Desperate liberals still trying to pretend waterboarding and sleep deprivation is "torture"

[theDoctorisIn]

I didn't watch it on TV, I watched it happen from two blocks away.

So, does it make my experience less traumatizing? This isn't a competition. I saw people jumping from those building same as you did. My grandmother had to console a cohort who had parents in the area when the attacks occurred. They saw both planes go in. She prayed with a bunch of students in the department she worked in because they feared the worst. She wouldn't tell me those things until I was older.

I think I could make a pretty strong argument that washing WTC dust out of my hair for days after is "more traumatizing" than watching it on TV.

But that's really not my point - my point is that you're using that trauma as an emotional justification for your views - and if I can avoid doing that, you can too.

Emotion is by definition not "objective".

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now you're claiming to base your opinions on "objective means" - what "objective means" are you referring to?

The ones which say "I do not believe that one side of a story settles a matter fully and completely, for that is not objective."

Understand?

I cannot back up an opinion when it is based purely on emotion, which I readily admit to. Tis human to be guided by emotions, to invoke argumentum ad misericordiam. Mea culpa.

But I cannot in good conscience agree to one part of a story without hearing the other, either. A constant battle between logic and emotion takes place when one wants to give in to his emotions and at the same time consider facts which may not support his preferences. I am not immune to that, nor will I ever.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Now you're claiming to base your opinions on "objective means" - what "objective means" are you referring to?

The ones which say "I do not believe that one side of a story settles a matter fully and completely, for that is not objective."

Understand?

I cannot back up an opinion when it is based purely on emotion, which I readily admit to. Tis human to be guided by emotions, to invoke argumentum ad misericordiam. Mea culpa.

But I cannot in good conscience agree to one part of a story without hearing the other, either. A constant battle between logic and emotion takes place when one wants to give in to his emotions and at the same time consider facts which may not support preference. I am not immune to that, nor will I ever.

What "other side" of the story is there?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think I could make a pretty strong argument that washing WTC dust out of my hair for days after is "more traumatizing" than watching it on TV.

Whether washing the dust out of your hair, or watching people commit suicide from 100+ stories with your very eyes, both experiences equally as traumatizing, Doc. Not the point. Agreed.

But that's really not my point - my point is that you're using that trauma as an emotional justification for your views - and if I can avoid doing that, you can too.

You've employed argumentum ab auctoritate. Just because a report issued by a group of elected officials says something occurred doesn't automatically mean it did. As such, I cannot trust nor justify a report released by just one side of the political spectrum.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Desperate liberals still trying to pretend waterboarding and sleep deprivation is "torture"

The desperation exists solely with the OP and others on the right who agree with him, as sleep deprivation and water boarding are in fact torture.

That the OP and other partisan conservatives are embarrassed by the fact that this torture was authorized by republican officials, members of a republican administration, is understandable, but not justification to attempt to sweep these criminal acts under the rug.

And indeed, torture is in fact a crime, it is illegal in the United States, Bush era republican officials and appointees violated the law, where attempting to contrive and propagate the lie that sleep deprivation and water boarding are not torture is yet another example of how comprehensively reprehensible many conservatives are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As to the OP, if waterboarding and sleep depravation are not torture, what about pumping pureed raisins and hummus up a prisoner's ass?

Is that torture?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think I could make a pretty strong argument that washing WTC dust out of my hair for days after is "more traumatizing" than watching it on TV.

Whether washing the dust out of your hair, or watching people commit suicide from 100+ stories with your very eyes, both experiences equally as traumatizing, Doc. Not the point. Agreed.

But that's really not my point - my point is that you're using that trauma as an emotional justification for your views - and if I can avoid doing that, you can too.

You've employed argumentum ab auctoritate. Just because a report issued by a group of elected officials says something occurred doesn't automatically mean it did. As such, I cannot trust nor justify a report released by just one side of the political spectrum.

You know that neither "side" has questioned the validity of the report, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What "other side" of the story is there?

That is my point. You don't seem to believe there is another side. Thusly, committing the same error you accused me of.

There are always two sides. You automatically defaulted to what the report said without considering the fact that it was released for political reasons, in which the facts and events may have not been reported accurately. You believe it is the end all be all. There is the always selective biases of the politicians to consider when you see these reports being issued to the public.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What "other side" of the story is there?

That is my point. You don't seem to believe there is another side. Thusly, committing the same error you accused me of.

There are always two sides. You automatically defaulted to what the report said without considering the fact that it was released for political reasons, in which the facts and events may have not been reported accurately. You believe it is the end all be all. There is the always selective biases of the politicians to consider when you see these reports being issued to the public.

Of course there are political biases as to when and why the report was released.

That doesn't mean that the report is a lie. No one has contested it's validity.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know that neither "side" has questioned the validity of the report, right?

Actually, I recall one Orrin Hatch referring to this report as a 'political piece of crap,' thus questioning the validity of said report.

 

[Nyvin]

I think I could make a pretty strong argument that washing WTC dust out of my hair for days after is "more traumatizing" than watching it on TV.

Whether washing the dust out of your hair, or watching people commit suicide from 100+ stories with your very eyes, both experiences equally as traumatizing, Doc. Not the point. Agreed.

But that's really not my point - my point is that you're using that trauma as an emotional justification for your views - and if I can avoid doing that, you can too.

You've employed argumentum ab auctoritate. Just because a report issued by a group of elected officials says something occurred doesn't automatically mean it did. As such, I cannot trust nor justify a report released by just one side of the political spectrum.

The vote was 11-3 in favor of declassifying the report. The committee had 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know that neither "side" has questioned the validity of the report, right?

Actually, I recall one Orrin Hatch referring to this report as a 'political piece of crap,' thus questioning the validity of said report.

No, he's questioning the release of the report, not the contents of the report.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmm, how about chaining a half naked man to a cold concrete slab long enough for him to die of hypothermia?

Who cares.

Lame ass. You can't even be original about something as simple as this.

 

[idb]

You know that neither "side" has questioned the validity of the report, right?

Actually, I recall one Orrin Hatch referring to this report as a 'political piece of crap,' thus questioning the validity of said report.

Maybe that comment came from political bias?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course there are political biases as to when and why the report was released.

That doesn't mean that the report is a lie.

You are simply insisting the truth of the report without vetting the credulity of it. I don't see the objectivity in that reasoning. There is such a thing as twisting the truth, or reaching. I find such reports wanting.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As to the OP, if waterboarding and sleep depravation are not torture, what about pumping pureed raisins and hummus up a prisoner's ass?

Is that torture?

I wonder if they got the idea to do that after watching the episode of South Park where Kyle bet Cartman that you could shove food up you ass and poop out your mouth?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Of course there are political biases as to when and why the report was released.

That doesn't mean that the report is a lie.

You are simply insisting the truth of the report without vetting the credulity of it. I don't see the objectivity in that reasoning. There is such a thing as twisting the truth, or reaching. I find such reports wanting.

How can you find the report "wanting" if you haven't read it?

 

[Nyvin]

Of course there are political biases as to when and why the report was released.

That doesn't mean that the report is a lie.

You are simply insisting the truth of the report without vetting the credulity of it. I don't see the objectivity in that reasoning. There is such a thing as twisting the truth, or reaching. I find such reports wanting.

Have you ever heard of Abu Ghraib? You know there are pictures and such involved with this right? Are you trying to say the CIA never used torture techniques? That's going to be a real stretch you know

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Bleeding heart lib degenerates hand wringing for a handful of islamo-fascist jihadists.
This surprises absolutely no one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think I could make a pretty strong argument that washing WTC dust out of my hair for days after is "more traumatizing" than watching it on TV.

Whether washing the dust out of your hair, or watching people commit suicide from 100+ stories with your very eyes, both experiences equally as traumatizing, Doc. Not the point. Agreed.

But that's really not my point - my point is that you're using that trauma as an emotional justification for your views - and if I can avoid doing that, you can too.

You've employed argumentum ab auctoritate. Just because a report issued by a group of elected officials says something occurred doesn't automatically mean it did. As such, I cannot trust nor justify a report released by just one side of the political spectrum.

The vote was 11-3 in favor of declassifying the report. The committee had 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

All 7 democrats and only 3 of 7 Republicans voted in favor. Not very bipartisan now is it? Besides, it wouldn't have mattered how the Republicans voted; the Republicans would have been in the minority even if ALL of them voted against it.

Check this out:

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence