• 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
Zyphlin said:
Moderator's Warning:
If you have issues with moderation you can direct it through PM or post in the basement. I'd advise you to not make further comments about it within the upstairs thread. Only warning
Click to expand...

Do you think I care you ****?

Let the Moderator **** SUCKING BEGIN!

Suck it Zyph suck it! Suck that Crippler SUCK HIM
 
talloulou said:
If you're gonna go out it ought to be with a bang. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


I'd expect a bigger bang from our friend up there... Looks like he might have another shot at going "boom" later down the road.


Uh, torture. I wouldn't do it... Yeah, there might be some good reasons here or there, but I just washed my hands, and blood gets all under my fingernails and no matter how hard I try I can never get it out...


Duke
 
I'm not reading through 26 pages, but are we assuming the toturee has some connection to what happened to our family? I'm pretty sure my family wouldn't want me torturing anyone if they were innocent, but otherwise, w/e.
 
Saboteur said:
Do you think I care you ****?

Let the Moderator **** SUCKING BEGIN!

Suck it Zyph suck it! Suck that Crippler SUCK HIM
Click to expand...



WUT?

Who is this person?

over 1800 posts? I don't remember reading him before but I think I'm gonna remember this meltdown post.

OMG!

:shock:
 
missypea said:
WUT?

Who is this person?

over 1800 posts? I don't remember reading him before but I think I'm gonna remember this meltdown post.

OMG!

:shock:
Click to expand...

AND he's been here longer than you and I, lol

wtf, right? :mrgreen:
 
He used to be fairly active back in the day... Didn't pull anything like this very often, though. :2razz:


Duke
 
Is this question the spawn of those revenge movies "Taken" and "The Last House On The Left"?
Click to expand...

No.

Did they make you feel tough because you agreed with them?
Click to expand...

Huh?

Do you fantisize about killing people?
Click to expand...

When I was a Marine I fantasized about killing people all the time; scratch that, terrorists aren't people.

Do you often feel powerless?
Click to expand...

Sometimes I guess.

What kind of video games do you play?
Click to expand...

Counter-Strike. Company of Heroes.


Now, I have some questions for you.

What's your fondest childhood memory?

When's the last time you experienced sexual arousal?

How do you feel about your parents?

Are you satisfied with your lifestyle?
 
Felicity said:
The intention is seperate from the action in and of itself. A comment that might be viewed as "mean" in and of itself, may have a purely loving intent in and of itself. Therefore, the comment sans circumstance lacks a moral weight. The circumstance and intention of the speaker are what influence the morality. If the intention is benevolence and the circumstance appropriate to that intention, the comment is not "mean."
Click to expand...

There is a third portion to this that you did not mention: perception. One's intent is relevant. The circumstances of the comment are relevant. Also, the receiver's perception of the comment is relevant. With these three variables, the meanness of the comment is relative and based on specific situations based on these three variables. Though they may be separate to some extent, they are also intertwined and cannot be completely separated.

If I call you a "jerk" all those variables must be considered, and there is no absolute determination as to whether that comment was mean or not.


Good/benevolence/altruism is the absolute in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Please explain.
 
Wessexman said:
Aren't you Jewish(as in religiously.)?:confused:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this has to do with this discussion.

Absolutes or universals narrow the possibilities but far from completely. If one takes the view that such things are refracted through the human mind and society through a complex web of material circumstances where one must still make decisions, influenced but not decided by his reliance on these concepts, then there is still a large scope for moral searchings. The scope has it limits but it is far from black and white.
Click to expand...

This sounds like you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. You are not speaking of absolutes, above.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not sure what this has to do with this discussion.
Click to expand...
I just thought your moral ideas were a little strange for Judaism.


This sounds like you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. You are not speaking of absolutes, above.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about absolutes in terms of universals in the Platonic, idealist sense. I'm saying the existence of such absolutes may narrow the playing field but it is still far from black and white or overlly narrow.

Perhaps you didn't mean absolutes in that sense.
 
Wessexman said:
I just thought your moral ideas were a little strange for Judaism.
Click to expand...

I'm a Reform Jew with a serious conservative lean. However, I am also a moral relativist. I don't find a lot of conflict with these positions.

I'm talking about absolutes in terms of universals in the Platonic, idealist sense. I'm saying the existence of such absolutes may narrow the playing field but it is still far from black and white or overlly narrow.

Perhaps you didn't mean absolutes in that sense.
Click to expand...

I am discussing absolutes from a purely moralistic and situation standpoint. Practically nothing is always good; practically nothing is always bad.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm a Reform Jew with a serious conservative lean. However, I am also a moral relativist. I don't find a lot of conflict with these positions.
Click to expand...
By relativism do you mean a rejuection of things like good and evil, right and wrong completely or simply that they are very complex thing that must be refracted in the material world and always depend on situation and context? I'm just saying you don't have to reject absolutes or universals to belief that latter.


I am discussing absolutes from a purely moralistic and situation standpoint. Practically nothing is always good; practically nothing is always bad.
Click to expand...
Well of that I'm not 100% in agreement but I agree it is generally the case.
 
Wessexman said:
By relativism do you mean a rejection of things like good and evil, right and wrong completely or simply that they are very complex thing that must be refracted in the material world and always depend on situation and context? I'm just saying you don't have to reject absolutes or universals to belief that latter.
Click to expand...

I reject that good or evil are simple terms that always apply to a thing, that they are complex terms that are reliant on the situation, context and the beings involved in determining where they exist on a spectrum.

And as far as I see it, most absolutes are incongruent with the above view.


Well of that I'm not 100% in agreement but I agree it is generally the case.
Click to expand...

Notice my use of the word "practically". In accordance with my view of relativity, it would be incongruent to believe that nothing was absolute. That would be an absolute statement.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I reject that good or evil are simple terms that always apply to a thing, that they are complex terms that are reliant on the situation, context and the beings involved in determining where they exist on a spectrum.

And as far as I see it, most absolutes are incongruent with the above view.




Notice my use of the word "practically". In accordance with my view of relativity, it would be incongruent to believe that nothing was absolute. That would be an absolute statement.
Click to expand...
I'm still a bit confused though. Are you saying there is no good and evil or that these exist but in the material world they need to be complexly discerned in grey contexts and that they usually don't always apply to an act?

I think there is a good and evil, or at least good, but otherwise largely agree with you. In general it is very hard to make simple, absolutist statements but that doesn't mean, imho, that universals don't exist.
 
Wessexman said:
I'm still a bit confused though. Are you saying there is no good and evil or that these exist but in the material world they need to be complexly discerned in grey contexts and that they usually don't always apply to an act?
Click to expand...

Good and evil exist but rely on the context of the situation and the participants involved. The same situation can have different contexts, or different contexts based on the participants, and, therefore have different moral definitions. Also, good and evil are not absolutes, but are on a continuum.

I think there is a good and evil, or at least good, but otherwise largely agree with you. In general it is very hard to make simple, absolutist statements but that doesn't mean, imho, that universals don't exist.
Click to expand...

I can agree with you, here.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Also, good and evil are not absolutes, but are on a continuum.

.
Click to expand...

What is at either end of that continuum?


You asked what I meant by Benevolence/good/altruism being the absolute....It's at one end of that continuum.

There is a third portion to this that you did not mention: perception. One's intent is relevant. The circumstances of the comment are relevant. Also, the receiver's perception of the comment is relevant.
Click to expand...
NOT, however to the act in and of itself. The act itself and it's intention and context are the only things that can be considered when determining the moral value (I use "value" and "weight" for lack of a better word--maybe "quality" would be better).

The perception of the act is separate and relies on a whole different set of circumstances that are variable depending upon the one forming the perception.

With these three variables, the meanness of the comment is relative and based on specific situations based on these three variables.
Click to expand...
The "sender" of the message can only be responsible to the intent and circumstances--"meanness" wholly relies upon intent. One cannot be "mean" by accident. One can be cavalier or thoughtless, but not "mean."

Though they may be separate to some extent, they are also intertwined and cannot be completely separated.
Click to expand...
Why? They are two different things. One is a conscious act, the other is a perception.

If I call you a "jerk" all those variables must be considered, and there is no absolute determination as to whether that comment was mean or not.
Click to expand...
If your intention was to make a light joke in an appropriate circumstance, intending it to be received as such, you are not being "mean" when you call me a jerk. "Mean" denotes an intention.
 
Felicity said:
What is at either end of that continuum?
Click to expand...

Ultimate good and ultimate evil. Best defined by + ∞ and -
∞. Always approaching but nearly never reaching.



You asked what I meant by Benevolence/good/altruism being the absolute....It's at one end of that continuum.
Click to expand...

Seems similar to what I said above.

NOT, however to the act in and of itself. The act itself and it's intention and context are the only things that can be considered when determining the moral value (I use "value" and "weight" for lack of a better word--maybe "quality" would be better).

The perception of the act is separate and relies on a whole different set of circumstances that are variable depending upon the one forming the perception.
Click to expand...

The whole constitutes the relative morality of the situation. If I my perception of the situation is different from yours, and you are the initiator, my perception is as relevant as yours to the morality of the situation. I am part of the scenario and am part of the context. This cannot be separated out.

The "sender" of the message can only be responsible to the intent and circumstances--"meanness" wholly relies upon intent. One cannot be "mean" by accident. One can be cavalier or thoughtless, but not "mean."
Click to expand...

No, the receiver also has a hand in the context. If you are being mean, but I do not perceive it that way, the message is NOT universally mean. Both parts, and the third, the situation, have a part in the relative morality of the act.

Why? They are two different things. One is a conscious act, the other is a perception.
Click to expand...

Both assess the morality of the situation or act. Therefore both have influence and negate universality.

If your intention was to make a light joke in an appropriate circumstance, intending it to be received as such, you are not being "mean" when you call me a jerk. "Mean" denotes an intention.
Click to expand...

If I am more sensitive than you and perceive the same thing as being mean, the outcome is different. My perception alters the morality of your comment and makes it mean...to me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Ultimate good and ultimate evil. Best defined by + ∞ and -
∞. Always approaching but nearly never reaching.





Seems similar to what I said above.
Click to expand...
Do you believe "ultimate" is movable depending upon the individual perspective, or is it a constant?


The whole constitutes the relative morality of the situation. If I my perception of the situation is different from yours, and you are the initiator, my perception is as relevant as yours to the morality of the situation. I am part of the scenario and am part of the context. This cannot be separated out.
Click to expand...
Why can it be looked at in part?



No, the receiver also has a hand in the context.
Click to expand...
Not in the act in and of itself. It's like looking at an individual strand of hair--the strand of hair is not the "hair-do," although it is always part of the hair-do (sorry lame analogy).

If you are being mean, but I do not perceive it that way, the message is NOT universally mean.
Click to expand...
Not in context, no, but in its intention, it is. Further, there is agreement as to what "mean" is universally in that it is "not good." The social context is a construct. The construct is important to interaction and intention, but the act itself is not dependant upon it when evaluating whether or not there is an objective/absolute that is a standard by which individual acts can be measured in isolation of actual context.

Both parts, and the third, the situation, have a part in the relative morality of the act.
Click to expand...
This is called meta-ethical analysis.

We're talking about the same thing, but focusing on different aspects. The "continuum" you mentioned is the objective/absolute standard, but the action in social context is the meta-ethical analysis which is relative to the circumstances.
 
Ethereal said:
When I was a Marine I fantasized about killing people all the time; scratch that, terrorists aren't people.
Click to expand...
What an ignorant statement that is... First off, I know you won't understand this but I'll say it for others reading. Terrorist is subjective. Some people would call our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq as terrorism... not to mention a myriad of other dasterdly deeds the USA has pulled around the world.
2nd, the people you call "terrorists", are simply misguided by their religion and many who were committed to Jihad have turned away from those ideals, so do they qualify as people now or are they still sub-human? The Marines sure did a good scrubbing of your noodle. :screwy

Sometimes I guess.
Click to expand...
And does it make you feel better then to degrade or bully others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom