Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (238399)	6/21/2005 9:44:24 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571506

JF, What's the exact difference between a relativist and a partisan anyway? Not much when you're just a "selective relativist." Nothing wrong with being a partisan, either. Some issues you just have to be partisan about. Only problem is when partisans start relying on hyperbole to make their point. Then it just becomes dogmatism, which leaves little room left for discussion. As for torture, yeah, I think Gitmo interrogators shouldn't be using extreme temperatures on prisoners while denying them food and water. Maybe we also shouldn't put so much pressure on said interrogators to get information that will help in the war on terrorism, for then they'll be tempted to toe the line WRT the Geneva Convention. But when it comes to comparing said torture tactics with those used in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, that helps no one but our enemies, since the effort to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East will be compromised. Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (238399)	6/22/2005 12:50:51 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571506

So be it... I'm a partisan liberal hypocrite because I don't believe in torture. Well let localize the question for you as you like, and see what comes out. Say your 8 year old kid gets grabbed off the street by a street gang. You even see the abduction, and you know that it is this particular gang that grabbed your kid. You are very familiar with this imaginary gang. This imaginary gang is known to take kids off the street, and rape them repeatedly for 3-4 hours, with the rape always beginning within 30 minutes of the kidnapping (after other gang members have gathered), and the rape occurring within 1 block of the kidnap. Immediately after you find your kid has been taken, you stumble into two of the members of the gang (they're known members of the gang), and you overhear them say they are on their way to the nearby rape destination. They've been cell phoned from other members that an 8 year old has been caught, and they are off to commit the rape with the other gang members. You hear them say this, and put two and two together. You're a police officer, so you grab them and take them to the police station that is one minute away, and put them in the solitary interrogation room. Say you are 99% sure your ability to torture them could extract the location of the to be committed rape within 15 minutes, and allow you to arrive the location before the 30 minute deadline for the horrible activity to begin, and prevent your kid from getting raped. What would you do? In brief, if you are virtually 100% sure that torturing someone on their way to rape your child can prevent your child from being raped, do you torture them and prevent the rape, or do you stick with your ideal moral values and let your child get raped? I'm not saying this question has anything to do with US systemic torture. Rather, it has to do with the black and white blanket opposition to torture in all cases.