fiveredapples wrote:ken wrote:Why are you asking for other's conception? Are you still trying to find something, anything, that could help you defend your already held strong belief?
You're spending a whole bunch of time trying to cast doubt on my conception of torture, a conception I mostly work out in the "UN Definition of Torture" thread after much explanation and argument.
I am NOT and have NOT spent a "whole bunch of time" trying to cast doubt on your conception of torture. 1. I have only asked you a few very simple questions, which you have failed to answer, but not much time at all was spent. 2. One of those questions I asked was, in fact, to find out your conception of 'torture'. I asked you how you define 'torture', but you would not do that. So I can not cast doubt on that which I do not know. So again what is your conception of 'torture '?
fiveredapples wrote:Why aren't you there attacking one of my premises?
Because you have NOT given any prmises yet. You have only asked for people who would say yes to torture is morally permissble. You jave stated you are only seeking out those people, and then you will look into exactly what forms of torture is morally permissible. The real reason why you are doing this I hope we never really find out.
fiveredapples wrote:LOL...because you can't. So instead of taking me on in philosophical debate, addressing my very cogent arguments, you avoid them and come here to make pronouncements.
In case I am stupid or slow or both, or just blind, WHERE in this thread are your "cogent arguments". In fact where in this thread is ANY argument of yours? If you provide them in distinct clearly marked point form, then I would be more than happy to look at them. I may even then address them, as I see fit.
By the way I do NOT do debate. This is because I do NOT have a belief either way.
fiveredapples wrote: Look, Everybody, ken is here to tell you what to think without bothering to explain why you should think it.
If that is what I can achieve by just asking you some clarifying questions, then so be it. I am just trying to gain some insight from you, a person who is trying their hardest to find out if there is actually any kind of torture (which maybe they, themselves, can inflict on to others) that he/she could then "justify" to themselevs was "morally permissible".
By the way what do you believe it is exactly that I am suppsedly telling people what to think.
fiveredapples wrote:Feel free to ignore the person who provides arguments in a philosophy forum, but do listen to the guy who simply says "you're wrong" and "I really, really disagree." How fucking sad.
What is more sad is that I NEVER said you were wrong AND I NEVER said that I disagree with you. If you were not so full of yourself, then you would have noticed I have already agreed with you and answered your question with a yes. I then invited you to now start providing the examples of when torture is morally permissible. But for some reason you have not done this yet.
fiveredapples wrote:This thread is about hashing out the many implications of the general conception of torture most of us subscribe to. Everywhere I look, 'torture' is defined without a clause about its moral impermissibility.
I think you will find that is the case with ALL definitions of words, they do NOT have a clause about moral permissibility or not. I have yet to see other words like 'rape', 'murder', 'conflict', 'war', et cetera, defined with a clause about their moral permissibility.
fiveredapples wrote:In other words, torture is not by definition morally impermissible.
In breaking news, torture is not by defintion also morally permissible. You really do try to argue in the most ridiculous ways.
fiveredapples wrote: If you believe otherwise, where is your argument?
If you had read what I have alrwady written, then you would not state such a stupid statement.
fiveredapples wrote:Do you know how to give arguments?
Maybe, maybe not. Unlike you I do NOT profess to any thing. If you had noticed I have NOT taken a side. I am just trying to LEARN HOW torture could be morally permissible. But you really are NOT giving Me anything whatsoever here to learn from.
fiveredapples wrote:Do you know what an argument is? Seriously, do you know? It's obvious that you don't know when you owe one. I continue...
WHY ask Me a question when you believe you already know the answer?
I have NOT got a side to argue for anyway. I am just trying to grasp and understand your conception and view.
fiveredapples wrote:As torture is not by definition morally impermissible, it is possible that torture is sometimes morally permissible.
WHO says torture is not by definition morally impermissible? I asked you before to define torture, which you will NOT do. Now you are asking us to accept that the definition of 'torture' does not preclude it being morally impermissible. You seem to expect a lot? considering you do not give much.
fiveredapples wrote:That's an uncontroversial claim. And if morons object, it's still an uncontroversial claim.
So, just so I have your logic right, if a human being objects to your claim that 'torture is morally permissible', and that that is an uncontroversial claim, then they beome an instant moron. Is that right?
fiveredapples wrote:What I seek to do in this thread is to hash out the circumstances, the salient features, that render an act of torture morally permissible.
Well what are you waiting for? No one is stopping you. You can start right now by providing some examples and circumstances.
fiveredapples wrote:I say "render" but that's not actually a good term. That suggests that I have to turn an act of torture from impermissible to permissible, when in fact torture is not morally pre-loaded. In some contexts, torture is morally permissible; in others, it is morally impermissible.
What are the contexts AND what separates those contexts? A human being with your caliber of intellect and superiority of philosophy, as you profess to have, should be able to highlight and show this very easily. Even for an imbecile like Me.
fiveredapples wrote:The purpose of this thread is to better understand which salient features of a given circumstance are present in the 'morally permissible' cases and which are missing in the 'morally impermissible' cases.
Well again just show us the salient features. You are the one who believes and says there is morally permissble cases of torture. How do you expect us to gain a better understanding, in this thread, if you do not bring anything to light here?
fiveredapples wrote:It's only after we've done this conceptual work that we can apply our (now better understood) notion of torture to real life cases so that we can properly judge whether they are or are not morally permissible cases. But unless you subscribe to the view that torture is morally impermissible by definition -- and on what grounds do you believe that when every definition says otherwise? -- then we're very clear that torture is not inherently morally impermissible.
Your just saying the same things over and over again.
fiveredapples wrote:I will get started in earnest in a day or two. Until then, the Fake News Nincompoops will soon be here to litter this thread with gibberish and pronouncements -- but you'll see not one argument, believe me.
Instead of calling, or trolling, for what you really want, that is people with different views than you so you can then "try to" ridicule them, why not just start doing what you say you will start doing here? I invited you a day or two ago to get started with some examples of torture that is morally permissible.
With the time you wasted on this post you could have already started. Then I could start to better understand. Whatever it is that you think you want us to understand.