PTG:

My position did not change, you extracted statements out of context. In the first context, we were talking about normal life in a normal society and the rule is that it is wrong to steal period, even food. That is a general context and it is the context in which the video is set. From this general context, you wanted my thoughts on a specific. In the specific context of Nazi Germany we're dealing with an issue that is far more important than property, we're dealing with life and death. In the specific, one must do whatever one can in order to survive. It is not possible to derive a moral maxim from the extraordinary situation in the specific that can then be applied to the general. In the specific, stealing food to survive is the only option, therefore it must be done. In the general, there are many options one has available to obtain food - work, for one, and for one who cannot or refuses to work, there is a soup kitchen. Therefore in the general, stealing is not necessary and "it is wrong to steal period."

chogie:

You must be talking to me, but I can't for the life of me understand your point. And what makes you think that would I give a rat's ass about Christian Bible verses? Do you mean to say that it is impossible for one to argue for morality if one is not a Christian? Well, I'm not a Christian and have no use for Christianity, but I believe that to shun morality is to discard one of the unique aspects that makes us human and civilized.

rickegee:

It's not an extreme hypothetical that only happens on 24 or other Hollywood productions. A live case in point is Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. He was, according to ABC's Brian Ross, waterboarded. He yielded and gave up realtime information that was used in stopping several concrete attacks inside the US. Hundreds of lives were saved. I don't see how refraining from strong interrogation, and even torture, would have been the moral choice in this case, and many others. If a captured terrorist has operational details of attacks, it seems to me that using whatever means necessary to extract the information and save lives is the clear moral imperative.

Arar was not innocent of being in the country illegally, hence he was deported according to civil procedures. I'm not sure what makes his stories about being tortured credible. Seems to me like he's just got an axe to grind and is enjoying his 15 minutes.

You didn't really address the question on why the GC should be immutable, or I didn't understand you to answer it. My basic premise is this: Between two countries that are fighting according to these laws of war, by all means the laws of war should be followed. But when fighting against a country that doesn't observe the same laws or against terrorists that don't clearly represent any country whatsoever, how is it that the GC applies in the first place?

In days of yesteryear, people had duels according to certain rules. For example, the duelers would pick from identical weapons, stand back-to-back, walk 20 paces, turn and fire. If one dueler attempts to observe the rules while the other clearly does not (tries to turn to fire at 2 paces, for instance), what value are the rules? If the one insists on dueling according to these rules while the other refuses the rules, the "honorable" one in this case is just being stupid.

Of course torture should be considered aberrant and disgusting in society. But we're not talking about "in society," we're talking about outside of society. Indeed, we are talking about what actions are moral in combating those who wish to destroy society altogether.

Just a couple of points for polite, intellectually honest discussion.

In a society, laws change all the time according to the will of the people. Why are the laws of war adopted 60 years ago immutable today? The General there in the video talks as if the convention is impossible to change, perfect and unamendable for the remainder of eternity. I think the GC is a good thing, but I don't want to go so far as to say it is more sacrosanct than any other law. Even the US Constitution (wish my country had a Constitution) can be amended, why not the GC?

On moral grounds, aren't there extreme circumstances in which torture is warranted? For example, you capture a terrorist involved in a nuclear plot... isn't any method moral in such a case? Is one to believe that it is really more moral to allow millions to die just to avoid inflicting some pain on the terror-plotter? I think there must be cases where any form of questioning is acceptable. Is sleep deprivation, slapping, loud music, etc. really torture? Shouldn't the definition of torture be limited to techniques that cause bodily harm?

I don't really know anything about Rumsfeld's handling of the DoD. I know Democrats hate him, and some Republicans too - I don't really have enough information to form an opinion. So I'm not defending Rumsfeld. Just questioning some of the reasoning in the clip and in some of the comments here.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses... I'm really interested in how some of you come to some of your conclusions.

What is that they're stealing? A television set like in the video? Then, yeah, it's still wrong. Food because they have none? Go for it - to live is of higher moral value than not stealing. Munitions or other equipment with which to thwart or overthrow the Nazi regime? Go for it - to save lives is of higher moral value than them all.

It's wrong to steal period. You are going through the same rationalization of a crime as the video did. It is no wonder that you can't see the video for what it is when you have become a moral reprobate yourself.

Probably at wedding or other joyous event. The very old man trying to dance is either a grandfather or community rabbi and everybody else is waiting to begin their celebration out of respect for the elder - there is no way that he will be able to keep up when a real Jewish circle dance gets started.

The singer's actual name is 50-shekel. A shekel is an Israeli coin, worth about 21 cents right now.

The completely upside down moral commentary that waxes poetic about how it is right to steal and wrong to work for a living, for starters.

Wow, that's come along way since the last time I checked it out a couple of years ago. I'll have to give it another go.

Don't tar and feather all of Christianity over a loud lunatic. The Phelps' church only has about 90 members, and most of them are family members. I'm not a Christian, but I know many fine people that are Christians and I think it is over the top to castigate all Christians because of this fringe group.

SnakePlissken, the so-called 10 commandments don't say "don't kill." What they say is "don't murder." There is a clear distinction between those two terms in English, and an even greater distinction between those two terms in Hebrew, the language in which it was written. Criticize any and all the religions that you want, but at least make sure that your criticism is legitimate.

farhad2000, either you are an apologist for jihad or you have just been hoodwinked. Yes, jihad literally means strive or struggle, and when defending the faith from critics, Muslims will tell you that this is all that it means (with a straight face even). But violent jihad is the most prevalent meaning of the term, both today, and through Islamic history. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad and global conquest through jihad and subjegation, and rarely is the word ever used except as a call to arms.

As hysterical as people get over "right-wing Christian zealots," I still have never heard of a global movement of modern-day Christians calling for worldwide subjegation through the sword. Yet, all around the world, in 19 active conflicts on this planet, Islamists are waging jihad and calling for a global caliphate. Madman Achmedinejad is pursuing nuclear arms and publically states his desire to bring about the apocolypse and the revealing of the "12th Imam." Yet, even the slightest criticism of Islam is met with the quite retarded argument that Islam is the "religion of peace," and that the extremists are just a fringe group. More like the religion of "piece by piece by piece," and it is the "moderates" that are indeed the fringe.

The Pope, who I have no love for whatsoever, gives just a glancing criticism that Islam is violent, and in protest, Muslims the world over burn down churches, riot, and even murder a nun. Guess they showed the Pope just how wrong he was.

In summation, if you're gonna be bigoted, at least direct your bigotry towards Islam and Muslims. Christians are not nearly as much of a threat to the free world as are the jihadists.

Some amazing stuff in there... enjoyed watching it.

Did anyone notice the one clip in there of the guy just doing a single back-flip, and then almost falling backwards? It seemed so out of place among all the rest of the great feats. Thought it was pretty funny. (at about 1:20)

It's a sad commentary that there are people who actually think this way, and that there is at least one here that thinks this is "very awesome."

That's so one-sided. It's obvious that they cut out a bunch of film. We can't see what those paciderms did wrong in the first place. They probably deserved what they got - dumb elephants.

That's about the most retarded analogy I've ever seen.

Or the more nightmarish scenario, a Democrat could have been elected. I know that we're all thankful that we woke up from that haunting spectre.