Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm as much responsible for torturing as you are for the dog that crapped on my sidewalk and the owner didn't pick it up.
|
I don't vote for that particular dog owner to walk his dog near your house nor do I pay taxes to fund his walks nor do I have a stake in the response to said shitting. But you know all of this. I'm left wondering why you'd intentionally use an incorrect illustration like this. Are you really ignorant to your role in torturing? You are many things, but naive isn't one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I think you need to read what I wrote a bit more and see what kind of thought I've put into it. You're reading just one single little sound bite and passing all the rest of the thought that has gone into it.
I have never once said that I find that Bush's policies are something that I agree with. I've not said once I approve someone torturing someone else.
I've said that I find torture to be a mode and method that people use for various reasons and I'm fine with that.
|
"I don't approve of torture, but I'm fine with it". Where do you draw the line between approving of something and being fine with it? In what way are those different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Will, if you look at things always from the top down, you'll never understand something from the bottom up.
|
And if you look at something from the side, squinting your eyes a bit, you can find yourself taking two opposing positions on the same issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So again, from my point of view, I've not even gotten to the point of the ethics and the morals. I've looked at and cited where and how it's been used, right or wrong it has been used to some effect. It inadvertently has an affect on society as a whole, for fear, control, etc. It may be rooted in false logic or premise, but it still is a mode that people do operate from and stand within.
Thus, your citing of my ability to roll up my sleeves and pass judgment, isn't a simple possibility here on the breadth of torture. From the simplistic points, the Geneva Conventions agreed to make it very simple cut and dry discussion for this instance. But as a whole for the entirety of torture, which is the line I am speaking from, it is not as simple.
|
It is, of course, perfectly simple. Torture has no place but masochism or vengeance. Those are really the only functions it can adequately perform. It cannot yield reliable information, it cannot reliably coerce, and it cannot control. It has absolutely no functional use for military or intelligence. Beyond questioning it's function is judging it ethically, which is something you claim to have not done at all, despite saying you're fine with torture and that you don't approve of it.
Your position is at best unclear.