Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Waterboarding

To some extent, the debate over counterterrorism has jelled around the issue of “torture,” with waterboarding as the paradigm-case. In general, opponents of “torture” are opponents of counterterrorism. For them, the real enemy isn’t militant Islam, but the Bush administration, or American corporations. “Torture” is simply a marketable way of framing their opposition to counterterrorism.

(As a rule, the opponents occupy the far left, but, unfortunately, outbreaks of Bush Derangement Syndrome have also be reported to infect certain pockets on the far right. Like the movie 28 Weeks Later, lunacy is a communicable disease.)

If they were really opposed to torture, they would also oppose abortion. If they were really opposed to torture, they would redirect their vociferous opposition to countries that practice real, bona fide torture. So torture is just a stalking horse to camouflage their actual opposition to counterterrorism in general—with special reference to American foreign policy.

Opponents of torture want to outlaw torture, but they don’t want to define it. This, of itself, is quite perverse. Nothing could be more Kafkaesque than to penalize an offender for an indefinable crime.

As is also typical in liberal discourse, there is no room for rational debate. Liberals prefer adjectives to arguments. It comes down to assigning the preferred label to the practice, whether it’s “racist,” “homophobic,” “torture,” &c. Once the correct label is assigned, that’s the end of all discussion. To actually debate the merits of the issue is out of the question.

When interviewing a witness or nominee, the sole purpose of the exercise is to maneuver him into admitting to a practice to which they can automatically affix the damning adjective or noun. From this admission there is no pardon or reprieve.

Because they refuse to define torture, they fall back on picturesque examples of “torture.” They can’t tell you what it is, but they can show you what it is.

At present, the showcase example is waterboarding. They treat waterboarding as a synonym or hendiadys for torture. For them, this epitomizes everything that is unspeakably wrong with “torture.” How it subverts American values. Subverts everything we stand for as a nation. Lowers us to the level of our enemies.

This technique illustrates beyond all possible contention or confutation the moral superiority of Democrats over Republicans. End of story.

So what, exactly, is so bad about waterboarding? Here are two representative explanations:

***QUOTE***

According to the Times, a secret memo issued by Administration lawyers authorized the C.I.A. to use novel interrogation methods—including “water-boarding,” in which a suspect is bound and immersed in water until he nearly drowns. Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn’t take showers, and panicked when it rained. “The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,” he said.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=5

For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth--causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200/page/2

***END-QUOTE***

So that, my fellow Americans, is why we should never succumb to the immoral temptation of allowing the use of waterboarding to extract information from a terrorist which could prevent the mass murder of our citizens. The “victimized” terrorist would be “traumatized” by the experience. . He’d never take another shower. Rain would trigger “panic” attacks. In sum, he would suffer incurable “psychic” damage. Didn’t you know that a simulated death is a fate worse than death?

42 comments:

  1. "As is also typical in liberal discourse, there is no room for rational debate. Liberals prefer adjectives to arguments. It comes down to assigning the preferred label to the practice, whether it’s “racist,” “homophobic,” “torture,” &c. Once the correct label is assigned, that’s the end of all discussion. To actually debate the merits of the issue is out of the question."

    LOL. Sounds like you've had a traumatic experience in the Episcopal Church USA.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to be that people of the reformed faith should not think waterboarding is okay. Do you know who created it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Julie said:

    "It seems to be that people of the reformed faith should not think waterboarding is okay."

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Julie said...

    "It seems to be that people of the reformed faith should not think waterboarding is okay. Do you know who created it?"

    I don't know who invented the wheel or sliced bread. Suppose the guy who first came up with the idea of sliced bread was a bad guy. Does that mean that people of the Reformed faith shouldn't think sliced bread is okay?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I also boycott toothpaste since I have it on good authority that the inventor of toothpaste did not subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,

    How do you define torture, then? Haven't you committed the same error as the liberals here, in reverse? They have an amorphous definition and use it to whack us over the head: You take their amorphous definition and want to whack back with it.

    I mean, it seems here that your basic point is, "What the liberals call torture cannot really be torture because the liberals called it that."

    It seems you could clear this up by defining torture, and then analyzing waterboarding in the light of your definition...or, maybe I'm missing something.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I actually hope I'm missing something, because I'm left with the bad feeling that you are somehow defending water boarding. Perhaps if one's deity is scheduled to inflict eternal conscious torment on most of the human race for billions of years, torture in this life is small potatoes?

    Peace,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike Ogden said:

    Perhaps if one's deity is scheduled to inflict eternal conscious torment on most of the human race for billions of years, torture in this life is small potatoes?

    First off, I'm not sure why Mike starts off with "eternal conscious torment" only to then immediately place the limit of "billions of years" on this "eternal conscious torment." Does he take issue with "eternal" "torment" which is infinite or with "billions of years" of "torment" which is finite?

    At any rate, assuming that Mike is referring to the God of the Bible and not some other "deity," what Mike says here assumes without argument at least two things:

    1. That the "torment" (Mike's characterization) of sinners and the use of torture to extract information from terrorists are somehow morally equivalent.

    2. That those whom God "torments" do not deserve to be "tormented" (again, Mike's characterization, and in lieu of perhaps a more neutral word such as "punishment").

    In addition, we might ask on what grounds an atheist for example defends his view that torture is wrong (which we might in turn continue to contrast with what the Bible teaches re: human value as those specially created in the image of God)?

    ReplyDelete
  10. GORDAN SAID:

    “Steve, how do you define torture, then?”

    As a rule, I don’t define torture because that’s the wrong way to frame the issue. Opponents of counterterrorism want to turn this into a debate over torture. I don’t allow the opposition to dictate the terms of the debate.

    I operate with the premise that a terrorist does not have the right to withhold information regarding some budding plot to murder innocent men, women, and children.

    And since he’s not going to volunteer what he knows, we have the right to force it out of him.

    The first question we should ask is what techniques, whether physiological or psychological, would extract that information from him?

    Then, from a range of effective techniques, we should generally select one that extracts the information while inflicting the least amount of pain and suffering. We should avoid inflicting gratuitous pain and suffering. We should avoid, where possible, doing permanent harm.

    There’s a potential tradeoff here. The coercion ceases the moment the terrorist answers the question. More suffering might get the information quicker. It’s ultimately the terrorist who controls the intensity and duration of the ordeal. He can sing sooner rather than later. He can spare himself the ordeal entirely by volunteering what he knows.

    BTW, I have defined torture in an earlier post, in response to a question, but that should not be the focus of our discussion.

    “Haven't you committed the same error as the liberals here, in reverse? They have an amorphous definition and use it to whack us over the head: You take their amorphous definition and want to whack back with it.”

    No, because I’m answering them on their own grounds. And there’s a roundabout sense in which they define torture by the examples they use, such as waterboarding.

    “I mean, it seems here that your basic point is, ‘What the liberals call torture cannot really be torture because the liberals called it that’.”

    Explain the process by which you arrive at that interpretation.

    “It seems you could clear this up by defining torture, and then analyzing waterboarding in the light of your definition...or, maybe I'm missing something.”

    i) That’s a somewhat circular procedure. On the one hand, a general definition of torture tends to abstract from a number of concrete cases. So there’s a sense in which we’re beginning, not with the definition, but with the instances on the basis of which we formulate our definition.

    On the other hand, unless we had some intuitive sense of what constitutes torture in the first place, we wouldn’t identify these particular instances as cases of torture.

    ii) More to the point, why should I start with a definition of torture, then apply it to waterboarding? Why should that be the framing device to evaluate the morality of waterboarding?

    MIKE OGDEN SAID:

    “I actually hope I'm missing something, because I'm left with the bad feeling that you are somehow defending water boarding.”

    Why does that give you a bad feeling?

    “Perhaps if one's deity is scheduled to inflict eternal conscious torment on most of the human race for billions of years, torture in this life is small potatoes?”

    i) Perhaps if you believe that life is an evolutionary accident, and that once you’re dead you have no recollection of what you endured in this life (since you cease to exist), then torture in this life is small potatoes.

    ii) You need to cite and exegete the verses of Scripture in which you think God tortures the damned.

    iii) You need to defend your equation between waterboarding and torture.

    iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that waterboarding is torture, then you’ve trivialized the allegation of torture. If waterboarding is torture, then torture is overrated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Hays, do you have any information on the effectiveness of torture to garner information? I have been unable to find statistics on the effectiveness of waterboarding. From my perusing the internet, most military folks do not think it effective. Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, is one such person; as is Sen. John McCain.

    The Stockholm Syndrome indicates that a captive will protect their captor, if they are treated well. If a captive becomes a loyal subject to their captor, through acts of kindness, the captive will WILLINGLY give information.

    Here is an article I found interesting on this topic. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9958544/

    ReplyDelete
  13. JULIE SAID:

    “Mr. Hays, do you have any information on the effectiveness of torture to garner information?”

    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is an oft-cited success story.

    “I have been unable to find statistics on the effectiveness of waterboarding.”

    Statistics are irrelevant. It’s a matter of what works in any particular case.

    “From my perusing the internet, most military folks do not think it effective. Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, is one such person; as is Sen. John McCain.”

    But this takes the form of a straw man argument. The contention is that information extracted by coercive means is worthless since anyone will say anything under sufficient duress.

    But that’s simplistic. Prosecutors and detectives will often threaten a potential witness or accomplice to squeeze information out of him. This doesn’t mean they take him at his word. Rather, they check out his story.

    It’s a way of giving us some leads that we wouldn’t otherwise have. We still have to follow up on the lead. It may turn out to be a false lead. But it gives you something to go on.

    Information extracted by coercive means must still be verified (or falsified). But that’s better than nothing. At least you have something to verify (or falsify).

    “The Stockholm Syndrome indicates that a captive will protect their captor, if they are treated well. If a captive becomes a loyal subject to their captor, through acts of kindness, the captive will WILLINGLY give information.”

    i) This is more applicable to female hostages, and not to men.

    ii) It also presents a false dichotomy. We should do what works (with certain qualifications). That’s why we need to be flexible in having a repertoire of methods.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Information that is gained by illegal torture of prisoners will not be allowed as evidence in courts. Threats of incarceration to potential defendants is different than threats to one's life.

    As for the Stockholm Syndrome being "more applicable to female hostages" does not disqualify it from applying to men. It is a flexible approach to try with any captive. False dichotomies abound on all sides.

    Do your know if your fellow Triablogue contributors share your opinion on this matter? It would be nice to hear them chime in as well. I have asked other regular readers here about your post and some have said they have decided to stop reading, others said they are considering discontinuing reading Triablogue, others have said it makes no difference. This is not an appeal for you to change your mind, rather an appeal to hear from other Triablogue writers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. julie said...

    “Information that is gained by illegal torture of prisoners will not be allowed as evidence in courts.”

    i) This begs the question of what is torture and what is illegal.

    ii)It also begs the question of what should be legal or illegal.

    iii) Even more to the point, it’s a category mistake. This is not about extracting confessions to be used in a criminal proceeding. Rather, this is about extracting information that we might be able to use, after checking out the story, to head off a terrorist attack.

    “Threats of incarceration to potential defendants is different than threats to one's life.”

    Now you’re guilty of special pleading. The fundamental argument is that an informant may lie under extreme duress. It doesn’t matter what the threat is as long as it’s perceived as sufficiently threatening to the informant to make him cooperate with the authorities. Your argument against coercive interrogation doesn’t depend on a death-threat.

    “Do your know if your fellow Triablogue contributors share your opinion on this matter? It would be nice to hear them chime in as well.”

    They’re always free to chime in, whether to register their agreement or dissent.

    “I have asked other regular readers here about your post and some have said they have decided to stop reading, others said they are considering discontinuing reading Triablogue, others have said it makes no difference.”

    Tblog is not a popularity contest or moneymaking enterprise. It’s easy to post on “safe” subjects. If some people can’t handle a rational discussion of interrogation during time of war, there are lots of fluffy blogs they can turn to instead.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Julie said:

    Do your know if your fellow Triablogue contributors share your opinion on this matter? It would be nice to hear them chime in as well. I have asked other regular readers here about your post and some have said they have decided to stop reading, others said they are considering discontinuing reading Triablogue, others have said it makes no difference. This is not an appeal for you to change your mind, rather an appeal to hear from other Triablogue writers.

    Speaking for myself, I've found that Steve has raised relevant, significant, and thus far unanswered arguments against the opposing viewpoint on the topic.

    In addition, yes, I'm in agreement with Steve's operating premise and his supporting arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is waterboarding ever wrong Steve?

    ReplyDelete
  19. onelasttime said:

    "Is waterboarding ever wrong Steve?"

    If you use it on the wrong person for the wrong reason.

    ReplyDelete
  20. FWIW, I've had to work over 10 hours of overtime so far this week. All things considered, I'd prefer one hour of waterboarding.

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Julie said:
    ---
    I have asked other regular readers here about your post and some have said they have decided to stop reading, others said they are considering discontinuing reading Triablogue, others have said it makes no difference.
    ---

    I have asked other regular posters here about your comment and some have said they have decided to stop reading them, others have said they are considering disconnecting their Internet, others have said it makes no difference.

    I fall in the third category.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "If you use it on the wrong person for the wrong reason."

    Relativism?

    ReplyDelete
  23. onelasttime said...

    "If you use it on the wrong person for the wrong reason."

    Relativism?

    *******************************

    A one-word response with a question mark at the end is not an argument. Do you care to actually explain how you equate that with relativism?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Okay, who is the right person to waterboard and what is the right reason to do it?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "FWIW, I've had to work over 10 hours of overtime so far this week. All things considered, I'd prefer one hour of waterboarding.

    Oh well."

    how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board. Man up and do it to show us you mean it. Oh. You were being factitious. Isn't there something about being called to account for every careless word?

    ReplyDelete
  26. steve said:
    onelasttime said:

    "Okay, who is the right person to waterboard and what is the right reason to do it?"

    Let's see. What about a high-value terrorist who won't volunteer his knowledge of impending terrorist plots.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "As for the Stockholm Syndrome being "more applicable to female hostages" does not disqualify it from applying to men. It is a flexible approach to try with any captive. False dichotomies abound on all sides."

    I think you're out of touch with the warrior mentality.

    During SEAL training we were subjected to worse stuff than water boarding.

    And, it is a mandatory qualification for all special forces members is to go through (some kind of) SERE training. Our men our beat, sleep deprived, subjected to severe psychological stress, etc. It is a known fact that (pretty much) everyone breaks when subjected to this - it's just a matter of how long. Keep them in then dark long enough allows command to change codes, plans, etc. Surviving long enough is the goal. Taking your sweet time to question someone is pointless. Or, if the plan is big enough, then keep them in the dark until it can be implemented.

    So, we're not dealing with weak minded people. We're not dealing with pansies who get attached to their captors. Escape is always on the mind. Kill your captor if you can.

    Asking questions does not get the info. These men are proud. They want to return and say that they didn't talk. They'll be heroes. They will lie, cheat, steal, anything to throw off the enemy.

    This is a big, scary world, with mean, nasty men. Bleeding hearts and liberals are out of touch with reality. They're weak-kneed and don't know how to deal with someone who is dedicated to a cause. They don't know how to win wars, to protect innocent life.

    There's a reason why those who engaged in "dirty" fighting in the Rev. and Civ. wars avoided massive casualties, while creating a large body count (back then it was just, well, "immoral" to hide in the bushes and ambush platoons). There's a reason why Spec Ops were the only guys winning and making progress in the Vietnam war. Many of the arguments against Steve sound like the arguments against Rev. and Civ. war guerrilla warfare. It wasn't "civilized." It wasn't "gentlemanly." It was "immoral." It was evidence of disorder, a rebellious spirit.

    But without this type of warfare, we may well still be eating crumpets right now. But we're not. Indeed, one reason you're able to sit here and Monday morning quarterback is because of the use of previously thought "immoral" actions. War, successful warfare, takes a certain kind of person. At the end of the day, we all want a General Patton to conduct warfare rather than "Julie" or "Mike" or "Anonymous."

    ReplyDelete
  28. You know, I went waterboarding once on Lake Wanahakalugi. It was a lot of fun until I wiped out and forgot to let go of the rope...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bryan said:
    ---
    how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board.
    ---

    How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime.

    Bryan said:
    ---
    Man up and do it to show us you mean it. Oh. You were being factitious.
    ---

    I wasn't being "factitious." Water boarding isn't all that different from doing a kick turn in the swimming pool. And while all things considered I'd rather have a steak dinner followed by a nice movie, I would STILL prefer an hour of water boarding to reliving the overtime of this week.

    But hey, why don't YOU lay it out. We've got two openings where I work...although I doubt you'd get hired until you finally get your GED.

    Bryan said:
    ---
    Isn't there something about being called to account for every careless word?
    ---

    Isn't there something about a beam in your own eye and a mote in someone elses?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime."


    I'm sorry, I would work your overtime, but I'm too busy working on my masters degree and working to support me while I'm here at school and working to support my mom after she was laid off. I can't find the time.



    "I wasn't being "factitious." Water boarding isn't all that different from doing a kick turn in the swimming pool. And while all things considered I'd rather have a steak dinner followed by a nice movie, I would STILL prefer an hour of water boarding to reliving the overtime of this week.

    But hey, why don't YOU lay it out. We've got two openings where I work...although I doubt you'd get hired until you finally get your GED."

    Can you get your GED if you're working on your masters?


    "Isn't there something about a beam in your own eye and a mote in someone elses?"

    Sure, show me where my words were careless and I'll gladly repent. However, you have shown me more of the same by assuming that you know me and what my situation is.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bryan said:
    ---
    Sure, show me where my words were careless and I'll gladly repent. However, you have shown me more of the same by assuming that you know me and what my situation is.
    ---

    Well since most of my comments were simply me quoting your words back to you (with editorial changes to fit the context), if I "have shown [you] more of the same" then by your own admission I HAVE already shown you where your words were careless.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The basic problem is that Peter stooped to the use of humor, and we all know how ungodly humor is (Ps 1:4).

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Well since most of my comments were simply me quoting your words back to you (with editorial changes to fit the context), if I "have shown [you] more of the same" then by your own admission I HAVE already shown you where your words were careless."

    Um... I quoted your whole post in its entirety, so I'm not sure where the "editorial changes" were made. Perhaps you can compare your original with mine and show me to them so I can represent you correctly?

    And where have you already shown me that? Point out directly what I said that was careless? I will take responsibility for anything that was careless. What -I- was saying is that you have shown me more of the same carelessness by talking down to me off of a basic assumption about an apparent lack of education and no clue as to what my life is like and the work-load I have. That is more of the same carelessness that I was talking about. You have not shown me where I was careless.

    However, if you do think that I was careless in what I had to say, then do please forgive me for saying it, and my ignorance as to what about it was careless.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "The basic problem is that Peter stooped to the use of humor, and we all know how ungodly humor is (Ps 1:4)."

    Because waterboarding is such a hilarious context. I get it now. And his own admission was that he _wasn't_ being facetious.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Didn't you know that Peter was in track in high school? His main event was jumping to conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mr. Manata,
    Thank you for your response. Where is the verse about humanity's innocence? From my reading or Romans, we're all guilty and none are innocent.

    Good bye, Triablogue. You've made an unfortunate ugly notch in the reputation of reformed believers. Your attitude and use of words speaks loudly from your hearts. The bible tells us that out of the mouth the heart speaks.

    I'm going to listen to Pastor Piper. I need a real Gospel message from a person that truly loves people.

    Go ahead and tear this post apart. I won't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Bryan said:
    ---
    Um... I quoted your whole post in its entirety, so I'm not sure where the "editorial changes" were made.
    ---

    You have a serious reading impediment. The "editorial changes" were the changes *I* made. Changes like:

    You originally said:
    ---
    how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board.
    ---

    I quoted this back with the editorial changes to make it fit the context by saying:
    ---
    How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime.
    ---

    Really, it ought not be THIS difficult to follow a thread of thought.

    Bryan said:
    ---
    Point out directly what I said that was careless?
    ---

    Well, we could start with the unnecessary question mark at the end of this sentence....

    You said:
    ---
    I will take responsibility for anything that was careless.
    ---

    Allow me to read with your lenses.

    You'll take responsibility for ANYTHING that was careless? So it's YOUR FAULT Three Mile Island, the Titanic, and Britany Spears happened.

    Anyway, you said:
    ---
    What -I- was saying is that you have shown me more of the same carelessness by talking down to me off of a basic assumption about an apparent lack of education and no clue as to what my life is like and the work-load I have.
    ---

    Allow me to emphasize a portion. You said: "you have shown me more of THE SAME CARELESSNESS" What is "the same" referring to? It is referring to your claim that my original words were careless.

    See, you brought up the issue of careless words. I haven't mentioned anything at all about them. I merely quoted you back to you, and then you say that my quoting you is the same carelessness. (The same as what? I can only suppose the same as what you originally said, which would be accurate insofar as what I said was a parroting of what you said.)

    Is anyone else having difficulties following this like Bryan is? Do we need to start a homeschooling session in reading comprehension?

    Bryan said:
    ---
    Because waterboarding is such a hilarious context.
    ---

    No, your spazing out over it is such a hilarious context.

    Bryan said:
    ---
    And his own admission was that he _wasn't_ being facetious.
    ---

    No, my own admission was that I wasn't being "factitious."

    Anonymous said:
    ---
    Didn't you know that Peter was in track in high school? His main event was jumping to conclusions.
    ---

    Dude, that was so funny in 1983. Frankly I prefer the Jump To Conclusions mat from Office Space myself, though. It's easier on the knees.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I realize Julie is too offended to read the comments to her post, because, well, that would just be wrong, but, for the sake of the other readers, I'll take this:

    From my reading or Romans, we're all guilty and none are innocent.


    1. If true, then why are you objecting to waterboarding? If these men are guilty, wicked sinners, then isn't their punishment deserved?

    2. More to the point, this is a category mistake - again. The Bible uses "guilt" and "innocence" in many senses. In Romans, Paul is talking about an eternal sense, before God's judgment bar. The Bible calls different men "righteous" and then turns around and says that there is no one "righteous" who has not sinned relative innocence between men. Here, Paul is talking about relative innocence - those who are (potential) victims of terrorism.

    3. I agree, Julie does need to listen to Dr. Piper. She may just learn how to read her Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Julie,

    I don't see the relevance of your comment? Are you trying to say that the American Revolutionists should not have engaged in guerilla warfare?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I’d like to amplify or augment a few of Gene’s perceptive comments:

    1.There’s a distinction between sin and crime, sinners and criminals. We’re all sinners. None of us is innocent before God. That doesn’t mean we’re all guilty of the same crimes with respect to our fellow man. I can be guilty before God, yet innocent of wrongdoing with reference to you. Not every sinner is a bankrobber or rapist or serial killer.

    2.Apropos (1), the Mosaic law regards all human beings as sinners. But that doesn’t prevent it from distinguish between criminal innocence and guilt, or between assailants and victims.

    ReplyDelete
  41. “You have a serious reading impediment. The "editorial changes" were the changes *I* made.”

    Actually, yes, I do. I tend to mix words and letters around. It's usually worse when I'm staring at a computer screen. As I said, I do apologize for misrepresenting what you said. Please forgive me.

    “Changes like:
    You originally said:
    ---
    how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board.
    ---
    I quoted this back with the editorial changes to make it fit the context by saying:
    ---
    How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime.
    ---
    Really, it ought not be THIS difficult to follow a thread of thought.”

    No, it shouldn't. I misread, and I apologize.

    “Bryan said:
    ---
    Point out directly what I said that was careless?
    ---
    Well, we could start with the unnecessary question mark at the end of this sentence....”

    Pointing out a typo? Apparently you have a lot to work with to point out what I said that was idle and careless, and you point out a typo like some message board troll? C'mon man. I misread your whole message, you can do better than that.

    “You said:
    ---
    I will take responsibility for anything that was careless.
    ---
    Allow me to read with your lenses.

    You'll take responsibility for ANYTHING that was careless? So it's YOUR FAULT Three Mile Island, the Titanic, and Britany Spears happened.”

    It ought not be THIS difficult to follow a thread of thought. It's not hard to see that the anything in context points back to what I was saying earlier. You know, kind of like the “all” in some scriptures doesn't mean every individual.

    “Anyway, you said:
    ---
    What -I- was saying is that you have shown me more of the same carelessness by talking down to me off of a basic assumption about an apparent lack of education and no clue as to what my life is like and the work-load I have.
    ---

    Allow me to emphasize a portion. You said: "you have shown me more of THE SAME CARELESSNESS" What is "the same" referring to? It is referring to your claim that my original words were careless.”

    Yes.

    “See, you brought up the issue of careless words. I haven't mentioned anything at all about them. I merely quoted you back to you, and then you say that my quoting you is the same carelessness. (The same as what? I can only suppose the same as what you originally said, which would be accurate insofar as what I said was a parroting of what you said.)”

    The same as the original comment. Because as I read it, mixing it up, I thought you said that I was editing you, which was then preceded by what seemed like personal attacks against my education and so forth. Granted, I haven't given you much reason to think differently in the way I read your post.

    “Is anyone else having difficulties following this like Bryan is? Do we need to start a homeschooling session in reading comprehension?”

    Do comments like these make you feel like more of a man? If you need your masculinity affirmed, I don't mind helping a brother out.

    “Bryan said:
    ---
    Because waterboarding is such a hilarious context.
    ---
    No, your spazing out over it is such a hilarious context.”

    I was spazing out over your remarks which seemed very flippant to me about a very serious topic. Thus far I haven't actually said anything about the topic of waterboarding itself.

    Bryan said:
    ---
    And his own admission was that he _wasn't_ being facetious.
    ---
    No, my own admission was that I wasn't being "factitious."

    Ok, another typo. You knew what I meant. Here's the deal. I screwed up. I had a problem with what you said, I should have taken to you instead of dragging it out In public. We're also told to restore a brother gently, so I'm sure the snark didn't help either. I honestly do apologize for both of those things. Tell you what. You can have the last word. You can make me look dumb, or whatever you want to do. You can point out my typos, my illiteracy... in fact I could probably give you a list that you don't even know about to use. However, I do hope you see my sincerity in apologizing, and the sincerity of the intent and concern behind the flawed attempt at my first post. You probably don't see it or even remotely care. That's ok too. God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bryan said:
    ---
    Actually, yes, I do. I tend to mix words and letters around. It's usually worse when I'm staring at a computer screen. As I said, I do apologize for misrepresenting what you said. Please forgive me.
    ---

    Of course. But I will say that you probably will want to spend a little more time reading what others write before you respond to it if you know that this is something that happens to you frequently. It'll help avoid future problems.

    And you probably should read some more satire at some point.

    ReplyDelete