First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply What will happen after Presidential debate is over???
10654 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/25/16
As long as you have ways to confirm that information.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:
You are also welcome to try again. Use logic to illustrate how torture is wrong, outside of religious arguments. Please.

No seriously, please give it a try.


I am sincerely baffled as to why you need me to come up with reasons for why torture is wrong. It's torture. Even if you ignore international law and ethics how about just basic, human decency? Nevermind that your trying to justify it with some ends justify the means bullshit. The ends are not reliable and the means requires ceding the moral high ground. An act which in and of itself has serious repercussions both morally and strategically.

But fine, if you really can't Google for yourself here are the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I'll just bold the two most pertinent bits that reflect you argument:


1) The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.

2) The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.


3) The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.

4) The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.

5) The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

6) The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

7) The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

8) The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

9) The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.

10) The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.

11) The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.

12) The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.

13) Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.

14) CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.

15) The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate.

16) The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.

17) The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious or significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systematic and individual management failures.

18) The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

19) The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.

20) The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.


10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16

runec wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:
You are also welcome to try again. Use logic to illustrate how torture is wrong, outside of religious arguments. Please.

No seriously, please give it a try.


I am sincerely baffled as to why you need me to come up with reasons for why torture is wrong. It's torture. Even if you ignore international law and ethics how about just basic, human decency? Nevermind that your trying to justify it with some ends justify the means bullshit. The ends are not reliable and the means requires ceding the moral high ground. An act which in and of itself has serious
repercussions both morally and strategically.

The above is basically, again, not an argument. It's another statement that torture is "obviously wrong" and I should see that. Human decency? Me, I personally couldn't torture someone. It has nothing to do with decency and more to do with my own psychology. But, not torturing when necessary has nothing to do with basic human decency.... at least not any logical way. If you aren't willing to torture a few guilty people to save innocent lives, when you have the means to do so, then their blood is on your hands. Your inaction, your selfish unwillingness to do what you had to do to save them based on principle, would result in the death of innocent people.

To me, any person who puts some mental, abstract notion of principles at a higher value than the lives of innocents is NOT a decent human. In fact, that's the exact same thing evil people have been doing for years. It just looks prettier the way you're doing it.


But fine, if you really can't Google for yourself here are the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I'll just bold the two most pertinent bits that reflect you argument:



Oh, thank you for showing me what the Senate said on the situation while they were trying to dismiss torture as a viable tactic. I appreciate that. I've got some explanations of how trickle-down economics works back from the Reagan administration. I can show them to you, if you want.

http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/241.abstract Me? I'll go for Oxford.

And you're very welcome to keep trying.
626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(09)00199-5

It isn't the full thing, unless you pay, but I think what is there is enough.
Posted 10/25/16
Well, clearly there will be another civil war. Russia will invade Ukraine, and attempt to reclaim all lost USSR territories. Nazism will run rampant in Germany, and spread to Poland, and France. All these motherfuckers will attempt to invade one of the Nordic countries, which gives rise to the Nordic union--- the new global elite.

runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/25/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:
[The above is basically, again, not an argument. It's another statement that torture is "obviously wrong" and I should see that. Human decency? Me, I personally couldn't torture someone. It has nothing to do with decency and more to do with my own psychology. But, not torturing when necessary has nothing to do with basic human decency.... at least not any logical way. If you aren't willing to torture a few guilty people to save innocent lives, when you have the means to do so, then their blood is on your hands. Your inaction, your selfish unwillingness to do what you had to do to save them based on principle, would result in the death of innocent people.

To me, any person who puts some mental, abstract notion of principles at a higher value than the lives of innocents is NOT a decent human. In fact, that's the exact same thing evil people have been doing for years. It just looks prettier the way you're doing it.


Quite the contrary, evil people have been justifying doing terrible things like torture for centuries using your argument, not mine.




HolyDrumstick wrote:
Oh, thank you for showing me what the Senate said on the situation while they were trying to dismiss torture as a viable tactic. I appreciate that. I've got some explanations of how trickle-down economics works back from the Reagan administration. I can show them to you, if you want.


That report also shows that the CIA had a failure rate of catching and torturing the "innocents" you are so trying to protect at a rate of about 1 in 5. Including torturing two innocent people because another innocent person fingering them under torture and even accidentally torturing two of their own intelligence sources.




This is not a study nor a research paper. Its a philosophical paper about ethical theory. You know, ethics. The thing you just dismissed me for bringing into the argument? In fact the very paper you're trying to use to support your argument condemns you using it for your argument:


We have argued that although torture may sometimes be mandatory, no moral or legal rules authorizing or specifying the circumstances under which torture ought to be performed should be incorporated. The prohibition on torture is therefore unconditional even if torture sometimes ought to be performed.



Given that we devoted this paper to a theoretical investigation of torture, let us conclude by adding a few words on the risks of over-theorizing. Upon publication of photographs of South Vietnamese soldiers torturing North Vietcong fighters, Graham Green wrote: "The photographs certainly are a mark of honesty, a sign that the authorities do not shut their eyes to what is going on, but I wonder if this kind of honesty without conscience is really to be preferred to the old hypocrisy."

Without intending to champion old hypocrisies, we do wish to call attention to the dangers involved in new honesty and realism. The preceding arguments have all focused on theoretical and philosophical issues pertaining to the question of torture. We have tried to show that even deontologists can accommodate the necessity of torture in extreme circumstances. Let it is important to note that the main challenge facing those who revere human dignity and are concerned with the decency of our society may not be theoretical but political, and as such, requires a radically different strategy.

Recent history attests to the unhappy fact that abuse of the idea that torture may be permissible is much more pressing and prevalent a phenomenon than excessive restraint on the part of states. Our concern therefore must be first and foremost to object to the current practice of torture which has in recent years gained alarming warrant from officials and academics alike. The political chore of opposing torture Bustified in the name of empty slogans declaring fictitious wars, fruits of political spinner's manipulative imaginations, is an urgent task all too often undermined by professionalist discussions of theoretical aspects of torture. As stated sharply by Weinstein, "Such rationalizations not only help the practice to thrive but often provide the main reasons for its baleful success."

Let us therefore not forget the moral price of admitting torture as a respectable citizen in our intellectual and social discourse. As General Bollardiere warned: "Giving in to violence and to torture is, through lack of power in believing in man, equivalent to giving up on constructing a human world."


So yeah, maybe next time don't grab the first Google result you think supports your position. ;p
1618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/26/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

The debates are over
Hillary's corruption and treason is being exposed every day

I can't wait to wake up on election day to the scream of hillshills and the corrupt media as they are being led to the gallows


skip to 1:09 of this movie and hear Bernie's supporters' opinions-- this is before the recent release of the undercover videos of voter fraud and other things

O’Keefe Undercover With Outraged Dems at the DNC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_T749zVYhQ


"political mob boss"


i don't think i can say it better myself

now they are going around stealing signs from people's front lawn even though it's illegal to do that.

i guess it is expected of the followers of the one who is above the law eh ?

bring Bernie Sander back or something
Posted 10/26/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:

while that context fits for a jack bauer episode on tv, do you really think it applies to the global war of terror?
This is an insult, not an argument.

*shrugs* all laid out in the oded yinon plan, to detstabilize the middle east for the expansion, we're getting used as the primary sword arm to make it happen.
I've already acknowledged that the funding from our past administrations was wrong, but it still has no bearing on how to handle threats in the future. This is not an argument against torture, but rather smoke and mirrors to convince someone it is wrong, because it's our fault we're at war in the first place. If this was a good argument, we should also stop taking any military action, sit back, and wait to be destroyed.

no innocent lives have ever been saved or created by the torture of innocent or guilty persons.
That's outright false. Seriously. I don't even need to pick it apart with facts, but simply point you to a general rule of thumb -- When someone states something as absolutely true, it is almost always false. In fact, this is complete bullshit that ignores war and history. Again, torture results in false information from those who do not know, but it still results in true information when that information is known. You haven't actually thought it through if you believe that people can hold out while being tortured by providing verifiably false information. YES, you will get false information, but it is usually easily recognized as such, and the true information almost always comes out, if it is known.
What you're saying has nothing to do with facts.

and ya damned well right that's discarding morals! torture, ffs!? that basically everyone agrees is torture yet some stupid ex post facto legal decision to try and apologize for torturing, you go along with that herd and go against your religious beliefs and support torture?
By the logic that torture is wrong regardless of circumstances simply because it is a terrible thing, you are also stating that surveillance is wrong, killing and therefore war is wrong, and any number of horrible things that are commonplace in war are wrong. You are basically saying that we should not fight at all. You're saying we should just let people, and ourselves, die.

By the logic you just used, no amount of aggression is justifiable.



I am not supporting torture. I'm supporting Trump's honesty about torture. I am acknowledging that it happens. I am acknowledging that Hillary also supports torture, but knows to lie about it to get support from people like you. I am acknowledging that the argument against torture is religious, and is flimsy in any other moral argument. I am telling you that you're full of shit.

Personally, I don't support torture. But, I also don't support making policy based on my religious beliefs.

In fact, following any herd is the farthest thing from what I am doing. I'm thinking for myself.

You can insert another quarter and try again, if you like. Provide a nonreligious moral argument for why torture is universally wrong. Please.

heh. That was both an insult and an argument, because of the roots of the global war of terror are not legitimate grassroots happenings, but manufactured terror - whether that beast ever acts of its own accord is often just a matter of time, but if its not savage and bloodthirsty enough, it'll get tossed aside by the wielders just like al quaeda did.

I also dont get what's up with the sit back and wait to be destroyed thing. Because by the country not taking action against banksters, that is precisely what will happen. If you dont stop bankster pseudo-money, you dont stop the terror. A raging and unchecked counterfeiting house can wreak a lot of havoc if everyone just keeps honoring their paper promises forever. Or do you not think entire governments can be nearly completely bought off?

saved or created, cmon, I thought you would had a chuckle at that one :D

you dont seem to get the concept of self defense, it doesnt include punching some guy you think might hit you.

and here is something you can read that doesnt try to shove religion down one's throat while discussing morality - ever heard of humanism? I dont understand how a basic self interest to not want to be harmed, especially for no reason, and wanting the same for others somehow has to have a deity attached to it. talk about does not logically follow ;)

http://www.humanreligions.info/secular_morals.html

morality is also observed in the animal kingdom, I wonder what god they pray to lol....

go read the sumerian stuff, it shows you pretty plainly that yhvh is not big g god at all, but like other man invented gods, humanoid.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/26/16

RaisedInACult wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:

while that context fits for a jack bauer episode on tv, do you really think it applies to the global war of terror?
This is an insult, not an argument.

*shrugs* all laid out in the oded yinon plan, to detstabilize the middle east for the expansion, we're getting used as the primary sword arm to make it happen.
I've already acknowledged that the funding from our past administrations was wrong, but it still has no bearing on how to handle threats in the future. This is not an argument against torture, but rather smoke and mirrors to convince someone it is wrong, because it's our fault we're at war in the first place. If this was a good argument, we should also stop taking any military action, sit back, and wait to be destroyed.

no innocent lives have ever been saved or created by the torture of innocent or guilty persons.
That's outright false. Seriously. I don't even need to pick it apart with facts, but simply point you to a general rule of thumb -- When someone states something as absolutely true, it is almost always false. In fact, this is complete bullshit that ignores war and history. Again, torture results in false information from those who do not know, but it still results in true information when that information is known. You haven't actually thought it through if you believe that people can hold out while being tortured by providing verifiably false information. YES, you will get false information, but it is usually easily recognized as such, and the true information almost always comes out, if it is known.
What you're saying has nothing to do with facts.

and ya damned well right that's discarding morals! torture, ffs!? that basically everyone agrees is torture yet some stupid ex post facto legal decision to try and apologize for torturing, you go along with that herd and go against your religious beliefs and support torture?
By the logic that torture is wrong regardless of circumstances simply because it is a terrible thing, you are also stating that surveillance is wrong, killing and therefore war is wrong, and any number of horrible things that are commonplace in war are wrong. You are basically saying that we should not fight at all. You're saying we should just let people, and ourselves, die.

By the logic you just used, no amount of aggression is justifiable.



I am not supporting torture. I'm supporting Trump's honesty about torture. I am acknowledging that it happens. I am acknowledging that Hillary also supports torture, but knows to lie about it to get support from people like you. I am acknowledging that the argument against torture is religious, and is flimsy in any other moral argument. I am telling you that you're full of shit.

Personally, I don't support torture. But, I also don't support making policy based on my religious beliefs.

In fact, following any herd is the farthest thing from what I am doing. I'm thinking for myself.

You can insert another quarter and try again, if you like. Provide a nonreligious moral argument for why torture is universally wrong. Please.

heh. That was both an insult and an argument, because of the roots of the global war of terror are not legitimate grassroots happenings, but manufactured terror - whether that beast ever acts of its own accord is often just a matter of time, but if its not savage and bloodthirsty enough, it'll get tossed aside by the wielders just like al quaeda did.

I also dont get what's up with the sit back and wait to be destroyed thing. Because by the country not taking action against banksters, that is precisely what will happen. If you dont stop bankster pseudo-money, you dont stop the terror. A raging and unchecked counterfeiting house can wreak a lot of havoc if everyone just keeps honoring their paper promises forever. Or do you not think entire governments can be nearly completely bought off?

saved or created, cmon, I thought you would had a chuckle at that one :D

you dont seem to get the concept of self defense, it doesnt include punching some guy you think might hit you.

and here is something you can read that doesnt try to shove religion down one's throat while discussing morality - ever heard of humanism? I dont understand how a basic self interest to not want to be harmed, especially for no reason, and wanting the same for others somehow has to have a deity attached to it. talk about does not logically follow ;)

http://www.humanreligions.info/secular_morals.html

morality is also observed in the animal kingdom, I wonder what god they pray to lol....

go read the sumerian stuff, it shows you pretty plainly that yhvh is not big g god at all, but like other man invented gods, humanoid.


You've presented a whole lot of stuff I agree with. A little bit I don't. But most I agree with.

.... but still no argument why torture is universally bad.

Yawn.
52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 10/26/16
that when Marcus Octavius will move in!

10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/26/16 , edited 10/26/16

runec wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:
[The above is basically, again, not an argument. It's another statement that torture is "obviously wrong" and I should see that. Human decency? Me, I personally couldn't torture someone. It has nothing to do with decency and more to do with my own psychology. But, not torturing when necessary has nothing to do with basic human decency.... at least not any logical way. If you aren't willing to torture a few guilty people to save innocent lives, when you have the means to do so, then their blood is on your hands. Your inaction, your selfish unwillingness to do what you had to do to save them based on principle, would result in the death of innocent people.

To me, any person who puts some mental, abstract notion of principles at a higher value than the lives of innocents is NOT a decent human. In fact, that's the exact same thing evil people have been doing for years. It just looks prettier the way you're doing it.


Quite the contrary, evil people have been justifying doing terrible things like torture for centuries using your argument, not mine.

Oh yeah, like the inquisitions where they tortured people to confession? No, they used religion. Hitler? Nah, his argument was based on racism. Come on, man, this isn't even an argument, just a claim.




HolyDrumstick wrote:
Oh, thank you for showing me what the Senate said on the situation while they were trying to dismiss torture as a viable tactic. I appreciate that. I've got some explanations of how trickle-down economics works back from the Reagan administration. I can show them to you, if you want.


That report also shows that the CIA had a failure rate of catching and torturing the "innocents" you are so trying to protect at a rate of about 1 in 5. Including torturing two innocent people because another innocent person fingering them under torture and even accidentally torturing two of their own intelligence sources.

People who do know are not innocents. Sigh. That's a huge myth and misunderstanding. Not every Nazi knew the intel that was needed.




This is not a study nor a research paper. Its a philosophical paper about ethical theory. You know, ethics. The thing you just dismissed me for bringing into the argument? In fact the very paper you're trying to use to support your argument condemns you using it for your argument:

Philosophical argument is EXACTLY what I've been asking for from you. You say it isn't, but I keep asking you to present morality not based on religious views. This entire bit from you is bullshit. "You can't use arguments you don't allow me to use." Doesn't work when these are not only allowed but exactly what I've been asking for from you. Which you have STILL failed to provide.



We have argued that although torture may sometimes be mandatory, no moral or legal rules authorizing or specifying the circumstances under which torture ought to be performed should be incorporated. The prohibition on torture is therefore unconditional even if torture sometimes ought to be performed.


NO, do you even realize how you contradicted yourself. Man, you REALLY need to go back and read that article, or what you just wrote, or both. Oxford law is saying:

"The international laws prohibited torture should be maintained, because removal of those laws encourages torture in unnecessary situations. However, torture should be exempt from international law, in situations of duress, because it does work and is sometimes necessary."

Basically, Oxford is saying that the law is nice and pretty, but there are times when torture MUST be excused.

Which is what I've been saying throughout my arguments. Go back to the post where I said it should only be used if necessary and as a last resort. YEAH, I said that.



Given that we devoted this paper to a theoretical investigation of torture, let us conclude by adding a few words on the risks of over-theorizing. Upon publication of photographs of South Vietnamese soldiers torturing North Vietcong fighters, Graham Green wrote: "The photographs certainly are a mark of honesty, a sign that the authorities do not shut their eyes to what is going on, but I wonder if this kind of honesty without conscience is really to be preferred to the old hypocrisy."

Without intending to champion old hypocrisies, we do wish to call attention to the dangers involved in new honesty and realism. The preceding arguments have all focused on theoretical and philosophical issues pertaining to the question of torture. We have tried to show that even deontologists can accommodate the necessity of torture in extreme circumstances. Let it is important to note that the main challenge facing those who revere human dignity and are concerned with the decency of our society may not be theoretical but political, and as such, requires a radically different strategy.

Recent history attests to the unhappy fact that abuse of the idea that torture may be permissible is much more pressing and prevalent a phenomenon than excessive restraint on the part of states. Our concern therefore must be first and foremost to object to the current practice of torture which has in recent years gained alarming warrant from officials and academics alike. The political chore of opposing torture Bustified in the name of empty slogans declaring fictitious wars, fruits of political spinner's manipulative imaginations, is an urgent task all too often undermined by professionalist discussions of theoretical aspects of torture. As stated sharply by Weinstein, "Such rationalizations not only help the practice to thrive but often provide the main reasons for its baleful success."

Let us therefore not forget the moral price of admitting torture as a respectable citizen in our intellectual and social discourse. As General Bollardiere warned: "Giving in to violence and to torture is, through lack of power in believing in man, equivalent to giving up on constructing a human world."


So yeah, maybe next time don't grab the first Google result you think supports your position. ;p



NONE of that last bit is really anything other than quoting people who agree with you not really explaining the whys.

Dude, all you have to do is explain, logically, philosophically, why torture is wrong.

That's it.
Posted 10/26/16
It is a trait displayed across many species in the animal kingdom - it is NOT unique to humans.

Common general character traits displayed across myriad species....nah bro, nothing universal about that...*facepalm*

Some species are more ornery than others, of course....but when you see compassion be displayed by birds, by elephants, monkeys, dolphins, etc, etc,....cmon...

Compassion is near universal in its adoption, this is certainly not a broadbrush over every species, but a large enough amount of species that have any sort of social structure in their makeup are very often compassionate towards their fellows that the statement is statistically significant.

Millions of years of evolutions and genetic changes have borne out that getting along simply makes sense, but an innate compassion where one feels another's pain to some extent, even if just to wish the other was not in pain....that tells me its an innate part of consciousness. Those who lack it often are exposed to destruction and atrocity at a young age, or if you're just ornery like a wolverine or a brown recluse spider (rip Hanneman)
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/26/16 , edited 10/26/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:


runec wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:
[The above is basically, again, not an argument. It's another statement that torture is "obviously wrong" and I should see that. Human decency? Me, I personally couldn't torture someone. It has nothing to do with decency and more to do with my own psychology. But, not torturing when necessary has nothing to do with basic human decency.... at least not any logical way. If you aren't willing to torture a few guilty people to save innocent lives, when you have the means to do so, then their blood is on your hands. Your inaction, your selfish unwillingness to do what you had to do to save them based on principle, would result in the death of innocent people.

To me, any person who puts some mental, abstract notion of principles at a higher value than the lives of innocents is NOT a decent human. In fact, that's the exact same thing evil people have been doing for years. It just looks prettier the way you're doing it.


Quite the contrary, evil people have been justifying doing terrible things like torture for centuries using your argument, not mine.

Oh yeah, like the inquisitions where they tortured people to confession? No, they used religion. Hitler? Nah, his argument was based on racism. Come on, man, this isn't even an argument, just a claim.




HolyDrumstick wrote:
Oh, thank you for showing me what the Senate said on the situation while they were trying to dismiss torture as a viable tactic. I appreciate that. I've got some explanations of how trickle-down economics works back from the Reagan administration. I can show them to you, if you want.


That report also shows that the CIA had a failure rate of catching and torturing the "innocents" you are so trying to protect at a rate of about 1 in 5. Including torturing two innocent people because another innocent person fingering them under torture and even accidentally torturing two of their own intelligence sources.

People who don't know are not the same innocents. Sigh. That's a huge myth and misunderstanding. Not every Nazi knew the intel that was needed.




This is not a study nor a research paper. Its a philosophical paper about ethical theory. You know, ethics. The thing you just dismissed me for bringing into the argument? In fact the very paper you're trying to use to support your argument condemns you using it for your argument:

Philosophical argument is EXACTLY what I've been asking for from you. You say it isn't, but I keep asking you to present morality not based on religious views. This entire bit from you is bullshit. "You can't use arguments you don't allow me to use." Doesn't work when these are not only allowed but exactly what I've been asking for from you. Which you have STILL failed to provide.



We have argued that although torture may sometimes be mandatory, no moral or legal rules authorizing or specifying the circumstances under which torture ought to be performed should be incorporated. The prohibition on torture is therefore unconditional even if torture sometimes ought to be performed.


NO, do you even realize how you contradicted yourself. Man, you REALLY need to go back and read that article, or what you just wrote, or both. Oxford law is saying:

"The international laws prohibited torture should be maintained, because removal of those laws encourages torture in unnecessary situations. However, torture should be exempt from international law, in situations of duress, because it does work and is sometimes necessary."

Basically, Oxford is saying that the law is nice and pretty, but there are times when torture MUST be excused.

Which is what I've been saying throughout my arguments. Go back to the post where I said it should only be used if necessary and as a last resort. YEAH, I said that.



Given that we devoted this paper to a theoretical investigation of torture, let us conclude by adding a few words on the risks of over-theorizing. Upon publication of photographs of South Vietnamese soldiers torturing North Vietcong fighters, Graham Green wrote: "The photographs certainly are a mark of honesty, a sign that the authorities do not shut their eyes to what is going on, but I wonder if this kind of honesty without conscience is really to be preferred to the old hypocrisy."

Without intending to champion old hypocrisies, we do wish to call attention to the dangers involved in new honesty and realism. The preceding arguments have all focused on theoretical and philosophical issues pertaining to the question of torture. We have tried to show that even deontologists can accommodate the necessity of torture in extreme circumstances. Let it is important to note that the main challenge facing those who revere human dignity and are concerned with the decency of our society may not be theoretical but political, and as such, requires a radically different strategy.

Recent history attests to the unhappy fact that abuse of the idea that torture may be permissible is much more pressing and prevalent a phenomenon than excessive restraint on the part of states. Our concern therefore must be first and foremost to object to the current practice of torture which has in recent years gained alarming warrant from officials and academics alike. The political chore of opposing torture Bustified in the name of empty slogans declaring fictitious wars, fruits of political spinner's manipulative imaginations, is an urgent task all too often undermined by professionalist discussions of theoretical aspects of torture. As stated sharply by Weinstein, "Such rationalizations not only help the practice to thrive but often provide the main reasons for its baleful success."

Let us therefore not forget the moral price of admitting torture as a respectable citizen in our intellectual and social discourse. As General Bollardiere warned: "Giving in to violence and to torture is, through lack of power in believing in man, equivalent to giving up on constructing a human world."


So yeah, maybe next time don't grab the first Google result you think supports your position. ;p



NONE of that last bit is really anything other than quoting people who agree with you not really explaining the whys.

Dude, all you have to do is explain, logically, philosophically, why torture is wrong.

That's it.

Let me also add that you tried to base it on politics on the last bit.

What purpose would politicians have for supporting torture if it was not necessary and successful at times? They wouldn't? It isn't like they get to participate. It isn't like they are enjoying these people getting tortured. So that logic is BS, too.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/26/16 , edited 10/26/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:
Oh yeah-


Okay, lets back the hell up here. You dismissed me when I brought up ethics ( which is philosophy ) but you're asking for a philosophical argument?

The basis of your argument seems to be moving the goal posts ever more narrowly into a situation that torture is morally justified. In order to reach the cliff you have climbed up to you must essentially have omniscient knowledge of the subject of torture. You must know, beyond all doubt, that the subject is guilty of something heinous enough to morally excuse torture and does have information that could immediately lead to the saving of innocent lives. This is a bar that is, practically speaking, impossible. You're presenting us with the myth of the ticking timebomb and that scenario can simply be adjusted upwards ad nasuem to defend your position.

Also if you had read the paper you keep flogging me with you would see that that myth is covered in it.



HolyDrumstick wrote:Oxford law is saying:


No, it isn't actually. The paper is primarily written by a professor from the University of Jerusalem. Please at least read that much of your own link.



HolyDrumstick wrote:
NONE of that last bit is really anything other than quoting people who agree with you not really explaining the whys.


I am quoting the paper you linked.
Emtro 
1569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 10/26/16

Deyre wrote:

Edit: Trump will Star in a movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTbkbH3x7LQ - The Trumpinator


The creator made another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw&t=0s
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.