is your assertion confined to human toddlers?

Post #307,987 by boxley 4/29/09 8:15:24 AM Reply	is your assertion confined to human toddlers?
Post #308,037 by rcareaga 4/29/09 11:17:39 PM 4/29/09 11:19:21 PM Reply	move to strike as nonresponsive "Is your assertion confined to human toddlers?" I assume that "human" is not the variable here, since we do not speak of snake toddlers, or lizard toddlers, or chicken or panda, no, not even of chimp toddlers. So your disingenuous question as posed asks whether I mean toddlers as distinct from other age groups, and I respond yes, because toddlers, unlike, say, fourteen year-olds, are universally (in theory if not, alas, in fact) regarded as off-limits as objects by which the lusts of grownups may be permissibly slaked. We would not, I trust, countenance the sexual violation of a three year-old even if the rapist had in hand a signing statement from George W. Bush countersigned by Dick Cheney and Jack Bauer, with legal memoranda from Al Gonzalez' Justice Department, that the act would avert another "nine-eleven." The torturer should properly be subject to the same onus, and the same level of legal consequences, as the toddler-rapist acting under cover of law. And indeed, the Bybee and the Yoo who provided the legal figleaf for the atrocity should be regarded as accessories to the crime. Torture is wrong. Utterly. Toddler rape is wrong, utterly. How is this difficult for you and Pat B to understand? Incidentally, the National Review website has an uncharacteristic spasm of sense on this subject: http://corner.nation...mNmMxMTMzOGI2YWY= Money quote: "Any decent society needs to defend itself from armed aggression without becoming a society not worth defending." cordially, Edited by rcareaga April 29, 2009, 11:19:21 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #308,043 by boxley 4/30/09 8:24:09 AM Reply	I was thinking of new zealand sheep shaggers actually torture is always wrong. Its the definition of what is torture that the argument bogs down. Things that happen daily in US jails and prisons thru out america today would be considered torture by any reasonable person yet it appears to be perfectly acceptable to the general public.
Post #308,055 by drook 4/30/09 10:03:14 AM Reply	So? Things that happen daily in US jails and prisons thru out america today would be considered torture by any reasonable person yet it appears to be perfectly acceptable to the general public. Leaving aside the question of whether inmate-on-inmate crimes that are widely suspected and maybe poorly policed are morally equivalent to state sanctioned violations of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions ... are you suggesting that because there is no widespread outrage over prison activities that there shouldn't be any outrage over torture by the military or the intelligence community? But you'll just say your point was about the definition of torture. Let's see, we could go with the definition we used for torture when we executed people for doing it to our soldiers. No, can't do that, because that's what we've been doing to people. Okay, let's go with what the Geneva Conventions ... oops, no, "any reasonable person" would say we've done that. How about "cruel and unusual"? Damn, yup, definitely doing that. Well, forget definitions. How about we say that anyone who is proud of what they did, and confident that it was legal and necessary, will obviously stand up and defend why they did it? If someone is afraid to say what they did it makes it look like they knew it was wrong. Well damn, it looks like they fail on that count, too. The point here (Remember, we're talking about Rand's question whether the people who did the torture are in the clear because someone told them it was legal) is that there are lots of things that I wouldn't do, even if someone told me they were legal. Because I know that those things are wrong. Torture isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's illegal because it's wrong. -- Drew
Post #308,056 by boxley 4/30/09 10:55:07 AM 4/30/09 11:15:39 AM Reply	talking about staff on inmate abuse (edit link) http://www.november....old/22/22025.html Routinely, guards would drop handcuffed inmates face-first on concrete floors, and would then kick them repeatedly in the ribs, kidneys and testicles. Flaming papers were thrown into cells as a pretext for spraying men with fire extinguishers. Meals were served with feces and urine in the food trays. Faces were smashed into concrete walls. Handcuffs were clamped so tight that wrists and ankles were left lacerated and bruised. Leg shackles cut flesh to the bone when men were forced to run, and when they fell to the ground, they would be kicked, hit and slammed more. These horror stories were documented by the ACLU and others, and are particularly credible as the accounts were told by 23 prisoners who were unable to compare notes with each other in the isolation of the infamous Special Housing Unit known as the SHU. who do you think were partying at abu ghraib? Professional corrections officials. stuff that is done to inmates by officers on a daily basis across this nation is often much worse than described in the memos and the public shrugs. I like your one point How about we say that anyone who is proud of what they did, and confident that it was legal and necessary, will obviously stand up and defend why they did it? If someone is afraid to say what they did it makes it look like they knew it was wrong. is probably the best definition thanx, bill Edited by boxley April 30, 2009, 11:15:39 AM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!