Hello Christians:

The other day, Hannity said that he'd torture the Gitmo detainees himself, if he could, and he finished by saying, "and I'm a Christian". I guess he meant that torture isn't against anything Christianlike..

However, I started to think about how Jesus was crucified. Isn't crucifixion torture? I think it is. Wasn't Jesus tortured to death?? I think he was.

I don't understand, then, how a Christian can be OK with torture. Tell me where I'm wrong.

excon

There are lots of things that christians say they believe in and then there you see their actions that contradict their stated belief. Look no further than this site to see proof.

There are many who call themselves Christian but, for a variety of reasons, are not who the world should look to as good examples of Christians.

KKK members call themselves Christians.

There are others (who call themselves Christian) who to to gay parades with banners saying "Faggots go to Hell"...

These are NOT ones who are examples of "Christian".

I do not lump Hannity with the above, but he, in my opinion, is another example of one who is not a good example of a Christian.

A good Christian, in my opinion:

a. Treats others as He wishes to be treated,
b. Judges not lest he be judged,
c. Recognizes that he himself is not without imperfections,
d. Forgives others of their imperfections as he himself wishes to be forgiven for his own imperfections.

I'm sure I've left some out, but those are some of the basics.

A good Christian, in my opinion:

a. Treats others as He wishes to be treated,
b. Judges not lest he be judged,
c. Recognizes that he himself is not without imperfections,
d. Forgives others of their imperfections as he himself wishes to be forgiven for his own imperfections.


http://www.gearbits.com/images/thumbs-up.gif

Thanks for the thumbs up, Need-ShamWowGuy :)

I should add:

My opinion is not new. It's what Christ taught in our Scriptures and what the historic Christian faith has taught for over 2000 years. Those who teach otherwise are... well, I'll resist typing the variety of adjectives that I'm thinking...

OK, so lets for a minute put this discussion into the real world. Lets pretend that some group kidnapped one of your children. But luckily you were able to capture one of these bad guys. What would YOU as average Joe citizen do to ensure the safe return of your child? Would you torture the bad guy to get the information needed to safely return your child? Or would you let the bad guy go in hopes that he would have a softening of heart and give your child back safely? What if this gang wanted your child for a prostitution ring? Or wanted to sell them into slavery? Where would you stand then? People that have never held a gun or shot another person during war or in anger have no real perception of how evil people can be.

A good Christian, in my opinion:

a. Treats others as He wishes to be treated,
b. Judges not lest he be judged,
c. Recognizes that he himself is not without imperfections,
d. Forgives others of their imperfections as he himself wishes to be forgiven for his own imperfections.Hello Rick:

Those are the traits I always thought Christians aspired to.

Although, I suppose there's always been a militant branch who hang their hats on, "an eye for an eye".

To me, that viewpoint is uncomfortably similar to Radical Islams viewpoint.

excon

OK, so lets for a minute put this discussion into the real world. Lets pretend that some group kidnapped one of your children. Hello 450:

Here's the deal...

Some of you on the right confuse liberalism with weakness. You're wrong.

PERSONALLY, because that's the plane you want to discuss this on, I'm not a very nice fellow. I wouldn't be kind to people who inflicted harm on my family. In fact, I'm really no different than YOU in that regard.

Nonetheless, as much as I believe in vigilantism, I don't want my COUNTRY to be vigilantes. I want my country to be BETTER than me. That's LIBERALISM.

Fortunately for us both, we don't have to make those decisions any more. The founders of this great country of ours took that burden OFF our shoulders when it enacted laws aimed at justice - not vengeance. I'm willing to give up that part of me to my government... In fact, we've ALL made that agreement with the government.

So, however I'd act under your pretend scenario, has nothing to do with how I want my GOVERNMENT to act.

excon

OK, so lets for a minute put this discussion into the real world. Lets pretend that some group kidnapped one of your children. But luckily you were able to capture one of these bad guys. What would YOU as average Joe citizen do to ensure the safe return of your child? Would you torture the bad guy to get the information needed to safely return your child? Or would you let the bad guy go in hopes that he would have a softening of heart and give your child back safely? What if this gang wanted your child for a prostitution ring? Or wanted to sell them into slavery? Where would you stand then? People that have never held a gun or shot another person during war or in anger have no real perception of how evil people can be.


One of my chlldren?

Well, let's see...

It's never happened - and it's not related to Hannity - but I'll wing it anyway:

I'm not sure that I'd be able to confirm that the bad guy I caught was responsible, but if I knew FOR SURE that he was involved, I'd do whatever it took to get the information as to how to get my kid back.

... but yep, I know what so many of you reading this are thinking: How would I know FOR SURE that this bad guy is responsible and knows the info.

I guess that if I SAW him do it I'd know... but other than that, I cannot give an easy answer.

Does that leave me in the same boat as most of you? :)

OK, so lets for a minute put this discussion into the real world. Lets pretend that some group kidnapped one of your children. But luckily you were able to capture one of these bad guys. What would YOU as average Joe citizen do to ensure the safe return of your child? Would you torture the bad guy to get the information needed to safely return your child? Or would you let the bad guy go in hopes that he would have a softening of heart and give your child back safely? What if this gang wanted your child for a prostitution ring? Or wanted to sell them into slavery? Where would you stand then? People that have never held a gun or shot another person during war or in anger have no real perception of how evil people can be.

Well, that's true. But what's the point of this question? That people who want to become saints are imperfect?

Sure. But we strive to achieve perfection. As Jesus said:
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

So, what would Jesus do?

Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

But does this apply in this situation? I say no. Jesus also said:

Luke 6:31 (King James Version)

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Therefore, ask yourself, if you were kidnapped, would you want to be rescued?

I say yes. Therefore this rule applies. When evil is committed unto a neighbor, that neighbor should be assisted and where possible protected from that evil.

Therefore, we are empowered to do what is ethically possible to retrieve that kidnapped child, whether it be our child or someone else's.

Would we use torture to achieve that goal?

I personally believe that the child who has been kidnapped is being tortured. If not physically, at least mentally. Therefore, I believe that torture should be permitted as a legal recourse in such a situation.

Perhaps others have a different opinion and can defend it.

Hello again, De:

All that Christian stuff, and you'd still pull somebody's fingernails out.

Somehow, I don't think that's what Jesus would do.

excon

Come on Ex Christians LOVE Violence look at the Crusades.

Hello Christians:

The other day, Hannity said that he'd torture the Gitmo detainees himself, if he could, and he finished by saying, "and I'm a Christian". I guess he meant that torture isn't against anything Christianlike..

However, I started to think about how Jesus was crucified. Isn't crucifixion torture? I think it is. Wasn't Jesus tortured to death??? I think he was.

I don't understand, then, how a Christian can be OK with torture. Tell me where I'm wrong.

excon

You aren't, Hannity is.

I don't think any "Christian" can be for torture.





G&P

OK, so lets for a minute put this discussion into the real world. Lets pretend that some group kidnapped one of your children. But luckily you were able to capture one of these bad guys. What would YOU as average Joe citizen do to ensure the safe return of your child? Would you torture the bad guy to get the information needed to safely return your child? Or would you let the bad guy go in hopes that he would have a softening of heart and give your child back safely? What if this gang wanted your child for a prostitution ring? Or wanted to sell them into slavery? Where would you stand then? People that have never held a gun or shot another person during war or in anger have no real perception of how evil people can be.

Sorry, but this is utter tosh. What you are suggesting is that we only have two options; torture, or "let the bad guy go". I have a suspicion that you realize this is an unreasonable representation of the options available, why then do you do this? It is most definitely NOT an accurate representaion of the "real world".

Secondly, you are assuming that the use of torture will necessarily lead to a favourable outcome. Could you please enlighten me as to how you know this? Second sight perhaps? This would seem to be at odds with a vast amount of empircal evidence which shows that the use of torture is in fact counter productive, and will often result in false information being acted upon, thus wasting precious rescources. Why do think that fine investigative organizations such as the F.B.I and Scotland Yard frown upon the use of such techniques?

This in itself should render all ethical arguments unnecessary, however even if we were to accept the ludicrous idea that torture is a more effective method of interrogation, we would still find ourselves on very shakey grounds ethically.

For example, we all accept that to inflict physical harm on a human is acceptable if it leads DIRECTLY to the stopping of a harmful act, such as a policeman shooting a gunman, or subduing a dangerous and troublesome criminal with pepperspray, etc. This is not what we are talking about here. Here we are concrened with obtaining information, which might THEN lead to the stopping of the harmful act. If we take this as being acceptable, we should also say that torture as a means of obtaining a confession from someone we "know" as a murderer is also acceptable. This will surely stop another harmful act. And if it is o.k for a murderer, why not other people who we "know" are capable of causing death, like drink-drivers? If we are to be consistent, it would then be acceptable to subject them to torture, as a means of stopping harm in the future.

If it were so that we could see all the future consequences of our actions, we would have no need for morality or ethical principles at all. The argument that torture is acceptable because "I love my kids/country/whatever" is pathetic, and should be treated with nothing but contempt.

It is most definitely NOT an accurate representaion of the "real world". Hello Tok:

Greenie **

excon

Hello Tok:

Greenie **

excon

Greetings excon:

It has just occurred to me that I have in fact offered no thoughts on Hannity, or those who call themselves Christians for that matter. Hannity is a scare mongering, self-righteous imbecile. His religion has nothing to do with it. Christians are themselves a fairly diverse bunch. Some, like the happy clappy fundies that seem to have "kidnapped" Christianity, I despise. Others, who have contributed to many of the great advances of mankind (civil rights, ending slavery/aparthied etc) as well as great thinkers like Wittgenstein and Aquinas, or even the Vicar at the Anglican Church my mother attends, who is always up for a civil debate/conversation on any number of topics, I have great respect for.

Personally, I'm agnostic, and on the subject of Christ as a person, I would agree with Nietzsche - "Christ was the only Christian".

Greetings excon:

Some, like the happy clappy fundies that seem to have "kidnapped" Christianity, I despise.



Who cares? Ya know, I'm a "happy clappy fundie" you "despise" and we have never even met. Being a Christian fundie, I TRY not to run around insulting people because they don't believe like I dO. I mean, I COULD call all agnostics babbling BAFFOONs if you are any indication of what they are like. But I'm smarter than that.:D Plus I wouldn't want to ruin your imagine of me... :rolleyes:

Note,

Sorry ex, didn't mean to hijack your thread... but it needed to be said.

It's really interesting how that some of you can bash Hannity (and others) without batting an eye.

Especially when you are so quick to defend your own position and call anyone who disagrees with you a hypocrite.

Interesting!

It's really interesting how that some of you can bash Hannity (and others) without batting an eye.Does this mean that you believe him to be a fine upstanding person?

NK,

I like Hannity. I don't agree with everything he says but I think he is a fine upstanding person and I don't hate him because he calls himself a Christian or Catholic or whatever... now see how TOLERANT I am...

... I don't hate him because he calls himself a Christian or Catholic or whatever...No one here is hating him because he calls himself a Christian or Catholic or whatever.

Well whathisface.. said he despised fundie's... I don't call that LOVE.

I just find it very interesting that Christians in general are the ones who are called intolerant... thats all I am sayng. I'm not trying to get off thread, don't want exy mad at me.

well whathisface..You show a lack of respect for others.

Who cares? Ya know, i'm a "happy clappy fundie" you "despise" and we have never even met. Being a Christian fundie, I TRY not to run around insulting people because they don't believe like I dO. I mean, I COULD call all agnostics babbling BAFFOONs if you are any indication of what they are like.

Well quite, however I would be very surprised if you in fact knew what an agnostic even is. That said, you have raised a valid criticism. I should rather have said that I despise the movement itself, rather than the people it preys upon. This was a mistake on my part, and I apologise for any confusion.

Well quite, however I would be very surprised if you in fact knew what an agnostic even is. That said, you have raised a valid criticism. I should rather have said that I despise the movement itself, rather than the people it preys upon. This was a mistake on my part, and I apologise for any confusion.

Why would you be surprised that I would know what an agnostic is? Because I'm blonde, female, stupid or Christian? Or is it all of the above?

Incidentally NK... I was in a hurry when I called him whathisface... wasn't about lack of respect I just didn't recall his name and I had someone at the door. Having said THAT... hows about HIS lack of respect for others... or are you just down on Christian funides that have a brain and an opinion too?

Does this mean that you believe him to be a fine upstanding person?

It is not my call to label him. He is what he is, love him or hate him.

It's not your call either.

I notice that you frequently take swipe at Christians. The hypocrisy of the leftstream media totally eclipses anything you can find in any church.

But then, I suppose it is proper to hold people who claim to be Christians to a higher standard.

And it seems to be proper to hold republicans to a higher standard.

And the left doesn't hold dems to any standard, because they have none, and some on the left have said as much.

It is not my call to label him. He is what he is, love him or hate him.

It's not your call either.
But yet you post about Obama all the time. In your post above you labeled all democrats have having no standards. Following your own advice would be a good thing, no?

Look at you labeling people here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/profiling-its-worst-343948-2.html#post1689785

You deny the accuracy of my statement in that post?

What I am saying about this thread is that when the left disagrees with anyone claiming to be Christian, they immediately paste the hypocrite label on that person. Just because you don't like their opinion doesn't make them a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is when you "manage" news to suit yourself rather than facts, then throw the hypocrisy charge at the opposition.

The mainstream media (which is losing ratings) does it all the time.

... they immediately paste the hypocrite label on that person. Just because you don't like their opinion doesn't make them a hypocrite...A hypocrite is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". Hypocrisy can happen based on many belief systems that are compromised; it just happens that the cases that crop here are people who tout their christian values but act differently.

A hypocrite is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". Hypocrisy can happen based on many belief systems that are compromised; it just happens that the cases that crop here are people who tout their christian values but act differently.

Again, I notice that your context for hypocrisy seems to be limited to Christianity.
You don't see this as too narrow a context?

Let me ask you a direct question.

Do you see hypocrisy in the news services? Yes or no.

Again, I notice that your context for hypocricy seems to be limited to Christianity. You fail at comprehension.



Let me ask you a direct question.

Do you see hypocricy in the news services? Yes or no.No. What they do is not defined as hypocrisy (see definition in my previous quote).

I believe that most people understand that Fox is a GOP talking point organization. They do as expected.

You fail at comprehension.


No. What they do is not defined as hypocrisy (see definition in my previous quote).

I believe that most people understand that Fox is a GOP talking point organization. They do as expected.

Your reply is kind of what I expected.

If the other news outlets are so dependable, why is Fox beating them all hollow in the ratings? Why is the NYT on the verge of bankruptcy? Could it be that the public is becoming aware of just how hypocritical and slanted they are?

What they give a pass for to their guys, they will demonize their opposition for, including all manner of vile and profane innuendos and will even manufacture stories if none are available.

That's the way I see it, and remember, perception is everything, right??

NK,

I like Hannity. I don't agree with everything he says but I think he is a fine upstanding person and I don't hate him because he calls himself a Christian or Catholic or whatever...now see how TOLERANT i am...

That's not even close to what this thread is about...

Hannity says he would torture Gitmo detainees and tries to somehow justify it by saying "and im a Christian". And you still believe he is an upstanding person.

Should we assume you too think torture is good? Oh, no, that's right. You don't agree with everything he says. But to me a torturer is far from a fine upstanding person. Wouldn't you agree?

I think it is imortant to look at the subtext of Hannity's statement. For example, when he says "....and I'm a Christian.", what he is really saying is "... and I'm a good person.". This means he has taken the ludicrous position that his assertion must be "good" a priori, and that he need not bother with any meaningful justification. This tendency is all to common in the MODERN evangelical movement, and is the main reason why I avoid engagement with such people.

They make a complete mockery of the fine Christian orders that have contributed so much to western intellectual and philosophical development. Decartes, Aquinas, St Augustine, Hobbes, Locke, these great Christian thinkers would be ashamed of what the fundie lunatics have done to their great tradition.

Hello:

So, he's saying that torture must not be bad, because I, a good Christian person, would do it, and wouldn't think twice about it??

Yup. He didn't even think once about it... I'm still waiting for a Christian to speak about the torture of Jesus Christ... and then tell me that they think torture is cool.

excon

Hello:

So, he's saying that torture must not be bad, because I, a good Christian person, would do it, and wouldn't think twice about it???

Yup. He didn't even think once about it... I'm still waiting for a Christian to speak about the torture of Jesus Christ... and then tell me that they think torture is cool.

excon

So 30 second spurts of waterboarding under the supervision of a physican to make sure no actual harm is done can be equated with crucifixion?

Do you understand crucifixion, or are your comments pure hyperbole?

That's not even close to what this thread is about...

Hannity says he would torture Gitmo detainees and tries to somehow justify it by saying "and im a Christian". And you still believe he is an upstanding person.

Should we assume you too think torture is good? Oh, no, thats right. You dont agree with everything he says. But to me a torturer is far from a fine upstanding person. Wouldnt you agree?

Skell

Please don't answer for me... you don't know me. I already apologized to ex for "hijacking" his thread.. if he didn't have a problem.. why do YOU? OH! I know... it is because I'm a Christian! (oops did I go and answer for YOU?) AND because I don't dislike Hannity. NK used the word "upstanding".. and I repeated it. Honestly? I don't KNOW Hannity nor what kind of person he REALLY is. I am NOT willing to stand in judgement of anyone for a comment. Last time I checked this was America and we could voice our opinions... right or wrong, politically correct or not.

Hello:

So, he's saying that torture must not be bad, because I, a good Christian person, would do it, and wouldn't think twice about it???

Yup. He didn't even think once about it... I'm still waiting for a Christian to speak about the torture of Jesus Christ... and then tell me that they think torture is cool.

excon

Ex,

No one thinks that torture is cool... ok I shouldn't speak for everyone. But NORMAL people don't. If I had lost someone on one of the airplanes or in the twin towers, or better yet SURVIVED the twin towers... I'd be a whole lot more interested in how to prevent another attack than I would in whether water boarding is torture. Good Grief, if you are stupid enough to come to our country and kill our people... let me rephrase.. TORTURE and KILL our people... well you get what you get. Last I check THEY still have BREATH! I'd love to be able to do a survey on the people on fire and the ones that plummeted to their deaths jumping off the twin towers, or suffering in agony while the plane was crashing.. and asked THEM if they think waterboarding is torture? Better yet... lets give THEM the choice?? water boarding... or fall to your death on fire? GEEE? Wonder what they would pick?

If Jesus hadn't suffered and died, I couldn't and wouldn't be a Christian. It is his death, burial and resurrection that I believe in. I do NOT believe that torture is cool but it was NECESSARY because God allowed it. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. I don't know why it has to be that way but it does. I don't think comparing the Lord Jesus to this is beneficial.

wonder what they would pick?
Yeah, torture all the "terrorists," even if we're not sure they have anything to do with terrorism. They're the right color and culture. WWJD? Thought he groaned something about forgiving enemies when he was on the cross.

Yeah, torture all the "terrorists," even if we're not sure they have anything to do with terrorism. They're the right color and culture. WWJD? Thought he groaned something about forgiving enemies when he was on the cross.

WG,

You can't have it both ways... our nation has fought and won wars... we weren't exactly forgiving our enemies THEN... so I guess we were wrong fighting for our country in the revelutionary war, and then all the ones that followed. Guess we shouldn't even had stopped Hitler.. heck, we should have simply "forgiven" him. Give me a break.

And just sos you know... WG... wWOULDjd... and wWILLjd.. gonna be two different things in his Kingdom.

Skell

Please don't answer for me....you don't know me. i already apologized to ex for "hijacking" his thread..if he didn't have a problem..why do YOU? OH! i know... it is because I'm a Christian! (oops did i go and answer for YOU?) AND because i don't dislike Hannity. NK used the word "upstanding".. and I repeated it. Honestly? I don't KNOW Hannity nor what kind of person he REALLY is. I am NOT willing to stand in judgement of anyone for a comment. Last time I checked this was America and we could voice our opinions...right or wrong, politically correct or not.

What? Sorry I'm not really following.. Where did I answer for you? I used your words only. I was asking questions which you don't seem to want to answer.

And I haven't argued the point that he can't voice his opinion. Where have I made that argument? I simply said that he thinks torture is good, yet you still feel he is an upstanding person. Why is that?

Rapists think rape is good. I'm sure that would disqualify them from the upstanding person tag. No?

Can't you see the question being asked?

WG,

You can't have it both ways .....our nation has fought and won wars
Yeah, but we were attacked most of the time, so it was self-defense. And, until Mr. Bush came along, we did our best to avoid war ALL of the time.

Good Grief, if you are stupid enough to come to our country and kill our people....let me rephrase..TORTURE and KILL our people...well you get what ya get. Last i check THEY still have BREATH! Hello Tessy:

I have no problem with retribution or revenge. But, let's call it what it is and not wrap it up hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. Either it's NOT torture, because doesn't hurt, and we're the good guys (we'd NEVER torture). Or it hurts them a lot, and they DESERVE it.

excon

What? Sorry i'm not really following.. Where did I answer for you? I used your words only. I was asking questions which you don't seem to want to answer.

And i havent argued the point that he can't voice his opinion. Where have i made that argument?? I simply said that he thinks torture is good, yet you still feel he is an upstanding person. Why is that?

Rapists think rape is good. I'm sure that would disqualify them from the upstanding person tag. No??

Can't you see the question being asked?

Re read your comments to me skell. You asked a question to me and answered it yourself... I'm not that hard to follow.

I'm not going to defend why I like Hannity.. maybe I just think he is really CUTE.:rolleyes:

Hello Tessy:

I have no problem with retribution or revenge. But, let's call it what it is and not wrap it up hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. Either it's NOT torture, because doesn't hurt, and we're the good guys (we'd NEVER torture). Or it hurts them a lot, and they DESERVE it.

excon

Ex,

Honestly, I don't KNOW if waterboarding is torture.. some people say it IS.. others say it isn't. ALL I DO KNOW... is they get to LIVE. Our people didn't get that courtesy... Under the Law of Moses ( your Jewish right?) it was an eye for an eye.. sos the way I see it... WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS.. they are still alive and kicken. The best part is, we have people right here in the good ol USA that are all concerned about their "rights" That's fine. That is why I love American... you are free to do that. Funny though, their people were dancing in the streets when ours were TORTURED AND DIED. Oh yes... we are INDEED the good guys.

Hello again, Tessy:

Couple things...

Of course, waterboarding is torture... It's like porn... It either IS porn, or it's NOT. It can't NOT be porn because he only went in 10% of the way, but definitely porn when he goes in 15%. To parse porn that way is ridiculous, isn't it??

Same thing with torture. It can't NOT be torture to be waterboarded for 39 seconds, but definitely torture when waterboarded for 40 seconds. It makes no sense at all.

Like I said above, I have no trouble with retribution. But, let's NOT make a mockery of the law in order to do it.

You SEEM to be coming around.

excon

Exy,

I don't know... are they mamed afterwards? Do they have burns on them so bad they can't be recognized? Is there ONE scar left on their bodies. Are their bones broken and laying in a heap under ton of rubble... I don't know what the definition of torture is... I kind of know what it looks like AFTERWARDS.

Fyi... dude... porn IS torture... UGH :)

torture - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture)

Leave Porn alone, Porn has enough trouble on it's own! :P

Do you understand crucifixion, or are your comments pure hyperbole?Hello gal:

You seem compartmentalized... Let me see if I can undo that...

In your compartment, they were waterboarded, and that, by itself, can't be torture... They were put in a box, and that, by itself isn't torture. They were not allowed to sleep, and that's not torture. They were subject to all sorts of terrible things, that each one, in and of themselves, aren't torture...

The only way you could come with that conclusion is because you buy the parsing of the word torture. Ok, if I were to take THAT argument at face value, then numbers, instead of the act itself, ARE important. After all, they've determined that some amount of seconds of waterboarding isn't torture, and if one goes beyond that, it's torture. (By the way, how could anybody come up with THAT conclusion?? )

So, if some number, that which if gone beyond, is torture, then I'd ask you, if ONE waterboarding isn't torture, would being waterboarded 68 times in one month be torture??

Speaking of your compartment, you're right, I don't know about crucifixion. But, I don't think that was the only torture Jesus endured. I think he was brutalized long before he was hung on the cross. According to you, the stuff that happened BEFORE he was crucified, isn't to be considered, and if it is, it couldn't be called torture, because crucifixion is torture.

excon

Hello gal:

You seem compartmentalized.... Lemme see if I can undo that...

In your compartment, they were waterboarded, and that, by itself, can't be torture... They were put in a box, and that, by itself isn't torture. They were not allowed to sleep, and that's not torture. They were subject to all sorts of terrible things, that each one, in and of themselves, aren't torture...

The only way you could come with that conclusion is because you buy the parsing of the word torture. Ok, if I were to take THAT argument at face value, then numbers, instead of the act itself, ARE important. After all, they've determined that some amount of seconds of waterboarding isn't torture, and if one goes beyond that, it's torture. (By the way, how could anybody come up with THAT conclusion???)

So, if some number, that which if gone beyond, is torture, then I'd ask you, if ONE waterboarding isn't torture, would being waterboarded 68 times in one month be torture???

Speaking of your compartment, you're right, I don't know about crucifixion. But, I don't think that was the only torture Jesus endured. I think he was brutalized long before he was hung on the cross. According to you, the stuff that happened BEFORE he was crucified, isn't to be considered, and if it is, it couldn't be called torture, because crucifixion is torture.

excon

Don't be ridiculous! I am well aware of the brutalization that Jesus endured before His crucifixion. Are you saying that a Gitmo waterboarding is equal to a Roman flogging?

The reason 39 seconds of water is not torture, while 45 seconds may be is that the guy has to BREATHE sometime. If continued long enough, he would actually drown, and that WOULD be torture. Your definition of torture is unrealistic. I hear that some of the male employees of Fox news were waterboarded. They volunteered for it to make a point.

No Gal that would be murder.

If continued long enough, he would actually drown, and that WOULD be torture. So it's only torture when they die? That's your definition?


I hear that some of the male employees of Fox news were waterboarded. They volunteered for it to make a point.
Fox News demonstrates waterboarding  Video (http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/8/Fox-News-demonstrates-waterboarding-351602.html)

Oh you mean the one where:
1. the reporter had no reason to fear death - he knew he was in a controlled environment.
2. Did you notice how gentle the interregators were? I can't say this for sure, but I'm guessing the CIA is a little more foreceful - I'm assuming they use more than a turkey baster to drop water in someone's nose.
3. As soon as this guy yelled out "stop," they immediately stopped. Do you think actual interregators do that? If this isn't torture, would Fox and friends consider it torture if you continued to do this after being begged to stop.

They guy on fox news even called it torture

They volunteered for it to make a point.Hello again, gal:

THAT video??

When asked, by the anchor, "do you consider this technique to be torture, you've experienced it?", the Fox employee said, "I don't see how you could consider it anything else."

THAT point?

excon

Just jumping in for a minute.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding)

Long term effects of waterboarding are panic attacks, depression and PTSD. Also there is a large possibility of death, damage to the lungs, broken bones from fighting against restraints.

If that's not torture, I don't want to know what is.

For those of you that think it's okay, that it isn't torture, well then, volunteer to have it done to you, not just a wussy attempt either, but a full on, no choice, interrogation, using this method. If you can look us in the face afterwards and say it isn't torture then I'll let it drop, until then, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

So it's only torture when they die? That's your definition?


Fox News demonstrates waterboarding  Video (http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/8/Fox-News-demonstrates-waterboarding-351602.html)

Oh you mean the one where:
1. the reporter had no reason to fear death - he knew he was in a controlled environment.
.

EXCELLENT POINT!! You got it! Congratulations!

It was a controlled environment at Gitmo too. Only the waterboardee didn't KNOW that UNTIL Obama told them so!!

So now the intellegence people can say "pretty please". Lots of luck learning anything that way.

I still say your idea of what constitutes torture is ridiculous.

EXCELLENT POINT!!! You got it! Congratulations!

It was a controlled enviornment at Gitmo too. Only the waterboardee didn't KNOW that UNTIL Obama told them so!!!Actually I don't get it I guess. Can you explain it? What did Obama have to do with the waterboarding?

Re read your comments to me skell. you asked a quesion to me and answered it yourself....i'm not that hard to follow.

I'm not going to defend why I like Hannity..maybe i just think he is really CUTE.:rolleyes:

As I said, I used your words. Your answer...

Never mind...

I still say your idea of what constitutes torture is ridiculous.

What about your FOx News guy that was making your point? He thinks its torture.. Oh, his point isn't relevant now I gather?

Watch the video.

YouTube - STILL Think Waterboarding Isn't Torture? Try it Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l34Tx9oAHZo&feature=related)

Still think it isn't torture?

http://www.gearbits.com/images/thumbs-up.gif

How did you do that thumbs up thing?

I want to hear from the defenders of waterboarding. How they can justify that this is OK?

Nevermind, I ask this way before I read other post. So sorry.

Your reply is kind of what I expected.


[QUOTE]What they give a pass for to their guys, they will demonize their opposition for, including all manner of vile and profane innuendos and will even manufacture stories if none are available.

Tell me a purely manufactured story please.

WG,


And just sos ya know.....WG...wWOULDjd....and wWILLjd..gonna be two different things in his Kingdom.

You lost me here. What will Jesus do in his kingdom?:confused:

Just jumping in for a minute.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding)

Long term effects of waterboarding are panic attacks, depression and PTSD. Also there is a large possibility of death, damage to the lungs, broken bones from fighting against restraints.

If that's not torture, I don't want to know what is.

For those of you that think it's okay, that it isn't torture, well then, volunteer to have it done to you, not just a wussy attempt either, but a full on, no choice, interrogation, using this method. If you can look us in the face afterwards and say it isn't torture then I'll let it drop, until then, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Can't give you a greenie so I'll just say, Amen sista!:D

You lost me here. What will Jesus do in his kingdom?:confused:

Cozyk,

The Lord Jesus came to the earth as a Lamb... he is coming back as a Lion and it ain't going to be good for the antichrist and his followers. He won't have to do more than speak and they will die. THEN during the 1000 year reign... The Bible says EVERY morning there will be judgement. Remember during that time there will be no hunger, wars or disasters... 1000 years of peace on earth , plenty of food, no sickness.( yes, people can live for 1000 years IF they abide by the Lord)... PLUS satan will be bound in the bottomless pit... ( therefore the devil DIDN'T make them do it) so there will be no reason to commit crimes. IF someone should outwardly commit sin during this period.. lets just say, they don't get to live to see the next morning.

Cozyk,

The Lord Jesus came to the earth as a Lamb...he is coming back as a Lion and it ain't gonna be good for the antichrist and his followers. He won't have to do more than speak and they will die. THEN during the 1000 year reign... The Bible says EVERY morning there will be judgement. remember during that time there will be no hunger, wars or disasters....1000 years of peace on earth , plenty of food, no sickness.( yes, people can live for 1000 years IF they abide by the Lord)...PLUS satan will be bound in the bottomless pit...( therefore the devil DIDN"T make them do it) so there will be no reason to commit crimes. IF someone should outwardly commit sin during this period..lets just say, they don't get to live to see the next morning.
Of course, Cozyk, keep in mind, that is an interpretation by only a small fraction of Christians.

WG.

I wouldn't call it SMALL that is YOUR "interpretation". I have NO idea what your take is on the 1000 year reign but I have read your posts that say the book of revelation has already happened... I would say THAT thought is held by a small fraction of Christians.

Cozyk,

I by NO means think I have the market on Christianity... I personally DO believe it is what the Bible teaches.

I wouldn't call it SMALL that is YOUR "interpretation".
Do you have any stats for us?

i would say THAT thought is held by a small fraction of Christians.

Not true. Check the stats for this.

IF someone should outwardly commit sin during this period..lets just say, they don't get to live to see the next morning.Hello Tess:

Wow. Sounds like Bush on steroids. I certainly wouldn't want to live there. But, I guess I don't have to worry about that, do I? Wheeew!

excon

Of course, Cozyk, keep in mind, that is an interpretation by only a small fraction of Christians.

I think the key word here is "interpretation". We have seen on other threads that when something is left to interpretation, then you have no basis for factual truth. You only have YOUR own personal belief formed through your own perspective .

Do you have any stats for us?

The view expressed by Classy are pretty common among the various Pentecostal groups.

Here are a few stats:(You can look up the various denominations yourself, if you wish.)

Assemblies of God worldwide: 50-60 million.(The largest Pentecostal group)
Then add the membership of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn), Pentecostal Holiness, Pentecostal Church of God, United Pentecostal, Church of God in Christ, Foursquare, and some others, including a lot of independent churches.

And I think the Baptists also hold this view. Baptists, feel free to either confirm or deny this so we will all know.

This is hardly a tiny minority of Christians.

This is hardly a tiny minority of Christians.
Who's left? How many millions?

Yes, while the number ( so many millions) may sound large it is as noted only a small percent of the entire Christian groups.

It does not even come close to the Catholic, the Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and more

Hello Tess:

Wow. Sounds like Bush on steroids. I certainly wouldn't want to live there. But, I guess I don't have to worry about that, do I? Wheeew!

excon

Hey, you are still alive and kicken aren't you. You could come around... stranger things HAVE happened. :)

The view expressed by Classy are pretty common among the various Pentecostal groups.

Here are a few stats:(You can look up the various denominations yourself, if you wish.)

Assemblies of God worldwide: 50-60 million.(The largest Pentecostal group)
Then add in the membership of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn), Pentecostal Holiness, Pentecostal Church of God, United Pentecostal, Church of God in Christ, Foursquare, and some others, including a lot of independent churches.

And I think the Baptists also hold this view. Baptists, feel free to either confirm or deny this so we will all know.

This is hardly a tiny minority of Christians.

Thanks Gal. :) I'm with you. I was raised in a place called Plymouth Brethern... very very conservative. I now go to a non denominational church and the Pastor use to preach at a Baptist church.. so SOME Baptist do agree with this view. I believe Charles Stanley does too ( I'm pretty sure he is Baptist)

Thanks Gal. :) I'm with ya. I was raised in a place called Plymouth Brethern....very very conservative. I now go to a non denominational church and the Pastor use to preach at a Baptist church..so SOME Baptist do agree with this view. I believe Charles Stanley does too ( i'm pretty sure he is Baptist)

So then we can probably add the Baptists to this column. How many millions more is that?
If it is still a minority, it is hardly tiny.

Besides, since when does mere numbers mean any group is right?

Hello Christians:

The other day, Hannity said that he'd torture the Gitmo detainees himself, if he could, and he finished by saying, "and I'm a Christian". I guess he meant that torture isn't against anything Christianlike..

However, I started to think about how Jesus was crucified. Isn't crucifixion torture? I think it is. Wasn't Jesus tortured to death??? I think he was.

I don't understand, then, how a Christian can be OK with torture. Tell me where I'm wrong.

excon

Excon, regardless of what "Christians" have said here, be assured that torture is absolutely antithetical to Christianity - and, for that matter, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and, yes, even Islam.

These pages, for whatever reason, seem to attract the wackos of religion - the sad, marginalized people who populate the fringes of all faiths. Fundamentalists come in all shapes and sizes, and in all religions.

In the US, for the last 30 years or so, they have raised their political voice and go along with just about anything their favored politicians feed them. If they could read, and open a book, they would see how these very blind acceptances have lead to the horrors of the 20th century.

And, yes, Hannity is a wacko.

So then we can probably add the Baptists to this column. How many millions more is that?
If it is still a minority, it is hardly tiny.

[B]Besides, since when does mere numbers mean any group is right?

[/B
Exactly, I never understood the argument that just because "everybody else" was doing it thinking it, or believing it, that it meant it was right. That is what got me turned off to formal religion in the first place. The idea that if I was going to be part of their group, that I had to give up my free thinking, and just go along with what the group said we believed. Not for me, too much of a free thinker.

[/B
Exactly, I never understood the argument that just because "everybody else" was doing it thinking it, or believing it, that it meant it was right. That is what got me turned off to formal religion in the first place. The idea that if I was going to be part of their group, that I had to give up my free thinking, and just go along with what the group said we believed. Not for me, too much of a free thinker.

Free thinking is fine. I sometimes go outside the box.

The important thing to keep in mind is the veracity of the information we are using while doing the free thinking. Like they say, "garbabe in, garbage out" and that isn't just for computers either.

Free thinking is fine. I sometimes go outside the box.

The important thing to keep in mind is the veracity of the information we are using while doing the free thinking. Like they say, "garbabe in, garbage out" and that isn't just for computers either.

If it's garbage, I'll recognize it. I'm like the least gullible person you will ever know. I know what is b.s. and what is rational, sensible, and rings true.

Cozyk,

I don't EVER just go along with the crowd. There have been things I have been taught about the Bible and I have checked them out MYSELF, only to find it wasn't correct. Anything I say... I actually believe based on what the Bible says not what some denomination believes. Just fyi... :)

(sorry ex... I hijacked your thread again... I just had to set the record straight)

If it's garbage, I'll recognize it. I'm like the least gullible person you will ever know. I know what is b.s. and what is rational, sensible, and rings true.

I hear people say this sort of thing a lot, and I'm never quite sure what to make of it, mostly because I am struck by the fact that most of the people from whom I've heard it have proven themselves to be very sloppy thinkers.

Take an example. Here are two arguments (premises offered in support of a conclusion). See if you can tell which is valid and which is not, i.e. in which argument does the conclusion follow from the premises and in which argument does the conclusion not follow.

Argument A
1. If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
2. It is not raining.
3. Therefore, the streets are not wet.

Argument B
1. If I am hungry, I will eat a sandwich.
2. I do not eat a sandwich.
3. Therefore, I am not hungry.

Can you tell which argument is valid and which isn't? Can you say why?

Here's why I offer this little exercise: Most of us aren't nearly as smart as we think we are. And most of us like to think that we are really good at detecting BS, at weeding out the rational from the irrational. But, as it happens, years of research by cognitive psychologists have shown that we actually suck at it. We are absolutely terrible. Add to this the fact that most Americans, at least, are poorly educated and woefully uninformed, and the prospects really aren't good at all. The idea that is so dear to many people, that their "gut" is a reliable truth-detector, is absolute bunk and has been shown experimentally to be bunk.

I would feel much better if more people exhibited intellectual humility, rather than prattling on about how savvy and free-thinking they are. It has been my experience that free-thinkers tend to be stupid at about the same rate as non-free-thinkers. In fact, the label "free thinker" doesn't mean much, since people mostly use it as a way of telling others how cool and smart they are: "I am a free thinker" is just another way of saying "I'm so smart that I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe". But, of course, that's just nonsense. No one is expert at all fields of cognitive endeavor. We all need experts to tell us what to believe about, say, physics, biology, medicine, chemistry, history, theology, philosophy, art, political science, the law, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who thinks that they have the wherewithal to adjudicate all these matters all on their own is a fool. I'm not a Proust expert, so if I want to know what to think about Proust I can either (a) study really hard for a long time in order to become a Proust expert, or I can (b) find a Proust expert and ask him or her a bunch of questions. The tricky part is mostly discerning who the real experts are since, as we see here at AMHD every day, there are charlatans lurking around every corner.

Equally striking is the aversion people regularly exhibit to anything that is too complicated o requires actual cognitive effort. People want easy answers to difficult questions; they want sound-bites; and they don't want to have to read too much or think too hard. Even you, cozyk, frequently complain about posts being too long. You, who champion "free thinking", have repeatedly told us that you dislike the Bible because it is "boring" and makes your "head hurt". Now I can think of lots of reasons to dislike the Bible, but that is about the shallowest one I've heard to date. If you are averse to thinking too hard, or reading anything that is too long or boring, then you aren't ever going to be much of a "thinker" at all. This is the sort of attitude that keeps the New Age industry flourishing: The key is to feel really good about yourself and never ever think too hard. Just skim along the surface of things. It's the American, consumerist, way.

And one sees much the same thing among a lot of the Bible-thumpers. They seem to have made it an article of their faith that all one needs is a Bible and an English dictionary (nevermind that the Bible wasn't written in English). They constantly proclaim that the Bible is the pivot around which their lives turn, and yet they haven't put forth the effort to learn the languages in which it was written nor to study its history. And more than a few of them appear to have questionable reading skills. Again we find intellectual laziness and sloppy thinking elevated to a kind of virtue. I see very little difference between those who constantly announce their free thinking ways and those who constantly attempt to bludgeon others with the Bible. They share the same lack of intellectual maturity.

There, now I've pissed off both camps.

I'm not pissed. I'm amazed at how much I rattled your cage that you had to post such a long post. You made ref. to my being too lazy to read long boring stuff. You are right, but I made it through anyway.

I hear people say this sort of thing a lot, and I'm never quite sure what to make of it, mostly because I am struck by the fact that most of the people from whom I've heard it have proven themselves to be very sloppy thinkers.

Take an example. Here are two arguments (premises offered in support of a conclusion). See if you can tell which is valid and which is not, i.e. in which argument does the conclusion follow from the premises and in which argument does the conclusion not follow.

Argument A
1. If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
2. It is not raining.
3. Therefore, the streets are not wet.

Argument B
1. If I am hungry, I will eat a sandwich.
2. I do not eat a sandwich.
3. Therefore, I am not hungry.

Can you tell which argument is valid and which isn't? Can you say why?

Here's why I offer this little exercise: Most of us aren't nearly as smart as we think we are. And most of us like to think that we are really good at detecting BS, at weeding out the rational from the irrational. But, as it happens, years of research by cognitive psychologists have shown that we actually suck at it. We are absolutely terrible. Add to this the fact that most Americans, at least, are poorly educated and woefully uninformed, and the prospects really aren't good at all. The idea that is so dear to many people, that their "gut" is a reliable truth-detector, is absolute bunk and has been shown experimentally to be bunk.

I would feel much better if more people exhibited intellectual humility, rather than prattling on about how savvy and free-thinking they are. It has been my experience that free-thinkers tend to be stupid at about the same rate as non-free-thinkers. In fact, the label "free thinker" doesn't mean much, since people mostly use it as a way of telling others how cool and smart they are: "I am a free thinker" is just another way of saying "I'm so smart that I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe". But, of course, that's just nonsense. No one is expert at all fields of cognitive endeavor. We all need experts to tell us what to believe about, say, physics, biology, medicine, chemistry, history, theology, philosophy, art, political science, the law, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who thinks that they have the wherewithal to adjudicate all these matters all on their own is a fool. I'm not a Proust expert, so if I want to know what to think about Proust I can either (a) study really hard for a long time in order to become a Proust expert, or I can (b) find a Proust expert and ask him or her a bunch of questions. The tricky part is mostly discerning who the real experts are since, as we see here at AMHD every day, there are charlatans lurking around every corner.

Equally striking is the aversion people regularly exhibit to anything that is too complicated o requires actual cognitive effort. People want easy answers to difficult questions; they want sound-bites; and they don't want to have to read too much or think too hard. Even you, cozyk, frequently complain about posts being too long. You, who champion "free thinking", have repeatedly told us that you dislike the Bible because it is "boring" and makes your "head hurt". Now I can think of lots of reasons to dislike the Bible, but that is about the shallowest one I've heard to date. If you are averse to thinking too hard, or reading anything that is too long or boring, then you aren't ever going to be much of a "thinker" at all. This is the sort of attitude that keeps the New Age industry flourishing: The key is to feel really good about yourself and never ever think too hard. Just skim along the surface of things. It's the American, consumerist, way.

And one sees much the same thing among a lot of the Bible-thumpers. They seem to have made it an article of their faith that all one needs is a Bible and an English dictionary (nevermind that the Bible wasn't written in English). They constantly proclaim that the Bible is the pivot around which their lives turn, and yet they haven't put forth the effort to learn the languages in which it was written nor to study its history. And more than a few of them appear to have questionable reading skills. Again we find intellectual laziness and sloppy thinking elevated to a kind of virtue. I see very little difference between those who constantly announce their free thinking ways and those who constantly attempt to bludgeon others with the Bible. They share the same lack of intellectual maturity.

There, now I've pissed off both camps.


Argument A ?

1] is statement of fact and 2 and 3 follow

In Argument B
1] is a conditional statement, so 2 and 3 are also conditional, and not fact.






People want easy answers to difficult questions; they want sound-bites; and they don't want to have to read too much or think too hard.




I find the NT's statements on love incredibly difficult to come to grips with, and even more difficult to put into practice: "love your enemy" "turn the other cheek" ETC. It is hard to trust in God and follow the commandments even if they are simplified into love God and love your neighbor.

It is much easier to be secular and "just be good" or "if it feels right, then it is okay"

I think torture and revenge falls in this category. If it was my loved one killed in 9/11 and you told me that so and so is responsible or in collusion with those who are responsible... I would not doubt that I would be capable of torturing this person... to rationalize that it is to protect others, or that it is just... but God wants me to love - the opposite of my human nature. This is where Hannity is wrong.






G&P

Actually, Akoue puts it pretty well.

And I might be called a Bible thumper, too.

(A) Looks wrong to me. #3 does not necessarily follow. The streets could still be wet from some source other than rain, e.g.. A broken water main.

Actually inthebox, argument a is a non-sequiter. Just because it is not raining, it does not necessarily follow that the streets are not wet. A fallacy know as "affirming the consequent". Argument b is valid, although somewhat counter intuitive. Also I should point out that valid does not necessarily mean true.

Anyway, great post Akoue. I must admit that I also find the modern tendency to look for easy explanations over superior ones quite frustrating. The new age crap I am confronted with in the philosophy section of my local library drives me to despair. People just can't be bothered with learning for the sake of it, or at least it seems that way. There always has to be some sort of monetary pay off at the end of it, hence you will find plenty of "Think Yourself to Wealth" type books polluting the literary landscape as well. Commodity fetishism and exchange value rule the day, as consumerism tries to define itself as meaningful in a kind of hedonistic display of self-exaltation.

Well, that's my quasi-marxist rant for the day.

For anyone who may be interested:

Argument A is a fallacy called denying the antecedent. As Galveston rightly points out, the streets could be wet for some other reason.

Argument B is valid by (the rule of inference called) modus tollens. As Tokugawa indicates, people often find this rule of inference to be a bit counterintuitive at first.

Back to the OP.

Has it occurred to anyone that the "torture" used at Gitmo is so similar to what college students have put themselves through to join some fraternity?

And how about those survival shows on TV? Or those programs where people eat insects, stay overnight in a cage filled with snakes, or do other weird things, all to get a prize?

Unless you are a veteran who was captured and actually tortured by some enemy, I doubt you know what real torture is.

What I am saying is that we have re-defined torture to suit people who believe in the basic goodness of mankind.

so similar to what college students have put themselves through to join some fraternity?

And how about those survival shows on TV? Or those programs where people eat insects, stay overnight in a cage filled with snakes, or do other wierd things, all to get a prize?

But those "tortures" are accepted willingly by the participants in order to join a group or claim their 15 minutes of fame and $$$. (Would you eat live scorpions for free?) The Gitmo prisoners have not agreed to any of the tortures they have undergone.

Back to the OP.

Has it occurred to anyone that the "torture" used at Gitmo is so similar to what college students have put themselves through to join some fraternity?

And how about those survival shows on TV? Or those programs where people eat insects, stay overnight in a cage filled with snakes, or do other wierd things, all to get a prize?

Unless you are a veteran who was captured and actually tortured by some enemy, I doubt you know what real torture is.

What I am saying is that we have re-defined torture to suit people who believe in the basic goodness of mankind.

Does that make it right? That some people lower themselves and their dignity to either fit into a group or win big bucks? That really isn't relevant at all to the torture issue. It's amazing how insignificant some people feel that they will stoop to these kinds of measures just to "fit in". It's also a sad state of affairs that any group would required it's members to leave their dignity at the door in order to come in. Really pathetic.

I hope I never know what real torture is and it would be my wish that NO ONE knew what real torture is. Unfortunately, some people lack the "humane gene", so it does happen.

But those "tortures" are accepted willingly by the participants in order to join a group or claim their 15 minutes of fame and $$$. (Would you eat live scorpions for free?) The Gitmo prisoners have not agreed to any of the tortures they have undergone.

The detainees weren't forced to eat bugs. In fact, they got special menus to accommodate their religion.

The detainees weren't forced to sleep in cages with snakes. Just a caterpillar. Or was that just a threat? HOW HORRIBLE!

I repeat, your definitioin of torture is totally unrealisic.

I suspect that you are an idealist. Were you part of the movement whose slogan was "make love, not war"?

The detainees weren't forced to eat bugs. In fact, they got special menus to accomodate their religion.

The detainees weren't forced to sleep in cages with snakes. Just a caterpillar. Or was that just a threat? HOW HORRIBLE!
Neither were the hazees and the reality folks. None of them were forced. They applied/volunteered.

Have you read the list of tortures done to the detainees, some of whom are innocent?

Neither were the hazees and the reality folks. None of them were forced. They applied/volunteered.

Have you read the list of tortures done to the detainees, some of whom are innocent?

I was going to jump in for you, but then I thought, WG can take care of this. You did not let me down.

For anyone who may be interested:

Argument A is a fallacy called denying the antecedent.


HEY!! Stop showing me up!! :D

Actually, I really need to reacquiant myself with the logical fallacies, so you've given me something to do this weekend (life in the fastlane for me baby! ):(.

As to what galveston wrote, I don't think that the argument given is very helpful when it comes to providing a stable definition of "torture". Others have already touched on it, but to give it another perspective, we can also witness people who choose to hang themselves in the air supported by nothing more than hooks that pierce the skin. I think that most people would agree that to do this to someone against their will would be a form of torture. I have already pointed out on another thread that there are of course varying degrees of torture, just as there are varying degrees of child abuse, assault, etc. To say that something isn't torture because it's not as harsh certain other forms doesn't actually cut it as far as I am concerned.

The best we have to go on is the definition according to UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture), which states -

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Note that it refers only to "people", and I can also see that we are probably now going to debate what severe pain or suffering,whether physical or mental actually is, which is really what we have been debating all along I guess. I feel it is quite reasonable to say that many of the activities carried out at GITMO would fall within those bounds. That they are not as severe as what some other countries have been party to is neither here nor there.

HEY!!! Stop showing me up!!!:D

Actually, I really need to reacquiant myself with the logical fallacies, so you've given me something to do this weekend (life in the fastlane for me baby!!):(.

As to what galveston wrote, I don't think that the argument given is very helpful when it comes to providing a stable definition of "torture". Others have already touched on it, but to give it another perspective, we can also witness people who choose to hang themselves in the air supported by nothing more than hooks that pierce the skin. I think that most people would agree that to do this to someone against their will would be a form of torture. I have already pointed out on another thread that there are of course varying degrees of torture, just as there are varying degrees of child abuse, assault, etc. To say that something isn't torture because it's not as harsh certain other forms doesn't actually cut it as far as I am concerned.

The best we have to go on is the definition according to UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture), which states -

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Note that it refers only to "people", and I can also see that we are probably now going to debate what severe pain or suffering,whether physical or mental actually is, which is really what we have been debating all along I guess. I feel it is quite reasonable to say that many of the activities carried out at GITMO would fall within those bounds. That they are not as severe as what some other countries have been party to is neither here nor there.

You need to spend some time at the current events board. Very well said.

Very well. We shall see whether Obama and crew can keep us safe from terrorist attacks by diplomacy.

Okay which country, which state, which town will accept these supposedly GITMO detainees?

I know Obama should just house them at the Whitehouse :D:rolleyes:



G&P

Okay which country, which state, which town will accept these supposedly GITMO detainees?
Why wouldn't any accept them? They are certainly no worse than the home-grown prisoners.

Well months of the DEMs also voted against the measure. I certainly would not want them in my backyard.



G&P

Well mos of the DEMs also voted against the measure. I certainly would not want them in my backyard.
Can't imagine why not. Most of them were probably in the wrong place at the wrong time and are probably innocent. Having them in your back yard wouldn't affect your safety. (They're going to escape or sumpin'?? )