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.
you can't pick which morality of the bunch you wish to focus on. Her morality is sacrificing 100,000 for the sake of one terrorist. Period. Now until that morality is justified, we are done with this particular section of our debate. As I can't see you guys find a justification for that.
I'm not even judging the right/wrong of either position here. (Of course I have an opinion on torture, but thats beside the point)
you are correct, but indirectly correct. There is obviously more morality in refusing to torture family members, than either torturing them (as in your case), and/or NOT torturing the one person who knows (as in her case). But even if it was directly correct. Lets assume that it is. In the process of not torturing family members, I would be saving those additional lives. Yes, I would be responsible for the loss of life, true. But we saved an additional life(s) of the family members not tortured (that is granted that the torture resorted in death, which in an extreme situation, like heaven or hell, it would). So my viewpoint would still be the more moral than the situation you presented, even if your point was directly correct.
1. You only move on to the daughter when torturing the terrorist fails. So saving additional lives doesnt happen in any case.
that would be moving the goal posts. Many countries torture family members first because it yields better results. (non christian countries). So you must point to the post where you said that you torture the terrorist first, then torture the children. You may have been thinking that in your head, but that is not what was said in the posts.
First post where I mentioned this. Its a step you can take after you find torture doesnt work on the suspect...
Quit with the fallacy lectures. Confront the ideas presented to you.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very well, I didn't take your comment as such. As I never believed that torture would not work. There is always more brutal forms of torture, where it does work. The fact that most if not all governments employ secret programs to interrogate and torture reveal it as a very successful enterprise. While not the most human to the uninformed, it is still more human than letting say a million die from a suitcase nuke in LA, when it could be prevented. Now to get back to the OP for a second so I don't appear to be a monster. Most people would justify torture, even the most gruesome types, if doing so would save millions. after all you would literally be torturing one person you know is responsible, instead of letting them kill millions, and extracting the information of where the bomb is. That would be the most moral thing to do. So lets head back to hell, a torture chamber. So torture as we have explained is justified under some circumstances as a moral thing, or at this point we will say a necessary evil. Which is for our discussion, the most moral thing we could perform in the situation. Now who is to say God cannot perform torture for His own judgement? We can do it, and be deemed moral? Why can't God? Secondly, as I have said before, a moral person still commits 30,000 sins, and we can't simply put them in prison indefinately. As that would not be true justice. If true justice means that the punishment must be cumulative according to the sins, then say 10 angry thoughts which God deems as murder, would have 10 life times in prison for example, not one lifetime. So 10,000 sins for example would have thousands of infractions regarding murder under Gods definition, and adultery as well. Looking at a person with lust is adultery in God's definition, so under the old covenant it was a capital crime to do that. So every time someone is angry or lusts after another person, is the death penalty. If you can only die once. Then death is not suitable for 30,000 sins. You must punish them cumulatively to acquire true justice. Cue the eternal torment of Hell. This seems the only logical place for there to be true justice for 30,000 sins. Agreed?
DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I POSTED???
TO THE UNINFORMED! I don't have enough "exploding irony meter" gifs for this. But some words for you from an "uninformed" person:
Oh, it's far, FAR too late for that.
That's a HUGE if, and one that's consistently been shown to be incorrect.
Let's.
1. "We" established no such thing. It's your blind assertion.
Following your previous line of argument, God might be *excused* for performing such a "necessary evil" if the alternative was letting a million innocents die because of withheld information. I hope you can see how that does not apply, at all.
No, not moral. At best, *excused*. Pressured by an otherwise hopeless situation to violate our own conscience and values for the sake of the "Greater Good". That is the scenario you established: a necessary evil. NOT "torture is moral".
And this is where your line of argument veers off into the downright bizarre, and the values you express take on a genuinely monstrous tone. I went through all of this before, only to have you ignore my reply and insist that I didn't address yours. Only I did. All your flamboyant leaps from one ill-supported claim to the next have been addressed at some point, so I will skip the rest of your "you need to be tortured forever for the 100,000 parking tickets you received, otherwise it's not JUSTICE!!!"-nonsense.
If God is the sort of being who would torture for "justice" rather than for necessity (leaving aside whether torture even works or not), then I dont want anything to do with him, and neither should you.
this is an ad hominem attack fallacy, and commits at least two other fallacies, red herring, and poisoning the well.
we are only to be merciful because God is merciful with us. The other day I messed up and sinned, and I prayed for God to have mercy and He did. He is full of mercy. Hell is full of Justice. Mercy is given to everyone not just the righteous. God could destroy this earth today, but He is giving the world mercy, to live in sin that much longer.
ad hominem attack, poisoning the well
you would have to explain why you believe this not to be the case, just saying you have consistently shown it to be incorrect, when in fact I don't remember a single case of you proving this incorrect.
when people say necessary evil, they are basically admitting it's not technically evil, or they wouldn't actually do it. They are saying, "I have to do it" so it's not really evil. It's an idiom, nothing more.
no actually I established torture as the only logical response to 30,000 sins.
actually if there was weakness in your argument, that is not to be considered "addressed." Besides I don't even remember you making the arguments at all, so they must not have been very threatening.
no, no no. You can't say "one sin equates death." I was saying 30,000 sins cumulatively speaking equate torture. Not one sin equals death. Even though some sins were capital punishments in the old testament, not all of them were.
I suggest studying criminal law, how multiple infractions have a cumulative affect on judgements given.
Ha ha. For all your lecturing on "fallacies", you dont even know what a fallacy is.
Logic is something we use every day for nearly every purpose. Fallacies exist there too. And in conclusion you used the fallacy of ad hominem when you said "HA HA" Mocking another poster, for something your post was actually in error over. But just so you know, I know you believe what you believe, but I will never stop using logic on and off the record. And using logic means that you must not incorporate fallacy. So I will never come to a point where if I see a fallacy I won't speak it out. That is the most honest thing to do.
A personal impression of anything is not logic. Its a personal impression, not an argument. Logical fallacies dont apply.
so then for example when flaming someone, which is an ad hominem. It's okay if it is not in the form of a statement? I await your reply.
Ad hominem is a fallacy when you deploy it to try to advance an argument. Thats why the full name of the fallacy is argumentum ad hominem.
You’ve constructed yourself a rather comfy little cocoon there, haven’t you? Any personal criticisms, comments, or emotional reactions can be written off as a logical fallacy to you, and therefore you can ignore the arguments completely! You apparently do not understand that someone can make personal comments in the middle of a logical argument without compromising its integrity. By focusing on which logical fallacies you think you see, you are missing the content of the arguments and you’re actually not responding effectively.
So lets try this another way, is flaming someone wrong even when not making statements? Lets go even further, is flaming illogical in debate? During statements and even in casual conversation? Is it an honest tactic? Even when not making arguments? If you agree it's making logical errors, then me exposing logical errors in all communication is actually the more moral stance to take. I await your response
I think its fine to critique each others discussion style to an extent, especially as matters of style can sometimes impede the substantive discussion.
