Waterboarding

[Beargryllz]

You have human rights by virtue of being human. So you have them until you die.

What are the rights of a human?

 

[Riva]

So when someone else stops recognizing human rights it becomes ok to do likewise to them? It's ok, though, because they did it first?

If you are asking the question from a philosophical stand point, I will choose not to answer it since I am not very philosophical nor introspective nor pretentiously philosophical to formulate a half hearted answer just to provide one with an answer.

On the other hand if you are asking from a personal belief stand point I, I believe it is the right thing to do. Not simply because they did it 1st. So that they wouldn't do it again. Think along those lines for me.

 

[Nicodemus]

What are the rights of a human?

In contrast to 'human rights'?

 

[Beargryllz]

In contrast to 'human rights'?

Not in contrast, but by another name

What are the human rights?

 

[Metamorphosis]

On the other hand if you are asking from a personal belief stand point I, I believe it is the right thing to do. Not simply because they did it 1st. So that they wouldn't do it again. Think along those lines for me.

Suppose they thought that their victims had already been treating people as if they lacked human rights. Beyond that, who would stop you after you ended them to keep them from doing it again?

 

[Nicodemus]

Not in contrast, but by another name

What are the human rights?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

However, the more relevant question is: What are the Geneva Conventions? Because I see little difference between a soldier who fights for his nation (a compound of beliefs) and a terrorist who fights for his faith or god (compounds of beliefs).

 

[Rasofy]

This is overly idealistic, I think.

Possibly. But I think they deserve the benefit of doubt.

The states' motivation, while normally not lunatic, is virtually always selfish and they're willing to kill to achieve the goal.

Well, in a war both sides are partial. No side is intrinsically evil or good. There is a balance.

You have human rights by virtue of being human. So you have them until you die.

Ok, that means you disagree with my reasoning. But what's the final solution? Never torture?

 

[Riva]

Suppose they thought that their victims had already been treating people as if they lacked human rights. Beyond that, who would stop you after you ended them to keep them from doing it again?

The 2nd part of the question is a bit confusing. Could you clarify it. I don't wish to reply before the question is crystal clear.

Not in contrast, but by another name

What are the human rights?

Beargy, I think for a discussion to be valid it is best that both parties show their points of view rather than one party doing so and the other party trying to prove the other wrong.

 

[Beargryllz]

Ok, that means you disagree with my reasoning. But what's the final solution? Never torture?

What's the final solution? Never enslave?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Freedom_from_slavery

What's the final solution? Never torture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Freedom_from_torture

What's the final solution? Never kill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Right_to_life

When is it right to torture, enslave, and kill humans?

Surely if it could be justified, we would do it. If we do not exercise our right to kill, enslave, or torture, do we even have rights at all?

These rights are not inalienable, as we torture, enslave, and kill each other every day. But when is it right to do these things?

That is the question.

At what point do I have the right to subject a person to torture, slavery, or death?

 

[Nicodemus]

Ok, that means you disagree with my reasoning. But what's the final solution? Never torture?

There was reasoning on your part? But, yes, the state should never practice or allow torture. If an interrogator uses torture to save a million lives, he should suffer the legal consequences.

Of course, we could start a discussion on the legitimacy of state punishment but there, too, is no true answer to be found.

 

[Beargryllz]

Beargy, I think for a discussion to be valid it is best that both parties show their points of view rather than one party doing so and the other party trying to prove the other wrong.

When am I justified in depriving another human of their human rights?

This is a question I ask myself, because I would choose to be just

 

[Riva]

When am I justified in depriving another human of their human rights?

This is a question I ask myself, because I would choose to be just

When that human chooses to deprive me or others of my or others rights.
And when I choose to stop him or others who shares his views from depriving others' rights again.

I believe that is what I believe.

Also,

I am interested to know what actions you would take.

 

[Metamorphosis]

The 2nd part of the question is a bit confusing. Could you clarify it. I don't wish to reply before the question is crystal clear.

Step 1: Terrorist 1 thinks that America is infringing on his people and their basic rights and decides that American rights should be ignored just like they ignored his people's rights.

Step 2: American 1 decides that Terrorist 1 should have no rights, because they have ignored basic human rights in their method of targeting Americans and acts accordingly.

Rinse and repeat.

Possibly. But I think they deserve the benefit of doubt.

Why? No one is above having their actions questioned.

Well, in a war both sides are partial. No side is intrinsically evil or good. There is a balance.

Then, why are these so different?

"Terrorists: If there is potential to save innocent lives, it is justifiable. Terrorists aren't worthy of human rights, in first place.
Army combatants: They were being loyal to their nation. Just happened to be on the wrong side. As a general rule, they shouldn't be tortured."

 

[Beargryllz]

When that human chooses to deprive me or others of my or others rights.
And when I choose to stop him or others who shares his views from depriving others' rights again.

I believe that is what I believe.

Also,

I am interested to know what actions you would take.

The deprivers of human rights are to be deprived of their human rights

Who then remains human? The one depriving another of their human rights is no longer human because they no longer have the rights of a human.

Who is human?

 

[The Outsider]

When that human chooses to deprive me or others of my or others rights.
And when I choose to stop him or others who shares his views from depriving others' rights again.

I believe that is what I believe.

Also,

I am interested to know what actions you would take.

Since a person is relieved of his rights the moment he does so to others, should torturing him just for the hell of it be allowed, since he no longer has human rights?

 

[Rasofy]

There was reasoning on your part? But, yes, the state should never practice or allow torture. If an interrogator uses torture to save a million lives, he should suffer the legal consequences.

Sounds pretty inefficient, to say the least. But it isn't the point, right?

 

[Riva]

I love where this is going.
I shall give you my answers tomorrow.
I have to go take my beauty sleep as it is already late here, I have to wake up early tomorrow and believe it or not I have a time table (that I adhere to, though not often).

 

[Nicodemus]

Sounds pretty inefficient, to say the least.

Your ears must fail you. And, please, say the utmost.

But it isn't the point, right?

Right.

 

[Rasofy]

Why? No one is above having their actions questioned.

I didn't say that. Just meant innocent till proven guilty.

Then, why are these so different?

Because one thing is killing people in a war, another thing is doing it by terrorism. In a war, both sides are following what the state commands them to do. They trust the state to tell them what's the best for their nation. And they are meant to kill armed soldiers, that usually have some fighting chance against them.
You will certainly find a lot of flaws in the arguments because, in the end, it is just my moral judgement, and moral judgements don't mix with logic.

Your ears must fail you. And, please, say the utmost.

I understand your pov. Just think it is unreasonable. In the end of the day you can say your principles are solid, but the cost seems too high. Then you argue that if rules get bended, they aren't legitimate in first place. Checkmate.
I was gonna ask whether if your life was at risk your opinion would be the same, but I decided the argument is weak.

Leaving to study. laters.

 

[Nicodemus]

I understand your pov. Just think it is unreasonable. In the end of the day you can say your principles are solid, but the cost seems too high. Then you argue that if rules get bended, they aren't legitimate in first place. Checkmate.
I was gonna ask whether if your life was at risk your opinion would be the same, but I decided the argument is weak.

I would be thankful for someone who decided to break the law to save my life, but I would not want his actions to be legal.