tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post5044997992366110479..comments2024-03-16T02:16:54.082-07:00Comments on Vagabond Scholar: The Torture Apologia ChartBatocchiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-57820579351317863362011-12-20T12:55:52.848-08:002011-12-20T12:55:52.848-08:00I think that being able to identify certain types ...I think that being able to identify certain types and categories of argument definitely renders said arguments utterly null and void. Arguments are only valid if you've never heard them before.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-37301618969954843592009-06-25T12:04:20.084-07:002009-06-25T12:04:20.084-07:00Identifying a person who would torture a child as ...Identifying a person who would torture a child as somebody that people generally have many and strong reasons to condemn is captured in the moral statement, "It is wrong to torture a child." From which it follows that I or you should not torture a child.<br />How does it follow? Remember, "[t]o say that S is prescribed for A, but A has no reason for action to bring about S, is Jameshttp://www.asiarooms.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-36433833087118224512009-06-16T16:14:22.044-07:002009-06-16T16:14:22.044-07:00To expand on the last point, imagine that opponent...To expand on the last point, imagine that opponents of abortion insisted on using the word "infanticide" and that almost all the media complied. The abortion argument, already a very difficult one, would become impossible. That's why "torture" is not the right word to use in this debate. It adds a distracting argument about the word to the real argument about the policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-40329674290076628912009-06-09T14:31:04.097-07:002009-06-09T14:31:04.097-07:00Straw man. The techniques used don't fit the d...Straw man. The techniques used don't fit the dictionary definition of torture. If you want to stretch the dictionary to cover them, then you need a new word to describe what most people think of when they hear the word torture. Sawing off appendages and heads, feeding people into shredders, and traditional Native American rituals such as burying up to the head. Those are not comparable to Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-87691132900987354872009-06-06T04:47:09.093-07:002009-06-06T04:47:09.093-07:00Brilliant!Brilliant!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05686983280645481272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-21653114022689050822009-06-05T14:02:28.526-07:002009-06-05T14:02:28.526-07:00One rationale under G would be that the CIA people...One rationale under G would be that the CIA people who conducted torture were heroes. Thus, it would be wrong to prosecute those acts.Paul Foordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14253782475059940766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-69301730841283218732009-06-04T17:30:40.220-07:002009-06-04T17:30:40.220-07:00If the Republican Party had one brave leader among...If the Republican Party had one brave leader among them they would reason in the following manner. Torture should remain illegal, because its illegality reflects well on the entire nation when human dignity is recognized. Therefore, misleading attempts by the perpetrators and their mouth pieces should be seen as actors in war crimes. The principle protects how Americans view themselves, it Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-67105258862644505802009-06-04T13:37:13.849-07:002009-06-04T13:37:13.849-07:00I'm irritated by the way the media continues t...I'm irritated by the way the media continues to talk about torture as a "partisan disagreement". This only helps torture supportersGeorgehttp://dsfi.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-48447177887314100252009-06-04T12:20:54.145-07:002009-06-04T12:20:54.145-07:00Marie, thanks, and you're exactly right - some...Marie, thanks, and you're exactly right - some apologists frame the "debate" in very charged, personal terms, mainly because they need to keep things rooted in fear and paranoia. Blogger Montag's pointed out that what he personally might do in some extremely unlikely scenario should not then dictate law or policy. Andrew Sullivan's made a similar point, that one might run Batocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-16745465331752973702009-06-04T12:06:57.910-07:002009-06-04T12:06:57.910-07:00Excellent work. But you missed one I heard Stuart ...Excellent work. But you missed one I heard Stuart Taylor pull the other day. I call it the Michael Dukakis Excuse after the moment Dukakis lost the election because he responded like an automaton to the question, "Wouldn't you want a guy to get the death penalty if he raped/murdered your wife?" or something like that. <br /><br />The Dukakis Excuse goes like this: "Wouldn'marieburnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05551898556011521804noreply@blogger.com