Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
queenofheartscv said:
To equate waterboarding of terrorists with murder of a baby by its own mother is, again, not quite jiving with common sense.

But go ahead and feel superior anyway. I don’t mind.
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade changed the law to do something immoral: abortion. You used the SAME argument ‘changing the law’. to do another immoral act: torture.
It was YOUR argument.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
You said:

That’s the logical direction the Medieval world went.
The results of torture become the ‘proof’
Click to expand...
No.

The result of a particular test became the proof of guilt or innocence. They were not intended as “torture”. There were methods less potentially mortal than throwing someone into a lake; for example, the “cursed morsel”. The officer of the law tied a string around a wad of bread and the accused was to swallow it. The officer then pulled it back up. If the accused gagged, he was guilty. There was also trial by combat. If I’m not mistaken, the last time that happened was in the 19th Century and it was chosen by the accused. One of those old leftovers in the law. Nobody wanted to be the “king’s champion” and fight the accused to the death, so the man went free. They changed the law after that.

But none of that has anything to do with “torture”.
 
queenofheartscv said:
I thought someone said currently terrorists are not given trials. If that’s the case, you have to change that to make your words true.
Click to expand...
Queen, this person is identifying that the proper structure already exists in the US legal system.

Those black bagged by the CIA aren’t really apprised of that legal system. Even though they should be.

If you don’t want to apprise them of our legal system, then call them PoWs. But wait…if we do that, then we can’t torture them…shucks…dang ol’ geneva convention strikes again.
 
jtauke said:
Queen, this person is identifying that the proper structure already exists in the US legal system.

Those black bagged by the CIA aren’t really apprised of that legal system. Even though they should be.

If you don’t want to apprise them of our legal system, then call them PoWs. But wait…if we do that, then we can’t torture them…shucks…dang ol’ geneva convention strikes again.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with doing what the law says. If you want the law changed, that’s fine, too. If trump wants to change the law and others in congress don’t agree, then the law won’t change. That’s fine with me, too. I just am not too concerned about the issue.
 
zz912 said:
And your second paragraph is an example of a strawman. It shows your argument is weak and cannot stand on its own because you have to change what I said to argue against it.

My actual position, as I posted earlier, is that I personally wouldn’t be voting for Mr. Trump, but that a Catholic could vote for him if the intent was to limit the greater evil of Hillary Clinton. A Catholic could not vote for Hillary Clinton because there is no candidate that is worse than her on intrinsic evils.
Click to expand...
I was attempting to demonstrate that your line of questioning falls under the heading of prudential judgment. Vote for whomever you like. It would be faulty, however, to tell others that they must follow your lead because of your understanding of Church teaching.
zz912 said:
Does the Church recognize that killing two innocent people (two sins) is a greater evil than killing only one person (one sin)? Yes or no please.
Click to expand...
You keep going back to numbers. I don’t think I can explain any more clearly why this is problematic, no matter how many times you demand an answer to a question. If we are to entertain this question, we might as well entertain this one, as well: what of gay marriage, in which no one is killed? Abortion and gay marriage are both “non-negotiables.”
 
jtauke said:
Queen, this person is identifying that the proper structure already exists in the US legal system.

Those black bagged by the CIA aren’t really apprised of that legal system. Even though they should be.

If you don’t want to apprise them of our legal system, then call them PoWs. But wait…if we do that, then we can’t torture them…shucks…dang ol’ geneva convention strikes again.
Click to expand...
It’s not an either/or.

my understanding is that the Geneva Convention defers to the laws of individual nations or other international agreements. In any event, it’s not part of Catholic Doctrine.

There is a wide range of views among the nations of the world of what may be done to unauthorized combatants or guerilla fighters or terrorists, call them what one will.

And sometimes the “international” system is capable of absurdities, as when Sweden was condemned for deporting an Egyptian terrorist to Egypt.
 
gracepoole said:
You wrote, “Terrorists qualify for water boarding to obtain information helpful to destroying their purpose.” If you plan to vote for Trump (and I don’t know if you do), he views waterboarding as torture. And torture for the purpose you’ve noted here is prohibited by the Church.

And of course, as I’ve stated, he plans to go much further than waterboarding.
Click to expand...
Do we know that waterboarding, whether it is technically considered torture or not, is truly effective? IOW, when a prisoner or terrorist is placed in these circumstances, does he tell the truth or does he make up something so that the “torture” stops?
 
gracepoole said:
If we are to entertain this question, we might as well entertain this one, as well: what of gay marriage, in which no one is killed? Abortion and gay marriage are both “non-negotiables.”
Click to expand...
I’m no theologian, but I would think one element of such a determination is the binary character of the action. There are no “in betweens”, no room for prudential judgment. One either purports to be married or one doesn’t. An unborn child is either killed or she isn’t. Not much way to “negotiate” such things, when their immorality is an “on/off” switch.
 
meltzerboy said:
Do we know that waterboarding, whether it is technically considered torture or not, is truly effective? IOW, when a prisoner or terrorist is placed in these circumstances, does he tell the truth or does he make up something so that the “torture” stops?
Click to expand...
I doubt we know for sure, and we might not know during our lifetimes, like some of the WWII classified stuff that’s just now coming out. The measure of success, one would think, would be the productivity of the inquiry. And if one looked at the information gained, one would know some pretty sensitive stuff.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m no theologian, but I would think one element of such a determination is the binary character of the action. There are no “in betweens”, no room for prudential judgment. One either purports to be married or one doesn’t. An unborn child is either killed or she isn’t. Not much way to “negotiate” such things, when their immorality is an “on/off” switch.
Click to expand...
If no candidate truly defends Catholic teachings in all its forms, one must rely on prudential judgment to determine for whom to vote.
 
meltzerboy said:
Do we know that waterboarding, whether it is technically considered torture or not, is truly effective? IOW, when a prisoner or terrorist is placed in these circumstances, does he tell the truth or does he make up something so that the “torture” stops?
Click to expand...
Would you, Metzlerboy?

Waterboarding is a form of water torture in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2]
 
jtauke said:
Are you denying that you’re capable for voting for a candidate that is against both torture and abortion? So many Trump supporters have tunnel vision on the two party system that they’re willing to compromise morality just to be against abortion.
Click to expand...
I’ve already stated that I’m not a Trump supporter. I voted for Cruz, and if Trump wins the primary I won’t vote for him. I’ll vote 3rd party or write in instead. I certainly won’t vote for Hillary’s evil.
 
gracepoole said:
If no candidate truly defends Catholic teachings in all its forms, one must rely on prudential judgment to determine for whom to vote.
Click to expand...
Given a choice between a candidate that advocates for the right to continue killing infants at the rate of over 1 million per year, and a candidate that advocates for the potential future torture of 100-200 adults captured in combat against the US, the “prudential judgement” seems clear to me.

Edit: Also not a Trump supporter. Personally, I’m writing in Rand Paul.
 
kozlosap said:
Cruz is not, repeat, is not Catholic. He and his Baptist preacher father both believe in Dominionism which is the basid for a theocracy. Google the term and the hair will stand up on the back of your neck! I have never questioned another person’s belief in their chosen theology, however; Cruz is one of the best at bible thumping politicians I’ve observed over the past fifty years. If he is the candidate, HRC will win in a walk away. American women, for one group will never, in a trillion years, vote for the Weasel. He is seen as anti woman and anti-intellectual which will be paramount in his massive loss in the general election. 😉
Click to expand...
Ted Cruz wants to set up a theocracy!!!eleventy!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It’s laughable how little his opponents actually have to argue with him about. They have to make up stuff. And claiming he’s anti-intellectual??? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
 
graciew said:
Would you, Metzlerboy?

Waterboarding is a form of water torture in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2]
Click to expand...
Would I make up something to stop the torture? You bet I would.
 
meltzerboy said:
Then, apart from their moral and legal problems, why are we considering the continuation of such enhanced interrogation techniques as waterboarding if they have no practical results?
Click to expand...
Good question. I’m sure whoever gets in office will have to consult with the experts and determine what would be effective and what needs and could be done. It’s all about achieving some purpose, not about torturing for fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top