# Let the dialogue on morality begin! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 22, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094 "2005-01-22T16:14:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/41 "2005-01-25T17:01:11Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > The only way to combat this continuous, eternal charge of mendacity is with honesty. Total, complete, painful honesty. So, fine. Let’s be sincere about our positions. Let’s say what we believe, not what we think will win votes. And if we believe we’re right, then we should be able to say what we believe in moral terms, because isn’t morality about doing what’s right? Nah, I don’t think honesty will work. The Dems in my opinion have been TOO honest for their own good. They need to build a better media machine, and they need to run a much tighter ship wrt being “on message.” No amount of honesty is going to help if the PUbbies are using a 1500 watt amp to address the voting public and the Dems are stuck with yelling real loud. In fact, Dems should have one set of short, sound-bite talking points and another, much more nuanced set of points for places like the Web. These two sets do not have to match exactly. This is exactly what the Pubbies have done. The neocons fucking SPELLED OUT their plans for Iraq prior to Bush’s election in 2000. No one paid any attention because it was all on paper. They just put their hands in Bush’s back and had him say, “Awwmm gonn kick Saddam butt cuz he had somep’n or other t’ do with 911 and thass a fact!” and the TV and radio idjits swallowed it wholesale. We should do the same if we want to win. > [@](#): > > I believe abortion should remain legal. I believe there should be limits to the legal private ownership of firearms. I believe in these things sincerely and I believe these positions are right. Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise, but I will not change my mind just because other people tell me I’m wrong. And I will not tell anyone otherwise just because I think that’s what they want to hear. “I disagree, but am willing to accede to the will of the people”, _maybe_. But _adopt_ the NRA’s stance on gun control, if I don’t believe in it? Not stand up for the rights of gay and lesbian couples, if I feel that those rights are being trampled? Hell, no! Exactly. Stick with your core beliefs. The party may not adopt them, but if you’re in the tent at least, you may be able to make progress backstage. Once again, look at the neocons. > [@](#): > > And if my sincere beliefs do not convince the red-state voters, then that is what I’ll have to accept, even if it bothers me. That whole “tolerance” thing that we dearly love, don’t you know. But “tolerance” doesn’t mean pandering, and it doesn’t mean compromising my values. Honesty is a moral value too. Yeah, but honesty just DOESN’T work in politics. Time to admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/42 "2005-01-25T17:03:31Z")
> [@sweetfreak](#): > > You wanted to talk about morality, so I will attempt to keep the respective political parties out of it. First of all, why not start off with a bit of humility? Instead of focusing on what everyone else is doing that is morally wrong, why don’t you look within first? Examine where your thinking may be flawed. Look at all sides of the equation. Second, what gives you the right to force your morals onto somebody else? I often use the old cliche “Just because you shout the loudest does not mean you are right.” If you are strong in your beliefs, good for you. Be thankful that you have that freedom in this country and enjoy it while it lasts. If you want others to know the truth, if in fact what you believe is the truth, then live that truth yourself. Hopefully, others will learn that truth because you will be a good, positive example of it. Anger, hatred towards others is definitely NOT a positive example. Oh, that’s so sweet. So, which part of torturing prisoners do YOU think is worth defending? What part of warmongering can YOU get along with? What part of electoral fraud doesn’t bother YOU? I mean, I just MAY have thought about these issues prior to posting, kiddo. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/43 "2005-01-25T17:17:05Z")
I strongly agree with **Orbifold** on this matter. It isn’t simply about staking out a position that you hope more other people will agree with. What that says is that you are afraid people won’t agree with your real position. If you can’t come out and fight for your position, why should other people even consider adopting it for themselves? People not only want to do what is right, they want to do what seems to be right based on the convictions of those behind the message. Strong leaders are strong because they are compelling, not convincing. People are looking for a champion to fight for them. When we adopt some concilliatory position, we are immediately telling people that they should not trust us to fight for what we believe in, and that means we cannot be trusted to fight for them, should they have aligned themselves with us. The Democrats must simply stop being afraid. We must compel people, not convince them. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/44 "2005-01-25T17:33:05Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > Better idea: develop a Democratic party platform that flows from the moral values Democrats already hold. Compassion, fairness, justice. Rewarding work (the minimum wage). Respecting the individual (religious freedom, separation of church and state). Punishing malfeasance (stricter corporate oversight). And so on. Yes, though I note that deep-sixing the gun control foolishness **is** “respecting the individual” and (insofar as it makes working conditions for criminals more hazardous) “punishing malfeasance”. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/45 "2005-01-25T18:24:31Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Nah, I don’t think honesty will work. The Dems in my opinion have been TOO honest for their own good. They need to build a better media machine, and they need to run a much tighter ship wrt being “on message.” > […] **Evil Captor** , I note that you’re talking about the delivery of the message, whereas I’m talking more exclusively about the content. I agree that better presentation is a must for the Democratic party, but I don’t see that conflicting with anything I’ve said. > [@Steve MB](#): > > Yes, though I note that deep-sixing the gun control foolishness **is** “respecting the individual” and (insofar as it makes working conditions for criminals more hazardous) “punishing malfeasance”. I’m sure there’s a fascinating argument to be had on the moral values of various positions on gun control, balancing society’s respect for the individual with individual respect for society, and debating who does and does not have the moral authority to punish. However, for the purpose of _this_ thread I hope you will be satisfied if I say I disagree with the proposition that all gun control is “foolishness”. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/46 "2005-01-25T19:14:51Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > I hope you will be satisfied if I say I disagree with the proposition that all gun control is “foolishness”. On a policy level? Maybe not (though the orthodox Democratic position has, IMO, clearly gone beyond a reasonably nuanced balance). On a political level? Certainly – I have not the slightest doubt that if it weren’t for the voters swayed by the gun control issue, Al Gore would be starting his second term. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/47 "2005-01-25T20:44:41Z")
The Dems can’t become “Republican lite”. The Republican majority in both houses of Congress is razor thin and “the most liberal Senator” nearly beat (or some think DID beat) an incumbent wartime president. That doesn’t tell me that people don’t like the Dem ideals. What the Dems should do to successfully elect a president is: 1. Get a 3x5 card. Write your goals on the card. If it doesn’t fit, pare it down until it does. The message must be simple or it will not sell. 2. Forget about changing policy on abortion. Those that base their votes solely on abortion haven’t voted for a Democrat for president in over 20 years. There are simply no votes to lose there, changing policies to attempt to win those voters will lose more votes than it wins. 3. Forget about trying to suck up to the NRA, for much the same reason as above. If gun control is the number one priority to you, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in heck that you would vote Democratic for president, anyway. 4. Choose a governor as the nominee. Senators have no chance these days. Governors do not cast votes on defense issues. Every vote cast to cut ANY system, even if it had the backing of the then incumbent Republican president, will bite any Democrat in the butt. Republicans are immune from scrutiny on this- life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Back to the matter of the OP- I challange anyone to justify the torture of US detainees. Even if it yielded good information (which it doesn’t), the negative political impact on the Islamic street is simply intolerable. Not to mention the practice is unquestionably immoral. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/48 "2005-01-25T21:37:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The Dems can’t become “Republican lite”. The Republican majority in both houses of Congress is razor thin and “the most liberal Senator” nearly beat (or some think DID beat) an incumbent wartime president. That doesn’t tell me that people don’t like the Dem ideals. What the Dems should do to successfully elect a president is: I agree with you, and the points I snipped off, but it can’t be about who will be the next presidential nominee. Waiting until 2008 is too late. Even the mid-terms are too late. It’s got to start now. > [@](#): > > Back to the matter of the OP- I challange anyone to justify the torture of US detainees. Even if it yielded good information (which it doesn’t), the negative political impact on the Islamic street is simply intolerable. Not to mention the practice is unquestionably immoral. Well, here’s a problem: Sen. Chuck Schumer, a _Democrat_, has accepted your challenge: > [@](#): > > We ought to be reasonable about this. [I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake."](http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200501060741.asp) > > “Take the hypothetical,” Schumer continued. “If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, ‘Do what you have to do.’” This was back in June, but it’s coming back to bite him (and the Dems) via the Gonzalez hearings. This kind of crap has to stop. What makes it even more unforgivable, is that he’s in a very safe seat, and was just reelected in a cakewalk. I was thinking of pitting him, but he’s more of a symptom of a bigger problem the Dems need to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![sweetfreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@sweetfreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweetfreak)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/49 "2005-01-26T00:22:47Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Oh, that’s so sweet. So, which part of torturing prisoners do YOU think is worth defending? What part of warmongering can YOU get along with? What part of electoral fraud doesn’t bother YOU? > > I mean, I just MAY have thought about these issues prior to posting, kiddo. So…it’s okay for other cultures to torture and kill people? I believe in just wars. Sadly, war is never a pretty picture, but to defeat the enemy, you sometimes have to be just as merciless as they are. The sad fact of war. There was no electoral fraudYou say there was one, but fail to provide the truth of that statement. Bush won, fair and square. Instead of whining about it, why not try to work with the president that was elected? I am no fan of Bush, but he is a lot more honest than Kerry or Michael Moore have been. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/50 "2005-01-26T02:16:50Z")
As far as I know, Gonzales never said that torture was a good thing, did he? The memo he’s associated with just said that an argument can be made that torture is legal, as far as I know. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/51 "2005-01-26T03:21:13Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > As far as I know, Gonzales never said that torture was a good thing, did he? The memo he’s associated with just said that an argument can be made that torture is legal, as far as I know. Yes. In the same way that I could write a post here all about how one could go about sharing pirated music. I could then argue to the mods as they give me a smack down that I never said sharing pirated music was a _good_ thing. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/52 "2005-01-26T15:27:28Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Yes. In the same way that I could write a post here all about how one could go about sharing pirated music. I could then argue to the mods as they give me a smack down that I never said sharing pirated music was a _good_ thing. I don’t know that that’s really a good comparison, because what’s not allowed on this board is writing about how one could go about sharing pirated music, not saying that sharing pirated music was a good thing. In fact, you probably could start a thread arguing that sharing pirated music was a good thing, arguing for changes in copyright law, etc., and the mods would allow it. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/53 "2005-01-26T15:43:30Z")
Be that as it may, Cap. I do think Gonzalez participating in what appears to be a ‘find the rationale’ game for torture isn’t the sort of moral authority I’d like to see in an AG. And for an AG to have been the one trying to find out how ‘legal’ torture can be should give everyone the willies. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/54 "2005-01-26T16:21:34Z")
I’m not sure it was Alvarez specifically, but the Justice Dept. team charged with finding rationales for torture (oh, excuse me … looking into the legal status of Guantanamo detainees) did come up with the bit about anything short of “pain equivalent to major organ failure” not being torture, which would have included things like pulling out fingernails and even cutting off fingers and toes. The Justice Dept. renounced that memo on New Years’ Day, specifically to keep Alvarez from having to account for it at his AG hearing. But it clearly shows the quality of mind Alvarez and his justice dept. buddies have. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/55 "2005-01-26T16:25:11Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The Dems can’t become “Republican lite”. The Republican majority in both houses of Congress is razor thin and “the most liberal Senator” nearly beat (or some think DID beat) an incumbent wartime president. That doesn’t tell me that people don’t like the Dem ideals. What the Dems should do to successfully elect a president is: > > 1. Get a 3x5 card. Write your goals on the card. If it doesn’t fit, pare it down until it does. The message must be simple or it will not sell. > > 2. Forget about changing policy on abortion. Those that base their votes solely on abortion haven’t voted for a Democrat for president in over 20 years. There are simply no votes to lose there, changing policies to attempt to win those voters will lose more votes than it wins. > > 3. Forget about trying to suck up to the NRA, for much the same reason as above. If gun control is the number one priority to you, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in heck that you would vote Democratic for president, anyway. > > 4. Choose a governor as the nominee. Senators have no chance these days. Governors do not cast votes on defense issues. Every vote cast to cut ANY system, even if it had the backing of the then incumbent Republican president, will bite any Democrat in the butt. Republicans are immune from scrutiny on this- life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Exactly right. I still think there might be some gun control votes to be had, and that it’s not an issue that’s important to most Dems the way abortion and such are, but I cold be wrong about that. I also don’t think Repubs are immune from scrutiny on any issue … if we have a media machine that can subject them to scrutiny. Hopefully, Air America will grow in time to become the Limbaugh/hate radio alternative and we’ll get us an unfair and unbalanced “news” channel like Fox. Back to the matter of the OP- I challange anyone to justify the torture of US detainees. Even if it yielded good information (which it doesn’t), the negative political impact on the Islamic street is simply intolerable. Not to mention the practice is unquestionably immoral. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/56 "2005-01-26T16:25:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The Dems can’t become “Republican lite”. The Republican majority in both houses of Congress is razor thin and “the most liberal Senator” nearly beat (or some think DID beat) an incumbent wartime president. That doesn’t tell me that people don’t like the Dem ideals. What the Dems should do to successfully elect a president is: > > 1. Get a 3x5 card. Write your goals on the card. If it doesn’t fit, pare it down until it does. The message must be simple or it will not sell. > > 2. Forget about changing policy on abortion. Those that base their votes solely on abortion haven’t voted for a Democrat for president in over 20 years. There are simply no votes to lose there, changing policies to attempt to win those voters will lose more votes than it wins. > > 3. Forget about trying to suck up to the NRA, for much the same reason as above. If gun control is the number one priority to you, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in heck that you would vote Democratic for president, anyway. > > 4. Choose a governor as the nominee. Senators have no chance these days. Governors do not cast votes on defense issues. Every vote cast to cut ANY system, even if it had the backing of the then incumbent Republican president, will bite any Democrat in the butt. Republicans are immune from scrutiny on this- life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Exactly right. I still think there might be some gun control votes to be had, and that it’s not an issue that’s important to most Dems the way abortion and such are, but I cold be wrong about that. I also don’t think Repubs are immune from scrutiny on any issue … if we have a media machine that can subject them to scrutiny. Hopefully, Air America will grow in time to become the Limbaugh/hate radio alternative and we’ll get us an unfair and unbalanced “news” channel like Fox. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/57 "2005-01-27T17:03:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Forget about trying to suck up to the NRA The issue is not of “sucking up the NRA”, but rather of kicking the hard-core gun-ban faction to the curb (which, I repeat, the Democrats **must** do if they ever want to win national elections). ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/58 "2005-01-27T20:20:18Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > The issue is not of “sucking up the NRA”, but rather of kicking the hard-core gun-ban faction to the curb (which, I repeat, the Democrats **must** do if they ever want to win national elections). Sure, but the problem is that the NRA thinks _anything_ short of “unfettered access to all firearms” is “banning guns.” I have no interest in banning guns, but I wouldn’t mind seeing a dialog about possibly giving gun owners regular training in firearm safety, and having something periodically renewed to show they’re competent in firearm use. Yet as far as the NRA is concerned, such a position makes me guilty of (a) advocating even more gun-control laws, (b) coddling criminals, © wanting a draconinan registration of gun owners, all so (d) the UN’s black helicopters can round them up when the revolution comes. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![AmericanMaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@AmericanMaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AmericanMaid)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094/59 "2005-01-28T20:13:52Z")
What’s the morality of treating prisoners this way? [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/aplatin\_story.asp?category=1102&slug=Guantanamo%20Sex%20vs%20Faith](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/aplatin_story.asp?category=1102&slug=Guantanamo%20Sex%20vs%20Faith) Smearing a man’s face with fake menstrual blood - what the fuck! My favorite quote: “I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case,” Smearing a Muslim man with blood (even fake) is basically waging a religious war, dipshit. Not in my name. Not my country. Not my president. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-dialogue-on-morality-begin/286094.md?page=2)