Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ustwo--your scenario was idiotic.
no-one is "trapped" by an idiotic scenario except, perhaps, an idiot.
pan: the definition of torture is a legal matter, mostly.
when i have a bit more time (if someone else doesn't do it) i could--or you could for that matter--gather the various geneva conventions that outlaw it, the various treaties that outlaw it and derive definitions from there.
it is not as though there is no working definition of the term.
i just don't have the time at the moment to do research for you that you could do yourself perfectly well and as easily as i could.
|
But some people don't go by just the Geneva Convention that is my point.
If we go by just that as the standard and nothing more or less, but as I pointed out people have differing views of what torture is and while, the Geneva Convention outlined torture, some people think it went too far or not far enough.
It's too objective to just say "do you believe in torture?" One must define and agree with he parameters.
Like I said to me withholding a day's rations is acceptable to some that maybe torture.
I think at the very least, one should define their idea of torture, so that others can see that individual's parameters.