Ed Senate: Torture should not be our legacy

[Toontown]

So please enlighten me: given that your hypocritical subset of people exists, how does it pertain to the current discussion of whether US use of torture should be condoned?

The discussion is inevitably tainted and bogged down by said hypocritical subset of people, thus will accomplish nothing except to serve as a springboard for more completely unproductive moral posturing.

Nor is the discussion about "whether US use of torture should be condoned", if the OP is to be strictly adhered to. The OP simply reported a congressional ban on certain interrogation practices.

 

[Toontown]

There are undoubtedly a subset of people who fit your description; I have decried them elsewhere...

And when you decried them elsewhere, were you able to do so without going off topic?

 

[Garrette]

And when you decried them elsewhere, were you able to do so without going off topic?

When I decried them elsewhere it was because it was on topic already.

 

[Garrette]

The discussion is inevitably tainted and bogged down by said hypocritical subset of people, thus will accomplish nothing except to serve as a springboard for more completely unproductive moral posturing.

Ah. Well, then. Nice having your participation, limited though it has been.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Another attempted re-write. Wow. That is so clever. And subtle. Like a bull in a china shop.

Oh, and I almost missed that re-write-based messenger attack at the end.

This is your brain on politics.

To insist that we should condone the practices of Saddam is moronic no matter how "hypocritical" you may feel it is.

 

[RandFan]

Try taking what I wrote verbatim, and, if you possess the reading comprehension I'm sure you do, then you will quickly understand that I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of people who bemoaned the overthrow of Saddam, citing the "stability" Saddam wrought through his torturous methods. Who, BTW, are often the same people who bemoan the use of waterboarding and sleep deprivation on terrorists.

I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that so long as someone else is using torture then we can too or are you saying that because Saddam tortured people then it's wrong to be both against an invasion and against torture? You seem to be looking for a tu quoque that, to begin with, just isn't there and would be a fallacy even if it were.

Please quantify the "difference between using torture to gather intelligence and using torture to subjugate people", and tell us which you prefer, and why.

A.) torture is widely panned by the experts as having any added value to gathering inteligence and is actually consider counter productive (the thing about torture is we will defend it regardless of whether it's effective, let that sink in for a moment. B.) If torture were effective (let's be clear, it's not) then it would still be wrong. Perhaps permissible for a single person who is not working for the govt in a ticking time bomb case (source available on request).

5 Myths About Torture and Truth

Does the use of torture ever work?

What I'm trying to figure out (literally) is how and why I defended torture in the first place. The studies I've uncovered have been fascinating. The notion that humans have a "nature" that is either good or bad is so absurd one wonders how the error came about in the first place.

 

[sunmaster14]

To insist that we should condone the practices of Saddam is moronic no matter how "hypocritical" you may feel it is.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "condone."

 

[Toontown]

To insist that we should condone the practices of Saddam is moronic no matter how "hypocritical" you may feel it is.

If anything, I've suggested the opposite, to wit: it is hypocritical to cite the "stability" Saddam wrought as an argument against his forcible overthrow, while simultaneously going on and on ad infinitum about a few instances of waterboarding.

 

[RandFan]

If anything, I've suggested the opposite, to wit: it is hypocritical to cite the "stability" Saddam wrought as an argument against his forcible overthrow, while simultaneously going on and on ad infinitum about a few instances of waterboarding.

It's not hypocritical at all.

Bob: Saddam is killing people.
Tim: Let's stop him and do it ourselves.
Bob: But it could lead to far worse outcomes including increased death to both American's and Iraqis plus it could destabilize the region leading to far more death and suffering.
Tim: Exactly, let's do this.

 

[RandFan]

If anything, I've suggested the opposite, to wit: it is hypocritical to cite the "stability" Saddam wrought as an argument against his forcible overthrow, while simultaneously going on and on ad infinitum about a few instances of waterboarding.

I'm curious, is it hypocritical not to invade North Korea?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If anything, I've suggested the opposite, to wit: it is hypocritical to cite the "stability" Saddam wrought as an argument against his forcible overthrow, while simultaneously going on and on ad infinitum about a few instances of waterboarding.

Saddam used torture, yes. That means we shouldn't complain about our government torturing people?! Really?!?!

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm curious, is it hypocritical not to invade North Korea?

No, because the cost of an invasion is too high.

 

[Toontown]

I don't understand your logic.

I know.

See post above. See all posts above.

What I'm trying to figure out (literally) is how and why I defended torture in the first place. The studies I've uncovered have been fascinating. The notion that humans have a "nature" that is either good or bad is so absurd one wonders how the error came about in the first place.

Perhaps I can help you to understand yourself. You probably supported waterboarding because you were aware of it's purpose, which was to save lives from terrorist attacks. Then you became convinced that waterboarding was unlikely to obtain any life-saving information and changed your mind.*

IOW, you were for it when you thought it might save lives, and against it when you thought it wouldn't. Both utilitarian positions.

* Edited to more accurately reflect the OP's position.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Saddam's regime ran rape camps. Therefore people who cite "stability" in Iraq shouldn't be against rape.

 

[Toontown]

If anything, I've suggested the opposite, to wit: it is hypocritical to cite the "stability" Saddam wrought as an argument against his forcible overthrow, while simultaneously going on and on ad infinitum about a few instances of waterboarding.

Saddam used torture, yes. That means we shouldn't complain about our government torturing people?! Really?!?!

Wow. Your reading comprehension truly sucks.

 

[RandFan]

IOW, you were for it when you thought it might save lives, and against it when you thought it wouldn't. Both utilitarian positions.

???

I've admitted that it CAN save lives.

Please slow down and read what I write.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wow. Your reading comprehension truly sucks.

it is hypocritical to cite the "stability" Saddam wrought as an argument against his forcible overthrow, while simultaneously going on and on ad infinitum about a few instances of rape-camps.

 

[Toontown]

Saddam's regime ran rape camps. Therefore people who cite "stability" in Iraq shouldn't be against rape.

No. What they shouldn't do is cite the "stability" as an argument against his overthrow, given the means by which he achieved the (faux) stability, particularly in light of the fact that it is a deeply questionable use of the word "stability" in the first place.

A hypocrisy made even more glaring when the perp then goes on and on ad infinitum about a few instances of waterboarding, intended to gain information to save lives.

 

[RandFan]

IOW, you were for it when you thought it might save lives, and against it when you thought it wouldn't. Both utilitarian positions.

BTW: Utilitarian argument are only valid in the aggregate. It might save 5 people now to kill one person and use his organs for the rest but that puts everyone in jeopardy of being the next organ donor.

The problem with most people and utilitarian ethics is they don't consider the big picture. They just want to find a way to justify their immorality. I need money therefore robbing a bank is moral from a utilitarian perspective. No.

 

[RandFan]

No. What they shouldn't do is cite the "stability" as an argument against his overthrow, given the means by which he achieved the (faux) stability...

Moral dilemma is not itself justification for atrocity.