1
   

Since the other waterboarding thread got locked...

 
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 08:54 am
@DurtySanches,
DurtySanches;46179 wrote:
If your game then answer the question?


Is this a formerly banned member? Putting a question mark at the end of a statement is pretty familiar. I did answer the question, pretending I didn't doesn't make you like the answer any more.
0 Replies
 
klyph
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 12:53 pm
@DurtySanches,
DurtySanches;46042 wrote:
War is hell. I'd bet that if we found the right example. And they were beheaded in front of you, and you had the means to, you'd kill them on the spot?

Yes, I'm sure you could find a good example of a situation where I, as a human, would want to torture/kill someone. It still doesn't make it morally correct or justifiable. Especially when the govt is allowed to execute it under complete secrecy with no oversight.
DurtySanches;46045 wrote:
We should follow it if they do, i'll be waiting.

That's ridiculous, you only follow rules and morality if someone else does first? That's a recipe for anarchy. You've never heard of taking the high road?
Quote:

You think waterboarding is similar to beheading? If not, please give us your example of similarity?

Waterboarding IS similar to beheading in that both practices are morally wrong, against the geneva convention, and should never be used, even in time of war.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 04:14 pm
@klyph,
klyph;46197 wrote:
Yes, I'm sure you could find a good example of a situation where I, as a human, would want to torture/kill someone. It still doesn't make it morally correct or justifiable. Especially when the govt is allowed to execute it under complete secrecy with no oversight.

That's ridiculous, you only follow rules and morality if someone else does first? That's a recipe for anarchy. You've never heard of taking the high road?

Waterboarding IS similar to beheading in that both practices are morally wrong, against the geneva convention, and should never be used, even in time of war.


Nuts. Man, you have lost all perspective.:thumbdown:
0 Replies
 
Drakej
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 05:12 pm
@92b16vx,
Sleep depriving someone is a good trick, so is simply convincing them that those they are protecting are also the ones that sold them out. These are basic social engineering tactics that do not leave any physical or mental scars. Sure it takes a lot longer but guess what this is not the show 24. We do not "Need the answers now lets knee cap them!!!" Even though these steps take longer at least you know the intel is given by someone that is not fearing for their life and telling you whatever they think you want to hear.

Now to address Durty, if you slapped someone in my family your right I would beat your ass. But you know what I wouldn't do? I would not step outside the letter of the law and saw your arm off. Just like if you where to kill my brother and I found you two weeks later it is not okay for me to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Torture is allowed by the G.C. but within a set of rules or laws if you will. You are taking alot of this out of context. I am okay with whatever methods are being used that are okay by the law. Just like cops tricking suspects, they are allowed to trick them not beat the hell out of them.
0 Replies
 
DurtySanches
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 05:45 pm
@klyph,
klyph;46197 wrote:
Yes, I'm sure you could find a good example of a situation where I, as a human, would want to torture/kill someone. It still doesn't make it morally correct or justifiable. Especially when the govt is allowed to execute it under complete secrecy with no oversight.

That's ridiculous, you only follow rules and morality if someone else does first? That's a recipe for anarchy. You've never heard of taking the high road?

Waterboarding IS similar to beheading in that both practices are morally wrong, against the geneva convention, and should never be used, even in time of war.
Quote:
Yes, I'm sure you could find a good example of a situation where I, as a human, would want to torture/kill someone. It still doesn't make it morally correct or justifiable. Especially when the govt is allowed to execute it under complete secrecy with no oversight.
So in such a situation, would you be thinking about killing or doing whats moral? And which thought do you think would win out?
Quote:
That's ridiculous, you only follow rules and morality if someone else does first? That's a recipe for anarchy. You've never heard of taking the high road?
I think we have taken the high road by not beheading them.
Quote:
Waterboarding IS similar to beheading in that both practices are morally wrong, against the geneva convention, and should never be used, even in time of war
You need to put a disclaimer. This should never be used unless a situation happens to you in which case you have said you "would want to torture/kill someone"? Double standard if you ask me.
DurtySanches
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 05:51 pm
@92b16vx,
Quote:
Now to address Durty, if you slapped someone in my family your right I would beat your ass.
Correction, you would try.
Quote:
But you know what I wouldn't do? I would not step outside the letter of the law and saw your arm off.
So assaulting some one who has not assaulted you is staying in the letter of the law? That is how the law works but as you state, you would take the law into you own hands and "beat my ass?" Wow!
0 Replies
 
Drakej
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 05:57 pm
@92b16vx,
No I have the right to defend my self and those around me from harm Wink Because by your question you are implying that I am standing right there. Your local laws my vary. It is actually legal for me to kill you if I felt you where going to inflict serious bodily harm with the chance of causing death. So yes as a matter of fact I am staying within the confines of the law.
DurtySanches
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 06:11 pm
@92b16vx,
Really, those around you? Can you direct me to where is says that? In any case if that were so then a case can be made for the US protecting those around it?
Quote:
It is actually legal for me to kill you if I felt you where going to inflict serious bodily harm
Unless i am in your home i beg to differ. Are you a peace officer, if not what gives you the right to take someones life because you feel something? A judge/jury would decide if you are in the confines, not you. It is your opinion that you are but you know what they say about opinions.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 06:14 pm
@Drakej,
Drakej;46244 wrote:
No I have the right to defend my self and those around me from harm Wink Because by your question you are implying that I am standing right there. Your local laws my vary. It is actually legal for me to kill you if I felt you where going to inflict serious bodily harm with the chance of causing death. So yes as a matter of fact I am staying within the confines of the law.


do you live in Floridia?
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 06:30 pm
@DurtySanches,
DurtySanches;46248 wrote:
Unless i am in your home i beg to differ. Are you a peace officer, if not what gives you the right to take someones life because you feel something? A judge/jury would decide if you are in the confines, not you. It is your opinion that you are but you know what they say about opinions.



It isn't an opinion here in Texas, we recently instituted the Castle Doctrine, which gives citizens the right to use to deadly force to stop a threat imminent danger to ones self, and third parties...anywhere you legally have the right to be, work, home, street corner walking to the store, corner store checkout.
Drakej
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 06:36 pm
@92b16vx,
Actually I live in Washington, the state I might add. It is all about using force within reason. That is why I said, I would not saw your arm off for slapping someone in front of me. But if you where to step it up a notch or two i would adjust my reaction accordingly. I have a permit in Washington that is also valid in many other states that allow me as a private citizen to conceal and carry a firearm. With that right I must observe the pre-established laws. I cannot simply over step my bounds just because. Much like using waterboarding, just because someone does something bad or may have done somthing bad or has some sort of remote chance of maybe knowing about something bad we cannot simply take it to the most extreme. Just like joe blow with is CCW cannot simply shoot someone in traffic because they flipped him off.
0 Replies
 
Drakej
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 06:38 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;46262 wrote:
It isn't an opinion here in Texas, we recently instituted the Castle Doctrine, which gives citizens the right to use to deadly force to stop a threat imminent danger to ones self, and third parties...anywhere you legally have the right to be, work, home, street corner walking to the store, corner store checkout.


This is exactly correct. It also protects them from civil suites if you are found to be within the law IE its ruled a good shoot.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 06:45 pm
@Drakej,
Drakej;46266 wrote:
This is exactly correct. It also protects them from civil suites if you are found to be within the law IE its ruled a good shoot.


Yip, it wasn't that it "gave" you the right to defend yourself or others, it made it black and white, there is no grey area anymore.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 08:22 pm
@Drakej,
Drakej;46244 wrote:
No I have the right to defend my self and those around me from harm Wink Because by your question you are implying that I am standing right there. Your local laws my vary. It is actually legal for me to kill you if I felt you where going to inflict serious bodily harm with the chance of causing death. So yes as a matter of fact I am staying within the confines of the law.


So, Drake...you're a violent type, eh? I see. :scratchchin:
0 Replies
 
Drakej
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 12:09 am
@92b16vx,
I am not a violent person at all, quit the opposite. If I had a rage problem I surly would not carry a firearm. I was using this as an example that illustrates overstepping the laws decided by other 1st world countries. I wanted to scale it down for simplicity's sake.
0 Replies
 
klyph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 12:42 pm
@DurtySanches,
DurtySanches;46240 wrote:
So in such a situation, would you be thinking about killing or doing whats moral? And which thought do you think would win out?

As an imperfect human, I may or may not make the right decision. Say I chose to be immoral and retaliate with murder or torture. That wouldn't justify my actions. All it would mean is that I'm no better than they are. I hope that I would make the right decision, but I honestly can't know what I would do in an unspecified hypothetical situation.
Quote:

I think we have taken the high road by not beheading them.

We're on the same road, we just drive a nicer car.
Quote:

You need to put a disclaimer. This should never be used unless a situation happens to you in which case you have said you "would want to torture/kill someone"? Double standard if you ask me.

The fact that I want to does not mean that I would, and it certainly wouldn't justify my actions if I did. Our wants and desires are not justification for our immoral actions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 12:49:11