• 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
Duke said:
Oh, none whatsoever. See, I don't have a mother, I am the product of two suns colliding in a black hole. I fell to this "earth" a few decades ago.


Nuclear Duke
Click to expand...


Meh, that was almost witty, 4 out of ten.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Meh, that was almost witty, 4 out of ten.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be witty, I was trying to be ridiculous, and it seems to me that I pulled that much off. But thanks anyway, Simon Cowell. :roll:


Duke
 
Duke said:
I wasn't trying to be witty, I was trying to be ridiculous, and it seems to me that I pulled that much off. But thanks anyway, Simon Cowell. :roll:


Duke
Click to expand...



ok my bad..... i agree, you are completley rediculous. :cool:
 
Just pointing out that "Two suns [sons] colliding in a black hole" sounds like an incestuous, interracial gay threesome to me.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Mind if I modify your hypothetical just a tad?

New Rule #1: Only one course of action is allowed. Once you get the information you like, you may only go to rescue your family member once.

If you get to your destination and it is the wrong destination - your family is blown to smithereens. You get to live a long life regretting your action every single day.

If you rescue your family the kidnappers are picked up by a giant claw and dropped either down the volcano of your choice, or in the prison of your choice.

New Rule #2: In addition to being allowed to use torture you are allowed to use psychology, respect, befriending, etc. on your kidnapper.

Now, would you still choose torture to get your information?
Click to expand...

You really are ignorant about how interrogation works. All interrogation techniques, including the ones fatuously derided as "torture," are psychological in nature. Everything about interrogation is geared towards manipulating a person's will and psyche.

During the Spanish Inquisition, when a prisoner was brought for questioning by the inquisitors, first the prisoner was shown the implements of torture and told in some detail how they would be used to extract a confession. A fair number of prisoners brought before the Inquisition "confessed" with just that little bit of "psychology."

A judicious and somewhat artful mixture of techniques is what will produce the most information--torture mixed with a bit of befriending, if you will.

The alternate construction for the question might go thus: could you apply torture techniques in an interrogation if those were the levers best calculated to unlock the malefactor's tongue? (Keep in mind that even Dear Leader acknowledges the efficacy of torture)

As for the rule #1, that's not a new rule--that was and should have been presumed from the beginning. Never presume you get a do-over.
 
celticlord said:
You really are ignorant about how interrogation works. All interrogation techniques, including the ones fatuously derided as "torture," are psychological in nature. Everything about interrogation is geared towards manipulating a person's will and psyche.
Click to expand...

If anyone is ignorant here it is you and in a huge way! Torture is physical. It's meant to scare the **** out of someone, making them think they're going to be killed if they don't talk. So, they talk and they say ANYTHING to stop the torture.

I would be happy to demonstrate on you for your education. :2wave:
 
ADK_Forever said:
If anyone is ignorant here it is you and in a huge way! Torture is physical. It's meant to scare the **** out of someone, making them think they're going to be killed if they don't talk. So, they talk and they say ANYTHING to stop the torture.

I would be happy to demonstrate on you for your education. :2wave:
Click to expand...




So you are against torturing terrorists, but are for torturing Americans who disagree with your politically.



Hypocrite much? :2wave:
 
celticlord said:
You really are ignorant about how interrogation works. All interrogation techniques, including the ones fatuously derided as "torture," are psychological in nature. Everything about interrogation is geared towards manipulating a person's will and psyche.

During the Spanish Inquisition, when a prisoner was brought for questioning by the inquisitors, first the prisoner was shown the implements of torture and told in some detail how they would be used to extract a confession. A fair number of prisoners brought before the Inquisition "confessed" with just that little bit of "psychology."
Click to expand...
How many of them were true confessions and not just confessing to what the inquisitors wanted to hear so they wouldn't get tortured?

There were people during this time that admitted to being witches to escape torture and even proclaiming their fake devotion to Jesus. All done to escape torture and none the truth.


celticlord said:
A judicious and somewhat artful mixture of techniques is what will produce the most information--torture mixed with a bit of befriending, if you will.
Click to expand...
Where does that end? Can we shove a double barrel shotgun in their mouth and hook the trigger up to a lie detector? If they tell the truth there won't be any physical harm right? It's just psychological. How about dropping them out of an airplane at 40,000 feet without a parachute and having someone with a parachute catch them at the last minute. It's just psychological.

Can the torturers be as creative as possible as long as they simply don't cause any lasting physical harm?
 
This is hardly a question about torture. Instead it's a question on family morals. Anybody with a family should be expected to answer "yes". Me loving my family causes me to be clouded with hatred. If this question was about policy, not family I think the results would be much different. However, to answer your question: Yes I would torture a thug to save a family member. However, let it be known that I do not advocate torture but am tied by polarizing emotions. Call me a hypocrite.
 
ADK_Forever said:
If anyone is ignorant here it is you and in a huge way! Torture is physical. It's meant to scare the **** out of someone, making them think they're going to be killed if they don't talk. So, they talk and they say ANYTHING to stop the torture.
Click to expand...
"Meant to scare" makes it physical and not psychological?

Liberal logic is ever a contradiction in terms.:roll:
 
celticlord said:
"Meant to scare" makes it physical and not psychological?

Liberal logic is ever a contradiction in terms.:roll:
Click to expand...

Your argument sounds like what I would expect from a bunch of 4 year olds. :roll:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Your argument sounds like what I would expect from a bunch of 4 year olds. :roll:
Click to expand...

What a clever way to avoid answering a very simple question.

Why not retain some shred of credibility in your discourse and admit that your own words acknowledge that all interrogation techniques are inherently psychological in nature?

How is something "meant to scare" not psychological?
 
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even now
People cant imagine how far I would go to save the lives of my fellow Americans.
 
ADK_Forever said:
If anyone is ignorant here it is you and in a huge way! Torture is physical. It's meant to scare the **** out of someone, making them think they're going to be killed if they don't talk. So, they talk and they say ANYTHING to stop the torture.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask you a straight question and I'd appreciate a straight answer: what is the harshest interrogation technique that should be legal?

ADK_Forever said:
I would be happy to demonstrate on you for your education. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that this little barb was pure rhetorical fluorish and nothing more.
 
Gibberish said:
How many of them were true confessions and not just confessing to what the inquisitors wanted to hear so they wouldn't get tortured?

There were people during this time that admitted to being witches to escape torture and even proclaiming their fake devotion to Jesus. All done to escape torture and none the truth.
Click to expand...
Not relevant, for two reasons:

1. The Gitmo interrogations were not about producing "confessions" but about extracting information--actionable intelligence that could be used to thwart future terrorist acts. Whether the terrorist renounces Allah or bin Laden in the process is not germane to the task.

2. Any interrogation result requires verification. The potential for dissembling is neither raised nor lowered because of the techniques used.

Gibberish said:
Where does that end? Can we shove a double barrel shotgun in their mouth and hook the trigger up to a lie detector? If they tell the truth there won't be any physical harm right? It's just psychological. How about dropping them out of an airplane at 40,000 feet without a parachute and having someone with a parachute catch them at the last minute. It's just psychological.
Click to expand...
Any interrogator using such techniques should be shot for dereliction of duty. Good technique hinges on the capacity to derive meaningful and extended results, not on a similarity to James Bond movies.

Gibberish said:
Can the torturers be as creative as possible as long as they simply don't cause any lasting physical harm?
Click to expand...

In the context of Guantanamo, yes. Break the will, not the body.
 
Lachean said:
Does this question presuppose that you know he's a murderous thug, and you know that he knows something worth torturing him over?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Groucho Marx said:
I'm going to ask you a straight question and I'd appreciate a straight answer: what is the harshest interrogation technique that should be legal?
Click to expand...

That is a legal question. My opinion, and your opinion, doesn't matter. My position is that what our law says is the limit should be followed by our gov't.

I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that this little barb was pure rhetorical fluorish and nothing more.
Click to expand...

You would only be partially correct. Ever felt the fear that you were going to drown? Water boarding is worse. Much worse.
 
Shewter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ADK_Forever said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's why it's called "choice." You plays the game you takes your chances.
 
ADK_Forever said:
That is a legal question. My opinion, and your opinion, doesn't matter. My position is that what our law says is the limit should be followed by our gov't.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, that is not a legal question. It's a political question. What do you believe the law should say, irrespective of what the law may or may not currently say.

ADK_Forever said:
You would only be partially correct. Ever felt the fear that you were going to drown? Water boarding is worse. Much worse.
Click to expand...
And how many times have you drowned, that you know this to be so?
 
ADK_Forever said:
"Choice"? :confused:

Are you older than 12?
Click to expand...

Yes, "choice." As in you have to make a decision, based upon imperfect information, with risks attendant on all possible alternatives.

It's what grown ups do.
 
celticlord said:
Actually, no, that is not a legal question. It's a political question. What do you believe the law should say, irrespective of what the law may or may not currently say.
Click to expand...

Wow. :confused: Do you ever read what you write or listen to what you say?

This country runs by its laws not by what one person "believes"! Holy ****! :roll:

And how many times have you drowned, that you know this to be so?
Click to expand...

My question was, "Ever felt the fear that you were going to drown?". I didn't ask if you drowned. :doh
 
ADK_Forever said:
Wow. :confused: Do you ever read what you write or listen to what you say?

This country runs by its laws not by what one person "believes"! Holy ****! :roll:
Click to expand...
Do you ever answer a question? What stance do you take on the law? Is "the law" automatically and intrinsically just? Should "the law" ever be modified to better impart justice?

In all your bobbing weaving waffling ducking running and associated other evasions, you manage completely to avoid stating anything about what you believe. Is that because you fear to state your beliefs plainly or because you have none to state?

ADK_Forever said:
My question was, "Ever felt the fear that you were going to drown?". I didn't ask if you drowned. :doh
Click to expand...
Yet again, you do not answer the simple question posed. Why do you fear to give answers?

How do you know that waterboarding is worse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom