Printable View
Diff's sophistry being what it is, I'll go ahead and point out the obvious (tho neglected - surprise! - by Diffboy) difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The Senator does not approve of violent videogames in the hands of children. This is, of course, different from being opposed to violence in general (and specifically, violence perpetrated by those, say, soldiers, who have a duty to do so).
I've my own qualms with permitting torture; but to call Lieberman a hypocrite because he believes the viewing of simulated torture by children/the public is wrong while simultaneously saying the CIA (or whomever) can employ torture in their professional endeavors is itself tortured logic.
Yes. This is one of the major reasons they are bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
And I have to agree with The_Meach, that's a tenuous link at best Diff. The bill is horrendous enough on its own, there's no reason to drag an unrelated topic into the discussion.
You're distorting the issue. The point is that he is appalled by the thought of children bearing witness to simulated, completely unrealistic depictions of gore and torture, yet fully supports the real torture of humans beings done out of sight, out of mind. There is a real disconnect there, and to call it bad logic is fallacious.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Also, it disgusts me that anyone could refer to torture as a 'professional endeavor'.
It's not unrelated though. It shows a definate moral conundrum. Why is it a crime for children to see simulated torture yet not a crime to conduct real torture?Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Why is it a crime for someone to kick someone else in the face in civilian life but not a crime for a soldier to kill in battle? Why is it a crime for someone to show a kid hardcore pornography but not a crime for adults to have all the freaky sex they want?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Simulated violence for the purpose of entertainment and real violence for the purpose of national security are two vastly different issues, and the only common link here is that Lieberman is on the wrong side of both of them. Trying to draw a link between them does neither issue proper justice.
Why? Why is the simulation somehow more objectionable than the reality that does physical damage or even death? Does that not seem absurd to you that Joe is morally oppossed to children viewing such acts of horror, even though they are completely fictional, because they are so abhorrent, yet turns around and has no problem signing off on these acts being committed on real people?Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
EDIT: You may be thinking of retorting with 'well it's not as simple as that', and normally I would agree that there are greater nuances to these situations, but not in the case of torture.
what she is saying needs to be said, but I wish it was being said by someone else. She has a history of saying the right thing at the right time. A lot of people know this and will assume that she may be doing that now.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I wish her thoughts (or the thoughts of her speech writer) were being said by someone that all of the public would take seriously.
You have to realize that I agree he's completely ass-backwards on both. The point is that the situations have different subjects (suspected criminals versus children), are done for different reasons (interrogation versus entertainment), have different intended (important information versus an entertained kid) and unintended (a dead prisoner versus a psycho killer kid) results both imagined and real, and are objected to and defended for different reasons (this one should be obvious). Aside from the word "torture" appearing in both, there's really no connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
That said, to play devil's advocate Lieberman is very much of the mindset that the ends justify the means. In his view, there is nothing good about explosing kids to violence and it can be potentially harmful, so it's bad. Meanwhile, torture can have great effects in fighting the war on terror (again, in his view) so it's worth weathering the bad effects to get the good outcome.
His stance on torture is very wrong. His stance on violence in games is very wrong. But they are two seperate issues and should be treated as such.
Certainly, the situations are different, but the philosophical underpinning remains the same and is discordant. By taking the stance that we should protect children from viewing simulations of torture he is establishing the following premises; 1.) children need to be protected, 2.) seeing torture makes children unsafe by either giving them the impression that torture is good or generally dissensitizing them to it, 3.) because we feel that children need to be protected from seeing it we are admitting that torture is itself a destructive act or at the very least one we do not want to promote in society by showing it to children.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
So, now, accepting those premises, how can Joe reconcile voting for the Detainee Bill? Is he not, be legitimizing torture through law, doing just as much harm as videogames would simulating it? I'm making a purely logical argument here, that Joe is a hypocrite because he supports torture even though he knows it's wrong. That is the textbook definition of hypocrisy. Certainly the issues of videogame violence and detainee torture are very different in a purely functional manner, but philosophically there can be a connection made.
If that is true, then it is easy to tell he is wrong. The end never justifies the means. Thats life. You do what you do, but you don't get a scapegoat for your actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
"the end justifies the means" is something only criminals and monsters believe.