No, she just has other people do it for her. And if she didn’t know that Bush was a fool and ( especially the second time ) a monster, then she was engaging in massive denial or willful ignorance. Which are not excuses.
Certainly in terms of how much destruction and suffering she’s contributed to.
This is a black and white situation.
So ? “He’ll cut my taxes and I don’t care how many people he tortures and murders in the process” is hardly an attitude that makes you anything but a monster.
Torture is an evil that negates any other good you might do.
Now honestly, what does that even mean? You’re comparing individuals who may have contributed nothing more than a single ballot towards Bush’s idiotic war (perhaps because they supported him on other issues) with an individual who planned, financed, and ordered the murder of 3,000 civilians (amongst other crimes). You’ll say the war in Iraq killed more people–and you’d be right–but the degree of participation and motive have to count for something.
Hardly anything is, and this isn’t.
Here’s another example of that black-and-white thinking I’m talking about. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Owning slaves is bad. Doing something bad negates good. Therefore, Jefferson’s contribution to humanity is null. Or am I misapplying your logic?
If I torture someone once, for 20 minutes, in 1964 (or whatever the joke is) and I also cure cancer, am I just an evil person? Or are people complex machines that defy simple moralistic labels? What if I voted for the guy who committed the torture? What if I just lent him $5 one time?
Yes and no. I’ve said before that Jefferson and his fellow slaveowners were all scum who deserved death. But an evil person can do good, by accident or because it benefits him, or because he is good towards the world in general but a hypocrite in his personal life. Not that I’d call Jefferson one such; he owned slaves, and creating America was hardly a good deed. Just ask all the people we’ve enslaved and slaughtered and exploited over the centuries.
Was Dr Mengele evil ? He and his fellow monsters did discover useful and interesting medical knowledge. Does that make them good people ?
Slaughter and exploitation seem to be a common theme in human history. It seems to me that to tar everyone who ever in some way supported a murderer as evil is to call most of humanity evil by extension. That’s almost… biblical. And it devalues the term IMO.
Not at all. I think that on balance, the positive things Mengele did are outweighed by his personal involvement in the concentration camp system and the extremely inhumane experiments he participated in (many of which were motivated by a base desire to glean evidence in favor of Aryan racial superiority). I’d say he comes out pretty evil.
But the people who supported Hitler from home, not perhaps knowing what went on in the camps? Less evil. Those who supported Hitler openly, despite an inward distaste for his nationalism? Less evil still. What about the members of the French Resistance, who killed German soldiers? Good for opposing the Nazis, or bad for killing people with jobs and loved ones? Our actions must be considered as a whole and in context.
Most of humanity has always been evil, or insane. Or so ignorant and thus incompetent that it amounts to the same thing. That’s why human history is so very nasty. A nightmare of millenniums.
And you were the one who brought up Jefferson as some sort of trump card, as if I wouldn’t dare call him a bad man. Well, I do dare.
According to you.
All of the German soldiers in France deserved death.
Because people keep trying to use arguments to defend America that if taken seriously would also let the Nazis off the hook.
Hardly; this has nothing to do with me. MOST people in this country are morally superior to their own ancestors of a few hundred years ago. The conclusion that the people of the past were evil or crazy is a straightforward consequence of the belief that society has become more moral and/or enlightened. It’s just a conclusion that we aren’t supposed to draw; it’s taboo.
Would you care to explain how re-electing Bush stained the hands of those who voted against him?
This sounds to me as though you believe that, post 9/11, a terrorist attack that happens to kill 11-year-olds would be acceptable, inasmuch as it is not targeting innocents.
Question: are you guilty? What do you believe is the appropriate punishment for the guilty?
First off, sorry I flew off the handle. However, even in the cold light of day I can’t see how any rational person could disagree with me.
But I guess some do. Personally, when I saw a Fox News correspondent do it live on television last year (on Brit Hume’s Special Report) I got most of what I needed. I’m a little surprised that Scylla didn’t see it as I have a feeling that most people who were “ambivalent” about waterboarding are Fox News fans.
Carnalk makes all these undisguised insults and attacks and is repeatedly warned, and the implication is made that this is far from the first time.
What does he get?
Another warning, which he vehemently argues against.
Then he shows up with a sideways apology with another insult put into it. If I’m supposed to take the high road and not respond to this immature shit as it deserves, than the onus is on you guys as moderators to make sure that it doesn’t continue.
If you don’t, then the people who attempt to follow the rules suffer while the ones that break them just skate and ruin the experience for everybody else.
“Torture doesn’t work” To me this is a nonstarter, and a bad argument. It’s like saying a hammer doesn’t work. A hammer neither works nor doesn’t. It’s a tool. Applied with skill in the proper situation, it works. Failing those, it doesn’t. I would guess torture is much the same. The ability to inflict pain is a powerful tool in coercion and control. To me it seems obvious that it can be useful.
This however doesn’t take anything away from the argument that we shouldn’t do it.
I was thinking about this the other day, and I wondered when it happened that we suddenly became capable of torture as a Nation. I had thought it was something we stood against.
I’m thinking now, that maybe this is a naive view. I’m suspecting we’ve always tortured. I suspect that most all sides torture in most all conflicts. It’s just now that the information is fast and cheap and easy to disseminate that it’s no longer possible to pretend we haven’t or don’t.
Last but not least, I kind of find myself in total agreement with Svin’s pov on this issue. It’s an adroit observation that given the circumstances one might not live up to one’s morals, and sell their personal ethics for expediency in protecting the lives of others.
Kind of depressing.
It’s kind of pleasing and a little scary what’s happened. After this thread made the Atlantic I was contacted by three different journalists including one from the Wall Street Journal looking for an article about this.
I was disapointed since they wanted to write the article and wanted me as myself rather than my pseudonym Scylla to come forth, neither condition I was comfortable with.
Not bad for writing fetchingly about a little water up the nose
Well, I’m sorry about how insulting I’ve been but I really feel that this stunt of yours should be condemned at almost every level. I thought it was idiotic when the Fox News guy did it but how a man with a wife and two kids could possibly think this was a sensible thing to do is beyond me. How anyone could think having water forced down your nose and throat would not be terrifying is similarly beyond me. I just hope the popularity of this thread and you getting contacted by magazines doesn’t encourage any copy cats or, worse, someone trying to top you. “All this talk of electrodes to the scrotum… is it really so bad?”
And it devalues the term IMO.
