How Does A Religious Society View Waterboarding And Other Methods Of Torture? (divorce, contradictions)

[fiveredapples]

I don't understand this slipper slope you're on. Where does it stop? How about at waterboarding, or similar interrogation methods? It's still legal and morally acceptable to spank your children, isn't it? It wouldn't be if someone like you kept saying "Where does it stop? Do we next punch them in the eye, cut off a finger, burn them alive?" It's ridiculous. Instead of admonishing me about my polemics, take a little time to actually think about what you're saying. You think it's pointless to argue with me. I agree. It's pointless for YOU. Am I supposed to concede for civility's sake? Am I supposed to yield to your wrong opinions because it's polite?

You think you can just come along and say, "I think we should stop before waterboarding." Well, that's cute, but you realize that there's a very real need for it -- we get information this way about terrorist plots. Without it, we're severely limited when it comes to combatting this evil. So, you're pretty cavalier about real lives that are in danger.

The Liberal tactic is to brand waterboarding as immoral, because then they can argue that it shouldnt be legal either. You don't even weigh in on the morality of it; you just say, "We shouldn't use it." Really, that's it? I'm sorry for disparaging your intelligence.

Waterboarding is morally permissible. Those who advocate banning it, label it immoral, especially without offering some other effective measure to prevent and fight terrorist acts, are themselves immoral. Spare me your opinions yet again. I know them. Thanks. Offer reasons for your opinions. Otherwise, save it for a poll on the topic. This is a discussion.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by old_cold

I'm speechless.

Of course you are.
Have you ever been raped?
To men it is 'only an assault', but for women it is a betrayal of their body when they also became pregnant because of it.
Or do you believe that becoming pregnant because of a rape means that the victim secretly enjoyed it?


Originally Posted by fiveredapples

I don't understand this slipper slope you're on. Where does it stop? How about at waterboarding, or similar interrogation methods? It's still legal and morally acceptable to spank your children, isn't it?

Not in Scandinavia, simple because the judges there find it hard to determine whether a parent is using corporeal punishment correctly or whether it is used as personal enjoyment of a sadistic parent.
The thing is that sadistic parents (because they're sadistic) use severe corporeal punisment (and psychological abuse) for every little transgression the child makes.
A sadistic parent can't understand the fact that it is useless to spank a child (or even a baby) when it doesn't understand what it has done wrong.
And if the child can't understand this, it can't correct its behaviour which makes spanking useless.

You think you can just come along and say, "I think we should stop before waterboarding." Well, that's cute, but you realize that there's a very real need for it -- we get information this way about terrorist plots. Without it, we're severely limited when it comes to combatting this evil. So, you're pretty cavalier about real lives that are in danger.

Ah, the only-way-to-stop-evil (or terrorism)-is-by-becoming-more-evil (use more extreme terror tactics) argument.
Like I've posted before why not exterminate all of the enemy?
If I'm not mistaken Nazi Germany almost reached this goal by exterminating nearly all of the German Jews in their death camps.

Oh and don't let this tiny little, but very important fact that literally everyone could become the enemy stop you.

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Are saying that you believe that waterboarding is just swallowing water?

No. No one has said this, so why are you carrying on about it if it isn't to mischaracterize someone's position?

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Waterboarding is making the victim's body believe that it is drowning.

The body doesn't believe anything, it merely reacts. And the reaction is very similar to that of drowning. The physical experience isn't all that painful or damaging (psst, since you're not actually drowning), but psychologically it is a extremely uncomfortable. And if you've ever accidently swalllowed water in a pool, then you have some idea of what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Tricky D

In essence waterboarding is the same as rape where the rapist, by forcing himself on his victim, is tricking the victim's body into believing that it is 'just' having sex (a motor reflex, which has nothing to do with the victim's actual awareness).

Waterboarding is nowhere near what rape is, and it's this asinine comment which old_cold said "I'm speechless" about -- which you're completely misrepresenting in your response (as you do in all your responses). Waterboarding is nothing like rape. How does a rapist trick a person into believing they're just having sex? That doesn't even make sense. People being raped know when they're being raped, or they're too inebriated (if not unconscious) to know it. There is no, "Oh, I wonder if I'm being raped right now." You don't even understand rape, yet you make comparisons to waterboarding, which you also don't understand. Nice to see ignorance doesn't get in your way.

Mind you, this is a thread about the morality of waterboarding. You're still talking about rape (to obfuscate), torture (to obfuscate), mis-attributing beliefs to people (to obfuscate), and, generally, just making preposterous claims (to obfuscate).

Try to concentrate on 'waterboarding' and 'morality.'

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

Waterboarding is nothing like rape.

Of course not because in your logic waterboarding isn't even torture.
I even doubt that you believe that rape is torture and that torture is rape.

How does a rapist trick a person into believing they're just having sex?

In the exact same manner that waterboarding tricks the victim into believing that he is drowning.

Mind you, this is a thread about the morality of waterboarding. You're still talking about rape (to obfuscate), torture (to obfuscate), mis-attributing beliefs to people (to obfuscate), and, generally, just making preposterous claims (to obfuscate).

Try to concentrate on 'waterboarding' and 'morality.'

I've done all that, you just happen to disagree with me and thus are convinced that I haven't.

[fiveredapples]

The moral permissibility of waterboarding is clear, and it's clear that those who say it's morally impermissible to waterboard someone have no arguments for their indefensible position. I think their position is immoral, too, but that's not my argument here.

Common sense tells us that it's perfectly moral to use an interrogation technique such as waterboarding, which is relatively harmless, when it's one of the least drastic things one can do to help stop an immoral (and illegal) act such as a terrorist plot to blow up innocent people. Just like it's perfectly moral to shoot to kill people who have broken into your home on a killing spree. In this scenario, we morally sanction much more drastic action -- namely killing the home invaders. In the waterboarding case, we're only morally sanctioning putting the perpetrator under some psychological durress from the sensation of drowning waterboarding causes. Yet Liberals dare not say that shooting to kill the perpetrators is morally impermissible, because they would come off as obviously morally degenerate. Well, in the waterboarding case, they're not only advocating the morally degenerate position, they're advocating the morally evil one.

Liberals don't want you to actually think about what waterboarding is, how benign and humane it actually is given the circumstances. If your family were being held captive somewhere, and you caught the guilty person, would you not think that using something a little more drastic than waterboarding him would be morally permissible in order to get him to tell us where they're being held? I mean, they'll die without nourishment in a few days, but Liberals would say to you, "Well, waterboarding him is morally impermissible, so you must accept that the morally proper thing to do will result in letting your family die. We don't want to violate the perpertrator's rights, now, do we?" This is not just stupid, it's evil.

We saved thousands of innocent lives in America and England because we waterboarded known terrorists with information about terrorist plots, and Liberals come along and say we're morally wrong for having done so, and, worse, want to make it illegal to do so again.

There's nothing any Liberal has said that should make us think otherwise concerning waterboarding. Liberals are the junk peddlers of morals. If they can't convince you the crap watch they're trying to push on you is a good watch, why would telling you "It's a Rolex" then make you think the crappy watch isn't a crappy watch? The label they put on the watch doesn't stop it from being what it is -- a crappy watch. Waterboarding is a perfectly moral preventive measure, and since Liberals can't convince you otherwise, they are labelling it "Torture" -- they're trying to sell you their crappy watch of an idea this way. It's a rhetorical ploy at best. It's morally repugnant and evil at worst.

[tgnostic]

I think that the honest one who doesn't know the answer to the interrogator is the one who would suffer the water-boarding worse. So why do we persist in applying the punishment. Is it just for punishment's sake?

Maybe another painful way will differentiate the honest from the treacherous.

[fiveredapples]

We also jail innocent people sometimes, so why do we persist in building jails, having laws, and enforcing those laws? The answer is because it's still the best method we have for preventing lawlessness and wickedness in our societies. The fact that something isn't 100% infallible doesn't make it immoral or imprudent. We all get in our cars knowing we could accidentally kill someone, but we're not immoral for driving, are we?

But your example is so very far removed from the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, for example. He was not honest. He was not innocent. He had valuable information. He was a part of the immoral plot. The plot was essentially underway. And we used a rather benign interrogation technique, given others that exists, to get him to talk. Waterboarding, as an interrogation method, was chosen precisely because it is so benign.

If you wanted to extract information from the guy who kidnapped your child but wasn't sayng where he hid him, what techniques could you think of to make him talk? I'm sure we can all think of very painful things we could do to him to make him talk. And if we wanted him to talk right away, wouldn't our choices be among the most painful options? Now, is waterboarding one of the top techniques you thought of for making him tell you where you child is? I doubt it.

If you then ask youself: "Okay, given the original list I thought of, which method is the least drastic, least painful, least damaging to the the guy I'm interrorgating, yet will sooner or later get me the answers I need?" One good answer is waterboarding.

Waterboarding is the US government's answer to those two questions, along with whether waterboarding violates any conventions, laws, or treaties they're obligated to honor. Waterboarding is probably one of the most humane tools we have for fighting terrorists. Without it, we cripple ourselves severely, and those who advocate for that must tell us why letting innocent people be killed by terrorists is the better option.

[Dewdroplet76]

Why is the thread still going on? It's impossible to have a conversation with someone who only talks and doesn't listen. It's not conversation - it's a monologue. And a very boring, repetitive one at that. "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, evil, immoral, and liberal" isn't a very convincing argument. There is no point arguing with you because you don't listen. I mean, it's somewhat amusing but very, very boring.

[fiveredapples]

So you ignore my commonsense explanation for why waterboarding is morally permissible. You ignore all my reasons for why it's as permissible as shooting a home invader, and then you offer no reasons whatsoever for whatever you believe. And you do this is a post in which you accuse of of only talking and not listening.

LOL...irony doesn't get much better than that, my friend.

Here is an impersonation of you: "Uhm, I'm not going to address anything you say but I have a different opinion. You're boring." Dude, you FAIL.

[Dewdroplet76]

First of all, I'm not a dude. Second of all, this is my last post here and also the last time I will read this thread. I gave you my reasons long ago. I understand your reasoning. I do not agree with it. You not only do not even attempt to understand any reasoning besides your own but whatever reasons people give you - you say they aren't even valid. What is the point of trying to converse with someone when any point you make - they dismiss and consider invalid? Who are you to decide which points are valid and which are not? Have you noticed that you have pretty much cleared everyone from this thread? Anyone who disagree with you - you call them an immoral liberal. Many people have made several points - you just ignore them. You ignore everyone but yourself. You can say that nobody gave you any reasons for what they believe - WE ALL DID! YOU JUST WON'T LISTEN!
The only person that cares what you have to say is you. Have fun talking to yourself, DUDE.