Dick Cheney "The Prince of Darkness"

[cosmic_cs]

Originally Posted by Churchill

Giving money to the poor doesn't work consistently.

I'm sorry, but this analogy makes no sense.

[Churchill]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

...


Oh, and just to add a qualifier to the above, the terrorist has to be telling the truth no matter what and we have to have irrefutable proof of that. Makes it even more likely amirite?

Again, you are missing the point. If you can't be against torture in all circumstances then it is, by definition, not an absolute wrong.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by tad10

So please before saying something as retarded as 'torture doesn't work' or 'violence never solves anything' (talk to Carthage, the Nazi's and Southern Slavers about that) get a fucking clue.

Nice to see that after this whole Waterboarding fiasco, we stand in such good company! Nazis? Southern slavers? And here I was, afraid that condoning and practicing torture might make us look like some horribly oppressive, unjust country/regime!

[Churchill]

Originally Posted by cosmic_cs

I'm sorry, but this analogy makes no sense.

It's not an analogy. It was argued that torture does not consistently produce "good" information, making torture bad. That's exactly like saying giving to the poor is bad because it doesn't consistently produce "good" results (e.g.: they buy drugs).

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Churchill

Again, you are missing the point. If you can't be against torture in all circumstances than it is, by definition, not an absolute wrong.

I can create a theoretical situation for ANYTHING to justify it and prove nothing is an absolute wrong. Observe...

You are taken hostage and given the choice of either killing and devouring your entire family, or the rest of the planet will be slowly roasted over a giant fire for 900,000,000,000 years and the souls of your dead family(dead anyway) would never find rest.

DO YOU KILL AND EAT YOUR FAMILY? Yes? Then murder and cannibalization are not absolute wrongs. Get working.

Shit throw rape, torture, whatever in there and we can prove anything is not an absolute wrong by your standards...

This does nothing to move the discourse in a positive or negative direction. It's just philosophical bullshit(and not the good kind).

[Churchill]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

I can create a theoretical situation for ANYTHING to justify it and prove nothing is an absolute wrong. Observe...

You are taken hostage and given the choice of either killing and devouring your entire family, or the rest of the planet will be slowly roasted over a giant fire for 900,000,000,000 years and the souls of the dead family(dead anyway) would never find rest.

DO YOU KILL AND EAT YOUR FAMILY? Yes? Then murder and cannibalization are not absolute wrongs. Get working.

Most philosophers don't think that murder and cannibalism are absolute wrongs, and I bet you don't either. Killing someone out of self-defense is ok with you, yes? Then murder is not an absolute wrong.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by Churchill

Most philosophers don't think that murder and cannibalism are absolute wrongs, and I bet you don't either. Killing someone out of self-defense is ok with you, yes? Then murder is not an absolute wrong.

And yet, do we condone murder?



Didn't think so.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Churchill

Most philosophers don't think that murder and cannibalism are absolute wrongs, and I bet you don't either. Killing someone out of self-defense is ok with you, yes? Then murder is not an absolute wrong.

Great, so now that we have established that everything and anything that is or has ever been possible cannot be ever classified as an absolute wrong, what in the holy living fuck is your point?

[Churchill]

Originally Posted by Erronius

And yet, do we condone murder?

Is killing someone out of self-defense acceptable?

I, like the legal system, am gonna have to go with yes. And I suspect any rational person on this board would too.

Didn't think so.

You don't say. I suggest reading the criminal code.

[Sabolin]

Originally Posted by Churchill

It's not an analogy. It was argued that torture does not consistently produce "good" information, making torture bad. That's exactly like saying giving to the poor is bad because it doesn't consistently produce "good" results (e.g.: they buy drugs).

I think you need to learn what an analogy is.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by Churchill

Is killing someone out of self-defense acceptable?

I, like the legal system, am gonna have to go with yes. And I suspect any rational person on this board would too.

Now you are just trying to twist terms here. You know good and well, or should, that there is a clear distinction between self-defense and murder. This started out in clearly in regards to MURDER not SELF DEFENSE. It's as though you are ignoring the general definition of murder, since it is indefensible to any sane and cogent person, and trying to use "Killing in self defense" instead.

Originally Posted by Churchill

You don't say. I suggest reading the criminal code.

Honestly, are you telling me that I need to read criminal code? I'm not the one interchanging self-defense and murder here. had he originally said "Killing" not "murder" you'd have an argument.

Your example still does not address murder, which is clearly different.

[Fyro]

Edit, in the time it took to write this you fuckers added another page on, I guess it is not winding down.

I know this thread is winding down, but I wanted to throw another opinion in.

I don`t really think anyone would say that torture doesn`t work, or at least has not worked some time in our history. I am not saying it works all the time, but obviously it has worked in the past. The question is not whether it works, but should we use it? For me the answer is a definite no.

My deal is that I just don`t care what the circumstances are. I don`t think we should ever use torture, whether it might work, or not. It is wrong and to me it doesn`t matter who it is on, be it some random joe or the head of AQ.

Maybe I am too much of a idealist like someone previously threw out as an insult ( Is being an idealist about our Nations moral standing such a bad thing? ), but fuck seriously, you condone torture and you go down a very scary moral path. The United States of America does not need to go down that road any more than we already have.

In response to some of the previous stated situations of what you would do, all I can say is that I am with Dumbledore on this one, the ´Greater Good´ is not worth the costs to our morality.

[Picasso]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Great, so now that we have established that everything and anything that is or has ever been possible cannot be ever classified as an absolute wrong, what in the holy living fuck is your point?

You have to weigh the benefits and disadvantages instead of just saying it's wrong?


ok sorry guys i'm really leaving this time.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by tad10

And you spend too much time reading Ward Churchill. Our barbarism? Are you serious?

You are aware that our country sent out the US Army to commit genocide against Native Americans in order to acquire their land, right? That is barbarism.

You are aware that our country enslaved Africans and routinely tortured and murdered them? That is barbarism.

Learn your nation's fucking history, goddamn.

Although, if you think America is some faultless holy country sent by God on some Warhammer-esque mission to purge chaos from the universe, then I can see why you are so fucked mentally.

[Bristlebane]

Bush and Cheney are not going to jail. It's never going to happen. I'm not saying they're not assholes, but get real. That's a joke.