Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about sleeping on a metal bed with not mattress?
See, by your definition, you probably consider all these to be torturous because they make the person uncomfortable.
What the CIA did was simply 'enhance' the level of discomfort.
I have a very specific definition of torture. Which I've posted on this thread. You might refresh your memory because what you've just stated about "my definition" is completely wrong.
And discomfort is not torture. If you thought torture was okay, why do you keep on trying to minimize it by describing it as discomfort.
Because revenge and torture are the same thing? I think people like yourself who defend torture do think of torture as a form of revenge, and think it's defensible, but if torture is being applied as revenge, it makes it even more indefensible.
And when you stop seeing others as humans, you are a sociopath.
Some people would argue that taking revenge in his own hand is morally wrong and a criminal act because even the criminal child molester deserves a fair trial. No?
I hear what you are saying. But I don't think we are living in a world which is 100% black and white.
The morals of a violent sadistic murderer differ from those of a vegan pacifist. If you agree with that statement you automatically agree that morality is subjective.
We don't live in a world which is black and white. But we live in a world where some things are quite black. Torturing another human being falls in the black part of the world. Morality is subjective. But some things are beyond the pale. Some things aren't gray at all. Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Period.
Do you think that abducting a child, sexually molesting that child, pouring gasoline on a child and setting that child on fire is ever not wrong, ever not immoral? Because if you think it's always wrong, always immoral, then you automatically agree that some aspects of morality are not subjective.
So, are you OK with what this Dad did? After all, he didn't give the guy his day in court. He acted as judge, jury and executioner right there.
Should the dad be charged?
Why or why not?
If the guy waterboarded the molester or 'tortured' him for what he did, what's the difference?
This dad is irrelevant to this debate. What he did wasn't torture. He took revenge.
One of your arguments is that torture isn't revenge. You argue that torture serves a purpose that is for the greater good.
My argument is that torture is so wrong, so immoral, that it cannot serve a purpose for the greater good. The harm inevitably outweighs the good.
I wonder what the answer to my follow-up question would be. My follow-up question would be "do you support the governments of other nations torturing Americans as well, or is it one-way?" I would assume the answer would be "yes". Fair's fair, right?
I think you misread my post. I'm against torture, regardless of who's doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
If what they are saying is what they really believe, I have to admit that I am not one of them. I am not a mother yet, I am an aunt. If my nephew got abducted by somebody. And they knew exactly who committed crime. I really DO NOT care what my government does to bring my nephew back to me.
Moral Civilization Is Not A Suicide Pact . It is an ugly world and if a serious threat is imminent and torture is the only way to stop evil men then so be it.
I don't trust a government that will break it's own laws, even if they cause itself isn't necessarily immoral. Once they do that, they'll need less of a reason to do it again. How long before they torture American citizens who withhold information the government wants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
No, torturing suspects is not justified, because suspects are not terrorists, Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. So in this particular case, torture is not justified.
The 8th amendment protects the innocent and the guilty from excessive punishment.
Some people would argue that taking revenge in his own hand is morally wrong and a criminal act because even the criminal child molester deserves a fair trial. No?
His revenge is still irrelevant to our conversation about torture.
We don't live in a world which is black and white. But we live in a world where some things are quite black. Torturing another human being falls in the black part of the world. Morality is subjective. But some things are beyond the pale. Some things aren't gray at all. Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Period.
Do you think that abducting a child, sexually molesting that child, pouring gasoline on a child and setting that child on fire is ever not wrong, ever not immoral? Because if you think it's always wrong, always immoral, then you automatically agree that some aspects of morality are not subjective.
Do you think beating the crap out of the child molester is always wrong? How dare people taking matters in their own hands?
The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law.
So why is it necessary for the father to beat the crap out of this child molester? Is beating always morally wrong? Beating somebody so badly is a form of torture.
Do you think beating the crap out of the child molester is always wrong? How dare people taking matters in their own hands?
The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law.
So why is it necessary for the father to beat the crap out of this child molester? Is beating always morally wrong? Beating somebody so badly is a form of torture.
What does my opinion on a child molester have to do with torture?
You have to take confessions obtained from torture with a grain of salt.
If someone were torturing you, how many would confess to robbing a bank or taking part in 9/11?
The only issue with this is that they're rarely after a confession. You're absolutely right if it's a confession they want, but they usually just want more information.
Don't mistake me for being in favor of torture; I think it's wrong regardless, but this is unfortunately only valuable some of the time. With that said, if I were being torture and was asked to reveal the location of ISIS's leader, I'd make something up to stop the torture (we can assume 'I don't know anything' won't get me out of it).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
