Advocating torture

[Nono]

Well I see that the "excrement" thread has been liquidated.
But I took the trouble of replying to rcne's very recent post on it (he seemed to consider it a valid thread) so don't see why I shouldn't post it. To wit:

Quote by: rcne When you enter a frat and go through the initiation or hazing - where is the line or gray area between degrading or torture? If degrading is torture - then many here are responsible in stating their offense to torture by inflicting it.

Let's get serious here. When you enter a frat, you're doing so of your own accord.
When you've been captured at gunpoint and are being ill-treated by sinister figures with the power of life and death over you (and they're suggesting heavily that indeed you won't survive unless you cooperate) -- that's torture.

After all, by definition we're talking about things that are unbearable. If they were bearable, the torturers wouldn't even consider them.

[Sean]

If anyone wants to debate in this topic it better stay fairly clean. Some individuals are taking the Misc. forum way too far and just using it as an excuse to harass other members.

[bishop]

maybe you need to update your rules for this forum...


nono.. i think you stated this in the previous thread. there is little grey area when it comes to torture.


and, perhaps the reason why we don't want to join the ICC is because torturing people IS a u.s. policy...

http://www.apt.ch/un/definition.shtml

Elements of Crime as contained in the finalised draft prepared by the fifth session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Court (PrepCom) held in New York from June 12 to 30 2000: Article 7 (1) (f) Crime against humanity of torture Elements The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons. Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator. Such pain or suffering did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-1 War crime of torture Elements The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons. The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict. Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-2 War crime of inhuman treatment Elements The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Quote by: Nono Let's get serious here. When you enter a frat, you're doing so of your own accord. When you've been captured at gunpoint and are being ill-treated by sinister figures with the power of life and death over you (and they're suggesting heavily that indeed you won't survive unless you cooperate) -- that's torture. After all, by definition we're talking about things that are unbearable. If they were bearable, the torturers wouldn't even consider them.

Yeah, you do KINDA enter at your own accord, but remember that just because you did this doesn't mean that they have a right to use excessive "hazing". Like just cause you go into a dark New York street doesnt mean anyone has the right to rob you.

[Sean]

Quote by: bishop maybe you need to update your rules for this forum...

I think the current rules are quite clear: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?p=125645

[bishop]

i don't recall anything specific being harassed..

whatever, i don't really care all that much either. not my problem.

[lsbskins1]

So, all of you who support this policy, ask yourself this question: When the police sweep your neighborhood, and pick up your husband/son/brother, who was room-mates with a guy who gave money to an organization that turned out to be listed as a front organization for terrorists, and they start waterboarding him, and he has no access to a lawyer and so on, will you still be supportive of this policy? Cause you know, that is what is happening. Neighborhood sweeps. Maybe they have information, maybe they don't. Maybe they know something, maybe they don't. This idea that we only torture people we know have information that will save American lives is just crap. It is a justification that only stupid or ignorant people accept.

[Nono]

Right, Isb, in their minds these people are all chanting "It can't happen to me!"

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sean If anyone wants to debate in this topic it better stay fairly clean. Some individuals are taking the Misc. forum way too far and just using it as an excuse to harass other members.

Disagree. Those who advocate or excuse torture deserve to have their viewpoints excoriated. It's not harassment. It's a moral standpoint. One you obviously don't share.

I like how you say: "If anyone wants to debate in this topic" as though we might not want to talk about it.

Hell, Nono, why did you put this topic in Misc? Why didn't you place it in Society and Rights or in the Philosophy and Religion Forum?

This is the trashbin of this board. Why start anything here that will conform to the rules on the Main Forums?

I bet I end up getting kicked out for my opinions, regardless of what Sean pledged when inviting me here.

[Nono]

Quote by: PH Hell, Nono, why did you put this topic in Misc? Why didn't you place it in Society and Rights or in the Philosophy and Religion Forum?

I didn't think of it. Your thread was vapourized even as I was writing my reply to rcne. When I tried to post it, the system had never heard of the thing.
Yes, there's no reason why this thread should be skulking here in the Censure Cellar. Maybe a mod could move it to a more fashionable abode.

More generally, I agree that people who advocate anything -- including torture -- should have the courage of their convictions. They should be willing to stand up and be counted.

[Sean]

Patrick,

You have been harassing Zealot consistently. You have even made another one of your classic topics that attacks a specific member, and I have given you light warnings.

Quote by: PatrickHenry I like how you say: "If anyone wants to debate in this topic" as though we might not want to talk about it.

Actually that was not the implication at all. Looks like you are just looking for a fight Pat. I was saying "if" to imply that this topic is not going to be allowed to end up like the last one.

This is the trashbin of this board. Why start anything here that will conform to the rules on the Main Forums?

Perhaps you should read the rules of this particular forum before you try to define it based on the garbage you start or finish within it.

I bet I end up getting kicked out for my opinions, regardless of what Sean pledged when inviting me here.

Your opinions? You have 6,000 posts. I think that in itself shows that your opinions will not be what get you banned. Ignoring my requests to stop trying to scare off members you do not agree with, and calling people names everytime they post is a different matter. Stop trying to beg for support and justification for your rudeness from folks who may share your disapproval for some members here, but also know what self-control is.

[rcne]

But nono I was serious, a literal reading of the definition you thought I didn't read was a much to broad a definition.

I say that because, according to the definition degrading (notice it did not say life threatening or any of the other circumstances your mentioned) is considered torture.

I realize this is a heated issue and moralists can draw that line - which is never, for no reason whatsoever, forever and ever.

I can't, maybe 99% of the time I can, but there is always going to be something that the greater good must take precedence. I know its a moral paradox, and I know the correct moral answer, but I'm also a realist and I also know that life isn't as pretty as it should be.

So, in some areas there will just never be a consensus.

I say throw this into the ButterFace - I still liked that name.

[bishop]

Quote by: rcne I can't, maybe 99% of the time I can, but there is always going to be something that the greater good must take precedence.

can you cite a SINGLE example that proves your statement to be true?

i ask, because i think i can show you many examples of cases where we have tortured people and haven't yielded anything of any noteworthy benefit.

[Capitalist Pig]

Sorry Nono, but I am compelled to respond publicly. I'll allow PatickHenry his last word, then take this to PMs where it really belongs, if I have anything more to say.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Disagree. Those who advocate or excuse torture deserve to have their viewpoints excoriated. It's not harassment. It's a moral standpoint. One you obviously don't share.

Abortion is a moral debate. The death penalty is a moral debate. There are a million issues debated on this board that boil down to the ethical dichotomy of "right" and "wrong". Torture advocates are to you what abortion advocates are to pro-lifers. What you're advocating is censorship, the suppression of free speech. I am shocked and appalled at such singlemindedness from a "libertarian".

Sean is under no obligation to uphold any ethical system or philosophy, much less yours. His job is maintaining the boards. Him and we -- the mods -- maintain the community. When members can not respect eachother or agree to disagree, and they act out, and violate our rules, we step in and correct it. That is our only obligation as overseers of the forums.

Quote by: PatrickHenry I bet I end up getting kicked out for my opinions, regardless of what Sean pledged when inviting me here.

There is nothing keeping you here if you are unhappy with the way things are run. But while you are here, you are expected to abide by our rules just like everyone else. That is part of the pledge you took when you registered your account and checked the box next to "I have read, and agree to abide by the Volconvo Debate Forums rules".

[PatrickHenry]

Abortion and death penalty are both legal. Debate can fall on both sides. Lets pick something criminally unambiguous like raping babies, or ritual human sacrifice or setting off a suitcase nuke in NYC.

This is how torture advocates arguments may be framed. It is a crime against nature, International law and the laws of every nation to torture. Those who advocate it are advocating CRIME!

It's not debatable... I have seen members banned from this forum for advocating stuff like the execution of certain races or other human rights crimes. Now, ironically, my membership is threatened by taking an uncompromising position against the crime of torture.

You are correct that nothing keeps me here as a member. Nothing except the previously fair treatment that was accorded to the members and a clear delineation of acceptable behavior in the various forums. I believe those rules have recently changed. We were once free to flame in the Misc. forum. Now not so...

[Sean]

You flamed way too much Pat. There was always a limit. I always said that we had the ability to make a judgment call in this forum.

Abortion and the death penalty NOW are legal. Would their discussion and avocation by powerless individuals be deemed criminal by you prior to their legality?

Racism is different than torture to me. Racist topics can personally offend individuals here in a way that torture cannot. You are not being tortured but you can certainly be black. That is the only reason why the forum has such a fierce policy in regards to racism.

I did not threaten to ban you Patrick. I merely told you what I expected of you, reminded you of my leniency with you in the past, and asked you to drop it.

[Samildanach]

I can think of several ways racism could be construed as a form/method of torture.

[bishop]

i too see torture as being similar to racism (in the moral sense).. hell, it's even worse than racism imo. advocating torture isn't much different than advocating murder. but alas......

[Sean]

Quote by: bishop i too see torture as being similar to racism (in the moral sense).. hell, it's even worse than racism imo. advocating torture isn't much different than advocating murder. but alas......

I too agree, but I am not arguing in terms of morals Bishop. Is it the place of a forum administrator to make moral-based judgments?

The only reason I do not allow the discussion of "racist" topics is because of how personally offensive they can be on a diverse forum. Torture is not the same in this way so why should I regulate the discussion of it?

My only concern as a forum leader should be "will this discussion likely be discussed in a meaningful way?".

[bishop]

maybe we should debate the most effective methods of torture? wouldn't that be cool..

we're just going to have to agree to disagree.. i'm not pushing any agenda/issue, i just don't accept your argument at all.