[MD] atomic bomb and torture

[Platt Holden]

[amirman]
> Note how for him the quality of life saved doesn't
> seem to matter. THAT he lives (biological) is more
> important than HOW he lives (social). 

Last time I looked, you have to be alive in order to know how best to 
live.  Or maybe you've found a way to reverse the natural order?

> To answer his question: "Now a question for you. Are
> you willing to fight tyranny?"
> 
> All I can say is "yes". But first I'll start with
> myself to clarify my own philosophy, and make sure
> IT'S not tyrannical.  Anyone who in 2006 can
> rationally justify for themselves torture in the name
> of survival, needs to seriously reexamine their own
> philosophy to make sure it's not some rehashed fascist
> philosophy of old. Whether it's coming from the mouths
> of Ayatullahs or Nazis or Zionists or Pol Pots or the
> Neo-cons in the current US administration, the
> rationalization is always the same: we torture people
> and kill civilians to save lives.

Let me remind you of what Pirsig said. "The idea that biological crimes 
can be ended by intellect alone, that you can talk crime to death, 
doesn't work. (Note 'work'-- utility.) Intellectual patterns cannot 
directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control 
biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society 
and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." 
(Note 'gun' -- metaphor for an instrument of death.) (Lila, 24 -- 
parens added) What about Pirsig's statement do you disagree with?

To compare the current administration with Nazis or other tyrannies is 
so far out in left field as to be beyond comment other than I take it 
you do not think America is worth defending from the likes of the 
Nazis, the Stalinists or the Islamic terrorists.
 
> Maybe I'll give some of the other discussions a read.
> But I'm signing off on this one.

You might find it helpful in a philosophical website to justify your 
position logically rather than react emotionally.

Platt