Hmmm.Originally Posted by Rat Faced
I could have sworn it was the U.S.A. we were speaking of...
As to your last, be that as it may, "we" were not bound by the Convention to do so!
Hmmm.Originally Posted by Rat Faced
I could have sworn it was the U.S.A. we were speaking of...
As to your last, be that as it may, "we" were not bound by the Convention to do so!
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
No, I think you'll find I said it was immoral. We know what immoral means, contrary to established moral principles. I think you'll find that most countries have agreed torture is wrong, ours certainly have. I think you'll find that your own Constition thinks it is wrong. Therefore, ergo, Q.E.D. torture is immoral. That's the one point we can agree on.Originally Posted by j2k4
Yes, on that we do agree.Originally Posted by JPaul
The use of chemical methodologies lies in a bit of a gray area (morally, I think, for both of us; conditioned on physical effect), and some (I believe I'm alone on this), such as sleep deprivation and other sensory methods, are of situational utility.
As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.
Too bad, that.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.Originally Posted by j2k4
Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.
Will you quit ganging up on j2? Next thing ya know Fugs will be in here.Originally Posted by Agrajag
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
So you are saying it is quite acceptable, logical and correct for morality to be secular, and precisely the opposite as to any religious aspect?Originally Posted by Agrajag
A novel view, to say the least...
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
I couldn't possibly comment, I have no idea what you are suggesting that I said.Originally Posted by j2k4
What I did say was that morality did not require a religious aspect, it could be entirely secular. I did not say that morality precluded a religious aspect, merely that it did not require it.
I may have answered you, I may not, I genuinely did not understand your opening stanza.
That interpretation also says that all the Taliban prisoners and any Afgan Al Queda should have been re-patrioted as soon as hostilities ceased with Afganistan... so they're still breaking itAlthough one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
BTW:
Which one of you Bar Stewards signed me up to the Rev Lou Sheldons newsletter? (Coalition for Traditional Values)
Last edited by Rat Faced; 12-01-2005 at 05:19 PM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
BTW: It wasn't me
Bookmarks