Is Torture Ever Right ?

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Do you have any valid evidence to support that "drag it out of your arse, absolute statement"? Have you forgotten, Hitler was in WW1. How do you know he didn't kill anyone? C'mon dimmy, you make plenty of absolute claims, and cryptic nonsense, along with your rather funny cartoons, but never any real life, reputable link to support your claims.

Why do I need any?

Because the statement is to emphasise and to set up the point (he could of killed thousands for all I know, but what I do know is, he didn't 'personally' kill millions), which is 'he persuaded ordinary people like you and me, to kill for him!!!

That you seem to think you're immune suggests you're more susceptible, scammer's rely on certainty.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 but what I do know is, he didn't 'personally' kill millions), which is 'he persuaded ordinary people like you and me, to kill for him!!!

Tha's not the statement in contention. You actually said.......

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Hitler never physically (hand's on) killed anyone, he never pulled the trigger and he probably never actually witnessed a person die.

now stop pretending, stop being dishonest and trying to make excuses, and admit you were wrong. you do not know emphatically if he did or did not kill anyone, afterall, he was a participant in WW1. In essence, stop trying to get out from under. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Tha's not the statement in contention. You actually said.......

now stop pretending, stop being dishonest and trying to make excuses, and admit you were wrong. you do not know emphatically if he did or did not kill anyone, afterall, he was a participant in WW1. In essence, stop trying to get out from under. 

Whatever you say... 

 

18 hours ago, beecee said:

you do not know emphatically if he did or did not kill anyone

Do you?

Or is this another example of probability over possibility? 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Do you?

Of course I don't. 🙄 (see how easy that was?) But that's not the bone of contention is it? You made the absolute claim that he never personally killed anyone, and now you are trying to dig your way from under the mess you have created. You can make it stop easily, my not being so cryptic as others have noted, and by stopping making such absolute silly claims. 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course I don't. 🙄 (see how easy that was?) But that's not the bone of contention is it? You made the absolute claim that he never personally killed anyone, and now you are trying to dig your way from under the mess you have created. You can make it stop easily, my not being so cryptic as others have noted, and by stopping making such absolute silly claims. 

I was going to leave it at a neg rep, but then a few minutes later I was negged, an insight into your idea of justice, I think; tit for tat is the ideal, once we define tit...

To contemplate torture is only ever about revenge, much like to contemplate a nuclear response...

20 hours ago, beecee said:

By not being so cryptic as others have noted

It's not my problem that you don't understand the crossword...

[beecee]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To contemplate torture is only ever about revenge, much like to contemplate a nuclear response...

Says who? 

The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford.

4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

"We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_torture

 Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used –  to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's not my problem that you don't understand the crossword...

The crossword is simple my friend. My first moral thoughts and sympathies (and with most sensible people in any democratic westernised society) are with the victims of crime, terrorism and such. Your's appear to be with the perpetrators of such evil, by invoking some "nice sounding" but unworkable pretentious philsophy. You tried to justify that in the justice/punishment thread, now you are trying to justify it here. I see that as immoral. That's why you can never give a straight answer.

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by beecee

[Area54]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford.

Your persistent reference to a portion of the article on torture in the subject encyclopedia suggest that you think it somehow proves the correctness of your argument. It doesn't. It merely notes that some writers have argued the same case as you, just more eloquently - not necessarily more convincingly. If that's all you have - and it seems it is - it is time for you to retire from the field.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Your persistent reference to a portion of the article on torture in the subject encyclopedia suggest that you think it somehow proves the correctness of your argument. It doesn't. It merely notes that some writers have argued the same case as you, just more eloquently - not necessarily more convincingly. If that's all you have - and it seems it is - it is time for you to retire from the field.

My persistance is a result of the replies and answers given that have ignored the logic and reasonability in any democratic western society, that does not see a "absolute" denial of all reasons for torture. And I have given a number of those links that detail those same reasons, certainly more eloquently, and just as certainly more convincingly. 

On my retirement from the thread, you are probably right on that score, as so far any argument against is mostly based on some unworkable personal philsophy, that was shown to be wanting in the justice/punishment thread, and is just as wanting in this thread, imvho of course. But then again, I'm a stubborn old bastard, and will always need any argument about any shift of my views, based on actual and real events, and logic and sensibility. I don't find any philsophical stance, (particularly an unworkable one, as exhibited by a couple here) by itself, doing that. 

Just to reiterate, My sympathies, and moral code lay with the victims of crime or terrorism, rather then the perpetrators of those crimes and terrorism activities, who have set their own moral code bar at sewer level, and see the correct moral stance in the examples given, to exhaust all means and avenues possible to save those innocent lives, whether 100% certain of guilt (as per the thought experiments) or guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.  

Edited March 14, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

5 hours ago, Area54 said:

Your persistent reference to a portion of the article on torture in the subject encyclopedia suggest that you think it somehow proves the correctness of your argument. It doesn't. It merely notes that some writers have argued the same case as you, just more eloquently - not necessarily more convincingly. If that's all you have - and it seems it is - it is time for you to retire from the field.

I'm not sure that is the motive behind it. I think beecee is just pointing out that person/s who are actually likely to be faced with the moral justification of such an horrendous act accept that there could be  a situation where torture is the right thing to do. 

All I'll say is, I just hope that if I ever find myself or my family victims in such a situation that some "do gooder" who thinks/believes they can save humanity with a big ball of cotton wool is not making the call.

 

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

On my retirement from the thread, you are probably right on that score, as so far any argument against is mostly based on some unworkable personal philsophy, that was shown to be wanting in the justice/punishment thread, and is just as wanting in this thread, imvho of course.

Please stop referring to my "What is justice" thread and declaring victory, it's dishonest because you used the same argument...

 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Please stop referring to my "What is justice" thread and declaring victory, it's dishonest because you used the same argument...

At least I had an argument in both threads...a realistic argument based on facts and reality, and real life examples, not some unworkable philsophical jargon, you like to attempt to shove down people's throats. 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This post is gonna end up down the same road as the "punishment" thread.

I'm also not declaring any victory, and to even raise that shows the depths you need to sink to. Or are you now attempting to play the victim card? All I'm declaring is that your life philsophy was unworkable in the justice/punishment thread, and your absolute opinion re torture in this thread, (based on that same unworkable philsophy) is certainly not absolute in certain undesirable scenarios, as far as any reasonable democratic westernised society would hold. 

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

At least I had an argument in both threads...a realistic argument based on facts and reality, and real life examples, not some unworkable philsophical jargon, you like to attempt to shove down people's throats. 

No, the only argument you've made, in either thread, is from your own credulity, which when challenged with a reasonable argument/question you simply repeat, just a little bit angrier; that's why the cartoon is so appropriate.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This post is gonna end up down the same road as the "punishment" thread.

I'm also not declaring any victory, and to even raise that shows the depths you need to sink to. Or are you now attempting to play the victim card? All I'm declaring is that your life philsophy was unworkable in the justice/punishment thread, and your absolute opinion re torture in this thread, (based on that same unworkable philsophy) is certainly not absolute in certain undesirable scenarios, as far as any reasonable democratic westernised society would hold. 

 You really need to read my post's, because @Intoscience posted this, I thought you agreed with him... 😉

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not sure that is the motive behind it. I think beecee is just pointing out that person/s who are actually likely to be faced with the moral justification of such an horrendous act accept that there could be  a situation where torture is the right thing to do. 

All I'll say is, I just hope that if I ever find myself or my family victims in such a situation that some "do gooder" who thinks/believes they can save humanity with a big ball of cotton wool is not making the call.

 

I hope I'm judged by a "do gooder" that understands this:

"A dog starvd at his Masters Gate

Predicts the ruin of the State 

A Horse misusd upon the Road

Calls to Heaven for Human blood 

Each outcry of the hunted Hare

A fibre from the Brain does tear 

A Skylark wounded in the wing 

A Cherubim does cease to sing" - William Blake

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, the only argument you've made, in either thread, is from your own credulity, which when challenged with a reasonable argument/question you simply repeat, just a little bit angrier; that's why the cartoon is so appropriate.

☺️If you chose to fool yourself into believing that, that's your prerogative. Just to be clear though, you have not had any reasonable argument, either here or in the justice/punishment thread, only preaching your unworkable life philsophy. And as usual your rather wierd interpretations and hypocrisy, of me being credulious, is fabricated not around facts but around that same unworkable life philsophy. Facts that we can know with 100% certainty a person's guilt...facts that what matters anyway, is being guilty beyond reasonable doubt...facts that all other efforts to extract the required information, must always be attempted first, before any thoughts of torture...facts that innocent lives outweigh ten fold, the lives of criminals, pedaphiles and terrorists...facts that normal everyday citizens of any democratic westernised society, would certainly support the use of...facts that torture should certainly be still officially banned and discouraged (which it is) in most of those same societies...facts that irresoective of those anti torture laws and edicts, that reasonability, common sense and moral judgement (on rare instances as being discussed) will still always prevail, in spite of those laws and edicts. No, nothing incredulious about my position, but plenty of hypocrisiy regarding your own position. Those positions supporting my stance are worth repeating, particularly when you misconstrue or ignore them. That's done with total recognition of their validity, and certainly not in anger, as you are trying to convey.  😉 Here's a winky emoji to support that.  

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 You really need to read my post's, because @Intoscience posted this, I thought you agreed with him... 😉

 🤣 Thanks for validating ay least part of what I said above. I read intoscience's post but no I did not nor have I referred to it at all. Yes I agree with what he basically has said, but not with your twisted defining of what he has said, but hey, he can speak for himself.

I call things the way I see it, and am not immediatly concerned with whether it is left or right of the political spectrum, and that may invoke some emotionalism, and while I'm an avid lay supporter of science, I do see emotion as part and parcel of who and what we are as humans. 

I don't particulary care about whether you agree with my position or otherwise, more concerned with answering to the best of my capabilities those concerns you keep fabricating.

The so called distress of the pedaphile, the criminal, the terrorist,  would be of no concern to me, in the situations as described. I'm not acting as an apologist for murderers, terrorists, religious fanatics, criminals and pedaphile scum.

In summing up, you are adept at playing word games. All agree torture is wrong. But sometimes, in certain circumstances, doing wrong and abandoning the immorality of torture, is justified on those pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, that ignore the normal standards of morality in a society. They, the pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, have set their bar of immorality at sewer level, and do not deserve the benefit of the higher moral values (the prohibition of torture) of society in general. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by beecee

[Area54]

21 hours ago, beecee said:

Just to reiterate, My sympathies, and moral code lay with the victims of crime or terrorism, rather then the perpetrators of those crimes and terrorism activities, who have set their own moral code bar at sewer level, and see the correct moral stance in the examples given, to exhaust all means and avenues possible to save those innocent lives, whether 100% certain of guilt (as per the thought experiments) or guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.  

And to reiterate my position. I find it difficult to understand your entrenched refusal to acknowledge, or - seemingly - even to admit the role of torture and other violent reactions to terrorism, in generating new terrorists. Your approval of torture to, hypothetically, save the lives of potential victims, while ignoring its assured effect of generating more terrorists, is difficult to stomach when proposed by a fool, but it is especially painfull to witness, as in this case, in an intelligent, educated person.

17 hours ago, Intoscience said:

All I'll say is, I just hope that if I ever find myself or my family victims in such a situation that some "do gooder" who thinks/believes they can save humanity with a big ball of cotton wool is not making the call.

And I hope,they would have the intellect to consider strategy, not tactics. Naturally, I would like my family and myself to survive, but that means I'm asking that others should die, so I can live. Is selfishness a key aspect fo morality?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

And to reiterate my position. I find it difficult to understand your entrenched refusal to acknowledge, or - seemingly - even to admit the role of torture and other violent reactions to terrorism, in generating new terrorists. Your approval of torture to, hypothetically, save the lives of potential victims, while ignoring its assured effect of generating more terrorists, is difficult to stomach when proposed by a fool, but it is especially painfull to witness, as in this case, in an intelligent, educated person.

Generating new terrorists? Does it? Conclusively and absolutely? I don't think so. And judge Richard Posner, I would suggest, aint no fool. 

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

And I hope,they would have the intellect to consider strategy, not tactics. Naturally, I would like my family and myself to survive, but that means I'm asking that others should die, so I can live. Is selfishness a key aspect fo morality?

The only morality is consideration for the victims. The criminals, terrorists, pedaphiles, have lost all consideration for any morality. And that is the judgement I believe would be taken by society in general. That is your only absolute.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

 Your approval of torture to, hypothetically, save the lives of potential victims, while ignoring its assured effect of generating more terrorists

My hypothetical opinion to save the lives of innocent victims, is morally correct, and is no more hypothetical, then some philsophical rhetoric about generating more terrorists. In fact, it may even reduce such numbers when they observe the futility of their fanaticism.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

is difficult to stomach when proposed by a fool, but it is especially painfull to witness, as in this case, in an intelligent, educated person.

And I find it particularly difficult to stomach, the  pretentious moral concerns about the perpetrators and criminals and pedaphiles, rather then the actual victims.

Judge Prosner.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

Posner is a leading figure in the field of law and economics, and was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.[2] He is widely considered to be one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States.

Posner has generally been identified as being politically conservative;[citation needed] however, in recent years he has distanced himself from the positions of the Republican party,[8] authoring more liberal rulings involving same-sex marriage and abortion.[9][10] In A Failure of Capitalism, he has written that the 2008 financial crisis has caused him to question the rational-choice, laissez-faire economic model that lies at the heart of his law and economics theory.

Posner is a pragmatist in philosophy and an economist in legal methodology. He has written many articles and books on a wide range of topics including law and economics, law and literature, the federal judiciary, moral theory, intellectual property, antitrust law, public intellectuals, and legal history.[16] He is also well known for writing on a wide variety of current events including the 2000 presidential election recount controversy, Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky[15] and his resulting impeachment procedure,[17] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[18]

His analysis of the Lewinsky scandal cut across most party and ideological divisions. Posner's greatest influence is through his writings on law and economics; The New York Times called him "one of the most important antitrust scholars of the past half-century." In December 2004, Posner started a joint blog with Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, titled simply "The Becker-Posner Blog".[19] Both men contributed to the blog until shortly before Becker's death in May 2014, after which Posner announced that the blog was being discontinued.[20] He also had a blog at The Atlantic, where he discussed the then-current Great Recession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

 

[Intoscience]

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

And I hope, they would have the intellect to consider strategy, not tactics. Naturally, I would like my family and myself to survive, but that means I'm asking that others should die, so I can live. Is selfishness a key aspect for morality?

But part of the strategy maybe to consider torture as a last resort. Our focus is on when all else has failed and logic dictates that there could be a small chance that torture would result in a desired outcome. 

Naturally we all would prefer to protect ourselves and our family, this is key to survival and something nature has programmed into us. Fortunately (or maybe not) humans have the capacity to consider the merits of actions rather than just instinct, also have developed a moral duty which enables us to set priority levels based not only on logic, but also compassion and foresight.

We all agree that life is precious and each life is equally of value. However, when it comes to morality we do consider the value of a life in terms of comparison.

For example; 

You are faced with a situation where you must choose between either an innocent child or a convicted paedophile. One must die and you have to make the decision.

If every life is equally valued, what is your choice and why?   

Edited March 15, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But part of the strategy maybe to consider torture as a last resort. Our focus is on when all else has failed and logic dictates that there could be a small chance that torture would result in a desired outcome. 

We've gone over the number's and they're roughly the same as killing the next person you see, would result in a desired outcome. 

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Generating new terrorists? Does it? Conclusively and absolutely? I don't think so.

Are you saying that persecution/oppression doesn't create freedom fighter's or that torture isn't persecution/oppression? 

Like I said, your credulity isn't an argument...

Edited March 15, 2022 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We've gone over the number's and they're roughly the same as killing the next person you see, would result in a desired outcome. 

I actually meant to say "preferred" outcome, "desired" is not really suitable in the context we are discussing. 

I don't follow, how does torturing someone to gain information, that may lead to the saving of lives, compare to me randomly killing someone for no particular reason, logically or statistically?

The use of torture will result in one of three possible outcomes:

1. Useful information is obtained
2. Un-useful information is obtained
3. No information is obtained

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you saying that persecution/oppression doesn't create freedom fighter's or that torture isn't persecution/oppression? 

Even in an utopian world, someone somewhere will find an excuse to form a radical group to fight against the system or others.  

We would get very far if we clung on to the what if's so not to act. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

For example; 

You are faced with a situation where you must choose between either an innocent child or a convicted paedophile. One must die and you have to make the decision.

If every life is equally valued, what is your choice and why? 

I don't find that to be a moral equivalence, I would kill the convicted paedophile, even if I knew the child was hitler. Because both lives should be considered and it may be a kindness to kill the paedophile.

What would your answer be, if you knew the innocent child is Hitler? 

24 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I don't follow, how does torturing someone to gain information, that may lead to the saving of lives, compare to me randomly killing someone for no particular reason, logically or statistically?

Because:

24 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The use of torture will result in one of three possible outcomes:

1. Useful information is obtained
2. Un-useful information is obtained
3. No information is obtained

And you can never know, before the torture, which is applicable; 

Killing the next person is essentially the same. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't find that to be a moral equivalence, I would kill the convicted paedophile, even if I knew the child was hitler. Because both lives should be considered and it may be a kindness to kill the paedophile.

What would your answer be, if you knew the innocent child is Hitler? 

So you kill the paedophile out of kindness? 

That's a simple answer. 

If the child was Hitler and was destined to commit the atrocities, then I would kill the child. Killing the child in this instance would prevent the death and suffering of far more people than that caused by the paedophile. 

But this exactly highlights my point throughout this thread. Sometimes in certain circumstances moral judgement may have to be back benched by logic, to gain the preferred outcome. 

The "desired" outcome would be that the child is raised and educated differently and hopefully persuaded to follow a different path in life. The paedophile is rehabilitated and goes on to live a normal life and even better gets opportunities to pay back to society for the crimes in a way that positively improves that society.  

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So you kill the paedophile out of kindness? 

No, I said it might be a kindness, after consideration.

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

If the child was Hitler and was destined to commit the atrocities, then I would kill the child. Killing the child in this instance would prevent the death and suffering of far more people than that caused by the paedophile. 

And that would be a kindness, even if the paedophile is free to commit again?

Can't you see, that my question is just as impossible to know as the premis your basing your argument on? 

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Judge Prosner.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

Posner is a leading figure in the field of law and economics, and was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.[2] He is widely considered to be one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States.

He was also brought up in a society that thinks it's acceptable to gerrymander and defend police brutality; forgive me for thinking, he may have a bias...

Edited March 15, 2022 by dimreepr

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are you saying that persecution/oppression doesn't create freedom fighter's or that torture isn't persecution/oppression? 

No I'm saying that torturing a terrorist or criminal to get information that may save some innocent person's life, does not necessarilly create other terrorists or criminals. I don't condemn all muslims because of a handful of fanatical terrorists.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And you can never know, before the torture, which is applicable; 

So? We are still morally obliged to attempt all avenues that may save an innocent life, even the torture of criminals, terrorists and pedaphiles. 

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Killing the next person is essentially the same. 

Not at all....

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

He was also brought up in a society that thinks it's acceptable to gerrymander and defend police brutality; forgive me for thinking, he may have a bias...

I was raised and brought up during the cold war period. So? Who said he defended police brutality? Do you have a reputable reference? Not all police/suspects interactions are the police's fault either. Just had a recent case (will give details and links if you like) where a Policeman killed an indigenous suspect after he (the policeman) was stabbed by this suspect. He was charged and aquitted and rightly so. 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So you kill the paedophile out of kindness?   

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, I said it might be a kindness, after consideration..

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And that would be a kindness, even if the paedophile is free to commit again?

Can't you see, that my question is just as impossible to know as the premis your basing your argument on? 

😁😵 You may chose to dance around the issue, and create red herrings, but the facts of the matter are far more simple. They are as follows...It is far more morally acceptable and morally required, to use all means possible to extract information to save innocent lives, even torture, if and when all other avenues have been exhausted.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't find that to be a moral equivalence, I would kill the convicted paedophile, even if I knew the child was hitler. Because both lives should be considered and it may be a kindness to kill the paedophile.

Let's consider this situation, as unreal as it is. (of course there is no way anyone can know what any child will grow up to be) Firstly as far as a paedophile is concerned, kindness doesn't enter into the equation...punishment and containment does. Mostly after serving appropriately lengthy jail sentences, they once released into society, are forced to wear ankle bracelets to track their every movements. The death penalty is non applicable in Australia.

The "Hitler" child is a different kettle of fish. Unless we know with 100% certainty that his future is set in stone and cannot be changed, then some attempts to alter the path of history is desirable...better education, different environment, moved to another country etc. If it is known that his future is set in stone, then the westernised world would demand he be eliminated.

Still the situation is unreal as already mentioned and is a silly impossible philsophical nonsense. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No I'm saying that torturing a terrorist or criminal to get information that may save some innocent person's life, does not necessarilly create other terrorists or criminals. I don't condemn all muslims because of a handful of fanatical terrorists.

Adding to that, in some circumstances it may, in other circumstances, it may do the opposite. Most decent muslims also condemn the fanatical terrorist ratbags amongst them.

[Area54]

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Our focus is on when all else has failed and logic dictates that there could be a small chance that torture would result in a desired outcome. 

I realise I must be explaining my postion with a gross level of incompetence. You are considering only the desired outcome for the immediate situation. I am arguing that we must consider the consequences of that action for future situations. Torturing alleged terrorists generates more terrorists who cause further pain in suffering. You are arguing it is OK to cause future pain and suffering in order to prevent present pain and suffering. You are arguing for continuing the cycle of violence. I understand this is not a conscious argument on your part, but it is the essential outcome.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Generating new terrorists? Does it? Conclusively and absolutely? I don't think so.

You are mistaken. Dangerously mistaken. In an effort to be part of the solution you become the root of future problems. Don't bother replying, I shall be unable to see it.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I realise I must be explaining my postion with a gross level of incompetence. 

Your position is quite clear...maintaining your so called pretentious absolutes re torture with criminals, paedophies and terrorists, instead of the more desired moral correctness  to save the innocents with every means at our disposal.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

You are mistaken. Dangerously mistaken. In an effort to be part of the solution you become the root of future problems. Don't bother replying, I shall be unable to see it.

 Am I? 🥱 No I am not part of the problem and am not mistaken. The problem is this blanket absolute you want to maintain re torture, under any and all circumstances. You know that will never work, and never be allowed to work. Is that what's troubling you? Or the fact that you are unable to support your absolute statement, absolutely. Np wonder so many reputable scientists today, are inferring philsophy has had its day. Sorry you won't be reading my posts anymore though. It was fun while it lasted! 🤭 

There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius 

Edited March 15, 2022 by beecee