4 ms·
Assuming the conclusion? That would only be true if I also stated that the only possible justification someone might give for torture is intelligence gathering.
by spangry 11y ago
Assuming the conclusion? That would only be true if I also stated that the only possible justification someone might give for torture is intelligence gathering. I was simply addressing what I thought would be the most likely counter-argument, not asserting it's the only possible counter-argument.
By all means, feel free to argue the merits of my 'pre-emptive counter-counter argument' (boy this is getting confusing). Or if you like, feel free to argue the merits of some alternative justification for torturing people. Here, I'll start you off:
- It's a good deterrent to <x> behaviour
- It's fun
- It hurts people we don't like
- The victim is a witch, and we need to find out who the other witches are
- ikeboy 11y agoI think you should have left out the question altogether, or phrased it as an assertion: "nothing justifies torture".
- spangry 11y agoI probably muddled my own point by descending into a rant in the OP. I just found the unsaid implication, that torture is fine if the person does possess information you want to know, worth examining. Perhaps consider it this way: imagine all of the assertions made by the Bush administration about the victim were correct; he really was the Al-Qaeda 2nd in command, he had smuggled high-ranked Al-Qaeda members out of Afghanistan etc. Would there be a defensible justification to torture him, and what would that justification be?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]