One wonders if memories of that stalemate are giving the Democratic leadership the jitters. They're idiots if they think the public would side with Bush in that sort of a standoff. The country sided with Clinton because he was a popular president. Bush has the all time worst poll numbers for a President and the people are hungry for someone to stand up to him.
Re:Foie Gras is some nasty shit...
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 1
Why should I trust a website run by vegetarians to have completely accurate and unbiased information regarding animal based food production? What an absurd question. A lot of people become vegetarians because they know about the cruelties of the food industry. Do you generally not trust sources because they are too informed on a topic?
And no, there aren't any small farms making free range foie gras. There is no way to produce it without the force feeding.
I specifically said homeless people, not beggars. If you think all those people I see sleeping in doorsteps on cold nights are con artists you are truly living in a fantasy world (the sort inhabited with faeries, and elves, and compassionate conservatives).
And don't ask everyone else to care if you have to spend enormous amounts of money to extend the lifespan of their loved ones. What makes your egocentric viewpoint any more important than anyones elses?
So you would like to use your money to donate to others, that's laudable but one example doesn't make an argument. What about the person who wants his tax money back to buy a bigger house or a new car? The benefit of government aid is that people get the help they need whether or not their fellow citizens care to help them.
I don't personally know anyone who has trouble obtaining a place to live and yet I see homeless people on the streets all the time. How do you explain that?
the article says one of the reasons for Ireland's economic growth is "decades of investment in domestic higher education". There go your libertarian ideals.
If you are going to say that sometimes it works you had better provide an example to back you up. That article you provided is interesting and it also makes my point exactly.
I have never argued that torture doesn't get people to talk, indeed no one would claim that to be the case. The point is that it doesn't get them to tell you anything useful. McCain says that he finally broke and told them more than he was supposed to, but he admits that he didn't give them anything of strategic value. The ticking time bomb contrivance that the pro-torture side keep bringing up requires us to get valuable information very quickly in order to save lives. If McCain had been in the hands of this administration their torture would have accomplished nothing but lower us to the level of Pinochet.
Another reason why this McCain article doesn't make your case is that this wasn't a ticking time bomb case. If we only torture in that limited situation then you still need to answer my previous question, if we truly were in a ticking time bomb scenario, what do you think a terrorist would gain by giving up useful information? Any terrorist with a modicum of intelligence would realized that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by distracting us with bad information.
Their have always been drugs and their always will be drugs. The drug war really began with prohibition, not because drugs and alcohol suddenly invaded the country back in the 20s.
The problem isn't that people think they are better off voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is the winner-takes-all voting system we have that makes that a fact. IRV or some other system that allows voters to vote for who they want instead of voting against who they don't want is what this country really needs more than almost anything else (I'd put it right up there with public funding of elections)
Blueberry pancakes were a higher priority than some shit that occurred in the 80s. Time to readjust your priority's because the people responsible for the fucked up shit in the 80's are the same ones advising the current administration. All involved got away with their crimes so here they are again back to their old tricks.
I'm saying that Republicans for the most part are pretty good. See above.
But yeah, Democrats are still idiots. Bingo. And too bad since they are the ones that could put an end to this shit if they tried.
Ok, it doesn't make sense to you. Who cares what the professional interogators during WWII said (even though we won that war against multiple major world powers in less time than we've spent on this war). Never mind what the American POW's who actually were tortured said. None of that is important because it doesn't make sense to you. Sure.
If we truly were in a ticking time bomb scenario, what do you think a terrorst would gain by giving you useful information? The interrogators don't know the difference between a right answer or a wrong answer so anything you tell them will be enough to stop their torture (assuming the interrogators are true to their word as you say American interrogators would be). So why ruin their plans when the terrorist can just give bad information and end his torture while the attack can still go on as planned. They have nothing to fear since after the attack it's no longer a ticking time bomb situation so what are we going to do to them when we find out they gave bad intel?
I'm sorry you failed to see the point of the ticking bomb example No, you missed the point of it. The ticking time bomb line is an attempt to justify torture by making up an extreme scenario where its use will be less horrific to people on first glance. The reality however is that no intelligent person would use torture, especially in that situation because it simply does not work. Let me repeat that, it doesn't work. "But... but... what if..." No. Just no, it doesn't work. That's what the official military handbook on interrogation says. That's what every other expert on the field says. Why do Republicans have such a trouble with that simple fact?
You won't maybe get some useful information from the person, you'll just waste valuable time chasing down false leads and in the process you've given up any semblance of moral superiority over your enemy. Congratulations, you're a terrorist. Next time maybe you can find out if blowing up a crowded market will stop that ticking time bomb.
Is there any part of what I wrote above unintelligible or confusing? Yes, your point is unintelligible. How about you try to critique the content of the posts instead of just attacking the poster.
Whoops, looks like you hit Submit too soon. Or were you trying to make an idiotic ad hominem attack without actually challenging the correctness of his comment?
I would say the damage the Democrats have wrought in the inner cities trumps anything the Republicans have ever done in history Care to elaborate on that? What inner city problems are the result of the Democrats? Homelessness? Nope that was mostly Reagan. The drug war? Ok, sure that one has been bipartisan but the two sides aren't exactly equal. The Drug war itself was started by Nixon, and Reagan was responsible for a huge escalation of it including the introduction of crack into the inner city's in the 80's.
Basically, yes that's the idea. But of course it's not quite that simple. Let's look at slavery for instance.
There was a time not too long ago when slavery was the societal norm in America. Does that make it right? Well the societal norm of our current times would say no, but at the time their were substantial portions of our country that saw nothing at all wrong with it. People aren't perfect and so morality isn't entirely a clear cut thing nor is it static. It does however seem to improve over time. The Bible doesn't fare any better than antebellum society did on the issue of slavery, but unlike society as a whole the Bible wasn't able to change and correct itself.
You want to know where morality comes from? The answer is not as complex as you seem to want to make it. Morality comes from humans.
It is nothing but a label for what we humans consider to be right behavior. To say morality requires supernatural is just daft. The concept of morality doesn't need a supernatural source any more than do the concepts of stinky or cute.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing those monitors had traditional standby for the physical switch so they could be used for demos.
And no, there aren't any small farms making free range foie gras. There is no way to produce it without the force feeding.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
Don't forget about people who downloaded it for free to check it out then later payed for it. I'm curious how many of the free downloaders did that.
I specifically said homeless people, not beggars. If you think all those people I see sleeping in doorsteps on cold nights are con artists you are truly living in a fantasy world (the sort inhabited with faeries, and elves, and compassionate conservatives).
And don't ask everyone else to care if you have to spend enormous amounts of money to extend the lifespan of their loved ones. What makes your egocentric viewpoint any more important than anyones elses?
So you would like to use your money to donate to others, that's laudable but one example doesn't make an argument. What about the person who wants his tax money back to buy a bigger house or a new car? The benefit of government aid is that people get the help they need whether or not their fellow citizens care to help them.
I don't personally know anyone who has trouble obtaining a place to live and yet I see homeless people on the streets all the time. How do you explain that?
Who cares? I care if my EMT knows first aid, not if he's read Dickens.
the article says one of the reasons for Ireland's economic growth is "decades of investment in domestic higher education". There go your libertarian ideals.
If you are going to say that sometimes it works you had better provide an example to back you up. That article you provided is interesting and it also makes my point exactly.
I have never argued that torture doesn't get people to talk, indeed no one would claim that to be the case. The point is that it doesn't get them to tell you anything useful. McCain says that he finally broke and told them more than he was supposed to, but he admits that he didn't give them anything of strategic value. The ticking time bomb contrivance that the pro-torture side keep bringing up requires us to get valuable information very quickly in order to save lives. If McCain had been in the hands of this administration their torture would have accomplished nothing but lower us to the level of Pinochet.
Another reason why this McCain article doesn't make your case is that this wasn't a ticking time bomb case. If we only torture in that limited situation then you still need to answer my previous question, if we truly were in a ticking time bomb scenario, what do you think a terrorist would gain by giving up useful information? Any terrorist with a modicum of intelligence would realized that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by distracting us with bad information.
I'm saying that society is no better or worse than any other moral compass such as the Bible which implicitly endorses slavery and genocide.
Their have always been drugs and their always will be drugs. The drug war really began with prohibition, not because drugs and alcohol suddenly invaded the country back in the 20s.
It sure looks that way, doesn't it?
The problem isn't that people think they are better off voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is the winner-takes-all voting system we have that makes that a fact. IRV or some other system that allows voters to vote for who they want instead of voting against who they don't want is what this country really needs more than almost anything else (I'd put it right up there with public funding of elections)
Ok, it doesn't make sense to you. Who cares what the professional interogators during WWII said (even though we won that war against multiple major world powers in less time than we've spent on this war). Never mind what the American POW's who actually were tortured said. None of that is important because it doesn't make sense to you. Sure.
If we truly were in a ticking time bomb scenario, what do you think a terrorst would gain by giving you useful information? The interrogators don't know the difference between a right answer or a wrong answer so anything you tell them will be enough to stop their torture (assuming the interrogators are true to their word as you say American interrogators would be). So why ruin their plans when the terrorist can just give bad information and end his torture while the attack can still go on as planned. They have nothing to fear since after the attack it's no longer a ticking time bomb situation so what are we going to do to them when we find out they gave bad intel?
You won't maybe get some useful information from the person, you'll just waste valuable time chasing down false leads and in the process you've given up any semblance of moral superiority over your enemy. Congratulations, you're a terrorist. Next time maybe you can find out if blowing up a crowded market will stop that ticking time bomb.
Whoops, looks like you hit Submit too soon. Or were you trying to make an idiotic ad hominem attack without actually challenging the correctness of his comment?
Basically, yes that's the idea. But of course it's not quite that simple. Let's look at slavery for instance.
There was a time not too long ago when slavery was the societal norm in America. Does that make it right? Well the societal norm of our current times would say no, but at the time their were substantial portions of our country that saw nothing at all wrong with it. People aren't perfect and so morality isn't entirely a clear cut thing nor is it static. It does however seem to improve over time. The Bible doesn't fare any better than antebellum society did on the issue of slavery, but unlike society as a whole the Bible wasn't able to change and correct itself.
Humans. Humans decide it. I'm pretty sure that's what I said in my previous post.
You want to know where morality comes from? The answer is not as complex as you seem to want to make it. Morality comes from humans.
It is nothing but a label for what we humans consider to be right behavior. To say morality requires supernatural is just daft. The concept of morality doesn't need a supernatural source any more than do the concepts of stinky or cute.