• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboarding Rocks!

Upchurch said:
In this hypothetical scenario, of course, there are no other alternatives. It's either take the money or let millions die slowly, painfully from illness and starvation.
Click to expand...

See my post on this above. Or ignore it as you are more likely to do. :D
 
You're avoiding the question, BAC. If you could take a sufficient amount of money from the rich to feed, etc. the poor, would you? Yes or no?
 
Brainster said:
Personally, I applaud the Obama Administration's decision to risk political suicide for a principle. And I expect it to indeed turn out to be political suicide in the event of a serious terrorist attack in the USA.
Click to expand...
After 9/11, no-one blamed Bush for being insufficiently barbaric to prevent it.

On the other hand, I guess Bush's opponents were Democrats.

But if this is a hill they're willing to die on, you gotta respect that. Even if they're only going to figuratively die while others will die quite literally.
Click to expand...
Unless, in the event of a serious terrorist attack in the USA, the terrorists should by some whilom chance decide to attack Washington DC.

Surely the Obama administration are in fact among the most likely targets, and, if their policy is risky, are among those most put at risk by it?
 
BeAChooser said:
See my post on this above. Or ignore it as you are more likely to do. :D
Click to expand...

From your silence, you would apparently rather allow millions of people die from starvation and illness than to take money from those who can afford it. Your silence speaks volumes about your lack of moral clarity

/BAC
 
boloboffin said:
It corresponds exactly. Heaven and hell = prevent a terrorist attack by torturing, don't prevent it by not torturing. If the terrorist attack doesn't exist actually, then you have either not tortured someone (lived your life the way you wanted) or tortured someone that deserves to be tortured anyway (led a moral life and gained the earthly benefit of that).
Click to expand...

See the tortured mental contortions that some will go to in order to deny that there is a difference in evil (morality) between causing temporary pain to one person and allowing the murder of 100,000 to occur when you could possibly have stopped it? :rolleyes: Such is the insanity of the left.
 
Upchurch said:
Got it: Appeal to emotion is a sound reason for discarding principle.
Click to expand...

So how ironic that you folks are using your emotions rather than rational thought when you mandate that there is no circumstances where applying even temporary pain and discomfort to elicit information is justified.
 
BeAChooser said:
No, I'm just anxious to understand what you folks REALLY believe is the value of human life. Apparently, not very much. :D
Click to expand...
Says the guy who would rather see millions of people starve than take money from the rich. Apparently, human life is worth less to you than money.

/BAC
 
Dr Adequate said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Do you know how many trillions have been thrown at the War On Poverty in the US so far? TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS. Yet there are just as many poor people today as there were back in the 60s.

You remember how your own figures proved you wrong?
Click to expand...

There were about 30 million poor in the US in the early 1960s. Forty-five years later, after spending about 10 trillion dollars on programs aimed at bringing people out of poverty, there are about 30 million poor in the US. And in fact, the poverty rate was dropping just as fast before the WOP began as it did at any time after the WOP began. In fact, once WOP spending (call it encouraged dependency) kicked in, the rate at which the poverty rate was decreasing slowed and finally leveled off entirely. So clearly you either don't know what you are talking about ... again ... or you are a liar as to what my own figures proved.
 
BeAChooser said:
There were about 30 million poor in the US in the early 1960s. Forty-five years later, after spending about 10 trillion dollars on programs aimed at bringing people out of poverty, there are about 30 million poor in the US. And in fact, the poverty rate was dropping just as fast before the WOP began as it did at any time after the WOP began. In fact, once WOP spending (call it encouraged dependency) kicked in, the rate at which the poverty rate was decreasing slowed and finally leveled off entirely. So clearly you either don't know what you are talking about ... again ... or you are a liar as to what my own figures proved.
Click to expand...

What was the population in the early 1960's and now?
 
SezMe said:
BAC, how would you integrate this into your scenario?
Click to expand...

SM, I'm just still waiting for you to answer my question. :D

And regardless of what your 2002 document says, there are named CIA experts saying that waterboarding was indeed successful in quickly breaking subjects who had been resistant for weeks and months to conventional interrogation and in causing them to divulge information that was used to prevent planned terrorist attacks and save lives. Now, as I've said, they might be lying. But so might the FBI agents that others cite. The only way to know is for Obama to release the interrogation reports and whatever other data is needed to determine who is lying. So the question now is why Obama is hesitating to do that. I can think of only one reason ... that he knows doing so will embarrass your side of this discussion and cause a reexamination of the policy that he has now staked so much political capital on. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
See the tortured mental contortions that some will go to in order to deny that there is a difference in evil (morality) between causing temporary pain to one person and allowing the murder of 100,000 to occur when you could possibly have stopped it? Such is the insanity of the left.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. "Tortured mental contortions" in BAC-speak means "something that looks confusing and so I don't have to try and understand it."
 
BeAChooser said:
What makes you think we can give money stolen from others to people and stop starvation? Do you know how many trillions have been thrown at the War On Poverty in the US so far? TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS. Yet there are just as many poor people today as there were back in the 60s. Do you know how many tens of billions have been thrown at the war on hunger around the world? And yet that hasn't even dented the number of starving people. When are you leftists going to understand that you don't solve poverty or hunger by making us all poor? That you won't solve it by instituting socialist or communist policies?
Click to expand...
What makes you think we can cause pain and suffering on others to stop terrorism? Do you know how many countless people have been tortured throughout the centuries? millions and millions. Yet there are just as many terrorists today as there were back in the 60, 1760..s. Do you know how many people have been incarcerated and tortured around the world? And yet that hasn't even dented the number of suicide bombers. When are you rightists going to understand that you don't solve terrorism by making us act like terrorists? That you won't solve it by instituting fascist or despotist policies?
 
boloboffin said:
What was the population in the early 1960's and now?
Click to expand...

What does it matter? I stated there were as "many poor people" now as then despite the trillions spent. I said nothing about the percentage of poor being the same (it's not). So DA was simply wrong in claiming my own data proved my statement wrong. I'm surprised I have to tell you this, too. :rolleyes:
 
joobz said:
What makes you think we can cause pain and suffering on others to stop terrorism?
Click to expand...

Seventeen PAGES of debate and you still don't know why I think pain and suffering might prevent certain terrorists acts? :rolleyes:

joobz said:
Do you know how many countless people have been tortured throughout the centuries? millions and millions. Yet there are just as many terrorists today as there were back in the 60, 1760..s.
Click to expand...

But I'm not suggesting we can stop all terrorism by this method. Only some of the terrorists who hope to use WMD to kill tens or even millions of Americans. joobz, I'm just flabbergasted that you still don't understand this despite my having stated exactly that several times now in this thread. It's almost as if you don't understand english. Or maybe you should go back and read the thread before posting on it so you don't embarrass yourself further.
 
BeAChooser said:
Seventeen PAGES of debate and you still don't know why I think pain and suffering might prevent certain terrorists acts? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand. I also understand why people think they can win the lottery. or why some people are addicted to drugs. or why some people like country music..



BeAChooser said:
But I'm not suggesting we can stop all terrorism by this method. Only some of the terrorists who hope to use WMD to kill tens or even millions of Americans.
Click to expand...
And, taking money from the rich can prevent millions from going hungry. No one said it'd end poverty....;)

BeAChooser said:
joobz, I'm just flabbergasted that you still don't understand this despite my having stated exactly that several times now in this thread. It's almost as if you don't understand english. Or maybe you should go back and read the thread before posting on it so you don't embarrass yourself further.
Click to expand...
No embarrassment on my part. But then, I'm not the one completely contradicting myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom