• 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!

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?


  • Total voters
    60
How do you know that waterboarding is worse?

Because the fear of drowning ceases as soon as that person drowns. In waterboarding, the fear of drowning is multiplied by the number of times that person is subjected to waterboarding.
 
Because the fear of drowning ceases as soon as that person drowns. In waterboarding, the fear of drowning is multiplied by the number of times that person is subjected to waterboarding.
How does that make it worse?
 
How many times, on how many different threads, do we have to discuss this?

There was no rational fear of waterboarding when the CIA waterboarded high-level terrorist detainees. They were told, before each waterboarding session, that they would not be killed.

When a detainee "broke," it was a triumph of the irrational subconscious mind over the rational conscious mind.
 
I see where the OP is trying to go but it assumes that the person being tortured will give good information once torture is used.

Bad assumption.



In any case, what 2 or 10 or 85 people may do individually is not a green light to adopt bad policy for a country.
 
I see where the OP is trying to go but it assumes that the person being tortured will give good information once torture is used.

Bad assumption.
It's a bad assumption to assume that any person being interrogated will give good information, period. Police interrogations are a good example: 25% of the convictions overturned by DNA testing by the Innocence Project involved a defendant who falsely confessed to a crime.

Information gleaned from any interrogation needs to be corroborated, regardless of the techniques used to gain the information.

In any case, what 2 or 10 or 85 people may do individually is not a green light to adopt bad policy for a country.

How fortunate for the country, then, that waterboarding terrorists was a good policy.
 
:rofl:rofl:rofl

When you are done laughing at yourself, don't forget to answer the original question about how the number of times a person is waterboarded makes the alleged fear of drowning "worse" than an actual drowning experience.
 
This hypothetical scenario is an attempt to gauge one's moral position on torture. It is not meant to elicit idiotic references to the television show 24. That a hypothetical is unlikely to occur is irrelevant - they are intended to subject our moral suppositions to scrutiny by forcing us to make a choice. Having said that, please answer the question with a YES or NO answer followed by an explanation.

If you had to brutally torture a person in order to save the lives of your family, would you do it?

The hypothetical assumes said person is a murderous thug who is directly responsible for endangering your family.


Answer: Yes.

Explanation: Because I hold the lives of my family in a higher regard than murderous thugs.

Without a moments hesistation... yes.
 
Don't care what their title is.

If it comes between someone else's life or well being vs. My family's life or well being... my family wins every single time.

And before anybody asks a dumb question I'll throw this one out there.

I would torture a retarded, siamese twin baby who is missing 3 fingers on his right hand, 4 on his left, and a foot in order to save my family.


That is pathetic. Seriously...
 
When you are done laughing at yourself, don't forget to answer the original question about how the number of times a person is waterboarded makes the alleged fear of drowning "worse" than an actual drowning experience.

There is no point in explaining that to someone when he doesn't even know multiplication.
 
There is no point in explaining that to someone when he doesn't even know multiplication.

Translation: you have no clue, it just sounded good at the time.
 
says the guy who doesn't know multiplication :rofl

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that believing you are going to die the third time is worse than believing you're going to die the fourth time? Does that mean the third time you didn't really believe you were going to die? Actually, I would think the more you "survive" the "torture" the more you would believe that survival was going to be the outcome.
 
says the guy who doesn't know multiplication :rofl

It would be simple enough to prove me wrong. Merely answer the question. Surely the question is not too taxing for one of your intellectual heft?
 
What if that retarded, siamese twin baby didn't know what you wanted to get out of them? What if they gave you misleading info, just to stop the torture, that caused you to go in one direction causing the deaths of your family?

They would not be in my hot seat if there wasnt sufficient reason to suspect that they did.

If the retarded siamese twin baby was a part of a group that was going to or had attacked my house/family they have given me sufficient reason.
 
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that believing you are going to die the third time is worse than believing you're going to die the fourth time? Does that mean the third time you didn't really believe you were going to die? Actually, I would think the more you "survive" the "torture" the more you would believe that survival was going to be the outcome.

The assumption that you are making here is that the victim in this case is still operating under normal mental circumstances. In other words, you're assuming that this person is still going to make logical decisions. If that person is being tortured, mentally tortured in this case, this cannot be assumed.

Each time the fear of death is induced, the victim is pushed further and further into a chemical imbalance in the brain causing behavior to be unstable. This instability, as you can imagine, is multiplied by the number of times that person is subjected to waterboarding (the mental torture). The severe mental duress, which you and I both know very well because we're teachers ;), lasts not only thru the intervals where the torture takes place, but there is also permanent damage done to the human psyche and will likely affect the victim's life from now on.
 
The assumption that you are making here is that the victim in this case is still operating under normal mental circumstances. In other words, you're assuming that this person is still going to make logical decisions. If that person is being tortured, mentally tortured in this case, this cannot be assumed.

Each time the fear of death is induced, the victim is pushed further and further into a chemical imbalance in the brain causing behavior to be unstable. This instability, as you can imagine, is multiplied by the number of times that person is subjected to waterboarding (the mental torture). The severe mental duress, which you and I both know very well because we're teachers ;), lasts not only thru the intervals where the torture takes place, but there is also permanent damage done to the human psyche and will likely affect the victim's life from now on.

I guess my question is: "So?"

Especially considering the premise of the OP, the dude was already not an "integrated" personality--and there was an imminent threat. I'm not worried about the mental stability of an already unstable person who has information that could prevent real physical damage to others.

Death can affect the victims' life from now on, too. Not to mention the mental anguish inflicted on all the others the terrorist's actions obliquely affect.

Actions have consequences. If you're a bad dude willing to inflict such harm on others, you should expect that your mental "well-being" is not going to be handle with kid gloves should you fall into the hands of those you are trying to harm. That just seems...obvious.
 
Even now
People cant imagine how far I would go to save the lives of my fellow Americans.
I can, you'd nuke some population. Because you are sick with Jingoism.

Here's how your nationalistic fantasy never ends: Then the families of those nuked plot some revenge and therefore you have to retaliate against them and of course they retaliate...
 
I can, you'd nuke some population. Because you are sick with Jingoism.

Here's how your nationalistic fantasy never ends: Then the families of those nuked plot some revenge and therefore you have to retaliate against them and of course they retaliate...

From 21st century entertainment comes :RETALIATION!" In theatres July '09.
 
I guess my question is: "So?"

Especially considering the premise of the OP, the dude was already not an "integrated" personality--and there was an imminent threat. I'm not worried about the mental stability of an already unstable person who has information that could prevent real physical damage to others.

I understand that, but...

At this point of the thread, I don't think we're addressing the OP anymore. I thought it was clear that we were talking about Gitmo and how their detainees are being treated?

The mental stability of a detainee should still be important, however, because they are the ones providing you with the information. If their mental processes is compromised, how do you know if the information they give you is accurate? On top of the fact that they might be lying to you?

The problem is the assumption that the torture will provide useful information, which can be useless, harmless, or harmful, to completing our task. It is not a guarantee that it will be successful, nor does it mean that torture will be a step toward success.

Death can affect the victims' life from now on, too. Not to mention the mental anguish inflicted on all the others the terrorist's actions obliquely affect.

I agree. So neither death, nor torture, is useful.

Actions have consequences. If you're a bad dude willing to inflict such harm on others, you should expect that your mental "well-being" is not going to be handle with kid gloves should you fall into the hands of those you are trying to harm. That just seems...obvious.

Of course. But, the qualifier is "If you're a bad dude..."

Gitmo detainees that have been freed have filed law suits over torture because they have been wrongfully detained, and having their Civil Rights/Human Rights suspended.

Some of them, who have been tortured, "went back onto the battlefield" (as Cheney said), but we're not sure if they were terrorists before or after their detainment.
 
I understand that, but...

At this point of the thread, I don't think we're addressing the OP anymore. I thought it was clear that we were talking about Gitmo and how their detainees are being treated?

The mental stability of a detainee should still be important, however, because they are the ones providing you with the information. If their mental processes is compromised, how do you know if the information they give you is accurate? On top of the fact that they might be lying to you?

The problem is the assumption that the torture will provide useful information, which can be useless, harmless, or harmful, to completing our task. It is not a guarantee that it will be successful, nor does it mean that torture will be a step toward success.



I agree. So neither death, nor torture, is useful.



Of course. But, the qualifier is "If you're a bad dude..."

Gitmo detainees that have been freed have filed law suits over torture because they have been wrongfully detained, and having their Civil Rights/Human Rights suspended.

Some of them, who have been tortured, "went back onto the battlefield" (as Cheney said), but we're not sure if they were terrorists before or after their detainment.
You do recognize that Gitmo will remain open.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Obama, in Reversal of Campaign Pledge, May Use Military Commissions

The reality of dealing with terrorists runs smack into naive idealism.
 
Back
Top Bottom