Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[jdobbin]

Some more on Iggy believing as long as it is the Lessor Evil to is Aok with him. Morals be damned.

"What works is not always right. What is right doesn’t

always work. Rights may have to bow to security in some instances,

but there had better be good reasons"

Page 9.

Show me where he says torture is acceptable.

[jdobbin]

This thread is OK.

And I say my PM has to be big and tall and walk proudly. How about yours?

[punked]

Show me where he says torture is acceptable.

We are talking about him accepting the lesser of evils which he does from those quotes alone. I think you need to go back and read the thread. I think you need to Quote that NDP thing one more time because I can not find it.

Dobbin you are losing this arguement. Maybe you can change the subject to Layton wanted to send all our troops to Darfur.

Edited July 19, 2009 by punked

[benny]

Some more on Iggy believing as long as it is the Lessor Evil to is Aok with him. Morals be damned.

"What works is not always right. What is right doesn’t

always work. Rights may have to bow to security in some instances,

but there had better be good reasons"

Page 9.

Ignatieff posing as moral philosoher! He is ridiculous!

[punked]

From the book where he argues for the Lesser of evils. He defines evil as:

"The suppression of civil

liberties, surveillance of individuals, targeted assassination, torture,

and preemptive war put liberal commitments to dignity

under such obvious strain, and the harms they entail are so serious,

that, even if mandated by peremptory majority interest,

they should be spoken of only in the language of evil."

Page 18. So if we weight something as a greater evil let's say the loss of a human life is the greater evil making torture a lesser evil, it makes torture ok. However he goes on to say we can't know if save that life blah blah blah in the end it is ok if we might save that life.

[jdobbin]

We are talking about him accepting the lesser of evils which he does from those quotes alone. I think you need to go back and read the thread. I think you need to Quote that NDP thing one more time because I can not find it.

I can't believe you. How can you miss a response to your own post?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=442563

He says throughout the book that is unacceptable but debates as to what should constitute torture.

Dobbin you are losing this arguement. Maybe you can change the subject to Layton wanted to send all our troops to Darfur.

You have not shown one quote that supports your argument.

As for Layton, he made it clear he was going to withdraw troops for Darfur.

[punked]

He says throughout the book that is unacceptable but debates as to what should constitute torture.

He does not say that is unacceptable. Give me the quote. He says their are times when it is unacceptable and times when it is necessary. It is hard to read becuase he flip flops so much saying one thing than saying "but on the other hand." But he makes it clear he is for the Lesser evils approach and then he makes it clear what that is. If one evil out weighs another then go for it.

You have not shown one quote that supports your argument.

I have shown you several you just refuse to accept your leader wrote them or what he meant by them.

The police thing is just plan ridiculous on your part. The NDP's position was and I quote "police are investigating people on the basis of their beliefs and the government cannot be unaware of this intimidation," She is right you can not investigate people becuase of their beliefs. Thought is not crime in this country yet.

[jdobbin]

He does not say that is unacceptable. Give me the quote. He says their are times when it is unacceptable and times when it is necessary. It is hard to read becuase he flip flops so much saying one thing than saying "but on the other hand." But he makes it clear he is for the Lesser evils approach and then he makes it clear what that is. If one evil out weighs another then go for it.

That is not what he said. And I have shown you in your quotes that he talks about the slippery slope to unacceptable behaviour.

I have shown you several you just refuse to accept your leader wrote them or what he meant by them.

You haven't shown me.

The police thing is just plan ridiculous on your part. The NDP's position was and I quote "police are investigating people on the basis of their beliefs and the government cannot be unaware of this intimidation," She is right you can not investigate people becuase of their beliefs. Thought is not crime in this country yet.

They were questioning as part of their job. The NDP called intimidation and said that police should not be interrogating.

[benny]

I have shown you several you just refuse to accept your leader wrote them or what he meant by them.

You have certainly shown, and with alarming ease, that Ignatieff is way more terrifying than terrorists.

Edited July 19, 2009 by benny

[punked]

That is not what he said. And I have shown you in your quotes that he talks about the slippery slope to unacceptable behaviour.

You haven't shown me.

So you are saying He does not support the Lesser Evil approach? He wrote a whole book on an approach he does not support? That is what you are saying?

They were questioning as part of their job. The NDP called intimidation and said that police should not be interrogating.

This is very specific case where the police were questioning and interrogating a professor for attending a protest and becuase he had written critical of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. The questioned him for 45 minutes about it even though he did not do anything wrong. Canadian Association of University Teachers said his civil rights, and academic freedoms may have been violated by the integration and the NDP took a stand on it. I know you may think the lesser evil but the RCMP can not stand in the way of peoples right to organize or their academic freedom. You might be ok with it the NDP weren't and many Canadians I think would agree with that.

[Bonam]

Man 3 pages of back and forth on torture, just like the 10 pages of back and forth on the issue before. What's with you guys and dragging it out for so long?

What means should be used to obtain information depend on the situation at hand. It depends on the urgency of the situation, the extent to which it is certain that a subject has specific information, and the consequences of not obtaining the given information in time. If it is utterly certain that the subject has information that will save the lives of millions of people, and it is needed within the next several minutes to be able to be put to use, only a hopelessly misguided fool would refuse to use all means available.

[punked]

Man 3 pages of back and forth on torture, just like the 10 pages of back and forth on the issue before. What's with you guys and dragging it out for so long?

What means should be used to obtain information depend on the situation at hand. It depends on the urgency of the situation, the extent to which it is certain that a subject has specific information, and the consequences of not obtaining the given information in time. If it is utterly certain that the subject has information that will save the lives of millions of people, and it is needed within the next several minutes to be able to be put to use, only a hopelessly misguided fool would refuse to use all means available.

That might be your and Ignatieff's position however the UN has a different one probably becuase if a bomb is going to go off in a few minutes a terrorist probably will wait the torture out. Most of the time all torture gives you is crappy answers to stop the torture.

[jdobbin]

You have certainly shown, and with alarming ease, that Ignatieff is way more terrifying than terrorists.

I find you terrifying in your support for Hamas.

[jdobbin]

So you are saying He does not support the Lesser Evil approach? He wrote a whole book on an approach he does not support? That is what you are saying?

I am saying you haven't shown a quote where he supports torture.

This is very specific case where the police were questioning and interrogating a professor for attending a protest and becuase he had written critical of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. The questioned him for 45 minutes about it even though he did not do anything wrong. Canadian Association of University Teachers said his civil rights, and academic freedoms may have been violated by the integration and the NDP took a stand on it. I know you may think the lesser evil but the RCMP can not stand in the way of peoples right to organize or their academic freedom. You might be ok with it the NDP weren't and many Canadians I think would agree with that.

Canadians showed what they thought of the NDP in the election.

[punked]

You have certainly shown, and with alarming ease, that Ignatieff is way more terrifying than terrorists.

I agree that having him as a leader of a country is scary in his beliefs on intervention, and evils.

[jdobbin]

I agree that having him as a leader of a country is scary in his beliefs on intervention, and evils.

And the NDP is terrifying in that they don't believe that interrogation should be used by the police.

[benny]

If it is utterly certain that the subject has information that will save the lives of millions of people, and it is needed within the next several minutes to be able to be put to use, only a hopelessly misguided fool would refuse to use all means available.

It's a narrow reasoning since saving millions of lives is merely prolonging mankind's inhumanity.

[punked]

I am saying you haven't shown a quote where he supports torture.

OK well lets get down to what the book is about. I can not quote to all the chapters of a book. Do you think the message of the book is he supports the lesser evil approach?

Or would you agree that in the prospect article when he says

"My own work on "lesser evils" brings me close to the Elshtain position. I agree with her that necessity may require the commission of bad acts, which necessity, nevertheless, cannot absolve of their morally problematic character"

He is supporting that approach?

[punked]

And the NDP is terrifying in that they don't believe that interrogation should be used by the police.

No they don't believe the police have the right to hold people and interrogate people becuase they have written work on NAFTA. I would tend to agree with that position and I think many Canadians would agree to that.

Seriously I have read Iggy's work and in the end I don't think most Canadians would agree with his out look, and I think it is going to be bad for him during the election. For sure if the Bloc get a hold of some these quotes in his writings.

[jdobbin]

No they don't believe the police have the right to hold people and interrogate people becuase they have written work on NAFTA. I would tend to agree with that position and I think many Canadians would agree to that.

No, the NDP leader said the police should not interrogate.

Seriously I have read Iggy's work and in the end I don't think most Canadians would agree with his out look, and I think it is going to be bad for him during the election. For sure if the Bloc get a hold of some these quotes in his writings.

And Quebec won't like that Layton simply wants to transfer troops to Darfur.

[jdobbin]

OK well lets get down to what the book is about. I can not quote to all the chapters of a book. Do you think the message of the book is he supports the lesser evil approach?

No.

Or would you agree that in the prospect article when he says

"My own work on "lesser evils" brings me close to the Elshtain position. I agree with her that necessity may require the commission of bad acts, which necessity, nevertheless, cannot absolve of their morally problematic character"

He is supporting that approach?

No, he doesn't support torture. You can say it as often as you want but that is not what he wrote in the book.

[myata]

Hamas led the attacks from all areas because they wish to push Israelis out of the entire middle east. You believe they are right in this approach? Yes or no?

What's the "becauses" all about? Hamas wants to "push" Isreal with militant attacks; Isreal continuously pushes Palestinians with illegal settlements (see the latest example below). You act against one, but not the other.

Why?

And why have you suddenly switched away from "geographic" approach? Is it because you'd have to admit that the same "hopscotch" standard would have to be applied to both sides, equally? I.e. you'd have to admit that either attacks on Israel, outside of "focus" perfection area would have to be ignored (as they obviously were not) or your standards are obviously one sided?

Your position is anything but clear except that you believe Israel is to blame.

Ignored as obvious misrepresentation.

You can't even admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

The true meaning is not in the word, Dobbin, it's in the act.

Answered it many times. Israel has agreed to be part of the process. Hamas has not and has sent young boys and girls into civilian areas to kill themselves and others. That is what I call cognitive dissonance from supporters of Hamas.

No, what you're always forgetting to answer is why you reaction to violations of peace agendas so strongly depends on which side perpetrates them. But you would not want to ever admit it, and that creates a cognitive dissonance that you're attempting to resolve with creative wordings, evasions, selective visions and other strategies that help you believe or pretend, who cares, to not see the reality as it is, but rather as you want to see it.

Admit that Hamas has not been part of the process for peace.

I admit it, obviously. Now, has Isreal been a part of that process, I mean in a genuine sense and in good faith?

They don't just want the end of settlements. They want the end of Israel. They are prepared to kill over and over again to it.

And the other side is prepared no less, as their grossly disproportional responses and policies clearly show. The real quesion is not about which of the sides is better, but why are you prepared to compromise the true, genuine agenda of peace by ignoring gross violations by your friendly side. Think of Dobbin, as I'm going away for a few days, not please do not assume that this discussion is in any way over.

[jbg]

Funny how the party that stridently pro a certain country suddenly gains almost universal support from a certain ethnic group and suddenly has monstrous amounts of cash to bolster its war chest. I thought this only happened the the delusional minds of anti-certain ethnic groups and has no basis in fact, is bigoted, racist, and stereotypical...

How about the fact that Israel is a stable, pro-Western democracy, a lot like Canada? Why shouldn't Canada support Israel on that basis alone, forgetting about Winnepeg South and a few Anglo ridings in Montreal?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How about the fact that Israel is a stable, pro-Western democracy, a lot like Canada? Why shouldn't Canada support Israel on that basis alone, forgetting about Winnepeg South and a few Anglo ridings in Montreal?

I don't think that Canada should "support" either side. If it ever comes to a vote in the UN, as it often does, then the issue should be carefully considered and then made based on a moral basis, not emotional. Having said that, the only way Canada should ever consider supporting any Hamas backed government would be when the stop committing terrorism and or supporting it. Since that is not likely to ever happen I will suggest that this nation will likely never support Hamas.

[msj]

I don't think that Canada should "support" either side. If it ever comes to a vote in the UN, as it often does, then the issue should be carefully considered and then made based on a moral basis, not emotional.

I think you really mean a rational basis and not a moral basis.

I have read enough of the Bible to know that morality is often closer to emotionalism than rationalism.