tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post115940509463486661..comments2024-03-29T03:00:06.038-07:00Comments on Jon Swift: Traditional Torture ValuesJon Swifthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02130944579317556923noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-87780688252898042212018-07-24T03:00:53.919-07:002018-07-24T03:00:53.919-07:00Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!
Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!<br />Dr. Ravisankar Erukulapatihttp://www.healthyatra.com/doctors-in-india/online-appointment-dr-ravisankar-erukulapati-endocrinologist-with-email-id-apollo-hospitals-hyderabad-indianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-66427877176531688772018-05-30T02:05:06.749-07:002018-05-30T02:05:06.749-07:00Thanks for sharing that. It was fun reading it. :-...Thanks for sharing that. It was fun reading it. :-)Mitochondrial Myopathyhttp://www.healthyatra.com/diseases-and-conditions/mitochondrial-myopathy-definition-causes-symptoms-complications-and-cost-surgery-treatment-hospital-in-indianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-41463524186305520122018-04-25T01:26:16.436-07:002018-04-25T01:26:16.436-07:00Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!
Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!<br /><br />Dr. Rohit Purihttp://www.healthyatra.com/doctors-in-india/online-appointment-dr-rohit-puri-oncologist-medanta-hospital-gurugram-indianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-55476937571490363672014-07-21T15:10:24.859-07:002014-07-21T15:10:24.859-07:00Thank you very much
alaamiahThank you very much<br /><a href="https://foursquare.com/alaamiah/list/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%84" title="alaamiah" rel="nofollow">alaamiah</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16043907326817667509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-61849046256649155352014-07-21T15:09:43.343-07:002014-07-21T15:09:43.343-07:00Thank you very much
alaamiahThank you very much<br /><a href="https://foursquare.com/alaamiah/list/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%84" title="alaamiah" rel="nofollow">alaamiah</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16043907326817667509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-62236686028790467212010-12-03T21:10:29.014-08:002010-12-03T21:10:29.014-08:00So what are the best lida daidaihua diet pills av...So what are the best <a href="http://www.lida-slimming-capsules.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>lida daidaihua</strong></a> diet pills available in the market? Since there are a lot of diet pills available that really work, it is much better if you look for them according to their action or how they go about bringing the slimmer you and how you want it done. In short, the best diet pill is the one whose approach to shedding off pounds is one that you want.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/16699063148730098265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-63553204008219088542009-09-17T13:20:47.940-07:002009-09-17T13:20:47.940-07:00First,
There were no fingernails being pulled of...First,<br /> There were no fingernails being pulled off of terrorists by these CIA agents. These CIA agents were following strict guidelines and procedures in questioning these terrorists. The Bible talks about retribution and justice. I believe that the enhanced interrogation techniques were used for that purpose in realtion to standing up for the 3000 innocent lives that were murdered on 9/11. The United States was acting in self-defense because of the Sept. 11 attacks, which makes the CIA's actions, which were authorized by the government, completely acceptable and just. There is a huge difference in using certain necessary means in order to prevent evil from occuring than purposefully causing evil and killing people all across the World. I find it quite disturbing that people who oppose the use of EIT's against terrorists think that they have the moral high ground, but yet they would allow innocent human beings to die just to say they didn't use torture, or the techniques. These people would rather stand up for evil murderous terrorists but would simply allow vast numbers of innocent people to die all in the name of morality. I don't see how that's keeping your hands clean. By explicitly avoiding participating in what could be necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, on some level these people standing up for terrorists may also share in some of the culpability if another attack(God forbid) occurs.Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040553825059591114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1166767081757228412006-12-21T21:58:00.000-08:002006-12-21T21:58:00.000-08:00Sorry to take so long in finding your blog here mr...Sorry to take so long in finding your blog here mr swift.. I thought I'd mention the fact that the debate isn't about wether or not torture is morally ok, or even if it's morally acceptable. It's merely wether or not the representatives of a our free democratic republic, should be engaged in it on our behalf.<BR/><BR/>The debate has nothing at all, to do with torture done by foreign powers, such as the European Union, or the Peoples Republic of China, should they or their voters choose to have such methods employed.<BR/><BR/>I hardly think that religious christians , or non religious christians, or others, have a particular moral conundrum facing them.. they should be able to merely vote their values or beliefs on an issue, as members of a representative form of government.. just like they might on going to war in the first place, marriage, abortion, and so many other popular issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159783217442479532006-10-02T03:00:00.000-07:002006-10-02T03:00:00.000-07:00That we torture is evidence that we 'civilised hum...That we torture is evidence that we 'civilised humans' are worse than savages. Even non-human animals don't torture.<BR/><BR/>Best we have a nuclear war, wipe the slate clean. Perhaps the next lot of evolving creatures might have a few redeeming features.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Shame about the other species though!Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02798600572745255535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159735550579256782006-10-01T13:45:00.000-07:002006-10-01T13:45:00.000-07:00I just read most of the post and some of the comme...I just read most of the post and some of the comments: "I give" "I give"<BR/>(Who says torture doesn’t work?)<BR/><BR/>On less then a more serious note, just because a bunch of knee-jerk chicken-shit legislators (about 80% of everyone in both House and Senate) have and or are about to give G.W.Bush a new set of certified stainless steel nail pullers, does not mean we all have to lose sleep. <BR/><BR/>Just think, in a few years when this "regime" is finished, America will relent to a kinder and gentler breed of torturing Administration (barring another extremely rude terrorist impact, then all bets are off!)<BR/><BR/> It will be back to soft plastic screws, rubber hammers and the like for the hired help down at the CIA, and we will all be able to sleep nights again. <BR/><BR/>Also, we may resume our standard national arguments in how to properly engage in our war mongering. That would bring up debate such as; do we use cluster bombs or not? Irradiated bullets and or bunker busters? It is hard to choose, so many “defense“ systems to pick from. But, at least most Americans know what a “bunker buster” is and have a much invalidated opinion on it. Who the hell knows what water boarding is? Sounds like some new kind of GenX punk Olympic sporting event.benmerchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05822419839573670413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159708560208067002006-10-01T06:16:00.000-07:002006-10-01T06:16:00.000-07:00I hope all this does nothing to water down the pri...I hope all this does nothing to water down the principle, certainly enshrined in English law, that torture is most definitely illegal <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner" REL="nofollow">if both parties enjoy it</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159626559623916542006-09-30T07:29:00.000-07:002006-09-30T07:29:00.000-07:00Reasonable Liberal, I have no idea where the thres...Reasonable Liberal, I have no idea where the threshold is. I'm fairly sure that there's a threshold above which torture would be ok, and these would be somewhat extreme cases. I don't know if I can say where that is. It does seem to be reachable more easily with killing than it does with torture, meaning there seem to be more cases when killing is ok than there are cases when torture is ok. But I wonder if the reason for that is because it's not as rare that killing is the only way to stop someone from doing real evil, where it's much less often that that's the case with torture.<BR/><BR/>To answer your question, I'd need to know what they knew (or had good reason to believe) ahead of time about the kind of information they thought they could get by this, the number of lives that might be at stake, the larger-scale global issues at stake, the likelihood of actually getting the kind of information that would achieve those things, and the level of guilt and complicity on the part of the people being interrogated. I can't say I know any of those things, which is why I'm agnostic on these particular cases.<BR/><BR/>The level of pain and discomfort is a factor, so I don't think it's irrelevant, but people seem to be acting as if it's the only factor. That's where I disagree. My point has simply been that merely stating that this is torture doesn't mean it's automatically immoral to do it. I don't think that's true. I do think torture is generally wrong, perhaps almost always wrong. I've heard enough about these cases that I can't be sure that any of it was wrong, even if the presumption is against it. The questions people are raising are worth raising, but I'm just not sure people are raising them in the right way. The assumptions people are making seem to me to be insensitive to the complexity of the moral issues here.<BR/><BR/>My view on this is that I don't know what I would have done if I had been in the president's position. Maybe I would have concluded that it would have been wrong to do what he authorized, but maybe I wouldn't have. Maybe I would have done it and then afterward thought I shouldn't have. Maybe I would have done it with great reservations but concluded even afterward that it was the right thing to do. I just don't feel as if I'm in a position to make that judgment.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159622799226816882006-09-30T06:26:00.000-07:002006-09-30T06:26:00.000-07:00You are a member of Bloggers Against Torture and t...You are a member of Bloggers Against Torture and then you post this??????<BR/><BR/>I don't get your rationale. <B>Bloggers Against Torture</B> is not "like President Bush I am opposed to torture except in certain circumstances when it's really, really necessary nor would any other blogger on that list support this statement:<BR/><BR/>"So the only way to protect our soldiers from dangerous and painful litigation is to give them the freedom to hurt the terrorists first."<BR/><BR/>No <B>Bloggers Against Torture</B> is against all torture, under any circumstances.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159591555363426262006-09-29T21:45:00.000-07:002006-09-29T21:45:00.000-07:00We've established that Christianists are not engag...We've established that Christianists are not engaging in moral relativism depending on how one defines "absolutism" and "relativism." I think we've gone as far as we can go on a blog. There's wiggle room for both of us! But thank you for responding to my comments.<BR/><BR/>Jeremy, you seem to have thought about this alot so I would like your honest opinion on whether you think Bush's torture policy has been limited to the 'extreme' cases you suggest.<BR/><BR/>As a reasonable liberal, I too can imagine situations when torture is appropriate. In my view, the debate should be over which techniques are appropriate, and I think there should be accountability when we screw up (e.g., fire Rumsfeld). But we haven't been having that debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159587665467381922006-09-29T20:41:00.000-07:002006-09-29T20:41:00.000-07:00Jon,Did they not teach you in Sunday School two wr...Jon,<BR/><BR/>Did they not teach you in Sunday School two wrongs don't make a right?<BR/>Kindergarten maybe?<BR/>Did 9/11 change the Golden Rule?<BR/><BR/>I guess in all your twisted religious maneuvering to fit your own fear based agenda you either did not get that lesson or you have simply rationalized it away. <BR/><BR/>Either way, when you meet your maker you will find out if that bullshit reasoning you have decided to follow holds up...in court...so to speak. <BR/><BR/>Sadly, I have my doubts you will ever find the part of your Soul that KNOWS better here on the physical side of creation. <BR/><BR/>Some Souls here reflect to us that which we choose not to be and in that service at least both you, your preacher guy and the terrorist are useful. <BR/><BR/>How we treat the least among us is the true measure of our progress, it is not becoming like them and then calling it something different.<BR/><BR/>God is not fooled by that and I think you would do well to realize that fact.<BR/><BR/>Glad to see you have been coming round The Peace Tree via my site stats. Careful though, some peace might rub off on ya!...lol. I hope so anyway.<BR/>KimKim Gongrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18232068323396183808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159580999320669162006-09-29T18:49:00.000-07:002006-09-29T18:49:00.000-07:00Christ Almighty what a thread. I feel like raisin...Christ Almighty what a thread. I feel like raising my pinky while I'm tipping my mug of bourbon. What's next, a discussion of how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin? To paraphrase Dick Cheney, these kind of debates only encourage the enemy. Moral clarity should not take so many words. How do I know if your with us or against us if I can't understand what the hell your talking about?OutOfContexthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07680135979505561010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159560385654089862006-09-29T13:06:00.000-07:002006-09-29T13:06:00.000-07:00I must say I find it very refreshing that we can d...I must say I find it very refreshing that we can discuss torture like civilized adults.Jon Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02130944579317556923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159557438879035632006-09-29T12:17:00.000-07:002006-09-29T12:17:00.000-07:00Reasonable Liberal, if you're not interested in ma...Reasonable Liberal, if you're not interested in making careful distinctions then I'm not sure we can even have a reasonable discussion.<BR/><BR/>There are different ways people have used the term 'moral relativism'. It is not a dodging move to ask what you mean by a term. It is a clarifying move, because different ways you respond would require different kinds of response. Different views can go by the same name, and I'd say different things about different views.<BR/><BR/>You defined relativism as the denial of absolutism, but you didn't say what absolutism is. You gave an example, but it's not even an example about ethics. "God hates gays" is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. Ethical statements are prescriptive. So I'm not sure what ethical view you're calling absolutism.<BR/><BR/>Philosophers generally define absolutism as the view that moral statements apply to every instance of such an action. If lying is wrong, then it's wrong no matter what. Most people I know do not think killing is always wrong. They think killing in self-defense is sometimes ok. Does that make them relativists? Hardly. It means they're not absolutists about the wrongness of killing. They might believe that and still think the same moral rules apply to everyone. It's just that those rules indicate that different situations require different things. An unmarried person is not being unfaithful by seeking after a new love interest, for instance, whereas such an act would be wrong for me since I'm married. That is not relativism, even though it is a denial of absolutism about seeking after a new love interest.<BR/><BR/>A relativist allows for something to be right for me and wrong for you merely because we have different views on that thing. A relativist would say that torture is ok for someone who thinks it's ok or for someone whose culture says it's ok, while it's wrong for those who disagree.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159497709624476512006-09-28T19:41:00.000-07:002006-09-28T19:41:00.000-07:00Jon, you wrote, "In other words, Christians who ar...Jon, you wrote, "In other words, Christians who are just following orders can spiritually wash their hands of responsibility for their actions so they don't have to worry about being sent to God's torture chamber after they die." <BR/><BR/>Jon you have misunderstood my position. I am absolutely NOT saying what you think I'm saying. <BR/><BR/>In fact, if a Christian soldier, police officer or corrections guard is ordered to torture the inmates, that Christian may have to refuse to obey the order and face the conquences. <BR/><BR/>While some Christians (Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, etc.) think that no Christian should ever serve in the military or on a police force, I am not one of them. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do (regarding works of repentance) he did NOT tell them to resign, refuse to fight or go AWOL as I would have expected. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, my point was our God loves justice and hates injustice. If a Christian policeman is lawfully enforcing justice, for example, by arresting a criminal, that policeman need not "turn the other cheek" if the criminal fights back or pulls a gun. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, if you see a man raping a woman, the "just" thing to do is not "turn the other cheek" but to stop the rape--even by force if necessary. <BR/><BR/>When Jesus tells us to "turn the other cheek" I am convinced that this was just another way of saying that we are not to take personal vengence against an enemy.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02002684355940486042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159487328945502942006-09-28T16:48:00.000-07:002006-09-28T16:48:00.000-07:00Anyone who isn't willing to break the law to tortu...Anyone who isn't willing to break the law to torture someone for the good of their country isn't a real patriot anyway.<BR/><BR/>And anyone who isn't sure enough of what's good for their country to face imprisonment might as well be a liberal. Only a bunch of wusses would hesitate to torture someone just because it's against the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159483923518485922006-09-28T15:52:00.000-07:002006-09-28T15:52:00.000-07:00You don't wash your hands after merely discussing ...You don't wash your hands after merely discussing the issue of torture. Wash your hands if you've been pulling some finger nails, sure, but after discussing when torture is acceptable, what you need to do is learn a musical instrument and play with our own personal chamber orchestra in your apartment.<BR/><BR/>http://www.republicansocialtheatre.com/2006/09/28/scary-smart/<BR/><BR/>Don't be a liberal. Learn from the experts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159463905978926662006-09-28T10:18:00.000-07:002006-09-28T10:18:00.000-07:00Classic. Instead of answering the question about ...Classic. Instead of answering the question about moral relativism, it depends on what "moral relativism" is.<BR/><BR/>Other Examples: Bush - it depends on what "torture" is; it depends on what "non-grave" violations of the Geneva Conventions are; Clinton - it depends on what "sexual relations" are.<BR/><BR/>Christianists often engage in moral absolutism. Such as, God hates gays. (I'm simplfying slightly.) Anything varying from such absolutism is what I meant by moral relativism. No need to obfuscate by discussing the origins of Evil and the justification for Hell.<BR/><BR/>You suggest "torture" should be used in extreme cases. Is this what Bush has done? <BR/><BR/>We have tortured many Gitmo detainees whose only evidence against them was that some warlord in Afghanistan got paid by us for their "intelligence" about who was "Taliban" and who wasn't. Naturally, many warlords turned in whoever their enemies were, instead of the Taliban. We have also moved thousands of people (I read up to 14,000) through secret military prisons where we tortured many of them. We've outsourced the torture of people we didn't feel comfortable torturing ourselves to countries like Syria.<BR/><BR/>Were all of these extreme cases? I'd say no. But the truth is, Bush doesn't want us to find out. That fact that many Christianists believe we have done no wrong, despite that Jesus was tortured, and/or that the torture we have done is for the greater good, so it's sad but okay that a few innocent Muslims were tortured along the way, is an example of moral relativism.<BR/><BR/>Wikipedia on moral relativism:<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/qnamuAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159452459444229382006-09-28T07:07:00.000-07:002006-09-28T07:07:00.000-07:00Yes, by all means let's sit down and discuss under...Yes, by all means let's sit down and discuss under what circumstances torture is okay. Then we can get a basin of water and wash our hands afterwards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159451023950298442006-09-28T06:43:00.000-07:002006-09-28T06:43:00.000-07:00Reasonable Liberal: What do you mean by moral rela...Reasonable Liberal: What do you mean by moral relativism? If it means that something is right simply because the individual says it's right, then of course this isn't moral relativism. Anyone who has a higher standard of morality that comes from God is not a moral relativist of that sort.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you just mean consequentialism, which some political conservatives and Christian apologists sometimes wrongly call relativism. But that's not what this is either. See my comments on my post in response to Jonathan. There's a perfectly deontological way of reading the justification of torture in extreme cases that isn't consequentialist.<BR/><BR/>As for hell, that's a subject that really ought to be dealt with in depth. People who have little toleration for the idea that God will hold let people spend eternity in the torture of continuing in their own evil are not going to accept that Christian doctrine regardless of what you call it. That subject needs a full treatment of the problem of evil, and I'm not going to get into that in a comment thread on someone else's blog simply because of some offhand comments.<BR/><BR/>It's not as if this objection is some new thing that Christians would be surprised to hear, though. There's a huge literature on the moral justification for something like the traditional view of hell, and any argument against it should take that huge body of work into account rather than simply assuming something is wrong because it involves something we don't like.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19959879.post-1159443379078845102006-09-28T04:36:00.000-07:002006-09-28T04:36:00.000-07:00I just love Christian "morality".They admit that G...I just love Christian "morality".<BR/><BR/>They admit that God is a torturer, but this doesn't make God bad, oh no, it makes torture OK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com