[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on Sep 20 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

If you're in favor of torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario, then you're going to be in favor of it even if the person who introduced the bill making it legal did so only because he hates Muslims.

Not sure what, if anything, you guys are disagreeing about. But this particular one might not hold. I might oppose a bill partly because of the way it was motivated, for example because I am afraid that civil servants when adhering to the law take the "spirit" of the law into account. Or because I don't want an unsympathetic faction to gain prestige by having their bill passed.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Not sure what, if anything, you guys are disagreeing about

Me, either. I think we just like to needle each other.

Quote

I believe that:

What I believe is that someone who has biased motivations will create a fictional "ticking bomb" torture scenario to justify those beliefs, regardless of facts.

Or they will create their own intelligence agency in order to fabricate a threat of weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. can go to war legally - was the threat of WMD an "oops, we got that intelligence wrong" or was it a fabricated motivational bias for a legal action?

Motivations count.

[onoway]

What about the strictly self interest motivation irrespective of religion or any sort of social motivation? Laws such as those regarding seatbelts and marijuana use dim before some of the others which were/are designed to ramp up personal power.
Surely pure selfinterest motivation is the most dangerous in the long run as there is nothing fogging up the focus. A very clever psychopath could create more havoc than a religious or a secular group as he is comfortable manipulating both groups to further his own goals, being emotionally attached to neither.
Lots of historical examples. People such as Charles Taylor and Idi Amin come to mind, to disconnect from purely north American concerns. Extreme examples perhaps, in that there wasn't a lot of subtlety involved, (if in a group you're the only one with a loaded machine gun you are prepared to use, you don't really have to discuss anything unless you feel like it) but these sorts of people pop up regularly.

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Sep 18 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

To better state what I meant, I'd say that the ideas, that is the proposed legislation, stands or falls on its own merits. The motivation behind the person who drafted it is incidental.

I don't think you can divorce motivation and merit, since the motivation often IS the merit.

Imagine you're a legislator debating a bill. You give your reasons you're for or against it, others give their reasons, etc. Where is the distinction between motivation and merit in this process?

To fundamentalist religious people, the simple fact that God says so is enough to give something merit. God is all-knowing, so whatever he says must be right, who are we puny humans to argue with him? Doing what God says is like obeying your parents -- it's something you're just supposed to do.

How can you have a serious debate with that type of person? Isn't this a big part of the reason for so much ethnic strife in the Middle East? When you have nations based on fundamental beliefs like this, how can they negotiate? Fundamentalists have a hard time compromising.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Motivations count.

What would be an example of the motivation a legislator might have in introducing a bill that would legalize waterboarding that would make such legislation acceptable to you?

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Sep 21 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Motivations count.

What would be an example of the motivation a legislator might have in introducing a bill that would legalize waterboarding that would make such legislation acceptable to you?

For waterboarding - for torture - the answer is none.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 21 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 21 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Motivations count.

What would be an example of the motivation a legislator might have in introducing a bill that would legalize waterboarding that would make such legislation acceptable to you?

For waterboarding - for torture - the answer is none.

That's kinda my point.

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Sep 21 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Motivations count.

What would be an example of the motivation a legislator might have in introducing a bill that would legalize waterboarding that would make such legislation acceptable to you?

As the one who brought up motivations, let me clarify. I don't think the motivations matter much to the opponent in the debate. What I meant was that they're the inspiration for proposing the legislation in the first place.

Would there be so many people pushing for laws prohibiting gay marriage if it weren't for religious objections to homosexuality? While there are certainly some who object to it just because it's different and they're uncomfortable with change, these types tend not to be very insistent. Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, tend to be quite vocal, sometimes even violent.

So you may not find these arguments compelling, good for you. But I think it's a problem that we're even having the debates. Doesn't Congress have more important things to worry about than legislation primarily motivated by religious ideas?

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Sep 22 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

Doesn't Congress have more important things to worry about than legislation primarily motivated by religious ideas?

It depends on the legislation. In the case of gay marriage, in my view, almost certainly. I'm with ya on that one.

I'm just disagree with the notion that the religious right has some sort of monolopy on intrusive "I know what's best for you, and I'm going to make it a law" reasoning. Far from it.

Gay marriage is a fine example of one issue on which they do take the lead in that respect, but there's a whole bunch of other issues out there, and there's a whole bunch of non-religious-right legislators, lobbyists, and activists doing the exact same thing.

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Sep 22 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

I'm just disagree with the notion that the religious right has some sort of monolopy on intrusive "I know what's best for you, and I'm going to make it a law" reasoning. Far from it.

Never said they had the monopoly, just a strong concentration. Is there any other single group that takes this attitude to such an extreme? E.g. if there are 100 groups like this, I wouldn't be surprised if the religious right is responsible for 50% of the issues, and the remaining issues are spread more equally among the other 99.

Furthermore, the problem is exacerbated because religious groups are given more credence (by society, not you and me) than other groups with baseless ideas.