Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
Without wishing to repeat myself... there are many valid points that you make: but since I am only arguing that there are some possible circumstances when torture is justified, I think I can make the scenario I choose.
|
If you make a scenario in which torture yields reliable results, you're changing the universe to prove your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I say again - choose between the death of your loved one, or beating up someone who has information that can save their lives.
|
Let's say that's happened. Some psychopath has kidnapped your family, has them strapped to a bomb, you have them in custody, the police are allowing you to interrogate the man, and you know that he's aware of where your family is. Let's say all of that is happening. Still, even with all of those unlikely facts, torture isn't necessarily going to get you anything but the gratification of vengeance after your family explodes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I do not ask if in the majority of cases another method of interogation may be more or less effective, I ask everyone to consider for themselves if they have a choice between the death of a love one or torturing the man who threatens their life - which will they choose?
|
My question is why bother to use an ineffective method when so many proven effective methods could be employed? You don't think the police have had experience with prisoner interrogation? Or the military? Or MI6/CIA? There's a good reason that everyone in this situation but the chicken hawks are saying the same thing: "torture didn't work". What if, instead of wasting time hurting the person for no good reason, you employed the best available tactic for saving your family? What if, instead of wasting those ticking seconds on your hypothetical clock, you utilized them in the best way possible?
I'm saying not only does torture not work in such a ticking bomb scenario, but there are better options available. In fact, torture is so reliably unreliable, it was employed to fabricate a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What does that tell you?
---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
No good reason to be. I'd guess that it's due to excessively narrow definitions of both conservativism and Jesus on your part. I'll say it again: Jesus is whatever you want him to be.
|
Not at all, actually. Because there's a generally agreed upon source of all information on his adventures, the Gospel, the messages are perfectly clear. Sure, the character was very pious compared to modern standards in some ways, talking about how divorce and remarriage are adultery for example, but he was very clear about things like inclusion, caring for the poor, and community. He dined with the dregs of society. He spoke about how it's easier for a camel to go through the head of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven. He fed the poor without asking anything in return. He healed the sick asking nothing in return but the remission of sins. The Jesus character was extremely progressive for the time, and even would be a progressive today.
I don't ever remember Jesus saying "God helps those that help themselves" or "I'd like to heal you, but your HMO doesn't cover leprosy." To conservatives reading this: what about Jesus would fit with modern conservatism? What if Jesus were to get in a debate with John McCain or Dick Cheney? Would he agree with them on policy or disagree with them?