Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Glinda · May 13, 2009

MrVicchio said:
The thing is, if I were in the situation of having the bad guy in my custody, and I had to break his knee cap to save YOUR life, I'd do it.

I'd rather you didn't. I'm not particularly keen on thugs trying to justify their brutality in my name.

MrVicchio said:
Reverse the situation, my kids would go to my funeral. And you consider yourself morally better then I am?

I'm afraid this makes no sense to me. Why would your kids going to your funeral have any bearing on my unbreakable morals?

MrVicchio said:
I think you're a coward, and people like you scare me.

HAAA! A "coward" scares you? That's pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh! Life must be really terrifying for you, my friend. :rofl

Renae · May 13, 2009

Glinda said:
I'd rather you didn't. I'm not particularly keen on thugs trying to justify their brutality in my name.

Obviously life has little value you to you. It means a lot to me.

Glinda said:
I'm afraid this makes no sense to me. Why would your kids going to your funeral have any bearing on my unbreakable morals?

It means your morals are FUBAR. You have no morals, you have an inability to face reality and couch that in guilt and fear and claim it's "morally right to let others die rather then hurt someone." That's beyond fooked up.

My right to life > another persons right to harm or end my life.

If someone broke into my home, I'd shoot them. Wouldn't even blink. Somehow I think you couldn't defend yourself or your family, might hurt the bad guys.

Glinda said:
HAAA! A "coward" scares you? That's pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh! Life must be really terrifying for you, my friend. :rofl

I'm not SCARED of you, personally, I'm scared of people like you (I.E. liberals) that are in positions of power... which sadly they are right now... having the responsibility of keeping me and my country safe.

But that point eludes you... obviously.

Tucker Case · May 13, 2009

Glinda said:
Face it, guy. You shot yourself in your own foot by stating that only a fool would admit anything to their captors.

I said police. I was quite clear in that. I never used the term "captors". Why are you lying about what I said?

Oh and please don't alter my quotes to "blah blah blah" in the future. If you can't make a salient point, and must resort to lies, don't bother responding to me.

Hello? WE as a nation are "confined by the laws" to which we have signed our name. Torture is prohibited under US law and under international law. That includes our government, our police force, and you as an individual.

Yes. And I would violate any law for the right reasons. Would you violate a law for a good reason?

So you'll do it for them? What happened to being "confined by the laws" we as a nation have agreed to uphold?

I didn't make the laws. I agreed to nothing. I'm not doing it for them [the police/governemnt], I'm doing it for my family's lives in the given hypothetical.

Self defense is one thing; tying someone up and beating them for any reason is against the law.

So? I'd break the law to save my family.

I guess you're much more violent than I am, and put much less value on the rule of law than I do.

I'm saying I value the lives of my family above all else, including the laws of our country, and the country itself.

Ah. Good. If you ever tried doing what you've claimed you're more than willing to do, you'd be tried, convicted, and executed. As you should be.

So be it. If my family is safe I would be going to my death a happy man. (aLthough I don;t think torture is a capital crime anywhere in this coutnry)

You're attempting to argue both sides of the question: I'll do what I want/feel I must, up to and including torture, but our nation must never allow torture under any circumstances.

I'm not arguing both sides of the question. I'm actually not adding a level to the hypothetical that doesn't exist.

Also, you seem to be purposely excluding my prepositional phrase "to save my family" in my comments. More dishonesty from you.

How about picking one side and sticking with it? :roll:

I have. Your inability to comprehend my point does not negate it.

Glinda · May 13, 2009

Tucker Case said:
I would violate any law for the right reasons. Would you violate a law for a good reason?

No. There are no good reasons to violate the law; there are merely convenient ones.

Tucker Case said:
Also, you seem to be purposely excluding my prepositional phrase "to save my family" in my comments.

Torture is not justified in ANY case. Using your family in an attempt to justify breaking national and international law is irrelevant, and, IMO, seems rather craven and cowardly.

Ethereal · May 13, 2009

Glinda said:
No. There are no good reasons to violate the law; there are merely convenient ones.

Epic fail. You lose. End of story. Worst argument ever.

Tucker Case · May 13, 2009

Glinda said:
No. There are no good reasons to violate the law; there are merely convenient ones.

So if you saw someone about to be hit by a car, you wouldn't jaywalk in order to save their life?

Seems like a stupid argument to me.

Torture is not justified in ANY case. Using your family in an attempt to justify breaking national and international law is irrelevant, and, IMO, seems rather craven and cowardly.

Your opinion has been noted and subsequently disguarded as it is purely irrational nonsense.

Glinda · May 13, 2009

Tucker Case said:
Your opinion has been noted and subsequently disguarded as it is purely irrational nonsense.

Did you mean disregarded? Back atcha, buddy!

Renae · May 13, 2009

Glinda said:
No. There are no good reasons to violate the law; there are merely convenient ones.

By your logic, Blacks would still be at the back of the bus then. Good thing Rosa Parks had better moral fiber then you.

Wessexman · May 13, 2009

Ethereal said:
I'm uninterested in the progression of this dialogue. I knew from the very beginning you would not, under any circumstances, cede to me one inch, no matter how thoroughly and meticulously I deconstructed my argument. Your obsession with this hypothetical and your need to undermine it is apparent, for it represents a fatal flaw in your argument about maintaining "principle", "honor", and "morality".

I don't agree with you, even when you have made an argument. Oh **** how evil I am.:roll:

It doesn't represent a fatal flaw because it doesn't represent anything much.

You know that despite its implausible nature there is only but a few degrees of separation between my hypothetical and the justifications for water-boarding; that is why you continually seek to undermine its applicability; not because you're genuinely incapable of seeing its worth but because it undermines your position. This has been your modus operandi from the onset of the discussion and I will not be held hostage by your desire to retain leverage in this debate.

Ahh, now you are trying to say it is close to the discussion of waterboarding but you are not showing how. I don't see its worth and you have not even attempted to show how it could be applied to a real-life complex situations including the debate on waterboarding. This is an extremely unsatisfactory argument on your part and it is going to take more than an assertion about degrees of separation for you to have an argument you can use in the waterboarding debate taken from this scenario.

[
I will not discuss this issue with you any further because nothing worthwhile can come of it; neither of us will be convinced of the other's position. This thread has become terribly uninteresting and I'd like to return to the topic at hand.

And I'll jusy reiterate my request that you show exactly how this scenario and its outcome can be applied to real-life, complex situations.

ADK_Forever · May 13, 2009

MrVicchio said:
I wouldn't blink if I were in a situation of "this guy has information that will save ANYONE's life and I was the only one able to act".

I'd grab a few tools from my tool box and he'd either tell, or spend the rest of his life a miserable wreck.

I'd start with a hammer, ballpeen type. Work on those fingers. That fails, I'd take a lamp, cut the cord and split the wires, then plug in the end... and brush him gently a few times.

Failing that.. I'd get a spoon, and feed him an eyeball.

Maybe his nuts as well.

And I wouldn't feel guilty about it. AT ALL.

Does play talking like that make this little weather man feel like a real man? :roll:

Tucker Case · May 13, 2009

Glinda said:
Did you mean disregarded? Back atcha, buddy!

Actually I meant discarded. I can't speel for ****.

Edit: The reason "disregarded" doesn't make sense is that ti would imply that your argument was even worthy of consideration. It wasn't. It deserved to be cast aside as nonsense because you are clearly an intellectually dishonest hyperpartisan hack.

P.S. Glinda is a good name, but I would say that you are more reminiscent of another character from the Wizard of Oz.

"I would while away the hours, conversin' with the flowers..."

At the very least, it would match up with your penchant for straw man arguments.

talloulou · May 14, 2009

Tucker Case said:
Actually I meant discarded. I can't speel for ****.

Edit: The reason "disregarded" doesn't make sense is that ti would imply that your argument was even worthy of consideration. It wasn't. It deserved to be cast aside as nonsense because you are clearly an intellectually dishonest hyperpartisan hack.

P.S. Glinda is a good name, but I would say that you are more reminiscent of another character from the Wizard of Oz.

"I would while away the hours, conversin' with the flowers..."

At the very least, it would match up with your penchant for straw man arguments.

Moderator's Warning:

Quit the personal attacks and debate the topic not the poster. Thanks.:2wave:

Tucker Case · May 14, 2009

:mrgreen:

By the way, for anyone wondering, another shining example of me reporting my own posts when I cross the line. :mrgreen:

Slippery Slope · May 15, 2009

Tucker Case said:
Your opinion has been noted and subsequently disguarded as it is purely irrational nonsense.

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?

Slippery Slope · May 15, 2009

MrVicchio said:
I wouldn't blink if I were in a situation of "this guy has information that will save ANYONE's life and I was the only one able to act".

I'd grab a few tools from my tool box and he'd either tell, or spend the rest of his life a miserable wreck.

I'd start with a hammer, ballpeen type. Work on those fingers. That fails, I'd take a lamp, cut the cord and split the wires, then plug in the end... and brush him gently a few times.

Failing that.. I'd get a spoon, and feed him an eyeball.

Maybe his nuts as well.

And I wouldn't feel guilty about it. AT ALL.

Do you masturbate when you fantasize like that? You bullies really are a sick lot. I especially like the part about what a wreck his life would be if he didn't tell you what you want to know. That statement says all you need to know about the bully's mindset, taking pleasure in the suffering of others.

ADK_Forever · May 15, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
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.

The guy (the most respected interrogator in the FBI!) said that he was getting very valuable intel from Abu. You know, stuff like who the mastermind of 9/11 was and who was the 20th hijacker. Stuff like that.

Then Cheney's CIA torture squad came in and insisted on torturing him. He immediately clammed up! When they went back to conventional interrogation guess what? He started talking. They resumed waterboarding and again he stopped talking.

What part of this do you right wingers not understand?

Tucker Case · May 15, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
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.

Tucker Case · May 15, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
The guy (the most respected interrogator in the FBI!) said that he was getting very valuable intel from Abu. You know, stuff like who the mastermind of 9/11 was and who was the 20th hijacker. Stuff like that.

Then Cheney's CIA torture squad came in and insisted on torturing him. He immediately clammed up! When they went back to conventional interrogation guess what? He started talking. They resumed waterboarding and again he stopped talking.

What part of this do you right wingers not understand?

What exactly does this have to do with the hypothetical?

Glinda · May 15, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
The guy (the most respected interrogator in the FBI!) said that he was getting very valuable intel from Abu. You know, stuff like who the mastermind of 9/11 was and who was the 20th hijacker. Stuff like that.

Then Cheney's CIA torture squad came in and insisted on torturing him. He immediately clammed up! When they went back to conventional interrogation guess what? He started talking. They resumed waterboarding and again he stopped talking.

What part of this do you right wingers not understand?

I was going to point this out to our pro-torture friends -thanks for bringing it into the discussion.

What say you, pro-torture people?

Slippery Slope · May 15, 2009

Tucker Case said:
Two points:

1. How have I damaged any arguments that I have made in this thread? Cops have to allow a detainee Miranda rights. They can't torture the info out of them because they are confined by the laws and it must be assumed that they won't be willing to break them in order to save my family.

Yeah, what miranda right prevents a cop from using torture? Having a lawyer present during questioning? OK so the torture begins when the lawyer gets there. Oh, something about coerced confessions? Why wouldn't we just do away with that since torture works so well? If we can legalize torture surely we can change the miranda law to accommodate such an effective means of getting the truth... If waterboarding is so effective the all law enforcement agencies should go for that first, right?

Judge: How do you plead?
defendant: not guilty
Judge: The officer says you were speeding and you deny it so court will recess for 2 hours while we get to the truth... Bailiff, take the defendant to the torture chamber.

I on the other hand, would risk everything to save my family. I'd willfully break any law in order to do so.

What was it you said in another post? Oh yeah, irrational nonsense.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."

2. I believe that a proscription on police and all government officials form engaging in torture is correct. I support the laws that prevent police officers from using torture. The point I'm making is that in the given hypothetical I would utilize torture. Personally. As in a free citizen, not associated with the government, breaking the laws of the nation in order to achieve a goal.

This is a contradictory statement. First off, what prevents a cop from saying the same thing as a private citizen? 2nd, if it's good enough for you, why not everyone? 3rd, if you think it would work then why keep the government/law enforcement from using an effectual tool?

I would also willingly accept any and all legal ramifications that would stem from that action. Since I have never argued for the "legalization" of torture, I haven't done anything that contradicts my position in any way shape or form.

Oh, I see. So you'd break the law and use torture but you don't think it should be lawful. Why not if it works?

Tucker Case · May 15, 2009

Glinda said:
What say you, pro-torture people?

I said this:

Tucker Case said:
What exactly does this have to do with the hypothetical?

ADK_Forever · May 15, 2009

Tucker Case said:
What exactly does this have to do with the hypothetical?

The hypothetical is your gig.

I'm referring to torture.

Tucker Case · May 15, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
Yeah, what miranda right prevents a cop from using torture? Having a lawyer present during questioning? OK so the torture begins when the lawyer gets there. Oh, something about coerced confessions? Why wouldn't we just do away with that since torture works so well? If we can legalize torture surely we can change the miranda law to accommodate such an effective means of getting the truth... If waterboarding is so effective the all law enforcement agencies should go for that first, right?

Judge: How do you plead?
defendant: not guilty
Judge: The officer says you were speeding and you deny it so court will recess for 2 hours while we get to the truth... Bailiff, take the defendant to the torture chamber.

I think you aren't grasping my points in any way shape or form. I'm not for the government torturing people because I think it is a power that the government should not be granted.

I think that people who utilize torture deserve to be punished because I don't believe that it is a power that people should be granted.

If my family were in danger, I would utilize a power I should not have and willingly accept the consequences of that legal violation because I utilized a power I should not have.

What was it you said in another post? Oh yeah, irrational nonsense.

Being willing to break the law to save my family is irrational? Perhaps. I admit that the decision would be based on emotion as much as anything else.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."

Ohhh Kayyy. How does this relate to my statements?

This is a contradictory statement. First off, what prevents a cop from saying the same thing as a private citizen? 2nd, if it's good enough for you, why not everyone? 3rd, if you think it would work then why keep the government/law enforcement from using an effectual tool?

It's not contradictory if you understand what I mean. Even if it were 100% effective, I wouldn't agree with legalization of torture for the reasons I've described: I believe it is a power that nobody should legally wield over another. In part because it would almost definitely be abused.

I would expect to be punished for utilizing a power that I should not have. I am of the belief that the punishment would be worth it in order to save my family.

Oh, I see. So you'd break the law and use torture but you don't think it should be lawful. Why not if it works?

Because of it's vast potential for misuse. Because I don't believe that the government should be granted that kind of power. Because I don't view efficacy as the barometer for legality.

Tucker Case · May 15, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
The hypothetical is your gig.

I'm referring to torture.

The hypothetical was Ethereal's, actually.

And you are referring to a specific instance of torture that isn't related to the hypothetical.

Let me ask this of the people arguing against all forms of torture as immoral:

Do you think it is possible for someone to hold the view that they would personally use torture in a certain, specific situation without supporting the torture used by the government?

Glinda · May 15, 2009

Tucker Case said:
One thing I will always argue against is anyone who claims that their moral views are undeniable fact.

What are you babbling about? My moral views are undeniable fact - they exist for me; I hold them, I observe them, I follow them. Your moral views are undeniable fact as well. Although I cannot say with conviction that yours do not change with the situation ["I wouldn't ever beat the **** out of anyone that I'd tied up, but AAKK!! My family is in danger!"], I can say with authority that mine do not.

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.

My use of the word "true" was intended to show the distinction between those whose moral position on torture does not change with the circumstance (yes, even in "AAKK!! My family is in danger!" situations) as opposed to those whose moral position on torture does. "True" as in reliable, unfailing, unchanging, unbreakable, regardless of the situation or circumstance. Sorry that wasn't clearer.

Now get up off the floor and wipe your tears. Mommy's tired of your tantrums.

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?

Yes

No

You kids get off my lawn!

Matthew 16:3

You kids get off my lawn!

Matthew 16:3

You kids get off my lawn!

Dorset Patriot

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

You kids get off my lawn!

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

You kids get off my lawn!