• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should we do with the Guantanamo prisoners?

What should we do with the Guantanamo prisoners?

  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
Slyhunter said:
You exterminate those out to exterminate you. Islam is at war with us. And playing cops and robbers won't stop them.
Click to expand...

I love this game. You don't even know who is a threat. You are treating an idea as a threat and it's not even something you can define exactly or know who is a threat or not. You basically have to spy on the entire world to even begin to fight it. It's entirely nonsense.
 
Slyhunter said:
Dude you don't charge enemies in a war for crimes. Would you have us charge all of Germany's army for murder or whatever when we captured them during WWII? What kind of loopy ass world do you live in?
Click to expand...

You dont charge enemies if they are a part of a state fighting force (AKA a states army). You do however charge people who dont pledge allegiance to a recognized state but a organization (such as a terrorist organization).
 
cpwill said:
:( Sometimes. It is a great boon of technology that we are able to minimize those times as much as possible, and an unfortunate side effect that public expectations of our ability to do so have increased even more than our ability.
Click to expand...

When there's no hope of apprehension, mass murdering sociopaths gotta go even with a few collateral, for the good of the neighborhood.
 
DA60 said:
To me, the ends NEVER justify the means.

If America can only survive by abandoning due process, the Bill of Rights, honor, and freedom...then let it die.


I am done discussing this with you...we have already stated our positions...further discussion is waste of time (to me).
Click to expand...
I agree further discussion is pointless. I will point out though that the people in question have done nothing to deserve our Bill of Rights, our honor, or our freedom. They've done everything they can to destroy it, and they have lost. I don't favor giving them another crack at it.
 
polgara said:
Some in Congress have problems with remembering things they do. Fortunately those of us not in Congress don't! :mrgreen: Those impassioned speeches in Congress in favor of invading Iraq are still very prominent in our memory banks, like it or not.

Greetings, vesper. :2wave:
Click to expand...
At the risk of going off-track, I have to disagree with this. We, the voting populace, don't remember, either. At least when it comes to stepping into the voting booth. Something about crossing that threshold causes normally rational people to forget everything and re-elect those whom they know are unworthy.
 
DA60 said:
So it's better to keep innocent people locked up indefinitely just in case they might retaliate if they are released?

What a cowardly thing to believe.
Click to expand...
It goes against everything that our society is supposed to hold dear. How can we prattle on to the rest of the world about fairness and justice when we won't even do it ourselves?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you do the right thing.
Click to expand...

He said the means NEVER justify the ends.

Which means, for example, that driving (which places others at risk) is not justified by the need to get to work.

Waging defensive war (in which people will die) is not justified by an attack.

Having a police force (which inevitably will result in harm to an innocent) is not justified even by violent crime.

Membership in this form (when your time could be spent elsewhere) is not justified by the desire to participate.



And so forth. Saying that "The Ends Never Justify The Means" is basically a way of saying "I Refuse To Make Cost Benefit Analysis".
 
cpwill said:
He said the means NEVER justify the ends.

Which means, for example, that driving (which places others at risk) is not justified by the need to get to work.

Waging defensive war (in which people will die) is not justified by an attack.

Having a police force (which inevitably will result in harm to an innocent) is not justified even by violent crime.

Membership in this form (when your time could be spent elsewhere) is not justified by the desire to participate.



And so forth. Saying that "The Ends Never Justify The Means" is basically a way of saying "I Refuse To Make Cost Benefit Analysis".
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point if the comment. Immoral and illegal means are never justified no matter the ends. You're playing a semantic game in order to avoid the point. Common sayings have a context.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think you miss the point if the comment. Immoral and illegal means are never justified no matter the ends.
Click to expand...

Illegal means can indeed be justified by the ends. As a single example, emergency responders are allowed to flout traffic laws. We recognize that the potential to save lives (the ends) is more important than disobeying speed limits and traffic lights (the means). As another example, today we recognize that Civil Rights Protesters engaging in Civil Disobedience were justified, despite the illegality of their actions, because the end they were pursuing was worth that means.

However, his comment didn't say I don't believe that illegal or immoral means are not justified by any ends, he said the ends never justified the means.

You're playing a semantic game in order to avoid the point. Common sayings have a context.
Click to expand...

Saying that the ends do not justify the means is a saying that is directed at specific situations; not used in the general.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Illegal means can indeed be justified by the ends. As a single example, emergency responders are allowed to flout traffic laws. We recognize that the potential to save lives is more important than obedience to speed limits and traffic lights.

However, his comment didn't say I don't believe that illegal or immoral means are not justified by any ends, he said the ends never justified the means.



Saying that the ends do not justify the means is a saying that is directed at specific situations; not used in the general.
Click to expand...

No, the law allows for emergency vehicles. No one flaunts the law.

And nd the common phrase is enough to know the meaning. It carries a general understanding.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, the law allows for emergency vehicles. No one flaunts the law.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, that is not always the case.

However, to be clear, you believe that Civil Disobedience is never justified?

And nd the common phrase is enough to know the meaning. It carries a general understanding.
Click to expand...

Ah. A magical general understanding that does not require us to apply actual logic. When he said "never" what he meant was "in some particular cases, and not in others, defined by nothing in particular". Hotcha. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
As I understand it, that is not always the case.

However, to be clear, you believe that Civil Disobedience is never justified?



Ah. A magical general understanding that does not require us to apply actual logic. When he said "never" what he meant was "in some particular cases, and not in others, defined by nothing in particular". Hotcha. :roll:
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience comes with consequences. People are arrested, charged, and sentenced. The idea is to change the course, not sidestep the law.

I drove ambulance for sometime. The law accounts for their proper actions.

And there's nothing magical. The phrases come complete with societal context.
 
Boo Radley said:
Civil disobedience comes with consequences. People are arrested, charged, and sentenced. The idea is to change the course, not sidestep the law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for describing Civil Disobedience. But I cannot help but notice that you did not answer the question.

Was (for example) the Civil Disobedience practiced by Martin Luther King Jr justified?

I drove ambulance for sometime. The law accounts for their proper actions.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I'm not really willing to do a state-by-state search of the relevant law, and will take your word on it.

And there's nothing magical. The phrases come complete with societal context.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the use of the absolute declares the absolute.
 
cpwill said:
He said the means NEVER justify the ends.

Which means, for example, that driving (which places others at risk) is not justified by the need to get to work.

Waging defensive war (in which people will die) is not justified by an attack.

Having a police force (which inevitably will result in harm to an innocent) is not justified even by violent crime.

Membership in this form (when your time could be spent elsewhere) is not justified by the desire to participate.



And so forth. Saying that "The Ends Never Justify The Means" is basically a way of saying "I Refuse To Make Cost Benefit Analysis".
Click to expand...

Ummm, no.

I said the ends never justify the means...totally the opposite of what you accused me of saying.
 
DA60 said:
Ummm, no.

I said the ends never justify the means...totally the opposite of what you accused me of saying.
Click to expand...

If the Ends NEVER Justify the Means....

Then that means that Means are NEVER Justified, as Means by definition are attempts to get to an END. "NEVER" is an absolutist statement.

It is not my fault that you used sloppy language, if you indeed meant something else.
 
DA60 said:
I already stated earlier in this thread what I would do.
Click to expand...

But how could you? The ends you seek to reach do not justify the means you would take to get there.
 
cpwill said:
But how could you? The ends you seek to reach do not justify the means you would take to get there.
Click to expand...

You typed:

'He said the means NEVER justify the ends.'

I NEVER said such a thing...yet you stated that I did.

You did not say I 'meant'. You said I 'said'...in a matter-of-fact manner.

If you insist on misrepresenting my words then we have nothing to say to each other.

Good day.
 
cpwill said:
I'm sorry, are you claiming you didn't say this?



link
Click to expand...

I will state this one last time.

I said 'the ends never justify the means' (which is a turn on a common phrase).

You typed (that I said):

''He said the means NEVER justify the ends.'

You stated I said something that I didn't.

I cannot fathom why you are having trouble grasping this.

If you wish to libel me, you shall not talk with me...merely at me.


Good day.
 
DA60 said:
I will state this one last time.

I said 'the ends never justify the means' (which is a turn on a common phrase).

You typed (that I said):

''He said the means NEVER justify the ends.'
Click to expand...

You are right - I accidentally flipped that. You stated that the ends never justified the means. Which leaves you with exactly the problem I have described - that you can take no action, for nothing is justifiable.

If you wish to state that certain ends do not justify certain means, then that is a specific relative value claim that one can defend. But to apply the absolute form that you have is self-defeating.
 
cpwill said:
You are right - I accidentally flipped that. You stated that the ends never justified the means. Which leaves you with exactly the problem I have described - that you can take no action, for nothing is justifiable.

If you wish to state that certain ends do not justify certain means, then that is a specific relative value claim that one can defend. But to apply the absolute form that you have is self-defeating.
Click to expand...

It is a turn of a common phrase.


'Prov. You can use bad or immoral methods as long as you accomplish something good by using them.'

The end justifies the means - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

My point was/is that to use bad/immoral methods to try to achieve a 'good' result is never justified.

You disagree - fine.

But I do not.

Can I prove it absolutely - of course not.

But I believe it to be so, nonetheless.

So much so, that I feel to state it in a matter-of-fact manner is justified - all things considered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom