Crossing Moral Boundaries on ATS : Promoting and Excusing Murder, Torture and War Crimes

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Give it a rest. Return to the topic.

Sorry, we are on topic. Disagreement with you is not straying from the topic.

Let me break it down. We disagreed. We think such things are a call for censorship and an attempt to stifle debate. Then it is asked why we think so, how such things were suggested, and we demonstrate it. Then such things are labelled political mud-shovelling, smut, etc...and further calls are made for it to be prohibited. Then when we continue to disagree, it is called personal attacks and straying off topic.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I've got members U2Uing me in support of this thread because they are too afraid to stick their neck out.... and why? Because of this garbage. Turning an objective topic into a personall attack.

Oh, the irony...

Label those who disagree as "political mud-shovellers," excusing/promoting war, murder, torture, illegal activities, off topic, demand their opinions be prohibited...then turn around and claim those who should be silenced are actually doing the silencing.

Right.

Sorry, along with the other charges made, disagreement is not a personal-attack either.

Savior, you have failed from the beginning of your involvement in this thread to focus on the topic.

If you continue to discuss myself and not the topic, I'm going to send an alert to the mods.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Its not an excuse.. its not saying that well since # happens in war, don't try to prevent it! .. no, nothing like that.. I am just saying accidents do happen, good people die on both sides..

I was never saying it was an excuse. I was adding a tangent to your comment, to answer critics who say that those intellectual concessions are excuse/promotion of any sort of crimes.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Savior, you have failed from the beginning of your involvement in this thread to focus on the topic.

I am demonstrating how I am on topic.

And I continue to be on topic.

I believe what is being attempted here is a censoring of opposing view points. Further, I believe the calls to "get back on topic" are a further attempt at a shut down of debate.

Debate is not staying from topic. Disagreement is not promotion of illegal activities, murder, war, etc and thus should not be prohibited in any way, shape, or form.



[edit on 14-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Stop it. I am now requesting that this thread be locked. However I don't really expect that to happen... after all that would be 'censorship' eh? Censorship of my own opinion even...

I find it odd that you had the power of your own convictions to start the thread but now don't want to persue it.

I notice that you've side-stepped the carefully thought out points raised by myself and other members/mods and instead decided to embrace an argument with an ideological opposite.

So did you actually want to discuss opinions on your chosen subject, or did you just want to argue for the sake of it?

reply to post by NewWorldOver


To get back to your point:

1. Discussing illegal activities is against the T & C. Many posts promoting murder and threatening murder have been removed and will continue to be removed.

2. Whether killing in the context of war is illegal or not is a matter of opinion and debate on which we, as a world community, have not found a consensus yet. Posts on this are unlikely to be removed on T & C grounds.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Ok, I'm going to make this quick. There is a thread out right now concerning a 10 year old girl who was fatally shot by accident in Iraq. She was hiding for cover while the mother signalled for help. Firing a warning shot (in the mothers direction...) the bullet kills the 10 year old.

Ask and ye shall receive......what you are unfortunately seeing is the answer...and it appears to be "on topic" to the op. I don't want to get into the middle of this well executed debate....but the op clearly asks if readers think you are wrong...not your supposition. Be careful what you ask for...

Mod Edit: Watch the big quotes please

[edit on 3/14/08 by FredT]

Originally posted by neformore
So did you actually want to discuss opinions on your chosen subject, or did you just want to argue for the sake of it?

Sure, let's discuss. I think murder and torture is illegall... because it is. Other members disagree... therefore other members endorse illegal activity. They use political or ethical loopholes to justify this.

I do not call for censorship of anything. Not once. But this is the accusation being thrown at me again and again.

Why would I want to cultivate a thread that is attracting nothing but worms? This atmosphere of personal attack is so stifling that members are U2Uing me rather than coming in here to support the topic.

So yes, I'd love to discuss the topic. But the topic has suddenly become myself and not the issues raised by my OP.

What a shame.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
To get back to your point:

1. Discussing illegal activities is against the T & C. Many posts promoting murder and threatening murder have been removed and will continue to be removed.

2. Whether killing in the context of war is illegal or not is a matter of opinion and debate on which we, as a world community, have not found a consensus yet. Posts on this are unlikely to be removed on T & C grounds.

Thank you. That's exactly the impression I got.

There is a moral boundary and there is a legal boundary... and I was under the impression they cover the same topic.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
There is a moral boundary and there is a legal boundary... and I was under the impression they cover the same topic.

No, they aren't. Consider Euthinasia. It's illegal but is it moral to allow someone who is just going to suffer for a month or longer in intense pain when the outcome is in NO doubt?

reply to post by NewWorldOver


You use Murder loosely.. a death in war for instance, is not murder..

Murder is a malicious purposeful taking of someones life for personal reasons, or no reason at all....

Torture for information or crimes is a political belief as to whether or not it is justified..

The only way this could be a breach of T&C was advocating torture in the context of a crime between to individuals.. like saying its ok to kidnap, torture and kill a woman walking down the street...

Both cases I have never once seen on ATS, and if I did, I would surely expect them to be quickly banned.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Torture for information or crimes is a political belief as to whether or not it is justified..

No. It's not political. It's legal. Torture is illegal. Internationally, and in America.

Just because the military and government wants to endorse illegal activity does not require the public to change their definitions.

Unfortunately, I see ALOT of fellow citizens who have changed the rules in their minds... but the laws have not changed. It is still illegal. It is not political. One of the main points raised in my OP.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Yet its all a matter of opinion..

I have no problem with the American government using torture techniques against POW's. Or terrorist suspects, if they pose a threat, and some form of torture will help get life saving information .. hell, torture away.

They are NOT protected by our constitution. They do not have OUR rights. They lost what ever rights they had when they engaged us in war..

Torturing citizens is another thing, not exactly a black and white issue (all torture is bad) and that is something I would consider illegal for our government to engage in. (unless there is reasonable information they are linked to terrorism)

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I do not call for censorship of anything. Not once.

On the contrary, while the word "censorship" was never used, it was demanded that certain opinions be prohibition. Prohibition of opinion and censorship are synonymous.

There is considerable debate over whether certain acts during war time are murder, what constitutes torture, etc. Anyone who attempted to engage in this debate found their words twisted, and were labelled as promoting various atrocities. It was then demanded they find their opinions prohibited. Once again...Prohibition of opinion and censorship are synonymous.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
This atmosphere of personal attack is so stifling that members are U2Uing me rather than coming in here to support the topic.

No personal attacks were made. Personal opinions were discussed, and your own words were used to demonstrate these opinions. Get back on topic, and stop equating opinion and disagreement as a personal attack.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Sure, let's discuss. I think murder and torture is illegall... because it is. Other members disagree... therefore other members endorse illegal activity. They use political or ethical loopholes to justify this.

*snip*

So yes, I'd love to discuss the topic. But the topic has suddenly become myself and not the issues raised by my OP.

What a shame.

Hmmm there is a lesson to be learned here methinks. The way your OP was crafted seems designed with this very confrontation in mind

What I did not expect was to see members defend the manslaughter of a 10 year old child. Not just excuse of the murder, but statements to the effect that she deserved to die for being where she was. Or that she 'Looked suspicious' Or even that the war itself is enough excuse for the murder of children....

What I do not expect to see in certain threads, is the defense of torture against innocent, untried prisoners. But I have seen that as well. We all have. Such sentiments are almost wallpapered in our threads on ATS by the same members again and again...

Basically, I do not expect to see things like murder and torture being promoted and excused on ATS.

You in effect called out every member here on ATS that did not have your point of view and passed moral judgement on them. I have to agree with several members assesment of the tone and intent of the thread, it seems to exist to stifle or influence opinions on a thread because of personal morality and ethics.

As far as people being afraid to stick thier neck out and post in the thread I am to say say quite surprised. ATS members as a whole are never reluctant to voice opinions. If you recieving volumous support, why the fear to post?





[edit on 3/14/08 by FredT]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
No. It's not political. It's legal. Torture is illegal. Internationally, and in America.

Just because the military and government wants to endorse illegal activity does not require the public to change their definitions.

And there is considerable debate over whether certain activities constitute torture. Disagreement is not the same as promotion of torture. What is torture to one person may not be to another.

And we are allowed to disagree with laws. We do it all the time. Disagreement with a law is not a promotion of illegal activities; for instance, saying you believe drugs should be legalized is not the same as saying someone should get high.

"worms?"

I participated in the thread in question. I wanted it clear that we were dealing with opinions, not facts. I spoke my mind regarding the possibilities surrounding the event. I even shared some personal experience/observations that needn't have been divulged. I became 'vested' in the topic.

I thought that is what these collective forums were about.

My participation has now led someone to refer to me (and others) as 'worms'. I saw no one object to this categorization. I am new here, so I guess it is my own fault for trying to participate in a debate with sophomoric sophists who can't accept the possibility that they are not always unassailable in their views.

Interesting.

Perhaps this isn't the place for me after all.

Originally posted by FredT
As far as people being afraid to stick thier neck out and post in the thread I am to say say quite surprised. ATS members as a whole are never reluctant to voice opinions. If you recieving volumous support, why the fear to post?

I'm glad someone else wants to call shenanigans on this as well.

If this is true, I for one am glad they are keeping to themselves. We do not need people here who are afraid to express themselves, cannot handle disagreement, or think the opinions of others should be stifled.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Perhaps this isn't the place for me after all.

Please, don't do that. That would be exactly what the original poster would want. No one to disagree and homogenized opinion.

Besides, I think you will find more people open to debate, no matter how vehemently they disagree with the opinion, than not.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
If this is true, I for one am glad they are keeping to themselves. We do not need people here who are afraid to express themselves

Who's censoring now?

Sad.