It's hard to find the five dumbest things said by supposedly thoughtful commentators in 2009, but here's my list of personal favorites.
Having written a number of articles about "The Hopelessness of Debate," where I lay out the case that true discussion and debate is not possible when one side is too partisan, too ideological, or simply too stupid to actually address the content of an article, I've found my thesis amply reinforced throughout the last 12 months.
Below, in descending order, are my nominees for the five stupidest things said in response to articles appearing in the Intellectual Conservative during the preceding year.
You'll note that each comment earned its singular point of distinction not simply because I disagree with that point — although I freely admit I place as much distance between these thoughts and mine as I can — but because of the particular logic through which these thoughts were expressed.
Reasonable people can disagree; that's what makes life interesting. But like ugliness, stupidity is ignorant to the bone.
#5: Just fill in the blanks yourself
Having written an essay about the true nature of conservative philosophy (you know, the kind where everyone who doesn't subscribe to these views is a liberal — or worse), one commentator raised a number of thoughtful questions, objections, and calls for clarification, to which the author of the article responded by, well . . . you can read his answer for yourself:
I didn't respond point by point to Bob because I haven't got the time, and I think he somewhat misses the point of this sort of essay, which is not to explain every point in exhaustive detail. To do so would make it something other than what it is, a 1000 to 2000 word column.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/08/12/putting-the-right-in-the-rightonline-conference/
Translation: You raise a lot of substantive points that I'm not going to respond to, because you've raised a lot of substantive points that I don't want to respond to.
So much for the intellectual challenge of promoting — and defending — a point of view. But there was a method to this madness, as the author went on to explain.
My point was partially to be provocative and apparently it worked because it seems to have provoked you to look into what I have written previously and type out a rather intemperate reply of almost the same length as my original article.
Translation: You've raised a lot of substantive points that I'm not going to respond to in my "provocative" article, which was deliberately provocative so as to have you and others raise a lot of substantive points that I'm not going to respond to.
#4: So what if they're wrong? They're still right.
In an essay on falsifying data relating to global cooling, er warming . . . I mean global climate change, one commentator who had steadfastly refused to support the notion that nature, not man, was primarily responsible for all of the above now backtracked slightly — with an interesting twist of logic to cover all his bases.
As I said before, I'm not so convinced about the 'anthropogenic' part of 'anthropogenic global warming.' I don't fully understand the models many climatologists are using to study the issue. They may well be wrong – probably are in some ways. But again, I'm not seeing willful, malicious conspiracy. And even if they were motivated purely by evil – so what? First you have to show that someone's wrong before you start explaining why they're wrong. What if they're evil, and just happen to be right anyway?
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/25/the-day-science-died/
So what?
So what if someone falsifies data to support a pre-determined conclusion whose social, economic, and political policy implications could drastically affect our lives, liberty, and standards of living? So what if their climatology models are wrong in very fundamental ways. So what if their emails say to insert an "ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" to mask the decline in actual temperatures — they're just words subject to interpretation. (Kind of like Nixon when he said to John Dean, "So John, how's the cover up going?")
So what if their motivations were purely "evil"? None of this suggests they can't be "right, anyway?"
#3: Torture is definitely a crime, unless it's not
In the great "Waterboarding is definitely torture and definitely a crime" debate, those offering this judgment were asked to distinguish between fact and opinion. When pressed to acknowledge that emphatic statements that waterboarding is a "crime" need to actually have legal credibility, one commentator responded with the following logic:
I seem be hearing that if people are not legally trained or legal analysts, they cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/05/05/tortured-logic/
Opinions are not analysis. "I don't support waterboarding because of X reason" is an opinion. It is no more or less valid than any other opinion. By contrast, "Waterboarding is a crime" is a legal issue. More than an opinion is needed to make this statement.
People who cannot recognize the difference between the two statements "cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture."
#2: I lived through history, and survived to tell about it
In another off-topic observation, one Canadian commentator felt compelled to lay the entire blame for 9/11 at the feet of such "notable homos [as] Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Their anti-commie legacy led directly to America's support for the Mujaheddin and the emergence of Osama bin Laden."
When pressed on his understanding of American politics and American foreign policy, this same commentator drew on the trump card of actually living through the times of which he spoke. "I lived through Carter, Reagan and Canada's equivalents, Trudeau and Mulroney."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/19/the-fort-hood-massacre-why-the-democrats-wont-call-it-terrorism/#comments
Who, after all, can argue with first-hand knowledge and experience, and thus presumably forgive his homophobic slanders to make his points?
The only problem with this otherwise compelling personal narrative was the subsequent admission that the commentator was in his "thirties." With Jimmy Carter elected in 1976, that made him maybe five or six years old at the time he first experienced this brush with history.
Still, I suppose he could have run home to catch the news after turning in his Kindergarten assignments early, so who am I to cast doubt on his credibility?
#1: The World According to Amway
And the winner of the single stupidest comment of 2009 is . . .
In an article on "Nuptial Disagreements" which talked about divorce rates and birth rates, one commentator launched into a tirade against the multi-level marketing company Amway. When challenged that his post had nothing to do with the content of the article, his response was:
I disagree. Unethical/immoral behavior damages ALL areas, whether they are keeping promises (marriage), being responsible (abortions), or being honest (the Amway tool scam).
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/12/18/nuptial-disagreements/#comments
Talk about an all-encompassing segue. The alleged Amway fraud is just too big an issue to ignore in any discussion of marriage, abortion, nuclear war, jihadist terrorism, national health care, or any other issue affecting the planet.
Thank God there are devoted citizens of the Republic who make it their mission in life to picket abortion clinics with anti-Amway signs, and make sure every marriage in America remains secure by warning newlyweds about the evils of multi-level marketing.
America is a better place for them, and we owe people like this a debt of thanks for thinking real good about this and other subjects.
First of all, I am happy that none of the comments were mine. Whew!~
But Phil, there were so many idiotic comments. How did you settle on these?
I seem be hearing that if people are not legally trained or legal analysts, they cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture.
Hey, wow! That’s me again, Dr. Jackson! And thanks for resurrecting the torture issue, I’ve felt it being altogether overlooked lately. As usual, your characterization of the exchange is grossly distorted, out of context, and includes your usual steaming pile of ‘straw man’ argumentation. But I’m used to that stuff at this point.
Let’s leap back into the previous thread for my response, just for the record.
Oz
Man, that stuff holds up pretty well, doesn’t it? Makes me want to dig into that thread for some more little gems of wit and wisdom (all originating from me, of course, and none from you).
As I recall, your only method of refuting me (and the many conservative commentators who have come to believe we tortured detainees), was to mindlessly ‘cut ‘n paste’ acres of your own previous drivel, in the forlorn hope that simple repetition would confer upon it the persuasiveness it otherwise lacked. (That didn’t work, as I remember).
Let’s see what else I can find.
Oz
Ooh, this was a good one:
But I admit, your obsessive cut ‘n paste act was marginally more congenial than your usual fits of name-calling, as I graciously acknowledged:
Oz
Four out of the first five comments are contenders for 2010 Awards.
Pretty good.
MM: Great question. Each example was carefully chosen.
#5 is a shining example of intellectual cowardice. An author puts a position forward, and when challenged, refuses to defend it.
#4 is a classis illustration of moral relativism disguised as thoughtful analysis.
#3 is typical of those who cannot recognize the difference between facts, opinions, and analysis, and think that believing something strongly is the same thing as understanding an issue.
#2 is stereotypical of the kind of pseudointellectual bilge that pretends to be an erudite observation.
And finally, comment #1 is simple stupidity in its purest form.
>Hey, wow! That’s me again.
Once again, I never identify people in situations like this. It’s the ideas, not the person, that’s the subject of the discussion. (Or in this case, whether an opinion is a substitute for a fact, regardless of the topic at hand).
As I’ve stated before, there are no stupid people, just stupid ideas. But truly stupid people will fail to understand this distinction.
>Four out of the first five comments are contenders for 2010 Awards.
Inwood, the criterion I use is stupidity of logic. General incoherency, though a close cousin, doesn’t rise to this standard, since there is no real thought, just angst-driven emotions.
Your comment #8 helps. I thought that examples of pure idiocy would be valid contenders, but like your criteria better. Otherwise, I would have chosen that French guy.
MM: Yeah. That’s why I highlighted the stupidity of “living through Carter” in #2 instead of the homophobic rants of this idiot.
And it’s why only one of Ozzie’s comments made it into the final 5. In may sound paradoxical, but you actually have to be smart to say something really stupid. Cluelessness and general incoherency don’t count.
And hey gang, don’t forget to visit Ozzie’s Torture Blog, the IC feature I brought to ‘Danner’s Fury.’ I define torture according to the most widely accepted definitions of the term, and show how our treatment of detainees clearly fits. There’s very little ‘feeling’ or ‘opining’ to that, contrary to Dr. Jackson’s misrepresentation.
As far as opinions go, though, I do quote a large number of conservative commentators (including George Will, Jonah Goldberg, and many others) who have had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the obvious truth that Dr. Jackson obstinately denies: we tortured prisoners, illegally.
Check out the Torture Blog!
Hey Dr Jackson? If you don’t think we tortured those people, tell us what definition of torture you use to make that determination.
[crickets chirping]
Oz
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/06/danners-fury/
================================================
I’m not quite sure why all the conservative defenders of these practices seem to be so invested in minimizing the mistreatment by various methods. Like somebody joking that they’re being tortured by their wife’s complaints, or this writer humorously comparing his minor life hassles with torture.
Or people saying that waterboarding is nothing more than ‘splashing water in somebody’s face’.
If someone doesn’t think it all amounts to ‘torture’, fine. (Perhaps relying on Yoo’s cocked-up, post hoc definition). But why not at least admit that these prisoners were treated brutally and painfully, just for a little intellectual honesty?
This is stuff from the Red Cross and a couple other sources:
———————————————————
Question: if we saw an Al Qaeda video in which some of our boys were being subjected to the treatment described above, would we not say that our boys were being tortured? Or would we laugh it off, and compare it to our whiny wives or insensitive gym teachers?
In a previous thread on this topic, I have laid out numerous reasons why our treatment of these detainees was indeed torture, and why it is is apt to be self-defeating, and that it represents an abdication of our principles and moral standing in the world. Certainly I saw nothing in this essay that changes my analysis.
[I also provided a comparison of our practices to the UNCAT definition of torture. Dr. Jackson repeatedly refused to define torture IN ANY WAY, while vigorously claiming that we did not torture.]
I think we need a truth and reconciliation committee. If the conservatives are correct and the torture was not torture and gained us a lot of valuable information, then surely the committee will vindicate them. Agreed?
I think it will be great for America and the world to watch the CIA videotapes of the interventions above, so everyone can decide for themselves whether it was brutal and wrong.
Oh wait, I hear the CIA destroyed those tapes. I guess they needed the space or something.
Oz
Comment by Ozzie_M | April 7, 2009
==========================================
As you can all see, I am fond as well of Microsoft Word’s Cut ‘n Paste feature!
Unlike Dr. Jackson, however, I usually resist the temptation to simply re-post the same text sixty times in the same darn thread.
My stuff here is just a teaser – go on, newbies, check out the blog. Judge for yourself!
Oz
As if on command …
See http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/05/05/tortured-logic/ for the real discussion of this issue.
Torture the terrorist sons-of-bitches.
MM — if by “torture” you are referring to the opinion expressed by some that waterboarding is “torture”, this is a sentiment expressed today by about 75% of the country according to the latest polls … which still makes it an opinion, not a statement about the legality or illegality of a particular act.
I know that you are aware of this distinction, but not everyone seems to be.
Yeah, I know, I’m not commenting on the legality. I am cogently communicating how these monsters should receive their just desserts.
Torture now, ask questions later.
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; that is the whole Law: all the rest is interpretation.”
Dr. Jackson Opines:
I think it is because your distinction is incoherent and more than a little self-serving, Dr. Jackson.
Nearly everything expressed here – by essayists and posters alike – is an opinion. Do you suddenly have a problem with that, Dr. Jackson? Perhaps you should decamp to a forum on Euclidean geometry. Fewer matters of opinion, I should think.
The important distinction is not between “opinions” and “statements about the legality…of a particular act ” (whatever that really means).
It is between informed, logical, well-supported opinions, and those that are not.
Which of my opinions is not? You never really say, because it would involve you having to define what torture IS, if it is not the most commonly used definition. And that gets pretty sticky for your side, doesn’t it?
By the way, Dr. Jackson: even closely reasoned legal opinions are just ‘opinions’, and even great legal minds disagree. That’s why we need 9 Justices to interpret the law, and not a clerk or computer program. John Yoo had one OPINION about whether ‘a specific act is legal’, and other qualified attorneys disagree.
What is your OPINION, Dr. Jackson? Why doesn’t the totality of the mistreatment of the detainees, as outlined in the Red Cross report quoted above, constitute torture as defined by UNCAT and signed by the US under Ronald Reagan?
Helpful reminder:
Torture, as defined by that Convention, is:
Oz
When a person cannot distinguish between facts, opinion, and analysis, not only is debate impossible, basic communication is impossible.
‘I don’t support waterboarding because of X reason’ is an opinion. It is no more or less valid than any other opinion, whether that opinion is expressed by a conservative or liberal commentator. An opinion can carry more weight if it is accompanied by an actual analysis. But an analysis involves more than expressing strongly held beliefs, or finding similar sounding words expressed by different people to support one’s proposition.
By contrast, the statement that “Waterboarding is a Crime” is a legal issue. More than an opinion is needed to make this statement.
The issue on the table from item #3 was “I seem be hearing that if people are not legally trained or legal analysts, they cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture.”
People who cannot recognize the difference between opinions, facts, analysis, and actual legal decisions that cite specific case law strictly relevant to the issue and jurisdiction of the issue at hand “cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture,” because they blend and co-mingle all of the above when expressing their thoughts.
The comment section to http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/05/05/tortured-logic/ displays a good illustration of this.
Dr. Jackson also Opines:
Well, you’re making a pretty big deal out of this distinction, Dr. Jackson. Perhaps you could explain the distinction more clearly.
I am curious as to which of your offerings on this topic, or ANY topic, you would consider an ‘analysis’, and not just an elaborate opinion. If you showed me an example of what you mean by ‘analysis’, maybe I could bring my contributions up to your standards.
I’m only being partially snarky. I’m not sure how you think an ‘analysis’ of a complex social issue is different than a careful, well-supported and rational ‘opinion’ on the issue. Is it the presentation of evidence? A thorough review of competing views? A step-by-step logical process? What distinguishes an analysis, for you?
In what regard did my ‘opinions’ fall short of being an ‘analysis’, Dr. Jackson?
Oz
Dr. Jackson asserts:
Evidently you consider yourself someone who IS capable of analyzing the torture issue in the appropriate manner. Please, do so. I’d like to see your analysis.
You’ve not ever given one, so far as I can tell.
Please don’t just link the thread on Tortured Logic, without pointing out where your ‘analysis’ resides.
Oz
Dr. Jackson seems to think:
This is really baffling. Do you really think that one opinion cannot be ‘more or less valid’ than any other opinion?
Even if one opinion is supported by empirical evidence and sound reasoning, and the other is not?
My goodness, you’ve become positively post-modern.
Oz
Like I said, if a person has to ask what the difference between a personal opinion and an analysis is, there’s no way to help them understand.
The same is true of someone who thinks a legal opinion rendered by the Supreme Court which cites case law and precedent is the same thing as a personal opinion based on how one feels about something, because both phrases have the word “opinion” in them. It’s like thinking that vanilla soda and baking soda are the same things because both are white, and have the word “soda” attached to them.
You can’t debate someone who is cluelessness about the basic building blocks of presenting a coherent idea.
I did cover this a bit in the link I provided in Comment #20 from my essay on “Tortured Logic”, which begins as follows:
When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible. What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis. Torture — according to today’s definition — is severe mental or physical stress (no actual lasting, or permanent, physical or mental harm is necessary).
The concept of torture is not just synonymous with “enhanced interrogation techniques;” today anything that is identified as “enhanced” is automatically considered “torture.” The two words are treated as if they are identical, even though they mean qualitatively different things.
We could talk about a legal definition of torture — whom it applies to, whom it doesn’t, how its abstract terms (“severe,” “intimidating,” “coercive,” “mental anguish,” etc.) are actually defined in a legal and practical sense, and what entities have the authority to make these determinations regarding the actions of American officials. We could actually have people versed in the law debate this.
But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. Or, think that it’s really not a nice thing to do to someone who wants to kill innocent people, because torture produces unreliable confessions (even if we’re after information, not an admission of guilt).
All of which gets to the basic point in calling Waterbording “Torture”, and therefore a “crime”. If you take a generalized description of an action that begins with “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental …” you have nothing of legal substance until these specific terms are defined in a strict, definitional legal sense. As I continued:
In other words, why ask questions like: if torture involves something “severe,” what exactly is the non-abstract definition of “severe”? Is “severe” a quantified state (and if so, quantified by whom?). Or is it simply what you yourself consider to be stressful, and therefore “severe”?
Like I said in my essay above, reasonable people can disagree about many things, from opinions to analysis (presuming that someone is capable of understanding what these two terms actually mean, which until now I’ve taken as a given — but now recognize that clueless people will never understand the difference between telling us how you feel (an opinion) and actually relating constituent parts of complex view of reality to the world which actually exists, instead of the one you pretend exists (an analysis).
But I have no magic wand, and cannot make the clueless see what everyone else appears to intuitively understand. After writing over 100 articles and participating in numerous debates, I’ve only had one person admit they can’t tell the difference between an opinion, fact, and analysis.
This is why objecting to making strictly legal determinations (i.e. that X is a “crime”) about issues based on commentators’ opinion, laymans’ readings of passages of international treaties, deeply held feelings about whether you yourself would like to have X done to you, or any other personalized, ad hoc, angst-driven, emotion based feeling or opinion falls on deaf ears of those who cannot tell the difference between a Judicial Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, and your opinion about whether baseball is a better game than football.
Ozzie: much as I’d love to take up the challenge of explaining the basic building blocks of conversation to you that even the most obtuse people I’ve come across in life had no trouble understanding, you’ve given no indication that you have the slightest interest in, or ability to, recognize how to make an actual argument — other than to tell us how you personally feel about something.
Since I can recognize a lost cause for what it is, rather than repeat the obvious that everyone but you apparently understands, I’ll point anyone interested in exploring the attempted points you raise to an earlier article I wrote on the subject http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/05/05/tortured-logic/ The comment section where people like Inwood – who has both a law degree and military experience — is particularly instructive.
A lot can be learned from this exchange. Again, all this presumes that the person making the inquiry has either the interest in, or ability to, deal with more than emotion-based arguments and personal feelings/opinions about a subject.
Best of luck to you on what has been so far, and surely will continue to be, a life-long journey in this regard.
Dr. Jackson says:
Oh dear God, Dr. Jackson, tell me you aren’t going to trot out your fearsome brigade of straw men again. Of course, I think no such thing. Why can’t you ever argue with the people that are ACTUALLY HERE, not the ignorant nimrods that apparently populate your imagination?
By whom? Certainly not me. Hey, Dr. Jackson, I’m over HERE…yoo hoo?
I agree. A pox on those silly people. Whomever, and wherever, they are.
Oz
Why, yes, we could! Let’s do. Why don’t we start with having you say what legal definition of torture you’d like to talk about. To get things kicked off, you could then give your *opinion* about why waterboarding and other forms of systematic abuse to gain information do NOT fit the bill.
Oz
Probably you’re just being a tease….I’m so freakin’ gullible.
Oz
And so, the journey continues …
Dr. Jackson stops whining and finally gets to a quasi-meaningful point:
Yes, that’s the issue. What does severe mean? Would you agree that the issue pretty much turns on that point?
In other words, would you agree that *IF* the abuse of detainees was in fact ‘severe’, then we DID commit torture, per UNCAT? Is there any other prong of that definition you disagree with?
What if those terms have not yet really been ‘defined in a strict, definitional, legal sense’? Are we to stand mute?
My impression has been that there is not great body of case law, and the terms have not really been defined in a way that lends itself to clarity or broad agreement. Otherwise, John Yoo would certainly have performed a slam dunk when he exonerated his Administration…unfortunately, I don’t recall that his ‘strict, legal’ analysis was viewed as …um, the last word.
I’m afraid that it seems to remain – Oh, the Humanity! – a matter of opinion. Does that mean we can’t express our views, even vehemently?
This is America, Dr. Jackson. Why do you hate America, man?
Although I cheerfully admit to posting ‘opinions’ all the time (so do you, by the way) I’m in the habit of trying to post opinions that are logical and supported by evidence, to the best of my ability.
So please, anyone, go ahead and read my ‘opinions’ on Tortured Logic, and Danner’s Fury. Dr. Jackson predicts that my inferior reasoning abilities will be on full display. Naturally, I contend that something quite different is on display: evasion, repetition, obfuscation, and name-calling. And not by me, in case that’s not obvious.
Oz
Boy, I hope all of the ‘stupid comments of 2009′ were not as fatuously misrepresented as the one starring Ozzie. Because you whiffed pretty badly on that one.
Hey, maybe I should start my own list! Or lists! I’m gonna do some research. (rubs hands together in anticipation)
Oz
It’s going to be a very long trip.
You got that right, Dr. J. Gonna be a bumpy ride.
Without further ado, I give you “The Ozzies”!!
First up:
The award for “Most Ineffectual Threats to Exit a Single Thread” goes to…Dr. Phil Jackson, for his work in Danner’s Fury
——————————————————-
“My lightweight response time quota is now up.”
“My thirty seconds are up.”
“Once again, the 30 second lightweight response limitation is up, so I can have enough time to debate serious people.”
“It’s worth another 30 seconds to post again my original comment above”
“Once again, the 30 second lightweight response limitation
is up…”
“My work here is done.”
———————————————————
To which Ozzie replied: “I guess you’re saying your thirty seconds are up. I heard you twice the first time, man.”
The award for “Most Disingenuous Hairsplitting in a Comment Section” goes to…Dr. Phil Jackson, again in Danner’s Fury
—————————————-
“But I didn’t say you were “dishonest” when I said you dissemble …”
—————————————-
The award for “Most Courageous Acknowledgment of Torture by a Conservative” is a 9-way tie:
———————————–
Here’s Richard Armitage, undersecretary of state in the Bush Administration:
“In hindsight maybe I should’ve [resigned]. But in those positions you see how many more battles you have. You maybe fool yourself. You say how much worse would x, y, or z be if I weren’t here trying to do it? So torture is a matter of principle as far as I’m concerned. I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would’ve had the courage to resign.”
———————————–
Ed Morrissey of Hotair.com:
The more obvious conclusion from the statute is that procedures creating an “imminent threat of death” in and of themselves create lasting severe mental pain, which is WHAT MAKES THEM TORTURE. (Emphasis Ozzie’s)
———————————–
John McCain, American hero and torture survivor:
“Waterboarding is torture.” And it’s “unacceptable”. And it’s a fabulous recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
———————————–
Conservative Rod Dreher:
“One thing that nobody should ever be permitted to say again, after reading these memos: “The United States didn’t torture.”
———————————–
Jonah Goldberg:
“I’ve always been on the fence about whether waterboarding constituted torture. But if the reports are true that the CIA used it scores of times in a single month on a single prisoner, than I think the threshhold has been met. Debating wether it was worth it still seems open to debate, depending on the facts. But I think waterboarding someone 183 times in a month does amount to torture no matter how you slice it.”
———————————–
Rick Warren
Well, and you know what – some of the stuff I saw looking at Guantanamo looks like clearly it was torture.
———————————–
Peggy Noonan
Torture is bad, and as to whether the procedures outlined in the memos constituted torture, you could do worse than follow the wisdom of John McCain, who says, “Waterboarding is torture, period.” This is something he’d know about. Abuse is wrong not only in a specific and immediate sense but in a larger one: It coarsens and damages the nation that does it while undermining its reputation in the world and its trust in itself.
———————————–
Jesse Ventura
Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law.”
Larry King: You were a Navy S.E.A.L.
Jesse Ventura: Yes, and I was waterboarded [in training] so I know… It is torture…I’ll put it to you this way: You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders
———————————–
Eric ‘Mancow’ Muller:
“It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that’s no joke,”Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. “It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back…It was instantaneous…and I don’t want to say this: absolutely torture.”
———————————–
The King of Wishful Thinking Award for Most Futile Request, in an unorthodox move, I am awarding to myself, Ozzie Mandeis, for my work in Tortured Logic. Let’s roll the tape:
—————————————–
Dr. Jackson, I’d be interested in hearing your definition of torture, and your definition of what constitutes ‘severe’ mental suffering, as stated in UNCAT.
—————————————–
Very, very long. And off topic as usual.
Why don’t you post a few more times, Ozzie_M? I don’t think you are writing enough to make clear what you mean.
The award for “Most Incomprehensible Accusation” goes to…Dr. Phil Jackson, in – where else? – Danner’s Fury
Dr Jackson says:
——————————————————
Again, another classic dodge [by Ozzie]. The person does not address the direct statement, but instead changes the subject to the philosophical nature of abstract truth. This allows them to conclude that some things in the universe are not knowable. This generalized statement is then re-inserted into the discussion of a specific, concrete example, to suggest that since some things are inherently unknowable, calling THIS particular statement (which, by the way, is knowable) “stupid”, is simple “name-calling” and somehow violates reasoning.
——————————————————-
Ozzie says: That might be insulting, were it not impenetrable. I can’t really tell. But I’m pretty sure we didn’t cover that one in Diabolical Lib’rl Debating Tactics 101.
MM: You’re appealing to a person who has already admitted he doesn’t understand the difference between an opinion and an analysis. The more he offers the opinions of others as settled law, the more he reinforces my point.
There’s only so much time you need to devote to showing that an unserious person is not to be taken seriously. The rest of the evidence he supplies himself.
Dr. Jackson says, rather unconvincingly:
Oh dear, this isn’t another one of your ’30-second’ warnings, is it? I don’t have all night.
Oz
MM: See, you just have to wait for it. After having stated that case law and relevant jurisdiction defines what is or isn’t a crime, not someone’s personal opinion about what constitutes an element of that definition (like the definition of “severe”), Ozzie wants to know what my personal definition of severe is (comment 37).
That’s the whole issue. What you, I, or anyone feels isn’t the determining issue. You and I and everyone else can recognize this because we understand the difference between opinions, facts, analysis, and case law. People who emote rather than think cannot.
Thus, the off-topic emoting will continue, only strengthening my points.
Dr. Jackson waterboards yet another straw man:
Show me one place I ever did that, Dr. J. As usual, I don’t hold any of the opinions you attribute to me. As was implied less than an hour ago when I said:
You sure do have a short memory, Dr. Jackson.
Oz
Like I said, just wait for it.
In the absence of case law (which Ozzie presumes but does not document), Ozzie just goes on to ask for opinions.
Whether there is a lot of case law, a little case law, or no case law at all, case law still is the determining factor in defining an actual crime — not opinions. In the presumed absence of case law, there can be no conclusion. The opinions of 100 commentators and observers have no bearing on the truth of the issue as to whether X is a crime or not.
This is understood by people who recognize the difference between opinion, facts, analysis, etc., and those who simply emote. Where the absence of settled law would cause me and others to approach the issue as an analysis (which is not the stringing together of other people’s opinions, or my personal feelings about what a particular word means in a legal context), Ozzie sees no distinction.
He falls back to his default position that when no facts or case law exist, all you need to do is express an opinion … which to Ozzie is the same thing as offering an analysis.
Dr. Jackson says:
You’ve persistently downplayed the intensity of the mistreatment, clearly implying in any number of ways that you don’t find it ‘severe.’ It doesn’t seem particularly surreal for me to ask you just what DOES constitute ‘severe’, in your opinion.
If this website does not exist for the purpose of exchanging opinions, what precisely is its purpose, Dr. Jackson?
Intellectual Conservative could always disable the “Leave a comment” feature if exchanging opinions is not a desirable behavior. Perhaps in the future, you should request that all of your posts be locked, so that nobody can have the temerity to ask you what you might think about a given issue.
Oz
Dr. Jackson accuses, unjustly:
No, I admitted I don’t understand how YOU use those words. Their respective definitions are quite plain, but I must frankly say that in my opinion, you sometimes use words idiosyncratically.
You put me in mind of that fellow from Alice in Wonderland, who said, approximately, “Words mean whatever I want them to mean, nothing more and nothing less.”
But it doesn’t really matter what questions I pose, does it? You’ve never answered one, as far as I can recall. I imagine that all of my questions are largely rhetorical at this point.
Oz
>If this website does not exist for the purpose of exchanging opinions, what precisely is its purpose?
Ozzie. This is a forum for exchanging and debating intellectual thoughts and ideas as the name implies, not a message board for posting angst-driven feelings and emotions. The expectation is that people who participate in the discussions bring a bit more to the table than some variation of ‘this is how I feel about X’.
If you want to see an example of what a real “analysis” looks like, have a glance at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/06/10/defending-the-second-amendment/
You can agree or disagree with the way I marshal my arguments, but they consist of more than “I feel”, “I think”, or “this is what other people think”.
Even essays like “the 5 Stupidest Comments” are more than simply my feelings about people. As I explained in comment #7, each example was chosen to illustrate a particular point, not just highlight someone I disagree with for disagreement’s sake.
If you don’t like having your opinions derided as opinions when making a comment, try doing more than simply sharing your feelings, and put a complex argument together that recognizes and relates to the various real world issues that surround it. No one here cares what I or anyone else feels about an issue. However, we do care what someone actually thinks about (as in analyzes) that issue as it relates to the real world we live in.
And Ozzie, just to be clear, I’ve never asked you to stop expressing your opinions, nor have I ever asked for them to be blocked, nor asked that the comment section be disabled. You get ridiculed because you refuse to engage in a real discussion. If the claim is made that X is “crime”, it doesn’t matter what my or your personal feelings on the subject are.
The fact that you want to discuss opinions is irrelevant.
Look at the actual topic being discussed and respond to that, not the sub-topic you want to express an opinion on. And further, try responding to a position that someone lays out in detail (like Inwood did with his legal analysis of the torture/crime subject). You either ignore the points the person makes, or respond with a general statement saying that you disagree (with no counter-analysis or point-by-point refutation). Once again, this is an example of simply sharing your personal opinion, rather than actually participating in a discussion.
When you begin to take yourself and the issue seriously, others with be more likely to respond in kind.
I wait breathlessly for ozzie’s next 17 uninterrupted posts.
Seems like there might need to be a special place for those suffering diarrhea of the keyboard. Interesting that in past threads discussing the “torture” issue Ozzie treats his opinions as settled fact. Several folks (yes me too) that had undergone water boarding indicated it was uncomfortable but clearly not torture, however Ozzie says it is therefore he, like the Omessiah, has spoken and it is the law.
Maybe there should be a number of comments per day limit to reduce the clutter on the responses.