UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
however you want to dehumanize brown people in order for you to torture them so that you can feel better about your tiny penis is fine with me.
Donald Trump supports torture
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
kinda sounds like you would object to other people torturing white people. just not the other way around though.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
That's bullshit.
It's wrong to torture people who play/fight by a set of rules. And I would go further to say gratuitous torture is wrong in all cases. We shouldn't be pulling fingernails out or anything like that no matter if it's ISIS or a soldier from a legit country were at war with.
But when it comes to terrorists the rules should be different. We shouldn't be causing permanent damage or lots of pain. But something as mild as Waterboarding and other things should be on the table.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
What do you think the fate of captured americans is in that part of the world?So you think THAT is torture.
If you advocate torture as OK, then you cannot complain when anyone is tortured, including Americans.
I'm sure that you are not bright enough to understand this.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
No gray area ? Really ?
Should someone take my kid and I catch them, if they don`t tell me where my kid is. I bet I can make them talk and would not give one shit about the legality of the situation.
You would too, at least you better.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Like I said, to whatever degree you personally believe waterboarding is or is not torture is irrelevant; it's defined as torture by both US law and under international law. If you torture somebody, regardless of if it's a member of ISIS or an innocent Afghani civilian, you will face the exact same legal consequences.
Not only is it cruel and inhumane, it's ineffective - it doesn't work. This is not debatable. So if it's wrong and we know it doesn't' work, why would anyone support it? Psychological studies have been done to answer this question and they all conclude the same thing; people support it to quell the urge for revenge. If you see an organization like ISIS burning people alive and chopping off heads, the natural human response is total revulsion and a want/need to respond. In other words, the argument to support torture breaks down to "They're bad, they do bad things, we need to be just as bad to teach them a lesson". "An eye for an eye" as a Christian might say.
When we start dishing out "justice" based on feelings and emotions, you become the bad guy. When that happens you become a tool to be used for further recruitment purposes by "the enemy". They tell their sons shit like "the crusaders want to steal your lands and rape our women", and the cycle of perpetual warfare continues. In effect, this behavior gets more people killed.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
I think you nailed a grey area. TRUMP!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Of course I would
How does that make it any less wrong?
Who is the most evil person you can think of? Torturing that person would be wrong because torture is objectively wrong, in every single situation. It is a moral absolute, there are no good/logical/reasonable arguments that can be made that can justify torturing somebody.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
No matter your personal feelings on marijuana it is illegal in both US and international laws....
See how that works?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm fine with breaking that law. There is nothing morally wrong about smoking marijuana, there is something morally wrong about torturing people.
You're confusing what the law says with what is right and wrong. Those are two separate questions. Smoking marijuana is illegal, but it's not wrong. Torturing people is both illegal and wrong.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Nonsense.
It's morally wrong to not use any means at ones dispoal to get information out of those who mean harm to innocent people everywhere.
No one is arguing for infliction of pain or medieval style torture. I might agree with you that causing grave harm and inflicting severe pain and irreparable harm is wrong. But inducing fear and panic that leaves no lasting damage is not wrong under the correct circumstances.
It would be wrong to waterboard someone to find out who their dealer is.
It wouldn't be wrong to find out where the terrorist cell leaders are.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
So if we put, "even knowing it`s wrong" at the end of the title, everyone can finally agree on torture ?
You and I both do.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The thing about a moral absolute is that it remains the same under all circumstances.
Petition the UN General Assembly and the US Supreme Court if you disagree.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
There are no moral absolutes. That's something I would expect from a fundamentalist christian.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It's always wrong to harm an innocent person
That is a moral absolute
If you disagree, give me an example of when it would be right to harm an innocent person
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
A fucking terrorist isn't an innocent person.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The example I gave didn't have anything to do with terrorists
You said "There are no moral absolutes."
I just gave you one: It's always wrong to harm an innocent person (by qualifying the word 'person' with the word 'innocent', it already tells you I'm not referring to 'terrorists')
So if you believe that, tell me when it would be right to harm an innocent person?
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Your hypothetical is not relevant to the discussion. No one is suggesting we just go plucking random people up and torture them to see what they know.
As to when it's moral to harm an innocent person... that's a tough one. I've heard a hypo about a train barreling down on a crowd of pelple. And you could flip a switch and have it go down a different track and kill the conductor. Maybe then. I'm not sure. But it has nothing to do with getting info out of failed suicide bombers.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
actually, it is.
you said there are no moral absolutes. so padawan presented a counterexample.
you made a 'for all' claim, all it takes to rebut that is one counterexample, which padawan gave.
don't cry just because your pussy is sore, loser.
you should be used to losing by now.