Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:07:06 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:
wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
I'm sure you would agree that *if* you obtain information that prevents
slaughter of innocents by dunking someone in water a few times, you have
not done something wrong, you have done something good.
No, actually I woould not agree that torture is "good" under any
realistic circumstances.
You can construct all sorts of theoretical justifications; but the
facts are pretty clear... torture does not yield useful or reliable
intel. OTOH it's great if you want to convert a few heretics before
you burn them; but fortunately most of the civilizedworld has out
grown that.
.... I am not arguing that all torture is okay, I'm arguing
that there is such a thing as torture that is okay.
And that's what makes you sick in the head.... or at least not
civilized enough to be making serious decisions that affect the rest
of our society.
Well, by all civilized standards, allowing the slaughter of innocents to
protect the rights of a killer is sick in the head, isn't it? Clearly
you have taken your rationalizing on the issue so far that it makes no
sense anymore. Common with herd mentality issues like this.
The problem with Doug's argument is that it relies upon labeling as a
substitute for thought. Rather than dealing with the specific question you
pose, he labels your proposal "torture," and deems that sufficient to
foreclose further discussion of the policy question.
How, pray tell, is Doug using "labels" in lieu of substance in this
context, when in the thread you are replying to, Stephen states "I'm
arguing that there is such a thing as torture that is okay"? *Stephen*
stipulates TORTURE, not Doug. Perhaps you should read the threads
you're responding to?
The technique is very much of a piece with Neal's game of labeling specific
actions "socialism" or "fascism," deeming the label an adequate substitute
for consideration of pluses and minuses of particular actions.
The particular action at hand is simply the same rationalization used by
despots since time immemorial. Namely, the ends justify the means.
Immoral acts, performed for moral ends, are justified. Using this
method of "reasoning", it is perfectly moral and ethical for a mother
to, say, kill and eat her parents if that is the only way to save
herself and her 5 children. No problems with that right?
The founding fathers of the US recognized the moral bankruptcy of this
rationalization (having seen it up close and personal, as it were), and
the country agreed, en masse, back in 1791 with the 8th amendment to the
constitution. What Stephen advocates is not even allowed after the
*Suspect* is convicted as a killer, much less before conviction.
I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that
waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than
making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that "torture"
doesn't work, attempting to sweep the specific action into a much wider net
full of red herrings.
While Doug lounges in your largesse, perhaps you should read the thread
again? Stephen began this justification of a 'terrorist pogrom' with:
"In other words, if you strongly suspect someone of being about to kill
a large group of innocent people, there is justification in torturing
him or of course even killing him if it helps you stop it from
happening", back on 3/9. Note, specifically, that only a "strong
suspicion" is required to justify torturing, or killing, individuals or
groups. While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.
Keith