|
is awesome32278 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
Your ID fits your well.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate).
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
|
On April 17 2009 10:13 micronesia wrote:
Being afraid of some insects isn't all that irrational....
Even most of you who are like 'who cares' would be scared shitless in many insect-related situations.
Agreed on the second part but to be fair they're not going to put him in a confined area with bugs that are actually dangerous. They just want to scare the shit out of him, not actually risk killing him. I don't really want to imagine what that was like though, I've got the same phobia as that guy.
|
On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear.
What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions....
|
United States24776 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions....
Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face.
|
On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Thinking about it though, I don't think I'd approve of torture in that scenario either, so I guess I do care.
|
Waterboarding doesn't trick the mind into thinking you are drowning. You are drowning. It has been a form of water torture since the invention of torture.
The whole new name 'Waterboarding' and the description is language manipulation Orwellian style.
|
[QUOTE]On April 17 2009 09:42 Kwark wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
[quote]Torture makes the victim say whatever answer he believes will make the torture stop, not necessarily the truth.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing stopping the torture from resuming.
|
In Obama's defense, the guy has to make *some* exceptions to maintain broad bipartisan support. Otherwise he risks isolating himself completely and incurring the wrath of a very dedicated opposition constituency.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media.
You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused.
If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one.
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:47 latent wrote:
In Obama's defense, the guy has to make *some* exceptions to maintain broad bipartisan support. Otherwise he risks isolating himself completely and incurring the wrath of a very dedicated opposition constituency.
And so the world walks.
|
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon.
I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street.
|
On April 17 2009 10:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions.... Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face.
But how would they know their phobia in the first place?
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:58 Tyrant wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon. I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street.
It's not a totally different scenario. The scenario is skipping a fair trial on a human being.
|
On April 17 2009 09:33 Jibba wrote:It seems like it took more effort for you to create that link than it did for me to Google and paste it.
That's the point of lmgtfy, it's to make people feel stupid for asking where to find something when you could just google it and find it that easily.
|
United States24776 Posts
On April 17 2009 11:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:29 micronesia wrote:On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions.... Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face. But how would they know their phobia in the first place?
Er, I don't understand what you are getting at.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:58 Tyrant wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon. I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street.
I do not know a lot about American law, but doesn't this shit all over the Bill of Rights? lol
|
On April 17 2009 11:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 11:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:29 micronesia wrote:On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions.... Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face. But how would they know their phobia in the first place? Er, I don't understand what you are getting at.
Ok, if the insect torture was a mental thing, how did our government know they had a phobia to insects. Which brings me to asking, what kind of insects?
|
On April 17 2009 11:15 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:58 Tyrant wrote:
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon. I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street. I do not know a lot about American law, but doesn't this shit all over the Bill of Rights? lol
yes
|
On April 17 2009 10:48 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media. You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused. If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter. Show nested quote +
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one. Show nested quote +
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur.
Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club 
I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
