cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-03-2009, 03:48 PM   #11
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
I wasn't implying torture as one of those means, rather any instrument of war available to the US military. And this is war we are talking about. Bin Laden is not a fugitive in flight from a guilty verdict handed down by a recognized court of law.

Seriously though, what is the difference between say an unmanned drone with bombs and missiles and a tactical nuclear weapon? They are both designed to kill. Perhaps it could be argued that one weapon is more or less precise or discriminatory than the other. But what a funny argument.

So, I repeat the question ... (excluding torture) are you in favor of any means necessary to get Bin Laden?
Really? What is the difference between an unmanned drone with bombs and missiles and a tactical nuclear weapon? That really needs to be spelled out for you?

The drones have precision bombs which are designed to inflict as little collateral damage as possible while still eliminating their target. Tactical nuclear weapons are the opposite of that. They have a blast radius that is generally much larger than what is necessary for the completion of a mission, resulting in many deaths of non-targets, as well as the spread of radiation afterward. In short, other than the fact that both can kill people, they have almost nothing in common.

What is your point anyways? How did you even get onto this issue in a thread about torture (which you have already agreed you despise)?
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 07:47 PM   #12
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
I don't play 20 questions with people who have a history of not shedding any enlightenment on anything.

How many times do I have to say it, no, I would not use any means available.
So now you resort to denigration. Enlightenment is an interesting subject but ultimately has nothing to do with this discussion. I've narrowed the question and your refusal to answer can only be construed to mean that you have not thought this situation through. By the way ranting and raving is not enlightenment -- it's noise.
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 08:00 PM   #13
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
Really? What is the difference between an unmanned drone with bombs and missiles and a tactical nuclear weapon? That really needs to be spelled out for you?

The drones have precision bombs which are designed to inflict as little collateral damage as possible while still eliminating their target. Tactical nuclear weapons are the opposite of that. They have a blast radius that is generally much larger than what is necessary for the completion of a mission, resulting in many deaths of non-targets, as well as the spread of radiation afterward. In short, other than the fact that both can kill people, they have almost nothing in common.

What is your point anyways? How did you even get onto this issue in a thread about torture (which you have already agreed you despise)?
Ultimately we are talking about killing another human being, regardless of the method. How can you moralize one method is preferred over the other when they would achieve the same result? I'm really interested in understanding the idea that for many it is OK to condone killing Bin laden using conventional military means but it is not OK to use torture to glean information to find and kill said individual. It's a fascinating incongruence.

Honestly, I am appaled by the idea of torture, yet I willfully give my full support to the military to hunt down and kill Bin Laden (as do you and Mike based upon the history of discussions here). The more I think about it I have to ask what is the difference? Is there a difference? This has lead me to the conclusion that the moment one engages in differentiation, one becomes what one wants to despise in the opening comments of this thread.

In other words, mike, you and myself are no different than Bybee, we just prefer not to use the exact same methods, but our methods are no less heinous.

Last edited by tooblue; 05-03-2009 at 08:03 PM.
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:40 PM   #14
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
Ultimately we are talking about killing another human being, regardless of the method. How can you moralize one method is preferred over the other when they would achieve the same result? I'm really interested in understanding the idea that for many it is OK to condone killing Bin laden using conventional military means but it is not OK to use torture to glean information to find and kill said individual. It's a fascinating incongruence.

Honestly, I am appaled by the idea of torture, yet I willfully give my full support to the military to hunt down and kill Bin Laden (as do you and Mike based upon the history of discussions here). The more I think about it I have to ask what is the difference? Is there a difference? This has lead me to the conclusion that the moment one engages in differentiation, one becomes what one wants to despise in the opening comments of this thread.

In other words, mike, you and myself are no different than Bybee, we just prefer not to use the exact same methods, but our methods are no less heinous.
I couldn't disagree more, Tooblue, and I really am shocked you have come to this conclusion. To say that because one would support the killing of a person in a war, they therefore must accept the torture of that person (and any other form of treatment of that person) is a non sequitur.

War is to be abhorred, but it may be, from time to time, necessary. Even so, while engaged in the conduct of war, certain ethical behavior is still required of us. We are not permitted to do whatever we fancy in a war to other people simply because they are on the other side of a conflict from us. As sad as the reality of war is, that does not give us a permit to degrade the human form or defile the temple of God however we see fit.

God has permitted war in many circumstances, so long as the was is being fought with righteous desires. I challenge you to find one single solitary example of God condoning torture or the debasement of the human body.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:58 PM   #15
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
I couldn't disagree more, Tooblue, and I really am shocked you have come to this conclusion. To say that because one would support the killing of a person in a war, they therefore must accept the torture of that person (and any other form of treatment of that person) is a non sequitur.
That is not what I have said or wish to imply. I am saying that there are levels of acceptable moralization going on here, yet ultimately the goal is to kill a fellow human being. It is an incongruence that vexes me. You, I or Mike would prefer to use conventional methods such as bombs and guns. The previous Administration and it's advisors were able to stretch their moralizations to justify torture. But ultimately our goals are the same. Ergo we are the same.

Quote:
War is to be abhorred, but it may be, from time to time, necessary.
There is no justification for war.

Quote:
Even so, while engaged in the conduct of war, certain ethical behavior is still required of us.
There is nothing ethical about war. To believe otherwise is folly. The goal of war is death and domination.

Quote:
We are not permitted to do whatever we fancy in a war to other people simply because they are on the other side of a conflict from us. As sad as the reality of war is, that does not give us a permit to degrade the human form or defile the temple of God however we see fit.
What is more degrading than killing a person and anyone else in the way remotely with an unmanned drone? Arguing ethics at this point is pathetic. Killing is killing, regardless the method. God gave the commandment: thou shalt not kill -- without exceptions. We are not permitted to kill period. However, we are permitted to exercise our agency and choose to kill. All men will answer for their actions.

Quote:
God has permitted war in many circumstances, so long as the was is being fought with righteous desires.
God has permitted men to exercise agency and therefore wage war. That's not the same as permitting war. You cannot blame God for men's choices. Again, all men will answer for their actions.

Quote:
I challenge you to find one single solitary example of God condoning torture or the debasement of the human body.
A red herring.

Last edited by tooblue; 05-03-2009 at 10:01 PM.
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 10:03 PM   #16
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Cali don't even bother. It's like talking to a kindergartener, and not one with wisdom such as "out of the mouth of babes".

Tooblue needs to crack open his Book of Mormon.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 10:07 PM   #17
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
Cali don't even bother. It's like talking to a kindergartener, and not one with wisdom such as "out of the mouth of babes".

Tooblue needs to crack open his Book of Mormon.
Thank you captain enlightenment. We are all grateful you're here to provide us cheese and crackers.
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 12:44 AM   #18
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
That is not what I have said or wish to imply. I am saying that there are levels of acceptable moralization going on here, yet ultimately the goal is to kill a fellow human being. It is an incongruence that vexes me. You, I or Mike would prefer to use conventional methods such as bombs and guns. The previous Administration and it's advisors were able to stretch their moralizations to justify torture. But ultimately our goals are the same. Ergo we are the same.



There is no justification for war.



There is nothing ethical about war. To believe otherwise is folly. The goal of war is death and domination.



What is more degrading than killing a person and anyone else in the way remotely with an unmanned drone? Arguing ethics at this point is pathetic. Killing is killing, regardless the method. God gave the commandment: thou shalt not kill -- without exceptions. We are not permitted to kill period. However, we are permitted to exercise our agency and choose to kill. All men will answer for their actions.



God has permitted men to exercise agency and therefore wage war. That's not the same as permitting war. You cannot blame God for men's choices. Again, all men will answer for their actions.



A red herring.
Tooblue- we have been through these kinds of exercises before. I don't know if you are just trolling here or if you are being serious, but your argument totally falls apart where you argue that "because our goals are the same, we are the same." I really am shocked you would suggest that: (1) our goals are the same (the goal isn't killing a person Tooblue, for at least "our side," the goal is winning a war which, ideally, is a war based on righteous desires); or (2) even assuming our goals are the same, that the means to the end is totally irrelevant for you- the goal (i.e. end result) is all that matters, and as long as the end result matches, the people desiring that end result are the same.

I can't even begin to fathom the absurdity of those claims.

Imagine this: 2 people, both with the goal to make money. In your world, they are now the same person, even if one of them is Bernie Madoff and the other is a guy who works hard every day of his life for an honest wage. I would hope you could differentiate between the two.

Furthermore, where do you get your assumption that everyone tortured dies, or that the purpose of torturing them is to kill them? Didn't you just vote for a guy who was tortured (and who lived)?

The means are frequently as, if not more, relevant to a determination of righteousness as the ends. And I totally reject as false your premise that war is never righteous. If that were the case, the unrighteous could oppress at will, and the righteous could never fight back because that action would be de facto immoral.

I also reject your premise that killing is always wrong and that there are never any exceptions. Self-defense? War? Are you suggesting that everyone who has ever killed anyone else has broken the commandment of "thou shalt not kill?" The scriptures chalk that up as a pretty serious crime. You may want to inform some of our prophets who have served in war, or the veterans in your ward, or the person who falls asleep at the wheel of a car and inadvertently swerves into another car, killing the driver.

Get real, Tooblue. You are living in an imaginary world.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 01:25 AM   #19
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

If you read this site, you are aware that I have made preparations to defend myself and my family. We are instructed that we are to "stop" those that are threatening our lives.

And somehow, this is the same as people who would torture other human beings?

See, I don't want to get in these conversations because I don't have the patience for it. If you are such that you have come to this conclusion already, assuming you are older than 15, there is no helping you.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 02:49 AM   #20
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
Tooblue- we have been through these kinds of exercises before. I don't know if you are just trolling here or if you are being serious, but your argument totally falls apart where you argue that "because our goals are the same, we are the same." I really am shocked you would suggest that: (1) our goals are the same (the goal isn't killing a person Tooblue, for at least "our side," the goal is winning a war which, ideally, is a war based on righteous desires); or (2) even assuming our goals are the same, that the means to the end is totally irrelevant for you- the goal (i.e. end result) is all that matters, and as long as the end result matches, the people desiring that end result are the same.

I can't even begin to fathom the absurdity of those claims.

Imagine this: 2 people, both with the goal to make money. In your world, they are now the same person, even if one of them is Bernie Madoff and the other is a guy who works hard every day of his life for an honest wage. I would hope you could differentiate between the two.

Furthermore, where do you get your assumption that everyone tortured dies, or that the purpose of torturing them is to kill them? Didn't you just vote for a guy who was tortured (and who lived)?

The means are frequently as, if not more, relevant to a determination of righteousness as the ends. And I totally reject as false your premise that war is never righteous. If that were the case, the unrighteous could oppress at will, and the righteous could never fight back because that action would be de facto immoral.

I also reject your premise that killing is always wrong and that there are never any exceptions. Self-defense? War? Are you suggesting that everyone who has ever killed anyone else has broken the commandment of "thou shalt not kill?" The scriptures chalk that up as a pretty serious crime. You may want to inform some of our prophets who have served in war, or the veterans in your ward, or the person who falls asleep at the wheel of a car and inadvertently swerves into another car, killing the driver.

Get real, Tooblue. You are living in an imaginary world.
God has not revoked the commandment: thou shalt not kill. He has not qualified it with: thou shalt not kill, unless ...

The reality is anyone that kills another human will stand before the judgment bar and answer for what they have done. God will then weigh righteousness or circumstances accordingly, not man. So, all your hyperbole about telling that and this to so and so is erroneous. It will be up to God to decide. All we can do is endeavor to keep the commandment. And if we decided that is not possible and kill in self defense or fight in a war we must be prepared to answer for what we have done and accept God's judgment.

Furthermore, any attempt to justify one violent action over another renders you the same as Jay Bybee etc. It is that simple. You are the one living in an imaginary world where you believe you can assign ethics to killing, and moralize one violent act over another.
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.