Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I think that Right and Wrong, including their application to torture in general or in specific cases, is a matter of personal taste. The latter develops under effects of individual, social, and environmental factors.

What happened to

 

On 2/17/2022 at 12:45 PM, Genady said:

It exists in mathematical sense. Like a solution of an equation exists. Regardless we know it or not. 

?

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Really? Please elaborate.

I already have.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Stop making excuses to torture someone you don't like.

 My sympathies as you well know lay with the vicitms of crime and such, not with your unworkable softly, softly approach to criminals. If I or others can save a child or thousands of other innocents, then I certainly believe it is worth a try.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How can it be morally correct, if it's wrong?

As usual, and really now not surprising, you are simply being obtuse. Let me help you anyway. Laws are made, as per the prohibition of torture, but sometimes, as per the examples given, it is morally correct to step outside those laws. That just as obviously would be supported, or considered by the law and more importantly society in general. Again, it is also something despite your philosophical nonsense and bluff and bluster, you yourself would undertake. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you certainly imply it; I assume you mean, the only philosophy that work's is your own... 😇

No never ever implied it, in fact if you chose to be honest, the exact opposite. This is just more defensive bluff and bluster from you. I certainly do agree that your own life philoophy is silly, unworkable, and dangerous, in current westernised societies. Of that I am quite positive and clear.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed...

"The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.” - Mencken

What I said of course in full context was......

On 2/19/2022 at 6:45 AM, beecee said:

.Did he? After doing some research on him, he appears to have had many a good/admirable thought and some not so admirable, just like you and me. And certainly no harsher view then even contemplating not undertaking all means possible to save the lives of thousands of innocent people. Either way he has as much right to comment on philosophy as you do. 

 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Without a trial you're down to common sense; you've been a member here long enough to know how unreliable common sense is... 😉🙏

Common sense? why do you use the "pray" emoji? Who are you praying to? 🤪In the circumstances we are talking about, ( some of us honestly) the guilt is beyond doubt and certain. While such scenarios maybe rare, they are also quite possible. And of course while "common sense" is certainly not 100% reliable, it also is reliable in other situations, such as the validity of lambasting your own unworkable softly softly approach towards pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I've given up trying to influence you, but there's plenty of people who read what's written on this site; some of whom are open too a different way of thinking...

I am readily influenced by realistic and morally correct ideas and scenarios, not by your pretentious, unworkable philosophical nonsense, that may give you your nice warm inner glow of contentment.

 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, it depends on how badly you want revenge...

😂 Revenge?? Scraping the bottom of that "öbtuseness" barrel again? Please explain to me why any attempt to save the life of a little child, or that of thousands of other people is revenge? 

Edited February 19, 2022 by beecee

[Genady]

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What happened to

 

?

That was Thursday.

[Peterkin]

Ahhh!

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

I already have.

No you haven't...

Please discribe the scenario, where the perp is not caught in the act, but you can be 100% certain of the perps guilt without a trial.

I bet you can't... 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

😂 Revenge?? Scraping the bottom of that "öbtuseness" barrel again?

I don't think you understand what the word obtuse means; please explain how that sentence is a result of "obtuseness"???

And I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Please explain to me why any attempt to save the life of a little child, or that of thousands of other people is revenge? 

It's not, as I explained 'in that other thread' "If you catch the fecker in the act, feel free to kill in order to stop the fecker; and as @Peterkin suggested torture is rendered moot, if you have both the perp and the victim safe, therefore any pain/torture inflicted after the fact, can only be revenge; even if the fecker deserves a good kicking...

16 hours ago, beecee said:

I am readily influenced by realistic and morally correct ideas and scenarios, not by your pretentious, unworkable philosophical nonsense, that may give you your nice warm inner glow of contentment.

Like I said, "some might be open to new idea's". 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No you haven't...

Please discribe the scenario, where the perp is not caught in the act, but you can be 100% certain of the perps guilt without a trial.

I bet you can't... 

Yes I can, and yes I have. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't think you understand what the word obtuse means; please explain how that sentence is a result of "obtuseness"??? 

 Of course I understand, and have in the past, even pulled up the definition for you, in another of your past obtuse moments. You see your problem is trying to play your one-upmanship games, with as others have agreed, in obscure, cryptic, sometimes weird throw away lines that mean nothing in context of the argument at hand. In other words, try answering questions honestly, without dancing around them. eg: I have answered the first two of your claims in this post, exactly as you have answered in the past...you know, giving you back some of your own. 😉 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

Wrong again....the statement stands. Oh, and please point me to where you have in any way agreed that "It's not, as I explained 'in that other thread' "If you catch the fecker in the act, feel free to kill in order to stop the fecker"

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

and as @Peterkin suggested torture is rendered moot, if you have both the perp and the victim safe, therefore any pain/torture inflicted after the fact, can only be revenge; even if the fecker deserves a good kicking...

And while you are at it, please show me anywhere where I have condoned torture, after the vicitm/s are safe. Another not so hidden dimreeper strawman? ☺️

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Like I said, "some might be open to new idea's". 

And like I said, "I am readily influenced by realistic and morally correct ideas and scenarios, not by your pretentious, unworkable philosophical, new age nonsense, that may give you your nice warm inner glow of contentment"

I'll reiterate strongly, my first thoughts in any of the current situations, are for the victim/s. Any feelings I have for any pedaphile, terrorist, or violent criminal, are non existent, at least until a just outcome is achieved.

[John Cuthber]

Torture only has one outcome- the person tells you what you want to hear.
That's because, if they don't, you keep hurting them until they do.
 

If the outcome is hearing what you want, then there's no real point to the torture.
You can always simply pretend that you did it- with the inevitable outcome. They said what you wanted to hear.
The outcome is just the same.
So you can get that outcome without torturing people.

 

So, what are the circumstances where it's right to do something that's obviously bad, and never necessary?

[Genady]

Sorry, decided not to reply. Deleted.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Genady

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So you can get that outcome without torturing people.

That's great, if valid.

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, what are the circumstances where it's right to do something that's obviously bad, and never necessary?

When you don't get the outcome that is necessary to save the little child, or the thousands of other innocents. All avenues need to be exhausted to gain the morally correct outcome, that is, the saving or release of the victim/s.

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Torture only has one outcome- the person tells you what you want to hear.
That's because, if they don't, you keep hurting them until they do.

?? Not sure if I'm following you properly. Torture of course should be legislated against. But sometimes, in thankfully rare circumstances, in a democratic westernised society, even torture may need to be considered when all other means have been tried. The object of course is not what I want to hear, it's simply the truth and revelation of where the child and/or bomb is, in the current situations. And no, success is not always achieved, but I'm pretty sure the intended victims would like all avenues to be tried.

[Peterkin]

53 minutes ago, beecee said:

When you don't get the outcome that is necessary to save the little child, or the thousands of other innocents.

Which is it? One child? Or a thousand assorted people? Shouldn't that make a difference to the balance of rightness?

Wouldn't it be funny if the mad bomber you're torturing today were the same little tot you saved seventeen years ago by torturing a kidnapper? (Once every seventeen years is still quite a rare occurrence, even in the career of a federal agent who feels unconstrained by the law when he can't think of any way yo get the information he needs.) 

[beecee]

48 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Which is it? One child? Or a thousand assorted people? Shouldn't that make a difference to the balance of rightness? 

They are all innocents, and have the right to be considered over and above the pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals whose  moral standards are non existent.

51 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Wouldn't it be funny if the mad bomber you're torturing today were the same little tot you saved seventeen years ago by torturing a kidnapper? 

Should someone have put a bullet to the head of Hitler when he was a baby? Or that other nutbag Idi Amin? 

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

(Once every seventeen years is still quite a rare occurrence, even in the career of a federal agent who feels unconstrained by the law when he can't think of any way yo get the information he needs.) 

Not sure where you dragged the seventeen years from, but again, the federal agent would be acting with approval of his department, and more importantly, of society itself.

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Should someone have put a bullet to the head of Hitler when he was a baby? Or that other nutbag Idi Amin? 

Nobody should do any of those things. And nobody should assume they know which procedure will bring about the best outcome in every situation.

 

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not sure where you dragged the seventeen years from,

Approximately how long it takes to grow a toddler into a terrorist.

Give or take 2 years.

Just be funny if you had caused the thing you're now preventing. Funny 'ol worl' all around. 

[beecee]

In essence my stand again (for you and dimreeper) is that I see any action that can prevent a worse action, is OK and justifiably morally correct.The saving of innocent people outweighs ten fold, any action that maybe seen as primarily wrong, including that of torture. If there is any chance of saving those innocents in question, that alone is the moral aspect that should be considered.  You may not like that, yet you admit you would do it. 

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nobody should do any of those things. And nobody should assume they know which procedure will bring about the best outcome in every situation.

There are around 6 million Jews who would vehementally oppose that. And of course if all other outcomes have been attempted, is what this is all about. Obtuseness much? 🤭 This philosophy pushed by you and dimpreeper appears full of holes!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Which is it? One child? Or a thousand assorted people? Shouldn't that make a difference to the balance of rightness?

??? I find your stance and philosophy as simply stone walling, and strawmen building by the score.. 

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Approximately how long it takes to grow a toddler into a terrorist.

Give or take 2 years.

So what??? If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman? 

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Just be funny if you had caused the thing you're now preventing. Funny 'ol worl' all around. 

More scraping the bottom of the barrel attempts at philosophical notoriety. There were probably many times when doctors and such could have ended Hitler's life as a child, but again realistically speaking, (you know, instead of philsophical stone walling) time travel is as yet unknown.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nobody should do any of those things. And nobody should assume they know which procedure will bring about the best outcome in every situation.

You must know, that there is evil in everywhere we chose to look, from a church to sitting governments. We do not, nor probably ever will, live in some imagined sanitised fairy tale society, as sad as that maybe.

Edited February 21, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

So what??? If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman? 

If he was only seven, you would still torture him to find out where the bomb was? Would you not find that repugnant - even a little?

 

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Which is it? One child? Or a thousand assorted people? Shouldn't that make a difference to the balance of rightness?

??? I find your stance and philosophy as simply stone walling, and strawmen building by the score.. 

It's not a "stance". it's a very simple question.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

When you don't get the outcome that is necessary to save the little child, or the thousands of other innocents.

It was you who put one child* and thousands of people** in the same sentence. 

(* who you assume is worth saving at any cost, though you can't know what he or she will grow into; ** whom you assume to be uniformly innocent, but you don't actually know how many are guilty of what, or what they will do after you saved them)

So I asked: Do the numbers involved influence your decision?

[Area54]

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

In essence my stand again (for you and dimreeper) is that I see any action that can prevent a worse action, is OK and justifiably morally correct.

You appear to deal in absolutes:

• There is a presumption that you can (absolutely) determine the relative "evil" of an action.
• That you can, therefore, absolutely distinguish which is worse.
• That you can absolutely be sure that a chosen action will produce only the intended consequence.
• And that the action you are seeking to prevent would, without doubt, have had exactly the consequences you predicted.

If I had that level of certainty about events I would make a fortune at the bookmakers.

These absolutes are far removed from the real world. Real world moral decisions are, I suggest, rarely as simplistic. A complex situation requires careful and nuanced contemplation, not gung-ho, absolutist action. History suggests that approach rarely has a good outcome.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If he was only seven, you would still torture him to find out where the bomb was? Would you not find that repugnant - even a little?

Did you read what I said? So what??? If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman?  Ignoring your usual obtuseness, I'll again answer that question anyway. If in the situations given in the original thought experiments, I would not be torturing at all. I, as per the example I gave you a few days ago, do not like the sight of blood. But hey, with thousands of lives at stake, such repugnance would be morally correct and as long as the morally correct outcome was achieved(the saving of thousands from the bomb) then the methodology would be secondary.  

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's not a "stance". it's a very simple question.

No, it's a philosophical stance. My sympathies, and priorities lie with the victims. I reject the bleeding heart pretense, for the pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It was you who put one child* and thousands of people** in the same sentence. 

It certainly was me that put all examples of innocent vicitms and the one innocent child victim, in the same sentence, just as I put the pedaphiles, terrorists and violent criminals in the same sentence. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

(* who you assume is worth saving at any cost, though you can't know what he or she will grow into; ** whom you assume to be uniformly innocent, but you don't actually know how many are guilty of what, or what they will do after you saved them)

So what??? If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman?  There were probably many times when doctors and such could have ended Hitler's life as a child, but again realistically speaking, (you know, instead of philsophical stone walling) time travel is as yet unknown.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So I asked: Do the numbers involved influence your decision?

And I answered. My sympathies lie with the innocent vicitms, be that one child or thousands, that may even include all your own remaining family. But hey! you have said you would consider doing it!!

And still those 6 million Jews would still differ from your directed sympathies and philosophy.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

You appear to deal in absolutes:

• There is a presumption that you can (absolutely) determine the relative "evil" of an action.

Well, yes, in the two cases in question, with near positive guilt, of the kidnapper/pedaphile and the terrorist, those actions are evil. Are you questioning that?

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

• that you can, therefore, absolutely distinguish which is worse.

Distinguish between the only viable actions left to get the required info that may save a child or thousands of other innocents, or upholding the principle of the general repugnant nature of torture?? My sympathies/priorities lie with the victims, not the perpetrators of these deeds, that have no moral code what so ever.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

• That you can absolutely be sure that a chosen action will produce only the intended consequence.

No, I or the authorities can never be sure of that, but I'm sure the intended victims, would want all avenues tried. But there is always a chance. Perhaps in the case of a jihadist terrorist, forcing something on him, that will prevent him getting to paradise and joining with his 42 virgins (or whatver their nonsensical belief is)

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

• And that the action you are seeking to prevent would, without doubt, have had exactly the consequences you predicted.

Couldn't be sure of that either, but again, so what? As long as there is a chance to save the child or the thousands of potential vicitms about to be blown up. Society in any westernised democratic nation would demand that all avenues be tried.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

If I had that level of certainty about events I would make a fortune at the bookmakers.

We are talking about specific situations, and let me say to you, as a late comer to this ssometimes rather "round the merry-go-round" debate, that I fully support the united Nations charter on the banning of torture, as well as in the laws of my own country, but I also recognise that thankfully rarely, sometimes situations may demand a departure from such edicts. I have also given a link on all the situations regarding any possible justification for torture. Quite a comprehensive article on the pros and cons. 

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

These absolutes are far removed from the real world. Real world moral decisions are, I suggest, rarely as simplistic. A complex situation requires careful and nuanced contemplation, not gung-ho, absolutist action. History suggests that approach rarely has a good outcome.

They are not absolutes, and far from being removed from the real world. Torture is banned in most democratic societies. But sometimes, thankfully rarely, "complex situations" can exist. Sometimes guilt of a particular person is as near certain as is practicle to achieve. If for instance, the DNA of the little child was found under the finger nails, and in the hair, and the car of the kidnapper. Or a real life exapmle I gave in the justice/rehabilitation thread, where this low life was caught raping a little girl in a toilet block, and on being caught, stabbed one of the valiant rescuers. 

My only absolute is caring and having sympathy for the victims of crime. The pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals are of secondary concern.

Edited February 21, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

But hey, with thousands of lives at stake, such repugnance would be morally correct and as long as the morally correct outcome was achieved(the saving of thousands from the bomb) then the methodology would be secondary.  

So the numbers are a deciding factor? That's all I asked.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman? 

Why did you drag him into this, if you didn't mean to use him? In my example, you were torturing (bloodlessly - yes, there are more imaginative methods than hitting on the nose) a nineteen-year-old terrorist suspect, whom you had, seventeen years earlier, saved from a kidnapper by torturing the kidnapper's accomplice. How he shrunk down to 7, I don't know. Unless you torture a lot more frequently than you previously let on, or else you failed to rescue him and the terrorists brought him up to serve their own nefarious ends, so it took a lot less time to go from innocent toddler to weapon of mass destruction, or else you did save him, returned him to the hulkingly brutish father who tehn became a mad bomber, using his own child as a weapon.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So the numbers are a deciding factor? That's all I asked.

38 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I answered. My sympathies lie with the innocent vicitms, be that one child or thousands, that may even include all your own remaining family. But hey! you have said you would consider doing it!!

 

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Why did you drag him into this, if you didn't mean to use him? In my example, you were torturing (bloodlessly - yes, there are more imaginative methods than hitting on the nose) a nineteen-year-old terrorist suspect, whom you had, seventeen years earlier, saved from a kidnapper by torturing the kidnapper's accomplice. How he shrunk down to 7, I don't know. Unless you torture a lot more frequently than you previously let on.

Why do you chose to keep being so obtuse? I was simply explaining after your imagined the unreal situation as follows....

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Wouldn't it be funny if the mad bomber you're torturing today were the same little tot you saved seventeen years ago by torturing a kidnapper?

Just to be quite clear again, My sympathies lie with the innocent vicitms, be that one child or thousands,

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

How he shrunk down to 7, I don't know. Unless you torture a lot more frequently than you previously let on.

It was an example, expressing irrespective of age. I'll ignore your second childish like irresponsible strawman nonsense.

Edited February 21, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Torture only has one outcome- the person tells you what you want to hear.
That's because, if they don't, you keep hurting them until they do.
 

If the outcome is hearing what you want, then there's no real point to the torture.
You can always simply pretend that you did it- with the inevitable outcome. They said what you wanted to hear.
The outcome is just the same.
So you can get that outcome without torturing people.

 

So, what are the circumstances where it's right to do something that's obviously bad, and never necessary?

I'm confused by this,

Torture, in the context we are talking about, would be used in an attempt to gain information that may lead to saving lives. It will either work or it won't. 

1. If it works great, you may be in a better position to save lives.
2. If it fails the lives are doomed.
3. If you don't try using all means at your disposal, the lives are doomed

The person being tortured will either respond with the truth, or at least some useful information. Or they will say anything just to stop the torture. Or, if they are really tough/insane, keep quite and possibly lose their life. 

No one is arguing this, no one is saying that torture will work. The argument is that it might, even with the smallest of chances.  

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

You appear to deal in absolutes:

• There is a presumption that you can (absolutely) determine the relative "evil" of an action.
• That you can, therefore, absolutely distinguish which is worse.
• That you can absolutely be sure that a chosen action will produce only the intended consequence.
• And that the action you are seeking to prevent would, without doubt, have had exactly the consequences you predicted.

If I had that level of certainty about events I would make a fortune at the bookmakers.

These absolutes are far removed from the real world. Real world moral decisions are, I suggest, rarely as simplistic. A complex situation requires careful and nuanced contemplation, not gung-ho, absolutist action. History suggests that approach rarely has a good outcome.

So are the counter arguments.

They claim that torture will never work and is absolutely pointless and immoral in all circumstances.

Going back to the OP

Is torture ever right? 

I'm sticking with yes, if the person being tortured has requested it for pleasurable purposes. 

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No you haven't...

Please discribe the scenario, where the perp is not caught in the act, but you can be 100% certain of the perps guilt without a trial.

I bet you can't... 

I don't think you understand what the word obtuse means; please explain how that sentence is a result of "obtuseness"???

And I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

It's not, as I explained 'in that other thread' "If you catch the fecker in the act, feel free to kill in order to stop the fecker; and as @Peterkin suggested torture is rendered moot, if you have both the perp and the victim safe, therefore any pain/torture inflicted after the fact, can only be revenge; even if the fecker deserves a good kicking...

Like I said, "some might be open to new idea's". 

The OP stated in the initial post to ignore the legalities and assume that the perp is guilty, where you find yourself in a situation with only 2 choices left - torture or not.

I took this as meaning to focus on the question of morality of those choices, rather than the implications of trial, justice and punishment. The moral justification of using torture, considering all possible situations. 

The OP offered a scenario which may pull on a person's heart strings, since it appeals to parents in general, myself included. However you can take an objective approach and still conclude the same moral standing.

Simply take the scenario, consider the options and implications, and then go with the most logical route in an attempt to gain a successful result. Whether the desired result is achieved is irrelevant to the moral implications of the action taken; unless the desired result is always unachievable, in which case it is not the most logical route to take.    

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The OP stated in the initial post to ignore the legalities and assume that the perp is guilty, where you find yourself in a situation with only 2 choices left - torture or not.

There's many a hole in the OP; it's like saying "If the ball goes in the net, it will be a goal".

It's not a realistic question, for many a reason as pointed out by other member's.

1. Torture is an unreliable way to extract information, as pointed out by @John Cuthber, you either get the information you want (because they'll say anything you want them too), or you get no information at all (a terrorist/priest is an extremely committed extremist).

2. The only way too ascertain guilt with certainty is to catch them in the act and as @Peterkin pointed out, if you've got the perp, you've got the victim/bomb.

3. Even if we ignore point's 1 and 2, there's a time limit, so they only have to suffer until the clock ticks down to zero.

4. Apparently, we all agree that torture is morally wrong; so when the clock reaches zero, whatever the consequences, we have to stop the torture, because that would be revenge.

The only logical conclusion is, torture is only right in a scenario that will never exist.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes I can, and yes I have. 

 eg: I have answered the first two of your claims in this post

It's funny that you'd think that, because you haven't answered my questions... 

I came here for an argument, not abuse... 

Edited February 21, 2022 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

When you don't get the outcome that is necessary to save the little child, or the thousands of other innocents. All avenues need to be exhausted to gain the morally correct outcome, that is, the saving or release of the victim/s.

If you don't get that outcome- and you won't- all you have done is torture someone for no reason.

You do understand that people lie, don't you?

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Why do you chose to keep being so obtuse? I was simply explaining after your imagined the unreal situation as follows....

So, your imagined unreal situation is correct and anyone who disagrees is being obtuse? 

You need to get a new definition...

[dimreepr]

None of us are innocent, we're all guilty of being humans... 

[Peterkin]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Why do you chose to keep being so obtuse?

All angles must be represented. I came late and got stuck with 178 degrees. Any more obtuse, I'd be a straight line.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

1. Torture is an unreliable way to extract information,

We can never be sure it won't work the way we want it to, and while there is a chance, we are morally obliged to try it, after all else has failed. This and your other wild claims, reminds me of the three wise monkeys.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's funny that you'd think that, because you haven't answered my questions...

Yes I have, many times. Funny though, that it wasn't so long ago that I could, and still do accuse you of the same avoidance...that is refusal to answer questions. You know what hypocrisiy means?

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I came here for an argument, not abuse... 

It seems to me all you want is for others to fold up and go meekly away, in front of your philosophical onslaught. 🤮If you don't like your posts being seen as obtuse, then answer questions directly. If you don't like others accusing you of erecting strawmen, don't erect them.

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If you don't get that outcome- and you won't- all you have done is torture someone for no reason.

You do understand that people lie, don't you?

Yes, people lie, I have never denied that, nor have I ever denied that torture sometimes will not work. Curious though, how can you claim that you will not get the desired outcome?

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, your imagined unreal situation is correct and anyone who disagrees is being obtuse? 

You need to get a new definition...

More importantly, perhaps you need to explain how and why the situations described are impossible. That is what you are saying, correct? The only unreal aspect of this debate is the opinion you are pushing, that we let a child and thousands of other innocents die, before trying all avenues for a possible successful outcome.

And while you are at it, please explain hypocrisy to me.

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

All angles must be represented. 

And all avenues in the situations being discussed, must be tried, and as you have agreed to. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by beecee