Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Okay. Then let's say that you have ten prisoners that our repeatedly flawed intelligence suggests might know something about an attack that might happen. However, you also know that all of the prisoners were reported to be "terrorists" by neighbors who have grudges against them.
Torture them? Yes or no?
|
Why is that relevant? What is that relevant towards?
Please read what I wrote to Ty:
You said that I lacked values when I said that sometimes it was moral to torture someone. In other words, a person that says torture is moral in any circumstance lacks values. That is an absolute. When you use an absolute that makes hypotheticals (even impractical or rare hypotheticals) appropriate to test that absolute. If you use the terms the majority or most, then extreme hypotheticals are not appropriate. You were not reserving your sweeping absolute for only practical situations. So to see if you really meant what you said, I asked you if it was moral for someone to torture someone in the ticking time bomb situation, because you had used a sweeping absolute. If you really meant what you said, then you should have immediately said torture is immoral in that situation.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, I read them over and over again. You set up a tautology, where your assumptions can only support your conclusions. The basis for your assumptions ranges from gut feel to anecdote. You ignore every contrary fact -- like that we end up torturing innocent people, including our own informants. Like that we create more enemies then we find this way (the number of insurgents in Iraq continues to grow. Why do you think that is?) Like that we lose popular support that we need (the US is widely viewed, particularly in Muslim countries like the one we are supposedly liberating, as the enemy. Do you think torture -- Abu Ghraib -- has anything to do with that?)
|
You said that I only used the Ticking Time bomb case to justify the use of torture in the War on Terror. The above post establishes that I only used tithe ticking time bomb example to refute an absolutist statement used by Ty and used the extended assumptions to justify the use of torture in the war on terror. Can you not acknowledge that?
I posted the extended assumptions again for the purposes of disputing your assertion, not because I wanted to debate the merits of those extended assumptions. Isn't that obvious? Why are you rambling on about the merits of those extended assumptions, instead of acknowledging your assertion was shown to be fallacious by my post?
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's not a "scenario". It's a "fabrication." It has roots only in your imagination, not in reality.
Do you grasp that?
|
Don't you grasp that whether or not it has any basis in reality (which I dispute) is irrelevant. I referred to the example (i didn't make it up, it has been discussed before by Ty and others before) to refute his absolutist statement. Even if he had said that it is almost without exception that the use of torture is wrong, then the hypothetical would not have been relevant. But he said that if you argue that torture is ever moral then you have no values. The absolutist statements make the hypothetical relevant. We were discussing the ethereal subject of morality in terms of absolutes making the hypothetical pertinent to the discussion.
Is such a simple point really so hard for you to wrap your mind around?
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I paid attention to your posts. That's how I recognized how idiotic they were.
|
We could argue whether or not they were idiotic, but you can't you see that wither they were idiotic is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch But thanks for confirming your complete inability to back up yet another stupid position with anything resembling a fact-based argument.
|
Than you for confirming you complete inability to follow a logical train of thought.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You don't have a clue what a "war" is;
|
I am sorry, I forgot? What experiences have you had that make you such an expert?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch you are just an armchair neocon strategist, and a hard-core Republican loyalist, grasping for straws in the effort to validate the flawed policies that have led to the most poorly managed military and diplomatic operation in US history.
|
Save it for the old ladies that you play bridge with. Remember there are a few lawyers on this board that appreciate actual substantive arguments, that have a logical flow and that are supported by evidence.
What did you say you did for a living? Are you a televangelist? Used car salesmen?
