|
Torture
Jun 4, 2006 20:00:07 GMT -5
Post by Skilly on Jun 4, 2006 20:00:07 GMT -5
Oh dont get me started on that topic ..... pure vegan hypocracy and propaganda. But I digress. What does veganism have to do with this Skilly? Not sure what you mean. I think they are looking at the treatment of animals in general. They find that killing seals so that someone may wear fur abhorrent. I am a vegetarian ( not quite vegan) and can see both sides of this issue. It's got nothing to do with what I eat. Most all who are against the seal hunt are vegan/vegetarian. Paul McCartney, Lady Heather, Pamela Anderson, Bridget Bardot, Rebecca Aldworth, Paul Watson .... they are all vegans. But they centre their argument on one animal. Before I go further I would have to ask if you seen the "Larry King Live" interview with Paul McCartney and Lady Heather? Lady Heather stated three times in the interview that seals are killed only for fur. Absolutley not true. Newfoundlanders kills seals for meat, omega 3 acids, and fur. There is very little of the seal that is not used. I don't see Lady Heather or Paul complaining about fox hunts where the fox is killed purley for sport and then the fur skinned. I don't see them complaining about the beef industry? Incidentally, do you know how a cow is killed? With a club over the head. The white coats that the HSUS use as their mascot have been illegal to touch since 1986. In fact, by Canadian law you are not allowed to touch a whitecoat, not even with your finger. Look at the video that Lady Heather took out on the ice-flows ... she was stroking one down. And yet not charged? The misinformation on this issue is astounding. It would require its own thread. How about subsistence living? Is that abhorrent? The fishers kill the seal to stock up on meat for the winters and to cull the overpopulated seal herds. Here is another fact, the HSUS ocenters their attack on the east coast of Canada hunt. Why? Greenland has a seal hunt, the US has a seal hunt in Alaska, but they come here to interfere with the Quebec, Nova scotia, PEI , and Newfoundland hunts? Other governments have strict legislation in place that protects their hunts from thhis interference. Like I said this would require its own thread. I am not against vegans or vegetarians (sis-in-law is one), I am against the hypocracy of these organizations. Fight for seals but let cows, lambs, pigs go because that is food??? And I am against them using lies to get people to donate money to their cause.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 4, 2006 21:06:09 GMT -5
Post by franko on Jun 4, 2006 21:06:09 GMT -5
Incidentally, do you know how a cow is killed? With a club over the head. Actually, when it is a government-approved and licensed slaughterhouse, they are "knocked" with a casing propelled to the brain. Agree . . . to both. Propoganda to boost personal belief is amazing (though I'm sure someone would say it goes both ways). PETA is starting to target otehrs as well [poor Col. Saunders' heirs *sniff sniff*] How else to promote your cause than to slam another?
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 4, 2006 21:52:09 GMT -5
Post by Cranky on Jun 4, 2006 21:52:09 GMT -5
How else to promote your cause than to slam another? Truth is flexible.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 5, 2006 7:36:58 GMT -5
How else to promote your cause than to slam another? Most video you see from HSUS is from the 1980's. Why is there never a date in the corner, anyone with a digital camera nowadays can tell you how easy it is to have the date shown on the video/pictures? They always show a sealer with a hakapik smacking an unseen seal in the head (then claiming it is a whitecoat). Fact is, 90% of seals are shot. And the veternarian society of canada (not sure of the official name) has stated that the Canadian seal hunt is the most humane hunt of any animal. It is also the most regulated. HSUS states that the seal hunt is only a small portion of a fisherman's income. That the seals should not suffer over such little money. Well I have the answer to that, it is a simple answer. On Larry King, Lady Heather stated that there are only 4000 sealers in Canada and that the seal industry account for only $20,000 (?) (not sure if that was the exact number). I believe the seal hunt accounts for upwards of 30% of their incomes but I do not know that for fact. Even still, if it is $20,000 say .... well 4000*$20,000 = 80 million. HSUS has a war chest from seal hunt protest donation in excess of 150 million and they raise 10's of million each year. If they truly wanted to stop the hunt they could offer to give the fishermen the money they would get on the ice ... sounds far-fetched? One wealthy American offered the fisherman millions of dollars this year for that very scenario, but unfortunately for her millions is not going to stretch far for 4000 sealers. HSUS also states that the seal is becoming an endangered species. Well that is not true ... they do not stop people who align themselves from spewing the drivel though. The seal population in 1970 was low. It was under 2 million animals. Measures were taken to ensure the seal hunt did not go lower .... but today the population is 5.8 million and they are one of the biggest predators in the ocean. There are so many animals that they are now showing up on beaches in Maryland and in rivers (fresh water??) in eastern canada. I wonder what is driving them so far south and into unknown habitats? Could it be that there is little food for them in the ocean? Could it be that there are so many of them that they are being pushed from their natural habitats. The Canadian government maintains that the seal hunt is a conservation issue but nobody wants to listen to that because it might be true ..... I realise that overfishing (another touchy subject for me) is a contributor to this, and part of the solution is to not let so many people harvest fish.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 5, 2006 8:05:43 GMT -5
How else to promote your cause than to slam another? Truth is flexible. Truth is truth (if there are absolutes, moral and otherwise). Interpretation is flexible.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 5, 2006 8:44:43 GMT -5
How else to promote your cause than to slam another? Most video you see from HSUS is from the 1980's. Why is there never a date in the corner Smart PR.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 5, 2006 23:00:44 GMT -5
Post by Cranky on Jun 5, 2006 23:00:44 GMT -5
Truth is truth (if there are absolutes, moral and otherwise). Interpretation is flexible. I am sitting in my chair and I am not sure if I am under the heavens or on the edge of the universe or in a particular instance of space and time. Where am I? Please tell me the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 6, 2006 5:50:24 GMT -5
Truth is truth (if there are absolutes, moral and otherwise). Interpretation is flexible. I am sitting in my chair and I am not sure if I am under the heavens or on the edge of the universe or in a particular instance of space and time. Where am I? Please tell me the truth. Shheeshhhh this is like one of them joke-riddles. (I was always good at them) Where are you? In your chair. Duh! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 6, 2006 9:27:32 GMT -5
I am sitting in my chair and I am not sure if I am under the heavens or on the edge of the universe or in a particular instance of space and time. Where am I? Please tell me the truth. Shheeshhhh this is like one of them joke-riddles. (I was always good at them) Where are you? In your chair. Duh! ;D The truth of an object is in the object. In the mind, truth is conformity to the object, That is what objective truth means. Descarte and Kant forgot about the objects and that's why they and their unwitting heirs (modern culture) run around saying thngs like "That's true for you." or "Everyithng is relative." and other expressions that they believe erroneously refer to objective reality, the existence of which they actually therein deny. It's true.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 11:26:37 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 6, 2006 11:26:37 GMT -5
To support torture is to support the core principle of terrorism.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 11:45:34 GMT -5
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 6, 2006 11:45:34 GMT -5
How else to promote your cause than to slam another? Most video you see from HSUS is from the 1980's. Why is there never a date in the corner, anyone with a digital camera nowadays can tell you how easy it is to have the date shown on the video/pictures? They always show a sealer with a hakapik smacking an unseen seal in the head (then claiming it is a whitecoat). Fact is, 90% of seals are shot. And the veternarian society of canada (not sure of the official name) has stated that the Canadian seal hunt is the most humane hunt of any animal. It is also the most regulated. HSUS states that the seal hunt is only a small portion of a fisherman's income. That the seals should not suffer over such little money. Well I have the answer to that, it is a simple answer. On Larry King, Lady Heather stated that there are only 4000 sealers in Canada and that the seal industry account for only $20,000 (?) (not sure if that was the exact number). I believe the seal hunt accounts for upwards of 30% of their incomes but I do not know that for fact. Even still, if it is $20,000 say .... well 4000*$20,000 = 80 million. HSUS has a war chest from seal hunt protest donation in excess of 150 million and they raise 10's of million each year. If they truly wanted to stop the hunt they could offer to give the fishermen the money they would get on the ice ... sounds far-fetched? One wealthy American offered the fisherman millions of dollars this year for that very scenario, but unfortunately for her millions is not going to stretch far for 4000 sealers. HSUS also states that the seal is becoming an endangered species. Well that is not true ... they do not stop people who align themselves from spewing the drivel though. The seal population in 1970 was low. It was under 2 million animals. Measures were taken to ensure the seal hunt did not go lower .... but today the population is 5.8 million and they are one of the biggest predators in the ocean. There are so many animals that they are now showing up on beaches in Maryland and in rivers (fresh water??) in eastern canada. I wonder what is driving them so far south and into unknown habitats? Could it be that there is little food for them in the ocean? Could it be that there are so many of them that they are being pushed from their natural habitats. The Canadian government maintains that the seal hunt is a conservation issue but nobody wants to listen to that because it might be true ..... I realise that overfishing (another touchy subject for me) is a contributor to this, and part of the solution is to not let so many people harvest fish. The seal population is too high and the cod population is too low. One seal eats a lot of cod daily throughout their life. We need to protect the cod until their numbers are stable. Unfortunately seal pups are cuter than cod babies. Think of each seal pup as an Al Kaida terrorist and use that club like Barry Bonds after an injection in the ass.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 12:06:09 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 6, 2006 12:06:09 GMT -5
Truth is truth (if there are absolutes, moral and otherwise). Interpretation is flexible. I am sitting in my chair and I am not sure if I am under the heavens or on the edge of the universe or in a particular instance of space and time. Where am I? Please tell me the truth. I think you've got just about all of it right. That's where you are; in a universe held in being, immediately by God. Not bad. ;D
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 12:08:34 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 6, 2006 12:08:34 GMT -5
Most video you see from HSUS is from the 1980's. Why is there never a date in the corner, anyone with a digital camera nowadays can tell you how easy it is to have the date shown on the video/pictures? They always show a sealer with a hakapik smacking an unseen seal in the head (then claiming it is a whitecoat). Fact is, 90% of seals are shot. And the veternarian society of canada (not sure of the official name) has stated that the Canadian seal hunt is the most humane hunt of any animal. It is also the most regulated. HSUS states that the seal hunt is only a small portion of a fisherman's income. That the seals should not suffer over such little money. Well I have the answer to that, it is a simple answer. On Larry King, Lady Heather stated that there are only 4000 sealers in Canada and that the seal industry account for only $20,000 (?) (not sure if that was the exact number). I believe the seal hunt accounts for upwards of 30% of their incomes but I do not know that for fact. Even still, if it is $20,000 say .... well 4000*$20,000 = 80 million. HSUS has a war chest from seal hunt protest donation in excess of 150 million and they raise 10's of million each year. If they truly wanted to stop the hunt they could offer to give the fishermen the money they would get on the ice ... sounds far-fetched? One wealthy American offered the fisherman millions of dollars this year for that very scenario, but unfortunately for her millions is not going to stretch far for 4000 sealers. HSUS also states that the seal is becoming an endangered species. Well that is not true ... they do not stop people who align themselves from spewing the drivel though. The seal population in 1970 was low. It was under 2 million animals. Measures were taken to ensure the seal hunt did not go lower .... but today the population is 5.8 million and they are one of the biggest predators in the ocean. There are so many animals that they are now showing up on beaches in Maryland and in rivers (fresh water??) in eastern canada. I wonder what is driving them so far south and into unknown habitats? Could it be that there is little food for them in the ocean? Could it be that there are so many of them that they are being pushed from their natural habitats. The Canadian government maintains that the seal hunt is a conservation issue but nobody wants to listen to that because it might be true ..... I realise that overfishing (another touchy subject for me) is a contributor to this, and part of the solution is to not let so many people harvest fish. The seal population is too high and the cod population is too low. One seal eats a lot of cod daily throughout their life. We need to protect the cod until their numbers are stable. Unfortunately seal pups are cuter than cod babies. Think of each seal pup as an Al Kaida terrorist and use that club like Barry Bonds after an injection in the ass. T'is a rare gift to be funny even when advancing a delusion.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 13:42:46 GMT -5
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 6, 2006 13:42:46 GMT -5
Long ago as a Theology student at Loyola, I learned that my principles exist in an ideal world with Aristotle and my body exists in a practical physical world with Gandhi and Hitler.
It pains me that I must occasionally advocate practical solutions that are in opposition to my philisophical beliefs.
I too am against torture. It lowers me to the level of my enemies. On a practical level however, if torturing the 17 terrorists leads to the capture of another 100 terrorists and saves 1,000,000 innocent lives, I can't allow my philisophical beliefs to trump my practical reasoning and I will go against my principles to make the world a better safer place.
I recently became struck with a Hobson's Choice argument on the CBC.
1. It is better to save many than save a few. 2. If I have five donor organs (liver, heart, lung, stomach and kidney) and six patients; a) needs a kidney b) needs a liver c) needs a heart d) needs a stomach e) needs a lung f) needs all five organs should I save five lives or one life?
My philisophical answer breaks down when I ask, "If one man is totally healthy with five healthy organs, should I kill him to use his organs to save five sick lives?" On a pragmatic basis, if a man has five healthy organs but is brain dead, should his life be terminated to save five younger lives in need of donor organs? How old is too old and how sick is too sick? Is a nobel prize winner worth more to humanity than a murderer? Is a child in Canada worth more than one in Uganda? Is my child worth more than yours and if not should I be paying for your childs university tuition as well as that of my own? My perfect philisophical world breaks down and I make small practical decisions as incidents arise instead of seeking the truth of life and the universe.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 14:08:38 GMT -5
Post by Polarice on Jun 6, 2006 14:08:38 GMT -5
Long ago as a Theology student at Loyola, I learned that my principles exist in an ideal world with Aristotle and my body exists in a practical physical world with Gandhi and Hitler. It pains me that I must occasionally advocate practical solutions that are in opposition to my philisophical beliefs. I too am against torture. It lowers me to the level of my enemies. On a practical level however, if torturing the 17 terrorists leads to the capture of another 100 terrorists and saves 1,000,000 innocent lives, I can't allow my philisophical beliefs to trump my practical reasoning and I will go against my principles to make the world a better safer place. I recently became struck with a Hobson's Choice argument on the CBC. 1. It is better to save many than save a few. 2. If I have five donor organs (liver, heart, lung, stomach and kidney) and six patients; a) needs a kidney b) needs a liver c) needs a heart d) needs a stomach e) needs a lung f) needs all five organs should I save five lives or one life? My philisophical answer breaks down when I ask, "If one man is totally healthy with five healthy organs, should I kill him to use his organs to save five sick lives?" On a pragmatic basis, if a man has five healthy organs but is brain dead, should his life be terminated to save five younger lives in need of donor organs? How old is too old and how sick is too sick? Is a nobel prize winner worth more to humanity than a murderer? Is a child in Canada worth more than one in Uganda? Is my child worth more than yours and if not should I be paying for your childs university tuition as well as that of my own? My perfect philisophical world breaks down and I make small practical decisions as incidents arise instead of seeking the truth of life and the universe. What if the healthy man was a muderer sentenced to die, and his organs could save those six lives. Do you kill him in a way that you can harvest his organs to save these six people? What if he didn't want to donate his organs? Dose he have any rights? What if his organs could save your child? The world is not perfect and some times people have to make difficult decisions. I can tell you one thing that is for sure, if a group of people had kidnapped my child and I had found someone who knew where my child was being kept, I would do what ever it took to get that information out of him.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 14:30:02 GMT -5
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 6, 2006 14:30:02 GMT -5
Long ago as a Theology student at Loyola, I learned that my principles exist in an ideal world with Aristotle and my body exists in a practical physical world with Gandhi and Hitler. It pains me that I must occasionally advocate practical solutions that are in opposition to my philisophical beliefs. I too am against torture. It lowers me to the level of my enemies. On a practical level however, if torturing the 17 terrorists leads to the capture of another 100 terrorists and saves 1,000,000 innocent lives, I can't allow my philisophical beliefs to trump my practical reasoning and I will go against my principles to make the world a better safer place. I recently became struck with a Hobson's Choice argument on the CBC. 1. It is better to save many than save a few. 2. If I have five donor organs (liver, heart, lung, stomach and kidney) and six patients; a) needs a kidney b) needs a liver c) needs a heart d) needs a stomach e) needs a lung f) needs all five organs should I save five lives or one life? My philisophical answer breaks down when I ask, "If one man is totally healthy with five healthy organs, should I kill him to use his organs to save five sick lives?" On a pragmatic basis, if a man has five healthy organs but is brain dead, should his life be terminated to save five younger lives in need of donor organs? How old is too old and how sick is too sick? Is a nobel prize winner worth more to humanity than a murderer? Is a child in Canada worth more than one in Uganda? Is my child worth more than yours and if not should I be paying for your childs university tuition as well as that of my own? My perfect philisophical world breaks down and I make small practical decisions as incidents arise instead of seeking the truth of life and the universe. What if the healthy man was a muderer sentenced to die, and his organs could save those six lives. Do you kill him in a way that you can harvest his organs to save these six people? What if he didn't want to donate his organs? Dose he have any rights? What if his organs could save your child? The world is not perfect and some times people have to make difficult decisions. I can tell you one thing that is for sure, if a group of people had kidnapped my child and I had found someone who knew where my child was being kept, I would do what ever it took to get that information out of him. I am in total agreement with you. For me, life is a sequence of decisions that must be made based upon practical considerations, not absolute adherence to a system of religeous laws or philisophical principles (and even this statement is not absolute).
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 6, 2006 19:47:09 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 6, 2006 19:47:09 GMT -5
What if the healthy man was a muderer sentenced to die, and his organs could save those six lives. Do you kill him in a way that you can harvest his organs to save these six people? What if he didn't want to donate his organs? Dose he have any rights? What if his organs could save your child? The world is not perfect and some times people have to make difficult decisions. I can tell you one thing that is for sure, if a group of people had kidnapped my child and I had found someone who knew where my child was being kept, I would do what ever it took to get that information out of him. I am in total agreement with you. For me, life is a sequence of decisions that must be made based upon practical considerations, not absolute adherence to a system of religeous laws or philisophical principles (and even this statement is not absolute). I would agree if doing the right thing, like a soldier deciding to give up his life for others, is just some trick of philosophical leger de brain or the fruit of some priestly deliberation in the absence of a God. Sterile. If there is however a way, a truth a lighjt, a term to existence that is our proper and unavoidable end, then our acts are right or wrong vis a vis this end or purpose. Things are only right or wrong relative to purpose or lack of purpose and meaning.That is the critical question on which everything depends. May God grant that we don't have to face circumstances like those we consider. It seems, and I am not really surprised, that we are willing to be much more savage, if I may use such a word than the inquisitors of Spain who had much stricter rules to protect the rights of the false converso who was seen as a threat to the recently recovered Spain. On that note A&E just announced that Dawg, the bounty hunter, is the hottest show on television. Where do you have to go to resign from the human race?
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 7, 2006 2:44:34 GMT -5
To support torture is to support the core principle of terrorism. I do not consider torture as a correct or good course of action. I consider torture as the lesser unacceptable of two deplorable alternatives.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 7, 2006 19:09:11 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 7, 2006 19:09:11 GMT -5
To support torture is to support the core principle of terrorism. I do not consider torture as a correct or good course of action. I consider torture as the lesser unacceptable of two deplorable alternatives. I think the key element in just war and just killing or justifiable homicide is that thye threat be real and immediate. I can remember a Vancouver police chief explaining his support for state killings on the basis of the supposed murderer having "declared war" on his society and society's right to protect itself from said war. Amazing how much nonsense and evil you can hide behind what, if you can't or won't think, sounds plausible unexamined. In a war the threat is real and immediate. Those who support abortion often speak of defending "reproductive rights". Right. In the case at hand, all due process is forfeited, or otherwise stated, all presumption of god-given rights, and that is the crux of the matter. If "rights' are man-made notions then they aren't worth anything; not even the ink spent writing them. They are arbitrary and therefore meaningless. All is permissible , as Doestoyevski states in "Crime and Punishment" if there is no God. If rights are God-given, on the authority of the aruthor as in the deontological ethical arguments, which I find compelling, then rape and torture are intrinsically wrong and an offence against God and man. Torture lacks the dimension of a threat that is real and immediate. The Spanish Inquisition was a secularly-inspired event undertaken in defence of a perceived threat to the survival of the nation, which is why almost all of the two to three thousand deaths occurred around the Muslim area of Granada. Still there were strict rules against causing any permanent harm to life or limb and a limit of 15 or twenty minutes was ordered. Though there were abuses with the pope of the day protested, the process was not sheer terror and not a case of anything goes, as seems to be the case with us civilized folk.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 8, 2006 0:59:57 GMT -5
I do not consider torture as a correct or good course of action. I consider torture as the lesser unacceptable of two deplorable alternatives. I think the key element in just war and just killing or justifiable homicide is that thye threat be real and immediate. I can remember a Vancouver police chief explaining his support for state killings on the basis of the supposed murderer having "declared war" on his society and society's right to protect itself from said war. Amazing how much nonsense and evil you can hide behind what, if you can't or won't think, sounds plausible unexamined. In a war the threat is real and immediate. Those who support abortion often speak of defending "reproductive rights". Right. In the case at hand, all due process is forfeited, or otherwise stated, all presumption of god-given rights, and that is the crux of the matter. If "rights' are man-made notions then they aren't worth anything; not even the ink spent writing them. They are arbitrary and therefore meaningless. All is permissible , as Doestoyevski states in "Crime and Punishment" if there is no God. If rights are God-given, on the authority of the aruthor as in the deontological ethical arguments, which I find compelling, then rape and torture are intrinsically wrong and an offence against God and man. Torture lacks the dimension of a threat that is real and immediate. The Spanish Inquisition was a secularly-inspired event undertaken in defence of a perceived threat to the survival of the nation, which is why almost all of the two to three thousand deaths occurred around the Muslim area of Granada. Still there were strict rules against causing any permanent harm to life or limb and a limit of 15 or twenty minutes was ordered. Though there were abuses with the pope of the day protested, the process was not sheer terror and not a case of anything goes, as seems to be the case with us civilized folk. If there is a bomb planted in a city, wouldn't you consider the threat as being immediate and torture would be a lesser evil that waiting for 1,000 persons to be killed without taking action? It is precisely for that reason that I take action on an immediate practical basis rather than strictly adhering to a code of rigid principles.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 8, 2006 21:58:40 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 8, 2006 21:58:40 GMT -5
I think the key element in just war and just killing or justifiable homicide is that thye threat be real and immediate. I can remember a Vancouver police chief explaining his support for state killings on the basis of the supposed murderer having "declared war" on his society and society's right to protect itself from said war. Amazing how much nonsense and evil you can hide behind what, if you can't or won't think, sounds plausible unexamined. In a war the threat is real and immediate. Those who support abortion often speak of defending "reproductive rights". Right. In the case at hand, all due process is forfeited, or otherwise stated, all presumption of god-given rights, and that is the crux of the matter. If "rights' are man-made notions then they aren't worth anything; not even the ink spent writing them. They are arbitrary and therefore meaningless. All is permissible , as Doestoyevski states in "Crime and Punishment" if there is no God. If rights are God-given, on the authority of the aruthor as in the deontological ethical arguments, which I find compelling, then rape and torture are intrinsically wrong and an offence against God and man. Torture lacks the dimension of a threat that is real and immediate. The Spanish Inquisition was a secularly-inspired event undertaken in defence of a perceived threat to the survival of the nation, which is why almost all of the two to three thousand deaths occurred around the Muslim area of Granada. Still there were strict rules against causing any permanent harm to life or limb and a limit of 15 or twenty minutes was ordered. Though there were abuses with the pope of the day protested, the process was not sheer terror and not a case of anything goes, as seems to be the case with us civilized folk. If there is a bomb planted in a city, wouldn't you consider the threat as being immediate and torture would be a lesser evil that waiting for 1,000 persons to be killed without taking action? It is precisely for that reason that I take action on an immediate practical basis rather than strictly adhering to a code of rigid principles. Ya, I do get it. I really do, though I can appreciate how it may seem unlikely to you, for you're right, the stakes are so high. I don't think my approach is easy at all. BC wrote a very good piece on torture earlier. Efficacy, I don't know about, and my opposition is not based upon whether or not it works. I'd far rather see money spent developping agents that would do the job without torture. All of the evil we do, is always for some real or anticipated good. It is impossible for the human will to not will some good, psychological or otherwise. Evil is always the choice of a lesser good while ignoring a higher good. I ask again, if all of human illness could be eliminated by killing a six year old girl, should we do it? Of course not.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 8, 2006 22:21:27 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 8, 2006 22:21:27 GMT -5
Both of these guys are experienced in interrigation. I just googled it, looking for answers to the efficacy issue. I've heard opposite results claimed, and don't know myself. My oppositon is in principle, not in practice. JACK CLOONAN: I would say a couple of things. First, the efficacy of torture is really diminished. In other words, it doesn't typically work. That's number one. So why engage in it if it doesn't work? Number two, the debate has been framed on this issue by two extremes-- those who would say, "you know, we ought to not -- we ought not to talk to these people in a rough manner," and those who should say, "Well, anything goes." I think what this debate has now illuminated for us all is there are a great deal of people in the middle who are troubled by this, as I am. And I would say to them in the end that we are ultimately fighting for the hearts and minds of millions of people who really don't understand who we are, but they look to us for an example. RAY SUAREZ: Do we as a country give something away if we open the door even to the occasional use of torture? NEIL LIVINGSTONE: Yes, we do. And we do give something away and we do when we engage in the kind of warfare in some respects that we're doing today to combat terrorism. On the other hand, it may be that we have to give up a few things in order to preserve our larger democratic societies, to preserve our societies to serve human life. JACK CLOONAN: Why, all of a sudden, do we put it in the context of a war? Because that allows us to -- a little bit of wiggle room in this debate, because now we bring in the Geneva Convention, now we bring in enemy combatants and all this other stuff, and it muddies the water a little bit. Take that word away, and that's what keeps the people who believe in this alive and well and motivated. www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/torture_12-02.html Alternative to torture RAY SUAREZ: So did you find over time that as the old saying goes, honey is better than vinegar? JACK CLOONAN: Yes, it is, always. RAY SUAREZ: Give me an example. JACK CLOONAN: We had a person in custody who was concerned about his wife and kids. This is a person who was a member of al-Qaida, worked with bin Laden. So what did we do? We smuggled his wife and kids out of some countries and had them reunited. They put their life in jeopardy for cooperating with the United States. The United States owes them for what they've done. RAY SUAREZ: Even if they're al-Qaida members? JACK CLOONAN: Even if they're al-Qaida members who have cooperated with the United States; they have turned their back and agreed to go forward with us and help us with providing information, testifying against other members that come forward or that we get, and I think that's a square deal. NEIL LIVINGSTONE: If the American people become truly frightened one day because we don't have the intelligence capability, we don't have the interrogation capability that we need, we know that they'll probably throw out their democratic freedoms overnight for safety because the tyrant always comes in the guise of the protector. And that happens every time we try to game this. And so, we know that we have to have effective tools to, in many respects, prevent that from happening, because if we don't have those and the worst case happens, you can probably kiss a lot of your freedoms goodbye tomorrow because the average citizen will willingly surrender those in order to protect his house, his family, his community, and what have you. JACK CLOONAN: I still think my approach in the end works and is the better approach. I don't want to see you or any one of your viewers be victimized by a terrorist attack because somebody was keen on getting revenge for something that we've done. And I think that's what guides me, and that's what makes me say the things that I do and feel the way that I do. I've seen it up close and personal. I know that it works. Transparency is worth every bit of what I've just described to you. No one can accuse of us of being -- of engaging in subterfuge or being inhumane. No one can.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 9, 2006 7:35:54 GMT -5
T'is a rare gift to be funny even when advancing a delusion. what delusion? Fact: International organizations last year were trying to get the Atlantic Cod on the Species at Risk List. The governement of Newfoundland and Labrador fought against it on two basic principles: 1) the low population of cod can be rectified without going on the Species at Risk Lisk. and 2) once an animal lands on the Species at Risk list it is next to impossible to get that animal off the list. Fact: the population of seal has tripled since 1980. It is not an endagered species, it is not even a species at risk ..... hmmmm ... the population of seal has tripled and the population of cod has dwindled ..... interesting correlation. Fact: Eurpoean Countries fish more inside our territorial water than Canadian fishermen. So to save the cod, all we need is the Paul McCartney's of the world to stand up for the fishes rights in their own countries and low and behold he will have saved the seal. More fish in our waters means more revenue from fish for canadian fishermen, which in turn means less of a need to cull the seals, .... it is all about conservation. The seals had a population explosion over the last decade .... the ecosystem has to balance out once again and the only way is for the Govt of Canada to take over custodial management of the waters out to the continental shelf and to reduce the number of people in Canada allowed to fish.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 9, 2006 8:02:08 GMT -5
T'is a rare gift to be funny even when advancing a delusion. what delusion? Fact: International organizations last year were trying to get the Atlantic Cod on the Species at Risk List. The governement of Newfoundland and Labrador fought against it on two basic principles: 1) the low population of cod can be rectified without going on the Species at Risk Lisk. and 2) once an animal lands on the Species at Risk list it is next to impossible to get that animal off the list. Fact: the population of seal has tripled since 1980. It is not an endagered species, it is not even a species at risk ..... hmmmm ... the population of seal has tripled and the population of cod has dwindled ..... interesting correlation. Fact: Eurpoean Countries fish more inside our territorial water than Canadian fishermen. So to save the cod, all we need is the Paul McCartney's of the world to stand up for the fishes rights in their own countries and low and behold he will have saved the seal. More fish in our waters means more revenue from fish for canadian fishermen, which in turn means less of a need to cull the seals, .... it is all about conservation. The seals had a population explosion over the last decade .... the ecosystem has to balance out once again and the only way is for the Govt of Canada to take over custodial management of the waters out to the continental shelf and to reduce the number of people in Canada allowed to fish. Wrong delusion! I was referring to the ending with baseball boy beating a suspect; the illusion beign that the good that comes from the choice of a lesser good will help brign about ultimate goods. It wasn't meant to be a comment on the sealing industry about which I am ambivalent, pulled in a couple of ways because the little buggers are cuter than cod. Cod help us.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 9, 2006 15:22:46 GMT -5
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 9, 2006 15:22:46 GMT -5
We have no problem culling ants in the kitchen or grasshoppers in the back 40, but we won't cull seals because they're cute. Some terrorists are cute and I have no problem culling them. Oooops, this is supposed to be about torture. We're off subject as usual. Never mind.
|
|
|
Torture
Jun 9, 2006 19:06:53 GMT -5
Post by Toronthab on Jun 9, 2006 19:06:53 GMT -5
We have no problem culling ants in the kitchen or grasshoppers in the back 40, but we won't cull seals because they're cute. Some terrorists are cute and I have no problem culling them. Oooops, this is supposed to be about torture. We're off subject as usual. Never mind. Ok. People are starting to talk about our attraction to seals, .......not that I'm passing judgement about inter-species sex.....but just why are all those guys out there every winter anyhow?....I've heard of going with the flow, but I always assumed it was an ice flow they were taling about.......As one Newfie told me recently, "Silence means assent under the law, right?" ...So THAT"S what he meant! ...like my Scottish friend whose uncle had to say "Honestly constable, I was just helpin the poor sheep over the fence, I was."....Strange goings on. Cod help us. A little song....."They called him Flipper...Flipper...Flipper...tra-la-la..."
|
|