Thread: "Absolutely torture."

I'm out too.

You're too closed minded for me. If O' were still in this, I wouldn't leave. He debates correctly.

Bye.

Its funny that you leave us with that. Since basically its two quotes trying to explain why torture is okay to do. So I guess we can now assume that you agree that water boarding is in fact torture, and that you have no problem torturing people?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't care about "consensus". It is not proof. The "consensus" used to be that the world is flat.

the consensus here is based not only on proof, but a proof that we've already created ourselves (waterboarding is torture because we decided it is). it's doubly funny to me cause 'Universal Mind' sounds very much like 'Consensus Mind' to me, but maybe you have esoteric views. see, your whole point in this thread is to built a new (unproven) consensus;

The U.S. government, however, uses that politically correct, non-torture waterboarding stuff.

you seem to be pushing hard for one here. i'll give you a D for effort tho. you pass! good luck next semester.

That is what the law says to witnesses in court. Tasering: "Stop resisting arrest, or hurt like Hell."

and then the law says; 'now that you've been arrested, you don't have to hurt like hell."

you can try and dodge your real position all you want (and i hope you keep at it), but it's written all over every point you've tried to make so far (and i could dig up some awesome examples if you asked me to

again, your real position is; 'we need torture to protect ourselves'. you use this to attempt to redefine your actions (ie. torture).

as for quoting my examples, this is what you say about them;

(I am leaving these so you can see the need for waterboarding, which is not torture.)

supports your real position, weakens your imaginary one. (like Alric says. btw, he got an A)

Does that settle the issue?

do you have a counter?

that wasn't water boarding... that was a publicity stunt.

with TRUE water boarding you become hypoxic and then have water poured on your face to simulate drowning...

and yes it is an effective way to get someone to tell you something... it's way more effective than the indian burn... or the wet willy.

Originally Posted by Alric

I have a very high respect for human life. High enough that I would rather die, than torture an innocent person.

You are sweet. I wish there were more people like you in the world

Originally Posted by Taosaur

How does that even make sense? We say we're opposed to torture and you ask "Why aren't you opposed to torture?" Who's doing it isn't the issue. We can't make the terrorists change their behavior short of prevailing against them and removing the grounds for future terrorists to arise. We can control our own behavior.



What kind of torturer doesn't say, "I'll stop if you tell me what I want to know?"

The sadistic kind. This is where I draw the line between torture and interrogation (sorry if it's been said before, I didn't want to read all 10 pages.)

Terrorists see how sissy we are in our "torture" practices and are inspired to join the ranks of the other terrorists. I cannot see how waterboarding can be seen as a way to extract false information, as you could also give up false information if you were not tortured... So how do you know? The truth is, America is no where near the other countries' interrigation techniques. In some foreign countries, they cut off your head and broadcast it live to the world. Now why are we comparing the harmless waterboarding to cutting off the heads of Americans? One actually saves lives and the other is quite cruel, yet the former is blasted more than the latter.

Not torturing people has nothing to do with other countries. It doesn't matter how sick and twisted or cruel another country may be, we are none of that. We should never torture anyone.

Originally Posted by Alric

Not torturing people has nothing to do with other countries. It doesn't matter how sick and twisted or cruel another country may be, we are none of that. We should never torture anyone.

You are an idealist, as it is torture in some situations that saves countless lives. I cannot change the mind of someone else, but I thought I might contrast 'torture' and bring up the question. "What can be defined as torture?"

Originally Posted by Exhalent

The truth is, America is no where near the other countries' interrigation techniques. In some foreign countries, they cut off your head and broadcast it live to the world. Now why are we comparing the harmless waterboarding to cutting off the heads of Americans? One actually saves lives and the other is quite cruel, yet the former is blasted more than the latter.

Exactly. Most Americans who oppose waterboarding would answer your question by saying they only care about what their own government does, which makes my WTF detector go off. The people who have no excuse are the non-Americans who scream viciously about our interrogation techniques while never ever ever once complaining for a single syllable about the interrogation techniques of countries that are many times worse with it. I really question the sincerity of those people.

One could make the claim that any number of things will save lives. When the government spies on its own people, they claim it will save lives as well. Though I am entirely against that as well. People also make the claim that banning firearms would stop violence and save countless lives. I am against that too. We can not sacrifice our ideals and freedoms for protection.

A country that would torture people, is not a country I want to live in.

Originally Posted by Alric

One could make the claim that any number of things will save lives. When the government spies on its own people, they claim it will save lives as well. Though I am entirely against that as well. People also make the claim that banning firearms would stop violence and save countless lives. I am against that too. We can not sacrifice our ideals and freedoms for protection.

Long live the Patriot Act.


A line has to be drawn somewhere, you can't oppose curbing civil liberties for counter-terrorism (and I don't know whether you do or don't) and support torture for counter-terrorism.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

Terrorists see how sissy we are in our "torture" practices and are inspired to join the ranks of the other terrorists. I cannot see how waterboarding can be seen as a way to extract false information, as you could also give up false information if you were not tortured... So how do you know? The truth is, America is no where near the other countries' interrigation techniques. In some foreign countries, they cut off your head and broadcast it live to the world. Now why are we comparing the harmless waterboarding to cutting off the heads of Americans? One actually saves lives and the other is quite cruel, yet the former is blasted more than the latter.

The thing, though, is that this discussion is not about whether or not our 'torture' practices are harsh enough. It's about whether water boarding is or isn't torture. As one who could see himself torturing someone who did a certain level of wrong, I make the argument that water boarding is torture, without delving into whether or not it's necessary. I could make a compelling argument as to why it's not, but that's not the point.

But water boarding can be used to produce false information. If you're feeling that you're drowning, and the only way to stop the process is to tell them what they want to hear, odds are you're going to tell them whatever they want to hear (or as close to it as possible), so that you don't continue to drown.

Well I don't support either of them. The line I have drawn that I will never pass, is the laws written in the constitution. Which says no torture.