|
On May 14 2009 09:36 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here Yes, there is. Torture is ALWAYS wrong. No matter what. yeah its wrong but thats not the right answer kiddo if you take the moral high ground and thats all you have then youre a damn blind fool and if you dont pay for it someone else will outlawing torture isnt solving the problem with human nature
Truth. The moral high ground will get you killed, and if not you, someone else.
|
On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it.
Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it?
Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie.
Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality.
|
On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it.
And who gave you that authority to declare that?
On May 14 2009 09:38 Aegraen wrote:
Truth. The moral high ground will get you killed, and if not you, someone else.
How Jesusy
|
On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality.
You're talking about reality, and torture being "pussified", but have you been tortured?
|
On May 14 2009 09:41 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality. You're talking about reality, and torture being "pussified", but have you been tortured?
we've all been 'tortured' in the military liberal puss puss, i've never been through so much hazing, testosterone induced environments anywhere else
the mental stress is 'torture'
the physical stress is 'torture'
|
On May 14 2009 09:40 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. And who gave you that authority to declare that?
I am pointing out that he is confusing the nature of this discussion, which is something that humans do all the time. I thought what I am declaring here is pretty obvious unless you think there is a middle ground with torture (which there isn't, that's like demanding all convicts should only serve out half of their penalty because they disagree with the judge).
|
Even Condi knows it is stronger to say that when the president orders it, it's not illegal rather than to clain that the conventions of Geneva don't apply.
Also, 'waterboarding' is a misnomer. It has always been called 'water torture'. It has been a method used as long as torture has existed. And now suddenly it only 'simulates drowning'.
Also, I don't understand why this is even a debate anymore. Even if torture were morally ok, it's still an useless method.
The US executed both Japanese and Germans just after WWII for exactly the form of water torture they are defending now. So was the US wrong or should Bush be executed?
During the Vietnam war it was officially illegal. And that was an actual real war and not a fake one like this 'war on terror' where 58 thousand US soldiers died. Clearly moral decay as a result of the desperation of a falling empire.
|
On May 14 2009 09:36 Aegraen wrote:
All the socialists and free-spirits are out in force in this thread.
Rupbar, it's pretty easy to verify information you receive. US Intelligence (The apparatus) is not small, and information can be passed from collector to consumer very quickly and acted upon. The turn around time to verification is very short. After a couple of times of giving inaccurate information, they'll break eventually.
I don't consider torture what you do, doesn't mean I'm 'cruel'. I'm not breaking any bones, making people go deaf, throwing them in Iron Maidens, cutting them, etc. If you don't see how pussied you guys have gotten, compared to the east well, you will wake up one day when Russia is once again knocking at your door and you'll want to play buddy and buddy and appease like Europe always does.
You guys have to get past this faerie non-sense.
You so don't get it. Are you in favor of the death penalty too, even though innocent people have been put to eath? It is extremely inhumane to torture someone who's innocent. The breaking point you're referring to more than often make people spill information which is not true, simply because they tell their torturers what they think they want to hear. When they do, more innocent people get in trouble.
Also, your argument about waterboarding not being torture because there are much worse alternatives is so fucking stupid I don't have words for it. And stop calling everyone who's against you a "free spirit" or "socialist" like it's a bad thing.
|
On May 14 2009 09:44 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:41 Wohmfg wrote:On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality. You're talking about reality, and torture being "pussified", but have you been tortured? we've all been 'tortured' in the military liberal puss puss, i've never been through so much hazing, testosterone induced environments anywhere else the mental stress is 'torture' the physical stress is 'torture'
Did you just call me a liberal puss puss?
|
On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it.
I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong.
I am pointing out that he is confusing the nature of this discussion, which is something that humans do all the time. I thought what I am declaring here is pretty obvious unless you think there is a middle ground with torture (which there isn't, that's like demanding all convicts should only serve out half of their penalty because they disagree with the judge).
its not a fact its your opinion frits, as always you just lash out at anyone who doesn't agree with you
there is a middle ground because im standing on it looking at both sides
|
On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong.
The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end.
|
On May 14 2009 09:46 Wohmfg wrote:
Did you just call me a liberal puss puss?
Ohhh noooww we are at the name calling/snide remark part of the argument. 
|
On May 14 2009 06:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
I find it extremly funny that her argument is identical to the one used in thread on the old nazi guy.
"Bush told us to turture them so of course it wasn't illegal" versus "Hitler ordered the death camps, so standing guard there was not illegal and should not be punishable".
*sighs* sometimes humans make me sick to my stomach.
what the hell? The people who did any waterboarding SHOULDN'T be punished :@.
If Bush said they could, HE IS RESPONSIBLE. HE is the only fucking reason they DID it, SURELY!
|
On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end.
why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture?
again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality.
All you write are pure biased opinions. Give me examples. Give me numbers. Stop with the slippery slopes, the paranoia, the ticking bomb scenarios and the hypothetical situations.
|
On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here
According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information?
Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives.
EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information? Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives. EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information.
lol, how good is to get a confession via torture? It defeats the purpose of a confession.
|
Browsed through the thread. Not gonna participate much - this is shitfest a, jesus - except to say this: Torture is wrong, always. I have challenged myself to come up with an example where torture would be justified and I can't. I also find it pretty ironic that some people claim than in order to protect ourselves from extremism we have to use extremist measures.
Waterboarding is torture. If 'simulated' drowning' (you can apparently drown if they keep it at long enough) isn't torture I fail to see what is. Comparing current definitions of torture to those of the middle-ages constitutes as much of an argument as comparing societies in the middle ages to those of know: things change, the barriers for what is torture has, thankfully, moved for the better.
Oh and Condy is a bitch. I won't buther to rebut her statements - it's been done to death already by people more knowing than me. I just can't stand her: the lies, the bullshit, the selfacclaimed innonence. Grow up and admit you screwed up.
|
On May 14 2009 10:10 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information? Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives. EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information. lol, how good is to get a confession via torture? It defeats the purpose of a confession.
It does indeed suck. However, people are afraid of torture and will confess even though they didn't know anything to avoid being tortured. Torturers may want them to confess to avoid having the innocent people commit any crimes in the future or hate them for whatever reason. Some people who torture make claims based on nothing to be able to torture.
It is also a lot easier to sentence someone for a longer time in prison or whatever if they confess to something. There are lots of uses to make someone confess something through torture. You obviously don't tell others you tortured them, though.
|
On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information? Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives. EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information.
answer my question in your next post please, what other method is better than torture for extracting information? torture has been #1 on that list for as long as humans have discovered its usefulness. so come up with a name of those other, usual, means of investigation that are more accurate
torture is very risky, very taxing, if it wasnt producing efficient results... would a technologically advanced country like the US use it?
i also have an opinion why France in the 20th century may have found torture to be ineffective but i think there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, so no need to talk about it again
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
