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.Nooo.
Her moral line is: torture is immoral. Thats it.
Like for you, the moral line is: torture of a person unrelated to the incident is immoral.
All this stuff about the interrogator killing people or being ok with them dying, in either case, thats your conclusion. Not mine.
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 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.
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.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)
I'm questioning whether there really is a causal relationship between the interrogator's actions and the terrorists bomb going off. Because if there is, then you caused the bomb to go off too by refusing to torture the daughter.
Now you may justify causing that to happen by explaining your moral position. And we all may agree with you. But by your understanding of causality, you still caused the bomb to go off.
1. You only move on to the daughter when torturing the terrorist fails. So saving additional lives doesnt happen in any case.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.
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.1. You only move on to the daughter when torturing the terrorist fails. So saving additional lives doesnt happen in any case.
2. My point is not about which one is more moral, as I already said. its about your weird notion of causality that attributes the bombing to the interrogator when she refuses to cross either one of those moral lines.
First post where I mentioned this. Its a step you can take after you find torture doesnt work on the suspect...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.
here is more on moving the goal posts fallacy:
“Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what (or anything will meet said standard if the losing side is trying to meet the standard using this tactic). Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly."
above quote from:
Moving the goalposts - RationalWiki
Quit with the fallacy lectures. Confront the ideas presented to you.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....
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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?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.
DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I POSTED???As I never believed that torture would not work.
TO THE UNINFORMED! I don't have enough "exploding irony meter" gifs for this. But some words for you from an "uninformed" person:While not the most human[sic] to the uninformed...
Oh, it's far, FAR too late for that.Now to get back to the OP for a second so I don't appear to be a monster.
That's a HUGE if, and one that's consistently been shown to be incorrect.Most people would justify torture, even the most gruesome types, if doing so would save millions.
Let's.So lets head back to hell, a torture chamber.
1. "We" established no such thing. It's your blind assertion.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.
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.Now who is to say God cannot perform torture for His own judgement?
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".We can do it, and be deemed 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.Secondly, as I have said before, a moral person still commits 30,000 sins, and we can't simply put them in prison indefinately.
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.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?
this is an ad hominem attack fallacy, and commits at least two other fallacies, red herring, and poisoning the well.DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I POSTED???
It. Does. Not. Work.
Ugh. I start to understand why you are a fundamentalist Christian. It's the same blasè fact resistance as with anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and Trump supporters.
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.TO THE UNINFORMED! I don't have enough "exploding irony meter" gifs for this. But some words for you from an "uninformed" person:
“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful just as your Father is merciful."
I know, all hippie commie crap for the gullible and ignorant, right?
ad hominem attack, poisoning the wellNo, let's be fair: you are not a monster. But your beliefs and morality are monstrous, as evidenced here.
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.That's a HUGE if, and one that's consistently been shown to be 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.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 actually I established torture as the only logical response to 30,000 sins.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".
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.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.
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.Let's say, just for the sake of the argument, that the first parking ticket you receive is a death sentence. That's nonsense, making the lawmaker a psychopath
, but whatever: that's how it is for this line of reasoning. Soooo - snuff out the unredeemed sinners? Kill them permanently, put them in the ground, turn them into late sinners, have them pushing at the daisies. Don't resurrect them, or else do so only to withdraw it once their sentence is declared. Poof. Justice served. Death, the wage of sin.
I suggest studying criminal law, how multiple infractions have a cumulative affect on judgements given.In this scenario, there is no need for a cosmic torture chamber, no "necessary evil" that can be justified by the need to obtain vital information. Without a function rendering it necessary-if-monstrous, torture remains simply monstrous, and unnecessary.
Ha ha. For all your lecturing on "fallacies", you dont even know what a fallacy is.this is an ad hominem attack fallacy, and commits at least two other fallacies, red herring, and poisoning the well.....
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.Ha ha. For all your lecturing on "fallacies", you dont even know what a fallacy is.
A fallacy is a typical error in reasoned argument.
She wasnt presenting an argument there at all. She was presenting her personal impression of you.
A personal impression of anything is not logic. Its a personal impression, not an argument. Logical fallacies dont apply.Logic is something we use every day for nearly every purpose. Fallacies exist there too.
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.A personal impression of anything is not logic. Its a personal impression, not an argument. Logical fallacies dont apply.
Its like you took a course on argument that taught you one single tool, and now you go around smashing everything with your new hammer.... nails, eggs, kittens, the air.
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.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.
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.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.
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 responseAd 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.
But fallacies dont apply at all to just expressing a personal observation or opinion, positive or negative, right or wrong. And of course opinions and observations are expressed in the form of statements. So being a statement has nothing to do with it.
Fallacies are errors in the construction of a rational argument, and no more. Look it up.
I think its fine to critique each others discussion style to an extent, especially as matters of style can sometimes impede the substantive discussion.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
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?