I guess I expect a higher level of discourse from some.

Oh dear. So after all this foofaraw, that's your whole complaint? That Glenn was rude?

Sorry, but have you read a lot of Glenn Greenwald's blogs? He's often quite sarcastic and scornful. I haven't noticed that it affects the clarity of his arguments, but if you disagree I urge you to make that case. Be specific.

If all you have, though, is complaints about tone, I think we're done here.

I guess that's something I hadn't considered. That you guys don't know how to disagree without insulting and degrading the argument you're opposed to. Not sure if I have time to give lessons.

My goodness... was that mockery? That's hardly the sign of an open mind, you know.

person 1 "I think torture is terrible, but I also think there might have been exceptional circumstances and the motivation behind it was for the right reasons, to protect rather than dominate."

person 2: "That's just narcissistic exceptionalism! This argument is just masquerading as a moral struggle."

You're simply taking a few lines from Glenn's response and casting it as his entire argument. That's a strawman fallacy, and even you must know that, Dave.

Glenn responded to the central thesis of Douthat's argument - that Bush's motivation may have been noble, that "what was done in our name was, in some sense, done for us" and that the motivation is or can at some level be exculpatory - by comparing it to similar rationalizations made by people we might find more unsavory: "[t]he moral ambiguity Douthat thinks he finds is applicable to virtually every war crime."

Now, you may disagree with that reasoning, but you haven't shown how it's flawed. You've merely said that for Glenn to have made that argument shows intolerance for debate.

I have made the case and been specific.

When? I looked back through all of your damn letters and cannot find one concrete example, supported by direct quotation, of how Glenn's reasoning was in error. All you have, including the statement above, is assertion after assertion.

So: argument by assertion and strawman. Want to go for the trifecta? I don't think you've done appeal to authority yet... oh, wait:

I believe there's a ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court that allows for the ticking time bomb exception

Well then. That about does it.

I laid out out examples of moral ambiguity in regards to torture. That torturing to protect is not the moral equivalent of torturing to dominate or maintain power. Glenn himself acknowledged that moral ambiguity he dismisses when he acknowledged the degrees of immorality for torture.

You have posited the existence of this "torturing to protect" thing, which is just a restatement of Douthat's thesis, that Bush may have thought it protected us. You haven't explained why "torturing to protect," if such a thing can be said to exist, in any way could be said to justify torture.

The counter-argument is that everyone who has ever engaged in war crimes has believed they were doing it for a good reason, and that the subjective motivation to torture is irrelevant as a defense. This position has been around for a long, long time, and is integral to the concept of morality that the international law against torture is based on.

To make the case that Glenn's argument is flawed, you need to do more than just restate the position he is responding to.

(see? now you guys have got me doing it - making snide insults)

That's weak. Please don't do that again. Take responsibility for what you write here. We don't "make" you do anything.

The reference to the Israeli Supreme Court was in response to Glenn's claim that all International Law was on his side and not mine.

Glenn's statement - which is a true statement - is that international law bans torture. If you need a reference for that, I can provide it, but I hope that's not a contention you dispute.

The Israeli Supreme Court has jurisdiction in Israel only. The presence of individual rulings in any one country has no bearing on international law. You bringing it up was merely an attempt to bolster your argument with an appeal to authority, which is a rhetorical fallacy. My pointing that out is a logical refutation of your argument.

Saying Glenn's argument was one thing when in fact it is another is a strawman defense, which is a rhetorical fallacy. My pointing that out is a logical refutation of your argument.

Making unsupported statements and pointing to them as justification of your position is argument by assertion, which is a rhetorical fallacy. My pointing that out is a logical refutation of your argument.

You can complain about it, or you can show why my refutations are invalid.

You apparently have no problem risking millions of lives so you can be true to your ivory tower ideals. Those who have the responsibility to actually protect millions of lives need to get their hands dirty sometimes. And they do it for you. With no thanks. But they still do it for you anyway.

Now you're channeling Col. Jessup? Forget it, dude, I call troll.

Yeah.

He went there.

Ondallete (sic) used that hypothetical to illustrate how an argument can be made to justify genocide. I agreed. It justifies genocide.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the kind of mind that gets upset about a blogger using scorn to make an argument, yet can type "an argument can be made to justify genocide" without a qualm.

What a strange, strange person you are.