Obama orders amnesty for illegals.

[Darth Executor]

And, at the end of the day, this is the man who worked to develop a legal defense for torture

Torture is already legal and widely spread. It's called reading your posts prison.

[Thersites]

Torture is already legal and widely spread. It's called reading your posts prison.

If prison's purpose were primarily retributive- that is, if the prison system were designed deliberately and specifically to cause its occupants extreme physical or mental anguish rather than primarily to limit their capacity to harm the rest of society- then I would not only recognize it as torture, but condemn it as such.

If, on the other hand, prison conditions are the result of the opportunity costs of investing in comfortable prisons (i.e. making prisons more comfortable would be an expenditure of public funds that could be better-invested in other projects), then the discomfort is an unfortunate but unavoidable reality incidental to the prison's intended purpose.

[Darth Executor]

If prison's purpose were primarily retributive- that is, if the prison system were designed deliberately and specifically to cause its occupants extreme physical or mental anguish rather than primarily to limit their capacity to harm the rest of society- then I would not only recognize it as torture, but condemn it as such.

If, on the other hand, prison conditions are the result of the opportunity costs of investing in comfortable prisons (i.e. making prisons more comfortable would be an expenditure of public funds that could be better-invested in other projects), then the discomfort is an unfortunate but unavoidable reality incidental to the prison's intended purpose.

I was not referring to the comfort levels. To be stripped of your freedom (with what most people would agree to be rather unpleasant individuals) is itself a form of torture.

Anyway, the purpose of prison IS at least partially retributive. The state enacts vengeance on behalf of a victim for the (in theory anyway) purpose of maintaining order. If they didn't, individuals would just seek it out on their own. There's a reason why prison sentences are based on the crime committed rather than the amount of time it would take for the condemned to be rehabilitated.

Furthermore, to condemn a system designed deliberately and specifically to cause its targets extreme physical or mental anguish you would have to condemn God as well since the idea that the state is to punish evildoers is found in both the OT and NT. Heck, the OT prescribed beatings, which would unambiguously fall under torture in modern times.

[Thersites]

I was not referring to the comfort levels. To be stripped of your freedom (with what most people would agree to be rather unpleasant individuals) is itself a form of torture.

The question is whether it is done deliberately to inflict extreme pain. By your definition, taking a marriage vow (i.e. surrendering certain aspects of one's freedom) is a form of torture. Your definition is so vague as to be meaningless.

Anyway, the purpose of prison IS at least partially retributive. The state enacts vengeance on behalf of a victim for the (in theory anyway) purpose of maintaining order. If they didn't, individuals would just seek it out on their own. There's a reason why prison sentences are based on the crime committed rather than the amount of time it would take for the condemned to be rehabilitated.

Isn't that whole "vengeance" thing not part of Christianity, and, moreover, something that is denounced both in the folk wisdom and philosophy of most cultures?

Furthermore, to condemn a system designed deliberately and specifically to cause its targets extreme physical or mental anguish you would have to condemn God as well since the idea that the state is to punish evildoers is found in both the OT and NT. Heck, the OT prescribed beatings, which would unambiguously fall under torture in modern times.

The purpose of the state is the defense of the common good, not the perpetration of your adolescent power fantasies, as plentiful as they may be.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Andrew Sullivan shares an "illegal video" about DREAMers:




and links to Adam Serwer's rundown of Republican objections:

Republicans' Bad-Faith Objections to Letting DREAMers Stay. Adam Serwer. Mother Jones. 2012-06-18. Accessed 2012-06-20

There are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US. The federal government claims it only has the resources to deport about 400,000 a year. Deciding not to devote those limited resources to kicking out a group of unauthorized immigrants who didn't make the decision to end up here and could eventually gain legal status is a defensible use of executive authority.

© source where applicable

[Darth Executor]

The question is whether it is done deliberately to inflict extreme pain. By your definition, taking a marriage vow (i.e. surrendering certain aspects of one's freedom) is a form of torture. Your definition is so vague as to be meaningless.

No, that's not by my definition. Prison is involuntary. Unlike marriage, where you willingly surrender the ability to do certain things, you are still free because the choice is yours to do so. My definition is all that vague, at least no more than the general definition of torture is. People don't like being severely restricted for long periods of time (or short periods of time for that matter) anymore than they like to be beaten or be subjected to involuntary drowning simulations. I'd rather take the beating or waterboarding session myself rather get locked up in prison for 20 years.

What you are doing is pretending certain things that you and countless other hypocrites find personally acceptable aren't really torture so you can pontificate from an imaginary high horse and pretend you're better than you really are. I've said it before and I'll said it again: unless you are a pacifist any objection you might have to torture itself (as opposed to the context in which it is used) is rank hypocrisy.

Isn't that whole "vengeance" thing not part of Christianity, and, moreover, something that is denounced both in the folk wisdom and philosophy of most cultures?

No. The Lord says "vengeance is mine", not "there is no vengeance". The state acts as God's servant in pursuing that vengeance. If you search scripture for vengeance you will find that by far the most common use of it is God extracting it, either personally or through proxies.

The purpose of the state is the defense of the common good,

Which is served by inflicting pain, terror and death on evildoers when necessary.

not the perpetration of your adolescent power fantasies, as plentiful as they may be.

St. Paul's adolescent power fantasies. And God's. And the Catholic Chuch's for most of history for that matter.

[Thersites]

No, that's not by my definition. Prison is involuntary. Unlike marriage, where you willingly surrender the ability to do certain things, you are still free because the choice is yours to do so. My definition is all that vague, at least no more than the general definition of torture is. People don't like being severely restricted for long periods of time (or short periods of time for that matter) anymore than they like to be beaten or be subjected to involuntary drowning simulations. I'd rather take the beating or waterboarding session myself rather get locked up in prison for 20 years.

What you are doing is pretending certain things that you and countless other hypocrites find personally acceptable aren't really torture so you can pontificate from an imaginary high horse and pretend you're better than you really are. I've said it before and I'll said it again: unless you are a pacifist any objection you might have to torture itself (as opposed to the context in which it is used) is rank hypocrisy.

Is the flu torture? Infection is involuntary.

In order for it to be torture, the pain inflicted must be deliberate on the part of the agent. Whether or not it is torture, and not merely pain incidental to another action, is dependent on circumstance. Double-effect is a thing, whether you like it or not.

No. The Lord says "vengeance is mine", not "there is no vengeance". The state acts as God's servant in pursuing that vengeance. If you search scripture for vengeance you will find that by far the most common use of it is God extracting it, either personally or through proxies.

Which is served by inflicting pain, terror and death on evildoers when necessary.

Welcome to the New Testament. The rest of us have been here for 2000 years.

St. Paul's adolescent power fantasies. And God's. And the Catholic Chuch's for most of history for that matter.

You're evidently not a student of political philosophy, much less Catholic philosophy. Take my word for it. It's not nearly so simple as that.

[Darth Executor]

Is the flu torture? Infection is involuntary.

Yes.

In order for it to be torture, the pain inflicted must be deliberate on the part of the agent. Whether or not it is torture, and not merely pain incidental to another action, is dependent on circumstance. Double-effect is a thing, whether you like it or not.

Well, when torturing someone for information the intent is to get information. The pain is incidental to the process in the same way throwing someone in prison is incidental to throwing someone in prison.

What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming someone cutting another man's arm off for the purpose of preventing him from stealing in the future is not really torture because the purpose is to prevent him from stealing. The removal of his arm while he screams and splatters blood all over the place is just incidental.

Welcome to the New Testament. The rest of us have been here for 2000 years.

The quote "vengeance is mine" is from the New Testament. In fact the only direct citation I've made so far has been from the New Testament.

You're evidently not a student of political philosophy, much less Catholic philosophy. Take my word for it. It's not nearly so simple as that.

It's true that I care little for Catholic philosophy. The average Catholic philosopher I run into is almost always on the defensive and the ensuing mental gymnastics are a pretty sad sight. That said, it doesn't really matter what the Catholic church did or did not do, reality remains that there is a consistent pattern from the OT to the NT in which state sanctioned violence against evildoers is not just tolerated but accepted as the natural order of things.

[Jaecp]

Is the flu torture? Infection is involuntary

Yes.

Your definition, whatever it is, is fataly flawed

[JimL]

Andrew Sullivan shares an "illegal video" about DREAMers:




and links to Adam Serwer's rundown of Republican objections:

Republicans' Bad-Faith Objections to Letting DREAMers Stay. Adam Serwer. Mother Jones. 2012-06-18. Accessed 2012-06-20

There are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US. The federal government claims it only has the resources to deport about 400,000 a year. Deciding not to devote those limited resources to kicking out a group of unauthorized immigrants who didn't make the decision to end up here and could eventually gain legal status is a defensible use of executive authority.

© source where applicable

I wonder if anyone noticed how Fox News took the Presidents words out of context the other day suggesting that he himself affirmed the illegality of his use of executive authority on this issue. What they didn't show was that he went on to say that what he could legally do was to prioritize, within existing law, which is what his executive order actually does. Just like to point out the propagandist nature of Fox(so called) News, and right wing media in general, for all the naive ditto heads out there.

[Thersites]

I wonder if anyone noticed how Fox News took the Presidents words out of context the other day suggesting that he himself affirmed the illegality of his use of executive authority on this issue. What they didn't show was that he went on to say that what he could legally do was to prioritize, within existing law, which is what his executive order actually does. Just like to point out the propagandist nature of Fox(so called) News, and right wing media in general, for all the naive ditto heads out there.

If you got this piece of information from the Daily Show, there's no shame in admitting it

As for Darthie's equivocation on words like torture, that's just one of the reasons that I think I'll never see him contribute positively to any discussion on these fora.

[Darth Executor]

Your definition, whatever it is, is fataly flawed

Tell it to the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture?s=t

[Darth Executor]

As for Darthie's equivocation on words like torture, that's just one of the reasons that I think I'll never see him contribute positively to any discussion on these fora.

I am not equivocating, I am using the word as it is commonly used, which is in a variety of ways from guys cutting your thumbs off while you are tied to a chair to college kids referring to a boring professor's lecture. Stripping someone of liberty via prison is closer to the former than the latter and is objectively worse than many of the things you would unambiguously refer to as torture.

Anyway, it is difficult to contribute positively to a discussion since a discussion would imply there are at least two similarly matched individuals involved. What we usually do bears a much closer resemblance to me shooting buffalo out of a helicopter. With a bazooka.

[Thersites]

I am not equivocating, I am using the word as it is commonly used, which is in a variety of ways from guys cutting your thumbs off while you are tied to a chair to college kids referring to a boring professor's lecture. Stripping someone of liberty via prison is closer to the former than the latter and is objectively worse than many of the things you would unambiguously refer to as torture.

The definition you use is totally irrelevant to any moral discussion for the simple fact that it does not necessarily involve a moral agent; if you want to discuss whether an act is moral, it is necessary to define it in a way that is pertinent to a philosophical and moral (rather than merely semantic) argument.

If there is no moral agent involved, then the act is not relevant to any moral discussion. If you insist on using a definition of torture that is not moral in nature, then you're only obscuring the real questions.

[Jaecp]

Exactly,

The "common usage" he is talking about is colloquial in nature and properly understood as not actually torture proper