In reply to jondo:
i tell you what Jondo, i always look forward to your replies, but this one is a corker...
> i never said you were a supporter of Iraq or Vietnam , I said the 'west' does not live up to the ridiculous you standards you hold Israel to. I know the Bible talks about the 'chosen people'... seems you want them to act like it...
i know! i keep acknowledging that... i mean, israeli leaders never actually had to knowingly mislead their parliaments and people in order to drum up support for an invasion of a country on another continent... but let's just watch, bet you ignore this comment and keep on with that straw man implying that i hold israel to a different standard, presumably as part of one of those 'anti-Israel rampages' you comically claimed i had a thing for...
> immaterial ? then you are saying Israeli lives are less valuable than houses. no other way to interpret your post.
> you can keep saying 'medieval' a million more times, won't make it any more true.
> is torture wrong if there is one person that knows of an imminent attack , let's say the person behind it... ?
> again you place the value of human lives below the problematic infliction of pain.
> you seem YET AGAIN to define universal morals according to your own morals !
> pretty amazing.
it is characteristic of those with no useful arguments to deploy to distort or misrepresent the views of their opponents, or to attack them personally; or even to go the whole 'post truth' hog and just invent preposterous nonsense and try to brazenly pass it off as fact... and here we have a perfect example- i am said to define universal morals according to my own morals.
did i write the UN universal declaration of human rights, Jondo? or the European convention on human rights? i mean, you flatter me by implication, but it would have been a fine trick for me to pull, given that they were in the public domain well before i was born. because throughout this thread, and the last one, i've repeatedly cited the former document as evidence to support my view. my morals come from the universal, as set out in these texts, not the other way round. of course.
its beyond absurd what your suggesting, its full-on Trump-style alternative reality creation to avoid facing up to the fact you're wrong. you can't be seen to suggest that the Universal declaration of human rights is wrong, so you have put your fingers in your ears and go 'LA LA LA' whenever i mention it, so you can pretend it doesn't exist and my point of view is a personal one, rather than the globally accepted foundation for the conduct of states... is this what its come to for you, Jondo...?
and there's more- my claim is that punishment of family members' for their relative's crime is outside the legal code of all respectable countries; i mean, i'm sure North Korea, or Somalia, or whatever other gangster state you care to mention probably revels in it, but that's not the sort of company i'd aspire to keep. your claim is that i'm inflicting my obscure personal morality on the world. well; prove it- if you're right, it should be easy as pie to turn up lots of examples of British, or American, or French, or German, or Swedish, or Italian, or Canadian, or Australian legal cases where families of serious offenders were harmed to try to put off other potential offenders.
But two threads and multiple posts on after the first time i asked you for this... nothing...
its almost as if such examples don't exist, and israel is unique among liberal democracies in engaging in the practice.
> i never said i was comfortable with it. again you tell falsehoods, and i have had enough of it to be honest.
> when its comfortable for you , you quote some 'universal morals' which you decide upon based on your own views, and now you are quoting human rights. well , what about the human right of not being attacked at random by knives , cars, and bombs ?
indeed. you know, the government can always do more, and in ways that might actually be more effective in preventing crime. increased surveillance, email intercepts, extended detention on remand of suspects, internment, abolishing the right to jury trial, collusion with paramilitaries to enable killing of terrorist suspects... this isn't a theoretical list, all of the above are being done, or have been done by the british government in the fight against terrorism. i oppose most of them, and most would be regarded as unacceptable by most people in the country, and indeed by the government
does that mean i value data security, or privacy, or the rights of terrorist suspects, above the lives of british citizens? and for that matter, does theresa may? i mean, she isn't using the full range of available options. only if you approach the matter from the perspective of creating a ridiculous false dichotomy- there's another fallacy in the game of fallacy bingo that we can all play with your posts...
it of course come back to the whole concept of universal human rights; the basic, irreducible rights that every human has, and which all states have a requirement to observe. of course states find it convenient to ignore these, it makes many things easier, and they always cite noble reasons for doing so- Assad was fighting terrorists, after all, when he carpet bombed Aleppo and targetted his own citizens with poison gas. but they, by and large, try to adhere to them, thankfully- sometimes grudgingly, and under duress by from their courts, or public opinion.
and many people don't subscribe to the idea of human rights either, especially when they relate to people who are different to them in some way. It would be a shame if it turned out you were one of these people.
> i called you a 'FASCIST' due to your inability to accept that people may think differently yet not be less moral than yourself, if it sounds better then 'self righteousness' may be a better term.
lol, progress! of sorts; but still another ad hominem
Bingo!
if you like, Jondo, if that's what you want to call consistently and robustly setting out my arguments... keep up the good work!
Post edited at 21:05