Bay 12 Games Forum

First of all, I did try to cut off the discussion from the morality argument, yet I've found it integral to what we were talking about.

Do read the following, as I've got a feeling that it's the source of our disagreement.

Look at the point 8. in my previous post.
It seems to me, that you're using the word 'inquisition' as a synonym of 'witch hunt' - a noun that is not attached to the historical event of the same name, but is purely the emotional residue left in common consciousness. In this case, it is used in the same fashion as the word 'nazi' is used to decsribe a radical nationalist with strong racist beliefs or, an evil egomaniac, not a member of German political party of the first half of twentieth century.
If this is the meaning of the word inquisition that you're using, then I should certainly agree that it's impossible to remove it's current-morality dictated perception, as there would be nothing else left.
However, when Torak (edit: sorry, Psyco Jelly, not Torak)used it for the first time(which I quoted later), I assumed - perhaps wrongly - that he meant the historical event, which prompted the quick analysis of my knowledge on this subject and, finding enough similarities, resulted in the comparision.
I'm sure you'd agree that any academic discussion of history should make do without applying moral code, least you're not interested in an objective truth.

I'd rather refrain from further argument, untill you will clarify the above.

However, I'd still like to ask you this short question: Do you really place morality above the law(as this is what I got from your way of defending Guantanamo)?

(also, I'd argue about the CIA example's validity in your argumentation, but we really should keep to the topic at hand, I suppose)

Say, is Boksi still interested in playing?

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! IT'S A WALL OF TEXT!

post

Ok, I haven't been clear enough, I agree. Take two.
I'm not denying the exsistence of morality, merely pointing out that it's not the right tool for judging legitimacy.
1. My opinion on morality:
I view morality as an amalgamate of specific society's ever changing and evolving customs and taboos. It can vary as much as from person to person. With some skill, anybody can claim to have a moral superiority over somebody else and use the crime-against-morality argument to further his own cause. I do not accuse moral code of being an abomination that has to be purged. It is useful, and indeed, necessary as a birthplace of any eventual laws. Should some part of it be so universally(society-wise) agreed upon that it becomes incorporated into the law system, it loses it's ambiguity and (ideally)can no longer be used against otherwise innocent components of a given society.
I will not agree with anybody claiming that there exists some ideal moral code, that is inherent to every human being, and is universal, all-encompasing. There's just no reason to think that, and is purely a matter of personal belief, just like e.g. the God question.

2. Waht's wrong with using morality as a base for judgement.
If analyzing any given event, one cannot just discard the human mindset from which it emerged and that includes moral code. However, when trying to judge the same event, objectivism requires to ignore your(as a sciencist) moral background, or else it warps your image of the whole thing.

3. On a subjectivity of such a judgement.
Let's say that you decide to do so, then, it should be morality local to the event you're describing. In our contested comparision, you could call Guantanamo and invasion of Iraq a morally right thing to do from the point of view of an average american(you're defending your safety), and you could call inquisition a right way of dealing with a heretic(be it local reformator, excomunicated knight's order, or whole country rebelling as in the case of the Hussites - they're protecting the Church from extremists)
However, this approach gives rise to the subjectivism that you've mentioned, and gives pretty much meaningless answers, as any event can be called "good" or "bad" this way. It seems that we both agree that it's a pointless thing to do.
So, what can you do then? Either use your local morality for both, and become a proponent of it's superiority, or not judge it by it's right-or-wrong appearances at all. You will agree, I suppose, that there are multitude of other, not so vague, characteristics by which one can describe whatever event is there to describe.

4. Morally "right" defined as "lawful".
One more thing that you can do, is to define being moral or not by it's concordance with the local law. Should some action go against the letter of the law it can be objectively named illegitmate, or if one wishes, "bad", regardless of anybody's claims to it being otherwise moral or not and in any time and space frame of reference. The 'by-the-law morality' is dry and emotionless, it can be applied to any event without the danger of subjectivism.
From such a perspective, both Gntnm and Inq. are both illegitimate and immoral, as they both break the laws by unilaterally claiming moral superiority over them.

5. The most important similarity.
Note, that I do recognize the underlying 'rightousness' of the Gntnm(and inq. too) - to be allowed to defend yourself is a law-regulated right of every person in your society(western culture in general).
However, it is this exact law that is being broken there - the detainees are refused the right to defend themselves(in court), the millenia-old law of presumption of innocence is being ignored. Inqisition at least maintained appearances by holding trials, however rigged they were(so the Gntnm is in a way even more illegitimate than inq. was).
This demagogueous usage of the most central idea on which the society in question is based, to gain acceptance from the populace for actions otherwise forbidden by law, is the 'meat' of the comparision that I've made some 10000 words earlier.

6. Fallacy of the 'self defence'(yes, I'm European) argument.
This is where the hypocricy enters the fray. You know, all these civil and international laws were constructed with regulating the right of defending yourself(person/country) from agression in mind(among other things, of course). If some country decides, in the light of some event that it no longer assures adequate safety, it has every right to change it's law system accordingly.
Instead, in Guantanamo, we have a outside-law activity that is being justified by it's supposed moral validity. America tries to maintain it's appearance of 'the good guy' while covertly acting in a generally unaceptable fashion. Just like the inquisition did.

7. Why is it dangerous to allow exceptions from the code of laws.
When some ruling entity decides to give moral issues precedence before the local law system, it effectively reverts back to barbarism, where might made right and undermines that personal safety's reliance on law, on which civilizations are built.
On an international stage, such a country loses it's reputation, and risks being regarded as an unpredictable entity, unreliable as an ally or partner, leaving only it's military/political dominance for protection. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, as you could expect, I'd rather be inclined to call it unreasonable or downright stupid, but it's not the point of this discussion(besides, we seem to agree there).

8. The question of popular perception of the Inquisition.
When comparing something to events/organisations like inquisition or nazism, fascism, crusades(just examples) I do expect people of certain level of education to see them for what they were without the fairy-tale halo that common folklore surrounded them with. That is, they're not meant as an insult, but as an indication of historical occurence.

9. On 'the homework' example
As long as the problem is tautological, as in mathematics, you can assume the existence of a specific answer. However, outside the body of maths(and related sciences, like physics, chemistry etc.), there is hardly any other ocasion for such an ideal outcome.
I do not suggest that we should abandon every other(non-natural) science, every non-tautological problem's analysis, because there is no ultimate answer. Anything can be described using roughly constant and generally accepted ideas. Morality is not such an idea, as it's way too variable.

Are these reasons enough for you to let me compare Guantanamo with the inquisiton without the danger of being resented?

One question I always had that my Teacher's were never able to answer is: What keeps the inside of the planet hot?

Due to high pressure, caused by gravitational contraction, the temperature of the planet's core incrases(similar to the ideal gas state law). Then, slowly, the heat is being transfered to the crust(if present) by convection and conduction, then radiated out into space. This process is hastened if the crust is tectonically active.
In short: it's gravity.
And it does not really 'keep' the heat. With sufficient time any planet(or star) will get cold.

The one thing that gets me irritated about all this global warming talk is that everyone seems to think its this horrible horrible thing that we must stop, but really, noone actually knows what is going to happen.

Oh, but it's easy. It's not like predicting winning numbers at the lottery, here, there are but three options: it gets warmer, it gets colder, it stays the same way it is now. It's not that difficult to imagine the effects of the first two outcomes, and get prepared/scared.

I think you're overreacting.

Take out the 'belief' part and compare these notions now.
The whole point is not in the reason for these persecutions, it's in the simple fact that there are persecutions, and the way they're executed.

In the same fashion, I'd readily compare 'war on terrorism' with any other religious war out there, not because I suggest that Bush's adminstration is(was) filled with holy wrath against muslim faith, but because it uses the same form of propaganda to justify/disguise it's political and military goals.

Lords of the realm was my favorite. The first one. Also, try Emperor of the fading suns, if you can handle bugs and micromanagement. Both are turn based. LOTR is middleage Britain, EOFS is Dune-like 4X.