I was misled

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

I suppose this is supposed to be a "pithy" rejoinder.

That WOULD be nice.

Keep on worshipping the Shrub Torture Machine.

Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now.

It's still hyperbole, Mark. I'm sorry that you can't remember that
from one post to another.

Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

DoJ memo, Mark.

--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

By
defining acts based on the outcome, the morality of those acts
suddenly becomes...

Relative.

Ding ding ding... there's the error bell again (two for two - you
gotta be more careful, Jonesy).

Just because you don't understand philosophy and logic does not mean I
made a mistake.

Number one - no one (other than you) defined the morality of the
actions in the Iraqi prison as based on the outcome.

As I said, you need to read some philosophy to understand the
principles upon which I speak. I understand completely that such
high-level ideas baffle the common conservative.

Here's a refresher - by hoping for a good outcome, one is attempting
to mitigate the immorality of the act that produced the outcome. The
two things cannot be logically separated. *You* are the one who is
trying to paint it smaller or less significant than it really is.

Here's why you're wrong...

Except that now you go on to make a crappy analogy of a UTILITARIAN
argument. I am sorry that you can't understand the concepts. It
makes discussion tedious.

Say a terrorist sinks a ship. Bad thing, right?

I dunno - who does the ship belong to?

It makes a great reef for the fish. Good thing, right?

Was the intent to make a reef for fish? No? Then how is the analogy
relevant? An unintended good outcome is called serendipity. And in
my world, fish humans.

Except in
your tortured world, it's still a bad thing.

For the people on the ship, yup. I don't care much about fish, except
for dinner.

Even the fish know
better.

For you to use this as an analogy is even more silly than the previous
bicycle/car analogy.

Read up on absolute morality vs. utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, John
Stuart Mill, and throw in a little St. Matthew, just for kicks.
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote:

Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now.
Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

Does W have a sign on his desk that says "The Buck Stops
Somewhere Over There?" He seems to spend a lot of time
explaining how he's not responsible for anything.

You know, Mark, you can still be a good conservative without
having to defend everything that the Bush administration
does. There are quite a few Republicans who aren't too
happy right now, and John McCain can't hide his hatred of
the Prez.

Hey, I think that the Democrats are being guided by a bunch
of first-class losers right now, but that doesn't mean that
I'm a bad liberal (although I prefer the term folks used in
college: "radical"). ;-)

Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, Il 815-223-1776
http://www.heronbicycles.com
http://www.tullios.com

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now.
Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

Where does the buck stop?

There are memoranda that implicate the SECDEF is this thing. By not
demanding Rumsfeld's immediate resignation, Bush has made himself an
accessory after the fact, if nothing else. Throw in the memo to
Alberto Gonzalez (Counsel to the President) narrowing the definition
of torture in a way that would allow many of the abuses at Abu Ghraib,
and I think that you do have a connection to the Office of the
President. Note that the definition of "Office of the President" is
not the physical Oval Office, it is basically the White House staff
that answers immediately to Bush, and certainly includes the White
House Counsel.

So we know that he failed to act against Rumsfeld, and that his chief
counsel was corresponding with DOJ regarding the definition of
torture.

If the buck doesn't stop in the Oval Office on this issue, when would
Bush ever be responsible for *anything* negative that happens in his
administration? Nevermind, I know the answer- never.

JP

you in duluth?

g.daniels wrote:
you in duluth?

Well he /is/ duluthonal.

Bill "stretching, I know" S.

(g.daniels) wrote in message m...
you in duluth?

Ocassionally, two in the morning before work.

Andres

PS: Goes down well with vodka

Mark Hickey wrote:

SoCalMike wrote:


Keep on worshipping the Shrub Torture Machine.

Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now.
Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

the current administration isnt going to make it that easy, or theyd
have people shouting for impeachment.


Well now THERE'S an air-tight prosecuter's strategy. "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, although we have no evidence at all that the
accused is guilty, it's just 'cuz he's such an evil genius that he's
hidden it all - so we assume you'll convict him without any further
input....". ;-)

sounds like what we dod to saddam regarding WMD's. we had no proof he
*didnt* have them, so we invaded.


Jus' the facts, please.

which can be stranger than fiction.


Too true!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

If the buck doesn't stop in the Oval Office on this issue, when would
Bush ever be responsible for *anything* negative that happens in his
administration? Nevermind, I know the answer- never.

considering his administration has never admitted to making a mistake
about *anything* in the past 4 years, thats not surprising.

g.daniels wrote:
you in duluth?

I've been unable to visit r.b.t. much the past week or two
but I felt as if I never left on reading this evening's
ongoing diatribe of the left vs. Mark Hickey, to find Mr
Fogels picayune details, Sorni's snippets of humor and now
to see that Gene remains his inscruatble self.

It's like walking in to the old neighborhood bar.

--
Andrew, not in Duluth . . . yet, Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971