispute a real point by discussing an issue that isn’t part of the subject under debate, contend that this invented issues is the other person’s main issue, and then prove your point by challenging a point your opponent never supported.”
>There’s another point: “[Waterboarding] opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.” Dr. Jackson didn’t ignore this, though, he agreed with it: “…if he lies that information can be demonstrated to be a lie — and presumably [you can] subject him to additional duress.” Even if we assume waterboarding isn’t torture – and until he defines what he means by torture, by his own standards we can’t know – does pulling fingernails, apparently the only thing that actually is torture to Dr. Jackson, come under the heading of “additional duress”?
*** Raymond, the only person you have to be afraid of is you. I’m not the one who said “I don’t have a problem with torturing someone who’s been determined by a competent tribunal or judicial process to be a terrorist”. You are the one looking for ways to justify real torture.
This is another example of a straw man dishonest debate. Why would anyone who can rationalize supporting torture (as long as a judge say’s it’s okay) care about whether an aggressive interrogation technique like waterboarding might encourage people to want to torture? The issue for Raymond isn’t torture, it’s a legal right to torture.
And, for a man obsessed with torture, Raymond is incapable of telling us why waterboarding is torture just the same way as beheading someone is torture. If both these acts are “torture”, what is it that both acts share that unites them — and similarly, separates them from other examples of stress, discomfort, pain, etc?
All Raymond can do is throw words around without addressing any of the substantive issues associated with these words. Once he gets beyond rhetoric, his arguments collapse.
To repeat: “There is no honest discussion possible with the Left.”
Mountain Man:
Re: “Inelegant phrasing, and theologically muddled. But I think his meaning is clear.”
As clear as “hope” and “change”?
Phil:
Re: Mr. Ingles’ “It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious ‘ticking bomb’ question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.”
This sounds like the “slippery slope” argument that liberals keep insisting is a fallacy, as in Scalia’s prediction that overturning sodomy laws would lead to demands for homosexual “marriage”. I guess the slope exists only for those things liberals oppose.
Sedona: Bingo.
Ted Sorenson had suggested one of his rhetorical parallelisms for Obama’s speech covering Gitmo, which, alas, did not make the final cut:
“Let us never fear to confront torture, but let us never torture to confront fear”.
Pity.
Also Joe Biden said that we should throw greedy CEOs in, but free terrorists from, “the brig”.
Inwood: Like I said, consistency of thought has never been a strong point of the Left.
Sedonaman,
I think in his own mind, Obama believes he’s a Christian. This might surprise you, I think he is, too. In any case, his status is only known by God.
But his theology is another subject. One can be a Christian but have messed up theology and faulty doctrine. One can also be a pagan with perfect theology. I keep the two things (salvation and doctrine)separate.
As you know, my point was that given his testimony, why is he given a pass on his “faith vs. politics?” It’s one of two things: Either his supporters don’t think he really means it (i.e., it’s a political ploy); or, it’s because Obama is uniquely able to be all things to all people.
By that I mean that he seems to perfectly reflect the expectations of people, who impute to him exactly what they want him to be. We talked about this in another thread. He talks very generally, and each listener hears what they want.
Therefore, atitudes about his religion are strained through the prism of the personal perspective of the hearer. A curious phenomena, very cult-like.
MM:
Re: “…he seems to perfectly reflect the expectations of people, who impute to him exactly what they want him to be.”
I think it has more to do with their perception that he supports the “correct” political causes. Hence, he and George Bush can both say, “Praise be to Jesus” and evoke two polar opposite responses.
Maybe we’re both saying the same thing.
P
Lefties who comment on conservative blogs & who call in to Conservative Talk Radio do not seem to include among their “feelings” the feeling that conservatives have rational beliefs and values; or that there is any truth to Conservative stale, old nonsense. And they know that they have the moral high ground & beauty, truth, goodness & virtue on their side. And that all they have to do is, yet O once more, explain, with broad-brush stroke, the Left position to those who might be fooled by the glibness of the Conservative commentator or blogger like you, and the spell will be broken & the audience kept safely on the Left. And Lefty trolls….
Now, The Convention Against Torture (CAT) came after my JAG years, so I claim no expertise regarding it. (As opposed to non lawyers who haven’t read it but who have a “feeling” for it. I’m not a lawyer, they say, but I play one on the blogosphere.) But my conclusion, feeling if you wish, based on my legal training & having actually read CAT & the relevant U. S. statutes, such feeling being then more equal than others, is that waterboarding has not yet been legally determined to be “torture” under CAT or the U.S. Code. And in fact the Bush Administration found it to be legally allowable under certain limited circumstances.
But even forgetting “torture” for a minute, I would also conclude that waterboarding does not yet even come under CAT Art XVI’s “other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1”, which for the U.S. means: as is determined under the “cruel and unusual” clause in the U.S. Constitution. In this regard, SCOTUS’s, shall we say tortured approach in interpreting this clause has been described as “meandering”, going from simply “punishments not prescribed by law” to “tortuous” punishments to “disproportionate and excessive” punishments And O, BTW, we must consider “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” when interpreting “cruel and unusual”.
So stay tuned.
Anyway, for those who don’t understand the inconvenient facts, the interrogation policy in the Bush years was not some “come rack, come rope” version of the Inquisition. It was grounded in morality. It had the moral high ground & beauty, truth, goodness & virtue. The Bush people weren’t doing this for a Russian show trial, with punishment for forced confession of “wrong thinking”. They weren’t after some poor wretch who has a stack of Leftist or Islamist tracts in his attic. And they used waterboarding only three times. They were using waterboarding & other techniques disdained by the best people to get information needed to protect our comfortable society and the lives of all our people. The guys the Bushies were inconveniencing appear to have been the only source of the information the national security folks had to have to maintain our civility & our ability to discuss this stuff as if it were Moot Court. As Princess Caroline might say, you know, like who’s planning to blow up what & when.
Inwood: Yeah, but Christopher Hitchens said it was torture because he experienced it. All you apparently did was study the actual law itself, and serve in the JAG department of the United States Military which dealt with the law as it was actually written.
So, according to Leftist Logic 101, CH’s feelings trump your old, musty, academic, fact-based analysis. And besides, there’s no TV show to point to to substantiate your claims, so that’s a double strike against you. And strike three is that the Japanese liked to drown people, which involves water, so that’s like waterboarding too, because they both have the same root word.
So, it was a nice try interjecting your tired old reason and logic into the discussion when everyone knows that Torture is Torture, and thus there’s no need to define it any further.
Your word of the day must be “liberal” for anyone who disagrees with you. Do you get points on how often you use it?
Striking, as I am not a liberal,
nor is John McCain (who also disagrees with you on waterboarding),
nor are Bush’s military lawyers, many of whom wanted Gitmo closed.
But I’m sure it’s much easier to throw a label on someone than to actually debate or make sense.
minnesotamama,
By my count, Dr. Jackson used the term 4 times in this thread, which began 1/26. Once per day on average. So, how many points does he get? How many times would you say is excessive? Relevance, please?
What is truly “striking” is how you have managed to completely avoid all the points made in the many posts on this thread, and instead throw out a red herring. A common tactic of l*b*r*ls (I dare not type the word for fear of incurring your wrath).
And after your failure to address any point made on either side of the debate, and having not commented since post 43, you nonetheless have the testicular fortitude to accuse people of not debating. Truly incredible.
By the way, to answer your red herring, John McCain is liberal in his politics in most every way. Unnamed military lawyers – impossible to refute. Bush, hardly conservative.
Minnesotamama
Several things.
(1) I don’t speak for Dr Jackson here but my remarks in #73 were addressed to most of the Lefties who comment on Rightie Blogs.
Some of my best friends are Left/Liberal & many of them actually try to engage in debate as do many Left/Liberal commentators & Blogs. That’s all I’m looking for. Not the stuff I parodied in my #1 above. I would suggest to you that Dr Jackson actually did actually debate & make sense, to use your formulation. I admire his fortitude.
(2) It’s not enough to be against “torture”. Even Dr Jackson says he’s against torture. Put me down as being against torture. But as The Hon. Slick Willie would say “depends on the meaning of torture”. So, if you want respect on an intellectual blog, how ‘bout bringing it up a notch from the lunch room chatter? Maybe you & even the TV talkingheads should be aware of CAT & US Code definition of “torture” & the, shall we say, “things not quite ‘torture’, but not quite nice” in CAT Art XVI. And have some idea of how the US, in its express reservation when agreeing to CAT, views Art XVI as recapitulating the “cruel and unusual” clause in the U.S. Constitution, the SCOTUS interpretations of which clause are “meandering”. Otherwise it’s just Chris H who “knows torture when he sees it”.
BTW, I do understand that, alas, all this may well change, at least for publication, in the new Administration, since Obama said in his inaugural speech that we must “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” That’s why “scrappleface” has posted a satire entitled “War On Terror’ Ends, Obama Starts ‘Case Against Terror’ ”. Some of us don’t thing this L**t/L*****L (I don’t dare say the words) approach is a good one with respect to the “our safety” part.
(3) Military lawyers are oft against things which Military non lawyers think are important to their job of, you know, fighting. I was in the Army Engineers as well as JAG. But then, corporate lawyers are oft against things which their business people want & I’m sure that many lawyers in the State Dept thought Bush a fascist & are complete pacifists. It’s a great country where we can afford such dissent. Even in the ACLU I understand there are staff lawyers who don’t think that the ACLU is firm enough in suing over some ideal they hold near & dear.
And many in JAG during the Viet Nam era when I served were against that War & in fact could have been described as pacifists if they weren’t always talking about how WW II was OK, or as they would say when talkin’ legalese, “necessary & appropriate”. (There was a draft then, you see & not everyone in the Army was there in spirit!) Hey, if you’re really a pacifist, say so.
Just note that when Leftists respond to a complex point with bromides, cant, anecdotes, and appeals to emotion, they should definitely not play the victim card if someone replies with much disdain. Nor should they think it a rational response either (a) to call every detailed careful refutation of their points a rant or (b) to call every brief spot-on response to their points superficial.
Finally, rebuttals by Conservatives to a Liberal response on a Conservative blog may include denying its validity, retorts, counter-attacks, reductio ad absurdum, familiar parallel, analogies, dilemmas, etc., none of which are overly aggressive or rude per se, but any of which may well embarrass the Liberal responder & annoy him/her. This is the way rational arguments flow. Join in the game; answer back, in kind if one wishes. But don’t whine.
Dr. Jackson, you seem to place a perplexing degree of emphasis on the use of common phrases like “I feel…” or “in my opinion”.
“I feel” is simply a colloquialism, not a reflection of emotional reasoning. Saying “I believe” or “In my opinion” does not reflect a reluctance to engage in logic, empiricism, or clear analysis. It’s just a figure of speech.
When I say “In my opinion”, I am being courteous and acknowledging that my viewpoint is not necessarily synonymous with revealed truth. That’s why on message boards the little acronym “IMHO” has proliferated. It just means I’m trying not to be excessively opinionated. I’m recognizing that we all see through the glass darkly, you know?
I guess I could revisit my posts and remove the words “I feel” and “I believe”, and instead state all of my opinions as bald certitudes, and support each assertion with my version of evidence. But that would be a meaningless exercise. Why bother? Picking out words like “I feel” and inferring some type of underlying cognitive style is simply ridiculous. Those mannerisms don’t say anything about my thought processes.
That should be beyond obvious, Dr. Jackson. Your conclusions represent an elementary error of interpretation and analysis, and suggests a blinding level of bias in your own thinking. IMHO.
It is of a piece of the debating style that I am observing in most of your posts. Here’s an example.
In my only previous offering, I commented that our use of torture will tend to radicalize a whole new generation of our enemies, especially those that are ‘on the fence’, but will provide little or no clear benefit. Amazingly, you responded as follows:
——–As a minor historical note, the bad guys have been cutting off the heads of their prisoners (Infidels and heretics alike) for centuries. They didn’t suddenly begin this in the 21st century because of “waterboarding”. This is the worst kind of stupidity — it’s pure pop-culture sophistry disguised as intelligent thought.————-
WTF? I mean, thanks for the history lesson, but I didn’t say that bad guys ‘began this in the 21st century because of waterboarding’. It would be preposterous for me to say that. NOBODY would say that.
But then you call me ‘stupid’ and ‘sophist’ for saying…well, something that YOU said, not me.
Not a big deal, really, except that it seems emblematic of your approach. You are truly a valiant warrior against straw men of all shapes and sizes. You impute to ‘liberals’ or ‘the Left’ some goofy and asinine viewpoint, and then you leap into the breach, to do fearless battle against your own imaginary representations.
Lest it be said I picked on an isolated lapse, here’s the very next thing you said:
——–Normal people can recognize the difference between pouring water on a person’s face, forcing water down a person’s throat (Japanese “waterboarding” during WWII), and cutting off a person’s head.——-
Allrighty-then. You’ve DEMOLISHED the argument that waterboarding is equivalent to cutting off somebody’s head. Take that, ‘abnormal’ liberals who don’t grasp that distinction!
But there is nobody who doesn’t grasp that distinction. Except in your fevered imagination, which is evidently overpopulated with drooling cretins who have big red “L”s on their foreheads.
As was previously and condescendingly stated above, “let me type this slowly”:
There are different degrees of mistreatment. Is that not staggeringly obvious, to everyone? Nobody said or implied in any way that waterboarding is as bad as murder. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Your last comment was a true howler. Here it is:
——-Let’s have Al Queda cut off the head of their captives, and see how long and prolonged the outrage of the Left is. Let’s see how long they keep discussing the issue and publicly condemning it. Then let’s compare the amount of time they have actually devoted to the subject of pouring water on a prisoner’s face.
By column inch and sheer volume, any way you want to measure it there’s no comparison.——
Okay, duh. I mean, really: DUH-UH.
The reason that there are more ‘column inches’ devoted to torture, as opposed to the thuggish and brutal behavior of the terrorists, is because torture is freakin’ debatable, and the vicious slaughter of innocents is not debatable.
Right? Everybody loathes and condemns these assholes, so what the hell is there to say, after a certain point? Hating torture and protesting its use does not detract from revulsion and disgust at the behavior of Islamic fundamentalist half-wits. It’s not a zero-sum game. I can do both, quite adroitly.
Do you think that there needs to be some kind of competition to see who can ventilate and denounce terrorists most vigorously? Do you think that how loudly and longly one can bray is an index of one’s moral purity and uprightness? I hardly think so.
You have described waterboarding as ‘pouring water on a terrorist’s face’ and ‘getting [their] face wet’. Here, beyond dispute, you have exposed your fundamental incapacity to engage with the truth, and demonstrated that your arguments are really nothing more than shallow, partisan snark.
It appears that you are quite squeamish about acknowledging basic realities in this discussion, which shatters your credibility. In my opinion. Why are you afraid of talking truthfully about it? Are your arguments so weak that you must resort to euphemism and minimization to make them hold water (so to speak)?
Waterboarding is not ‘getting someone’s face wet’, Dr. Jackson. It is strategically pouring water into the nose and throat, to elicit a prolonged sensation of drowning, which is one of the most primally panic-inducing sensations a human can experience. KSM was able to tolerate it for less than a minute, from what I read, and even tough CIA agents can only tolerate for similar time intervals (those time estimates vary, but I believe they are in the right ballpark). That’s how awful it feels.
(Yes, ‘feels’. Sensory and visceral experience. ‘Feeling’. The way something ‘feels’ is actually quite relevant to any discussion of torture. I’m astonished anyone would think otherwise.).
I have no sympathy for terrorists. If I had Mohammed Atta in my basement, I’d like to waterboard him myself, and worse. I’d enjoy it. And I’m no different from any ‘liberals’ I know in that regard. It is not sympathy for terrorists, or a desire to score political points, that makes me oppose torture. It is the inevitable erosion of our moral standing, the stooping to brutishness, the inadvertent torture of the innocent as well as the guilty, and the say-so of heroic Americans like John McCain that sets me against it.
No doubt you will refer to me and my positions as ‘stupid’, since that word seems to erupt, Tourrette’s-like, from your lips with tiresome regularity. I’ve read most of your arguments and tirades on this thread, Dr. Jackson, and while I am disinclined to throw about abusive epithets such as ‘stupid’, I am definitely not impressed.
Grow up.
Oz
Ozzie: I know it hurts when someone points out that your analysis is just a bunch of feelings and opinions. I feel for you. I share your pain.
“I feel” is indeed a colloquialism. However, as I took care to point out, it’s one that is used exclusively by the Left to make an analytical point (“I feel/personally believe that X is torture, therefore it is.)” Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum do not support their positions by telling us what they feel. They either cite actual facts, or perform actual analysis of facts. And therein lies the difference.
As for pure stupidity in reasoning, I think examples speak well for themselves. You know, something like “I guess I could revisit my posts and remove the words ‘I feel’ and ‘I believe’, and instead state all of my opinions as, and support each assertion with my version of evidence. But that would be a meaningless exercise.”
In other words, you come to a political forum to debate issues with the notion that all people here are doing is tossing around opinions (“I like Bush.” “No, I like Obama”, “No, I like Clinton”, etc.), and that’s all there is to the discussion. If someone challenges you do more that express an opinion, you propose to simply restate your feelings as “bald certitudes” — as if the only issue here is that you used the word “feel” to express a feeling, instead of expressed a feeling rather than engage in actual analysis.
And then when the stupidity of that position dawns on you, you reduce all analytical thought to “support each assertion with MY version of evidence. But that would be a meaningless exercise.” In other words, when Inwood, a former JAG lawyer, speaks about the definition of torture from a legal standpoint, he’s just giving us his own unique version of reality as he uniquely perceives it, the same way someone justifies their preference for Coke to Pepsi. His “feelings” about the law is a “meaningless exercise” because somebody else not trained in the law, not knowing or analyzing any facts of the matter, and with nothing other than a deeply held feeling to support their opinion, might disagree.
If this was simply a forum to express feelings, then I guess one feeling is as good as another. But unlike the blogs on the Left, we don’t let people simply state their feelings and then end the debate because everyone has an opinion, and somehow all opinions matter regardless of their IQ (Ignorance Quotient).
So yeah, your position is pretty stupid, as you yourself pointed out I would conclude.
But this is progress. Self-awareness is the first step to remedying a defect.
MM, Inwood:
Isn’t it amazing that the Left will call non-Liberals the most vile, disgusting names just because they exist (think of the past eight years with Bush in office), but when you point out that something they say is “stupid”, this is an “abusive”, “Tourrette’s-like” “tirade”!
My feelings have been hurt.
P
The principle of proportionality.
A few years ago when my grandkid was about two, we visited him. In the course of a conversation I was having with his Pa, he said “grandpa said the ‘S’ word”. I stopped for a minute & my son-in-law explained, Groucho like (if that phrase doesn’t date me), that I had said “stupid”, which they were trying to get the grandkid to stop saying.
Like you apparently, I have a low crap tolerance & perhaps use the S word often enough to give bonus points to some people who can then avoid admitting that they have made a, well, stupid statement, by saying, in effect “nynna, nynna, nynna, [Inwood] used the “S” word.
Let’s say that someone has just played the compassionate card on me at a bar-b-q or cocktail party & made me out to be a mean person who doesn’t care about the environment, the kiddies, the kittens, whatever. If I’d replied exasperatedly that that all that was a “stupid” sidebar, he plays his trump card: “incivility”. My standard response:
Faux civility is just that, faux civility. Even if spoken in a low voice, purely emotional ad hominem accusations are no better than the “S” word. Specifically, I think it is childish & petulant to say that I, unlike this person, am uncompassionate, want tax breaks just for the rich like me (I wish), don’t care about the environment (this from a guy living in a house with a zillion bathrooms), want war before all peace approaches have been exhausted, want to torture some innocent schlub, etc. In other words, it ain’t civil to say that I do not have the gifts of wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, piety, and fortitude ( I left out “fear of the Lord’ as un-PC) as this person does.
At that point some trimmer says “OK, guys you’ve both made your points & let’s move on.” Advantage: unreasonable guy. He was assumed to have said something intelligent when all he did was play the compassion card.
But this is your Blog thread & if you’ve had your fill of stupid emotional clichés disparaging your intelligence & thought processes, you get to dismiss the uncivil person in a proportionate manner. After all, no one can attack proportionality, right?
Inwood: I’ve found that the main difference between the Left and right is this.
The Right (using moi as an example), will tell you your reasoning (not you as a human being independent of your reasoning) is stupid (not “mistaken” — unless it is actually a typo or mis-remembered fact; and not “incorrect” — unless it is again a mistake in adding numbers incorrectly). This will be said if in fact the person under discussion exhibits stupid reasoning. We will then go on to point out, often in excruciating detail, exactly why said opinion/observation is, well, “stupid” in light of contrary facts, improper definition of facts, or just plain simple faulty reasoning.
By contrast, the Left will call you the most vile, personal names simply for opposing their point of view, without addressing the substance of your views. And when they avoid vile, personal profanity, they simply focus on the fact that you used a politically incorrect word (“stupid”), without again addressing the whys and wherefores of why that word was used.
Civility for civility’s sake is, well, rather stupid. Some blatantly inane comment require a public acknowledgment as such. And I’m more than happy to do my share in this process, because I never say anything about someone in private that I won’t say publicly, anf give them an opportunity to show me why my assessment is wrong.
I see my lecturing you on your prominent use of straw men did nothing to dissuade you from employing it again, in the very next post. I feel, sadly, but based on good evidence, that you will probably continue to employ this empty and disingenuous device. For example, here’s what you did, right out of the blocks:
—————-In other words, you come to a political forum to debate issues with the notion that all people here are doing is tossing around opinions (“I like Bush.” “No, I like Obama”, “No, I like Clinton”, etc.), and that’s all there is to the discussion. If someone challenges you do more that express an opinion, you propose to simply restate your feelings as “bald certitudes” — as if the only issue here is that you used the word “feel” to express a feeling, instead of expressed a feeling rather than engage in actual analysis————
Once again, you use the facile and ineffective ‘debating’ tactic of reducing what someone says to the point of foolishness, then disputing that imaginary viewpoint you have attributed to them.
Let me clarify and repeat my points, although the need to keep disabusing you of your own projections is maddening.
I didn’t come to the forum ‘with the notion that all people here are doing is tossing around opinions and that’s all there is to the discussion.’ In any discussion, in order to be persuasive, one should cite evidence. I recall that I stuck to that point rather firmly in the thread about agnosticism. It seemed many of the folks on the other side were the ones deriding the need for material evidence, not me. I am entirely in favor of supplying evidence for assertions, and have never said otherwise.
So when you say ‘in other words’, you attributed to me an opinion that I would utterly reject out of hand. That hardly seems like good debating.
I feel you have a strong tendency to construct straw men and then do battle with them.
Notice how I phrased that? ‘I feel’. It means the same as ‘I think’, “I believe’, and ‘In my opinion’. I also presented evidence, in both of my posts, of your tendency to go to war against straw men. Saying ‘I feel’ doesn’t mean that my opinion is based upon emotion. It’s just a manner of speech.
When I offered to change my ‘I feel’ statements to bald assertions, I wasn’t saying that is the way things OUGHT be done. I would think that the typical reader would grasp what I meant—that this thread is FULL of bald assertions without evidence, and certainly not all of them by me. Just because I might put “I feel” in front of an assertion, and you do not, does not make my statements any less supported or supportable than yours.
When I said I could support every single statement with ‘my version’ of evidence, I would think, once again, that my meaning was obvious. I was acknowledging that ‘my version’ of evidence might not be seen by you as good evidence, just as what your evidence often seems laughable to me.
I FEEL that waterboarding is torture, and that it is poor policy. I presented several pieces of evidence to support my contentions. Mr. Ingles also presented evidence. For example,
—that waterboarding intentionally inflicts a terribly uncomfortable physical sensation (drowning and suffocation) upon the detainee, in order to extract information, which corresponds to many if not most definitions of torture I have seen;
—that it seems overwhelmingly likely that we would view it as torture if it were done to our boys (before our US debate began);
—-that John McCain—who was tortured himself—views it as torture;
—-that non-terrorist Muslims across the world are known to be infuriated by our use of torture, which could have predictable and negative effects on our future relations with the Muslim world;
—-applying mistreatment tends to lead to more extreme mistreatment (Zimbardo, Abu Ghraib, etc);
—-that many top military brass have come out vehemently against it, predicting that it will lead to the torture of our guys
—-that many experienced interrogators believe it is unreliable (with empirical evidence of its unreliability), and believe that other methods work better (with evidence of that as well).
Now, I admit that some of those points of evidence are stronger than others. Some are based upon the opinions of others who I think are credible (argument from authority), and you can no doubt produce other experts who disagree. But I have certainly presented support for my statements.
‘I feel’ that when you see meaningless phrases such as ‘I think’ or “I believe” it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and you go into an irrational conniption that blinds you to anything else in the post. Or, perhaps you just pick on that phrase because you wouldn’t care to deal with the actual substance. I’m staying agnostic on that point.
Oz
Dr. Jackson, with regard to your last comment about why it is great to call your opponents ‘stupid’ if you feel that adjective applies, I agree you have pointed out a real difference between us.
I think it comes down to what you believe the goal of political debate to be. If your goal is to anger your opponents and rally those who already agree with you to even greater passion, then calling your opponents and their views ‘stupid’, ‘irrational’, and so on is an appropriate tactic.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to move forward mutual understandings, clarify points and explore concepts, refine your own and others’ thinking, and maybe–rarely–actually convince the other side of something, then such abusive language is counterproductive.
Using pejorative language (by Leftists or Rightists) simply provokes rancorous emotions, causes polarization, and leads everyone involved to oversimplify both their own and their opponents’ positions. If that is your goal, then calling other folks stupid is the cat’s meow.
As soon as you trot out your insulting pet theories about liberals’ supposed defects, and start throwing about how stupid people are that disagree with you, I FEEL the debate rapidly deteriorates into a contentious mud-slinging exercise. No doubt, you blame the other side.
Again, if that is your goal, fine and dandy. I’m sure it is entirely congenial and persuasive to those who already agree with your views, but it accomplishes nothing else.
As a philosophical matter, declining to call opposing opinions ‘stupid’, even if you believe them so, is a matter of simple humility to me. In the end, many value judgments and moral choices are not going to be resolved with empirical evidence any time soon, so I think it behooves us all to acknowledge that in fact, we might just be wrong.
And so yes, I FEEL civility for its own sake is really a pretty good idea. I sometimes fall short of that goal, I admit, but at least I don’t go so far as to literally reject it as unimportant.
Oz
Ozzie. I feel you’re wrong. Therefore I must be right.
And to think I wasted all that time actually analyzing what other people said when all I had to do was state my equally-valid opinion.
Just for the heck of it, let’s test whether Ozzie really believes what he says.
Ozzie believes that “As a philosophical matter, declining to call opposing opinions ‘stupid’, even if you believe them so, is a matter of simple humility to me. In the end, many value judgments and moral choices are not going to be resolved with empirical evidence any time soon, so I think it behooves us all to acknowledge that in fact, we might just be wrong.”
Notwithstanding the fact that truly humble people never say they are truly humble (they would be too humble to publically acknowledge their humility), and that stating that “many value judgments and moral choices are not going to be resolved with empirical evidence any time soon” contained absolutely no evidence to support this feeling/opinion, I wonder how Ozzie would describe each of the following value/moral choice statements.
Note: I would call them “stupid”; not just a difference of opinion.
1. White people are inherently superior to all other races.
2. To reduce our carbon footprint, no family should be permitted more than one child. Those exceeding this number should immediately kill any extra children.
3. God hates homosexuals and wants them to catch AIDS.
4. Democrats and Liberals are born evil.
5. All rapists and serial killers should be set free immediately because no one has the right to judge, and imprison, another human being.
Each of these statement involves a “value” judgment” or a “moral choice”. I would like now to see Ozzie publicly acknowledge that each of these egregiously stupid value and moral judgments may be correct (“I think it behooves us all to acknowledge that in fact, we might just be wrong”)
I, on the other hand, have absolutely no problem calling these — or any other stupid statements — “stupid”. And I’m not to humble to call stupidity stupidity.
Hmmm. Maybe it is as someone said in comment 82 “Civility for civility’s sake is, well, rather stupid. Some blatantly inane comments require a public acknowledgment as such.”
You’ve simply mischaracterized my viewpoint, Dr. Jackson. Again. Another straw man. Where are you getting all of this straw?
Please just re-read my post carefully. I said the following:
MANY value judgments and moral choices are not going to be resolved with empirical evidence ANY TIME SOON.
MANY, not ALL. SOME value judgments we have made in the past are now refuted by empirical evidence (for example, that blacks are inherently inferior, or that mental illness is caused by demons). It is possible to refute some, or many, value judgments with empirical evidence. But there are some that seem unlikely to be resolved by such evidence, any time soon.
This is a thoroughly prosaic observation. I’m astonished that you would disagree. What is the value of a human life? When exactly should a fetus be considered a human? Without regard to whether it is effective or just, is capital punishment morally right? How many ‘rights’, if any, should we choose to accord to high-functioning animals?
The problem with these types of questions is that many of them fundamentally turn on unknowns, or basic values around which there is profound disagreement, and no amount of empirical data seems adequate to resolve them to everyone’s satisfaction. At least, not right now or any time soon.
I suppose you might claim that there is a whole bunch of empirical evidence (that you personally find persuasive) that answers these questions, but I’m pretty sure it would not be evidence I would find persuasive.
I think disagreements on these values issues arise from multiple, complex sources. My version of humility is that I might be wrong, and in fact we may never know who is ‘right’, and we’d best acknowledge that diametrically opposed views can result from factors OTHER than stupidity, bad faith, and irrationality.
I am delighted to acknowledge that conservatives who differ with me, even reaching conclusions I find erroneous or repugnant, are not personally stupid or defective in some way, and that some fundamental questions are not really answerable empirically at this juncture.
Civility in such matters is important. Yes, that’s an opinion, and I guess if it really seemed important I could find ‘evidence’ of it, but my goodness. I believe I adopt the reasonable and common-sense opinion, and that the onus is really upon you to show why name-calling and ad hominem attacks are productive and achieve some important goal. I think you are making the more extraordinary claim.
————I would like now to see Ozzie publicly acknowledge that each of these egregiously stupid value and moral judgments may be correct (“I think it behooves us all to acknowledge that in fact, we might just be wrong”)——
No, all of those statements seem to be false. I didn’t say all value statements are equal, or equally credible, or need to be given equal respect. Some value statements are easily refuted by empirical evidence, others are logically absurd, others are consensually absurd, some have horrendous practical implications that prevent their broad acceptance.
Why do I need to continually defend myself against against preposterous statements that are ridiculous on their face?
You want me to publicly state that “liberals are born evil’ MIGHT be true? Your point is what again? Gosh, that doesn’t make any sense. I guess you think you’ve trapped me somehow, but I can’t perceive how.
Ozzie: You are a mass of platitutes wrapped in opinions and surrounded by feelings. You never state anything with enough specificity to allow your ideas to be tested. And when they are, you say that since “many” is not “all”, and “some” is not “most”, then we should just let the platitudes float around untested because you are unwilling, or unable, to actually state a proposition concretely enough to allow it to be examined.
It’s why you can’t recognize the difference between a feeling/emotion/opinion and an analysis, and insist that direct quotes of things you say are “mischaracterizations” when the principles you espouse are actually measured by the real world.
By the way, I should also point out that not all of these abominations below are really ‘value statements’ as I understand them.
#1 is not a value judgment, it’s just a statement of an opinion. The ‘values’ issues involved with it revolve around how we measure the worth of a human, and how we would choose to define ‘superiority’, and whether it should matter, and how.
#2, HMMM, I’d have to think about that one.
#3, again, is not a value judgment, it is a statement of (alleged) fact. It may even be empirically testable.
#4 is just an opinion. It may be empirically tested, I think. The values issue is more like ‘What is evil? How should we define it?”
#5 involves some values, I guess. Who ‘should’ be allowed to judge others? Important value judgment there. But the statement then veers into absurdity, an example of taking an intriguing question to an illogical extreme.
1. White people are inherently superior to all other races.
2. To reduce our carbon footprint, no family should be permitted more than one child. Those exceeding this number should immediately kill any extra children.
3. God hates homosexuals and wants them to catch AIDS.
4. Democrats and Liberals are born evil.
5. All rapists and serial killers should be set free immediately because no one has the right to judge, and imprison, another human being.
—-You never state anything with enough specificity to allow your ideas to be tested.—–
No, I don’t think that’s true. For example, some of my evidence statements regarding torture should be testable. (For example, that our use of torture radicalizes Muslims, that mistreatment leads to more mistreatment, and that our use of torture may increase the risk that our soldiers will be tortured when captured.) I don’t claim that each of these has been tested, but they should be amenable to that.
With regard to the more immediate values issue, I think it is a good idea to qualify things with words like ‘most’ and ‘some’, and to use them carefully and precisely. Those words are important.
Your demand that I admit that ALL value statements (even crazy ones) MIGHT be correct, arose because you simply did not understand my plain words. I said MANY value judgments currently appear resistant to satisfactory empirical proof, and you concluded I meant that ALL value statements are thus unverifiable and (evidently) must be accepted at some level.
You simply misunderstood and jumped to an unwarranted (and ridiculous) conclusion. Don’t blame me for that, Dr. Jackson. My words were entirely clear.
———You are a mass of platitutes wrapped in opinions and surrounded by feelings.—————
No, I don’t really think so. I don’t recall using many platitudes, although I’m not certain what you mean by that. I have expressed opinions, as have you, and I’ve given some support for them, at least as much as anyone else here has. I don’t think my opinions are unduly clouded by ‘feeling’. Most of them have evolved from years of reading, thinking, observing, and debating. In fact, most people that know me find me quite detached and unemotional, although that is of course an unverifiable assertion from your point of view.
So, it’s not really possible to evaluate your ad hominem attack upon me, but the extent I can, I have to conclude that it is not supported by any proof. So far. Maybe some is forthcoming.
Amazing: The man can’t distinguish a value judgment in the statement that one race values itself as superior to another race, except to say that it’s “just a statement of an opinion [where] the ‘values’ issues involved with it revolve around how we measure the worth of a human, and how we would choose to define ‘superiority’, and whether it should matter, and how.”
So, it’s a non-value value opinion that has value elements to it, except it’s not. And his words are “entirely clear.
There’s no discussion without a common language, or a basic education that underscores and frames one’s thought process.
Like with so many on the Left who feel deeply and thinks this is all that’s really necessary to analyze an issue, the only thing left is to let the stupidity continue to speak for itself.
And before Ozzie accuses me of calling his ideas stupid again, may I remind everyone that I said “many” not “all”, and that “most” doesn’t nean “some”, and that “maybe” is the same as “perhaps”, except when it isn’t, so my meaning should be clearly understood.
You know, on reflection, I will admit to making an unfounded assumption when I said “the man can’t …”.
I think we’re all safe in assuming that Ozzie is a male, but maybe the better question to ask is what grade he’s in. It’s possible I’m holding him to an unrealistic standard if his high school classes haven’t prepared him adequately to think about and debate real world issues.
In this case, labeling the things he says as “stupid” would be an error, because no one would expect a young, pre-pubescent kid to know better.
My apologies.
I believe those sentiments of nasty and personal abuse should provide a fitting end point to our discussion on this issue.
I’ll happily allow the readers, current and future, to make up their own minds on your estimation of me and my contributions. You may be right, after all.
Thanks for another interesting discussion, Dr. Jackson.
Best regards, and I yield to the gentleman from Intellectual Conservative. The floor is yours.
Ozzie
I love intellectual debates with Liberals.
One day I hope to actually have one.
P
Great thoughts in your recent posts.
I think I’ve got it!
Interestingly enough, I’ve had arguments (he would prefer “discussions”) with my resident “civility” expert, about describing things & people. He once asked me, as I was demolishing some “fact” in his bible, the NYTimes, if my, snigger (OOPS watch my choice of words, lest they be misunderstood, source was one of my “Right-wing nut blogs”. So much for civility.
Anyway, it appears that “stupid” does not exist in his vocabulary, like my then two-year old grandkid. Either consciously or unconsciously, over the years he would describe statements similar to your “moral choice” statements with some form of synonym used in Roget’s “469. Unintelligence”. (I would describe him with some form of fastidiousness described in Roget’s 896.)
But, as I said, I think I’ve got it!
Civility Freak 101 means never having to say: “you’re stupid”!
In today’s WSJ there’s an article which quotes Alexander Hamilton who, complaining that the newly crafted Constitution wasn’t being given a fair hearing, said that some of the opposition was due to “the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears”. Indeed.
Then there are the Civility Freaks who paraphrase Orwell by saying that the other guy in a guy in a discussion/debate/argument must be incredibly intelligent to have an idea that incredibly wrong. Again, indeed.
And regarding Bush, as someone has noted: “foreign policy was thought to be a function of his relationship with his father, and poor syntax was ascribed to a learning disability or drinking relapse”. Words fail.
Ya see, in a faux-civilized world, the Civility Freak tells another person in a discussion/debate/argument that that person or someone who that person supports is really unintelligent, uneducated, unaware, unstable, unready for prime time, without actually, you know, using the word “stupid” & that’s OK because it allows the Civility Freak to fake civility when his victim says “I’m mad as hell & I’m not gonna take this any more”. I tell my civility expert that faux civility (using zee French for effect) is just that, faux civility & that my BS meter is at 9.5.
But for some reason, my civility expert doesn’t seem to apply his tests to Leftists or Liberals who say the vilest things about Bush & Republicans, who are, by definition uncompassionate & beyond the pale. David Gergen, for one, exemplifies this. You know where he is the supposed token “Republican” in a TV Talkinghead panel of five where panelists prattle as follows:
Panelist # 1: “Bush & McCain were idiots.”
Panelist # 2: “Bush & McCain were anti-poor.”
Panelist # 3: “Bush & McCain were anti-women.”
Panelist # 4: “Bush & McCain were war mongers & Bush a torturer.”
Panelist Gergen: “I think that Bush & McCain basically meant well but, um, because of their temperament and intellect, just didn’t, you know, always clearly foresee the consequences of their words & actions, taken in good faith, of course, &, er, why such words & actions can cause thoughtful concerned people like you to feel frustrated at the unintended consequences of these words & actions &, well, OK, I feel your pain in what you see as idiotic, anti-poor, anti-women idiotic, war mongering-torture, results, which, I guess, can, too often, make us seem somewhat unworthy to the rest of the world.”
Barf bag time. BS detecto-meter exploding.
But, I’m trying not be judgmental to the people on this thread because they may be trying to be serious. Then I would feel stupid, OOPS bad.
Ozzie is back, and remains blissfully unaware.
“No, all of those statements seem to be false.” SEEM to be? Moral clarity is a characteristic that remains elusive to the typical leftist. Reluctant to pass any sort of judgment (which would be accompanied by a tacit appeal to absolutism), Ozzie can only cast his vote as “maybe.”
Except when it comes to Phil. He KNOWS Phil is wrong. He feels quite at liberty to judge Phil, and by extension, all conservatives. Or rather, characterize them according to his pre-formed template. That, my friends, is known as a stereotype.
All while wrapping himself with an aura of tolerance, thoughtful consideration, and magnaminity.
Like I’ve always maintained since my first dust up with the nutcases on the far Right who claimed that “race matters”, and my extended conversations with the lunatic Left in my Looney Liberal Chronicles, the longer you can keep these people talking to “explain” their reasoning, the more vacuous, feeling-based and self-contradictory it becomes to everyone looking in.
Mountain
You say:
“All while wrapping himself with an aura of tolerance, thoughtful consideration, and magnaminity.”
My favorite faux civility is when a guy begins a sentence with “with all due respect….” & then hits me with the curve ball about what happens to the women, children, the poor, the kittens as a result of the uncaring, uncompassionate proposals he claims I’m espousing.
Why does he not understand that I feel that he does not respect me, & thinks I’m, well, “stupid”?
Inwood,
Conservatives are either evil or stupid. Rove is evil. Cheney is evil. Bush is stupid. Reagan was stupid. Palin is stupid. And so on.
The only time this is not the case is when conservatives agree with leftists. This is known as bipartisanship.