100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Torture; An intellectual debate.. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
we would tickle them to death more than likely
madisonman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we would tickle them to death more than likely madisonman |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
nogames39
on
Mon 01/26/09 11:44 PM
|
|
we would tickle them to death more than likely madisonman Well, we do have WMDs. More than that, we're the only ones that ever used the Nuclear variety. And still, if someone invaded US, even with this "accusations" that in our case would prove to be correct, I think there would be hell to pay. Who's to say we wouldn't be using IEDs against invaders? EDIT Uh, I forgot, if the invaders wave "The Liberation Flag", we would welcome them with open hands, right? Wrong! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly im not American but i can certainly tell you how i would feel. i would feel betrayed by the UN. and every country that participated in the attempt of invasion would have hell to pay. and Canada would no longer be classed as Canada. it'll be another state added to America.
theres a number of reasons why i think that, A, because America are fighting the cause for a better tomorrow, B, America would not use there WMDS unless they felt there country was at risk. C, Americas sublime standards further afield in Afghanistan and Iraq highlight the fact that there not fighting the locals, there fighting the iranians, the Pakistani's and the iraqis who are still under the spell of saddam and his cronies, although hes dead. how do you think i would feel if my daughter got blown up at her wedding party? exactly i would want revenge. but not at the americans i want revenge against the guy the americans were after, because if the americans weren't after these guys, my daughter would be in Barbados right now, slurping up champagne. and the boy who got caught up in a road side bomb, this is a rarity because when traps like these are set the locals are 9/10 times told whats going to happen. its a combat indicator for the troops knowing that theres something up when theres very little activity around. but still i would feel angered, but not at the Americans because they never set the traps. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drew, There are rules within every police force in the world that prevent interrogation of suspects by people (officers) who are too close to the case. The reasons for this are very obvious and your scenario points to why these rules are necessary. People (Law enforcement, military, etc.) who are too personally close to the case are more likely than not to act out of emotion rather than make intelligent decisions. They are more likely than not to hamper interrogations and contaminate the case. Most parents would not hesitate to torture and kill the suspect being in custody! They would act out their emotions rather than make an intelligent decision. Fanta, I swear that I'm not trying to be purposefully indifferent to your very well stated points but your answers don't answer the question from a moral standpoint. I don't disagree that the parent in the case I gave is acting out of emotion. In fact, I'll concede that they are acting on little more than pure emotion. And let us assume and take your point, to say that the child is killed regardless, that the torture does nothing to save the child. Does that fact make the torture morally wrong? Isn't the child pretty much doomed to begin with and if so, how then do we argue that the risk taken (that he will provide information leading to her rescue) isn't worth taking? -Drew I say it is morally wrong to torture, and that by doing so makes one no better than those he tortures. Two wrongs do not make a right, but then we each must live with our own conscience, and if you believe a particular way then we shall each be judged according to our deeds here on earth and our treatment of our fellow men one day. Personally, I would like to be classified as having higher morals than the terrorists when that time comes! Fanta---seriously? You don't find any moral distinction about a response to a threat and the person who initiates it? Following that line of reasoning, do you think it immoral to shoot a person who breaks down your front door while you and your family sleep? If you shoot him in the chest, killing him, are you then on the same moral level? You are a really bright guy, Fanta and I enjoy reading your posts but in the case where violence is used as a response (or in the case of torture) used in a manner to possibly prevent further loss of life/toture I don't think moral relativism is really in play. No sane and rational person should be comfortable with the idea of torture. I'm not and that is why it's a good topic to debate and discuss. Still, there are times when in order to serve the greater good, morals must be pushed aside. Taking a life is very much a part of that and while again I submit that such a decision is not one that should be taken lightly, I'd like to think that in an effort to rescue a child or spare any human being some degree of suffering, that I'd be willing to do whatever it takes. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
