Comments on: Being anti-torture doesn’t make you pro-terrorist

By: jeffstonepek

jeffstonepek — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:18:43 +0000

Your man from South Carolina sounds like he has an amp that goes to 11

By: How we decide? « KarmaWeb

How we decide? « KarmaWeb — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:43:30 +0000

[...] E.g. Just think of people voting for Bush because he is guy who one would like to have beer with or people claiming that being anti-torture is the same as being pro-terrorists orpeople making irrational statements like fight terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight [...]

By: Best Things I Read This Week: Porn, Chauncey Billups and free markets « Patrick Hayes

Mon, 18 May 2009 01:09:09 +0000

[...] Best Things I Read This Week: Porn, Chauncey Billups and free markets By patrickhayes13 Andrew Sullivan: Being against torture doesn’t make you supportive of terrorism. That should go without saying, but obviously it doesn’t. [...]

By: joeyk

joeyk — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:16:43 +0000

*shit like this* …

By: joeyk

joeyk — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:15:23 +0000

See, Matt, it’s shit (and by shit I mean quality writing) why I can’t stop reading you.

By: firedmyass

firedmyass — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:50:57 +0000

This may seem overly glib, but the main reason for the demonization of any opposition is that most people are just basically kinda dumb. They have never, through lack of capacity or tradition, actually reasoned their way through any of their “knowledge.” Complexity and nuance are viewed with suspicion, if not outright contempt. Uncertainty is seen as a moral weakness.

Plus, most people think of themselves as basically “good;” if you are on the opposing side of one issue, then you are an enemy, opposed on all. That means you are not just wrong, but evil.

By: Bits & Pieces » Anti-torture does not equal pro-terror

Bits & Pieces » Anti-torture does not equal pro-terror — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:50:47 +0000

[...] Matt Taibbi is fed up. Fed up with being called a traitor for taking a firm stand against torture of prisoners. There are a lot of people in this country who genuinely believe that torture opponents are “not upset” about things like 9/11 or the beheading of American hostages. The idea that “no one complains when Americans are murdered” is crazy — of course we “complained,” and of course we’d all like to round up those machete-wielding monsters and shoot them into space — but these people really believe this, they really believe that torture opponents are secretly unimpressed/untroubled by Islamic terrorism, at least as compared to American “enhanced interrogation.” For them to believe that, they must really believe that such people are traitors, nursing a secret agenda (an agenda perhaps unknown even to themselves, their America-hatred being ingrained so deep) against their own country. Which is really an amazing thing for large numbers of Americans to believe about another large group of Americans, when you think about it. [...]

By: fishbulb

fishbulb — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:45:55 +0000

I think it’s true that the right-wingers really believe that we on the other side are in league with the terrorists. The problem with not displaying our disapproval when these accusations are made is that it may make them even more convinced that they’re right.
If I insult you, and you don’t even act insulted, I think it would make me more convinced that I’m right.

By: jared

jared — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:33:40 +0000

But now you’re putting the burden of proof on those who do not want to torture. This is backwards.

Torture has been deemed reprehensible and illegal already. We have agreed to a standard of laws, a code of conduct, based around not torturing.

But you, and those who agree with you, want it to be legal. So, prove to us why it should be legal. This should be the argument.

Prove it works, first of all. Find me evidence, verifiable evidence, that torture provides any legitimate information or intelligence that any other means of interrogation would not prove.

Because 500 years ago torture was used to prove that people were controlling the weather and putting curses on people. And tehn they accused other people. And those people were tortured. And this was done with agreement from the governments. *shrug* And they believed their safety was at risk.

By: jared

jared — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:07:49 +0000

Yes, we fight to win. I’m not arguing that. And I’m not saying we tie our hands behind our backs.

But it isn’t a crap argument. Where does it end, that’s what I want to know. Why is this okay to do but not in different circumstances? And what happens when that argument comes up?

And, at that, does that mean there are no rules, no restrictions whatsoever? I am not saying we don’t fight to win this war, but once I can get a solid definition of what a “victory” is, and where the line is for our moral high ground, I want to know the answer to these questions.