Donald Trump supports torture

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
It's not a plan. Prisoner of war has a specific meaning.

A prisoner of war is a person who is uniformed fighting for a country.

These guys trump is referring to don't meet that definition.
Click to expand...
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.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What makes you think I give a shit about a member of ISIS? My interest rests in protecting the law. It's wrong to torture people, there is no gray area, if you torture somebody, you're a terrorist.
Click to expand...
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.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
rollitup said:
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.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
What do you think the fate of captured americans is in that part of the world?
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What makes you think I give a shit about a member of ISIS? My interest rests in protecting the law. It's wrong to torture people, there is no gray area, if you torture somebody, you're a terrorist.
Click to expand...

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

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you nailed a grey area. TRUMP!
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No matter your personal feelings on marijuana it is illegal in both US and international laws....

See how that works?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
No matter your personal feelings on marijuana it is illegal in both US and international laws....

See how that works?
Click to expand...
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.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
A fucking terrorist isn't an innocent person.
Click to expand...
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?
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top