Waterboarding

I'll fight you and I probably will kill you.

Ticomaya is funny.

He can squirm all he likes, ...

... but it doesn't change the fact that he has yet to put up his own thoughts for critique.

Rhetorical arguments without arguments with substance are useless.

Finn dBuzz wrote:

That he cannot is obvious, that he refused to try reminds me of childhood experiences wherein one kid called out another and the other responded, "I would fight you but I'm afraid I would kill you." All of us circling the opponents knew who won and who lost without the need of a punch being thrown.

The difference in our childhood must have been that I threw punches. I won some, I lost some, but I threw punches, and wasn't affraid. Tico has yet to actually enter this dialogue.

The closest he has come is a cut and paste of an article writen a year and a half ago, with no supplementary comments of his own.

If he doesn't want to throw punches, he's in the wrong circle.

Diest TKO wrote:

Ticomaya is funny.

True statement.

Quote:

He can squirm all he likes, ...

He's not squirming.

Quote:

... but it doesn't change the fact that he has yet to put up his own thoughts for critique.

That's another lie.

Quote:

Rhetorical arguments without arguments with substance are useless.

Look at your initial post ... nothing but your opinion ... a rhetorical argument without substance ... useless, by your own standard.

Quote:

Finn dBuzz wrote:

That he cannot is obvious, that he refused to try reminds me of childhood experiences wherein one kid called out another and the other responded, "I would fight you but I'm afraid I would kill you." All of us circling the opponents knew who won and who lost without the need of a punch being thrown.

The difference in our childhood must have been that I threw punches. I won some, I lost some, but I threw punches, and wasn't affraid. Tico has yet to actually enter this dialogue.

Another lie.

Quote:

The closest he has come is a cut and paste of an article writen a year and a half ago, with no supplementary comments of his own.

Yet another lie. You're just a little liar, aren't you?

Quote:

If he doesn't want to throw punches, he's in the wrong circle.

I've already squared off with you. But just like the little punk in Finn's analogy, you ran off crying to your choir.

Perhaps Tico is right, he's not squirming. Perhaps it's the thread that is squirming.

Ticomaya should provide a link to a post where he articulate HIS argument for waterboarding.

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

Rhetorical arguments without arguments with substance are useless.

Look at your initial post ... nothing but your opinion ... a rhetorical argument without substance ... useless, by your own standard.

Tico's inability to understand what I wrote now makes things much more clear to me. The patern seems to support that if he can attack other's methods with his own, then he doesn't have to address other's substance with his own. It's a test of stamina. How long will someone argue with Tico, before they quit. The argument is not satisfying either because the arguement is never about the "real issues," only a parade of Tico's rhetoric.

Ticomaya should provide a link to a post where he articulate HIS argument for waterboarding.

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

The closest he has come is a cut and paste of an article writen a year and a half ago, with no supplementary comments of his own.

Yet another lie. You're just a little liar, aren't you?

Ticomaya should reread the post where he put the article. He won't find any supplementary comments. ...

... Ticomaya should provide a link to a post where he articulate HIS argument for waterboarding.

Why is it torture? It's not torture because you proclaim it to be torture. I'm sure you can make an argument in this regard, and I'm ready to debate you on the issue if you're up to it.

As far as as a compelling argument for waterboarding, they exist. What you meant to say is you've not heard an argument for the justification of waterboarding that has swayed you from your opinion that it is not justified. As far as I'm concerned, if waterboarding an individual can save the lives of thousands of innocents, it's justified, and I've not heard a compelling argument to sway me from that opinion.

From Tico's link...

Quote:

Why is it torture? It's not torture because you proclaim it to be torture. I'm sure you can make an argument in this regard, and I'm ready to debate you on the issue if you're up to it.

As far as as a compelling argument for waterboarding, they exist. What you meant to say is you've not heard an argument for the justification of waterboarding that has swayed you from your opinion that it is not justified. As far as I'm concerned, if waterboarding an individual can save the lives of thousands of innocents, it's justified, and I've not heard a compelling argument to sway me from that opinion.

Red: They exist? Where?

Blue: Tico should make an argument for this statement.

He calls me a liar but he links to a post where he simply says that the argument "exists."

The link includes the words "As far as I'm concerned" but remains safely worded and ambiguous as to whether Ticomaya believes that waterboarding is torture or not.

Having him state that he is convinced, isn't an argument for me to be convinced. He needs to make a case for it. He still hasn't, and at this point, I don't think he ever will.

I'm not unsatisfied about other's opinions, I'm unsatisfied with people challenging mine without letting there's be challenged. ...

... I unsatisfied because I can post question after question to Ticomaya, and he will selectively chose which he will answer. That is why it's unsatisfying. ...

It's unsatisfying because I will present real arguments and receive nothing but straw and herring.

For what it's worth though, my friends at the new years party last night have had a great time reading the posts with me. We made it into a game. This provided some satisfaction.

Rhetoric is art of persuasion; the study or argument. Tico seems to prefer attacking my method, rather than addressing my points/questions. Several remain unanswered. His argument is based on trying to discredit other's rather than support his beliefs. It's really pathetic and pretty amateur.

I've tried several times now to discuss the issues, but Finn and his prom date seem dead set on having a flame war.

As far as I'm concerned, if waterboarding an individual can save the lives of thousands of innocents, it's justified, and I've not heard a compelling argument to sway me from that opinion.

I'll answer any question you pose.

I wonder how many american's have be at risk for Tico to justify the use of torture?

1? 100? 1,000,000? 100,000,000? All?

I wonder if being american has anything to do with it? Would he justify torture to save people who weren't american?

If waterboarding isn't torture, I wonder why he thinks it's justified? If it's not torture, he wouldn't need to justify it right?

Ask a soldier: "We may stop a giant terror plot by torturing a person with waterboarding, but it's illegal. You can save a lot of lives if you get the information from him. You can be a hero. However, in doing so, you violate international law and will most likely surrender your freedom and possibly your life. Will you do it."

Tico's article wrote:

And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist's discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui's anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

If you can't answer in the affirmative then hold your peace.

The answer is No, No, and No. Holding my peace is very easy concidering that the "discomfort," "anguish," and "pain" we would choose to inflict on criminals is cruel and unusual. It only takes a second for us to lose everything this country is about. The article Tico presents isn't an argument for waterboarding, but and argument for torture. In the argument itself it admits to the pain a person endures.

I'd ask the author if they would prosecute a enemy soldier for torturing a US troop. What would they say when the enemy soldier said that it was worth it because they got valueable information? Would the author be so understanding? Would all be fair in war? I don't have to worry about holding my peace, but I worry about those who support torturing another human being.

Nobody is surprized that waterboarding works. Nobody is surprized that many methods of torture work. This is not up for question. We have international law which we must abide, and despite the effectiveness of the method, it's still illegal.

Waterboarding works! Great, now whose ready to answer to the consequences for violating international law?

Ask a soldier: "We may stop a giant terror plot by torturing a person with waterboarding, but it's illegal. You can save a lot of lives if you get the information from him. You can be a hero. However, in doing so, you violate international law and will most likely surrender your freedom and possibly your life. Will you do it."

If they are willing to answer to the consequences, let them torture the person.

Make no mistake, America is not above the law.

Better yet, ask the politicians who support waterboarding if they'd be willing to surrender their freedom for it. Make sure to tell them how many american's would be saved by their sacrifice. That's a really important detail in the justification.

I'm sure they'lll line up for such a noble cause.

Tico wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if waterboarding an individual can save the lives of thousands of innocents, it's justified, and I've not heard a compelling argument to sway me from that opinion.

Here's one: the ends never justify the means. Actions should be justifiable without relying on theoretical or possible results.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if waterboarding an individual can save the lives of thousands of innocents, it's justified, and I've not heard a compelling argument to sway me from that opinion.

Here's one: the ends never justify the means. Actions should be justifiable without relying on theoretical or possible results.

Cycloptichorn

We've had this discussion before, Cyclops. You could say I am a bit more utilitarian than you on this issue. In short, I believe that if "torturing" one person has the potential of saving millions of lives, I would do it. You would not.

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll answer any question you pose.

REPOST

Diest TKO wrote:

I wonder how many american's have be at risk for Tico to justify the use of torture?

1? 100? 1,000,000? 100,000,000? All?

I wonder if being american has anything to do with it? Would he justify torture to save people who weren't american?

If waterboarding isn't torture, I wonder why he thinks it's justified? If it's not torture, he wouldn't need to justify it right?

REPOST

Quote:

Ask a soldier: "We may stop a giant terror plot by torturing a person with waterboarding, but it's illegal. You can save a lot of lives if you get the information from him. You can be a hero. However, in doing so, you violate international law and will most likely surrender your freedom and possibly your life. Will you do it."

REPOST

Diest TKO wrote:

Tico's article wrote:

And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist's discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui's anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

If you can't answer in the affirmative then hold your peace.

The answer is No, No, and No. Holding my peace is very easy concidering that the "discomfort," "anguish," and "pain" we would choose to inflict on criminals is cruel and unusual. It only takes a second for us to lose everything this country is about. The article Tico presents isn't an argument for waterboarding, but and argument for torture. In the argument itself it admits to the pain a person endures.

I'd ask the author if they would prosecute a enemy soldier for torturing a US troop. What would they say when the enemy soldier said that it was worth it because they got valueable information? Would the author be so understanding? Would all be fair in war? I don't have to worry about holding my peace, but I worry about those who support torturing another human being.

Nobody is surprized that waterboarding works. Nobody is surprized that many methods of torture work. This is not up for question. We have international law which we must abide, and despite the effectiveness of the method, it's still illegal.

Waterboarding works! Great, now whose ready to answer to the consequences for violating international law?

Ask a soldier: "We may stop a giant terror plot by torturing a person with waterboarding, but it's illegal. You can save a lot of lives if you get the information from him. You can be a hero. However, in doing so, you violate international law and will most likely surrender your freedom and possibly your life. Will you do it."

If they are willing to answer to the consequences, let them torture the person.

Make no mistake, America is not above the law.

Please answer the question I posed to the author, and the soldier.

REPOST

Diest TKO wrote:

Better yet, ask the politicians who support waterboarding if they'd be willing to surrender their freedom for it. Make sure to tell them how many american's would be saved by their sacrifice. That's a really important detail in the justification.

I'm sure they'lll line up for such a noble cause.

Please answer the question I pose to the politician.

Lastly, would we be waterboarding people if we had to pay a consequence for it?

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if waterboarding an individual can save the lives of thousands of innocents, it's justified, and I've not heard a compelling argument to sway me from that opinion.

Here's one: the ends never justify the means. Actions should be justifiable without relying on theoretical or possible results.

Cycloptichorn

We've had this discussion before, Cyclops. You could say I am a bit more utilitarian than you on this issue. In short, I believe that if "torturing" one person has the potential of saving millions of lives, I would do it. You would not.

It's important to note that the situation isn't what you describe. We didn't and don't torture people to stop, say, an imminent nuclear explosion. The 'millions of people' line is a false canard.

Would it be okay to torture someone to save one life?

What if it would save someone's limb from being cut off?

What if it would just keep them from having some emotional trauma?

Why would it be okay in one instance, but not in another?

What criteria do you use to draw the line?

Given: we never know what the eventual consequences of our actions will be. Before someone is waterboarded, we don't know if they will tell us something which will save lives or not. How can we morally justify inherently evil actions which might lead to some potential good somewhere down the line?

The answer is that it cannot be justified. No court or jury alive would accept the argument you are putting forward, and you know it. This is why the evidence was destroyed; most people agree that potential ends never justify actual means. And it isn't a question of utilitarianism, either; outside of Republican 24 wet-dreams, there's no evidence that torture provides good and actionable information. It's more that you don't have a problem with torturing people.

Cycloptichorn

That is a practical concern, and one which I recognize. I submit it depends upon the circumstances. Thus far I have limited my position to say I believe torture is justified if it will save millions, and waterboarding justified if it will save thousands. I'm comfortable with those numbers.

I'll answer any question you pose.

Sorry, but there's no objective evidence that that is true at all.

I don't take the word of serial liars as abject truth.

Now, here's a good line.

Quote:

That is a practical concern, and one which I recognize. I submit it depends upon the circumstances. Thus far I have limited my position to say I believe torture is justified if it will save millions, and waterboarding justified if it will save thousands. I'm comfortable with those numbers.

As you never know whether torture (and waterboarding is torture - if you want, we can go over this elementary point again) will save lives or not, you must never believe it is justified at the time which it is performed.

I also think it's important to talk about what the practical effects of this discussion are. We all understand that situations are, well, fungible; it's illegal to shoot and kill someone, but if you argue that it was in self-defense and a jury agrees with you, they may well agree that it was justified. Extenuating circumstances and all. But, that doesn't mean that shooting someone is legal or that it should be legal.

By that token, ...

... torture - whether it is to save lives or not - most certainly shouldn't be legal. Not by a long shot. We all understand that judgment calls have to be made from time to time, but that hasn't ever been the argument here; only that those who make judgment calls should enjoy no special protections from the consequences of their choices, and no one should pretend that their actions were not illegal to begin with.

I think that you will see, as investigations go forward on this issue in the new year, that there was no real justification for the use of torture. There was no imminent threat. That is the real reason for the destruction of evidence; even the faux-utilitarian argument that you put forward wouldn't apply to the actual situation in question.

Btw, it was wrong of me to bait you in the other thread a few weeks ago. I disagree with much of what I consider to be bigoted behavior on your part, but there's no sport in shooting fish in a barrel.

Cycloptichorn

I'm done with this thread. You win, I can't stomach you BS any longer. You're an Idiot of the first order, and your common sense and humanity could use a tuning. You are what ruins this country.

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm done with this thread. You win, I can't stomach you BS any longer. You're an Idiot of the first order, and your common sense and humanity could use a tuning. You are what ruins this country.

Don't let the door hit you on your a$$ as you run back to the Spirituality threads.

Let me leave you with a tip: tfd.com. It's free.

College graduates too lazy to learn to spell is what will ruin this country.

College graduates too lazy to learn to spell is what will ruin this country.

I'm sure a dictionary would believe that. Of course it wasn't spelling errors that kept GWB from responding to information that al queda had plans to hit a US building with a plane.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
~Mark Twain

I thought behind that method argument a real argument might exist. But when you actually gave me what I wanted (partially), I realized that you have nothing else to offer. All doubt removed, I'm not interested in your argument anymore.