How Does A Religious Society View Waterboarding And Other Methods Of Torture? (confess, death penalty)

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

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.

Neither is rape life threatening or (physically) harmful, yet it is considered immoral.

And when do you stop waterboarding a victim who simply doesn't talk or keeps insisting that he doesn't know anything?
When he has died of the stress of believing that he is being drowned over and over?

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.

And there you go again with calling everyone who disagrees with you a moron (or Liberal).
Which basically makes you the moron.

Your political mantra: Liberals = morons sounds suspiciously a lot like Nazi-Germany's propaganda slogan that Jews = sub humans.
In the end the Nazi's solution to all their problems (their so-called Endlosung) was the building of Nazi death camps like Auschwitz.

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Neither is rape life threatening or (physically) harmful, yet it is considered immoral.

Wow. Just wow. You're so hell bent on mischaracterizing waterboarding and helping terrorists that you've reduced yourself to saying rape isn't physically harmful? Why don't you forcefully insert a cucumber up your rectum and then tell us about how it's not physically harmful. Rape is a violent crime, not just psychologically, numbnuts, but physically. Or do you think women are just cooperating the whole time?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

You're so hell bent on mischaracterizing waterboarding and helping terrorists that you've reduced yourself to saying rape isn't physically harmful?

It is a simple fact that the more you resist the more it will hurt.
Exactly like waterboarding.
Besidez, just because I admit that a rape doesn't necessarily has to hurt physically doesn't mean that there is no psychological damage.
In fact I believe that rape does more psychological damage (trauma from being violated, becoming pregnant against your will, raising a child who is fathered by the rapist etc) than physical damage (cuts & bruises, pregnancy).
But I didn't bring up the psychological angle simply because you yourself never talk about it when you mention waterboarding.
Maybe it is because Conservatives view trauma & psychological damage as Liberal hogwash?
How else can you characterise waterboarding as anything but torture?

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Neither is rape life threatening or (physically) harmful, yet it is considered immoral.

Originally Posted by Tricky D

It is a simple fact that the more you resist the more it will hurt.

Yes, we should take your moral opinions seriously. LOL...you make my case against Liberals too easy. I don't need to explain what a moral degenerate you are. Your own words suffice.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

Yes, we should take your moral opinions seriously. LOL...you make my case against Liberals too easy. I don't need to explain what a moral degenerate you are. Your own words suffice.

You obviously never heard of rape cases where the victim never realised she was raped because she was drugged unconscious?
The fact that these women didn't notice that they were violated means that they weren't hurt physically. But the absence of physical damage and / or physical discomfort doesn't mean that they weren't raped.
This all proves that rape doesn’t necessarily have to hurt physically.

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

You obviously never heard of rape cases where the victim never realised she was raped because she was drugged unconscious?

This nonsense is pretty bad, but it's worse when we consider that also said this asinine remark...

Originally Posted by Tricky D

The (unconscious) women did not object during the rape so technically it isn't a rape.

So, according to you, if the woman is drugged unconscious then it's not rape, yet when it suits you, you speak of rape when women are drugged unconscious.

You have no integrity.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

So, according to you, if the woman is drugged unconscious then it's not rape, yet when it suits you, you speak of rape when women are drugged unconscious.

You have no integrity.

I see your 'Conservative common sense' has made you ignorant of the fact that my post you quoted is dripping with cynicism.
But then that is what you get if you can't admit that torture = rape, or that waterboarding = torture.
In that particular post I've even clearly stated that I was following your 'logic' of why waterboarding cannot be torture.
Your main argument of why waterboarding cannot be torture rests on the illogical 'reasoning' that all harm done during waterboarding would be done unintentionally, which is complete hogwash.
Now that is a mischaracterisation of waterboarding; if waterboarding did not harm the victim it would be a useless 'interrigation' technique.
You completely ignore the fact that your Conservative moral justification of why waterboarding is moral and should be legal also includes the justification of rape, because in a rape the physical violence generally just is a tool to subdue the victim.
Just like the violence in waterboarding is just a tool to drag ‘the truth’ out of the victim.

And no my point is that even with the absent of physical violence rape is still immoral simply because the victim was violated.
FYI there are rapists who prefer to use certain drugs that make their victims more agreeable to avoid physical violence.

[old_cold]

TrickyD
Please explain explicity how waterboarding is physically harmful ?
I will concede that it could cause, for instance, a heart attack in a susceptible(due to underlying medical circumstances) person (inadvertant) due to the effects of panic reaction.
Other than that rare instance, it is physically harmful how?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by old_cold

I will concede that it could cause, for instance, a heart attack in a susceptible(due to underlying medical circumstances) person (inadvertant) due to the effects of panic reaction.
Other than that rare instance, it is physically harmful how?

Because waterboarding makes the body believes that it is drowning while it isn't.
So having the gag reflex once could be considered 'inconvenient' and harmless but if it goes on for minutes or even hours it becomes intolerable (just like anything else would become torture).
And the knowledge that you have no control over the duration only adds undue stress.
Even telling the truth, when you don't know anything might not stop the torture, simple because the torturer, or 'interrogator' as fiveredapples would call him, might not believe you.

There even have been people who've only been suspected of a crime and were indeed innocent yet pleaded guilty simply because they couldn't handle the stress of being interrogated for hours by police interrogators, and this doesn't even involve anything illegal or something torturous like waterboarding.
So if you can accomplish that innocent people plead guilty during a normal legal police interrogation I can only conclude that waterboarding will only make matters worse.

[old_cold]

So it's the psychological aspect of it that you consider torture....not the physical.
So then, should hours of interrogation of a suspect also be considered torture?
Should the 24 hour a day playing of Barry Manilow in the room of a 23 year old or the playing of Ten Inch Nails in the room of a 64 year old be considered torture?
I might give up the location of my countries nuclear warehouses if subjected to 2 people clicking their ballpoints and noisily eating with the mouths open for 3 hours.....should that be considered and prohibited as torture?