View Poll Results: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    61 80.26%
  • No

    15 19.74%
Page 36 of 44 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 439

Thread: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

  1. #351
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 12:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Where have I said this? Quote me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified.
    Real morals - those tenets that one will not break even under threat of death - do not change, whether you torture is "morally justified [something you've yet to expound upon or prove with any authority]," or not. Real morals either remain static or they are false morals, easily tossed into the trash when this or that circumstance makes it easier to ignore/deny them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    My moral code remains well intact. I'm not the one who believes "torture" is categorically immoral.
    No. You believe torturing someone is acceptable if/when you want to torture someone. Apparently, in all other cases, it's not.



    How about you provide us with a few examples where inflicting torture on others would not be acceptable to you?


    I believe it is justified under certain circumstances, just as killing can be justified under certain circumstances. Your position is the one which lacks moral continuity. You state axiomatically the immorality of "torture" yet you would defend the killing of another person in war or self-defense. How can inflicting harm upon one's enemy be categorically immoral yet killing them is justifiable? Please, explain.
    Random "killing" is not "justified under certain circumstances;" self defense is. Furthermore, killing someone in self defense is in no way comparable to the purposeful inflicting of intense pain on an incapacitated/restrained/bound person with the intent to punish, coerce, or derive sadistic pleasure. That you believe otherwise speaks volumes about your "morals."

    It's the same rationale one would employ when beating or killing a rapist. It's the same rationale a Marine employs on the battlefield when the enemy is in his crosshairs. It's the same rationale a fighter-pilot employs when they drop a bomb on a military target which is in close proximity to civilians.
    You are trying to equate an act of self defense with beating a restrained person to get information out of them (information you have no way of knowing they possess). There simply is no comparison, but feel free to continue trying to convince anyone other than yourself of this lunacy.
    Last edited by Glinda; 05-12-09 at 03:27 PM.

  2. #352
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 12:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    It most certainly does. Those are the only logical conclusions of pacifism. Either you are lying or you are a coward. If you will not resort to violence in any circumstance you are most certainly a craven coward of the worst kind.
    I won't speak for Inferno, but I don't believe I ever said "I will not resort to violence in any circumstance." If someone jumps out of the bushes and tries to rape me, I'll "violently" defend myself to the death. This is nothing like the torture you advocate. I'll fight off an attacker with every ounce of my being, but tying someone down and beating them until they say something I want to hear, is NOT self defense, no matter how pretty you try to paint it.

  3. #353
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Real morals - those tenets that one will not break even under threat of death - do not change, whether you torture is "morally justified [something you've yet to expound upon or prove with any authority]," or not. Real morals either remain static or they are false morals, easily tossed into the trash when this or that circumstance makes it easier to ignore/deny them.
    Let me make this as simple as possible for you.

    I do not believe torture is categorically immoral, therefore allowing it under certain circumstances is in no way a violation of my moral code. The fact that I do not share your moral code does nothing to undermine the continuity of my position.

    No. You believe torturing someone is acceptable if/when you want to torture someone. Apparently, in all other cases, it's not.

    I don't see your point. Most likely because you do not have one.

    How about you provide us with a few examples where inflicting torture on others would not be acceptable to you?
    Torturing someone for fun.

    Random "killing" is not "justified under certain circumstances;" self defense is.
    In case you haven't noticed, I'm not advocating random torture, so your point is irrelevant, not to mention perplexing.

    Furthermore, killing someone in self defense is in no way comparable to the purposeful inflicting of intense pain on an incapacitated/restrained/bound person with the intent to punish, coerce, or derive sadistic pleasure. That you believe otherwise speaks volumes about your "morals."
    How many straw-men are you going to erect? Not once have I implied that torture for the sake or punishment or sadistic pleasure is acceptable. Your entire rebuttal has been nothing but one giant misrepresentation of my position. When logic fails, resort to lies...

    You are trying to equate an act of self defense with beating a restrained person to get information out of them (information you have no way of knowing they possess). There simply is no comparison, but feel free to continue trying to convince anyone other than yourself of this lunacy.
    You haven't answered the question, no surprise there. How can you justify the ultimate act of violence (killing) and not "torture"? Please try to answer the question without mentioning me or my position. I want a direct answer, not another army of straw-man and intellectual fumblings.

  4. #354
    activist professor Inferno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tipping Velvet
    Last Seen
    07-01-09 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,017

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    +
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    It most certainly does. Those are the only logical conclusions of pacifism. Either you are lying or you are a coward. If you will not resort to violence in any circumstance you are most certainly a craven coward of the worst kind.
    That is your opinion and it is wrong. Only a coward feels that violence is needed.
    Absolutely we are. I would meet unjust violence with righteous violence, whereas you would cower and permit the unjust to transpire out of pride.
    No such thing as righteous violence. That is some made up term that you must really like. It sounds like a silly term used to promote that idea that killing can somehow be justified. It can't.
    Then you are a coward.
    You still do not know me and cannot make this statement.
    Special or not, a courageous person will not stand idly by while violence is visited upon the innocent.
    Did I anywhere say anything about standing by and watching. I don't recall that. Do you want to point that out. This is a question on would I utilize torture... It queries nothing about what else I might do.


    Pacifism is nothing more than a fanciful notion steeped in naiveté and pride. At the end of the day you and I are the same; we are both willing to commit acts of violence under the right circumstances; you simply delude yourself into believing otherwise.
    Sorry that is wrong. Look up the meaning and look up pacifists and see how much many of them took to win their cause. Win they did.
    Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
    Life member NY city Fisting Club!
    I am Zoochie Purple Quivering Ghost Bear a Tiki Bar Tarte, you want some of my Panties.

  5. #355
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    I won't speak for Inferno, but I don't believe I ever said "I will not resort to violence in any circumstance."
    I never implied that you did.

    If someone jumps out of the bushes and tries to rape me, I'll "violently" defend myself to the death. This is nothing like the torture you advocate. I'll fight off an attacker with every ounce of my being, but tying someone down and beating them until they say something I want to hear, is NOT self defense, no matter how pretty you try to paint it.
    Who said anything about self-defense? What if I kill a rapist who is harming another person? How does that fit into your self-defense argument?

  6. #356
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    +That is your opinion and it is wrong. Only a coward feels that violence is needed.
    So, if I kill a man who is raping my sister I am a coward?

    No such thing as righteous violence. That is some made up term that you must really like. It sounds like a silly term used to promote that idea that killing can somehow be justified. It can't.
    So, killing a rapist is not an act of righteous violence? Then what is it?

    You still do not know me and cannot make this statement.
    Fine. You have a gun in your hand and a man is about to rape a little girl, what do you do?

    Did I anywhere say anything about standing by and watching. I don't recall that. Do you want to point that out. This is a question on would I utilize torture... It queries nothing about what else I might do.
    Then what would you do? Try to reason with the madman? Ask him nicely to stop?

    Sorry that is wrong. Look up the meaning and look up pacifists and see how much many of them took to win their cause. Win they did.
    I don't suppose pacifism could have stopped the Holocaust, do you?

  7. #357
    activist professor Inferno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tipping Velvet
    Last Seen
    07-01-09 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,017

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    So, if I kill a man who is raping my sister I am a coward?

    So, killing a rapist is not an act of righteous violence? Then what is it?

    Fine. You have a gun in your hand and a man is about to rape a little girl, what do you do?

    Then what would you do? Try to reason with the madman? Ask him nicely to stop?

    I don't suppose pacifism could have stopped the Holocaust, do you?
    Well if you look at the opic of the thread tyou certainly have strayed from that.
    1. There are ways to subdue someone short of killing them.
    1a. You are not in a situation to torture here.

    2. Killing a man because he is a rapist is murder. Putting him on trial is the law. It is murder not righteous violence. That is a term to make someone think there is a good type of murder and a bad type of murder. It is a statement of justification.

    3. It is not even to assumed that I have a gun in my hand. I never would. Now if you are asking if i would attempt to stop the girl from being raped I surely would. It does not mean kill or torture. You are confused on defense and protective measures and killing and torture. They are not the same.

    4. Yes to try and reason with a madman. When is the last time you were faced with a madman? If you have never been in this situation I suggest being afraid of this happening is fear and fear comes from being scared and cowards are people who are scared is that true?

    5. The holocaust needed never have taken place. The leaders in Europe and others are part and parcel to those events. Yes though to answer your question non violence in ending the holocaust would have worked. It may have saved many lives. The Jewish cooperated with violence. They did not resist. They were afraid. In the end they perished. If they had stood there ground and said no. Some may have died but the violence against these would have been seen and people would have stood up against it much faster.
    Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
    Life member NY city Fisting Club!
    I am Zoochie Purple Quivering Ghost Bear a Tiki Bar Tarte, you want some of my Panties.

  8. #358
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,453

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    Well if you look at the opic of the thread tyou certainly have strayed from that.
    1. There are ways to subdue someone short of killing them.
    1a. You are not in a situation to torture here.

    2. Killing a man because he is a rapist is murder. Putting him on trial is the law. It is murder not righteous violence. That is a term to make someone think there is a good type of murder and a bad type of murder. It is a statement of justification.

    3. It is not even to assumed that I have a gun in my hand. I never would. Now if you are asking if i would attempt to stop the girl from being raped I surely would. It does not mean kill or torture. You are confused on defense and protective measures and killing and torture. They are not the same.

    4. Yes to try and reason with a madman. When is the last time you were faced with a madman? If you have never been in this situation I suggest being afraid of this happening is fear and fear comes from being scared and cowards are people who are scared is that true?

    5. The holocaust needed never have taken place. The leaders in Europe and others are part and parcel to those events. Yes though to answer your question non violence in ending the holocaust would have worked. It may have saved many lives. The Jewish cooperated with violence. They did not resist. They were afraid. In the end they perished. If they had stood there ground and said no. Some may have died but the violence against these would have been seen and people would have stood up against it much faster.
    I cannot help but admire someone who sticks to their principles regardless; it is a quality I find admirable and noble.

    However, I also cannot help but disagree with the principles you are espousing.

    Certain terms need clarification it seems:
    Cowardice, is not feeling fear; everyone feels fear at at times. Cowardice is when you allow fear to dominate your mind to the extent that you fail to do your duty due to fear.

    Murder: murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice, and without justification. Absent malice or premeditation, it is manslaughter. If specifics are lacking it is known as homicide, which simply means killing any human. The commonly accepted justifications for homicide are: self-defense, defense of an innocent third party, in the course of a soldier's duty in time of war, or execution by agents of the State for capital crimes after due process.

    Undoubtably, if humankind were more rational on the whole, there would be far less need to resort to violence. However, the world is not and never will be a safe place. In the absence of persons willing to use force, including deadly force, to protect the innocent, it is likely that the very worst of humanity would rise to rule the rest. When I speak of "the worst of humanity", I am thinking of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, Goebels, and suchlike... genocidal monsters.

    In this sense I submit that pacifism is not the high ground of morality its exponents often claim, because the end result would be the greatest misery for the greatest numbers of humanity. "Peaceful resistance", a la Gandhi, only works if the PTB are not willing to keep killing people en-masse until the rest decide to cooperate. Gandhi was dealing with the civilized British... Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc would have had no problem with killing millions until the rest ceased to resist. (and they would, probably sooner rather than later.)

    I have been a cop. I have used the threat of deadly force to intervene in a number of situations where a criminal was threatening an innocent. If necessary I would have completed my threat and killed the criminal. There are times when nothing less will succeed. I believe I acted very morally, risking my life for the sake of a stranger... and I think the near-victims would certainly agree.

    As Paul the apostle said, live in peace with all as much as is possible. Unfortunately it is not always possible.

    Someone uses as their sig line this marvelous quote: Millions of peaceable people sleep soundly in their beds tonight, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. I think no truer words have been said.

    It takes all kinds to make a world, supposedly. Let those who seek peace work to achieve it as much as possible; that is good. Let those who know how to fight be prepared to fight, because war is far more certain that peace, and all those peaceniks are going to need protection when the SHTF.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering.


    G.
    Last edited by Goshin; 05-12-09 at 05:04 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #359
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    Well if you look at the opic of the thread tyou certainly have strayed from that.
    We are discussing the supposed necessity of violence, therefore it is a logical and valid extension of the thread topic. Please don't muddle it up.

    1. There are ways to subdue someone short of killing them.
    Which also necessitate violence.

    1a. You are not in a situation to torture here.
    It matters not. The essence of this argument is the supposed necessity of violence, therefore we may compare and contrast different forms of violence with in varying contexts.

    2. Killing a man because he is a rapist is murder. Putting him on trial is the law. It is murder not righteous violence. That is a term to make someone think there is a good type of murder and a bad type of murder. It is a statement of justification.
    I'm talking about killing a rapist who is presently committing a rape, not killing them after the fact. This is not murder as murder is the unlawful killing of another person. If you are acting in the defense of another's life or body it is justifiable homicide, not murder.

    3. It is not even to assumed that I have a gun in my hand. I never would.
    Jesus Christ! Does anyone know what a HYPOTHETICAL is or how it applies to arguments? You have a gun in your hand (never mind how it got there) and a man is about to rape a little girl right in front of you, WHAT DO YOU DO? Answer the question.

    Now if you are asking if i would attempt to stop the girl from being raped I surely would. It does not mean kill or torture. You are confused on defense and protective measures and killing and torture. They are not the same.
    This argument is becoming so muddled and nonsensical. I'm not concerned with the measures one employs in defensive and protective measures or killing and torture; they are irrelevant. I'm concerned with the moral justifications of violence. That is what we are discussing, that is what you and I are contesting.

    4. Yes to try and reason with a madman.
    Oh yes! I'm sure that will work wonders...

    "Excuse me, Mr. Rapist, but I noticed you were about to violate an innocent little girl. Would you be so kind as to stop?"

    When is the last time you were faced with a madman? If you have never been in this situation I suggest being afraid of this happening is fear and fear comes from being scared and cowards are people who are scared is that true?
    Absolutely not. Fear is something we all experience. To quote John Wayne:

    "Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway."

    Courage is taking action in the face of fear. Only when one fails or refuses to act in the face of fear do they become a coward.

    5. The holocaust needed never have taken place.
    Well, this is a profound statement.

    The leaders in Europe and others are part and parcel to those events. Yes though to answer your question non violence in ending the holocaust would have worked. It may have saved many lives. The Jewish cooperated with violence. They did not resist. They were afraid. In the end they perished. If they had stood there ground and said no. Some may have died but the violence against these would have been seen and people would have stood up against it much faster.
    Resistance to violence implies one of two things: either you reciprocate that violence or you submit to it. Which option should the Jews have employed and how would it work?
    Last edited by Ethereal; 05-12-09 at 05:06 PM.

  10. #360
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Someone uses as their sig line this marvelous quote: Millions of peaceable people sleep soundly in their beds tonight, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. I think no truer words have been said.
    To infer that that saying insinuates that those rough men stand ready to break the law for us dishonors those same men and women.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

Page 36 of 44 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •