|
MontanaHatchet said: I often see conservatives argue that the government is too big when they want to raise taxes or regulate businesses. But, apparently, it's okay for them to execute and torture people. We can't just change our morality based on how bad a person is, otherwise, there's a whole bunch of other bounds we can find "legitimate" reasons for crossing. |
I'll grant you that I came back a bit stronger than was probably necessary (been a bit grumpy this week 
) but calling it a tirade is just being dismissive and doing so without actually addressing legitimate points. Those are in fact tough questions that I've not seen anyone with your position address. Furthermorem, I don't support torture, I support EITs. If you want to call waterboarding torture in your argument that is fine it is your view, but don't distort and missrepresent my views by claiming I support torture. I'm fully against things that are actually torture, such as: disemboweling, disfigurement, scalping, bamboo reeds, bamboo torsos, crucifying, a myriad of practices involving boiling hot tar, beatings, etc....
As for your labeling of me, well I'm far more of a libertarian than a conservative (but I understand lumping me in one or the other is useful for folks).
Beyond that though, it is called the US Constitution. We can play a little game if you like, I'll go find the portion where it explicitly grants the federal government power to defend the country and even where it defines torture (although the 2nd bit is in the US code T18S2340)...then I'll list some of those things I object to the federal government doing and you can try to find where it explicitly grants them those powers. Of course in reality the vast majority of things aren't explicitly authorized and they've inferred this, that, and the other thing slowly giving themselves more and more and more power. Thus the objection, and thus the objections are logically and philosophically consistent. There are even a few things the military does that I question but EIT's performed by experts is simply not one of them. Really though this line of debate on your part is more deflection of the issue than it is an actual case against waterboarding. We both agree (I assume) that we can interrogate them so the apparatus of government around the room is pretty damn irrelevent for the discussion. The question is how far is too far?
As for "we can't change our morality for how bad a person is". We aren't changing anything...you obviously saw the bit about the soldiers yes? So are you claiming that the soldiers are worse people than terrorists or ...what is your argument here exactly? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
But more than that it really isn't changing our morality anyways. Is it moral to throw an innocent man in prison? How about a rapist or murderer? I'm betting you're ok with one but not the other....so is that changing our morals? Of course not, it is recognizing that actions have consequences and you can do one thing to one person that would be amoral to do to another simply based on what actions the two have taken.
I know you said you're going to ignore the rest of that stuff but again I'll point out that those are legitimate points. If you don't want to debate it then thats fine, as I said I was probably too strong in my reply - but don't engage and then ignore legitimate points.
Your arguments are overly general which sort of underscores my point about people not wanting to know how their sausage is made. Lets get down to specifics if we are going to have a discussion.
What, specifically, in your view is the standard? Discomfort? Light/Mild/Strong Fear? Light/Mild/Strong Pain? What is too far in your view?
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
