User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 97

Thread: Waterboarding

  1. #81
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    An Occupying Army

    Thousands of American soldiers will be flooding into Australia soon and some of them will rape Australian women, but not one American rapist can be brought before an Australian Criminal Court.

    This is all apiece with the fact that not one American soldier can be brought before the International Court of Justice for war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity.

    These are the hallmarks of an occupying army.

  2. #82
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  3. #83
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    It's what's known as psychological torture.

    Something doesn't have to cause lasting physical harm to fit the bill.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  4. #84
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Parameter 1 :There is no need to value the life of a person that doesn't value the life of the others.
    Why wouldn't devaluing the life of a terrorist fit this category? What if the terrorist sincerely perceives his/her victim as not valuing the life of others and so it is acceptable to kill based on this same reasoning? Does it make a difference what the motivation is in devaluing the human life? Cruelty and killing are most often justified as punishing the guilty and so motivations are typically justified either with accurate perception and distorted logic, or distorted perception and accurate logic or some combination of the two. Edit: Internal motivations for any action cannot be measured and determined definitively and rely on varying degrees of assumptions from an onlooker. To have this be the basis for determining human rights makes for a subjective measurement of a conclusion that has serious consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Parameter 2 :Therefore, if it is possible to save 1 innocent life by torturing one thousand of the above, it is justifiable.''
    Same questions as above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Parameter 3: For terrorists, parameter 1 is assumed, unless special circumstances are present.
    What is the importance of motivation vs. action because every conceivable combination of motivations and actions can occur in human beings because of fear and distorted perceptions. Even terrorists are not monolithic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Parameter 4: For anyone else, it should be verified case-by-case.
    What if it cannot be fully verified if someone is a terrorist? If there is any doubt, then is there any change in their human rights or does suspicion alone remove human rights?
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  5. #85
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    What if the terrorist sincerely perceives his/her victim as not valuing the life of others and so it is acceptable to kill based on this same reasoning?
    There's a difference between attacking a soldier and attacking a random person that was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
    Does it make a difference what the motivation is in devaluing the human life?
    Yes. But terrorism has no good enough justification.
    so motivations are typically justified either with accurate perception and distorted logic, or distorted perception and accurate logic or some combination of the two.
    I can agree with that. Still, better him than an innocent. If this terrorist believes random people he knows nothing about are personifications of evil, there's no reason for us to treat him well when it's possible to save innocent lives.
    What if it cannot be fully verified if someone is a terrorist? If there is any doubt, then is there any change in their human rights or does suspicion alone remove human rights?
    Innocents are gonna suffer no matter what. If it's possible for the State to make by its own hands 10 innocents that seem guilty suffer, in order to avoid 100 innocents suffer, it's an acceptable price. Every decision has its own collateral damage. I believe it's better to get hands dirty in order to save 10 times more innocents than to keep hands clean and assume nothing could have been done. This paragraph is my basic mindset. The other points need more polishing time than I'm willing to spend on the matter.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    If there's a ticking time bomb scenario, and you have apprehended an assailant who very likely has knowledge that could be used to prevent the scenario from occurring, if it does not seem like this information will be gathered from him or her by the time that time bomb stops ticking, then torture is justified.
    Can you think of a single time outside of a television show where this has ever happened? I can't, and I have never seen anything to indicate that this is what torture is used for. This is a specious argument because it simply has no bearing in reality.

    You can come up with an extreme edge case to justify any action, but at then end of the day it's a bad idea to determine day-to-day operations based on such unrealistic premises.

  7. #87
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    There surely must be other forms of torture which are unimaginably crueler, hurtful and inhumane than water boarding. However water boarding won the lime light of torture techniques.

  8. #88
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    There surely must be other forms of torture which are unimaginably crueler, hurtful and inhumane than water boarding. However water boarding won the lime light of torture techniques.
    I don't know how you go from "there's worse" to "this is perfectly acceptable."
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  9. #89
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    There surely must be other forms of torture which are unimaginably crueler, hurtful and inhumane than water boarding. However water boarding won the lime light of torture techniques.
    Water boarding is one of the few types of torture that is legal in the United States. It is also used regularly.

    That is why water boarding is in the lime light

  10. #90
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Innocents are gonna suffer no matter what. If it's possible for the State to make by its own hands 10 innocents that seem guilty suffer, in order to avoid 100 innocents suffer, it's an acceptable price. Every decision has its own collateral damage. I believe it's better to get hands dirty in order to save 10 times more innocents than to keep hands clean and assume nothing could have been done. This paragraph is my basic mindset. The other points need more polishing time than I'm willing to spend on the matter.
    This sounds like a utilitarian approach to morality. What strikes me, though, is that the phrase, "innocents are gonna suffer no matter what" could well be used to justify a terrorist act. Kill a few people on a bus to get the attention on a bigger problem that will save more people. I think your reference is to collateral damage and not intentional damage to non-combatants which makes it different from the application I mentioned, but still, the reasoning is troubling for its direct similarity to the justification for a terrorist act.

    I'm watching a documentary on tree-hugger eco-terrorists. That term "terrorist" includes people who have plausibly positive motivations to help the world. It includes people who have never killed anyone. And most problematically it includes people only suspected of terrorism who are tortured in order to determine their guilt. There was a quote in the documentary, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter depending on whether or not you agree with his motives". It was somewhat chilling to hear that. Terrorism is the tactic used by those who don't have the resources to have an armed forces necessary to confront a powerful country head-on. It's called asymmetrical warfare because it grows out of strong power imbalances and so overcompensates for its position of vulnerability with strong violence and fear. I am not convinced of the reasoning to remove human rights from people who happened to end up on that side of a conflict. I don't think it is possible to isolate guilt so clearly to the level of individual - they are operating and reacting within a system. There are comparable instances in which soldiers have been accused of committing violence against innocent civilians and yet they are not labeled "terrorist" for these acts. Why? Perhaps because they are on the correct side of the power imbalance?
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO