Should toturing be allowed?

[r0beph]

No that is not what I'm saying - it is not what I agree with. I often hear the argument in defense of torture go something like this (in defense of Abu Ghraib etc.) - at least we aren't sawing off their heads with dull knives - as if as long as we don't go quite that far, we are justified and people shouldn't be griping.

I don't happen to agree. I think once institutionalized torture begins then we have already lost.

That's not what he said, he said we SHOULD go to their level. Either way the metaphor can be applied in any method you choose. Sure we're posting nude pics of our prepubescent daughter to catch these pedophiles BUT HEY, WE'RE NOT HAVING SEX WITH THEM! I'm trying to show the ridiculousness of the whole ideal. I still stand by that.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Torture is a real slippery slope. Once you engage in it, you lose any moral credability you might have had.

I have heard arguments in defense of torture on the immediate battlefield, to gain quick information in order to save one's comrades.

Then there is the institutinalized brutality and torture in Abu Ghraib and other prisons, as well as in the "extraordinary rendition" where prisoners are sent to other countries specifically to be tortured so the US keeps it's public hands clean. In addition, many of the people picked up in these cases were picked up in broad sweeps or with little more then hearsay justifying it. I think any information that could conceivably have been picked up is not enough to outweight the damage done to the US by these actions.

Do you think there is any difference in the two sorts of torture? Is one more justifiable then the other?

Yes, of course there is a difference, but the line between them is invisible and once Pale starts he has no limits (or at least he hasn't spoken about any limits when asked). The torturers of the world will always be able to find excuses and justifications, I think that torture should be banned legally and condemned and prosecuted whenever it happens. This would include battlefield torture. Here's the reasoning: If your spouse is dying in agony you cannot kill them even if they are begging you to do so, yet people do it anyway knowing that they face the consequences for their actions, sometimes they are acquitted, but they have to face the law and be judged in court. The same should apply to battlefield torture that you postulate, do it if you feel strongly about it, but realize that you WILL have your day in court for breaking the law. If the circumstances justify your actions then perhaps the court martial will exonerate you. Torture is a social evil and should NEVER be legal policy.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We have an enemy that operates at a level of brutality that you apparently can't imagine. They treat their own women worse than any detainee that we might have. We are fighting an enemy that cuts heads off for fun and percieves any mercy on our part as weakness which further goads them on towards their own victory. If you don't know your enemy and respond to him appropriately, you will lose.

If you have to fight an insane enemy, you do not win by becoming just as insane. You are selling fear in an attempt to justify a kind of bestiality that has NO justification. The fact that some people do it doesn't make it right for us to do it. You are advocating becoming the very thing that we despise the most about those people. Why become the very thing that you hate and fear?

There is something very Biblical about your "eye for an eye" attitude. Civilization is not based on doing unto others as others have done to you. We don't do to serial killers what they do to their victims, we didn't lynch the folks who lynched black people, we don't allow the victim's family member to "pull the switch" on the killer. There is a reason that we don't "do unto others as others have done to us", and it's because you can't make a civilization with the tit for tat mentality, we have to be better than the people who oppose us or we risk having a "Hatfields and McCoys" world where only the most vicious predators will survive. That's what I meant about a "sad and ugly" way to live.

The bad thing about integrity is that you can't buy it or steal it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Being forced to watch bestiality is torture. But I don't think torture itself is sex with animals. Though perhaps for the animal it is. Strange allegoric content abound.

I misspelled the word, it's "bestiality" and it means doing ghastly things--like tearing people apart for fun or profit. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[palerider]

I misspelled the word, it's "bestiality" and it means doing ghastly things--like tearing people apart for fun or profit. Sorry for the confusion.

Ironic that you would characterize my acceptance of torture (under certain conditions) in such a manner and then describe it as tearing human beings apart for fun and profit. I bet you support abortion which really is tearing human beings apart for profit. Human beings, which incidentally, don't have any information that could stop an attack.

 

[palerider]

That's not what he said, he said we SHOULD go to their level. Either way the metaphor can be applied in any method you choose. Sure we're posting nude pics of our prepubescent daughter to catch these pedophiles BUT HEY, WE'RE NOT HAVING SEX WITH THEM! I'm trying to show the ridiculousness of the whole ideal. I still stand by that.

Actually, I never suggested any such thing. If you believe that I said that we "should" torture our enemies because they torture us, I would like to see the post that gave you such an idea. My position is that there are situations in which I could accept that torture, while unpleasant, might be necessary. Unless, of course, you are the sort that really would be williing to stand by while dozens, hundreds, or thousands are killed to satisfy your personal self righteousness.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ironic that you would characterize my acceptance of torture (under certain conditions) in such a manner and then describe it as tearing human beings apart for fun and profit. I bet you support abortion which really is tearing human beings apart for profit. Human beings, which incidentally, don't have any information that could stop an attack.

I hope you don't bet money. It's nice to note that you could not find anything else to respond to in my post and you had to fabricate a personal attack.

 

[palerider]

I hope you don't bet money. It's nice to note that you could not find anything else to respond to in my post and you had to fabricate a personal attack.

You are kidding right? Read back through your own posts, oh hypocritical one and see your own personal attacks before you suggest that I have attacked you in lieu of making an argument.

Are you saying that you do not support abortion?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are kidding right? Read back through your own posts, oh hypocritical one and see your own personal attacks before you suggest that I have attacked you in lieu of making an argument.

Are you saying that you do not support abortion?

I do not support abortions to the extent that I do not have them, are you trying to trap me into a lose/lose situation where I prescribe for all of the rest of humanity? Good luck. I do not support the eating of flesh either, to the extent that I do not do it. Perhaps you can make something out of that too.

I don't mind personal attacks, it's just that when you can't find anything to say but "fabricated" personal attacks it makes me think that you don't have anything to say. Make a REAL post, Pale, refute my arguments and top it off with a vicious personal attack--add insult to injury!

 

[palerider]

I do not support abortions to the extent that I do not have them[/quote]

Right. And I suppose had you lived a century and a half ago you would have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:

If you don't support slavery then don't own one.

You believe that not owning a slave, or not having an abortion means that you don't support the practice? Following that logic, your entire argument against my support of torture, under certain conditions, is completely meaningless since I personally have never tortured anyone. Since I personally haven't done it, then my support for the practice doesn't exist.

Like I have told you before, life is simple if you are honest.

are you trying to trap me into a lose/lose situation where I prescribe for all of the rest of humanity? Good luck. I do not support the eating of flesh either, to the extent that I do not do it. Perhaps you can make something out of that too.

Of course not. Your convoluted, hypocritical, self righteous philosophy is what trapped you, I just pointed out the inconsistency. Your rant against torture is evidence enough that you are prepared to prescribe what is best for the rest of humanity.

I don't mind personal attacks, it's just that when you can't find anything to say but "fabricated" personal attacks it makes me think that you don't have anything to say. Make a REAL post, Pale, refute my arguments and top it off with a vicious personal attack--add insult to injury!

I just did. And I am not vicious. You were the one who said that I must be "mean as hell" which, while is not vicious, is far more derogatory than anything that I have said against you.

 

[n0spam4me]

"If you don't support slavery then don't own one."

and if you don't support ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, then don't do business with
"GREED INC." the employer of ILLEGAL ALIEN LABOR.

Can
U
dig
it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Right. And I suppose had you lived a century and a half ago you would have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:
You believe that not owning a slave, or not having an abortion means that you don't support the practice? Following that logic, your entire argument against my support of torture, under certain conditions, is completely meaningless since I personally have never tortured anyone. Since I personally haven't done it, then my support for the practice doesn't exist.

The whole basis of the discussion is YOU advocating torture and denigrating me for thinking that it is a bad idea. I have posted many times on many threads that I think abortion is murder. But so what? All kinds of things done in this culture are murder in my opinion: eating flesh, hunting, fishing, torture, war, etc.

Like I have told you before, life is simple if you are honest.

It would be good to remember that life can be simple if a person is stupid too, and tries to reduce everything down to black and white. Sometimes intellect can expose nuances not visible to the less gifted.

Of course not. Your convoluted, hypocritical, self righteous philosophy is what trapped you, I just pointed out the inconsistency. Your rant against torture is evidence enough that you are prepared to prescribe what is best for the rest of humanity.

We were discussing if it was a good idea, I didn't start the thread. I think it's a terrible thing to do, I don't like abortions either, consequently I don't do either one. You on the other hand, revel in one and rail against the other, at least I'm consistent.

I just did. And I am not vicious. You were the one who said that I must be "mean as hell" which, while is not vicious, is far more derogatory than anything that I have said against you.

That was a personal attack? Sorry, I hadn't noticed. Would someone who tears babies apart be considered as "mean as Hell" by you? If so, then perhaps it isn't unreasonable to think that a person who advocates tearing full-grown adults apart might also be considered "mean as Hell".

I don't know, Pale, but "...convoluted, hypocritical, self righteous..." seems just as derogatory as "mean as Hell" to me. You are pretty good fun.

 

[palerider]

I have posted many times on many threads that I think abortion is murder.

You think that abortion is murder, but you believe that women should continue to have the choice?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You think that abortion is murder, but you believe that women should continue to have the choice?

I believe that men should not make the choice for women. I think that hypocrites who would torture and who support capital punishment should not be in a position to dictate to others on the subject of taking the life of another. Your selective indignation removes you from the pool of rational people with whom I might seriously discuss this subject.

I think that you are pretty much a hysterical nutbar (just my opinoin after reading a lot of your posts) and that you aren't capable of a calm, rational discussion on the subject of taking life. One of the things that brings me to this conclusion is that without prior complete examination of the subject you have been trying to get me to pass judgment on abortions. I can't do it that way, Pale, this is one of those subjects that only a stupid person would try to reduce down to a black and white issue--I know better, I won't play that game.

I think our social intercourse here is about at an end because you refuse to answer honest, straight forward questions put to you, while at the same time trying to bring in other subjects that have not been developed adequately to be part of the discussion. You are obviously miserable about the number of babies that are killed every day by abortion, but yet you've made no comment about the tens of thousands of children who die every day around the world from starvation and lack of clean drinking water--deaths that could be prevented by simply changing government policies. Nor have you proposed what should be done with the millions of unwanted babies that banning abortions would dump on an obviously unwilling world. You show no evidence of having thought through the consequences of your arguments so there is little point in my trying to disuss them with you.

 

[palerider]

I believe that men should not make the choice for women. I think that hypocrites who would torture and who support capital punishment should not be in a position to dictate to others on the subject of taking the life of another. Your selective indignation removes you from the pool of rational people with whom I might seriously discuss this subject.

So you think that we should have 4 houses of congress? A house and senate for laws concerning men and a house and senate for laws concerning women? And does the house and senate for men get to make law protecting the lives of sons from their murderous mothers before they are born?

I think that you are pretty much a hysterical nutbar (just my opinoin after reading a lot of your posts) and that you aren't capable of a calm, rational discussion on the subject of taking life.

You are the one who has resorted to ad hominem attacks and name calling. Those seem to be more hysterical than any behavior you can attribute to me.

One of the things that brings me to this conclusion is that without prior complete examination of the subject you have been trying to get me to pass judgment on abortions. I can't do it that way, Pale, this is one of those subjects that only a stupid person would try to reduce down to a black and white issue--I know better, I won't play that game.

We have already established that your logic is suspect as evidenced by the generous sprinkling of inconsistencies present in your personal philosophy. You believe abortion is murder but support a woman's choice to do it. You believe torture is murder (even though torture is not murder) and rail against anyone who might support it under certain conditions but has never done it.

I think our social intercourse here is about at an end because you refuse to answer honest, straight forward questions put to you, while at the same time trying to bring in other subjects that have not been developed adequately to be part of the discussion.

You are the one who has been caught in a lie of omission mare. Claiming to believe abortion is murder and neglecting to mention that you support a woman's right to do it anyway.