-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you say you are against torture, Really?
- Thread starter Reverend Rick
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You do realize you are speaking about a fictional character.
Do you know the difference between fiction and reality?
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I am not morally against torturing known heinous offenders. However, I am not so sure that it is effective. I would imagine the effectiveness would hinge on the mental state and determination of the person being tortured. If there is a way you can tell whether or not the tortured is lying, then you can cause more pain (e.g. take off a finger) each time he lies. I find many liberals to be too idealist on the issue of torture. I prefer to be a pragmatist.
Valuing the lives of evil, heinous men while you have no problem with the wholesale slaughter of millions of animals on a daily basis says a lot about who a person is.
tumbleweed41 said:Amazing how your morality sinks to that level. It says a lot about who you are.
Valuing the lives of evil, heinous men while you have no problem with the wholesale slaughter of millions of animals on a daily basis says a lot about who a person is.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
tomspug
Absorbant
I would say that I, personally, would never be able to torture someone in order to save the people I love (if that's the setup). So a good question would be, do you want the government to do something you yourself would not be able to do? I mean, we ask soldiers to fight for us, doctors to perform surgery for us, lawyers to defend us... Is it wrong to kill? Is it wrong to lie? Is it wrong to try and extend your life?
The more I think about it, the harder it is to answer those questions...
The more I think about it, the harder it is to answer those questions...
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Here's the thing about you, shortfade. You don't know the first thing of what you're talking about. That does not stop you voicing your opinions, however uninformed.
The people who were incarcerated at Guantanamo were not, for the most part, terrorists. That's why the Bush administration let them go. They were mostly poor farmers who angered another farmer who turned them in for ransom.
Torture doesn't work. It's not hard to figure out why. If I'm torturing you, you will say whatever you need to make me stop. The information you give me will be completely unreliable and useless.
If we torture people, then more people hate us, for good reason. They then swear revenge against us, by terrorism. It's a sure recipe to increase the danger against us.
The only sure way of knowing whether he is lying is by knowing the truth in the first place. And if you already know the answer, then why the heck are you torturing the guy?
shortfade2
Active Member
Ya. i was just messing around. its called sarcasm. for the 4 billion tons of it that you put out u should recognize it. Im done with this argument. It goes in circles and is just pointless. I think that we should be able to torture terrorists, but yes it sows hate, and encourages terrorism. Many pros and cons, bla bla bla. We all know.
Oh and no im 15, but not a very mature 15 year old. I prefer fun and joking to seriousness, and bullcrap like that. But ya, I did that stuff when I was 12
ya. ya. I am an idiot, stupid kid, ive heard it.
Bismillah
Submit
Now the only problem is how do you find out who the REAL terrorists are? Obviously in your ideal situation, where we know who the real masterminds are we can just lodge some metal in their skulls, but real life is a bit more complicated then that. Taking off the fingers of someone wouldn't get you anywhere. The prisoner would be more concerned about telling you what you want to hear then the truth.
Oh and condoning torture would give the martyrs the excuses they are dieing for to further demonize the West. I don't know how bad America's PR would be after that and I don't want to find out.
I have no quarrels over whether to eat beef or not. If you are a vegetarian good on you. Just don't try to force those Boca burgers down my throat m'kay?
I don't believe you because -- if you were genuinely concerned at all to be a pragmatist -- you would certainly know by now that torture is held by most pragmatists to be almost always ineffective. Instead of being a pragmatist, I suspect you are a closet idealist who bases his opinion on what he feels is right, rather than on hard evidence.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Not sure why this thread took the turn it did but in reply to the OP
My family? I would torture the person to an extremely slow death, with the hope it would save my family.
Who decides what morals are valid? I do in this case.
And if this person died before setting my family free, back to me?
I would then kill his family. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
When the stakes remain high, the criminal mind cowers.
My family? I would torture the person to an extremely slow death, with the hope it would save my family.
Who decides what morals are valid? I do in this case.
And if this person died before setting my family free, back to me?
I would then kill his family. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
When the stakes remain high, the criminal mind cowers.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Torture requires a deviant mind....
But I've seen enough tv...I can do it.
I would find that 'point of leverage', and use it.
It might not be pain to the guy I'm working on.
Hey EtuMalku...
Kidnap his family first.
Dissect them before his eyes.
THAT'S how you do an eye for an eye...a tooth for a tooth.
But I've seen enough tv...I can do it.
I would find that 'point of leverage', and use it.
It might not be pain to the guy I'm working on.
Hey EtuMalku...
Kidnap his family first.
Dissect them before his eyes.
THAT'S how you do an eye for an eye...a tooth for a tooth.
Alceste
Vagabond
Ya. i was just messing around. its called sarcasm. for the 4 billion tons of it that you put out u should recognize it. Im done with this argument. It goes in circles and is just pointless. I think that we should be able to torture terrorists, but yes it sows hate, and encourages terrorism. Many pros and cons, bla bla bla. We all know.
Oh and no im 15, but not a very mature 15 year old. I prefer fun and joking to seriousness, and bullcrap like that. But ya, I did that stuff when I was 12
No, I'm not trying to insult you. It just gives some perspective to the discussion. The idea that torture produces information is something only a teenage boy should be able to believe. You're who all those fantasy spy movies are for. You might as well enjoy your illusions while you can. I'm 34, so I have put in a 20 extra years of reading and learning about politics, war and history. I read books like this for fun. (Although I haven't read that particular one - looks good though!)
Alceste
Vagabond
Are you also 15 then?
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Autodidact said:
I would very much appreciate it if you had a link for this information. I have heard this many times, but when I bring it up in an arguement I never have sources to back it up.
Sunstone said:
I am actually against torture, except in the most dire of circumstances. I do not believe torturing grunts leads to much worthwhile. In fact, many times to probably leads to dead-ends that waste lots of money and resources. Maybe if we captured Usama Bin Ladin, that would be different.
Circle_One
Well-Known Member
What would I do? Honestly? Hurt him. Badly. And then kill him once my child is found. Kill him slowly and painfully.
But then, I never claimed to be against torture.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Shall we all be accused of being fifteen?
I see some consensus leaning toward doing what you gotta do to restore a 'balance'.
The means of obtaining that 'balance' has little to do with benevolence.
I don't think maturity has anything to do with it.
So what are we seeking here?
I see some consensus leaning toward doing what you gotta do to restore a 'balance'.
The means of obtaining that 'balance' has little to do with benevolence.
I don't think maturity has anything to do with it.
So what are we seeking here?
Autodidact said:
The major report on this was done by a pair of attorneys who were counsel for two detainees at Guantanamo. But the report was pretty devastating. 55% of the detainees were determined to have committed no criminal act against the U.S. or coalition forces; only 8% were confirmed as Al-Qaeda; the definition of "terrorist" was ambiguous at best; only 5% of the detainees were arrested by U.S. forces- 86% being arrested by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance which were offered large bounties by the U.S. for the arrests.
Report on Guantanamo Detainees
A West Point study came to the oposite conclusion and stated the detainees were overwhelmingly hostile. Here's a brief explanation as to how the study I linked above and the West Point one differed.
I believe there are two more studies floating around here on RF I posted somewhere but I'm too lazy to find them.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Yes, I think maturity has something to do with it. For anyone to say they believe they could "dissect" innocent people because they've seen it on TV, shows a major lack of it. Unless you are a sociopath, in which case, you could probably do it. Otherwise, you would need some hard-core training and authoritarian indoctrination to stamp out your conscience, like all the other torturers in the world.