Bright lines
Mar. 2nd, 2007 06:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydyI just had a painful conversation.
Someone who was a speak-to acquaintance with some good will between us, and a lot of social discomfort, argued some time ago -- possibly the last pool party -- that there could be legitimate reasons for what happened at Abu Graib. After some shouting, and some later thought, although perhaps not calmer thought, I informed him that we are no longer on speaking terms.
He has just called with all the good will in the world on his part, wanting to give me valuable information. I established that he still felt that torture was, under some circumstances, acceptable and useful. I told him that if he wished to send me the information in email, that would be a kindness, but that I was now going to hang up.
He's the only person in the world that I'm not speaking to, the only person in the world where the resolve lasted past a few contacts. He's prone to depression, which makes what I did worse. He's a Viet Nam Vet, so he quite reasonably believes that he is speaking from an informed decision. I hated doing that. I'm shaking. But torture is wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is not a good person. I told him that, too.
I have other friends who, I know from conversations that tiptoed around it, believe torture is acceptable under some circumstance or another. They haven't crossed the bright line, they haven't said that point blank. Are they less of a bad person because they haven't said it to me? Probably not. My excuse is that if they do not speak to me of it, then I do not have to judge. Am I copping out? To some extent.
If you are my friend, do not ever tell me that you think torture in any form is moral or useful for gaining intelligence. I will, in fact, stop speaking to you, no matter how uncomfortable it makes both of us. I will stop being your friend. It will hurt me, and if you are my friend, presumably it will hurt you. I am restricting this to conversations, both in voice and in photons. A blog, though, is not a conversation, and I consider it exempt. I'll geet back to you about comments in someone else's blog.
This may not be a brave or appropriate line, it is my bright line.
In the normal course of things, I would say I was sorry I was being so rigid. On this topic, I'm sorry I'm being so flexible.
Someone who was a speak-to acquaintance with some good will between us, and a lot of social discomfort, argued some time ago -- possibly the last pool party -- that there could be legitimate reasons for what happened at Abu Graib. After some shouting, and some later thought, although perhaps not calmer thought, I informed him that we are no longer on speaking terms.
He has just called with all the good will in the world on his part, wanting to give me valuable information. I established that he still felt that torture was, under some circumstances, acceptable and useful. I told him that if he wished to send me the information in email, that would be a kindness, but that I was now going to hang up.
He's the only person in the world that I'm not speaking to, the only person in the world where the resolve lasted past a few contacts. He's prone to depression, which makes what I did worse. He's a Viet Nam Vet, so he quite reasonably believes that he is speaking from an informed decision. I hated doing that. I'm shaking. But torture is wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is not a good person. I told him that, too.
I have other friends who, I know from conversations that tiptoed around it, believe torture is acceptable under some circumstance or another. They haven't crossed the bright line, they haven't said that point blank. Are they less of a bad person because they haven't said it to me? Probably not. My excuse is that if they do not speak to me of it, then I do not have to judge. Am I copping out? To some extent.
If you are my friend, do not ever tell me that you think torture in any form is moral or useful for gaining intelligence. I will, in fact, stop speaking to you, no matter how uncomfortable it makes both of us. I will stop being your friend. It will hurt me, and if you are my friend, presumably it will hurt you. I am restricting this to conversations, both in voice and in photons. A blog, though, is not a conversation, and I consider it exempt. I'll geet back to you about comments in someone else's blog.
This may not be a brave or appropriate line, it is my bright line.
In the normal course of things, I would say I was sorry I was being so rigid. On this topic, I'm sorry I'm being so flexible.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 06:36 pm (UTC)I don't think he has a more accurate position. In fact, I think his arguments are a load of donkey dung. But I do understand why he thinks he has privileged information, and I understand that by refusing to accept his "expertise" I am raising his stress level. I don't hate the guy. I have just decided to not have anything to do with him. I know damn well he's fragile, and I'm not pleased about adding additional stressors to his life. The thing is, this is as considerate as I am willing to be with someone tells me that they think that torture is acceptable.
It's taken a long time for me to draw this bright line, but I believe it to be the right one. I don't mind warning people, once. But what I've decided is that by engaging people on the issue, I give it validity in their mind and mine. It does not deserve such.