EPTat the end of day ethics is not about theories and ideas, though analysis can help prevent bad thinking. it's rather about cultivating values and humanity.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6650
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
at the end of day ethics is not about theories and ideas, though analysis can help prevent bad thinking. it's rather about cultivating values and humanity. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4557 Posts
On January 26 2017 20:49 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am all for looking into ethic and moral philosophy; in fact it's what interested me the most when i took a degree at the unversity. And I know it's horribly tricky and paradoxical. But I don't think it's that complicated in a case like that. There are red lines you don't go over, because we are not scumbags, because we are proud of being civilized, because we have decency and humanity. And no theoretical situation that never happens would change any of that. And like a surprising amount of other things (murdering children etc...), it is, imo, very black and white. We don't do it, period. I really believe that to even consider torture as a good idea, one has to be very deeply morally bankrupted. I wouldn't call it black and white. Are you familiar with the case of Marc Dutroux in Belgium? They found 2 kidnapped girls in his house and arrested him. At that point they know there are 4 other children who are missing, and they are sure that Dutroux is involved. It is unknown whether the girls are alive, but it's clear that time is of the essence. After how many days of "normal" interrogations do you pull out the phone books and try another approach? If 1 man holds the key to the survival of 4 young girls and he refuses to talk, am I deeply morally bankrupted for considering to smack him around a bit to get the info? It's not black and white at all, it's a very complex issue. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote: Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
In any case in your hypothetical situation, it is unlikely that "smack himn around a bit" would abtain any information. Not to mention would count as a miscarrriage of justice. You also don't know he had kidnapped the other missing children; instead you are asking that the entire court case be thrown out for illegal torture based on suppositions. Don't be too quick to give up your own freedom to not be torture by the police based on hypothetical situations. Oh and yes it is black and white. Torture is morally wrong. This is coming from a guy who would cut up a 3 year old cute little 3 year old girl to save 15 people. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12420 Posts
On January 26 2017 22:07 Laurens wrote: I wouldn't call it black and white. Are you familiar with the case of Marc Dutroux in Belgium? They found 2 kidnapped girls in his house and arrested him. At that point they know there are 4 other children who are missing, and they are sure that Dutroux is involved. It is unknown whether the girls are alive, but it's clear that time is of the essence. After how many days of "normal" interrogations do you pull out the phone books and try another approach? If 1 man holds the key to the survival of 4 young girls and he refuses to talk, am I deeply morally bankrupted for considering to smack him around a bit to get the info? It's not black and white at all, it's a very complex issue. You can justify everything using an appeal to emotions. Most people would go to great lengths to save their loved ones. Would you torture to save people that you deem worth saving? What about killing, would you kill innocents to save those four girls that Dutroux has? Would you kill innocents to save your wife? Your parents? Your child? The fact that many people would do these things, the fact that you can modify a person's response to a situation using an appeal to emotion, doesn't make the situation itself change. It doesn't make killing justified, or grey, and it doesn't make any issue more complex. "If someone had killed your family, would you be so against the death penalty?" I don't know, maybe not. That doesn't matter. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
In response to this article written by Manning: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/compromise-doesnt-work-political-opponents-chelsea-manning Well... I can't say that it isn't a pretty terrible article. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 26 2017 22:55 LegalLord wrote: Twitter drama: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824573698774601729 In response to this article written by Manning: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/compromise-doesnt-work-political-opponents-chelsea-manning Well... I can't say that it isn't a pretty terrible article. Also unacceptable presidential behavior on Trump's part to be calling out individual citizens on Twitter as traitors, but I suppose it'd be quicker to point out when Trump does something that isn't obviously beneath the office of president. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
HAJJAR, Lisa (2009), "Does Torture Work? A Sociolegal Assessment of the Practice in Historical and Global Perspective", Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 311-345: + Show Spoiler + "From the narrowly construed perspective, the lessons learned from the American case confirm timeless truisms about the consequentialist relationship between torture and truth. “Torture,” as third century AD/CE Roman jurist Ulpian observed, “is a difficult and deceptive thing[,] for the strong will resist and the weak will say anything to end the pain.” As for truth, according to the German Jesuit Friedrich von Spee in 1631, “It is incredible what people say under the compulsion of torture, and how many lies they will tell about themselves and about others; in the end, whatever the torturers want to be true, is true.” For a contemporary judgment about the efficacy of interrogational torture, Rejali’s (2007, p. 478) comparative global assessment is a fitting description of the American case: “[O]rganized torture yields poor information, sweeps up many innocents, degrades organizational capabilities, and destroys interrogators. Limited time during battle or emergency intensifies all these problems.” The U.S. case demonstrates that harming and humiliating prisoners was ineffective in eliciting accurate or actionable intelligence. Rather, the torture policy generated a vast amount of false and useless information that caused the waste of valuable time and resources. This truth should silence assertions that such methods are a necessary “lesser evil.” At a very high cost, the U.S. case confirms that torture does not work by any measure. No modern regime or society is more secure as a result of torture. Its use spreads, its harms multiply, and its corrosive consequences boost rather than diminish the threat of terrorism." COSTANZO, Mark, GERRITY, Ellen (2009), "The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate", Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 179-210: 'With many policy or political issues, there are ambiguities that lead to the necessity of compromise. This is not the case with the policy of torture. Based on the available facts and research findings, it is clear that the use of torture-based interrogations should end. Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence. Torture has severe, long-term negative consequences for survivors, perpetrators, and communities. More broadly, the use of torture has far-reaching consequences: it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility toward our troops, provides a rationale for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the United States in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and undermines our credibility when we argue for international human rights or any moral imperative. Any purported benefits of torture must be weighed against these substantial proven costs." SULLIVAN, Christopher (2014), "The (in)effectiveness of torture for combating insurgency", Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 388-404: "Using micro-level data on political violence from Guatemala and a research design that combined matching procedures with difference-in-difference estimation, this study estimated the relationship between torture and subsequent killings by insurgents and counterinsurgents. The results suggest that torture is an ineffective tool for combating insurgency. Torture was not associated with any significant decrease in killings by insurgents, but was associated with significant increases in killings by counterinsurgents." SCHIEMANN, John W. (2016), Does Torture Work?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 222: "Our probing of the reality of interrogational torture has provided little support for the claims and justifications of proponents. Interrogational torture necessarily results in increasingly frequent and brutal torture, including of innocents, but fails to reliably yield valuable information. Torture games have no winners." [note from me: the analysis in the book and the model used by the author make for an interesting and convincing read.] | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 25 2017 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote: The next question would be why you think SA, in particular, isn't there? Trump probably has some deal that he wants to cut with Saudi Arabia or there's some value to the Saudi-American relationship that he wants to preserve for now. The other question was whether it would be appropriate to be surprised if Trump was lying about more significant things as well as petty things like crowds? Interesting choice of words. I'm not sure about the propriety of being surprised (it would depend upon the significance of the lie), but I doubt that I would be surprised. Sounds like you think Trump's cabinet could be exemplary swamp drainers, but "could" is so nebulous, any chance you could put some odds to whether you think Trump's cabinet will be swamp drainers vs. swamp monsters. Perhaps 40:40? I don't know the cabinet picks well enough to give good odds on whether they, personally, are "swamp drainers," and I don't think that it is possible to gather such information without knowing each cabinet member on a personal level. Overall, I think that it is unlikely that Trump is able to make many inroads in draining the swamp, but I'm not opposed to seeing him try. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
During his campaign, President Donald Trump assailed a skilled-worker visa program used to send foreigners to the U.S., and in his inaugural speech Friday he said the country would “follow two simple rules; buy American and hire American.” Indian outsourcing firms are already preparing for potential changes to visa rules, which could present a challenge because they send thousands of workers to the U.S. every year via the H-1B program. So how much, and how quickly, could Mr. Trump change the regulations? A significant shakeup would likely need to be approved by Congress, though there are some steps Mr. Trump could take himself immediately, analysts say. There has been an uptick in proposed immigration bills of late. Policymakers from both sides of the aisle have likely been emboldened by Mr. Trump’s pledge to protect American workers. “It is clear that there is growing momentum to change the H-1B and visa laws,” said Peter Bendor-Samuel, chief executive of Dallas, Texas-based technology management consulting firm Everest Group, which analyzes the outsourcing industry. New laws would probably result in more robust restrictions targeting foreign firms like those in India’s $108 billion outsourcing industry, Mr. Bendor-Samuel said. Last week, two prominent senators, Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley and Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin, said they planned to re-introduce a bill from 2007 that would require all employers seeking to hire workers on H-1B visas to make a “good faith effort” to hire Americans first. Among other provisions, it would require that rather than H-1Bs being awarded in lotteries, the government would be required to prioritize the top foreign students who have studied in the U.S. These would include advanced degree holders, those earning a “high wage,” and those with “valuable skills.” The bill’s planned reintroduction comes after Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the highest-profile Republicans in Congress and a supporter of Mr. Trump, said earlier this month he intends to reintroduce a bill clamping down on H-1Bs, though his appears more limited in scope that Sens. Grassley and Durbin’s. Both bills would need to be passed by Congress and signed by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump will also have scope to act independently. Eric Ruark, director of research at Arlington, Va.-based NumbersUSA, which advocates for limited immigration, said Mr. Trump could use an executive directive to tighten the U.S.’s Optional Practical Training, or OPT, program. The OPT program gives foreign graduates in fields like science, technology, engineering or math the right to find jobs in the U.S. for up to 36 months, depending on their degree subject. Mr. Trump could roll the time limit back to the original 12 months, the threshold until it was expanded under President George W. Bush in 2008, and tighten the eligible fields of study. In addition, Mr. Ruark said the president could end a provision announced under President Barack Obama in 2014 that allows spouses of H-1B visa holders to work in the U.S. While the timing for any potential action remains unclear under Mr. Trump, Mr. Ruark said H-1B policies are an issue “we feel strongly will be addressed in his administration’s first year.” Source I'm fully on board for some anti-H1B laws. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 26 2017 23:15 ChristianS wrote: Also unacceptable presidential behavior on Trump's part to be calling out individual citizens on Twitter as traitors, but I suppose it'd be quicker to point out when Trump does something that isn't obviously beneath the office of president. Manning wants an uncompromising, unapologetic progressive, so why not an uncompromising, unapologetic populist to counter him? | ||
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 26 2017 23:35 LegalLord wrote: Manning wants an uncompromising, unapologetic progressive, so why not an uncompromising, unapologetic populist to counter him? Usually I let your toxic false equivalences slide, but this time I'll call you out. One person holds public office, the other is a private citizen expressing his political views. The force behind their statements is not even remotely equal and critics of Trump have been targeted with death threats before. They do not need encouragement. In addition, Trump completely misrepresented Manning's argument, and gains cheap political praise from his base for doing so. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 26 2017 23:46 mustaju wrote: Usually I let your toxic false equivalences slide, but this time I'll call you out. One person holds public office, the other is a private citizen expressing his political views. The force behind their statements is not even remotely equal and critics of Trump have been targeted with death threats before. They do not need encouragement. In addition, Trump completely misrepresented Manning's argument, and gains cheap political praise from his base for doing so. Let's quote Manning himself: We need someone who is unafraid to be criticized, since you will inevitably be criticized. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Yes, it was used in a context more in line with progressive goals (equal rights for minorities) but what about that sounds like not-Trump? Trump is doing exactly what Manning thinks should be done. And if we want to talk about calling out toxic equivalencies... two can play at that game. But I'd rather not. | ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 26 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote: Let's quote Manning himself: Yes, it was used in a context more in line with progressive goals (equal rights for minorities) but what about that sounds like not-Trump? Trump is doing exactly what Manning thinks should be done. And if we want to talk about calling out toxic equivalencies... two can play at that game. But I'd rather not. You'd rather just call any opposing argument stupid without acknowledging their merits and bail. You playing your usual games is fine by me. "Being unafraid to be criticized" does not imply gag-orders on government researchers, lying, or being antagonistic with the press. This is clearly not an equivalency, especially not in context. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 27 2017 00:02 mustaju wrote: You'd rather just call any opposing argument stupid without acknowledging their merits and bail. You playing your usual games is fine by me. Complain in the feedback thread if you like. It's off-topic here. I'm just as happy to drop it, but if you want to have it out then that's a better place to do it. On January 27 2017 00:02 mustaju wrote: "Being unafraid to be criticized" does not imply gag-orders on government researchers, lying, or being antagonistic with the press. This is clearly not an equivalency, especially not in context. That right there is a false equivalency as well, considering that the original post was in reply to him sending out a twit about calling Manning a traitor who shouldn't be criticizing the guy who released him from prison, not to Trump's policies as a whole (which you presume I support). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove. The latest figures include 44% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 31% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +13 (see trends). Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). In the latest of this week’s executive orders, Trump has begun a crackdown on illegal immigration, adding thousands of Border Patrol agents, starting the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and cutting federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law. He also has imposed a temporary ban on refugees from and visas for citizens of several Middle Eastern countries until the U.S. government can do a better job screening out possible terrorists. Stopping illegal immigration has long been voters’ number one immigration priority. Most also support Trump’s plan for temporarily restricting immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and for testing to screen out newcomers who don’t share America’s values. The new president has pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership mega-trade deal and promises to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. We’ll tell what voters think at 10:30 a.m. EST. Trump this week also told business leaders that he hopes to cut regulations on corporations by 75% or more because current regulations “make it impossible to get anything built.” Few voters defend the current level of government regulation. Source. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
On January 26 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote: Yes, it was used in a context more in line with progressive goals (equal rights for minorities) but what about that sounds like not-Trump? Trump is doing exactly what Manning thinks should be done. And if we want to talk about calling out toxic equivalencies... two can play at that game. But I'd rather not. I see it as the complete opposite, can't think of anyone more insecure about criticism | ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
[B]Trump is doing exactly what Manning thinks should be done. There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that: a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? b) Trump is in the right to denounce/namecall Manning (and let him get death threats as a result) for being critical against Obama's perceived bipartisanship attempts? c) Trump does not misrepresent Manning's argument? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote: There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that: a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause. On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote: b) Trump is in the right to denounce/namecall Manning (and let him get death threats as a result) for being critical against Obama's perceived bipartisanship attempts? No. On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote: c) Trump does not misrepresent Manning's argument? Trump isn't really interpreting Manning's argument one way or the other - he is just calling him a traitor for complaining about the guy who commuted his sentence. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 27 2017 00:06 LegalLord wrote: Complain in the feedback thread if you like. It's off-topic here. I'm just as happy to drop it, but if you want to have it out then that's a better place to do it. That right there is a false equivalency as well, considering that the original post was in reply to him sending out a twit about calling Manning a traitor who shouldn't be criticizing the guy who released him from prison, not to Trump's policies as a whole (which you presume I support). Telling people to stop talking because you disagree with them is the opposite of "can handle criticism" attacking private citizens who voice their opinions because you disagree with them is the opposite of "can handle criticism" | ||
| ||
