Torture poll

[Liar]

THIS JUST IN:

Keith Olberman on MSNBC issued a challenge to Fox News' Sean Hannity, who supports Cheney's contention that waterboarding is not torture: he'll donate a dollar to a veterans' charity for every minute of waterboarding that Hannity can endure.

Correction. He'll donate a thousand dollars for every second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pVO2cD20P8

 

[wmrs2]

Originally Posted by Pure View Post
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.

Let's look at her statement to see what its logic really is. This first: the absolute, self evident value systems are riddled with holes and exceptions The value systems can have only one hole. These system have one premise, the absolute. You defeat the concept of absolute and all systems of morality collapse.

The moral system based on relativity can depend on billions of minds. There can be as many holes in relativity as there are people. How does this relate to the use of torture? It does not. The use of torture relates to character and not belief in the absolute or the disbelief in the absolute. There are as many evil and misbehaving people in each camp to keep the world in continual war. What one believes seems to have little to do with what they do. This of course is a generalization and there are many exceptions on both sides. The exceptions are the only ones that react according to their beliefs. The rest are hypocrites.

Take for example this thread, most of those who make big noble statements about the rights of all men and the nobility of not torturing any person sounds like Voltaire who promised to defend the right of freedom of speech until his very death. Some making statements here are full of hot air only. The truth is found not in what they say but watch what they do. That is the measure of their ethics and character.

The AH is suppose to be a cut above the rest of the forum because of their ability to tolerate the great differences of opinions. Hell, we are all authors and more noble than the masses. We can police ourselves very well, thank you!

A few of my threads have been hijacked by about one half of the people who have posted in favor of not using torture as it violates human rights. Those who hijacked my threads did it by flooding the threads with nonsense. Over 155 nonsense statements were made on one thread alone. Such statements that "the gang from the AH did a good job in taking over the AH."

They congratulated each other for not allowing me to speak. These same people have called me and others names with great cruelty and recklessness. They have not limited themselves to my threads but they continually follow each of my post and comments statements like "don't listen to the troll" and tell me to drop dead, to fuck off, and all kinds of terrible things that should be beneath the dignity of those who do not believe in torture. who believe in freedom of speech, and who praise high moral character.

The best weapon we have on this forum is the ability to point out the evil these people do. Those who practice this evil behavior, forfeit their right by their actions to speak of freedom of speech and the rights of men. It is easy to say and then do not. It takes some character to say and then do what you say.

To all those who visited my threads, who attack me and others personally, who never seem to offer evidence of their arguments, those who do not support mine and everybody elses right to speak the truth as they see it, you should be ashamed to call yourselves members of Ah. Furthermore, the members, whether they be liberal or conservative, should forbid this low characterless behavior. If we are against torture, let us begin here in our own home to renounce abuse.Let's make the AH a place of diversity of opinion and charity also.

It is not my expectation that the people who practice ruthlessness will change; therefore, I will continue to speak against it. I will continue to refrain from calling names, but I will point out the fallacies of your arguments and your unethical behavior. The fact that you keep repeating your foul play offers me many opportunities to shame you. You can, however, stop your foul play at any time.

 

[Submissioness]

It's objectively wrong, except in an emergency, to torture.

I would usually say that it is ALWAYS wrong to torture.

However... I saw an episode of Law and Order: SVU where a man hid a woman in a refrigerator in a dump and wouldn't tell the cops where she was. He was deathly afraid of being locked in closets because his mother used to do it to him. To get him to reveal her location, they threw him in the closet, torturing him, to save the life of the old woman.

Don't tell me it's not torture. He was REALLY freaking out hard core.

I have a fear of torture and I can't watch movies like Hostel where torture is the theme.

 

[Guest]

Hey, wrms?

This thread is not about you.

 

[Guest]

Correction. He'll donate a thousand dollars for every second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pVO2cD20P8

Excellent.

 

[amicus]

There is a program on now, History International Channel, "The Templar Code" which, in part deals with the Inquisition and the torture that religion imposed to maintain control and fear of torture if anyone broke the faith.

I suggest that torture, real torture, has existed far back in ancient times and modern alike with both the Japanese and the Germans and the Russians utilizing various terrible tactics to gain information or simply instill fear if any were thinking about resisting the Empire in question.

Harsh interrogation has been a tactic used by the British and MI5, the Mosaad of Israel and certainly modern Asian Nations such a China and practiced in most middle eastern nations yet today.

If anything can be accurately said of the United States and its' policy of interrogation, it is that it is, without a doubt, the most gentle, comparatively speaking, of any nation in the world.

What is going on now, in the United States is a witch-hunt by the far left to punish and administration they hated and at the same time, the pacifist, consciencious objector, anti war, anti death penalty minority, the ACLU influenced agenda of the far left.

It is consistent with minimum sentences for child molestors, rapists, kidnappers for ransom, that the left has been actively seeking for decades.

This weak stance is perhaps beneficial to moderate those who would go beyond the rules of war and intelligence communities, but for the safety and security of the citizens and the nation at large, the terrorist community must not be led to expect a bed of roses when the violate human life, freedom and property. The legal issues are still a work in progress and this new, international terrorism fomented by radical Muslims and approved in general by the Muslim community at large, will only intensify if the general attitude is they will be treated with kid gloves if captured.

You folks should think this thing through before aiding and abetting terrorists and would be terrorists training at this very moment here and abroad.

Amicus....

 

[wmrs2]

Hey, wrms?

This thread is not about you.

This thread is about everybody who is interested in human rights. Don't you believe in freedom of speech? My opinion stands that character is more than belief, it is what you do. Torture is a big issue and an important one that needs to be settled the best we can. The issue should not be settled with cant that foster hate and revenge as a way of dealing with other people. Do you not understand this simple principle of AH?

 

[cloudy]

Hey, wrms?

This thread is not about you.

in it's mind, it is. Everything is about it.

 

[wmrs2]

in it's mind, it is. Everything is about it.

Shame on you and on Pure's thread too. Be sure to tell your doctor about it on your next visit.

 

[Guest]

in it's mind, it is. Everything is about it.

I've been saying age 14 but my younger children possess better logic and debate skills.

How old is this person, anyway?

 

[freshface]

I've been saying age 14 but my younger children possess better logic and debate skills.

How old is this person, anyway?

I still think there's a group of people behind this ID. It's the only way I can explain its ability to go from coherent to incoherent and back again in the same thread. It has said that it has both a 6th grade education and experience as a therapist, so it still doesn't have its story straight.

 

[Guest]

I still think there's a group of people behind this ID. It's the only way I can explain its ability to go from coherent to incoherent and back again in the same thread. It has said that it has both a 6th grade education and experience as a therapist, so it still doesn't have its story straight.

And a retired black woman, too, if I recall.

And then it's back to the "Neener, neener I'm gonna tell on you!" sort of posts.

Ridiculous. A pointless waste of time to engage, isn't it?

 

[oggbashan]

And a retired black woman, too, if I recall.

And then it's back to the "Neener, neener I'm gonna tell on you!" sort of posts.

Ridiculous. A pointless waste of time to engage, isn't it?

I have put it, whatever it is, on my ignore list.

I agree that it is pointless arguing with whatever/whoever it is. It has real issues that it needs to address but not here.

Og

 

[Guest]

I have put it, whatever it is, on my ignore list.

I agree that it is pointless arguing with whatever/whoever it is. It has real issues that it needs to address but not here.

Og

I have done so, too.

I must be patiently vigilant. Or vigilantly patient.

Once of those, anyway.

 

[freshface]

I have put it, whatever it is, on my ignore list.

I agree that it is pointless arguing with whatever/whoever it is. It has real issues that it needs to address but not here.

Og

I won't put it on ignore, but I've given up on reading its posts or talking to it. Better to just let it mumble to itself in the corner.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Right, I think I'm distilling this into a plot outline

There has been a war. Before the war, Andrew was a successful young lawyer. He was married but carried on a secret sado-masochistic affaire with Beatrice, a young author and journalist. During the war, Andrew fought in the army. Andrew's and Beatrice's home town was lost, but later retaken. During the period when the city was in enemy hands, Beatrice had joined the resistance, and had been captured. After her capture she had been tortured by Charles, a counter-terrorism expert working for the enemy. He had discovered Beatrice's journal, and used on her as torture precisely the same practices as Andrew had used on her before the onset of war.

When our story begins, Andrew has returned to his home town after the victory as war-crimes prosecutor. Charles has been arrested. Beatrice has either committed suicide, or else is profoundly withdrawn and refuses to speak at all; so our narrative becomes a confrontation between Andrew and Charles, arguing over the morality of what they have done. To make this picture murkier, Beatrice's partisans really had engaged in acts of sabotage which would inevitably have lead to some civilian deaths (as both the French and Polish resistances certainly did during the second world war, for example).

I don't want to give this a second world war setting, because 'the Nazis were evil' is a cliche. U want the reader to think about whether Charles' torture of Beatrice was actually justified (as he honestly believes it to have been). Vietnam might be a suitable setting, but probably better to give it an ahistorical, parallel reality setting.

 

[wmrs2]

I won't put it on ignore, but I've given up on reading its posts or talking to it. Better to just let it mumble to itself in the corner.

See, the last few post have been criticisms of me. They do not point to any fault I have in my logic nor do they criticize anything I do. Their demonstration is an example of the lack of moral character.

They have given me a gift that could not be revealed any other way than for them to demonstrate that what I have been saying about real trolls is true. They are obviously flooding Pure's thread with very unprofessional behavior. Either liberal or conservative should not tolerate this behavior on the AH. Do we want to admit that this is the best the AH has to offer? Are we indeed capable of policing ourselves?

These people should not be allowed to discuss torture until they learn to tolerate a difference of opinion and show kindness and respect to others. They do hate very well but they are probably forgetful of the reason why they hate. What an insane position they have taken.

 

[Guest]

There has been a war. Before the war, Andrew was a successful young lawyer. He was married but carried on a secret sado-masochistic affaire with Beatrice, a young author and journalist. During the war, Andrew fought in the army. Andrew's and Beatrice's home town was lost, but later retaken. During the period when the city was in enemy hands, Beatrice had joined the resistance, and had been captured. After her capture she had been tortured by Charles, a counter-terrorism expert working for the enemy. He had discovered Beatrice's journal, and used on her as torture precisely the same practices as Andrew had used on her before the onset of war.

When our story begins, Andrew has returned to his home town after the victory as war-crimes prosecutor. Charles has been arrested. Beatrice has either committed suicide, or else is profoundly withdrawn and refuses to speak at all; so our narrative becomes a confrontation between Andrew and Charles, arguing over the morality of what they have done. To make this picture murkier, Beatrice's partisans really had engaged in acts of sabotage which would inevitably have lead to some civilian deaths (as both the French and Polish resistances certainly did during the second world war, for example).

I don't want to give this a second world war setting, because 'the Nazis were evil' is a cliche. U want the reader to think about whether Charles' torture of Beatrice was actually justified (as he honestly believes it to have been). Vietnam might be a suitable setting, but probably better to give it an ahistorical, parallel reality setting.

This is amazing.

So many different things you can do with this - so complex.

 

[wmrs2]

What is your view about the morality of torture and what's your view based on?

My view on torture is based on reflection upon true, eternal, absolute values. From moral deductions on these values, one can decide whether torture in certain situations is justified or is an evil thing. I do not believe it is always an evil thing but at times it is the moral right thing to do.

You have two values. One, cruel and unusual punishment: punishment in itself is not cruel and unusual. The question then is when does on use punishment and to what degree is it cruel and unusual. The answer must be weighed in terms of other absolute moral values such as the moral law that all life has value. The belief that all life has value in the determining principle.

Here is a terrorist. He has information that could result is saving lives of innocent people. The terrorist's life has some value. The innocent people that are going to be murdered, their lives have value. Your actions regarding torture should be in reaction to the value a person can preserve by the use of torture or from the value that can be preserved from not using torture.

I believe that torture must be used at certain times when it will save lives. I have stated the reasons why and I see no way for one to refute my position if one believes in absolute values. To refute this position one must view moral behavior is determined by a different logical process that is not logical at all. He must choose a system that does not have absolute and unchanging premises on which to make moral deductions and inductions, such is the case of moral relativity.

 

[Corylea]

There has been a war. Before the war, Andrew was a successful young lawyer. He was married but carried on a secret sado-masochistic affaire with Beatrice, a young author and journalist. During the war, Andrew fought in the army. Andrew's and Beatrice's home town was lost, but later retaken. During the period when the city was in enemy hands, Beatrice had joined the resistance, and had been captured. After her capture she had been tortured by Charles, a counter-terrorism expert working for the enemy. He had discovered Beatrice's journal, and used on her as torture precisely the same practices as Andrew had used on her before the onset of war.

When our story begins, Andrew has returned to his home town after the victory as war-crimes prosecutor. Charles has been arrested. Beatrice has either committed suicide, or else is profoundly withdrawn and refuses to speak at all; so our narrative becomes a confrontation between Andrew and Charles, arguing over the morality of what they have done. To make this picture murkier, Beatrice's partisans really had engaged in acts of sabotage which would inevitably have lead to some civilian deaths (as both the French and Polish resistances certainly did during the second world war, for example).

I don't want to give this a second world war setting, because 'the Nazis were evil' is a cliche. U want the reader to think about whether Charles' torture of Beatrice was actually justified (as he honestly believes it to have been). Vietnam might be a suitable setting, but probably better to give it an ahistorical, parallel reality setting.

Write it!

 

[Pure]

Interesting proposal, Simon.

I see a lot of potential!

I think it could illuminate some essential differences.

sb After her capture she had been tortured by Charles, a counter-terrorism expert working for the enemy. He had discovered Beatrice's journal, and used on her as torture precisely the same practices as Andrew had used on her before the onset of war.

it takes a little thinking to imagine these 'same practices,' for classic tortures such as waterboarding, dunking, etc. are NOT standard bdsm practices.

perhaps breathing restriction is. yet such bdsm measures are VERY limited and mild, typically.

at a lower level, 'uncomfortable postures' might be in common, and these are among the CIA techniques in the 'torture memos.'

i think, however, there is a vast conceptual difference and it's not simply 'consent'; it's harm. if a Top causes a Bottom to stand on one foot, till it's 'torture', this is NOT like having been sleep deprived and having to stand at attention in the freezing rain for 20 hours in a Nazi prison camp.

the phrase "same practices" is a dicey one. you needn't go to a war example to illustrate the difference. Suppose John Doe finds Rhonda Roe's diary of fantasies, and finds, there, a rape fantasy. She's kidnapped, tied, repeatedly violated in all orifices, made to eat off the floor, and 'request' further violations. It's clear, that, when having these fantasies, she gets aroused. She even perhaps might arrange to have her 'bf' climb in the window and 'force' her.

IF John Doe then kidnaps her and, in your words, does these "same things", is there any problem? Yes, obviously. Will Rhonda 'get off'? Well, probaby not. BUT, ftsoa, suppose so. Does she then have a criminal complaint? I'd say, 'yes.' The rapist has harmed her, notwithstanding the bodily reaction.

Probably you agree with these points. So likely we have no argument, but i'm just expressing some reservations about one way of looking at a proposed fictional paralleling of 'same practices.'

 

[Corylea]

it takes a little thinking to imagine these 'same practices,' for classic tortures such as waterboarding, dunking, etc. are NOT standard bdsm practices.

Quite true; one reason why I want to see Simon write it is because I want to see how he pulls this off. But I think he can; I've seen him do some amazing things.

And as for overlap between BDSM and "classic" tortures, there's beating, of course, and electrical stimulation; both of those are widely used in both BDSM and torture. Cutting and/or piercing would probably work, too. There aren't very many BDSM folk who practice branding, but a few do, and if it makes his story work, Simon could certainly have his couple be one of those few. I've heard of people who do things like make a submissive hold a book at arm's length, over a lit candle ... letting one's arms sag would be bad. Of course, in BDSM, the top blows the candle out when the sub really can't hold it anymore.

I guess we'll just have to clamor for him to write it and see how he does it.

 

[shereads]

Correction. He'll donate a thousand dollars for every second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pVO2cD20P8

Any response from the volunteer waterboard-ee yet?

 

[shereads]

Nancy Pelosie gat her ass chewed out by the Pop.

Does it count as torture if it makes me laugh until my sides hurt?

 

[Hooper_X]

I can't answer the poll.

My view is that it is against international conventions and that any country using torture diminishes its stature in the world.

It is wrong because it gets the answers the interrogator wants rather than the truth and isn't worth the damage it does to international relations.

How can we criticise other nations for abuse of human rights if we use torture?

Og

Precisely.

Moreover, a good deal of people in the intelligence community believe it to be an ineffective means of uncovering legitimate information. If you torture someone they will tell you what you want to hear, irrespective of its veracity.