use as an example the moral equivalency between ". . . harvest[ing] organs from brain-dead or severely retarded people . . . " and why we are "dittohead[ing]" i.e. agreeing with Mr. Greenwald's arguments here.

First off your utilitarianism scenario above misses the mark in the exact manner that GG takes issue with Prof. Kerr.

To have a discussion about the morality or utilitarian benefit of harvesting the organs of a "brain-dead" (arguably "no longer alive") human being, presumably with legal authority of an advance directive or with the permission of family who are permitted the legal authority to make such a decision, is not in the same realm as the morally repugnant suggestion that it is ok to dispassionately debate in an academic setting the morality or utility of harvesting organs from living developmentally disabled human beings.

Do you understand the moral difference and are simply being a contrarian, or are you simply being obtuse, or are you suggesting that it is a valid academic pursuit to discuss the utilitarian value of harvesting the organs of the developmentally disabled? Because if you are then you are clearly not getting a good value from the philosophy department at whichever university it is you attend.

only that the content should be roundly denounced rather than legitimized by virtue of the serious academic context in which they are made. Do you understand why not refuting them with the appropriate level of disgust and moral condemnation is dangerous? It is dangerous for the very reason Mr. Greenwald has written about many times i.e. because it allows pernicious ideas to be legitimized. It provides the fertile ground for pernicious actions to follow precisely because certain groups in society (academics, lawyers, politicians, religious leaders) are looked to to provide moral guidance in certain situations rather than cover for others to become morally numb to amoral acts.

You won't find many people here preaching censorship but rather that poorly reasoned arguments should be quickly countered with well reasoned ones and that arguments built upon amoral assumptions aren't likely to yield moral or just outcomes.

Little Joe said the F-word, which in and of itself is a nonevent, but as GG is always quick to point out some people clearly do not understand the concept of shame or their own childish hypocrisy.

Any kid that's of an age to be interested in the SuperBowl has heard the F-word many many times in real life before he/she was ever exposed to it on television. Any male child who sees a fleeting glimpse of a woman's breast is not traumatized but probably titillated (poor pun intended) or possibly indifferent depending on age.

Here's my question: is our Puritan heritage still such a part of our collective cultural DNA that some can become outraged by a split second glimpse of the human breast but can't muster the same level of moral outrage over the killing of innocents (morally sanitized with the ever clever "collateral damage") based on lies? I'd say emphatically yes. Because God knows nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to see the human body in all its unclothed glory. Ick. God forbid we objectify the beauty of form over some good old 24 style violence. Violence good, women's breasts bad. I think I get it. Almost Talibanish in its prudishness and assbackwardsness dontcha think?

All I have to say is I'd like to hear more F-bombs and see more breasts rather than see killing and maiming in the name of spreading freedom and the American way of life. I guess the tripartite gift America has to give to the world (no it's not our form of government) is the artery clogging wonders of McDonald's, Charles Ponzi inspired banking schemes, and the sweet sweet freedom of an early exit from earthly existence.

We've got a long way to go.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/psychology-and-torture/ on a topic (though tangential) that is near and dear to those around here. Lot of doctors chiming in. I've always wondered how it is that the medical professionals who oversaw the torture of detainees didn't have their credentials yanked. Then again why hasn't Yoo?

given Glenn's recent and past posting on this particular issue that people here would read Fish's post and the commentary and see it as a prima facie example of exactly the problem GG continually explores here. Now I certainly don't know the extent of Fish's following on the toobz but he is another example of someone who is offered up by the MSM as having a serious opinion and to a degree the substance of his post is framed congruently with Kerr's i.e. it's just Jim Dandy to continually explore the merits of a morally indefensible practice because we are the serious thoughtful folks in academia and journalism (Fish being a law professor come opinionmaker) entrusted to properly explore this issue.

Therein lies the slippery slope of legitimizing what should be morally repugnant to anyone with an IQ over 74. That the medical profession took one second much less years to fervently condemn this amoral practice (much less allow even one member of its profession to engage in, enable, or participate in any way without swift professional consequences) is problematic if not mind boggling.

Fish's other arguments about what are the appropriate uses of applied psychology in other contexts is worthy of discussion and I would find it interesting but running the risk of readers drawing a false equivalency, by virtue of addressing them in the same piece, is precisely what is disconcerting.

project onto Mr. Greenwald your own shortcomings. Anyone that references Mr. Greenwald as a "hack" has zero credibility here and having zero credibility why would any one of us waste one second of our valuable day clicking on your link to read a piece of pointless pap you've composed by dragging your prepubescent hairless knuckles across the keyboard while sitting in your dear sweet mum's basement dressed in Yoda jammies? I'll save everyone the trouble--piss off.