When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
The accusation of AD HOMINEM has beeb adopted by the twittering loons because they think it is a clever way to describe an insult. By tusing this phrase they hope to engender in others a respect which shows them to be cultured and education. But in 90% of cases the ohrase is misused, and is used to describe simple insults incorrectly.
Ad Hominem is a species of fallacy in which the interlocutor draws attention to some characteristic of his opponent.
Although some ad hiominens might be somewhat insulting, it is not the same as an insult in any sense.
If I call Fiveredapples a C*nt, whisl that would be completely true it would not bear upon the quality, or lack of it of any argument he might be making. A C*unt can be right.
If I say, that Fiveredapples has no education, and that is why his argument is wrong, then that would be an ad hominem attack. His obvious lack of education, which often makes him look like a c*nt, and denies him the most basic informationa and knowledge that most people take for granted is one thing, but this is not ABOUT the argument as such but that fact that I drew attention to the fact that he is a legendary moron, but it would not be an argument unless I said that his argument is worng BECAUSE he is a morin than that would be an ad hominem.
SO I can freely state the facts about FIveredapples, such that he is boorish, uncultured, and a C*NT is one thing. It only becomes an ad hominem fallacy IF I say that these factors mean that his argument is wrong.
A C*UNT can be right, so can a moron and a booring unclutured moron.
In this case he is dead wrong, and that moght be due to his lack of education, but that alone is not relevant.
Ad Hominem is a species of fallacy in which the interlocutor draws attention to some characteristic of his opponent.
Although some ad hiominens might be somewhat insulting, it is not the same as an insult in any sense.
If I call Fiveredapples a C*nt, whisl that would be completely true it would not bear upon the quality, or lack of it of any argument he might be making. A C*unt can be right.
If I say, that Fiveredapples has no education, and that is why his argument is wrong, then that would be an ad hominem attack. His obvious lack of education, which often makes him look like a c*nt, and denies him the most basic informationa and knowledge that most people take for granted is one thing, but this is not ABOUT the argument as such but that fact that I drew attention to the fact that he is a legendary moron, but it would not be an argument unless I said that his argument is worng BECAUSE he is a morin than that would be an ad hominem.
SO I can freely state the facts about FIveredapples, such that he is boorish, uncultured, and a C*NT is one thing. It only becomes an ad hominem fallacy IF I say that these factors mean that his argument is wrong.
A C*UNT can be right, so can a moron and a booring unclutured moron.
In this case he is dead wrong, and that moght be due to his lack of education, but that alone is not relevant.
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
And they are all your spawn.fiveredapples wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:43 am Four years later, I am here to respond. I should have listened to Nietzsche: there are too many flies in the marketplace.
You should go back to your slime and engage with your maggot children
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
I wonder what happened to Dalek Prime?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9958
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
When it's self-inflicted, for better or worse.
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
a) when the other party consents
b) when you'll be tortured if you don't
c) when you don't give a shit about right and wrong
...
b) when you'll be tortured if you don't
c) when you don't give a shit about right and wrong
...
- Hermit Philosopher
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
- Location: By the seaside
- Contact:
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
Struggling
Last edited by Hermit Philosopher on Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Hermit Philosopher
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
- Location: By the seaside
- Contact:
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
fiveredapples wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:17 pm …the UN, by its own rationale, conceded that some acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone were not acts of torture.
Oh dear. That could be reason for concern, no?
Or are we to simply take for granted that this will never involve us/loved one’s personally and therefore not care too much…?
…that some acts of torture are morally permissible. I think that possibility exists simply because torture does not imply moral impermissibility.
Are you able to elaborate on that, please?
After saying that you do not want others to respond that it is impermissible “simply” because they feel that it is, I’m most surprised that you yourself write that it is not impermissible “simply” because… because what exactly…?
…This is how we can better understand our conception of torture.
Not really though. It’s far more like: this is how we can better understand the moral excuses we make when having tortured someone.
Ps. Sorry, I’m struggling with multi-quoting today apparently
-
- Posts: 4933
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
Never.
Rule number uno is to never involve yourself in circumstances in which you are driven by rage or revenge to torture someone either because your own person, property, family or friends are the victim of some offender or thief, or because some cause you stand for is jeopardized unless you torture someone.
This means you are never to go to war for your country, never to have a family or friends, and never to own property you are not able to immediately dismiss.
But, it is quite okay to kill, if quickly.
We exclude torturing out of principle alone; that life is so unbearably meaningless and full of pointless suffering, we would rather die ourselves than participate in subjecting another living thing to even more of it. This we refuse because we have dignity as nihilists, and the complete capacity to extend an existential respect and compassion for all essentially miserable creatures.
So I say unto you. If you must kill, be swift like the wind and sure like the fires of the sun.
We send em back into god, yes, but we don't make sport of it....
Rule number uno is to never involve yourself in circumstances in which you are driven by rage or revenge to torture someone either because your own person, property, family or friends are the victim of some offender or thief, or because some cause you stand for is jeopardized unless you torture someone.
This means you are never to go to war for your country, never to have a family or friends, and never to own property you are not able to immediately dismiss.
But, it is quite okay to kill, if quickly.
We exclude torturing out of principle alone; that life is so unbearably meaningless and full of pointless suffering, we would rather die ourselves than participate in subjecting another living thing to even more of it. This we refuse because we have dignity as nihilists, and the complete capacity to extend an existential respect and compassion for all essentially miserable creatures.
So I say unto you. If you must kill, be swift like the wind and sure like the fires of the sun.
We send em back into god, yes, but we don't make sport of it....
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
Even if torture isn't morality permissible, there can still be situations in which no one has the right to punish someone who does.
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
How about castration for a sexual abuser or rapist? Better than torture, and possibly offering a path for taking more responsibility than a quick death -- a eunuch can become of service for the rest of their life. Surely this would deter predators if they knew it was the punishment. And it seems moral as it's their choice. We take away money and property from offenders... why not the body parts that they use to abuse others?
-
- Posts: 4933
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
Ew that's a good one.
Here's whatcha do. First, you get rid of the sex offender registry because not only is there no data showing that it prevents offenses or recidivism from occuring, but it also violates the privacy of the offender and stigmatizes him/her for the duration of their registration period.
You give chemical castration as an option and alternative to GPS monitoring (if the offender isn't incarcerated). If the offender chooses the former, that's on him. If the latter - and this is important - the state that sentences him to GPS monitoring has to gaurantee that he is provided employment and housing in the event that he cannot find it on his own in the free market.
But none of this is torture if it's handled properly. As it stands now, the registry is a minor form of torture because it makes it incredibly difficult for an offender to meet his own essential needs as a human being. It also inadvertently augments the compulsion for committing deviant behaviors since it makes having normal, healthy relationships very difficult for the offender... because who wants to fuck with a perv.
But being a social outcast with a scarlet letter is the least of his problems. I mean the lead singer for The Cure has been doing this on purpose for years. It's the job and the housing that almost requires an act of congress to happen... because what landlords and employers want to fuck with a perv.
Here's whatcha do. First, you get rid of the sex offender registry because not only is there no data showing that it prevents offenses or recidivism from occuring, but it also violates the privacy of the offender and stigmatizes him/her for the duration of their registration period.
You give chemical castration as an option and alternative to GPS monitoring (if the offender isn't incarcerated). If the offender chooses the former, that's on him. If the latter - and this is important - the state that sentences him to GPS monitoring has to gaurantee that he is provided employment and housing in the event that he cannot find it on his own in the free market.
But none of this is torture if it's handled properly. As it stands now, the registry is a minor form of torture because it makes it incredibly difficult for an offender to meet his own essential needs as a human being. It also inadvertently augments the compulsion for committing deviant behaviors since it makes having normal, healthy relationships very difficult for the offender... because who wants to fuck with a perv.
But being a social outcast with a scarlet letter is the least of his problems. I mean the lead singer for The Cure has been doing this on purpose for years. It's the job and the housing that almost requires an act of congress to happen... because what landlords and employers want to fuck with a perv.
-
- Posts: 4933
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
Another thing we should do is make cybernetic AI Ms. Pinkys of all ages that can be purchased or leased by sex offenders, according to their particular paraphilia. Also, there should be dating clubs for sex offenders so that they can perv out together and channel their perv energies in legal and productive ways. The only problem is that the vast majority of offenders are males... and of them only a minority are homosexual. What we definitely need is more female sex offenders.
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
Are you here suggesting that it could be 'morally permissible' to castrate EVERY so-called "sexual abuser" and EVERY so-called "rapist", or just some of them?
How EXACTLY could one take 'more responsibility' by just being castrated?
And, what do you suggest is done to female "sexual abusers" and "rapists" to make them take so-called 'more responsibility'.
Are they the only ones who could become of service for the rest of their lives?
So, the fear of being prisoned, or even put to death, as punishment, has NEVER detered these crimes but you BELIEVE that just being castrated would have detered these human beings previously, correct?
Since WHEN has forced punishment on one ever been that one's choice?
So, that would ultimately mean the hands, the arms, and even the brain parts of the body be taken away. They are after all the body parts probably mostly used in rape.
Also, how EXACTLY are the testicles actually used in most sexual abuse and rape situations?
Especially considering in the days when this was being written 'you', adult human beings, are continually being told and informed that 'rape' is not about sex but rather is about 'power' instead. So, how EXACTLY are testicles used to abuse others?
Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?
I agree. It can be done fairly and reasonably. The abuser knows what the punishment will be -- if they abuse anyway, they've made a choice. The victim gets to see some immediate justice and correction. Think of the reduction in the prison population and expense. Think of the countless children and adults who would not be abused and potentially traumatized if such a system nullified ongoing threats. Until people can evolve to be more in control of themselves, the system should protect them (and others) from themselves.
We have laws/measures that protect people from all kinds of things (some of them ridiculous)... yet sexual child abuse and rape seem to still be treated and swept aside as simply an ugly and unavoidable part of life... too bad for the victims. FUCK NO... RESOLVE IT like it should be resolved! Cultures of men preying on children and women is absolutely disgusting and primitive. It is completely unacceptable... and abusers should be modified since they can't control themselves. Then I bet humankind will evolve real fast!