Oh meeeee oh my! :shock:Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Oh meeeee oh my! :shock:Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Oh meeeee oh my! :shock:Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Any other option you would reject out of hand so there is no point even discussing it.Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Any other option you would reject out of hand so there is no point even discussing it.Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Makes one wonder what all the fuss in Washington is about, huh? I mean, is Vince "The Pervert" Lamb the only one who can appreciate a well-place tongue?Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59
Makes one wonder what all the fuss in Washington is about, huh? I mean, is Vince "The Pervert" Lamb the only one who can appreciate a well-place tongue?Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59
Perhaps, my dear Mr. Lamb you might wish to consider the matter of consent. I wonder if the Iraqis enter into an agreement to join the S&M Rough Trade club run by the Americans. Were they given a "safe word" that would halt things when it got a bit harsh?Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Perhaps, my dear Mr. Lamb you might wish to consider the matter of consent. I wonder if the Iraqis enter into an agreement to join the S&M Rough Trade club run by the Americans. Were they given a "safe word" that would halt things when it got a bit harsh?Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
My dear Mr. Saari, the entire premise of S&M is strictly based upon the notion of Master and slave. Hence no such "matter of consent" applies. Pushing the limits of danger and pain within the context of pleasure is the perversion of S&M. Something I would think "The Pervert" would be well versed in.Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Save for the fact that he is most likely a fraud and not a pervert at all. He just plays one on the internet.
My dear Mr. Saari, the entire premise of S&M is strictly based upon the notion of Master and slave. Hence no such "matter of consent" applies. Pushing the limits of danger and pain within the context of pleasure is the perversion of S&M. Something I would think "The Pervert" would be well versed in.Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Save for the fact that he is most likely a fraud and not a pervert at all. He just plays one on the internet.
As usual, Mr. Saari is quite correct, and you are wrong.Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
As usual, Mr. Saari is quite correct, and you are wrong.Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Perhaps the poster might elaborate on her understanding of what Mr. Saari was saying with respect to the nature of S&M and the "matter of consent"?Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Perhaps the poster might elaborate on her understanding of what Mr. Saari was saying with respect to the nature of S&M and the "matter of consent"?Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
I actually did some research on the subject.Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I actually did some research on the subject.Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I don't personally engage in that kind of sex play, but I understand from those who do that the master/slave routine is an agreed-upon fiction, undertaken with the consent of both parties. A common practice is to have some kind of "stop" signal for the sub to use when things cross a line and become no fun any more.
I don't personally engage in that kind of sex play, but I understand from those who do that the master/slave routine is an agreed-upon fiction, undertaken with the consent of both parties. A common practice is to have some kind of "stop" signal for the sub to use when things cross a line and become no fun any more.
Media Revolt: A Manifesto by the blogger David Neiwert.
Media Revolt: A Manifesto by the blogger David Neiwert.
Make no mistake: every regime that tortures does so in the name of salvation, some superior goal, some promise of paradise. Call it communism, call it the free market, call it the free world, call it the national interest, call it fascism, call it the leader, call it civilisation, call it the service of God, call it the need for information; call it what you will, the cost of paradise, the promise of some sort of paradise, Ivan Karamazov continues to whisper to us, will always be hell for at least one person somewhere, sometime.
An uncomfortable truth: the American and British soldiers in Iraq, like torturers everywhere, do not think of themselves as evil, but rather as guardians of the common good, dedicated patriots who get their hands soiled and endure perhaps some sleepless nights in order to deliver the blind ignorant majority from violence and anxiety. Nor are the motives of the demonised enemy significant, not even the fact that they are naked and under the boot because they dared to resist a foreign power occupying their land.
And if it turns out - a statistical certainty - that at least one of the victims is innocent of what he is accused, as blameless as the children mentioned by Ivan Karamazov, that does not matter either. He must suffer the fate of the supposedly guilty: everything justified in the name of a higher mission, state stability in the time of Saddam, and now, in the post-Saddam era, making the same country and the whole region stable for democracy. So those who support the present operations in Iraq are no different from citizens in all those other lands where torture is a tedious fact of life, all of them needing to face Ivan's question, whether they would consciously be able to accept that their dreams of heaven depend on an eternal inferno of distress for one innocent human being; or whether, like Alyosha, they would softly reply: "No, I do not consent."
That is the real question to humanity thrown up by the photos of those suffering bodies in the stark rooms of Iraq, an agony - let us not forget - about to be perpetrated again today and tomorrow in so many prisons everywhere else on our sad, anonymous planet as one man with the power of life and death in his godlike hands approaches another who is totally defenceless.
Are we that scared? Are we so scared that we are willing to knowingly let others perpetrate, in the dark and in our name, acts of terror that will eternally corrode and corrupt us?
Make no mistake: every regime that tortures does so in the name of salvation, some superior goal, some promise of paradise. Call it communism, call it the free market, call it the free world, call it the national interest, call it fascism, call it the leader, call it civilisation, call it the service of God, call it the need for information; call it what you will, the cost of paradise, the promise of some sort of paradise, Ivan Karamazov continues to whisper to us, will always be hell for at least one person somewhere, sometime.
An uncomfortable truth: the American and British soldiers in Iraq, like torturers everywhere, do not think of themselves as evil, but rather as guardians of the common good, dedicated patriots who get their hands soiled and endure perhaps some sleepless nights in order to deliver the blind ignorant majority from violence and anxiety. Nor are the motives of the demonised enemy significant, not even the fact that they are naked and under the boot because they dared to resist a foreign power occupying their land.
And if it turns out - a statistical certainty - that at least one of the victims is innocent of what he is accused, as blameless as the children mentioned by Ivan Karamazov, that does not matter either. He must suffer the fate of the supposedly guilty: everything justified in the name of a higher mission, state stability in the time of Saddam, and now, in the post-Saddam era, making the same country and the whole region stable for democracy. So those who support the present operations in Iraq are no different from citizens in all those other lands where torture is a tedious fact of life, all of them needing to face Ivan's question, whether they would consciously be able to accept that their dreams of heaven depend on an eternal inferno of distress for one innocent human being; or whether, like Alyosha, they would softly reply: "No, I do not consent."
That is the real question to humanity thrown up by the photos of those suffering bodies in the stark rooms of Iraq, an agony - let us not forget - about to be perpetrated again today and tomorrow in so many prisons everywhere else on our sad, anonymous planet as one man with the power of life and death in his godlike hands approaches another who is totally defenceless.
Are we that scared? Are we so scared that we are willing to knowingly let others perpetrate, in the dark and in our name, acts of terror that will eternally corrode and corrupt us?
I could see your perspective if the incidents were the isolated actions of a few. To the degree that the practices were widespread, that good intel was widely held to be more important than human rights, and that war crimes might be justified if they lead to good intel, you are wrong.Originally Posted by Mike Eagen
There would have been Arab anger anyway. In case you hadn't noticed, the Arabs are angry. The policies and practices of the US military were leaking to the Arab street, to Amnesty International, to the Red Cross, and everywhere but the US press.
What the media frenzy does is put the human rights v pragmatic use of force debate back in the limelight. For years, the Bush administration has been erring on the side of use of force rather than rule of law. They seem to take pleasure in finding every gap between the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, creating the category of 'enemy combatants' not protected by any treaty or law. Where they can't twist they law, they break it. They would have preferred to do their dirty deeds in secret, without having to pay a political cost. They would have preferred not to have to endure a public referendum on their actions.
I regret that the US forces on the ground and the US politicians supporting them will now have a more difficult job ahead of them. However, I would place the blame not on CBS, but on the US forces on the ground and the US politicians supporting them. If democracy is to work, if civilian control of the military is to be real, the military cannot be allowed to operate in secrecy.
The price for this lesson learned will be high, but public accountability may be necessary if the lesson is to be well and truly learned.
I could see your perspective if the incidents were the isolated actions of a few. To the degree that the practices were widespread, that good intel was widely held to be more important than human rights, and that war crimes might be justified if they lead to good intel, you are wrong.Originally Posted by Mike Eagen
There would have been Arab anger anyway. In case you hadn't noticed, the Arabs are angry. The policies and practices of the US military were leaking to the Arab street, to Amnesty International, to the Red Cross, and everywhere but the US press.
What the media frenzy does is put the human rights v pragmatic use of force debate back in the limelight. For years, the Bush administration has been erring on the side of use of force rather than rule of law. They seem to take pleasure in finding every gap between the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, creating the category of 'enemy combatants' not protected by any treaty or law. Where they can't twist they law, they break it. They would have preferred to do their dirty deeds in secret, without having to pay a political cost. They would have preferred not to have to endure a public referendum on their actions.
I regret that the US forces on the ground and the US politicians supporting them will now have a more difficult job ahead of them. However, I would place the blame not on CBS, but on the US forces on the ground and the US politicians supporting them. If democracy is to work, if civilian control of the military is to be real, the military cannot be allowed to operate in secrecy.
The price for this lesson learned will be high, but public accountability may be necessary if the lesson is to be well and truly learned.
In order to function effectively, the military must very often be able to work in secrecy. This is an inescapable fact of life.Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Which is why the military is necessarily so dependent on a culture of honesty, and why whoever was involved in this is going to have to be dealt with harshly.