P
- Status
C
Curious11
Guest
Viva la hispanidad unida 
P
Pobreton
Guest
Exactly.
Take this example for instance: What would you say about a ruler who waged wars against more than one (weaker) nation at a time, allowed torture in a base his warriors had established in a foreign land, expelled millions of people (who shared racial traits) within a few years from his domain, intercepted the messages his citizens sent to each other or to distant lands, etc.
You know what “ruler” I had in mind? Barack Obama. I don’t think history should remember his as a criminal or some such thing. He did what he thought was the best thing to do in each of those situations and he also made mistakes like all of us do (the same could be said about the people serving under him).
It’s just that when we take things out of context the actions of anyone (or any group) in charge of defending his (their) land in times of turmoil are bound to look… well, you know, just read the above… And, when we add the factor of being centuries apart from the time when those things took place and the fact that propaganda was heavily used against that certain group of people (or individual) the matter is necessarily much more complex than it would appear at first.
Take this example for instance: What would you say about a ruler who waged wars against more than one (weaker) nation at a time, allowed torture in a base his warriors had established in a foreign land, expelled millions of people (who shared racial traits) within a few years from his domain, intercepted the messages his citizens sent to each other or to distant lands, etc.
You know what “ruler” I had in mind? Barack Obama. I don’t think history should remember his as a criminal or some such thing. He did what he thought was the best thing to do in each of those situations and he also made mistakes like all of us do (the same could be said about the people serving under him).
It’s just that when we take things out of context the actions of anyone (or any group) in charge of defending his (their) land in times of turmoil are bound to look… well, you know, just read the above… And, when we add the factor of being centuries apart from the time when those things took place and the fact that propaganda was heavily used against that certain group of people (or individual) the matter is necessarily much more complex than it would appear at first.
C
Curious11
Guest
Great example!!!
N
Norseman82
Guest
Well, I certainly didn’t expect this thread!! 
G
GKMotley
Guest
No one expects th…
Oh. Wait.
Oh. Wait.
M
MPat
Guest
Oh, not me. The arguments. You see, “it’s not much.” is but name-calling directed to arguments, when no actual flaws are being pointed out.
K
KevinK
Guest
Thank you. Bye your own admission you have pointed out I criticized your arguments not you. That is what debate is. If you are going to be that hypersensitive to push back on your arguments perhaps this is not the place for you.
M
MPat
Guest
Um, the word “criticized” would imply something more significant. No, that was just name-calling, only directed to arguments.
Yes, that is much better than name-calling mostly directed to persons that happened previously (something about “book burning” etc.). And I did note that getting more variety in name-calling in such way is good progress.
The next step would be starting making obviously fallacious arguments - but arguments.
For I’m afraid that so far you have offered no arguments at all in support of your position…
If you need a hint for this next step, at least argument to (dubious) authority really shouldn’t be that hard to do in this case.
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that the natural law did not change with time?
A
AlNg
Guest
I did. Is torture against the natural law?
C
Constantine333
Guest
None. But to bash the inquisition, which system was so just that people held by the secular government would commit heresy to be put in an inquisition prison, is a unnecessary if not silly. Do note that torture was a universally used thing, but the church made sure that Inquisitors had doctors on hand to help the accused and a max. time limit of 5 WHOLE MINUTES. Hardly the gallows of great Britain, where they hung you till you were almost dead, then cut you down and open so the could replace your innards with burning charcoal.
T
TechieGuy
Guest
So you agree that it is wrong to torture people?
C
Constantine333
Guest
Yeah, absolutely…except when necessary.
Last edited:
T
TechieGuy
Guest
Ah…like how those guys during the Inquisition decided it was necessary or are you thinking of some other kind of necessary?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Is it always wrong to torture people?
Let’s suppose a situation where thousands or tens of thousands of lives are at stake and you have in custody a known sadistic operative who has information you know for certain could save those lives. Would you use torture or the application of pain to save those lives?
It might always be wrong to torture merely for the fun of it, or if the individual is innocent, or to obtain a confession or admission of guilt, but is it always wrong to torture – and here it would be necessary to distinguish different levels or types of torture – to obtain critical information to save the lives of many innocent people?
Perhaps you do have an ‘in principle’ opposition to torture, but you will need to defend that position when, say, members of your family are in danger at the hands of a sado-masochist. No torture? Ever? Really?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
If you know for certain, you don’t have to torture him to stop the killing for you already know.
Torture is used in order to get information you don’t know about.
However, the person more often than not, gives false information just to stop the torture,
Jim
Torture is used in order to get information you don’t know about.
However, the person more often than not, gives false information just to stop the torture,
Jim
U
undead_rat
Guest
We trust our Creator and follow His Law no matter what.TechieGuy:
Let’s suppose a situation where thousands or tens of thousands of lives are at stake and you have in custody a known sadistic operative who has information you know for certain could save those lives. Would you use torture or the application of pain to save those lives?
It might always be wrong to torture merely for the fun of it, or if the individual is innocent, or to obtain a confession or admission of guilt, but is it always wrong to torture – and here it would be necessary to distinguish different levels or types of torture – to obtain critical information to save the lives of many innocent people?
Perhaps you do have an ‘in principle’ opposition to torture, but you will need to defend that position when, say, members of your family are in danger at the hands of a sado-masochist. No torture? Ever? Really?
Yes, no torture ever----really ! !
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Let me be clearer. You know he has the information, you just don’t know the details.
Perhaps, but that doesn’t answer the question. Would it be permissible to use torture to at least try to obtain that information as a last resort?
It would be good to distinguish between keeping oneself morally “pure” or “unsoiled,” and doing what could be the morally correct thing even though it is distasteful to carry out.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Just so we know which “Creator” we are speaking of, would this be the same Creator who led the Israelites to wage wars against the other Canaanite tribes or brought down plagues on the Egyptians? Or some other more compromised “Creator?”
It appears that, at times, some who subscribe to “follow our Creator” tend to sanitize the actions of “our Creator” to retain only those actions or that Law with which they are comfortable carrying out.
It would be important to distinguish between determinably moral actions and those actions which merely make us morally queasy or make our knees buckle. The latter may be more a function of moral timidity than actual morality or exercising true moral courage.
- Status