CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

CIA Water Boarding has returned as an issue (thank goodness) now that President Trump has voiced an openness to reinstating this practice. He said he would listen to his Secretary of Defense and others in his cabinet, so it's not a settled matter yet, but it's one that will likely rear its convoluted head again. So I would like to argue, pace the braying horde, that CIA water boarding is morally permissible. I think it's one of the easiest moral arguments anyone could defend successfully. It's also one of the easiest ones to completely misunderstand, misstate, and misrepresent, so I'll try to anticipate the lies, er, the mistakes in this post. I will keep things brief; otherwise, this might look like real philosophy and then I'd lose 90% of you. And, yes, the snark is real.

Let's be super clear from the start. We're talking about the water boarding method implemented by the CIA after the 9/11 attacks. We're not talking about water boarding done by the Khmer Rouge or even the CIA prior to the 9/11 attacks. While many different methods go by the name of "water boarding," they are irrelevant to our debate. Keep that in mind and we'll eliminate half your thoughts.

I think one way to approach the debate is to first eliminate the most popular and most erroneous argument against CIA Water Boarding, and that is that CIA water boarding is torture. I know, I know, it's something you take for granted and something you think goes without argument, but nothing goes without argument when you're a rigorous thinker (like I am). So, I state: CIA water boarding (hence, just 'water boarding') is not torture. For water boarding to be torture, it would have to satisfy the definition of torture, which includes the intent to harm. Now, 'harm' doesn't mean every kind of "pain" or discomfort, as my playing loud music might discomfort you and in some sense cause you "pain", but being subjected to my loud country music doesn't imply that I am torturing you. That would be absurd to think, let alone try to defend. Now, if I play loud music long enough, maybe I can make you crazy to the point where it causes lasting psychological damage, maybe permanent damage, and so then you could reasonably say that you were tortured, provided of course that I restrained you this entire time such that you couldn't simply plug your ears or walk away from the noise. So, by 'harm' is meant some lasting effect -- like I cut off a body part, I used Chinese water torture to drive you insane, I sodomized you with a rusty pipe, etc. Water boarding has never been shown -- not by the Senate Committee, not by anyone -- to involve the intent to harm. So, water boarding has never been shown to be torture. So while some people or agencies have "determined" that water boarding is torture, they have never given a satisfactory argument for their determination. They've simply given their biased and uninformed opinions (in the truest sense) that water boarding is torture. But we're not mindless sheeple. We know this is a moral question, so we need a moral argument. There has never been a cogent moral argument for the view that water boarding is torture, and I've explained the major reason why not: water boarding doesn't involve intent to harm. And the major reason why no one can show or even reasonably infer that there is intent to harm is because THERE IS NO HARM. Wow. Amazing, right? Not one of the three terrorists captured and water boarded after the 9/11 attacks -- I'm talking about Khalid Sheik Muhammed and two others -- suffered any lasting injury; hence, no harm. So if none of them suffered harm, you can see why nobody has been able to argue that the CIA had an intent to harm them. If they did, they are very incompetent at their jobs. So, CIA water boarding not only involves no harm (which, again, must be a lasting effect) but it involves no intent to harm (at least none that you can reasonably infer from the evidence).

So, there are several ways opponents of water boarding mischaracterize and muddle the debate. And they muddle it because they lose the debate when they're clear. One is to simply assume that water boarding is torture. That's right, they simply skip over the most important premise in their argument -- saying "it's obvious" or other inane things -- and go from there. Once you concede that water boarding is torture, you'll have a relatively easy time convincing most people that water boarding is morally impermissible. Frankly, I don't think that follows at all, but I definitely see how most people would concede that conclusion. The second way they muddle this debate is by insisting that CIA water boarding causes "harm". Of course what they mean by harm isn't the definition we require in this debate. If I accidentally hit your thumb as we're hammering something, I haven't tortured you, have I? No. That's ridiculous. But I have harmed you. If I do it intentionally, I still haven't tortured you although I have harmed you. So, they equivocate on the word "harm" to muddle the issue. Being doused with water, as in the CIA water boarding, is extremely uncomfortable and maybe cause you some garden-variety harm (not the lasting harm we need), but you are not being drowned, your lungs are not filling up with water, there's no danger of you drowning, and you are not being harmed (in the way we required for this debate). This is why not one terrorist suffered any lasting effect. The CIA has ingeniously created a way to cause someone a lot of discomfort without causing any long-lasting harm or doing any long-term or permanent psychological damage. So, would you want to be water boarded? No, it's very uncomfortable. Would you suffer any harm if you did get water boarded? No. So, water boarding is not torture. Case closed. You cannot get around this argument, which is why opponents of water boarding, which are mostly Liberals but some Conservatives too, usually skip this annoying step and simply assume that water boarding is torture.

Okay, I think that's all I should say now. I could write a book on this topic, but who would read it, amirite?
Last edited by fiveredapples on Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Nice attempt at satire but satire should be humorous.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Notice the first response doesn't even attempt to take on the argument. This is called obfuscation. In philosophy, we call it a concession. I'm sorry, buddy, but I do philosophy. There are no argumentative fallacies that work on me. Either get an argument or go back to Buzzfeed.

Let's keep a CARP METER running to see how Liberals try to kill honest debate, especially when they know they can't win the debate.

CARP METER = 1
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

fiveredapples wrote:Notice the first response doesn't even attempt to take on the argument. This is called obfuscation. In philosophy, we call it a concession. I'm sorry, buddy, but I do philosophy. There are no argumentative fallacies that work on me. Either get an argument or go back to Buzzfeed.

Let's keep a CARP METER running to see how Liberals try to kill honest debate, especially when they know they can't win the debate.

CARP METER = 1
It doesn't warrant an 'argument', any more than a proposal to bring back hanging, drawing and quartering warrants 'philosophical debate'. It's just social evolution. And no, you don't 'do philosophy'. You are just a sick kunt. You might be 'gently waterboarded' yourself one day, but never mind, no harm done.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Harbal »

fiveredapples wrote: but nothing goes without argument when you're a rigorous thinker (like I am).
It's not your rigorous thinking that's the problem; it's the fact that you feel the need to write it all down. Have a little consideration, Ludwig.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Oh look who's crawled out from under his rock, under the massive dark shadow cast by Trump.
I'm sure there will be many such vermin, that now feel justified in coming-out.
User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by TSBU »

Image
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Oh look who's crawled out from under his rock, under the massive dark shadow cast by Trump.
So you've noted that I've been away and mooed the words "Trump" and "dark shadow." LMAO. Compelling!!!

I don't know what to say about the guy who posted a gif -- uhm, okay?

Expect more of this from Liberals. What they cannot deny is my ability, my academically honed philosophic ability, so they will only carp. There's little incentive for them to get into a real debate, there's little incentive to take on my arguments, because they will lose. You can fool a lot of people with sophistry and sham philosophy, but you cannot fool me of anything, and I will call out every piece of dishonest rhetoric and argumentative fallacy, which seems to be all Liberals are capable of.

I stand here as one person, with a simple argument (which is its beauty, really), and a gaggle of Liberals pose no threat to me or my argument. They know this. What they won't do is engage intellectually because they will be exposed, and with their shame comes the realization that water boarding is not torture, that water boarding is morally permissible. So, let's continue the tally...

CARP METER = 2 + 1 pointless gif
Last edited by fiveredapples on Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

It doesn't warrant an 'argument',...
Ha ha ha...right on cue. I told you they would be derelict in arguing for their most important premise -- because they cannot -- and instead will simply say "it's obvious." It's so obvious that they cannot be bothered to articulate it. Oh my. You fail. You're not even original.
...any more than a proposal to bring back hanging, drawing and quartering warrants 'philosophical debate'.
So false comparisons are supposed to win the argument? Brutally inept.
And no, you don't 'do philosophy'. You are just a sick kunt. You might be 'gently waterboarded' yourself one day, but never mind, no harm done.
I have a degree in philosophy, so you speak falsehoods. I'm sick because I promote saving the lives of innocent people by water boarding known terrorists, but you're a compassionate person because you advocate letting innocent people die? Your ethics is moronic.

None of this addressed my argument, so it's carping. CARP METER = 3
Last edited by fiveredapples on Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

fiveredapples wrote:So you've noted that I've been away and mooed the words "Trump" and "dark shadow." LMAO. Compelling!!!

I don't know what to say about the guy who posted a gif -- uhm, okay?

Expect more of this from Liberals. What they cannot deny is my ability, my academically honed philosophic ability, so they will only carp. There's little incentive for them to get into a real debate, there's little incentive to take on my arguments, because they will lose. You can fool a lot of people with sophistry and sham philosophy, but you cannot fool me of anything, and I will call out every piece of dishonest rhetoric and argumentative fallacy, which seems to be all Liberals are capable of.

I stand here as one person, with a simple argument (which is its beauty, really), and a gaggle of Liberals pose no threat to me or my argument. They know this. What they won't do is engage intellectually because they will be exposed, and with their shame comes the realization that water boarding is not torture, that water boarding is morally permissible. So, let's continue the tally...

CARP METER = 2 + 1 pointless gif
Call yourself a 'philosopher' and you don't know what liberal means. When you use big, scary words could you at least define them?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

fiveredapples wrote:
It doesn't warrant an 'argument',...
Ha ha ha...right on cue. I told you they would be derelict in arguing for their most important premise -- because they cannot -- and instead will simply say "it's obvious." You fail. You're not even original.
...any more than a proposal to bring back hanging, drawing and quartering warrants 'philosophical debate'.
So false comparisons are supposed to win the argument? Brutally inept.
And no, you don't 'do philosophy'. You are just a sick kunt. You might be 'gently waterboarded' yourself one day, but never mind, no harm done.
I have a degree in philosophy, so you speak falsehoods. I'm sick because I promote saving the lives of innocent people by water boarding known terrorists, but you're a compassionate person because you advocate letting them die. Your ethics is moronic.

None of this addressed my argument, so it's carping. CARP METER = 3
'A degree in philosophy'. That explains everything. :roll: You could spend a lifetime 'studying' it, it's not going to turn you into a deep thinker. That you either have or you don't. There's no point in studying music if you have no talent for it.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

It's not your rigorous thinking that's the problem; it's the fact that you feel the need to write it all down. Have a little consideration, Ludwig.
So you concede my argument? Thank you.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Call yourself a 'philosopher' and you don't know what liberal means. When you use big, scary words could you at least define them?
This has nothing to do with my argument.

CARP METER = 4
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

fiveredapples wrote:
Call yourself a 'philosopher' and you don't know what liberal means. When you use big, scary words could you at least define them?
This has nothing to do with my argument.

CARP METER = 4
You used the word. You need to define it because it's central to your post. Of those who use the word as an insult, I've never found anyone yet who is willing to define it. You know that if you do it will only make you look like an even bigger fool and psychopath.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

'A degree in philosophy'. That explains everything. :roll: You could spend a lifetime 'studying' it, it's not going to turn you into a deep thinker. That you either have or you don't. There's no point in studying music if you have no talent for it.
It was claimed that I don't do philosophy, and I pointed out that I have an actual degree in philosophy. So now the rabble get to define who does and doesn't do philosophy, but people with degrees in philosophy have less clout on the matter? Genius!

So you're the expert, Mr. No Degree nor Ability in Philosophy? Bravo! What other subjects are you an expert at? Are you an expert at dentistry but the people who graduated from dental school are just posers? LMAO. You're an anti-intellectual.

I don't put a lot of stock in degrees or where you graduated from, but I'm not going to do something so inane as dismiss people who have an academic background in something. I'm the one with the degree, and I say let your arguments be your clout. I stand behind my argument, not my degree. I only mentioned it as a direct response to a false claim.

So, Mr. Self-Taught Philosopher, where is your argument? Oh yeah, you keep not giving one -- because you know that philosophically you would have your arse handed to you. So, I expect more carping...

CARP METER = 5 or 6 now
Last edited by fiveredapples on Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked