Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yonghap News)   Zerg rush kekekekeke   (english.yonhapnews.co.kr) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

32599 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 27 May 2009 at 7:37 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



426 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-05-27 12:35:29 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: You still have no proof that it didn't work, you can ramble all you want.


But if I get proof that it didn't work, then I can't ramble anymore?
 
2009-05-27 12:37:27 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: Another person that has poor reading comprehension. Color me shocked.


So you're not really saying that it works, only that you would have no problem with its use if it does.

That's a rather weak position to be arguing so forcefully:

CBR ME ASAP: I'm saying that if someone tells you that he knows there is a bomb planted in your home that will kill your kids, your wife, your dog, and your parents, you are gonna think long and hard about beating the shiat out of him in an attempt to get some info. Or you can just sit back and sing kumbaya as your family goes up in smoke.

Sometimes the ends justify the means, we don't live in an absolute, black and white world like all of you idealists believe. Killing one asshole to save 50 innocent people is justifiable IMHO.

 
2009-05-27 12:37:42 PM  

cybrwzrd: One American citizen's life is more important to our government than the human rights or life of any other person on the planet.


Wow.

And I suppose all those American lives lost in Europe during the second world war were just for shiats and giggles?
 
2009-05-27 12:39:53 PM  
I wouldn't be too worried, they've got the minerals but they've got no Vespene Gas.
 
2009-05-27 12:41:01 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: Also, legality and morality are not the same. I thought that we'd covered that.


True. Which is why you'd need good evidence that there would be a benefit before you break said law -- otherwise you damage both law and morality, and weaken your overall position.

There has been no evidence presented in any of this back-and-forth supporting the position that torture could be used as an effective means of extracting critical information, just a lot of hypothetical nonsense.
 
2009-05-27 12:44:43 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: jso2897: CBR ME ASAP: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CBR ME ASAP: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CBR ME ASAP: As far as treaties, everyone knows they don't mean shiat. We break them all the time. All the way from the first treaties we signed with the Native Americans, right up until present day pacts and treaties.

More left wharrgarrbll. It's 'morally wrong to waterboard and torture people', but abandoning treaties and allies is all perfectly acceptable. God you people are farked up.

When did I ever say torture was morally wrong?

Are you saying it is not?

I'm saying that if someone tells you that he knows there is a bomb planted in your home that will kill your kids, your wife, your dog, and your parents, you are gonna think long and hard about beating the shiat out of him in an attempt to get some info. Or you can just sit back and sing kumbaya as your family goes up in smoke.

Sometimes the ends justify the means, we don't live in an absolute, black and white world like all of you idealists believe. Killing one asshole to save 50 innocent people is justifiable IMHO.

Precisely. It is a perfect moral dilemma - one that can neither be called ahead of time, or justified or condemned afterward. Which is precisely why I would NEVER make any moral choice, even in the course of an internet discussion, based on a hypothetical, imaginary thought-excercise scenario.
Jack Bauer never has to make a "moral choice" - he is a two dimensional movie character on a screen. I do. I live in the real world, and will make MY moral choices there - and only there.

All I'm trying to say is that it is totally ridiculous for all of the arm-chair quarterbacks to pass judgment when they don't know the circumstances. It's even more ludicrous to say that torture is morally wrong even if it saves lives. THAT IS ALL.


No, actually - the fact that you have had your say does NOT mean we are done. I get to talk, too. And what you say illustrates, to me, all the reasons I refuse to participate in hypothetical scenarios. My personal morality is not a hypothetical set of paradigms. It is an organic set of guidelines that I apply as I wend my way through the real world. The only really honest and accurate answer as to "what I would do" in an imaginary situation is: "nothing" - because it's an IMAGINARY situation.
It is as if someone asked me "Would you use nuclear weapons to sculpt the face of the moon into a portrait of Abe Vigoda if it would save American lives?"
The only rational response would be "WTF are you TALKING about?"
The argument is symetrical, and circular. Yes, it is wrong to torture, and right to refuse to do so. Likewise, it is wrong to fail to save lives if you are able to do so, and right to do so. See the problem?
The fact is that in the vanishingly unlikely event that any ACTUAL human being is ever faced with that choice in the real world, that person is going to have to make that call themselves - and we cannot sit here in the "armchair" you described and creates a moral "template" in a fantasy world for that person to follow. There is no "morality" beyond the real, actual moral choices that people make every day. Morality can not be abstracted and put in a bottle, like beer.
 
2009-05-27 12:45:22 PM  
silvervial
I think anyone in this position would give FALSE info,

Or use multiple bombs and tell the location of the unimportant, decoy one(s).
An maybe use two differently timed sets in close proximity at each location;
tell about the one that detonates later so the other one has a chance to take out news vans and spectators while getting live coverage.
 
2009-05-27 12:45:30 PM  

Andric: CBR ME ASAP: Another person that has poor reading comprehension. Color me shocked.

So you're not really saying that it works, only that you would have no problem with its use if it does.

That's a rather weak position to be arguing so forcefully:

CBR ME ASAP: I'm saying that if someone tells you that he knows there is a bomb planted in your home that will kill your kids, your wife, your dog, and your parents, you are gonna think long and hard about beating the shiat out of him in an attempt to get some info. Or you can just sit back and sing kumbaya as your family goes up in smoke.

Sometimes the ends justify the means, we don't live in an absolute, black and white world like all of you idealists believe. Killing one asshole to save 50 innocent people is justifiable IMHO.


Since I've never personally tortured anyone, I don't know if it works. Just like you don't know that it doesn't. That has no relevance to the position I was arguing.

Since you quite obviously jumped into the middle of the argument without reading how it started or what was said, I was initially arguing with respect to morality and specifically against the idiots that say torturing 1 person to save a million is morally wrong and they would kill themselves to defend their position. My argument had nothing to do with whether or not torture worked. If you come in late you may find that you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
2009-05-27 12:46:24 PM  
Has anyone mentioned Vespene gas yet?
/do I have to do everything?
 
2009-05-27 12:47:32 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP
You still have no proof that it didn't work, you can ramble all you want.

You have no proof that there are not invisible pink unicorns trying to steal my wallet, either.

You say it works. You have no evidence to prove it. The burden is on you. Sorry.

Please go read through the thread and show me where I said TORTURE WORKS!!!!!

What I said is that I don't have a problem with torture if it saves innocent lives.


Ah, nice caveat.

So how far can we extend that, then? Can we torture gang-bangers who we know are planning drive-by shootings?

Sometimes innocent lives are lost when that happens, you know.
 
2009-05-27 12:47:44 PM  

BubbaWilkins: trappedspirit: zerg is either a verb or a noun. if it is a noun, has nothing to do with horde. if it is a verb, then zerg rush becomes redundant and duplicate

Thanks to gaming, it is both.

Thanks to the primary tactics used by those who played them in Starcraft, the term now refers to both a group or their activities in virtually any game where one forces tries to overwhelm another with sheer numbers.


If we are talking about zerg as the verb then see my second point.
 
2009-05-27 12:48:08 PM  

LegacyDL: To hell with Starcraft I want my Diablo III damnit!


This!!
 
2009-05-27 12:48:54 PM  

jso2897: CBR ME ASAP: jso2897: CBR ME ASAP: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CBR ME ASAP: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CBR ME ASAP: As far as treaties, everyone knows they don't mean shiat. We break them all the time. All the way from the first treaties we signed with the Native Americans, right up until present day pacts and treaties.

More left wharrgarrbll. It's 'morally wrong to waterboard and torture people', but abandoning treaties and allies is all perfectly acceptable. God you people are farked up.

When did I ever say torture was morally wrong?

Are you saying it is not?

I'm saying that if someone tells you that he knows there is a bomb planted in your home that will kill your kids, your wife, your dog, and your parents, you are gonna think long and hard about beating the shiat out of him in an attempt to get some info. Or you can just sit back and sing kumbaya as your family goes up in smoke.

Sometimes the ends justify the means, we don't live in an absolute, black and white world like all of you idealists believe. Killing one asshole to save 50 innocent people is justifiable IMHO.

Precisely. It is a perfect moral dilemma - one that can neither be called ahead of time, or justified or condemned afterward. Which is precisely why I would NEVER make any moral choice, even in the course of an internet discussion, based on a hypothetical, imaginary thought-excercise scenario.
Jack Bauer never has to make a "moral choice" - he is a two dimensional movie character on a screen. I do. I live in the real world, and will make MY moral choices there - and only there.

All I'm trying to say is that it is totally ridiculous for all of the arm-chair quarterbacks to pass judgment when they don't know the circumstances. It's even more ludicrous to say that torture is morally wrong even if it saves lives. THAT IS ALL.

No, actually - the fact that you have had your say does NOT mean we are done. I get to talk, too. And what you say illustrates, to me, all the reasons I refuse to participate in hypothetical scenarios. My personal morality is not a hypothetical set of paradigms. It is an organic set of guidelines that I apply as I wend my way through the real world. The only really honest and accurate answer as to "what I would do" in an imaginary situation is: "nothing" - because it's an IMAGINARY situation.
It is as if someone asked me "Would you use nuclear weapons to sculpt the face of the moon into a portrait of Abe Vigoda if it would save American lives?"
The only rational response would be "WTF are you TALKING about?"
The argument is symetrical, and circular. Yes, it is wrong to torture, and right to refuse to do so. Likewise, it is wrong to fail to save lives if you are able to do so, and right to do so. See the problem?
The fact is that in the vanishingly unlikely event that any ACTUAL human being is ever faced with that choice in the real world, that person is going to have to make that call themselves - and we cannot sit here in the "armchair" you described and creates a moral "template" in a fantasy world for that person to follow. There is no "morality" beyond the real, actual moral choices that people make every day. Morality can not be abstracted and put in a bottle, like beer.


I wasn't implying that you could not say your piece. I was just putting finality on my argument, which is that if I thought I could save lives by torturing someone, I would. I agree totally with what you say.
 
2009-05-27 12:49:15 PM  

Andric: CBR ME ASAP: Also, legality and morality are not the same. I thought that we'd covered that.

True. Which is why you'd need good evidence that there would be a benefit before you break said law -- otherwise you damage both law and morality, and weaken your overall position.

There has been no evidence presented in any of this back-and-forth supporting the position that torture could be used as an effective means of extracting critical information, just a lot of hypothetical nonsense.


Your position is akin to the mantra "war doesn't solve anything", which has been proven false time and again.

War solved Nazi expansion, war got Tojo out of China.

To say Torture is ineffective would be the same as saying War is ineffective.

War is by far less preferable than diplomacy, but sometimes you have to go there.

I would very much prefer CIA interogators to use soft techniques to get information out of terrorists.

But if it turns out in rare occasions that they "have to go there" to protect lives, then go for it.
 
2009-05-27 12:49:58 PM  

BubbaWilkins: Thanks to the primary tactics used by those who played them in Starcraft, the term now refers to both a group or their activities in virtually any game where one forces tries to overwhelm another with sheer numbers.


Yes, and thus my second point when using it as a verb
 
2009-05-27 12:50:10 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: Since I've never personally tortured anyone, I don't know if it works. Just like you don't know that it doesn't. That has no relevance to the position I was arguing.

Since you quite obviously jumped into the middle of the argument without reading how it started or what was said, I was initially arguing with respect to morality and specifically against the idiots that say torturing 1 person to save a million is morally wrong and they would kill themselves to defend their position. My argument had nothing to do with whether or not torture worked. If you come in late you may find that you have no clue what you are talking about.


I don't need to read the entire thread to respond to one of your posts.
 
2009-05-27 12:50:48 PM  

yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP: yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP
You still have no proof that it didn't work, you can ramble all you want.

You have no proof that there are not invisible pink unicorns trying to steal my wallet, either.

You say it works. You have no evidence to prove it. The burden is on you. Sorry.

Please go read through the thread and show me where I said TORTURE WORKS!!!!!

What I said is that I don't have a problem with torture if it saves innocent lives.

Ah, nice caveat.

So how far can we extend that, then? Can we torture gang-bangers who we know are planning drive-by shootings?

Sometimes innocent lives are lost when that happens, you know.


Nah, we should just shoot gang-bangers outright.
 
2009-05-27 12:50:49 PM  

LurkerIndeed: Quality trolling going on in this thread.


We're glad for your magnificent contribution.
 
2009-05-27 12:51:03 PM  

Thune: Your position is akin to the mantra "war doesn't solve anything", which has been proven false time and again.


No, it's not akin to that at all. War can solve some things. I don't see how you got that out of what I said.
 
2009-05-27 12:51:07 PM  

fenrael23: Has anyone mentioned Vespene gas yet?
/do I have to do everything?


Beat you by 5.
 
2009-05-27 12:51:10 PM  

Jubeebee: trappedspirit: zerg is either a verb or a noun. if it is a noun, has nothing to do with horde

Of course not. The Horde are Orcs.

But have you ever seen a single zerg? Of course not, unless you're looking at the decoy for the burrowed swarm.


Yes, see starcraft for a single zerg unit.
 
2009-05-27 12:52:55 PM  

Thune: Anti_illuminati: Thune: Remove all Republicans: Differences in cultures aren't a matter of evil or not.

So, the human sacrifice in Aztec culture, or the oven cooking Nazi's were not evil.

It was just how they roll?

Waterboarding prisoners, or the self-righteous act of applying the death penalty in God's name is not evil?

It's just how we roll?

/sh*t, at least I can keep it within the last 2 years

No it is not.

But thats beside the point, you just defeated your own argument.

The point is the statement "Differences in cultures aren't a matter of evil or not" is rediculous.

By your logic, cultures that look out for thier citizens is just as evil than one that kills it's citizens.


Absolutely wrong.

My logic is, everyone, every culture has its own perception of what is evil and what is not. This my country right or wrong bulls*t has got to stop.
 
2009-05-27 12:53:12 PM  

Thune: jso2897: cultures are NOT, as i sloppily stated, mere "behaviour", but rather a template for acceptable behavior designed to further their survival and prosperity. I.E. - Thou shalt not eat pork, thou shalt not boink your nieghbor's wife, and so on. Cultures, as such, CANNOT be good or evil.

Again, this is not true.

A person can engage in evil behavior, but if that behavior is elevated to a cultural norm it ceases to be evil?

Man can be evil, Man defines the culture he lives in.

Therefore, cultures can be evil.

You cannot just give a behavior a pass because it has been elevated to a local cultural norm.

North Korea starves millions of its own citizens. North Korea is working on a nuclear proliferation and is becoming increasingly nuclear beligerent with the rest of the world. North Korea has just signaled its intentions to attack South Korea, additionally, Japan is likely to be forced into a nuclear arms race for self defense.

This national behavior IS evil and should be called out.


Well, what you are saying is that you are a moral collectivist. I am not. Not much room for communication. Collectivism and individualism are really the only two root philosophies in this world - all philosophies are subsets of one or the other. And they are two ways of looking at the world so alien to one another that holders of those respective philosophies have no real basis for meaningful communication.
Statements like "North Korea is evil", or "Republicans are stupid", or "blacks are lazy and criminal" are expressions of collectivist thinking. I do not hold them to be "wrong" or incorrect - they are simply meaningless to me.
 
2009-05-27 12:53:46 PM  

Andric: CBR ME ASAP: Since I've never personally tortured anyone, I don't know if it works. Just like you don't know that it doesn't. That has no relevance to the position I was arguing.

Since you quite obviously jumped into the middle of the argument without reading how it started or what was said, I was initially arguing with respect to morality and specifically against the idiots that say torturing 1 person to save a million is morally wrong and they would kill themselves to defend their position. My argument had nothing to do with whether or not torture worked. If you come in late you may find that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I don't need to read the entire thread to respond to one of your posts.


You've proven that. It does help in understanding the argument you're inserting yourself into though. You sound like you'd make a good juror. " I don't need to hear all of the evidence, just the stuff I find important".
 
2009-05-27 12:54:21 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: Since I've never personally tortured anyone, I don't know if it works. Just like you don't know that it doesn't.


And we're pointing out that you will find interrogation experts everywhere who will tell you that torture does NOT work, i.e. provide reliable information. No, WE do not know for sure, but the evidence says that it doesn't.

Since you quite obviously jumped into the middle of the argument without reading how it started or what was said,

Welcome to the internets. You'll find that while posting in forums such as these, your original argument really means nothing. If you say something foolish, people will call you out on it regardless of what you were talking about before.

/The more you know...
 
2009-05-27 12:55:56 PM  

signine: fenrael23: Has anyone mentioned Vespene gas yet?
/do I have to do everything?

Beat you by 5.


It was sarcasm.

and you are late...
2009-05-27 09:44:40 AM
2009-05-27 09:59:02 AM
 
2009-05-27 12:56:18 PM  
CBR ME ASAP
Since I've never personally tortured anyone, I don't know if it works.

It certainly works:
When is the last time a witch had to be burned in the West?

Torture was apparently so successful that they must have found out all the witches back then so that there aren't any left today; and witched existed, the Inquisition got enough confessions to prove it
 
2009-05-27 12:56:55 PM  

yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP: Since I've never personally tortured anyone, I don't know if it works. Just like you don't know that it doesn't.

And we're pointing out that you will find interrogation experts everywhere who will tell you that torture does NOT work, i.e. provide reliable information. No, WE do not know for sure, but the evidence says that it doesn't.

Since you quite obviously jumped into the middle of the argument without reading how it started or what was said,

Welcome to the internets. You'll find that while posting in forums such as these, your original argument really means nothing. If you say something foolish, people will call you out on it regardless of what you were talking about before.

/The more you know...


I've never said anything foolish. People use their straw man abilities to attribute shiat to people that never really said shiat.
 
2009-05-27 12:57:26 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP: yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP
You still have no proof that it didn't work, you can ramble all you want.

You have no proof that there are not invisible pink unicorns trying to steal my wallet, either.

You say it works. You have no evidence to prove it. The burden is on you. Sorry.

Please go read through the thread and show me where I said TORTURE WORKS!!!!!

What I said is that I don't have a problem with torture if it saves innocent lives.

Ah, nice caveat.

So how far can we extend that, then? Can we torture gang-bangers who we know are planning drive-by shootings?

Sometimes innocent lives are lost when that happens, you know.

Nah, we should just shoot gang-bangers outright.


What a wonderful mixed-up little world you must live in!
 
2009-05-27 12:57:51 PM  

The Voice of Doom: CBR ME ASAP
Since I've never personally tortured anyone, I don't know if it works.

It certainly works:
When is the last time a witch had to be burned in the West?

Torture was apparently so successful that they must have found out all the witches back then so that there aren't any left today; and witched existed, the Inquisition got enough confessions to prove it


Very nicely done.
 
2009-05-27 12:57:53 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: You've proven that. It does help in understanding the argument you're inserting yourself into though. You sound like you'd make a good juror. " I don't need to hear all of the evidence, just the stuff I find important".


I'm sorry, you just equated a fark thread with a jury trial.

You must think a lot of yourself if you think I'm going to go sift through 300+ comments to find your original argument before I respond to one comment toward the end.

I therefore demand that you go read through the farkives for all of my posts regarding torture before you make statements about my ability to sleep well at night. I am important, therefore you are required to expend the effort.
 
2009-05-27 12:57:55 PM  
I often wonder why China doesn't just take them over since they were also once upon a time a Chinese province the same as claimed of Taiwan. From the Treaty of Shimonoseki;
Article 1
China recognises definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future.


Taiwan was ceded to Japan but was never returned to China following WWII and Korea was already independent before the Japanese came in. The whole area is a mess of treaties and traditions, lies and damn lies.
 
2009-05-27 12:58:32 PM  

yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP: yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP: yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP
You still have no proof that it didn't work, you can ramble all you want.

You have no proof that there are not invisible pink unicorns trying to steal my wallet, either.

You say it works. You have no evidence to prove it. The burden is on you. Sorry.

Please go read through the thread and show me where I said TORTURE WORKS!!!!!

What I said is that I don't have a problem with torture if it saves innocent lives.

Ah, nice caveat.

So how far can we extend that, then? Can we torture gang-bangers who we know are planning drive-by shootings?

Sometimes innocent lives are lost when that happens, you know.

Nah, we should just shoot gang-bangers outright.

What a wonderful mixed-up little world you must live in!


That was sarcasm....didn't feel like getting off target, AGAIN.
 
2009-05-27 1:01:53 PM  
CBR ME ASAP:I wasn't implying that you could not say your piece. I was just putting finality on my argument, which is that if I thought I could save lives by torturing someone, I would. I agree totally with what you say.

Oh, I know. people ending posts with that, or "NUFF SAID" is a pet peeve of mine - I should probably be ignored on the subject. And to summarize my response - I would never answer that question. If reality were ever superceded by Hollywood, and I actually found myself in such a situation, I would of course do something - but I don't know what that would be, and I don't want to know, and I don't need to know. just a different perspective.
 
2009-05-27 1:02:51 PM  
Thune: But if it turns out in rare occasions that they "have to go there" to protect lives, then go for it.

The difference between war and torture is that people don't lie to get out of war.
 
2009-05-27 1:04:55 PM  
CBR ME ASAP isn't very good at playing word games.
 
2009-05-27 1:08:05 PM  

silvervial: Here's the "ticking time bomb" situation as I see it:

1. Bad guy you're sure has info regarding said bomb, i.e., knows where it is and when it will go off, etc.

2. You torture him for that info to find the bomb and prevent it from going off, saving thousands, if not millions, of lives.

3. Said bad guy does indeed have that info. He knows when it is going off and where it is planted. He hates you with a passion and has devoted his life to fighting you. What do you think he will do:

A) Tell you everything you want to know?
B) Tell you false info that has you hunting in the wrong area just long enough for the bomb to go off?

I think anyone in this position would give FALSE info, since that way they both get the torture to stop - since they gave you info, AND they accomplish their mission - the bomb goes off.

This is why the "ticking time bomb" scenario does NOT work as an argument for torture.


Notice how none--none--of the torture apologists bother responding to this very obvious argument.
 
2009-05-27 1:08:43 PM  
CBR ME ASAP
That was sarcasm....didn't feel like getting off target, AGAIN.

Yeah. I get your point. You don't mind torture if it saves lives.

The problem is that by saying that, you've made "saving lives" a justification for doing something that most people find reprehensible, and is illegal pretty much everywhere. The definition of "saving lives" would inevitably be legally wrangled all over the place, and soon enough, "saving lives" will come to mean something entirely different than what was originally intended.

I think that's foolish.
 
2009-05-27 1:11:25 PM  

WoodyHayes: CBR ME ASAP isn't very good at playing word games.


I'm not trying to play word games. Once again here is my stance:
1. I do not know if torture works or not.
2. If someone is in a position to use torture in order to save lives, I am all for it.
3. If you are an idealist that thinks torturing 1 to save millions is morally wrong, and you would kill yourself to defend your position...please do.

That is my opinion on the subject.
 
2009-05-27 1:11:41 PM  
Mercutio74
mouser_inc: And no, I'm not blind and I know America's hands aren't clean and never have been. But we've been one of the ones who has had the cleanEST hands, and I value that dearly.

Mmmmm... no. I suspect that say... Denmark has cleaner hands.


pffft...the Dutch.

/better not be obscure.
 
2009-05-27 1:13:18 PM  

madgonad: cybrwzrd: One American citizen's life is more important to our government than the human rights or life of any other person on the planet.

Wow.

And I suppose all those American lives lost in Europe during the second world war were just for shiats and giggles?


Don't twist my words. If you remember correctly the American government did not get involved until after American lives were lost at Pearl Harbor. We did not get into WW2 to go liberate Auschwitz. We went in to protect our interests in the Pacific Rim and in Europe. If we had wanted to go protect our allies we would have been there as soon as German tanks crossed into France and rockets were hitting British soil.

Yes, we do get involved in many a humanitarian mission, but we do not do it out of the goodness of our hearts, we do it to keep some sembalence of stability across the world to protect our own interests. This is not a bad or evil thing, rational self interest is the ultimate form of morality.
 
2009-05-27 1:13:41 PM  

yelmrog: CBR ME ASAP
That was sarcasm....didn't feel like getting off target, AGAIN.

Yeah. I get your point. You don't mind torture if it saves lives.

The problem is that by saying that, you've made "saving lives" a justification for doing something that most people find reprehensible, and is illegal pretty much everywhere. The definition of "saving lives" would inevitably be legally wrangled all over the place, and soon enough, "saving lives" will come to mean something entirely different than what was originally intended.

I think that's foolish.


It is what it is. Torture is not the only topic that involves legal wrangling.
 
2009-05-27 1:13:58 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: WoodyHayes: CBR ME ASAP isn't very good at playing word games.

I'm not trying to play word games. Once again here is my stance:
1. I do not know if torture works or not.
2. If someone is in a position to use torture in order to save lives, I am all for it.
3. If you are an idealist that thinks torturing 1 to save millions is morally wrong, and you would kill yourself to defend your position...please do.

That is my opinion on the subject.


Your opinion is stupid and not based in fact.
 
2009-05-27 1:14:21 PM  

trappedspirit: Jubeebee: trappedspirit: zerg is either a verb or a noun. if it is a noun, has nothing to do with horde

Of course not. The Horde are Orcs.

But have you ever seen a single zerg? Of course not, unless you're looking at the decoy for the burrowed swarm.

Yes, see starcraft for a single zerg unit.


GIS for "single zerg"

img.photobucket.comView Full Size


Your argument is invalid.
 
2009-05-27 1:14:40 PM  

chuggernaught: pffft...the Dutch.

/better not be obscure.


Comedy..... GOOOOOOOOLD!
 
2009-05-27 1:14:54 PM  

CBR ME ASAP: 2. If someone is in a position to use torture in order to save lives, I am all for it.


Maybe I'm missing something. How does this NOT imply that you believe that torture at least potentially works? And if that's the case, what information do you have that makes you think so, and why don't you want to share it?
 
2009-05-27 1:15:16 PM  

captain_heroic44: silvervial: Here's the "ticking time bomb" situation as I see it:

1. Bad guy you're sure has info regarding said bomb, i.e., knows where it is and when it will go off, etc.

2. You torture him for that info to find the bomb and prevent it from going off, saving thousands, if not millions, of lives.

3. Said bad guy does indeed have that info. He knows when it is going off and where it is planted. He hates you with a passion and has devoted his life to fighting you. What do you think he will do:

A) Tell you everything you want to know?
B) Tell you false info that has you hunting in the wrong area just long enough for the bomb to go off?

I think anyone in this position would give FALSE info, since that way they both get the torture to stop - since they gave you info, AND they accomplish their mission - the bomb goes off.

This is why the "ticking time bomb" scenario does NOT work as an argument for torture.

Notice how none--none--of the torture apologists bother responding to this very obvious argument.


That's the problem with moral "dilemmas" that are framed within a "thought exercise" scenario - in order to be answerable, or soluble, they must be couched in trem that are black and white, free of any doubt or ambiguity - otherwise, it devolves into an endless series of "but, what if....s"
There are no such situations in the real world - and the real world is the only place where moral choices have any actual meaning or significance.
 
2009-05-27 1:15:38 PM  

captain_heroic44: silvervial: Here's the "ticking time bomb" situation as I see it:

1. Bad guy you're sure has info regarding said bomb, i.e., knows where it is and when it will go off, etc.

2. You torture him for that info to find the bomb and prevent it from going off, saving thousands, if not millions, of lives.

3. Said bad guy does indeed have that info. He knows when it is going off and where it is planted. He hates you with a passion and has devoted his life to fighting you. What do you think he will do:

A) Tell you everything you want to know?
B) Tell you false info that has you hunting in the wrong area just long enough for the bomb to go off?

I think anyone in this position would give FALSE info, since that way they both get the torture to stop - since they gave you info, AND they accomplish their mission - the bomb goes off.

This is why the "ticking time bomb" scenario does NOT work as an argument for torture.

Notice how none--none--of the torture apologists bother responding to this very obvious argument.


I'm not a torture apologist, but to definitively say that torture wouldn't work is just as foolish as to say it definitively would. You have no more proof than the "apologists".
 
2009-05-27 1:17:05 PM  

signine: CBR ME ASAP: WoodyHayes: CBR ME ASAP isn't very good at playing word games.

I'm not trying to play word games. Once again here is my stance:
1. I do not know if torture works or not.
2. If someone is in a position to use torture in order to save lives, I am all for it.
3. If you are an idealist that thinks torturing 1 to save millions is morally wrong, and you would kill yourself to defend your position...please do.

That is my opinion on the subject.

Your opinion is stupid and not based in fact.


Thanks for chiming in.
 
2009-05-27 1:18:02 PM  

allegedman: I can't believe nobody posted this yet:

carrier has arrived!!!


Give me six more of those (fully loaded, of course) and an Arbiter and you tell those Zerg to go f*ck themselves.
 
Displayed 50 of 426 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.