Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Spock]

You may postulate all you wish, and thank those who agree with you, however, that doesn't mean your way nor definition is the correct/only/alpha and omega, of answers.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

You may postulate all you wish,

I did not postulate, but rather backed what I said with reasons.

Originally Posted by Spock

however, that doesn't mean your way nor definition is the correct/only/alpha and omega, of answers.

I'm not claiming infallibility. I'm merely explaining what I believe and why I believe it.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

You may postulate all you wish, and thank those who agree with you, however, that doesn't mean your way nor definition is the correct/only/alpha and omega, of answers.

What's with that mad face? A bit sulky that Lief didn't come to the opposite conclusions maybe?

[The Gaffer]

Thanks to Lief for an interesting and timely debate. Also for being open and honest about your reasoning and rationale.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

You may postulate all you wish, and thank those who agree with you, however, that doesn't mean your way nor definition is the correct/only/alpha and omega, of answers.

of course not... that's my job

very good points lief!

the only part i might continue to argue on is the idea that any form of violent defense is justifiable, at least in the realm of war, since we all know we can not always pinpoint just "the bad guys"... but, that goes beyond the realm of torture, and might be an interesting thread in the future when you are less busy

[Insidious Rex]

Well three cheers for McCain. Looks like he got Bush to cave in on torturing. I bet Cheney is pretty POed.

[Spock]

[Lief Erikson]

Remember, this thread is not about specific countries' positions on terror, but on torture's ethics and practicalities. Another thread probably should be made, regarding countries' actual positions on torture. This one is not the right one.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Whether or not the US is involved in torture is not the point of this thread. The practices of other countries are not either. This thread is about the ethics of torture. Obviously, there is the practical aspect that torture often provides bad information. But what about the ethics? If, in a situation such as Danielle Pletka raised, where information is needed now and the lives of innocent people are at stake, should the use of torture be permitted?

Read up everyone.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Remember, this thread is not about specific countries' positions on terror, but on torture's ethics and practicalities. Another thread probably should be made, regarding countries' actual positions on torture. This one is not the right one.

that's just silly... it's like JDs infamous "you can only post nice things about america in this thread" thread

on topic is one thing, but if you dissect things too far, discussion becomes impossible

[Lotesse]

I SO second that.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's just silly... it's like JDs infamous "you can only post nice things about america in this thread" thread

on topic is one thing, but if you dissect things too far, discussion becomes impossible

....er .... no comment

but them rules is rules ..and y'know me .. a stickler for the rules!

btw ..did JD really have a "you can only post nice things about america in this thread" thread ??

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's just silly... it's like JDs infamous "you can only post nice things about america in this thread" thread

on topic is one thing, but if you dissect things too far, discussion becomes impossible

Dissecting things too far can make discussion impossible. However, discussion of whether or not America tortures people has nothing to do with whether or not it should torture people. This thread is about right/wrong, practical/impractical. It's not about whether we do/don't, or whether others do/don't. My original desire was just to discuss the ethics of torture. People wanted me to extend the issue to practicalities as well, and I saw that the issues were strongly related, so I opened the thread up to that. However, this thread is NOT about nations' torture policies, and I strongly disagree that they are so closely related as to make discussion of right/wrong, practical/impractical impossible.

There have been many threads on creationism/evolution. There are related subjects, such as "evidence for creationism," "evidence for evolution." There have been threads such as, "The War in Iraq," "The Elections in Iraq." "Homosexuality," "Homosexual marriage." There are many threads in strongly related subjects. In my opinion, this thread and the other thread I created are far LESS related than most of the others.

I'll try to stop seeming so mad now . I'm just being defensive. But I think I am right .

[Butterbeer]

well, thinking you are right is the usual reason for being defensive ... normally though being defensive implies whoever is doing it feels in their heart of hearts they are on dodgy ground (talking in general here you understand, lief)

but this whole dissecting unto pointlessness is kind of the zeitgiest of the moot just now ...

i understand why you have split it ... but it IS very hard to discuss countrie's policies without discussing the morality behind the policies - its just a fact.

oh well, i'll leave you all to it.

Glad you decided it WAS morally wrong overall in the other thread, BTW

best BB


edit** - er ..was i in the wrong thread???

[Lotesse]

Zeitgeist is such a cool word.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i understand why you have split it ... but it IS very hard to discuss countrie's policies without discussing the morality behind the policies - its just a fact.

That's true. However, it's also true that discussion of the morality can easily deteriorate if discussion of national policies is allowed too. That's what I have experienced a lot on this thread, so I made the other thread as a defense mechanism .

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Glad you decided it WAS morally wrong overall in the other thread, BTW

Well, I like to have things worked out in my mind. If something is wrong, I like to know why it's wrong, rather than just assuming it.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

edit** - er ..was i in the wrong thread???

[:-D

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Dissecting things too far can make discussion impossible. However, discussion of whether or not America tortures people has nothing to do with whether or not it should torture people. This thread is about right/wrong, practical/impractical. It's not about whether we do/don't, or whether others do/don't. My original desire was just to discuss the ethics of torture. People wanted me to extend the issue to practicalities as well, and I saw that the issues were strongly related, so I opened the thread up to that. However, this thread is NOT about nations' torture policies, and I strongly disagree that they are so closely related as to make discussion of right/wrong, practical/impractical impossible.

i understand, it's just that ethics is so intertwined with present day realities... ethics, in fact, stem from the very cultures we inhabit... so the practices of our culture, and the real world results of those practices are all a part of the picture

if the topic was "is torture ethical from a christian point of view?", you would have a point... the bible would be the deciding factor on ethics in that kind of discussion

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

....er .... no comment

but them rules is rules ..and y'know me .. a stickler for the rules!

btw ..did JD really have a "you can only post nice things about america in this thread" thread ??

my comment was a little vague and deserves some elaboration, 'cause i do respect the 'moot rules that allow us to discuss difficult topics without having them turn into flame fests

i'm not sure if the thread still exists, but it had a title something like "why i am glad to live in the US", but, instead of opening with a list of positive things about our country, it opened with a post criticizing the policies of other nations... to which many responded that the US has it's problems too... these comments were deemed off-topic and deleted... so JD had, in effect, created a thread where he could say anything negative he wanted about other countries with no possibility for anyone to respond to those claims by comparing with US policy

i give him an A for ingenuity

it's a good example of how a rule like "off-topic", which certainly has some positive aspects, can also be discourage civil debate if taken too literally