If you remove the last four words from that sentence, then you're onto something morally defensible.

As it is, you're assuming that you get to decide what constitutes a good reason and everyone else has do to as you say. Sorry, no sale.

People enthusiastic about enslaving others to the popular agenda du jour need to remember that the current prevailing viewpoint might not always be on top.

Then you agree that the Christian photographer can decline photographing the gay wedding, since the job is what they're turning down. Now I'm not sure whether you're pro-slavery. I hope not.

*Indiana*. Doggonit. I doubt the city has a governor. Or a govenror, for that matter.

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.

Any culture that needs legislative protection isn't worth preserving.

-Zirbert, Canadian

I'm Canadian, and have been using StudioTax (free - make sure you don't accidentally download the "Enterprise" version) for several years. It's one of the few times I need to boot into Windows, so I'm hoping they make a Linux version soon (ha!).

I do understand it.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm supporting you. You said he didn't do anything to hinder adult stem cell research; my intention was to bolster your argument. I.e.,"Not only did he not hinder adult SC research, he didn't even ban embryonic research."

I'm on your side here. Sorry if that wasn't clear!

There was no ban in the USA, just a lack of federal funding. If that's a ban, then the gummint has banned my buying more computer parts because they won't pay for them.

There's also the not-negligible issue that declining to pay for something (which is what Bush did with embryonic stem cell research) is not remotely the same as banning it. I don't know how poorly informed and/or indoctrinated into statism you'd need to be to fail to recognize the distinction, but it's depressing how many of those folks are out there. Worse, many of them vote.

I don't think it matters in most cases. Once stories are being told for propaganda / recruiting purposes, it's a negligible bonus if they turn out to be true. Veracity has a statistically insignificant effect.

I may be a wee bit cynical.

This is a minor quibble, though, and I agree with your point in the main. Torturing can theoretically make things worse from a PR perspective. I wouldn't say "only", and I don't think it's indisputable, because I think the effect is usually going to be zero. I can't think of any way it could make things better, though.

But people prone to savage acts (which can be almost anyone given the right circumstances) are going to claim that the Other are doing horrible things regardless of whether it's true. Saying anything necessary to rile your people up against the enemy has been an everpresent tactic since, well, whenever human beings were first able to muster up the strength to attack the other guys. European Jews didn't need to actually drink the blood of a single Gentile baby to become hated and feared.

It wouldn't matter if America gave every prisoner in Guantanamo a massage and ice cream sundae every day, Al Queda would still say they were skinning them alive and drinking their blood. No doubt the reverse is true to an extent as well. In fact, I may be doing it here. Hm.

Propaganda will be promulgated regardless of the facts. I'm not saying for one second that we might as well do our worst anyway, but there's no reason to expect the enemy to appreciate your restraint. We won't be hearing a Taliban representative say, "You know, Americans and Israelis aren't so bad after all" anytime soon.

Seriously?

Those who are going to indiscriminately torture, behead prisoners, drag the bodies of enemy soliders through the streets and post the videos online, etc., could not possibly care less what their opponents do or don't do.

The main reasons not to torture, in order, are:

1. It's morally wrong.

2. It's usually tactically ineffective. You can't trust the vast majority of torture-obtained info to be accurate, and there's no way to tell whether you lucked out and got a reliable sliver of info.

The problem is that the most enthusiastic and noisiest boycotters tend not to do anything economically productive that could be boycotted in return.

I can't cite the exact source or wording offhand, but P.J. O'Rourke, when asked why liberal causes can generally bring out more marchers, ralliers, and volunteers activists than conservative ones, said, "Because we have jobs."

Ahh, if only that were true:

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-mexico-court-ruling-on-gay-weddings-2013-8

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico's anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony, the state's highest court ruled Thursday....Justice Richard Bosson wrote that the business owners "have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different."

In practice, groups work at the speed of the slowest member and at the intellectual level of the dumbest.

I've watched buzzword-spouting HR drones running workshops and trying to get people to demonstrate syergy. It's good for a laugh, until I remember that the HR drone probably makes more than I do, at which point I get deeply depressed.