Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Most Americans believe torture can be justified - poll

Options
1…7891113

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    is there a difference?
    the advice of the Army was this is nuts and we'd be wiped out.

    Well if you can't see the difference between a government taking action as a government and an individual who happens to be a member of a government taking action on his own initiative.........


  • Options
    #303
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    These Quassam/Grad/Fajr5/M302 rockets are fired indiscriminately into Israel, without any guidance system, towards populated areas.

    they are just fired when gaza is being attacked. they are not aimed at civilian areas but at military installations.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Some of them cost about 500 bucks to make. That the Israelis manage to shoot down most, and other fall in fields, doesn't diminish the fact that civilian population centers are targeted.

    not deliberately
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Fact: You very clearly stated you condone Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.
    You even stood over them.

    if the israelies wanna go play slaughter the children in gaza, then they can't be surprised if something gets thrown back at them.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    And yet you claim I have twisted your words.

    you have.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    I condemn targeting civilians, you cant even bring yourself to do that.

    i did.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    You have proven yourself incapable of coherent debate, rational thought, and without the capacity to consider anything from a different perspective.

    nonsense. i just see terrorism from a state who claims to be a democracy and an equal fair society, backed by the US and armed to the hilt, and when they get called out for doing something they know dam well they shouldn't be doing, cry anti-cemitism
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Based on your ramblings to date, you are also probably anti semitic.

    yeah. if being against a country who slaughters left right and centre makes me against the religion it is of then thats okay, i can live with it. not ramblings at all, the truth. sorry if it hits a nerve.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Add me to your ignore list, as I have you. You have nothing to offer.

    i've a hell of a lot to offer. but people like yourself seem to think that a certain state has the right to do as it sees fit, because people from the religion it is of were persecuted and slaughtered. i don't add people to my ignore list.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #304
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Well if you can't see the difference between a government taking action as a government and an individual who happens to be a member of a government taking action on his own initiative.........

    Twas a bit of both really, should you care to read up on it


  • Options
    #305
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Anybody who thinks that torturing somebody is acceptable, is repulsive and reprehensible. Anybody who seeks loopholes to excuse torturing somebody is revolting.

    Why would you sign up to an international BAN on this sickening practice but then look for ways to exempt yourself from that treaty?

    If your lame excuse as to allow torture is that "What if some person had a bomb planted that could kill many and you torturing them might save lives?" ...then I say fuck you!

    You could use the same excuse for anally raping a child. And before anyone says that the toddler about to be sodomised wouldn't have planted a bomb or whatever ridiculous scenario you want to dream up to justify beating, starving and drowning a man, you could also hypothetically conduct these abhorrent acts on the son or daughter of someone who you wanted to crack.

    The stomach-churning John Yoo, who currently is still lecturing "law" at Harvard even wrote theses to determine the validity or effectiveness of crushing a child's testicles in the presence of his parents to "glean" information.

    To those who even contemplate torturing someone I would wonder what you would think is good and what you would think is evil.


  • Options
    #306
    wylie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭wylie


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Anybody who thinks that torturing somebody is acceptable, is repulsive and reprehensible. Anybody who seeks loopholes to excuse torturing somebody is revolting.

    Why would you sign up to an international BAN on this sickening practice but then look for ways to exempt yourself from that treaty?

    If your lame excuse as to allow torture is that "What if some person had a bomb planted that could kill many and you torturing them might save lives?" ...then I say fuck you!

    No point in reading anymore,

    some people can only see it as black and white, its not that simple.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    wylie wrote: »
    No point in reading anymore,

    some people can only see it as black and white, its not that simple.
    its very simple. condoning torture, means you condone terrorism. only terrorists use torture as a method for anything

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #308
    wylie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭wylie


    end of the road wrote: »
    its very simple. condoning torture, means you condone terrorism. only terrorists use torture as a method for anything

    No it doesn't.


  • Options
    #309
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    wylie wrote: »
    No point in reading anymore,

    some people can only see it as black and white, its not that simple.

    It's not that simple? No?

    Then explain why there is an international BAN on torture?
    Why is there a treaty ratified by just about every nation on the planet outlawing torture?

    Are all these nations deluded and you are in possession of some unique wisdom of which they are bereft?


  • Options
    #310
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    you cant say shooting someone can be right depending on the situation but torture is always wrong. In theory its a means to an end performed on a "guilty" person to create a better outcome for an innocent party. However in practice and if used by police or military it would be abused and would just become routine violence and many innocent people would be caught up in it. So in reality an unworkable to solution for a civilised society

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #311
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Anybody who thinks that torturing somebody is acceptable, is repulsive and reprehensible. Anybody who seeks loopholes to excuse torturing somebody is revolting.

    Why would you sign up to an international BAN on this sickening practice but then look for ways to exempt yourself from that treaty?

    If your lame excuse as to allow torture is that "What if some person had a bomb planted that could kill many and you torturing them might save lives?" ...then I say fuck you!

    You could use the same excuse for anally raping a child. And before anyone says that the toddler about to be sodomised wouldn't have planted a bomb or whatever ridiculous scenario you want to dream up to justify beating, starving and drowning a man, you could also hypothetically conduct these abhorrent acts on the son or daughter of someone who you wanted to crack.

    The stomach-churning John Yoo, who currently is still lecturing "law" at Harvard even wrote theses to determine the validity or effectiveness of crushing a child's testicles in the presence of his parents to "glean" information.

    To those who even contemplate torturing someone I would wonder what you would think is good and what you would think is evil.

    I'm not disagreeing with your point - but I think your argument for it is bad. I believe you are committing a logical fallacy (Appeal to Extremes).

    We regularly punish people for their crimes. We assess fines, garnish wages, put them in jail, revoke privileges and all sorts of stuff. At one point, we even put people to death.

    Your argument is that we shouldn't do X because we could do X to someone's children, and that would be morally wrong. But even if locking up a parent's child is an effective deterrent for crime, we can (and do) choose not to do it. I've never heard of a case where we directly punish a child for the crimes of a parent.

    When we talk about torture, in the general sense; it seems people all want to give extreme examples of why it is bad. For example, people might say, 'Torture is bad because the US tortured innocent people! We shouldn't allow torture'. But *any* punishment against an innocent person is immoral....yet we still have a legal system that allows punishments. We don't outlaw prison because it is wrong to imprison an innocent person.

    We have limits for all sorts of other stuff. Even in prison, we have limits and regulations regarding pretty much all aspects of prisoners life. It's punishment, but we have limits. We don't lock up children for the crimes of their parents. We don't intentionally lock up innocent people.

    There is no reason to suggest torture can't be used, and still have those limits. It's entirely possible and reasonable to limit torture to those who are convicted of a crime. And to not allow the torture of innocent children. Or to only allow torture of criminals over a certain age (as we do with many legal punishments, we treat children differently than adults).

    It's fine to be against torture....I just think you're building an argument against a very specific subset of all possible torture. Like if I said all prison is inhumane because a prison cell could be so small the prisoner is forced to stand. The prison cell doesn't have to be extremely small. Torture doesn't have to include sodomy of children.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,435 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    end of the road wrote: »
    its very simple. condoning torture, means you condone terrorism. only terrorists use torture as a method for anything

    A question for you


    If torture is acceptable why don't they do it on the American mainland?


  • Options
    #313
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    end of the road wrote: »
    its very simple. condoning torture, means you condone terrorism. only terrorists use torture as a method for anything

    I'm not sure I'm understanding your use of the word 'terrorism'. Could you provide a definition?

    Google gives:
    the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    By that definition condoning torture *wouldn't* be an act of terrorism, as long as it is officially sanctioned. I mean, let's face it, driving a tank across a battlefield is pretty scary, but we don't generally call it an act of terrorism (it's an act of war, so long as it's done on behalf of a country and not an unauthorized group or person).


  • Options
    #314
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    UCDVet wrote: »
    I'm not disagreeing with your point - but I think your argument for it is bad. I believe you are committing a logical fallacy (Appeal to Extremes).

    We regularly punish people for their crimes. We assess fines, garnish wages, put them in jail, revoke privileges and all sorts of stuff. At one point, we even put people to death.

    Your argument is that we shouldn't do X because we could do X to someone's children, and that would be morally wrong. But even if locking up a parent's child is an effective deterrent for crime, we can (and do) choose not to do it. I've never heard of a case where we directly punish a child for the crimes of a parent.

    When we talk about torture, in the general sense; it seems people all want to give extreme examples of why it is bad. For example, people might say, 'Torture is bad because the US tortured innocent people! We shouldn't allow torture'. But *any* punishment against an innocent person is immoral....yet we still have a legal system that allows punishments. We don't outlaw prison because it is wrong to imprison an innocent person.

    We have limits for all sorts of other stuff. Even in prison, we have limits and regulations regarding pretty much all aspects of prisoners life. It's punishment, but we have limits. We don't lock up children for the crimes of their parents. We don't intentionally lock up innocent people.

    There is no reason to suggest torture can't be used, and still have those limits. It's entirely possible and reasonable to limit torture to those who are convicted of a crime. And to not allow the torture of innocent children. Or to only allow torture of criminals over a certain age (as we do with many legal punishments, we treat children differently than adults).

    It's fine to be against torture....I just think you're building an argument against a very specific subset of all possible torture. Like if I said all prison is inhumane because a prison cell could be so small the prisoner is forced to stand. The prison cell doesn't have to be extremely small. Torture doesn't have to include sodomy of children.

    The definition of torture in the international ban treaty is intentionally vague so as to prevent sadists from trying to shoehorn in certain methods of inflicting pain on people. And comparing torture to punishment is a bit of a stretch.


  • Options
    #315
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    wylie wrote: »
    No it doesn't.
    yes it does

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #316
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    A question for you


    If torture is acceptable why don't they do it on the American mainland?

    i never said its exceptable. far from it. i stated that only terrorists use it, so i'm including the US in that as i see their actions in iraq and so on as terrorism. they don't do it on the mainland because most likely the **** would hit the fan.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #317
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    UCDVet wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'm understanding your use of the word 'terrorism'. Could you provide a definition?

    Google gives:


    By that definition condoning torture *wouldn't* be an act of terrorism, as long as it is officially sanctioned. I mean, let's face it, driving a tank across a battlefield is pretty scary, but we don't generally call it an act of terrorism (it's an act of war, so long as it's done on behalf of a country and not an unauthorized group or person).
    no what i meant was that condoning torture is the same as condoning terrorism. not that condoning it is an act of terrorism, all though to me the act of torture is an act of terrorism, by the fact it has been mostly used to get information to achieve a political aim

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #318
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    UCDVet wrote: »
    I'm not disagreeing with your point - but I think your argument for it is bad. I believe you are committing a logical fallacy (Appeal to Extremes).

    We regularly punish people for their crimes. We assess fines, garnish wages, put them in jail, revoke privileges and all sorts of stuff. At one point, we even put people to death.

    Your argument is that we shouldn't do X because we could do X to someone's children, and that would be morally wrong. But even if locking up a parent's child is an effective deterrent for crime, we can (and do) choose not to do it. I've never heard of a case where we directly punish a child for the crimes of a parent.

    When we talk about torture, in the general sense; it seems people all want to give extreme examples of why it is bad. For example, people might say, 'Torture is bad because the US tortured innocent people! We shouldn't allow torture'. But *any* punishment against an innocent person is immoral....yet we still have a legal system that allows punishments. We don't outlaw prison because it is wrong to imprison an innocent person.

    We have limits for all sorts of other stuff. Even in prison, we have limits and regulations regarding pretty much all aspects of prisoners life. It's punishment, but we have limits. We don't lock up children for the crimes of their parents. We don't intentionally lock up innocent people.

    There is no reason to suggest torture can't be used, and still have those limits. It's entirely possible and reasonable to limit torture to those who are convicted of a crime. And to not allow the torture of innocent children. Or to only allow torture of criminals over a certain age (as we do with many legal punishments, we treat children differently than adults).

    It's fine to be against torture....I just think you're building an argument against a very specific subset of all possible torture. Like if I said all prison is inhumane because a prison cell could be so small the prisoner is forced to stand. The prison cell doesn't have to be extremely small. Torture doesn't have to include sodomy of children.

    I don't really know what to make of this without resorting to abuse. Since you are obviously a proponent of inflicting pain on a person in order to extract information from them then can I assume that you are au fait with torturing anybody suspected of a crime in order to extract from them a confession?
    Any time somebody in Ireland is detained for questioning in relation to a crime then you would be fine with dispensing with jurisprudence and torturing them until they admit to their culpability?

    Are you being sreious? Or are you just taking the proverbial urine?


  • Options
    #319
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    end of the road wrote: »
    no what i meant was that condoning torture is the same as condoning terrorism. not that condoning it is an act of terrorism, all though to me the act of torture is an act of terrorism, by the fact it has been mostly used to get information to achieve a political aim

    Terrorism and torture are completely different acts intended to achieve completely different objective. To conflate the two is not so much to compare apples and oranges as to compare apples and socks.


  • Options
    #320
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    end of the road wrote: »
    no what i meant was that condoning torture is the same as condoning terrorism. not that condoning it is an act of terrorism, all though to me the act of torture is an act of terrorism, by the fact it has been mostly used to get information to achieve a political aim

    Sorry - I misunderstood. Thank you.


  • Options
    #321
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    Egginacup wrote: »
    I don't really know what to make of this without resorting to abuse. Since you are obviously a proponent of inflicting pain on a person in order to extract information from them then can I assume that you are au fait with torturing anybody suspected of a crime in order to extract from them a confession?
    Any time somebody in Ireland is detained for questioning in relation to a crime then you would be fine with dispensing with jurisprudence and torturing them until they admit to their culpability?

    Are you being sreious? Or are you just taking the proverbial urine?

    I'm not obviously a proponent of inflicting pain on a person in order to extract information from them. My post was about the reasoning you used when presenting your argument. Whether someone is for or against torture, I think it's only fair to discuss it reasonably.

    It's possible for someone to support torture, but not the torture of children.
    It's possible for someone to support torture, but not of those who haven't been convicted of a crime.

    It's fine to be against torture, in all forms. But I think we should acknowledge the differences. Just as we put adults in prison, only after being convicted, it's at *least* possible, we could do the same with torture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Terrorism and torture are completely different acts intended to achieve completely different objective.

    both can be used for different aims, but they have been mostly used for political aims

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #323
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,970 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Egginacup wrote: »

    Then explain why there is an international BAN on torture?
    Why is there a treaty ratified by just about every nation on the planet outlawing torture?

    Are all these nations deluded and you are in possession of some unique wisdom of which they are bereft?

    What treaty are you talking about?


  • Options
    #324
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    end of the road wrote: »
    both can be used for different aims, but they have been mostly used for political aims

    Not really, I'd say most instances of torture are used to extract 'operational' info to direct, initiate or otherwise influence police or military operstions.

    Terrorism is inherently political, torture can be applied to political ends, but isn't always.


  • Options
    #325
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,435 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    end of the road wrote: »
    i never said its exceptable. far from it. i stated that only terrorists use it, so i'm including the US in that as i see their actions in iraq and so on as terrorism. they don't do it on the mainland because most likely the **** would hit the fan.

    I quoted wrong post sorry i meant to ask pro torture people


  • Options
    #326
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    UCDVet wrote: »
    I'm not obviously a proponent of inflicting pain on a person in order to extract information from them. My post was about the reasoning you used when presenting your argument. Whether someone is for or against torture, I think it's only fair to discuss it reasonably.

    It's possible for someone to support torture, but not the torture of children.
    It's possible for someone to support torture, but not of those who haven't been convicted of a crime.

    It's fine to be against torture, in all forms. But I think we should acknowledge the differences. Just as we put adults in prison, only after being convicted, it's at *least* possible, we could do the same with torture.

    I'm sorry but I am baffled as to why you're even bringing up "someone who has been convicted of a crime" in relation to discussing torture. What has that got to do with it?


  • Options
    #327
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    What treaty are you talking about?

    I presume it's the 'Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment' people are referring to?


  • Options
    #328
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    What treaty are you talking about?

    The United Nations Convention Against Torture.


  • Options
    #329
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    Egginacup wrote: »
    I'm sorry but I am baffled as to why you're even bringing up "someone who has been convicted of a crime" in relation to discussing torture. What has that got to do with it?

    Well, you asked me if I supported torturing people suspected of a crime.
    can I assume that you are au fait with torturing anybody suspected of a crime in order to extract from them a confession?

    It seems pretty relevant. Someone could certainly support the torture of a CONVICTED criminal, but not of a suspected criminal. And of course, plenty of people are against both.


  • Options
    #330
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    UCDVet wrote: »
    Well, you asked me if I supported torturing people suspected of a crime.


    It seems pretty relevant. Someone could certainly support the torture of a CONVICTED criminal, but not of a suspected criminal. And of course, plenty of people are against both.

    So, if someone is convicted of a crime, there's an argument to be made for torturing them? To what end?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,970 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Egginacup wrote: »
    The United Nations Convention Against Torture.

    Who signed that?


Advertisement