Posted by verne on November 14, 2005, at 22:46:22
In reply to Re: Verne, torture, etc. » Jakeman, posted by Jakeman on November 14, 2005, at 20:07:28
When I said it's not "black and white", I'm not suggesting I condone torture or there's any room for doubt in my own mind, but only that there's enough gray area for discussion. That, in many circles, including the government, it's being debated. That, in some minds, at least, there's room for discussion. (The original topic also included inhumane treatment of prisoners)
Then the question becomes, how is this topic discussed civilly? Even though, we may not think there's anything to debate about, how do we talk about the unspeakable, if the discussion already exists?
We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong but what we can't say, is, anyone who disagrees with me should be "viewed with contempt". Such comments end any sort of civil discussion and don't really further our argument anyway.
What if we don't really see any room for discussion, that our side is wholly right, and their's, wholly wrong? And what we really want to do, is throw red dye on their fur coats, cut their tuna nets, or yell at them - not discuss the matter! Like hockey, psychobabble has rules - well, maybe hockey was a bad example.
We can say x, y and z are always bad in every way imaginable, we can describe our position at length, we can unmercifully win the argument with well-crafted wit, superior debating skills, and unrelenting logic, we can outquote and outreference them, but what we can't do, is attack those who disagree with us. We can't get personal.
This is the point I try to be making.
Verne
poster:verne
thread:578172
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051013/msgs/578816.html