• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

OldWorldOrder said:
I didn't insinuate there was a logical problem, I insinuated it was funny. Do you even know what a strawman is?
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I insinuated it was funny cause it reminded me of girls in high school:

Girl #1: I hate Emily, she's a moron!
Girl #2: Oh, she's actually on the Dean's List this semester...
Girl #1: She's ugly, though!
Girl #2: A lot of guys say she's really hot.
Girl #1: It's probably cause she's a slut!
Girl #2: I think she's actually only kissed that one guy, I'm sure she's never done anything more with anyone else.
Girl #1: She's a bitch, she talks behind people's backs.
Girl #2: I've never heard her do that...
Girl #1: Hey, do you like Justin Beiber?
Girl #2: Uhhh...no.
Girl #1: EMILY ****ING LOVES HIM! Let's hate her together.

It's just an example of people being against something and throwing any argument they can at it? Immoral? No, you don't agree? THEN IT DOESN'T WORK. Sadly, Boo, the experts don't agree. Maybe people who say torture can work sometimes like Justin Beiber, though, so you can try to attack them with that.



I already stated it. Did you miss it? Use what works. Making someone physically uncomfortable is fourth down the list, after making them want to help you out of ideology (#1), making them want to help you for a reward, usually financial (#2), making them help you only because you put them in emotional distress (#3). But the idea that there's NEVER EVER a time in which #1-3 would fail but #4 would not is ****ing laughable. Why would someone even propose such an argument?

Well, probably because don't you just hate Emily! (They try to use anything they can to support their argument, even if it makes virtually zero sense)



What? I don't give a **** about morality. Don't care. We all have it, it's all subjective: why bother arguing about it? On that note, my favorite movie is Mrs Doubtfire. Yours? Actually, who cares, it too is all subjective.
Click to expand...

If tom plays basketball and is tall enough to dunk, an excellent ball handler, and can shoot from beyond the arch, saying so is not throwing everything at the issue. Noting two issues is only funny if they are not also true. If they are true, not trivial, than there is nothing funny. So trying to make them so, propping them in a way to more easily combat them is the definition of a strawman. Both arguments are true and not trivial. So, you have no real point.
 
Boo Radley said:
If tom plays basketball and is tall enough to dunk, an excellent ball handler, and can shoot from beyond the arch, saying so is not throwing everything at the issue. Noting two issues is only funny if they are not also true. If they are true, not trivial, than there is nothing funny. So trying to make them so, propping them in a way to more easily combat them is the definition of a strawman. Both arguments are true and not trivial. So, you have no real point.
Click to expand...

Well, they're not both true. Which kinda makes the thing funny, like high school girls. That's the point.

As I've mentioned: it's an absurd position to pretend it when #1-3 doesn't or can't work, #4 can't. It's just silly.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Well, they're not both true. Which kinda makes the thing funny, like high school girls. That's the point.

As I've mentioned: it's an absurd position to pretend it when #1-3 doesn't or can't work, #4 can't. It's just silly.
Click to expand...

This what said you said to begin with; however, they are both true. Both valid arguments. Nor is anyone making the 1-4 argument. Again, what is being argued:

1. Torture is ineffective. This does not mean there is never a right answer given during torture. It means that what you get is unreliable, and to a point that is more unreliable than any other method. Books are written on this, and people should visit a library more than they google questionable sources,

2. Regardless of effectiveness, it is also immoral. You seem to agree with that, so I won't go too far into the "who would Jesus torture" argument.
 
Boo Radley said:
This what said you said to begin with; however, they are both true.
Click to expand...

lol no. Who told you this? Who lied to you, friend?

Both valid arguments. Nor is anyone making the 1-4 argument. Again, what is being argued
Click to expand...

Of course they're not. When it's phrased in that very logical way, their position becomes laughable.

1. Torture is ineffective. This does not mean there is never a right answer given during torture. It means that what you get is unreliable, and to a point that is more unreliable than any other method. Books are written on this, and people should visit a library more than they google questionable sources,
Click to expand...

This is, quite simply, wrong. Cite your sources. I was a 35M in the military, I have expansive experience with this: you're wrong. There are times when these things work. Yes, they're few and far between. That doesn't make them ineffective anymore than a 3/64 allen key is ineffective because it's useless more than 99% of the time when you're working on a project. It has a specific time and place in which it's useful. So does waterboarding or literally anything else. You saying otherwise doesn't change that, I don't give a **** about your library card or what you read in an article.

That you could seriously sit there and say "Yes, if building rapport with someone doesn't work, if paying them off doesn't work, if putting them through the emotional wringer doesn't work, waterboarding can't work either" says so much about not only your knowledge of the situation, but your grasp on basic logic. How could you even assume what you're assuming and expect people to take it seriously?

2. Regardless of effectiveness, it is also immoral. You seem to agree with that, so I won't go too far into the "who would Jesus torture" argument.
Click to expand...

It's a pointless argument. Who cares what Jesus would do? Do you? I don't. Morals are entirely subjective and thus pointless to argue about.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
lol no. Who told you this? Who lied to you, friend?



Of course they're not. When it's phrased in that very logical way, their position becomes laughable.



This is, quite simply, wrong. Cite your sources. I was a 35M in the military, I have expansive experience with this: you're wrong. There are times when these things work. Yes, they're few and far between. That doesn't make them ineffective anymore than a 3/64 allen key is ineffective because it's useless more than 99% of the time when you're working on a project. It has a specific time and place in which it's useful. So does waterboarding or literally anything else. You saying otherwise doesn't change that, I don't give a **** about your library card or what you read in an article.

That you could seriously sit there and say "Yes, if building rapport with someone doesn't work, if paying them off doesn't work, if putting them through the emotional wringer doesn't work, waterboarding can't work either" says so much about not only your knowledge of the situation, but your grasp on basic logic. How could you even assume what you're assuming and expect people to take it seriously?



It's a pointless argument. Who cares what Jesus would do? Do you? I don't. Morals are entirely subjective and thus pointless to argue about.
Click to expand...

I've read more than a few books in then matter, you being snarky wont change the facts.

Like I said, you should visit a library, but tomorrow afternoon, when I'm at a computer I will link some sources from you. You should know personal experience is often too narrow. People see what hey want to see. I also spend time with those who have experience there. The discussion often starts with how thy don't sleep nights. Most haven more outs than you. However, neither you nor I can settle the issue that way. There are more objective sources who overwhelmingly support my position.
 
Boo Radley said:
1. Torture is ineffective.
Click to expand...

Fact: Torture works for verifiable information.
Fact: In a ticking time bomb scenario, torture for verifiable information is a moral obligation.


Your blanket statements cannot keep you warm.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've read more than a few books in then matter, you being snarky wont change the facts.

Like I said, you should visit a library, but tomorrow afternoon, when I'm at a computer I will link some sources from you. You should know personal experience is often too narrow. People see what hey want to see. I also spend time with those who have experience there. The discussion often starts with how thy don't sleep nights. Most haven more outs than you. However, neither you nor I can settle the issue that way. There are more objective sources who overwhelmingly support my position.
Click to expand...

There's nothing snarky about it, it's just the fact. What's funny is that if I had just one example of personal experience that contradicted your position (which I don't), it would make your entire argument untrue, because you're making a logically absurd statement that says it's 100% ineffective. It's not. That said, I do know of examples where it was effective. Proving, then, that there are times that it is effective. Making you, simply, wrong. That's it. I'm very well read on it, Boo: I didn't start learning about interrogation in order to make a political point. Can you say the same?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
There's nothing snarky about it, it's just the fact. What's funny is that if I had just one example of personal experience that contradicted your position (which I don't), it would make your entire argument untrue, because you're making a logically absurd statement that says it's 100% ineffective. It's not. That said, I do know of examples where it was effective. Proving, then, that there are times that it is effective. Making you, simply, wrong. That's it. I'm very well read on it, Boo: I didn't start learning about interrogation in order to make a political point. Can you say the same?
Click to expand...

Actually, one example would not prove me wrong. Makes me wonder if you have read what I wrote at all. I never used the term 100%. I even address that specifically. So, you're not even well read on what I've said.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, one example would not prove me wrong. Makes me wonder if you have read what I wrote at all. I never used the term 100%. I even address that specifically. So, you're not even well read on what I've said.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ. Thank god you're not in charge of anything regarding this. So yes, then, we're in agreement : it can be useful and effective sometimes. Great.

Allah only knows why it wad like pulling teeth to get there.
 
j-mac said:
Wow, they would tie you up, and hook your genitals to a voltage source in a nano second, yet you defend them against those trying to protect you? That's gratitude for ya.
Click to expand...

Helluvan 'argument', but I understand why. Sounds like you like to watch reruns of 24?
 
ecofarm said:
Fact: Torture works for verifiable information.
Fact: In a ticking time bomb scenario, torture for verifiable information is a moral obligation.


Your blanket statements cannot keep you warm.
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense!
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Jesus Christ. Thank god you're not in charge of anything regarding this. So yes, then, we're in agreement : it can be useful and effective sometimes. Great.

Allah only knows why it wad like pulling teeth to get there.
Click to expand...

No, we're not. Read what I wrote about effectiveness or lack there of. You can argue with someone f you don't know what was said.
 
Henry David said:
Pure nonsense!
Click to expand...

Pure truth, which some cannot handle. Go ahead, cling to naive notions about absolute morality, probably while decrying the importance of understanding such in regard to terrorists (a misrepresentation of the concept).
 
ecofarm said:
Pure truth, which some cannot handle. Go ahead, cling to naive notions about absolute morality, probably while decrying the importance of understanding such in regard to terrorists (a misrepresentation of the concept).
Click to expand...

The 2 biggest terrorism-practicing governments in the world are the US and Israeli governments.

When war is declared in accordance with legal principles, I understand killing and maiming of humans. Yes, war is hell.

But otherwise, in my moral code, assaulting another human is illegal. I understand that in your moral code, assaulting another human is just fine, as long as some government employee tells you it's OK.

Copy. Yes, the world is populated by a number of moral midgets.
 
This is very simple:

Torture for verifiable information works. That is a fact. Torturing someone for verifiable information during a ticking time bomb scenario (which the aftermath of 911 was) is a moral imperative.
 
ecofarm said:
This is very simple:

Torture for verifiable information works. That is a fact. Torturing someone for verifiable information during a ticking time bomb scenario (which the aftermath of 911 was) is a moral imperative.
Click to expand...

I do not think that word "fact" means what you think it does. It is not a synonym for "my opinion".
 
Redress said:
I do not think that word "fact" means what you think it does. It is not a synonym for "my opinion".
Click to expand...

No, I mean fact. Undeniable empirical evidence demonstrates such clearly. Ask the mob.
 
Redress said:
That would be false.
Click to expand...

Torture for verifiable information works. Deny that all you want, but you're just ignoring the verifiable part.

Regarding the ticking time bomb, there is obviously no question as to what someone should do.
 
ecofarm said:
Torture for verifiable information works. Deny that all you want, but you're just ignoring the verifiable part.

Regarding the ticking time bomb, there is obviously no question as to what someone should do.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, and you cannot prove your claim.
 
Redress said:
You are wrong, and you cannot prove your claim.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, and you cannot prove your claim. I'm not gonna play childish games. Torture for verifiable information works, whether that hurts your personal sensitivity or not. And if some guy has the combination to the time bomb about to blow your family away, you know what you would do.
 
Last edited:
What I find amazing is that some people can claim:

1. Terrorists have no option and are pushed into targetting civilians.
2. The US was not pushed into torturing the top three terrorists in custody for verifiable information during the aftermath of 9/11.

Both, together, in the same intellectual mush of a so-called personal philosophy.


This is what happens when people don't really understand 'relative morality'.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You are wrong, and you cannot prove your claim. I'm not gonna play childish games. Torture for verifiable information works, whether that hurts your personal sensitivity or not. And if some guy has the combination to the time bomb about to blow your family away, you know what you would do.
Click to expand...

You made the claim, you are not backing it up. Color me surprised...
 
Redress said:
You made the claim, you are not backing it up. Color me surprised...
Click to expand...

I consider it basic understanding. Most people can separate torture for confession from torture for verifiable information. Those who can't? Oh well. Same with the ticking time bomb. Most people can see what they would do to someone who was refusing to give the combination to a bomb about to blow their family away. Those who can't? Oh well.

I'm not getting into a citation war with you. You'll just claim that my sources have bad methods and/or conclusions. I can rely on common sense, logic and reason. This is an easy debate - all of its facets are obvious to most people. Some people deny that some of those facets exist (regardless of sources), I can't help them.

Seek your truth, I've said my piece.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I consider it common sense. Most people can separate torture for confession from torture for verifiable information. Those who can't? Oh well. Same with the ticking time bomb. Most people can see what they would do to someone who was refusing to give the combination to a bomb about to blow their family away. Those who can't? Oh well.

I'm not getting into a citation war with you. You'll just claim that my sources have bad methods and/or conclusions. I can rely on common sense, logic and reason. This is an easy debate - all of its facets are obvious to most people. Some people deny that some of those facets exist (regardless of sources), I can't help them.

Seek your truth, I've said my piece.
Click to expand...

So you claim it is a fact, because you say it is. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. Do you have any more claims you would like me to take your word for? Is Obama really a space alien? Is Bush part of the Illuminati secretly controlling the word?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom