@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Maybe you're a globally renown expert on torture, but I don't think so. Because you insist that torture doesn't work, doesn't make it so.
Then do not trust my word. Let's both do some research and return with the works of people who are experts on interrogation and find out what they say about the effectiveness of torture. If you like, we can even contain this exclusively to waterboarding. Deal?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Yours is not an an argument on ethics, it is an argument on utility. Focusing so heavily on your belief that torture is ineffective, implies that if you believed it was effective you might be OK with it.
That was not my argument. I am not making an argument from utility. I said that if you wished to claim it was effective, to at least praise it for what it has a real record of: Fear propaganda.
My argument is based on ethics. Not necessarily golden rule standards, but basic rules of engagement to maintain what you yourself said: "restraint." I happen to think that means something both to our foes and to our own allies; both in and out crowd.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Your conclusion that I am saying that war "demands" using ineffective methods is a result of you're not comprehending what I wrote and your seemingly religious belief that torture is ineffective.
You have used language about war bringing about special circumstances. I've leave it to you to clarify this. I don't think the situation demands the use of these techniques. More importantly, the argument for their use comes prior to their
proponent's argument of utility.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Effective or ineffective, I've not argued that war "demands" torture.
You are correct. If the word "demand" does not fit your views, would you accept that you believe the use of torture in war time is "justified?"
I feel your views are mostly statements on why you're willing to let it slide.
A
R
T