Skip to main content

View Diary: The Use of Deadly Force (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  why do you keep talking about torture? (0+ / 0-)

    do you think that the constitution did not involve consideration of possible circumstances?

    You're not making any sense.  I get it--torture is bad, I agree with you--but that is not remotely what I'm talking about.

    Anyway, law, by nature, obviously supports the point of view of the writers.  Maybe it's unfortunate, but it's a bit unavoidable, as laws don't write theselves.

    •  The point is they are used to present ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

      scenarios that have no basis in reality in order to present an immaculate argument. Who could argue against saving all of NYC from a dirty bomb? Or the country from a Mushroom Cloud?

      The reason why I used torture is because our lawmakers actually used hypothetical scenarios from 24 to support it.

      You want other hypotheticals? How about talking about mushroom clouds to start a war in Iraq?

      How about talking about foreign invasions to support stockpiling military style weapons?

      This is where hypotheticals usually lead.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 04:02:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok...I don't you're getting me here. Last time: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Yeah, some people use hypothetical situations to posit extreme circumstances to deprive others of civil liberties.  I get that.

        You still need to brainstorm if you're going to come up with laws--and brainstorming involves hypotheticals.  Ever listen to old supreme court cases?  They're loaded with hypothetical situations in order to determine the limits of applicability of the laws in question.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site