| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2006 07:59:13 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Just do a search on the term "extraordinary rendition" and see what you find.
Here's one article about it. |
Here's a more recent story ... |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 08:22:43 PM · #127 |
So where are we at on this thread?
Saddam killed a lot of people and was an all around bad guy, but don't believe the propaganda that says he was a really, really bad guy.
Hanging him is bad, but then again the US still hangs people plus they probably do really nasty things to people in super double-secret prisons hidden in funny sounding places in eastern Europe. So maybe hanging him is ok, but then again maybe he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty if he had been tried in a more civilized place like the ICC.
Religion promotes illogical behavior based on an usubstantiated set of deeply held preconceptions. Atheists aren't religious, despite as deeply held unsubstantiated preconceptions. Everyone is illogical.
Islaam doesn't start all wars, it just gets blamed for wars started for other reasons.
God may or may not have made humans but likely made a one celled organism. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that God exists and if he does he's probably for hanging Sadaam so long as the muslims take the blame and no one discovers his super double-secret hiding place where he hangs out so as not to let the air out of the atheists.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 08:26:22 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
So where are we at on this thread?
Saddam killed a lot of people and was an all around bad guy, but don't believe the propaganda that says he was a really, really bad guy.
Hanging him is bad, but then again the US still hangs people plus they probably do really nasty things to people in super double-secret prisons hidden in funny sounding places in eastern Europe. So maybe hanging him is ok, but then again maybe he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty if he had been tried in a more civilized place like the ICC.
Religion promotes illogical behavior based on an usubstantiated set of deeply held preconceptions. Atheists aren't religious, despite as deeply held unsubstantiated preconceptions. Everyone is illogical.
Islaam doesn't start all wars, it just gets blamed for wars started for other reasons.
God may or may not have made humans but likely made a one celled organism. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that God exists and if he does he's probably for hanging Sadaam so long as the muslims take the blame and no one discovers his super double-secret hiding place where he hangs out so as not to let the air out of the atheists. |
Tha's about right except for it's Dick Cheney in the super double-secret hiding place (which is really the executive crapper at Halliburton) and he's using alien mind control technology to control Bush who believes that it's really God telling him to exterminate muslims. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 08:44:50 PM · #129 |
| So If Bush is undersome kind of mind control is it all his fault? LOL I love this where this thread is going.. Remember anything that does not go the way of the Democratic party is some kind of hidden agenda or conspiracy. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 09:59:21 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
So If Bush is undersome kind of mind control is it all his fault? LOL I love this where this thread is going.. Remember anything that does not go the way of the Democratic party is some kind of hidden agenda or conspiracy. |
Nothing's really Bush's fault, he just an ignorant puppet for the true evil powers of the neo-cons, Cheney and Rove. They're the ones with their hands up his backside, making him speak.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 10:09:07 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by coronamv:
So If Bush is undersome kind of mind control is it all his fault? LOL I love this where this thread is going.. Remember anything that does not go the way of the Democratic party is some kind of hidden agenda or conspiracy. |
Nothing's really Bush's fault, he just an ignorant puppet for the true evil powers of the neo-cons, Cheney and Rove. They're the ones with their hands up his backside, making him speak. |
Wait a second, wait a second. I think it's all coming together now.
Bush starts a war.
It's not Bush's fault.
Other people started the war, and Bush takes the blame.
Holy shit, I think that means Bush is a Muslim! |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 10:21:50 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by coronamv:
So If Bush is undersome kind of mind control is it all his fault? LOL I love this where this thread is going.. Remember anything that does not go the way of the Democratic party is some kind of hidden agenda or conspiracy. |
Nothing's really Bush's fault, he just an ignorant puppet for the true evil powers of the neo-cons, Cheney and Rove. They're the ones with their hands up his backside, making him speak. |
Wait a second, wait a second. I think it's all coming together now.
Bush starts a war.
It's not Bush's fault.
Other people started the war, and Bush takes the blame.
Holy shit, I think that means Bush is a Muslim! |
Close, Bush is really Osama |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 08:52:13 AM · #133 |
| You know what would be ironic. What if his head popped off during the hanging. Kind of poetic justic. Just leave enough slack.... |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 09:18:11 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
You know what would be ironic. What if his head popped off during the hanging. Kind of poetic justic. Just leave enough slack.... |
But not too much |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 09:33:50 AM · #135 |
So let's recap.
The US is attacked for failing to heed warnings to stop funding international terrorism (e.g. NORAIDE) and to keep out of Middle Eastern affairs.
The US ignores the UN and invades Iraq. The death sentence is passed on Saddam (you know, Saddam who used to be our best buddy, that Saddam). Is this meddling in Middle Eastern affairs? Yup, think so. Flak jackets on people...INCOMING!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 10:48:23 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by "Legalbeagle":
The ICC has been pretty successful. It certainly maintains higher standards than were possible within Iraq. |
I vaguely recall a whole issue with rapes & abuse by U.N. peacekeepers.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Yep - the prisons that demonstrate a reasonable degree of humanity demonstrate exactly that. I understand that there are some states where chain gangs are still de rigeur, however. |
What's wrong with chain gangs. Making the prisoners pay for their cost of living by doing some work and public service. As for being chained, well, a lot of times they aren't actually chained. And even then, that's so they don't escape. So I am not really seeing anything wrong with this.
Frankly, I have to work 8-12 hours a day so they can be in prison. I think they can all put in an 8 hour work day.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I think I understood - I was pointing out that there is rarely or never such a thing as a case where every aspect is transparent to the degree you suggest. The state of mind is one example of something that you will never know for sure. So your suggestion is impractical. |
Man goes into a 7-11, shoots both the clerks, robs the place. Is caught on film. Police respond subdue and capture the man trying to escape.
Frankly, I don't give a darn if the guy and his family were starving. He breached the line when he murdered both of the clerks.
That said, there is a significant difference between the above case and the case of a teenage girl repeatedly being raped and abused by her father who went to several goverment agencies seeking help and freedom and was returned by said agencies to the abusive environment. She then took a baseball bat and smashed her father's skull in. This case, I wouldn't even sentence her to prison. Neither did the judge. Rather, I believe she was given mandatory counselling. She had repeatedly sought help. Repeatedly attempted to flee the situation only to be returned by the agencies that were supposed to help her.
Yes, there is a point of evaluation. But the latter is far different from the first. The first case, should result in life or prison. If it is not the criminal's first account of murder than I would see it as a valid case for the death penalty.
I totally disagree...that's fine, you can think it impracical I am of a different opinion.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Therein lies the rub: your gut feeling is not necessarily the greatest philospohical basis upon which to determine juridical policy. |
Who said anything about gut feelings. I said I tolerate a certain level of impurity. Look, I am not going to give a 4 yr old a death sentence because they stole a cookie from the cookie jar.
But when that impurity reaches a point so that it takes another's life or well-being. Then yes, I believe some sort of action is required. When it reaches the point of killing hundreds or more. Than most definitely there is a need to eliminate or reduce as much as possible that individual's capability to inflict harm.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
No - but your point was that people should not blame religion for causing people to act irrationally, because atheists can act irrationally. |
My point is that such comments like "we need to ban all organized religion". And "all the world's problems are due to religion" are bologney. That is not to say that a great many wrongs have been done in the name of religion. Or for the cause of religion. Often in those religions name.
But if we are going to blanket approach. Then let me damn atheism and science in the process. Thousands have been killed in the name of atheism. Millions were killed in the name of science. Eugenics. Etc.
So to me, the blanket blame against religion is as stupid as laying a blanket blame against science and atheism.
I am saying neither is very valid.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Dogmatic belief systems might be a factor in both. However, religious beliefs are based on one or other arbitrary set of predefined principles. An atheist's beliefs are not. |
Balogney...if you believe that you are being extremely dishonest to yourself. First off, there is the arbitrary belief that there is no God. And that one has the knowledge to make such a statement. At least the modern agnostic approach of "I don't know" is a much more accurate one. And an honest admission of one's lack of means to provide absolute proof.
As for arbitrary set of predefined principles? Please explain how and where therese were lacking during the eugenics movement of the early last century?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I believe that I have argued this very point on several occasions, in response to which you have argued that the a majority of wars are a consequence of Islamic belief. Religion is an often used excuse or convenient delineator in otherwise political wars. |
No, I've clarified repeatedly that my arguments are regards to a group that holds a very corrupted belief in the name of Islam. The islamofascists. And this is indeed true.
As was the case with the Spanish Inquisition, Catholics murder of Protestants, and vice-versa. And so on.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 11:17:56 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Yep - the prisons that demonstrate a reasonable degree of humanity demonstrate exactly that. I understand that there are some states where chain gangs are still de rigeur, however. |
We have chain gangs here in Arizona. It's not uncommon to see them on the side of the road picking up trash. The prisoners that are allowed to be on chain gangs are only the best of the best. Usually they are in for petty crimes and they are only among the best behaved. This is because all the prisoners want to be on the chain gang! Hmm, locked in a small stinky cell with no window and two other guys, or walking on the side of the road, in the sun and fresh air, picking up trash?
Also note, they are not chained together, nor are they handcuffed. They don't even have an overweight guard watching them with a shotgun on his shoulder like the movies show. I beleive they wear a locator beakon on their ankle so they can be tracked if the did run, but the one guard that is with them drives the van behind them as they go.
Oh the humanity!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 11:51:20 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Legalbeagle":
The ICC has been pretty successful. It certainly maintains higher standards than were possible within Iraq. |
I vaguely recall a whole issue with rapes & abuse by U.N. peacekeepers. |
The ICC is a court. It would have offered a more neutral (and therefore more fair) venue for the trial. The trial in Iraq appears to have been little more than a kangaroo court by comparison.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yes, there is a point of evaluation. But the latter is far different from the first. The first case, should result in life or prison. If it is not the criminal's first account of murder than I would see it as a valid case for the death penalty. |
So who is going to make the judgment whether the answer in a case is so obvious that we should stop the appeal system and just execute the accused, and which cases are not so straightforward? How clear does the CCTV footage have to be to presume someone guilty unless proved innocent, and how well evidenced must the abuse be to allow someone to murder with impunity?
By its very nature, a case where there are valid grounds for appeal is not sufficiently straightforward that you could come to the conclusion that the accused may be silenced and executed in the name of efficiency.
For these reasons, your suggestion does not work.
Originally posted by "theSaj":
But when that impurity reaches a point so that it takes another's life or well-being. Then yes, I believe some sort of action is required. When it reaches the point of killing hundreds or more. Than most definitely there is a need to eliminate or reduce as much as possible that individual's capability to inflict harm. |
What about if you are the leader of a country and you give out orders, contrary to international law, resulting in the deaths or serious injury of many hundreds of thousands of people (women & children included)?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Balogney...if you believe that you are being extremely dishonest to yourself. First off, there is the arbitrary belief that there is no God. |
Why is it arbitrary to believe there is no god? There is no evidence to suggest that there is a god (only the word of other people who themselves have no greater access to the truth than do you).
By way of example, if I believed in the existence of fairies, which I determined were green and wore bells, my belief would be arbitrary (no reason for fairies, green or bells). If you did not believe in green fairies with bells, would your "belief" that they did not exist be an arbitrary belief? If you think "yes", then you are using "arbitrary" outside of its usual meaning.
In the same way, people who believe in gods with various specific characteristics have arbitrary beliefs. People who do not believe in those gods or those characteristics are not acting arbitrarily.
Originally posted by theSaj:
And that one has the knowledge to make such a statement. At least the modern agnostic approach of "I don't know" is a much more accurate one. And an honest admission of one's lack of means to provide absolute proof. |
Atheism does not pretend to prove the absence of a god, any more than it seeks to prove definitively that there are no fairies nor invisible teapots floating around Mars. It merely asserts that a god's existence is similarly unlikely.
Originally posted by theSaj:
As for arbitrary set of predefined principles? Please explain how and where therese were lacking during the eugenics movement of the early last century? |
Where have you got the link between atheism or religion & eugenics? I don't understand. Eugenics was the promotion of "improving" the race by selective breeding. There are various ethical issues surrounding it (including very current issues on genetic selection).
If you are referring to the way in which it was applied and tested in Nazi Germany, seeking to make a reduction ad Hitlerum, then you are using an example of abusive application of a principle to criticise the principle (which is illogical and not persuasive).
Message edited by author 2006-11-15 11:52:02.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:02:09 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Yep - the prisons that demonstrate a reasonable degree of humanity demonstrate exactly that. I understand that there are some states where chain gangs are still de rigeur, however. |
We have chain gangs here in Arizona. It's not uncommon to see them on the side of the road picking up trash. The prisoners that are allowed to be on chain gangs are only the best of the best. Usually they are in for petty crimes and they are only among the best behaved. This is because all the prisoners want to be on the chain gang! Hmm, locked in a small stinky cell with no window and two other guys, or walking on the side of the road, in the sun and fresh air, picking up trash?
Also note, they are not chained together, nor are they handcuffed. They don't even have an overweight guard watching them with a shotgun on his shoulder like the movies show. I beleive they wear a locator beakon on their ankle so they can be tracked if the did run, but the one guard that is with them drives the van behind them as they go.
Oh the humanity! |
It can be cast in a different light: forcing prisoners to work in 120 degree heat, living in tent cities, being given food that costs less than the food given to the prison warders' dogs, beating and torturing the inmates:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
I don't pretend this is typical - merely a note that some very inhuman conditions still exist within your nation. I don't think it reflects well upon the civility of the US to allow this (mind you, there are several issues that reflect badly on the US at the moment - and several that reflect badly on the UK).
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:46:17 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It can be cast in a different light: forcing prisoners to work in 120 degree heat, living in tent cities, being given food that costs less than....... |
Are you talking about our military men and women now?
Message edited by author 2006-11-15 12:46:46. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:48:26 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It can be cast in a different light: forcing prisoners to work in 120 degree heat, living in tent cities, being given food that costs less than....... |
Are you talking about our military men and women now? |
Check out today's plea-bargain, and see if you think justice was/will be done.
Edit: I see that the others may face the death penalty, so perhaps there may be equal (mis)treatment for all after all.
Message edited by author 2006-11-15 12:54:01. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 01:41:27 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It can be cast in a different light: forcing prisoners to work in 120 degree heat, living in tent cities, being given food that costs less than the food given to the prison warders' dogs, beating and torturing the inmates:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
I don't pretend this is typical - merely a note that some very inhuman conditions still exist within your nation. I don't think it reflects well upon the civility of the US to allow this (mind you, there are several issues that reflect badly on the US at the moment - and several that reflect badly on the UK). |
No one is forced to work in 120 degree, they volunteer for chain gang duty and there is a long line of volunteers. And I don't think they even go out on the hottest days. But for the record, I still do yard work and I still work in my garage (no AC) in the 120 degree heat, why can't a prisoner volunteer for this work? Only people trying make point that isn't there can cast it in a different light then what is actually the truth.
As for making them live in tents and giving them cheap food, as long as they are healty why not? Prison isn't suppose to be fun or comfortable.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 02:29:36 PM · #143 |
General, I usually do not favor plea-bargain. It would have to be a very unusual case and I am not sure this is one.
Why does it seem the media thinks the military folks are any less likely to committ crimes than the general public? They are human too and are just as subject to do wrong as the next group of people/ |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 03:23:24 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The ICC is a court. It would have offered a more neutral (and therefore more fair) venue for the trial. The trial in Iraq appears to have been little more than a kangaroo court by comparison. |
Well, the UN always seemed little more than a kangaroo club to me. So I guess I see little difference.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
So who is going to make the judgment whether the answer in a case is so obvious that we should stop the appeal system and just execute the accused, and which cases are not so straightforward? |
When did I ever say stop the appeal system? You're criticizing me for something I've never said.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
How clear does the CCTV footage have to be to presume someone guilty unless proved innocent, and how well evidenced must the abuse be to allow someone to murder with impunity? |
I did not just say CCTV. Take CCTV, DNA, eye witnesses and even an accused's plea of guilt.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
By its very nature, a case where there are valid grounds for appeal is not sufficiently straightforward that you could come to the conclusion that the accused may be silenced and executed in the name of efficiency. |
I disagree. Letting the accused have a second trial does not invalidate the grounds of the first. Heck, maybe we make it "two trials" both have to agree. How's that for you?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
What about if you are the leader of a country and you give out orders, contrary to international law, resulting in the deaths or serious injury of many hundreds of thousands of people (women & children included)? |
There is a big difference between that and using mass destructive means against one's own people. There is also a difference between collateral damage and directed damage. There is a difference between the "intent" to target civilians and collateral loss of civilians.
Yes, it'd be nice and dandy to have a happy peaceful world. We don't...
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Why is it arbitrary to believe there is no god? There is no evidence to suggest that there is a god (only the word of other people who themselves have no greater access to the truth than do you).
By way of example, if I believed in the existence of fairies, which I determined were green and wore bells, my belief would be arbitrary (no reason for fairies, green or bells). If you did not believe in green fairies with bells, would your "belief" that they did not exist be an arbitrary belief? If you think "yes", then you are using "arbitrary" outside of its usual meaning.
In the same way, people who believe in gods with various specific characteristics have arbitrary beliefs. People who do not believe in those gods or those characteristics are not acting arbitrarily.
|
Because, it still requires faith. The faith that without all evidence you have made a decision to believe. That is a significant difference from simply not believing in a god or claiming no knowledge of the existence of a god.
But to declare that no god exists. And then go the step further and force others to adhere to that belief, even by force if necessary. Is dogmatic and wrong.
If you want to disagree with that, fine, but I'll think you're wrong.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Atheism does not pretend to prove the absence of a god, any more than it seeks to prove definitively that there are no fairies nor invisible teapots floating around Mars. It merely asserts that a god's existence is similarly unlikely. |
Depends on the form of atheism...just like religion itself doesn't dictate killing and war. But some forms and interpretations of it do so.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Where have you got the link between atheism or religion & eugenics? I don't understand. Eugenics was the promotion of "improving" the race by selective breeding. There are various ethical issues surrounding it (including very current issues on genetic selection). |
Atheism = we've already discussed in the past certain atheist regimes which have killed thousands for merely being religious.
eugenics = okay, NAZI Germany was not the only one exploring eugenics and trying to determine the quality of life issue. Nor was the only entity to adhere to a beliefe that some people could be more or less evolved than others. And the ideas for such were not without basis but were drawn from the scientific understandings of the time. Most of which are now politically unpopular.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
If you are referring to the way in which it was applied and tested in Nazi Germany, seeking to make a reduction ad Hitlerum, then you are using an example of abusive application of a principle to criticise the principle (which is illogical and not persuasive). |
ROTFLMAO
The entire debate here is a discussion of the "abusive application of a principle to criticise the principle" in regards to religion being equated for all the world's hurts and wars, etc.
A commonly done practice that I see done all the time. Elton John's comments being just the latest highly publicized example.
And obviously, I have made no statement that all science is bad. Nor that all atheists are bad.
In fact, all I have stated is that "Some S is P". Which is a valid logical structure. And is clearly true from a historical standpoint.
My point is simply because "Some R (religious) are C (corrupted and violent historically)" does not equate to "ALL R are C". Which is a comment I hear made often.
My argument is that in neither case does "All S is P" hold true. But in all cases "Some S is P".
As for another criticism some may make, regarding slippery slope and references to NAZI. I dismiss such argument. Rather, I believe that liberals are unwilling to discuss what happened and endeavor to deny it's record by dismissing it's relevancy as an extreme example. However, we are discussing here nothing but such extreme examples. So if we are going to hold against religion the extreme example of the crusades then we must hold against science the extreme examples implemented in it's name as well.
To me, to dismiss history is a far greater fallacy than slippery slope. Slippery slope is a fallacy because it states it could lead there. However, when such principles have indeed led to there as recent as the past century. Then the slippery slope argument is greatly weakened in said case because irrefutable evidence exists that such deeds were enacted.
So perhaps history is not persuasive to you, where as to me it is quite persuasive.
Originally posted by "LoudDog":
As for making them live in tents and giving them cheap food, as long as they are healty why not? Prison isn't suppose to be fun or comfortable. |
And having gone to public schools, I can assure you they ate better than this honor student did.
Joe Arpaio
As for making them live in tents and giving them cheap food, as long as they are healty why not? Prison isn't suppose to be fun or comfortable.
Surplus food does not mean unhealthy. It just may mean less selection and the same meal served a few days in a row. If black-eyed peas are surpluss they may find themselves eating black-eyed peas and rice for lunch for a week. But hey, we let criminals sue because there were or weren't raisins in their oatmeal.
In truth, 90 cents per person for food is fine. It just means they're eating more beans, rice veggies, grains, noodles. And less meat and delicacies.
He has banned coffee (to save money and to reduce 'coffee attacks' on guards), smoking, and porno magazines.
Awww.....and not only that, I bet you they banded alcohol, crack, and child pornogrpahy. How wrong is that?
He has removed the weightlifting equipment and cut off all but G-rated movies. The cable TV system, which is mandated by court order, has but a few stations Arpaio deems to be "educational", those being Animal Planet, ESPN2, The Weather Channel, and Food Network.
Awww...cable mandatory. I don't have cable. In fact, I don't believe criminals should either. I 100% agree with the above decision.
Inmates are issued pink underwear as part of their uniforms and all guards use pink handcuffs.
A little uncouth IMHO. But then again, i've had numerous people send me articles about how pinks and yellows reduce hostility in prisons.
He has also set up the Tent City as a modification of the Maricopa County Jail. As it becomes crowded, more tents are set up. As temperatures climbed well past 100 during the summer of 2003, Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths!"[2]
So, the situation is there isn't enough room in the prisons. Well, if the criminals have to sit in 120 degree weather (which is common to the whole state...it's not like they're holding microwave overs over the prisoners)....better they sit there and sweat then be free to roam the public and cause more harm. And just maybe, when they get out, they won't want to come back. Some might even behave themselves.
Arpaio has instituted a program for inmates to study while in jail and to try to recover from drug abuse. This program is named Hard Knocks High, which is the only approved high school program in any American jail.
Oh my,...a hard nosed education/anti-drug program to help the young actually have a better chance when they get out. EVIL!!!!
Arpaio has started mandatory 2-week English classes for non-English-speaking inmates at his jails.
Oh my, teach them english and civics. The number one reason why non-English speakers struggle in society is because they can't speak the language and pursue most available jobs. Wow...sounds like tough love, but very constructive. Those who go thru will have a much better chance succeeding.
But hey, I forget, I live in a time and age where criminals have more rights than honor students.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 04:17:34 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Why does it seem the media thinks the military folks are any less likely to committ crimes than the general public? |
Perhaps because that's how their media relations people (and politicians, and other supporters) typically try to portray them? Always as heroic liberators and never as murderous thugs? Just a guess ... |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 05:12:47 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Why does it seem the media thinks the military folks are any less likely to committ crimes than the general public? |
Perhaps because that's how their media relations people (and politicians, and other supporters) typically try to portray them? Always as heroic liberators and never as murderous thugs? Just a guess ... |
heroic liberators ..... the soldiers and their leaders as a group
murderous thugs .....possibly included among the group
At least thats the way I see it as a freedom loving, conservative Christian. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 05:28:56 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Why does it seem the media thinks the military folks are any less likely to committ crimes than the general public? |
Perhaps because that's how their media relations people (and politicians, and other supporters) typically try to portray them? Always as heroic liberators and never as murderous thugs? Just a guess ... |
heroic liberators ..... the soldiers and their leaders as a group
murderous thugs .....possibly included among the group
At least thats the way I see it as a freedom loving, conservative Christian. |
As a freedom-loving, liberal (radical?) agnostic I pretty much agree with you myself, but can you see how the advertisements -- and therefore the common portrayals and perceptions -- don't always jibe with that reality? |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 07:59:22 PM · #148 |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 06:23:45 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
How clear does the CCTV footage have to be to presume someone guilty unless proved innocent, and how well evidenced must the abuse be to allow someone to murder with impunity? |
I did not just say CCTV. Take CCTV, DNA, eye witnesses and even an accused's plea of guilt. |
You are confusing the principle with specifics: the point I was trying to demonstrate was that you can never be absolutely certain.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
What about if you are the leader of a country and you give out orders, contrary to international law, resulting in the deaths or serious injury of many hundreds of thousands of people (women & children included)? |
Originally posted by theSaj:
There is a big difference ...
Yes, it'd be nice and dandy to have a happy peaceful world. We don't... |
Saddam claimed to have killed people in his capacity as head of state suppressing civilian unrest. The coalition have killed people in their capacity as foreign aggressors invading another sovereign state without any firm objectives or justification for their actions - in fact, we appear to have done it for few reasons beyond "we felt like it". It is only "tough love" on our part and "act of evil" on Saddam's part because we label it that way.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Because, it still requires faith. The faith that without all evidence you have made a decision to believe. That is a significant difference from simply not believing in a god or claiming no knowledge of the existence of a god.
...
Depends on the form of atheism...just like religion itself doesn't dictate killing and war. But some forms and interpretations of it do so.
|
What do I have to believe in? I simply don't think that the existence of some invisible and undetectable, all powerful being is any more likely than the existence of fairies. For all useful intents and purposes, I would tell people that "there is no such thing as a fairy" and be pretty confident that I am right. I would not pretend to be able to "prove" absolutely that they do not exist. Same goes for gods.
You keep on asserting that atheism relates to a positive belief in the absence of gods. The more broadly accepted form of atheism represents an absence of belief in this fashion. While it is helpful for your argument to cast all atheists as believers in the absence of gods, it simply does not represent the broader negative concepts of atheism.
Atheism cannot be compared to religion in having multiple interpretations: religions rely on texts that are open to interpretation. Atheism does not rely on any text and there is nothing to interpret.
Originally posted by theSaj:
But to declare that no god exists. And then go the step further and force others to adhere to that belief, even by force if necessary. Is dogmatic and wrong.
|
Forcing people? - why do you think that atheists want forced conversion? All I am doing is pointing out how ridiculous organised religions are - I think that over time the conversion will ultimately take place of its own accord.
Originally posted by theSaj:
ROTFLMAO
The entire debate here is a discussion of the "abusive application of a principle to criticise the principle" in regards to religion being equated for all the world's hurts and wars, etc. |
No - that is something that you introduced into the debate here. No one was talking about religion being the cause of all war. Spazmo said that religious extremism was a problem. You then asserted that China and the USSR represented the enforcement of atheism, and they were abusive, and concluded that the dogmatic enforcement of belief is the problem.
I pointed out that those brutal regimes opposed religion for political rather than philosophical reasons. I said that the fact that people are abusive for non-religious reasons does not exonerate religion. Also, that religion imposes an arbitrary set of beliefs whereas the absence of belief, fundamentally, does not.
If I was arguing that people do bad things in the name of religion, and therefore there is no god - then you might be justified in rolling around on the floor at the logical leap. However, I am not.
Originally posted by theSaj:
As for another criticism some may make, regarding slippery slope and references to NAZI. I dismiss such argument. Rather, I believe that liberals are unwilling to discuss what happened and endeavor to deny it's record by dismissing it's relevancy as an extreme example. ...
So perhaps history is not persuasive to you, where as to me it is quite persuasive. |
This is nonsense. You constantly refer to the Nazis. They are very rarely relevant.
By way of counter example, your argument is as useful as me saying that "Hitler was a believer in god and used religion and quasi-religion as a method of control and justification for his despicable acts. His concepts of racial purity and anti-semitism were the products of protestantism in his youth and demonstrate the evil power of religion."
Is this a reasoned or persuasive argument against religion? No. It is nothing more than an attempt to tar the issue with historical baggage.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 08:21:00 AM · #150 |
I hope that everyone is just as enthusiastic and supportive of the war crimes case being brought against Donald Rumsfeld;
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6146058.stm
|
|
