Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
as far as duration, being outside of time, does not equate thousands of years, it's technically no years, no time. Secondly, would you allow the government to torture someone to release information on the location of a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere in the united states. Torturing that person, lets say waterboarding, would save millions. Would you agree that torture is justified? If no, then you support mass killing of millions. Which is far worse.That is the question.
Gradyll, you seem to assume that a larger number of infractions somehow justifies torture, but - as I replied many, many posts ago - it does not. Al all. Even finite torture is a crime against humanity, but stretching it to encompass infinity (which is considerably more than the largest possible number you can think of) renders it utterly insane and monstrous. It's never just, no matter how severe the crime or how large the count of transgression. If you support torture, you are simply wrong.
No. What's worse is a "the end justifies the means"-morality that causes people to betray the very ideals they supposedly set out to defend. And I already specified why torture is not only morally indefensible, but also nonsensical from a mere practical standpoint. There is no evidence to support coercion as an effective form of interrogation. In fact, there is evidence showing that non-coercive forms of interrogation are much more effective than coercion. For example, Goodman-Delahunty and colleagues interviewed 64 law enforcement practitioners and detainees from five different countries, who were involved in high-stakes cases, mainly in alleged acts of terrorism. They found that reported confessions and admissions of guilt were four times more likely when the interrogators adopted a respectful interview strategy that aimed at building rapport with the detainee.as far as duration, being outside of time, does not equate thousands of years, it's technically no years, no time. Secondly, would you allow the government to torture someone to release information on the location of a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere in the united states. Torturing that person, lets say waterboarding, would save millions. Would you agree that torture is justified? If no, then you support mass killing of millions. Which is far worse.
What if torture doesnt work on them. Sometimes it doesnt.as far as duration, being outside of time, does not equate thousands of years, it's technically no years, no time. Secondly, would you allow the government to torture someone to release information on the location of a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere in the united states. Torturing that person, lets say waterboarding, would save millions. Would you agree that torture is justified? If no, then you support mass killing of millions. Which is far worse.
Lets says its a "regular" bomb that could kill 100 people, and torture fails. Try torturing the kids? No? Well then you support mass killing.
I'm just testing his torture stance.You would torture an innocent to get at the parent? I am not sure that the "lesser of two evils" is a valid moral stance.
so you posted alot of information, but you refused to answer the question. If you could save 100,000 people, would you torture a single individual? As in the case of a terrorist that knows the location of a nuclear bomb. IF you would, you would be more moral, than letting 100,000 people die.No. What's worse is a "the end justifies the means"-morality that causes people to betray the very ideals they supposedly set out to defend. And I already specified why torture is not only morally indefensible, but also nonsensical from a mere practical standpoint. There is no evidence to support coercion as an effective form of interrogation. In fact, there is evidence showing that non-coercive forms of interrogation are much more effective than coercion. For example, Goodman-Delahunty and colleagues interviewed 64 law enforcement practitioners and detainees from five different countries, who were involved in high-stakes cases, mainly in alleged acts of terrorism. They found that reported confessions and admissions of guilt were four times more likely when the interrogators adopted a respectful interview strategy that aimed at building rapport with the detainee.
Sources:
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N. &. Dhami, M. K. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 28, 883–897 (2014).
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M. & Meissner, C. A. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 28, 847–859 (2014).
Holmberg, U. & Christianson, S.-A. Behav. Sci. Law 20, 31–45 (2002).
We could also look directly at what "advanced interrogation methods" actually achieved:
On 16 April 2009, a set of memoranda was released — now widely referred to as the torture memos — that provided legal arguments to justify the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)'s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on high-value terror detainees during the Bush administration. The techniques had been devised by two psychologists with no expertise in interrogation, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, and have been widely discredited, including by a detailed report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence produced in 2012 and declassified in 2014.
Abu Zubaydah was the first detainee to be subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Over 17 days in August 2002, he was subjected to walling, attention grasps, slapping, facial hold, stress positions, cramped confinement in a coffin, white noise and sleep deprivation for almost 24 hours a day. He was waterboarded 2–4 times a day, which led to spasms, vomiting and, occasionally, loss of consciousness. He was described as “distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate”.
The CIA's enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaydah yielded absolutely no intelligence. On the other hand, under non-coercive interrogation, Abu Zubaydah had previously provided copious useful intelligence, including the identification of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
No.so you posted alot of information, but you refused to answer the question. If you could save 100,000 people, would you torture a single individual? As in the case of a terrorist that knows the location of a nuclear bomb. IF you would, you would be more moral, than letting 100,000 people die.
I noticed you refuse to answer my question. Post #284so you posted alot of information, but you refused to answer the question.....
and that would be illogical. So you in essence just killed 100,000 people.No.
I am not the only one who pointed out why this stance is both morally bankrupt, repugnant, and not even all that prudent when in need of vital information that might save lives.
As I established, torture is not an effective interrogation technique.
their children would be innocent and that would be stepping beyond. However non christian countries, specifically islamic countries torture, kill rape your family if you are a christian. So what you are describing actually happens. Just not by christians.What if torture doesnt work on them. Sometimes it doesnt.
Perhaps we should torture their children in front of them? If you dont support that, you support mass killing.
Lets says its a "regular" bomb that could kill 100 people, and torture fails. Try torturing the kids? No? Well then you support mass killing.
You dont know if the terrorist is guilty either. Do we wait for jury trial?their children would be innocent and that would be stepping beyond. However non christian countries, specifically islamic countries torture, kill rape your family if you are a christian. So what you are describing actually happens. Just not by christians.
you don't torture innocent people. That is poisoning the well and non sequitur (does not follow).You dont know if the terrorist is guilty either. Do we wait for jury trial?
Either way, youre ok with letting 100,000 people die if you forgo a method (torturing the terrorist's child) that has a reasonable chance of success.
There's clearly some moral roadblock in you thats more important than 100,000 people.
By your reasoning, if there's a moral line you wont cross to save 100,000 people, then youre ok with 100,000 dying.you don't torture innocent people. That is poisoning the well and non sequitur (does not follow).
Mate, you don't seem to even understand what logic is.and that would be illogical.
Bull.So you in essence just killed 100,000 people.
There's no logic in that, because no matter if you take 30,000, 3 billion, 10^27, or a googolplex of sins, you've still got a finite number of (sometimes ridiculously minor) offenses requited not only with the most inhumane and monstrous punishment imaginable, but also an INFINITE one.The logic of Hell is as follows: you can't just put someone in prison for 30,000 sins. The punishment must be cumulative.
There's almost as many conceptions of hell as there are Christians, but I want to talk about a very specific one, and ONLY that.
So if you believe that Hell is God's absence, or his presence as experienced through the mind of the unregenerate sinner, or annihilation, or a temporary place of purification, or a conundrum to be solved by trusting that a just God would find a way to do the right thing and save all - this thread might not be for you.
The conception of hell that I address here is a place of literal torment, where sapient beings are deliberately sent by God for failing to be as flawless as a deity, and where they'll spend eternity with no chance of redeption or mercy.
To me, such a conception of hell reflects *extremely* badly on the corresponding conception of deity, and no argument from authority ("who are YOU to question an all-powerful being?????") will resolve the matter.
So, if you believe that it is literally impossible for any of us to measure up to God's standard, and we are then punished for it - that's like torturing a dog with a branding iron for its failure to comprehend algebra. Or setting up an eight-meter pit (with poisoned spikes at the bottom) for people to jump over when you *know* they'll never get further than 6 m.
And I'm sorry, but basically extending a pardon to all who wave the right party membership card doesn't solve the moral dilemma here, either, because people are still being sent to Cosmic Auschwitz.
In short: how do you manage to reconcile this belief with anything remotely resembling justice?
but my view has the guilty not the innocent being tortured, so no relation to hers or your view.By your reasoning, if there's a moral line you wont cross to save 100,000 people, then youre ok with 100,000 dying.
For Jane the line is torturing anyone. For you the line is torturing a person unrelated to the incident. But both of you are "ok with 100,000 people dying", because you have moral lines you wont cross.
I'm questioning your idea that you (the interrogator) are personally responsible for the actions of other people (the terrorist) if any personal moral limits hold back the investigation.but my view has the guilty not the innocent being tortured, so no relation to hers or your view.
and thus saving 100,000. In conclusion, I am actually concerned about your moral stance suggesting it is ok to torture children of parents who are criminals.
lets go back to this post for a second, here you are saying that Jane killing 100,000 people because of refusing to interrogate and torture one terrorist is a "moral line, she will not cross." I would not call it a moral line, this is begging the question. It is not moral to kill 100,000 for the sake of one.By your reasoning, if there's a moral line you wont cross to save 100,000 people, then youre ok with 100,000 dying.
For Jane the line is torturing anyone. For you the line is torturing a person unrelated to the incident. But both of you are "ok with 100,000 people dying", because you have moral lines you wont cross.
Nooo.lets go back to this post for a second, here you are saying that Jane killing 100,000 people because of refusing to interrogate and torture one terrorist is a "moral line, she will not cross." I would not call it a moral line, this is begging the question. It is not moral to kill 100,000 for the sake of one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?