BF2S Forums Did the US torture it's Navy Pilots?

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your words were used, not mine. If you want to change your position now--which apparently you do, based on your rant above--then fine. Do so.

Then we can discuss your altered position.

I haven't altered my position one bit. If you're looking for a cheap way out of having to defend yours, I suggest you either find some other way, or show me where my position has been altered. If you want to change yours, you're welcome to do that.

First post:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

America is still a nation of human rights, freedom, justice, and equality. What happened to those two douchebags does nothing to change that.

There was this one guy who said something a while back about what injustice anywhere represented, and a lot of people seemed to agree with him. Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards. Even if it is just "two douchebags." You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.

The next position, after being called on the absurdity of the bolded portion:

mikkel wrote:

Imprisonment as a punishment administered by a court in adherence with the articles laid forth by the universal declaration of human rights does not transgress these rights. Even you must find it somewhat absurd to insinuate that all legal imprisonment is in violation of human rights.

That's a completely different statement. You qualified the hell out of it, unlike the first one, where you said "Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights..." Any being the key word there. Once you caveated it appropriately, so it was no longer an absolute (which, by the way MOAB picked up on, as well), you changed the argument. It was no longer "any" but "as a punishment administered by a court in adherence with the articles...". Completely different argument. Thus, the original position was changed.

Is that clear enough for you?

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You are the one who said "any justification for transgression". Period. That's it. That's what you said. The law is a justification for transgressing on someone's human rights. You cannot argue that is not the case any more than you can argue gravity doesn't exist.

You're arguing irrelevant pedantics, and as I said in my post, even if your definition of a transgression of human rights was what to go by, you'd still be wrong. Reply to that, or don't reply at all.

If you don't think imprisonment takes away many of one's human rights, you're a few fries short of a Happy Meal. The fact that it is justified (and thus at odds with your first position) is what makes it acceptable. If it weren't justified, it would be considered horrendous by many. The justification is the law that was used, but it's still justification. And you're the one who said "Any justification...absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents..." In this case, that "any justification" is the legal justification used.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The logical trap you fall in to is that, if you think it's OK under some situations (ie, it's justified) to transgress on someone's human rights--like take away their freedom by imprisonment--then you are recognizing that there are situations where one can act in a manner that appears to contradict the basic tenets of one's society and still be adhering, by and large, to those tenets...because you can justify it in the law.

The trap that you fall in is that you apparently cannot comprehend the simple concepts that I'm explaining to you. It doesn't matter what your assumptions of my opinions are. If I thought that lawful imprisonment was a transgression of human rights, then it would absolutely "do something" to change my perception of the conviction held in upholding human rights. I would be okay with it, as I am now, because I feel that it is a necessity, but it would obviously set a very clear line defining which human rights the nations who imprison people lawfully are willing to defend. Likewise, subjecting prisoners to torture also sets a very clear line defining which human rights the nation is willing to defend, and I do not agree with it, because it is my opinion that it shouldn't happen.

I understand perfectly the simple concepts involved here. You seem to be the one having a problem with the fact that your original position was nonsensical, per your own modification of said position.

mikkel wrote:

Let me repeat my previous post. You argued that acting contrary to principles does nothing to change ones convictions in upholding them. That is patently the very definition of being wrong. It's that simple. Opinion does not play into it.

And that assertion is patently wrong. Individuals, organization, countries, and alliances often have to act in a manner that is not consistent with their most deeply-held convictions. That's what makes choices difficult at times. Sometimes the best answer is the one that goes against one's convictions...or what others think your convictions should be.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So now that I've pointed that out, you start narrowing down your argument from a ridiculous absolute to something more meaningful and reasonable. All the while being snide and condescending.

I haven't changed at all from my original position. I still argue the same absolute position, and it's still an obvious, logical truth. You, on the other hand, seem to be the one narrowing down your argument from a ridiculous absolute to something more meaningful and reasonable. All the while being snide and condescending. Let me demonstrate for you:

FEOS wrote:

America is still a nation of human rights, freedom, justice, and equality. What happened to those two douchebags does nothing to change that.

Absolute,

FEOS wrote:

then you are recognizing that there are situations where one can act in a manner that appears to contradict the basic tenets of one's society and still be adhering, by and large, to those tenets...because you can justify it in the law.

conditional. I hope you'll come to realise that adherence to principles is a variable quantity, and acting against ones principles will always affect ones adherence. It's by definition and logical necessity a plain and simple truth.

You've compared two different conditions.

In one, it is the assertion that what happened to those two does not change the basic nature of America or the principles we hold dear as a collective nation.

In the second, it is stating that an individual's (or a group's) decision to act against some of the basic principles does not obviate those principles, particularly when it is justified by the law (see imprisonment in a society that values freedom as a core principle).

But I find it interesting that you're basically saying the same thing I have from the beginning...and that you have argued vehemently against. Acting against one's principles does not change one's principles.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well at least you've moved off your original ridiculous position to one that makes more sense.

You're welcome.

I'm sorry, but I haven't moved one bit. I'm still waiting for you to show me where I claimed that the entire history of the United States should be "dismissed." Am I to take this as another abandoned argument?

I'm not the one who claimed that "Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards." So, based on what you've said (or should we go with your updated position?), any attempt to justify a transgression of human rights changes what a nation represents in those regards...ie, changes the principles that nation stands for "in those regards". I'm arguing that's simply not the case.

There's no abandoned argument, because you've basically supported my initial position with your modified one.

mikkel wrote:

I'm travelling abroad for the week, and so I won't be answering any more posts in this thread. If you want to keep arguing, feel free to send me a PM, and we can pick it up when I get back.

As am I. Enjoy. It's been an enjoyable debate.