I oppose all torture.

[dust1n]

Not me persay but their have been and will be times when torture saves lives.

You have some specific examples?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yes but that doesnt mean most tortures turn out justified.

Nowhere in this whole thread did I say ANYTHING about "justified".

i think its fine when it can save a large number of lives, but only when its justifyiable to think that it will, over whelming evidence or screaming ill never tell. Most of the time i think it fails.

My post had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was effective.

Now as per your gun example you gun and robber. Change the robber to a rapist. He use the gun ( a form of torture as you say) to get something he wants, in this came he wants to rape and cause pain. The rapist is looking to torture that is the end he seeks. I dont think i see your logic.

I don't think you see it either.

I'm saying that for the most part, torture is used to get something from someone, and is not done for its own sake.

You gave me an example of torture being done for its own sake.

Seeing as how I'm not speaking in absolutes (i.e. "never" or "always"), your post has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Darkness]

I am theoretically in favour of torture, but generally oppose its usage by governments. If one acts like a monster, how can one expect to be treated as any less?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I go with the Silver Rule: Don't torture others purposely unless for good cause... But if everyone doesn't torture each other, there should be no good cause to torture someone.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm kinda hypocritical though, I torture people sometimes, mostly the ignorant and ungrateful also... Like this girl that wants to go out with me, I already told her no many times but she wont stop bugging me so I use her, make fun of her...

It sounds bad, but in reality it really isn't too much.

 

[Iti oj]

Nowhere in this whole thread did I say ANYTHING about "justified".


My post had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was effective.




I don't think you see it either.

I'm saying that for the most part, torture is used to get something from someone, and is not done for its own sake.

You gave me an example of torture being done for its own sake.

Seeing as how I'm not speaking in absolutes (i.e. "never" or "always"), your post has nothing to do with my post.

Your example was frivolous and did not demonstrate anything. So I refuted it. I do not know if most people who do torture do so for an outcome, but i do agree having a desired outcome is important. My point was that the chance of a successful outcome, and what that outcome is, is more important to deciding its moral stance. This is the exact opposite of an absolute stance. I bring up effectiveness and justification because you left them out. Even if you torture for a purpose, that does not mean it's a good purpose. We are thinking and conscious, of course people have a reason for doing something. You were making a generic statement about ' what most people do' without any evidence or even reason to think that. Your misquoting me or misreading me.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Your example was frivolous and did not demonstrate anything. So I refuted it. I do not know if most people who do torture do so for an outcome, but i do agree having a desired outcome is important. My point was that the chance of a successful outcome, and what that outcome is, is more important to deciding its moral stance. This is the exact opposite of an absolute stance. I bring up effectiveness and justification because you left them out. Even if you torture for a purpose, that does not mean it's a good purpose. We are thinking and conscious, of course people have a reason for doing something. You were making a generic statement about ' what most people do' without any evidence or even reason to think that. Your misquoting me or misreading me.

ad hominem much?

You didn't refute anything. Someone suggested that torture for gain is always a pretext for torture for torture's sake, and I offered the opinion that the reverse is true.

I have had enough of you.

 

[Iti oj]

ad hominem much?

You didn't refute anything. Someone suggested that torture for gain is always a pretext for torture for torture's sake, and I offered the opinion that the reverse is true.

I have had enough of you.

What do you mean i did not refute anything you have no bases to suggest that it may be true or not. Neither has the other post. You seem to be thinking more in general and less situational. It does not matter what most people do but what each person does in each case.

 

[idea]

Not me persay but their have been and will be times when torture saves lives.

You have some specific examples?

obtaining military intelligence which saves the lives of at least our own soldiers.

 

[Iti oj]

obtaining military intelligence which saves the lives of at least our own soldiers.

stopping a bomb plot and saving civilians too..

 

[McBell]

Seems some people have been watching to much television.
I wonder what secrets Jack Bauer will gleam from the next torture session...

Of course, it would be helpful if you were to actually present a specific example...

 

[not nom]

obtaining military intelligence which saves the lives of at least our own soldiers.

that's bull. that simply doesn't work.

Does torture work? | Science | guardian.co.uk

The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information.

!

torture is a power trip, and coerces and terrorizes - that's all.

oh, and: and of course it gets done for the sake of doing it. other than showing who or what power structure is boss (making up for lack of justified authority), and living out personal issues of the torturer, it simply serves no purpose. none.

if anyone wants to claim different, back it up, cite even just one source showing torture works as you described... but conjuring up scenarios where it would be justifiable is silly, when it wouldn't be effective in and therefore doesn't apply to those scenarios. I find this frightening in its thoughtlessness, it's just making excuses for the inexcusable, for various reasons I guess.. some forgivable but none of them admirable.

 

[not nom]

People send themselves to Hell by not choosing to put their trust in Jesus as their everything.

nah. if you really oppose ALL torture, try harder.

 

[Averroes]

I oppose those who oppose torture because I oppose those whose intent is to harm my country because they oppose our standards!

 

[McBell]

I oppose those who oppose torture because I oppose those whose intent is to harm my country because they oppose our standards!

What are you talking about?

 

[Averroes]

What are you talking about?

Its a joke on the overuse of the word "oppose" sorry bad humor.