Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
Ivan, you're wasting your time.
and isn't interested in understanding it.
Everyone, you're all wasting your time.
True, but you've failed to support your opinion with logical reasoned arguments.
How can we accuse you of wavering? It's not so much that you've waivered, but more that you hold contradictory views that can't co-exist. I'll not give examples, because you'll not understand what I'm saying. Just as you've failed (and flailed) to understand what everyone else has been telling you.
Just because something is being done doesn't make it either practical or right. Nor does it make you right for agreeing with it.
That's just it though, no one gives examples. Then you expect me to understand. Point them out if you think I'm being contradictory.
If you're truly looking for an example, I will give you one. You stated flatly that you are a moral absolutist. You then, in many other responses, outlined how ethical/moral behavior is purely subjective and how you advocate throwing out morality/ethical behavior in certain situations. If you are an absolutist, than something is either always moral, or it is never moral. This is one of the internal inconsistencies that was repeatedly pointed out to you. Now, just as you asked, I've gone and given you a concrete example. If I get a response about how "that's just my (Vespertine's) opinion and not really what the facts are because I (Vespertine) am distorting your words", you're in for a smackdown.
I think moral behavior is subjective, because morals are subjective. There is no given set of morals people are compelled to follow from the beggining of their lives. People choose how to live their lives, and ultimately follow a belief pattern. I follow my moral code always, and always go by the same moral code.
You may feel that I advocated throwing out morals in order to torture and extract information, but my moral code doesn't protect criminals and those who aim to harm others. That is why I am an absolutist. I don't pick and choose situations of when it's okay, and when it isn't. I never talked about throwing out my morals.
See, that's just it. Either it's immoral for me to pull out your fingernails, or it isn't... unless you're a moral relativist. Which, of course, you firmly deny. It doesn't matter what I've done. If it is immoral, it is immoral... unless you're a moral relativist. Which, of course, you flatly deny.
So, criminals aren't human?
Don't assume BizB or anyone else divides humans by race. Personally, I reject the entire notion.In other words, the end justifies (or not) the means.
I think you could sum up Evonus' entire argument here with "The ends justify the means."
I just spent about 30 minutes going back and trying to asemble some comments on the statements made by Evonus and I realized that most of them can be countered with the argument that the ends don't always justify the means.
Here are a couple of quotes for you to ponder Evonus:1) Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
And,2)...When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.When they came for the Jews,I did not speak out;I was not a Jew.When they came for me,there was no one left to speak out- Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) (translated from the original German)
One thing I can't help but notice is that you say criminals shouldn't have rights and should be deprived of the full protection of the law with regards to due process. And you have utterly no problem with that statement.I do.It essentially negates the whole "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine which guides our legal system.Back in the 1930s, a group of 9 black kids, aged 13-19, hitched a ride on a freight train in the deep south. They got into a scrape with a group of white boys, and when the train pulled into the next station, a posse was there waiting for them. That posse also found a pair of white girls on the train, who claimed they had been raped by the black boys.In the first trial, the (court-appointed) defense attorney (whose specialty was real estate) spent a grand total of 30 minutes with the entire group of boys, and raised nothing in the boys' defense during the trial. The boys were convicted and sentenced to death. The American Communist Party then hired a lawyer on the boys' behalf and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court used the case to clarify "adequate defense counsel." At the second trial, the new defense attorney (one of the finest out of New York) introduced forensic evidence indicating the women were not raped, found a white male who could verify that the women had not been raped (since he had slept with one of them, thus accounting for the ONLY bit of evidence that might have led to charges of rape) and poked all kinds of holes in one woman's story. The other woman had disappeared mysteriously. The jury still convicted the 9 and sentenced them to death. The judge declared a mistrial, though, after the prosecutor told the jury that "Alabama justice can't be bought with Jew-money from New York."A third trial resulted in yet another conviction and death sentence, and yet another appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that blacks had been excluded from the jury pools. By this point, one of the two female accusers had come clean and admitted that the rape had not occurred. This didn't stop "Alabama justice." Finally, when a southern lawyer took over the case, the State agreed to drop charges against 4 of the boys. The rest were eventually paroled and exonerated decades after the fact.THIS is why Due Process matters. This is why we guarantee that the accused has adequate protection. This actually happened: google "Scottsboro 9" sometime. Suspicion of guilt and factual guilt are two very, very different things.
See, I support due process most of the time. (I've also heard and studied this case in great depth two years ago when I was a senior in HS.) The thing is, with this case there were no outside lives in danger. Whereas in the middle east, it's important to learn about future terrorist attacks, and like you even said, this case was tried and retried. It must have taken almost a year. By the time a year is up, think of how many people would've been killed, that extracting information could have saved. Basically, my point is, in situations where you will arrest 2 guilty men and 3 innocent men without trial. It's better to do that then to have 20 innocent men killed in a bombing. It's sacrificing a few people for the good of the community. (Not to mention they could try them and put together evidence while they were being questioned, so that if they knew nothing and were found to be unconnected they could be released.) I mean, and I highly doubt they are being arrested on no evidence. If you order a flight manual and a book on bombs at a time like this you probably deserve interrogation.
Evonus, I want you to clarify something for me. As I understand things (correct me if I'm wrong), you said earlier that the reason the invasion in Iraq occured was business related and you supported that. It had little to do with WMDs, but mostly it was due to business interests. Clarify that for me.
What business are you talking about exactly (don't just say "duh, oil"). I want to know what companies were at risk and who has interests in those companies,
I want to know what was the trigger of the business threat (i.e. what changed over the course of the last year prior to the invasion that lead to such a business risk),
what finanical loss was expected as a result of this threat ($$$)
and how does bombing a country reolve that.
Finaly, compare the ammount you came up with with the total number of dead soldiers (from all sides), of dead civilians, of the value in lost assests (i.e. destroyed homes, roads, bridges, etc), of injuries caused as a direct result of the war, and factor in the war debt that your children will end up paying. Now that you have this comparison done, answer a simple question: Was it worth it?
But how do you know whether others are in danger, really?
You don't know if someone arrested for murder is a threat to be a repeat offender, or may even be a serial killer, or may be completely innocent. You don't know until the trial. You can't put conditions on things like due process. Your entire argument is centered around a presumption of guilt.
I guarantee you'd be singing a different tune if your name were the same as that of a suspected terrorist and you were brought in and subjected to torture and had your civil rights violated, even if it was just a big mix-up.
Total Members: 4968