Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to Sue,
- if bomber was less ranty and less conspiracy theory i’d pay attention to him more often
Yeah, I find him (as others have pointed out) quite shrill. Don’t value him much a commentator. But the actions of RNZ in this instance are ridiculous.
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to 3410,
You mean the Standard and Poors issue? It was covered well on TV3.
-
As Hiroko Tabuchi said on Twitter: "A man who inspired many died young from cancer, and people are mourning. That's not hagiography."
-
Hard News: The Politics of Absence, in reply to Sacha,
That childish eye-rolling clip yesterday should be repeated rather a lot.
Cameron Slater has put this image of the Key eye-roll on his blog, and has been using it as a reply on twitter. Oddly, he seems to think it’s some kind of clever response.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Generalising off-topic wildly,
Nobody ever does that on PAS.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to DCBCauchi,
(cf, in kind of a related way, Pinker on violence),
Anyone wondering what DB and Lucy were referring to, or who hasn’t seen the talk Pinker gave on violence at a TED conference (which would be hard to believe, as I seem to have linked to it on every web panel on the net) can watch it here.
He’s got a book just out elaborating on his argument.
(My general impression of Pinker is that he makes a good case, but tends to overstate it a bit.)
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to BenWilson,
To me, the formulation of argument against torture isn't something you should leave to one killer point. It's OK to have multiple lines of attack. ...
Far more likely is that the dirty bomb goes off before intelligence ever knows about it. Or the terrorist dies in a shootout as the FBI bust into his lair. Or lies about where the bomb is, wasting valuable time. …
Yeah I pretty much agree. I was being a little ‘Devil’s advocatey’ with my reply to Graeme. The only thing I question is whether a terrorist’s right not to be tortured is in itself always greater than the potential victims’ right to life. But in practice, it’s a very bad thing. Amnesty International may kick me out if I said otherwise.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
And when did absolutism become such a bad thing?
I tend to think it's a bad thing generally. But not absolutely.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
And this is the problem with your hypothetical: torture doesn’t work.
That’s not the problem, because Graeme isn’t saying torture is bad because it doesn’t work. He’s saying it’s a fundamental breach of human rights (regardless of whether it’s effective or not).
I’m against torture, and the state use of torture for the reasons you describe. The part that I’m questioning was the Graeme’s absolutism. He said the right of any person to life (which I take to include multiple persons) could not ever outweigh the right of any terrorist not to be tortured. I spent all of 10 seconds thinking up my outlandish, but possible, example. I can’t see how there couldn’t be a “lesser of two evils” situation even with something as reprehensible as torture.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
rights always conflict. Always. There are no such things as fundamental rights, rather ones with stronger claims on individuals and society.
I disagree. I do not consider that the right of any person to life, could ever outweigh the right of any terrorist not to be tortured. The right not be tortured is an absolute right. No-one can ever lawfully torture another. Ever.
Name a circumstance, no matter how outlandish, and I will proclaim that a democratic state could not legitimately torture someone in it.
Okay, this is a digression, but you (literally) asked for it, so…
Circumstance: a “dirty bomb” is about to be exploded in a city, with many instantly killed, but worse, thousands will die a slow, torturous death. The authorities have one of the bomb-setting culprits. He’s determined not to cooperate, they have very little time to get information, so they try torture. It works and they get the location of the bomb and defuse it. Have they committed an immoral act? Have they breached a right that should not “Ever” be breached? Should they be tried for a crime? Should they be convicted?