Torture poll
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
That a boy! Get it all out.
You are beginning to look more like you are. In time, as you tell more people to drop dead, your real self will be out in the open. Go ahead, tell the gang what a terrible thing I did that made you tell me to drop dead. Are you having fun yet?
If you are not strong enough and if you want to put me on ignore, why do you keep trying and coming after me in third party conversations. Face it, it is an addiction this psychological disorder thing.
Tell you what, every time you confront me with something that is not intellectually related to the thread, I will remind you of your emotional addiction and you can gain control of yourself.
You have lost control again. You may not have noticed but you and your buddies have destroyed Pure's thread. Shame on you. Get back on topic or get the hell out of here.
Well, tbat's ok! You belong here.
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
This thread is becoming more of a show and tell for the crazies than a discussion on torture. thanks for the contribution to show and tell. We really needed your contribution since people were doubting me on the addiction thing.
kendo1
Coinneach Odhar Fiosaiche
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Posts
- 9,383
Newbie.
Hay! You don't have to be here. You don't have to make any comments. I have not addressed you! It is that emotional addiction thing you know. This was really a good thread until the gang of crazies started with the defiance of authority figures. That would be me and Amicus.Just put it on ignore, Ken. The board's much nicer without it.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Just had a thought...let me see if I can put voice to it.
Since wmrs2 appeared on the scene, not so long ago, some rather curious events have transpired.
Something huge has been unleashed here, that caught me by surprise, as I have long been contesting the lack of ethics and morals expressed by the dominant group controlling this forum.
I do so on a rational basis, with reason and logic and the occasional reference to history, philosophy and current events by links and documentation.
Those here express their disapproval of any one daring to question the morality of abortion, gay rights, socialism, anti capitalism, anti previous incumbent, you know, the whole nine yards that the choir plows, day to day.
Along comes, from out of nowhere, a right wing fundamentalist Christian, who also questioned the lack of ethics and morals. Not only that, but attributing the expressed mental disarray of those without a foundation for moral decisions, to a mental illness, and for crying-out-loud, brought along some experience and anecdotal confirmations of aberrant disorders.
Even more amazing was the uproar created as the 'usual suspects' swarmed in for what they assumed would be 'the kill', blood-lust and all, by the ganging up, thread-jacking, Trolling and even bragging how those who controlled this forum had smacked the new-comer down and good.
One cannot judge the number of those who, 'lurk' and seldom, if ever post, but however many or few, the past several weeks have been good theatre and, I think, confirmed to all but those who drank the koolaid, that the little clique here has been exposed for just what they are.
It would be nice if this forum could become a place of open discussion, diverse with all points of view welcomed, instead of the tiny community of same thought liberals that claim ownership.
We shall see.
Amicus...
Since wmrs2 appeared on the scene, not so long ago, some rather curious events have transpired.
Something huge has been unleashed here, that caught me by surprise, as I have long been contesting the lack of ethics and morals expressed by the dominant group controlling this forum.
I do so on a rational basis, with reason and logic and the occasional reference to history, philosophy and current events by links and documentation.
Those here express their disapproval of any one daring to question the morality of abortion, gay rights, socialism, anti capitalism, anti previous incumbent, you know, the whole nine yards that the choir plows, day to day.
Along comes, from out of nowhere, a right wing fundamentalist Christian, who also questioned the lack of ethics and morals. Not only that, but attributing the expressed mental disarray of those without a foundation for moral decisions, to a mental illness, and for crying-out-loud, brought along some experience and anecdotal confirmations of aberrant disorders.
Even more amazing was the uproar created as the 'usual suspects' swarmed in for what they assumed would be 'the kill', blood-lust and all, by the ganging up, thread-jacking, Trolling and even bragging how those who controlled this forum had smacked the new-comer down and good.
One cannot judge the number of those who, 'lurk' and seldom, if ever post, but however many or few, the past several weeks have been good theatre and, I think, confirmed to all but those who drank the koolaid, that the little clique here has been exposed for just what they are.
It would be nice if this forum could become a place of open discussion, diverse with all points of view welcomed, instead of the tiny community of same thought liberals that claim ownership.
We shall see.
Amicus...
Are you addicted too?
Please do not destroy Pure's thread. she has worked hard to see you contribute to its destruction like you did my thread. If you want to loin RABD, do it somewhere else.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Can't they ever be from someplace besides the United States? It's embarrassing, as if the AH is an international film festival and the American entry is always "Birth of a Nation." Even on Ignore, these people have Ku Klux Klan written all over them and half the time, they spell KKK incorrectly.
Seriously, other nations. Show us your lunatics! Share. Please.
[/threadjack]
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
You're right, of course. You have every right to interact with the creature. I wish no one would; wmrs2icus would go away then, and there would be a 100% reduction in posts hinting that Hitler made some positive contributions.
I wish. But if wishes were horses, our dreams would be a dung heap.
On the upside, if he's busy here he's not cruising the internet for fifteen year old girls to "counsel."
Forge ahead.
Last edited:
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Too late. I've spent my second ignore on the creature.
Shereads, you best go back to your depression and mental health thread and get some comfort before you flip out on us. I have seen patients like you go completely catatonic. I tried to tell you that rage is addictive. Once you begin, you can not stop. Your children learn it, other parents isolate you, talk about you at PTA meetings, and when you need friends, there are not there anymore. These crazies you run around with will make things worse for you. If you want to get well, you must try and you need to make friends. not enemies.
The friends you have now are worse than enemies because you see that they will stab you in the back at anytime. What I am trying to tell you is that you have been abused enough, so don't make things worse. You are not strong enough mentally to take us on.
Yes, positive contribution, that is what you and sr71plt did, trolled in and hijacked my thread. The way I make you pay is I expose you. That is how you will lose respect on this forum. You earn it. Going around telling people to drop dead, and fuck off does not earn respect from decent people. So, keep throwing slurs at me; that is how people come to see your madness.
We no longer answer you insults for your benefit. It is for the other members of the forum who do not want their threads hijacked.
Sr71plt refers to his worshipers as a gang. That is what they are, a part of a gang. That is what they called themselves when they congratulated each other for destroying my thread. I have had experiences with gangs. They have the lowest moral character and ethics of all those who dwell at the bottom of society.
Here on the AH the RABD think they run things but out in the real world, you are the freaks of society. That is why you huddle here together where you feel like big shots. But you made a mistake when you needlessly attack this black girl. I shit people like RABD every day and they learn to like or leave me alone.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
demonstration re torture.
those proclaiming absolute principles has, above, offered little specifics except to say that absolute respect for life requres torture to preserve American society, and, anyway, we're dealing with barbarians.
the absolute, self evident value systems are riddled with holes and exceptions and defended most often with insults of 'relativist', 'traitor,' 'idiot, 'subversivie' 'insane'.... name calling.
absolutist don't agree among themselves on most issues.
since the liberal case against torture is rather straight forward, and has been offerend in parts by several posters, i will summarize it here, in point form.
============
BASICS OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY (REVISED UTILITARIANISM)
[the points are either axioms, plausible truths, or reasonably well- supported empirical statements; hence the conclusion is 'most likely', but a sound basis for action]
A. happiness of humans is the highest human value. it's based in the objective satisfaction of basic and other needs and desires, and fulfillment of potential.
B. human individuals are equal.
C. the happinesses of individuals are to be treated as equal, hence their being more widely spread as compared to less, is a social good.
D. hence the greatest happiness of the greatest number (common good; maximal 'well being'(welfare) of the society) is the objective standard for morality, what's 'good' in the realm of action. ... thus the recommended action--the one that's most good, i.e. best-- is that which generates more of the common good, and less common evil, than the alternatives.
qualifications: 1) acts are to be objectively evaluated by their generic "type" and in accord with the issue of general practice of that type of action, that is, following a *rule.*
2) 'fairness', and due process for achieving it is a objective social good.
3) as far as the ingredients of happiness go, wherever possible we balance/weigh, objectively, similar items or similarly important items. IOW, we weigh the life of my family members versus the life of the home invader.
but we do not weigh the entertainment of my family against the life of someone [the neighbor whom we could murder so as to get his money.] iow, there is a hierarchy of 'goods'/ingredients to happiness; the weighings honor it.
4) respect for human dignity, in objective terms, is a crucial ingredient in individual happiness and in the welfare of a society.
5) political/social freedom, in objective terms, is another crucial component of social well being.
===
Torture considered, according to the basic principles, above.
a) torture objectively offends against human dignity. 4.
b) torture usually objectively offends against due process. [i.e. it's used against 'suspects'] 2.
c) torture offends, objectively, against political social freedom. 5.
d) liability to torture and fear of it objectively undermines the general welfare. D.
e) while there are occasionally benefits, of a particular act or torture, to the whole [prevention of attacks, for example] the actual benefits of most acts are small or non existent; OR they are
achievable, often, without torture. D., 3.
Hence, from the principles and from a) to e):
e) torture as a rule/practice, then, on balance objectively, is (most likely) not good.
f) an act of torture is, objectively, is (most likely)not good.
those proclaiming absolute principles has, above, offered little specifics except to say that absolute respect for life requres torture to preserve American society, and, anyway, we're dealing with barbarians.
the absolute, self evident value systems are riddled with holes and exceptions and defended most often with insults of 'relativist', 'traitor,' 'idiot, 'subversivie' 'insane'.... name calling.
absolutist don't agree among themselves on most issues.
since the liberal case against torture is rather straight forward, and has been offerend in parts by several posters, i will summarize it here, in point form.
============
BASICS OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY (REVISED UTILITARIANISM)
[the points are either axioms, plausible truths, or reasonably well- supported empirical statements; hence the conclusion is 'most likely', but a sound basis for action]
A. happiness of humans is the highest human value. it's based in the objective satisfaction of basic and other needs and desires, and fulfillment of potential.
B. human individuals are equal.
C. the happinesses of individuals are to be treated as equal, hence their being more widely spread as compared to less, is a social good.
D. hence the greatest happiness of the greatest number (common good; maximal 'well being'(welfare) of the society) is the objective standard for morality, what's 'good' in the realm of action. ... thus the recommended action--the one that's most good, i.e. best-- is that which generates more of the common good, and less common evil, than the alternatives.
qualifications: 1) acts are to be objectively evaluated by their generic "type" and in accord with the issue of general practice of that type of action, that is, following a *rule.*
2) 'fairness', and due process for achieving it is a objective social good.
3) as far as the ingredients of happiness go, wherever possible we balance/weigh, objectively, similar items or similarly important items. IOW, we weigh the life of my family members versus the life of the home invader.
but we do not weigh the entertainment of my family against the life of someone [the neighbor whom we could murder so as to get his money.] iow, there is a hierarchy of 'goods'/ingredients to happiness; the weighings honor it.
4) respect for human dignity, in objective terms, is a crucial ingredient in individual happiness and in the welfare of a society.
5) political/social freedom, in objective terms, is another crucial component of social well being.
===
Torture considered, according to the basic principles, above.
a) torture objectively offends against human dignity. 4.
b) torture usually objectively offends against due process. [i.e. it's used against 'suspects'] 2.
c) torture offends, objectively, against political social freedom. 5.
d) liability to torture and fear of it objectively undermines the general welfare. D.
e) while there are occasionally benefits, of a particular act or torture, to the whole [prevention of attacks, for example] the actual benefits of most acts are small or non existent; OR they are
achievable, often, without torture. D., 3.
Hence, from the principles and from a) to e):
e) torture as a rule/practice, then, on balance objectively, is (most likely) not good.
f) an act of torture is, objectively, is (most likely)not good.
Last edited:
slyc_willie
Captain Crash
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Posts
- 17,732
When I've been part of an interrogation, neither the subject nor idea of physical torture was ever brought up or used. Psychological torture . . . that's debatable. The use of certain coercive measures, such as harsh lighting, uncomfortable temperatures, blowing cigarette smoke in a suspect's face, etc, were routinely used, and in conjunction with artful questioning and use of available information, were quite effective.
But our suspects were always people who had something to lose.
I had the opportunity to observe a couple of Mossad agents on one occassion do their thing on a terrorist suspect. They themselves admitted that they only used torture when interrogation netted them nothing, and never for the purposes of getting a confession. Torture was only used, as a last resort, to exact verifiable data from a suspect. In other words, "Where is X?" with the knowledge that the location of X could be either verified or disproved. Their suspects, therefore, knew that giving false information would result in a return visit from the Mossad and potential worsening of the torture.
I admit I was not at all comfortable watching what I witnessed (and please don't ask me for details), but I accepted that there were times in which extreme measures could be called for. Does that make it right or wrong? I dunno. Questions of morality are put aside when you're in the situation. Even observing what I did, I felt numb. Detached.
If I was put into a position in which, based on reliable intel, I had a suspect who knew the location of, say, a nuclear warhead in an American city, you bet your ass I'd do whatever it took to get the location of that bomb from the suspect. Some goes for a pedophile who had kidnapped and hidden a child, as another example.
Torture when used to extract a confession is never reliable. When used as a means to uncover an empirically verifiable fact (such as a location of something), it's as reliable as interrogation, and potentially more so.
I don't envy those who are routinely placed in the position to administer such practices. I firmly believe that you lose a bit of humanity if you practice torture. But even with that belief, in the examples suuplied above, I'd do it, and not think about the morality of my actions.
I would, however, lament the loss of a portion of my soul.
I don't doubt a few will blast me about this, and I understand. This is a touchy issue. I'm not going to take the easy road of, "You ain't never been there, so don't preach to me." I'm just giving my views, and that's it.
But our suspects were always people who had something to lose.
I had the opportunity to observe a couple of Mossad agents on one occassion do their thing on a terrorist suspect. They themselves admitted that they only used torture when interrogation netted them nothing, and never for the purposes of getting a confession. Torture was only used, as a last resort, to exact verifiable data from a suspect. In other words, "Where is X?" with the knowledge that the location of X could be either verified or disproved. Their suspects, therefore, knew that giving false information would result in a return visit from the Mossad and potential worsening of the torture.
I admit I was not at all comfortable watching what I witnessed (and please don't ask me for details), but I accepted that there were times in which extreme measures could be called for. Does that make it right or wrong? I dunno. Questions of morality are put aside when you're in the situation. Even observing what I did, I felt numb. Detached.
If I was put into a position in which, based on reliable intel, I had a suspect who knew the location of, say, a nuclear warhead in an American city, you bet your ass I'd do whatever it took to get the location of that bomb from the suspect. Some goes for a pedophile who had kidnapped and hidden a child, as another example.
Torture when used to extract a confession is never reliable. When used as a means to uncover an empirically verifiable fact (such as a location of something), it's as reliable as interrogation, and potentially more so.
I don't envy those who are routinely placed in the position to administer such practices. I firmly believe that you lose a bit of humanity if you practice torture. But even with that belief, in the examples suuplied above, I'd do it, and not think about the morality of my actions.
I would, however, lament the loss of a portion of my soul.
I don't doubt a few will blast me about this, and I understand. This is a touchy issue. I'm not going to take the easy road of, "You ain't never been there, so don't preach to me." I'm just giving my views, and that's it.
Last edited:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
That is, of course, way too silly for serious consideration, but...
...you might consider 'human life' as the first and primary value, since no happiness is possible without having a life...of which...you have not.
Wasn't there a book somewhere, To Have and Have Not? Or sumpin like dat.
ami
...you might consider 'human life' as the first and primary value, since no happiness is possible without having a life...of which...you have not.
Wasn't there a book somewhere, To Have and Have Not? Or sumpin like dat.
ami
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
SLICK
'Torture' works when its necessary to use it. Most people dont have the stamina to resist intense and chronic pain. But there are worse things you can do to get cooperation, and they involve no pain at all.
'Torture' works when its necessary to use it. Most people dont have the stamina to resist intense and chronic pain. But there are worse things you can do to get cooperation, and they involve no pain at all.
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
This is reframing.
To reiterate, if you aren't willing to stick your neck out to break the law, how necessary is it? I really don't think the solution is to redefine torture as some sort of humanitarianism.
