Philosophy Now Forum

fiveredapples wrote: No, we haven't established that at all. We've established that my notion of torture is different than the UN's notion, but as I have accepted the UN's definition, this is a moot point.

It also differs to the USA's notion. But why are you still concerned about whether something falls under the description 'torture' or not? As you repeat again below, you do not regard it as wrong to make people suffer.

There are millions of instances in which it's morally permissible to make people suffer. As you dolts have insisted that the tiniest of acts causes suffering, then since it's morally permissible, in many cases, to kill someone or stab someone in self-defense, then it's morally permissible (in some cases) to make people suffer. Nobody should have to point out the obvious like that, except idiots keep asking for the obvious to be explained to them.

The number of instances does not matter. If I hold that it is wrong to steal, that goes for all stealing. We do not think each act of stealing is governed by a discrete morality. What we are looking for here is the equivalent of your explanation of why it would be wrong to steal. If we knew that, then we could tell if you are applying your morality consistently.

Obviously we are morally permitted to inflict various level of harm, pain, or suffering on someone in certain cases, so obviously the severity of our acts are not the issue. In other words, how much pain or suffering we inflict is not a point of contention -- unless you're a moron such as yourself. The point is...under which circumstances can we inflict this pain or suffering. And so now we've reached something most people have already understood. Except you have decided to carp. You're a giant waste of time.

This is what I was asking you about earlier. If 'obviously the severity of our acts are not the issue', I do not see why you are so keen to say that waterboarding is not torture. Surely you would regard any act of torture, killing, whatever, as also acceptable. If that isn't the case, if the treatment that you would inflict is governed by some other consideration, then what is it? For example, would you waterboard a child? Or a US citizen? Or somebody who might have made a false tax return?

If there is any circumstances where you would not waterboard somebody, then that indicates waterboarding is only conditionally moral.

You continue to refer to it as 'morally permitted' but you haven't explained the conditions (if any) that make it so.

Idiot. CIA water boarding is a preventative measure, as is self-defense. It's not a moral philosophy about how to treat our fellow law-abiding citizens. You're the biggest idiot of this group because you've mis-read a little philosophy and now you think you have ability....

LOL. Idiocy. The CIA water boarded three KNOWN TERRORISTS. That's it. That's the history we're dealing with. That's a 100% success rate of extracting valuable information from the three known terrorists we water boarded. In light of these FACTS, look at your idiotic question. You're talking about utilitarianism (a repugnant ethical theory) why? Because you've ventured off into irrelevant grand-standing.

They also tied them (and many others) up in stress positions, beat them, confined them in small boxes, threatened to kill their children, sexually humiliated them and so on. You have given several reasons why the waterboarding part was acceptable. Was this other treatment also acceptable, for the same reasons? Would even worse have been acceptable?

I said CIA water boarding is morally permissible, meaning the method they use, not that it must be done by the CIA. Only a moron would misunderstand what I wrote. We know among whom to count you, now....Irrelevant. We are talking strictly of CIA water boarding. If you wish to go off the reservation, by all means, but don't expect me to follow.

I did not mention the CIA. What I asked was if it would be morally acceptable for the US government (I do not mind which agency) to waterboard US citizens.

You keep accusing me of going off the subject because I think any moral case for, or against, waterboarding would apply generally, not just to a particular instance. But if the fact it involved the CIA really is important, it could only be because you think morality of waterboarding differs depending on things like which agency is involved. You really are not clear; in the quote above you write: 'meaning the method they use, not that it must be done by the CIA' but also 'We are talking strictly of CIA water boarding'.

My argument is spelled out for everyone to see. I even put a basic version with numbered premises for all to hopefully understand. If you aren't attacking those premises, then you shouldn't expect me to address your comments. It's carping, it's a waste of time, and it only serves to squelch real debate. You are incapable of following a simple argument. But, I know, you fancy yourself steeped in philosophical thought. Sorry, buddy, but you've only proven you're incapable of following the simplest of arguments. But do tell us about other ethical theories you misunderstand. It'll impress the crowd.

Usually a retreat to 'ad hominem' is not seen as a sign of confidence.

Water boarding is torture when it includes making the prisoner feel they are drowning, which it does.
The stubborn prisoner won't impart information unless she feels desperate to escape from the experience.

Information that is given under torture is unreliable because the desperate prisoner will say anything that will allow her to escape the cruel treatment in question.

Therefore water boarding is morally unjustifiable if only because besides being cruel, it's also ineffective.

fiveredapples wrote:

Greta wrote:Here is FiveRedApples' argument: Waterboarding is not torture - it is instead just a matter of inflicting ever more physical discomfort to another person until they bend to your will

Here's a little advice. You should always be charitable to your opponent; otherwise, it makes your position look weaker.

My position is that CIA water boarding is morally permissible. And part of the reason why I think that is because the severity of the act is immaterial. That might sound strange to many, but the reasoning is quite simple. CIA water boarding is a preventative measure. It is done to thwart terrorist plots underway. And since we have millions of examples of much more severe actions which are morally permissible when done as preventative measures, I see no reason why water boarding, which is relatively benign, should be an exception. So, as far as I see it, it's easily morally permissible.

Since when have you been even remotely chariritable?

Whether the torture is morally permissible is another matter, so don't go down this bait & switch path. I never disputed its ethics or ventured an opinion. I just had problems with your denial that waterboarding was torture - and I understand that you are not the only one denying that it is torture. That appears to be more manipulative quasi-Orwellian sanitisation used for political leverage.

Inflicting ever more physical discomfort to another person until they bend to your will is torture, no matter how you rationalise.

fiveredapples wrote:

FRA is a toxic time-wasting troll who lacks the character and intellectual chops to debate a topic without denigration.

Calling me names works against you when I -- and no one else -- is giving clear, forceful arguments for his views. You can say I'm arrogant or vulgar (you guys are too), but you cannot say that I don't give arguments. And, please, reference a post where someone else lays out an argument the way I have several times in this thread. If you're looking for pats on the back from your fellow travelers, then you'll have them. But if you're looking for respect from reasonable people, you are failing sorely.

No, you are just another troll. I've seen plenty of you come and go. It's always the same - arrives with a blaze of fury, then the dust settles so the troll gets bored, and he leaves to seek out "fresh meat".

Another day of ineptness from my opponents. Some of you idiots have been here so long with other fellow idiots that you've forgotten that this is a PHILOSOPHY forum. Philosophy is about arguing for your beliefs (premises and conclusions). It's your job to articulate yourself, to give clear arguments -- to synthesize all you've learned into a coherent whole. That's what I do. I have done a bunch of reading (I'm informed), a bunch of writing (I'm articulate), and a bunch of philosophy (I'm amazing), so now I clearly articulate my positions, I argue for them, and I don't come here like an imbecile providing links and only links.

It's your job to articulate whatever you think is relevant about whatever you read. I am trying to have a debate in a philosophy forum, which means that I will gladly read relevant comments. I will not read essays you refer me to or click the links you cut and paste. When you do that, you're basically saying "I don't understand what I'm linking, but do please read it and explain how you would defend yourself." This is laughable. If you can't make your own argument, don't expect me to make it for you, which is all you're doing in providing such links.

Greta, you are a troll. You're not even read up on this topic. And no matter how many times I remind you that we're talking about the three known terrorists the CIA water boarded after 9/11, you keep talking about irrelevant nonsense and PTSD. You add no value here.

Arising_uk is another troll. I met him years ago here (or maybe another forum where he uses the same name) and he does what Greta does: provides links but can never articulate his thoughts into anything coherent. He'll carp but will never engage intellectually in this debate -- because he'll lose and he knows it.

Now on to your unworthy comments...

Greta wrote:Since when have you been even remotely chariritable?

Being 'charitable' in debate means that you, within reason, attribute the best interpretation to your opponent's words in cases where two or more interpretations are plausible, and it means you don't belittle his contribution by way of misrepresenting what he says or does. I provide arguments. Only an imbecile would deny that, because only an imbecile would have failed to recognize my arguments. Whether you agree with them or not is moot. You can't even recognize that I've given arguments. And where is your argument? Where are your comments that attack my premises? You offer nothing of value here. You just make stupid comments.

Greta wrote:Whether the torture is morally permissible is another matter, so don't go down this bait & switch path.

You're so dishonest. It's really fucking sad. Why talk about 'bait and switch' when I didn't do anything of the kind? I clearly said that 'whether torture is morally permissible is another matter' and then you come along and say "Whether torture is morally permissible is another matter." What horseshit debating that is.

Greta wrote:I just had problems with your denial that waterboarding was torture - and I understand that you are not the only one denying that it is torture. That appears to be more manipulative quasi-Orwellian sanitisation used for political leverage.

Diagnosing my opinions in scary terms isn't philosophy. Using pop psychology to "explain" the purpose of my words isn't philosophy. They are blatant attempts to distract people from the FACT that you won't engage in this debate honestly, because you will lose. Nay, because you've already lost.

You think that CIA water boarding is torture. That's called an opinion. It becomes a 'premise' if you use it as part of an argument that concludes, for example, that 'CIA water boarding is morally impermissible.' You must argue for your premises. In other words, within any philosophical argument there are lots of other philosophical arguments, most of which are there to add philosophical credibility to your premises. You have never given an argument for your premise, so your opinion is worthless.

Greta wrote:Inflicting ever more physical discomfort to another person until they bend to your will is torture, no matter how you rationalise.

Where is your argument? Where did you go to college? Who taught you that simply stating your beliefs forcefully was how to defend them in debate? This is pathetic. You do nothing but troll here.

Greta wrote:No, you are just another troll. I've seen plenty of you come and go. It's always the same - arrives with a blaze of fury, then the dust settles so the troll gets bored, and he leaves to seek out "fresh meat".

The person who doesn't provide arguments in a philosophy forum is calling the person who provides articulate arguments a troll. Ha ha ha....

You're partly right about my coming and going. I do real philosophy. I provide arguments. I attack and defend premises. I'm good at it. When you put someone like me in a room with people like you, the incapable, then of course I'll get bored. There's little a forum like this has to offer me.

You've worn out your welcome with me. I can't be bothered to address all your inanities, which is basically everything you write.

Belinda wrote:Water boarding is torture when it includes making the prisoner feel they are drowning, which it does.

LMAO...Look at this genius. She takes the definition of CIA water boarding and then simply says that that's what torture is. Ha ha ha...You have to argue for your silly belief. Your claim: Making someone feel like they are drowning is torture. Now show me the argument! Ha ha ha....

Belinda wrote:The stubborn prisoner won't impart information unless she feels desperate to escape from the experience.

I am desperate to escape my marriage. I am desperate to find a new job. I am desperate to fuck my neighbor. The fact that the known terrorist feels desperate tells us what? You're leaving out the part that's supposed to be relevant. Keep trying.

Belinda wrote:Information that is given under torture is unreliable because the desperate prisoner will say anything that will allow her to escape the cruel treatment in question.

Square your dogma with the fact that the CIA water boarded THREE KNOWN TERRORISTS and all THREE gave us valuable information.

Belinda wrote:Therefore water boarding is morally unjustifiable if only because besides being cruel, it's also ineffective.

I will say this for you: you at least attempted to give an argument, which is more than I can say for Greta, Harbol, or Arising_uk. But your argument is terrible, as has been pointed out. And it's not good philosophy to introduce a new term (re: cruel) into your conclusion which is nowhere discussed, let alone defended, in your premises. You didn't argue that water boarding was cruel. You didn't argue that torture was morally unjustifiable. You didn't even argue against CIA water boarding. You argued, using the same Liberal lie, that water boarding (not the CIA version) yields unreliable information. You know what is consistent with a bunch of information being unreliable?--That some of it is true and useful and some of isn't. Wrap your little brain around that if you can.

fiveredapples wrote:...

Greta, you are a troll. You're not even read up on this topic. And no matter how many times I remind you that we're talking about the three known terrorists the CIA water boarded after 9/11, ...

"Known" being the operative word.

Are the CIA culpable in the torture meted out to those they conviently handed over to your 'allies' for interrogation?

Arising_uk is another troll. I met him years ago here (or maybe another forum where he uses the same name) ...

No you didn't as I don't go to other forums as I'm not a troll like you.

What name were you using here 'years ago'?

He'll carp but will never engage intellectually in this debate -- because he'll lose and he knows it. ...

There's not much point arguing with a troll other than for the crack nor this nonsense about 'winning or losing' in Philosophy but since you're just a troll you'd not know this.

... Square your dogma with the fact that the CIA water boarded THREE KNOWN TERRORISTS and all THREE gave us valuable information. ...

How would you know this, because the CIA said so? The same CIA who tortured Zubaydah when they knew he wasn't with AL-Queda but carried on anyway. The Zubaydah who ran a training camp that the CIA setup and was an ally of America and one of Ronnie Raygun's freedom fighters? That bunch of incompetents is the word you are taking is it?

Will they say why there was a waterboard at camp COBALT?

Def: Torture - the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.

Are you saying simulated drowning is not severely painful?

Tell you what, why not put yourself up as an experiment to test out your idea that being waterboarded 80 odd times in a month is not torture. And don't forget to add the beatings and stress positions. Still it's all been a bit of a bargain eh! As your 'contractors' only charged your taxpayers $81,000,000 for their services. That's $27,000,000 apiece according to your 'stats', my guess is they'd have turned over for a couple of million and a home in America if you'd offered.

Okay, Londoner, I will now respond to your comments if only because I know how much time it takes to post the kind of posts you're posting. Obviously I think you're confused as hell, but that's just a statement, so let me back it up now....

Londoner wrote:But why are you still concerned about whether something falls under the description 'torture' or not? As you repeat again below, you do not regard it as wrong to make people suffer.

In one sense, I'm not concerned about 'torture' at all. I don't need to be. I think CIA water boarding is morally permissible. I can't see how 'torture' fits into that argument. The notion of 'torture' is introduced into this debate by those wishing to argue the contrary -- that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible. And the only way they know how to get there logically is by arguing that CIA water boarding is torture. From there they go on to assume that torture is morally impermissible, and then (wrongly) claim to have shown that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible.

From where I stand, which is on the side of Reason, my opponents are doing a terrible job of arguing that CIA water boarding is torture. Frankly, I don't see how they could ever win that debate, but they aren't even trying -- they just vehemently state that it's so, huddle together chanting that it's so, and then expect me to capitulate to their emoticons and trolling. Eh...not impressive.

The other rude awakening waiting for them, if they ever manage to defend at least adequately their opinion that CIA water boarding is torture, is that they will have to defend their opinion that torture is morally impermissible. Ha ha ha...I only laugh thinking about how they will receive this news. When you live a life surrounded by like-minded idiots, rarely will your assumptions be challenged, so of course they're stumbling for words to defend their assumptions now. And I'm trained in philosophy, I've put thought into this debate, and I will eviscerate any lemming who spouts philosophical nonsense at me. So, my opponents have two huge hurdles before them, neither of which they will clear.

I didn't say I do not regard it as wrong to make people suffer. That's a dishonest characterization of what I said. I said that in some circumstances (e.g. in certain self-defense cases), it's not morally wrong to make someone suffer.

The number of instances does not matter. If I hold that it is wrong to steal, that goes for all stealing. We do not think each act of stealing is governed by a discrete morality. What we are looking for here is the equivalent of your explanation of why it would be wrong to steal. If we knew that, then we could tell if you are applying your morality consistently.

Quite the contrary. The fact that there is one instance of morally permissible inflicting of pain means that the tenet "It's morally impermissible to inflict pain" is false.

You have a Kantian ethical view, which is not even the popular view of ethics, so you should be arguing for your ethical view, not assuming it as the default view. The "Nazi at your door" is a famous counter-example to your kind of ethics. In this scenario, if a Nazi knocks on your door asking if you've seen any Jews lately, and you have seen some lately (psst, you're hiding them in your attic), then it would be morally permissible to lie to the Nazis. This is something most people agree with, which gives the lie to your view that moral acts carry with them some absolute moral value, right or wrong, in all cases. So, again, unless you have an argument for your fringe ethical view, I don't see why I have to entertain the silly inferences you draw from it.

Londoner wrote:If 'obviously the severity of our acts are not the issue', I do not see why you are so keen to say that waterboarding is not torture.

Because I'm not in the habit of conceding points I believe to be false and which my opponents can't defend. Sure, I could concede that CIA water boarding is torture and still consistently maintain my position that it's not morally impermissible, but there's no reason for me to do it.

Londoner wrote:Surely you would regard any act of torture, killing, whatever, as also acceptable. If that isn't the case, if the treatment that you would inflict is governed by some other consideration, then what is it? For example, would you waterboard a child? Or a US citizen? Or somebody who might have made a false tax return?

So you want to know how I would defend my view that torture is sometimes morally permissible. Let's make absolutely clear that I have not conceded that CIA water boarding is torture. Because these morons will jump on this particular response, thinking they can now move on from defending their (wrong) opinion that CIA water boarding is torture. They cannot. But, having said that, I will answer your question.

As I see it, the notion of 'murder' and 'torture' differ in an important respect, at least in how most people employ them. Murder is by definition an immoral and usually an illegal act. If you wish to have my house and wife, and the way you do that is by killing me (and it's for no other reason), then you have murdered me. Your act is an immoral act (and illegal), and we give such immoral acts the name 'murder.' Something must first be immoral to be named murder. It's not the other way round. It's not that an act becomes immoral because we name it murder. So if you tell me some act, Act X, is murder, then you have better show me how it was immoral, which should be easy enough to show. Torture, on the other hand, is employed by most quite illogically. Torture, somehow, magically perhaps, makes an act immoral by virtue of being called "torture." That's pathetic, but it's how people here treat this notion. If CIA water boarding was immoral, then you should be able to show me why it's immoral, without needing to say it's torture. Dubbing Act X 'torture' -- supposing torture is immoral -- only makes sense after you've shown that it was immoral. You can't dub Act X 'torture' in order to show it's immoral -- that's question begging and silly. So, the notion of torture should do no philosophical work -- cannot do any philosophical work for you -- until you've first shown that CIA water boarding is immoral sans the aid of the magical power of the word "torture."

So, I cannot see how anyone could successfully defend the view that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible by arguing that it's torture -- unless they show that CIA water boarding is immoral (which must be done without the assistance of the notion of 'torture'; otherwise, it's question begging).

Well, that's all I have time for today. I'll finish address the post I was working on later.

Arising_uk wrote:Are the CIA culpable in the torture meted out to those they conviently handed over to your 'allies' for interrogation?

That's not this debate, is it? You can recognize that much, right? So, this is irrelevant.

Arising_uk wrote:How would you know this, because the CIA said so?

Because I read it in 'Courting Disaster.' Because I've read other articles consistent with this. I'm happy to read an article that's actually pertinent. If you have other information dealing the the THREE KNOWN terrorists the CIA water boarded, then I would gladly read it. But you aren't offering that. You're offering this non-related case of Zubaydah, whose words you take at face value. No matter. It's immaterial. If you don't understand that, then you're going to continue trolling here and I will be forced to ignore you.

Arising_uk wrote:Def: Torture - the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.

Are you saying simulated drowning is not severely painful?

Yes, I'm saying the sensation of drowning is not severely painful.

Arising_uk wrote:Tell you what, why not put yourself up as an experiment to test out your idea that being waterboarded 80 odd times in a month is not torture.

You really haven't read anything I've already written, have you? The fact that I don't want to be water boarded, put in prison for a day, tickled, kissed by a man, or wear lipstick, doesn't imply that these acts are severely painful.

I used to see pictures of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay Camp lying on trolleys (US 'gurneys') . They were lying with their knees raised, which is a position used to combat shock. The position aids blood flow from the big blood vessels in the thighs to the essential abdominal and thoracic organs.

I have to say that at first glance this procedure looked ominous to me, but at the time I thought that US soldiers wouldn't be torturing prisoners the thought seemed absurd.I decided that the prisoners were being wheeled like that not because they were weakened from torture but because this was a harmless way to stop them struggling when being moved from one place to another.

Belinda wrote:I used to see pictures of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay Camp lying on trolleys (US 'gurneys') . They were lying with their knees raised, which is a position used to combat shock. The position aids blood flow from the big blood vessels in the thighs to the essential abdominal and thoracic organs.

Do you have any more irrelevant stories you wish to share? Until you get it through your thick skull that this debate only involves the three known terrorists the CIA water boarded using its new water boarding technique, then you are littering here, nothing more.

TSBU = anti-intellectual. She wants people to not engage with the only person here providing arguments, articulate and forceful argument, simply because my conclusions are repugnant to her. She is advocating willful ignorance, the path to idiocy. I'm glad to bring out the true colors of these dyed in the wool Liberal morons.

FiveRed Apples, I understand your objection. I had intended my past post to be an anecdote and no more. May we assume that that photo was real and I haven't imagined it?

What I intended was that someone might have explained why that photo of the prisoner on the gurney was exactly as I described it. As I described the picture the man in it did have his knees raised. It's also true that the procedure is a well know first aid position to alleviate low blood pressure.

Who made the photograph and who published it and why is relevant to the matter of the severity of cruel and unusual punishments in Guantanamo Bay Camp.

In situations of extreme stress and pain (physical and psychological), human cognitive processes begin to break down, sometimes irrevocably – extreme stress and pain bring about false memories, reduce the ability to remember information, and seriously affect decision-making and memory performance
(Independent from an article about waterboarding

Actually it is painful to get water up the sinuses even quite a small amount is painful. I hate to think of soldiers being made to do these things and worse being made to feel these things are trivial.

fiveredapples wrote:...
So, I cannot see how anyone could successfully defend the view that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible by arguing that it's torture -- unless they show that CIA water boarding is immoral (which must be done without the assistance of the notion of 'torture'; otherwise, it's question begging.

Which ethic are you using to judge this morality?

As under a Christian ethic it's clearly immoral. The case could be made for or against under the other ethics.

For sure if you don't accept waterboarding as torture the no-one is going to convince you it is immoral even if you accept torture as immoral which presumably you don't?

But I'm surprised that you have objections to the use of waterboarding criminals then as it's not torture and does not cause severe pain and presumably you think it effective so it should be a useful tool in US police interrogation for suspected capital crimes.

fiveredapples wrote:That's not this debate, is it? You can recognize that much, right? So, this is irrelevant. ...

A bit of context is always handy. So do you think them culpable?

Because I read it in 'Courting Disaster.' Because I've read other articles consistent with this. I'm happy to read an article that's actually pertinent. If you have other information dealing the the THREE KNOWN terrorists the CIA water boarded, then I would gladly read it. But you aren't offering that. You're offering this non-related case of Zubaydah, whose words you take at face value. ...

Except Zubaydah is one of your three cases? A case where the FBI had already got the information from him before the torture and refused to participate with the CIA to torture him but the the CIA went right on ahead. Gotta justify that $81,000,000 I guess.

Yes, I'm saying the sensation of drowning is not severely painful. ...

I said 'simulated drowning', which is much different from actually drowning I suspect.

You really haven't read anything I've already written, have you? The fact that I don't want to be water boarded, put in prison for a day, tickled, kissed by a man, or wear lipstick, doesn't imply that these acts are severely painful.

But surely a man of your philosophical integrity would like to be sure of your assertions? As such I have no idea why you'd have an objection to being water-boarded as according to you its not much of a hardship and certainly nothing like being tortured.

Belinda wrote:FiveRed Apples, I understand your objection. I had intended my past post to be an anecdote and no more. May we assume that that photo was real and I haven't imagined it?

Fair enough. I guess I'm a little sensitive to all the off-topic stuff posted on this thread as a means to obfuscate. The torture for the sole purpose of inflicting pain is not something I support, but I'd like to add this caveat.

It's really easy for people sitting in their living rooms to have certain reactions to the hazing, pain, and perhaps torture, inflicted on these detainees. But when your brothers and sisters, your fellow soldiers, are being decapitated when captured -- not just hazed or embarrassed or put through severe pain -- it's not so easy to be sympathetic to people who don't even fall under the Geneva Convention. So, while American soldiers are expected to abide by the Geneva Convention, their enemies do not -- that can be demoralizing, and when you're out there serving away from your family, away from the comfort of your own home and country, in places where you can expect your fellow soldier to be beheaded, then I'm not going to throw stones at any soldier who gets out of line. I am willing to draw the line at sadistic torture, but hazing or other forms of punishment I can maybe not condone but not condemn either. And certainly I wouldn't spend more time and energy denouncing American soldiers than I would Islamic terrorists, as many here in fact do.

In situations of extreme stress and pain (physical and psychological), human cognitive processes begin to break down, sometimes irrevocably – extreme stress and pain bring about false memories, reduce the ability to remember information, and seriously affect decision-making and memory performance
(Independent from an article about waterboarding

Actually it is painful to get water up the sinuses even quite a small amount is painful. I hate to think of soldiers being made to do these things and worse being made to feel these things are trivial.

No doubt this is frequently the case. I'm not here to dispute any of this. I'm simply saying it's not part of this debate until it's shown that one of the three terrorists we're discussing suffered anything of the kind. I see you recognize the distinction I'm making and why I'm making it, and I understand your reactions to what you're showing me.

War dehumanizes soldiers to some degree. They are forced to deal with things nobody wants to deal with. If people would recognize that, they would honor soldiers for such sacrifice instead of demonizing them as anything but what they are, our brothers and sisters whose duty involves doing some terrible things sometimes. Not immoral or unjust, but terrible nonetheless. It is part of the sacrifice of service. I was a Marine, and had the enemy sent a child strapped with a bomb running at me, I would have shot the child several times without compunction. But later you have to come to grips with what you've done, even if it's justified. You still have to deal with having shot dead a child.

fiveredapples wrote:

Greta wrote:Inflicting ever more physical discomfort to another person until they bend to your will is torture, no matter how you rationalise.

Where is your argument? Where did you go to college? Who taught you that simply stating your beliefs forcefully was how to defend them in debate? This is pathetic. You do nothing but troll here.

An argument is made that reveals the weakness of your ungrounded claim that waterboarding is not torture. Your streams of ad hominems, despite revealing your personality disorders, make clear that you are too insecure in your position - and rightly so - to speak with others normally.

That is because your claim that waterboarding is not torture is specious for all the reasons given by others here and myself, and that your claim that it is morally permissible just an opinion, using the same justifications for torture as made throughout history.

Hundreds of words to deny the obvious. Dumbass.