Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Other Michael · 03-10-2003, 07:16 AM

The case for torture is an article by Pat Buchanan that seems like it could provide some discussion on why his views are/are not correct.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

MyKell · 03-10-2003, 08:09 AM

HI Michael,
Check your cp

Talulah · 03-10-2003, 08:12 AM

Quote:

It's like throwing pearls on pigs (was that the right expression?)

I like it!...

The actual saying is 'don't cast your pearls before swine.'

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 08:55 AM

As a friend of mine put it, when I showed him this article: "this slope is not only slippery, it is vertical..."

I agree totally. Torture is never morally justifiable. Not even twisting a kid's arm to find your stolen bicycle. (What do you do if the kid won't talk? Pat says go for the 'nads).

If Pat can justify torturing a "beast", as he puts it, to perhaps save lives, then he can justify torturing a "little bit less of a beast" (LBLOAB) to find that beast to torture, then perhaps a "not so bad of a beast, almost human" to find the "LBLOAB", and so on, and so on...finally, he's puttin' bamboo under the fingernails of a pot smoker in Paducah to find his dealer, so he can find the distributor, and on up the chain to the beast. One more step back and he's cigar-burning the pot smoker's mom to find the pot smoker....

His "moral justification", btw, seems to mainly come from his labeling some humans as "beasts." I guess Pat thinks it's OK to torture beasts. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his dog.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-10-2003, 09:55 AM

Quote:

His "moral justification", btw, seems to mainly come from his labeling some humans as "beasts." I guess Pat thinks it's OK to torture beasts. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his dog.

Hell, I wouldn't want to be *any* dog within 100 yards of him.

We've seen what happens when people begin justifying their violence against fellow human beings by labeling and viewing them as "less than human".

Scary, scary stuff.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 09:56 AM

As I said to my friend, I bet Pat's belt buckle says "Gott Mit Uns"

sweep · 03-10-2003, 12:59 PM

Quote:

If Pat can justify torturing a "beast", as he puts it, to perhaps save lives, then he can justify torturing a "little bit less of a beast" (LBLOAB) to find that beast to torture, then perhaps a "not so bad of a beast, almost human" to find the "LBLOAB", and so on, and so on...finally, he's puttin' bamboo under the fingernails of a pot smoker in Paducah to find his dealer, so he can find the distributor, and on up the chain to the beast. One more step back and he's cigar-burning the pot smoker's mom to find the pot smoker....

In this case torture benefits the few; those in control. The war on drugs is futile, and while there are benefits to exposing illegal drugs activities, in the long run the problem is still there. joe public aren't any better off, for a policy of torture.

With the case of Muhammed, it isn't only out of self interest that torture would be carried out. The benefits of extracting information would save the great cost in life and the toll on families that lose loved ones.

Of course, terrorism is part of a much wider problem, exacerbated by self interest, with so much more take than give involved. This in turn has created new evils, that must be dealt with. I'm not in charge, and the reality is harsh, but that's the choice we're left with. Your loved ones, or a hardened man who maybe already in hell- you choose, just don't let me be the one to do the torturing.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 01:04 PM

In this case torture benefits the few; those in control. The war on drugs is futile, and while there are benefits to exposing illegal drugs activities, in the long run the problem is still there. joe public aren't any better off, for a policy of torture.

In my post, I was alluding to the government's funny, but sad, ad campaign that claimed "If you buy drugs, you support terrorism!" If you justify torture of the "beast" at the top of the chain to stop terrorism, what's to keep you from justifying the next "beast" down the chain to get to the "beast" at the top of the chain, and so on down to the man (or woman) at the bottom of the chain to stop terrorism?

If we stoop to torture, what exactly is the moral distinction between us and Roberson's "beast"?

winstonjen · 03-10-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
If we stoop to torture, what exactly is the moral distinction between us and Roberson's "beast"?

Well, a police officer has to speed to catch a speeder, right? If the motives and expected result are good enough, I don't really see a problem with using torture to achieve the result.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 01:25 PM

Well, a police officer has to speed to catch a speeder, right?

Correct, but a faulty analogy. The officer's speeding can hardly be compared to torturing another human being, can it?

If the motives and expected result are good enough, I don't really see a problem with using torture to achieve the result.

And the people (terrorists, and the groups they recruit from) who view this torture from the other side can then gain moral justification for their further terrorist actions, no? "To stop the torture, we must strike America!"

The old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

03-10-2003, 07:16 AM	#1
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Pat Buchanan and the morality of torture The case for torture is an article by Pat Buchanan that seems like it could provide some discussion on why his views are/are not correct. cheers, Michael MF&P Moderator, First Class

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 08:09 AM	#2
MyKell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 258	HI Michael, Check your cp

03-10-2003, 08:55 AM	#4
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	As a friend of mine put it, when I showed him this article: "this slope is not only slippery, it is vertical..." I agree totally. Torture is never morally justifiable. Not even twisting a kid's arm to find your stolen bicycle. (What do you do if the kid won't talk? Pat says go for the 'nads). If Pat can justify torturing a "beast", as he puts it, to perhaps save lives, then he can justify torturing a "little bit less of a beast" (LBLOAB) to find that beast to torture, then perhaps a "not so bad of a beast, almost human" to find the "LBLOAB", and so on, and so on...finally, he's puttin' bamboo under the fingernails of a pot smoker in Paducah to find his dealer, so he can find the distributor, and on up the chain to the beast. One more step back and he's cigar-burning the pot smoker's mom to find the pot smoker.... His "moral justification", btw, seems to mainly come from his labeling some humans as "beasts." I guess Pat thinks it's OK to torture beasts. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his dog.

03-10-2003, 09:56 AM	#6
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	As I said to my friend, I bet Pat's belt buckle says "Gott Mit Uns"

03-10-2003, 01:04 PM	#8
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	In this case torture benefits the few; those in control. The war on drugs is futile, and while there are benefits to exposing illegal drugs activities, in the long run the problem is still there. joe public aren't any better off, for a policy of torture. In my post, I was alluding to the government's funny, but sad, ad campaign that claimed "If you buy drugs, you support terrorism!" If you justify torture of the "beast" at the top of the chain to stop terrorism, what's to keep you from justifying the next "beast" down the chain to get to the "beast" at the top of the chain, and so on down to the man (or woman) at the bottom of the chain to stop terrorism? If we stoop to torture, what exactly is the moral distinction between us and Roberson's "beast"?

03-10-2003, 01:25 PM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, a police officer has to speed to catch a speeder, right? Correct, but a faulty analogy. The officer's speeding can hardly be compared to torturing another human being, can it? If the motives and expected result are good enough, I don't really see a problem with using torture to achieve the result. And the people (terrorists, and the groups they recruit from) who view this torture from the other side can then gain moral justification for their further terrorist actions, no? "To stop the torture, we must strike America!" The old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.