Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You must get bored with me doing this but

Not at all, VT. Five red nipples won't like it though, he'll probably accuse you of performing some kind of sordid sexual act, just like he did with me and poor old TSBU.

We could have a game thinking up more suitable red things for him than apples. Apples are nice.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Thank goodness for your patience Hobbes. His nonsense OP has now been blown into deep space, but he'll still come back thumping his chest and crowing about being a 'philosopher', and that no one could possibly counter his genius.

What a vile person. And he has the temerity to use Wittgenstein as his avatar. Wittgenstein would be turning in his grave right now.

undefined categories. Not very impressive so far, you have only undermined what you are proposing to support.

Undefined categories....What? The CIA water boarding method is specific and understood by everyone here who is opposed to it; otherwise, what are you opposed to?

And now you have completely shot yourself in the foot.
Greater men than you have declared it torture. It is banned because it is torture.
It is at least punishment, and by the terms of modern law, this practice is not permissible and it flouts the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority. I gave an argument. Either explain in your own words what these MENSAS said to prove that it was torture, or be silent. We're not having a legal debate yet, genius. We're having a moral debate, which is why I gave a moral argument. You have said NOTHING about my argument. All you've said is that people much smarter than you have said things which you cannot comprehend but they disagree with me. Uhm, not a response to my argument.

It does harm. Pain is harm the process causes mental pain. It is the mental pain so inflicted that the perpetrator of this crime hope to illicit information that the victim (if he even has the information) does not wish to reveal.

It was conceded that it causes some "harm" -- but not the relevant severe harm or long-lasting damaging harm needed for it to count as torture. You know what else causes harm?--stubbing your toe. Is that torture? LMAO...I'm afraid of your answer. Ridiculous.

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

If WBing does no harm then it would not appear to be effective.

It's not punishment. If it were punishment, we'd water board them after they have nothing -- as in valuable information -- to offer us. We do it in order to prevent terrorists actions; hence, it's a preventative measure. Common sense is amazing, isn't it?

You are ignorant of torture. Changing the meaning of a word does not make a crime legal.
"I'd not call it murder. I just wanted to end his life so I shot him."

Torture implies the relevant kind of harm. Torture involves intent to do such harm. It's the accepted definition. Heck, I even entertained the dictionary definition someone posted and showed how it doesn't satisfy that definition either. You're the one saying that any harm qualifies as torture, which is beyond laughable. Ooh, he tickled me too hard for two minutes -- he tortured me!!! Lame.

If WBing does no harm then it would not appear to be effective.

It's the relevant kind of harm we're interested in. You don't have to guess about its effectiveness. It's 100% effective so far.

Your one and only argument is that you claim that WBing is not torture, because it does no harm. What a croc of shit.

Your reading ability is the croc of shit. I said it has to involve the relevant kind of harm. We've gone through this with you how many times now? Do I need crayons to make you understand?

In modern law in civilised countries, the authorities are not permitted to lay hands upon a innocent man. They have been given leave to detain, and in some cases restrain.

Uhm, "modern law". Uhm, "civilised." Poppycock for dummies. They aren't innocent men; they are known terrorists.

This is vital protection from the thousands of people suspected of crime who are innocent.

They are KNOWN terrorists.

Giving redneck thugs leave to torture leads to abuse, as has been the case in many instances inflicted on innocent people by the US military and security services. This has not only lead to death but significant life long psychological harm.

"Redneck thugs" -- pandering to imbeciles. We're talking about the CIA water boarding -- three cases -- all of which were successful. 100% success rate. We water boarded three KNOWN terrorists.

Trump has stated he wishes to 'reinstate Water boarding and OTHER FORMS OF TORTURE". So not even you favorite blonde buddy agrees with you.

Trump is not a moral philosopher. He has also stated that he'd be willing to implement water boarding, which means he would be willing to implement (in his mind) torture. I can't fault the man, as I think I would too even if I lost the water boarding isn't torture debate, but luckily for me, I will never lose that debate, especially if my opponents offer inept arguments and comments like yours.

Don't direct me to links and arguments you don't understand. Either articulate your argument or concede. Since you cannot articulate your point, I'll accept your concessions.

''I will never lose that debate, especially if my opponents offer inept arguments and comments like yours.''

What did I tell you Hobbes?

What's your point? We're here sharing our ideas. I'm not here to offer you a reading list so that you can become competent at ethical debate. No, it's my job to articulate my argument. I've done that. So I'm not going to be sent off to read stuff. If you approve of what you've read, then tell us in your own words. The words should carry force, not who said them, so do your job and articulate your position. I'm not here to debate Nietzsche or Mill or Singer -- I'm here to debate you geniuses. If you can't articulate your position, then just be silent.

Well, that's it for today, boys and girls. While I'm away, you can crow about how you defeated me because I won't respond. Alas, there's this note. Sorry.

fiveredapples wrote:What's your point? We're here sharing our ideas. I'm not here to offer you a reading list so that you can become competent at ethical debate. No, it's my job to articulate my argument. I've done that. So I'm not going to be sent off to read stuff. If you approve of what you've read, then tell us in your own words. The words should carry force, not who said them, so do your job and articulate your position. I'm not here to debate Nietzsche or Mill or Singer -- I'm here to debate you geniuses. If you can't articulate your position, then just be silent.

Well, that's it for today, boys and girls. While I'm away, you can crow about how you defeated me because I won't respond. Alas, there's this note. Sorry.

You are the only one crowing. Anyone with a brain can see you've been annihilated.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:''I will never lose that debate, especially if my opponents offer inept arguments and comments like yours.''

What did I tell you Hobbes?

He's not a worthy opponent.
He's confused and arrogant - not a great combination.

fiveredapples wrote:..., it's my job to articulate my argument. ..

..
Still waiting for ANY argument.

fiveredapples wrote: It was conceded that it causes some "harm" -- but not the relevant severe harm or long-lasting damaging harm needed for it to count as torture.

It doesn't have to cause long-lasting physical damage. The prolonged harm it refers to is mental, so for example repeated mock-executions would amount to torture, or just threatening them with water boarding, whether the threat was actually carried out or not.

Londoner wrote:

fiveredapples wrote: It was conceded that it causes some "harm" -- but not the relevant severe harm or long-lasting damaging harm needed for it to count as torture.

It doesn't have to cause long-lasting physical damage. The prolonged harm it refers to is mental, so for example repeated mock-executions would amount to torture, or just threatening them with water boarding, whether the threat was actually carried out or not.

One of the most evil and damaging forms of torture was the Chinese water torture. Tied to a gurney you would have a tap dripping water onto your head, and left alone.
Simple and devastating.

So let's rehash what I wrote and how my opponents embarrassed themselves. I'll lay out the basic premises and conclusions. If you're not brain dead, it will require you to attack these premises -- or any assumptions they rely on -- to attack my argument. Any comment that doesn't attack, or address, these premises is immaterial and, basically, carping. You'll notice that 95% of the responses don't attack those premises, yet somehow the mindless mob has turned itself into an avalanche of self-approbation. It's hilarious to see, really, so I appreciate the sideshow. Alas, I do real philosophy. I provide real arguments. I attack premises. I defend premises. That's how you defend your conclusions, your opinions.

1st Argument -- Water Boarding is not torture

1. Torture involves 'intent to harm', where 'harm' must be specified as a certain severe and long-lasting or permanent damage.
2. The CIA Water Boarding (of which there has been three cases only) has not caused 'harm' to any of the three KNOWN TERRORISTS we water boarded.
3. It's very unreasonable to infer that the CIA had an 'intent to harm' when there was no actual harm
4. The CIA did not intend to harm
Conclusion: CIA Water Boarding is not torture

You could also run this argument on the premise that torture involves 'harm' (again, the relevant kind) and that the CIA water boarding didn't 'harm' any of the three KNOWN TERRORISTS, so CIA water boarding isn't torture.

That's the bare bones argument. Only one person yesterday attacked one of the premises. He attacked Premise 2 by arguing that the CIA did cause harm. My response was that his definition -- by the examples he gave -- didn't fit the definition of harm for torture. Basically, if I step on your foot once, I have not tortured you -- although I have caused you harm -- even if I have restrained you and prevented you from avoiding my stepping on your foot. Commonsense tells us that torture requires a little bit more severe harm than having your foot stepped on -- not mashed by an elephant (<--before you start carping me).

I won't bother explaining the 2nd argument because nobody could get past the 1st Argument.

Reread all the comments and see how many attacked the four premises above. You'll fine ONE did -- and failed. The rest is a coterie of cackling cucks clucking that they have "annihilated" me. LMAO. I hope you guys do better today. I'll check back later. Alas, I must go to work soon.

fiveredapples wrote:So let's rehash what I wrote and how my opponents embarrassed themselves. I'll lay out the basic premises and conclusions. If you're not brain dead, it will require you to attack these premises -- or any assumptions they rely on -- to attack my argument. Any comment that doesn't attack, or address, these premises is immaterial and, basically, carping. You'll notice that 95% of the responses don't attack those premises, yet somehow the mindless mob has turned itself into an avalanche of self-approbation. It's hilarious to see, really, so I appreciate the sideshow. Alas, I do real philosophy. I provide real arguments. I attack premises. I defend premises. That's how you defend your conclusions, your opinions.

1st Argument -- Water Boarding is not torture

1. Torture involves 'intent to harm', where 'harm' must be specified as a certain severe and long-lasting or permanent damage.
2. The CIA Water Boarding (of which there has been three cases only) has not caused 'harm' to any of the three KNOWN TERRORISTS we water boarded.
3. It's very unreasonable to infer that the CIA had an 'intent to harm' when there was no actual harm
4. The CIA did not intend to harm
Conclusion: CIA Water Boarding is not torture

You could also run this argument on the premise that torture involves 'harm' (again, the relevant kind) and that the CIA water boarding didn't 'harm' any of the three KNOWN TERRORISTS, so CIA water boarding isn't torture.

That's the bare bones argument. Only one person yesterday attacked one of the premises. He attacked Premise 2 by arguing that the CIA did cause harm. My response was that his definition -- by the examples he gave -- didn't fit the definition of harm for torture. Basically, if I step on your foot once, I have not tortured you -- although I have caused you harm -- even if I have restrained you and prevented you from avoiding my stepping on your foot. Commonsense tells us that torture requires a little bit more severe harm than having your foot stepped on -- not mashed by an elephant (<--before you start carping me).

I won't bother explaining the 2nd argument because nobody could get past the 1st Argument.

Reread all the comments and see how many attacked the four premises above. You'll fine ONE did -- and failed. The rest is a coterie of cackling cucks smiling about how they "annihilated" me. LMAO. I hope you guys do better today. I'll check back later. Alas, I must go to work soon.

I don't think anyone on here takes orders from you. You are a fucking idiot. I've never seen any definition of torture as 'something that does harm'. That would be ridiculous nonsense, right?
The UN definition: "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."

Your whole pitiful argument is based on some 'definition' that you've come up with. Btw, most of the planet doesn't happen to think that 'American lives' are more important and special than any other lives. What is 'We aren't talking about the Khmer Rouge here' supposed to mean? That they are the 'baddies' as opposed to 'goodie' Americans, who of course would never do anything evil?
Face it. Your country is an immoral and backward cesspit. You don't even bother with 'innocent until proven guilty', a fundamental principle of any enlightened society. Or don't muslims count as human? I mean, they are all terrorists anyway, so there's no chance of torturing the innocent--unlike Americans, who are all 'goodies'.

fiveredapples wrote: Reread all the comments and see how many attacked the four premises above. You'll fine ONE did -- and failed. The rest is a coterie of cackling cucks clucking that they have "annihilated" me. LMAO. I hope you guys do better today. I'll check back later. Alas, I must go to work soon.

https://youtu.be/dhRUe-gz690

Harbal wrote:

fiveredapples wrote: Reread all the comments and see how many attacked the four premises above. You'll fine ONE did -- and failed. The rest is a coterie of cackling cucks clucking that they have "annihilated" me. LMAO. I hope you guys do better today. I'll check back later. Alas, I must go to work soon.

https://youtu.be/dhRUe-gz690

He won't get it.