Some say torture has no place in a democracy where people should be protected from the government.
A logical Republican
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Some say torture has no place in a democracy where people should be protected from the government.
1. I don't really see the excusiveness of torture and democracy. What if democracy needs torture to survive/deffended? Also we are talking about torturing the other side...
2. When was the US a democracy?
1. I don't really see the excusiveness of torture and democracy. What if democracy needs torture to survive/deffended? Also we are talking about torturing the other side...
Once you start using methods that are not part of a enlightened democracy you are no democracy anymore. Hence 'What if democracy needs torture to survive/deffended?' is an impossibility.
We are getting offtopic here, but please provide any definition of democracy, where the question of torture is included or addressed.It is really irrelevant to the definition of democracy.
And again, a democracy can torture other countries' citizens, it won't get any less democracy. Just do a democratic poll on: Should a terrorist be tortured if we know he knows the location of a nuke in a big city? The majority will agree with the method>>>democratic decission...
Or here is a better one: Should a child's proven kidnapper be tortured to tell the location of the child, knowing if he doesn't tell, the kid will die in the hiding place?
And again, a democracy can torture other countries' citizens, it won't get any less democracy. Just do a democratic poll on: Should a terrorist be tortured if we know he knows the location of a nuke in a big city? The majority will agree with the method>>>democratic decission...
Or here is a better one: Should a child's proven kidnapper be tortured to tell the location of the child, knowing if he doesn't tell, the kid will die in the hiding place?
no. It's against human rights to torture people.
This is my last one for you, because we are way offtopic. I am happy to debate torture with you, in a different thread. I will of course, win...
1. So kidnapper lives, innocent child, dies. Congratulations. I thought death by exceptional cruelty (starving to death and thirst) was also against human rights, but I wouldn't know...
2. There are no objective human rights. They were made up by a bunch of people. Every human deserves as much rights as they can fight for...
1. So kidnapper lives, innocent child, dies. Congratulations. I thought death by exceptional cruelty (starving to death and thirst) was also against human rights, but I wouldn't know...
2. There are no objective human rights. They were made up by a bunch of people. Every human deserves as much rights as they can fight for...
Torture only knows losers.
superstring01
Moderator
Unbending rules are pointless. There are always situations where ANYTHING might be an acceptable necessity. They are rare, but they do exist.
A known terrorist has information that can unlock the secret to a plot to nuke a city.
Fine, tortue may be necessary. I doubt such occasions come up regularly, but when they do, it pays to have flexible rules that can be maneuvered around an enemy that may otherwise use the unbending ones against a peaceful population. To claim ad hominem that "enlightened nations don't torture" is idiotic. It's like saying, "only enlightened people never kill" which negates the necessity of killing in self defense. There is always the possibility of an extreme situation that can justify extreme measures.
People love unbending rules-- especially extremists (ultra conservatives and ultra liberals) because they force others to be just like them, and extremists want nothing more than conformity to their ideals. Unbending rules are also the recourse of a lazy mind because it relieves said adhearant of the necessity to think out a strategy... and more imporatantly the requirement to take responsibility for his/her actions. It wasn't MY fault, the rules said to do it! People love to be blameless, and unbending rules create the aura of blamelessness... innocence. Unbending rules are a weakness and deny the adhearant the ability (and the responsibility) to act according to the situation at hand. An unbending rule invariably continues until an extreme situation arrises where far too many people are put at risk to the unthinking rule and you get one of two things-- anarchy or (hopefully) an informed re-evaluation of said policy.
Sly quips or witty rejoinders prove nothing. At the end of the day, I will take the sound judgement of a human mind in extreme situations to any unbending rule any day. Who decides what a sound judgement is? We do. It's not a perfect situation, it never can be... but it's preferable to the abandonment of who we are to an unbending and unthinking dogma.
~String
A known terrorist has information that can unlock the secret to a plot to nuke a city.
Fine, tortue may be necessary. I doubt such occasions come up regularly, but when they do, it pays to have flexible rules that can be maneuvered around an enemy that may otherwise use the unbending ones against a peaceful population. To claim ad hominem that "enlightened nations don't torture" is idiotic. It's like saying, "only enlightened people never kill" which negates the necessity of killing in self defense. There is always the possibility of an extreme situation that can justify extreme measures.
People love unbending rules-- especially extremists (ultra conservatives and ultra liberals) because they force others to be just like them, and extremists want nothing more than conformity to their ideals. Unbending rules are also the recourse of a lazy mind because it relieves said adhearant of the necessity to think out a strategy... and more imporatantly the requirement to take responsibility for his/her actions. It wasn't MY fault, the rules said to do it! People love to be blameless, and unbending rules create the aura of blamelessness... innocence. Unbending rules are a weakness and deny the adhearant the ability (and the responsibility) to act according to the situation at hand. An unbending rule invariably continues until an extreme situation arrises where far too many people are put at risk to the unthinking rule and you get one of two things-- anarchy or (hopefully) an informed re-evaluation of said policy.
Sly quips or witty rejoinders prove nothing. At the end of the day, I will take the sound judgement of a human mind in extreme situations to any unbending rule any day. Who decides what a sound judgement is? We do. It's not a perfect situation, it never can be... but it's preferable to the abandonment of who we are to an unbending and unthinking dogma.
~String
Last edited:
superstring01
Moderator
Hey, String! Welcome to Sciforums! Finally somebody who could give me a run for my money, but won't, because we will agree on pretty much everything...
Great minds think alike!
LOL. Thanks. I love this place. I've been peruzing numerous fora for a year now trying to find a good one [stretches out legs and belches]... yup... I'll stick around for a while.
~String
Terrorists wouldn't be interested in nuking a city if it belonged to a country that didn't bend the rules.
Thats all very good, except the "enemy" is often portrayed as torturers, abusers of human rights etc. Hence "they" are 'evil' and "we" are 'good'. When you find yourself employing the same tactics they use, what does that say? Are you standing up for "civilisation" any more? Or simply self preservation at any cost?
And I'm not sure torture is an efficient way to get the truth. The victim is likely to say whatever the think they need to do to stop it - even if its to lie. And how do you know you even have the right guy? Is it acceptable to risk torturing an innocent person in case he's guilty?
Last edited:
I didn't even mention democracy.
Article 5 (Universal declaration of human rights).
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Why? Because you can't come up with a logical position?
superstring01
Moderator
Oh sure. The world would be a perfect utopian society IF ONLY The USA would stop breaking the rules. (one short, unproven quip deserves another)
IT's not like Islam doesn't call for worldwide expansion, after all!
It's perfectly efficient. The lasting cry of the liberal is that "torture doesn't work". Torture works when it's confined to verifiable situations. Your imagination has you thining that it's people being electricuted at random to extract information. One of two tortures are prefered-- water boarding (which the Bush-hating ABC newscasters already showed in preventing several terrorist attacks on the US) and neuro-stimulators (trick the nerves into believing they are being burned, when they arent).
Look. This isn't an arguement for an all out bloodbath. People are so obsessed with an all encompassing, unbending rule. That's moronic. And to claim that the bad guys would just turn around and be rosie-eyed good guys if ONLY "we" would stop slamming the door, is sophomoric logic at it's pinnacle.
Am I defending the Bush admin. No. I'm not a Bush fan (note: I'm a gay agnostic man, the Republicans haven't been exactly kind to us). What I am saying is that we live in a world that loves to outmaneuver free countries because of their rules preventing them from taking measures to defend themselves. Thankfully I live in a country that has enough common sense to see otherwise.
Again, we're back to unbending rules. Why is it so important to have a rule with no acceptions? All the rules YOU live by have exceptions. Don't steal right? But if you kid were starving to death, you bet you'd steal. Don't kill, right? Well, if a guy threatened to rape and kill your wife/daughter, you'd better kill the bastard. Don't lock people in metal cages, right? Well, we do it as a punnishment for people who commit crimes (prison). There are always exceptions to rules.
We live every moment of our lives on the precipice, between good or bad. IT's natural to attempt to create some form of a firewall against the bad-- those are rules of law. The problem is that the rule of law invariably leaves out extraordinary situations which require extraordinary measures. You can NEVER write enough laws to encompass all situations (see: EU Constitution). Therefore, when a situation arrises that requires the circumventing of a law, you are forced to make an exception.
NOT, for simple lazieness or pleasure. You make the exception to the law because NOT making the exception to the law holds greater hazards than just blindly following it. Blind obedience to laws is what Europe has begun to do. Spouting, "the law must be obeyed... the law is the law." Upholding their blamelessness... their innocence to the world and it's people-- "Look, the people of Europe did the GOOD thing, we upheald the law!" How proud an accomplishment that must be. Wow... you blindly followed your new religion-- the law. Blind obedience to a dogma-- now what could be MORE descriptive of Europe! First it was Catholicism, then subplanted by Socialism, Fascism and Communism... now it's blind obedience to a faceless, unthinking law. I will always prefer the judgement of individual minds, even bad ones, to that of an unbending dogma.
The law, however, is nothing but a guideline, to be followed at the best of times. What happens when events occur that threaten all or part of your socity, but to thwart them reuquires you to break the law. Do you allow people to pass into annihilation simply because of some mindless obedience to a law? The law serves the people, not the other way around. When people beging to live and die at the service of a law, that's the beginning of the end, to freedom and to individuality (see-- Nazism, Communism). Yes, they too tortured people-- but they did so as a MATTER of social justice. These senarios aren't a matter of social justics-- they are rare examples of a need to ensure the safety of a nation from attack by an enemy force.
How do we decide? How can there be examples! WE NEED ANOTHER LAW! Ahhh, the battle cry of the extremist. Fixed laws are a recorse for lazy minds-- we don't want to have to actually THINK out each situation and take responsibility for each situation. We'd rather refer to a fixed law and regurgitate it on cue. It's the law... it must be followed! How usefull that must be, instead of having to take the bull by the balls and make the REAL tough decisions. How lazy we people are. A law, a rule... a dogma can be followed to one's own destruction. And often has.
Let me give you an example of SOMETHING we are going to see in our lives: viral and or nano technology leaking to a third world country. What do you do if you discover Iran or North Korea is developing self replicating nanites** or a horrific desease that has the potential to wipe out millions or billions? Don't fool yourself into thinking that they aren't working on such technologies. North Korea certainly is. What happens if you find out that they are nearing the end of their research, but don't know the exact locations of where they are doing the research. Nuclear weapons may be the only answer. What's the alternative? Talks? HA! Threats? No, the alternative is the demise of humanity.
You see, there are ALWAYS exceptions when survival comes into play. Survival is the basist goal of any nation. All else is a house of cards in comparison. I for one, like living and I hold my country to the obligation of ensuring it against any and all threats.
~String
____________________________________________________
**Prince Charles, Emperor Akihito, Bill Gates and other world and industrial leaders are already warning that THIS senario is the most eminent threat to our survival in the next century. They have met several times to discuss the implications of the possibility of a "grey goo" formed of self replicating nanites gettind freed in the environment. The result-- annihilation.
Last edited:
Oh boy... You asked me to discuss torture, I did. Then you object on the base of democracy. I pointed out that torture itself is irrelevant to the definition of democracy (also pointed out that the US is not really a democracy so your objection wouldn't apply anyway). Then you come with human rights, which again is rather irrelevant to the discussion.
But just to statisfy your need for a closure here it is from a power player:
Torture is right when I am doing it to you, and wrong when you want to torture my soldiers.
There you have it. Happy? Was it logical enough?
P.S.: It was based on the "The might is just" rule of life...