I wish I could go back in time and punch Ben Franklin right before he wrote/said that quote.
It's produced with the most obnoxious self-righteous flourish, is an argument from authority and adds zero illumination to any issue.
Franklin denied credit for writing the quote though he did publish it in the work I have credited in my post. The quote comes from an anonymous author who was published in 1759 in London. Franklin published the Philadelphia edition, and may have published the original.
Through what alchemy do you expect them to stop arguing for tyranny is my point. Domestic law won't matter to them. Reality sure as hell doesn't matter. That's my point. You can't convince an irrational, scared rump minority of anything.
The point Speaker is trying to make, and with which I agree, is that while the republican leadership is at this point pretty much 100% committed to keeping up the facade, the population at large isn't cleanly split into us and them on the issue. Sure, there's a 20-30% republican dead ender minority who would fight this all the way to the end regardless of anything that was found simply because they don't believe violating the law in this case matters (see Buchannen's shtcik recently about how laws don't apply to the president when defending the nation). But beyond that there's a whole other group of people who lean right or are independent and who are fine with the gut level "make the bastards suffer" as long as they don't think about it too much. Those are the people you need solid, law based arguments for, because while we have a tenuous majority without them, with them it becomes a large enough majority we can actually move on to doing something.
Anyway, Speaker, I still don't see how you expect the rump minority to accept the prosecutions of any of the Bush officials no matter how you make the argument. They won't accept it.
I mean obviously, you use domestic law, but the domestic law is based on the UN Convention on Torture, which is why we keep linking to that as it is the fundamental thing in question.
They might be less violent/vehement in their opposition if, in such prosecutions, you also pursue those Democrats that knew about it and prosecute/censure/whatever them to the extent that they should be held responsible.
Specifically, Pelosi should be nailed to a wall.
Well, investigated. There are like five different accounts of what she knew/did.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I wish I could go back in time and punch Ben Franklin right before he wrote/said that quote.
It's produced with the most obnoxious self-righteous flourish, is an argument from authority and adds zero illumination to any issue.
Franklin denied credit for writing the quote though he did publish it in the work I have credited in my post. The quote comes from an anonymous author who was published in 1759 in London. Franklin published the Philadelphia edition, and may have published the original.
Oh great.
Now I need to hire a team of investigative historians.
The time travel scientist team is already costing me an arm and a leg.
Through what alchemy do you expect them to stop arguing for tyranny is my point. Domestic law won't matter to them. Reality sure as hell doesn't matter. That's my point. You can't convince an irrational, scared rump minority of anything.
The point Speaker is trying to make, and with which I agree, is that while the republican leadership is at this point pretty much 100% committed to keeping up the facade, the population at large isn't cleanly split into us and them on the issue. Sure, there's a 20-30% republican dead ender minority who would fight this all the way to the end regardless of anything that was found simply because they don't believe violating the law in this case matters (see Buchannen's shtcik recently about how laws don't apply to the president when defending the nation). But beyond that there's a whole other group of people who lean right or are independent and who are fine with the gut level "make the bastards suffer" as long as they don't think about it too much. Those are the people you need solid, law based arguments for, because while we have a tenuous majority without them, with them it becomes a large enough majority we can actually move on to doing something.
I like to think of it as the "Jack Bauer" effect. It works for him, why can't it work for America?
I wish I could go back in time and punch Ben Franklin right before he wrote/said that quote.
It's produced with the most obnoxious self-righteous flourish, is an argument from authority and adds zero illumination to any issue.
It also happens to be unarguably true, which is probably why you resent it.
Nothing in politics is unarguably true, and in any case, what makes you think I disagree with the sentiment?
The only thing I resent at the moment is you, for being kind of a douche with that post.
Make an argument against it, then.
I got the idea that you disagreed with the sentiment because you said you wanted to punch Ben Franklin before he could write it. Generally I take violent preemption of a statement as disagreement.
Anyway, Speaker, I still don't see how you expect the rump minority to accept the prosecutions of any of the Bush officials no matter how you make the argument. They won't accept it.
I mean obviously, you use domestic law, but the domestic law is based on the UN Convention on Torture, which is why we keep linking to that as it is the fundamental thing in question.
They might be less violent/vehement in their opposition if, in such prosecutions, you also pursue those Democrats that knew about it and prosecute/censure/whatever them to the extent that they should be held responsible.
Specifically, Pelosi should be nailed to a wall.
Well, investigated. There are like five different accounts of what she knew/did.
I got the idea that you disagreed with the sentiment because you said you wanted to punch Ben Franklin before he could write it. Generally I take violent preemption of a statement as disagreement.
How do you take the second line of a post?
Do you take it to be invisible? Can you read this line?
But beyond that there's a whole other group of people who lean right or are independent and who are fine with the gut level "make the bastards suffer" as long as they don't think about it too much. Those are the people you need solid, law based arguments for, because while we have a tenuous majority without them, with them it becomes a large enough majority we can actually move on to doing something.
I like to think of it as the "Jack Bauer" effect. It works for him, why can't it work for America?
There's an argument to be made that between what 24 did for torture and what a fucked up view of medicine House gives people, Fox broadcasting has done more to screw up the public discourse than Fox News.
I got the idea that you disagreed with the sentiment because you said you wanted to punch Ben Franklin before he could write it. Generally I take violent preemption of a statement as disagreement.
How do you take the second line of a post?
Do you take it to be invisible? Can you read this line?
Yes, your further statement that you detested the employment of that quote certainly made me realize that actually you agreed with it completely. My mistake.
The problem isn't the sentiment of the quote, nor its substance. The problem is that it's the Che Guevara t-shirt of political quotes.
This is such a clever metaphor I have no idea what you're trying to say. That Ben Franklin had defectors shot?
The analogy means that it tends to be used by people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's the political equivalent of saying "I am for good things and against bad things!" While it may very well be true, the statement is so ambiguous and empty of concrete meaning it means entirely different things to different people.
I hate to link Kos, but this is the only source I've seen. The California Democratic Party has passed a resolution pushing for the investigation of the memo lawyers and the impeachment of Bybee.
But beyond that there's a whole other group of people who lean right or are independent and who are fine with the gut level "make the bastards suffer" as long as they don't think about it too much. Those are the people you need solid, law based arguments for, because while we have a tenuous majority without them, with them it becomes a large enough majority we can actually move on to doing something.
I like to think of it as the "Jack Bauer" effect. It works for him, why can't it work for America?
There's an argument to be made that between what 24 did for torture and what a fucked up view of medicine House gives people, Fox broadcasting has done more to screw up the public discourse than Fox News.
I've been wondering about this for awhile actually. And I'm starting to think part of the problem may be that torture kinda DOES work, just not where it matters.
I mean, you tell people "Torture doesn't work because the tortured will make shit up to make it stop" and people think "Yeah, that makes sense".
But then they also think "You know, you could beat information out of someone." and that makes sense to them too. I think because they are right. You CAN beat information out of someone.
It's just that in the situations we're talking about here, these people are committed enough to keeping the secret that you CAN'T.
I'm by no means an expert on this, but it seems to be a matter of degrees more then anything. It's not that torture doesn't work, it's that torture doesn't work when it matters.
Of course, this is only the "Torture is/isn't useful" argument. When, as someone pointed out earlier, the real problem is that torture is simply WRONG. But by extension, the "Torture works" argument is just the second thrust of the "Sometimes you need to do bad things to save the world" (ie -Jack Bauer, Fuck Ya!) argument that is so prevalent.
The problem isn't the sentiment of the quote, nor its substance. The problem is that it's the Che Guevara t-shirt of political quotes.
This is such a clever metaphor I have no idea what you're trying to say. That Ben Franklin had defectors shot?
The analogy means that it tends to be used by people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's the political equivalent of saying "I am for good things and against bad things!" While it may very well be true, the statement is so ambiguous and empty of concrete meaning it means entirely different things to different people.
What do you mean when you say that the people using it don't know what they're talking about? In the case of Che Guevara, they don't know that the guy was Stalinesque monster. What is the equivalent for the quote?
The meaning of the statement seems as simple and obviously applicable as any sentence ever offered on political theory. In fact, it's at least as clear as most of our Constitution. Or do you also despise people quoting the Constitution?
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
The problem isn't the sentiment of the quote, nor its substance. The problem is that it's the Che Guevara t-shirt of political quotes.
This is such a clever metaphor I have no idea what you're trying to say. That Ben Franklin had defectors shot?
The analogy means that it tends to be used by people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's the political equivalent of saying "I am for good things and against bad things!" While it may very well be true, the statement is so ambiguous and empty of concrete meaning it means entirely different things to different people.
Well, I used it in the context that people should be free from the terror of torture. I consider that an essential liberty and go to the Eighth Amendment to back me up. Opening the door to torture puts everyone at risk of suffering it, and those who wish to use it to secure their safety don't deserve to be safe, because they are acting in an uncivilized manner. That kind of barbarism exposes everyone to rule by threat of violence.
The problem isn't the sentiment of the quote, nor its substance. The problem is that it's the Che Guevara t-shirt of political quotes.
This is such a clever metaphor I have no idea what you're trying to say. That Ben Franklin had defectors shot?
The analogy means that it tends to be used by people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's the political equivalent of saying "I am for good things and against bad things!" While it may very well be true, the statement is so ambiguous and empty of concrete meaning it means entirely different things to different people.
Well, I used it in the context that people should be free from the terror of torture. I consider that an essential liberty and go to the Eighth Amendment to back me up. Opening the door to torture puts everyone at risk of suffering it, and those who wish to use it to secure their safety don't deserve to be safe, because they are acting in an uncivilized manner. That kind of barbarism exposes everyone to rule by threat of violence.
And I absolutely agree with you, but the quote, in and of itself, is a horrible argument to try and make.
Those who support torture have a nearly endless parade of outs when you just drop that quote and walk away. They can go with the idea non-of this applies to us, since it was just those damn brown terrorists that were getting the enhanced interrogation techniques. Or that this was for neither a little nor temporary safety. Or that the right to be not be questioned for potentially having committed a crime isn't an essential right.
And so on down the line. The quote is certainly true, but it's at best so open ended and detached from the specifics of the debate that it's inapplicable as an argument.
Frank Rich had a NY Times op-ed about this, which I suppose means something.
That was pretty good.
I honestly don't know how I feel about Rich. He's done good stuff, but for some reason he always struck me as a David Broder caliber sell out and establishment fellator. Maybe I just don't follow him enough, or I'm confusing him with someone else.
Pretty sure you're confusing him with someone else. Rich has (since I started reading the NY Times op-ed page regularly) been consistently the most like this forum.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Frank Rich had a NY Times op-ed about this, which I suppose means something.
That was pretty good.
I honestly don't know how I feel about Rich. He's done good stuff, but for some reason he always struck me as a David Broder caliber sell out and establishment fellator. Maybe I just don't follow him enough, or I'm confusing him with someone else.
Is there someone with a similar name?
Who was it that had the "starbursts" reaction to Sarah Palin?
The problem isn't the sentiment of the quote, nor its substance. The problem is that it's the Che Guevara t-shirt of political quotes.
This is such a clever metaphor I have no idea what you're trying to say. That Ben Franklin had defectors shot?
The analogy means that it tends to be used by people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's the political equivalent of saying "I am for good things and against bad things!" While it may very well be true, the statement is so ambiguous and empty of concrete meaning it means entirely different things to different people.
What do you mean when you say that the people using it don't know what they're talking about? In the case of Che Guevara, they don't know that the guy was Stalinesque monster. What is the equivalent for the quote?
The meaning of the statement seems as simple and obviously applicable as any sentence ever offered on political theory. In fact, it's at least as clear as most of our Constitution. Or do you also despise people quoting the Constitution?
The problem with the statement is it's too simplistic. It literally boils down to "people who do bad things for a good reason deserve bad things." It speaks entirely in abstract terms and ignores the fact anyone who would do a bad thing for a good reason, by the very nature of the situation, thinks they are doing a good thing for a good reason.
As a principle, it's excellent. As an argument, it's useless. It's the political equivalent of trying to win an argument by stating your conclusion as an opening premise.
Posts
It also happens to be unarguably true, which is probably why you resent it.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Not really. We trade liberty for security all the time. It's called civilization.
Franklin denied credit for writing the quote though he did publish it in the work I have credited in my post. The quote comes from an anonymous author who was published in 1759 in London. Franklin published the Philadelphia edition, and may have published the original.
It's the Che Guevara t-shirt of political quotes.
Liberty != anarchy. Liberty is maximal opportunity. Having that requires laws.
The point Speaker is trying to make, and with which I agree, is that while the republican leadership is at this point pretty much 100% committed to keeping up the facade, the population at large isn't cleanly split into us and them on the issue. Sure, there's a 20-30% republican dead ender minority who would fight this all the way to the end regardless of anything that was found simply because they don't believe violating the law in this case matters (see Buchannen's shtcik recently about how laws don't apply to the president when defending the nation). But beyond that there's a whole other group of people who lean right or are independent and who are fine with the gut level "make the bastards suffer" as long as they don't think about it too much. Those are the people you need solid, law based arguments for, because while we have a tenuous majority without them, with them it becomes a large enough majority we can actually move on to doing something.
Everybody has a different idea of which liberties are essential or what they consider temporary.
We don't have maximal opportunity.
Nothing in politics is unarguably true, and in any case, what makes you think I disagree with the sentiment?
The only thing I resent at the moment is you, for being kind of a douche with that post.
Hence why it's a pithy, stupid quote.
Maybe you should look up the definitions of essential and temporary.
Well, investigated. There are like five different accounts of what she knew/did.
Oh great.
Now I need to hire a team of investigative historians.
The time travel scientist team is already costing me an arm and a leg.
The key words there are "essential" and "temporary."
I like to think of it as the "Jack Bauer" effect. It works for him, why can't it work for America?
Make an argument against it, then.
I got the idea that you disagreed with the sentiment because you said you wanted to punch Ben Franklin before he could write it. Generally I take violent preemption of a statement as disagreement.
A profound insight.
Add civilization to that short list, too.
The problem isn't the sentiment of the quote, nor its substance. The problem is that it's the Che Guevara t-shirt of political quotes.
I suspect.
All of which have strict definitions everyone agrees on of course.
The Tube is civilization. Everyone agrees on this.
How do you take the second line of a post?
Do you take it to be invisible? Can you read this line?
There's an argument to be made that between what 24 did for torture and what a fucked up view of medicine House gives people, Fox broadcasting has done more to screw up the public discourse than Fox News.
This is such a clever metaphor I have no idea what you're trying to say. That Ben Franklin had defectors shot?
Yes, your further statement that you detested the employment of that quote certainly made me realize that actually you agreed with it completely. My mistake.
The analogy means that it tends to be used by people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's the political equivalent of saying "I am for good things and against bad things!" While it may very well be true, the statement is so ambiguous and empty of concrete meaning it means entirely different things to different people.
I've been wondering about this for awhile actually. And I'm starting to think part of the problem may be that torture kinda DOES work, just not where it matters.
I mean, you tell people "Torture doesn't work because the tortured will make shit up to make it stop" and people think "Yeah, that makes sense".
But then they also think "You know, you could beat information out of someone." and that makes sense to them too. I think because they are right. You CAN beat information out of someone.
It's just that in the situations we're talking about here, these people are committed enough to keeping the secret that you CAN'T.
I'm by no means an expert on this, but it seems to be a matter of degrees more then anything. It's not that torture doesn't work, it's that torture doesn't work when it matters.
Of course, this is only the "Torture is/isn't useful" argument. When, as someone pointed out earlier, the real problem is that torture is simply WRONG. But by extension, the "Torture works" argument is just the second thrust of the "Sometimes you need to do bad things to save the world" (ie -Jack Bauer, Fuck Ya!) argument that is so prevalent.
What do you mean when you say that the people using it don't know what they're talking about? In the case of Che Guevara, they don't know that the guy was Stalinesque monster. What is the equivalent for the quote?
The meaning of the statement seems as simple and obviously applicable as any sentence ever offered on political theory. In fact, it's at least as clear as most of our Constitution. Or do you also despise people quoting the Constitution?
Well, I used it in the context that people should be free from the terror of torture. I consider that an essential liberty and go to the Eighth Amendment to back me up. Opening the door to torture puts everyone at risk of suffering it, and those who wish to use it to secure their safety don't deserve to be safe, because they are acting in an uncivilized manner. That kind of barbarism exposes everyone to rule by threat of violence.
edit: Maybe I should put that on a T-Shirt.
Smite them, O liberty avenger!
That was pretty good.
And I absolutely agree with you, but the quote, in and of itself, is a horrible argument to try and make.
Those who support torture have a nearly endless parade of outs when you just drop that quote and walk away. They can go with the idea non-of this applies to us, since it was just those damn brown terrorists that were getting the enhanced interrogation techniques. Or that this was for neither a little nor temporary safety. Or that the right to be not be questioned for potentially having committed a crime isn't an essential right.
And so on down the line. The quote is certainly true, but it's at best so open ended and detached from the specifics of the debate that it's inapplicable as an argument.
I honestly don't know how I feel about Rich. He's done good stuff, but for some reason he always struck me as a David Broder caliber sell out and establishment fellator. Maybe I just don't follow him enough, or I'm confusing him with someone else.
Is there someone with a similar name?
Who was it that had the "starbursts" reaction to Sarah Palin?
The problem with the statement is it's too simplistic. It literally boils down to "people who do bad things for a good reason deserve bad things." It speaks entirely in abstract terms and ignores the fact anyone who would do a bad thing for a good reason, by the very nature of the situation, thinks they are doing a good thing for a good reason.
As a principle, it's excellent. As an argument, it's useless. It's the political equivalent of trying to win an argument by stating your conclusion as an opening premise.