Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Felicity · May 12, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
Amazing. Your post only had 4 sentences. Yet you quote the 2 not relevant. :roll:

the other two are:

Some people will just roll over and die before fighting back.

and...
But I also don't think that's the right choice.

Now tell me...Where in there did I address Inferno, and what S/HE would do?

In your personal distaste for me, you lose reading comprehension. Perhaps the two are related.

Inferno · May 12, 2009

Felicity said:
Inferno's right. Some people will just roll over and die before fighting back. I don't think s/he's a liar. But I also don't think that's the right choice.

It is not a case of just rolling over. They can beat me and break my bones and even kill me. In the end they have a broken body or my dead body. In either case I have not sunk to their level and they do not have my submission. It is not a case of just rolling over. It is an act of non violent rebellion against tyrannical ways. Oh it is she BTW.

Felicity · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
It is not a case of just rolling over. They can beat me and break my bones and even kill me. In the end they have a broken body or my dead body. In either case I have not sunk to their level and they do not have my submission. It is not a case of just rolling over. It is an act of non violent rebellion against tyrannical ways.

How many martyrs? And for what cause? Sleep deprivation is called "torture." If you read my earlier post in answer to the OP, I said for my family, I would act from emotion and probably do anything required that I could manage. However, as a policy, I'm not for permanent disfigurement or killing.

Jr. High is worse torture than water boarding, and EVERY American kid has to endure THAT!

Inferno · May 12, 2009

Felicity said:
How many martyrs? And for what cause? Sleep deprivation is called "torture." If you read my earlier post in answer to the OP, I said for my family, I would act from emotion and probably do anything required that I could manage. However, as a policy, I'm not for permanent disfigurement or killing.

Jr. High is worse torture than water boarding, and EVERY American kid has to endure THAT!

I said in one of my earlier posts that in many causes I would be willing to give my life. There is no cause nor reason for me ever be willing to resort to the enemies tactics or to kill.
The sense that I get (not necessarily from your post) is that one who will not fight back is seen as weak. It is not weakness. You never yield to the level of an oppressor. You never submit to their reign. The only power that they have over us is that which we grant them. It is when we sell out our values and noble ideals that we become their slaves and the enemy wins over us.
When the US decided that torture was a good thing that is when we lost the moral high ground and told the enemy that we are no better than you are. That is when the enemy took away our noble view. That was when we lost.
It is true when you think of this. An Eye for an Eye eventually makes the entire world blind.

To sink to the level of an oppressor is to become them.

Felicity · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
I said in one of my earlier posts that in many causes I would be willing to give my life. There is no cause nor reason for me ever be willing to resort to the enemies tactics or to kill.
The sense that I get (not necessarily from your post) is that one who will not fight back is seen as weak. It is not weakness. You never yield to the level of an oppressor. You never submit to their reign. The only power that they have over us is that which we grant them. It is when we sell out our values and noble ideals that we become their slaves and the enemy wins over us.
When the US decided that torture was a good thing that is when we lost the moral high ground and told the enemy that we are no better than you are. That is when the enemy took away our noble view. That was when we lost.
It is true when you think of this. An Eye for an Eye eventually makes the entire world blind.

To sink to the level of an oppressor is to become them.

Sleep deprivation, emotional intimidation, and water boarding is not starvation, and beheading.

kjyoung · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
I said in one of my earlier posts that in many causes I would be willing to give my life. There is no cause nor reason for me ever be willing to resort to the enemies tactics or to kill.
The sense that I get (not necessarily from your post) is that one who will not fight back is seen as weak. It is not weakness. You never yield to the level of an oppressor. You never submit to their reign. The only power that they have over us is that which we grant them. It is when we sell out our values and noble ideals that we become their slaves and the enemy wins over us.
When the US decided that torture was a good thing that is when we lost the moral high ground and told the enemy that we are no better than you are. That is when the enemy took away our noble view. That was when we lost.
It is true when you think of this. An Eye for an Eye eventually makes the entire world blind.

To sink to the level of an oppressor is to become them.

Well said Inferno!

Several expressions come to mind with this: 'practice what you preach', 'lead by example', and 'do unto others'. Violence only begets violence.

-k

Inferno · May 12, 2009

Felicity said:
Sleep deprivation, emotional intimidation, and water boarding is not starvation, and beheading.

They are all the same. We tend as people to look at things in degrees.

Example. Is it worse to have all the bones in your right hand broken or to be shot in the head?

Is it worse to be blinded than beheaded?

There is no degree in that. Death or Torture in my eyes is the same. In fact in many cases death may be the preferred course.

Felicity · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
They are all the same. We tend as people to look at things in degrees.

Example. Is it worse to have all the bones in your right hand broken or to be shot in the head?

Is it worse to be blinded than beheaded?

There is no degree in that. Death or Torture in my eyes is the same. In fact in many cases death may be the preferred course.

I don't mean to change the subject, but I think they are related.

Your acceptance of killing human beings in the womb doesn't seem to match the apparent consistency you are going for.

Glinda · May 12, 2009

Felicity said:
Sleep deprivation, emotional intimidation, and water boarding is not starvation, and beheading.

Yet used as intended, they are all considered torture. So say nearly all 200 countries of the world, that have willingly become signatory nations to the Geneva Conventions.

Honestly, is your comment supposed to mean something?

Inferno · May 12, 2009

Felicity said:
I don't mean to change the subject, but I think they are related.

Your acceptance of killing human beings in the womb doesn't seem to match the apparent consistency you are going for.

I don't believe that a fetus has rights. I don't apparently see the fetus in the same way you might. It is not a person. It attains that status when it is outside the womb. I understand your question and it is just asking how I can view these differently. My abortion opinion is that women have the right to choose. The fetus does not have that right.

Felicity · May 12, 2009

Glinda said:
Yet used as intended, they are all considered torture. So say nearly all 200 countries of the world, that have willingly become signatory nations to the Geneva Conventions.

Honestly, is your comment supposed to mean something?

And do all of those 200 signatories abide by the Geneva Convention for enemy combatants?

And...Are we at war with a country, or an ideology? And how can "terrorists" unaffiliated with a particular country be covered?

Is YOUR comment supposed to mean something?

Tucker Case · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
Example. Is it worse to have all the bones in your right hand broken or to be shot in the head?

This one's a no brainer, pun intended. Shot in the head is worse. I've broken all the bones in my hand before. Not that bad. I haven't been shot in the head before, which is why I'm able to tell you that I've broken all the bones in my hand before.

Is it worse to be blinded than beheaded?

Beheaded is way worse. If it wasn't, all the blind people in the world who used to have sight would commit suicide.

Inferno · May 12, 2009

Tucker Case said:
This one's a no brainer, pun intended. Shot in the head is worse. I've broken all the bones in my hand before. Not that bad. I haven't been shot in the head before, which is why I'm able to tell you that I've broken all the bones in my hand before.

Beheaded is way worse. If it wasn't, all the blind people in the world who used to have sight would commit suicide.

In your view. If a person is blinded of made deaf or loses there ability to get around. They may prefer to be dead. Euthanasia is a case in point some people would prefer death to being impaired or suffering. It is in fact in the eye of the beholder.

Ethereal · May 12, 2009

Wessexman said:
How exactly is a situation about a muderous thug where your family is in mortal danger not emotional?

The logical choice and the emotional choice are not always mutually exclusive. However when one approaches an issue from a purely emotionally and partisan standpoint there is a greater chance their choice will not coincide with logic. In my hypothetical the emotional choice is the logical choice and vise versa. The only illogical thing to do in my hypothetical would be to stand idly by, waiting for your family to die as you held your head high like some proud fool.

Inferno said:
You don't know me at all. You just called me a liar because you happen to believe that I would torture someone. That is really sick of you to say. I am as insulted as i can be. I have lived on this planet for 57 years and have done no harm. I would not torture nor kill for any reason. There are many causes for which I would be willing to die but there is no issue for which I am willing to kill. Don't judge me nor call me a liar unless you know me!

Fine, if you are not a liar then you can only be one thing: a base and craven coward. You would sacrifice the lives of innocent people in order to maintain some illusory feeling of morality; this is the logical conclusion of your argument and it is contemptible.

I'll respond to the other posts after I return.

Felicity · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
I don't believe that a fetus has rights. I don't apparently see the fetus in the same way you might. It is not a person. It attains that status when it is outside the womb. I understand your question and it is just asking how I can view these differently. My abortion opinion is that women have the right to choose. The fetus does not have that right.

You "don't believe" that a fetus has rights. I don't believe that a terrorist has more rights than a human being in a particular unfortunate geography where their life means nothing according to the law.

Tucker Case · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
In your view. If a person is blinded of made deaf or loses there ability to get around. They may prefer to be dead. Euthanasia is a case in point some people would prefer death to being impaired or suffering.

Anyone who'd prefer death to a broken hand is undeniably an idiot.

Preferring death to blindness is being emotionally weak. Blind people can live full, well rounded lives. Only a coward would chose death over blindness.

It is in fact in the eye of the beholder.

Which would be held by the guy who plucked it out.

Inferno · May 12, 2009

Originally Posted by Inferno
You don't know me at all. You just called me a liar because you happen to believe that I would torture someone. That is really sick of you to say. I am as insulted as i can be. I have lived on this planet for 57 years and have done no harm. I would not torture nor kill for any reason. There are many causes for which I would be willing to die but there is no issue for which I am willing to kill. Don't judge me nor call me a liar unless you know me!

Ethereal said:
Fine, if you are not a liar then you can only be one thing: a base and craven coward. You would sacrifice the lives of innocent people in order to maintain some illusory feeling of morality; this is the logical conclusion of your argument and it is contemptible.

It has nothing to do with lying or cowardice. It has to do with a persons ideas of humanity. I can tell just by the very wording and personal attack toward me in your posts that we are in fact very different.

I under no circumstances would kill nor torture.

You may very well do both of those. It does not take a special kind of person to take a life or to cause one pain in the form of torture.

It is in fact the coward that needs the gun because he or she is afraid. It is the coward that will torture because the enemy tortured. There is a moral high ground. That was lost by the US when people decided that our values would be based on what the enemy does not on what is correct.

Cowardice is in the heart of the person that walks in fear. I am not a coward. You still don't know me yet you want to judge me. What we are is different and I am certainly thankful of that.

ADK_Forever · May 12, 2009

Felicity said:
the other two are:

Some people will just roll over and die before fighting back.

These are your words, not Inferno's.

and...
But I also don't think that's the right choice.

Sounds like a judgement to me. :roll:

Now tell me...Where in there did I address Inferno, and what S/HE would do?

In your personal distaste for me, you lose reading comprehension. Perhaps the two are related.

Personal distaste? I'm simply responding to your mischaracterization of Inferno's post.

low reading comp? You must be joking. :doh You purposely ignored the 2 sentences, out of only 4!, that are pertinent here. It's not a case of my low reading comp. It is a matter of you ignoring the issue and twisting the words of a post. I won't hazard a guess as to what that behavior is related to.

I see Inferno set you straight. It seems we both have the same reading comp and came to the same conclusion re: your post. Hmmm... imagine that! :mrgreen:

Glinda · May 12, 2009

Felicity said:
And do all of those 200 signatories abide by the Geneva Convention for enemy combatants?

Those who sign the treaties of the Geneva Conventions and violate any of them are guilty of war crimes and may be tried accordingly in a world/international court. Please show us where the Geneva Conventions indicate that its signatories may violate said signed agreement and not suffer the consequences.

Felicity said:
Are we at war with a country, or an ideology?

Well, let's see. GW Bush initiated a war against another country (Iraq) based on the actions of a group of non-Iraqi militants (al Qaeda) with an anti-American ideology, that attacked the US on 9/11/01. Our actual fight is with a group of militants (al Qaeda). You'll have to ask GW how Iraq/Saddam became our target.

Felicity said:
And how can "terrorists" unaffiliated with a particular country be covered?

It's clearly spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. Maybe you oughta read 'em sometime. We're obligated to adhere to the Conventions because we SAID we'd adhere to the Conventions, even if they (ANY they) didn't sign the Conventions.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention [i.e., al Qaeda], the Powers who are parties thereto [i.e., the US] shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. --The Geneva Conventions: Part I, Article 2

Furthermore:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons [such as a suspected al Qaeda operative], having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy [that would be us], belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Tucker Case · May 12, 2009

Glinda said:
Furthermore:

The argument that is made is that there it is clear that they do not fall under the enumerated categories in article four, and thus no need for a tribunal because no questions about their status exist.

The only way to win that argument is to show that they do indeed have the potential of falling into one of those categories.

P.S. I know this because I've used the same strategy before.

Glinda · May 12, 2009

Tucker Case said:
The argument that is made is that there it is clear that they do not fall under the enumerated categories in article four, and thus no need for a tribunal because no questions about their status exist.

The only way to win that argument is to show that they do indeed have the potential of falling into one of those categories.

It doesn't matter what "category" the torturee falls under. We signed the GCs; we're obligated to adhere to them, even if others don't.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention [i.e., al Qaeda], the Powers who are parties thereto [i.e., the US] shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. --The Geneva Conventions: Part I, Article 2

As for the definition of "torture:"

The Geneva Conventions

PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Ethereal · May 12, 2009

Blackdog said:
Torture can never, ever be morally justified in any case. Now try and tell me I am some how being emotional? :roll:

Because you are making a foolish statement based upon an emotional response to a political issue. Humans can and have contrived justifications for killing other people, yet you're able to delude yourself into believing the same is never true for "torture". This is absolutely ridiculous. How can humanity justify killing but not "torture"? How can humanity justify collateral damage but not "torture"? Your position is inherently contradictory and nonsensical. Unless, of course, you also believe killing is never justified?

This is nothing but opinion with no scientific evidence to back it up at all. Unless you are basing it on this un-scientific "hypothetical" poll?

Of course it's an opinion. This is not a debate of scientific factuality.

I have already shown that reasonable people under the right circumstance can be forced to do or accept unreasonable things. This pretty much makes your statement incorrect as it has little to do with "emotion" and more to do with circumstance.

How can something be "unreasonable" if it is necessary? If I must kill a man in order to stop him from raping my sister is that "unreasonable"? Is it immoral?

This is nothing by psychobabble and based on information that is only good for the garbage can as I have shown.

No, it is an accurate assessment of your position. You reflexively reject "torture" on an emotional basis and declare your position as axiomatic. You've done nothing to explain why "torture" is categorically immoral and you've done nothing to explain the contradiction between justified killing and justified "torture". You've merely declared your position as being self-evident, which it is not.

Glinda said:
I think you've confused yourself with those who are not pro-torture. The only person lacking logic here is you - the guy who believes that a personal moral/ethical code that changes with the breeze is a good moral/ethical code; the ONLY moral/ethical code.

Where have I said this? Quote me.

Here's a small lesson for you: a moral/ethical code that weakens or disappears when things get rough is NOT a moral/ethical code. What it is, is a convenient cop-out. Only wimps and prevaricators try to rationalize their willingness to abrogate strongly held personal beliefs and/or break national and international law with "But the situation called for it! That guy was a murderous THUG!"

My moral code remains well intact. I'm not the one who believes "torture" is categorically immoral. I believe it is justified under certain circumstances, just as killing can be justified under certain circumstances. Your position is the one which lacks moral continuity. You state axiomatically the immorality of "torture" yet you would defend the killing of another person in war or self-defense. How can inflicting harm upon one's enemy be categorically immoral yet killing them is justifiable? Please, explain.

You've used this supposed "lack of logic and objectivity" bull several times, Ethereal. You state that those who are opposed to torture for any and all reasons are simply "too emotional" to make a rational decision, else they'd come to the exact same conclusion that you have, i.e. that it is perfectly acceptable for one's moral/ethical code to change if this or that situation warrants it. I say again, a moral/ethical code that changes with the breeze is no code at all - it's nothing more than trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Straw-man. I've made no such claims.

So, if someone answers "No, I wouldn't torture for ANY reason" they have "no courage?" Really? In my world it takes far more courage to honor one's moral/ethical code and refuse to torture a convenient target, than it does to wimp out and let fear and anger lead to brutality and violence. I guess things are different on your planet, but the United States is a nation built on the rule of law. You are advocating vigilantism. I say, sir, that you are an unrepentant anarchist with no morals at all.

I do not accept the silly notion that "torture" is categorically immoral, so how am I forfeiting my moral code?

Of course you'll argue it, but this statement just proves that you have no moral or ethical code. Blaming your willingness, nay, your eagerness, to inflict pain on others "when it's morally justified" is akin to saying "I'll just do what my irrational thoughts suggest I do at this moment, and that's justification enough."

I'd be very interested in seeing your list of "when it's morally justified" scenarios. Care to share?

We're going in circles. My hypothetical is one such scenario. Feel free to address it.

And yet here you are, implying that a moral code is foolish and unnecessary (really nothing more than being "too emotional") - that a situation should dictate one's morals. That, in fact, if the situation appears dire enough, morals and ethics shouldn't even be considered.

Yet another straw-man. I've said no such thing.

You know, you've yet to explain your rationale behind the idea that beating someone senseless requires logic and morals...

It's the same rationale one would employ when beating or killing a rapist. It's the same rationale a Marine employs on the battlefield when the enemy is in his crosshairs. It's the same rationale a fighter-pilot employs when they drop a bomb on a military target which is in close proximity to civilians.

Inferno · May 12, 2009

There never is any good or positive rationalization of torture. It takes away from all of us and adds nothing. Why is it good to lower oneself to the tactics of the enemy with an ideology that is found by many to be repugnant. That makes no sense. There can be no good reason to participate in a violent act against another.

Ethereal · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
It has nothing to do with lying or cowardice.

It most certainly does. Those are the only logical conclusions of pacifism. Either you are lying or you are a coward. If you will not resort to violence in any circumstance you are most certainly a craven coward of the worst kind.

It has to do with a persons ideas of humanity. I can tell just by the very wording and personal attack toward me in your posts that we are in fact very different.

Absolutely we are. I would meet unjust violence with righteous violence, whereas you would cower and permit the unjust to transpire out of pride.

I under no circumstances would kill nor torture.

Then you are a coward.

You may very well do both of those. It does not take a special kind of person to take a life or to cause one pain in the form of torture.

Special or not, a courageous person will not stand idly by while violence is visited upon the innocent.

It is in fact the coward that needs the gun because he or she is afraid. It is the coward that will torture because the enemy tortured. There is a moral high ground. That was lost by the US when people decided that our values would be based on what the enemy does not on what is correct.

Cowardice is in the heart of the person that walks in fear. I am not a coward. You still don't know me yet you want to judge me. What we are is different and I am certainly thankful of that.

Pacifism is nothing more than a fanciful notion steeped in naiveté and pride. At the end of the day you and I are the same; we are both willing to commit acts of violence under the right circumstances; you simply delude yourself into believing otherwise.

Ethereal · May 12, 2009

Inferno said:
There never is any good or positive rationalization of torture. It takes away from all of us and adds nothing. Why is it good to lower oneself to the tactics of the enemy with an ideology that is found by many to be repugnant. That makes no sense. There can be no good reason to participate in a violent act against another.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've offered nothing in the way of substance or clarification. You simply state your position as axiomatic and expect us to concede. Why is violence never justified? Expand upon this instead of merely making unsupported statements.

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?

Yes

No

activist professor

activist professor

New member

activist professor

You kids get off my lawn!

activist professor

Matthew 16:3

activist professor

Matthew 16:3

activist professor

You kids get off my lawn!

Matthew 16:3

You kids get off my lawn!

activist professor