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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5398)	11/16/2005 3:28:17 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543161

The rest of the planet looks at what we say and what we do, or allow to happen, and decides if we are full off &^t or not.* You're not differentiating "extraordinary" from Abu Graib. I think that in a "24" scenario, the world would understand if not approve.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5398)	11/16/2005 4:34:10 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543161

Well, but the person committing the torture is running the risk of being prosecuted, imprisoned, losing his or her job, and if the torture victim dies, being executed. I don't mean smile-and-wink, nudge-nudge-say-no-more.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5398)	11/16/2005 4:51:11 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 543161

Actually, given that torture is illegal anyway, there's no way to stop someone from committing torture in advance anyway. So the discussion is sort of academic or philosophical. It's just a way of saying, "if we're ever in the hypothetical situation, we hope that the person who makes the calls will have the brains to realize that this is something that needs to be done, and worry about the consequences later." Life throws out curve balls like that from time to time. Discussing hypothetical ethics in a hypothetical situation isn't the same as condoning behavior in advance without knowing all the factors.