- Thread starter Castellamonte
- Start date
For or Against Torture
- Status
I'm sorry AlaninDR but this qualifies as one of the most illogical DR1 posts EVER. Did you hit the bottle before writing that???
Montreal,
I didn't find Alan's post to be illogical at all. He made perfect sense to me. I don't understand why you consider it to be illogical. If you disagree with any of his points, such as toe smashing being an effective method, for example, you should address that issue and not declare the entire post illogical.
While I find Alan to be very logical, there are a couple of points of his that I disagree with.
Alan's contention that the mafia's method was a justied method of torture when dealing with the boundaries of relationships is incorrect, in my opinion. As we know, there are no boundaries where relationships are concerned. The mafia's method simply goes to demonstrate the absence of any such boundaries.
And don't even get me started about the good old days he refers to!
I didn't find Alan's post to be illogical at all. He made perfect sense to me. I don't understand why you consider it to be illogical. If you disagree with any of his points, such as toe smashing being an effective method, for example, you should address that issue and not declare the entire post illogical.
While I find Alan to be very logical, there are a couple of points of his that I disagree with.
Alan's contention that the mafia's method was a justied method of torture when dealing with the boundaries of relationships is incorrect, in my opinion. As we know, there are no boundaries where relationships are concerned. The mafia's method simply goes to demonstrate the absence of any such boundaries.
And don't even get me started about the good old days he refers to!
um,
You all are debating whether torture is appropriate in today's society? As if it's something to be legitimately discussed and used as a standard punitive measure in modern civilization?
Gawd, how far down the rabbit hole we've tumbled....:bored::bored::bored:
You all are debating whether torture is appropriate in today's society? As if it's something to be legitimately discussed and used as a standard punitive measure in modern civilization?
Gawd, how far down the rabbit hole we've tumbled....:bored::bored::bored:
The problem with torture, at least as I see it, is that in many cases people will confess something just to get the pain to stop. Whether it is factual, accurate or even useful is apparently not the goal of torture.
The goal of torture is to get people to tell you something they don't want to tell you (unless you're just doing it for the giggles). What if they don't know it or, if their version of it after serious physical anguish, gets so confused as to be meaningless?
Nah, I really don't think torture works for anything more than the fun of it. I'm sure the kings and queens had a blast torturing their relatives but I doubt they learned much they didn't already know.
You all are debating whether torture is appropriate in today's society? As if it's something to be legitimately discussed and used as a standard punitive measure in modern civilization?
DRob,
I don't believe you can deny that torture exists, and if it exists why should we ignore it?
Perhaps it isn't an effective means for extracting information, as some have argued, and that is a legitimate contention. However, to just pretend that it doesn't exist at all simply allows those doing the torturing the anonoymity they prefer, and does much more harm than debating its pros and cons.
DRob,
I don't believe you can deny that torture exists, and if it exists why should we ignore it?
Perhaps it isn't an effective means for extracting information, as some have argued, and that is a legitimate contention. However, to just pretend that it doesn't exist at all simply allows those doing the torturing the anonoymity they prefer, and does much more harm than debating its pros and cons.
Not altogether true.
In tough interrogation, a suspect is warned: you offer BS, we find out-and we're gonna check-and there will be hell to pay. If they offer up BS when the pain starts, and it's found out, there will be much more pain (or waterboarding). You think a suspect would lie under those conditions? I'm thinking not.
Occam's Razor.
The reason torture has been used for the last several thousands of years is because it basically works. PC? Not particularly. Effective? Pretty much.
I didn't deny it's existence, I decried it's use. And I don't care if "they're doing it too." That is, on a good day, the worst of pathetic excuses.
Another poster referred to Occam's Razor, incorrectly. Occam's Razor requires the objective use of accurate data to determine principles not subject to the proclivities of humanity (like being susceptible to fear or pain). As was previously stated, people will say anything to avoid - or stop being tortured. As would you. That puts the veracity of information received in doubt.
But I suspect you already knew that.
So to my point: the real reason it's used is as a terror tactic. Not to purloin data, but as a dark-hearted way to so intimidate the other prisoners - or general population - with the notion of extreme, inhumane punishment that they would bow to the will of authority, no matter how immoral it may be.
I mean, exactly what do you think the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is about? Jesus wept, torture is fundamentally contrary to a free, enlightened society. They had that figured out by the 18th century, why can't folks see that now?
And if authority has to resort to torture as a means of control, then they are immoral and unworthy of the privilege of governance.
No matter what Rush, Sean, or Fox News might tell you otherwise.
- Status