threaded | unthreaded | newest first

Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

topic posted Tue, March 25, 2008 - 12:02 AM by 
I'd like to hear your opinions on ...

A). Darwin.
B). Global warming.
C) Abortion.
D) Waterboarding.

.
posted by:
join to post
  • s
    s
    offline 11

    Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

    Tue, March 25, 2008 - 5:56 AM
    A). Darwin. In agreement
    B). Global warming. The single greatest crock of shit ever propagated by the left. EVER.
    C) Abortion. Against it.
    D) Waterboarding. For it without reservation.
    join to post
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

    Tue, March 25, 2008 - 11:11 AM
    No one asked me, but it's an open forum, so...

    A). Darwin.
    -Do you want my opinion on Charles Darwin, or on Darwinism? I have no opinion about Charles Darwin, the man. As for Darwinism, evolutionary theory is a cornerstone of modern natural sciences, and the evidence in support of it is overwhelming. Makes sense to me.

    B). Global warming.
    --numerous causes, and it is a crisis, regardless of the cause. While we quibble over the extent of human activity as the cause, the planet roasts and the coral reefs are dying. We need to take immediate action. We need to do what we can, even if our activity is not the only cause.

    C) Abortion.
    --there will never be an easy answer. The right of individual privacy pitted against the right of the state to protect life. It's a tough call. Personally, I lean towards the right of privacy, but I abhor the use of abortion as a casual method of birth control, and believe the state has the right to impose reasonable limits, just as it does under Roe v. Wade. The hard thing is where to draw the line. Of course, for those who see it in absolute terms, the question is easy. I don't see it in absolute terms. Both sides have valid concerns.

    D) Waterboarding.
    --torture is and should be illegal, and is an ineffective method of obtaining reliable information. A victim of torture will tell his captors whatever they want to hear, once he reaches the breaking point. Even if what they want to hear is not the truth. If the Spanish priests of the Inquisition were to torture me long enough, I would eventually confess to being in league with the devil, and I would eventually give up your name as one of my fellow worshippers of Satan. And then they would torture you to death, too. I know this is what they want to hear, and only by saying this will the torture stop. No matter how much I love God and abhor the devil, at some point, I'll either break down and confess to being with the devil, or I will die on the rack.

    Nothing about torture has changed since then. The CIA is no better than the Spanish Inquisition. The techniques may be new, but the results the same, and the kinds of people and instutitions who employ torture are not those we want to be associated with as a nation.

    Evidence obtained by duress, by torture, is inadmissible in our legal system, in part because it is fundamentally unreliable, and in part because it is just wrong. The same principles should apply to the CIA's use of torture.

    What does McCain have to say about torture? The Viet Cong tortured him and his fellow captives in the Hanoi Hilton.
    join to post

    • Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

      Tue, March 25, 2008 - 11:48 AM
      Hey Shaka. Funny how you and I agree almost to the letter on some important matters, but Neoconed is so far out there on the right, no one can hear what he has to say.
      join to post
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

        Tue, March 25, 2008 - 8:40 PM
        "Hey Shaka. Funny how you and I agree almost to the letter on some important matters, but Neoconed is so far out there on the right, no one can hear what he has to say."

        --we agree on many points, because I am probably a liberal. However, we are going to disagree on many other points because liberals disgust me. And I have just enough conservative views to save myself from liberal self-loathing. As for far out conservatives like Neocondi, I get a good laugh out of them, and have always enjoyed having them as lunch companions. They are great conversationalists, even if they are lousy tippers.

        I always have to throw down a few extra dollars as we leave the diner, so that the waitress won't hate us. Why are neocons so stingy when it comes to tipping?
        join to post
        • s
          s
          offline 11

          Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

          Wed, March 26, 2008 - 8:57 AM
          <As for far out conservatives like Neocondi, I get a good laugh out of them, and have always enjoyed having them as lunch companions. They are great conversationalists, even if they are lousy tippers. >

          there has never been as big a tipper as myself. honestly.
          join to post

  • Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

    Tue, March 25, 2008 - 1:10 PM
    >> A). Darwin.
    B). Global warming.
    C) Abortion.
    D) Waterboarding. <<

    I'm going to answer, too.

    A) I don't understand people who deny evolution, and in my opinion they're making even a theological error. If your faith requires you to believe that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, Omphalism is completely valid theologically, isn't it? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omph...(theology) It seems like such an obvious solution to the dilemma of the consistent and undeniable evidence of evolution, and the mutually exclusive belief that the Bible is a literal historical account.

    B) I'm agnostic on the subject of human activity causing global warming, but I do think we should immediately adopt nuclear power and abandon fossil fuels as our primary energy source.

    C) A terrible tragedy on a personal level. Abortion should not be taken lightly. But Roe v. Wade is directly responsible for the decline in the national crime rate: babies who would have grown up unwanted and unhappy and angry were not born to commit crimes, and those who were born before Roe v. Wade aged and stopped committing them. For this reason abortion should be funded and freely available without questions.

    D) This shouldn't even be up for debate. Civilized peoples do not torture. Period.
    join to post
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

      Tue, March 25, 2008 - 4:06 PM

      "But Roe v. Wade is directly responsible for the decline in the national crime rate: babies who would have grown up unwanted and unhappy and angry were not born to commit crimes, and those who were born before Roe v. Wade aged and stopped committing them. For this reason abortion should be funded and freely available without questions."

      --- Freakonomics. I love it.

      Actually, the Protestant pro-life movment is full of holes. The life of babies is sacred, the lives of others - not. Our society justifies all kinds of killing, and allows all kinds of deaths to occur due to preventable disease, accidents, etc. They are not logically consistent positions. They can only justify it by claiming that babies are "innocent." But so too are lots of people who we allow to die, when society could have prevented their deaths. The Catholics are more logically consistent, being against both abortion and the death penalty. To them, all life is sacred, no exceptions.

      But yeah, if you are a hard core conservative, law & order type, you really ought to support abortion as a cheap crime preventative!
      join to post
    • s
      s
      offline 11

      Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

      Tue, March 25, 2008 - 4:10 PM
      <This shouldn't even be up for debate. Civilized peoples do not torture. Period.>

      if civilized peoples want to remain a 'people's, sure they do. the question is:

      a) would you rather feel all good about your policy of not torturing a higher-up with possible info on a nuke that could hit new york city
      and then have that city hit with a nuke and kill 6 million people OR....

      b) torture him--NOT KILL HIM -- and save 6 million people from dying?

      it's a no brainer. "B" is the morally correct answer.
      join to post
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

        Tue, March 25, 2008 - 7:26 PM
        Neocon, in your support for torture, you totally failed to respond to my point, which is that torture is an unreliable method of obtaining intelligence.

        My opposition to toture has nothing to do with "feeling good" or having a feel good policy.

        My opposition is based on a very conservative view point. An evidentiary viewpoint. Intelligence obtained by torture is inherently unreliable. The law views it as such, and I am unaware of any scientific evidence in support of it. That the CIA likes to do it is hardly evidence in support of any claim that it is reliable.

        The fact that torture is morally wrong and repugnant are additional reasons not to torture, but leaving those aside as irrelevant in your world view, then let's just look at your utilitarian analysis.

        How does obtaining inherently unreliable intelligence data through torture outweigh the harm to our society and our international reputation from engaging in torture?

        Also, if we torture our captives, is is a certainty that our opponents will do the same. So much for the Geneva Convention. Not that I expect Al Queda or the Viet Cong to subscribe to the Geneva Convention, but at least some of our opponents might, if we do.

        We have to set the example. How are we to show the Islamic World that our way is just if we famously torture their captives as we have?
        join to post
        • Cliff
          Cliff
          offline 75

          Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

          Wed, March 26, 2008 - 6:47 AM
          ********************Neocon, in your support for torture, you totally failed to respond to my point, which is that torture is an unreliable method of obtaining intelligence.***********

          This is a myth. The facts on the ground ( throughout all history) are that torture produces dramatic and rapid results. While it is true that one who has nothing to offer will make up any shit he can to stop the pain - it still produces results when the person being tortured knows something. It does so every time without fail and it does it almost immediately. In all history there has never been a person who withstood judiciously applied torture. Our soldiers are trained to spill their guts the moment the torture tools come out. The reason is simple: they will crumble eventually no matter how strong they are so there is no point in becoming physically destroyed when their real duty is to escape.

          Torture works and it works wonders.

          The sole reason to oppose it is that it is penal in nature and it is so in an unregulated manner.
          I don't approve of penal measures absent a full and fair trial on the merits. I think we need a pharmacological solution.

          ************Also, if we torture our captives, is is a certainty that our opponents will do the same. So much for the Geneva Convention. Not that I expect Al Queda or the Viet Cong to subscribe to the Geneva Convention, but at least some of our opponents might, if we do.**********

          Al Qaida isn't covered under the Geneva conventions. Read it. There is no way one can argue that they are representing any nation.

          The Viet Cong were.

          My position on the geneva accords is that they are mindlessly stupid effort to civilize war. War should not be civilized. It should be the most horrific bloody painful monstrously barbaric event in all human experience. There needs to be good reasons to eschew war. Civilizing it isn't the right way to go.

          ************We have to set the example. How are we to show the Islamic World that our way is just if we famously torture their captives as we have?*************

          I am unsure that the idea of "setting an example" is realistic. Especially as it applies to the Islamofascists. They think they are above every one else, that every one else is nothing more than sub human animals that are unfit to eat.

          The notion that the US can set an example for psycho-terrorists who think that God is leading them is akin to imagining that we as a people are going to take the example of social order and harmony from the termites eating our houses. We gas 'em and we feel good about it when we do.
          join to post
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

            Thu, March 27, 2008 - 8:25 AM
            Cliff:

            You claim torture "gets results" and "works," but are against it on principle.

            You are correct that torture "gets results", however, the results are unreliable. Therefore, it doesn't work.

            Getting "results" does not equal "working" when the results are unreliable.

            Why do you think our legal system does not admit evidence obtained by torture? Why isn't a confession obtained under duress admissible?

            Is it only because it is unconscionable? If that were the sole reason, there would probably be some exceptions made.

            It is inadmissible because it is unreliable as well. And unreliable evidence has no place in the courtroom. It should have no place in the intelligence community, either.
            join to post
            • Cliff
              Cliff
              offline 75

              Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

              Thu, March 27, 2008 - 11:38 AM
              **********Cliff:**********

              Shaka

              *******You claim torture "gets results" and "works," but are against it on principle.********

              Yah.

              ********You are correct that torture "gets results", however, the results are unreliable. Therefore, it doesn't work.********

              Oh if there is information to be had, that information comes tumbling out almost right away. Look at the Shiek in Gitmo' who spilled his guts almost the first five minutes of water boarding.

              *******Getting "results" does not equal "working" when the results are unreliable.*******

              I take exception to your assertion.

              *******Why do you think our legal system does not admit evidence obtained by torture? Why isn't a confession obtained under duress admissible?**********

              Confessions are not the same thing as data gathering. A confession obtained under duress offends the Fifth Amendment.

              Anyone who is adept at extracting information by torture knows how long it takes to break a man. They also know when the well is dry. Torture is fast, very fast. The "unreliable" argument is premised on bad methods, inexperienced operators, and reliance on victims who had nothing to offer or have shot their load.

              ********Is it only because it is unconscionable? If that were the sole reason, there would probably be some exceptions made.*******

              It offends the Constitution. The reason our forefathers made it so was because it offended their sense of things when they were coming out from under he English crown

              ********It is inadmissible because it is unreliable as well.*******
              Don't try to teach your grand mother to suck eggs. It is forcing you to bear witness against yourself. The problem is with the Fifth Amendment. The case law on point is as to coerced confessions and not data gathering. the Court can happily enter a dialog about "indicia of reliability" when the torture in question is as to confessions. But it's irrevelant because the coerced confession violated the Fifth Amendment and that standing alone is all the gorunds the court needs to toss it.


              And of course you have managed to miss entirely the reason why reliability is an issue in coerced confessions. It is an issue because of the "standard" in criminal cases. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." When you put a man's feet to the fire you toss out the window the possibility that he may be innocent and you only want the signature on the confession. The process is what is unreliable.
              It fails to rise to the standard of a criminal trial.

              But even without all that, the Constitution forbids it.

              The real problem is the Fifth Amendment absolutely prohibits it.


              The reason they are different is that in the instance of a forced confession the person may not be guilty of anything but until they relent and confess the force used to get 'em to confess won't stop. So they confess.
              -but -
              When the torture is as to data gathering the victim is keeping a secret - oh say maybe the identity and location of a wanted person or terror cell or their plans etc.. The thing you want is in there you merely need to apply the amount of force to pry it free.

              Once you get it it's real and you can act on it.

              What if the victim knows nothing and tells you some shit~? And of course you are convinced that they in fact do know something - so you act on the shit they tell you. You run the names , or cross check the info against known facts, or any of the hundreds of fast easy ways to vet data. Or maybe you send the guys in black out to find the terrorists in the safe house but there is no safe house and no terrorists. What harm is that? I say none at all. If you are trying to stop monsters from doing mass murders etc., you will have no down side chasing down a hundred wild goose chases. Eventually the torturer will realize the victim knows nothing.


              You are arguing using circular logic. You first make an assertion: "torture is unreliable"
              Then you put the idea that forced confessions are like torture on the table (in fact they are entirely different)
              then you insist that the law eschews torture because it is unreliable ( which is patently untrue)
              And then you close the circle. You have proved your thesis by insisting your thesis proves itself.

              It's like when the Christians tell you the bible is the word of God. Then to prove it they show you a verse from John that says it is the world of God.

              While it is true that no method of information gathering is entirely perfectly 100% dead on all the time, torture as a method of extracting information is a very powerful tool. Arguing that it's unreliable so it shouldn't be used is tantamount to arguing that salt can kill therefore you should not consume it. It's making a mountain from a mole hill. It's also a silly argument.

              Babies are delicious. They make the absolutely best BBQ Succulent meat marbled with fat and tender like to melt in your mouth.
              MMMM MMMM good~!!!
              if you find some people who don't like the taste of babies will you make you argument against eating babies depend on that? Will you try to use the happenstance of occasionally getting a sour baby part of your core argument?
              Won't you find a better argument~?

              There are plenty of reasons to eschew it that have nothing to do with how well it works.
              join to post

              • Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

                Thu, March 27, 2008 - 12:56 PM
                Someone could sink needles deep into my balls and empty eyesockets directly to my optic nerve and through my anus into my prostrate... thousands of needles wherever and however many, and be as subtle or overt about the application electricity or fire or ice or hammers as they can creatively divine. They could strip my flesh slowly, layer by aching layer. Break my arms and dance on the fracture, forcefeed me excrement to bursting, deny me sleep, drug me, erode my mind, whatever whatever. I'd no doubt scream and beg them to stop.

                But give up the location of someone I loved? A parent? A child? A spouse? Even a beloved pet.

                No, Cliff. I'd literally and enthusiastically, without hesitation, throw myself into torture continuously for decades. And I'm not the most dedicated guy around. There are people who feel as fierce about their political cause as I do about those I love.

                Your bringing all this up so casually in *this forum* makes me wonder if you're actually a WIO, a Wannabe Intelligence Operative. A person with true connection to the Dark Arts and Dirty Tricks Divisions of our country's secret bureaus wouldn't be hanging around on tribe implying that he had such connections and knowledge. But a WIO would do exactly as you did... imply such connection, casually, in order to try to score rhetorical points and bolster dubious credentials as someone "in the know" and try to shut down discussion.

                But rather than bolster your argument and confer respect, it weakens your argument and tarnishes your credibility. Hiding your true sources is a rhetorical cheap-shot,. It's intellectually dishonest because there are no specific points to address and refute (or agree with, for that matter). Frankly, it's immature.

                All that said, I hope this come off as only a little harsh. I do enjoy your contributions, and rather than actually accusing you of WIOism, I'm just letting you know how it comes off. Totally not interested in arguing the point nor in scoring rhetorical points myself. If you object, I gladly defer.

                That is all. Carry on.
                join to post
                • Cliff
                  Cliff
                  offline 75

                  Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

                  Thu, March 27, 2008 - 3:03 PM
                  **********But give up the location of someone I loved? A parent? A child? A spouse? Even a beloved pet.********

                  Haven't been at extremes have you? As to the rest of it:

                  I bring up lots of things with casual aplomb. Keep in mind that I'm not in any pain. It's quite easy for me to be casual.
                  You should see me on the subject of morals. People who can't keep up end up thinking I'm a total asshole.

                  Regarding life experience: Be careful what you put in present tense. I'm a lot older than you are - a year or two from retirement.

                  As to the time I can spend on tribe. That which I do for a living makes it possible for me to screw around most of the day ( actually it forces me to find shit to do with my time) so long as I'm near a phone and a computer terminal with access to my databases. I tell my friends that I have retired from the practice of law because what I do is so fucking easy and in fact it is.
                  join to post
        • s
          s
          offline 11

          Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

          Wed, March 26, 2008 - 8:56 AM
          <We have to set the example. How are we to show the Islamic World that our way is just if we famously torture their captives as we have?>

          no we don't: we have to save americans from possible/probable massive attacks. to do that, we must use any means possible. i could care less if we "teach" muslim radicals" anything: i care that we save american lives, which are under attack as we speak. let's save the moralizing until we destroy and crush radical islam through the age-old tested ways of winning wars: killing so many of them that they quit. it's very simple.
          join to post

      • Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

        Tue, March 25, 2008 - 10:37 PM
        LOL the "ticking bomb" scenario. I can't believe you hauled that one out. Been watching "24"? Here is a stock answer to that outlandish scenario:

        “First, the idea that I, you, or any other average citizen (or for that matter any government agent), with no prior experience or training in torture, could actually succeed in getting information from a terrorist (likely trained or indoctrinated to resist it) is ridiculous.

        On the other hand, if you are asking me whether I, you, or anyone else in our society, should become a trained torturer desensitised to the pain and suffering of people under my control, in anticipation of some hypothetical future case, my answer is no. I don’t want to become that kind of person and I don’t want people like that in my society.

        Anyway, as intelligence professionals attest, we would stand a much better chance of actually getting life-saving information by using persuasion, trickery, or some other means. So, if my life depended on getting fast, accurate information, I sure wouldn’t want anyone wasting their time on torture.”

        That comes from this book, which analyzes the ticking bomb scenario in detail: www.apt.ch/component/op...d,59/lang,en/

        Read it, if you're interested, but I can walk you through its exercises.

        Before I give my answer, I'd like you to answer some questions about your hypothetical attack. After all, you're asking me to overturn my abhorrence of torture, and accept that it can, at times, be a civilized, even moral act! So let's be precise:

        1) How imminent is your hypothetical attack? Hours? Weeks? Days? Years?

        2) Tell me how willing you would be to apply torture in these following situations. Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line?
        — a person who the authorities are almost certain is a perpetrator, but who denies it.
        — any person who the authorities suspect of any degree of involvement.
        — a person not suspected of involvement, but who has relevant information that he or she is for some reason unwilling to divulge.
        — a relative who is not involved but may know, for instance, where their family member may be hiding.
        — a child who may or may not know some relevant information but does not trust the authorities or has been told not to tell.
        — a child who has no relevant information, but whose torture in the presence of the perpetrator is the only thing that can get him to talk.
        join to post
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

          Tue, March 25, 2008 - 11:10 PM
          Rendall, you waste your time with your well reasoned rebuttal to neocondi's sloppy, thoughtless, throwaway justification for torture.

          I know neocondi is just someone's alt troll. If neocondi was a real person, he would be an idiot. But rather, he is an alt for trolling. If he can't put more effort into it than that, why do we even respond? Why take the bait?
          join to post

          • Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

            Tue, March 25, 2008 - 11:28 PM
            My rebuttal was cut n' paste. The well-reasoned part was due to someone else's work.

            Troll alt or not, Neocondi stimulates discussion and I feel lucky to have him/her in this forum.
            join to post
            • s
              s
              offline 11

              Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

              Wed, March 26, 2008 - 9:00 AM
              <Troll alt or not...>

              funny, when i'
              m called that: i'm the only one whose identity as a 'real person' has been known for 4 years. let the chickens*it who called me "alt" give full disclosure as to who he "is"!

              <Neocondi stimulates discussion and I feel lucky to have him/her in this forum.>

              Thanks R --i appreciate being invited--this is a cool forum.
              join to post
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Dear Cliffy and Neoconed.

                Thu, March 27, 2008 - 8:18 AM
                Necondi:

                You claim you are not an alt, claim full disclosure of your identity.

                Huh? Neocondi is your legal name? Whatever.

                I could care less who you are. I seriously doubt I am going to be impressed by your credentials or disclosure of your identity, so who cares?

                The thing is, you use this profile to troll. And that is fine if you want to troll. But your trolling is low grade, uninspired, standard off the shelf, Intro To Conservative Political Trolling 101. It's so predictible and uncreative.

                Work on your game a little.

                Boring.
                join to post