Well, y'all know me, so you know what I did.
Thomas Nephew posted a link to an article about the passage of the bill preventing release of torture documents and commented on it with the following:
Because if it isn't released, then it never happened and we can go back to thinking we're better than Iran.
Obviously, like anybody with more than three active brain cells, I disagreed with this statement, and I very calmly and logically told Thomas why I did so. My first step was to compare water boarding with more physical forms of torture, such as chopping off body parts. I challenged Thomas to produce a working definition of torture that could be used without bias to legally prosecute those who violated that definition. He pointed to the US Code which defines torture very broadly and ambiguously. When I called him on iot by actually quoting the code, and providing an example to see if he could apply that code, he shifted argument to use the "shock the conscience" argument, which has nothing to do with international law and everything to do with the 14th amendment and due process. The last time I checked, the US Constitution does not apply in other countries. I next pointed out that regardless of what had happened, the US was clearly superior to Iran in that we are actually having this discussion. IN Iran, waterboarding would be seen as a vacation between real torture sessions. Not only that, but every time we've seen abuse of prisoners, there have been consequences for the abusers. Prisons were shut down, people were fired and prosecuted for doing things that would have won them raises and bonuses if the were in Iran.
Unable to answer that argument, Thomas then backtracked and said that he didn't really mean what he said, and that his "real friends" would have understood what he meant.
As for Iran -- fine. I hold no brief for that regime, and what I meant in the one liner triggering all this was perfectly clear to actual friends of mine. I was commenting on (a) crimes we've committed and (b) our culture's ADD-like preference (probably anyone's preference) to focus on crimes someone else has committed."
Apparently, "we can go back to thinking we're better than Iran," is actually a secret code phrase for, "Well, we really aren't as bad as Iran. In fact, we're not that bad at all. But by saying this, I can impress my friends by showing how cool I am, and how much I can put down the country that gave me everything I have in favor of one of the most tyrannical regimes on the planet."
Sorry, I didn't get my sooper sekret decoder ring in my Cracker Jack box.
My response to Thomas was simple and direct. "What you wrote was incorrect. I'm sorry I took you at your word."
Yeah, it was a little bit harsh, but at the same time, pretending you didn't really say what you said is pretty much the act of an intellectual coward. Or a hypocrite. Thomas made an inaccurate and inflammatory statement in a semi-public forum and got upset that he was called on it. I'm not sure which part upset him more, that I called him on it, or that I used a reasoned argument that he could neither dismiss out of hand nor counter effectively. So he did the next best thing.
He pulled the "neener-neener" defense, stuck his fingers in his ears, and made sure he couldn't hear me by dropping me.
What is it about some liberals that love to talk smack about America, or about conservatives, but when faced with a factual argument, they roll up their tent and go home? Are they that insecure in their beliefs? I must be very unusual, because I actually welcome a strong challenge. It forces me to really dig deep into what I believe, and be able to back it up. And that makes me stronger as a person. Not only that, but a particularly strong challenge can force me to re-evaluate my ideas, and to test what I believe and to integrate new information. That's called learning, and it doesn't happen when you only talk to people who agree with you, or when you hide behind foolish defenses like, "Well, I may have said it that way, but I meant it another way. My friends would understand!"
Isn't that just a bit too much like high school?
