• 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 come everybody puts themselves in the role of the torturer and not the victim?

Torture is about not being able to stop other people from hurting you. It is about taking away a person's right to protect themselves.

The premise of the OP is to see if you would torture someone who could help you save a family member. Which is just a hyperbolic way to get people to admit that yes, they would torture someone in that situation and in doing so then they must say that it's okay for governments to do it to POWs (I say governments because if the U.S. is going to do it with the support of it's people then look out Marines, the next time we get into it with a European or Asian country with an actual military, it's lights out for you).

I have one more thing to add, torture is also about the victim believing that giving information will save their life at least if there is an urgent need for that info. If someone had information about a family member in danger I would imagine that time would be a factor so telling your victim that they'll have a quick death if they give the info up might not work so well.

Just some things to ponder.

Oh and sorry for melting down, I don't like getting ganged up on.
 
Last edited:
Saboteur said:
How come everybody puts themselves in the role of the torturer and not the victim?
Click to expand...

That's how right wing, holier than thou, selfish people think. As long as the deed is not being done to them, or their loved ones, then it's ok. Their morals, and sins, are very one sided. That's why I volunteer to water board that neanderthal (sorry neanderthals!) Sean Hannity. :mrgreen:
 
Saboteur said:
How come everybody puts themselves in the role of the torturer and not the victim?
Click to expand...
Because that was the question asked: "Would you utilize torture to save a life?"

Also, there aren't too many moral questions arising from being on the receiving end of such treatment. All the fun debates are on the side of the torturers.
 
Saboteur said:
Anything else you'd like to know?
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly interested in your personal details. I figured as long as you were going to ask me a series of irrelevant questions I'd follow suite.
 
Ethereal said:
This hypothetical scenario is an attempt to gauge one's moral position on torture.

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.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never. No how, no way. Huh-unh.

Why? Because there is NO WAY to know if the person you're torturing knows anything (you telling me it's so don't mean squat; maybe you've got a grudge against said "murderous thug" and you're making this crap up because you're too weak to do the sick, twisted, UNAMERICAN job yourself). To assume otherwise is.... well, you know what they say about assumptions.

On the flip side, if I stopped by to visit the folks and found them being beaten by some sick sadistic f**k, I'd go at 'im with whatever came to hand and wouldn't stop till his brains were pulp. Or I'd die tryin'.

There's a reason I've got a Mossberg at the front door. ;)
 
Felicity said:
What's a Mossberg? Is that like an iceberg, but made of lichen?



:mrgreen: J.K.
Click to expand...

Heh! Truth be told, I'm overrun with moss out here (rural Pacific Northwest). In fact, the last week or so has been an un-fun adventure of thatching the %$#@! moss out of my lawn, reseeding it, and covering the seed with dirt. My lawn looks like it's got scabies. :(

But seriously... a Mossberg is a 12-guage pump-action shotgun. I've got coyotes and wildcats out here hungry for a chicken dinner, and I like my birds too much to let some critter get them. (I like ME too much to be a victim in my own home, too.)

So yeah, I got me a gun! I lean liberal, but not always...
 
Glinda said:
But seriously... a Mossberg is a 12-guage pump-action shotgun. I've got coyotes and wildcats out here hungry for a chicken dinner, and I like my birds too much to let some critter get them. (I like ME too much to be a victim in my own home, too.)

So yeah, I got me a gun! I lean liberal, but not always...
Click to expand...
Ironically, when shooting a firearm is the only time I lean to the left.....:mrgreen:
 
Glinda said:
Nope. Never. No how, no way. Huh-unh.

Why? Because there is NO WAY to know if the person you're torturing knows anything (you telling me it's so don't mean squat; maybe you've got a grudge against said "murderous thug" and you're making this crap up because you're too weak to do the sick, twisted, UNAMERICAN job yourself). To assume otherwise is.... well, you know what they say about assumptions.
Click to expand...

So, basically, you've dismissed a fundamental part of the hypothetical in order to avoid the question. Noted.
 
Ethereal said:
So, basically, you've dismissed a fundamental part of the hypothetical in order to avoid the question. Noted.
Click to expand...

Sure. Because your hypothetical is lame. Ignorant. Not possible in the real world.

Tell you what. You explain how you KNOW this person has information that no one else has.

THEN explain why, if you're so good at reading minds, you need to torture the person at all.

We'll wait. :2wave:
 
Glinda said:
Sure. Because your hypothetical is lame. Ignorant. Not possible in the real world.

Tell you what. You explain how you KNOW this person has information that no one else has.

THEN explain why, if you're so good at reading minds, you need to torture the person at all.

We'll wait. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Your daughter is missing. This man was caught with her clothing in his possession. He's an arrogant *** and says he buried her alive, she has a few hours of air left and then she dies. He refuses to say where she is.

Or...

Mohammad Ben Misbehavin' is a known terrorist, currently in custody. Intel says he belongs to a group known as Jihad R Us. Intel says your daughter has been kidnapped by Jihad R Us. Mohammad Ben Misbehavin' is believed to have complete knowlege of JRU's safehouses and communications methods. He refuses to talk.

There ya go. Now answer the question, please.

G.
 
Goshin said:
Your daughter is missing. This man was caught with her clothing in his possession. He's an arrogant *** and says he buried her alive, she has a few hours of air left and then she dies. He refuses to say where she is.

Or...

Mohammad Ben Misbehavin' is a known terrorist, currently in custody. Intel says he belongs to a group known as Jihad R Us. Intel says your daughter has been kidnapped by Jihad R Us. Mohammad Ben Misbehavin' is believed to have complete knowlege of JRU's safehouses and communications methods. He refuses to talk.

There ya go. Now answer the question, please.

G.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the ubiquitous "ticking time bomb" argument that actually never happens in the real world. You think if we answer "yes" to one of these scenarios then the use of torture is warranted, right? Wrong. Torture has been legislated to be illegal. There are no exceptions.
 
Glinda said:
Sure. Because your hypothetical is lame. Ignorant.
Click to expand...

These are not substantive criticisms.

Not possible in the real world.
Click to expand...

1. It's a hypothetical, therefore it need not be possible.

2. Improbable is not the same thing as impossible.

Tell you what. You explain how you KNOW this person has information that no one else has.
Click to expand...

Alright, I witnessed this man kidnap my family.

THEN explain why, if you're so good at reading minds, you need to torture the person at all.
Click to expand...

Mind-reading is unnecessary. I saw him kidnap my family, therefore I KNOW he has information regarding their whereabouts. Anyway, all of this is nothing more than an irrelevant tangent, meant to avoid the issue. You'll most likely continue trying to distort my hypothetical, muddying the waters with irrelevancies and convoluted modifications. Can't say I'm surprised though, for some people this issue isn't about logic, it's about politics and emotion.
 
Lightdemon said:
When my wife tells me the same thing, I call her a tease. ;)
But seriously, I was looking forward to part 2.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I will reconsider. I'm on summer right now so my time spent in the forum will be considerably less than usual.
 
Ethereal said:
Anyway, all of this is nothing more than an irrelevant tangent, meant to avoid the issue. You'll most likely continue trying to distort my hypothetical, muddying the waters with irrelevancies and convoluted modifications. Can't say I'm surprised though, for some people this issue isn't about logic, it's about politics and emotion.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Your hypothetical is completely illogical. And impossible. Maybe you should have thought out your hypothetical to its logical conclusion using reality as a guide.

Ethereal said:
Mind-reading is unnecessary. I saw him kidnap my family, therefore I KNOW he has information regarding their whereabouts. Anyway, all of this is nothing more than an irrelevant tangent, meant to avoid the issue.
Click to expand...

Oh. So now you're changing/adding to your hypothetical to suit your argument and to better fit your "gotcha" scenario. Noted. :roll:

My response: torture is NEVER ACCEPTABLE. Not even in your twisted little "24" world. Someone else already gave you my answer:

ADK_Forever said:
Ah yes, the ubiquitous "ticking time bomb" argument that actually never happens in the real world. You think if we answer "yes" to one of these scenarios then the use of torture is warranted, right? Wrong. Torture has been legislated to be illegal. There are no exceptions.
Click to expand...

Not only that, it's immoral. Ask your gawd to explain it to you.
 
Last edited:
Glinda said:
Sorry. Your hypothetical is completely illogical. And impossible. Maybe you should have thought out your hypothetical to its logical conclusion using reality as a guide.
Click to expand...

I cannot debate someone who does not understand the nature of a hypothetical or why it needn't be possible in order to have logical and moral value.

Oh. So now you're changing/adding to your hypothetical to suit your argument and to better fit your "gotcha" scenario. Noted. :roll:
Click to expand...

:rofl Are you serious? YOU demanded that I clarify my hypothetical and I acquiesced. You're obviously incapable of having an honest dialogue with me. You're just here to rant and rave about "TORTURE".

My response: torture is NEVER ACCEPTABLE. Not even in your twisted little "24" world. Someone else already gave you my answer:
Click to expand...

This absolutist statement merely confirms your unwillingness to subject your suppositions to logical and moral scrutiny. You're not here to debate, you're here to distort the issue with rants and emotional arguments.
 
Ethereal said:
This absolutist statement merely confirms your unwillingness to subject your suppositions to logical and moral scrutiny.
Click to expand...

How so? Do you suppose that because I abhor and oppose torture for ANY reason that I haven't pondered the logical and moral implications of said behavior? There you go again, pretending you can read minds.

:roll:

Ethereal said:
You're not here to debate, you're here to distort the issue with rants and emotional arguments.
Click to expand...

And you started this disingenuous discussion as a "gotcha." Tough luck, pal. You didn't "get me." I stand firmly by my ethical, honorable, non-blood-lust principles and morals. As an avowed pro-torture advocate, can you say the same?
 
Glinda said:
How so? Do you suppose that because I abhor and oppose torture for ANY reason that I haven't pondered the logical and moral implications of said behavior? There you go again, pretending you can read minds.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could actually expand upon this instead of merely citing your position as axiomatic.

And you started this disingenuous discussion as a "gotcha." Tough luck, pal. You didn't "get me."
Click to expand...

Alas! Foiled again! Your morality is only exceeded by your perceptiveness.

I stand firmly by my ethical, honorable, non-blood-lust principles and morals. As an avowed pro-torture advocate, can you say the same?
Click to expand...

Yes, I most certainly can.
 
Ethereal said:
I'm not particularly interested in your personal details. I figured as long as you were going to ask me a series of irrelevant questions I'd follow suite.
Click to expand...

Well I have one more for you which is perhaps more relevant. When you were a Marine where did you serve?
 
Goshin said:
Your daughter is missing. This man was caught with her clothing in his possession. He's an arrogant *** and says he buried her alive, she has a few hours of air left and then she dies. He refuses to say where she is.
Click to expand...
I may be willing to do allot of things I don't want my country doing as a matter of state policy. (I may want to listen in to my teenage daughter's phone calls....but I don;'t want the FBI doing it)

Or...

Goshin said:
Mohammad Ben Misbehavin' is a known terrorist, currently in custody. Intel says he belongs to a group known as Jihad R Us. Intel says your daughter has been kidnapped by Jihad R Us. Mohammad Ben Misbehavin' is believed to have complete knowlege of JRU's safehouses and communications methods. He refuses to talk.

There ya go. Now answer the question, please.

G.
Click to expand...

"Known Terrorist"?.....What the hell does that mean? (sounds like a "Suspected Terrorist" to me)

"Intel says"...Intel is often wrong.

"is believed to have complete knowlege "......Believed to have????


Be honest...You have no facts....you just want to hurt these guys for your own pleasure right? (In that case, have J, Bybee write a memo saying it's OK....That's all Bush did)
 
Ethereal said:
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
Click to expand...

You said that terrorists aren't people so I figure you were in Afghanistan because if you were in Iraq you were probably fighting people involved in different political factions for control of neighborhoods/towns, aka insurgents, not terrorists. Though I suppose some of them could have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom