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

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

So because I claim that waterboarding doesn't cause severe pain and suffering, you think that I'm somehow -- in your warped way of thinking -- committed to the view that we should also use it on children and as an educational tool? Man, how you manage to peel a banana is beyond me.

Easy I let you peel it for me.
Anywayz, define 'severe pain and suffering.'
To some kids going to school already is 'severe pain and suffering'.

I'm not here to talk about your anti-American propaganda.

Hey, you were the 1 who brought up 9/11.
It's all cause and effect.

I guess that you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is anti-American.
LoL, your American Patriot Act sounds more like Russian communism, but I guess that's why the American government called it the 'patriot' Act.

Well, it's obvious you don't debate in order to convince others to your point of view, because that would require that you give others reasons to believe that your point of view is correct.

Why?
Do you believe that if the majority of the people believe that a circle has 4 corners it somehow makes it so?
If my argument is correct it is correct, no matter what others believe.
And it still is a fact that waterboarding is a form of torture.
So is playing loud music, if you do that long enough it will rupture your eardrums.

The only thing you've done so far is help substantiate my claim about Liberals: they cannot argue for their wrong belief that waterboarding is immoral, and they will distort that debate anyway they can.

I disagree with you therefore I must be a Liberal and anti-American.
I see that McCarthy still has a lotta pull with the American Conservatives.
I'm curious; do you turn every ethical debate into political name-calling?

So far you haven't given me any reason to believe that my arguments are morally abject or illogical.

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Anywayz, define 'severe pain and suffering.'
To some kids going to school already is 'severe pain and suffering'.

I'm happy to concede that kids do experience severe pain and suffering when sent to school, so now I can treat your claim that waterboarding causes people severe pain and suffering as meaning nothing more than what kids experience when sent to school.

So, you're basically saying that rather than save the lives of hundreds of innocent people who are targetted by terrorist, it's better to spare the terrorist the kind of experience kids feel when sent to school. Oh, yes, Liberals are so good and moral. Liberals love mankind. Liberals are the compassionate ones. I mean, what's a few hundred dead people, hundreds of orphaned kids, hundreds of widowed wives and husbands, and so on, so long as we don't dare inflict the kind of pain and suffering millions of American kids experience daily. You are the benevolent one.

So far you haven't given me any reason to believe that my arguments are morally abject or illogical.

You've given no argument. You've spent hours now responding, post after post, and everything you've said can be said completely in three words: torture is immoral

Who cares! This isn't a "Is torture immoral?" debate. It's a "Is waterboarding immoral?" debate, and you are dead silent about waterboarding. You should be, too, as it is embarrassing to argue that it's preferable to let a terrorist murder innocent people rather than waterboard him. It's embarrassing to say that taking the only preventive measure of stopping some terrorist bomb attacks is immoral.

If someone broke into your house and began shooting everybody, it would not be immoral to kill that person if you had the opportunity. It would be a preventive measure. It would be morally acceptable because in breaking into your home with a gun (let alone shooting people), he forfeits his right not to be killed in the middle of his act. Khalid Sheik Mohammed had set the ball in motion -- that is, he was in the middle of a crime that was to kill hundreds of people -- and we took the necessary measure in waterboarding him to stop his crime from succeeding. That is all that happened. It is perfectly moral and sane. You would rather label the targetted victims as immoral, which plays directly into terrorist propaganda. You would rather make waterboarding illegal, which plays into the hands of terorrists. You are arguing on the side of evil. That you don't know it is why you're a Liberal.

Taking the only effective preventive measure of stopping someone from murdering innocent people is labelled immoral by you. You would not only deprive the innocent of such a defensive tool, but you'd brand them immoral for using it. That's worse than foolish, it's immoral. You have immoral beliefs, which is symptomatic of your kind. This is why I say Liberals are truly evil. They prove it every day.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

I'm happy to concede that kids do experience severe pain and suffering when sent to school, so now I can treat your claim that waterboarding causes people severe pain and suffering as meaning nothing more than what kids experience when sent to school.

Then why stop at waterboarding?
Why not rape the women as well as a deterrent for the enemy who are willing to fight you?

So, you're basically saying that rather than save the lives of hundreds of innocent people who are targetted by terrorist, it's better to spare the terrorist the kind of experience kids feel when sent to school.

So you believe that the end justifies the means?
If that is indeed what you believe then why not nuke every country you believe to be the enemy to ensure that 9/11 will never happen again?
Oh, I forgot all about your home-grown Timothy McVeigh's which would mean that America has to nuke itself.

If someone broke into your house and began shooting everybody, it would not be immoral to kill that person if you had the opportunity.

The thing is that b&e is a physical act while having knowledge isn't.
So it is relatively easy to establish that someone is breaking into your house but how do you prove that someone has certain knowledge?
Do you only waterboard everyone you believe to have the information you require or do you waterboard everyone you find suspect?
BTW isn't this why torture was invented?
The problem is that torture doesn't work, under intense pain & stress people will say anything to stop feeling the pain.
Heck, terrorists who are being waterboarded might even fabricate a plan because they know that this is what the torturer wants to hear so he will stop the 'interrogation.'
The problem here is that, besides the word of a person who was being waterboarded, you do not have any real proof that there was an actual terrorist threat.

I’m curious, do American Conservatives view every enemy as a terrorist, or only those who’ve committed a terrorist act?
And is every action against America considered a terrorist act?
FYI I consider waterboarding an act of terrorism.
I also believe that if America waterboards a Dutch citizen our government would consider America a terrorist country.

You've given no argument. You've spent hours now responding, post after post, and everything you've said can be said completely in three words: torture is immoral

Not only that, but also that waterboarding = torture.
And that waterboarding, like torture, is not a reliable tool to discern fact from fiction.
Waterboarding turns innocent victims into 'terrorists' simply because people will say and do anything to make it stop.

[Norm24x7]

Don't know if waterboarding is torture or not .. this thread definitely is ! .. argh !!

[fiveredapples]

I agree. And it's because Tricky D has done his job well. Everytime I have this discussion, a Liberal comes and sabotages it just this way. So now you come along and say you don't know about waterboarding, when, really, you should know.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Norm24x7

Don't know if waterboarding is torture or not .. this thread definitely is ! .. argh !!

Hey, if nobody is forcing you to read this thread it can't be considered torture.


Originally Posted by fiveredapples

I agree. And it's because Tricky D has done his job well. Everytime I have this discussion, a Liberal comes and sabotages it just this way. So now you come along and say you don't know about waterboarding, when, really, you should know.

It really is simple and it doesn't matter what your political preference is: waterboarding is as much torture as a circle is round.
Agreeing with fiverdapples that waterboarding is just swallowing water is saying that rape is just the simple act of impregnating a woman.

[fiveredapples]

Tricky D, you are the worst debater I've ever seen -- and that's saying a lot, believe me.

You do realize, don't you, that rape doesn't necessarily imply impregnation?

All you do is say, "Well, if you agree with that guy, then you're saying that a circle isn't a circle."

You think that's compelling? It's bad sophistry at best. But, really, your whole point is subterfuge, because you have no argument for why waterboarding is immoral. Without people granting you the premise that waterboarding is torture, you can't even open your mouth. What's pathetic is that everything you've said so far only supports the view that torture is not immoral. Hey, it's not what I'm arguing for, but if you want to support that view, by all means.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

You do realize, don't you, that rape doesn't necessarily imply impregnation?

I could have typed that according to you rape is the simple act of 'swallowing of seed' to stay in your oversimplified analogy of waterboarding = swallowing water.
FYI: to say it in simple words; waterboarding is as much swallowing water as rape is just an act of sex.
So if one believes rape to be immoral, waterboarding also has to be immoral.

But, really, your whole point is subterfuge, because you have no argument for why waterboarding is immoral.

Coming from someone who states that waterboarding is just swallowing water.

[fiveredapples]

More tangential nonsense.

Do you have an argument for your (false) belief that waterboarding is immoral? Because your oh-so-clever "Waterboarding is torture, and to say it isn't is like saying 3 is more than 2" is not compelling. It's embarrassing.

Waterboarding is a perfectly moderate interrogation technique when it comes to pain and suffering. The pain and suffering that does occur comes incrementally, slowly, and one sooner agrees to end future water pourings than endure many, many water pourings. It works like this. The CIA gives you a few water pourings, and then more, and you experience what feels like drowning, but obviously you're not drowning and your also realize that you won't. No matter. That feeling is very unpleasant and we all have a breaking point at which we'll just agree to talk instead of enduring one more water pouring. You see, waterboarding works just because it isn't life threatening or harmful -- but it is highly unpleasant. The terrorist knows that the CIA will just continue to waterboard him, so he cuts his losses early because he'll break eventually anyway. Nobody can undure too many water pourings as a matter of what you're psychologically able to endure. So even though you know it won't kill you or hurt you, you'll opt to stop the water pourings. This benign and effective technique was primarily responsible for letting us learn about Al Qaeda and plots on London and Los Angeles. This benign and effective technique is what Liberals (aka morons) whine about being torture. This is what they want labelled immoral and made illegal. In their stupidity, or perhaps willingly, they aid the terrorists. Useful idiots -- nothing more.

[Dewdroplet76]

I have mixed feelings on this one - I understand the desire to extract information from people by any means possible but where does it stop? How do you know when it's okay to implement waterboarding? How do you know it's going to produce results? If that doesn't work - what do you do next? Also, to me - waterboarding IS morally wrong. Anything that knowingly inflicts pain and suffering on an individual that is being imprisoned, in my opinion, is morally wrong. It is something that I struggle with, though. It would be so easy to just beat up a terrorist to try to extract info - and it would probably feel really good for a second or two, also. However, I do believe it is morally wrong and that it is something that we should not engage in or toy with. But like I said, it's something I struggle with. For instance, I think that instead of the death penalty, we should give the death row prisoners one of the many incurable diseases and experiment on them. That way - it's not really a death sentence. Maybe they would live! Maybe they would help cure cancer or Aids or Lupus! I know this isn't practical at all, just something I think about.
I've read this whole thread - and Fiveredapples - you should really get something more in your arsonal than just calling people Liberals (like it's a bad word). It just makes you sound like a paranoid bigot. It makes me think that you are a grumpy old man who lives all alone and thinks that the Liberals are out to get him. I'm sure that none of that is true - but just stop with the name calling already! It takes away from anything that you might be trying to say.