Who Would Jesus Torture?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
The opportunity to do that expired about 2,000 years ago.
you may get another shot.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you may get another shot
I hope so. I have many questions.
-
I just cut and pasted part of the CNN article. I didn't comment on it one way or the other. I'm among the 25% against torture under any circumstances. I don't recall it working very well when the North Vietnamese used it against Americans, so I doubt it would work very well when Americans use it against our foes.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I don't recall it working very well when the North Vietnamese used it against Americans, so I doubt it would work very well when Americans use it against our foes.
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I don't recall it working very well when the North Vietnamese used it against Americans, so I doubt it would work very well when Americans use it against our foes.
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it
Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows?
-
Ilíon wrote: and you are playing with that "definition" of the word/concept. You want to claim that Yeshua wasn't tortured? Losing your faith, are you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it
Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows?
Ed Gadziemski wrote: Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows? All of the above. There was a lot of torture in Vietnam - on both sides. Often not of the other side's soldiers but of peasants who might know something. No matter how brave a man is, he is unlikely to keep silent very long if his mother is under the knife, or his wife, sister, or father.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote: Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows? All of the above. There was a lot of torture in Vietnam - on both sides. Often not of the other side's soldiers but of peasants who might know something. No matter how brave a man is, he is unlikely to keep silent very long if his mother is under the knife, or his wife, sister, or father.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
+5 most lucid argument I've heard yet on the subject.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it
Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows?
Or perhaps because they realized that not every human being on the planet reacts in exactly the same way to being tortured or seeing their friends tortured. If only one in ten gave up a little useful information, it was all good.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I'm sorry Ed. let me put it another way: Approximately 25% of all Americans are against torture under all circumstances. The rest might disagree about what circumstances warrant it, but that just arguing about the price, not whether or not to pay for it. It doesn't matter whether they go to church a lot, a little or never, the results are the same. The CNN article is bs.
Yes, the CNN article is BS (Honestly! Would he have posted it otherwise?). But then, there's a touch of BS in your response, too, as the meaning of 'torture' has lately been under tortured by the Hate-America-First crowd and you are playing with that "definition" of the word/concept.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I don't recall it working very well when the North Vietnamese used it against Americans, so I doubt it would work very well when Americans use it against our foes.
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
What was George Washington's response to the horrendous acts committed by the British? Who were among many things, quartering Americans. Its not rhetorical although I know the answer. But, torture was very much against what the founding fathers practiced.
This statement is false
-
What was George Washington's response to the horrendous acts committed by the British? Who were among many things, quartering Americans. Its not rhetorical although I know the answer. But, torture was very much against what the founding fathers practiced.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
What was George Washington's response to the horrendous acts committed by the British? Who were among many things, quartering Americans. Its not rhetorical although I know the answer. But, torture was very much against what the founding fathers practiced.
No, they just forced everyone who disagreed with them to flee their new country or face hanging. Wow, were those great guys er whut?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you may get another shot
I hope so. I have many questions.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote: Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows? All of the above. There was a lot of torture in Vietnam - on both sides. Often not of the other side's soldiers but of peasants who might know something. No matter how brave a man is, he is unlikely to keep silent very long if his mother is under the knife, or his wife, sister, or father.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
There was a lot of torture in Vietnam - on both sides. Often not of the other side's soldiers but of peasants who might know something. No matter how brave a man is, he is unlikely to keep silent very long if his mother is under the knife, or his wife, sister, or father.
Remind me of who won that one. I am sure you are right about keeping silent. However, among other issues, one needs to ask: 1. Is the information accurate? 2. How much support is lost by employing those tactics?
John Carson
-
+5 most lucid argument I've heard yet on the subject.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
+5 most lucid argument I've heard yet on the subject.
Another argument you might like to consider: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/torture-advocates-will-se_b_194316.html[^]
John Carson
-
Seems to me you are mistaking the religion for the object of veneration. Whatever Yeshua ben Yussif might have done, there is no account of his being a torturer and a relatively reliable account or two of his being tortured by the Italians. Besides, CNN, and therefore you, is cherry picking the figures. Looking at the data as reported we discover that only 1 in 4 Americans thinks torture is never justified. When we look at those attending religious services weekly we discovere that - only 1 in 4 thinks torture is never justified. When we look at those who attend monthly or a few times a year we discover that the percentage of those who say that torture is never justives plummets all the way from 25% to 23%. And when we look at those who seldom or never go to church (whch would include me) we find that indeed a grand smacking total of 26% of them feel that torture makes no difference. Big Fucking Deal.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows?
Or perhaps because they realized that not every human being on the planet reacts in exactly the same way to being tortured or seeing their friends tortured. If only one in ten gave up a little useful information, it was all good.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If only one in ten gave up a little useful information, it was all good.
Not likely. The other 9 would give plenty of information, none of it good. The one who did give "a little useful information" likely will give a lot of bad information as well. Good luck with all the wasted resources trying to figure out which is which. If we continue to use torture we will be using it for the same purpose it has always been used - and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions. Of course this pointless argument about torture's effectiveness completely ignores the fact that it is completely illegal and immoral.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I don't recall it working very well when the North Vietnamese used it against Americans, so I doubt it would work very well when Americans use it against our foes.
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
why did they keep doing it?
You mean you haven't experienced having someone completely at your mercy, to do with as you wish, to see the abject fear in their eyes, to ... ? Ooops! :-O Seriously, there is that element. Can one torture, or water-board, objectively?
Bob Emmett
-
Oakman wrote:
I'm sorry Ed. let me put it another way: Approximately 25% of all Americans are against torture under all circumstances. The rest might disagree about what circumstances warrant it, but that just arguing about the price, not whether or not to pay for it. It doesn't matter whether they go to church a lot, a little or never, the results are the same. The CNN article is bs.
Yes, the CNN article is BS (Honestly! Would he have posted it otherwise?). But then, there's a touch of BS in your response, too, as the meaning of 'torture' has lately been under tortured by the Hate-America-First crowd and you are playing with that "definition" of the word/concept.
Ilíon wrote:
the meaning of 'torture' has lately been under tortured by the Hate-America-First crowd
And not just lately. When the Japanese were the "Hate-America-First crowd", they had the temerity to include water-boarding in their secret War Service Guide, as Item No. 3 in the list of official tortures. Worse still, they implied that the "victims" might suffer, by drawing attention to the importance of minimising the disturbance caused by their screams - as if!
Bob Emmett
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If only one in ten gave up a little useful information, it was all good.
Not likely. The other 9 would give plenty of information, none of it good. The one who did give "a little useful information" likely will give a lot of bad information as well. Good luck with all the wasted resources trying to figure out which is which. If we continue to use torture we will be using it for the same purpose it has always been used - and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions. Of course this pointless argument about torture's effectiveness completely ignores the fact that it is completely illegal and immoral.
oilFactotum wrote:
and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions.
Doesn't the law actually say that Bush is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions.
Doesn't the law actually say that Bush is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yes, what is your point?
-
Yes, what is your point?
Your comment about Bush speaks to your true concern for the law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.