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 43 of 44 FirstFirst ... 3341424344 LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 439

Thread: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

  1. #421
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    What say you, pro-torture people?
    I said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What exactly does this have to do with the hypothetical?

  2. #422
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    What exactly does this have to do with the hypothetical?
    The hypothetical is your gig.

    I'm referring to torture.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  3. #423
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Yeah, what miranda right prevents a cop from using torture? Having a lawyer present during questioning? OK so the torture begins when the lawyer gets there. Oh, something about coerced confessions? Why wouldn't we just do away with that since torture works so well? If we can legalize torture surely we can change the miranda law to accommodate such an effective means of getting the truth... If waterboarding is so effective the all law enforcement agencies should go for that first, right?

    Judge: How do you plead?
    defendant: not guilty
    Judge: The officer says you were speeding and you deny it so court will recess for 2 hours while we get to the truth... Bailiff, take the defendant to the torture chamber.
    I think you aren't grasping my points in any way shape or form. I'm not for the government torturing people because I think it is a power that the government should not be granted.

    I think that people who utilize torture deserve to be punished because I don't believe that it is a power that people should be granted.

    If my family were in danger, I would utilize a power I should not have and willingly accept the consequences of that legal violation because I utilized a power I should not have.


    What was it you said in another post? Oh yeah, irrational nonsense.
    Being willing to break the law to save my family is irrational? Perhaps. I admit that the decision would be based on emotion as much as anything else.


    "Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."
    Ohhh Kayyy. How does this relate to my statements?

    This is a contradictory statement. First off, what prevents a cop from saying the same thing as a private citizen? 2nd, if it's good enough for you, why not everyone? 3rd, if you think it would work then why keep the government/law enforcement from using an effectual tool?
    It's not contradictory if you understand what I mean. Even if it were 100% effective, I wouldn't agree with legalization of torture for the reasons I've described: I believe it is a power that nobody should legally wield over another. In part because it would almost definitely be abused.

    I would expect to be punished for utilizing a power that I should not have. I am of the belief that the punishment would be worth it in order to save my family.



    Oh, I see. So you'd break the law and use torture but you don't think it should be lawful. Why not if it works?
    Because of it's vast potential for misuse. Because I don't believe that the government should be granted that kind of power. Because I don't view efficacy as the barometer for legality.

  4. #424
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    The hypothetical is your gig.

    I'm referring to torture.
    The hypothetical was Ethereal's, actually.

    And you are referring to a specific instance of torture that isn't related to the hypothetical.

    Let me ask this of the people arguing against all forms of torture as immoral:

    Do you think it is possible for someone to hold the view that they would personally use torture in a certain, specific situation without supporting the torture used by the government?

  5. #425
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    One thing I will always argue against is anyone who claims that their moral views are undeniable fact.
    What are you babbling about? My moral views are undeniable fact - they exist for me; I hold them, I observe them, I follow them. Your moral views are undeniable fact as well. Although I cannot say with conviction that yours do not change with the situation ["I wouldn't ever beat the **** out of anyone that I'd tied up, but AAKK!! My family is in danger!"], I can say with authority that mine do not.

    That statement is always irrational nonsense. Since the veracity of one's "morality" is totally unprovable, making any claims that one's morality is more "true" than another's is never anything more than an opinion statement.
    My use of the word "true" was intended to show the distinction between those whose moral position on torture does not change with the circumstance (yes, even in "AAKK!! My family is in danger!" situations) as opposed to those whose moral position on torture does. "True" as in reliable, unfailing, unchanging, unbreakable, regardless of the situation or circumstance. Sorry that wasn't clearer.

    Now get up off the floor and wipe your tears. Mommy's tired of your tantrums.

  6. #426
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    What are you babbling about? My moral views are undeniable fact - they exist for me; I hold them, I observe them, I follow them. Your moral views are undeniable fact as well. Although I cannot say with conviction that yours do not change with the situation ["I wouldn't ever beat the **** out of anyone that I'd tied up, but AAKK!! My family is in danger!"], I can say with authority that mine do not.
    False. You moral views are not undeniable facts "for you".

    What is a fact is that you HOLD certain moral views.

    There is a distinction.

    I would like to clarify something: My moral views don't "change" based on the situation. I look at each situation individually before I make a moral distinction. For me, utilizing any means necessary to save my family is always moral. Situation: Saving my family.

    I don't take an amorphous thing like "torture" and arbitrarily decide that it is always immoral under any circumstances because I cannot possibly know all the possible situations where it might be utilized.

    I can say that most of the situations I have encountered are ones where I find torture to be immoral.

    Btu I wouldn't presume to have encountered every situation.


    My use of the word "true" was intended to show the distinction between those whose moral position on torture does not change with the circumstance (yes, even in "AAKK!! My family is in danger!" situations) as opposed to those whose moral position on torture does. "True" as in reliable, unfailing, unchanging, unbreakable, regardless of the situation or circumstance. Sorry that wasn't clearer.
    I differ on my take of your beliefs.

    I feel they are based on a flawed premise and thus are illogical.

    That premise is: "If I haven't encountered it or imagine it, it cannot exist".

    You must assume that no situation can possibly exist that is outside your own personal view of reality.

    I make a moral distinction based on the premise, "Just because I have not encountered or imagined a situation, that does not mean it cannot exist"

    Because I cannot know every possible situation, I cannot make a blanket statement that an action is always moral or immoral. For specific situations, I can make that distinction.

    Now get up off the floor and wipe your tears. Mommy's tired of your tantrums.
    Why didn't you breast feed me, mommy?!?!?!?!

  7. #427
    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
    My use of the word "true" was intended to show the distinction between those whose moral position on torture does not change with the circumstance (yes, even in "AAKK!! My family is in danger!" situations) as opposed to those whose moral position on torture does.
    What's your point? People's moral positions change in regards to a lot of things; it's called context. In one instance killing can be immoral, in another it can be moral. To suggest an act is categorically immoral requires a bit more intllectual leg-work than simply shreeking, "IT'S IMMORAL! WE DON'T DO THAT!"

  8. #428
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    The hypothetical was Ethereal's, actually.
    I meant that the hypothetical was a duscussion you were in.

    And you are referring to a specific instance of torture that isn't related to the hypothetical.
    I was responding to this:
    Originally Posted by Slippery Slope
    Curious commentary. I think it's been pretty well established that torture rarely yields viable intelligence, never in a timely fashion, and is morally reprehensible not to mention against the law and values of the civilized world in general.
    I agreed and added info to what SS said.

    Let me ask this of the people arguing against all forms of torture as immoral:

    Do you think it is possible for someone to hold the view that they would personally use torture in a certain, specific situation without supporting the torture used by the government?
    I find these hypos to be ridiculous. Laws are not made because of them. They do not reflect the real world. We have never been in a "ticking time bomb" situation. And to modify it for someone's family is just as ludicrous.

    They remind me of...
    Would you sleep with me for $10? No? Would you sleep with me for $100 billion? Yes? Well, we have established "what" you are. Now we just need to haggle over the price.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  9. #429
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    I was responding to this:

    I agreed and added info to what SS said.
    Which was directed at me. I thought it meant your comments were vicariously aimed at me.



    I find these hypos to be ridiculous. Laws are not made because of them. They do not reflect the real world. We have never been in a "ticking time bomb" situation. And to modify it for someone's family is just as ludicrous.
    No hypothetical is designed to perfectly reflect the real world. If they were, they wouldn't be called hypotehticals.

    They speculations are used to test the veracity of a conclusion. If a conclusion is "Torture is always immoral", and the conclusion is valid, the situations described in the hypothetical would have no bearing on it.

    If teh situations described in the hypothetical do have bearing on the reaction, then the conclusion must be construed as invalid. It will be dependent on the approach to the argument that the person has n order to reach a conclusion.

    But simply dismissing the hypothetical and retaining the conclusion is severely flawed logic because it again, presumes that not having encountered a situation means it cannot exist.

    One can easily address the hypothetical while retaining a view that waterboarding and such is immoral. Dismissing the hypothetical means that the person acknowledges the flaws in their argument enough to feel the need to dismiss the hypothetical, but not enough to alter their argument.


    They remind me of...
    Good joke.

    But the point is that if someone would sleep with someone for 1 billion dollars, they cannot accurately state "I would never sleep with someone for money" without being guilty of flawed logic.

    They can state that it extremely unlikely that they would ever sleep with someone for money because the amount of money required for that to happen is probably never going to be offered.

    One can say that they believe torture is almost always immoral, and the rare cases where it wouldn't be immoral are so improbable that it is highly doubtful that they will ever actually exist.

    That is, if they can't answer the hypothetical with "no". If they can honestly answer no, they can say that they believe that "Torture is always immoral".

  10. #430
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Which was directed at me. I thought it meant your comments were vicariously aimed at me.
    It was not directed at you. I quoted SS and replied to him. It just happened to come after one of your posts.

    No hypothetical is designed to perfectly reflect the real world. If they were, they wouldn't be called hypotehticals.
    I understand that but, I won't play it. It's a game to try to do just what you described. If we admit there is even 1 chance in 1 million that we would use torture then the right will use that to say we agree torture should be used. That would not be true.

    Too many of our country's leaders took stands against torture. If those stands and morals got us this far, through much harder times, I'm confident they will get us thru these times.

    America chooses to NOT torture. Period.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

Page 43 of 44 FirstFirst ... 3341424344 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
  •