Originally Posted by
Drummond
No. They're not the same. I might 'limit' the instance of something to once or twice a week (eating large evening meals, for example). That's a far cry from saying I'd eat them either 'pretty rarely', or 'exceedingly rarely'. These terms do not equate with each other as you suggest that they do.
You are at best applying an arbitrary judgment over how often you'd get valuable information by using torture on a terrorist. It might be true for one terrorist. It may well NOT be, for another. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU GENERALISE ? You cannot infer uniformity of reliability between ALL terrorists, as you're trying to do. That is a nonsense.
Here's another concept, then. Suppose terrorists planned a terrorist atrocity very likely to involve your wife (or other loved ones), and you had one member of that terrorist cell readily available to you for interrogation, primed for whatever technique you chose. Tell me ... would you consider using ALL, I mean ALL, methods available to you to get the information you'd need to stop it, or would the sheer 'exceeding rarity' of considering torture mean that you'd be unlikely to go that far ?
Put it another way. Terrorists bomb, maim, kill, INNOCENT LOVED ONES FROM PEOPLES' FAMILIES .. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO. BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU JUDGE THAT TO SAVE THOSE LIVES, YOU SHOULD ONLY TAKE THE FULLEST OF STEPS TO STOP THEM ON 'EXCEEDINGLY RARE' OCCASIONS ???
Er'm ... WE are unbelievable .. ??!!?
My friend, you have been officially ignored!! ---Tyr
Now stop bothering the man..
ConHog
Originally Posted by Drummond
No. They're not the same. I might 'limit' the instance of something to once or twice a week (eating large evening meals, for example). That's a far cry from saying I'd eat them either 'pretty rarely', or 'exceedingly rarely'. These terms do not equate with each other as you suggest that they do.
You are at best applying an arbitrary judgment over how often you'd get valuable information by using torture on a terrorist. It might be true for one terrorist. It may well NOT be, for another. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU GENERALISE ? You cannot infer uniformity of reliability between ALL terrorists, as you're trying to do. That is a nonsense.
Here's another concept, then. Suppose terrorists planned a terrorist atrocity very likely to involve your wife (or other loved ones), and you had one member of that terrorist cell readily available to you for interrogation, primed for whatever technique you chose. Tell me ... would you consider using ALL, I mean ALL, methods available to you to get the information you'd need to stop it, or would the sheer 'exceeding rarity' of considering torture mean that you'd be unlikely to go that far ?
Put it another way. Terrorists bomb, maim, kill, INNOCENT LOVED ONES FROM PEOPLES' FAMILIES .. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO. BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU JUDGE THAT TO SAVE THOSE LIVES, YOU SHOULD ONLY TAKE THE FULLEST OF STEPS TO STOP THEM ON 'EXCEEDINGLY RARE' OCCASIONS ???
Er'm ... WE are unbelievable .. ??!!?
Did I , or did I not tell you that I was done with this stupid line of thought.
You post examples of rare events and then ask me if I would torture then as if by answering yes I would prove that I would torture in cases other than rare events.
It's nonsensical.
/unsubscribe
Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 01-21-2013 at 09:20 PM.
18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.