Curious commentary. I think it's been pretty well established that torture rarely yields viable intelligence, never in a timely fashion, and is morally reprehensible not to mention against the law and values of the civilized world in general. So what is it that makes you come down on this person with such a judgment?
I like to pretend to miss little things like "...IMO, seems rather craven and cowardly" when engaging in dishonest debate tactics, too.
IMO = In my
opinion.
That opinion, which was personal attack, was the one discarded as irrational nonsense. Not the
opinion that torture is always immoral.
She portrayed, as many do, things as though her opinions on the morality of torture as undeniable "facts". They aren't "facts" at all. They are mere opinions. But I don't discard those opinions as irrational nonsense. It is true that I may discard the processes taken to reach the opinion as
illogical, that would be entirely dependent upon the methods employed by teh holder of the opinion.
Are the premises valid, or are they based on more opinion? Is there validity to the argument, or does it use logical fallacies, etc. etc
One thing I will
always argue against is anyone who claims that their moral views are undeniable fact. That statement is
always irrational nonsense. Since the veracity of one's "morality" is totally unprovable, making any claims that one's morality is more "true" than another's is never anything more than an opinion statement.
I discard all arguments that reach
that conclusion as illogical nonsense, but only because they
are illogical nonsense.